Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: dhdhdh on June 23, 2015, 11:42:51 pm
-
Any thoughts about whether I should ditch my P45 in favor of the new Canon 50MP camera? The 39MP Phase is a beautiful file, but I end up using the camera mostly in my studio as it's somewhat of a hassle to use on location. And I'm a Canon shooter otherwise.
Any feedback from you pro's out there would be appreciated.
Thanks
DH
-
Canon is saying that the 5DS is best used as a studio camera and I am assuming that they are saying that because in the studio, with the camera on a tripod and using it with flash or HMI lighting so you'll get the full measure of possible image quality. But that is true of your PhaseOne gear as well.
But we are photographers right? And we can't always work in ideal circumstances.
You might consider renting a 5Ds (try lens rentals.com) and making your own comparisons. I'd be really interested in seeing the results. Also let us know what software you'll be using to process the images with.
-
Thanks. I don't think Canon is saying it's a studio camera -- they have stuff in that camera like some kind of flicker setting to deal with sodium vapor lights, stuff that you'd find when shooting on location. I believe they're hoping to sell this to landscape and architecture photographers, and, yes, studio photogs.
With my PhaseOne I've been using Capture One, but I'd use Photoshop/Bridge raw to open files with this the Canon.
Here's a quick comparison of sensors vs the Phase IQ160, which someone posted: http://blog.crismanphoto.com/tech-post-canon-5d-mark-iii-5ds-and-phaseone-iq160-head-to-head/
I'm hoping, via this forum, to hear thoughts from others.
Thanks again
-
The Canon 5Ds(R) is no more a studio camera than the 5D III, 1DX or Nikon D810, D4S etc.
The resolution of this camera goes head to head with the Phase One IQ250 (50MP), Pentax 645Z. See studio scene http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/5
The dynamic range is inferior to these other cameras. We will also see the Sony A7R II at 42MP as a contender soon.
The Sony A7R II has electronic first curtain as has Canon 5Ds(R) (in live view) which is important to avoid shutter shake (not to speak of mirror slap!). The Nikon D810 has this as well but awkwardly implemented.
The dynamic range is the weak spot of the Canon, however with an optimal exposure almost any single RAW file will do. The 5Ds(R) does not have the dreaded banding that the 5D III (and II) has. Besides that Lightroom now has an excellent HDR function for these cases where a single exposure is not enough (same for Sony and Nikon but more seldomly so).
What speaks for the Canon in spite of the DR weakness is the excellent glass that Canon has brought out in the recent years, presumable to prepare for a high resolution sensor.
I think the suggestion of renting one with the Canon glass you might want to use is a good idea.
-
"The Canon 5Ds(R) is no more a studio camera than the 5D III, 1DX or Nikon D810, D4S etc. "
For the record I totally agree. And I've also used a Sinar 8x10 P2 outdoors on a rooftop and hung a Phaseone Camera with a p45+ on the end of a tripod arm two feet out over the edge of a 65 story building.
-
The Canon 5Ds(R) is no more a studio camera than the 5D III, 1DX or Nikon D810, D4S etc.
The resolution of this camera goes head to head with the Phase One IQ250 (50MP), Pentax 645Z. See studio scene http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/5
I am very sorry for the off topic, but is DPR processing the PhaseOne RAW files in LR? The image has that trademark Adobe complimentary blur filter look and none of the crispness that one sees in capture one pro.
I would hazard a guess that the difference would be a lot more pronounced if the Phase files are processed in C1P.
-
I am very sorry for the off topic, but is DPR processing the PhaseOne RAW files in LR? The image has that trademark Adobe complimentary blur filter look and none of the crispness that one sees in capture one pro.
I would hazard a guess that the difference would be a lot more pronounced if the Phase files are processed in C1P.
In my view dpreview do not sharpen optimally in ACR/LR. I have before compared C1 and LR in terms of sharpening and they are pretty equal when LR has applied the right sharpening parameters. I even had a C1 engineer review that and he agreed :)
-
I am very sorry for the off topic, but is DPR processing the PhaseOne RAW files in LR? The image has that trademark Adobe complimentary blur filter look and none of the crispness that one sees in capture one pro.
I would hazard a guess that the difference would be a lot more pronounced if the Phase files are processed in C1P.
I am very sorry for the off topic, but is DPR processing the PhaseOne RAW files in LR? The image has that trademark Adobe complimentary blur filter look and none of the crispness that one sees in capture one pro.
I would hazard a guess that the difference would be a lot more pronounced if the Phase files are processed in C1P.
True, but the Canon would also benefit if it was a non filtered 5DsR which was shot between F/8-11 instead of F/16.
-
In my view dpreview do not sharpen optimally in ACR/LR. I have before compared C1 and LR in terms of sharpening and they are pretty equal when LR has applied the right sharpening parameters. I even had a C1 engineer review that and he agreed :)
I would need to attend one of your workshops then, Hans. To the best of my abilities, I can't match C1P's sharpening in LR.
Anyway, I digress.
-
I would need to attend one of your workshops then, Hans. To the best of my abilities, I can't match C1P's sharpening in LR.
Anyway, I digress.
What a wonderful idea :) In these amazing landscapes you would forget all about sharpening.
-
True, but the Canon would also benefit if it was a non filtered 5DsR which was shot between F/8-11 instead of F/16.
The IQ180 was shot at f/8 and the Canon 5DsR shot was at f/5.6. Not sure where you got the idea about f/16...
-
I am very sorry for the off topic, but is DPR processing the PhaseOne RAW files in LR? The image has that trademark Adobe complimentary blur filter look and none of the crispness that one sees in capture one pro.
I would hazard a guess that the difference would be a lot more pronounced if the Phase files are processed in C1P.
Hi Sandeep,
Not OT at all. The DPReview samples are (if I'm not mistaken, ACR processed). ACR is actually not that bad for these files but it can be better, and of course also depends on the sharpening and noise reduction settins used. You are right that (even with the preliminary support version of) the 5DS / 5DS R, Capture One Pro conversions looks pretty good. I used some of the Imaging-Resources Raws to test with.
I think that the 5DS (R) is most certainly geared at 'studio' use (just like the 1Ds Mark III), meaning controlled lighting, rather than action, low light, or video. But these cameras are so versatile that it depends more on the photographer than the location how they will be used. Bracketing can overcome much of the relatively limited (compared to the extreme Sony) Dynamic Range. The design choices for this camera clearly benefit slower, more studied, shooting scenarios. The supposedly denser Bayer CFA is a choice for color rather than speed, and the redesigned mirror mechanism benefits slower shutterspeeds more than high speed action speeds. Just to name a few.
As for the OPs question, hard to say if he should ditch his Phase gear. Those PO files are heavily calibrated per back and use lots of additional data before writing the 'Raw' data. So the files are relatively robust. The 5DS / 5DS R is an advanced consumer model (usually predates the coming of a new EOS 1 series model with similar specs). Canon just skipped the 5D3, and might go directly from 5D2 ->5DS or 1Ds3 ->1DS4 (?) as similar technologies.
Since the OP already is also a Canon shooter, the jump from 36 to 50MP may prove to be just what he needs for his output, with less aliasing and more resolution, even on the 5DS. The 5DS R would be a bit more sensitive than the 5DS to aliasing and false color artifacts, but maybe less than his PO. That depends on the lens and aperture range they are used in, and on the subject matter.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The IQ180 was shot at f/8 and the Canon 5DsR shot was at f/5.6. Not sure where you got the idea about f/16...
Hi Hans,
I was referring to Chris Chrisman's (dhdhdh) test of the 5Ds vs IQ160 above.
-
About the only thing these two cameras have in common is sensor resolution.
You didn't mention what body you're on with the p45+ but depending on the body there will be large changes in:
Lens look
Lens quality
Handling
Sync speed
ISO performance
Shooting speed
Tech cam options
View camera options
Etc
And of course tonality, color, and look/quantity of grain will be different.
-
Hi,
My take on this is that I have a Sony A7rII on order. Why I chose this over a Canon 5Ds?
- I am an old Minolta/Sony user with a lot of lenses
- I am also a firm beliver in "mirrorless" being the future. Mirrorless cameras are far more flexible than SLRs.
- I love live view
What I am shooting now is Sony SLT 99, a 24 MP camera in SLR size with EVF and a Hasselblad 555ELD with a P45+ back. Just to say, some frequent posters on this threads say I fail to make best of that equipment, using bad tools and may generally be incompetent. On the other hand, I have also posted quite a few raw images that inspired some other posters on this forums and over at GetDPI to buy into the Hasselblad system. Hasselblad lenses are all primes and I have been trough eight of them, while Sony lenses are mostly upper end zooms.
Those images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/
Just to say, I strongly feel that you need raw images to compare systems.
What I have seen comparing these systems is that I can make the files pretty similar. There is a resolution advantage of the P45+ that is pretty clear. On the other hand I would say that I see (absolutely) no difference in A2 size prints (something like 16" x 23"). Going up to A1 the difference is starting to be obvious. Using a 5X loupe on the A2 prints I can also observe differences. Eyesight obviously may matter.
Sony sensors have very low dark noise, and I certainly feel that there is a significant dark noise advantage to the Sony Alpha 99, but both systems are capable of very good images.
Now, the 5Ds has twice the MP of the Sony Alpha 99, so I would guess that it can match 39-60 MP backs if used with excellent lenses.
MF backs can be used with a wide variety of systems but so can the A7rII. The Canon 5Ds has also a shallow bayonet, so it can take Leica R and Nikon mount lenses.
A well known weakness of all Canons is the relatively high noise in the darks.
My take from all that is for one that I would think the Canon 5Ds is probably quite competitive with low end MFD.
As I said, my choice is the Sony Alpha 7rII, with at least one Canon T&S lens. But I will hang on to my P45+, too. I like shooting with that "Blad".
Best regards
Erik
Any thoughts about whether I should ditch my P45 in favor of the new Canon 50MP camera? The 39MP Phase is a beautiful file, but I end up using the camera mostly in my studio as it's somewhat of a hassle to use on location. And I'm a Canon shooter otherwise.
Any feedback from you pro's out there would be appreciated.
Thanks
DH
-
In my view dpreview do not sharpen optimally in ACR/LR. I have before compared C1 and LR in terms of sharpening and they are pretty equal when LR has applied the right sharpening parameters. I even had a C1 engineer review that and he agreed :)
And both are significantly behind what Iridient Developper 3.03 is able to achieve if you are on Mac, especially if you use an AA filter less device and very sharp lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would need to attend one of your workshops then, Hans. To the best of my abilities, I can't match C1P's sharpening in LR.
Anyway, I digress.
Synn try this I think is pretty close:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10120389/SS.jpg)
-
And both are significantly behind what Iridient Developper 3.03 is able to achieve if you are on Mac, especially if you use an AA filter less device and very sharp lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
I have tried Irident Developper before and it does a good job on the details. Not sure though which parameters are optimal. From my cursory investigation I did not find much difference to Lightroom. The 5DsR files takes sharpening well similar to the D810 from working on the studio shots at dpreview. The parameters like amount=60, radius=0.7, detail=70 and masking=20 does a very good job in Lightroom and ACR. I use also a=50, r=0.8, d=70, m=30 as default on import and results are very similar. Maybe Irrident Developper has an edge, but for me it's small and I don't want to use a different RAW converter for very small differences.
-
yes, good questions Doug.
I'm using the back on a Mamiya AFd
150mm mamiya macro lens for most work
and also a 45mm lens on occasion for out of the studio work.
some of my subject matter is very detailed still life, and clients have frequently asked for 50" prints. The P45 looks good at that size, my old Canon 5D MK2 doesn't.
I'm thinking a 5Ds would look comparable at that print size and would also be easier to use on location.
About the only thing these two cameras have in common is sensor resolution.
You didn't mention what body you're on with the p45+ but depending on the body there will be large changes in:
Lens look
Lens quality
Handling
Sync speed
ISO performance
Shooting speed
Tech cam options
View camera options
Etc
And of course tonality, color, and look/quantity of grain will be different.
-
Thank you Hans for your reply.
dhdhdh
The Canon 5Ds(R) is no more a studio camera than the 5D III, 1DX or Nikon D810, D4S etc.
The resolution of this camera goes head to head with the Phase One IQ250 (50MP), Pentax 645Z. See studio scene http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/5
The dynamic range is inferior to these other cameras. We will also see the Sony A7R II at 42MP as a contender soon.
The Sony A7R II has electronic first curtain as has Canon 5Ds(R) (in live view) which is important to avoid shutter shake (not to speak of mirror slap!). The Nikon D810 has this as well but awkwardly implemented.
The dynamic range is the weak spot of the Canon, however with an optimal exposure almost any single RAW file will do. The 5Ds(R) does not have the dreaded banding that the 5D III (and II) has. Besides that Lightroom now has an excellent HDR function for these cases where a single exposure is not enough (same for Sony and Nikon but more seldomly so).
What speaks for the Canon in spite of the DR weakness is the excellent glass that Canon has brought out in the recent years, presumable to prepare for a high resolution sensor.
I think the suggestion of renting one with the Canon glass you might want to use is a good idea.
-
I was close to buying a medium format rig, I am still on the edge, but having seen the link comparing the 5DS with the IQ160, I don't feel like it's such a good thing to rush into.
-
I was close to buying a medium format rig, I am still on the edge, but having seen the link comparing the 5DS with the IQ160, I don't feel like it's such a good thing to rush into.
I was interested in this link, however after looking at the shots, I looked for the information on the cameras/lenses uses but did not see it. I was especially curious on the IQ160/camera solution as at F16, I would also assume to see a bit of diffraction starting to effect the image sharpness. I also did not see if they used Capture One or LIghtroom or another raw converter. I still feel that Capture One is the best solution for Phase raw.
I have no doubt that the new 50MP Canon cameras will have better results than a P45+, the P45+ was first sold in 2008, almost 6 years ago. The Canon is brand new.
However the P45+ can within it's limits deliver a very good result and in fact may beat the Canon on 30 minutes or longer exposures within the temperature limits of the P45+.
One thing I have learned with MF backs, the optics are critical. I have seen other tests on eyeballs etc. where a Phase One 160/180 with both the Phase camera and Hasselblad cameras did very well. Not trying to knock Chris's notes, as he has done more than I will ever do in a comparison but what glass did he use?
To me the real question is can you justify the cost of a CMOS MF back over a Canon 50MP camera or the soon shipping Sony A7rII. Here the DR will be very close and the resolution about the same, just 8 million or so pixels different. But don't want to steer away from the OP's question.
I feel, if you compared the P45+ to the output of the 5Ds or other Canon with the Low cancelling filter, you would be very hard pressed to get a even result. The Canon is going to give a cleaner overall file and it has significantly more resolution than the P45+. If you are not considering a tech camera then the Canon is to me going to make a better working camera. Just the overall easy of use alone to me makes the decision easy. I am not a huge fan of the CCD look, just don't see it in my files. And I do print big. When I worked the the 50MP CMOS Phase back, I just did not see any difference in the images I shot, besides the 10MP resolution. There were slight color differences, but easily handled in C1.
I give full Kudos to Canon, they have a great new set of cameras, with excellent resolution. I wish they had been there 3 or so years ago. Not going back now. But if I was in the process of making the decision, I would give the Canons a strong look for sure as I have always loved their IQ, and setup (6D excluded).
Back to the 160, looking at the samples on the link, I was impressed by the results that they received at IQ800. I assumed this was full resolution, not sensor plus? He was shooting in studio with controlled lighting, not sure if flash was used. However in the field I know I can't get anywhere near that clean a file with my IQ260 @ iso 400.
Great time to be purchasing a new camera as the technology just keeps getting better.
Paul Caldwell
-
Thank you, Paul, for the feedback.
I do own the P45, and have loved it, it was a huge jump over my Canon 5DMk2, a 22MP camera. I was shooting studio still life for fine art prints at about 44" and the upgrade to the P45 was night and day. Seemed like I was shooting 4x5 film compared to 35.
But the P45 has been sitting in my cabinet because it is a bit of a hassle to use out of the studio. I feel that I'll use the Canon 5Ds a lot more. And some I've decided to list the P45 on eBay, probably today.
I'm considering looking into adapting the Mamiya 120 f4 macro lens to the Canon. Not sure if it's a good idea, but it is a sweet lens and performed admirably on the P45.
Anyhow, thanks again
dhdhdh
-
Good points.
I don't own medium format backs but have been renting the for jobs that require it for several years now, it's always been a better business model for me. However in very recent times, the photographic industry is struggling and an extra couple thousand dollars on the bill for MFD hire is being continually questioned. So my plan was to buy it, and manage each jobs budget as required. I've been working mainly with the IQ180, P65+ and P45+, all of them giving incredible results. The first time I used the P65+ I thought the mother ship had landed with it's mind-boggling tonality and colour.
