Topic: 50MP Canon 5DS/R spec leaked (Read 86363 times)

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #100 on:** February 07, 2015, 05:02:03 pm »

Quote from: Jim Kasson on February 07, 2015, 11:37:36 am

We live in a new golden age of manual focus lenses. The Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo Sonnar ZF.2, the 15mm f/2.8 Distagon ZF.2, the Otii, the Coastal Optical 60mm f/4, etc. These lenses are not much fun to use on DSLRs. It used to be that there were focusing aids in the finders. No more. The only way to achieve critical focus is with live view, and, with no EVF, that means putting the camera on a tripod. With the alpha 7 cameras, you have more options: magnified view in the EVF, and focus peaking, with and without magnification. Magnified view is especially useful in combination with in-body image stabilization (IBIS), because the image doesn't jump around in the finder.

Agreed in theory, but, per my experience, achieving critical focus with an even slightly moving subject (a young child in a quiet state) is just as challenging with the a7x as it is with a D810.

Which leaves us with static subjects for which live view works pretty well in all but the brighest situations. It is less stable in theory but doesn't result in sharpness issues in real world with a sufficient shutter speed (auto-iso).

In body stabilization is a great addition, no doubt.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard ODonovan · « **Reply #101 on:** February 07, 2015, 06:48:26 pm »

Quote from: eronald on February 07, 2015, 04:51:38 pm

As an analyst, my take on the 5D3 is that there now is severe infighting between the pro video and prosumer dSLR divisions of Canon, and rather than merge them or allow them to really compete against each other, management has decided to force them to coexist in separate watertight market compartments. This means that the still products are voluntarily castrated, with all but the most basic video capabilities voluntarily removed.

One nasty side effect is that stills and video at Canon now seem to use different chip tech, thereby losing the economy of scale which is so essential in the semiconductor industry

This internal infighting at Canon and its effect on the product range is reminiscent of the issue IBM had at integrating the PC division with the rest of the company. The results at IBM were pretty horrible, I don't think the tides will stop for Canon either.

Edmund

The 5D2 launched basic line skipping HD Video. It was a big success for some as they liked the HD ability in that format...

EOS Cinema started of with a special sensor optimized for HD (also had a cooling system IIRC) and was in a smaller frame format like that used by 35mm motion picture cameras. Video was much better than the 5D2 and you could argue a more focus friendly format for users as focus pulling a full frame 135 format is not as easy, especially on a camera made for stills work... All Pixels used for Video... Canon then started developing Cinema style MF lenses, with smooth aperture control, barrel gears etc for pro Cinema work...

We have seen some Canon crop models with the new dual pixel AF system which is aimed squarely at beginners and amateurs wanting video AF... The tech also available now on some of the Cinema line, again probably models focused on the lower end users that need it for faster work...

We have seen Canon start doing 4K in both the full frame and the EOS Cinema line...

Clearly the 5DS/R is aimed at a specialist Stills market and the video is an add on like it was on the 5D2. Nice to have but we can't really expect more since the high pixel count sensor does not really suit being adapted to pro video without adding cost and complexity into this specialist product. It is great that Canon are still willing to focus on stills cameras with the speed of light SLR system, the likes of the 1DX, 7D2 and now this 5DS/R for specific user types, albeit some landscapers may not be happy if DR is not improved.

The rumor mill suggests Canon will do a 5D4 which will have a lower pixel count to the 5DS/R and 4K video... Now that is what those 5D2 and 5D3 users, who want the video features, will like... ;-)

For some video formats even a cropped full frame is way too big and frames similar to 16mm film size will suit where run and gun, documentary style is needed for focusing and deeper DOF...

I think you right about the debate in Canon, which probably does include some care not to step over some lines for commercial reasons, but they seem to be heading the right way and the variety of wants and needs is a vast thing to deal with technically... I don't think we can reasonably expect a one size fits all product as there is no such thing...

