The point is having the extra mp available to utilize. I wouldn't talk to other peoples photography but with mine almost every picture is downsized. If I shoot it with the 5D II or the 5Ds R almost all end up at the same size. I crop it to taste and then post it for view on the net. Or I print to a specific size. The 5Ds R gives the option to print a bit larger or crop a bit more. That only happens occasionally.
If this is true then shouldn't we see this in equally framed same size pictures from both bodies? I am not seeing anything out of the ordinary in my work that makes me think it is worse. To the contrary I am seeing improvement at different levels due to the increased resolution. I know the smaller pixel and motion blur theory is nothing new, its been around for some time. But now I have a body with twice the resolution and the theory isn't holding up in real world shooting.
I am not saying that the smaller vs larger pixel theory doesn't hold merit at a certain level. I am saying that in real world shooting it is not making a noticeable difference.
First the statement I believe is correct; To fully utilize the additional resolution of the 5Ds R one will have to use faster shutter speeds or tripod.
Second the statement I believe is incorrect; The 5Ds R requires a faster shutter speed than the 5D III to avoid camera shake.





Reply With Quote