Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: 5ds vs 5d "classic"  (Read 2550 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10998
    • Echophoto
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #40 on: May 13, 2018, 01:58:10 AM »

Hi,

Latecomer to this discussion, but I have found that 12 MP was quite OK for 16"x23" size prints. I have noticed this when I switched from 12MP APS-C to 24 MP on 24x36 mm. There was a large difference pixel peeping the files, but there was astonishingly little difference in the prints.

That said, I could tell the prints apart, in two cases out of three. The third one was indistinguishable.

The advantage in the files does transfer to prints. If the difference is obvious depends on a few factors:
  • Eyesight of the observer
  • Viewing distance
  • Processing
The way things work, if the lens delivers a lot of detail that the sensor cannot resolve the excess detail will be converted to low frequency artifacts. To avoid it, sensors normally have a Optical Low Pass filter, often called AA (Anti Aliasing) filter. But, the AA-filter reduces MTF (microcontrast) for all detail. So, sharpening would be applied to compensate for that. Having more pixels the OLP will have less effect, so you may need less sharpening.

A third effect is that a pixel obviously smears the image, that also results in loss of MTF. So smaller pixels will yield a sharper image. But, proper sharpening can also compensate for that.

So a properly processed image from a 12MP image may good look, even side to side with an 50MP image, but the 50MP image will need far less processing.

It is often said that 180 PPI is needed for a good print. How many megapixels is that for a 16"x23" print? It is 16 * 180 * 23 *180 /1e6 -> 11.9 MP!

The above explains a bit why you can get excellent prints from 12MP. But if you want to print larger and view close you will need more pixels.

Best regards
Erik

I thought I would "ask the audience" on this one.

I've had a 5D 12mpx since 2008.  It seems to make nice prints up to 24 inches wide or so.

And I just bought a used 5ds, thinking that it would be quite a bit more detailed at 50mpx.

But, after a few test frames, I can certainly see the difference, but it's not overwhelming me.  And I do have 6x9 medium format film cameras as well.

So, those of you with more experience with a 50mpx camera, I want to ask you is the 5ds worth the almost $3000 that it cost me?

I can return the 5ds to b&h if I want to. 

Also, the 5Ds has the shaking dust cleaner and perhaps better high ISO performance.  Would that make the upgrade worth all this money?

Thanks so much for your responses!!!!!
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #41 on: May 13, 2018, 07:31:43 AM »


So a properly processed image from a 12MP image may good look, even side to side with an 50MP image, but the 50MP image will need far less processing.

It is often said that 180 PPI is needed for a good print. How many megapixels is that for a 16"x23" print? It is 16 * 180 * 23 *180 /1e6 -> 11.9 MP!

The above explains a bit why you can get excellent prints from 12MP. But if you want to print larger and view close you will need more pixels.

Best regards
Erik
Exactly. The sense of my previous posts.

We are printing here at 240 PPI for uprezzed gallery compliant for big sizes. The viewing distance is normally not problematic up to 2 meters and even art buyer's profile generally has cash and big walls to hang them on their homes or the compagnies they own. I often found myself to be the only stupid one looking close at a print in an art gallery.

But 40+ gives also room for reframing and stick with more interesting aspect-ratios.

Pixel shift technology is also evolving at high speed coupled with stab, in the latest firmware Sony reduced the interval to 0.5 sec.  Not quite there yet but each time better. I beleive more in this path when it comes to the future of resolution, than feeding fixed sensor's size with more dots.

I join some samples of my former Fine Arts teacher. Huge prints, (and heavy supports!! having manipulated them, you need 4 guys) hanged on museums and galleries. No where near the reso of a 5Ds.



This next one was actually at the Fine Art entrance hall itself.






« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 07:47:01 AM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #42 on: May 13, 2018, 11:00:00 AM »

Looks like I have too many pixels now... but it can't hurt :)))). Now to figure out these auto focus modes!
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #43 on: May 13, 2018, 01:50:46 PM »

Thanks a lot for your time and presence Bruce. I always learn a lot from you in this forum, and that is priceless. ;)



And thanks for your point of view too!
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

SuperNiceNina

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2018, 02:36:47 AM »

Hopefully this helps.

My camera history over the past ten years or so is Canon EOS 3 > Mamiya RZ > Canon 5D > Canon 5D Mk2. Cameras are tools; an artists paint brush if you like. A good paint brush helps get the paint on canvas easily, but they alone do not make the picture.

The 5D2 is a marked improvement on the 5D, better file fidelity. I shoot landscapes and architecture so many of the bells and whistles that comes with a modern digital camera is superfluous to me. All I want is a tool that delivers a quality image and that in practice can out perform me. I never want to worry about technical shortcomings. I want to be free to get the picture—the camera takes the picture that I want to make.

A couple of years ago I wondered if upgrading to a 5DS would bring enough benefits to justify the investment. Courtesy of Canon I spent a day using both the 5DS & 5DS R along with my existing glass and Canons latest lens – all L series. I swapped between my 5D2 and the 5DS’s and various glass taking a series of real world shots.

Bottom line was that I could not detect sufficient improvement to warrant spending lots of money. The 5D2 works very well and I suspect that 24 Mpx with reasonably sized photocells is getting on for optimum with the current state of the technology.  If you MUST make large crops the additional real estate will help. Remember also for big prints the viewing distance is greater and therefore resolution is not hyper critical. I consider the 5D2 file quality to be equal or better than 120 (6x7cm) fine grain film stock expertly scanned. I once shot Windsor Castle on 120 film stock that was enlarged to a cross tracks London underground poster (18ft x 9ft) and the quality was excellent.

Bells and whistles only serve to increase a camera’s versatility. They do not make better pictures—that is the photographer’s job.
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #45 on: May 14, 2018, 04:22:06 AM »

Hopefully this helps.

My camera history over the past ten years or so is Canon EOS 3 > Mamiya RZ > Canon 5D > Canon 5D Mk2. Cameras are tools; an artists paint brush if you like. A good paint brush helps get the paint on canvas easily, but they alone do not make the picture.

The 5D2 is a marked improvement on the 5D, better file fidelity. I shoot landscapes and architecture so many of the bells and whistles that comes with a modern digital camera is superfluous to me. All I want is a tool that delivers a quality image and that in practice can out perform me. I never want to worry about technical shortcomings. I want to be free to get the picture—the camera takes the picture that I want to make.

A couple of years ago I wondered if upgrading to a 5DS would bring enough benefits to justify the investment. Courtesy of Canon I spent a day using both the 5DS & 5DS R along with my existing glass and Canons latest lens – all L series. I swapped between my 5D2 and the 5DS’s and various glass taking a series of real world shots.

Bottom line was that I could not detect sufficient improvement to warrant spending lots of money. The 5D2 works very well and I suspect that 24 Mpx with reasonably sized photocells is getting on for optimum with the current state of the technology.  If you MUST make large crops the additional real estate will help. Remember also for big prints the viewing distance is greater and therefore resolution is not hyper critical. I consider the 5D2 file quality to be equal or better than 120 (6x7cm) fine grain film stock expertly scanned. I once shot Windsor Castle on 120 film stock that was enlarged to a cross tracks London underground poster (18ft x 9ft) and the quality was excellent.

Bells and whistles only serve to increase a camera’s versatility. They do not make better pictures—that is the photographer’s job.
I would say that 10-25% of my photographs can benefit from higher resolution. But I never know when that will be :). So, for now, it’s 50mpx for me!

Poetry is not my fort...
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #46 on: May 14, 2018, 11:14:20 AM »

What is sure is that 50Mpx can't be bad to have and
One can always downgrade if needed in capture.
It's better to have more than less because it's there.
We don't need features until we need them, and according to Bruce's requirements he's gona need it 20% of the time, which is a lot.

