5Ds first non-marketing sample shots

While I'm sure many of us await Bryan's review, it's always nice to see some non-Canon marketing shots from a new body.

Imaging resource has posted their first sample images (from a pre-production body)

They show crops at 100%, and do comparisons to Nikon D810 and to 7D2 at both original and down-sized to matching resolution. Shots at Base ISO, ISO 6400, and a shot at ISO 12800 with and without MultiShot noise reduction.

The jist of it is that at 100% the noise is very much like the 7D2, but downsized, the noise is reduced. The Nikon looks sharper at 100%, but sizing Nikon to 50.6MP, or Canon to 36 MP results is pretty much the same image.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...me-heavyweight

Not sure there is anything there that I didn't expect to see. It is a low ISO body with high resolution.

Like most comparisons with crop sensors, it appears they are doing a comparison of equal framing. The 7D II is 1.6x farther away.

The difference in the 7D II and 5Ds R made me wonder, I wanted to confirm that the 5Ds R file size was not down sampled in some way by the cameras firmware and that they had indeed shot for equal framing.
If the 5Ds R is down sampled is it is not by a significant amount. The 5Ds R sensor is 2.57 x the area of the 7D II. The file size of the 5Ds R is 2.52 x the area of the 7D II.
8688 x 5792 vs 5472 x 3648.

It is hard to say, but it appears the 5Ds R will have substantially more noise at ISO 6400 than the 7D II when you are in a focal length limited situation and both are cropped to the same field of view. But, I would never be shooting the 7D II at ISO 6400 so the test really doesn't provide much information for me.

David posted some pictures of his dogs, using the 7D II at ISO 6400, and I thought they looked very good.

7D2 might be too noisy at ISO 6400 for large prints, but for web shots and 8x10 it should be fine. (I haven't tried big prints of ISO 6400 shots, but I've seen ISO 3200 shots from a 7D1 on a banner and it looked fine).

For equal framing, the 5Ds would reduce the noise levels, either from finer noise due to increased DPI, or from less noise via downsizing the image. It would likely be good for most uses, but everybody's tolerance levels for noise are different.

For many shots, you'll be controlling the light, and shooting at a low ISO anyway, so what we're worrying about here is high-ISO noise shots. These would be shots in places where you can't reduce ISO by increasing light or time. This would be sports(dusk and indoor action), concerts (dim, no flash), etc.

I'm not sure how a high-ISO down-res'd 5Ds image would compare vs. a 5D3 image at the same ISO, same framing. That would would be an important thing for Bryan to test, as that's going to be a big decision point for many on choosing between 5D3 vs. 5Ds.

Another good test would be cases where you're focal length limited, both low-ISO and high-ISO. How does a cropped and downscaled 5D3 image compare to a 5Ds image in low/high ISO situations? What about 7D2? If the 5Ds is noisier than 7D2 at the pixel level, at what amount of cropping would you be better off with the 7D2, if ever?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Shots at ISO 800 - 12800 on a production 5Ds + 70-200 F/4L USM.

Many full size JPG, and a few CR2 files beneath that.
http://www.photographyblog.com/previ...0mm_f4_photos/

Also, using a few sigma art primes http://www.photographyblog.com/previ...m_50mm_photos/

Looks impressive. Granted, everyone is now abuzz about the Sony 40 mp backlit sensor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Looks impressive. Granted, everyone is now abuzz about the Sony 40 mp backlit sensor.

---

Interesting release by Sony, I wonder how many pre-orders for the 5Ds and 5Dsr were canceled today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Interesting release by Sony, I wonder how many pre-orders for the 5Ds and 5Dsr were canceled today.

---

The 5Ds file size at ISO 6400 is already 100 MB. What would a 42 MP file size be at ISO 102,000???? :confused::rolleyes:

I am curious about the performance of the back illuminated sensor. It'll be interesting to see how much is gained. Other than that, I am sure it is capable of taking good pictures.....but so is my 5DIII ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

The 5Ds file size at ISO 6400 is already 100 MB. What would a 42 MP file size be at ISO 102,000???? :confused::rolleyes:

I am curious about the performance of the back illuminated sensor. It'll be interesting to see how much is gained. Other than that, I am sure it is capable of taking good pictures.....but so is my 5DIII ;)

---

I just bought a new computer to play games on. It has a 128gb SSD, I think I should be able to process 1 image very very fast.

But, I did cancel my pre-order. I am not planning anything that I want the 5Dsr for in the next few months. I decided to wait and see what develops. High mp sensor that can handle high ISO as well, very interesting.

Also, all my bodies are capable of taking good pictures as well, including my ancient 5D II.

Other than Bryan's review...here is one (lensrentals) that I am most interested. As we should expect, the 5Ds/r helps with the resolution of all lenses tested. My takeaways:

• It is interesting how much more the 5Dsr resolves compared to the 5Ds. Unless some sort of negative with the "r" is observed, that is enough of a difference that I expect the "r" to be popular with those that want every bit of resolution. It is also interesting, I wonder if Canon will start removing the AA filter in all their bodies. If so, the 5DIV and 1DX II, even with similar MP, may see a benefit and close this resolution gap a bit.
• An example of lens limited resolution may have appeared, the Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8 in the corners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Other than Bryan's review...here is one (lensrentals) that I am most interested. As we should expect, the 5Ds/r helps with the resolution of all lenses tested. My takeaways:

• It is interesting how much more the 5Dsr resolves compared to the 5Ds. Unless some sort of negative with the "r" is observed, that is enough of a difference that I expect the "r" to be popular with those that want every bit of resolution. It is also interesting, I wonder if Canon will start removing the AA filter in all their bodies. If so, the 5DIV and 1DX II, even with similar MP, may see a benefit and close this resolution gap a bit.
• An example of lens limited resolution may have appeared, the Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8 in the corners.

