Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: smthopr on May 04, 2018, 05:30:29 pm

Title: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 04, 2018, 05:30:29 pm
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!!!!!
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 05, 2018, 02:13:29 pm
Nobody here uses a 5Ds and wants to chime in?  I'll be traveling very soon and won't have time to really get used to it.  And once I leave, it will be too late to return it...
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 05, 2018, 03:30:14 pm
I can't speak for the 5Ds, but I happily moved from my original 5D several years ago to the 5DII. My 5D took great photos (I never print bigger than 12x18" on 13x19" paper,) but what moved me to the Mark II was the sensor shaking feature.

With the original 5D I spent many hours cleaning the sensor with every available cleaning device. The clincher was photographing during a dust storm in White Sands National Park in New Mexico. I was smart enough not to change lenses, but still enough dust got in to leave conspicuous spots, especially in skies, in all later shots on that trip.

With the 5DII I never had to clean the sensor at all, and I believe the focusing was faster than the 5D.

If I were you, I'd look for a good used 5DII or 5DIII.

I no longer have my 5DII or any of my Canon lenses either. When I got tired of lugging a big Gitzo tripod and several lenses around (I am about to turn 79 years old,) I moved to a superzoom camera: the Sony RX10 III, which, with a smaller sensor but a very sharp Zeiss zoom lens that ranges from 24mm to 600mm (FF equivalent), is easily hand-holdable and prints very well. I love it!

Good luck!

-Eric
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: Mike D. B. on May 05, 2018, 04:49:29 pm
...what moved me to the Mark II was the sensor shaking feature.
Same here.  That's the (main) reason I bought the 5D MK III.  The sensor on the (original) 5D needed constant cleaning.

I still have both Canon bodies but haven't used them for some two years, since I switched to Fujifilm X series.  I picked up the 5D MK III today and was shocked how large and heavy I found it.  I really like my Fujifilm gear!
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 05, 2018, 05:57:52 pm
Thanks for the replies!

So, the dust shaker works that well?  That's a big plus for me.  I shy away from small apertures on my 5D as the dust spots show too well.

As for weight, I have 4 small non-L prime lenses.  I tend to use the camera only with one or two at a time and the camera is not so big with the little lenses :) And I've noticed that the 5Ds has faster auto focus and I guess "face detection" which I haven't yet tried.

I'm still interested in any opinions about low light / high ISO shooting with the 5Ds if anyone has some experience.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: one iota on May 06, 2018, 01:35:09 am
For what it is worth:

I have a 5Ds as well as a 5DII. The latter I still use. One of my photographic interests is architecture. I recently travelled (to Sri Lanka) with the 5Ds and two zoom lenses (L Lenses 24-105 f4 & 16-35 f4). The 5Ds handled the architectural interior shots hand-held  at maximum ISO 3200 cleanly with little appreciable loss of detail after processing....better than the 5DII would have. I also used a Panasonic Lumix LX 100 (about 12 Mp) for convenience.

I also like to crop sometimes radically to get the composition I'm after so all those extra pixels (50 as opposed to 21) come in very hand when printing.

I was an early adopter of the 5Ds paying a premium but have no buyers remorse as I still get a thrill when the image resolves on the screen.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 06, 2018, 06:56:09 am
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.

Hi,

Don't own the 5Ds but in general, it requires very solid shooting technique (good lenses, optimal apertures, steady / tripod shooting) to get the most out of the high resolution. A good Raw converter also makes a difference, and finally good Capture sharpening is always needed.

With all of those well tuned, you should see a marked difference for the better. Don't fall into the trap of comparing the images between models at 100% zoom, the smaller sensels of the 5Ds will contain more information, e.g. more accurate diffraction and more detail, but they may look less sharp initially.

The technical improvements, sensor shake, coatings, new mirror mechanism, better DIGIC, etc. can only help.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 06, 2018, 01:37:08 pm
For what it is worth:

I have a 5Ds as well as a 5DII. The latter I still use. One of my photographic interests is architecture. I recently travelled (to Sri Lanka) with the 5Ds and two zoom lenses (L Lenses 24-105 f4 & 16-35 f4). The 5Ds handled the architectural interior shots hand-held  at maximum ISO 3200 cleanly with little appreciable loss of detail after processing....better than the 5DII would have. I also used a Panasonic Lumix LX 100 (about 12 Mp) for convenience.

I also like to crop sometimes radically to get the composition I'm after so all those extra pixels (50 as opposed to 21) come in very hand when printing.

I was an early adopter of the 5Ds paying a premium but have no buyers remorse as I still get a thrill when the image resolves on the screen.

Thank you One Iota :)  Like your screen name!

Yes, on my 5D1, ISO 800 is pretty much the limit with 1600 only good for desperate situations, noisy with shrinking DR.  So it's helpful to me to know you've been using yours at ISO3200.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 06, 2018, 03:08:56 pm
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!!!!!
That's funny because it reminds me the unexpected surprise I had when put out of dust an old 12mpx Nikon D2Xs (that is not even a FX but DX) and put up with my D4 - D800
and even if there is obviously a difference, it is NOT overwhelming, except at higher isos where, yes, the gap is enormous.
I did some extreme enlargements beyond its limits above 2 meters and using sharpening the D2 stands still amazingly, my preferences even goes in favor of the D2Xs for people over more modern flagships, as long as isos are kept low.
And to be really honest, those old 12mpx pro camera that can be found in perfect state for about 400 could give a surprise or two because they were really really good. Same with the Canon but yours can go up to 1600 before falling apart completly while with the D2 is one stop less, I stated the limit at 800, then it's hugly.

