Canon 5D Mark IV vs 5DS primary use Architectural and Landscape

[Ghaag]

I was hoping to get some insight from someone who may have already gone down this road.  I am interested in how the Canon 5D Mark IV compares to the 5DS for use in Architectural and Landscape.
Thank in advance,
Greg

[Jack Hogan]

I am interested in how the Canon 5D Mark IV compares to the 5DS for use in Architectural and Landscape.

Assuming a tripod is involved it's apparently mainly a resolution (DS) vs dynamic range (MIV) toss, not dramatic either way.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I was hoping to get some insight from someone who may have already gone down this road.  I am interested in how the Canon 5D Mark IV compares to the 5DS for use in Architectural and Landscape.

Hi,

As Jack said, and what are the output requirements?

Cheers,
Bart

[Rhossydd]

I was hoping to get some insight from someone who may have already gone down this road.

Given that the camera has only been sold for four days so far, I think you're asking too soon.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I think that Jack is right. The 5DIV sensor has new technology (on sensor column ADSs) that gives better DR.

If you need the extra resolution the 5Ds/5DsR may be preferable, but 30 MP is absolutely quite a lot of pixels. If you print A1 or smaller I am not sure you would note the difference. If you print large I would go with 5Ds/5DsR. (This is based on the fact that I could not see an observable difference between 24 MP (Sony) and 39 MP(P45+) in A2 size prints but at A1 size the P45+ pulled ahead.)

Best regards
Erik

Assuming a tripod is involved it's apparently mainly a resolution (DS) vs dynamic range (MIV) toss, not dramatic either way.

[Ghibby]

With Architecture and Landscape I feel that resolution is more significant that the bump in DR that will be provided by the MkIV.  The 5Ds does not handle shadows that badly, up to the 1Dx2 and now 5DmkIV its was comfortable the best canon in this regard.  Buildings don't tend to move, sure than landscape is a bit more dynamic at times but with both disciplines in the vast majority of scenarios you will have the time to make use of grad filters etc which to all intents and nullify the DR advantage on offer.  I have been using my 5Ds for commercial architecture and very occasional landscape for the last year or so and I have to say it is superb, right in its element.

Look at it this way, if you are shooting with 5Ds and use a 24mm TSE lens you can take a major crop from this, like 1.3x giving you the equivalent of apx 35mm focal length at the same resolution as the 5DmkIV.  In my opinion there is no contest, 5Ds all the way!

Ben

[Ghaag]

Ben and Erik, thank you both for your insight it was very helpful!

[Phil Indeblanc]

For landscape I think the R version is important, specially if printing large.
The milky fuzzy AA filter cuts your sharpness and the definition.
I would get the A7R2 . You get the DR and the large file size and a sharper image. Focusing is not a big issue, travels slightly better, cheaper....A thought

[Ghaag]

For landscape I think the R version is important, specially if printing large.
The milky fuzzy AA filter cuts your sharpness and the definition.
I would get the A7R2 . You get the DR and the large file size and a sharper image. Focusing is not a big issue, travels slightly better, cheaper....A thought

Phil, thanks for you insight!  I just ordered the 5DS R, can't wait to shoot with it.

[Ghibby]

Greg, I think you made the right choice in the EOS 5Ds, not doubt you will enjoy using it immensely.

While there is no doubt the Sony A7R2 offers great IQ and a lot of system flexibility, none of this makes up for the crappy ergonomics of the camera, this is the one area in camera design where Canon and Nikon are still way ahead of Sony in my opinion. 

Phil, I count not disagree more about the milky AA comments though!  The impact in sharpness with the AA on a high res camera like the 5Ds is miniscule and the headaches with aliasing and especially false colour in a lot of image scenarios such as foliage, repeating patterns etc are are total pain to deal with. And you always spot them after you output JPEGS or just before submitting images, sods law ensures this!  I for one hope Canon and all the camera manufactures for that matter keep selling cameras with the AA filters, or at least offer the choice.  Personally I prefer the look of images with AA filtered cameras, false colour being a real pet hate - especially in foliage, and in practice it is not as easy to deal with in software as it should be. Also as the resolution gets higher the perceived impact of the AA filter diminishes for a given output size.  At the 20-24MP resolutions the impact was more noticeable in terms of sharpness on big prints but at 50mp it is to all intents and purposes non existent, and easily mitigated with good sharpening techniques.   

