Canon announce 5Ds and 5Ds-r

[ricktas]

http://gizmodo.com/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-the-highest-resolution-full-frame-1683275915

50MP sensors!!!!!

[MissionMan]

Good stuff. It's always nice to see someone lifting the game a bit. I'm sure the Canon shooters will be happy (along with the computer hardware manufacturers due to the extra processing power required to edit a 50MP RAW file with reasonable performance).

[Arg]

All I can say is, AWESOME!

Company should change its name to Bazooka :th3:

[Morgo]

Cool, though not a 5d3 replacement it might fill a need for some.

[dolina]

The 51MP 5DS ($3,699) & 5DS R ($3,899) are high end studio and landscape cameras. Think medium format applications where large or finely detailed prints are required.


These cameras do not replace the 5D Mark III per Canon USA video.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl6AKRadEsw#ws


These cameras are positioned against the high megapixel full frame bodies like the 36MP Nikon D810 ($2,997) & 36MP Sony A7R ($2,098).


Canon USA mentioned medium format uses for the 5DS & 5DS R so here are the entry level medium format bodies by year.


2010 $4,500 40MP Pentax 645D
2014 $8,497 51.4MP Pentax 645Z


Now, why the drastic price difference? This all goes down to sensor size as shown below.


The Sony, Nikon and Canon uses a full frame sensor with a dimension of 36x24mm while the Pentax and other higher end medium format cameras tend to use a sensor with a dimension of 44x33mm or larger.

Image deleted. Please do not attach images that are copyright to others.


6X6 medium format film is included for comparison.

[phild]

Noise performance and dynamic range is reported to be on par with the 5DIII.

My rough calculations puts the pixel size the same as the new 7DII sensor so noise and dynamic range should be at least as good as that sensor.

The reviews I've read show that the 7DII is as good as the 5DIII so it will be interesting to see how the new beast performs.

[MissionMan]

You guys can "ooh" and "ahhh" all you want, but at this point, until Canon launches something to rival the Barbie Cam, it's still playing catchup.

[Tannin]

Noise performance and dynamic range is reported to be on par with the 5DIII.

My understanding is that the per pixel noise performance is about the same as the 5D II. (Source: DPR.) Note, that's per pixel noise, so per image noise is of course significantly lower.

I've been saying for years now that Canon has become so obsessed with video that they have forgotten about photographers. These two, together with the 7D II, suggest that they have been listening. Good work Canon!

Will I get one? Possible, but probably I'll look at a 5D IV. Tempting just the same.

[MissionMan]

My understanding is that the per pixel noise performance is about the same as the 5D II. (Source: DPR.) Note, that's per pixel noise, so per image noise is of course significantly lower.

I've been saying for years now that Canon has become so obsessed with video that they have forgotten about photographers. These two, together with the 7D II, suggest that they have been listening. Good work Canon!

Will I get one? Possible, but probably I'll look at a 5D IV. Tempting just the same.

I've noticed Canon and Nikon switch the lead every couple of years. Prior to the D3, Canon spent a while ahead of the game and Nikon was playing catch up.

[bitsnpieces]

My understanding is that the per pixel noise performance is about the same as the 5D II. (Source: DPR.) Note, that's per pixel noise, so per image noise is of course significantly lower.

I've been saying for years now that Canon has become so obsessed with video that they have forgotten about photographers. These two, together with the 7D II, suggest that they have been listening. Good work Canon!

Will I get one? Possible, but probably I'll look at a 5D IV. Tempting just the same.

This is something I wonder about also - the 5Ds and 5Ds R are only full-frame cameras, they're not necessarily medium format or anything.

Will 50mp really be that good in low light?

Yes, there's more megapixels to pack down and reduce noise, so potentially yes, but I still wonder, to what extent?

For example, Sony's a7s is only 12mp (if I remember correctly) and full frame, so the pixel sizes will be much larger than what the 5Ds is using. The a7s has amazing low light performance because it's only 12mp so the receivers (or whatever it's called) are larger, receiving more light, more accuracy, etc.
Packing 50mp worth into a regular full-frame size, these receivers are going to be tiny.

So noise reduction is really going to come down to Canon's engine and the packing down from 50mp - so I'm just wondering, is the low light performance on this beast really going to be that amazing?

As phild was saying - reviews say that the 7Dii is on par with the 5Diii.
The 5Diii is 22mp (I think it was) on a full-frame sensor
The 7Dii is 20mp on an APC sensor.
So in terms of size relativity, it's fairly equal (not really, but for arguments sake, more mp with suitable larger sensor, less mp with a smaller sensor, all fits well).
The 7Dii is running their new dual processor, so again, by receiver size, very similar, it's coming down to the processor.

The 5Ds is running the same sensor as the 7Dii right? Can the processor really be powerful enough to compensate for the extra ~30mp increase / decrease in receiver size?

[end rant]

[TassieSnapper]

Can someone explain the difference between the R and S models?

[ricktas]

Can someone explain the difference between the R and S models?

The 5Ds R cancels out the low pass filter (ie, there is not one). Like the Nikon D800 vs D800e. Result can be slightly sharper images, and on the downside an increase in moire (theoretically). However at the pixel densities we are now seeing, moire is virtually eliminated anyway. http://www.techradar.com/au/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/non-low-pass-filters-explained-goodbye-to-anti-aliasing--1160397

[Tannin]

Will 50mp really be that good in low light?