Why EOSHD is reviewing the specs on this 5DS/R so critically is very odd. It is clearly not aimed at all but the most basic DSLR video that may come in handy for a specialist stills user. Probably an extract of the live view system so fairly easy for canon to add on as is

I am just glad Canon focused on the mirror system and other improvements like the meter and tripod mount for this new DSLR.

eronald · « **Reply #102 on:** February 07, 2015, 07:13:13 pm »

Quote from: Bernard ODonovan on February 07, 2015, 06:48:26 pm

Why EOSHD is reviewing the specs on this 5DS/R so critically is very odd. It is clearly not aimed at all but the most basic DSLR video that may come in handy for a specialist stills user. Probably an extract of the live view system so fairly easy for canon to add on as is

Bernard,

Even dpreview have a similar take:
50MP Canon EOS 5DS and 5DS R offer maxed-out resolution, slimmed-down video features

The list of omitted video features in the 5Ds is surprising - eg lack of clean hdmi for an external recorder, headphone out, no dual focus, no focus peaking - and can only be described as intentional crippling.

As for the dual-pixel AF, I think that quick focus at any point in the whole frame is a very useful feature even for a stills camera; touch-the-screen to focus and the foldout finder is what allows me to do single person video interviews with my GH4. Notice that the 5Ds has no foldout finder either. Focus peaking has also been omitted - accidentally I am sure - after all we all have perfect eyes

This camera's user is being locked in a box marked "stills" only and the lid is screwed on very tightly. Indeed, to be rude (lewd?), I'd say the buyer is the one getting ...

Edmund

Stefan.Steib · « **Reply #103 on:** February 07, 2015, 07:22:13 pm »

Quote from: eronald on February 07, 2015, 04:34:22 pm

Here is what the eoshd fanboys have to say:

Canon 5DS takes a backwards step for video – severe rolling shutter, moire and lack of uncompressed HDMI

Edmund

Very good article ! Summons up why this camera is (for me) a total disappointment.
If Canon really would have done something new - like an RGB/Pixel Sensor (Foveon like) with lets say 25 Mpix and real 4k Video with that technology
That would have been a whole different story.

But like this, for that Price ?

Greetings from Germany
Stefan

eronald · « **Reply #104 on:** February 07, 2015, 07:59:09 pm »

Quote from: Stefan.Steib on February 07, 2015, 07:22:13 pm

Very good article ! Summons up why this camera is (for me) a total disappointment.
If Canon really would have done something new - like an RGB/Pixel Sensor (Foveon like) with lets say 25 Mpix and real 4k Video with that technology
That would have been a whole different story.

But like this, for that Price ?

Greetings from Germany
Stefan

It's always the same - the top managers want a product that keep their division going (no internal mergers!) until they retire.

Edmund

Bernard ODonovan · « **Reply #105 on:** February 07, 2015, 08:00:56 pm »

Quote from: eronald on February 07, 2015, 07:13:13 pm

Bernard,

Even dpreview have a similar take:
50MP Canon EOS 5DS and 5DS R offer maxed-out resolution, slimmed-down video features

The list of omitted video features in the 5Ds is surprising - eg lack of clean hdmi for an external recorder, headphone out, no dual focus, no focus peaking - and can only be described as intentional crippling.

As for the dual-pixel AF, I think that quick focus at any point in the whole frame is a very useful feature even for a stills camera; touch-the-screen to focus and the foldout finder is what allows me to do single person video interviews with my GH4. Notice that the 5Ds has no foldout finder either. Focus peaking has also been omitted - accidentally I am sure - after all we all have perfect eyes

This camera's user is being locked in a box marked "stills" only and the lid is screwed on very tightly. Indeed, to be rude (lewd?), I'd say the buyer is the one getting ...

Edmund

The total pixels on the 5DS/R senor are 53 million. If they gave it dual pixel AF that would be 106 Million Pixels. I will assume this will affect the production yields upping sensor costs...

The camera has dual digic 6, what digic count with current technology would be needed to make real good use of a 101 Million effective pixel sensor for video... possibly more... what about heat power etc...

Some of the missing features that are of a software type may be held back as usual and come later

I am guessing Canon may do better video on a replacement model, but also think it must be a real low priority for the bulk of the target users... If they bring out a 5D4 with better low light, wider ISO range and 4K video, most people will forget the 5DS/R exists

The Dual Pixel AF will also have a harder time working on a full frame sensor given the lower DOF...

It is what it is... Canon have reasons not to include WiFi and flip screen on various product types....

RobertJ · « **Reply #106 on:** February 07, 2015, 10:05:58 pm »

The Canon "S" models (1Ds, 5Ds) aren't targeted towards video.

There will be a 5D Mark IV. It will have less MP than the 5Ds, and probably much better video capability, but knowing Canon, it will be limited somehow, until those hackers create software for it. Ha!

eronald · « **Reply #107 on:** February 07, 2015, 11:24:35 pm »

Quote from: RobertJ on February 07, 2015, 10:05:58 pm

The Canon "S" models (1Ds, 5Ds) aren't targeted towards video.

There will be a 5D Mark IV. It will have less MP than the 5Ds, and probably much better video capability, but knowing Canon, it will be limited somehow, until those hackers create software for it. Ha!

Robert,

This the first time in a long while that I've seen the word "hacker" used correctly

Edmund

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #108 on:** February 08, 2015, 02:37:14 am »

Hi,

My take is a bit different from yours. The way I see it, if 50 MP is needed the 5Ds delivers it. If 13 EV of DR is needed the 5Ds does not deliver that. Canon has also revamped their lens line, so they have some really good glass now.

Now, there is the question if 50 MP is needed? That is clearly a good question. The way I see it, it may be hard to see a difference between 21MP and 50MP in small prints (like A2), my experience with my Sony Alpha 99 and P45+ points into that direction, but in larger sizes I am pretty sure the advantage of the higher resolution will be there.

Another factor is that a sensor with better resolution will have less aliasing. The 5Ds obviously still has some issues with aliasing, else they would not offer the camera self cancelling OLP filtration.

As I mentioned, I am shooting Sony and Hasselblad, the Canon 5Ds would not make me switch to Canon, but would I buy Canon it would be the 5Ds that I would go for.

I have an article that reflects some of the aspects mentioned above. It discusses A2 size prints, which is relevant in the sense that it is the largest print size available in desktop/home printers.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/82-why-i-cannot-see-a-difference-in-a2-size-prints

I have pretty strong indications that 36/39/50 MP will have benefits in larger prints, like A1 or A0.

If the intended display is web size images shown on a normal 2MP screen than the difference betwee 20MP and 50MP sensors plays a much lesser role than the quality of downsizing algoritms.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Stefan.Steib on February 07, 2015, 07:22:13 pm

Very good article ! Summons up why this camera is (for me) a total disappointment.
If Canon really would have done something new - like an RGB/Pixel Sensor (Foveon like) with lets say 25 Mpix and real 4k Video with that technology
That would have been a whole different story.

But like this, for that Price ?

Greetings from Germany
Stefan

Gel · « **Reply #109 on:** February 08, 2015, 03:55:22 am »

If you edit in Photoshop like I do, 50mp is much needed.

Not for every photo sure and of course, it takes more CPU cycles up but things like skin work and layering I love the bigger files. It's as if Photoshop see's the image in a clearer way.

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #110 on:** February 08, 2015, 06:01:25 am »

Quote from: Gel on February 08, 2015, 03:55:22 am

If you edit in Photoshop like I do, 50mp is much needed.

Not for every photo sure and of course, it takes more CPU cycles up but things like skin work and layering I love the bigger files. It's as if Photoshop see's the image in a clearer way.

Yep, stitchers have been experiencing this for many years.

It's even better with 200~ megapixels, especially if the pixels are of high quality and have been captured with a good lens near its optimal aperture.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bart_van_der_Wolf · « **Reply #111 on:** February 08, 2015, 07:12:44 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier on February 08, 2015, 06:01:25 am

Yep, stitchers have been experiencing this for many years.

Indeed. Part of the reason though, is due to the larger on sensor magnification of the projected image from a longer focal length. Larger feature sizes translate in higher MTF responses. But even if we project the image with the same lens on a higher MP sensor, the MTF will improve. I estimate that it can result in up to 10% higher contrast at medium to high feature resolution. While less dramatic than for longer focal length stitching, 10% is still significant for postprocessing.

Cheers,
Bart

Bernard ODonovan · « **Reply #112 on:** February 08, 2015, 02:50:10 pm »

Keith Cooper posted this:

"An interesting comment (thanks), coming via testing a pre-release 5Dsr with a test version of DPP4. Low ISO DR is put at 1.5-2 stops better than the 1D X, but high ISO performance (6400) falls marginally behind the 7Dmk2.
The sensor is similar to the 7D2 technology, but has apparently been tuned to maximise low ISO performance. "

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html

bcooter · « **Reply #113 on:** February 08, 2015, 03:50:36 pm »

For the amount of time people talk about the negatives of an unreleased camera, if they spent the time learning post production and actually shooting something they've never shot before, they'd have a much better experience and something interesting to show.

Digital has it's drawbacks, mostly due to roll your on color and look but the cameras are so good now, it's difficult to find a "bad" option.

Canon's funny, sometimes slow or stubborn to make drastic changes but from a film camera perspective, cameras didn't really change for decades, so a few year upgrade cycle isn't the end of the world.

The DR thing kind of puzzles me, but I guess if you shoot landscapes and don't want to blend exposures, maybe that's important.

I know for our work which is quite varied, I rarely get into a situation where I can't make the limitations of any camera work, but then again, I'm more concerned with what I do and less about what the camera does.

In a week we start up a gig we've shot for years, with everything from the original 1ds, Aptus 22, P30+, 1ds2,3, 1dx and now the Leica S2.

I can go back through the archives and look at the results from all of those cameras and honestly it's minimal. In fact reviewing the 1dx vs. the Leica I'm hard pressed to tell the difference, other than the 1dx is a much more flexible camera to work with.

Now that our studio's work is mostly motion content, I find the same thing. We are just wrapping up a project shot mostly with RED and the more fluid images with a Canon 70d. You'd think the 70d at $800 vs. $25,000 for the REDs would be a disaster or at least a big difference.

Though if your careful in shooting, keeping the exposure correct, knowing what scene will alaise, if your good a post correction (and every digital image needs post correction) I can intercut 70d footage next to the RED and match the look within 3%.

I'm far from lazy, but sometimes I question why I torture myself with 25 to 30 lb cameras with the ergonomics of a belt sander, that cost more than a luxury car, rather than just carry a bunch of canons and not have to spend the 4 hours at the end of the week in a ice bath to repair everything that gets torn up.

I guess what I'm saying is talking cameras can be fun and easy, but in the real world of what image makes people stop and look, what you do in front of a lens is much more important than the capture device.

canon 1ds1, tungsten light.(not meant to prove anything)

IMO

BC

eronald · « **Reply #114 on:** February 08, 2015, 04:04:37 pm »

J,

If you are in a a studio, DR is not going to be an issue, nor outside if you have a bunch of lights.

The landscape guys may want to photograph a mountain that is half in the shadows, or the marriage guys may want to film with no lights in a church, the same for tourists, and then things can get ugly - no older camera can hold both the stained glass and the unlit paintings in a european church.

And then you have people who want to film a dumb outdoors scene in natural light without blowing out the sky ...

I think you're being a bit dismissive of other people's abilities in post - everybody in this forum could probably run a Photoshop course, and those that cannot probably have an assistant who could. But real life and $20000/day crew setups are just not the same thing. If you have the crew and have total control, life is hectic but it is also more forgiving.

I have the greatest respect for your opinions, and usually you are mostly right, and when you are not right you still make sense. In this vein I would agree that people are badmouthing a very good new camera as if it were unusable; but then this is the MF forum where that new camera is stacked up against just about the best equipment known to man, and the audience is basically saying "let somebody else buy this marvel".

