p.3 #1 · 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 →
Some were achieving as long as 4 seconds when trying really hard to be still. Even a monopod might get you everything a tripod used to. What I would like to see them do in firmware is allow the IBIS to allow the stabilization to span several rapid shots for exposure bracketing without a tripod. For example, if the exposure total of all the bracketed shots didn't exceed 2 seconds, that would let you bracket for DR without a tripod. I think the R can do this multi-shot HDR for JPEG – would love to see them apply IBIS to it and create a single RAW alongside the separate RAW shots.
p.3 #2 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
highdesertmesa wrote:
Some were achieving as long as 4 seconds when trying really hard to be still. Even a monopod might get you everything a tripod used to. What I would like to see them do in firmware is allow the IBIS to allow the stabilization to span several rapid shots for exposure bracketing without a tripod. For example, if the exposure total of all the bracketed shots didn't exceed 2 seconds, that would let you bracket for DR without a tripod. I think the R can do this multi-shot HDR for JPEG – would love to see them apply IBIS to it and create a single RAW alongside the separate RAW shots....Show more →
I'm hoping the DR and files are clean enough such that we can simply underexpose for the highlights and pull up in post. No more blending. Last I heard it's suppose to be a stop better than the 5D4 so we're at least getting close to this dream.
p.3 #3 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
lighthound wrote:
I'm hoping the DR and files are clean enough such that we can simply underexpose for the highlights and pull up in post. No more blending. Last I heard it's suppose to be a stop better than the 5D4 so we're at least getting close to this dream.
Yes, so 14.5 stops for R5 while the A7RIV sits at 14.8 (using DXOMARK as reference) – so very close. And if that 1-stop increase for the R5 is a uniform increase across all ISOs, then that means Canon will slightly surpass the A7RIV and GFX DR at higher ISOs, since right now the gap at higher ISOs is more narrow between all three.
p.3 #4 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Scott Stoness wrote:
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....Show more →
The hike was definitely worth it - stunning shot. Several of us have concluded that while a smidgen of difference in the "very fine detail" may remain between optimally processed shots comparing ± AA filter, the pursuit of "optimal resolution" has other significant players. If you are worrying so much about the effect of the AA filter, I would expect you also to be concerned about "giving up resolution" at f/11. The use of f/11 versus, say f/8 or 5.6 (depending on the specific lens and copy) will usually lose you at least ~10% on LWPH at MTF50. And a visual here when you look at the finely-spaced lineshereAt f/11, the lens is beginning to act as its own LPF. It depends how you express things in terms of "% loss". The fine detail we are agonizing over is typically close to the limit of the sensor's resolution, so MTFs are already way down, so a "20% loss" means the MTF is now 16% when it was 20% - we can perceive lines at at MTF of ~8% before they turn to gray so we can "detect" this slight loss.
This comparison of the Panasonic S1 ± AA fliter shows the expected slight resolution delta but not only the moiré in the building railings(not a concern for landscapes) but also some false colour in the trees (he doesn't comment on them) like DigLloyd also saw a while back - also with a Zeiss, if I recall: it was sharp enough compared to the pixel size and the bare tree branches were fine enough that red/blue noise was present when no AA filter was present.
The only way you'll be able to satisfy yourself, I suspect, is a show and tell when MaxMax or LifePixel shows pictures of before and after AA removal Perhaps someone with a (?borrowed) 5DsR and a new R5 will do some thorough testing "for the greater good", using an EF-R adapter and good testing technique... And they will post the results before you can get your hands on an R5 and go hiking again. Things might work out in the decision making process, after all.
p.3 #5 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
AJSJones wrote:
The hike was definitely worth it - stunning shot. Several of us have concluded that while a smidgen of difference in the "very fine detail" may remain between optimally processed shots comparing ± AA filter, the pursuit of "optimal resolution" has other significant players. If you are worrying so much about the effect of the AA filter, I would expect you also to be concerned about "giving up resolution" at f/11. The use of f/11 versus, say f/8 or 5.6 (depending on the specific lens and copy) will usually lose you at least ~10% on LWPH at MTF50. And a visual here when you look at the finely-spaced lineshereAt f/11, the lens is beginning to act as its own LPF. It depends how you express things in terms of "% loss". The fine detail we are agonizing over is typically close to the limit of the sensor's resolution, so MTFs are already way down, so a "20% loss" means the MTF is now 16% when it was 20% - we can perceive lines at at MTF of ~8% before they turn to gray so we can "detect" this slight loss.
This comparison of the Panasonic S1 ± AA fliter shows the expected slight resolution delta but not only the moiré in the building railings(not a concern for landscapes) but also some false colour in the trees (he doesn't comment on them) like DigLloyd also saw a while back - also with a Zeiss, if I recall: it was sharp enough compared to the pixel size and the bare tree branches were fine enough that red/blue noise was present when no AA filter was present.
The only way you'll be able to satisfy yourself, I suspect, is a show and tell when MaxMax or LifePixel shows pictures of before and after AA removal Perhaps someone with a (?borrowed) 5DsR and a new R5 will do some thorough testing "for the greater good", using an EF-R adapter and good testing technique... And they will post the results before you can get your hands on an R5 and go hiking again. Things might work out in the decision making process, after all. ...Show more →
You are right - f11 on 5DSR might have reduced the importance of AA . I had foreground items. Good point though. Hard to say whether if R5 45/aa would have been similar resolution to 5DSR at f11 with the best lens. Intutively blurring(f11) the blurred (R5 AA) should have an affect but hard to quantify.
I should just buy the the R5 and try it for a while. Or buy the A7riv and test since my concern is whether I should wait for the 85mpx R5SR
and select a7riv 61mpx vs a7rII 42mpx and 50mm ZA 1.4 you see much higher effective resolution 56mpx vs 41mpx. Effectively creating the ability to print 15% bigger with same quality.
similarly 33effective mpx vs 26 for 16-35 f4 a7riv vs a7rii [13% gain on print size]
vs the theoretical possible gain of ~square route of 61/44 = ~20%
This confirms that mpx matters for good lens without AA filter. Even for optically limited lens.
And thats without blurring the pixels of 42 vs 61 unblurred.
and select a7riv 61mpx vs a7rII 42mpx and 50mm ZA 1.4 you see much higher effective resolution 56mpx vs 41mpx. Effectively creating the ability to print 15% bigger with same quality.
similarly 33effective mpx vs 26 for 16-35 f4 a7riv vs a7rii [13% gain on print size]
vs the theoretical possible gain of ~square route of 61/44 = ~20%
This confirms that mpx matters for good lens without AA filter. Even for optically limited lens.
And thats without blurring the pixels of 42 vs 61 unblurred.
Yup - adding more MP or using a better lens improves the system performance (and potential print size, as you say), and doing both even more so (illustrated in Brandon's charts in post #17). Diffraction blur has a known PSF, just like an AA filter has a known PSF, so deconvolution sharpening works to recover some from either form. If the lens has already blurred the image, the AA filter may do less "damage" than to a non-blurred image from a better lens. Too many compromises How about giving up a tad of DoF for the sake of overall resolution? If the other benefits of the R5 turn out to be significant, buying one soon and using it for a while will answer all your questions. The cost? What you might lose in a resale situation if the AA filter's loss really outweighs the other benefits. Then you'll know whether the R5SR is in your future... (assuming it's in Canon's)
p.3 #8 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
AJSJones wrote:
Yup - adding more MP or using a better lens improves the system performance (and potential print size, as you say), and doing both even more so (illustrated in Brandon's charts in post #17). Diffraction blur has a known PSF, just like an AA filter has a known PSF, so deconvolution sharpening works to recover some from either form. If the lens has already blurred the image, the AA filter may do less "damage" than to a non-blurred image from a better lens. Too many compromises How about giving up a tad of DoF for the sake of overall resolution? If the other benefits of the R5 turn out to be significant, buying one soon and using it for a while will answer all your questions. The cost? What you might lose in a resale situation if the AA filter's loss really outweighs the other benefits. Then you'll know whether the R5SR is in your future... (assuming it's in Canon's) ...Show more →
If I could walk down to a store and buy the R5 today I would. For backpacking purposes and wildlife. I am going backpacking in in 4 days. But I have to get on a list and wait to September past my backpacking and animal season. Clearly a 85mpx would add resolution so maybe just wait to the spring. For the sake of video, Canon is frustrating me with AA, just like they did for 2 years on 22mpx. I can buy a a7riv today - grrrr.
p.3 #10 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Digital camera world suggests R5 uses new AA from 1dxiii and it has new method/gausisan correction that causes its resolution to be equal to 5DR. I have not seen this in Canon quotes or test results.