Yes, there's more megapixels to pack down and reduce noise, so potentially yes, but I still wonder, to what extent?

For example, Sony's a7s is only 12mp (if I remember correctly) and full frame, so the pixel sizes will be much larger than what the 5Ds is using. The a7s has amazing low light performance because it's only 12mp so the receivers (or whatever it's called) are larger, receiving more light, more accuracy, etc.
Packing 50mp worth into a regular full-frame size, these receivers are going to be tiny.

So noise reduction is really going to come down to Canon's engine and the packing down from 50mp - so I'm just wondering, is the low light performance on this beast really going to be that amazing?

As phild was saying - reviews say that the 7Dii is on par with the 5Diii.


For low noise, yes, size matters. But it's not the size of the pixels which matter, it is the size of the sensor. For any given sensor size and output resolution, the noise difference between a 12MP camera and a 50MP one is quite small (assuming, of course, that we are comparing implementations of roughly equal quality and technology generation). It doesn't matter whether you up-res the 12MP unit to 50MP or down-res the 50MP one to 12MP, noise performance isn't going to be massively different.

People misunderstand this all the time (I'm not saying you do, just that lots of 'togs who ought to know better do). The brainlessly compare 100% crops and say "look how much better the noise is!" Well duh, of course it is, 'coz they are comparing apples with elephant droppings.

The claim (which I don't make myself, only repeat on trust) is that we are looking at noise performance per pixel equal to the 5D II. Read that carefully: 5D II not III, and per pixel, not per image. If true, this is an astonishing achievement, as (given the huge difference in pixel count) that translates to amazingly good overall noise performance when measured properly (i.e., per image).

With all that said, Canon nevertheless state that the 5D III and 1DX are still their best low-noise performers, which is what you'd expect given that they have much lower resolution. (Noise is mostly about sensor size, but pixel size still helps a bit, so that makes sense. )

Me, I'm still in awe of the noise performance of my ancient 5D II, so any of the latest full frame units would knock my socks off.

Me, I think I'd like a 50MP 5D. I don't reckon my technique is anywhere near good enough to get the best out of one, so I'd have to put a lot of work into climbing that learning curve .... which could only be a good thing!

(Damn it, why haven't I got any grandmothers left? I might have to sell something else instead, and I already sold my left one and perfectly good kidney.)

[Steve Axford]

Sounds like a great camera - if you can use that many pixels, and most of us can't. I can see why Canon have positioned it for a specialist market. It seems to be aimed at regaining the high ground from Nikon, rather than selling a lot of units. I doubt that I'll buy one, though I'd happily accept one that was given to me and I'm sure I'd find a use for it. That new lens (11-24mm) sounds great too, and is even more attractive than the camera, but sooo expensive. Oh well. There's still lots to do with the "cheap" cameras and lenses so I think I'll stay with them for a while.

[MissionMan]

For low noise, yes, size matters. But it's not the size of the pixels which matter, it is the size of the sensor. For any given sensor size and output resolution, the noise difference between a 12MP camera and a 50MP one is quite small (assuming, of course, that we are comparing implementations of roughly equal quality and technology generation). It doesn't matter whether you up-res the 12MP unit to 50MP or down-res the 50MP one to 12MP, noise performance isn't going to be massively different.

People misunderstand this all the time (I'm not saying you do, just that lots of 'togs who ought to know better do). The brainlessly compare 100% crops and say "look how much better the noise is!" Well duh, of course it is, 'coz they are comparing apples with elephant droppings.

The claim (which I don't make myself, only repeat on trust) is that we are looking at noise performance per pixel equal to the 5D II. Read that carefully: 5D II not III, and per pixel, not per image. If true, this is an astonishing achievement, as (given the huge difference in pixel count) that translates to amazingly good overall noise performance when measured properly (i.e., per image).

With all that said, Canon nevertheless state that the 5D III and 1DX are still their best low-noise performers, which is what you'd expect given that they have much lower resolution. (Noise is mostly about sensor size, but pixel size still helps a bit, so that makes sense. )

Me, I'm still in awe of the noise performance of my ancient 5D II, so any of the latest full frame units would knock my socks off.

Me, I think I'd like a 50MP 5D. I don't reckon my technique is anywhere near good enough to get the best out of one, so I'd have to put a lot of work into climbing that learning curve .... which could only be a good thing!

(Damn it, why haven't I got any grandmothers left? I might have to sell something else instead, and I already sold my left one and perfectly good kidney.)

I'm confused. Isn't the exact reason that the size of the sensor impacts the levels of noise because the size of each pixel is larger and receives more light per pixel. I.e. a 24MP sensor on a full frame would have larger pixels than a 24MP sensor on DX and therefore better low light performance?

I also not sure I would agree that the performance would be the same. From what I have heard, the 36MP sensor on the D810 is more prone to camera shake due to the high number of pixels at low shutter speeds where a lower resolution sensor would be less problematic. This may not seem like an issue, but if you're shooting in low light, chances are you may also be shooting at low shutterspeeds which would make the issue more visible in the higher MP cameras like the D810 and the 50MP 5D, than a Sony 12MP camera which also has a full frame sensor.

It's not that I am against increasing sensor sizing, I think it's inevitable and it's great and noise will improve as time goes on so I think this argument is largely mute because our standard of ISO performance increases with each generation. As you mentioned, most manufacturers offer lower MP sensors with better low light noise and I don't think it's possible to have a single camera system that can do everything although this is also largely our perception of what everything is and 10 years ago, even the base level current DSLR's would be better than most of the pro systems so it's the standards of everything that are increasing, rather than what everything is. The only down side really is the potential issue of camera shake along with the increases in processing power and storage to cater for the larger file sizes, but realistically most people should be upgrading their machines on a regular basis so processing and storage issues tend to reduce over time.

[bitsnpieces]

For low noise, yes, size matters. But it's not the size of the pixels which matter, it is the size of the sensor. For any given sensor size and output resolution, the noise difference between a 12MP camera and a 50MP one is quite small (assuming, of course, that we are comparing implementations of roughly equal quality and technology generation). It doesn't matter whether you up-res the 12MP unit to 50MP or down-res the 50MP one to 12MP, noise performance isn't going to be massively different.

Ah, that's what I was kind of trying to get at, sorry, I will never be good at terminology.

Anyways, along with what MissionMan said, technically speaking, if using the same size sensor, so in this case, full-frame, the lower the megapixels, the larger the light receivers, as there's more space for them. This in turn provides better image capture, less noise.

I think the difference in this situation now is the technology and processing behind it. If the lower MP sensor had bad algorithms and didn't compress well, compared to the higher MP sensor, which although hardware-wise doesn't capture as clean an image, but processes so well that it makes it so clean, then the quality can be equal or better.
That's what I'm seeing with Canon's cameras, which is why I was compared the 5Diii and the 7Dii. 5Diii has a larger sensor and has more pixels. 7Dii has smaller sensor less pixels. So hardware-wise, for arguments sake, cancel out to be even. Software-wise, the technology in both is the same, and that's why both have similar ratings for low-light performance (according to one review I briefly read over). They both just equate.

Sony's a7s is a full-frame but only 12mp, so lots of light performance. However, their software-end in processing images is horrible. This is very evident in their RAW files for their cameras. So although it has the hardware advantage, unfortunately, the software doesn't make use of it. So a well programmed camera with full-frame sensor and more pixels could indeed come close in low light performance - I believe only close because image processing can only go so far.

So it's a given, quickly looking at a few reviews, though both 5Diii and 1Dx are their best low light performance cameras, the 1Dx does have a slight edge over the 5Diii and slightly better low light performance, and that's because the sensor size is a little smaller, providing better light capture.

Which is the only reason why I question Canon's 50mp - I believe it'll still be great, and I personally believe it's comparable to the Sony RX10 (I'm not saying the RX10 is better, but I mean the outcome), in the idea of fitting lots of pixels into a sensor, but with decent enough processing, it'll turn out just brilliant.
The RX10 is a 1" sensor, so it's smaller than the usual APC, but packs the mp of an APC sensor camera. So the idea of packing lots of pixels into a sensor, that I guess you could say, doesn't quite fit it, with good processing, can have a great outcome, which the RX10 does (very comparable to APC sensor quality).

I think this is Canon's method to try and bring back momentum into their product line. However, just like Fujifilm (I think it was) that developed their new sensors to have better light capturing for better low light performance (within their sensor sizes), Sony is also developing a new sensor for much better light capturing once again.
I don't know if Canon has developed any new sensors yet or still using the standard type, but just with better processing.
Because if this is the case, only time will time when the quality of the 50mp just can't keep up. Again, I believe the software processing can only go so far.

[Arg]

Is anyone here buying one?


From what I have heard, the 36MP sensor on the D810 is more prone to camera shake due to the high number of pixels at low shutter speeds where a lower resolution sensor would be less problematic. This may not seem like an issue, but if you're shooting in low light, chances are you may also be shooting at low shutterspeeds which would make the issue more visible in the higher MP cameras like the D810 and the 50MP 5D, than a Sony 12MP camera which also has a full frame sensor.

Camera shake is independent of the number of pixels. Photos printed from a 50MP 5D and a 12 MP Sony will have exactly the same amount of camera shake.

Pixel peeping at 100% might look like the high res shot has more blur, but only because the 100% view represents twice as much magnification as it would for the 12 MP. Stop pixel peeping and the shake looks the same on final images.

The reason I, and I suppose others, have posted in the past that you need a tripod with a D800 is because a high resolution image is not high resolution if the pixels are not all different, so you have to hold the camera more stably if you really want it to resolve more than a lower-resolution camera.

[dolina]

For those who reserved what will you be using the 5DS or 5DS R for? Wildlife? Birds? Landscape? Studio?

[ricktas]

For those who reserved what will you be using the 5DS or 5DS R for? Wildlife? Birds? Landscape? Studio?

Funnily they can take all of these.

[dolina]

Funnily they can take all of these.

I'm sure it can take a great passport photo as well but it's serious amount of money and I'd like to know what people who reserved this camera will be using it for. ;)

[arthurking83]

..... and I'd like to know what people who reserved this camera will be using it for. ;)

photography ... maybe? :confused013

I can't see any other use for it, other than the above pursuit.
I mean, it may be manufactured to a high degree of solidity and ruggedness, but I doubt that people will using it to hammer nails into hardwood floorboards .. or as a lead weight alternative for ocean fishing.

If the seriousness of the amount of money is an indicator on the most likely usage for these cameras .. then by all accounts, taking the much more seriously expensive Canon 1Dx as an example .. taking pictures(and or videos) is most likely to be the #1 favoured application for the new Canon we're about to see.



