The 5Ds[R] is based on old sensor tech and was at the time a reaction to the D800/D810[E] without Canon actually having the ability to create a sensor at 50 Megapixel with actually competitive performance. Therefore, a camera you cannot push too hard.
While the D850 is the same Sony tech that is used in the 60 Megapixel monsters (i.e. backlit and dual gain), none of which Canon had access to, except with slightly larger pixels and lowered base ISO 64, thus the sensor performance is stellar.
AmbientMike wrote:
I know. We're all supposed to keep the ISO below 400 (since that's apparently where you get the DR advantage) and ignore the glaring holes in Sony like an apparently mediocre 70-200/2.8 until recently. Canon's excellent v2 came out in 2010, long before the A7 series even existed. Nikon probably similar. Not to mention the lack 300/2.8 & 500/4, among others. People got so excited about Sony 400/2.8. Nikon's came out in 1985.
I have a term for high DR conditions, in general. Bad light. The golden hour became the golden hour in part because it didn't require DR. You could get much better photos on film. I shoot plenty mid day, but I feel like I'm probably going to get better stuff in the golden hour and try to shoot landscapes then. But if your friends are interested in shooting mid day, and sitting in front of a computer, I can't really stop them. ...Show more →
Sure, but the initial question was about Canon or Nikon. I mentioned Sony to illustrate the fact that DR was widely perceived as a key performance aspect of cameras.
I tried Sony for a couple of years and the reasons why I decided to give up and keep Nikon as my main system were lenses rendering, offering and colors filtration. My friends don’t need T/S lenses or teles and seem to have found ways to overcome colors (and the a1 is clearly better colorwise). And anyways they clearly thought that DR was more important. My friends aren’t the only ones, a large majority of Sony photographers come from a Canon background.
All things considered Nikon offers the best compromise for me:
- best DR and colors
- great AF (now also in mirrorless)
- great lenses line up from wide to tele with again a focus on both technical qualities and look
I understand what you are saying in terms of the importance of light and timing and many great images were indeed captured with Velvia. I shoot 8x10 still and have kept my Pentax 1 degree spotmeter although I have the latest Sekonic also.
But there are also great images to be captured at other times and I don’t see why I should limit my options by shooting Canon when Nikon offers it all? I understand that some photographers are managing to make Canon work for them and decided that switching system was too much of a pain, but why advise others to go in that direction in 2022?
bernardl wrote:
Sure, but the initial question was about Canon or Nikon. I mentioned Sony to illustrate the fact that DR was widely perceived as a key performance aspect of cameras.
I tried Sony for a couple of years and the reasons why I decided to give up and keep Nikon as my main system were lenses rendering, offering and colors filtration. My friends don’t need T/S lenses or teles and seem to have found ways to overcome colors (and the a1 is clearly better colorwise). And anyways they clearly thought that DR was more important. My friends aren’t the only ones, a large majority of Sony photographers come from a Canon background.
All things considered Nikon offers the best compromise for me:
- best DR and colors
- great AF (now also in mirrorless)
- great lenses line up from wide to tele with again a focus on both technical qualities and look
I understand what you are saying in terms of the importance of light and timing and many great images were indeed captured with Velvia. I shoot 8x10 still and have kept my Pentax 1 degree spotmeter although I have the latest Sekonic also.
But there are also great images to be captured at other times and I don’t see why I should limit my options by shooting Canon when Nikon offers it all? I understand that some photographers are managing to make Canon work for them and decided that switching system was too much of a pain, but why advise others to go in that direction in 2022?
Why not recommended the 5DsR, a camera that can take great photographs?
If DR is the only thing, then no one should shoot aps, since you get less DR. But people shoot aps pretty happily, myself included. Color is probably more important to me now than DR, since I don't really use the DR much, really. If the op is seriously choosing a camera based on shadows & DR, then yes the D850. But that is a rather narrow reason, and I suspect there are other factors, such as lenses owned in each system, being considered.
