EOS 5Ds- why all this negativity?

[AlterEgo]

Only their sensor subsystems really hold them back. 

something shall hold it back... we do not want one Canon to rule them all

[dwswager]

something shall hold it back... we do not want one Canon to rule them all

LOL!

All I can say is had the introduction of the 7DmkII shown that Canon understood they had a problem and was doing something to fix it, then I might have considered moving back to Canon.  As it was, I went out and bought a Nikon D810 and AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 VR. 

[hjulenissen]

...Your comment about usually shooting at higher ISO basically says the 7DmkII is fine as a one trick pony (low light, high speed).

I am playing a bit of devils advocate here because I own the 7D mk1, and I have been quite vocal about the DR limitations of Canon.

What I am trying to say is that product differentation is to be expected. Canon (or Nikon) will never offer their best set of features in a mid-end product. They might sacrifice component cost/quality or artificially limit their products in order to make the most expensive ones shine. As long as the products still sells (i.e. the total product package is perceived as competitive by their customers), I guess all is ok.

When the 7Dmk2 is heavily pitched as a birds-in-flight or soccer-game camera using tele lens, tracking PDAF and medium-high ISO, it is not surprising that Canon did not equip it with a possible significant improvement in DR@ISO100. It is a lot more surprising that they did not (according to my interpretation of some official statements) bump low ISO DR of the 5Ds to state-of-the-art, a camera where such qualities may really be of importance.

And it's not just DR, but noise as well....

I believe that the sole reason why Canon cameras have less DR @ low ISO is because they have higher (read) noise. Am I missing something?

-h

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think you miss something.

On the other hand I would guess that Canon cannot really improve readout noise, possibly depending on the design rules they use. According to Lensworks all Canon DSLR sensors are made using 0.5 micron design rules. All low noise CMOS sensors from Sony, Toshiba and Leica/CMOSIS seem to used on sensor columnwise raw converters, and Canon does not seem to have that capability.


Best regards
Erik

I believe that the sole reason why Canon cameras have less DR @ low ISO is because they have higher (read) noise. Am I missing something?

-h

[BJL]

Your comment about usually shooting at higher ISO basically says the 7DmkII is fine as a one trick pony (low light, high speed).

It's a matter of priorities and preferences in subject matter I guess:
- for some, an advantage only in low light/high speed situation is a niche use case (= "one trick pony");
- for others, an advantage only at base ISO-speed and in scenes with unusually large subject brightness range is the niche case.

[shadowblade]

It's a matter of priorities and preferences in subject matter I guess:
- for some, an advantage only in low light/high speed situation is a niche use case (= "one trick pony");
- for others, an advantage only at base ISO-speed and in scenes with unusually large subject brightness range is the niche case.

The thing is, for anyone other than Canon, they come together.

All other manufacturers have managed to linearise the lower part of the DR/ISO curve, so that their sensors are essentially ISO-less. Therefore, increase the high-ISO capability by 1 stop and you've also increased the low-ISO DR by one stop.

But this doesn't apply to Canon because their curve isn't linear. When Canon increases their high-ISO capability, their low-ISO DR is still capped at around 12 - just that it can achieve a DR of 12 at one stop higher ISO (say, it can achieve DR 12 at ISO 800 instead of 400). If and when Canon increases their low-ISO DR, their high-ISO capability won't change (without separate improvements, anyway), wince the only way they can improve their low-ISO DR is to improve their A/D conversion and straighten out the curve, which doesn't help high ISOs at all.

[fido]

Well it has been a while since I posted and after reading this thread I thought I was on the Dpreview website, I had to check the status bar just to make sure I was not.  Without an actual production camera and raw data the discussion here can be compared to arguing about how many spirits can dance on the head of a pin.  Most of the discussion focuses on lack of DR in Canon sensors, this is what I have learned, DR changes with ISO and lenses, so do not expect the same DR across all lenses and ISO range.  I use a Sekonic L758 DR light meter and I exposure profiled my camera and lenses, a very lengthy process, and yes there is a slight change with different lenses.  My 5D MkIII with the 24-70 f2.8 has a rage of +3 to -5 EV from ISO 320 to 2500 and 2.5 to 4.6 at ISO 5000.  For the more knowledgeable readers they will have figured out that I pull my ISO and they may also know that Canon sensors perform their best with pulled ISO.  To get the most out of my sensor I set my ISO 2 button on the light meter for filter compensation and a setting of +2.3 for a safety margin in preserving highlights; I read the brightest part of the scene, press my ISO 2 button and the light meter gives me the best exposure setting for the sensor and lens, for both stills and video.  This works for 95% of the shots, for the other 5%, the in camera raw blending (HDR) does more than an adequate job and there is always post processing.  I try to reproduce the image my eyes sent to my brain, I let nature do the cooking not my software and since I do not overcook my pictures in post processing the 5D MKIII has not let me down.  If I am unhappy with a shot or it does not turn out the way I saw it, the failing is mine not the cameras and certainly not the DR of the sensor, good photographs are about composition and light not about megapixels and DR.

Excellent post.  Thank you!!

[shadowblade]

Well it has been a while since I posted and after reading this thread I thought I was on the Dpreview website, I had to check the status bar just to make sure I was not.  Without an actual production camera and raw data the discussion here can be compared to arguing about how many spirits can dance on the head of a pin.  Most of the discussion focuses on lack of DR in Canon sensors, this is what I have learned, DR changes with ISO and lenses, so do not expect the same DR across all lenses and ISO range.  I use a Sekonic L758 DR light meter and I exposure profiled my camera and lenses, a very lengthy process, and yes there is a slight change with different lenses.  My 5D MkIII with the 24-70 f2.8 has a rage of +3 to -5 EV from ISO 320 to 2500 and 2.5 to 4.6 at ISO 5000.  For the more knowledgeable readers they will have figured out that I pull my ISO and they may also know that Canon sensors perform their best with pulled ISO.  To get the most out of my sensor I set my ISO 2 button on the light meter for filter compensation and a setting of +2.3 for a safety margin in preserving highlights; I read the brightest part of the scene, press my ISO 2 button and the light meter gives me the best exposure setting for the sensor and lens, for both stills and video.  This works for 95% of the shots, for the other 5%, the in camera raw blending (HDR) does more than an adequate job and there is always post processing.  I try to reproduce the image my eyes sent to my brain, I let nature do the cooking not my software and since I do not overcook my pictures in post processing the 5D MKIII has not let me down.  If I am unhappy with a shot or it does not turn out the way I saw it, the failing is mine not the cameras and certainly not the DR of the sensor, good photographs are about composition and light not about megapixels and DR.

Without megapixels, you can't print them very big and have them hold up to close scrutiny.

Without DR, you lose much of the shadow detail, unless you allow the highlights to blow out.

Some scenes are harder on a sensor than others (and strongly-backlit sunsets where you don't want the foreground to be silhouetted are one of the hardest) and, without a sensor with the technical capability, you just can't capture them.

Aesthetic quality and technical quality are two completely unrelated aspects of a photo. Neither DR nor resolution make your photos any better, but they let you capture good photos in a wider variety of lighting conditions, and do more with them once you've captured them.

[Hans Kruse]

Good question, my un-substanciated guess is that it may simply result from the mental deadlock of a key influencer near the top of their sensor design teams.

I have first hand experience in Japan with irrational behaviors that take companies in wrong directions for years simply because one key senior guy is mistaken and nobody around him (above or below) has the ability/guts to prove him wrong.

It can get to pretty unreal levels.

It could be something else at Canon, but it is really reminiscent of what happened at Nikon pre-D3 or at Sigma while the father of the current CEO was in charge. I bet that there are many frustrated sensor designers in Canon's team.

Cheers,
Bernard

You may well be right. Even in companies outside of Japan similar behavior can be found. But I also suspect there is more to it than just that.

At least Canon has made some awesome lenses in the recent few years and replaced lots of older designs. Canon recently went up from 18MP to 24MP for their 750D/760D APS-C cameras. I suspect the DR on these haven't improved either.

[ZoltanZZZ]

Thank you for your comment, I do not disagree regarding megapixels and DR, however, how people actually print large prints, for the majority of picture takers out there 10 or 12 megapixels is more than enough.  That leaves a small market for people that actually need the megapixels, and up to this point if you needed it, you shot medium format.   Also the majority of people do not understand the limitations of the increased megapixel, having to use a tripod and not to shoot above f8 (the limit for 30 megapixels); otherwise you are negating the advantage of the increased megapixels.  A good tripod and head costs more than most cameras and high end ND filters that do not have a color cast are not cheap.  I still believe features and feel of the camera are more import, I upgrade to the 5D MKIII for the features, the most important being the focusing not the megapixels.  All cameras have trade-offs and limitations and companies make those design decisions probably based on marketing not necessarily what photographers want.  It all depends on what each of us is willing to live with.  The point I wanted to make was that megapixels and DR are not the most important aspects of photography.  When I look at a photograph I look for what it is conveying and the effect it has on me, I do not look for minute details that would take away from the overall effect.  Unfortunately technology is advancing in photography and art is retreating and the worst part is that very few people actually understand the technology and fewer people understand the art.