Not 100% sure, but I'm fairly certain that the most likely usage will be for photography .. maybe with a little videography thrown in for good measure. :confused:

[Arg]

Unlike a few others here, I don't have any trouble understanding that dolina is asking what specific photography justifies choosing these over a low-20's MP or even mid-30's MP full frame camera. And dolina specifically asked for replies from those who put their money where their mouth is.

[ricktas]

Unlike a few others here, I don't have any trouble understanding that dolina is asking what specific photography justifies choosing these over a low-20's MP or even mid-30's MP full frame camera. And dolina specifically asked for replies from those who put their money where their mouth is.

Unlike others, Dolina did not specifically ask what justifies these over others.

Dolina asked
For those who reserved what will you be using the 5DS or 5DS R for? Wildlife? Birds? Landscape? Studio? As several have replied, you can use them for any photography you wish to. There are no questions from Dolina re the need for the higher pixel count, like you have wrongly implied. They are not limited to one genre over another and Just like my D800/D3 I can use them for landscapes, portraits, wildlife, studio, weddings and more. Other than say a professional wedding photographer, might, most use their cameras for a variety of genre, and that was what has simply been suggested in the replies.

And as there are been no replies from those who might have reserved one, it would suggest perhaps that no one has put their money where their mouth is just yet, but that does not make other peoples responses any less relevant.

[dolina]

Gents pls be kind. My question wasn't meant in jest or to start a fight.

To clarify I am asking specifically those who reserved or made a down payment for the 5DS or 5DSR what they will be using these bodies for.

As Arg and others have pointed out all types of photography can use any MP camera available in the market so why spend 2x the price of a 5D3 for a 5DSR?

I do understand that having actual pixels to work with is better than any pixel interpolation technique to allow for highly detailed or larger prints. These have been the domain of medium format cameras that sport 80MP, 60MP, 51MP, 50MP, 40MP, 37MP and 22MP image sensors of whose dimension allows for crop factors of 0.79 or larger.

Canon has marketed these bodies towards landscape and studio shooters. Canon goes on further to suggest that wildlife photographers may be interested in buying either body as well.

The main appeal of these Canon bodies is that it is the most economical way to get to 50+MP. Whether it be a client or technical requirement. US$3,900 is a lot of money but have you seen how much medium format bodies/backs goes for?

A colleague insisted that no one really needs such a high MP when it comes to billboards because the viewing distance is too far. He also said that highly detailed prints wont be noticeable. If this assertion is based on limited project's budget then I have to agree with. In the Philippines it would be very difficult to get a timely ROI on a medium format system as a very limited set of individuals have the budget to pay for such a service unless you are a "named" photographer that can "name" a price.

But to my eyes I can & do notice when an image was taken with a 16mm frame like those on an iPhone, 1-inch sensor like those of a RX100, APS-C sensor like that of a 7D, a full frame like a 1DX or a medium format like the Pentax 645Z.

In Japan you can buy a 51MP Pentax 645Z body for 710,452 Yen. 1/3rd more than a 5DSR but uses a Pentax 645 mount for its lenses. But if you want to gain the medium format look that cannot be replicated by full frame then this is the most economical way to do so.

In the same way that you can never get the full frame look on a APS-C camera.

What makes the Pentax appealing is that shares the same Sony CMOS medium format image sensor as those of the Hassleblad and Phase One at 1/3rd the price.

[arthurking83]

First off, don't read the Canon(or any other manufacturer's) marketing tripe as gospel!

it's simply marketing tripe .. ie. BS!

It's written in a way to fool the consumer into thinking that their product has an advantage of some type.

So when Canon market the new 5D r/s models for landscape/studio, this doesn't mean that this product is more suitable for landscape/studio work more so than any other product!

This is what Canon thinks their primary market is for this product. Of course there are other genres of photography that can and will see the benefit of the higher pixel count on the new models.
if you can't see this for yourself, then as said before .. this product is not what you need.

But as an example of the other types of photography that benefit from more pixels(and in all seriousness, they all can and do).

Macro - more detail is always a good thing in macro. if the lens is capable of resolving that extra detail and the higher pixel count sensor can capture it .. you will see more detail! it's really that simple.

Landscape - can be questionable if more pixels can provide for a better quality final image, but on the whole, yes it can. Some of the reasons for this are simply that for any given reproduction size, the higher pixel sensor needs less reproduction magnification for the final image.
Think of it in this way: the 12Mp image printed at 40" x 30" is more magnified than the 36mp image is for the same print size. Using the same lens(to keep any imperfections the same) .. the lower magnified 36mp image will display less of those imperfections. It has too as the magnification to a standard 40"x30" print is higher for the 12Mp sensor file.

this point, it appears, you already understand. So while it's not worth re-iterating for your sake, it's still important for others to understand.

Think of any photography genre as the same, in an overall sense.
That is, don't think of them in the same way that they all require the same skill set.
But, if you want more from your photography, then why not have more(ie. pixels). If you want more flexibility to do whatever with those image files, more pixels(among any other performance feature) .. will allow you more flexibility.
Once this point is understood, then the genre, or the number of pixels used to capture any image becomes irrelevant as a topic of discussion. It only becomes relevant to the person using the equipment .. the owner or the upgrader.

I doubt that most folks look at this new hi res camera and simply think .. ooooh! I can get much better pictures with more pixels.
That decision choice they make is more of a personal type.

What more can I do with the images I get from this his res camera .. is more likely to be their reasoning in the final choice.


