# New 5Ds and 5Ds R



## runnah (Jan 30, 2015)

Wooo! Very interesting. can't wait to see some sample images.

*Specifications*


50.6MP full frame CMOS sensor
5DS R has the low pass filter removed
Magnesium Alloy Body
Dust and weather sealed
Dual DIGIC6 processor
ISO Range of 100-6400
5FPS continuous shooting
High precision 61-point AF
EOS Itr AF
“fine detail” added to the Picture Styles
1.3x and 1.6x crop shooting mode
Customizable “Quick Control screen”
Time-lapse movie
Anti-flicker
Interval Timer
Bulb timer


----------



## Lucryster (Jan 30, 2015)

Wonder if Canon has fixed its dynamic range, given how many MPs those cameras are.


----------



## runnah (Jan 30, 2015)

Lucryster said:


> Wonder if Canon has fixed its dynamic range, given how many MPs those cameras are.



I would assume so, considering the max ISO is 6400.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 30, 2015)

This should be very interesting to see if this is the actual specs.


----------



## Mach0 (Jan 30, 2015)

That looks impressive. I wonder what the price tag will be 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack (Jan 30, 2015)

runnah said:


> Lucryster said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder if Canon has fixed its dynamic range, given how many MPs those cameras are.
> ...



serious question:  doesn't the native iso range + the pixel density suggest it's _not_ going to be improved?


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 30, 2015)

Damn it Canon, just take my money already. 





I'll take one 5DsR please (assuming the DR issues have been addressed, otherwise I'll just pick up a Sony).


----------



## runnah (Jan 30, 2015)

Braineack said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Lucryster said:
> ...



I don't know enough to answer that.

The website did mention a 5d mkIV that was designed for low light. So maybe this new camera is aimed at just a specific user.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 30, 2015)

Braineack said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Lucryster said:
> ...


No.   Look at the 24mp Sony Exmor APS-C sensors.  They have better low iso DR than Canon FF sensors and the pixel density will be about the same as the announced Canon.   Assuming the rumors are true and canon will be using Sony Exmor technology. . . . . . . . . . .


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 30, 2015)

runnah said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



It is.  Me.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 30, 2015)

runnah said:


> The website did mention a 5d mkIV that was designed for low light. So maybe this new camera is aimed at just a specific user.



okay; possibly.   This is going to make a nice studio camera for sure.


----------



## runnah (Jan 30, 2015)

Braineack said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > The website did mention a 5d mkIV that was designed for low light. So maybe this new camera is aimed at just a specific user.
> ...



I would imagine this is aimed at the studio/landscape folks.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 30, 2015)

50Mp????   Good grief; the files from my D800 at 36Mp are usually WAY more than I need and a LOT to handle computer-wise, You're going to chew up hard drive space like there's no tomorrow.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 30, 2015)

tirediron said:


> 50Mp????   Good grief; the files from my D800 at 36Mp are usually WAY more than I need and a LOT to handle computer-wise, You're going to chew up hard drive space like there's no tomorrow.


It's all about how you shoot.   A still life studio shoot for me might only consist of about a dozen images being kept, and only one being processed in the end.    In the same amount of time an event shooter might take a few hundred photographs.  

On my last vacation I averaged less than 150 images a day.     Bear in mind too that Canon has options for sRaw and mRaw.   You don't have to take the full file size in raw with Canon.


----------



## runnah (Jan 30, 2015)

tirediron said:


> 50Mp????   Good grief; the files from my D800 at 36Mp are usually WAY more than I need and a LOT to handle computer-wise, You're going to chew up hard drive space like there's no tomorrow.



Storage is crazy cheap. File size is a non-issue.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 30, 2015)

tirediron said:


> 50Mp????   Good grief; the files from my D800 at 36Mp are usually WAY more than I need and a LOT to handle computer-wise, You're going to chew up hard drive space like there's no tomorrow.


At least Braineck will be able to zoom into the ultra fine details of his cat's hairs
whilst his hard drive starts smoking

Can we start complaining how 50mp isn't enough ?