---

Looking at the numbers 20% for the 5Ds. About what I thought I was getting with the 7D II for added reach/crop in the real world. 27% for the 5 5Dsr you might be able to crop just a bit more.

I think the driving factor whether Canon removes the filter is moire. Until it is out a few months and we start hearing complaints and regrets it is still to early to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Looking at the numbers 20% for the 5Ds. About what I thought I was getting with the 7D II for added reach/crop in the real world. 27% for the 5 5Dsr you might be able to crop just a bit more.

I think the driving factor whether Canon removes the filter is moire. Until it is out a few months and we start hearing complaints and regrets it is still to early to say.

---

Funny how often that ~1.2x keeps coming up. ;)

Played with the numbers for center and avg....the resolution numbers for the 5Ds were 1.13-1.31 higher than the 5DIII with avg of 1.24x. The 5Dsr resolution numbers were 1.2-1.47x higher than the 5DIII with avg 1.33x (1.37x if you do not include the 50 f/1.4 results). It is actually pretty impressive that for double the MP, the gain isn't more. But, as you said, that is very similar to what you saw with the 7DII comparisons you did.

Looks like the 50 f/1.4 (shot at f/1.4) was resolution limited comparing the 5Ds and 5Ds r. I am tempted to conclude that this shows you need very good glass to differentiate between the "s" and "r"....but I really didn't care for the 50 f/1.4 at f/1.4. It starts getting "sharp" at f/2. So, I suspect most "good" lenses would show an improvement going from the "s" to the "r" with the better the lens, the more the improvement. So, excluding the 50 f/1.4 results, the "r" averaged 1.1x higher resolution numbers than the "s".

Agreed about the moire, but just want to add, I've look at full res images of several of the samples. I've yet to see much, if any. I haven't seen it in the architectural shots, but think I might have seen a bit in a bird feather. In other words, so far, so good.

This only gets me excited by a potential AA free 5DIV with ~24-26 MP sensor. Maybe get 1.1-1.2x more resolution (~0.1x from bump in MP and ~0.1x for removing the AA filter). Could be a real sweet spot. Granted, I doubt that will be a deciding factor for me. Cost, "blacker blacks" (shadow noise), and maybe fps would be higher on the list.

Looks like Bryan has started posting image results of the 5Ds and 5DsR.

For some reason, the visual comparison he gives of the 5DIII to the 5DsR impresses me more than "an average of 1.33x higher" resolution values.

Anyway, interesting addition to the lineup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Looks like Bryan has started posting image results of the 5Ds and 5DsR.

For some reason, the visual comparison he gives of the 5DIII to the 5DsR impresses me more than "an average of 1.33x higher" resolution values.

Anyway, interesting addition to the lineup.

---

I notice an anomaly between the 5Ds and 5Ds R comparison. If you look at where the Horizontal lines meet the Center target on the 5Ds every other line appears to stop just a bit short of terminating in to the black target in the circle. Where the lines on the 5Ds R do not.

I looked at this on several monitors and it looked the same. I tried to cut and save to flicker, however flicker blurred the image and you couldn't see it.

Any one else see this? I wonder what the cause is?


Comparing both at F4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=3

This is the spot I am talking about
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/373/18...66dc0e66_t.jpgA by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I notice an anomaly between the 5Ds and 5Ds R comparison. If you look at where the Horizontal lines meet the Center target on the 5Ds every other line appears to stop just a bit short of terminating in to the black target in the circle. Where the lines on the 5Ds R do not.

I looked at this on several monitors and it looked the same. I tried to cut and save to flicker, however flicker blurred the image and you couldn't see it.

Any one else see this? I wonder what the cause is?

---

Yep...I see it....looks like a race track from a 1980's video game. As to the cause...I could only speculate that it is an artifact of jpeg compression. You can sometimes see similar artifacts where the smooth continuous lines turn into odd shaped blocks where a lens/camera can no longer resolve the detail.

Here is a quick example with the 7DII @ 200%. But you can see these when magnifying several different lens/lower resolution bodies....
http://community.the-digital-picture...tid=2448&stc=1



So....looks like the 5DsR can resolve...just...that...much...more....detail compared to the 5Ds. ;)

It is hard to compare the 7D II since it was shot 1.6x the distance away for same framing.
But it is amazing the difference between the 5D III and 5Ds.

Back to the anomaly, I wonder which is the accurate representation of the actual chart. Do the lines terminate in to the black target or stop short?


Thing is when I post it to Flickr it goes away. I can still see it on my screen shot cuts on my sample copies.

I see the termination differences as well. One has to admit this is some really thin, thin gruel difference. The step from the 5D3 is pretty big when looking at the charts. I will be spending 10 days at Glacier and well be testing "real world" differences 'tween the R and III - rented the R from LR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles

... I will be spending 10 days at Glacier and well be testing "real world" differences 'tween the R and III - rented the R from LR.

---

That will be interesting to see. I hope you will be sharing (a lot).:)