I also do think that optimum balanced reso size for a FF is arround 20ish mpx.
BUT what do I meant by "balance": taking into consideration the speed and high isos perf into the equation.
This is why the 1dx mk2 is 20. But it does not target high res shooters requirements but photojournalists instead.
More reso means loosing speed and insane low light perf, slows down the transfer etc...
For certain pros that aren't as much concerned by
Speed, data transfer and higher isos, it is an appealing equation. And 50 means reframing margin also.
Commercialy the 5ds philosophy makes sense.
Will a 1dx mk2 uprezzed to 50 stands still next to a 5ds? Yes but it will require post the 5ds does not require, and in post things can go wrong.
And the 1d costs 5000. It's an overall better camera in so many aspects just like the D5 is to Nikon, but not as good as the 5ds in its particular terrain: resolution in-camera.
The 1d will still operate in conditions the 5d will breake, it will focus when the 5d will hunt and get the shot where with the 5d the oportunity has gone 5 mins ago, but the 5d costs 2000 less for 2x reso!
(Hey,  built quality has a cost and the Sony aren't particularly built to the 1d standards either to be honest).

The OP question was more oriented IMO towards if it was worth the 3000
Investement and that becomes a very personal question with
Many variables. Considering also
That his current lenses will not suit a Sony mirrorless because they are aged, which would have been an ideal solution,
I think in the end the 5ds choice has been a correct one. He can't go wrong with.


By the way: does someone knows if it's normal that the pics in Facebook have a magenta tint when viewed
On the wall and when click on the pic it's been removed and the photo looks fine?
This is kind of irritating. Is it me having magenta visions or FB wall is like that ?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 05:05:43 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18528
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #47 on: May 14, 2018, 04:14:04 PM »

The stupid choice for Canon in those models is that
They did not enabled the dual pixels technology, which
Makes a huge difference in what AF experience is concerned.
To keep price "low" maybe? Or they thought that the target will
Be mostly the landscapers and product shooters, audience that
Is more conservative on high performance/reliability AF.
And tethers often.

Title: don't sign the cheque yet
Anyway. As it seems that Bruce is on testing mode, why not open the paradigm
And test some high resolution mirrorlesses also?
I mean that DSLR is a dead-end road and where R&D, refinement and sophistication happens
Is in the mirrorless technology.
Before choosing this Canon once for awhile, I'd test a Sony mirrorless.
Because Canon will progressively abandon the dslr market.

People have put side by side 80Mpx from a Pana G9 next to Hasselblad and the img quality matches.
It's no joke and well documented. (Sony has similar capability).
The cam is built under military standards, really weather sealed in a package that is 1/2 the size of a 1d...
It shows the potential of mirrorless technology in the hands of big companies.
Sony does high reso FF mirrorless (not so well built-like-tank than the G9) but still smaller, lighter and
Way more sophisticated than the Canon DSLRs.

If in testing mode, I would not precipitate on a one way ticket but try the Sony before deciding as cost is about the same.
You might be very surprised and change your mind.

2 other considerations.
1) A 2 sides of the coin regarding Sony is that there are tons of parameters
In relation with profiles. As a result, many tempted users with unproper knowledge set the values weirdly and problems
Occur (cast, gamma and sharpening issues etc...). But as you have the knowledge on colour science,
That becomes an advantage in the right hands because you can really
Shape the camera and look as you want and make it behave your way. It just requires profiles with your background expertise be used at its full potential.

2) tons of Sony users use their Canon glasses with no issues.
And oh yeah...stabilisation! It changes a lot.
6.5 stops on the G9 is true and no marketing claim.
The Sony about 5 stops...that's a lot not to be ignored.

Watch this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QfFxbFJ9jdM

3) the sensor size has not changed. Baking more mpx in the very same surface in capture does not mean that much except that it avoids post prod. There is a conssens on a "magic" number in what FF is concerned which is arround
24 Mpx as a well balanced performances included higher isos and also the upsampling
Capacities. I see a lot of difference in upsampling from a 12mpx D2x compared to a D800. But that vanishes by a big margin when upsampling a D610. And it's not Fred's claim. You can do the tests.
While the sensor size is not bigger, the differences are engineering tricks and they are pushing
Limits but loose on higher isos. We don't need high isos until we need them...
My point is that between Sony 40ish mpx and 50, there is no difference.
But an better balanced perf is 24mpx. Sony has both 40 / 24 mpx.
There is no magic. If we really want high rezzz top quality it's MF or pixel shift tech..

4) those high res FF on steroids are not that suitable for people, street and reportage with humans, included
On big enlargements because it deshumanise a lot and you end with pores and autopsy details,
As Rob pointed. And then they all go crazy with frequency separation to clean all that crap.
The make-up becomes critical, often hugly if not perfectly executed.
We were doing big fashion prints with a 6mpx Fujifilms (12mpx) some years ago for Art Galleries and thet were
Better than what you got with those high rezzz unless you downgrade on camera settings.
Because it doesn't look like scans or MF. It looks electronic. Again on what humans are concerned I put my bet on 24 Mpx.
Smaller pixels favorize lands and buildings but do not people where bigger pixels look more natural and not overdone.
Are you going to do landscapes only? Mmmmm



The focussing techniques shown in the video are very impressive. It would have revolutionised my life had all that been around when I was active. I don't know if the pix would have been any better, but it would all have been a lot faster.

Thank God it won't work well with Nikkors!

:-)

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2018, 01:45:45 PM »

What is sure is that 50Mpx can't be bad to have and
One can always downgrade if needed in capture.
It's better to have more than less because it's there.
We don't need features until we need them, and according to Bruce's requirements he's gona need it 20% of the time, which is a lot.

I also do think that optimum balanced reso size for a FF is arround 20ish mpx.
BUT what do I meant by "balance": taking into consideration the speed and high isos perf into the equation.
This is why the 1dx mk2 is 20. But it does not target high res shooters requirements but photojournalists instead.
More reso means loosing speed and insane low light perf, slows down the transfer etc...
For certain pros that aren't as much concerned by
Speed, data transfer and higher isos, it is an appealing equation. And 50 means reframing margin also.
Commercialy the 5ds philosophy makes sense.
Will a 1dx mk2 uprezzed to 50 stands still next to a 5ds? Yes but it will require post the 5ds does not require, and in post things can go wrong.
And the 1d costs 5000. It's an overall better camera in so many aspects just like the D5 is to Nikon, but not as good as the 5ds in its particular terrain: resolution in-camera.
The 1d will still operate in conditions the 5d will breake, it will focus when the 5d will hunt and get the shot where with the 5d the oportunity has gone 5 mins ago, but the 5d costs 2000 less for 2x reso!
(Hey,  built quality has a cost and the Sony aren't particularly built to the 1d standards either to be honest).

The OP question was more oriented IMO towards if it was worth the 3000
Investement and that becomes a very personal question with
Many variables. Considering also
That his current lenses will not suit a Sony mirrorless because they are aged, which would have been an ideal solution,
I think in the end the 5ds choice has been a correct one. He can't go wrong with.


By the way: does someone knows if it's normal that the pics in Facebook have a magenta tint when viewed
On the wall and when click on the pic it's been removed and the photo looks fine?
This is kind of irritating. Is it me having magenta visions or FB wall is like that ?
the magenta FB thing seems kind of weird. I’ve never seen it but I view Facebook on a Mac or iPhone only.

The 5ds seems pretty good so far. My only issue is that it wakes from sleep a little slowly..
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18528
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2018, 02:24:13 PM »

the magenta FB thing seems kind of weird. I’ve never seen it but I view Facebook on a Mac or iPhone only.

