thedutt wrote:
Should have been more clear, self timer + MLU achieves the same effect no? You dont have the options of 1/8,1/4,1/2 but 2s works reasonably well.
Gotcha @ 2s. 1/8's doesn't seem to be sufficient to mitigate resonating vib's (although better than slam-bam) fully, but for hand-held MLU, it could be nice at times. But, with 2s already available for "no touch", the intermediate fractional options don't seem to be a huge (nice touch, but at need) draw.
I typically use 1/4 second and get tack sharp shots. 1/4 sec. feels reasonably fast. The 5DS / 5DS R also has a redesigned dampened shutter mechanism.
A 2 sec. delay feels like an eternity for handheld shooting. I did do that occasionally when I had the 5D III, but really appreciate the quicker options with the 5DS / 5DS R.
Biggest Differences
- memory and buffers too slow to quickly review and rate pictures if you are use to doing this with the 5D3
- shadow detail and colours in the shadows
- pixel density for cropping
- pixel density and better 'random' noise = far better NR ability at high ISOs = better pictures at high ISO than 5D3
- hand held long primes = way higher SS = I don't use non IS lens on the 5DSR = I bought the Sigma 24-105 F4 IS
- more accurate metering
- more accurate WB
- if you are a pixel peeper, you can clearly see the resolving difference between the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II and the 24-105 F4 (and why I bought the Sigma 24-105 F4 OS - which is actually sharper than the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II)
- I created a multi row, multi exposure pano that has a file size that is beyond incomprehensibly large - i need scientific notation to express the size
- I bought the Sony A7Rii to use my Fast Canon Primes (85L & 135L) and my 24-70 F2.8II because if you want the resolution you need a tripod or you need IS
- I was able to determine that the 100-400L II is sharper than the 70-200L F2.8 II (you can't see this with a 5D3)
- it creates beautiful B&W files
- from a PP perspective, the PS Liquify tool works way, way, way better because the additional pixels hold the image together better (i use this on brides all the time - it is 100x better)
- the 5DSR with the AA cancelling filter really starts to shine on big crops because that is when that additional data is HUGE to have (and where it becomes better than the 7D2 with a similar pixel density for birding). I take the 5D3 if im going to a shoot a wedding - and the only reason I use the 5D3 as the main camera is that I can quickly review pictures (it takes too long on the 5DSR and the A7Rii) - if it was faster I would have sold both 5D3s. On my last mini 2hr short wedding I used a 5DSR with a Sigma 24-105 F4 with a Canon 600Ex-rt flashes with a Sony A7Rii with the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II with no flash in 100% silent mode. The setup worked great.
EB-1 wrote:
When the battery charge state is less than 50% the 5Ds decreases from 5 FPS to only 3 FPS. There are some custom functions like noise reduction that can also affect FPS. It is usually a solid 5 FPS.
EBH
Is this fps drop documented anywhere? I noticed that my rented 5DSR seemed to slow down significantly (fps-wise), and I now wonder if that was simply due to battery %.
Greg Schneider wrote:
Is this fps drop documented anywhere? I noticed that my rented 5DSR seemed to slow down significantly (fps-wise), and I now wonder if that was simply due to battery %.
wallstreetonei wrote:
- I was able to determine that the 100-400L II is sharper than the 70-200L F2.8 II (you can't see this with a 5D3)
My experience differs regarding several of your points. However, this one deserves a special comment.
The new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II is a wonderful lens. It AFs faster and more accurately than its predecessor. Its IS is more effective. It is generally noticeably sharper, especially at the longest focal lengths. Overall it is a very fine lens that can produce excellent photographs in all ways including sharpness.
But it most certainly is not sharper than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. I use both lenses and frequently shoot the same subjects with both. Both are excellent, but when it comes to resolution the 70-200 is still a bit better.
I have posted multiple pictures on another site showing the Canon 100-400L II is indeed very slightly sharper - it is very slight but it is sharper. I have found 2 other independent sites have also shown this also to be true. Just like the 70-200 F2.8 II is a tiny bit sharper than the F4 IS version, the new 100-400L, at least my copy (and it would appear others as well), resolves very slightly more than the now 'old' 70-200 II.
I'm sure there is enough lens and camera variation and MFA variation that this is not going to be true for everyone but my 100-400L needed 0 MFA and it is blisteringly sharp.
I'm thinking that @ 200mm ... it sits at the end point of one lens, in the middle for the other. Similarly, shooting f/5.6 (arbitrary) is 2 stops down from WO on one lens while less than one stop from WO on the other.
I could see where shooting @ 200mm @ f/8 could tip the scales in one direction, while shooting 200mm @ f/5.6 could lean the other way (or some other combination of FL / f-stop).
Another small but "cool" enhancement I appreciate with the 5DS / 5DS R is it has an additional AWB setting that does an amazing job of neutralizing the color temp of artificial lights. Works almost too well, as I always follow up shifting the temp slider to be just a little warmer. But, I have never had a Canon camera (or any camera) that has better color with AWB in artificially lit areas (street lights, interiors, etc.); it is vastly better in my experience/opinion.
RustyBug wrote:
I'm thinking that @ 200mm ... it sits at the end point of one lens, in the middle for the other. Similarly, shooting f/5.6 (arbitrary) is 2 stops down from WO on one lens while less than one stop from WO on the other.
I could see where shooting @ 200mm @ f/8 could tip the scales in one direction, while shooting 200mm @ f/5.6 could lean the other way (or some other combination of FL / f-stop).