Canon tend to use fairly weak AA filtration too.  I often get little bits of false colour and moire in my architectural shots with my 5Ds and before that with my 5Dmk2 so they are not in reality blurring much detail away in real world scenarios.  Also with 50mp your technique has to be spot on to make use of the full resolution, by the time you hit the diffraction limiting apertures of about f8 (arguably sooner) the effects of diffraction in your lens soon make up for the lack of the AA filter.  In practice the gain in apparent sharpness is simply not going to manifest in most of your shots as often as the problems of false colour and moire.

Sorry to ramble on, but that's my 2 cents worth! It's great that the camera market place is so full of products of such quality that these little things can even ignite debate though.

Enjoy the weekend,
Ben

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Phil, I count not disagree more about the milky AA comments though!  The impact in sharpness with the AA on a high res camera like the 5Ds is miniscule and the headaches with aliasing and especially false colour in a lot of image scenarios such as foliage, repeating patterns etc are are total pain to deal with.

Hi Ben,

Fully agree. While the dense sampling of these very high resolution sensors help to reduce the likelihood of aliasing caused by the inability to resolve even finer detail, we still have the (relatively much) coarser differences in the Bayer CFA resolution between the R/B and G color planes. To give the Raw converter a fighting chance to improve color reconstruction for each pixel, an Optical Low-Pass Filter is mandatory. It also helps to further reduce the small risk of aliasing on the finest of detail in the shallow plane of best focus. Anybody familiar with Digital Signal Processing (DSP) knows that discrete sampling of analog signals needs a low-pass filtering before sampling to reduce aliasing artifacts.

The slight loss of resolution (loss of microcontrast) can usually be restored to being hardly visible, assuming proper Capture sharpening is used. Unfiltered images can be harder to sharpen (because the enlarged artifacts get sharpened as well).  All captures need sharpening anyway, because the Capture process is inherently blurry (lens aberrations), so it helps to improve the artifact free quality.

Cheers,
Bart

[Phil Indeblanc]

We have discussed this before, and we see the strong advantage of MF NOT having a AA filter. Its why a 10 year old Kodak DSRL Pro image looks amazing in the right conditions (not a mature chip to handle direct light well).
D800E was such a IQ success, due to no AA. I have done side by side tests and I stand firmly in what my eyes tell me in real world use. Moire is not a reason to apply a AA filter.
The 5DsR actually still has a filter, it uses a couple filters plus a blank one for the AA. Mostly for the Self Clean feature.
Imagine Phase and other MFDB using a filter, they would get farther away from the reason why we love them and their IQ.

If Canon and others would just make it a option to somehow engineer it to slide out and back in when for what ever reason someone needs it, it would at least help.

AA filters are what kill fine sharpening detail, you cannot get back in post without doing further editing. The images have better contrast and definition. This is an observable fact.

I have yet to have any MFDB give me the issues your talking about, and I have used them for over 10 years.

[Gandalf]

This is a bit pointless since you have already weighed in, but I think you need to consider the business use case for each camera, as well as how you light. If you are a traditional arch shooter (still image, often displayed large, carefully light everything) the 5DsR is the way to go. If you are a little more casual in your lighting and fix it in post, your images are usually web only, or (and I think there is a lot of potential here) you want to add motion to your offering -- e.g. walk around with a Ronin, the Mark IV is the way to go. For the second use case you would have to light with continuous light.

[Phil Indeblanc]

This is a bit pointless since you have already weighed in, but I think you need to consider the business use case for each camera, as well as how you light. If you are a traditional arch shooter (still image, often displayed large, carefully light everything) the 5DsR is the way to go. If you are a little more casual in your lighting and fix it in post, your images are usually web only, or (and I think there is a lot of potential here) you want to add motion to your offering -- e.g. walk around with a Ronin, the Mark IV is the way to go. For the second use case you would have to light with continuous light.

Thanks for you as well as other chiming in.

Its a true and good point. I use the MFDB for the product work, and although I light somewhat carefully (volume, timeline, budget can play a roll)
the PhaseOne P25 back gives plenty room for the range of my corrections in lighting. I am looking for larger files.
Thats why the A7RII and the 5DsR I have considered, and was wishing the MarkIV without an AA, as 30mpixels is borderline, but maybe enough.
But since I have a MarkIII, its a tough justice to upgrade.

Maybe the A7RII .....or maybe wait for the 5DsR II?
I think it would also "replace being my travel camera :-)
I know, there I go with adapting use with less specific tasks.