ROI is a subjective thing, and (to my thinking) the main reasoning behind any ROI choice is what do you feel more comfortable using to produce the required outcome.

I'm afraid to say, but your colleague doesn't really know what they're talking about(when it comes to what people need!).
He may understand what he needs because he's comments come from his perspective. His experience is dictating the term 'need' .. he isn't seeing other people's perspective.

As a case in point as to why I say this. His comments are made from the perspective of someone that shoots images to go onto billboards.
But, lets later his perspective and look at it from the perspective of a person that shoots mapping images from overhead for the consideration of industries that require detailed maps of an area.

If the person currently uses less than 50Mp(for arguments sake well say 36mp .. more likely to be 20-ish Mp).
This person also uses a very large drone with a specific range. At close range, it needs more images from 20 or 30 Mp to map a certain area size.
At 50Mp, more detail can be captured from the same elevation above the area to be mapped.

The drone being large and hence heavy, will have a specific flight time, and hence an overall life expectancy between failures.
if this mapping/photographer has a limited time to provide the detailed aerial images to the customer, then having more pixels to capture at any one time, reduces the amount of time that the drone is in the air.
no matter which way you look at it, getting the drone closer to the ground for more detail in each shot, which then means more stitching required as more images are needed .. or allowance no for a higher altitude, to capture the same detail as before, but with fewer total images .. the final outcome is irrefutable .. the time needed for this expensive drone to be in the air is less, with the higher Mp count camera.

Did I mention at any point that more pixels isn't a bad thing, and can actually be a good thing!

Now we know drones are expensive machines .. even tho they come down in price, they are still quite expensive devices.
you could simply use a smaller drone and mount a smaller camera, but again the question of time is also a factor. This not only requires more flight time, but again more processing time to stitch the higher number of images captured.
Imagine a Pentax 645 on a drone now .. can you imagine the size of the drone required compared to a smaller similarly hi res DSLR . ROI is a subjective thing in almost ever different situation.

Back to the ROI situation re the billboard image provider.
You wouldn't use a Pentax 645 to do billboards, you would use the cheapest camera with the cheapest lens if viewing distance, and hence detail reproduction is a low consideration, and cost of tools was a higher consideration.

If I was given a job ... to capture an image of a FLOOG* for the sole purpose of reproduction on a bill board to be viewed from 500meters distance .. I'd choose my cheapest camera and lens if ROI on the equipment used was my primary concern. This would be irrespective of my name brand status in the billboard imaging world.
If the brief was to also provide images suitable for use in fine art reproduction on a mural sized scale .. then obviously to make my task easier(ie. more speedy) .. the highest res camera and appropriate lens would be acquired .. and of course remuneration charged to the client.

In a nutshell there really is no right or wrong answer .. other than to the person doing the upgrade.

Comparing a 645 to a Canon 5Ds/r is like comparing a Bugatti Veyron to an inflatable rubber boat .. they simply do different things in different ways.
While the 50Mp spec is similar, you can't expect a 645 with it's 1 frame per second to shoot any faced paced action(sports, birds, etc)
So for this simple reason, Canon can charge what they like for the option to have this ability.
Also, can you mint an equivalent 11mm lens to the 645? .. no you can't. in fact approximately 20mm eq. FOV lens is about as wide as you can get with the Pentax using the 25mm/4 lens.
So single shot UWA perspectives are not an option with the 645, whereas with the Canon(and Nikon) they are.

So again, back to the ROI comment. This is a subjective thing. I have a D800E. If I get any request to provide images of <insert image type here> for whatever purpose .. my initial choice will be my D800E(always), simply because that's what I like shooting with.
if this request tho was for some images that the D800 isn't very good at capturing(eg. very fast sports) and my time was extremely limited, then I would choose a faster(fps) camera to be sure my chance of capturing an appropriate image was higher. 4fps is acceptable, but in some situations borderline.

While the 645 may only be 1/3 more in price for the body .. have you priced an equivalent lens(if you can get one).
Case in point .. 75/2.8 for 645 about $600 or so .. eq 135 format lens ... 50mm/1.8 $100.
As before, the 25mm f/4 is approximately $4000! .. 20mm f/2.8 is about $700 for a 135 format camera. I don't know if Canon have one, but Nikon do, if Canon have one I suspect similar or lower priced to the Nikon model.

So it's a case of swings and roundabouts .. pay only 1/3rd more for what is probably a better camera(the 645) .. but then try to get the lenses for it! .. 3x more at the least.
This point not only makes ROI a dubious calculation, but makes comparison to the 645 system a non event.

To be 100% sure, my reply to your question .. while it was very tongue in cheek, it was for a very specific reason. That reason was not to be argumentative, or derisive of the question, but to simply point out that it doesnt' matter.
The decision on who chooses to enter into a very high res system is, on the whole, a personal choice .. and will be based on decisions that don't apply to other people.
it may be for reasons that have nothing to do with the pixel count at all.
My D800E choice had nothing to do with the 36mp sensor .. and if truth be told, I'd have preferred the lower pixel count of Nikon's other cameras. I simply wanted video capability from my DSLR. D700 didn't have this.
The other decision was purely ergonomic. D800 has a particular body type. Back then Nikon just intro'ed the D600 too. I knew the D600 body type(same as D70-D90 thru to D7000-D72000.
not my preferred body type simply due to the ergonomics of the design.
So by default, my only option back then was for the D800. I wanted a non E, but when I went to the store, they only had one E remaining in stock, and after an already long wait .. I just took it.

Did I want 36mp .. not really. Now that I have them(have had them now for 3 years) .. do I like them .. or do I make use of them.
You can bet that last 36 millionth of a pixel I do.
I don't necessarily need them, I very rarely use them all to maximum advantage, but the point is that I have used them .. and no one has ever noticed.(again, think reproduction factor!! ;))

One thing is for certain .. your colleague is wrong.
Had his comment been more along the lines of "I don't need more pixels"(as in for his own purposes he doesn't need more pixels) .. then for sure I'd be wrong .. and I'll be the first to admit this.
But his general comment that no one really needs more pixels is simply wrong.
Tell that to the hypothetical aerial mapping provider .. or to any forensic photographer, or any macro shooter, or bird photographer .. or anyone that needs more pixels.

So to answer the question I answered before with my tongue in cheek .. photography!(yep same answer as before).
What will be the most likely situation:
Any Canon shooter who has already invested in a Canon system, and currently uses (say a 5D of some making) .. will most likely continue to shoot the same genres as before.
it's harder to break the habit that the individual is comfortable with.

I see this not only from my perspective, but from many other peoples perspectives too.
Over my time both on here and on other sites, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that no matter what new gear you have acquired, your shooting preference will almost invariably be the same.
it's only when you deliberately make the choice to shoot some other form(s) of photography that you may attempt it with some new gear(ie. an accessory of some type) that your appreciation and attention towards other genres increases.

What is very obvious from my observations over time is that the acquisition of a new camera has never lead to the commitment to a new genre of photography by the upgrader.

So while my answer(of photography) is made tongue in cheek, it's not meant to deride or cajole in any way.
it's simply a more simple version of my observation that the landscaper will continue to shoot landscapes, the wildlife people will continue to shoot wildlife, the wedding shooter, will continue to shoot .... etc. etc.

Hopefully my reply makes sense to you;
Firstly, no argument was intended.
Secondly, don't confuse a cameras pixel count as a defining or equalising specification. 50Mp in a 135 format higher performance body is not the same as 50Mp is a much larger(and hence slower) MF body .. with slower performance levels. It's not just the shooting speed 5fps vs 3fps .. look at the buffer specs too. 645 only allows 10 frames. For fast action this just doesn't cut it.
Canon's 17 frames is about the lower limit .. more is better obviously.

I have no interest in studio photography, but in saying that my ideal camera would be a 645z mated to maybe three lenses.
It has nothing to do with either the 50Mp, or the MF look .. although both would be nice to have the option.
It's simply because that type of camera suits my style more .. slower and deliberate. Camera size doesn't bother me .. in fact I'm more in the bigger is better camp .. but the one thing that does, is simply price.
Can't afford, nor justify the close to $15K I'd need for the set up I'd like to have.
For 1/10th of that I can acquire a LF camera and lens already with a tripod.

So try to pigeon hole me with the comment that comment that no one really needs that many pixels!
(it's not going to work).

ps. sorry for the arduous reply. Too much to say with a simple reply.

pps. * FLOOG is a made up physical entity. It bares no relationship to any other made up notion of or any other use of the term FLOOG.

[dolina]

The marketing spiel is somewhat useful as to who should take notice of this camera seeming this camera is going after those who want to enter into the medium format segment without spending medium format money.

I think for almost half a decade half the billboards in Metro Manila's main avenue (6 lanes on both sides traveling at an average of 30kph and a train at center at 30km in length) used a 6.3MP Canon 10D. I think only the last 5 years have they upgraded to a full frame for the billboards.

I actually read what you wrote and found it insightful.
What annoyed me is the way it was formatted. Paragraphs that abruptly drops to the next line and such. :lol:

My colleague comment was more onto our other colleague's desire to own a 5DSR. He was suggesting that perhaps instead of spending money to buy more gear he should consider learning how to do lighting instead?

[arthurking83]

The marketing spiel is somewhat useful .....

LOL!

now I know you have a sense of humour!.
Funniest comment I've read for a long time :p

[Dylan & Marianne]

i was waiting for the 5ds with bated breath but I have to say, I held back on reserving one and will wait to see how it performs in the field for landscape photography.
The main issues -
Will I use the 50mp ? Sure can do - if I can pair it with the 11-24 and crop panoramas with high enough resolution, particularly for things like seascapes, that would be amazingly easier than stitching moving water
ISO 6400 max? - since I do a fair bit of night photography, I'm waiting to see how the performance is as its highest iso or therabouts. Currently I shoot at 3200 for most milky way shots and 6400 for some . If they have simply removed the 'unusuable' range above that to improve quality it'll be good enough for me - if 6400 becomes the 5dmk3's 25600 , ughhh....
Dynamic range - this was the killer for me. IF the DR is no different to the mk3, I'm probably going to jump ship to Nikon or Sony. To be forced to bracket and blend is not just an inconvenience it has sometimes meant ditching certain images with moving elements which appear different at different shutter speeds (ie water). Currently, to overcome this I'm having to do odd things like exposure bracket with iso adjustments or aperture adjustments/focus stacking which makes things harder than they need to be. Even though i've gotten used to blending, I would rather spend less time at the desk processing and more time shooting!!

[Arg]

Unlike a few others here, I don't have any trouble understanding that dolina is asking what specific photography justifies choosing these over a low-20's MP or even mid-30's MP full frame camera.


Unlike others, Dolina did not specifically ask what justifies these over others.
There are no questions from Dolina re the need for the higher pixel count, like you have wrongly implied.


As Arg and others have pointed out all types of photography can use any MP camera available in the market so why spend 2x the price of a 5D3 for a 5DSR?

Yes that's what I thought you meant. :nod: Thanks for clarifying.

A lot of people will be buying them because they have Canon lenses and it's time to leapfrog Nikon again. Big numbers and market-leading specs have hypnotic power over buyers -- any cursory analysis of sales of any technical product will confirm this. But that won't be the reason given by actual buyers of course!

Like you, I'll be interested to hear from actual purchasers.

While we wait, let's hear from DPR editors after talking to Nikon's senior engineering and design team (emphasis added by me):


"We spent quite a lot of time in this interview talking about two challenges facing DSLR makers in an era of 24MP+ resolution sensors. Namely, AF accuracy and shutter/mirror vibration-induced softness. Both of these problems are largely side-stepped in mirrorless designs (although it took many manufacturers a while to really address shutter shock, and cameras like the Sony a7R have still not remedied this issue). Starting with autofocus, as a consequence of their reliance on off-sensor phase-detection AF modules, all DSLRs are vulnerable to AF inaccuracies. These issues become more and more noticeable at higher capture resolutions, and with faster lenses. High-end DSLRs tend to offer some kind of AF fine-tuning, but it's a cumbersome process, and only valid for one subject distance and one focal length.

"....The other major challenge faced by DSLR manufacturers is shutter/mirror vibration-induced softness. Flagship products like the D800-series must be shot very carefully if mirror and shutter-induced softness is to be avoided at certain shutter speeds. And though Nikon's redesign of the mirror and inclusion of electronic front curtain in the D810 is a huge step forward, the reality is that it's still practically difficult to get the most out of these high resolution sensors. The D810 in particular has usability issues around its otherwise excellent electronic front curtain in that it's limited to Mirror Up mode. Furthermore, all high resolution offerings from all brands exhibit deleterious interactions between mirror/shutter vibrations and optical stabilization systems (our initial tests of the Canon EOS 5DS show that it is no exception).

"In the end, this requires a meticulous approach to shooting, or often limiting yourself to certain shutter speeds, in order to maximize the resolution offered by these sensors.". link (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3639917149/cp-2015-nikon-interview-we-learned-from-the-d600-episode)

[ricktas]

Yes that's what I thought you meant. :nod: Thanks for clarifying.

A lot of people will be buying them because they have Canon lenses and it's time to leapfrog Nikon again. Big numbers and market-leading specs have hypnotic power over buyers -- any cursory analysis of sales of any technical product will confirm this. But that won't be the reason given by actual buyers of course!

Like you, I'll be interested to hear from actual purchasers.

While we wait, let's hear from DPR editors after talking to Nikon's senior engineering and design team (emphasis added by me):


"We spent quite a lot of time in this interview talking about two challenges facing DSLR makers in an era of 24MP+ resolution sensors. Namely, AF accuracy and shutter/mirror vibration-induced softness. Both of these problems are largely side-stepped in mirrorless designs (although it took many manufacturers a while to really address shutter shock, and cameras like the Sony a7R have still not remedied this issue). Starting with autofocus, as a consequence of their reliance on off-sensor phase-detection AF modules, all DSLRs are vulnerable to AF inaccuracies. These issues become more and more noticeable at higher capture resolutions, and with faster lenses. High-end DSLRs tend to offer some kind of AF fine-tuning, but it's a cumbersome process, and only valid for one subject distance and one focal length.

"....The other major challenge faced by DSLR manufacturers is shutter/mirror vibration-induced softness. Flagship products like the D800-series must be shot very carefully if mirror and shutter-induced softness is to be avoided at certain shutter speeds. And though Nikon's redesign of the mirror and inclusion of electronic front curtain in the D810 is a huge step forward, the reality is that it's still practically difficult to get the most out of these high resolution sensors. The D810 in particular has usability issues around its otherwise excellent electronic front curtain in that it's limited to Mirror Up mode. Furthermore, all high resolution offerings from all brands exhibit deleterious interactions between mirror/shutter vibrations and optical stabilization systems (our initial tests of the Canon EOS 5DS show that it is no exception).

"In the end, this requires a meticulous approach to shooting, or often limiting yourself to certain shutter speeds, in order to maximize the resolution offered by these sensors.". link (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3639917149/cp-2015-nikon-interview-we-learned-from-the-d600-episode)

You quote articles about shutter shock, and mirror issues. You do realise there is a feature on DSLR called 'mirror-up', and 'live view' which both move the mirror out of the way..before you press the shutter to take the photo, thus negating the argument that mirror shock/slap is an issue. It is even mentioned in your quote...and guess what, it is one button to press and a quick turn of a dial, on my D800, to set it up. Takes about 1 second to do.

Perhaps go have a look in the critique forums at all the photos taken by AP members that have D800/e or D810's or even EOS 5Ds. Funnily the photos do not appear to have an issues related to the above at all. All equipment, from the humble biro, to computers, cameras and military equipment have things they cannot do, and any user worthy of calling themselves a professional user of that equipment, know the limitations and how to work with them. Image softness can happen in a camera phone, through to a Hasselblad and a good photographer knows that and knows how to work with the equipment to ensure it is minimised.

Sometimes we need to separate the photographer from the camera and realise the tool we use is just that, and that the skill of the user is paramount to the results obtained. If people want to buy a 5Ds or a 5Ds-r then they should go get one, and learn how to use it. Will it be the perfect camera, hell no, but if people are waiting for that to happen, then they should go find another hobby/profession.

[Arg]

It is difficult to post a balanced view on the merits of DSLR cameras in some forums.

Dare I say that the DPR editors have a more balanced view than you or I on the pros and cons of various cameras. It is clear enough to me from the way that they twice mentioned the "off the record" comments of the Nikon design team, that these are also the views of the Nikon engineers. Give us a reason to prefer your opinions, based on looking at photos on the internet, over the opinions of the camera engineers, designers and camera testing experts with their testing laboratories and expensive instruments -- because they are saying that there are real problems in achieving high-megapixel resolution in daily use, and great care is needed, which is a far cry from your "push one button and problem solved" point of view.

[ricktas]

It is difficult to post a balanced view on the merits of DSLR cameras in some forums.

Dare I say that the DPR editors have a more balanced view than you or I on the pros and cons of various cameras. It is clear enough to me from the way that they twice mentioned the "off the record" comments of the Nikon design team, that these are also the views of the Nikon engineers. Give us a reason to prefer your opinions, based on looking at photos on the internet, over the opinions of the camera engineers, designers and camera testing experts with their testing laboratories and expensive instruments -- because they are saying that there are real problems in achieving high-megapixel resolution in daily use, and great care is needed, which is a far cry from your "push one button and problem solved" point of view.

DPR is owned by Amazon... so guess what? Their balanced view is always going to be tilted towards advertising and links to get people to buy the product from them. DPR is a commercial company that is setup to make money.

As for the rest, real world application shows these cameras can and do record sharp, crisp, highly detailed images that do not show issues from the high MP count or mirror-slap etc. There are plenty of experts in the world who have never used the tools in real world application and whilst in a lab they can say this or that is the result, but take them on a photography tour and they have no idea. The only issues I have had with my D800 are user error. Me choosing the wrong shutter speed etc. I have not experienced a single issue that cannot be solved by me using good photography skill and technique. I have not had to apply 'daily use, great care' to get high quality results. I have had to apply simple skilled photographic technique, no different to using film or any other digital camera. Incidentally film resolution has been show to be equivalent to 50mp, and when we shoot film we tend to not fire off shots at random, we take our time to get the settings correct, focus correct, etc cause each frame costs money to develop/print. Again it is about using good photographic technique and knowledge.

For those that cannot get good results out of a 30-50MP camera, I say sloppy technique is the cause, not the gear. The most common issues are photographer error, and next would be lens quality/sharpness/calibration. That is obviously the case for many photographers as can be seen by the extremely high quality of the photos presented in the forums on AP and elsewhere, using these very MP cameras.

The photographer is paramount, great technique and skill will ensure great quality results, sloppiness will not. This applies to all photography, not just high MP cameras. So perhaps if you like to 'spray and pray', a Canon/Nikon or other high MP count camera is not for you, but to imply that cause some lab ex-pert says the cameras are no good, and treat that as holy, for all photographers is wrong. Perhaps they are not what you want, but for others they are perfect and produce stunning photos, with some of the very best available equipment for the $ now.

So you asked for my reasons. Real world use and my own experience, are my reasons for my opinion.

[dolina]

Sometimes it really is the camera. Take for the example the 7D2 I have. I always thought it was user error (lack of practice and wholly new camera to relearn to shoot with) but it appears that the AI Servo had some issues especially when used with Spot AF.

This was confirmed by CPS when I brought it in and they had to fine tune my body's firmware to rectify it.

It was mentioned on CR and I was also told by CPS to expect a firmware upgrade this week for the 7D2. I hope either the firmware or the adjustments made by CPS on the firmware will sort things out.

Over at FredMiranda some users were able to test out the 5DSR and are pushing through with their purchase.

Now, I am glad I joined this forum. Other than FredMiranda you guys do reply back to my queries.

BTW Dylan these links may help you decide if its for you or not.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1355054/0

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1361242/1

[ricktas]

agree Dolina, and as your experience shows, manufacturers are usually very good at rectifying these faults. A high MP count is not a 'fault' that needs fixing, though.

[dolina]

agree Dolina, and as your experience shows, manufacturers are usually very good at rectifying these faults. A high MP count is not a 'fault' that needs fixing, though.
The way it was marketed though (stop laughing Art!) presents the body redesigned for high MP for full frame.

If I were to shoot this handheld I'd use the silent shutter setting if I did not need the full 5fps.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Sometimes it really is the camera. Take for the example the 7D2 I have. I always thought it was user error (lack of practice and wholly new camera to relearn to shoot with) but it appears that the AI Servo had some issues especially when used with Spot AF.

This was confirmed by CPS when I brought it in and they had to fine tune my body's firmware to rectify it.

It was mentioned on CR and I was also told by CPS to expect a firmware upgrade this week for the 7D2. I hope either the firmware or the adjustments made by CPS on the firmware will sort things out.

Over at FredMiranda some users were able to test out the 5DSR and are pushing through with their purchase.

Now, I am glad I joined this forum. Other than FredMiranda you guys do reply back to my queries.

BTW Dylan these links may help you decide if its for you or not.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1355054/0

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1361242/1

Unfortunately they don't really answer my concerns - guess I'll have to wait until some of the landscape heavies start using it!