5Ds /Ds-r gimmick?

[alexo]

<p>I had heard about Canon introducing the new 50mp camera models. The potential to enlarge an image to 20x30 at 300 dpi is very enticing. However, I'm wondering about whether the current line of lenses have enough resolving power to produce 50mp or close images (assuming all the other factors are at or near ideal levels). I wonder if this is just a way to get everyone to run out and get a new set of lenses that will cost a small fortune, but that will have the resolving power to take advantage of the pixel count.<br>

<br />Furthermore, whereas Canon claims pixel density to be equal of 7dII, isn't the whole point of a full frame camera to have larger pixels? Would image quality suffer due to the pixel size? What about color fidelity and dynamic range? Is that going to suffer?<br>

<br />Any other thoughts?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Well, I think you're kind of late to the discussion. Both here and on nearly every other photosite that I see, these sorts of questions have been widely and thoroughly discussed, as a Google™ for reviews and such of the new cameras will directly reveal (<a href="https://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&q=Canon+5Ds+reviews&oq=Canon+5Ds+reviews&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i22i30l9.3758.5141.0.5433.8.8.0.0.0.0.150.808.3j4.7.0.msedr...0...1c.1.62.serp..1.7.805.pmNjJYRoqLM">link</a>)<br /> By using terms like <em>gimmick</em>, you lead me to suspect that you are more interested in arguing or trolling.</p>

<p>The question about resolution of the cameras and their outpacing the lenses has come up every time in the last few years that a new grossly megapixeled camera has been announced and released.<br /> Strangely, though, it hasn't been resolved. I sense a lack of focus in the discussions and the lines are not clearly drawn as yet. :)</p>

<p>[The image below is a 100% crop of a 4000ppi scan of the sky in a Kodachrome 25 slide. The black specks are dust specks which are clearly resolved, but see the 'grain' in the sky proper.]</p><div></div>

[alexo]

<p>I haven't seen anything in terms of definitively answering these questions, especially concerning the pixel density. Things move fast on the Internet and I may indeed be late in asking these questions, but as it happens, there are other things in life that take priority over newly announced photographic gear.<br /><br />Re: Kodachrome, I fail to see the connection as far as lens resolution. I may be missing something here.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Many of Canon (and Tamron and Sigma) 's lenses are able to resolve details at single pixel levels on 7D2s at a variety of settings. Since the pixel density of the 5Ds is the same, there is no reason to think that these lenses would be inadequate on the 5Ds...</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I use a 36mp Nikon D800 and my lenses work as well with it as it did on my 12mp D700. I don't thing I could look at a 8x10 or 11x14 and say, geez I wish better lenses that resolved more detail. I might say that if I used cheap consumer lenses but I don't. I'm absolutely sure that the 24-105L that I use with my 12mp 5D will be more than adequate for the 50mp's of the 5Ds. Rather than speculate I'll wait for reviews from well respected photographers before making any decision.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I use a Nikon D3300 24 MP 1.5x crop body and a Canon 5D II 21 MP full frame body and can use the same 4 Nikon lenses on both bodies. The Nikon lenses I am using are some of the best manual focus lenses that Nikon made in the 1980's. I have only had the D3300 a few months but I can tell you that it pulls far more resolution out of those lenses than the 5D II can. The 5DS/R will have about the same pixel density of the D3300 so I know it will not outresolve those four lenses and I am confident that my Canon Ef 70-200/4 L and Canon EF 300/4 L, which are not as sharp as my Nikon lenses, will still not be outresolved either. </p>

<p>I am really looking forward to seeing images from my extremely sharp Canon EF 17mm f4 TS-E on the 5DS/R in a few years when I can justify a used one. I suspect the 17mm could work as high as 80 MP!</p>

<p>You can't judge Kodachrome 25 by scanning it. You can only view it with the naked eye through at least 10x magnification and then compare that with a digital image that you see on your monitor or in an enlarged print. Ideally you would compare same sized high quality prints from each but getting a traditional darkroom print from the Kodachrome 25 is not particularly feasible these days. I have long since given up comparing my Kodachrome 25 shots with my digital images, because generally the lenses that I have now are so much better than when I shot film, but back when I had a 12 MP camera I estimated that it would take at least 35 MP to outresolve K25.</p>

<p>Hhhhhmmmm, now you have me thinking about digging out some of the old slides and re-shooting those scenes with my D3300...and where did those test slides go that I have......</p>

[JDMvW]

<p> My point on Kodachrome, admittedly obscured, was that the media resolution versus the lens resolution battle goes back much further than digital.<br>

Actually, I think you can judge Kodachrome on scans. There is a point beyond which no further improvement in resolution happens, and that point is about 4000ppi. The nature of computer screens, especially high resolution screens nowadays shoves the photons 'through' the image so that it glows, just as the projected image at best did. I just posted some 1981 Kodachrome II slides at http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00dC0S and they look ok even at 700pixels.</p>

[alexo]

<p>The problem, as I see it, with comparing full frame lenses on a 7d2 and trying to extrapolate pixel resolution based on pixel density is that the full frame lenses are judged based on the sweet spot of their image circle. Naturally, the results should be better.<br /><br />What about loss in dynamic range and color fidelity due to greater pixel density (if any)? I can't wait for the cameras to come out and to see tests performed using the currently available lenses. As much as I am tempted by the possibility of big prints at 300 dpi, I'm afraid that it will fall short due to the pushing of the lens limits (although I hope that doesn't happen. I really want to be able to shoot ultra high res with a full frame format, rather than going to medium format.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>High pixel count cameras tend to have greater dynamic range and overall image quality towards lower ISO settings than lower pixel count cameras of the same generation. At very high ISO it tends to be the opposite.</p>

<p>Lenses are not a problem, some current lenses won't show all they can do until we approach a gigapixel 24mm x 36mm sensor. 50MP is should not present any kind of problem for modern high quality lenses. In practice, all lenses will show a bit more detail on a high resolution sensor than a lower resolution one.</p>

[alexo]

<p>If the higher pixel count has greater dynamic range, how does pixel size play into that? Medium format backs may have the same 50mp, but their pixel density and pixel size is much different. My understanding is that their dynamic range is incredible as well. </p>

[Nick D.]

<p>If you looking for dynamic range, buy used FujiS3 or S5,<br>

24x36 is 24x36, no matter how many pixels you puck in sensor, it's like film with smaller grain, that's about it.</p>

[alexo]

<p>Just checked out DPreview and looked at the RAW comparisons among Phase 1 IQ180 digital back, Nikon 810, Pentax 645Z and Canon 5D MKII and III<br /><br />http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_645z&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=phaseone_iq180&attr13_3=sony_a7r&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=35&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0<br /><br />From what I can see, there is some gain from greater resolution. I don't see much dynamic range penalty from Nikon 810 vs the lower res Canons. Pentax 645z doesn't seem to be worth the money based on the sample images. So, all of this leads me to believe that the Canon 5dS may wind up to be a good camera to get if 50mp is required and there doesn't seem to be a payoff to going to a med format sensor unless it's a true 645.<br /><br />Any thoughts?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I don't see much dynamic range penalty from Nikon 810 vs the lower res Canons</blockquote>

 

<p>Hi Alexander. Are you talking about low-ISO dynamic range (where the D800/D810 have <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html">a big advantage</a> over a 5D3 if you're not using something like the Magic Lantern dual-ISO hack) or are you talking about higher ISOs? I'm not sure how you get low-ISO dynamic range information out of the dpreview image test. At higher ISOs, the 6D does better than the 5D3, and the D750 does better than the D810 - although only slightly, in both cases. I'd expect the 5Ds to be roughly in the ballpark of the 5D3 (with scaled-down images), since the sensor improvements over time might cancel out with the demands of transferring more pixel data. To my eye, the 645z is doing quite well on scaled images - but then it's seeing more light at the same ISO, so you'd expect as much (and the difficulty is finding medium format lenses as fast as the 35mm ones). The sensor technology has some advantages over older medium format sensors.<br />

