Canon 5Ds 50 MG

[hjoseph7]

<p>Anybody planning to purchase the Canon 5Ds ?</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Personally, I'll wait to see how it performs with respect to DR. According to Chuck, we should see something akin to the 70D, which tells me that we should expect to see little to no improvement. <br>

However, should I be pleasantly surprised, It'll definitely be on my short list of upgrades/equipment purchases this year. To say I'm not holding my breath would be a bit of an understatement, because in lieu of that (5Ds), a D810, and a few prime will likely be added to my list instead.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I'm waiting for the 100MP version with low noise ISO 102400 capability and a new generation high DR sensor.</p>

<p>50MP at ISO 6400? Interesting, but not worth $3500+ to me. I'd rather have a 6D plus a 7D MkII for that money.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Nah, my present cameras will do just fine until that 100MP that Bob is waiting for comes out.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Nope. I have a 5DIII, which is a great camera and for my purposes is a better camera than the 5Ds.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Initial reactions here should send shudders through Canon sales and marketing departments.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Maybe if one of my cameras buys the farm but, otherwise, no. 6D DR is perfect for me. </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The 5Ds/5Dr is the camera I have been waiting for but I will still have to wait till the end of it's cycle or buy used in a couple of years. Canon is back!</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>I think we should wait before passing judgement. There were a lot of naysayers when the 7DII was released and just as many thought the 100-400L II was not a big enough improvement. Those who have both say there is a big improvement over the 7D + 100-400L. Well, those that have a good 7DII do. I'll be keen to hear what experienced photographers think of them.</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p><em>"</em><em>Initial reactions here should send shudders through Canon sales and marketing departments</em>"<br>

Not really<br>

<br>

I think the 5Ds ® is a very nice camera and puts Canon back on the "top of the heap" when it comes to resolution. There's room for more since quite a while ago they released info on a 120MP APS-H sensor they had developed (that would be 200MP for full frame at the same pixel size).</p>

<p>However, it's a specialist camera rather than a generalist camera like the 5D MkIII. For some applications it's clearly the camera of choice. I don't think Canon expect it to be the best selling camera in the EOS line. I doubt it's expected to sell as well as the 5D MkIII. It's not intended for that. It's intended to take back the high ground from Nikon, establish Canon as a technology leader and give EOS shooters a high resolution alternative.</p>

<p>So I don't expect most photographers will be beating down the doors of B&H on the day it arrives. That will be no surprise to Canon. It will get written about, talked about, get Canon's name out there and it will sell in enough numbers to make the project worthwhile.</p>

<p>While there's some disappointment by the internet "greek chorus" in the low maximum ISO and the fact that it appears not to break any new ground in Dynamic range, I doubt that either of those factors will be very important to the market it's aimed at. If you shoot in a studio and get the exposure right, you don't need high ISO or higher than 12 sops of DR.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Performances at high ISO are critical for me. So I guess I will stick with my 5DIII and wait for what will be available next.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I doubt that either of those factors will be very important to the market it's aimed at</em></p>

<p>Low ISO dynamic range is of interest to many landscape photographers. While exposure blending etc. are common techniques now, if your landscape has water in it with waves, or e.g. ice sheets are moving within the frame, and the reflection of the sun(rise/set) is in the foreground and middle ground, the scene structure is not a precise match between different exposures, and the inconsistencies have to be resolved manually and this may be difficult at times. Studio photographers won't care, though as they can control the lighting contrast precisely. Another application for high DR capture at low ISO is when photographing children in conditions where additional lighting cannot be used (because they're often running around) and so the lighting contrast of the natural light can be extreme and the photographer has to deal with it in post-processing based on single exposures. There are a <em>lot</em> of applications and benefits to a camera that has excellent dynamic range at low to medium ISO. I was suspicious of its usefulness myself until I got the D800 and shot it for a while. After getting used to that sensor, other cameras seemed like the camera had thrown in sand into the shadows and the differences were very evident in photographs made in bright sunlight. In my opinion the D800 is the first camera that deals with the contrast range of bright sunlight with grace. However, we don't yet know how good the dynamic range of the 5Ds will be - it may well turn out to be very good or excellent. I think it is much better to judge a camera after it has been available on the market for a few months. Then there willl bemuch better evidence to illustrate its strengths and possible weaknesses, if any.</p>

