Started by smthopr, May 04, 2018, 05:30:29 pm
Quote from: smthopr on May 04, 2018, 05:30:29 pmI 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!!!!!
Quote from: ErikKaffehr on May 13, 2018, 01:58:10 amSo 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 regardsErik
Quote from: fredjeang2 on May 12, 2018, 04:56:26 pmThanks a lot for your time and presence Bruce. I always learn a lot from you in this forum, and that is priceless.
Quote from: SuperNiceNina on May 14, 2018, 02:36:47 amHopefully 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.
Quote from: fredjeang2 on May 11, 2018, 05:29:26 amThe stupid choice for Canon in those models is thatThey did not enabled the dual pixels technology, whichMakes a huge difference in what AF experience is concerned.To keep price "low" maybe? Or they thought that the target willBe mostly the landscapers and product shooters, audience thatIs more conservative on high performance/reliability AF.And tethers often.Title: don't sign the cheque yetAnyway. As it seems that Bruce is on testing mode, why not open the paradigmAnd test some high resolution mirrorlesses also?I mean that DSLR is a dead-end road and where R&D, refinement and sophistication happensIs 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 andWay 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 parametersIn relation with profiles. As a result, many tempted users with unproper knowledge set the values weirdly and problemsOccur (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 reallyShape 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=QfFxbFJ9jdM3) 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 arround24 Mpx as a well balanced performances included higher isos and also the upsamplingCapacities. 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 pushingLimits 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, includedOn 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 wereBetter 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
Quote from: fredjeang2 on May 14, 2018, 11:14:20 amWhat is sure is that 50Mpx can't be bad to have andOne 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 bySpeed, 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 3000Investement and that becomes a very personal question withMany variables. Considering alsoThat 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 viewedOn 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 ?
Quote from: smthopr on May 15, 2018, 01:45:45 pmthe 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..
Quote from: smthopr on May 15, 2018, 01:45:45 pmthe magenta FB thing seems kind of weird. I've never seen it but I view Facebook on a Mac or iPhone only.
Quote from: smthopr on May 15, 2018, 01:45:45 pm My only issue is that it wakes from sleep a little slowly..
Quote from: smthopr on May 19, 2018, 05:10:00 amI'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 400f4.01/250 sec handheld
Quote from: fredjeang2 on May 21, 2018, 06:17:47 amIt 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 theSoupe 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 becauseMost 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 latestIS 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 andA few in some situations. It's almost like you had a MF in the end.
Quote from: smthopr on May 21, 2018, 09:51:09 amWell, 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
Quote from: smthopr on May 22, 2018, 02:05:14 amI would like a 50mm f1.4 IS, but they haven't made one yet!
Quote from: smthopr on May 19, 2018, 05:10:00 amI've finally started to use the camera I never knew my lowly 24mm f2.8 was so sharp
Quote from: kers on May 22, 2018, 06:50:57 amA lot of lenses do 75 MP in the central area and some of mine do even 150MPBut then the corners...
Page created in 0.051 seconds with 14 queries.