----------



## Braineack (Jan 30, 2015)

I have 4 HDDs; I can handle it.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

With 50mp a lot of noise issues go away anyways because you can pixel bin in post down to some sensible size.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 30, 2015)

If I make the building out of cinder blocks with spray foam insulation, will that be fireproof enough and what is the best temperature do I need this building to me at?

Can I build my own cloud???


----------



## goodguy (Jan 30, 2015)

Here are few serious question 
1.The lenses we have currently will not be sharp enough for 50MP sensor so is such a high MP sensor really useful ?
2.Will Canon come out with lenses that will be effecting for 50MP ?
3.How much will they cost ?
4.The 5D III was never a camera that specialized in one specific thing, it was just a very good general use all around camera so what will Canon come out with to answer this very important market need ?

I always thought the D800/D810 were impressive cameras but not directed at me because its just too much resolution. This just raises the bar even more, for sure its not for people like me...........but it is very interesting and I cant wait to hear more and obviously read reviews on it!!!


----------



## tirediron (Jan 30, 2015)

Scatterbrained said:


> You don't have to take the full file size in raw with Canon.


 No, but why wouldn't you? 


runnah said:


> Storage is crazy cheap. File size is a non-issue.


Even as cheap as it is, it's going to add up at that rate, and unless you have a top-end computer just crunching those files is going to be a long process.


----------



## runnah (Jan 30, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > You don't have to take the full file size in raw with Canon.
> ...



Don't be so negative. It won't take that much pc power or storage space.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

goodguy said:


> Here are few serious question
> 1.The lenses we have currently will not be sharp enough for 50MP sensor so is such a high MP sensor really useful ?
> 2.Will Canon come out with lenses that will be effecting for 50MP ?
> 3.How much will they cost ?
> ...


They wouldn't be daft enough to make the camera if their lenses wouldn't handle it


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 30, 2015)

goodguy said:


> Here are few serious question
> 1.The lenses we have currently will not be sharp enough for 50MP sensor so is such a high MP sensor really useful ?
> 2.Will Canon come out with lenses that will be effecting for 50MP ?
> 3.How much will they cost ?
> ...


Think about this for a second, how small are the pixels of a FF 50mp sensor when compared to the current generation of 20-24mp APS-C cameras?  No on is going on about how the lenses can't handle these APS-C sensors.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 30, 2015)

Scatterbrained said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > Here are few serious question
> ...


Good point, the truth is and this is a shot equal to Nikon and Canon 

These High MP sensors are for most users a tap to their ego's, its a feature that sells.
Yes some will really make good of such sensors but most will not really need it.
Heck I bet even my 24MP sensor is an over kill for me (even though I tell myself that its not LOL).


----------



## runnah (Jan 30, 2015)

goodguy said:


> Here are few serious question
> 1.The lenses we have currently will not be sharp enough for 50MP sensor so is such a high MP sensor really useful ?
> 2.Will Canon come out with lenses that will be effecting for 50MP ?
> 3.How much will they cost ?
> ...




That's why they are having a 5D mkiv that is an all rounder


----------



## goodguy (Jan 30, 2015)

runnah said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > Here are few serious question
> ...


Oh, thats a piece of info I was not aware of, ok then let those who need or want such a high MP sensor buy it.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

Looks like they are copying Sony


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 30, 2015)

goodguy said:


> Good point, the truth is and this is a shot equal to Nikon and Canon
> 
> These High MP sensors are for most users a tap to their ego's, its a feature that sells.
> Yes some will really make good of such sensors but most will not really need it.
> Heck I bet even my 24MP sensor is an over kill for me (even though I tell myself that its not LOL).


You're right.
It is over kill for you.  You should then box it up and ship it to me as a free gift .  
Problem Solved !!


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

Yeah, the Magic Lenses Required thing seems to have been invented by Nikon to push expensive lenses.

After the arithmetic smoke clears, the new Canon sensor looks like resolving something like 90 lp/mm, by itself, discounting the rest of the optical system. This is on par with modestly good film from the 90s, and any non-crappy lens is capable of delivering this kind of resolution (again, under ideal circumstances, which means "not your circumstances")

In real terms, a 50mp sensor (and for that matter a 36mp sensor) DOES pretty much take the sensor out of the equation. While all components contribute to softness, the sensor will be a minor player in all but the most heroic testing circumstances.

50mp probably IS useful for pixel binning, which generally makes things better.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 30, 2015)

In any ways Canon has upped the ante here and I am sure we will see an answer by Nikon sooner or later in a form of 60MP or 70MP which will just make this even more ridiculous 
Soon after you will see a Sony A7RR with this ridiculous sensor too.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

Nikon and Canon appear to be trying to re-ignite pixel wars, which is silly, but given what I see on this forum regarding the D800/D810, I suspect it'll work just fine.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 30, 2015)

Okay, I don't really understand Medium Format but wouldn't 50mp be approaching that territory?


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

Yes, there are some 50mp medium format sensors out there. They're substantially larger than this alleged Canon sensor.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 30, 2015)

ronlane said:


> Okay, I don't really understand Medium Format but wouldn't 50mp be approaching that territory?


Well, medium format digital sensors used to be around 20ish mp "back in the day", then the 5DII came out. . . . . . . . .   now we have medium format sensors like the IQ180/280 with 80mp.   Meanwhile the latest generation of Sony sensor equipped MF cameras are using a 50mp CMOS sensor, which would put the Canon squarely in that range (resolution wise).


----------



## Lucryster (Jan 30, 2015)

Scatterbrained said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > 50Mp????   Good grief; the files from my D800 at 36Mp are usually WAY more than I need and a LOT to handle computer-wise, You're going to chew up hard drive space like there's no tomorrow.
> ...




Nikon has sRaw too.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 30, 2015)

medium format isnt really about the MP, its about the sensor size. 
for example....
APS-C approx 22x15mm
35mm FF approx 36x24mm
medium format back mamiya leaf credo 80 approx 54x40mm
medium format mamiya 645+ approx 62x47mm

MP's are just gravy.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 30, 2015)

really though...
im not  all that interested in seeing another "MP war"....
i think we have plenty of MP's as it is. 
i would rather see that R&D go into:
better ISO performance. 
better FPS for the high MP cameras we already have. 
better weather sealing. 
mindlink connections for controlling the camera with  your brain.

you know..useful stuff.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 30, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> really though...
> im not  all that interested in seeing another "MP war"....
> i think we have plenty of MP's as it is.
> i would rather see that R&D go into:
> ...


I want better_ low_ iso performance. 
I don't currently have enough megapickles, and I can't afford to throw down for a medium format camera to get the level of resolution I want. 
9 times out of ten 1 fps is enough for me, that's about how fast my lights cycle.  
Canon had an eye control AF.   It worked well enough on the three AF points the camera had.  
As far as full on mind controlled camera, I think that would get me in trouble.   The last thing I need is to get caught checking out hot girls because my camera read my mind and took their pictures, while my wife was standing there.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

Just get a 300mm lens and Brenizer everything!


----------



## goodguy (Jan 30, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> really though...
> im not  all that interested in seeing another "MP war"....
> i think we have plenty of MP's as it is.
> i would rather see that R&D go into:
> ...


Exactly, give me better ISO performance, more, more, more, you can never have too good low light performance.
It doesn't create huge files, just cleaner shots with more detail and better DR


----------



## snerd (Jan 30, 2015)

I'd be interested in the model with the low-pass filter removed. I hear that if you can watch out for moire in your images, you can get some really sharp photos with it gone!


----------



## Braineack (Jan 30, 2015)

I can get moire with an AA filter.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

Well, you shouldn't


----------



## runnah (Jan 30, 2015)

goodguy said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > really though...
> ...



