5DIII or 5Ds/R ?

landscape lighter · Jun 25, 2015

MWPPhoto said:
your call!! It might help to know on SR that you can shoot M-RAw in camera (28mp) which might help with Drive space... but hey its like buying a Porsche and limiting it to 55mph... Personally, i would buy a 5d Mk3 or 6D and invest in some lovely L glass.... which will you will keep for many years!! unlike bodies... the Mk3 and 6d will be at bargain prices soon... Lenses to invest in are 16-35mm II / 24-70mm / 70-200mm II / 45mm tse / 50mm f1.2 / 135mm F2 / all awsome lenses!!

I would shoot at full res and then downsize. Storage on an external hard drive is not an issue. The thing is every time you upload the files into lightroom ( a tremendously large raw file in this case) is automatically saved on your computer . It's a pain to go through and delete which doesn't exactly completely delete everything. I have messed up several computers over the years by uploading large multiple photo files. over time they start to run slow and have other problems until ultimately the whole hard drive needs to be reformatted or a new computer bought.

Bassman2003 · Jun 25, 2015

After reading the thread I wonder why you are in sort of a hurry to buy a camera? Do you have some pending important jobs?

I owned the 5D before going to the MKII then MKIII. It is a very capable camera. Especially with iso 100 tripod shots using a nice lens.

My opinion is that your post processing abilities are going to determine your end output quality more than the list of cameras you have. Yes more resolution will allow you to crop and print larger but do you have large print requirements? I suspect that if you did you would already be using a larger MPX camera.

I just don't think there is a pot of gold with current Canon DSLRs compared to 5-10 years back. The images are more similar than different. The real image improvement will come from technique.

And by the way, waiting for Canon can be detrimental for your health! For your type of shooting the new Sony looks like a real contender.

landscape lighter · Jun 25, 2015

Bassman2003 said:
After reading the thread I wonder why you are in sort of a hurry to buy a camera? Do you have some pending important jobs?

I owned the 5D before going to the MKII then MKIII. It is a very capable camera. Especially with iso 100 tripod shots using a nice lens.

My opinion is that your post processing abilities are going to determine your end output quality more than the list of cameras you have. Yes more resolution will allow you to crop and print larger but do you have large print requirements? I suspect that if you did you would already be using a larger MPX camera.

I just don't think there is a pot of gold with current Canon DSLRs compared to 5-10 years back. The images are more similar than different. The real image improvement will come from technique.

And by the way, waiting for Canon can be detrimental for your health! For your type of shooting the new Sony looks like a real contender.

Actually there is no great rush. You know what they say the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best time is now.

I'm for sure ready to step up to the next level of photography.

When is the new sony supposed to be available?

salamander1 · Jun 25, 2015

Blake Cook said:
salamander1 said:

Blake Cook said:

I have the 5D, sold the 5D2, 5D3 and now have a 5Ds. The 5D3 has by far the worst out of camera photos of all.

Click to expand...

clearly, that is huge overstatement, eh?

i don't think the 5D3 has the worst out camera jpegs at all. i think 5D3's jpegs are gorgeous. you recognize possibly this area? these are all out of camera photos for example.

i shoot raw + a small jpeg for a quick reference.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, I should have said the other three bodies' jpegs were significantly better. The 1Dx is another level again, particularly at very high ISO.

yes, i agree about the 1dx output at high iso. they don't call it 1dx for nothing. but i still have problems accepting that 5D3 produces bad jpegs. the following two pictures below are identical. one is a 2880x1920 jpeg from the camera, the other is converted to the same size from the raw file in DPP4. can you tell which is which?

RyanBoston · Jun 26, 2015

Hans Kruse said:
For what you are shooting I think the choice should be between 6D and the 5Ds(R).

If you don't need the resolution then save the money and get the 6D.

I would not recommend the 16-35 f/2.8. Go for the new 16-35 f/4L IS. It is a much better lens.

Besides that upgrade your Lightroom to version 6 and get the very good HDR capability plus other improvements over LR 4.

Blake Cook · Jun 26, 2015

salamander1 said:
Blake Cook said:

salamander1 said:

Blake Cook said:

I have the 5D, sold the 5D2, 5D3 and now have a 5Ds. The 5D3 has by far the worst out of camera photos of all.

Click to expand...

clearly, that is huge overstatement, eh?

i don't think the 5D3 has the worst out camera jpegs at all. i think 5D3's jpegs are gorgeous. you recognize possibly this area? these are all out of camera photos for example.

i shoot raw + a small jpeg for a quick reference.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, I should have said the other three bodies' jpegs were significantly better. The 1Dx is another level again, particularly at very high ISO.

Click to expand...

yes, i agree about the 1dx output at high iso. they don't call it 1dx for nothing. but i still have problems accepting that 5D3 produces bad jpegs. the following two pictures below are identical. one is a 2880x1920 jpeg from the camera, the other is converted to the same size from the raw file in DPP4. can you tell which is which?