I will start off by saying I own and use the 70-200 II F2.8 a lot - weddings and sports. I shoot it on my 5D3, 7D2 and 5DSR - it is a magical lens on all 3 cameras (4 actually as I have 2 5D3s). One of the sites I use is slrgear.com to review lenses. They have a great interactive Blur Index chart that shows the Blur index of the face of a lens as you change the aperture and FL if it is a zoom. I have found their work to be very accurate and as I own many many lenses I have reviewed them all and I am in general agreement with their findings.
With respect to the 70-200 II, you can see that it really is an amazing lens when you use their Blur chart to check all the FL and Apertures - and more importantly how each FL and aperture really are different and unique how they are rendered. At 200mm, the 70-200 II is indeed not at its relative sharpness compared to other FL but it still is sharp.
My own testing of the 100-400L vs the 70-200L was at 135mm and 200mm and both at F5.6. If you goto the slrgear.com site and look at the 70-200 II at 135mm at F5.6 it is outrageously sharp from edge to edge - at 200mm it is still very sharp and flat from edge to edge but it is not as sharp as at 135mm. My copy of the 100-400L is even sharper at these 2 FL at F5.6.
Finally, the other thing that the 100-400L highlights better than any other lens on the 5DSR is how important IS is. I can say this confidently - and that is the IS on the 100-400L is 1 full stop, maybe even 1 1/2 stops better than the 70-200 II IS - which is easily 3 full stops of IS (I think 3.5 is a better number). I have taken tack sharp, pixel peeping, images at 400mm with 3:1 LR crops at 1/8th of a second SS handheld - that is mind blowing stuff. It is also the reason I have retired my 50L, 85L and 135L to the Sony IBIS A7Rii and I am smiling after using these lenses far more than I ever had in the past - to be able to shoot them all, easily at 1/20th wide open, and nail the focus every time - on the 5DSR I need 1/640 on the 135L to get a 90% hit rate - I would use 1/250 to 1/400 on the 5D3 but I eventually stopped using it and just used the 70-200.
I have been going back and forth between 5d 3 and the 5ds for a week now. I did notice over the weekend that both the 5ds and the 5ds-r had a $300 price drop on amazon, but I am still leaning towards the 5d3. I think the upcoming 5d4 is going to be a game changer ( maybe not resolution size, but in other ways - ISO perhaps) so purchasing the 5d3 is just to fill my FF needs till we see what comes next.
Willy Y. wrote:
I have been going back and forth between 5d 3 and the 5ds for a week now. I did notice over the weekend that both the 5ds and the 5ds-r had a $300 price drop on amazon, but I am still leaning towards the 5d3. I think the upcoming 5d4 is going to be a game changer ( maybe not resolution size, but in other ways - ISO perhaps) so purchasing the 5d3 is just to fill my FF needs till we see what comes next.
I think you are making a sensible choice.
I have decided against upgrading my 5D3, 1Ds3 and 6D to any of the 50 meg cameras because I simply don't need 50 meg. I very much doubt that most photographers do.
dhphoto wrote:
I very much doubt that most photographers do.
I agree... 50 MP's is overkill for most purposes. As a professional I have seen my 20MP work printed on billboards, large displays and so on. The quality of 20MP is certainly good enough IMO. My clients never complain about that. I also think the increase to 50MP's will only result in marginal better results at those very large sizes.
However, I do see a benefit when it comes to large high quality prints (fine art for example) or printed glossy's (where 1 photo will be placed over the whole spread for example or to have a little cropping head room for covers).
Also, for most commercial work it is better to have more pixels in the output than less. You can always down-size, but up-sizing will certainly always lead to a loss of quality. Wether that is unacceptable remains to be seen (as I am trying to point out above).
You know when you need the extra pixels... If you have to ask you probably don't need them
Daan B wrote:
I agree... 50 MP's is overkill for most purposes. As a professional I have seen my 20MP work printed on billboards, large displays and so on. The quality of 20MP is certainly good enough IMO. My clients never complain about that. I also think the increase to 50MP's will only result in marginal better results at those very large sizes.
However, I do see a benefit when it comes to large high quality prints (fine art for example) or printed glossy's (where 1 photo will be placed over the whole spread for example or to have a little cropping head room for covers).
Also, for most commercial work it is better to have more pixels in the output than less. You can always down-size, but up-sizing will certainly always lead to a loss of quality. Wether that is unacceptable remains to be seen (as I am trying to point out above).
You know when you need the extra pixels... If you have to ask you probably don't need them
The same was frequently said about 12 megapixels, and 8 MP, and 6 MP, and 4 MP.... no one actually even needs a digital camera, when it comes right down to it.
molson wrote:
The same was frequently said about 12 megapixels, and 8 MP, and 6 MP, and 4 MP.... no one actually even needs a digital camera, when it comes right down to it.
Eh, if man were meant to fly, god would have made him with wings, I tell ya'! ;-)
dgdg wrote:
Hmmm. Canon website says 5 vs 6 fps. Not sure why the 5ds seemed a slower when I rented it. Had a 1066x cf card in. Oh well. It still was a fabulbous camera for me.
In servo every Canon body takes a 1 fps hit. It is impossible for 4 fps to sound fast.
Andrew J wrote:
In servo every Canon body takes a 1 fps hit. It is impossible for 4 fps to sound fast.
I recently saw a complete explanation of the speed rating. 6fps is an optimal rate, but various things can make it slower — focus settings, battery level, and more. I suspect this is at least somewhat true for most cameras.
at need) draw. 