I initially scoffed at the Canon, given the small sensor and, IMO, relatively average lenses, but I have to say, despite seeing some terrible first samples from this camera I have been blown away with the production model samples I've been seeing from time to time. It's hard to tell the what the parameters are just yet, the jury is still out, there seems to be strange things going on with noise and gradations, the DR, the colour seems suspect at this stage in some instances but i've gone from "no way ever" to "wow, this is interesting".
The Sony doesn't interest me at all as a camera. It is a plus that I could use my Leica glass on it, although again no idea how well it will work this stage. It just seems such an amateur camera this stage in its development. The EVF without an additional OVF is something I really don't like the idea of one bit. My opinion on that may very well change, perhaps the time is right for the commercial markets to embrace these ideas.
To cut the story short, I was close to pulling the trigger on the 60MP Phase One but now I feel uneasy about investing into older Medium Format technology, when it's so much more cumbersome and convoluted. If there was open system which had Zeiss glass I would be more into it. It seems this Canon may just well be a far more versatile camera who's compromises in IQ are balanced by price and usability. Strange for me to say this because I have always been Max IQ at all costs. The Canon may well be that good. I am excited to see more.
-
It sounds like you just don't like the EVF.
Regarding the A7R2, it does have a lot of image quality advantages over the Canon, most particularly a lack of mirror slap, ~2 stops of additional dynamic range, and on-sensor focus accuracy (no more messing with micro-focus adjustment).
-
Sure, on paper I think the Sony seems good. But there is so much more to this than a spec sheet. I guess you could say I'm vaguely open to it using it, but more interested in finding out how well it works, with time. When you count on it for your living you don't jump into different things when your existing set up is hunky-dory. I admit that I'm looking at it without trying it though, so my biased opinion is most likely half baked or perhaps tainted with other stuff as I will try to explain without sounding like a douche.
What EVF's I have used I've not liked at all. The extra DR interests me and the fact I can use my Leica lenses interests me. I think the new sensor is going to work better with these lenses because of the more shallow light wells from the BSI design. The EVF does really turn me off, yes. Like watching a TV or being caught in a shopping mall all day. Manual focussing in a dark studio with stopped down focussing is not ideal. I might feel differently once I try it, but when a big OVF works so well I have no reason to try it. How well does it tether? I've heard it is slow?
Lastly, and this may raise some eye-brows, but it matters, then there is the size of it. The "client perception" that any brand carries. Some don't even look at what you use, most don't care but I get strange and worried looks from clients occasionally when I use my Leica M on some projects, as it is, but it's reassuringly expensive and there is some brand influence there too, and of corse the results are impressive (which is why I choose it and continue to despite all this) and there's no problem, ultimately, but it isn't all that matters unfortunately. A discussion about it normally ends any issues but it can be awkward and just because they appear happy does not mean they are not potentially worried or easily swayed by your competition (who use these sort of stupid things, trust me!). Client perception is very important and I don't believe they're going to want me shooting their big campaign on something they see as an amateur camera, that looks to them like a toy. When they are paying you lots of money they are expecting lots of gear. I wish these things didn't matter, but sadly, they do, and are out of my control as much as I've tried in the past. I've also found there is an inherent commercial value, a client perception in the craft of photography and mastering big and/or complex cameras to great effect, particularly when the results are so good, unique etc. There comes a time when it's not just about your photography. Your photography has got to be outstanding or your out. Everyone elses, your competition, is and at that point there is also a show you have to put on for your clients. A little a7r, while possibly in some senses, capable, doesn't really fit into that. There is simple differentiation also...that's a whole other thing. It seems people consider you a bit of a dick or a douche for saying this sort of stuff but this is what my experience is, take or leave.
Finally, most importantly, ultimately, it just seems more like a computer than a camera to me. Like an appliance. It does not inspire me one iota and I have no interest in the camera itself, but the same can be said for a lot of modern camera designs.
But the industry is changing and budgets are shrinking. Some things that really mattered don't really matter any more. Some things stay the same. There are of corse new things to worry about too. Clients need more for less, they have less time and more things to worry about themselves.
-
Lastly, and this may raise some eye-brows, but it matters, then there is the size of it. The "client perception" that any brand carries. Some don't even look at what you use, most don't care but I get strange and worried looks from clients occasionally when I use my Leica M on some projects, as it is, but it's reassuringly expensive and there is some brand influence there too, and of corse the results are impressive (which is why I choose it and continue to despite all this) and there's no problem, ultimately, but it isn't all that matters unfortunately.
Sticking an Otus 85mm f1.4 in front of any DSLR does seem to fix the size perception problem. ;)
On the initial topic, in my view the P45+ would deliver value if mounted on a view camera, other than that recent top class DSLR win in most areas by a wide margin.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"On paper" is all we know about the Sony A7R2 at this time. I too am intrigued by the possibility of increased dynamic range of the Sony sensor (sensor new to this model, so one can't generalize from the A72 or A7R) and by higher resolution. On the other hand, a 20 MP consumer camera (6D) is sufficient for my current (amateur) use with small prints, so I tell myself, improve my skills, then consider a specialty camera, Canon or Sony.
-
True about the Otus, but then it becomes a matter of ergonomics on a camera like the a7r. It's way to small, unbalanced and awkward to shoot with a lens like that. I would rather use it on a D810 or 5DS, That form factor is right. This was the thing thing I left out i my post above - I feel the a7 cameras are great headline grabbers, and spec sheet wonders, but there is a limit to what they are ergonomically usable for, IMO, they are too small for a camera you are going to use on a 3 day shoot with big lenses.
-
Interesting discussion - particularly re: the perception of some 1st time clients re: gear.
OP -I've used and use the 120/4 adapted to once Canon and for last few years on D800e for portrait work. Utterly fantastic optic. I'd pay a body part for a native Nikon mount version of it.
-
What I am most noticing about the 5DS is the way it renders transitions from steep dark tone or colour, to light. It renders it as broken up noise. For me, at least, it's really quite off putting even at 50%. The rendering is really quite rough and, IMO, ugly unless the tone, colour and light is quite even. Further, there appears to be issues going on with the colour with a stange and seemingly looking uncorrectable magenta cast laying unevenly in the file.
-
What I am most noticing about the 5DS is the way it renders transitions from steep dark tone or colour, to light. It renders it as broken up noise.
Hi Bo,
It's (usually) the Raw converter, not the camera ....
Which converter are you using, and what settings do you use? Compare with a Canon DPP raw conversion as benchmark. Any differences?
Further, there appears to be issues going on with the colour with a stange and seemingly looking uncorrectable magenta cast laying unevenly in the file.
Is that with the 5DS or the 5DS R? Again, the Raw converter may have something to do with it. I found that the Nikon 800 and 800E also rendered differently in ACR, with a reddish glow for the 800E which uses a low-pass cancellation filter stack. In Capture One Pro that was not the case. Don't know what Nikon's own converter did.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
I'm only going on the review samples I've been seeing on blogs etc from both 5DS and 5DR. I've not seen a photo that contradicts this yet, except for when the image has long tonal gradients that don't have much variation. This is a known issue on previous 5D models too, though to a lesser extent with 24MP.
The colour is more likely to do with the Raw conversions though. For Canons sake I hope so. I have read on several accounts that the current acr profile is weak.
-
Hi,
Just to say, generating profiles is easy with Adobe DNG Editor and a Color Checker target.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Bart,
I'm only going on the review samples I've been seeing on blogs etc from both 5DS and 5DR. I've not seen a photo that contradicts this yet, except for when the image has long tonal gradients that don't have much variation. This is a known issue on previous 5D models too, though to a lesser extent with 24MP.
The colour is more likely to do with the Raw conversions though. For Canons sake I hope so. I have read on several accounts that the current acr profile is weak.
-
The raw converter is important and should be part of a camera evolution.
I have a h4d-40 and it's great to have files from Phocus, LR is redish and lacks a lot.
I have a 5dsr and yet to find a proper raw converter.
LR is redish and just not nice. I tryed to make a color chcker profile but it always fails(lr cc on yosemite).
Capture one renders better, but generic 5dsr profile is over saturated and still quite red.
Also tethering does not work yet on lr and c1, and capture pilot neither.
The option with the hotfolder does not work on c1 for me, as it will set the default settings, which as described before are crap, i dont want my customer to see it.
So for now the 5dsr is not used when i have acccess to a computer for tethering, not selling my hassy yet.