There comes a point where you have to just add light. I'd rather have a 100-6400 ISO range and have it be perfect throughout.


----------



## snerd (Jan 30, 2015)

Oop's! I said low-pass filter. Holdover from my ham radio days lol!  I meant the AA filter, of course. And doesn't Nikon have a model with it removed?


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

An AA filter IS a low-pass filter. And, yes, removing (or replacing them with something else that does the same job less well, and has a different name) them is kind of a thing these days. It's lousy engineering, but excellent marketing.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 30, 2015)

runnah said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


agree. There is iso and then there is usable iso. having a high iso doesnt do much if it isnt usable. i kind of like the idea of more mps and i try not to shoot up near 6400 anyway never mind over it. i would guess the lower iso is because the higher mps create more noise.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 30, 2015)

runnah said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


Agree but still if you had a camera which had the capability of shooting at 400000ISO and results would look EXACTLY like its 100ISO I think you wouldn't say NO to that


----------



## snerd (Jan 30, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> An AA filter IS a low-pass filter. And, yes, removing (or replacing them with something else that does the same job less well, and has a different name) them is kind of a thing these days. It's lousy engineering, but excellent marketing.


Well, do you think it's needed or not needed? What is lousy engineering? Removing them? I thought I had half an idea what I was talking about, now I'm not so sure lol!!


----------



## Overread (Jan 30, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> An AA filter IS a low-pass filter. And, yes, removing (or replacing them with something else that does the same job less well, and has a different name) them is kind of a thing these days. It's lousy engineering, but excellent marketing.



Not really - the AA filter is there to remove an error that occurs because of a software/technical side of things; therefore in theory it can be fixed with the right technology. So in theory one day we should b able to remove the AA filter and have no risks at all.

As it is Nikon has done well removing their AA filter in general and as the tech improves I suspect it could even become a normal thing one day.


----------



## snerd (Jan 30, 2015)

Overread said:


> .......


Dood, I looked at your Flickr page. I've never seen anything cuter and more full of Awwwwwwww than this pic of the doves.

https://flic.kr/p/nJBo9P 



Well, I can't seem to get the right link. Sorry. It's the doves kissing.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

Huh? An Anti-Aliasing filter is the thing that prevents Aliasing, which is a low pass filter. In the land of optics it's harder to build a good one than it is in the land of audio, but they try.

Nikon, as I recall, removed the layer named AA Filter, but left in some stuff in the sensor sandwich that removes some of the higher spatial frequencies, to reduce aliasing (that is, moire).

As pixel pitch goes down it becomes less and less relevant. The aperture of a lens produces diffraction, which will work as a pretty decent low-pass (AA) filter. Above about f/4 this is all that's necessary with the newest high density sensors. At more open apertures, the Airy Discs are smaller than the sensels, so there's a possibility for moire. At this point you're relying on:

- in general it takes fairly special visual material in-frame to produce moire in the first place, and that stuff is pretty rare
- the DoF is so shallow that much of the frame will not be a problem (blur doesn't moire)
- there are other sources of blur that will usually dominate (camera motion, etc)

So with something like a 50mp sensor, even if there legitimately is NOT an AA filter of any kind, even under another name, you're not going to see moire all that often.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2015)

goodguy said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


I would


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

And to answer the other question, removing the AA filter isn't very good engineering, on account of you'll get moire sometimes, and while they claim they can just fix it in software, they're wrong. The whole point of aliasing is that you CANNOT tell the difference between a low frequency signal and an aliased high frequency one. You cannot reliably distinguish between moire, and a real pattern within the frame that happens to look like moire. You can guess, but you can't be sure.