The 5ds seems pretty good so far. My only issue is that it wakes from sleep a little slowly..

Keep some coffee beans in its bag?

;-)

Rob

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #50 on: May 15, 2018, 02:58:11 PM »

the magenta FB thing seems kind of weird. I’ve never seen it but I view Facebook on a Mac or iPhone only.
I got the answer. It's the FB app in Android. Your FB site is fine and no magenta cast, I just checked in a calibrated Eizo (windows), and everything is as it should.
On Android browsers it displays fine also. However from the app in Android it's where the cast happens (it's subtle but clearly there) :o.
I checked other sites and same behaviour. It's the app only. Go figure!

My only issue is that it wakes from sleep a little slowly..
Haa!!
Now that you are made a landscape photographer and has a landscape photographer camera  :P ...
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #51 on: May 19, 2018, 05:10:00 AM »

I've finally started to use the camera :)  I never knew my lowly 24mm f2.8 was so sharp :)  Not sure it helps here but I thought after all this discussion I should post an example...

Post is 50% resolution as the file is too big to post at 100%
ISO 400
f4.0
1/250 sec
handheld
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #52 on: May 21, 2018, 06:17:47 AM »

I've finally started to use the camera :)  I never knew my lowly 24mm f2.8 was so sharp :)  Not sure it helps here but I thought after all this discussion I should post an example...

Post is 50% resolution as the file is too big to post at 100%
ISO 400
f4.0
1/250 sec
handheld
It prooves that some classic lenses can handle/show their full potential at those resolutions (apart from some color fringing here or there, nothing that can't be removed in post).
Something I knew already for the classic Leica R lenses mounted on Canon.
It's more problematic with longuer focal open, in the sense that the minimal focus error is going to be magnified so it is an operability question more than an optic one IMO.
But that already existed with lower res uprezzed, just that it was more forgiving, lost in the
Soupe of the overall less detailled images.
The question with classic and vintage lenses is that it is a bit of a case by case (not knowing the appropriate english expression) when mounted on high resolution digital cameras.
But the base from which people detect a lack of performances compared to modern glasses,
Designed on purpose to perform with current cameras, remains unclear because
Most of the time it comes from charts that have little if nothing to do with the reality.

For certain type of photo, like urban (people) with 50mm and above, when there is no second chance to get the shot, it's going to be more chalenging,
But hey, don't remember that you can push isos much more compared to the classic.
(Unfortunatly, higher Isos does not match the gain obtained by the latest
IS whose technology is a game changer).

It will be nice to have your findings with longuer focal lenses and when speed is required,
Because it's there IMO where you may encounter the more challenges. See how reliable is AF.
On the other hand, resolution can be parametered accordingly for the type of shooting.

I have a feeling that, for being a specialized camera, it's going to give you a lot of joy and
A few  >:( in some situations. It's almost like you had a MF in the end.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 09:01:02 AM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #53 on: May 21, 2018, 09:51:09 AM »

It prooves that some classic lenses can handle/show their full potential at those resolutions (apart from some color fringing here or there, nothing that can't be removed in post).
Something I knew already for the classic Leica R lenses mounted on Canon.
It's more problematic with longuer focal open, in the sense that the minimal focus error is going to be magnified so it is an operability question more than an optic one IMO.
But that already existed with lower res uprezzed, just that it was more forgiving, lost in the
Soupe of the overall less detailled images.
The question with classic and vintage lenses is that it is a bit of a case by case (not knowing the appropriate english expression) when mounted on high resolution digital cameras.
But the base from which people detect a lack of performances compared to modern glasses,
Designed on purpose to perform with current cameras, remains unclear because
Most of the time it comes from charts that have little if nothing to do with the reality.

For certain type of photo, like urban (people) with 50mm and above, when there is no second chance to get the shot, it's going to be more chalenging,
But hey, don't remember that you can push isos much more compared to the classic.
(Unfortunatly, higher Isos does not match the gain obtained by the latest
IS whose technology is a game changer).