<p>I agree with Bob that the 5D s and R are not expected to be as popular as the 5D III. Otherwise they'd have roughly the same price since the number of units expected to be sold greatly affects what kind of price the manufacturer can offer and often sales can be greatly magnified if the price is very competitive. In this case I believe Canon assumes that the combination of features offered by the 5D III is better fit with most photographers' requirements than the feature set of the 5Ds ®, thus the price for the latter is higher to compensate for lower expected sales. That said, history has shown so far that advances in megapixels have been very popular. But I think 50MP is beyond the needs of most photographers and would cause an impractical increase in storage requirements and post work time for high volume shooters. So it's not selected for those applications. For landscape, architecture, fashion I think it will be very popular among professionals.</p>

<p>I think the flicker reduction timing feature however is a big deal for anyone shooting in low indoor lighting where the lighting flickers and exposures and colour varies from shot to shot, unless this kind of a feature is used (or flash is used to override the ambient). For me it would be really important as I often photograph events in dim restaurants (f/1.4, 1/100s, ISO 6400) and to enable easier editing, better quality and more consistent colour the flicker reduction would be very helpful, but Nikon doesn't yet offer it. I think Canon has gotten far too little attention for this feature. Perhaps it is because the 7D Mk II is not really the right camera for this kind of photography (being 1.6X crop) and neither is the 5Ds (with its ISO 6400 limit), and those photographers who shoot in dim night lights are waiting for the feature to be implemented in the successor of the 5D Mk III.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Well, there's a 41 MP cell phone camera with a 1.12um pixel pitch (Lumia 1020). If the same pixel pitch were used on a full frame sensor, we'd have almost 700 MP (if my calculations are right). I'm not saying those would be "good" pixels, but rather that this MP race can keep creeping almost indefinitely into the future, perhaps only limited by the processing speed of the supporting microprocessors and size of the memory. So it will be 50, 55, 65, 70, 90, 100, 110, blah, blah, blah, yawn.</p>

<p>Personally, if I were worried about neither price nor status, the 6D is already a more interesting camera to me (and will be my next likely upgrade). I'm more interested in ISO and DR, and 20+ MP is already more than I need for 99% of what I do. Better pixels, not more pixels, is what I would like to see in our Canon cameras.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>No, but I will be reading the reviews carefully. I didn't get a 5DIII as I resent paying that much for a camera, particularly as it has very little change in image quality over the 5DII. But when I looked then, I did much prefer the 6D over either and it ended up costing me only $300 or less. So I'll be looking, but probably not buying unless I find the imaging spectacular. I am more interested in high ISO quality over MPs.</p>

[victor_kunkel3]

It's a very interesting unit with many

possibilities; I don't think I need that

resolution yet. Though I'm very happy

with my 6D and it's awesome lowlight

ability, I'll watch the 5ds until it's time to

upgrade. Glad Canon now tops the

sensor size war for the moment; they're

thinking!

[bobatkins]

<p>"<em>this MP race can keep creeping almost indefinitely into the future, perhaps only limited by the processing speed of the supporting microprocessors and size of the memory. So it will be 50, 55, 65, 70, 90, 100, 110, blah, blah"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

That's true up to a point. Right now we're limited by fabrication technology and processor speed. Memory size isn't a big deal, but speed can be. It's a LOT more difficult to get a high yield of full frame sensors with 1 micron pixels than it is to get a 5x7mm sensor with 1 micron pixels. </p>

<p>There is a physical (quantum) limit, but I doubt we'll have to worry about that for long time (maybe 25 years). You can't make the pixels much smaller than the wavelength of light or they won't respond and/or you won't be able to tell which pixel the photon hit. I think the theoretical limit is somewhere around 1/4 of the wavelength due to a bunch of esoteric factors like non-commutative geometry and electron Zitterbewegung.<br>

<br>

The noise level for imaging with such small pixels would be horrendous, but that's a separate issue.<br>

<br>

I think the real application of ultra high resolution sensors is something Canon proposed a few years ago. One camera that shoots ultra high resolution video, so high that frames from the video can be used as stills and they can be cropped so much that you could get something like an effective 20-1000mm zoom in a very small package. "The camera of the future" may be a pocketable high resolution ultrazoom.<br>