In reality, as I mentioned, there's enough other crap in the signal path that will do the anti-aliasing job that it's becoming more and more possible to remove the dedicated component named "AA Filter". I don't think we're quite there yet, since I still see people complaining about moire.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 30, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> And to answer the other question, removing the AA filter isn't very good engineering, on account of you'll get moire sometimes, and while they claim they can just fix it in software, they're wrong. The whole point of aliasing is that you CANNOT tell the difference between a low frequency signal and an aliased high frequency one. You cannot reliably distinguish between moire, and a real pattern within the frame that happens to look like moire. You can guess, but you can't be sure.
> 
> In reality, as I mentioned, there's enough other crap in the signal path that will do the anti-aliasing job that it's becoming more and more possible to remove the dedicated component named "AA Filter". I don't think we're quite there yet, since I still see people complaining about moire.


how do you feel about removing moire in post processing. ya know, checking off the box and picking low medium or high or moving the slider kind of thing.


----------



## Overread (Jan 30, 2015)

Photo - yes we are not there yet but we are getting there. For a camera that is clearly aimed at a studio market the photographer can remove elements which could cause moire from the scene and thus get increased clarity and sharpness. In the real world its less suitable, but as tech improves it should be possible one day


also pigeons


----------



## bribrius (Jan 30, 2015)

Overread said:


> Photo - yes we are not there yet but we are getting there. For a camera that is clearly aimed at a studio market the photographer can remove elements which could cause moire from the scene and thus get increased clarity and sharpness. In the real world its less suitable, but as tech improves it should be possible one day
> 
> 
> also pigeons


you even make a pigeon shot look great....Geeez, it is too bad some of you more experienced and great photographers never post photos... I think i saw maybe one photo post from terri in a year....


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 30, 2015)

The only way to remove moire in post (reliably) is to manually select what's moire and what's not. Then the moired regions can be corrected by software.

Otherwise the software is just guessing and blurring out stuff that looks moire-ish.


----------



## James Baranski (Jan 30, 2015)

runnah said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > 50Mp????   Good grief; the files from my D800 at 36Mp are usually WAY more than I need and a LOT to handle computer-wise, You're going to chew up hard drive space like there's no tomorrow.
> ...


SSD's are about to take an other dive


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 31, 2015)

Given Canon's track record, I assume dark noise is still going to be disgusting, especially with that many MPs.

Wonderful.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Jan 31, 2015)

New megapixel race??

And here I would just be happy for the Nikon Df 16MP sensor in a D7100 body 


Sent from my iPhone using Telekenisisisisis


----------



## Overread (Jan 31, 2015)

I'd say this is the studio MP race which is mostly trying to corner a segment of the "I want to do MF but don't have £10K spare for the camera so I'll get a high MP DSLR and that will do" mentality.


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 31, 2015)

tirediron said:


> 50Mp????   Good grief; the files from my D800 at 36Mp are usually WAY more than I need and a LOT to handle computer-wise, You're going to chew up hard drive space like there's no tomorrow.



Amen!


----------



## bigal1000 (Jan 31, 2015)

A good photographer can make excellent images with a 12MP camera !


----------



## Overread (Jan 31, 2015)

bigal1000 said:


> A good photographer can make excellent images with a 12MP camera !



The 6mp photographers are going to beat you up soon


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 31, 2015)

bigal1000 said:


> A good photographer can make excellent images with a 12MP camera !



Invalid argument. Two words, resolution and dpi.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 31, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> bigal1000 said:
> 
> 
> > A good photographer can make excellent images with a 12MP camera !
> ...



WAT


----------



## gsgary (Jan 31, 2015)

Most on here don't print so MP's mean nothing


----------



## TheFantasticG (Jan 31, 2015)

Speaking of printing, I would to print some books this year for my personal... But 12-16MP has been enough for the small'ish books I'm looking to print


Sent from my iPhone using Telekenisisisisis


----------



## bigal1000 (Jan 31, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Most on here don't print so MP's mean nothing



What a shame that is.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 31, 2015)

TheFantasticG said:


> Speaking of printing, I would to print some books this year for my personal... But 12-16MP has been enough for the small'ish books I'm looking to print
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Telekenisisisisis


I have had big books printed with scaned 35mm negs and they look great no need for big MP cameras


----------



## goodguy (Jan 31, 2015)

I can see 3 kind of people buying this camera

1.Pro's who really need 50MP pictures
2.Those who think the more MP the better the camera is
3.Guys with small p___s that compensate for it with BIG MP cameras

I have a feeling the ratio between No.1 to No.2/3 is going to be 20 to 1
That means lots of stupid guys with small p___ses are going to own this 50MP monster!


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 31, 2015)

4.  Guys that buy it so they can list it in their signature on photo forums.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 31, 2015)

Who says you have to buy it to put it in your signature?


----------



## goodguy (Jan 31, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> 4.  Guys that buy it so they can list it in their signature on photo forums.


That pretty much already covered at No.2/3 LOL
Many who suffer from the "LOOK AT ME" syndrome have small.........tools


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 31, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Most on here don't print so MP's mean nothing



We actually agree on something!!!!!!!!! 

I do print big, and 36mp is plenty. I get beautiful 20x30s if necessary. I think there is a point at which you start hitting diminishing returns, probably 35-40mp. I had to juice up my computer to be able to deal with the files, and hard drive space, holy crap!


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 31, 2015)

It depends on the medium and the clients.  I print on 20x30 canvases regularly with 8mp files.


----------



## snerd (Jan 31, 2015)

goodguy said:


> ........ Many who suffer from the "LOOK AT ME" syndrome have small.........tools


I've "usually" found it's the guys who TALK about guys having small tools are the ones who are actually lacking. Just sayin'.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 31, 2015)

snerd said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > ........ Many who suffer from the "LOOK AT ME" syndrome have small.........tools
> ...


Shhhhh, dont tell, lets just keep this a secret ok


----------



## snerd (Jan 31, 2015)

goodguy said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


No worries, mate. And remember, it's not the size of the prize but the angle of the dangle.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 31, 2015)

snerd said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...


LOL


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 3, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Most on here don't print so MP's mean nothing



Citation needed


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 3, 2015)

Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of the 4K television debate. It can be assumed that 4K gives more clarity than 1080p, but realistically speaking, you'll only notice a difference at certain distances.

Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 3, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of the 4K television debate. It can be assumed that 4K gives more clarity than 1080p, but realistically speaking, you'll only notice a difference at certain distances.
> 
> Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.




i dunno when these oled 4k display model tvs look better than my Panasonic plasma...


----------



## gsgary (Feb 3, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of the 4K television debate. It can be assumed that 4K gives more clarity than 1080p, but realistically speaking, you'll only notice a difference at certain distances.
> 
> Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.


Only you would know that [emoji3]


----------



## Overread (Feb 3, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.



So I take it you're still using glass plates then for your photography? 

Yes if you use a tool badly you'll get bad results, that's not really any kind of argument for not improving the tool itself though. Especially since not everyone will use the tool badly (to say so almost sounds like you consider the works of all members of the site inferior/sub-par/not worth it).


----------



## Scatterbrained (Feb 3, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of the 4K television debate. It can be assumed that 4K gives more clarity than 1080p, but realistically speaking, you'll only notice a difference at certain distances.
> 
> Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.


Funny, this same argument went around when the 5DII was released.  It was "more than anyone needed".   It was trotted out again with the D800, yet that camera seems to sell pretty well. . . . . . .


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 3, 2015)

Overread said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.
> ...



An increase in MP isn't an improvement in the same vein as collodion vs silver halide film, so that's not really an applicable comparison

I'm also not indirectly insulting the members here is, since my statements literally mean "If you take a bad image, it's still going to be bad at any print size"

Nowhere did I assert that everyone who uses high MP cameras takes crappy photos.


----------



## runnah (Feb 3, 2015)

Well if you don't like it, vote with your wallet and don't buy it.

Seems easy enough.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 3, 2015)

Scatterbrained said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of the 4K television debate. It can be assumed that 4K gives more clarity than 1080p, but realistically speaking, you'll only notice a difference at certain distances.
> ...





rexbobcat said:


> Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 3, 2015)

runnah said:


> Well if you don't like it, vote with your wallet and don't buy it.
> 
> Seems easy enough.



Doesn't mean we can't discuss it.


----------



## runnah (Feb 3, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Well if you don't like it, vote with your wallet and don't buy it.
> ...



Does it?


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 3, 2015)

runnah said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Yes


----------



## snerd (Feb 3, 2015)

Maybe


----------



## dolina (Feb 6, 2015)

The 51MP 5DS ($3,699) & 5DS R ($3,899) are high end studio and landscape cameras. Think medium format applications where large or finely detailed prints are required.

These cameras do not replace the 5D Mark III per Canon USA video.

[video=youtube;Hl6AKRadEsw]




These cameras are positioned against the high megapixel full frame bodies like the 36MP Nikon D810 ($2,997) & 36MP Sony A7R ($2,098).

Canon USA mentioned medium format uses for the 5DS & 5DS R so here are the entry level medium format bodies by year.

2010 $4,500 40MP Pentax 645D
2014 $8,497 51.4MP Pentax 645Z

Now, why the drastic price difference? This all goes down to sensor size as shown below.

The Sony, Nikon and Canon uses a full frame sensor with a dimension of 36x24mm while the Pentax and other higher end medium format cameras tend to use a sensor with a dimension of 44x33mm or larger.







6X6 medium format film is included for comparison.


----------



## dolina (Feb 6, 2015)

The 51MP 5DS ($3,699) & 5DS R ($3,899) are high end studio and landscape cameras. Think medium format applications where large or finely detailed prints are required.

These cameras do not replace the 5D Mark III per Canon USA video.

[video=youtube;Hl6AKRadEsw]




These cameras are positioned against the high megapixel full frame bodies like the 36MP Nikon D810 ($2,997) & 36MP Sony A7R ($2,098).

Canon USA mentioned medium format uses for the 5DS & 5DS R so here are the entry level medium format bodies by year.

2010 $4,500 40MP Pentax 645D
2014 $8,497 51.4MP Pentax 645Z

Now, why the drastic price difference? This all goes down to sensor size as shown below.

The Sony, Nikon and Canon uses a full frame sensor with a dimension of 36x24mm while the Pentax and other higher end medium format cameras tend to use a sensor with a dimension of 44x33mm or larger.






6X6 medium format film is included for comparison.


----------



## raventepes (Feb 7, 2015)

These bodies interest me, and while I don't intend on buying either of them (Nikon DSLR guy, through and through, though I'll never say I don't like Canon), I can't help but wonder what their downfalls will be. If we learned anything from the D800 series, memory and computing is going to be the least of the worries associated with this 50mp behemoths. 36mp is already showing any flaw in technique with the added irritation of magnifying any flaws in lenses. I wonder how the new 5D's will cope to Canon's current offerings. The D800's demand the best glass available. The new 5D's aren't going to be any different, and rather, they're going to demand even more, I think. 

Just my thoughts. I'll be reading everything I can about these two.


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 9, 2015)

dolina said:


> The 51MP 5DS ($3,699) & 5DS R ($3,899) are high end studio and landscape cameras. Think medium format applications where large or finely detailed prints are required.
> 
> These cameras do not replace the 5D Mark III per Canon USA video.
> 
> ...



Canon said the same about the 5D2 when they release the 5D3.  To compete with the 645Z which they are saying they are trying to do, they need to match the 645Z's dynamic Range.  I have the 645Z.  The 645Z hits the 5D3 for six on DR. So does my D800E.  I haven't used my 5D3 for years.  Got sick of the low ISO noise banding, and relatively low DR.  

If it wants to compete with medium format then it needs to match the 645Z.  The 645Z has well over 14 stops of DR.  I don't even need to think of bracketing shots in 99% of situations as I know I can expose to the left or right and still get a great file at the end of it.


----------



## dolina (Feb 9, 2015)

Hi! I noticed my post are shortened. Is this normal?


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Feb 9, 2015)

Yes. There is only so much you can say about 50 mp.


----------