"All of this is thanks to the brand new 45MP image sensor, which Canon claims makes the R5 “the highest resolution EOS camera ever” – supposedly resolving even greater detail than the 50.6MP Canon EOS 5DS / R. This is thanks to the new low-pass filter design, which was introduced in the flagship Canon EOS-1D X Mark III.
Traditional low-pass filters (employed to get rid of moiré) employ dual-layer, four-point subsampling and introduce a layer of softness to images. Canon’s new tech features quad-layer, 16-point subsampling and combines it with a Gaussian distribution technique to deliver sharpness rivalling the 5DS / R. Our lab results for the 1D X Mark III didn’t quite bear this out, so we’ll need to put the R5 through a full raft of tests. "
Presuming the same processor digic x and same new high pass files there is a white paper that claims greater detail processing of new high pass. Pp 42
p.3 #11 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Scott Stoness wrote:
Digital camera world suggests R5 uses new AA from 1dxiii and it has new method/gausisan correction that causes its resolution to be equal to 5DR. I have not seen this in Canon quotes or test results.
"All of this is thanks to the brand new 45MP image sensor, which Canon claims makes the R5 “the highest resolution EOS camera ever” – supposedly resolving even greater detail than the 50.6MP Canon EOS 5DS / R. This is thanks to the new low-pass filter design, which was introduced in the flagship Canon EOS-1D X Mark III.
Traditional low-pass filters (employed to get rid of moiré) employ dual-layer, four-point subsampling and introduce a layer of softness to images. Canon’s new tech features quad-layer, 16-point subsampling and combines it with a Gaussian distribution technique to deliver sharpness rivalling the 5DS / R. Our lab results for the 1D X Mark III didn’t quite bear this out, so we’ll need to put the R5 through a full raft of tests. "
Presuming the same processor digic x and same new high pass files there is a white paper that claims greater detail processing of new high pass. Pp 42
45 MP and 50MP are close enough that I don't think it matters much, but I'm highly skeptical of these kinds of marketing statements.
First, they say the R5 can "deliver sharpness rivaling the 5DS / R". That may be a true statement, but "sharpness" is not the same as "resolution". Sharpness can be altered in post processing while the maximum attainable resolution cannot. But, we don't even know if they're talking about in-camera JPEGs or RAW files. My guess is the former.
Second, it's impossible for a 45MP image sensor with any sort of AA filter to have more resolution than a 50.6MP image sensor without an AA filter (or with a cancelled one). Perhaps they're talking about system resolution, which includes the lens. The highest resolving RF lens on an R5 camera may obtain a higher total system resolution than any given EF lens on a 5DSR, but this is really splitting hairs. Using the same lens on both cameras is the fair way to compare this.
Having known some marketing people, I think statements like these are designed to get 5DSR owners to buy in. Many of them are disappointed that this is not the high resolution 5DSR replacement that Canon has promised for the last few years.
p.3 #12 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
arbitrage wrote:
Don't bother with TCS...they are hopeless for preorders and getting good numbers in to satisfy demand.
As of noon yesterday, TCS had 58 firm orders for the R5. Their first allotment from Canon is 100 units, so at this point they will be getting more in their first shipment than people have signed up for...
p.3 #13 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
stanj wrote:
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.
The situation on the 5Ds/5DS (and/or 5DSR/5DsR) is made even more confusing than that, and I'm guessing that someone at Canon didn't think through the branding/logo issues fully when they named the camera series and devised the graphics that go along with it. (The letter "s" is a problem, in that standing alone it often isn't possible to determine whether it is upper or lower case — that is only certain when it is placed in context with other symbols or when both upper and lower case "s" is present.
Take a look at the model identification printed on the front of the version of the camera that does "normal" AA-filtering:
Any reasonable observer looking at that would logically presume that the "s"is lower case, given its smaller size by comparison to the adjacent "R." The completely logical assumption is that this camera is the "5Ds."
But now look at the graphics on the "R" variant of the 5Ds:
The first three characters (ignoring their color) are the same: "5Ds." But now the added character is a smaller upper case R! What the heck!?
If you take the 5Ds as the starting point, there is no reason to think that the "s" is anything but lower case. But if you just look at the last two letters of the "R" variant, their relative size suggests that the last two letters could be interpreted as scaled-down upper case letters.
The incongruity is circular.
1. Try not to think too much about this. The underlying logo logic is flawed, and there is no clear answer.
2. Please, Canon, don't do this again! ;-)
Dan,
...who will continue to type"5DsR" while promising to not complain if someone else types "5DSR."
p.3 #14 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Scott Stoness wrote:
Digital camera world suggests R5 uses new AA from 1dxiii and it has new method/gausisan correction that causes its resolution to be equal to 5DR. I have not seen this in Canon quotes or test results.
"All of this is thanks to the brand new 45MP image sensor, which Canon claims makes the R5 “the highest resolution EOS camera ever” – supposedly resolving even greater detail than the 50.6MP Canon EOS 5DS / R. This is thanks to the new low-pass filter design, which was introduced in the flagship Canon EOS-1D X Mark III. I also saw that claim - they are the only site to mention it specifically. That's why I went to the Canon site and quoted them above. The 16-point AA filter is undoubtedly more expensive to fabricate and is a "pride" of achievement so you would expect them to list it in the specs, no? I'd be happy if it were true (and the only explanation would be an error on CanonUSA's part in their spec listings. From the Canon specs.here
1D X Mark III Low Pass Filter : High Detail Low Pass Filter, breaking one incoming light ray into 16 rays at image sensor
R5 Low Pass Filter: Installed in front of the image sensor, non-detachable
Edited to add, from the Canon.jp Japanese website:
In addition, the low-pass filter that reduces false color and moire is composed of two independent plate materials: birefringent crystal that vibrates ultrasonically and infrared absorbing glass. definitely not how they would describethe fancy 16-point filter!
p.3 #15 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
InnomnateViem wrote:
i wonder how it will perform as an asrtophotography camera? or will Canon introduce an EOS R5a?
Canon only seems to develop astro variants with consumer-grade bodies; since they've already done so with the Ra, I highly doubt they'll bother with this body.
That being said, I can't wait to see some astro images from the R5 sensor.
dmcphoto wrote:
Having known some marketing people, I think statements like these are designed to get 5DSR owners to buy in. Many of them are disappointed that this is not the high resolution 5DSR replacement that Canon has promised for the last few years.
Indeed, thus my hesitation in trying to 'wait it out', as I've been waiting way too long already for some modern sensor technology in my primary camera.
gdanmitchell wrote:
...who will continue to type"5DsR" while promising to not complain if someone else types "5DSR."
Any interest in complaining about someone who will type "5Dsr"? lol
p.3 #16 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Jeff wrote:
Any interest in complaining about someone who will type "5Dsr"? lol
I prefer complaining about people who use the lowercase L instead of the capital I as Roman numerals, 5Dlll, which looks fine in some fonts but rather funny in others. For instance, it looks fine here in my original post, but once you quote it, it does not
p.3 #17 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Scott Stoness wrote:
You are right - f11 on 5DSR might have reduced the importance of AA . I had foreground items. Good point though. Hard to say whether if R5 45/aa would have been similar resolution to 5DSR at f11 with the best lens. Intutively blurring(f11) the blurred (R5 AA) should have an affect but hard to quantify.
I should just buy the the R5 and try it for a while. Or buy the A7riv and test since my concern is whether I should wait for the 85mpx R5SR
Rumours of focus stacking available on the R5 would mean shooting at f/8 (or 5.6 or wherever the peak resolution is) to increase DoF without sacrificing resolution...
p.3 #18 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
molson wrote:
As of noon yesterday, TCS had 58 firm orders for the R5. Their first allotment from Canon is 100 units, so at this point they will be getting more in their first shipment than people have signed up for...
Good to hear they GTST this time. I've tried to get release day orders from them a number of times and ended up having to wait much longer and cancel when CC had my gears day 1. I have done a lot of shopping at TCS (of course probably only 1% of what you've done ) over the years and like to support them as much as possible but I've just been burned too many times with "hot" preorder items.
Perhaps someone with a (?borrowed) 5DsR and a new R5 will do some thorough testing "for the greater good", using an EF-R adapter and good testing technique... And they will post the results before you can get your hands on an R5 and go hiking again. Things might work out in the decision making process, after all. 
How about giving up a tad of DoF for the sake of overall resolution? If the other benefits of the R5 turn out to be significant, buying one soon and using it for a while will answer all your questions. The cost? What you might lose in a resale situation if the AA filter's loss really outweighs the other benefits. Then you'll know whether the R5SR is in your future... (assuming it's in Canon's)
) over the years and like to support them as much as possible but I've just been burned too many times with "hot" preorder items.