Best Canon for me to date and I have had the 1DS3 and 5D3. The images look soft at 100% on a 72 PPI monitor, but this is like looking at a 90 inch print!! If you view at print size, its great.
I find I need to stop down to f13 for my primary landscape lenses, the 11-24, 17TSE and 24-70 f2.8 mk2. The primary reason is to make the edges and corners more closely match the center in sharpness.
I do very light sharpening and halos are almost invisible at 100% and not seen at all in prints. My largest print to date is 17x30. The prints have a quality I have not seen in the 5D3 prints, but it is very hard to describe. I think it is more micro detail.
I needed HDR with the 5D3 and 1DS3, the 5DS-R can be pushed much further without artifacts. Especially when you ignore those visible at 100% but not at print size.
The key to this camera is to understand that you must view at a realistic display size.
For small display, web or small prints (8.5x11), the main improvement will be better DR and cleaner files due to less sharpening. In fact I am not sharpening at all for WEB other than a light amount in ACR. I just downsize using bicubic smooth and convert to profile and save.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The statement that "by F/16 the images look like mush at "actual pixels'" is hyperbole based on my use and my printing.
I probably should have been clearer, but my F/16 "mush" reference was relative to images shot on a 5DSR at F/8. If you shoot the same image with a 5DSR at F/8 and F/16 and then compare the RAW files, the F16 image really does look awful by comparison. That's not to say it's lousy and can't make a great print. In fact I said "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." I think all of that's true, but I should have said "similar to a 1DX or 5D3" instead of "the same as". I agree that there's a "noise grain" advantage with the 5DSR when the ISO is kept relatively low.
Like you I've made some large prints I think look really great from the 5DSR stopped down to F/16. But I recently made an equally nice print at a somewhat smaller size from an old 12-bit, 16.7 MP, F/16, 1DS Mk II file. I think the issue with looking at prints like these is that one can't compare them to the identical image shot at a different aperture or with a different camera. It may be hard to imagine they could look better, but there's no way to actually know.
A lot happens between the camera and the printer. By the time a print is made the RAW file has gone through capture sharpening that likely includes deconvolution and output sharpening, probably with some contrast enhancement that also improves apparent sharpness. Without the same file shot at different apertures and processed and printed identically its impossible to know what differences there would be. It's pretty safe to say the file that started out better will retain an edge, but it won't be as dramatic as the unsharpened RAW file comparison.
dmcphoto wrote:
It's pretty safe to say the file that started out better will retain an edge, but it won't be as dramatic as the unsharpened RAW file comparison.
Kind of why I suggest comparing final output rather than "pixels" at 100% magnification.
I have been on the fence about the "r" for a few months, though I feel that the associated file size and my current print size limitations make the decision far less pressing than my itchy credit card imagines - I have a Pixma 10, limiting my in-house print size to 13x19, and I am not sure that I would see much of a difference at that print size compared to what my trusty and battle-scarred 5dm3 provides now.
I have been reluctant to upgrade my 1DsIII until the 5DsR came out. I just didnt feel the others were a significant enough upgrade for the $. Now I have the 5DsR and it is an improvement over the older camera in every way except durability and weather sealing. The focus system offers more points, speed, and way more accuracy. I had to micro adjust all my lenses for the 1DsIII, but all are spot on with the new body. Surprisingly, the 5DsR has much superior high iso performance over the 1Ds3! I expected less in that area and was blown away when I got more. The ability to switch crop modes more than sealed the deal. If you program the mfn button to switch modes you can do it on the fly giving more flexibility than I dreamed of!! The small nits of battery life and no 4K video are insignificant to me and my type of shooting. Of course, you need good glass and technique but we all probably already knew that...
___ wrote:
I have a Pixma 10, limiting my in-house print size to 13x19, and I am not sure that I would see much of a difference at that print size compared to what my trusty and battle-scarred 5dm3 provides now.
The problem with that line of thinking (which is often promulgated in threads like this) is that it assumes that one will always have a printer that is only 13 x 19.
Allow yourself the possibility that you might own a bigger printer in a few years.
