I have both the 5DSR and the 6D and I have different uses for each one, but by far, I would have no problems taking the 5DSR anywhere if I was out for truly magnificent photos. I was surprised to hear that others are using it for astro-photography because the sensor isn't as sensitive as the 6D or other FF's, but it just means you have a longer exposure, which isn't that big of a deal. I have some really sharp and magnificent photos taken of the Milkyway with the 6D, while some of my best photos were taken with the 5DSR.
I went to Yellowstone this past summer and when I review the photos, I have to always look back at the file numbers to figure out which camera was used - I don't see any big differences between the two unless you do some cropping. The files from the 5DSR are really big, but you can set the files to save at any combination of sizes. I just leave them at a maximum RAW photo so in post I can zoom in and crop as I wish and I don't lose any photo quality - not true with the 6D photos!
And finally, the 5DSR is a really big and relatively heavy camera in relation to the 6D (or any other DSLR). When you consider taking the 5DSR some place where there's a possibility the camera might get wet or fall, I'll always take the 6D because I could buy 2- 6D's for the price of the 5DSR. Maybe that's me, but in reality, I think most people think about that when they have such an expensive piece of equipment in their hands and there's a risk of falling into the drink. I even keep a Rebel on-hand for those really high-risk situations. Hope this helps too.
I have the 5DSR, 5D4 and 1DX2 and use the 5DSR by far the most. I use the 5D4 for snapshots in the house or the park, or as a second sports body. The 1DX2's use is obvious, plus when I need to kill my dinner. The 5DSR gets used for everything else, including the vast vast majority of all travel photos. Totally awesome. Now if only Lightroom sucked less at import / process speeds...
stanj wrote:
I have the 5DSR, 5D4 and 1DX2 and use the 5DSR by far the most. I use the 5D4 for snapshots in the house or the park, or as a second sports body. The 1DX2's use is obvious, plus when I need to kill my dinner. The 5DSR gets used for everything else, including the vast vast majority of all travel photos. Totally awesome. Now if only Lightroom sucked less at import / process speeds...
If only...
There are still years-old bugs in LR code that Adobe seem to have no interest in addressing. I'd kill for Aperture's little 'real-time loupe' instead of having to magnify/de-magnify all the time; that was a cool tool.
There are still years-old bugs in LR code that Adobe seem to have no interest in addressing. I'd kill for Aperture's little 'real-time loupe' instead of having to magnify/de-magnify all the time; that was a cool tool.
That real-time loupe seems to take just shy of forever when viewing 5dsr images on my iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015). That being said, Photoshop grinds through those same files without any hiccups even when converted to tif and multi layered.
There are still years-old bugs in LR code that Adobe seem to have no interest in addressing. I'd kill for Aperture's little 'real-time loupe' instead of having to magnify/de-magnify all the time; that was a cool tool.
joel dowling wrote:
That real-time loupe seems to take just shy of forever when viewing 5dsr images on my iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015). That being said, Photoshop grinds through those same files without any hiccups even when converted to tif and multi layered.
Since getting a 5DS (about a month ago) I've upgraded my 2014 i7 3.4 GHz PC to 32 GB RAM, with SSD drives for system and workspace, plus 9 GB of online spinning disk for workspace and (mostly) archive, with matching offline archive (7 GB). The last step in my upgrade odyssey was to replace the old GTX 560 graphics adapter (1 GB RAM, 336 CUDA cores), with a new GTX 1060 (6, 1280). Adding the increased GPU capacity cut the time for some computationally-intensive tasks, like large re-size and smart sharpen, by more than half. Interesting to note that the desktop computer whole-system steady-state current consumption goes from 2.0 A (120 VAC) to 3.0 A, while the GPU-intensive task is being performed. Shows why it's good to have advanced cooling tech in your graphics board, when you use it for GPU processing (and high-end gaming).
The real-time loupe in Adobe Bridge works very fast. I don't use LR.
jcolwell wrote:
Since getting a 5DS (about a month ago) I've upgraded my 2014 i7 3.4 GHz PC to 32 GB RAM, with SSD drives for system and workspace, plus 9 GB of online spinning disk for workspace and (mostly) archive, with matching offline archive (7 GB). The last step in my upgrade odyssey was to replace the old GTX 560 graphics adapter (1 GB RAM, 336 CUDA cores), with a new GTX 1060 (6, 1280). Adding the increased GPU capacity cut the time for some computationally-intensive tasks, like large re-size and smart sharpen, by more than half. Interesting to note that the desktop computer whole-system steady-state current consumption goes from 2.0 A (120 VAC) to 3.0 A, while the GPU-intensive task is being performed. Shows why it's good to have advanced cooling tech in your graphics board, when you use it for GPU processing (and high-end gaming).
