5Ds vs 5Ds R

[HDNitehawk]

Sure they hedge, that is why Canons prices do not change quickly. The Yen has been soft for some time, and we are seeing both lenses and bodies go down in price slowly. In contrast most items have risen in price.

Canon spends billions on R&D, I a sure it is a huge portion of the cost of the camera.
This body has a new mirror drive assembly and other changes to the body to stop vibration, all more R&D.

It would have been handy of us if they priced like the local gas station and the price changed hourly.

[HDNitehawk]

So someone can correct me if I am wrong.
But this would be a function of the lens not the sensor.
Your out of focus light will be better resolved and have more out of focus definition. But it is still out of focus.

Here is a question, the 7D II seems to have a different bokeh from a FF sensor. I never really researched this or thought about it because I discounted it as field of view difference, but is this partly because of smaller pixels?
Will the bokeh from the high mp camera have a different "feel" or "look" to its bokeh because of the increased resolution?

[conropl]

Here is a question, the 7D II seems to have a different bokeh from a FF sensor. I never really researched this or thought about it because I discounted it as field of view difference, but is this partly because of smaller pixels?
Will the bokeh from the high mp camera have a different "feel" or "look" to its bokeh because of the increased resolution?

I do not know how to answer this technically, but I see the same thing between the 1DX and my 7D. Both are 18MP spread out over the frame, but one has larger pixels (and presumably better pixels). The 100-400L does not have particularly good bokeh - the blur can be rather harsh looking, but it does seem less so on the FF to the point of being quit a noticeable difference. Even taking FOV out of the equation, I do not think the bokeh (or subjective quality of the blur) will be as good on the crop.

Having said that, I may be accused of being nit-picky chasing esoteric properties, and the accusation would probably be justified; but in some ways, that is what photography is about... that is, looking for ways to progress artistically and produce "that look" that separates your pictures from the thousands out there of the same or similar subject. So, your question intrigues me because if you knew the technical reason, then you may be able figure out how to exploit it in other situations. I guess what I am saying is: Nice observation and good question... I wish I knew the answer.

Pat

[DavidEccleston]

Hyperfocal range shouldn't change, no. Why? Because we've already typically removed sensor resolution from the definition. The hyperfocal range is what appears to be in focus*, when focused at the hyperfocal distance.

Notice the * on "in focus". In-focus is when when blur (or Coc, Circle of Confusion), is less than some threshold. Typically, most DOF calculations use something like, "when printed as an 8x10, at 100 DPI". This means the threshold is CoC less than 1/1000th of the image height, regardless of whatever resolution that is.

[Busted Knuckles]

So this is the pixel peepers heaven . Transfiguring, abusing, misusing, taking out of context...... the "some threshold" if we set that it at the pixel size, the small pixel would push out the hyper focal distance a bit.

I recall someone (sleep deprivation is such a fun sport) that one of the guys tried to figure the effective reach between crop and FF and the answer came back at 1.2 vs 1.6. Would this not be similar to the idea of cropping the uber mp sensor like 5Ds/r or 810?

I know I ask silly questions and appreciate your patience.

[HDNitehawk]

I recall someone (sleep deprivation is such a fun sport) that one of the guys tried to figure the effective reach between crop and FF and the answer came back at 1.2 vs 1.6. Would this not be similar to the idea of cropping the uber mp sensor like 5Ds/r or 810?

I wonder who would do that.
I think it would be similar.

There are no silly questions, especially if we can learn something.
Without saying there is -or is not- an effect with hyperfocal range or/and DOF when you have increased resolution.

Exploring the possibility there is an effect, not answering a question;
I would think it would only be at pixel level size, where the circle of confusion is smaller than an individual pixel. (or small group of pixels)
You might resolve the coc at a smaller scale because of this.
It might not be very significant.
If we go with the 8x10 print David mentioned I doubt we would ever see any difference. However, part of the selling point of this body is that we can crop huge portions away.

[DavidEccleston]

Also remember that the limits of acceptable resolution are about to go up. As I mentioned in a previous post, most of Canon's lineup can crop 64-pixels off the width of an image before it no longer fills the screen, and thus becomes unsuitable for a desktop wallpaper, on a new 5K iMac. What was previously considered pixel-peeping suddenly became an acceptable "threshold" for your CoC, when making a desktop wallpaper. Who saw that coming? When targeting high-res wallpaper, your hyperfocal range will shrink, but that's not an effect of the sensor, or it's resolution, but an effect of the target... a super-high-res target that will be viewed up close needs a much smaller CoC.

These new 5Ds cameras should fix the "uncroppable images" problem, and perhaps end up with extra longevity and desirability as a result. I may have to consider ditching the 7D2 and picking up a 5Ds before high-res displays become common place. Imagine when a client asks you for a 5K photo and you have to say "I can't do that." Ugh. They won't be back. It won't be too many years before my not-yet-3-month-old camera becomes 'undesirable' because it doesn't have enough resolution to even fill the screen. Or perhaps the 7D2 is my backup camera... I should sell the 7D and 1Ds2 while I can...

[DavidEccleston]

And here we go again... rumours are swirling that the next rev iMac will sport an 8K display. The 5Ds will have your back, though... a bit.

5Ds: 8688 x 5792
iMac8K: 7680 x 4320

LG iMac8K display rumor: Link to hothardware.

[Busted Knuckles]

Was thinking about getting a 4k TV for a monitor for my worksheets etc, not anticipating that the inexpensive 4k monitors would be all that good in color rendition, etc.

What I would like to see (in my aging eyes) is a large to very large screen - regardless an 8k monitor is going to be beautiful and pricey

[DavidEccleston]

Apple pulls off some amazing pricing stunts on occasion. Once you upgrade the storage and CPU of the regular 2560x1440 27" iMac to match the 5K versions, the 5K screen is only a $300 premium. They can likely afford to pull off the minor premium for 5K because their regular models do have a price premium over the 'race to the cheapest component' PC market.

If they pull off another 'minor premium' to go 8K, it will sell. 8K will be a harder stunt to pull off though, because it will need quite a beefy GPU to go along with the screen, which is tricky in the ultra-slim all-in-one form factor.

8K is like having a 4x4 grid of 1080p displays. In a few months we'll see if LG can squeeze that into 27", or if we get an 30" iMac or something instead. The extra size allows for a lower pixel density, but also more space for cooling/heatsinks. And once it's 30" they can attach a bigger premium, even though it made things easier on them.