Also, you can print commercially any size. So thinking that X by Y inches is all you will ever want is really limiting.
Monito wrote:
The problem with that line of thinking (which is often promulgated in threads like this) is that it assumes that one will always have a printer that is only 13 x 19.
Allow yourself the possibility that you might own a bigger printer in a few years.
Also, you can print commercially any size. So thinking that X by Y inches is all you will ever want is really limiting.
Yes, but...
It is reasonable for a photographer considering the value of upgrading to consider the likelihood that they make a very big print, and the increment of improvement in the rare situation where they might want to.
The difference in image quality between a 5D2/3 and the 5DsR while significant is still incremental. It isn't like you could only print at 11 x 17 with the 5D3. That camera can produce images that will make excellent prints at much larger sizes — certainly at 24" x 36" and even bigger. At those sizes the 5DsR is better, but it isn't necessarily night and day.
Monito wrote:
The problem with that line of thinking (which is often promulgated in threads like this) is that it assumes that one will always have a printer that is only 13 x 19.
Allow yourself the possibility that you might own a bigger printer in a few years.
Also, you can print commercially any size. So thinking that X by Y inches is all you will ever want is really limiting.
An enabler! Just joking!
I agree that there is a chance - maybe a pretty good one - that I may want to print larger than I currently do, and that the resolution bump would help in the endeavor.
From the hand-held event shooter perspective..... not a night and day difference from a 5DmkIII.
I do like bringing out a tad more detail in certain shots.
I am still working on my portrait skills .... so the camera is not the limiting factor.
So the verdict is not in ... yet.
I am not disappointed for all day shooting. I have the camera gripped to handle battery life.
Above 1600 - 3200 ISO is very usable for me. Good - clean noise.... (mmm clean noise-funny).
Better performance for clean up of underexposed images. ... I am not perfect.... yet.
Even though the 5Ds/r are designed to be 'slow' tripod based cameras for landscape and studio work, ISO 1600-3200 doesn't disappoint me. Using these camera's for reportage work is surely possible IMO. When viewing at the same output as 5D2/3 files, I see nothing different in noise for real world usage. I do see better shadow recovery on the 50MP sensor (no more cross type banding).
I do have 3 negatives: battery life, no wifi (even tough it would probably slow) and big RAW's
I borrowed the 5Ds from Canon Professional Services for a week----I'm impressed for the most part. But maybe there are tougher critics here . Other than the toy-like handling compared to a 1DsIII, I was impressed with how well the 5Ds did at a recent destination wedding in Virginia. I'm still entrenched with my 1DsIII and still find the focus better than the 5Ds in really dark situations, but otherwise the 5Ds is an excellent wedding/event camera. I made the point to use the 5Ds for after wedding portraits and it mated flawlessly with my Profoto lights.
Battery life? I bought two extras---I was concerned based on comments here at FM, but never needed them. Well spent insurance, but I think I'll sell the extra charger and two batteries! Big surprise to me was how much I like the new (ok not so new) Canon 100mm f/2.8 L macro--- IS is exceptionally nice.
I really don't want to invest in more 35mm DSLR stuff (I like using medium format better) but the 5Ds is certainly at the top of the list.
I just started shooting my 5DsR and I would go so far to say this is Canons best camera ever. I shoot a Leica S and a Hasselblad H4D 60 so I have perspective.
Canon is back with this new camera, it reminds me of how I felt when I got my first 1Ds III. The files are outstanding.
The camera does show noise after ISO 640 for my eye, but I rarely shoot anything more than ISO 400 and usually shoot at base ISO.
Noise is there at all ISOs, if you look for it. But you have to look harder for it with the 5DS/R at all ISOs (100-6400) than other Canons, comparing same image sizes. When comparing noise, do not be deluded by comparing both at 100%.
GoGo: The camera does show noise after ISO 640 for my eye
Monito: Noise is there at all ISOs
I just printed some Africa pictures from my 5DIII. I tend to shoot manual auto ISO, so sometimes get surprised what ISO the camera selects. I printed the full 22MP image area at 300 dpi in an 8"x12" print. The print shows not the slightest trace of noise. Only after seeing the print, did I look at the ISO data: ISO 8000!
I understand this is not a huge print. I understand noise is very dependent on proper exposure, but if it passes the 300 dpi print test on this particular picture, it is not a problem. I could have applied noise reduction, but it was not needed. I don't understand the conditions, where ISO 640, on a full frame camera, is a problem.
Don Clary wrote:
GoGo: The camera does show noise after ISO 640 for my eye
Monito: Noise is there at all ISOs
I just printed some Africa pictures from my 5DIII. I tend to shoot manual auto ISO, so sometimes get surprised what ISO the camera selects. I printed the full 22MP image area at 300 dpi in an 8"x12" print. The print shows not the slightest trace of noise. Only after seeing the print, did I look at the ISO data: ISO 8000!
I understand this is not a huge print. I understand noise is very dependent on proper exposure, but if it passes the 300 dpi print test on this particular picture, it is not a problem. I could have applied noise reduction, but it was not needed. I don't understand the conditions, where ISO 640, on a full frame camera, is a problem....Show more →
For all the interest in noise — and I look, too — it is a very rare print that is affected by it.
Don Clary wrote:
I just printed some Africa pictures from my 5DIII. I tend to shoot manual auto ISO, so sometimes get surprised what ISO the camera selects. I printed the full 22MP image area at 300 dpi in an 8"x12" print. The print shows not the slightest trace of noise. Only after seeing the print, did I look at the ISO data: ISO 8000!
I understand this is not a huge print. I understand noise is very dependent on proper exposure, but if it passes the 300 dpi print test on this particular picture, it is not a problem. I could have applied noise reduction, but it was not needed. I don't understand the conditions, where ISO 640, on a full frame camera, is a problem....Show more →
300 dpi print test? You just pulled that out of a nether region of your anatomy? You don't understand that is not really a factor. Your print size is much more a factor.
At 12 inches, the 5760 long side of a 5D3 gives 480 pixels per inch. So each printed dot is more than a single pixel (call it about 1.6 pixels linearly and about 2.5 pixels by area). Even at the dot level, the RIP (Raster Image Processing) of the printer is jiggering colours and is smearing out the noise.
That doesn't even begin to account for visual acuity. So called 20/20 vision = 6/6 (metric) = 1.0 (dimensionless) = resolving 1.75 mm at 6 meters (call it 2 mm). At a viewing distance of a half metre (about 20 inches), that would be resolving 2/12 mm = 0.166 mm or 6 contours per mm. 12 inches wide print = 300 mm. 5760 / 300 = 19 pixels per mm or about 3 pixels per resolvable contour (with good vision) linearly (about 9 pixels by area).
So you can't even see individual pixels in your print at normal viewing distances even with good vision. And even if you use a magnifying loupe pixels (and noise) are smeared by the printer.
Which explains Dan's point. With which I agree. To state it another way: noise is rarely an issue with ordinary prints and is less of an issue with ordinary and bigger prints with the 5DSR.
You truncated an important part of my post: "if you look for it". An 8x12 print is not 'looking for it', with regard to noise.
My implication in writing "if you look for it" is that very little percentage of time is spent looking for noise in prints, even by very experienced print viewers. Which reinforces Dan's point.
By the way, the figures for the 5DS/R are 720 pixels per inch at 12 inches (about 4 pixels per dot area) and 30 pixels per mm = about 5 pixels per resolvable contour (with good vision) linearly (25 pixels by area).
Note: The native print size of the 5D3 at 300 dpi is 19 x 13 inches, and for the 5DS/R it is 30 x 20 inches. Even at those sizes, normal visual acuity is seeing about four pixels per resolvable visual circle, for both cameras at those respective sizes, with good ('20/20') vision at a close viewing distance (20 inches) for such large print sizes. The case is even better of course for the 5DS/R if print sizes are made equal for comparison, which is what I wrote a couple of posts ago upthread about the way to really make the comparison.
Due to diffraction and small prints, it sounds as if you are exactly the person who would NOT benefit from 50MP. 
