Actually the long part was converting to jpg.
Now that I have a 4k laptop. (Start the lashing now) I should have looked at the DR of its screen. Looks like 7 stops on the 1/3 stop scales at various websites.
Suggestions high (er) DR monitors? I am coming to understamd that display technology is more complex that I would like?
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
Having made the switch some time ago I can recommend getting yourself a pro grade Graphics monitor. The difference in gamut and DR is night and day from most monitors. It also is understood that you will do a proper calibration.
The output monitor that is used for editing of images is a very good place to put some money after, if not before, acquiring lots of camera gear.
The impression of the camera so far.
For storage I have enough cards to hold about 300 gb. When in the UK I wrote the files to the external to have backup through the wife's old Macbook.
I ended up with about 3800 shots in 11 days of shooting, of which I saved in JPG and RAW. So a bit short of 8000 files. I ended up with 256 GB in the folder.
It took hours to transfer these to the laptop at home last night. So as we already knew the camera is a space hog.
FWIW only 5 shots of the 3800 were of Waldo.
The space problem is a small one, the improved resolution is very noticeable to me and is well worth it. The majority of what I did was hand held. Only at Stonehenge did I break out the tripod. I see the resolution improvement in all so far.
The AF system is very accurate and I am well pleased. Lucky the frame rate is so slow, if it were like the 1D's I would have 10 identical frames equally sharp and 50mb each to sort through, as it is I only have one or two. I haven't put the 5Ds R on my 500mm yet to really put it to the test, but so far on the trip it has been exceptional. Contrast that to the 7D II which I always found to be a bit lacking.
One issue I have had with the 5Ds R is metering. On sunny days it did great, but for some reason when it is overcast it tends to blow out the highlights and overexpose if left to its own. I changed to spot metering and it was no help, I probably just need to look in to the settings and its probably just my ignorance of the system. I didn't worry about it much because it was easily correctable in the field.
My mind might change after I PP 3800 pictures, but so far its a keeper.
That's high praise.Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
5DS R, 1D X, 7D, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, 24mm f/1.4L II, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.8, 100mm Macro f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, 580EX-II
flickr
Asking this question here, don't wanna make new threat. Those who you have the 5DSr version. How do you feel it performs in low light with highers isos? I have been looking those reviews on different DSLR on the site and the noise tool and have little hard time to get idea how it performs. I kinda like to hear real life opinnions =).
I noticed that i myself take lots of pictures on low light times of day aka auroras etc. I have noticed that 6D is apparently pretty good on wiht high iso's. How is 5dsr compared to that?
With just the base RAW file in LR the 5Ds R it appears very noisy even at lower ISO. But it cleans up and has quite a bit of headroom.
I haven't made this comparison but I think I will with my 5D II, take an identical subject at a higher ISO and the PP and resize the image to be identical.
Right now I believe that resized the 5Ds R will probably be no worse than the 5D II, but you would loose the 5Ds R's resolution advantage getting there.
From what we know and been taught the larger pixels of the 6D should be better than a camera with smaller pixels (5Ds R). But what we sometimes believe to be correct may not always pan out, there are other things involved including faster processors and better firmware to handle the noise. What we believe we read on paper and what we find in real world function and use sometimes seem to differ. Even if we can say the 5Ds R is equal to the 6D, 5D III or 5D II most likely the next version of the 6D or the 5D will most likely be much better.
Right now without any more tests I believe you will not gain anything going to the 5Ds R for low light.
I have had mine since August.
I do not believe it is as bad as some who do not own it would lead you to believe.
I really enjoyed renting the 5DsR and found the shadows can be pulled up quite a bit. That is a little different than a whole frame of darkness.
If you need resolution... tada.... if you need low light, perhaps not. I don't think you would find much difference and if any it wouldn't be favorable.
I would suspect that there a new body coming out soon that will up the low light ante
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
Check out the example shots in the "Imaging Resource" comparator tool.
I did a 5Ds vs 5D3 ISO 6400 still life comparison. Opened the full sized images, copied and pasted into Photoshop, resized the 5Ds to 5D3 size... and it's a mixed bag. The nails holding the string samples look sharper. The bottle labels are sharper in both the text and the "tile". There's more fine detail in the round scale thing. The fabric samples kept the fabric texture much better... but that red leafy fabric. It just ruined that.
Perhaps I'm jumping to a conclusion based on a single bad part of one image, but it looks like high-ISO mixed with a low contrast subject is the 5Ds' weakness. For everything else, the 5Ds kicks ass.
On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
R8 | R7 | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L | RF 100-500mm f/4-5-7.1L
I wonder if some of that is an illusion in the detail of the fabric. I started looking at lower ISO's and at 1600 I realized that some of what I thought was noise in the red fabric was actually thread detail with the 5Ds R.
I didn't download it, I only looked at the close up comparison on line.
David, I just downloaded the picture with the girl from the Resource tool. Re-sized to the 5D III size.
What I see is at ISO 6400 the 5Ds R has a bit more noise than the 5D III. The color of the rose seems to hold up. There is more detail from the 5Ds R.
I downloaded the 5Ds R ISO 3200 and compared it. Again more detail, but it appears to have less noise than the 5D III ISO 6400.
From this it appears that while the 5D III will have less noise, it will be less than a one stop advantage.
Also I wonder if we were working with a RAW file if we could apply additional NR in LR. We would loose the detail but we might equal or surpass the 5D III with visual noise.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote