Canon 5DS / 5DS R saturation and noise

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
mikesco Contributing Member • Posts: 561
Canon 5DS / 5DS R saturation and noise

One thing I am curious about. When I look at the studio scenes and compare the 5ds series camera's with newer Canon Camera's, yes the noise at higher iso's seems worse. However it also looks like the color saturation levels are quite a bit lower on the newer cameras. If The 5DS was desaturated in this way as well as down sizing the resolution, It doesn't look like the noise levels would be all that different at least in RAW.

I would agree that the JPEG's look more improved in the newer camera's but that would be more of a function of in camera noise reduction software.

Am I missing something? Also which of the saturation levels are a more accurate capture of the original image? Is this also why the newer camera's have a bit more dynamic range, due to a reduction of contrast at the raw level?

It seems to me as far as noise reduction is concerned the advances are more related to tradeoffs in image capture as well as the handling of in camera noise reduction than is actual improvements to the sensor.

-Mike

Canon EOS 5DS Canon EOS 5DS R
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
1Dx4me Veteran Member • Posts: 9,584
Re: Canon 5DS / 5DS R saturation and noise

mikesco wrote:

One thing I am curious about. When I look at the studio scenes and compare the 5ds series camera's with newer Canon Camera's, yes the noise at higher iso's seems worse. However it also looks like the color saturation levels are quite a bit lower on the newer cameras. If The 5DS was desaturated in this way as well as down sizing the resolution, It doesn't look like the noise levels would be all that different at least in RAW. I would agree that the JPEG's look more improved in the newer camera's but that would be more of a function of in camera noise reduction software. Am I missing something, at which of the saturation levels are a more accurate capture of the original image? Is this also why the newer camera's have a bit more dynamic range, due to a reduction of contrast at the raw level?

-Mike

yes, that has been my observation, as well. but then again, it seems like any new camera's photos posted on DPreview, the majority of those photos look so awful and unprofessionally done that they hardly represent the truth. i'd wait until the owner of these R5/R6 test their cameras out in the field and see the result. as far as the color saturation of 5Ds/sR is concerned, i see what you mean, i do observe richer colors shots taken with these 2 cameras OOC. i assume it must be the high rez sensor that causes this color richness, although it can be toned down on post! here are a couple samples:

-- hide signature --

We are ephemeral dreamers, like surfers on evanescent waves!!!

OP mikesco Contributing Member • Posts: 561
Re: Canon 5DS / 5DS R saturation and noise

Thanks for your input. The reason I am interested in this is while I would love a R5 there is no way I could justify that price tag. Right now the 5ds Interests me as I could pic up a new  international version for around $1000. Seems like a great value if you are only interested in still photos.

I actually like the deep colors of the 5DS.

-Mike

MitchAlsup Veteran Member • Posts: 5,139
Re: Canon 5DS / 5DS R saturation and noise

mikesco wrote:

One thing I am curious about. When I look at the studio scenes and compare the 5ds series camera's with newer Canon Camera's, yes the noise at higher iso's seems worse. However it also looks like the color saturation levels are quite a bit lower on the newer cameras. If The 5DS was desaturated in this way as well as down sizing the resolution, It doesn't look like the noise levels would be all that different at least in RAW.

Back when I got into dSLRing (2003), post processing was how one turned what the camera captured into a nice looking photo. I don't hears so much about PP these days--but I think it is still key to excellent images. Back when the A/D was 12-bits PP was king and a light touch was needed to avoid unnatural looking {saturation, sharpness, contrast, intonation, black point,...} This skill seems to have been (partially) lost as camera capabilities grew.

I would agree that the JPEG's look more improved in the newer camera's but that would be more of a function of in camera noise reduction software.

Am I missing something? Also which of the saturation levels are a more accurate capture of the original image? Is this also why the newer camera's have a bit more dynamic range, due to a reduction of contrast at the raw level?

The 5Ds family (of 2) are resolution machines from the 5D3 era. {Aside: I rarely use anything other than ISO 200 on my dSLRs and feed them lenses so that shutter times are appropriate for the images to be captured.} You should be able, in PP, to trade the resolution for noise, but if you feed the camera fast lenses to begin with you would already be working with so little noise to make this tradeoff unnecessary.

It seems to me as far as noise reduction is concerned the advances are more related to tradeoffs in image capture as well as the handling of in camera noise reduction than is actual improvements to the sensor.

Resolution, noise floor, saturation are not what makes a good picture:: light and timing are!

It has been said Henri Cartier Bresson could take better photographs with a Brownie Instamatic than we do with $10,000 worth of camera and lenses.

-Mike

-- hide signature --

Mitch

OP mikesco Contributing Member • Posts: 561
Re: Canon 5DS / 5DS R saturation and noise

MitchAlsup wrote:

mikesco wrote:

One thing I am curious about. When I look at the studio scenes and compare the 5ds series camera's with newer Canon Camera's, yes the noise at higher iso's seems worse. However it also looks like the color saturation levels are quite a bit lower on the newer cameras. If The 5DS was desaturated in this way as well as down sizing the resolution, It doesn't look like the noise levels would be all that different at least in RAW.

Back when I got into dSLRing (2003), post processing was how one turned what the camera captured into a nice looking photo. I don't hears so much about PP these days--but I think it is still key to excellent images. Back when the A/D was 12-bits PP was king and a light touch was needed to avoid unnatural looking {saturation, sharpness, contrast, intonation, black point,...} This skill seems to have been (partially) lost as camera capabilities grew.

