Ok, now that the camera has been out for a while, are there any things that just are:
1) Just not right?
2) Expectations not met outcomes?
3) Disappointments?
Workarounds?
I will start: Noise
I think the camera is a bit too noisy. My expectations coming from the 5D Mk II were pretty high.... cropping down and "using" those megapixels show big texture & lumpiness at ISO 800 in good light.
I did not expect this. Was I deluding myself that it would be better?
FYI: I am very happy with the camera, particularly its focusing system. I am just curious about what others think of this camera's faults.
Amazing camera , with the best Canon sensor tech up today imho.
But very slow to display images, almost unusable in event shooting environment - very annoying !
isaacimage wrote:
Amazing camera , with the best Canon sensor tech up today imho.
But very slow to display images, almost unusable in event shooting environment - very annoying !
It's not too surprising, given the file sizes and processing power. I wonder what Canon could do with a 50 MP sensor in a pro body with the power of an LP-E4 battery pack?
I don't see any noise at 800 ISO at all. When you get a lot higher then some creeps in. I didn't buy this camera to shoot at high ISO or at a fast fps and I knew this going in. Mine will be used for available light macros and landscapes.
I'm very happy with the camera and I've only had it for a month.
Bruce n Philly wrote:
Ok, now that the camera has been out for a while, are there any things that just are:
1) Just not right?
2) Expectations not met outcomes?
3) Disappointments?
Workarounds?
I will start: Noise
I think the camera is a bit too noisy. My expectations coming from the 5D Mk II were pretty high.... cropping down and "using" those megapixels show big texture & lumpiness at ISO 800 in good light.
I did not expect this. Was I deluding myself that it would be better?
FYI: I am very happy with the camera, particularly its focusing system. I am just curious about what others think of this camera's faults.
A fault implies a defect of some sort, at least to me. It's not time for FMEA and Ishikawa diagrams. The higher than desired noise is a design limitation of the sensor.
The only issue I have with the 5DS/R is battery life.
I'd complain about the low frame rate and noise if the 5DS/R was advertised as being for high ISO and/or fast action work, but it's more a landscape/wedding/studio kind of tool. Sure, you can photograph anything with it, but if you want clean shots of fast action at ISO 3200 you'll do better with a 1DX or a 5D3.
The noise performance of the 5DS/R at low ISO settings at equal print sizes is markedly better than previous Canon models. On top of that, the noise that exists in the 5DS/R is much more random as opposed to the banded pattern noise of other models. That makes it more amenable to noise reduction in post processing.
Edit: By low ISO I'm talking about 400 or less, and less is better. I've had a 5DSR since June and have never used it at an ISO setting above 400, except to check it out initially. OTOH I almost never set the 1DX lower than ISO 400.
For my shooting, this is by far the best Canon to date. I like it so much I just bought my second body, but retain my two 5D3's as well. As several previous threads have shown, there are huge differences in the final tiffs depending on how you process your files, and unless you know how to do this optimally, you might not be satisfied. All I can say is that it's been rockin all my jobs lately. If I need to shoot video or very high ISO, then the 5D3's are still better, but not by much.
I have been shooting the 5Ds every day since late October at my research site in the mountains of Nepal. I replaced the 5D3 with the 5Ds...since reviews showed that at least to 1600 ISO, the sensors in the both cameras were more or less equal...with the 5Ds having more random noise and better at lower ISOs (100-400).
I shoot birds in flight at 800-1600...in processing the RAW files it seems to me (after having used the 5D3 for three years in the same situations) that the RAW 5Ds files can have the shadows bumped (pushed) better than the 5D3...also, I could never get whites to balanced correctly on the underside of a bird passing overhead without a greenish tint in the shadows...or if I made a color correction, with grey areas (secondary feathers especially) becoming reddish (magenta). So overall I would say that for me the sensor in the 5Ds is a noticeable upgrade...not quite Sony sensor quality (I shot the RX-1 for a year), but it is better. And as I always say, I never shoot a Canon camera over 1600 ISO - though I have not yet used a 1Dx (too big, heavy and expensive for the quality)...but will shoot the RX-1 at 3200.
My biggest complaint is that it takes a long time for the camera to process the files while shooting - so if I need to make exposure adjustments on the fly - I have to wait and possibly lose some shots waiting for the camera...
Battery life is not as good - I get about one full day (up to 600 images) on a full battery charge.
AF is IMO more accurate on my copy of the 5Ds than on my 5D3. I don't mind the 5fps of the 5Ds compared to the 6fps of the 5D3.
I think the cost is still several hundred dollars too high - especially given the exchange rate between the Yen and US Dollar. That being said I got mine for $2750 in late August from a dealer in NJ - all has worked out fine.
Anyway, it was a worthwhile upgrade for me...I think color fidelity is better with the 5Ds...and the ability to crop like crazy (think distant small birds in flight) makes a big difference for me. I would sell the 5D3 again and purchase the 5Ds knowing what I know now...AND keep your RRS L-plate from the 5D3 because it fits the 5Ds 99.9% perfectly.