It will be nice to have your findings with longuer focal lenses and when speed is required,
Because it's there IMO where you may encounter the more challenges. See how reliable is AF.
On the other hand, resolution can be parametered accordingly for the type of shooting.

I have a feeling that, for being a specialized camera, it's going to give you a lot of joy and
A few  >:( in some situations. It's almost like you had a MF in the end.

Well, my longest lens is the 100mm f2.0 and I think it’s my sharpest lens. But I rarely use it:)

I have been shooting some night stuff at ISO6400, and while a bit grainy, it looks quite good. Even better than the old “classic” at 1600...  I like the idea of IS, but I suspect with a dslr, the floating sensor might effect focus accuracy. I think Canon has some new IS primes that I might consider in the future :)
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #54 on: May 21, 2018, 12:21:58 PM »

Well, my longest lens is the 100mm f2.0 and I think it’s my sharpest lens. But I rarely use it:)

I have been shooting some night stuff at ISO6400, and while a bit grainy, it looks quite good. Even better than the old “classic” at 1600...  I like the idea of IS, but I suspect with a dslr, the floating sensor might effect focus accuracy. I think Canon has some new IS primes that I might consider in the future :)
Yes, this is why I had been so impressed by the Panasonic G9 IS when tested finding 6.5ish stops gain in dual IS, when Panasonic engineers said: "no no no...it's 6.5 stops body IS only!! With dual IS you should gain a little more..."
Ah...I didn't see this 'little more' but fair to say that the situation was maybe not challenging enough. Anyway, whao!

Which means that the Canon 100mm f2 becomes a 200mm with 6.5 stops stabilized theorical because the max is obtained in wides, less the longuer focal factor to rest and it's arround what Canon gives in OS, but, with any lens, vintage or classic WITHOUT the focus accuracy issues being mirrorless, and, that same technology allows 80mpx maximum resolution that matches hasselblad side by side.
And that with the metabones it does not downgrade to f4 but being conservative, keeping
The f2 original aperture as real.
Quite crazy.

Yeah, higher isos are a complete different animal. My Sony is setted almost all the time between 640 and 800 as base and from there up to 6400. Images from 6400 are the same as the Nikon D2x at 800!! Much better in fact, looking quite Tmaxish when the D2 looks Lubitelish to be polite. (My Sony is transformed monochrome).

The 4 stops temptation

« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 04:57:53 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #55 on: May 22, 2018, 02:05:14 AM »

I would like a 50mm f1.4 IS, but they haven’t made one yet!
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6987
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #56 on: May 22, 2018, 04:04:06 AM »

I would like a 50mm f1.4 IS, but they haven’t made one yet!

In the mean time, a monopod would help ...
Also helpful to keep people at a distance who'd show too much 'interest' in your gear.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1766
    • Pieter Kers
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #57 on: May 22, 2018, 06:50:57 AM »

I've finally started to use the camera :)  I never knew my lowly 24mm f2.8 was so sharp :) 

A lot of lenses do 75 MP in the central area and some of mine do even 150MP
But then the corners...
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #58 on: May 22, 2018, 10:04:27 AM »

A lot of lenses do 75 MP in the central area and some of mine do even 150MP
But then the corners...
But the Bruce attached pic does look better than I would have expected  in the corners,
It's the first thing I saw (the corners) cause in the center they all will perform. The only thing
Is that there are some CA everywhere. There is some hdr processing involded.
And as both wide angles and hdr exhacerbate CA, it's expected.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 10:26:36 AM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #59 on: May 22, 2018, 10:15:24 AM »

I would like a 50mm f1.4 IS, but they haven’t made one yet!
It's just being delayed.
Although it seems that it should have been released already 10 times,
And 10 times rumored to be delayed...
The lens that everyone wants but never appears.
(Curious...the concept sounds familiar recently)
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 10:23:26 AM by fredjeang2 »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up