I still have some 5D3 raw and jpg files from 2012. I recorded to 2 cards a few times. I only had the 5D3 for a few months, and sold it when my 1Dx arrived. This is the first time I have looks at the jpegs since. I have to agree with you that the jogs are very good now. The only thing I can think of was my use of Lightroom and its rendering of the jpegs in 2012. (Never the best anytime). Certainly the default raw and jpeg in DPP 4 are very close now. And far better than before.

--
Blake in Vancouver
Canon and Zeiss Stuff. Mac Stuff & annoying PC & Windows stuff.

landscape lighter · Jul 4, 2015

Bassman2003 said:
After reading the thread I wonder why you are in sort of a hurry to buy a camera? Do you have some pending important jobs?

I owned the 5D before going to the MKII then MKIII. It is a very capable camera. Especially with iso 100 tripod shots using a nice lens.

My opinion is that your post processing abilities are going to determine your end output quality more than the list of cameras you have. Yes more resolution will allow you to crop and print larger but do you have large print requirements? I suspect that if you did you would already be using a larger MPX camera.

I just don't think there is a pot of gold with current Canon DSLRs compared to 5-10 years back. The images are more similar than different. The real image improvement will come from technique.

And by the way, waiting for Canon can be detrimental for your health! For your type of shooting the new Sony looks like a real contender.

Actually I was not in a great hurry and have been waiting for R to be in stock. The other night the mirror fell out of my shutter while shooting and the camera is enroute to Canon for repair. Apparently its a free repair until september of this year. So now I'm without a camera so if the R became available sometime soon like this week that would be great.

Bassman2003 · Jul 5, 2015

They are sending it back though! Just trying to point out that you may not see that much of s difference outside of resolution. Once your 5D comes back buy or rent the new camera and take them both on a shoot. Side by side is the best way to know how much you are gaining.

Odie22 · Jul 8, 2015

If I'm correctly assuming the 5Ds needs more light due to the higher pixel density on the sensor(would it be double the light, due to double the pixel density? i.e. 22MP-->50MP), how would the 5ds fare against the 5D3 with a lens like Canons EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, shooting outdoors with no tripod?

Victor Engel · Jul 8, 2015

Odie22 said:
If I'm correctly assuming the 5Ds needs more light due to the higher pixel density

Not a correct assumption.

Odie22 said:
on the sensor(would it be double the light, due to double the pixel density? i.e. 22MP-->50MP), how would the 5ds fare against the 5D3 with a lens like Canons EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, shooting outdoors with no tripod?

Since your premise is wrong, it's pointless to speculate on a conclusion based upon it.

Odie22 · Jul 8, 2015

Rather than negating the question, stating that my premise is wrong, so you don't have to go any further, can you expound upon why, how, or what makes it wrong, in detail, oh knowledgeable one. Not everyone is as lucky to be as smart as you. This is a forum for discussion,
even for stupid ones like me, is it not? Are all photographers this pompous? I'm starting to think so :-( Why that is, I am not sure yet.

spacemn · Jul 8, 2015

landscape lighter said:
I currently have an original 5D with a 24-70 f4 Lens, I still gets some good results but obviously an update is long overdue. I find that the 5D has more noise than the 20D that I shot with previously. Would like my next camera to have more color saturation, sharpness and less noise out of the camera.

I use the camera solely for shooting landscape lighting scenes at twilight (15-30 minutes) which have 3,000K LED light sources . I use a tripod, cable release, color balance set to 3,000K, shoot at 100 iso bulb mode and vary my exposure times generally between 2-15 seconds depending upon available light and composition of the scene.

Should I go for the Mark III or the new s/R model ?

I will be getting a 16-35 f/2.8 Lens along with this new purchase.

I shoot in Raw mode and post process with Lightroom 4.

Any recommendations are appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

You may take a look at the Sony A7R mark 2 as well (now that any recommendations are appreciated

.

The upcoming Sony A7R-II has a 42 megapixel sensor and will probably have at least 1 stop (if not 2 stops) better dynamic range at base ISO than the Canon 5Ds. It will most likely also have better noise performance than the Canons, mainly due to BSI technology.

The Sony Zeiss FE 16-35mm f/4 lens is every bit as good as the Canon counterpart, if not better:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony...-ISUSM-vs-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-16-35mm-f4G-ED-VR

Furthermore all your EF lenses can be used on the Sony A7R-II (for example with a $100 Vitrox adapter, which will pass through EXIF and let you have full electronic control including phase detect AF).

With the Sony you will get a significantly lighter package and also in-body image stabilization for those times you do not use a tripod. Furthermore you can plug in a powerbank via USB and charge the internal battery while you shoot (useful for timelapse), so no need to fear battery life issues (one or two batteries easily can do a day worth of shooting stills).

The Sony also has a full electronic shutter in cases you want to limit unnecessary shutter wear when shooting static objects.

It is worth a look. Many Canon and Nikon landscape shooters are migrating to Sony's full frame mirrorless offerings, including Trey Ratcliff .

Victor Engel · Jul 8, 2015

On the contrary, you're the one who made an assertion: "5Ds needs more light due to the higher pixel density". On what theory do you base this assertion? While you're formulating your reply, why not view this video:

Tony Northrup discusses this very issue.