Edmund

PS. I'm not talking from theory here. I've been trying to do available light video documentary shooting and practically any real life setting I go into now has some highlight zones which try to blow out. I just desperately wish for better than 8 bits or for Raw, precisely because I would like to be able to work in post. As a result, my framing is determined by the DR of the camera more than by any aesthetics.

Quote from: bcooter on February 08, 2015, 03:50:36 pm

For the amount of time people talk about the negatives of an unreleased camera, if they spent the time learning post production and actually shooting something they've never shot before, they'd have a much better experience and something interesting to show.

Digital has it's drawbacks, mostly due to roll your on color and look but the cameras are so good now, it's difficult to find a "bad" option.

Canon's funny, sometimes slow or stubborn to make drastic changes but from a film camera perspective, cameras didn't really change for decades, so a few year upgrade cycle isn't the end of the world.

The DR thing kind of puzzles me, but I guess if you shoot landscapes and don't want to blend exposures, maybe that's important.

I know for our work which is quite varied, I rarely get into a situation where I can't make the limitations of any camera work, but then again, I'm more concerned with what I do and less about what the camera does.

In a week we start up a gig we've shot for years, with everything from the original 1ds, Aptus 22, P30+, 1ds2,3, 1dx and now the Leica S2.

I can go back through the archives and look at the results from all of those cameras and honestly it's minimal. In fact reviewing the 1dx vs. the Leica I'm hard pressed to tell the difference, other than the 1dx is a much more flexible camera to work with.

Now that our studio's work is mostly motion content, I find the same thing. We are just wrapping up a project shot mostly with RED and the more fluid images with a Canon 70d. You'd think the 70d at $800 vs. $25,000 for the REDs would be a disaster or at least a big difference.

Though if your careful in shooting, keeping the exposure correct, knowing what scene will alaise, if your good a post correction (and every digital image needs post correction) I can intercut 70d footage next to the RED and match the look within 3%.

I'm far from lazy, but sometimes I question why I torture myself with 25 to 30 lb cameras with the ergonomics of a belt sander, that cost more than a luxury car, rather than just carry a bunch of canons and not have to spend the 4 hours at the end of the week in a ice bath to repair everything that gets torn up.

I guess what I'm saying is talking cameras can be fun and easy, but in the real world of what image makes people stop and look, what you do in front of a lens is much more important than the capture device.

canon 1ds1, tungsten light.(not meant to prove anything)

IMO

BC

Telecaster · « **Reply #115 on:** February 08, 2015, 04:12:03 pm »

Quote from: Chris Livsey on February 07, 2015, 03:37:29 pm

Dave, Amedeo adapters allow the Nikon/Contax rangefinder mounts to adapt to Leica -M. Leica M then to Sony, yes two adapters but you are manual focussing. They accept both internal mount, and external mount and are beautifully made, I have the Nikon RF version. The helical is precise and smooth.
http://www.amedeo.muscelli.net/

Chris, thanks for the info…musta missed Amedeo the last time I went looking. My friend Bruce has an old Orion adapter (CRF to LTM), with internal helical, that I've borrowed a few times. It turns out my best performing 50/1.5 Sonnar (or derivation thereof) on my A7r is a 1950s LTM Soviet Jupiter 3! I use it with a Voigtländer adapter (plus a Leitz LTM to M), so I'm good to go on that front. But I've bookmarked the Amedeo link.

Edit: read your follow-up post…okay, I'm sold.

-Dave-

jjj · « **Reply #116 on:** February 08, 2015, 05:26:08 pm »

Quote from: bcooter on February 08, 2015, 03:50:36 pm

For the amount of time people talk about the negatives of an unreleased camera, if they spent the time learning post production and actually shooting something they've never shot before, they'd have a much better experience and something interesting to show.

It always amazes me how much opinion can be held about things that people have not yet experienced yet.
I also mention from time to time that less time looking at graphs and more time taking photographs may be instructive

Quote

I guess what I'm saying is talking cameras can be fun and easy, but in the real world of what image makes people stop and look, what you do in front of a lens is much more important than the capture device.

Don't give away trade secrets like that!!

Quote

I'm far from lazy, but sometimes I question why I torture myself with 25 to 30 lb cameras with the ergonomics of a belt sander, that cost more than a luxury car, rather than just carry a bunch of canons and not have to spend the 4 hours at the end of the week in a ice bath to repair everything that gets torn up.

I was helping with lighting and focus pulling yesterday for my mate who was taking his new constant horizon steadicam rig for literally a spin yesterday and have zero wish to be flying a rig that heavy for as long as he did during an 18 hour day. We also used to shoot on Canons.

jjj · « **Reply #117 on:** February 08, 2015, 05:33:13 pm »

Quote from: Jim Kasson on February 07, 2015, 11:37:36 am

We live in a new golden age of manual focus lenses. The Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo Sonnar ZF.2, the 15mm f/2.8 Distagon ZF.2, the Otii, the Coastal Optical 60mm f/4, etc. These lenses are not much fun to use on DSLRs. It used to be that there were focusing aids in the finders. No more. The only way to achieve critical focus is with live view, and, with no EVF, that means putting the camera on a tripod. With the alpha 7 cameras, you have more options: magnified view in the EVF, and focus peaking, with and without magnification. Magnified view is especially useful in combination with in-body image stabilization (IBIS), because the image doesn't jump around in the finder.

Focusing lenses faster than f2.8 with a modern AF DSLR is a bit of a crap shoot. Roll on EVFs with the many advantages they give, accurate manual focus included.

jjj · « **Reply #118 on:** February 08, 2015, 05:53:19 pm »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier on February 07, 2015, 08:31:45 am

Well, there is inertia, but there is also...
- the fact that today high end DSLRs, such as the D810, 1DX,... remain the best image making machines available in terms of image quality and shooting enveloppe.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'shooting envelope', but is that to exclude MFDSLRs from this list? As they are 'even better' than the cameras you mention.
Not that that is relevant anyway. For the vast majority of photographers the mere 16mp count of say a m43 camera can output better quality than they know what to do with or really need anyway. Heck even the Nikon pro body, the D4s only has 16.2MP.

Quote

Today, the only tangible advantage of an a7r I see is compactness.

Don't underestimate the benefits of a smaller lighter system. After all that's one of the biggest advantage 35mm sized cameras have over MF sized cameras. I'm beginning to loathe the weight of my kit more and more, so for personal work an Olympus EM body and three stunning f2.8 lenses that cover 16-300mm and that fits in a very small bag [or even jacket pockets] is looking very attractive indeed. Heck the 40-150mm lenses is so very lovely, that on its own it tempts me to get an m43 body and I'm a wideangle lenses shooter. More than good enough for pro work too.

Ken R · « **Reply #119 on:** February 08, 2015, 06:36:15 pm »

I admit that for Landscape photography the higher dynamic range of the Sony sensors really changed the game. It allows many a landscape photographer to achieve the desired results (and sometimes exceed them) without the need to use multiple exposures and/or ND Grad filters in a lot of situations. Architectural photographers have been able to take interior shots where the exterior is perfectly exposed and bring up the interior "exposure" in post without the need to do multiple exposures and/or additional lighting. Wedding and People photographers have been able to make images without the use of fill light.

Doesn't sound like much but the implications of this are HUGE in a big chunk of people's work. Makes the work easier to achieve and faster and it is just another capability one has in the bag.

Of course this capability doesn't solve everything and won't make an image for you or give you good taste but it is just a nice tool to have in the shed.

It is actually one of if not the largest development in digital photography IMHO. The extra dynamic range has changed a lot of photographer's workflow in a lot of jobs and that is game changing.

But I agree, in the studio the extra dynamic range is really not required or anytime one can control lighting ratios for the desired result. And it's not like other cameras have zero dynamic range. Heck they have a lot more than the E6 film I used for years.

Author Topic: 50MP Canon 5DS/R spec leaked (Read 86363 times)