The real-time loupe in Adobe Bridge works very fast. I don't use LR....Show more →
I should clarify my post - I am discussing the Aperture loupe.
Do you think that the boggy response time is a result of my computer or throwing large files at a program that wasn't designed with files of the size in mind?
jcolwell wrote:
The real-time loupe in Adobe Bridge works very fast. I don't use LR.
joel dowling wrote:
I should clarify my post - I am discussing the Aperture loupe.
Do you think that the boggy response time is a result of my computer or throwing large files at a program that wasn't designed with files of the size in mind?
Thanks.
Hi Joel,
Your original post is plenty clear; I should learn to read gooder. I must have kept LR in the back of my mind from Jeff's post, when I replied to yours (and he wasn't talking about the LR magnifier, either).
joel dowling wrote:
Do you think that the boggy response time is a result of my computer or throwing large files at a program that wasn't designed with files of the size in mind?
It could be either, or both. You can try to find out by doing some selective tests; ideally, comparison with other computers using the same test file. Aperture probably has some user-definable settings that affect performance. It would for sure, if it was a PC app. I've spent some time looking into PS CC and Bridge settings, and made some useful improvements in performance. I've also found that some parameters for ACR and Bridge that you might set one way for LR, I have set differently for PS.
Decisions that support your workflow can also affect performance. I've noticed that moving large groups of files from within Bridge is a lot slower than using the native OS (FileExplorer), but in many cases, the advanced viewing, tagging, and info options available in Bridge make it worth the wait, usually at the end of the selection process.
The biggest overall improvement I achieved was moving my OS and workspace drives to SSD.
joel dowling wrote:
I should clarify my post - I am discussing the Aperture loupe.
Do you think that the boggy response time is a result of my computer or throwing large files at a program that wasn't designed with files of the size in mind?
Thanks.
I think that I need to test across other computers or ask other Aperture users for their thoughts, though the SSD sounds like a tasty addition that may help matters.
joel dowling wrote:
I think that I need to test across other computers or ask other Aperture users for their thoughts, though the SSD sounds like a tasty addition that may help matters.
Thanks!
Putting everything on SSD (replacing your main operating system hard drive) is the single biggest increase in everyday speed you will ever experience this side of quantum computing Have you ever watch the side-by-side startup speed of identical Macs, one with SSD, the other without? It's stunning.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Putting everything on SSD (replacing your main operating system hard drive) is the single biggest increase in everyday speed you will ever experience this side of quantum computing Have you ever watch the side-by-side startup speed of identical Macs, one with SSD, the other without? It's stunning.
Not saying it won't help, but the reason a machine with an SSD boots so much faster is that the random access times are eliminated. For processing large photos, on the other hand (especially in Lightroom) I don't see a subjective difference between the images being on an internal SSD or a 10-gigabit NAS, because loading a 50MB file is mainly a sustained read, which is executed more or less the same at 700MB/s (NAS) or 1.5GB/s (SSD). The vast lion's share of time is LR trying to figure out what to do with all the data that suddenly appeared in RAM... God forbid it prefetched the next image already (like Aperture would have done), for instance.
stanj wrote:
Not saying it won't help, but the reason a machine with an SSD boots so much faster is that the random access times are eliminated. For processing large photos, on the other hand (especially in Lightroom) I don't see a subjective difference between the images being on an internal SSD or a 10-gigabit NAS, because loading a 50MB file is mainly a sustained read, which is executed more or less the same at 700MB/s (NAS) or 1.5GB/s (SSD). The vast lion's share of time is LR trying to figure out what to do with all the data that suddenly appeared in RAM... God forbid it prefetched the next image already (like Aperture would have done), for instance....Show more →
I'm using a 4-year old 15" MacBook Pro with a factory 1TB SSD and 16GB factory RAM, and the only pause in Lightroom on 50mp RAW files is when I zoom in to 1:1 or 2:1 for the first time.
I noticed with my GFX 50S files, if I shoot uncompressed RAW instead of compressed, the loading time when zooming to 1:1 is reduced to the point where it doesn't feel like I'm having to wait at all. There could be an issue with Lightroom not being able to efficiently decode Canon RAW files.
