Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Phil Indeblanc on March 20, 2015, 11:27:48 pm

Title: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on March 20, 2015, 11:27:48 pm
A prepro model, but...

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-rA.HTM#HIGHRES
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: uaiomex on March 21, 2015, 12:18:17 am
Waiting for my Sony A9.

Ed
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on March 21, 2015, 05:29:00 am
A prepro model, but...

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-rA.HTM#HIGHRES

Interesting, but I cringe at the sharpening applied to the images. I'd like to get my hands on some Raw images, assuming that Canon's DPP Raw converter recognizes the camera.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: BobDavid on March 21, 2015, 11:19:20 am
The Oly EM5-II is a real multi-shot camera. The Pentax outperforms it in micro contrast, but I would bet, since there is no Bayer interpolation, the EM-5 II has better color fidelity. Pictures taken with an Oly EM5-II + 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro are nothing short of amazing. The technique may seem fussy until you "get it." A rock-steady tripod and setting the shutter to delay a few seconds really helps. The dynamic range of the Oly sensor is miles ahead of any of the other mirrorless cameras. Oh, the camera and zoom together costs $2,000. This is a great camera for repro, interiors, still life, products, and under ideal conditions landscape photography.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on March 21, 2015, 11:48:09 am
The Oly EM5-II is a real multi-shot camera. The Pentax outperforms it in micro contrast, but I would bet, since there is no Bayer interpolation, the EM-5 II has better color fidelity.

Hi,

This thread is about the 5DS/R, not the Oly. Anyway, it seems a bit too early for a direct comparison.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on March 21, 2015, 01:01:40 pm
Its surely an odd subject matter, and I notice the lighting setup difference between tests, or something shifting? I would have liked a couple other subjects for low ISO test. The high ISO to me I don't deal with much at all, and they looked fine (5Dsr vs others)from the quick scroll down glance.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: capital on March 21, 2015, 04:05:13 pm
Would be interesting to find out to what degree, if any, the "new" and "stronger" color filter array for this camera has on image colors.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: RobertJ on March 21, 2015, 04:22:19 pm
The Oly EM5-II is a real multi-shot camera. The Pentax outperforms it in micro contrast, but I would bet, since there is no Bayer interpolation, the EM-5 II has better color fidelity.

It doesn't look like it.  The Oly multi-shot images I've seen so far don't look AT ALL like full-color, especially comparing to a real Foveon image from a DP Merrill or old Sinar multi-shot backs.  The Olympus still looks very Bayer-ish and JPEG-ish to me.  Not even close.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on March 21, 2015, 04:40:27 pm
Would be interesting to find out to what degree, if any, the "new" and "stronger" color filter array for this camera has on image colors.

Indeed, that has my attention piqued as well. Hopefully Capture One Pro will soon after its release add support for these files.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: telyt on March 21, 2015, 04:53:17 pm
Waiting for my Sony A9.

Same here.  These Canons looks interesting, or they would have been a few years ago, but the adaptability and mechanical simplicity of the Sony A-series mirrorless cameras lead me to think of DSLRs as last decade's Rube Goldberg dinosaurs.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Telecaster on March 21, 2015, 10:02:04 pm
It doesn't look like it.  The Oly multi-shot images I've seen so far don't look AT ALL like full-color, especially comparing to a real Foveon image from a DP Merrill or old Sinar multi-shot backs.  The Olympus still looks very Bayer-ish and JPEG-ish to me.  Not even close.

OT, but it'd be interesting to see a proper comparison between the E-M5ii in multi-shot mode and one of the Merrills using subject matter known to induce chroma aliasing with Bayer sensors. What I've seen so far from the Oly looks pretty darn good in that regard.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: RobertJ on March 21, 2015, 11:42:15 pm
I've just seen some Oly multi-shot images from Diglloyd's paid reviews, and I think they look pretty good.  No color artifacts compared to the enlarged single-shot images, and superior fine detail.

I was initially judging from the DPreview and Image Resource samples, which are always horrible, IMO.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 22, 2015, 08:05:04 pm
Those samples are IMHO a great ad for the 645Z, the other 3 cameras are so close in terms of detail that they would be pretty much impossible to tell apart in most situations.

Differences in lenses quality are likely to be more impacting.

Zeiss must be in heaven. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on March 23, 2015, 07:03:56 am
Those samples are IMHO a great ad for the 645Z, the other 3 cameras are so close in terms of detail that they would be pretty much impossible to tell apart in most situations.

Hi Bernhard,

I agree that the 645Z seems to hold up just fine. However, it's a bit hard to judge it without proper sharpening applied to the files. The OM 5 II files seem to sharpen nicely but it would require a proper lens test for the aperture used to find the optimal settings for deconvolution sharpening. The 645Z doesn't allow too much sharpening, due to the lack of OLPF.

The 5DS seems to be able and offer very nice base material for excellent sharpening, the 5Ds R remains to be seen (also depends on how it plays together with certain lenses).

Quote
Differences in lenses quality are likely to be more impacting.

Lens + sensor must always be seen as a combination. The 5DS sensor is likely to boost the system MTF of any lens, possibly by some 10% higher MTF at medium to high spatial frequencies, compared to a 36MP sensor! That has some seriously positive image quality consequences.

Quote
Zeiss must be in heaven. ;)

Indeed, their timing also proves to be very fortunate.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 23, 2015, 07:19:59 am
Lens + sensor must always be seen as a combination. The 5DS sensor is likely to boost the system MTF of any lens, possibly by some 10% higher MTF at medium to high spatial frequencies, compared to a 36MP sensor! That has some seriously positive image quality consequences.

Yes, everything else being equal, but I don't really see that much additional details in the 5Ds files. Probably less artifacts, but not really more details or at least not as much as the 50 vs 36 would have led me to expect.

Now these are just some samples and it will take images shot with an Otus to really figure out what the sensor is able to deliver.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: capital on March 23, 2015, 03:02:31 pm
Yes, everything else being equal, but I don't really that much additional details in the 5Ds files. Probably less artifacts, but not really more details or at least as much as the 50 vs 36 would have led me to expect.

Now these are just some samples and it will take images shot with an Otus to really figure out what the sensor is able to deliver.

Cheers,
Bernard


Hi Bernard, I asked Imaging Resource about their choice of lens for this comparison, this is what they wrote back:

Quote
We use a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro, one of the sharpest lenses we've tested. (It's a legendary design; Sigma stopped making them because they couldn't get the special glass used in one or more of its elements any more.) We're looking at updating our set of test lenses, but that's more so we can use the same optics across more bodies than it is because we feel the 70/2.8s aren't sharp enough.

Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Ray on March 23, 2015, 10:38:22 pm
I own a Nikon D800E, as well as a few Canon bodies and lenses. A 50mp sensor interests me, especialy when I also already have a number of lenses that fit the body of the new sensor.