Great camera and produces very good files. Wish battery life was longer but is not an issue if you have a spare one along. Would have been nice if the camera could shoot faster fps in crop mode like Nikon. Has been a nice upgrade from my old 1ds3 and D800E.
May I ask users, and beg pardon of OP, of the "r" model mainly , but both if you wish to opine,...how is the "detail" versus(one's I own) 1Dx, 5dMK3? Much improved or slightly? Or depends?
Thanks!
Dan
Danpbphoto wrote:
May I ask users, and beg pardon of OP, of the "r" model mainly , but both if you wish to opine,...how is the "detail" versus(one's I own) 1Dx, 5dMK3? Much improved or slightly? Or depends?
Thanks!
Dan
Answering that question is a bit tricky and conditional.
The 50.6 MP sensor does capture significantly more detail than the lower MP sensors. If you shoot in ways that otherwise ensure high resolution, paying attention to focus and camera stability, you will be able to print larger with excellent results. On the other hand, if your photography tends to be handheld and you don't tend to print quite large, you might not notice a lot of difference in your final output.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Answering that question is a bit tricky and conditional.
The 50.6 MP sensor does capture significantly more detail than the lower MP sensors. If you shoot in ways that otherwise ensure high resolution, paying attention to focus and camera stability, you will be able to print larger with excellent results. On the other hand, if your photography tends to be handheld and you don't tend to print quite large, you might not notice a lot of difference in your final output.
Dan
Hi Dan..I normally shoot tripod and make sure my focus is locked on..rarely do I use AI Servo. Never on my 5D3 some on 1Dx. At 68, BIF or anything moving swiftly, are a real challenge!
I would be using the "r" for stationary shooting....I have never printed above 11x17.
Thanks Dan!
Dan2
Danpbphoto wrote:
Hi Dan..I normally shoot tripod and make sure my focus is locked on..rarely do I use AI Servo. Never on my 5D3 some on 1Dx. At 68, BIF or anything moving swiftly, are a real challenge!
I would be using the "r" for stationary shooting....I have never printed above 11x17.
Thanks Dan!
Dan2
If you print a full image at 11 x 17 you are unlikely to see any significant difference between prints from your 5D3 and prints from the 5DsR. If you look very, very closely and know which is which you might be able to just barely see it, but that difference is inconsequential in my view.
On the other hand, one potential advantage for BIF is that you are effectively shooting at the same resolution as a cropped sensor camera if you crop your full frame 5DsR image. I have seen this as a potential advantage for certain kinds of long lens photography. (To use the common way of describing this, you might say that you have more potential "reach" with a given lens on the 5Ds/5DsR than on the 5DIII if you consider the possibility of cropping the image.)
Along these lines the 5Ds/5DsR brings a related advantage and a disadvantage by comparison to using a cropped sensor camera for BIF.
Advantage: Let's say you intend to use a crop sensor size patch in the middle of the 5Ds image when you photograph birds in flight. While photographing you are able to see what is in the surrounding area as you photograph, while with the cropped sensor body your viewfinder image would be limited to what is actually in the photograph.
Disadvantage: The 5Ds/5DsR has a significantly slower burst rate than other camera including the 7DII. (The AF is quite good though.)
I've only done a little bit of bird photography with my 5DsR since my main opportunities for this kind of work came before I got the camera. However, starting as soon as later this week I expect to use mine for a lot of bird photography — and I'll share some of the results.
Danpbphoto wrote:
May I ask users, and beg pardon of OP, of the "r" model mainly , but both if you wish to opine,...how is the "detail" versus(one's I own) 1Dx, 5dMK3? Much improved or slightly? Or depends?
Thanks!
Dan
The 5DSR can provide a huge improvement in resolution/detail over both of the cameras you mention, but to get the absolute maximum detail you need to keep the ISO down, mount the camera a rock solid tripod, use Live View Mode 1 to take photos, and keep apertures to around F/5.6 - F/8.
1. Images captured on the 5DSR at F/11 are visibly softer than those captured at F/8. Of course sometimes you need to stop down more and you shouldn't hesitate to do it, but it's important to do it only when truly necessary for DOF. Without going through a bunch of math it looks like there's not much (or any) more resolution available at F/11 with the 5DSR than you'd get with a 1DX at the same aperture. By F/16 the images look like mush at "actual pixels". They can still make nice prints up to pretty large sizes (the same as a 1DX or 5D3 at F/16), but you're not getting anything remotely close to 50 MP of resolution. Deconvolution sharpening can help a lot but it's never as good as getting a sharp image to start with.
2. Using a rock solid tripod, and Live View Mode 1 gives the minimum amount of image blur due to camera vibration. It doesn't take much movement to span a couple of pixels when when the pixels are this tiny. There is a visible difference in sharpness between photos of stationary subjects taken with Live View Mode 1 versus having the mirror locked up, so even the tiny amount of vibration caused by the shutter is an issue if you want absolute maximum detail. The fact that camera vibration can have such a big impact at 50MP resolution is one reason Canon designed the 5DS/R with a thicker base plate and motorized mirror mechanism to prevent mirror slap. When everything is done right the level of detail is really astonishing, but shooting technique is far more important than it is on lower resolution cameras.