This attachement below is 100% mag from the camera files, no retouching except I upsampled both at 50cm, from the imaging ressources comparometer: https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM so everyone can donwload the same files.
Old tech vs current. 12mpx vs 20 etc...I take the D2XS over this Pana anytime at low isos. It makes think isn't it?
 :D

To your question about if the New 5D is worth the 3000 upgrade? If you don't print museum sizes, don't work with moving objects nor higher isos nor need to crop, the answer is probably no. And If you really need a great tool for photojournalism where AF perf and handling are state of the art there is the 1Dx2, a much better overall camera IMO, but more expensive. Coot has one, you can ask him.
Ps:you may try the Panasonic G9 if you have time. (it takes canon glasses with the Metabones and goes up to 80mpx for product photography, has good video features, is totally sealed, pro quality and smaller, and costs less than 2000. Panasonic also improved a lot their colour science on this model and the AF is good)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 06, 2018, 04:45:51 pm
That's funny because it reminds me the unexpected surprise I had when put out of dust an old 12mpx Nikon D2Xs (that is not even a FX but DX) and put up with my D4 - D800
and even if there is obviously a difference, it is NOT overwhelming, except at higher isos where, yes, the gap is enormous.
I did some extreme enlargements beyond its limits above 2 meters and using sharpening the D2 stands still amazingly, my preferences even goes in favor of the D2Xs for people over more modern flagships, as long as isos are kept low.
And to be really honest, those old 12mpx pro camera that can be found in perfect state for about 400 could give a surprise or two because they were really really good. Same with the Canon but yours can go up to 1600 before falling apart completly while with the D2 is one stop less, I stated the limit at 800, then it's hugly.

This attachement below is 100% mag from the camera files, no retouching except I upsampled both at 50cm, from the imaging ressources comparometer: https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM so everyone can donwload the same files.
Old tech vs current. 12mpx vs 20 etc...I take the D2XS over this Pana anytime at low isos. It makes think isn't it?
 :D

To your question about if the New 5D is worth the 3000 upgrade? If you don't print museum sizes, don't work with moving objects nor higher isos nor need to crop, the answer is probably no. And If you really need a great tool for photojournalism where AF perf and handling are state of the art there is the 1Dx2, a much better overall camera IMO, but more expensive. Coot has one, you can ask him.
Ps:you may try the Panasonic G9 if you have time. (it takes canon glasses with the Metabones and goes up to 80mpx for product photography, has good video features, is totally sealed, pro quality and smaller, and costs less than 2000. Panasonic also improved a lot their colour science on this model and the AF is good)
I looked at the "Dave Box" in the "comparator" and the difference in resolution is pretty extreme, but I'm not sure if they used the same lens and the resolution chart is not centered either...  But, I am considering a gallery show later this year (yes I know, not a way to make money!)  and I'm thinking, that going forward, it might be nice to make some very large prints and the 12mpx 5d just will fall apart after 25-30 inches wide.  If I'm going through the trouble of shooting, might as well be "size" proof.  Even at 18inches my prints from 6x9 film are visibly more detailed than the 12mpx digital photos.  Of course the 6x9 scans are 12,000 pixels wide vs. 4000 pixels for the 5d 12mpx.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 06, 2018, 06:00:48 pm
I looked at the "Dave Box" in the "comparator" and the difference in resolution is pretty extreme, but I'm not sure if they used the same lens and the resolution chart is not centered either...  But, I am considering a gallery show later this year (yes I know, not a way to make money!)  and I'm thinking, that going forward, it might be nice to make some very large prints and the 12mpx 5d just will fall apart after 25-30 inches wide.  If I'm going through the trouble of shooting, might as well be "size" proof.  Even at 18inches my prints from 6x9 film are visibly more detailed than the 12mpx digital photos.  Of course the 6x9 scans are 12,000 pixels wide vs. 4000 pixels for the 5d 12mpx.
Yeah, but the experience with theaters also mirrors the gallery's client. The cine audience (I mean the one who pay the bills) doesn't care about 8k, HDR, Panavision and so on (but yes much more about audio) as long as the story catches and the actors-direction worked. In the same spirit, the art buyer values the artistical proposal and the emotional aspect way before others considerations and if a craftmanship has to enter into consideration it is rarely spotted towards resolution but paper and (important!!) framing materials and quality; depending very much on the print size and viewing distance then resolution enters into consideration of course but linked with those parameters always.

If someone is pixel peeping in a gallery, it is a photographer, and as such, not a potential buyer because they are all broke.
 
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 06, 2018, 06:23:00 pm
Yeah, but the experience with theaters also mirrors the gallery's client. The cine audience (I mean the one who pay the bills) doesn't care about 8k, HDR, Panavision and so on (but yes much more about audio) as long as the story catches and the actors-direction worked. In the same spirit, the art buyer values the artistical proposal and the emotional aspect way before others considerations and if a craftmanship has to enter into consideration it is rarely spotted towards resolution but paper and (important!!) framing materials and quality; depending very much on the print size and viewing distance then resolution enters into consideration of course but linked with those parameters always.

If someone is pixel peeping in a gallery, it is a photographer, and as such, not a potential buyer because they are all broke.