<br>

I'd be surprised if we didn't see a 100MP DSLR within the next 10 years though. Maybe 5 years. Nikon must be working on something bigger than 50MP right now.</p>

[raymond_robertson]

<p>I don't understand the negativity. Canon have stated that the pixel quality of the 5Ds is similar to that of the 7DII. This situation is almost identical to what Nikon did just a few years ago. They produced a 16mp D7000, then a short time later produced a full-frame 36mp D800 which effectively consisted of D7000 pixels.<br /> If you check the DXOMark 'compare camera sensors' you'll find that the SNR of the D800 is more than a stop better than the D7000, and the DR of the D800 is also at least a stop better. This is the advantage of full-frame.<br /> The Canon 5Ds sensor not only has a significantly higher resolution, which effectively turns all your mediocre lenses into 'good' lenses, and all your 'good' lenses into excellent lenses, but also gives you at least a stop better SNR and DR. Crikey! What more do you want?<br>

The other issue is the complaint about a lower maximum ISO of 6400. Aren't higher ISOs than this merely digital gain that serve no purpose other than producing a brighter image on the camera's LCD screen? In other words, a shot underexposed by one stop at ISO 6400 is no better than the same exposure used as ISO 128,000 on a camera that has such a setting, after compensating for the underexposed shot in Photoshop. In fact, the underexposed shot might be better in the sense one avoids accidentally blowing highlights.</p>

[raymond_robertson]

<p>I meant a shot underexposed at ISO 6400 is usually no <strong>worse</strong> that the same exposure at ISO 128,000, after exposure adjustment in Photoshop.</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Interesting camera but as has been said, I think it is targeting a very specific niche. It will by no means dislodge the 5D3 from my wishlist. I have been happy with my 5D2, my only frustration being that it focuses less well than my 7D. I am looking forward to seeing and reading real-world reviews. I'll definitely try one out but more for the novelty than as a serious purchase evaluation.</p>

[raymond_robertson]

<p>If you are perfectly happy with what you have, and the quality of all your lenses, and would never be motivated to buy a new lens simple because it was sharper than what you already use, then of course you would have no reason to buy a 50mp camera.</p>

<p>However, even if you have no intention of making huge, detailed prints, the higher resolving sensor of the 5DS effectively upgrades all your lenses, at least in terms of centre sharpness.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>And, as for George with the Canon f/0,95 lens, it makes such wonderful 'bling'.</p>

<p>Why do you think they are called "power tools"?</p>

[ruben leal]

Regarding the flicker reduction function, I actually believe both the 7D Mk II and the 5Ds cameras are the proper cameras

to get this function. Here's why:

- 7D Mk II: Amateur indoor sports spaces many times use low quality litigating, including some which cause flickering;

- 5Ds: Fluorescent lighting is very common now for portraiture and other studio work, which is a flickering source.

 

I believe the intended target markets for these cameras are precisely the ones more benefitted from this new technology.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Working with big files can get tedious. I am sure that some dedicated people will get some great pictures with this camera. As for me, I am already laboring under the load of the huge files from my D800E. It can get to be a pain, and this is only going to be worse.</p>

<p>That said, for those who are willing to go to the trouble, there will be some spectacular prints.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[raymond_robertson]

<p><em>"As for me, I am already laboring under the load of the huge files from my D800E. It can get to be a pain, and this is only going to be worse."</em><br /> <br /> <em><br /></em>Why is that? I get the impression that the increase in memory card capacity, and the increase in Hard Drive capacity, and the increase in the capacity of External Pocket Drives (Seagate produce a 4TB pocket drive), has been greater than the increase in DSLR resolution over the same period.</p>

<p>A very fast 256GB SD card should be ideal for the 5DS. Even a 128GB card would probably be sufficient.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<blockquote>

<p>I get the impression that the increase in memory card capacity, and the increase in Hard Drive capacity...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> For me and my 5D3, storage isn't the issue as much as processing time. With a fast i7 and 16 Gb RAM, Lightroom still runs pretty slow on 22 Mp RAW images. 50 Mp would be more than twice as bad. I want faster postprocessing more than I want those pixels.<br>

<br>

Though CPUs are getting faster, the current progress is being made mostly in increasing the number of processing cores (which doesn't help Lightroom), and offloading processing to the graphics card (which Lightroom can't do).</p>