5DS Coming this Spring!?

Wow, if true they sure slipped that one in. We'll know this Friday they say. Color me surprised. Not Bryan and Sean I'm sure!

Does anybody think that the ISO 100-6400 (extended with ISO50 and 12800) spec is a little lower than we'd hoped? I know that the fear was a 53MP sensor would be noisy but that's sounding a bit like confirmation. Other than that, 61 AF points, Dual DIGIC 6, 252 zone TTL metering - yummy! I can hardly wait to see some samples from Bryan! :D

So who's going to plunk down some serious Benjamin's on this one?

I expected higher ISO available as a marketing ploy, but I do not care. I would only shoot at higher ISO's than that if I am trying to see something in the dark. I have used my camera before and after dark to make out what is passing my blind. For most everything I am capturing a image to keep though ISO 3200 is about the limit.

So to me it matters not.

I expect this body to be as noisy as the 7D II. If it is better it is a plus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I expected higher ISO available as a marketing ploy...

---

Gasp! Canon? Marketing ploy? Say it ain't so Joe! :p

Regardless, it looks like us Canon shooters are going to be running out of things to complain about pretty soon!

We've still got shadow noise and low-ISO noise levels to complain about... And, prices. We'll always be able to complain about prices!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

For most everything I am capturing a image to keep though ISO 3200 is about the limit.

---

This true for me as well, but that is only because that seems to be the limit to what I want to tolerate in noise. If I could get cleaner pictures above that, then I would use higher ISO's for night shots (which I like to do). The problem I see with the ISO spec is that it is lower; and therefore, am I to assume that the highest limit that I am willing to tolerate the noise level is now going to be lower than ISO 3200? The highest setting on the camera is not my gauge other than as an indicator of the highest ISO I am willing to tolerate. In other words, as the highest set point allowable goes down, then typically so does the highest ISO setting that I am willing to use.

The Nikon D800E drew a lot of landscape photographers (this includes a lot of high end armatures) away from canon. I am not debating numbers or saying they were right or wrong, but there seemed to be a shift (especially early on). I thought this camera was Canons answer for the landscape photographer... except then you look at the ISO spec and it makes you pause. Most landscapes are going to be at low ISO, and this is great for that. However, the high ISO cameras out there are creating a shift in landscape photography towards more night time shots. I am not saying it is the majority of peoples shots, but it is turning into another arrow in the landscape photographers quiver - one I do not think many want to lose. Will Canon's new high pixel camera be good for golden hour and daytime landscapes - Yes. But will it be a good night time camera - Doubtful. Given the later, it will probably be to be difficult to satisfy the higher end landscape users. As for those that were lost to the lures of the D800E... this camera is not likely a compelling reason to switch back and lose capability at high ISO.

If this was geared towards the landscape photographer, then this seems to be a fail unless Canon has shifted their interpretation on what is a usable ISO setting.

The other nice use for this camera would be wildlife, and either cropping heavily or printing large. This camera sounds like a nice fit, but then again we see the usable ISO seems to have been lowered. You need fast shutter speeds for those long lenses to get good detail for printing large or heavy cropping. When you are shooting in the shadows, morning/evening, or overcast days; then you need good clean high ISO's to get the fast shutter speeds (1/1000 sec or fast would be ideal). Again, this would seem to fall a little short for that purpose as well.

I guess we will see what there intent is soon.

Pat

Agreed...the max ISO 6400 rumor probably stands out most other than the 53 MP. I am not sure what it means yet. I am hopeful that Canon is breaking with their past and the max ISO is actually usable. It actually doesn't make sense to me otherwise. The 7DII has a max ISO of 16000. The rumored 5Ds has the essentially the same pixel density. Why would ISO go backwards in ISO performance with the same pixel density? The closest answer I have seen to this is that they are enhancing the bayer filter to get better color rendition. But that costing 1.3 stops of light? Also, there has been talk/rumors of Canon finally putting their analog/digital converters on chip rather than off, which is supposed to reduce the noise.

So, hopefully on Friday, we'll at least get some glimpses of IQ in sample images. Then, hopefully we'll see in about a month when Bryan (and maybe Rick) get their hands on the camera.

I can see the advantages if this camera ends up being very good. My biggest issue is that the 5DIII is excellent for the vast majority of what I shoot. I am actually considering being "done" for awhile in the gear department (well, maybe one more lens ;) ) and focusing any photography investment in courses, trips, etc.

Pat, I see this body as being limited use (acceptable use anyway) just as the 7D II is.
It will be a specialty tool that either fits your specialty or handicaps you if you try to use it as a general body.

You will not be able to go as high with the ISO because of noise. Sunsets and Sunrise it will be fine on a tripod. At night at the local club or play it will be weak. If you need higher ISO's it will not be the camera for you. During the day for still wildlife it will be fine, but your day will end a bit sooner and start a bit later because of loss of light. None of these are issues with me since I have multiple bodies and one of the others will perform better in those situations.

One thing I hope to see;

In crop mode it would be nice if at 1.3x the body could do 7 or 8 fps. It would make it a bit more versatile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

...the max ISO 6400 rumor probably stands out most other than the 53 MP. I am not sure what it means yet. I am hopeful that Canon is breaking with their past and the max ISO is actually usable. It actually doesn't make sense to me otherwise. The 7DII has a max ISO of 16000. The rumored 5Ds has the essentially the same pixel density. Why would ISO go backwards in ISO performance with the same pixel density? The closest answer I have seen to this is that they are enhancing the bayer filter to get better color rendition. But that costing 1.3 stops of light? Also, there has been talk/rumors of Canon finally putting their analog/digital converters on chip rather than off, which is supposed to reduce the noise.

---

Just a little mussing... nothing technically researched, but:
Given the much higher pixel count over the 7DII, I would assume there is more heat generated (creating more noise) which may also limit the usable ISO. Yes, it has more surface area to lose heat, but I would assume the heat generation is at a greater rate that the cooling rate. My simplistic analogy: Stick 20 people in a 10'X10" room and it is going to get stuffy... put 50 people in a 16'X16' room and it is going to to get hot (and unbearable). So unless they add active cooling to the sensor, then I would assume the noise would go up.

Pat

There could be something there. In each case, each person/MP has 0.2 sq ft of space. So, the density is the same and I would expect similar heat per unit area. But the total heat would be more. To keep with the analogy, where I could see issues is if there is only 1 or 2 exits and someone pulls a fire alarm. Then instead of 20 people rushing through 1-2 exits you have 50. Granted, I do not know how many exits there are (AD converters). But, I can imagine that having more exits and putting them closer (i.e. "on chip") would be better.

ISO-wise, we had the same thing with the 1Ds3 (and perhaps others, but I'm too lazy to look it up). The 1D3 offers ISO 100-3200 with expansion L and H (6400). The 1Ds3 offers ISO 100-1600 with expansion L and H (3200).

Yup, even the T1i had expanded ISO, but the thing here is that they've lowered their ISO rating, not that they have an expanded range. Their new expanded number was considered part of the basic ISO range on the 5D3 (and the 7D2).

At first I thought it's just marketing. Full-frame users expect lower noise levels when pixel peeping, than crop users. When they give us a crop density full-frame sensor, they feel a need to say "the ISO is good for you full-frame users up to 6400", rather than 16000 (with expansion to 51200), all because you expect less noise, even though you'd get that noise advantage back by downsampling to standard full frame resolutions.

But at ISO 6400 (expanded ISO to 12800) it's a full two stops less than the 5D3 and 7D2's sensitivities. The expanded range is less than the previous camera's base ranges.

Something has changed. They're throwing away sensitivity to gain something else. The drop in sensitivity *has* to be about low noise, and better DR, because otherwise it's a worse camera than the 5D3 for most people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

Something has changed. They're throwing away sensitivity to gain something else. The drop in sensitivity *has* to be about low noise, and better DR, because otherwise it's a worse camera than the 5D3 for most people.

---

This is what I am hoping for. A gain in something in addition to the resolution. But the concern is what Pat brought up, that going to 50 MP did something to decrease the high ISO performance.

One other thought may just be file size and the time to process larger files. They are already looking at ~55 MB per image at low ISO. And file size increases with ISO.

We'll see. I think it with take some people getting their hands on the cameras to know for sure. But maybe we learn more with the announcement.

So I am thinking similar to Kayaker - Take the 4k and do a couple of trips and with my new pano head just stitch more shots together.

Having said this, I suspect that a fair assumption is that Canon improved the noise vs. pixel density issue by some measure.

If I feel that I am missing anything it is stepped up FPS. Though we shall see what new functions the camera will provide

Lets assume the trade off isn't to improve DR / or noise... that it's all about we want megapixels, and that introduces extra noise, so you're stuck with a lower ISO.

If its a 5D that can't handle bad light and requires bigger CF cards, bigger hard drives, and needs more processing power, to get extra detail that most people don't need, then it's a really tough sell. Would you release this camera? The people who want 'crop reach' just upgraded to the 7D2, so it's not about up-selling that market into the 5D price range. The 'need/want' 50MP market is too small, isn't it? They *have* to have improved something, and I think that its got to be noise and DR.

David,

I am one of those that just bought the 7D II for the "crop reach".
But you sacrifice with the crop body, you sacrifice IQ on any picture that presents itself that can be properly framed with a FF and not cropped.
So for me you get the best of both worlds, the pixel density and reach of the crop body. The benefit of the FF when it can be properly framed.

The "crop factor" resolution benefit debate dies with this body.

I have wanted a high mp body for years for landscape. There was the rumored 1Ds IV with 36mp, it never materialized.
I think there will be a large demand for the body among the loyal Canon followers that have been waiting.

But it isn't the body for everyone. It will be more of a specialty.

Rick

Does anyone really rely on expanded ISO? A couple of years ago I read an interview with a Canon designer that said that the camera ISO ratings were designed to a max and min that provided a defined line of acceptability in IQ. The expanded ISO was not within acceptable standards... it was implied expanded ISO was a marketing ploy, but he stated it is not intended to be used for acceptable images. He has probably since be fired, but the statement is essentially correct. I would not use expanded ISO as a measure of anything short of marketing strategy, and how far the company is willing to lure (deceive) unsuspecting customers in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

They *have* to have improved something, and I think that its got to be noise and DR.

---

I hope you are correct, and this is a shift in what Canon sees as the minimum IQ standards for max ISO ratings (be it DR and noise, or just noise). Otherwise it does seem to be a hard sell for anyone other than for those looking for higher resolution to print very large or crop heavily (saving on the cost of larger focal length glass or when limited to how close you can get). This seems to focus in on landscape and wildlife, but I still think those sets of customers is going to be further segmented by those that still want the higher ISO capability.

Pat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conropl

Does anyone really rely on expanded ISO?

Pat

---

I can only remember one time, I went to look at a project that was in a basement with no light. No flash light either.
The naked eye I couldn't see, so I took pictures at the highest ISO with my 35mm f/1.4L.
Reviewed them later on the computer.

I suppose expanded ISO may have its use, but making great images isn't one of them.

A quote from Bryan's report:
"The 5Ds has the same dynamic range as 5D III"

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin on the internet.

It is a bit surprising - lower ISO rating, and no extra DR (even though canon's statement was something along the lines of: the ISO was lowered to provide greater DR and color accuracy).

Chuck indicated that Canon believed that most discerning photographers (those who were most likely to be interested in the 5Ds and 5Ds R) wouldn't be satisfied with the high ISO noise above that level, whereas the 7D II market segment would be more forgiving in that matter (because high ISO performance is very similar between the cameras as they feature nearly identical pixel pitch).

If the noise was the same as the 7D2, there is no good reason to drop the ISO... because that's just pixel peeping noise levels. When your 50MP image is downsized for a print, you'll have much less noise than the 7D2 shooting the same image, or if your printer can handle that resolution, the noise will be so fine as to not matter.

I don't buy it that FF users can't tolerate the 7D2's level of noise because Bryan's noise comparison charts, on the 7D2 review, shows very similar levels of noise on both... perhaps a 1 stop difference. 7D2@ISO 6400 is very similar to 5D3@ISO 12800, but 7D2 is clearly cleaner at @3200, so even at the pixel level a 2 stop drop isn't needed. Once you downsize the image to the same resolution or make a print, I'm not sure you even needed the pixel-level equivalent to 5D3 one stop drop.

Perhaps this new sensor does have more heat-induced noise issues than 7D2.

On Canon USA's website in the 5Ds and 5Ds R details.
Most likely why there are no pre-orders yet.
Makes you wonder if they have shipped or even started manufacturing for the US market.
Bureaucrats always slow the process.

The EOS 5DS R camera has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.