Yes, I'm a photographer and... I've never bought someone else's print!  That said, the "Landscapey" photographs do have a bit more emotional impact when more detailed.  And now my 100mm lens can be a 200mm lens! (at 12mpx :)  I'm also getting significantly better low light possibilities and much better auto focus which I sometimes use.  And I just sold my beat up 5d to KEH today.  They were here in town and paid on the spot and I would probably get only $50 more for it on ebay...  So, congratulations to me!
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 06, 2018, 06:31:13 pm
Yes, I'm a photographer and... I've never bought someone else's print!
Seeee?  :D :D ;)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 06, 2018, 06:47:19 pm
Yes, I'm a photographer and... I've never bought someone else's print!  That said, the "Landscapey" photographs do have a bit more emotional impact when more detailed.  And now my 100mm lens can be a 200mm lens! (at 12mpx :)  I'm also getting significantly better low light possibilities and much better auto focus which I sometimes use.  And I just sold my beat up 5d to KEH today.  They were here in town and paid on the spot and I would probably get only $50 more for it on ebay...  So, congratulations to me!
It is true that the audience of Landscape photography gives more importance to fine details.
But Landscape, as strange as it seems, is vastly popular in the US/Canada, much much less in Europe that is being considered as a minor genre in the gallery spheres. Probably because we're posh and arrogants. Here the big deal is people, photojournalism and conceptual. It is way more difficult for a landscape photographer to eat in Europe because the cultural codes do not match with this genre.
So yeah, I was writting from a european point of view.
But congrats anaway because you have a much better overall modern camera (specially AF and higher isos)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: one iota on May 06, 2018, 10:26:44 pm
Thank you One Iota :)  Like your screen name!

Yes, on my 5D1, ISO 800 is pretty much the limit with 1600 only good for desperate situations, noisy with shrinking DR.  So it's helpful to me to know you've been using yours at ISO3200.

Well the 5Ds also has a sweeter noise than the 5DII...I've never understood the obsession some people have with zero noise! It's the character imparted by the medium.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 07, 2018, 11:20:06 am
It is true that the audience of Landscape photography gives more importance to fine details.
But Landscape, as strange as it seems, is vastly popular in the US/Canada, much much less in Europe that is being considered as a minor genre in the gallery spheres. Probably because we're posh and arrogants. Here the big deal is people, photojournalism and conceptual. It is way more difficult for a landscape photographer to eat in Europe because the cultural codes do not match with this genre.
So yeah, I was writting from a european point of view.
But congrats anaway because you have a much better overall modern camera (specially AF and higher isos)

Well, my landscapes are often more "landscapey" than straight "landscape", that way they are not so popular anywhere!
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 07, 2018, 06:27:39 pm
Well, my landscapes are often more "landscapey" than straight "landscape", that way they are not so popular anywhere!
Hey, I've been watching your pictures and there are a lot of very good images. I think you have a special talent for photojournalism, or photoreportage (I hate boundaries) but your style reminds me more of Magnum spirit than of a pure landscape photographer. Is that the meaning of Landscapey? The colours are really good but I expected it knowing your background in cine. I like the way you master the wide angle.
(on some web images I think you went a bit (or way) too agressive on sharpening, not all of them though.
But very very good work indeed. Worth exhibition for sure and in big sizes.

My 2cts: IMO, your landscapes are very good but you know, landscape photography is an overloaded genre ultimatly. I don't know if for being a de-cluttering freak but where there are too many dudes eating the same cake and it became repetitive...I don't know why everybody jumped into this blockbusting genre. Maybe because of global warming so we'll have landscape to remind us how cool nature had been before mankind screwed it all? Bizarre. On the other hand, talents in photoreportage is not that common and you possess this natural skill. I think there is something there waiting for you.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 07, 2018, 07:13:34 pm
Hey, I've been watching your pictures and there are a lot of very good images. I think you have a special talent for photojournalism, or photoreportage (I hate boundaries) but your style reminds me more of Magnum spirit than of a pure landscape photographer. Is that the meaning of Landscapey? The colours are really good but I expected it knowing your background in cine. I like the way you master the wide angle.
(on some web images I think you went a bit (or way) too agressive on sharpening, not all of them though.
But very very good work indeed. Worth exhibition for sure and in big sizes.

My 2cts: IMO, your landscapes are very good but you know, landscape photography is an overloaded genre ultimatly. I don't know if for being a de-cluttering freak but where there are too many dudes eating the same cake and it bacame repetitive...I don't know why everybody wants to do landscape. On the other hand, talents in photoreportage is not that common and you possess this natural skill. I think there is something there waiting for you.

Thanks so much for the kind words!!!!

I like your comments about Landscapes, considering this is the "Luminous Landscape" site.  It seems everyone here shoots landscapes!!!  Just for fun, I've attached the kind of landscape that interests me.  And to keep on topic, it's shot on 6x9 film and is pretty high resolution, and needs it.

Yes, I sometimes sharpen too much with the web posts.  But most are looking at phones these days, so it seems about right :)  I don't have too many images on my website, but I have many on Facebook if anyone here would like to "friend" me, you are welcome to.   https://www.facebook.com/bruce.alan.greene  If you do, also send a note so that I know that you're from LuLa.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 08, 2018, 12:32:06 pm
Thanks so much for the kind words!!!!

I like your comments about Landscapes, considering this is the "Luminous Landscape" site.  It seems everyone here shoots landscapes!!!  Just for fun, I've attached the kind of landscape that interests me.  And to keep on topic, it's shot on 6x9 film and is pretty high resolution, and needs it.

Yes, I sometimes sharpen too much with the web posts.  But most are looking at phones these days, so it seems about right :)  I don't have too many images on my website, but I have many on Facebook if anyone here would like to "friend" me, you are welcome to.   https://www.facebook.com/bruce.alan.greene  If you do, also send a note so that I know that you're from LuLa.
Your monochromes are on the best I have ever seen in the digital age.  Yep, you know a thing or two when it comes to get the look. ;)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 08, 2018, 01:07:23 pm
Your monochromes are on the best I have ever seen in the digital age.  Yep, you know a thing or two when it comes to get the look. ;)
Aw, shucks.  (that's American for "thanks" in a humble way)

Just to add to the original story...