However, when I compare these Imaging-Resource results from the 5DSR with the Nikon D810, at ISO 100 and ISO 6400, at 200% on my monitor, after upsampling the D810 shot to the same file size as the 5DSR shot, I see no significant difference in either noise or resolution that would persuade me to buy  the 5DSR.

On the other hand, those who don't have any Nikon cameras and lenses, and who were thinking of switching to Nikon, can take comfort in the fact that this new Canon 5DSR could equal, on average, the performance of the best that Nikon can offer, with the possible exception of image quality in the deepest shadows, which might not be an issue for most photographers.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 24, 2015, 02:49:31 am
Hi,

I am waiting for A9, too. From the recent news at Sony Alpha Rumors I guess it is a bit longer wait, perhaps end of this year?

I am a bit curious about how you feel about focusing on mirrorless cameras. I know you are a great expert on manual focus, how does that work out with an EVF?

Best regards
Erik


Same here.  These Canons looks interesting, or they would have been a few years ago, but the adaptability and mechanical simplicity of the Sony A-series mirrorless cameras lead me to think of DSLRs as last decade's Rube Goldberg dinosaurs.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: dwswager on March 24, 2015, 05:38:59 pm
..this new Canon 5DSR could equal, on average, the performance of the best that Nikon can offer, with the possible exception of image quality in the deepest shadows, which might not be an issue for most photographers.

Huh!  Leaves out sports, wildlife and landscape guys.  Probably wedding guys too.  Only someone shooting with controlled light can work around noisy shadows by overexposure and pulling down.

In addition, considering the almost $2000 price difference between a D810 and 5DSR, I find the Canon really un-compelling.   Seems a lot of money to have to work around an issue that is already solved better elsewhere.  Of course, if I only owned Canon lenses or just had a Canon jones then obviously, something is better than nothing.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Cayman on March 24, 2015, 07:40:08 pm
I have the D810 and the 5D Mark II.  I have a lot more Canon glass than Nikon glass and generally prefer the Canon lens lineup.   The D810 is an amazing camera...  A bit on the fence with the 5DS, but thinking it makes more sense to get the 5DS than to sell my entire Canon system.   I think I will use the Nikon for Dynamic Range limited scenes (common) but use the 5DS R and the 17/24 TS-E when DR is not an issue.


Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Telecaster on March 24, 2015, 09:54:51 pm
Did the know-how & capability to do exposure blending suddenly disappear because sensors with somewhat greater intrinsic dynamic range came on the scene? Have ND grad filters vanished from photo bags? I'm hardly knocking having greater single-exposure DR but, geez, the relative lack thereof is pretty easy to work around. (I am aware of exceptions that prove the rule.)

-Dave-
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Ray on March 24, 2015, 10:17:17 pm
Huh!  Leaves out sports, wildlife and landscape guys.  Probably wedding guys too. 

I did write on average. If one wants the best camera for a specific type of shooting, that's a different scenario. Each camera, almost without exception, has its own individual strengths and weaknesses.

I would expect when processing RAW images one would see some marginal benefit of extra resolution in the 5DSR shots, compared with the D810, but it's too small to be of significance in these Imaging Resource jpegs.

For me, the availability of good lenses which suit one's shooting style is just as important as the characteristics of the body that fits the lenses. I remember well my reasons for buying my first Nikon system. I found that one of my most frequently used lenses was the Sigma 15-30 with the Canon 5D. When reviews of the Nikkor 12-24/F2.8 first came out, it was so obvious that the Nikkor wide-angle zoom was in a different league to the Sigma 15-30, and so much sharper.

I couldn't resist buying one with adapter, for use on my 5D. It then was I experienced all the disadvantages of using an adapter with a lens that isn't designed for the body, and for me that loss of functionality detracted from the advantages of the lens, leaving me in a quandary.

I solved the problem by getting the new Nikon D700, which was such good value at the time, compared with the very expensive but ground-breaking Nikon D3 with almost identical performance. For quite a while I continued to use two systems, carrying two camera bodies with me whenever I travelled, with the D700 permanently attached to the Nikkor 14-24.

Even after later buying my second Nikon camera, the D7000, I still continued to use the Canon 50D with the Canon 100-400 whenever I needed that range, because the old Nikkor 80-400 was no better than the Canon zoom and arguably not as good, so I couldn't justify buying it, although I did eventually buy the updated Nikkor 80-400 which I now use with a Nikon D7100 body, making all my Canon lenses and bodies redundant, at least for my purposes which now tend to be less specialized and more general, preferring the convenience of zooms to the slightly sharper results from primes.


Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: shadowblade on March 25, 2015, 09:37:32 am
Did the know-how & capability to do exposure blending suddenly disappear because sensors with somewhat greater intrinsic dynamic range came on the scene? Have ND grad filters vanished from photo bags? I'm hardly knocking having greater single-exposure DR but, geez, the relative lack thereof is pretty easy to work around. (I am aware of exceptions that prove the rule.)

-Dave-

Multiple exposures don't work when there are moving elements in the scene (e.g. wind causing leaves to flutter). ND grads don't work when the horizon/transition zone isn't straight (e.g. trees or buildings in the way, or in the mountains, or when shooting a strongly-backlit subject with no option to use fill flash), are susceptible to flare and don't work well in the corners when using several stops and a UWA. Neither works well when stitching a rotational panorama - multiple exposures often won't stitch exactly the same way, while it's no good having a GND which moves with the lens as it rotates. Sometimes you just really need single-exposure DR.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: hjulenissen on March 25, 2015, 09:50:19 am
Did the know-how & capability to do exposure blending suddenly disappear because sensors with somewhat greater intrinsic dynamic range came on the scene? Have ND grad filters vanished from photo bags? I'm hardly knocking having greater single-exposure DR but, geez, the relative lack thereof is pretty easy to work around. (I am aware of exceptions that prove the rule.)
People made great images 10 and 100 years ago, so obviously great images can be made with equipment that is (in many way) inferior to todays equipment.

There are several takes on this.
0. Photography is a task for skilled craftsmen. It is supposed to be expensive, heavy and painful. Any attempt to make it simpler to obtain good/great results should be scorned.
1. Great images can be made using (insert old/inexpensive camera), thus I prefer to spend my money on something else.
2. Being able to shoot great images is great, but I would like to improve the chances of success even when conditions are less than ideal, given that my skills are less than perfect etc.

Canon seems to have the spatial resolution lead (among mainstream 24x36mm), while Nikon/Sony have the DR@base ISO lead, and others lead in various respects. If one take the position that every camera flaw can (should) be worked around, then it does not matter what camera one chooses, be it Canon for resolution or Nikon for DR.

-h
Title: Canon 5Ds/R: in which usages is its DR a handicap? (Guess: not most)
Post by: BJL on March 25, 2015, 09:57:39 am
Leaves out sports, wildlife and landscape guys.  Probably wedding guys too.
I agree about some landscape and lots of wedding photography (the dreaded trinity of white dress, back tuxedo and the highly uneven lighting at some wedding venues), but I do not see the DR difference between Canon and Sony/Nikon sensors being much of a factor with sports and wildlife.  And I do not see profession sports photographers abandoning Canon in droves!

Partly because the difference is only at low ISO speeds, going away at the higher speeds most associated with sports and wildlife photography; partly because the DR difference is now between "very good" and "even better"; even the lately much maligned Canon sensors are way ahead of slide film and well ahead of color negative film for practical degree of subject brightness handling -- particularly once you expose appropriately for electronic sensors (and stay away from a misplaced, dogmatic application of the ETTR approach).

When judging the suitability of a top to a particular usage, we must make the distinction between "measurable" differences and one that are actually "significant in this context".  (Sort of like 2K vs 4K vs 8K video: of course we can measure the resolution difference in a controlled experiment, but ...)
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 25, 2015, 10:15:33 am
Multiple exposures don't work when there are moving elements in the scene (e.g. wind causing leaves to flutter). ND grads don't work when the horizon/transition zone isn't straight (e.g. trees or buildings in the way, or in the mountains, or when shooting a strongly-backlit subject with no option to use fill flash), are susceptible to flare and don't work well in the corners when using several stops and a UWA. Neither works well when stitching a rotational panorama - multiple exposures often won't stitch exactly the same way, while it's no good having a GND which moves with the lens as it rotates. Sometimes you just really need single-exposure DR.

In many cases multiple exposures does work. Here is an example where just the sky needed blending which is often the case with landscape shots.

http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Landscapes-around-the-World/i-PJDK5L4/A
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Landscapes-around-the-World/i-PJDK5L4/0/XL/_MG_3089-Edit-XL.jpg)
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: shadowblade on March 25, 2015, 10:22:51 am
People made great images 10 and 100 years ago, so obviously great images can be made with equipment that is (in many way) inferior to todays equipment.

I don't think of it in terms of how many great photos were taken, but how many great photo opportunities were missed due to technical limitations. And, if you look back far enough, what's considered 'great' about many photos is not anything about the photo itself, but the fact that someone managed to take a photo at all!

Quote
There are several takes on this.
0. Photography is a task for skilled craftsmen. It is supposed to be expensive, heavy and painful. Any attempt to make it simpler to obtain good/great results should be scorned.
1. Great images can be made using (insert old/inexpensive camera), thus I prefer to spend my money on something else.
2. Being able to shoot great images is great, but I would like to improve the chances of success even when conditions are less than ideal, given that my skills are less than perfect etc.

Gear doesn't improve your photos. That's up to your skill. It lets you take whatever sort of photos you take (good, average or crap) in a greater variety of conditions, and do more with the photo once you've taken it.

You can take fantastic photos with an iPhone. You just can't do it in dark conditions, in strongly-backlit conditions or when the subject is moving, nor can you print them very large once you've taken them. With a miniature tripod, you can take great, postcard-sized landscapes in decent lighting.

You can also take absolute junk with a D810. But you can shoot that junk in the dark, when the subject is moving quickly or when the scene is very high-contrast, and you can print your bad photos at 40x60" and have them hold up to close scrutiny.

Skill and gear do not replace each other - you can't substitute one for another. Gear lets you apply your skill in a greater variety of conditions, while skill allows you to produce better-composed images with your gear.

Quote
Canon seems to have the spatial resolution lead (among mainstream 24x36mm), while Nikon/Sony have the DR@base ISO lead, and others lead in various respects. If one take the position that every camera flaw can (should) be worked around, then it does not matter what camera one chooses, be it Canon for resolution or Nikon for DR.

-h

Canon doesn't have the lead yet. We don't know what Sony/Nikon will announce before the 5Ds is available in June, or how long Canon will have a lead for, since Sony is also due to announce something around the 50MP mark this year, with better DR.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: shadowblade on March 25, 2015, 10:26:21 am
In many cases multiple exposures does work. Here is an example where just the sky needed blending which is often the case with landscape shots.

http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Landscapes-around-the-World/i-PJDK5L4/A
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Landscapes-around-the-World/i-PJDK5L4/0/XL/_MG_3089-Edit-XL.jpg)

Now try one where you have leaves/trees/grass/animals directly against the sky somewhere in the scene - common enough when you're shooting at ground level. Not every shot, but frequent enough to cause problems.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 25, 2015, 10:30:56 am
Now try one where you have leaves/trees/grass/animals directly against the sky somewhere in the scene - common enough when you're shooting at ground level. Not every shot, but frequent enough to cause problems.

I'm not saying it never happens ;) But still if you blend manually (as I did here) rather than use HDR programs I would say you can manage in most cases. At least from my experience.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: albedo13 on March 25, 2015, 11:01:47 am
How long does it typically take any of the software developers to be able to read a new format of raw file for a new camera release?  I have downloaded several of the .CR2 files that are out there, and it is killing me that I can't open them up.  And it continues to amaze me that all the comments that are being made about these new cameras in all the forums, both positive and negative, and nobody has yet actually opened a raw file.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: shadowblade on March 25, 2015, 11:30:28 am
I'm not saying it never happens ;) But still if you blend manually (as I did here) rather than use HDR programs I would say you can manage in most cases. At least from my experience.

I almost always blend manually, for fewer artifacts. Still, many scenes leave you pretty well stuck, particularly if there is a bit of a breeze and leaves/branches are moving in the wind, silhouetted against the sky.

It's far more of a problem if you're trying to do a panorama - even with exposure bracketing on a very sturdy tripod, with a remote release and mirrorless camera, it's common to be one or two pixels off. Moreover, when doing a rotational panorama for greater resolution and detail, it's rare for the +1 and -1 brackets to stitch in exactly the same way.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 25, 2015, 12:19:58 pm
I almost always blend manually, for fewer artifacts. Still, many scenes leave you pretty well stuck, particularly if there is a bit of a breeze and leaves/branches are moving in the wind, silhouetted against the sky.

It's far more of a problem if you're trying to do a panorama - even with exposure bracketing on a very sturdy tripod, with a remote release and mirrorless camera, it's common to be one or two pixels off. Moreover, when doing a rotational panorama for greater resolution and detail, it's rare for the +1 and -1 brackets to stitch in exactly the same way.

I do not do many panos, so my experience is limited. But for my way of shooting I'd say I'm not having the issues you describe for blending. If I have something against the sky I would leave it as a silhouette and therefore I would not need to blend in that area. Besides that my estimate is that about 98% of all my shots are post processed from a single RAW file (from Canon 5D, 1Ds III and 5D III). For the remaining 2% likely my Nikon shots (D800E and D810) would need blending in perhaps 25% of that leaving the Nikon shots to 99,5% of the time developed from a single RAW file and only about 0,5% needing blending. I suspect that the new 5Ds will need blending as often as my 5D III, but perhaps a little less due to lack of banding.

