EOS 5DS Body

[BobShaw]

The 5Ds was a big improvement for me over the 5D2, which was also a great camera.
I bought it mainly because of a good deal, which was less than I paid for the 5D2 at least 5 years earlier, and that it was 50MP which allowed more pixels for landscapes.
The image quality is OK but I thought that the Hasselblad H3DII-39 I already had gave a better image. So MP is certainly not everything. Sometimes less is more.

I still use the Canon extensively on trips and took 7000 images with on a recent trip to Europe.
However I now use the X1D for landscapes as it is smaller and lighter and has GPS. I also use that for studio work.
A 6D would probably be fine for me now as for most travel shots 20MP is plenty and GPS is helpful.

[Craig Lamson]

Say what you will. The 5Ds I own makes wonderful images and it has earned me a great deal of money since I purchased it.  I see no compelling reason to upgrade or switch systems.  That makes zero financial sense for my business.  I compete against others who use diferent systems and I have yet  (and this goes back decades) had a client say I should use a specfic camera or that X photographers images from X camera are better from a camera perspective.

My needs are not the needs of everyone else.  I went decades with the same cameras back in the film days.  I got off the constant upgrade path with the 1DSIII.  The 5Ds was only purchased to provide a bit more cropping possibility.  The Canon system has been very good to me professionally.  Rock solid performance wiht very few breakdowns with every day usage. And when a breakdown did occur Canon service was top notch.

Ok , I'm an old curmudgeon.  I don't chase the equipment dragon anymore.  I don't fault those that do but I simply don't see the need, at least for me.  Heck I pulled out my original 1Ds a few weeks ago and was amazed at the files it made.  My point is that great images can be made with what many consider "inferior equipment".

To the OP.  If you like the 5Ds, and the price point, buy it and make images.

[BernardLanguillier]

Such decision are better taken with opportunity cost in mind.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Craig Lamson]

Such decision are better taken with opportunity cost in mind.

Cheers,
Bernard

For some, maybe.   For others like myself, ROI makes far better sense.

[BernardLanguillier]

For some, maybe.   For others like myself, ROI makes far better sense.

Craig,

This is pretty much the same thing.

Opportunity cost is the value (ROI) you would have gotten with best alternative option.

Cheers,
Bernard

[smthopr]

I bought my 5Ds one year ago, upgrading from a 5D "classic".  Does it have the dynamic range of some others? Not quite.

But, it's still a very fine instrument, and works with the lenses that I already owned.  I think it's more pleasant to handle than a Sony A7RIII, and with the small prime lenses I use, not even heavier.  So, if one has the need or desire for 50mpx, it's a quite reasonable choice.  I'll probably use mine for a good many more years.  There is really nothing about it that limits my style of photography.

[James Clark]

I, too, remain primarily a Canon person.  I have Fuji and Sony (as well as Phase One until recently) in my closet as well, but time and time again I still make my best images with the Canon equipment (5d4 or 5DSR) and a small selections of zooms (16-35, 25-104, and 70-200).  Why?  Because I'm not really limited by the technology of any specific camera, but I'm a "loose" shooter (even on my paid architecture gigs), and for me having to worry about the camera itself plays havoc with the flow of my seeing and my shooting.  Same with my lenses.  I guess I'm sacrificing some iota of ultimate quality with the zooms, but being able to scale the image and shoot for "feel" produces better images for me than stopping to think through the body/lens/dynamic range equation.

Sure, maybe Canon isn't cutting edge like the newest Nikon or Sony stuff, but I have yet to see what I'm losing at the edges of the sensor's capability.

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

I just had my 5Ds converted to IR by Kolari Vision (720nm conversion). I've shot Canon IR infra-red now for 10 years or so...

They tell me that removing the Bayer filter (as part of the IR conversion process) adds about two stops to the dynamic range that the sensor can capture...

I've also found that for the lenses I like to use in IR (the 16-34 F4 eg), the Canon has no hot spots...

two images from an ongoing project on the Bronx River here in NYC (the only freshwater river in the city..the Hudson is not in NYC).

rdc/bx

[BernardLanguillier]

Lovely images!

Cheers,
Bernard

[kers]

The trees image is wonderful!

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

+1

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

one of the significant advantages of infra-red b/w is the absence of the 3D effect > It is instead a flattened fauna/flora effect. As a biologist and not photographer, I embraced this technique.

This photo from a parking lot near the Bx River since people seem to prefer trees. Here's another

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

I am a hobbyist and have noticed that I see Nikon D850's and higher end Sony's in the field. I have never seen a EOS 5DS or 5DS-R and have also seen very little mention of it in the forums. I am curious as to why you might think that might be.It has 50mp, decent reviews, and the price appears to be right (I do see them heavily discounted from time to time).
Just curious as to your opinion.

I think this is similar to the discussion on lens sharpness, Dof and sensor size/quality etc from a few weeks ago, and I think the answer (for me at least) is going to be somewhat similar - as in I believe all modern cameras these days are more than 'Good Enough' for the vast majority of photographers, so buy what you prefer based on what you like (you know ergonomics, menu layout etc), because it will be more than capable of doing the job for you.

I also loved both of my 5d's and never thought I would change, but the 5dMkIII wsn't an upgrade I thought warranted the money and so I thought I should wait for the 5dMkIV, but then the 5DS/R came out and I thought yes, that's the one for me. But then OnLandscape did a simple test between the 5DR and the A7RII and the Sony blew the 5DR away for dynamic range, so I bought one of those instead and utterly hated it. But over time I got my head around it (by turning everything off and using it in fully manual mode only) and now I am really very happy with it - or at least the 42mp sensor inside it, which is amazing when I compare it to the files I used to get out of the 5DMkII.

But my absolute dream camera would be, a 5d body with an OVF, but with the A7RII/III sensor. Now that really would be amazing, but would the quality of the images be any better? Probably not, but I would love to get back to a Canon body.
Dave

[viewfinder]

Dave,.....the sony sensor on A7Rii is apparently the same as that in the nikon d850, which is a conventional dslr, so have you tried that and what are your thoughts please

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Dave,.....the sony sensor on A7Rii is apparently the same as that in the nikon d850, which is a conventional dslr, so have you tried that and what are your thoughts please

The last Nikon I ever used in earnest (I was running a 4 day workshop at the time and it was a participants camera, but he wasn't sure how to use it, so I had to get my head around it for him), was the D800E, which was a cracking camera, and if I hadn't already spent so much on Canon Lenses, I could have been tempted, although the double click for mirror lock up is a really bad idea IMHO and one I believe they still insist on using. So yes, the sensor will be really good and Nikon do make some quality lenses, but not quite as good as Canon (again IMHO).

But as I said in my earlier reply, whatever you choose, it will certainly do the job for you 

Dave

[BernardLanguillier]

Although Canon does make some great lenses, all the available data point to the fact that a large majority of Nikon’s lenses released since 2015 are better than their closest Canon DSLR equivalents.

- 19mm T/S
- 28mm f1.4
- 105mm f1.4
- 24-70mm f2.8 featuring VR
- 70-200mm f2.8, still superior to the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 III released after.

We could argue that some of that is the just the normal alternance and say that the Canon 12-24mm f4 is better, which would still only mean that they are just as good as each others.

In the mirrorless world they have chosen completely opposite directions with Nikon prioritizing compactness and coherence and Canon going for higher end lenses without a matching camera. The 24-70mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.2 will be the first comparable lens. As of now the Nikon is the best 24-70mm f2.8 ever designed and is pretty much flawless. We will see whether Canon can do as well. On the other hand, the Canon 50mm f1.2 RF is the best bright 50mm f1.2 ever designed (but isn’t flawless), can Nikon do as well?

My view is that today lens quality is super high on both side. The deciding factor should be the bodies and whether the lens positioning matches your needs or not. For me in the DSLR world the D850 is very far ahead and Nikon has all the high quality lenses needed to keep any pro more than happy, while in the mirrorless world I expect coherent compactness above all and I am getting that from Nikon as we speak.

Cheers,
Bernard