I sold my 5d classic on Sunday to the KEH guys who came to town for the day.  Then, Monday, I discovered that my "new" used 5Ds had a crack in the camera body.  It had been dropped on it's head pretty hard at some point, but continued to work.  Obviously, I can't keep this camera in this condition.  But I'm leaving the country on Saturday, and now... I have no digital camera at all, just lenses :)

The guys at B&H seem very helpful and are sending me another used body overnight and will refund me for the original camera when they receive it back.  Wish me luck that this new "used" body is in working order!  I am glad that I didn't try to buy a used camera on ebay though...
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 08, 2018, 02:33:02 pm
Aw, shucks.  (that's American for "thanks" in a humble way)

Just to add to the original story...

I sold my 5d classic on Sunday to the KEH guys who came to town for the day.  Then, Monday, I discovered that my "new" used 5Ds had a crack in the camera body.  It had been dropped on it's head pretty hard at some point, but continued to work.  Obviously, I can't keep this camera in this condition.  But I'm leaving the country on Saturday, and now... I have no digital camera at all, just lenses :)

The guys at B&H seem very helpful and are sending me another used body overnight and will refund me for the original camera when they receive it back.  Wish me luck that this new "used" body is in working order!  I am glad that I didn't try to buy a used camera on ebay though...
Holly crap. I missed a part of the story board from "Bruce and the camera".
I though you sold your vintage one and bought a 5Ds new (price body new in shop 2200 euros) or have you been talking about a used 5Ds R? I don't get the 3000 euros mentionned earlier.
Scene1: Used body sold.
Scene2: broken used body I thought was new.
Scene3: new used body until broken body reborn.
Comming Episode: has Bruce falled into the relentless Murphy law's of bad luck or will the new temporary used body survive until the refurbished one has been resent? :o
the drama starts to get exciting. ;D
I want to follow more episodes.
The good news is that refurbished bodies are best than used, (if they send it to Canon).
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 08, 2018, 03:02:31 pm
By the way Bruce,
The "agressive" sharpening I was talking about earlier does not appear in FB where it's all perfectly fine. Only occurs in the gallery display of your web site and not in all pics, which is strange. I wonder if it's a kind of wordpress plug-in with some oscur settings. Curious. (don't worry cause I'm a bit anti-sharpening anyway so what seems too much for me is what's often considered ok+)

PS: wish you best luck with the new cam.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 08, 2018, 06:38:19 pm
Holly crap. I missed a part of the story board from "Bruce and the camera".
I though you sold your vintage one and bought a 5Ds new (price body new in shop 2200 euros) or have you been talking about a used 5Ds R? I don't get the 3000 euros mentionned earlier.
Scene1: Used body sold.
Scene2: broken used body I thought was new.
Scene3: new used body until broken body reborn.
Comming Episode: has Bruce falled into the relentless Murphy law's of bad luck or will the new temporary used body survive until the refurbished one has been resent? :o
the drama starts to get exciting. ;D
I want to follow more episodes.
The good news is that refurbished bodies are best than used, (if they send it to Canon).

To fill you in:  New camera $3500 US.  Refrub from Canon, $3000 + 10% California tax or $3300. Used camera from B&H, $2750 (no tax from B&H when they ship from NY State to California)  So, used is $650 less than new and $450 less than refurb...  B&H has 30 day return policy and 90 day warrantee.

Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 08, 2018, 06:40:27 pm
By the way Bruce,
The "agressive" sharpening I was talking about earlier does not appear in FB where it's all perfectly fine. Only occurs in the gallery display of your web site and not in all pics, which is strange. I wonder if it's a kind of wordpress plug-in with some oscur settings. Curious. (don't worry cause I'm a bit anti-sharpening anyway so what seems too much for me is what's often considered ok+)

PS: wish you best luck with the new cam.

I think there are some scaling issues with regards to the Wix website.  I might be able to redesign the photo page to fix that.  There are also a few photos on the website that came from cheap lab scans and I haven't had time to make a proper scan at home yet.  These scans came pre-"sharpened" to a high degree.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: nemophoto on May 10, 2018, 01:18:54 pm
I own the 5Ds. It's my first 5D-series camera, having always owned the 1D-series (my other body is a 1Dx). I was DYING for higher res for many years. One of my long term clients does 8' in-store posters. For the resolution they need for printing, I never have to up-res the image from the 5Ds. How I wish the sensor had gone in to a 1D body. Overall, I love the quality of the images. It's not a high-ISO camera -- but I don't care. I have shot with it at 400 and 800 ISO and had excellent results.

You ask about the difference from your 1st Gen 5D? It's night and day. When working on images form a job, after viewing and working on 5Ds images, I feel I'm working on lo-res images when I switch to 1Dx photos. That's not really the case, but the detail is astounding. My only complaint is that I would have liked to have seen an Ethernet port on the 5Ds, like the 1Dx. When ramming 50MP images through to a laptop on a studio tethered shoot, it virtually cripples the computer. I suppose if they put a USB-C into a 5Ds Mark II (not that that camera has even a glimmer of rumor), that would mitigate the problems.

I love the 5Ds. I frequently will  shoot mRAW as well, which is still 28MP. Another alternative is the 5D Mark IV. I've used it on a number of shoots. Very nice camera if you want something between the 5Ds and original 5D.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 10, 2018, 04:41:32 pm
I own the 5Ds. It's my first 5D-series camera, having always owned the 1D-series (my other body is a 1Dx). I was DYING for higher res for many years. One of my long term clients does 8' in-store posters. For the resolution they need for printing, I never have to up-res the image from the 5Ds. How I wish the sensor had gone in to a 1D body. Overall, I love the quality of the images. It's not a high-ISO camera -- but I don't care. I have shot with it at 400 and 800 ISO and had excellent results.

You ask about the difference from your 1st Gen 5D? It's night and day. When working on images form a job, after viewing and working on 5Ds images, I feel I'm working on lo-res images when I switch to 1Dx photos. That's not really the case, but the detail is astounding. My only complaint is that I would have liked to have seen an Ethernet port on the 5Ds, like the 1Dx. When ramming 50MP images through to a laptop on a studio tethered shoot, it virtually cripples the computer. I suppose if they put a USB-C into a 5Ds Mark II (not that that camera has even a glimmer of rumor), that would mitigate the problems.

I love the 5Ds. I frequently will  shoot mRAW as well, which is still 28MP. Another alternative is the 5D Mark IV. I've used it on a number of shoots. Very nice camera if you want something between the 5Ds and original 5D.

Thanks for the "review" Nemo!

I've never shot tethered to the computer so, no problem there!

Just to add to my earlier post, I've received a "new" used camera from B&H, and this one seems to have it's body intact and seems to be working.  Now to figure out this menu which is far bigger than the 5D classic menu.  So many AF options to choose from...  I guess learning this can be my "on the plane" activity or give me something to do on my 9 hour layover in Vienna :)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 11, 2018, 05:29:26 am
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


Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: scrane on May 11, 2018, 10:14:01 am
I, too, have noticed that the original 5d outperforms its paltry resolution spec. I suspect this is due to a weak anti aliasing filter.
The old 5d is still one of my favorite cameras.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 11, 2018, 11:14:42 am
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

Fred, I considered most of what you've written here... But, my lenses are too old to use reliably with the adapter on a sony.  And replacing all the lenses for Sony would have been very expensive.  At some point, one needs to make some decision, so 5Ds it is!  For the kinds of scenes that I shoot, the 50mpx will work for me often, but of course, I don't aways need it, but it's there.  I still have film cameras for when I want a less electronic look.  But traveling with film is not so convenient these days, so the 5ds kind of fits the bill for me at this time, I think :)  My old lenses are quite small, so the package is not too big to carry around...  For me, this is kind of a one size fits all solution.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 11, 2018, 03:31:38 pm
I, too, have noticed that the original 5d outperforms its paltry resolution spec. I suspect this is due to a weak anti aliasing filter.
The old 5d is still one of my favorite cameras.
I have noticed that too with both D2Xs and D3.
I think that what happens is that they reached a top many years ago and the endless resolution's increment without incrementation of the sensor's size itself are just tricks of engineering, the same way a plane factory packs twice more people into the same cigar! it's perfectly possible (now tell me about the comfort). But it's a fact: for a reason I ignore, the D2Xs handles surprizingly well drastic upsampling with extra sharpening and the results could rival those of dobled MPx without problem as long as isos are kept low, while trying to double the size of a more pixel-packed sensor does not produce so pleasing results. Edit: even the D2Xs for arquitecture!
IMO it has a direct relation with the pixel size/density.
For example, the 20MPx from micro43 does not handle well upresizing (tried it, no thanks) because pixels are small and the density is high. Putting 20mpx on a micro 43 equals 40ish on a FF. This is really the limit.
This fact was also well documented, and I had closely followed this saga, with the surprizing Leica R digital back that was producing prints of a quality way beyond it's resolution specs.
All R users were saying the same over and over again with proofs (in this forum actually)

If those assumptions are correct, We may deduct that the FF sensor size reached maturity at 12 Mpx and its maximum performance at 24 considering the low light perf.
Is no accident why the current Canon flagship and IMO the best Canon ever made so far is a 20MPx camera.

At 50, camera shake becomes ultra critical, glasses that were performing well on a former model may reveal themselves underperforming, focussing is more difficult open, files are huge, post slows-down. Not everything is grace and joy.

I understand Bruce's points. Considering old lenses, they're not going to take advantage on a Sony adapter and 50mpx, although on steroids, are in-camera.
But it remains to be seen if those very same old lenses will perform so well at those high resolutions.
The difference is that mirrorless tech has been developped specificaly for digital imagery and the specs match the required resolution.
The mounts are also much more versatile, allowing a wider range of potential combinations and costs are kept low.
But yeah...changing all a set of lenses is a very expensive move.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 11, 2018, 06:03:33 pm
I have noticed that too with both D2Xs and D3.
I think that what happens is that they reached a top many years ago and the endless resolution's increment without incrementation of the sensor's size itself are just tricks of engineering, the same way a plane factory packs twice more people into the same cigar! it's perfectly possible (now tell me about the comfort). But it's a fact: for a reason I ignore, the D2Xs handles surprizingly well drastic upsampling with extra sharpening and the results could rival those of dobled MPx without problem as long as isos are kept low, while trying to double the size of a more pixel-packed sensor does not produce so pleasing results. Edit: even the D2Xs for arquitecture!
IMO it has a direct relation with the pixel size/density.
For example, the 20MPx from micro43 does not handle well upresizing (tried it, no thanks) because pixels are small and the density is high. Putting 20mpx on a micro 43 equals 40ish on a FF. This is really the limit.
This fact was also well documented, and I had closely followed this saga, with the surprizing Leica R digital back that was producing prints of a quality way beyond it's resolution specs.
All R users were saying the same over and over again with proofs (in this forum actually)

If those assumptions are correct, We may deduct that the FF sensor size reached maturity at 12 Mpx and its maximum performance at 24 considering the low light perf.
Is no accident why the current Canon flagship and IMO the best Canon ever made so far is a 20MPx camera.

At 50, camera shake becomes ultra critical, glasses that were performing well on a former model may reveal themselves underperforming, focussing is more difficult open, files are huge, post slows-down. Not everything is grace and joy.

I understand Bruce's points. Considering old lenses, they're not going to take advantage on a Sony adapter and 50mpx, although on steroids, are in-camera.
But it remains to be seen if those very same old lenses will perform so well at those high resolutions.
The difference is that mirrorless tech has been developped specificaly for digital imagery and the specs match the required resolution.
The mounts are also much more versatile, allowing a wider range of potential combinations and costs are kept low.
But yeah...changing all a set of lenses is a very expensive move.

I think my lenses perform well enough ... in the center and at optimum aperture.  The 100mm f2.0 is very very sharp.  The 50mm1.4 is good when stopped down.  The 35mm 2.0, I don't know, and the 24mm 2.8 is probably good enough in the center of frame, edges will be softer.  Of course at very high shutter speed or on a tripod :)  I think there is no question that more than 50mpx would be a waste for these lenses.  But I do think the 5ds will out resolve my 6x9 film cameras with an 4000dpi/12k scan that I get from my Nikon scanner :)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 11, 2018, 07:36:46 pm
But I do think the 5ds will out resolve my 6x9 film cameras with an 4000dpi/12k scan that I get from my Nikon scanner :)
I think so too.

I have a question Bruce, in relation with your long experience with cine lenses, not that much from the mechanical/operational aspects inherent to film but optically.
Let's take a cine lens which look you knows well: do you think that you'd find the very same qualities (same look characteristics) if it was possible to use this lens on a still camera instead?

I'm asking this question because since we sank into the gripping stories of hybridicities putting bleak prospects on dslr dwindling supplies, a blockbusting rush highjacked the e-bay sales: the seek for cinema lenses to be mounted on mirrorlesses. I had filmed once with some cheap Oct19 for the russian Konvas (I like russian gear) mounted on Panasonic cam and the look was "interesting" but the ergonomics horrible to be polite so as the too busy for my taste bokeh. After a few sessions, it remained clear to me that it was more of an exotic affair than a real advantage.
But those lenses that could be found at about 200 euros are now on sales at 500 and more!! (this is why I talked about a rush, offer and demand).
After this funny experiment, I lost my interest on Angenieux cine lenses and similar shopping at the Boulevard Beaumarchais (there was a time when resselers gifted them for 10 bucks to de-clutter their shops...I should have been wise, buy the all shops, and now I'd be rich... >:() 
But do you thing a cine lens would optically perform the same on Arri as on a still cam or is it just a mystic?
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 11, 2018, 10:07:12 pm
I think so too.

I have a question Bruce, in relation with your long experience with cine lenses, not that much from the mechanical/operational aspects inherent to film but optically.
Let's take a cine lens which look you knows well: do you think that you'd find the very same qualities (same look characteristics) if it was possible to use this lens on a still camera instead?

I'm asking this question because since we sank into the gripping stories of hybridicities putting bleak prospects on dslr dwindling supplies, a blockbusting rush highjacked the e-bay sales: the seek for cinema lenses to be mounted on mirrorlesses. I had filmed once with some cheap Oct19 for the russian Konvas (I like russian gear) mounted on Panasonic cam and the look was "interesting" but the ergonomics horrible to be polite so as the too busy for my taste bokeh. After a few sessions, it remained clear to me that it was more of an exotic affair than a real advantage.
But those lenses that could be found at about 200 euros are now on sales at 500 and more!! (this is why I talked about a rush, offer and demand).
After this funny experiment, I lost my interest on Angenieux cine lenses and similar shopping at the Boulevard Beaumarchais (there was a time when resselers gifted them for 10 bucks to de-clutter their shops...I should have been wise, buy the all shops, and now I'd be rich... >:() 
But do you thing a cine lens would optically perform the same on Arri as on a still cam or is it just a mystic?

that's an interesting question. 

"super 35" which is the size of the sensor we're mostly shooting at today has a width, the same size as the height of a FF still camera sensor.  I'm attaching a still frame from an Arri Alexa shot with an UltraPrime Ziess lens.  Keep in mind that we shoot each frame at 1/50th sec.  So motion blur almost always comes into play.  The Arri Alexa also has a resolution of about 12mpx, but on the smaller sensor and we down res to 2k or 1920 for release.  So the photo site density of an Alexa is about the same as the Canon 5d classic!

So, are the cinema lenses better optically than conventional 35mm format still camera lenses?  It's hard to see unless one shoots on an 8k movie camera, which I haven't done.  Also, no one releases in anything more than 4k for movies.

I do remember doing extensive lens tests on film and projecting them in a theater.  And there, on a shaking film print, we could see differences in the sharpness of cinema lenses.  The modern Ziess primes were quite good, but zooms, even expensive ones, showed a very slightly poorer image.  So, I'm sure we can see the difference between cinema lenses even on an Arri Alexa which captures about the detail of a Canon 5d classic.  So, I'm guessing that the best cinema lenses will out resolve 5d mkII, but not the 5ds.

Of course what cinema lenses do supply are a matched set of primes.  But, if you shoot Ziess primes and mix them with an Angeniux zoom, they will look quite different, mostly due to color and contrast.

I have shot with older Ziess primes on a Sony a7rII.  This camera shoots a crop mode to match the image circle of a cinema camera at 4k resolution.  And they looked very good, but I did not compare to still camera lenses as those are designed for the full frame 46mpx sensor.

I'm rambling on here because I have no science here, and cinema has so much motion blur that we don't often see a locked down shot to fully view lens resolution.  So really even viewing a movie at 4k will probably not show more detail than an HD or 2k version.  There are other projects, that are not movies that shoot 4k at 60 frames per second with much less motion blur, and there, I think the 4k and maybe 8k would really show.  I saw demos of this at the NAB convention last month and the 8k projection at 60 frames per second was quite impressive, but... it didn't look like what we think is a "movie".  More like really good TV.

And lastly, we needed to build quite a monster with the Sony A7Rii with the cinema lenses, matte box, external Ninja recorder, and remote radio follow focus.  Not to mention all the cables!  But it did work and make really nice images provided we recorded Slog on 4k pro res in the Ninja recorder/viewfinder.

Attached below is a frame from "Night Shift", opening in cinemas June 21 in Russia and Russian speaking nations.  See if you can judge a lens by a movie frame ?   8)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 12, 2018, 10:03:54 am
that's an interesting question. 

"super 35" which is the size of the sensor we're mostly shooting at today has a width, the same size as the height of a FF still camera sensor.  I'm attaching a still frame from an Arri Alexa shot with an UltraPrime Ziess lens.  Keep in mind that we shoot each frame at 1/50th sec.  So motion blur almost always comes into play.  The Arri Alexa also has a resolution of about 12mpx, but on the smaller sensor and we down res to 2k or 1920 for release.  So the photo site density of an Alexa is about the same as the Canon 5d classic!

So, are the cinema lenses better optically than conventional 35mm format still camera lenses?  It's hard to see unless one shoots on an 8k movie camera, which I haven't done.  Also, no one releases in anything more than 4k for movies.

I do remember doing extensive lens tests on film and projecting them in a theater.  And there, on a shaking film print, we could see differences in the sharpness of cinema lenses.  The modern Ziess primes were quite good, but zooms, even expensive ones, showed a very slightly poorer image.  So, I'm sure we can see the difference between cinema lenses even on an Arri Alexa which captures about the detail of a Canon 5d classic.  So, I'm guessing that the best cinema lenses will out resolve 5d mkII, but not the 5ds.

Of course what cinema lenses do supply are a matched set of primes.  But, if you shoot Ziess primes and mix them with an Angeniux zoom, they will look quite different, mostly due to color and contrast.

I have shot with older Ziess primes on a Sony a7rII.  This camera shoots a crop mode to match the image circle of a cinema camera at 4k resolution.  And they looked very good, but I did not compare to still camera lenses as those are designed for the full frame 46mpx sensor.

I'm rambling on here because I have no science here, and cinema has so much motion blur that we don't often see a locked down shot to fully view lens resolution.  So really even viewing a movie at 4k will probably not show more detail than an HD or 2k version.  There are other projects, that are not movies that shoot 4k at 60 frames per second with much less motion blur, and there, I think the 4k and maybe 8k would really show.  I saw demos of this at the NAB convention last month and the 8k projection at 60 frames per second was quite impressive, but... it didn't look like what we think is a "movie".  More like really good TV.

And lastly, we needed to build quite a monster with the Sony A7Rii with the cinema lenses, matte box, external Ninja recorder, and remote radio follow focus.  Not to mention all the cables!  But it did work and make really nice images provided we recorded Slog on 4k pro res in the Ninja recorder/viewfinder.

Attached below is a frame from "Night Shift", opening in cinemas June 21 in Russia and Russian speaking nations.  See if you can judge a lens by a movie frame ?   8)
Many thanks Bruce. Very informative.

About your attached image? The first impression, and I'm surely wrong, is that it does not look digital but has a more film like flavor. Humans look humans, not dolls. So I'd first put a bet that the img is from analogic. Isos I'd say 800. But the lens? this is very tricky. Arri-Zeiss anamorphic 35mm would be the one that comes into my mind. Very difficult, Zeissish. a T2 ish max aperture and in the pic I'd say that aperture might be at about 4 ish? WB I'd say 4000? All a bunch of guessings, lots of "ish" ;D
the reso seems about the same as your vintage Canon because if you had taken this image with, it would look similar.

Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 12, 2018, 10:55:19 am
Many thanks Bruce. Very informative.

About your attached image? The first impression, and I'm surely wrong, is that it does not look digital but has a more film like flavor. Humans look humans, not dolls. So I'd first put a bet that the img is from analogic. Isos I'd say 800. But the lens? this is very tricky. Arri-Zeiss anamorphic 35mm would be the one that comes into my mind. Very difficult, Zeissish. a T2 ish max aperture and in the pic I'd say that aperture might be at about 4 ish? WB I'd say 4000? All a bunch of guessings, lots of "ish" ;D
the reso seems about the same as your vintage Canon because if you had taken this image with, it would look similar.

You can tell from the out of focus circles that this is shot with a spherical lens because they are round and not ovals.

It is a T2.0 - 2.8 shot. And probably a 16mm lens.  ISO is 800.  White Balance is about 3200 with mostly tungsten lamps.  There were LED party lamps also in this nightclub.  The shot is also not on a tripod, but on a Steadicam, so there is moving camera and moving people.  I picked a frame here where it seemed to be the least motion blur.  And that only happens about once every 36 frames or so.

I guess these lenses can out resolve this camera if the camera is locked down on a tripod and nothing is moving in frame.

I will say this though:  The TV companies and Netflix are pushing 4k TV's and programming, and there are now some requirements that movies and tv be captured at 4k+.  And what does this mean about lenses?  Cinematographers are looking for old Anamorphic lenses to degrade the image!  Pretty soon the most famous name in cinema lenses will be "Holganon" from the famous plastic camera maker.

Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 12, 2018, 01:56:39 pm

I will say this though:  The TV companies and Netflix are pushing 4k TV's and programming, and there are now some requirements that movies and tv be captured at 4k+.  And what does this mean about lenses?  Cinematographers are looking for old Anamorphic lenses to degrade the image!  Pretty soon the most famous name in cinema lenses will be "Holganon" from the famous plastic camera maker.
How the hell? So it implicity means that uprezzing is not accepted? Which then also would implicitly means that they are going to dictate which cameras have to be used?

If I'm correct, Sony has a lot to do with Netflix, and they are probably very interested to sell their 4k teevees. (with content shooted by their cameras better)

What about the Alexa then?
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 12, 2018, 02:42:37 pm
I don't think there is a connection with Sony and Netflix .  For Netflix produced content Alexa is not accepted . Only the large format Alexa qualifies for Netflix produced content. Netflix does buy films that they don't produce in other formats though.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 12, 2018, 02:49:03 pm
I don't think there is a connection with Sony and Netflix .  For Netflix produced content Alexa is not accepted . Only the large format Alexa qualifies for Netflix produced content. Netflix does buy films that they don't produce in other formats though.
But the point I'm missing is that when you say "Cinematographers are looking for old Anamorphic lenses to degrade the image", do you reffer to the clinical, surgerical look or too sharp given 4K?
This is what I understood.
So they rehumanize so to say using "Holganon"?
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 12, 2018, 03:42:35 pm
But the point I'm missing is that when you say "Cinematographers are looking for old Anamorphic lenses to degrade the image", do you reffer to the clinical, surgerical look or too sharp given 4K?
This is what I understood.
So they rehumanize so to say using "Holganon"?
yes, something like that ..
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 12, 2018, 04:56:26 pm
Thanks a lot for your time and presence Bruce. I always learn a lot from you in this forum, and that is priceless. ;)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9b/ec/39/9bec393c926a694200d1a0fd8e7768ac.jpg)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: ErikKaffehr 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:
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!!!!!
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 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.

(https://www1.wdr.de/radio/wdr3/programm/sendungen/wdr3-mosaik/folkwang-museum-balthasar-burkhard-100~_v-gseagaleriexl.jpg)

This next one was actually at the Fine Art entrance hall itself.
(https://www.fotostiftung.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Bilder/Presse/2018/Burkhard/FSS_Presse02_Burkhard.jpg)

(http://www.sfeir-semler.com/data/gallery/837/x6149.JPG.pagespeed.ic.L3XJk2csvF.jpg)

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwittIu9zoLbAhWGPxQKHVYCD-YQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editionwinterthur.ch%2Fkunst%2Fkuenstler%2Fburkhard.php&psig=AOvVaw0IwnUGOl0HYOqxgi1hap_C&ust=1526297947767644)

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwib2fTGzoLbAhVM1RQKHTfSBSIQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artnews.com%2F2018%2F03%2F20%2Fbalthasar-burkhard-fotomuseum-winterthur-switzerland%2F&psig=AOvVaw0IwnUGOl0HYOqxgi1hap_C&ust=1526297947767644)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr 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!
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr 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. ;)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9b/ec/39/9bec393c926a694200d1a0fd8e7768ac.jpg)

And thanks for your point of view too!
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: SuperNiceNina 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.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr 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...
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 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 ?
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: Rob C 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!

:-)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr 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..
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: Rob C 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
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 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 ...
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr 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
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 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.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr 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 :)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 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
(http://nickyarborough.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/wages-of-fear-uk-movie-poster-1953.jpg)
(https://cdn8.bigcommerce.com/s-e9bd7/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/22711/23055/HR_EF85_14L_IS_USM_SIDE_CL__93822.1503973937.jpg?c=2&imbypass=on)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 22, 2018, 02:05:14 am
I would like a 50mm f1.4 IS, but they haven’t made one yet!
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf 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
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: kers 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...
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 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.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: fredjeang2 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)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: kers on May 22, 2018, 11:04:44 am
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)
and Nikon is not even capable of producing a 50mm 1.4 without IS that is in the same catagory as the Sigma - a shame!
(but then they apparantly want to let it cost no more than 350€)
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 22, 2018, 02:25:19 pm
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.

No HDR involved here.  A single exposure. Normal "dodge and burn" technique plus .... a secret sauce!

I don't think I did any correction for CA though.  Maybe I should have... hmmm.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: smthopr on May 22, 2018, 02:27:29 pm
and Nikon is not even capable of producing a 50mm 1.4 without IS that is in the same catagory as the Sigma - a shame!
(but then they apparantly want to let it cost no more than 350€)

the imperfections of my 50mm f1.4 are what I like most about it!  I love the foggy f1.4 look... when I want it.  Stopped down, the lens is quite normal and sharp.
Title: Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
Post by: NancyP on May 25, 2018, 01:00:12 pm
I use the AIS Nikkor 50 f/1.2 at f/1.2 for the dreamy look - it has the typical wide-open aberration of fast double Gauss lens designs. It is also a lightweight good 50 for sharp f/2.8 and up