Equipment & Techniques > Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear
5ds or 5dsr - my findings
carl dw:
I tried to add this to the previous 5ds or 5dsr thread but it's locked.
A couple of weeks ago I borrowed both bodies from my local camera shop to test side by side before making a decision. I was set up to do some copy work, a nice controlled environment where I could take my time and see what the difference in sharpness was for myself.
Shot with a Zeiss ZE Macro, the additional clarity of the 5dsr is quite clear in the attached copies. It gives the impression of a little extra bite of acutance. I resisted the temptation to sharpen too much so they do look like they could both stomach a tad more - they both had equal amounts.
I also tried to make some moire with both cameras but was unsuccessful with the conditions/subjects I often shoot.
I went for the 5dsr without hesitation, if you're going to have to deal with 50-70Mb RAWs and 144Mb TIFs you might as well have the best possible image from the onset. Full fat for me please waiter.
I previously spent years shooting transparency so I didn't waste time deliberating the over discussed limitations of Canon sensor dynamic range; any camera that shoots RAW has more dynamic range than I actually need to produce commercial images.
Hope this maybe helps someone else who's on the fence.
Carl
Guillermo Luijk:
Bear in mind that a part (difficult to quantify but real) of the extra sharpness perceived when the AA filter is suppressed, is produced by a high frequency interference caused by the absence of proper AA filtering. In other words, a part of the extra sharpness is a form of noise, not real detail. This will not only happen when periodic patterns close to the Nyquist limit appear on the scene, but also everytime fine detail is captured, like in a landscape (tree leaves, rock or sand textures, grass,...).
The image on the right looks sharper:
I just added noise to the image on the left.
Regards
carl dw:
--- Quote from: Guillermo Luijk on February 10, 2016, 02:36:53 pm ---Bear in mind that a part (difficult to quantify but real) of the extra sharpness perceived when the AA filter is suppressed, is produced by a high frequency interference caused by the absence of proper AA filtering. In other words, a part of the extra sharpness is a form of noise, not real detail. This will not only happen when periodic patterns close to the Nyquist limit appear on the scene, but also everytime fine detail is captured, like in a landscape (tree leaves, rock or sand textures, grass,...).
The image on the right looks sharper:
I just added noise to the image on the left.
Regards
--- End quote ---
Hi Guillermo,
Thank you for your reply. I've read many of your threads and replies with great interest for quite a while and I have the upmost respect for your technical knowledge.
I have to confess that the science behind digital image making (like women) is a mystery to me. I take photos and people are kind enough to give me money for my efforts, it's the way it's been for the last 25 years in my life. I leave the development of hardware to those clever chaps predominantly in Japan who never cease to amaze me with their ability to deliver things I never knew I needed... as well as their comical marketing strategies that seem to believe I'm of no relevance.
Looking carefully at your example I'm seeing an image on the right that looks like the image on the left but with less detail because of the noise. That seems quite different from what I'm seeing in my own examples with and without the cancelling filter. I'm not sure how the addition of noise can add detail to an image, maybe perceived sharpness, but not detail.
On reflection maybe I should of used the term "additional detail" as opposed to sharper, is that what you were meaning? - my apologies for the ambiguity if that is so, I was simply trying to illustrate the difference in a controlled but practical situation.
Ignoring the clever science if I may for a second, my migration through digital imaging started with an Imacon 3020 then moved to a 10D, 1Ds2, 1Ds3, 5D3 with 1DX now complimented by the 5DsR.... the 5DsR is the first camera to re-excite my enthusiasm for stills since my 1Ds2. Stuff looks great with a 5DsR, and that's all that matters to me and the people who pay me at the end of the day.
Kindest regards,
Carl
dwswager:
--- Quote from: carl dw on February 10, 2016, 12:35:25 pm ---Shot with a Zeiss ZE Macro, the additional clarity of the 5dsr is quite clear in the attached copies. It gives the impression of a little extra bite of acutance. I resisted the temptation to sharpen too much so they do look like they could both stomach a tad more - they both had equal amounts.
I also tried to make some moire with both cameras but was unsuccessful with the conditions/subjects I often shoot.
I went for the 5dsr without hesitation, if you're going to have to deal with 50-70Mb RAWs and 144Mb TIFs you might as well have the best possible image from the onset. Full fat for me please waiter.
I previously spent years shooting transparency so I didn't waste time deliberating the over discussed limitations of Canon sensor dynamic range; any camera that shoots RAW has more dynamic range than I actually need to produce commercial images.
--- End quote ---
Yes, the comparative advantages of AA filter or not is fairly well documented.
Your last two points are trade offs. That is, the deficiency of the Canon sensor, which extends beyond just the DR disadvantage to the Sony sensor, was accepted in trade for more pixels. In some situations that is a good trade and other not. Both the pixel advantage and DR and Noise disadvantages are not large, but reasonable. However, it really depends on what type of images you make, under what conditions, and what output size and media are targeted as to whether the trade is good (all else being equal).
Given the list of Canon cameras you rolled off though, I more inclined to believe your choice was based on the inability to overcome inertia than any actual comparison between available alternatives. Don't get me wrong, we all have that same consideration when selecting our NEXT camera body as opposed to our FIRST camera body. But, it would be less disingenuous to have just said, I wanted the highest resolution Canon camera I could buy because it meets my needs.
NancyP:
An investment in lenses is a serious consideration when contemplating a switch. O for the days of M42 standard mount, used by many brands of camera.... ;) (not really, screw mounts were a pain to change if you were in a real hurry - plus I doubt that screw mounts could work for electrical connections).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version