The 55-250 is really important to me. 100-400 ff equivalent, under 1 lb, fills the frame on about the same size macro at mfd as my 105/4 AIS used to on film. FF 100-400 much heavier, for one thing. So lenses play a big role. Other considerations besides DR.
AmbientMike wrote:
Why not recommended the 5DsR, a camera that can take great photographs?
Um.
Photographers, not cameras, take photographs.
Cameras by themselves do diddly squat. Well, they get dusty, and they might rust and rot on the inside. Then again thats really the atmosphere at work.
And I dont get why you need a 5Ds[R] to take great photographs, while that is apparently not possible with a D850.
I use both. If the most suitable lens, for the task, is one of my Canon lenses, well, I will probably use the 5Ds R, assuming that there is enough light available. If high ISO is required, of one of our* Nikon-mount lenses is more-suited, I will probably use the D850. The 5Ds R is “hungry” for light! The D850 can do amazing things in lower light, and with higher ISO settings.
When shooting hand-held, the 5Ds R “demands” that I use lenses with Image Stabilization. The D850 seems noticeably more forgiving, to the degree that the D850 is a good general-purpose camera, if one pay attention to good technique.
Canon was my original primary system, and I have stayed with Canon because of specific lenses, especially my pair of the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS, the Macro Ring Lite II flash, which has no modern Nikon counterpart, and my several quite-weather-ressistant 600EX-series Speedlites. (Nikon Speedlights were surpassed, by Canon Speedlights, about 2012, with the introduction of the 580EX II.) It is a good thing that Canon makes good Speedlites, because the 5Ds R “demands” ample lighting. (I did my best to build the best kit, for evidentiary/forensic/crime scene photography, in the 2010-2017 time frame. The 5Ds R’s 50MP files were found to be a bit much for my employer’s proprietary software, so, I generally used 7D Mark II cameras, until I retired in 2018.)
I consider the D850 to be the best DSLR in the world. I consider the 5Ds R to be a very useful DSLR, for specific times and places.
I am certainly not any kind of expert, and have never claimed to be a “professional” photographer.
bernardl wrote:
Sure, but the initial question was about Canon or Nikon. I mentioned Sony to illustrate the fact that DR was widely perceived as a key performance aspect of cameras.
I tried Sony for a couple of years and the reasons why I decided to give up and keep Nikon as my main system were lenses rendering, offering and colors filtration. My friends don’t need T/S lenses or teles and seem to have found ways to overcome colors (and the a1 is clearly better colorwise). And anyways they clearly thought that DR was more important. My friends aren’t the only ones, a large majority of Sony photographers come from a Canon background.
All things considered Nikon offers the best compromise for me:
- best DR and colors
- great AF (now also in mirrorless)
- great lenses line up from wide to tele with again a focus on both technical qualities and look
I understand what you are saying in terms of the importance of light and timing and many great images were indeed captured with Velvia. I shoot 8x10 still and have kept my Pentax 1 degree spotmeter although I have the latest Sekonic also.
But there are also great images to be captured at other times and I don’t see why I should limit my options by shooting Canon when Nikon offers it all? I understand that some photographers are managing to make Canon work for them and decided that switching system was too much of a pain, but why advise others to go in that direction in 2022?
And I'm just not that into spec wars anymore. I look at the sites, definitely, but it really gets on my nerves that people think they need the latest greatest camera.
It is at least partly laughable that I picked the Rebel XT over the D70 in part due to iq when I first got into digital. Seriously, how much difference is there? But the Canon took the mf Nikon lenses better, surprisingly, and that turned out to be a big deal
If you are shooting at ISO 64, that is probably on a tripod (not sure how that relates to a Sony at 50, I've read not "supposed" to do Sony at 50.) So if DR is important to you, couldn't you just shoot one at EV +2 or something and get better DR blending the photos? But you have to wonder if the current emphasis on DR is because really, what could Sony market? Couldn't push pro builds or lens lineup. DR kinda all they had, now everyone has lost their mind on DR, or so it seems at times. If you need it, fine I guess but I'm usually at 800+, where it apparently evens out among brands
AmbientMike wrote:
And I'm just not that into spec wars anymore. I look at the sites, definitely, but it really gets on my nerves that people think they need the latest greatest camera.