I would agree that the JPEG's look more improved in the newer camera's but that would be more of a function of in camera noise reduction software.

Am I missing something? Also which of the saturation levels are a more accurate capture of the original image? Is this also why the newer camera's have a bit more dynamic range, due to a reduction of contrast at the raw level?

The 5Ds family (of 2) are resolution machines from the 5D3 era. {Aside: I rarely use anything other than ISO 200 on my dSLRs and feed them lenses so that shutter times are appropriate for the images to be captured.} You should be able, in PP, to trade the resolution for noise, but if you feed the camera fast lenses to begin with you would already be working with so little noise to make this tradeoff unnecessary.

It seems to me as far as noise reduction is concerned the advances are more related to tradeoffs in image capture as well as the handling of in camera noise reduction than is actual improvements to the sensor.

Resolution, noise floor, saturation are not what makes a good picture:: light and timing are!

It has been said Henri Cartier Bresson could take better photographs with a Brownie Instamatic than we do with $10,000 worth of camera and lenses.

Agree with much of what you say, except that fast lenses require money and weight, which is not always practical (especially when married). I have been using a 7D for the last 10 years and do not find the ISO limitations an issue 98% of the time.

The right combination of equipment = light. Your choice is to use glass to reach that objective, but I would argue that if intended media or subject matter does not require the resolution, increasing the ISO would be just as effective. For example If 12 MP is enough resolution Sony's new A7IIIS ISO capabilities offers low light capabilities that are amazing. ( I watched a video that seems to indicate that it has a dual Base ISO of 640 and 16,000.) The images at ISO 16,000 are game changing.

I would also add vision and composition to your what makes a good picture.

-Mike

MitchAlsup Veteran Member • Posts: 5,139
Re: Canon 5DS / 5DS R saturation and noise

mikesco wrote:

MitchAlsup wrote:

mikesco wrote:

One thing I am curious about. When I look at the studio scenes and compare the 5ds series camera's with newer Canon Camera's, yes the noise at higher iso's seems worse. However it also looks like the color saturation levels are quite a bit lower on the newer cameras. If The 5DS was desaturated in this way as well as down sizing the resolution, It doesn't look like the noise levels would be all that different at least in RAW.

Back when I got into dSLRing (2003), post processing was how one turned what the camera captured into a nice looking photo. I don't hears so much about PP these days--but I think it is still key to excellent images. Back when the A/D was 12-bits PP was king and a light touch was needed to avoid unnatural looking {saturation, sharpness, contrast, intonation, black point,...} This skill seems to have been (partially) lost as camera capabilities grew.

I would agree that the JPEG's look more improved in the newer camera's but that would be more of a function of in camera noise reduction software.

Am I missing something? Also which of the saturation levels are a more accurate capture of the original image? Is this also why the newer camera's have a bit more dynamic range, due to a reduction of contrast at the raw level?

The 5Ds family (of 2) are resolution machines from the 5D3 era. {Aside: I rarely use anything other than ISO 200 on my dSLRs and feed them lenses so that shutter times are appropriate for the images to be captured.} You should be able, in PP, to trade the resolution for noise, but if you feed the camera fast lenses to begin with you would already be working with so little noise to make this tradeoff unnecessary.

It seems to me as far as noise reduction is concerned the advances are more related to tradeoffs in image capture as well as the handling of in camera noise reduction than is actual improvements to the sensor.

Resolution, noise floor, saturation are not what makes a good picture:: light and timing are!

It has been said Henri Cartier Bresson could take better photographs with a Brownie Instamatic than we do with $10,000 worth of camera and lenses.

Agree with much of what you say, except that fast lenses require money and weight, which is not always practical (especially when married). I have been using a 7D for the last 10 years and do not find the ISO limitations an issue 98% of the time.

The right combination of equipment = light.

I use the word "light" to mean how well illuminated the object is--not how little the equipment weighs.

Your choice is to use glass to reach that objective, but I would argue that if intended media or subject matter does not require the resolution, increasing the ISO would be just as effective.

That is the tradeoff mentioned originally above.

For example If 12 MP is enough resolution Sony's new A7IIIS ISO capabilities offers low light capabilities that are amazing. ( I watched a video that seems to indicate that it has a dual Base ISO of 640 and 16,000.) The images at ISO 16,000 are game changing.

I would also add vision and composition to your what makes a good picture.

This is my HCB comment.

-Mike

-- hide signature --

Mitch

OP mikesco Contributing Member • Posts: 561
Re: Canon 5DS / 5DS R saturation and noise

Agree with much of what you say, except that fast lenses require money and weight, which is not always practical (especially when married). I have been using a 7D for the last 10 years and do not find the ISO limitations an issue 98% of the time.

The right combination of equipment = light.

I use the word "light" to mean how well illuminated the object is--not how little the equipment weighs.

Your choice is to use glass to reach that objective, but I would argue that if intended media or subject matter does not require the resolution, increasing the ISO would be just as effective.

That is the tradeoff mentioned originally above.

For example If 12 MP is enough resolution Sony's new A7IIIS ISO capabilities offers low light capabilities that are amazing. ( I watched a video that seems to indicate that it has a dual Base ISO of 640 and 16,000.) The images at ISO 16,000 are game changing.

I would also add vision and composition to your what makes a good picture.

This is my HCB comment.

-Mike

Fair enough, I did understand your light comment. I was merely saying that cost and weight of faster glass are obstacle with solving the "light" requirements with glass over a higher ISO with a slower lens.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads