5Ds:
5DSR:
Certainly have that medium format look!
5DSR:
Certainly have that medium format look!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Full Size 5DS and 5DSR Sample Image
- Thread starter Eigenmeat
- Start date
i use pentax 40 the old generation and no they idon'thave the medium look, like the d800 not have it.
the pentax 645z is no competition for clarity micro contrast, in addiction the lens i use stopped down are much sharper than this especially wide angle.
it's simply a 7d2 images with more resolution.
the pentax 645z is no competition for clarity micro contrast, in addiction the lens i use stopped down are much sharper than this especially wide angle.
it's simply a 7d2 images with more resolution.
To be honest, I'm surprised at how "anti-aliased" the 5Ds R looks when viewed at 100%. The samples shown look just like bigger 7DII files.
Edit: actually, the samples here look much better: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/c...Feed:+ephotozine/reviews+(ePHOTOzine+Reviews)
Edit: actually, the samples here look much better: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/c...Feed:+ephotozine/reviews+(ePHOTOzine+Reviews)
Last edited:
moimoi
Veteran Member
The official Canon photos are indeed no good at all.
Yes, those photos are MUCH better, particularly the first series with two landscapes and two studio shots.
M
maceoQ
Guest
Maybe because they are only 12.5 MP?
moimoi
Veteran Member
I see. Well, downsampling looks fine to me.Maybe because they are only 12.5 MP?
moimoi
Veteran Member
I don't think FF could beat MF for color and tones accuracy (even though the sensor in the 645z is not true medium format). But Canon will aim to compete with MF, and they do have a much better lens selection than Pentax'line for the 645z.
For studio work, the Canon option might be cheaper, and provides more versatility than the 645z.
If I were doing studio photography for living, I would still go with the 645z though...
moimoi
Veteran Member
Keith Z Leonard
Veteran Member
Ha ha, yet another point discussed with every Canon camera release...the sample images are "bad". This is typical of Canon, same thing happened with the 5D3 release.
I see. Well, downsampling looks fine to me.Maybe because they are only 12.5 MP?
in my opinion they are not bad, is the results i expected. good images, comparable to a big 7d2 image, but far from the beauty of medium format, and also the nikon d800 looks better.
the samples are over sharpened a bit and this surprises me especially with the anti alias model....i expected more clarity without excessive sharpening.
all in all is a great news cause it will push the competition, take down the price of 645z and other medium format, will push the medium format producer to bigger sensor, maybe 6*4,5, or 6*7 top park more pixel. clearly comparing to my pentax 645d system canon has advantages in lenses, but the sensor is too old technology to invest, even with all those pixel.
mdavidp
Senior Member
I'm not a Canon guy. I was.
(Now Samsung NX1.)
Anyway I really like some of the samples and am a bit excited with Canon's new
offerings. I have owned a few MF cameras and to me these files come awfully close.
I predict that with the Advent of some really good Raw converters some remarkable detail and natural
texture will emerge. This is exciting.
Mike P
Fanboy of excellence.
(Now Samsung NX1.)
Anyway I really like some of the samples and am a bit excited with Canon's new
offerings. I have owned a few MF cameras and to me these files come awfully close.
I predict that with the Advent of some really good Raw converters some remarkable detail and natural
texture will emerge. This is exciting.
Mike P
Fanboy of excellence.
Kabe Luna
Veteran Member
There is a relaxed rendering of fine detail in medium format that is utterly absent in these. Medium format also has better micro contrast and smoother tonal transitions.
// / / / / /
GARLAND CARY Photo+Design
garlandcary.photography
--
// / / / / /
GARLAND CARY Photo+Design
garlandcary.photography
Last edited:
What does "relaxed rendering of fine detail" mean? Also, better micro contrast seems at cross purposes from smoother tonal transitions. Perhaps you can give examples to illustrate?
moimoi
Veteran Member
Keep in mind those are not raw files. I think we would have to wait for raw files first. Some of the jpg samples are fine.
--
www.facebook.com
"All we have discovered is that it starts with a single individual - always a child - and then spreads explosively, like the formation of crystals round the first nucleus in a saturated solution." Arthur C. Clarke (Childhood's End, 1953)
--
Maxime Siegler Photography
Maxime Siegler Photography. 844 likes. http://maximesiegler.com
www.facebook.com
"All we have discovered is that it starts with a single individual - always a child - and then spreads explosively, like the formation of crystals round the first nucleus in a saturated solution." Arthur C. Clarke (Childhood's End, 1953)
Kabe Luna
Veteran Member
Lenses for larger formats (such as medium format) don't have to be as sharp to produce equivalent levels of detail at a given image size. And in many cases, they are in fact not designed for the kind of aggressive resolving power (often at the expense of other optical characteristics) as lenses for smaller format need to be in order to provide competitive levels of detail. Consequently, they have the look of being somewhat softer (less acutance) but also more detailed.
Meanwhile, micro contrast is an optical characteristic of a lens, while smooth tonality in digital is (largely) a function of bit depth–medium format digital cameras are capable of 16 bits, compared to 14 bits for 35mm-and-smaller digital. The two are independent, so I'm at a loss as to what you feel is at odds.
And, no, I'm not a camera tester, so I have no examples to give. However, the Pentax 645Z digital medium format camera is among DPReviews studio samples. Compare for yourself to any camera you like.
Meanwhile, micro contrast is an optical characteristic of a lens, while smooth tonality in digital is (largely) a function of bit depth–medium format digital cameras are capable of 16 bits, compared to 14 bits for 35mm-and-smaller digital. The two are independent, so I'm at a loss as to what you feel is at odds.
And, no, I'm not a camera tester, so I have no examples to give. However, the Pentax 645Z digital medium format camera is among DPReviews studio samples. Compare for yourself to any camera you like.
Kabe Luna
Veteran Member
Maxime, I love the pictures on your website. What great style!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum