Canon 5Ds/R New review with file samples

[Telecaster]

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-

[Ray]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[hjulenissen]

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

[BJL]

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 ...)

[Hans Kruse]

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

[shadowblade]

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!

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.

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.

[shadowblade]

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

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.

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[albedo13]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[albedo13]

Regarding the file samples...in case anybody had not seen yet, Canon has requested the file samples be removed from the website...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[Jack Hogan]

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.