3. Low ISO prevents detail/resolution loss to noise. IMO the pixel level noise of the 5DSR is not lower than other cameras, but the high resolution means less enlargement for a given size print, and therefore lower visible noise. As I mentioned before, the 5DS/R noise is more random and more susceptible to noise reduction in post processing than other Canon cameras, but if you're after absolute maximum detail, noise reduction is not your friend.
You can get great photos with loads of detail in circumstances other than those I've described, but how much you get depends on lots of factors, and it'll never be quite equal. For instance, high shutter speed can reduce blur, but because it takes less movement to blur the image over one pixel you'll start losing resolution at higher shutter speeds than on the lower resolution cameras. Those high shutter speeds often necessitate using higher ISO settings where noise starts to creep in more than it does on a camera like the 1DX.
Thanks Much Dean. When I use a tripod, ISO 100 is 99% what I use and never above 400, factoring in exposure also.. I use MLU 100% on the 2 cameras I mentioned and never had any vibration problem but then by not using LV, I cant speak to that. I will have to "learn" to use that. With landscapes and cityscapes I usually use high apertatures, f/13-f20, for all in focus unles my subject is close then I want blurred bg as you speak of.
99% 0f my prints are 8.5x11 or less.
Apprectiate your detailed thoughtful analysis Dean. Just what I am looking for.
Dan
gdanmitchell wrote:
If you print a full image at 11 x 17 you are unlikely to see any significant difference between prints from your 5D3 and prints from the 5DsR. If you look very, very closely and know which is which you might be able to just barely see it, but that difference is inconsequential in my view.
On the other hand, one potential advantage for BIF is that you are effectively shooting at the same resolution as a cropped sensor camera if you crop your full frame 5DsR image. I have seen this as a potential advantage for certain kinds of long lens photography. (To use the common way of describing this, you might say that you have more potential "reach" with a given lens on the 5Ds/5DsR than on the 5DIII if you consider the possibility of cropping the image.)
Along these lines the 5Ds/5DsR brings a related advantage and a disadvantage by comparison to using a cropped sensor camera for BIF.
Advantage: Let's say you intend to use a crop sensor size patch in the middle of the 5Ds image when you photograph birds in flight. While photographing you are able to see what is in the surrounding area as you photograph, while with the cropped sensor body your viewfinder image would be limited to what is actually in the photograph.
Disadvantage: The 5Ds/5DsR has a significantly slower burst rate than other camera including the 7DII. (The AF is quite good though.)
I've only done a little bit of bird photography with my 5DsR since my main opportunities for this kind of work came before I got the camera. However, starting as soon as later this week I expect to use mine for a lot of bird photography — and I'll share some of the results.
Dan...Show more →
Dan, I dont use the 5D for motion..My 1Dx is for this. My main concern is detail in landscapes, cityscapes, portraits, maco........building using TS-E lens.....
Thanks!
Dan2
dmcphoto wrote:
1. Images captured on the 5DSR at F/11 are visibly softer than those captured at F/8. Of course sometimes you need to stop down more and you shouldn't hesitate to do it, but it's important to do it only when truly necessary for DOF. Without going through a bunch of math it looks like there's not much (or any) more resolution available at F/11 with the 5DSR than you'd get with a 1DX at the same aperture. By F/16 the images look like mush at "actual pixels". They can still make nice prints up to pretty large sizes (the same as a 1DX or 5D3 at F/16), but you're not getting anything remotely close to 50 MP of resolution. Deconvolution sharpening can help a lot but it's never as good as getting a sharp image to start with. ...Show more →
Having shot the 5D, 5DII, and 5DsR at such apertures (often in the f/11 or f/16 range for my landscape photography) and printing rather large on a regular basis, what the theory predicts somehow is not what the reality shows.
I'm thinking of a particular photograph I made last summer with the 5DsR and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS v.2 lens at f/16 that surprised me with the high level of detail in the print — and I have printed it at up to 20" x 30" size.
There is more detail apparent in the large print than I saw from photographs made with the 5DII and printed at that size. The difference is not "night and day," but it is visible at such sizes.
The statement that "by F/16 the images look like mush at "actual pixels'" is hyperbole based on my use and my printing.
Regardless, there are additional advantages to a higher MP starting point when making large prints. The size of the "noise grain" is diminished, so an equally amount of noise is less apparent in the print since it is smaller textured. Gradients are potentially smoother, which may be important depending on the kinds of post processing you apply to the image.
I encourage people who read that high MP images shot at f/16 will not look different from lower MP images shot at this aperture to take a step past the theory, and past A/B comparisons on the screen... and actually make high quality prints at such sizes in order to see the real world results.
By the way, I do agree with the advice to work from a tripod, to carefully focus using live view, to use a remote release, to let the camera/lens "settle" before the exposure, and to use the electronic first curtain mode to eliminate shutter vibration at the start of the exposure.
The higher than desired noise is a design limitation of the sensor.