[MarkL]

Thank you for your comment, I do not disagree regarding megapixels and DR, however, how people actually print large prints, for the majority of picture takers out there 10 or 12 megapixels is more than enough.  That leaves a small market for people that actually need the megapixels, and up to this point if you needed it, you shot medium format.   Also the majority of people do not understand the limitations of the increased megapixel, having to use a tripod and not to shoot above f8 (the limit for 30 megapixels); otherwise you are negating the advantage of the increased megapixels.  A good tripod and head costs more than most cameras and high end ND filters that do not have a color cast are not cheap.  I still believe features and feel of the camera are more import, I upgrade to the 5D MKIII for the features, the most important being the focusing not the megapixels.  All cameras have trade-offs and limitations and companies make those design decisions probably based on marketing not necessarily what photographers want.  It all depends on what each of us is willing to live with.  The point I wanted to make was that megapixels and DR are not the most important aspects of photography.  When I look at a photograph I look for what it is conveying and the effect it has on me, I do not look for minute details that would take away from the overall effect.  Unfortunately technology is advancing in photography and art is retreating and the worst part is that very few people actually understand the technology and fewer people understand the art.

Most people that do print now print larger. What was a large print 10 years ago is not and 30”+ isn’t large on a wall and don’t forget even 36MP can only get to a modest print of 24.5" by 16.4" @ 300ppi before any cropping. f/8 and a tripod or the benefit is negated simply isn’t true - a high res image will always be better than a lower res one at the same size. I shoot mostly handheld (fashion) and the difference going from a D700 to D800 has been staggering.

What a photograph is conveying and the effect it has can be directly influenced by DR and MP. The picture takes on a realistic you-are-there experience due to the detail rather than blocky mush from upressing and the deep shadows and bight sunrise are all captured without clipping. Instead of fighting the limits of the equipment more capable equipment allows better work to be produced; 36MP and 14+ stops of DR certainly has for me and when I shoot my X100 I really notice it. No longer do I have to underexpose to keep the sky hoping the colours will hold up when I push the exposure in post, blend or stitch together many frames to get a decent size print.

[DeanChriss]

There are nine pages of conjecture in this thread alone about a camera that won't even be released, much less tested, for three more months. It almost makes me wish I'd been here exercising my clairvoyance instead of out taking photos for the last couple weeks. 

[BernardLanguillier]

There are nine pages of conjecture in this thread alone about a camera that won't even be released, much less tested, for three more months.

More than 4 months in fact.

Cheers,
Bernard

[DennisWilliams]

Well, four months before this camera ships in half a year, you'll be able to buy a Sony 50 megapixel camera with much better dynamic range at half the price. And EFCS and no flappy mirror to destroy sharpness, and the ability to critically focus in the viewfinder (needed with a 50MP camera!)

So, that's basically why.

Flappy mirror.  I expect this garbage  elsewhere but not here.  I guess times have changed.

[Phil Indeblanc]

ON the bright side if you care less about more pixels you could take advantage of this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221116170557?customid=d88eb4d3bdb446cb867caa10ea843d61&pub=5574652453&afepn=5337259887&campid=5337259887&icep_id=117&ipn=icep&item=221116170557&afepn=5337259887&rmvSB=true

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Just to make two points:

- Canon essentially stated that the 5Ds sensor is based on the 7DII sensor, with some refinement. The 7DII sensor is a well known reference. So we now how it will perform.

- Lot of Canon users eye Nikon D810 and/or Sony A7r for higher resolution or extended DR. Those needs may be perceived or real. The new camera is interesting for anyone considering jumping ships.

Best regards
Erik

More than 4 months in fact.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dwswager]

ON the bright side if you care less about more pixels you could take advantage of this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221116170557?customid=d88eb4d3bdb446cb867caa10ea843d61&pub=5574652453&afepn=5337259887&campid=5337259887&icep_id=117&ipn=icep&item=221116170557&afepn=5337259887&rmvSB=true

$1999 is an appropriate price for a 5DmkIII considering available alternatives. 

[Phil Indeblanc]

$1999 is an appropriate price for a 5DmkIII considering available alternatives. 

Alternatives such as? .. 5dMark2?

If I didn't have a M2 I would certainly get a M3. With the 5Ds on the rise, I will likely ignore the M3 and double down.

[dwswager]

Alternatives such as? .. 5dMark2?

If I didn't have a M2 I would certainly get a M3. With the 5Ds on the rise, I will likely ignore the M3 and double down.

While buyers within a system have a barrier to change due to sunken costs of lenses, accessories and familiarity, I was thinking all alternatives available.  Every manufacturer estimates their retention rates and new buyer adoption rates at various price points and prices to maximize profit.   Looking at the current price of $2900 for the D810, I suspect Nikon could get more out of the camera with current Nikon shooters, but is attempting to offset that revenue with new adopters to which they can sell lenses and accessories.  Canon, on the other hand will likely price the 5Ds based on getting as much out of current Canon shooters as possible since they are getting a big step up in resolution compared to previous offerings, but not that big compared to outside offerings.

Though what prompted my comment is that if I had to choose between the D810 and the 5DmkIII, and the D810 is priced at $2900, then I would consider the 5DmkIII at the $1999 price point  (trading pixels, DR and Low shadow noise for $1000), but would opt for the D810 if it continued to be priced at $2999.