5DS Coming this Spring!?

[DavidEccleston]

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.

[Kayaker72]

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.

[Busted Knuckles]

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

[DavidEccleston]

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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

[conropl]

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.

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

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[conropl]

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).

[Sean Setters]

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).

[DavidEccleston]

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.