It is at least partly laughable that I picked the Rebel XT over the D70 in part due to iq when I first got into digital. Seriously, how much difference is there? But the Canon took the mf Nikon lenses better, surprisingly, and that turned out to be a big deal
If you are shooting at ISO 64, that is probably on a tripod (not sure how that relates to a Sony at 50, I've read not "supposed" to do Sony at 50.) So if DR is important to you, couldn't you just shoot one at EV +2 or something and get better DR blending the photos? But you have to wonder if the current emphasis on DR is because really, what could Sony market? Couldn't push pro builds or lens lineup. DR kinda all they had, now everyone has lost their mind on DR, or so it seems at times. If you need it, fine I guess but I'm usually at 800+, where it apparently evens out among brands ...Show more →
The thing is that DR isn't really a spec, it even isn't clearly published by camera manufacturers.
The push for high DR sensor is coming from photographers who noticed that Nikon cameras gave them much cleaner files. Then they noticed that similar performance was available in Sony cameras and that their Canon lenses worked well on Sony bodies. So they bought a Sony body to try, saw the difference for themselves and typically sold their Canon bodies, keeping the lenses and then replacing them little by little by FE mount lenses, sometimes Sony, often third party.
Sure, you can do HDR, but it's one costly additional process step and why bother when you can get the same thing in one shot?
Again, if you have Canon equipment that works for you, great. The point isn't to push anyone to move away from Canon. The point is to provide objective information to people facing a choice. And today there is just zero reason to choose the 5Dr if you are not invested in Canon lenses.
bernardl wrote:
The thing is that DR isn't really a spec, it even isn't clearly published by camera manufacturers.
The push for high DR sensor is coming from photographers who noticed that Nikon cameras gave them much cleaner files. Then they noticed that similar performance was available in Sony cameras and that their Canon lenses worked well on Sony bodies. So they bought a Sony body to try, saw the difference for themselves and typically sold their Canon bodies, keeping the lenses and then replacing them little by little by FE mount lenses, sometimes Sony, often third party.
Sure, you can do HDR, but it's one costly additional process step and why bother when you can get the same thing in one shot?
Again, if you have Canon equipment that works for you, great. The point isn't to push anyone to move away from Canon. The point is to provide objective information to people facing a choice. And today there is just zero reason to choose the 5Dr if you are not invested in Canon lenses.
It's still the 2nd highest resolution camera. Actually ahead of the nikon's. A 50mp ff sensor is hardly irrelevant.
I suppose one could argue there's no point to to the D750 & D810 since they both have less resolution than the 5DsR. D750 and D810 owners might disagree with that, though, looking at the popular thread now.
Is there any point to Sony in your view? I'm not interested in giving up color for DR at this time, and it looks like Canon has better color. Not usually much point in a high DR photo that looks bad. I have definitely seen the amount of DR mentioned in advertisements
The Sony colors have been improved very significantly since the a7sIII and a1. To me they are now very close to Nikon and Canon colorwise.
And I would agree with you 100%, there is no point in recommending anyone with enough budget to buy a D750 or D810 compared to a D850 or Z7II. Now if budget is not available then these are very reasonable options to consider. And I would personnally clearly prefer a D810 over a 5Dr, even if it has lower resolution.
About 50mp vs 45mp, this is completely irrelevant compared to other aspects.
G Dan Mitchell - is correct - it does not matter. You are asking about two of the finest digital cameras ever made, and both of them record beautiful images.
Daniel Smith wrote:
Am looking at getting a higher MP camera for some work. At times I do need to adjust shadow detail more than I like.
Both of these cameras are good with the Nikon being newer.
Looking mainly at lower ISO settings - other than night Northern Light photos at 1600 ISO.
Will the Nikon do a cleaner job for this than the 5DsR?
No going to be enlarging to 30 inches and bigger so not really a consideration. Just whether one will give me cleaner images than the other.