I have preordered a 5Ds R so will see how it performs. I suspect it will provide very nice and detailed shots using my 3 main zoom lenses 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/2.8L II and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: shadowblade on March 25, 2015, 12:28:31 pm
I do not do many panos, so my experience is limited. But for my way of shooting I'd say I'm not having the issues you describe for blending. If I have something against the sky I would leave it as a silhouette and therefore I would not need to blend in that area. Besides that my estimate is that about 98% of all my shots are post processed from a single RAW file (from Canon 5D, 1Ds III and 5D III). For the remaining 2% likely my Nikon shots (D800E and D810) would need blending in perhaps 25% of that leaving the Nikon shots to 99,5% of the time developed from a single RAW file and only about 0,5% needing blending. I suspect that the new 5Ds will need blending as often as my 5D III, but perhaps a little less due to lack of banding.

I have preordered a 5Ds R so will see how it performs. I suspect it will provide very nice and detailed shots using my 3 main zoom lenses 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/2.8L II and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

That's the thing.

Back when I was shooting Canon, almost every shot that wouldn't fit a GND due to a nonlinear transition had to be blended from multiple exposures and I commonly ran into issues related to slight movement. or transitions which were difficult to mask.

Now, with the Sony A7r, only a small percentage needs such blending. The extra few stops of dynamic range made a huge difference.

If Nikon (or someone else making Nikon-mount lenses) could make a half-decent UWA tilt-shift, I'd switch immediately.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 25, 2015, 12:30:01 pm
That's the thing.

Back when I was shooting Canon, almost every shot that wouldn't fit a GND due to a nonlinear transition had to be blended from multiple exposures and I commonly ran into issues related to slight movement. or transitions which were difficult to mask.

Now, with the Sony A7r, only a small percentage needs such blending. The extra few stops of dynamic range made a huge difference.

If Nikon (or someone else making Nikon-mount lenses) could make a half-decent UWA tilt-shift, I'd switch immediately.

I do not use ND grad filters and my percentage is based on not using any filters.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: shadowblade on March 25, 2015, 12:38:48 pm
I do not use ND grad filters and my percentage is based on not using any filters.

That's what I'm getting at.

If you take away the shots where filters were possible, leaving just the ones where filters were suboptimal and not used, I probably had to bracket around 90% of 5D2 shots, and only 10% of A7r shots.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 25, 2015, 12:52:40 pm
That's what I'm getting at.

If you take away the shots where filters were possible, leaving just the ones where filters were suboptimal and not used, I probably had to bracket around 90% of 5D2 shots, and only 10% of A7r shots.

As mentioned I use no filters and I can develop my shots from a single RAW file in 98% of the cases from Canon and around 99,5% for the Nikons. I always bracket on both Canon and Nikon but this is only to get the optimal exposure which I choose in Lightroom. I choose a single shot when the quality is there and I blend otherwise.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 25, 2015, 01:02:51 pm
That's what I'm getting at.

If you take away the shots where filters were possible, leaving just the ones where filters were suboptimal and not used, I probably had to bracket around 90% of 5D2 shots, and only 10% of A7r shots.

I don't remember to have seen your pictures so maybe your style is totally different from mine and therefore your blending percentage is very different. My galleries are in my signature so easy to check.

Another reason which I often see is that people do not bracket and do exposure compensation (one way or the other) based on the histogram on the camera. They will very often underexpose by 1-2 stops (perhaps more sometimes) and therefore need to blend much more often. I always get an optimal exposure so therefore much less need for blending. even using Canon.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: albedo13 on March 25, 2015, 03:06:15 pm
Regarding the file samples...in case anybody had not seen yet, Canon has requested the file samples be removed from the website...
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on March 25, 2015, 04:01:28 pm
How long does it typically take any of the software developers to be able to read a new format of raw file for a new camera release?  I have downloaded several of the .CR2 files that are out there, and it is killing me that I can't open them up.  And it continues to amaze me that all the comments that are being made about these new cameras in all the forums, both positive and negative, and nobody has yet actually opened a raw file.

Hi,

The camera is not released yet, but RawDigger was updated today, and it supports full size CR2s from the 5DS. Dynamic range seems to be in the order of 11.5 stops, which is expected after the initial comments and for such small sensels. But more Raw files need to be analyzed to be more certain, and pattern noise is more disturbing than truly random noise.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Jack Hogan on March 25, 2015, 04:42:14 pm
Dynamic range seems to be in the order of 11.5 stops, which is expected [...] for such small sensels

 ??? Plenty smaller photosites with better eDR.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Telecaster on March 25, 2015, 05:52:18 pm
Multiple exposures don't work when there are moving elements in the scene (e.g. wind causing leaves to flutter). ND grads don't work when the horizon/transition zone isn't straight (e.g. trees or buildings in the way, or in the mountains, or when shooting a strongly-backlit subject with no option to use fill flash), are susceptible to flare and don't work well in the corners when using several stops and a UWA. Neither works well when stitching a rotational panorama - multiple exposures often won't stitch exactly the same way, while it's no good having a GND which moves with the lens as it rotates. Sometimes you just really need single-exposure DR.

I get all that: "exceptions that prove the rule." What I'm objecting to is taking such cases and treating them as though they're the norm within photography overall. They're not. The leap in dynamic range from transparency film to late 2000s sensors was significant, game-changing even. Now we're seeing more incremental gains…nice but IMO not deserving of the degree of angst we've been devoting to the subject.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: shadowblade on March 25, 2015, 10:46:06 pm
I don't remember to have seen your pictures so maybe your style is totally different from mine and therefore your blending percentage is very different. My galleries are in my signature so easy to check.

Another reason which I often see is that people do not bracket and do exposure compensation (one way or the other) based on the histogram on the camera. They will very often underexpose by 1-2 stops (perhaps more sometimes) and therefore need to blend much more often. I always get an optimal exposure so therefore much less need for blending. even using Canon.

I've had a look through your gallery - the difference is pretty obvious. Most of your landscapes and not many are strongly backlit. Also, most of them were taken at relatively high latitudes - 40 degrees from the equator or more - where sunlight doesn't tend to be as strong.

I probably blended around 90% of 5D2 shots, and only 10% of A7r shots.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: shadowblade on March 25, 2015, 11:00:27 pm
I get all that: "exceptions that prove the rule." What I'm objecting to is taking such cases and treating them as though they're the norm within photography overall. They're not. The leap in dynamic range from transparency film to late 2000s sensors was significant, game-changing even. Now we're seeing more incremental gains…nice but IMO not deserving of the degree of angst we've been devoting to the subject.

-Dave-

Shooting at ISO 3200-6400-12800 or higher also isn't the norm. Nor is shooting at 14fps. Yet every extra stop of high-ISO performance and every extra frame per second is greeted as if it were the biggest breakthrough in photographic technology ever, despite the fact that ISO 51200 is functionally identical to ISO 12800 pushed two stops in the same camera.

2-3 stops of DR is a huge difference. It's the equivalent of a 2-3 stop ND filter. Many otherwise-impossible shots on a 5D2 or 5D3 were saved by the ability to use such a filter, due to the transition zone being linear enough to allow it. But many others were missed, or taken suboptimally, because the horizon didn't allow it. With the extra DR of the A7r or D810, these shots are not a problem.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 26, 2015, 01:49:45 am
I've had a look through your gallery - the difference is pretty obvious. Most of your landscapes and not many are strongly backlit. Also, most of them were taken at relatively high latitudes - 40 degrees from the equator or more - where sunlight doesn't tend to be as strong.

I probably blended around 90% of 5D2 shots, and only 10% of A7r shots.

I'm curious to see some of your galleries.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Jack Hogan on March 26, 2015, 03:58:35 am
2-3 stops of DR is a huge difference. It's the equivalent of a 2-3 stop ND filter. Many otherwise-impossible shots on a 5D2 or 5D3 were saved by the ability to use such a filter, due to the transition zone being linear enough to allow it. But many others were missed, or taken suboptimally, because the horizon didn't allow it. With the extra DR of the A7r or D810, these shots are not a problem.

I agree, the DR performance made available by Exmor sensors in full frame cameras - first seen in the D800 a mere three years ago - suddenly freed FF landscapers from a burdensome constraint.  I used to bracket often, now I almost never do.  I used to spend much time trying to blend bracketed files together so that they would not look artificial, almost never succeeding to my satisfaction.  With a single, linear raw file it's just a matter of playing with a couple of sliders.

YMMV because not everyone has the same shooting style or looks for the same types of scene.  So to each their own, as long as they understand what they are buying and why.

Jack
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 26, 2015, 04:47:46 am
I agree, the DR performance made available by Exmor sensors in full frame cameras - first seen in the D800 a mere three years ago - suddenly freed FF landscapers from a burdensome constraint.  I used to bracket often, now I almost never do.  I used to spend much time trying to blend bracketed files together so that they would not look artificial, almost never succeeding to my satisfaction.  With a single, linear raw file it's just a matter of playing with a couple of sliders.

YMMV because not everyone has the same shooting style or looks for the same types of scene.  So to each their own, as long as they understand what they are buying and why.

Jack

I'm a full time professional photographer organizing photo workshops and shoot more than 100 days per year and landscapes almost exclusively. Although I do agree about the benefits of the Exmor sensors and I have this in my Nikon D810 I still shoot Canon and only a few percent of the shots need blending. In my view many landscape shooters do not realize that they will underexpose and not get the optimal exposure unless they bracket and choose the optimal exposure from looking at the exposure in post processing (Lightroom, Capture One and Raw Digger). If we had RAW histograms one could determine this while shooting although at the expense of time and attention to this while shooting.

I recommend on my workshops to bracket for two reasons 1) to select the optimal exposure without essential highlights clipped in post processing 2) to not constantly chimping to determine the exposure based on a JPG histogram. By shooting this way one can optimize the shooting for best composition and use the sometimes narrow window of best opportunity optimally in terms of making the most of it. Bracketing in the digital world is free. One can turn bracketing on and off based on the lighting conditions, but there is a high chance that when the amazing light comes that the photographer will forget to do this. The more "mechanical" the shooting approach is the less errors are made. This is my experience. Others may disagree :)

Ideally there should not only be RAW histograms but also a setting in the camera to get the optimal exposure and with margins for clipping. Sometimes there can be 1-2 stops difference in exposure and in terms of highlights there is essential no difference in the final edited picture, but there is a visible difference in the shadows in terms of noise and details. This is also true for Exmor sensors, but they are more tolerant. Even with such settings I might still bracket slightly to narrow the number of cases where a blend would be ideal (although perhaps not entirely needed).

I do not use ND grad filters because in many cases they do not fit the landscape I'm shooting and they are time consuming to use. As mentioned my stats is around 98% on Canon do not need blending and on Nikon around 99,5%. I shoot both systems to known them in detail so that I can help my workshop students with any detailed setting needed. The Exmor sensor has for me also made less blending needed. The problem is that Canon has better lenses and a better designed body. E.g. an always available EFCS which is implemented on the D810 in a clumsy way. But the D810 is a significant improvement over the D800E.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 26, 2015, 05:05:19 am

2-3 stops of DR is a huge difference. It's the equivalent of a 2-3 stop ND filter. Many otherwise-impossible shots on a 5D2 or 5D3 were saved by the ability to use such a filter, due to the transition zone being linear enough to allow it. But many others were missed, or taken suboptimally, because the horizon didn't allow it. With the extra DR of the A7r or D810, these shots are not a problem.

I agree that 2-3 stops is a big difference and many photographers loose a big part of that by not exposing optimally. It's not true that the D810 sensor does away with the need for blending. But it certainly does make the cases fewer.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on March 26, 2015, 05:14:07 am
In my view many landscape shooters do not realize that they will underexpose and not get the optimal exposure unless they bracket and choose the optimal exposure from looking at the exposure in post processing (Lightroom, Capture One and Raw Digger). If we had RAW histograms one could determine this while shooting although at the expense of time and attention to this while shooting.

+1

I couldn't agree more.

In addition, the resulting shadow noise can be reduced further with noise reduction. It's only when trying to significantly boost the brightness of shadows that the remaining pattern noise can rear its ugly head, and that is supposed to be improved in the 5DS / 5DS R.

A noise reduction plugin like Topaz Denoise has a horizontal / vertical banding reduction control that can be useful for cameras which have too much pattern noise. Subtraction of Dark frames would also allow to address issues like that and clean up shadow patterns, but there is only little support from Raw converter producers, RawTherapee being a positive exception.

Quote
Ideally there should not only be RAW histograms but also a setting in the camera to get the optimal exposure and with margins for clipping.

Yes, it's amazing that camera makers have not picked up this requirement, which has been requested for a long time already.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: shadowblade on March 26, 2015, 08:19:23 am
I'm a full time professional photographer organizing photo workshops and shoot more than 100 days per year and landscapes almost exclusively. Although I do agree about the benefits of the Exmor sensors and I have this in my Nikon D810 I still shoot Canon and only a few percent of the shots need blending. In my view many landscape shooters do not realize that they will underexpose and not get the optimal exposure unless they bracket and choose the optimal exposure from looking at the exposure in post processing (Lightroom, Capture One and Raw Digger). If we had RAW histograms one could determine this while shooting although at the expense of time and attention to this while shooting.

I thought everyone knew this. And I'm still puzzled as to why no-one's bothered implementing it, when it's really just a firmware update.

Do you know of any way to set a custom curve as the 'default' in-camera jpeg shooting mode? Because, if you could set a linear curve going from the noise floor to full well saturation, that would give you a RAW histogram anyway.

Quote
I do not use ND grad filters because in many cases they do not fit the landscape I'm shooting and they are time consuming to use. As mentioned my stats is around 98% on Canon do not need blending and on Nikon around 99,5%. I shoot both systems to known them in detail so that I can help my workshop students with any detailed setting needed. The Exmor sensor has for me also made less blending needed. The problem is that Canon has better lenses and a better designed body. E.g. an always available EFCS which is implemented on the D810 in a clumsy way. But the D810 is a significant improvement over the D800E.

Being used to shooting with MF/LF film bodies, any digital setup is an improvement.

Looking through your photos, I suspect the reason you need to blend much less often than me comes down to where and when we shoot. The photos on your website are almost exclusively above 35 degrees from the equator, mostly greater than 40 degrees. Here, even direct sunlight is much less strong and produces less contrast than at locations closer to the equator. Also, you seem to shoot a fair bit in ovecast conditions. Looking through my collection, the majority of my shots were taken between 30 degrees south and 30 degrees north of the equator; virtually all the photos that didn't require blending or filters (not counting night-time shots) were taken at higher latitudes, such as Mongolia, Patagonia or parts of New Zealand.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 26, 2015, 08:45:03 am
I thought everyone knew this. And I'm still puzzled as to why no-one's bothered implementing it, when it's really just a firmware update.

Do you know of any way to set a custom curve as the 'default' in-camera jpeg shooting mode? Because, if you could set a linear curve going from the noise floor to full well saturation, that would give you a RAW histogram anyway.

Being used to shooting with MF/LF film bodies, any digital setup is an improvement.

Looking through your photos, I suspect the reason you need to blend much less often than me comes down to where and when we shoot. The photos on your website are almost exclusively above 35 degrees from the equator, mostly greater than 40 degrees. Here, even direct sunlight is much less strong and produces less contrast than at locations closer to the equator. Also, you seem to shoot a fair bit in ovecast conditions. Looking through my collection, the majority of my shots were taken between 30 degrees south and 30 degrees north of the equator; virtually all the photos that didn't require blending or filters (not counting night-time shots) were taken at higher latitudes, such as Mongolia, Patagonia or parts of New Zealand.

My photos are mostly from my workshop locations in Italy from Sicily to the Dolomites. There is definitely strong sunlight in these areas and clear air in the mountains. I shot all kinds of angles to the sun from directly towards the sun, side lighting and the sun behind me. I like side lighting a lot as it gives structure to the landscapes. I shoot much less strong sun against me with deep shadows. Sometimes there can be great photos like this but mostly uninteresting.
Not many of my photos are in overcast situations. Many have clouds but with sun light. Besides Italy I have been shooting in Peru, South West USA, India, China, Israel, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Spain, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, France and not any of these location have changed much from what I generally experience in Italy in terms of dynamic range. I do look for what I find to be interesting landscapes and mostly they need to be lit in some way. I seriously doubt that I would find a difference even close to the equator where I was recently on the Seychelles Islands. So I don't buy into your theory :)

Unless you show me some of your galleries I don't think can get any closer to a reason for the vast difference in needs for blending of shots from a Canon camera.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 26, 2015, 08:58:51 am
Seriously, people!? Page after page after page, thread after thread after thread, debating the undebatable: that having more DR is better than having less!?
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: albedo13 on March 26, 2015, 09:41:10 am
Sorry to veer the topic away from blending and DR ( ;D), but thanks Bart for the info on RawDigger. I have never used it, is there a link you could point me to (for Windows 7)? Is this a utility for just being able to read the header information, or can you actually either view the image itself or save it into a format that can then be read via PS or DPP? Thanks

Jim
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 26, 2015, 09:59:05 am
Seriously, people!? Page after page after page, thread after thread after thread, debating the undebatable: that having more DR is better than having less!?

Seriously Slobodan, that's not what the discussion is about  ;)
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: BJL on March 26, 2015, 10:30:07 am
... debating the undebatable: that having more DR is better than having less!?
It is a bit more nuanced than that; these days sensor performance comparisons are all about edge cases, and how relevant a particular edge case is to a particular photographer, when weighed against other factors like preferring a particular lens system.  

As fas as I can tell, a wide array of camera systems now offer enough resolution, dynamic range and low light performance that the great majority of the work of even "serious" (professional and dedicated amateur) photographers will not benefit noticeably from any more.  So the question becomes _which_ photographic situations and styles, and _which_ photographers can still benefit _significantly_ from gear that offers even better performance in one or other of these measures.

For example, I am happy to believe that further DR improvements over what Canon's best cameras currently offers are of little benefit even to some professional landscape photographers such as Hans Kruse (and if so, the same is likely true for a great majority of all "serious" photography), but are highly desirable to some other small but significant group of photographers.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 26, 2015, 10:52:04 am
... Unless you show me some of your galleries...

Some of us remember Shadowblade images in this forum. Most of them fall into the holly-crap-you-got-to-be-kidding-me category (a compliment). As a public service, I compiled some of them here:

(http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=65776.0;attach=58190;image)

(http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=65791.0;attach=58207;image)

(http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=65833.0;attach=58262;image)

(http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=65899.0;attach=58482;image)

(http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=65926.0;attach=58539;image)

(http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=65980.0;attach=58749;image)
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 26, 2015, 10:55:48 am
...I am happy to believe that further DR improvements over what Canon's best cameras currently offers are of little benefit...

Yes, indeed... that is exactly what we, Canon hostages, say every night, crying ourselves to sleep ;)
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: NancyP on March 26, 2015, 11:21:41 am
Not what this Canon hostage says when shooting astrolandscapes with the 6D!
Yes, this is another thread about "Why can't manufacturers give us RAW histograms?". This just seems like a no-brainer.

Speaking of "no-brainers", why am I manually bracketing when the camera will do it for me? I started out 5 years ago using 1-stop x 3 bracketing on all non-action shots shot in aperture-priority. At some point I just went to M for everything, made a guesstimate of the right central exposure ( + or - from metered), and hand-bracketed, just as I did 40 years ago.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on March 26, 2015, 11:41:14 am
Sorry to veer the topic away from blending and DR ( ;D), but thanks Bart for the info on RawDigger. I have never used it, is there a link you could point me to (for Windows 7)? Is this a utility for just being able to read the header information, or can you actually either view the image itself or save it into a format that can then be read via PS or DPP? Thanks

Hi Jim,

It's a tool for the inspection of Raw file data, and a few other options for the generation of files for profiling. This (http://www.rawdigger.com/) is its home.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: dwswager on March 26, 2015, 12:25:22 pm
Seriously, people!? Page after page after page, thread after thread after thread, debating the undebatable: that having more DR is better than having less!?

We can add less noise is better than more and easily corrected noise is better than difficult to correct noise. 

It's about options and forgiveness.  Very few shots require extreme performance, but having it is sometimes a safety net.  I can shoot most sports with 6fps, but it certainly would be easier with faster frame rates to make up for user error or incompetence.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 26, 2015, 12:32:11 pm
Some of us remember Shadowblade images in this forum. Most of them fall into the holly-crap-you-got-to-be-kidding-me category (a compliment). As a public service, I compiled some of them here:

Thanks and I do not remember to have seen any of them before.

Btw. they make Peter Lik look naturalistic :)
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: fdisilvestro on March 26, 2015, 01:52:09 pm
Do you know of any way to set a custom curve as the 'default' in-camera jpeg shooting mode? Because, if you could set a linear curve going from the noise floor to full well saturation, that would give you a RAW histogram anyway.

It is not possible to get a RAW histogram once you transformed to jpeg, no matter what "custom" curve you apply to it. Raw histograms represent the luminance recorded in each channel, in jpeg there is an encoding to a color space (sRGB or Adobe RGB). When you see a clipped channel in jpeg you cannot tell if it is because of luminance or a color outside the gamut. Raw values are not limited by the gamut of a color space.

Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: fdisilvestro on March 26, 2015, 01:58:46 pm
Sorry to veer the topic away from blending and DR ( ;D), but thanks Bart for the info on RawDigger. I have never used it, is there a link you could point me to (for Windows 7)? Is this a utility for just being able to read the header information, or can you actually either view the image itself or save it into a format that can then be read via PS or DPP? Thanks

Jim

RawDigger is a wonderful tool to analyse a RAW image. Yes you can view the image. It is available for windows 64 & 32 bits and Mac.
www.rawdigger.com (http://www.rawdigger.com)

Edit: oops! I did not realise that Bart had already answered to this.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Jim Kasson on March 26, 2015, 02:07:41 pm
It is not possible to get a RAW histogram once you transformed to jpeg, no matter what "custom" curve you apply to it. Raw histograms represent the luminance recorded in each channel, in jpeg there is an encoding to a color space (sRGB or Adobe RGB). When you see a clipped channel in jpeg you cannot tell if it is because of luminance or a color outside the gamut. Raw values are not limited by the gamut of a color space.



You are generally right, but there are some workarounds. First, a small correction. The information recorded in the raw file does not bear any special relationship to luminance, which presupposes a spectral sensitivity that hardly ever (actually never, in my experience)  matches that on any raw channel.

With that quibble out of the way, if is possible to get the histograms of the JPEG image to approximate those of the raw image by setting the white balance of the camera to [1 1 1]. This is sometimes called "UniWB". It is not a perfect solution, but many find it workable.

Here is a discussion and some instructions for those interested in this approach.

http://blog.kasson.com/?page_id=2387

Jim
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: fdisilvestro on March 26, 2015, 05:41:32 pm
You are generally right, but there are some workarounds. First, a small correction. The information recorded in the raw file does not bear any special relationship to luminance, which presupposes a spectral sensitivity that hardly ever (actually never, in my experience)  matches that on any raw channel.

With that quibble out of the way, if is possible to get the histograms of the JPEG image to approximate those of the raw image by setting the white balance of the camera to [1 1 1]. This is sometimes called "UniWB". It is not a perfect solution, but many find it workable.

Here is a discussion and some instructions for those interested in this approach.

http://blog.kasson.com/?page_id=2387

Jim

Hi Jim,

Thanks for clarifying about luminance. I was actually referring to the intensity of light recorded by the sensor, which has no relation to color saturation.

In relation to uniWB, I know about it and use it regularly, but is (at least IMO) just a "better than nothing" approach.

The first attached file shows three channels that go from middle gray to full saturation in RGB and the corresponding histogram, which shows the channels near saturation. The second file shows the gamut warning in sRGB if the original image was in ProPhotoRGB. Somebody could take the wrong decision to reduce exposure to avoid those blown channels if restricted to a color-space encoded histogram.

Regards
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Jim Kasson on March 26, 2015, 06:18:38 pm
Thanks for clarifying about luminance. I was actually referring to the intensity of light recorded by the sensor, which has no relation to color saturation.

I figured that was what you meant.

In relation to uniWB, I know about it and use it regularly, but is (at least IMO) just a "better than nothing" approach.

The first attached file shows three channels that go from middle gray to full saturation in RGB and the corresponding histogram, which shows the channels near saturation. The second file shows the gamut warning in sRGB if the original image was in ProPhotoRGB. Somebody could take the wrong decision to reduce exposure to avoid those blown channels if restricted to a color-space encoded histogram.


Your example is an excellent demonstration of the dangers of using a histogram after a transformation to an arbitrary color space to learn something about the characteristics of the image in the original color space. However, with the exception of some highly saturated subjects like flowers, that this is usually a problem when you're using UniWB and the in-camera histogram.

Nevertheless, if you say UniWB is inadequate for you to judge exposure in-camera, then who am I to say you're wrong?

I'm sorry if I wasted your time; it wasn't clear to me from your earlier post that you knew all about UniWB.

Jim
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: shadowblade on March 26, 2015, 08:41:28 pm
Thanks and I do not remember to have seen any of them before.

Btw. they make Peter Lik look naturalistic :)

I'm not sure why they're showing up as so heavily saturated and with a colour cast in Firefox (even with colour awareness turned on) when they look normal (on the saturated side) in Photoshop and in print.

My style definitely leans towards high saturation and contrast, though. Possibly due to that, I've noticed a definite geographical distribution sales - lots of sales to Mediterranean countries, Latin America and southern/southeast Asia, with very few sales in northern Europe, North America (outside of the US West Coast) and other English-speaking countries apart from Australia. They probably work better in a bright, tropical hotel or resort than in the darker, more subdued settings more popular in these places.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 27, 2015, 04:31:44 am
I'm not sure why they're showing up as so heavily saturated and with a colour cast in Firefox (even with colour awareness turned on) when they look normal (on the saturated side) in Photoshop and in print.

My style definitely leans towards high saturation and contrast, though. Possibly due to that, I've noticed a definite geographical distribution sales - lots of sales to Mediterranean countries, Latin America and southern/southeast Asia, with very few sales in northern Europe, North America (outside of the US West Coast) and other English-speaking countries apart from Australia. They probably work better in a bright, tropical hotel or resort than in the darker, more subdued settings more popular in these places.

I see the same in Safari. Firefox on the Mac is color managed well enough to show pictures the same way as Safari. Why not link to your website as I assume you have one (given print sales)?

I have also noticed the relationship between location and favoring highly saturated images. Asia comes to mind here. I have also seen it on my workshops to some degree. Some go totally overboard in saturation and contrast :)
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 27, 2015, 09:14:51 am
I see the same in Safari. Firefox on the Mac is color managed well enough to show pictures the same way as Safari. Why not link to your website as I assume you have one (given print sales)?

I have also noticed the relationship between location and favoring highly saturated images. Asia comes to mind here. I have also seen it on my workshops to some degree. Some go totally overboard in saturation and contrast.

I didn't know some people still dared to touch the saturation slider. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: shadowblade on March 27, 2015, 09:25:55 am
I see the same in Safari. Firefox on the Mac is color managed well enough to show pictures the same way as Safari. Why not link to your website as I assume you have one (given print sales)?

I have also noticed the relationship between location and favoring highly saturated images. Asia comes to mind here. I have also seen it on my workshops to some degree. Some go totally overboard in saturation and contrast :)

The website's down at the moment, and has been for a few months - don't have enough time to get it up and running. Selling through a few online galleries/brokers at the moment.

As far as geographical distribution of sales go, I'd probably divide it between 'areas with strong Protestant Christian cultural influence' (favouring muted images) and 'almost everything else' (favouring saturated images). Which is probably understandable from an artistic-historical point of view. Black-and-whites go in their own category.

I prefer saturated colours and bold, contrasty black-and-whites myself. To me, landscapes evoke drama, passion and emotion. Saturated colours and strong contrast convey this well - I use them for the same reason I use long exposure or ultra-short exposures to give a piece a certain mood. Muted colours, low-contrast renditions and a realist or neoclassical aesthetic don't have the same effect.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: spidermike on March 27, 2015, 09:57:53 am

As far as geographical distribution of sales go, I'd probably divide it between 'areas with strong Protestant Christian cultural influence' (favouring muted images) and 'almost everything else' (favouring saturated images). Which is probably understandable from an artistic-historical point of view. Black-and-whites go in their own category.

I prefer saturated colours and bold, contrasty black-and-whites myself. To me, landscapes evoke drama, passion and emotion. Saturated colours and strong contrast convey this well - I use them for the same reason I use long exposure or ultra-short exposures to give a piece a certain mood. Muted colours, low-contrast renditions and a realist or neoclassical aesthetic don't have the same effect.

I thing there is a regoinal difference regards colours and is something I have noticed in Asia. I agree that in the West there is a growing propensity for saturated colours but in Asia the colours can become downright gaudy - not just saturated by bright and garish.  I think it a a book by Michael Freemen that gave the intersting supposition that in the West we have been through the whole evolution of art as a representative medium, from merely a way of recording what happened with any sense of scale being secondary and perspective non-existent through to the painting-as-reality (for example the accurate representation of perspective or the analysis of colour by Turner). This has also pervaded our approach to photography. But in Asia art took a very different path and the accurate use of colour was far less important, so when they want to emphasise colour in a photo they see nothing wrong with whacking up all sorts of controls and it can look downright weird.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: shadowblade on March 27, 2015, 10:54:43 am
I thing there is a regoinal difference regards colours and is something I have noticed in Asia. I agree that in the West there is a growing propensity for saturated colours but in Asia the colours can become downright gaudy - not just saturated by bright and garish.  I think it a a book by Michael Freemen that gave the intersting supposition that in the West we have been through the whole evolution of art as a representative medium, from merely a way of recording what happened with any sense of scale being secondary and perspective non-existent through to the painting-as-reality (for example the accurate representation of perspective or the analysis of colour by Turner). This has also pervaded our approach to photography. But in Asia art took a very different path and the accurate use of colour was far less important, so when they want to emphasise colour in a photo they see nothing wrong with whacking up all sorts of controls and it can look downright weird.

Not just in Asia. And, even there, India is quite different from southern China (both generally bold and colourful), which is very different again from northern China and Korea (more subdued), with southeast Asia displaying many influences from both southern China and India.

In the west, you can see a distinct difference between predominantly Catholic areas and predominantly Protestant areas. Paintings in Catholic areas - much of the western Mediterranean basin, including Italy and Spain - have tended to be bright, colourful and vivid, at least over the last 500 years. This seems to have also spread and influenced works and preferences in Latin America, the Philippines and other areas (pre-Spanish/pre-Catholic Filipino paintings are quite different from post-Spanish works). You may look at some of the 400-year-old works now and think they look a bit dull, but work backwards and take away 400 years of pigment fade, though air pollution and UV light, and you find that most of these works were, in fact, originally very colourful and strongly saturated - including many details and colourful ornamentations which have actually faded away completely over time. Conversely, works from Protestant-dominated areas have tended to be darker, with more muted tones. Compare and contrast the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in Rome with St Paul's Cathedral in London. The former is bright and colourful, whereas the latter is much more muted, dark and subdued. Of course, there are many shades in between the two broad groups. Romanticist works, for example, tend towards darker shades, but use a lot of rich, saturated colours and a rendering designed to convey emotion (e.g. motion-blurred clouds or stormy seas) rather than the what-the-eye-sees approach of the realists and neoclassicists. Of course, this may also represent a north-south divide rather than one based on philosophical differences, although philosophical outlook certainly played a role. Northern areas, with long, dark winter nights, tended towards dark and muted tones, whereas brighter and sunnier southern areas tended towards bright and saturated tones.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: AreBee on April 06, 2015, 11:58:17 am
For those interested... (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2015/02/5ds-5dsr/)
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: dwswager on April 06, 2015, 01:43:49 pm
You are generally right, but there are some workarounds. First, a small correction. The information recorded in the raw file does not bear any special relationship to luminance, which presupposes a spectral sensitivity that hardly ever (actually never, in my experience)  matches that on any raw channel.

With that quibble out of the way, if is possible to get the histograms of the JPEG image to approximate those of the raw image by setting the white balance of the camera to [1 1 1]. This is sometimes called "UniWB". It is not a perfect solution, but many find it workable.

Here is a discussion and some instructions for those interested in this approach.

http://blog.kasson.com/?page_id=2387

Jim

I played with UniWB previously, but I'm just not that plussed up about nailing exposure in most field situations.  Don't get me wrong, I would love and think we should already have RAW histograms that show where the exposure is between the noise floor and saturation AND I don't advocate sloppieness in technique, but since I started shooting the D810 it isn't as big a deal as it once was.  What I'm saying is that as the sensors get better providing additional DR and better noise characteristics the whole thing becomes less of problem.  I still want to get the best capture I can and not rely on post to fix it later, but when I don't, I at least know with my current camera it usually can be fixed without a lot of detriment to the finished image.
Title: Re: Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 22, 2015, 12:21:59 pm
... Slobodan, it is perhaps wise to let the photographers choose the files that represent them.

Hi Keith,

I revisited this thread today, looking for something else, when I noticed your revised post.

It sounds as if I sneaked into his studio, went through his trash bin, and selected images that he wouldn't like to be represented with. What I did is I collected a few that he posted on LuLa before, obviously something he selected to represent him. There was certainly no malicious intent on my part to take them out of context or misrepresent it in any other way.