p.5 #1 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
I would go with a mirrorless camera like the R5! The DSLR won't be around for too much longer. You may still see some new DSLR releases but Canon's current and future focus is in their R cameras and RF lenses.
Scott Stoness wrote:
I had not considered panasonic.
But a quick look:
Adapters plus
1020 grams S1R (no AA) vs 750 grams R5 (AA) vs 650 grams A7RIV (No AA)
5dsr is better than that for me at 51mpx and no adapter
A7RIV is better than both but sony/adapter/poor weather performance... for 10% resolution gain -- on the fence
So for me its either wait for R5SR, buy A7RIV, or get the R5 and R5SR later.
p.5 #2 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
alundeb wrote:
The definition of 50% MTF for limiting resolution is problematic to say the least. It does not quantify the actual amount of detail seen.
One one hand when we talk about resolution, we also need to specify the contrast, otherwise resolution is just an arbitrary number. But the aggregated definition of system resolution of lens and sensor is also an arbitrary number, because strictly we also need to account for noise. As long as we can see detail above noise, after sharpening, we have resolution in the simple sense of the term. And with use cases where we typically can maximize light and minimize noise, the sensor is the limiting factor for much lower MTF than 50% ...Show more →
That's a major reason I put Brandon's plots into post #17 - it shows the MTF curves against spatial frequency for two lenses and several sensor resolutions and ± AA filter. However, they only help those who are comfortable interpreting graphs in the first place
p.5 #3 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
Scott Stoness wrote:
I had not considered panasonic.
But a quick look:
Adapters plus
1020 grams S1R (no AA) vs 750 grams R5 (AA) vs 650 grams A7RIV (No AA)
5dsr is better than that for me at 51mpx and no adapter
A7RIV is better than both but sony/adapter/poor weather performance... for 10% resolution gain -- on the fence
So for me its either wait for R5SR, buy A7RIV, or get the R5 and R5SR later.
The S1R with some of the new Panasonic lenses is capable of producing better images than the A7R IV, plus you can create 187MP RAW files in camera, but if you're sticking with Canon glass it may not make much difference.
Or try a Fuji GFX 50S - relatively light (the camera body, at least...), noticeably better dynamic range than the small-sensor cameras, but if you try the Fuji glass you might never want to go back to using your Canon lenses again...
p.5 #4 · 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
Perhaps rent each and then decide which way you want to go .
p.5 #5 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
molson wrote:
... I guess my years as a Nikon owner taught me it's better to wait for the first three or four rounds of recalls before it's safe to buy a new product.
p.5 #7 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
But we are not talking about Nikon here ... we are talking about Canon ... and Canon cameras and lenses are made in Japan, which explains why they are more expensive! They are not made in China, Thailand or Vietnam. The country of origin matters.
molson wrote:
I really don't understand the panic mentality to get a new product hot off the assembly line... I guess my years as a Nikon owner taught me it's better to wait for the first three or four rounds of recalls before it's safe to buy a new product.
p.5 #9 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
bobbytan wrote:
But we are not talking about Nikon here ... we are talking about Canon ... and Canon cameras and lenses are made in Japan, which explains why they are more expensive! They are not made in China, Thailand or Vietnam. The country of origin matters.
At least with the Canon mirrorless cameras, you won't have to worry about those made-in-Japan mirrors falling off...
p.5 #11 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
bobbytan wrote:
But we are not talking about Nikon here ... we are talking about Canon ... and Canon cameras and lenses are made in Japan, which explains why they are more expensive! They are not made in China, Thailand or Vietnam. The country of origin matters.
I have to agree with Bobby, when I was a Canon guy (10+years ago) I don't remember sending back any lenses for decentering problem. With Nikon 50% of the time or more I had to send the lens back to B&H for replacement due to decentering problems, sometimes 2x or 3x by the time a got a good one. In some cases I got tired and gave up on it. I can count on my one hand how many times I got a good one first time around (Z lenses had a better quality control). So the Country of origin does matter!
p.5 #12 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
molson wrote:
The S1R with some of the new Panasonic lenses is capable of producing better images than the A7R IV, plus you can create 187MP RAW files in camera, but if you're sticking with Canon glass it may not make much difference.
Or try a Fuji GFX 50S - relatively light (the camera body, at least...), noticeably better dynamic range than the small-sensor cameras, but if you try the Fuji glass you might never want to go back to using your Canon lenses again...
I feel the normal range of RF lenses are much heavier and larger than many of voigtlander/zeiss for Sony that I enjoy.
Also you can not adapt Sony mount to Canon...
Is the Fuji GFX normal range lenses even larger and heavier than Canon's RF? Can you adapt Sony lenses to Fuji GFX?
I would have no issues using larger and heavier Telephoto lenses on any system as most telephoto = larger and heavier, if one wants to shoot sports or wildlife.
p.5 #13 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
I am sure tolerances are much tighter in Japan. This is why Leica lenses are so expensive - they have an exceptionally tight/low tolerance level. The wait may be long for the R5 and R6 if you pre-order late, especially with the Covid-induced delays and supply disruptions.
Julius wrote:
I have to agree with Bobby, when I was a Canon guy (10+years ago) I don't remember sending back any lenses for decentering problem. With Nikon 50% of the time or more I had to send the lens back to B&H for replacement due to decentering problems, sometimes 2x or 3x by the time a got a good one. In some cases I got tired and gave up on it. I can count on my one hand how many times I got a good one first time around (Z lenses had a better quality control). So the Country of origin does matter!...Show more →
p.5 #14 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
rscheffler wrote:
If you want some numbers, watch the following video presentation by Peter Karbe, Leica's chief lens designer. Specifically at around 1:17:00 (one hour, 17 minutes). He talks briefly, with numbers, about determining when a lens or the sensor limits the other. Basically, if the lens is less than 50% MTF at half the sensor's Nyquist frequency, then the lens is the limit. If it's higher, then the sensor is the limit.
It's interesting to see that they've designed their SL f/2 primes to not be the limiting factor around 100MP.
After watching this again, I want to add that he uses 50% MTF at half Nyquist as a proxy for "Barely recognizable" at Nyquist frequency. So I may have been a bit too harsh. "Barely visible contrast" at Nyquist is what I prefer to use as a criterion for when the lens becomes the limiting factor. The problem with operating at such high frequencies is that measurements are very difficult to make, and rare to find. The 50% MTF at half Nyquist is actually a good proxy for the "barely recognizable" frequency for a diffraction limited lens. Excellent lenses with wide apertures can get even higher, as seen in the graphs from Brandon Dube that @AJSJones linked to.
p.5 #15 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
IndyFab wrote:
Is the Fuji GFX normal range lenses even larger and heavier than Canon's RF? Can you adapt Sony lenses to Fuji GF?
For the most part, the Fuji lenses are bigger and heavier, but they do have to cover a larger sensor. They are also noticeably better optically than Canon or Sony glass, which matters if you're chasing high-resolution landscape images.
You can't adapt Sony FE lenses, but you can adapt most other legacy mounts.
p.5 #17 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
molson wrote:
Or try a Fuji GFX 50S - relatively light (the camera body, at least...), noticeably better dynamic range than the small-sensor cameras, but if you try the Fuji glass you might never want to go back to using your Canon lenses again...
Fujifilm lenses for the GFX system are generally very good, though many Canon users will be hard pressed to find close-to-direct replacements for core lenses that they rely on with their current systems.
Regarding "small-sensor" cameras, it is important to remind folks who hear the term "medium format" that the excellent miniMF sensors used by Fujifilm, Pentax, and others using the 33x44mm format are midway in size between full frame the the smallest of the traditional film medium format, the 645 format which uses the film width for its longest side. One way to regard the difference between miniMF and FF is that it is about half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF.
So, there is some improvement based on increased sensor area (including some improvement in DR), but it is less than you might imagine, especially if you have a subliminal (or "liminal!") notion based on the difference between, say, 35mm film and film MF.
It is also not a "bad versus good" sort of difference. As we all know, current high MP FF systems can produce excellent image quality and quite large print sizes. It is against that excellent background that the acknowledged potential improvements of the somewhat larger miniMF sensor should be judged. Perhaps, in marginal circumstances, you go for excellent to a-bit-more-excellent...
For whom does the miniMF system make sense? For someone who typically works from the tripod and who regularly prints quite large... and who does not need to range of lenses available from Canon and other FF vendors.
It is the right system for some folks, but not for most currently using FF. I have a couple of friends who use the Fujifilm miniMF system (one on a 50S and the other on the 100X), but they are both landscape photographers working solely from the tripod and regularly producing extremely large prints... and they are folks who don't, for example, have an affinity for things like focal lengths longer than the equivalent of 200mm of FF.
Dan
BTW #1: I'm actually a pretty big fan of Fujifilm. I do half of my photography using their equipment. I've considered a miniMF system for parts of my photography since the Pentax 645d (and then 645z) came out, and I got my hands on a GFX 50S to shoot with for a while. I was quite impressed with the camera. (I was already impressed with Fujifilm as a brand.) But I found that the hoped-for real-world IQ improvements were quite small by comparison to a high MP FF system and, even more problematic, a range of lenses that I rely on in my photography were simply unavailable for the Fujifilm system.
BTW #2: There is no question that a miniMF system is capable of producing measurably ("noticeably" is more problematic) "better" image quality than FF in several ways if all else is equal. The questions that follow include: will the difference be visible in my photography? is the financial cost worth the benefit? what opportunity costs are there based on issues of lens availability and so forth?
p.5 #18 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
gdanmitchell wrote:
Fujifilm lenses for the GFX system are generally very good, though many Canon users will be hard pressed to find close-to-direct replacements for core lenses that they rely on with their current systems.
Especially those Canon users that only take pictures of out-of-focus bushes... with their miniature-format cameras.
p.5 #19 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
gdanmitchell wrote:
Fujifilm lenses for the GFX system are generally very good, though many Canon users will be hard pressed to find close-to-direct replacements for core lenses that they rely on with their current systems.
Regarding "small-sensor" cameras, it is important to remind folks who hear the term "medium format" that the excellent miniMF sensors used by Fujifilm, Pentax, and others using the 33x44mm format are midway in size between full frame the the smallest of the traditional film medium format, the 645 format which uses the film width for its longest side. One way to regard the difference between miniMF and FF is that it is about half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF.
So, there is some improvement based on increased sensor area (including some improvement in DR), but it is less than you might imagine, especially if you have a subliminal (or "liminal!") notion based on the difference between, say, 35mm film and film MF.
It is also not a "bad versus good" sort of difference. As we all know, current high MP FF systems can produce excellent image quality and quite large print sizes. It is against that excellent background that the acknowledged potential improvements of the somewhat larger miniMF sensor should be judged. Perhaps, in marginal circumstances, you go for excellent to a-bit-more-excellent...
For whom does the miniMF system make sense? For someone who typically works from the tripod and who regularly prints quite large... and who does not need to range of lenses available from Canon and other FF vendors.
It is the right system for some folks, but not for most currently using FF. I have a couple of friends who use the Fujifilm miniMF system (one on a 50S and the other on the 100X), but they are both landscape photographers working solely from the tripod and regularly producing extremely large prints... and they are folks who don't, for example, have an affinity for things like focal lengths longer than the equivalent of 200mm of FF.
Dan
BTW #1: I'm actually a pretty big fan of Fujifilm. I do half of my photography using their equipment. I've considered a miniMF system for parts of my photography since the Pentax 645d (and then 645z) came out, and I got my hands on a GFX 50S to shoot with for a while. I was quite impressed with the camera. (I was already impressed with Fujifilm as a brand.) But I found that the hoped-for real-world IQ improvements were quite small by comparison to a high MP FF system and, even more problematic, a range of lenses that I rely on in my photography were simply unavailable for the Fujifilm system.
BTW #2: There is no question that a miniMF system is capable of producing measurably ("noticeably" is more problematic) "better" image quality than FF in several ways if all else is equal. The questions that follow include: will the difference be visible in my photography? is the financial cost worth the benefit? what opportunity costs are there based on issues of lens availability and so forth?...Show more →
But may not be appropriate for those that backpack or want the same system for wildlife. Fuji is great for lanscape near the road but not necessarly a suitable weight for hikers or backpackers and is about 1/3 more in price than high end canon lens. I was waiting for my >70's age to take on medium format.
p.5 #20 · R5 vs 5DSR Landscape and the AA filter - DPR has comparisons
bobbytan wrote:
I am sure tolerances are much tighter in Japan. This is why Leica lenses are so expensive - they have an exceptionally tight/low tolerance level.
But some Leica-branded lenses are made in China...
