EOS 5Ds- why all this negativity?

[spidermike]

Or LuLa may simply ignore the camera - which is entirely possible (the 5DIII was ignored.)

What would be worse for the 5Ds - LuLa ignoring it or LuLa panning it for "same IQ but more of it"?

If you were to use the 5Ds and the 7D to frame the same shot with the relevant lenses and printed them both to A2 or larger, surely the 5Ds would have higher resolutin because you are magnifying it less. So it would have superior IQ not 'more of the same'

[dwswager]

If you were to use the 5Ds and the 7D to frame the same shot with the relevant lenses and printed them both to A2 or larger, surely the 5Ds would have higher resolutin because you are magnifying it less. So it would have superior IQ not 'more of the same'

Think the comparison would be 5DmkIII versus 5Ds.  And yes, at super large output sizes there is something to be gained.  Of course, from LuLa's perspective, the universe includes Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus etc. so it would really be a comparison of 5Ds vs D810 vs A7R. 

The 7DmkII can get away with a less than spectacular APS-C sensor because there is nothing close in that price point ($1800) that will do 10fps.  While I much prefer the image quality from the D7100, it tops out at 6fps and has an itty bitty buffer.

[Geraldo Garcia]

Those who read the "printers, papers & inks" forum may know that, besides being a photographer, I run a fine art printing studio, printing for several photographers and digital artists from all over the world.

One of the advantages of my work is that I am required to handle, adjust and print files produced with all existing cameras and lenses. Plus, we usually print big (24x36", 36x54", 44x66") and that gives me the chance to evaluate the printed result of the files produced by those cameras/lenses. Sure we cannot make direct comparisons as the subjects and photographers are different, but after a couple of dozen files we can get a general idea about the output quality of that specific equipment.

Last Friday I downloaded and printed one of the full resolution files from the 5Ds. I printed a crop, a strip of 8x40" from what would be a uncropped 40x60" print. Almost no adjustment, black point and white point adjustments and the print sharpening. Although it was a JPEG file and the photo was taken with a zoom lens (24-70mm f:2.8 II) the resulting print is nothing short of amazing for a 35mm DSLR. Not even a D810 with an Ottus can render that level of detail when printed at that size.

It is impossible to judge things like DR without a detailed side by side comparison and is dangerous to form an opinion based on a single example, but from the resolution and detail perspective I can assure you the 5Ds will be perfect for those who want to print big. Very clean files even on the shadows, but as it was a JPEG file we cannot say for sure that it is not due to an efficient noise reduction.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Geraldo,

Thanks for good info! Just to say, it seem that the 24-70/28LII is a very good lens. Roger Ciala, over at LensRentals, looked into this and found that sensor resolution trump lens resolution. So a good sensor + a good lens is a very good combo.

Best regards
Erik

Those who read the "printers, papers & inks" forum may know that, besides being a photographer, I run a fine art printing studio, printing for several photographers and digital artists from all over the world.

One of the advantages of my work is that I am required to handle, adjust and print files produced with all existing cameras and lenses. Plus, we usually print big (24x36", 36x54", 44x66") and that gives me the chance to evaluate the printed result of the files produced by those cameras/lenses. Sure we cannot make direct comparisons as the subjects and photographers are different, but after a couple of dozen files we can get a general idea about the output quality of that specific equipment.

Last Friday I downloaded and printed one of the full resolution files from the 5Ds. I printed a crop, a strip of 8x40" from what would be a uncropped 40x60" print. Almost no adjustment, black point and white point adjustments and the print sharpening. Although it was a JPEG file and the photo was taken with a zoom lens (24-70mm f:2.8 II) the resulting print is nothing short of amazing for a 35mm DSLR. Not even a D810 with an Ottus can render that level of detail when printed at that size.

It is impossible to judge things like DR without a detailed side by side comparison and is dangerous to form an opinion based on a single example, but from the resolution and detail perspective I can assure you the 5Ds will be perfect for those who want to print big. Very clean files even on the shadows, but as it was a JPEG file we cannot say for sure that it is not due to an efficient noise reduction.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Last Friday I downloaded and printed one of the full resolution files from the 5Ds. I printed a crop, a strip of 8x40" from what would be a uncropped 40x60" print. Almost no adjustment, black point and white point adjustments and the print sharpening. Although it was a JPEG file and the photo was taken with a zoom lens (24-70mm f:2.8 II) the resulting print is nothing short of amazing for a 35mm DSLR. Not even a D810 with an Ottus can render that level of detail when printed at that size.

Hi Geraldo,

Thanks for your feedback. It does not really come as a surprise, since the sensor can resolve more detail and thus pull out more detail (and MTF contrast) out of a lens than a lower resolution sensor can. However, the important part is whether that extra technical quality translates to the final print, is the benefit significant enough to make a difference. As they say, the proof is in the eating of the pudding, and given your day-to-day experience with looking at printed results, your opinion matters to me.

And let's not forget that we are presumably looking at out-of-camera JPEGs as a basis for comparison. Imagine what can be done with a top notch Raw conversion, clarity and detail adjustments, and special care for output sharpening at a given size.

Cheers,
Bart 

[shadowblade]

No doubt the resolution is there - if you can get the scene to fit within the technical capabilities of the camera, it will give you a great result.

My concern is that, as a landscape photographer with no control over the sun and a limited ability to use ND grads due to lens choices and uneven horizons, many scenes will not fit into the single-exposure dynamic range of the camera without a significant boost in DR over the 5D2/5D3.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

No doubt the resolution is there - if you can get the scene to fit within the technical capabilities of the camera, it will give you a great result.

My concern is that, as a landscape photographer with no control over the sun and a limited ability to use ND grads due to lens choices and uneven horizons, many scenes will not fit into the single-exposure dynamic range of the camera without a significant boost in DR over the 5D2/5D3.

Hi,

I agree that a boost in DR would have been very welcome, but I can already manage as it is today with the 'limited' DR of my  EOS 1Ds Mark III. Good technique, and to be on the safe side a few additional exposure brackets, will go a long way.

Currently I have to also stitch for additional resolution and more MTF. The 5DS will almost certainly (from a pure physical point of view) offer a significant jump in quality, even with the modest DR improvements it's supposed to have (cleaner shadows with less pattern noise, and better S/N (MTF) in the comparable medium to high spatial frequencies).

Cheers,
Bart

[shadowblade]

Good technique doesn't help if you're blowing the highlights at one end and the shadows at the other end at the same time. Which is something I encountered a lot with the 5D2, but much less often with the A7r. It also didn't help that the darkest few stops of the 5D2 had so much pattern noise they were unusable, even if they did contain detail.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Good technique doesn't help if you're blowing the highlights at one end and the shadows at the other end at the same time.

I agree, but it does help to have an optimal exposure (ETTR) to get the best feasible starting point for postprocessing. Therefore, exposure brackets at 1/3rd stop intervals if needed (when shooting tethered it will be possible to check the Raw data with e.g. Rawdigger or Fast Raw Viewer).

Attached a few crops from a single bracket tile from a larger 2-row 180 degree panorama, almost perpendicular to the harsh sun, with lots of detail and yet modest noise. Just to give you an idea, the HDR bracketed series for this tile, of which this was a single exposure, would have spanned 15.5 stops of DR, so more than 4 stops more than this frame had to offer. There is detail from the sun's reflection off of the white clouds to the interior of an opened door in the shadow.

It also didn't help that the darkest few stops of the 5D2 had so much pattern noise they were unusable, even if they did contain detail.

This is supposed to be one of the improvements in the 5DS sensor, less pattern noise. How much of an improvement, we''ll see when production models are available. Besides, for your existing files, Topaz Denoise can handle Horizontal and/or Vertical line noise, in addition to regular noise reduction (and deconvolution to compensate loss of apparent sharpness from noise reduction, because noise increases the suggestion of detail).

Cheers,
Bart

[shadowblade]

I agree, but it does help to have an optimal exposure (ETTR) to get the best feasible starting point for postprocessing. Therefore, exposure brackets at 1/3rd stop intervals if needed (when shooting tethered it will be possible to check the Raw data with e.g. Rawdigger or Fast Raw Viewer).

That's the thing - much of the time, you're exposing to the right and the left at the same time. Either you blow the highlights, or you blow the shadows, or you blow both, unless your sensor has enough DR to capture the entire scene in a single shot.

And that's also the attraction of RAW histogram, such as is available on Canon cameras with Magic Lantern. If only it were available for Sony and Nikon cameras...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And attached here is the effect of tonemapping the single file bracket, before, after.
I didn't do any noise reduction, just brightening the shadows a bit and adding some clarity.
The shadows aren't all that bad.

Cheers,
Bart

[John Koerner]

Hi,

Lens rentals compared 24-70/2.8 alternatives from Canon, Nikon and Tamron.

What he found was that the Canon 24-70/2.8L II was the best of three bys some margin when tested on the MTF bench, but when the lenses were tested on the Nikon D800E and the Canon 5DIII the Canon lens was left behind. Why, because the better MTF of the Canon could not compensate for the superior resolution of the Nikon.

