sebjmatthews
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
|
There's no reason to expect to get noticeably different image quality when shooting the same scene with a 5DSR and an R5 [at most ISOs. Any difference in portrait rendering is more likely due to the lighting, styling, file processing and/or lens used.
I've had the 5DSR in years past and currently have an R5, and I couldn't possibly spot the difference between the images under ISO 3200 and normal viewing sizes/distances, although if you really pixel-peep then at ISO 100 the 5DSR is a fraction better than the R5; not only do you have that tiny resolution difference and no AA filter (though the R5's AA filter is very weak), but there's less 'baked in' noise reduction in the 5DSR. (Yes, the R5 enforces some noise reduction even if you shoot raw and even at ISO 100.)
On the other side of that, the R5 is, unsurprisingly, cleaner and retains more latitude and dynamic range at ISO 3200-6400. I used to be happy to use the 5DSR up to ISO 1600 without problem and 3200 if I was desperate—though now my standards are probably a bit higher and I might not tolerate that at all these days—while the R5 I'm happy to use at ISO 6400 if I have no other options.
In other words, I consider the image quality to be negligibly better on the 5DSR at ISO 100, it's a dead tie from 200-2500, the R5 has a slight advantage at 3200, and at 6400 I find the R5 barely acceptable while the 5DSR was, in my opinion, completely useless.
(For reference, there isn't a single camera in the world which I consider clean enough to use at 12800+, and the only cameras that I've used that I'd rate better at 6400 than the R5 are the R3 and the GFX100. Of course, your own tolerances for noise, colour fidelity and so on may vary, and so you may tolerate higher/lower ISOs than I do.)
I haven't had the 5DSR in a few years, so I may not remember the focus and other functionality with 100% accuracy, but as I remember it, single-point focus was just as good as on the R5. In my experience the R5's various tracking modes are too-easily fooled and unreliable, so I only use them sporadically and would not consider them a major enough difference to choose it over the 5DSR. Much like ISO, it's a compromise. The R5 doesn't need MFA and when it does actually lock-on to what I want, it is a much slicker experience than with any SLR. On the other hand, the 5DSR (and any other SLR, frankly) was more consistent in operation, so even though it feels a bit cruder and you need to tweak every lens to focus perfectly, at least it never thought a bit of cloud was an eyeball!
Everything else is a matter of personal preference. Some people adore the EVF, others prefer an OVF; I could go either way depending on the shooting scenario, and for portraits it doesn't make the slightest difference to me. Some people are bothered about the R5's battery life, while others will be more bothered by the 5DSR's size. Some people will find the 5DSR too slow, others will find they never get any use out of the R5's speed or even find it harder to control.
Which is all to say, if someone took my R5 away today and gave me a 5DSR again instead, it wouldn't really make a practical difference to me. They're very, very even.
Since OP has an R5 anyway, I see no really compelling reason to get a 5DSR. By the same token, if someone had a 5DSR and was thinking of getting an R5, I'd tell them there's not much point, either.
If you've seen some portraits you really like the look of, as far as gear goes you should check what lens was used, and what (if any) filters. Also consider the lighting, make up, posing, and processing. All of those things can be copied by anyone using any camera body. I would never credit a portrait's appeal to the particular camera body that was used. Camera bodies can make a helluva difference to wildlife and landscape photography, but for portraits the camera body is just about the least relevant part.
Case in point, I recently saw some portraits by Arisak, a Japanese fashion photographer. Her subject matter isn't to my taste—a bit too 'weird for the sake of weird'—but her shooting style is fantastic to me and all her images really jump out. She uses a 5D mark IV and Sigma f/2.8 zooms. Given she's a studio shooter, she's probably always at base ISO; an R5 or a 5DSR would blow away the 5D4's image quality at ISO 100. Similarly, the latest generation of Canon L f/2.8 zooms blow away the Sigmas. She shoots for GQ and Vogue, so clearly she could get the 'better' gear if she really wanted. But does it really matter? She may be using B-tier lenses and an 'out-of-date', lower-resolution camera, but her picture quality sure blows anything I've ever done way out of the water. That's entirely down to her lighting, her posing, how she directs the stylists, and how she edits. The fact she has 'only' 30mp with a heavy AA filter, and third-party zooms at apertures past the diffraction limit, doesn't mean her photos are lacking anything. Handing her an R5 or 5DSR probably would not change a single thing about her results.
Don't bank on buying another toy to automatically make your portraits more captivating. A lens will make a bit more difference than a body, but it'll still be small. Lighting will make more of a difference than any lens or body. Styling will make a huge difference. Editing makes a gigantic difference. Posing and composition makes the biggest difference.
|