Late to the party and recommendations are beaten to death, but I use my 5DSR for wildlife, landscape and astrophotography. Works well for astro but you will want fast lenses as I start to see a lot of degradation above about 2400 ISO. Others push beyond but I don't like the results I get above that level. I have been using the fast Sigma Art lenses for astro and they have performed like a dream.
Processing.... if you know a good workflow... not much different than other camera.
Meaning use smart previews in Lr.
Lr classic CC is butter smooth for me.
Really nice camera..... for my work the 5DIV is a better option.
clearing the buffer is an issue. plus 50mg images of drunk dancing people not really needed.
dtolios wrote:
D850 pumps ~320 MP/sec at 45.7 MP * 7 FPS, that is 12.5% faster than the 1DX II that did 14*20 = ~ 280 MP/sec, which in turn gave roughly 11% more than the 5DSR which was around 250 MP/sec. This seems to be the ballpark of what a couple of years of imaging processing innovation allows for.
A 60MP @ 8 FPS camera would need roughly a 480 MP/sec through-output, easily double that of the 1DX II and ,more than 33% faster than the D850 image processing power. I don't think Canon will be capable of that - unless there is a high-speed full-sensor / half pixel readout magic going on - which at 30MP would still be great AFAIK. The Sony A9 can do ~480 MP/sec, so it is "doable", but I don't know if the DIGIC line of processors can scale that high, that soon.
I think a 60MP @ 6~6.5 FPS would be a more manageable and realistic load for the progress 2-3 years allow for.
And of course I would think the battery life at full tilt of such a monster would be pretty limiting: doubt you can pump 300+ MP/sec on a LC-E6 / 13.5Wh class battery for a prolonged time.
There is a reason the 1D class has a >30Wh battery...and those A7 cameras are severely crippled for prolonged shooting with a 7.7Wh NP-FW50...
Couple of things: Each digic generation roughly increases throughput by 50-60%. 5DsII would get digic 7 or 7+, plus you can clock your ADC's faster. Secondly Sony delivers 12fps @ 42.4MP in the A99II with 2 year old BionZ. Also the 1DXII is mechanically limited to 14fps, if it were mirrorless who knows what it could achieve, but in LV it does 16fps, which 320MP/s. Increase that by 50% for digic 7 and you are @ 480MP/s, so entirely feasible. As a compromise they could do 7fps in FX mode, and offer 10fps in DX mode.
My only issue with the 5DSr is when I give a 8600+ pixel image to someone I'm not sure they know what to do with it. Seriously, some senior shots are uncropped 5DSr files and are jpegs over 30Mb in size. It's hard to email those, and some folders of images can exceed 2Gb in size. I haven't had any complaints about that but I can see some issues. I've thought about downsizing the resolution but if they want to crop for some reason it's better they have more than less. I suppose I'll deal with it if I get asked. I do give them a folder of smaller sized files too for web use.
NCAndy wrote:
My only issue with the 5DSr is when I give a 8600+ pixel image to someone I'm not sure they know what to do with it. Seriously, some senior shots are uncropped 5DSr files and are jpegs over 30Mb in size. It's hard to email those, and some folders of images can exceed 2Gb in size. I haven't had any complaints about that but I can see some issues. I've thought about downsizing the resolution but if they want to crop for some reason it's better they have more than less. I suppose I'll deal with it if I get asked. I do give them a folder of smaller sized files too for web use. ...Show more →
I never give full-res output from the 5Ds to clients (unless specifically requested), because 99% of them would not know what to do with it, and if you let them reduce it themselves and sharpen it (or not), who knows what kind of quality they end up with. I output three different resolutions for clients, so that they don't have to mess with it much, and I can ensure that the sharpening is appropriate for the file, and for their use.
(not to mention the fact that they really don't want to see all the detail in their skin that the 5Ds provides, lol)
Jeff wrote:
I never give full-res output from the 5Ds to clients (unless specifically requested), because 99% of them would not know what to do with it, and if you let them reduce it themselves and sharpen it (or not), who knows what kind of quality they end up with. I output three different resolutions for clients, so that they don't have to mess with it much, and I can ensure that the sharpening is appropriate for the file, and for their use.
(not to mention the fact that they really don't want to see all the detail in their skin that the 5Ds provides, lol)...Show more →
Yes, I'll probably do the same next time. I've just started using the 5DSr as a second body so I don't have to swap lenses as much. I realize most people never print beyond 8x10 for the most part.
Have you ever watch the side-by-side startup speed of identical Macs, one with SSD, the other without? It's stunning.