The article is worth reading: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison

Best regards
Erik

Wonder what the re-test would show on the new 5D Mk IIIs?

Jack

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Bart, what's a "single bracket"? Sounds like a contradiction in terms?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, what's a "single bracket"? Sounds like a contradiction in terms?

Slobodan, it is a contradiction, and it is short for 'a single frame from an exposure bracketed series' (one from a series of 7 in this case).

Cheers,
Bart

[Geraldo Garcia]

Hi Geraldo,

Thanks for your feedback. It does not really come as a surprise, since the sensor can resolve more detail and thus pull out more detail (and MTF contrast) out of a lens than a lower resolution sensor can. However, the important part is whether that extra technical quality translates to the final print, is the benefit significant enough to make a difference. As they say, the proof is in the eating of the pudding, and given your day-to-day experience with looking at printed results, your opinion matters to me.

And let's not forget that we are presumably looking at out-of-camera JPEGs as a basis for comparison. Imagine what can be done with a top notch Raw conversion, clarity and detail adjustments, and special care for output sharpening at a given size.

Cheers,
Bart 

Exactly! I am extremely anxious to see a raw file from a production unit taken wit a high quality prime. As Erik said, the EF 24-70mm f:2.8 II is an excellent zoom lens and it can beat some primes, but an excellent prime will deliver even better image quality for sure.

As part of my job is art reproduction, this camera looks extremely attractive. It will practically eliminate need of multishot stitching or stacking when photographing smaller originals speeding up our workflow by a fraction of the cost of a medium format system. I understand the frustration of those who demand DR, but that is not as critical for studio work as resolution and it makes this camera extremely attractive to me.

Lets wait and hope for the best!

[dwswager]

I think the term negativity was a poor choice in the original question.  It is more disappointment than negativity.  Everyone already knew the MP count and were hoping to get DR and maybe a lower base ISO out of the deal as well.

On the upside, If your tied in as a Canon shooter your gaining a lot of megapixels and the associated benefits in one single leap from 22MP to 50MP.  So we are all better off than film days and we all keep getting advancements, just not the same ones at the same time in the same amounts.  I'm just wondering what navigating through the rumored 173 focus points on the D5 is going to be like, not that I will ever own one.

[Petrus]

Exactly.

We will now see completely new styles in car photography.

I thought most car pictures now are rendered from CAD files… Over half of them anyway.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It would be good to get a raw file rather than something that has been cooked up for us.

Good cooks make tastier dishes than bad cooks, even with less capable tools ...

But let's wait for the 5DS files (which is the real topic of this thread), rather than one from a camera from 2007 (that's still doing fine with the proper amount of TLC).

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan, it is a contradiction, and it is short for 'a single frame from an exposure bracketed series' (one from a series of 7 in this case).

I suspected that, just wanted to be sure. Alternatively, it could be (mis)understood as one of a bracketed series processed from a single raw file.

[Ghibby]

Hi All, been a long time since I posted here,

I don’t understand the negativity at all.  I bought into the Canon system a long time ago as at the time it was the best choice. I have happily used the 5D mk2 since 2008 and it has served me very well and I have produced my best images on it. For my work the mk3 was just not worth the price in IQ terms. Sure the DR is a bit limited and the shadows look like hell if you try to boost them too much in post but for most scenes the use of a good set of grad filters and careful exposure is all that’s required to get very good images.

At the end of the day its still the glass that matters and that is the reason I have not switched over to Nikon, the lens line up is just not as competitive as Canon's for me. For architecture and landscape the 24 and 17 Tse are hard to argue with for image quality plus control in a very compact package.  With some of the Sigma Art lenses plus most Zeiss ZE's there are quite a few lenses out there that are going to make good use of the 50mp on offer.  

I am looking forward to seeing what the 5Ds can do, I'm sure the shadow grain will be massively improved from the 5Dmk2 and mk3, all you have to do is look at the 7D mk2 to realise that improvements have been made in terms of banding and noise already, even with the DR still on the low end. Playing around with the sample jpegs provided by Canon shows that there is much more room to play with shadows than the previous 5D cameras.  Perhaps we will even be surprised with a bit of DR improvement too, I wouldn't rule it out just yet. Any Canon shooters who have waited this long for a stills photographer focused camera and make the move to Sony or Nikon before seeing real world tests are more likely just blowing off some steam in the forums i would guess.

Just my two cents worth.

Ben