DPReviews Adds Real World Samples From EOS 5DS R

[3kramd5]

So I'm still not really seeing the point of these new 5Ds. Yes, these images look very good compared to an existing 5D3 or 1DX, but they're not actually doing anything new. They're clearly slower and than the 5D3 and they've still not got the resolution or range of medium format, so... what exactly is the point?

Clearly the point is: higher resolution in a 135-format package.

 

[mb66energy]

This camera seems to be an impressive tool for those who need/want that amount of resolution.

But then, medium format has already had resolutions like this—and far higher— for years now. Portrait photographers who want/need more resolution than DSLRs have given up until now have just been shooting medium format, where you get far higher resolution, considerably more dynamic range and, as much as I like my Canon glass, most medium format lenses are also capable of resolving much more detail than lenses made for 35mm sensors.

So I'm still not really seeing the point of these new 5Ds. Yes, these images look very good compared to an existing 5D3 or 1DX, but they're not actually doing anything new. They're clearly slower and than the 5D3 and they've still not got the resolution or range of medium format, so... what exactly is the point?

Then open your eyes: Cost of camera, cost of lenses, size and weight of camera + lenses, availability of special lenses with tilt/shift, superteles, 11-24, etc. in the reach of mortals ...

 

[mb66energy]

This camera seems to be an impressive tool for those who need/want that amount of resolution.

But then, medium format has already had resolutions like this—and far higher— for years now. Portrait photographers who want/need more resolution than DSLRs have given up until now have just been shooting medium format, where you get far higher resolution, considerably more dynamic range and, as much as I like my Canon glass, most medium format lenses are also capable of resolving much more detail than lenses made for 35mm sensors.

So I'm still not really seeing the point of these new 5Ds. Yes, these images look very good compared to an existing 5D3 or 1DX, but they're not actually doing anything new. They're clearly slower and than the 5D3 and they've still not got the resolution or range of medium format, so... what exactly is the point?

Then open your eyes: Cost of camera, cost of lenses, size and weight of camera + lenses, availability of special lenses with tilt/shift, superteles, 11-24, etc. in the reach of mortals ...

Which brand are you talking about here because Canon's more exotic lenses certainly aren't affordable to most of the population who I assume you mean by "mortals" but maybe you're excluding the bulk of the population?

That's what I have intended (original post wasn't clear enough ... ):

for mortal amateurs: cost of reasonably priced lenses which will match the 5Ds(R) presumably, e.g.
2.0 35mm 450€/$ IS
2.8 40mm 150€/$
2.8 100mm 450€/$ NON-IS
2.0 100mm 400€/$
5.6 400: Supertele per definition, roughly 1200€/$
~ 6000€/$ over 10 years = 50€/$ per month incl. 1 body of 5Ds(R)

available and/or cheaper and/or lighter+smaller than MF equivalents for mortal professionals ...
TS lenses
high aperture telephoto
MP-E 65

Best - Michael

 

[Trevster]

I think the portraits look beautiful, but I'm not feeling the love for the outdoor shots.

The skyline shots are not quite sharp in the center, and look sloppy not very far from that...I'm viewing these at original size, both versions. If the goal is printing this at a substantial size, would you consider any of the 4 versions of the skyline sharp enough?

- T

 

[msm]

Detail under controlled lightning looks amazing. As soon as they start to fiddle with the sliders in ACR however, it falls apart at full resolution. Downsampled they look good again compared to current Canon bodies, definately positively surprised by the high ISO at this pixel count. Personally I wont pay $4k for a 50mpix body which so commonly needs to be downsampled to look good.

 

[Eldar]

I finally downloaded the images and ... my first thoughts were; If I was doing this for a living and I was going to give my hungry readers something to judge this camera by ... would I give them these images?

 

[mb66energy]

Detail under controlled lightning looks amazing. As soon as they start to fiddle with the sliders in ACR however, it falls apart at full resolution. Downsampled they look good again compared to current Canon bodies, definately positively surprised by the high ISO at this pixel count. Personally I wont pay $4k for a 50mpix body which so commonly needs to be downsampled to look good.

IMO this is the tribute to the high res where shimmering (hopefully the right word for varying opical density in the atmosphere) becomes much more visible.
My first landscapes with the 5.6 400 had a net resolution of VGA (640 x 480) - dark brown fields in sunlight after a night with temperatures well below 0 degree centigrade.

 

[JoeDavid]

Personally, I rarely go to the DpReview site other than for equipment announcements and previews. These preview images are a prime example. Yes, the portraits are OK but the rest is crap based on what the camera is for; i.e., studio and landscape. They don't seem to have a decent landscape photographer in the bunch. They're based out of Seattle for goodness sake! Go compose a shot of Mt. Rainier behind a lake with interesting foreground and use most of the frame. Then shoot it at ISO 50-400 and post that plus the RAW files. Not many photographers I know would go out for "grab shots" like most of what they shoot and use 50MP. Shoot some M-RAW and S-RAW and post that as well. Shooting at f8 and f11 with a good sharp lens wouldn't hurt either. As for the 11-24mm L, not everything is an 11mm shot and they prove that over and over again. Take it away from them please!

 

[sanj]

I finally downloaded the images and ... my first thoughts were; If I was doing this for a living and I was going to give my hungry readers something to judge this camera by ... would I give them these images?

Yep. The sample photos of companies including Leica as so bad generally.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I finally downloaded the images and ... my first thoughts were; If I was doing this for a living and I was going to give my hungry readers something to judge this camera by ... would I give them these images?

Yep. The sample photos of companies including Leica as so bad generally.

I believe he's referring to the photos taken by DPR, not Canon. A 'trusted photography gear review site' that produces sample images like those...not optimal for credibility.

 

[Busted Knuckles]

If I can, I will, try to rent one, etc for my end of June trip to glacier national park, so if it possible, I will try to obtain some images of landscapes from a decent tripod weighted for stability w/ the Art 24/50, 70-200II and the 16-35 f4. 5.6 to f11 ISO 100, 160, 200 etc. and provide to the masses. (Not that I have a clue on composition, but at least the subject matter/settings will be appropriate). Even a couple of star shots to really put the uber sensor though the paces.

 

[scyrene]

Is it just me… These look pretty damn good!! Looks very similar to my 5DMKIII

My original criterion for deciding if I was going to get it was, if it was as good as the 5D3 (especially at ISO 800-3200). I'm content with the image quality of that camera, and just want more resolution for cropping bird shots mostly.

 

[scyrene]

I finally downloaded the images and ... my first thoughts were; If I was doing this for a living and I was going to give my hungry readers something to judge this camera by ... would I give them these images?

Yep. The sample photos of companies including Leica as so bad generally.

I believe he's referring to the photos taken by DPR, not Canon. A 'trusted photography gear review site' that produces sample images like those...not optimal for credibility.

Yeah. I downloaded the test scene image and have been pleased, but those 'real world' sample shots... I don't understand the intent with many of them.

 

[3kramd5]

I finally downloaded the images and ... my first thoughts were; If I was doing this for a living and I was going to give my hungry readers something to judge this camera by ... would I give them these images?

Yep. The sample photos of companies including Leica as so bad generally.

I believe he's referring to the photos taken by DPR, not Canon. A 'trusted photography gear review site' that produces sample images like those...not optimal for credibility.

Yeah. I downloaded the test scene image and have been pleased, but those 'real world' sample shots... I don't understand the intent with many of them.

Well they're not trying to win any awards with them, that's for sure!

It would be interesting to know what the goals/parameters of the images were.

Goals: generate traffic
Parameters: use 5DSR

 

[jrista]

I think the portraits look beautiful, but I'm not feeling the love for the outdoor shots.

The skyline shots are not quite sharp in the center, and look sloppy not very far from that...I'm viewing these at original size, both versions. If the goal is printing this at a substantial size, would you consider any of the 4 versions of the skyline sharp enough?

- T

I agree, the portrait shots I've seen with the 5Ds and R are very close to D800/D810 quality. Extremely detailed, clean, clear, sharp. Usually low enough noise that it simply isn't an issue. I don't understand why the landscape and architecture shots just don't have that same level of quality... or why they seem to have higher noise (outside of those that have been pushed...not surprised about the IQ in those.)

 

[ritholtz]

Tony mini review of 5DS-R and quick comparison with Nikon D810, Canon 5D Mark III, Olympus E-M5 II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xrslc5zsPI

Looks like Tony has better test setup than dpreview to do comparisons.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

If you go to the studio comparison tool at DPR and set the cameras to display RAW and look at the color swatches, the 5Dsr is gaining on the competition in the color accuracy department. Must be using a much stronger CFA in this new model. Portrait shooters will be super stoked for sure.

 

[memoriaphoto]

If you go to the studio comparison tool at DPR and set the cameras to display RAW and look at the color swatches, the 5Dsr is gaining on the competition in the color accuracy department. Must be using a much stronger CFA in this new model. Portrait shooters will be super stoked for sure.

I have no doubt that the 5Ds(r) is using a better CFA compared to previous models, just curious how you came to that conclusion by looking at the color swatches and comparing with Nikon for example. Which one is "correct" in terms of color accuracy?