Archive 2020 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #1 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
8192 vs 8688 isn't a big deal on its own. About 5% difference, but you won't get even that much using the same lens.
I'd think that no AA filter means sharper images too but the 30D seemed better than the Rebel XT, at high iso, maybe lower iso's, too, so there seems to be other stuff going on, processesing, besides the hardware. No AA filter difference on those 2 afaik
p.2 #2 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
I don't have access to the R5 (duh), so I can only theorize about it in particular.
When the 5Ds and the 5DsR were introduced, I obtained some raw files of the same subject shot with the two different cameras and compared them closely. Since you would apply different post-processing sharpening to the images shot with the AA filtering camera compared to the non-AA camera, I optimized both image types with the goal of producing the best possible output from each.
When all was said and done I thought that maybe I could sort of convince myself that the 5DsR sourced files might be a tiny bit sharper than the 5Ds files, but I couldn't be sure. Basically, I decided that at the end of an optimized post-processing workflow... the difference was negligible.
If you think back to that time you may recall that many of us were very concerned but possible image problems with non-AA filtering systems — we worried that we'd encounter all sorts of aliasing issues and so forth. So I also compared source files that should have demonstrated a problem... and they didn't.
The bottom line was that there wasn't any good reason to get a camera with AA filtering (unless perhaps you make your living doing close-up photographs of fabric or corrugated buildings), so why put them in cameras any more?
I now use AA-filter free cameras (from two manufacturers) and I never even think about it. Frankly, I've had more problems with aliasing with older, lower resolution camera that had AA filtering!
As to 45MP versus 50MP, the difference is so tiny as to be inconsequential. It is pretty easy to calculate either the relative ppi resolution at a given print size or the relative print sizes at some arbitrary ppi value. It is tiny.
So, likely not downside in moving to the 45MP R5.
However... this is probably a time for patience. We (as good as) know that there will be a higher MP "R5sr" or whatever they will call it before long, too. It will probably have a 75MP sensor or possibly higher MP. If high resolution is your thing, you'll then be back where you probably were when you got the 5DsR — looking at a very good, high MP camera that has a bit less DR than the R5. The first time around you chose resolution over DR. Would you feel differently now?
p.2 #3 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
gdanmitchell wrote:
I don't have access to the R5 (duh), so I can only theorize about it in particular.
When the 5Ds and the 5DsR were introduced, I obtained some raw files of the same subject shot with the two different cameras and compared them closely. Since you would apply different post-processing sharpening to the images shot with the AA filtering camera compared to the non-AA camera, I optimized both image types with the goal of producing the best possible output from each.
When all was said and done I thought that maybe I could sort of convince myself that the 5DsR sourced files might be a tiny bit sharper than the 5Ds files, but I couldn't be sure. Basically, I decided that at the end of an optimized post-processing workflow... the difference was negligible.
If you think back to that time you may recall that many of us were very concerned but possible image problems with non-AA filtering systems — we worried that we'd encounter all sorts of aliasing issues and so forth. So I also compared source files that should have demonstrated a problem... and they didn't.
The bottom line was that there wasn't any good reason to get a camera with AA filtering (unless perhaps you make your living doing close-up photographs of fabric or corrugated buildings), so why put them in cameras any more?
I now use AA-filter free cameras (from two manufacturers) and I never even think about it. Frankly, I've had more problems with aliasing with older, lower resolution camera that had AA filtering!
As to 45MP versus 50MP, the difference is so tiny as to be inconsequential. It is pretty easy to calculate either the relative ppi resolution at a given print size or the relative print sizes at some arbitrary ppi value. It is tiny.
So, likely not downside in moving to the 45MP R5.
However... this is probably a time for patience. We (as good as) know that there will be a higher MP "R5sr" or whatever they will call it before long, too. It will probably have a 75MP sensor or possibly higher MP. If high resolution is your thing, you'll then be back where you probably were when you got the 5DsR — looking at a very good, high MP camera that has a bit less DR than the R5. The first time around you chose resolution over DR. Would you feel differently now?...Show more →
I chose resolution over dynamic range because I can achieve dynamic range with AEB/blending. And even with 2 stops advantage (if this proves out) I really don't like the results of shadow pushing of one image. But that was when the debate was 22mpx vs 51 mpx a theorectical 50% increase in resolution. And I concluded that at 51mpx, moire was likely not a problem so I did not have to know which had better resolution.
The 30% maximum theoretical difference between 85mpx and 51 mpx (or 5% between 45 and 51), requires lens that can out resolve 45mpx of which their are likely none in the UWA 17mm range that I prefer. Waiting for 85mpx R5R implies that R matters and 85mpx matter. Dxomark d800 vs d800e showed >10% resolution difference based presumably on lines on charts with varying sharpness settings of the sensor. This is a different conclusion than your testing (and the samples on the previous page). I am not saying you are wrong - just that it is puzzling and an important factor in waiting. Either it matters to go to 85mpx and R or it doesn't.
Clearly the lower weight, 12fps, easier nd filtering, better histogram delay, 150 burst buffer, floppy screen, and better focus vs not much difference in iq (ignoring winter favouring bigger DSLR's) would mean (and possibly the future) for now I would prefer R5 if AA and high mpx do not matter.
Fortunately ( ) there is no R5 available to buy so its moot. And my 5DSR is great in winter and, with skill, good for animals.
p.2 #4 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
I haven’t seen any mention from Canon nor discussion from anyone about the new R5 sensor design. It’s completely possible that most of the increased resolving power comes from the microlens design. I noticed in one of the R5 reviews as they were showing video out of the R5, I thought I caught a glimpse of a sensor reflection pattern similar to what I saw on the GFX. The shot was into the sun against trees and looked stopped down, the exact situation I would see the GFX show these ugly pattern reflections. Never ever seen these artifacts with the Canon R. So just theorizing wildly here, but I do think it’s curious no one is asking Canon to talk about the R5 sensor advances. Is it just a more densely-packed 1DX3 sensor, etc.?
p.2 #5 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Scott Stoness wrote:
Dxomark d800 vs d800e showed >10% resolution difference based presumably on lines on charts with varying sharpness settings of the sensor. This is a different conclusion than your testing (and the samples on the previous page). I am not saying you are wrong - just that it is puzzling and an important factor in waiting. Either it matters to go to 85mpx and R or it doesn't.
I don't know how DXO does their resolution test, but I would guess that they somehow normal the processing of raw files, or perhaps they don't precess them at all. (By which I mean that they simply open them in some standard raw file converter and set everything to zero.)
But here's the problem — and why I tested differently: The initial AA-filtered 5Ds raw image is slightly softer than the initial non-AA-filtered 5DsR raw image. In post-processing, when trying to get the optimal result from both files, I would use slightly different sharpening settings. For example, I could probably use a slightly larger radius and a higher amount with the AA-filtered file than I would with the non-AA-filtered file, which is not softened by the AA filter.
So that's what I did. I basically processed to two file types to do what I would do in real like with either camera, namely produce the best possible final output. And when I did that (which I doubt that DXO does, in its attempt to be neutral) I ended up with final images from the 5Ds and 5DsR files that were essentially impossible to tell apart.
My ultimate take-away was that if both types of files were so good and could produce the same result... why would I want to add AA-filtering?
Fortunately ( ) there is no R5 available to buy so its moot. And my 5DSR is great in winter and, with skill, good for animals.
:-)
True. I use a 5DsR, and I can't see that it would make sense to move the R5 for me. I can already produce excellent large prints with the 5DsR files and, as you point out, it works pretty well for the kinds of wildlife photography I do. Plus, I'm invested in a slew of EF lenses, and if I'm going to make a move I'd rather do it wholesale.
Would I move to a high MP variant of theR5, the rumored 75MP+ sensor camera? Not very quickly. I'm sure it will be an excellent camera, and have advantages over the 5DsR. But in the end, it would not likely produce a radical change in my photography, so I think I can afford to go slow.
Yeah, I'll probably be jealous of the folks with the newer cameras. But I'll live.
p.2 #6 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
gdanmitchell wrote:
But here's the problem — and why I tested differently: The initial AA-filtered 5Ds raw image is slightly softer than the initial non-AA-filtered 5DsR raw image. In post-processing, when trying to get the optimal result from both files, I would use slightly different sharpening settings. For example, I could probably use a slightly larger radius and a higher amount with the AA-filtered file than I would with the non-AA-filtered file, which is not softened by the AA filter.
So that's what I did. I basically processed to two file types to do what I would do in real like with either camera, namely produce the best possible final output. And when I did that (which I doubt that DXO does, in its attempt to be neutral) I ended up with final images from the 5Ds and 5DsR files that were essentially impossible to tell apart.
My ultimate take-away was that if both types of files were so good and could produce the same result... why would I want to add AA-filtering?
Dan...Show more →
Did you try that at high ISO? I'm not the sharpening software guru, but I don't like applying extra sharpening at high ISO as the noise looks worse. Of course one can apply extra NR, but all that manipulation is best avoided without the AA filter.
If the new Canon AA filters have improved sharpness than that is the best of both worlds.
I will be interested to see how it handles both fine details in landscapes and hairy beasts that tend to exhibit moire with big whites.
It looks like I'm grounded for the rest of 2020 at least, so we'll see what imaging tests results are available in Q3.
p.2 #7 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Canon may have included the AA filter because:
1. They didn't want potential for moire in 8K videos where, AFAIK, there is no software to remove it. Given the features and choices made, it seems to me that they prioritized video over still photography in the R5.
2. They didn't want moire in in still images when the camera is used for fashion and people photography, where certain fabric patterns can show it quite badly. In nature where things are mostly random it happens on very rare occasions and isn't a problem.
3. The higher the MP count the less problem there is with moire in any circumstance in the absence of an AA filter. At 45 MP there would be more moire than the 5DSR has, and considerably more than the Sony A7R4. I suspect Canon didn't want that distinction.
Given the frame rate and other features, if the AF tracking works well it would have definite advantages over the 5DSR for birds and wildlife. For landscapes I see very minor disadvantages and no advantage big enough to justify a purchase.
p.2 #8 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
dmcphoto wrote:
Given the frame rate and other features, if the AF tracking works well it would have definite advantages over the 5DSR for birds and wildlife. For landscapes I see very minor disadvantages and no advantage big enough to justify a purchase.
All IMO. on the comparison with a 5Ds(R). Feather detail is often mentioned as one which can suffer bad moiré - unavoidable in some settings, even with 1-pixel AA filters.
p.2 #9 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
[Inane tangent here, but has the assumed high-res version of the R that has yet to be released ever been referred to as the R5r? Seems to me that, per Canon's naming history, it would be called the R5s. I also find it funny that the 5Ds is routinely referred to as the 5DsR, considering the 'R' is a variant (I know, many/most here seem to have the 'R', for some reason...).]
Anyway, having used the 5Ds as my primary for what I consider to be many years (since it was released), I am considering an R5 as a replacement as I do a lot of night/high ISO photography, and I'm getting sick of dealing with the 5Ds' sensor macro-banding, especially in relation to merging a dozen or two images for panoramas (alternating magenta-green stitch transitions are very hard to fix in post). Presence of an AA filter matters not at all for me, as the difference is demonstrably negligible in the 5Ds/5DsR, as Dan points out. The 6MP difference also matters not to me, though a higher-MP variant of the R-series cameras would interest me, though if it struggles at high-ISO (like the 5Ds) it would be an admittedly expensive 'day' camera. The battery-life issue is significant for me (often out all night, one camera shooting time-lapse while I shoot panos), and was a primary reason I hoped that the 5Ds successor would be a DSLR... I'm guessing that ship has sailed and I'm going to have to embrace the new lens mount.
I am curious whether the R5 has taken any steps forward in the software department, i.e. built-in intervalometer features, more-useful bulb timer, integrated focus-stacking, etc. Nikon seems to have an edge including useful UI features on their higher-end cameras, and I wish Canon would implement some of these things, especially considering it's not so hard to do. Video matters not to me, except maybe (hopefully?) the increasing furor over the R5's overheating issue in 8k mode will make them more available to purchase.
Looking forward to seeing actual files and tests from the R5 to answer some of the questions Scott brings up here.
p.2 #10 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
We don't yet know the degree of AA filtration, or what effect the new sensor, & Digic-X processor may have on moire suppression, for comparison; but IMO all the other major advancement's of the R5 would "win the day" even if the 5DSr had a "minor" advantage in ultimate detail retrieval.
Likely, a more difficult decision for those that already own a 5DSr.
p.2 #11 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Sy Sez wrote:
We don't yet know the degree of AA filtration, or what effect the new sensor, & Digic-X processor may have on moire suppression, for comparison; but IMO all the other major advancement's of the R5 would "win the day" even if the 5DSr had a "minor" advantage in ultimate detail retrieval.
Likely, a more difficult decision for those that already own a 5DSr.
Having used the R with some of the better RF glass for a while now, the R already felt like having a mini-5DsR. The sharpness at 1:1 with R + RF glass looks just like the 5DsR with Zeiss ZE. The R + RF is so sharp at 1:1, it doesn't even look like it has an AA filter when compared to the 5D4. This is one reason I'm hugely looking forward to the R5 resolution and reportedly negligible-effect low pass filter. Also looking forward to shooting BIF with the R5 – something I never had patience to learn before. From what I've seen so far in the initial reviews, in animal-AF mode and with the Auto-case mode for AF tracking, it automatically locks onto a bird and just won't let go.
p.2 #12 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Jeff wrote:
[Inane tangent here, but has the assumed high-res version of the R that has yet to be released ever been referred to as the R5r? Seems to me that, per Canon's naming history, it would be called the R5s. I also find it funny that the 5Ds is routinely referred to as the 5DsR, considering the 'R' is a variant (I know, many/most here seem to have the 'R', for some reason...).]
I like to refer to the future highest res R as R5s/R5sR just so the intent is clear to those of us already familiar with the 5DsR as being the pinnacle of resolution Also could be called R3 – depends on Canon's plans for model variation/differentiation.
p.2 #13 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Jeff wrote:
I am curious whether the R5 has taken any steps forward in the software department, i.e. built-in intervalometer features, more-useful bulb timer, integrated focus-stacking, etc. Nikon seems to have an edge including useful UI features on their higher-end cameras, and I wish Canon would implement some of these things, especially considering it's not so hard to do. Video matters not to me, except maybe (hopefully?) the increasing furor over the R5's overheating issue in 8k mode will make them more available to purchase.
p.2 #14 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
highdesertmesa wrote:
Having used the R with some of the better RF glass for a while now, the R already felt like having a mini-5DsR. The sharpness at 1:1 with R + RF glass looks just like the 5DsR with Zeiss ZE. The R + RF is so sharp at 1:1, it doesn't even look like it has an AA filter when compared to the 5D4. This is one reason I'm hugely looking forward to the R5 resolution and reportedly negligible-effect low pass filter. Also looking forward to shooting BIF with the R5 – something I never had patience to learn before. From what I've seen so far in the initial reviews, in animal-AF mode and with the Auto-case mode for AF tracking, it automatically locks onto a bird and just won't let go....Show more →Do we know the R5 has the newer "high res" AA filter? I've not seen it listed, but interested to see information on it (beyond Canon's images in their description - can't find that link right now )
p.2 #15 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Jeff wrote:
[Inane tangent here, but has the assumed high-res version of the R that has yet to be released ever been referred to as the R5r? Seems to me that, per Canon's naming history, it would be called the R5s. I also find it funny that the 5Ds is routinely referred to as the 5DsR, considering the 'R' is a variant (I know, many/most here seem to have the 'R', for some reason...).]
That's because the "s" has been capitalized by Canon on the 1DS, then lowercased to 1Ds2, 1Ds3, then again capitalized on the 5DSR. I just checked all my EXIF data So people got used to the lowercase s for the years 2006-2015, I guess.
p.2 #16 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
I keep reading and found a good article comparing d800 vs d800e which concluded aa reversal is sharper even after sharpening (Aa vs aa reversed at 36mpx)
But they both conclude that more resolution is available with reversal of AA vs AA which is consistent with Dxomark testing of D800e vs D800
I would suggest if you can barely tell the difference by looking at it (me - 5DSR, 800e vs 5Ds,D800 seem a smidge better but hard to tell ) but its measurable its more than 5% - likely 10-20% as per Dxomark with a very good lens.
p.2 #17 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Scott, I'm not sure if you have seen some of the promo "reviews" yet but apparently this new IBIS system is allowing landscape shots taken at 2 seconds without a tripod.
If this actually turns out to be achievable, this could also open up the possibility of reducing your pack load substantially more by just leaving the tripod at home when you know you wont be needing to shoot with longer shutter speeds. Huge advantage if true.
I'm going to try this out and see how well it works. But until then, I'll always have a tripod with me when shooting landscapes. Seeing is believing though and I'm kinda married to my tripod when shooting landscapes.
p.2 #18 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
lighthound wrote:
Scott, I'm not sure if you have seen some of the promo "reviews" yet but apparently this new IBIS system is allowing landscape shots taken at 2 seconds without a tripod.
If this actually turns out to be achievable, this could also open up the possibility of reducing your pack load substantially more by just leaving the tripod at home when you know you wont be needing to shoot with longer shutter speeds. Huge advantage if true.
I'm going to try this out and see how well it works. But until then, I'll always have a tripod with me when shooting landscapes. Seeing is believing though and I'm kinda married to my tripod when shooting landscapes. ...Show more →
Lighthound -
Thank you.I saw this and was very impressed.
Not likely to go without my tripod as a general course but with the lower weight of R5, higher dynamic range, floppy screen, better iso performance than 5DSR -- its clear that R5 is a better backpacking /hiking tool for weight. And if you have it with you and you don't have a tripod (hiking) because your non photography friends won't slow down or share you weight - it would likely be find this use. [You should see the size of my carbon fibre a7rii tripod -all together under 3lbs but 3 lbs is a 800/f11 for grizzlies]
The bad news is that this statement is likely to cause me to swap out my 24-105/f4 and then not have the advantage of the nd flip in adapter - so dual 24-105's
p.2 #19 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
dmcphoto wrote:
Canon may have included the AA filter because:
1. They didn't want potential for moire in 8K videos where, AFAIK, there is no software to remove it. Given the features and choices made, it seems to me that they prioritized video over still photography in the R5.
2. They didn't want moire in in still images when the camera is used for fashion and people photography, where certain fabric patterns can show it quite badly. In nature where things are mostly random it happens on very rare occasions and isn't a problem.
3. The higher the MP count the less problem there is with moire in any circumstance in the absence of an AA filter. At 45 MP there would be more moire than the 5DSR has, and considerably more than the Sony A7R4. I suspect Canon didn't want that distinction.
Given the frame rate and other features, if the AF tracking works well it would have definite advantages over the 5DSR for birds and wildlife. For landscapes I see very minor disadvantages and no advantage big enough to justify a purchase.
Thanks for a good hypothesis why AA - for video - which suggests a landscape body is needed without AA to compete with A7riV resolution. Or an R option.
I concluded prior - there are very few (any) 24mm or 17mm or 16-34 that have enough resolution that 61 vs 51 vs 45/AA matters.
But I have a very good 5DSR/zeiss 15/2.8 48x32" print with stunning resolution that I want to have again elsewhere. I hiked 3 hikes and 35 km that day (evening fail, mid day fail, and had to run the last 200meters to catch the light at 10PM which is not easy at my age with 5dsr zeiss and tripod). And it is 35 km in from the road so lots of planning and logistics and luck was involved.
90% of the time, the scene fails (clouds, rain, bad timing, river crossings...). I would rather have resolution as good as it can be than not.
I don't want to give up resolution for the sake of video moire avoidance.
p.2 #20 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
AJSJones wrote:
Do we know the R5 has the newer "high res" AA filter? I've not seen it listed, but interested to see information on it (beyond Canon's images in their description - can't find that link right now )
) there is no R5 available to buy so its moot. And my 5DSR is great in winter and, with skill, good for animals.
on the comparison with a 5Ds(R). Feather detail is often mentioned as one which can suffer bad moiré - unavoidable in some settings, even with 1-pixel AA filters.