Karmamba · Jul 8, 2015

landscape lighter said:
I currently have an original 5D ...... Would like my next camera to have more color saturation...

The rumors are that the original 5D has better colors of any other camera out there so you might be in for a disappointment.

Karmamba · Jul 8, 2015

OP specifically stated that colors are important so Sony does not cut in.

spacemn · Jul 8, 2015

Karmamba said:
OP specifically stated that colors are important so Sony does not cut in.

I am not sure if you are a JPEG shooter and referring to what JPEGs you like.

Personally I'm a RAW shooter and so is OP. Here DXOMark clearly states that the Sony A7R or Nikon D810 has a color fidelity 1 bit higher than the Canon 5DS:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-5DS-5DS-R-Review-New-top-ranking-Canon-EOS-sensor/Canon-5DS-5DS-R-Comparison-3-EOS-5DS-vs-Nikon-D810-vs-Sony-A7R

The Canon 5DS has over 1.5 bit more colour fidelity over the original Canon 5D when shooting RAW: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-5D

In summary, the Sony A7R-ii will most likely be superior to the Canon 5DS. Especially the 2 stops of extra dynamic range at base ISO will be significant and the images will most likely be cleaner as well.

I really don't see why OP should go for the Canon, unless OP is totally reluctant to adapt to another control layout other than Canon.

Victor Engel · Jul 8, 2015

Color fidelity or color sensitivity? I'm not trying to nitpick. I just don't know what DXO is measuring here. I can picture a camera being more sensitive but having lower fidelity.

Edit: After reading a bit on DXOMark, it appears the figure you are really interested in is SMI, not color sensitivity. Their color sensitivity measure is rather like dynamic range, but for color instead of luminance. More noise will result in a lower color sensitivity.

Interestingly, posterization, which can result from low color sensitivity can be compensated for by adding noise.

--
Victor Engel

Odie22 · Jul 8, 2015

Thanks for that link. I'm going from of this website http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/tag/medium-format that says "According to Canon, the cameras will offer a 4.14 micron pixel pitch, giving them roughly the same pixel density as the new 7D Mark II. However, the new 5Ds and 5Ds R won’t offer the low light performance of either the 7D Mark II or the 5D Mark III — instead, they’ll top out at a native ISO of 6400, with a high setting of 12,800." Camera makers used to tout their low lux rating for their cameras, it would be nice if they did that using a standard lens at a standard ISO as proof for comparison. Unfortunately I don't own both these cameras, so that's why I posted. That would be an easy comparison for dpreview to do. But what's in theory is not always observed in practice.

Also from another site,

Where the 5D Mark III has a 24.2-megapixel sensor, the two newer models have 50.6-megapixel sensors. Shots taken with good lighting at low ISO settings will offer a staggering amount of detail.

However, it’s not an entirely positive change. Both cameras have a full-frame sensor, meaning that the photosites of the 5DS and 5DS R are much, much smaller than those of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III. You get 6.25 micron sensor pixels in the older camera, and just 4.14 micron pixels in the new ones.

Canon doesn’t even try to pretend that performance will be the same when those sensor pixels are stretched with poor lighting conditions and high ISO settings. This is pretty clear when we look at their respective ISO ranges. The standard ISO range of the older Canon EOS 5D Mark III goes up to 25,600 while there are ‘non recommended’ 51,200 and 102,400 modes for when high sensitivity is paramount. Like the Nikon D810, the 5D MKIII is a superb low-light performer, letting you shoot handheld even at dusk or night without ending up with blurry or terribly noisy results.

The Canon EOS 5DS and 5DS R are nowhere near as capable in lower light, despite being three years ahead. Their upper standard ISO range takes a huge dive from 25,600 to 6400, which can be extended to 12,800.

Karmamba · Jul 8, 2015

spacemn said:
Karmamba said:

OP specifically stated that colors are important so Sony does not cut in.

Click to expand...

Personally I'm a RAW shooter and so is OP. Here DXOMark clearly states that the Sony A7R or Nikon D810 has a color fidelity 1 bit higher than the Canon 5DS:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Cano...omparison-3-EOS-5DS-vs-Nikon-D810-vs-Sony-A7R

The Canon 5DS has over 1.5 bit more colour fidelity over the original Canon 5D when shooting RAW: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-5D

And what does it have to do with color reproduction ? You can digitize incorrect analog value by as many bits as you want it does not fix the original signal. I don't have scientific numbers to back up the color output of canon vs sony sensors simply rely on subjective reports or camera owners.

Victor Engel · Jul 8, 2015

Odie22 said:
The Canon EOS 5DS and 5DS R are nowhere near as capable in lower light, despite being three years ahead. Their upper standard ISO range takes a huge dive from 25,600 to 6400, which can be extended to 12,800.

The upper limits of the range are really just arbitrary. My first night out with my 5DS I took a bunch of shots at ISO 16,000 equivalent. The camera performs just fine in those conditions.

Loading…

victorspictures.com

5DIII or 5Ds/R ?

Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Active member

Community Leader

Active member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Community Leader

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

Community Leader

Keyboard shortcuts