<br />

As for lenses, your lenses will be better on a 50MP body, but you may wonder whether you're making the most of the body. The difference between 50MP and 36MP (on a D8x0 Nikon) is less than that between the 24MP and 36MP Nikons; it'll be more demanding, but not hugely so. Lenses will show a bit less contrast at the per-pixel level - some more than others. Most lenses are appreciably softer the farther you get from the optical axis, so the "crop sensor pixel density" argument only really applies when you care most about the middle of the image. You can try to sharpen in post-processing, but that brings us back into needing dynamic range.<br />

<br />

Ilkka: What's the argument for higher pixel count sensors having better dynamic range? The D750 (24MP) matches or exceeds the D810 (36MP) unless you include the ISO 64 setting on the D810, which the D750 lacks. The D8x0 series do have exceptional dynamic range, but I always believed that was incidental.</p>

[alexo]

<p>I'm not concerned about the high ISO dynamic range because I don't do a lot of low light photography. So, most of the discussion here revolves around the low ISO.<br /><br />From what I could see, the current set of lenses do ok with 36mp, so I expect they'll be ok with 50 as well, since as you said, the difference between 36 and 50 is less than the difference between 24 and 36mp. <br /><br />I thought that given that Canon is trying to pack 50mp onto a 24x36mm sensor, the pixel density would be great enough to impact the dynamic range. From what I can see, that's probably not going to be the case.<br /><br />The Phase I IQ80 seems the way to go, as there seems to be an appreciable difference in image quality as compared to Nikon 810, Canon 5d III and Pentax 645z. Alas, it costs a small fortune, so that's not in the cards.<br /><br />So, from what I've been able to gather, it seems that 5dS should be a good camera for those needing to print large, exhibition quality prints.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks for clarifying, Alexander. Sorry if that was obvious - I'm new to the thread.<br />

<br />

On lenses, I'd certainly expect the Otus range and some of Sigma's Art lenses to keep up, at the right aperture. I'd not expect to see much at wide apertures with, say, a 50 f/1.2. :-)<br />

<br />

On the Phase One, <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Phase-One-IQ180-Digital-Back___963_795_746">you win some, you lose some</a>. The tonal range and colour sensitivity marginally beat the D810; the dynamic range is some way behind. At low ISO, though, there's something to be said for 80MP. Though you won't have much depth of field if you want pixel-level sharpness... Fond as I am of my film 645, I'm not rushing out to get one of these.<br />

<br />

If you want a large print that's pixel-level sharp, the more pixels the better. But people rarely look at things this closely, and stitching is often an option if you really want to go down the gigapixel route. As ever, it depends what you're shooting, and no camera is a panacea. I've no doubt the 5Ds will be a good and popular camera, though - I certainly value the detail my D810 gives me (although my move to a 36MP body came from a 12MP D700, so there was an even bigger jump than Canon users will have going from the 5D3).</p>

[alexo]

<p>I had a jaw dropping experience when I first got my Canon 5DII. It was my first digital SLR (I shot film before then) I thought it was as sharp as a tack, the resolution was incredible and I've made 20x30 inch prints with it, although I thought that was pushing it just a touch. More importantly, the dynamic range and the color fidelity were top notch. <br /><br />I was afraid that the introduction of 5Ds would mean just another salvo in the pixel wars at the expense of color fidelity, dynamic range and tonality. However, having seen the comparisons, as imperfect as they are, I figure that the 5Ds would be just what the doctor ordered so that I wouldn't feel that a 20x30" print is "pushing it a bit".<br /><br />Granted, it's not often that one finds the need to print that large, but I had a few exhibitions and I always thought that I could make a bigger impact with bigger prints.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The 7D MkII gives us a pretty good idea of what DR to expect from the 5Ds and r. That's not going to be it's strong point, nor is low ISO performance. I think the sweet spot will be in the ISO 200 to 400, like on the 7D2. </p>

<p>I've made 50" prints with my 5D2 that stand up to viewing from just a few inches. The new s and r should be good up to a 72", or so, print.</p>

[alexo]

<p>Wow! 50"! That's below 200dpi. How did they look? I thought my 20x30 was on the borderline and I figured that the 5ds would be good for about 30x45". </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I had a jaw dropping experience when I first got my Canon 5DII.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I remember getting my own 5D II and thinking, "I will never have to buy another camera." In 2012, I almost went bankrupt and had to sell all my Canon stuff (after losing my job in 2011). Somewhere in there the Nikon D800/E came out. After I got work again, I had to have it, having seen <strong><a href="http://imgsv.imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample01/img_01_l.jpg"><em>that glorious picture of the French library</em></a>.</strong></p>

<p>Having seen that, and having now gotten thousands of incredible shots from my own D800E, I am a big believer in high resolution DSLRs.</p>

<p>The new Canons will get the job done, make no mistake. Yes, big files can be a pain, but the results are worth it, in my opinion. At least storage is cheap now. I just got another portable Seagate 1TB drive yesterday, for a total cost of about fifty dollars from Adorama. (Amazon has it, too.)</p>

<p>I'm sorry that my printer's 17-inch carriage cannot handle the huge prints. That is my only regret, that someone else has to do the printing.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dcstep]

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=449816">Alexander O</a> , asked:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Wow! 50"! That's below 200dpi. How did they look? I thought my 20x30 was on the borderline and I figured that the 5ds would be good for about 30x45".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They look great. They're best at six to eight-feet, for the feel that you are there, but you can put your eye within six-inches and it's sharp.</p>

<p>Tony Eitzel, printer for John Fielder, printed and framed it for me. The were ISO 200, sturdy tripod, mirror up, remote release, just normal serious landscape shooting. </p>

 

[alexo]

<p>David,<br /><br />That's fantastic! I wish I could see those for myself. Why did you need to have prints that big? Did you exhibit? They must have blown everyone away.<br /><br />Landrum,<br /><br />When I first read the announcement that Canon was going to come out with a high res 5D, I thought that was going to be a gimmick in order to sell ultra expensive lenses to folks who already bought the current set of ultra expensive lenses. Upon further investigation, I'm beginning to think that the 5Ds will actually be a useful tool, a camera that will allow photographers to stay within the Canon system, rather than go through the huge expense of medium format. Sort of like MF on a budget. I hope that the new camera delivers and that even the current set of lenses will be able to meet the challenge of 50mp on a 24x36 format</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Alexander,</p>

<address>I'm glad that you brought up the issue of lenses for these behemoths, since my experience with the D800E has been that not only do my best f/2.8 and faster lenses do well with that camera's files, but even my "backup" $250-$500 used lenses do as well, as in <a href="/photo/17994101&size=lg"><em><strong>this one</strong></em></a>, which I picked up used at KEH for $342 dollars (EX+ with caps, hood, and case.)<em> <br /></em></address>

[alexo]

<p>NICE! That's good to know. That photo is tack sharp with nice colors and contrast. It's always good to know that you don't have to spend a fortune on super expensive lenses, that a decent lens will give you great results.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>For what it's worth, Alexander, that shot was made hand-held.</p>

<p>The Nikon AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR lens had the following settings for the shot in question:</p>

<p>24mm focal length</p>

<p>ISO 800</p>

<p>f/8</p>

<p>1/2000 sec</p>

<p>The VR was turned on. Auto-focus was used.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is a one hundred percent crop (unmanipulated) from near the center of <a href="/photo/17994101&size=lg"><em><strong>the picture.</strong></em></a></p>

<p>The picture as shown on the link in the preceding line was manipulated a small amount, but with no sharpening. The crop shown here has had no manipulation whatsoever.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that <em>the camera was hand-held</em>, and I was rather casual about the shot. (I had a tripod in the car but chose not to use it.) The photo would have been even more sharp had I used a tripod and a delayed shutter release. (At 1/2000 sec, I personally would not fool with mirror lock-up, even with 36 megapixels.)</p>

<p>I daresay that one of the new Canons would show even more detail.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>