# 5DS-R vs 5D Mk IV: On the Fence



## GreggS (Mar 17, 2017)

I'm hoping to reach out specifically to people who have experience using both of these cameras. I currently have a Canon 80D and I love it, and I do wish to stay with Canon as opposed to Nikon or even Sony...but the 80D is an APS-C frame, and I'm looking to upgrade to full frame. I've done a lot of research on both the 5DSR and the 5D Mark IV, but I'm still on the fence between the two. Here's a little bit about the photography I like to do for fun, and which I'm trying to focus my fledgling business on. Looking for genuine suggestions on which way to go. 

In order of my own priorities:
*-Landscapes:* from what I know, the 5DSR has the edge for resolution and thus ability to make large prints. But can the 5D Mk IV perform just as well?
*-Commercial Photography:* I am doing some work for clients by way of macro shots (foot, etc.) and wider angle interior real estate. Does either of these bodies excel in this area?
*-Portrait: *Mainly on-site, but some studio portrait work. Again, resolution goes the 5DSR, but would I really have a practical use for 50.6MP for such work?
*-Sports:* I don't do a lot of sports photography, however I may on occasion shoot marathon runners, or my kid's games. The 5D Mk IV has slightly better FPS, but would I be at a disadvantage with the 5DSR?

What I'm not looking for is Canon bashers or general forum bullying (you know who you are). Thanks ahead of time for looking. Also, if you care to give me C&C on my portfolio, I'd be happy to hear it. I've implemented some changes suggested by TPF members already and they were great. www.blue-line-photography.com


----------



## weepete (Mar 17, 2017)

Ok, I've not shot with either so you may want to dismiss what I'm going to say out of hand. That's up to you but I was seriously considering buying a 5DSR myself so spent quite a bit of time looking into it and the 5Dmkiv.

To me the 5DSR is a specialist tool and it excels at big images but is limited by that 6,400 ISO limit. That for me makes it a brilliant landscape and studio camera where you'd normally limit ISO anyway for better IQ (and like a cheap entry into medium format size digital). As a portrait camera probably the 5DS would be better as the anti aliasing filter would make rendering skin tones better SOOC.

The 5Dmkiv is a modern, generalist camera. Still got the 30mpx for big images but you get an ISO limit of 32,000.

So to me if landscapes or shooting high res product shots are your thing then the 5DSR is the one to get. If you expect to be shooting anything else then the 5Dmkiv is the one to get as you will be able to leverage the bigger ISO range.


----------



## GreggS (Mar 17, 2017)

Thanks for the input. I'm leaning that way too after giving it more thought all day, as landscapes and portraits are where I spend most of my time. The price point also helps. I also enjoy street photography and am hoping it will perform well there. The price point helps too. The only concern I would have is sports. 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Juga (Mar 26, 2017)

Why not save a 'buck' and go with the 5D Mk III? It is a very nice camera and now at an excellent price because of the updated models and will easily make large prints that you desire.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Mar 26, 2017)

5d4 has better dynamic range for landscapes, 5dsR has more mp. I'd personally go for the 5d4 (if I shot canon) because having 50 megapixels doesn't matter to me if the dynamic range isn't there. How big do you really print? 30mp is plenty for ~24x36 and even 40x60 if your technique is good.


----------



## beagle100 (Mar 27, 2017)

I'd also go with a 5D4 

*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## ronlane (Mar 27, 2017)

I haven't shot either of these cameras but do shoot canon and try to keep up with the full frame offerings for when the time is right for me to move up.

The 50mp's of the 5DsR would be nice but will take up tons of room on hard drives. But hey, those are cheap, right...  There has been some talk about a new firmware release coming soon for the 5DmkIV, which is to help some of the issues that people have been complaining about.

It may be worth holding on until that firmware is released and some reviews come out about it before making your decision.

For landscape, I think either camera would do a great job (is the 5DsR the one with no high-pass filter? I don't remember).

For sports, it would depend on the lighting conditions of the "field of play". If you were outdoor soccer on Saturdays, I'm sure that it would be fine. Just think of the crop ability of a 50mp file.

@Juga does bring up a good suggestion. The 5D mk III is a good all-around camera and could shoot any of that with not too much problems.

Good luck.


----------



## chuasam (Mar 27, 2017)

the IV. The dS and DsR are horrific in even middle ISO PERFORMANCE.


----------



## weepete (Mar 27, 2017)

ronlane said:


> is the 5DsR the one with no high-pass filter? I don't remember



Yeah Ron. The 5DS-R is the one without the filter. Possibly more moire but better sharpness. I'd still go with the MkIV personally but can't deny that high res has a pull.


----------



## beagle100 (Mar 27, 2017)

weepete said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > is the 5DsR the one with no high-pass filter? I don't remember
> ...



right, having a high res pixel model is nice but for commercial, portrait, etc. a 5D4 with L lens is probably better for the OP


----------



## chuasam (Mar 27, 2017)

weepete said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > is the 5DsR the one with no high-pass filter? I don't remember
> ...



Actually it has a filter. It's a self cancelling filter. Yes I know. Stupid right?
It's a barely usable megapixel monkey. 
Get the IV.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 27, 2017)

No longer an active Canon user (still own my old 20D and my mirror-glue-failed-and the-mirror-fell-off-the-mirror-thingamajig 5D Classic), but if I wanted a *generalist Full-Frame Canon* of the newest generation...

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Digital SLR Camera Body


----------



## beagle100 (Mar 28, 2017)

chuasam said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> > ronlane said:
> ...



"self cancelling filter"  ...  sounds ominous (except if you use video)
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## AndyG (Mar 29, 2017)

I just pulled the trigger on a 5DIV over the 5DSR. Upgrading from a 7D. Still keeping the 7D though.


----------



## TCampbell (Mar 29, 2017)

AndyG said:


> I just pulled the trigger on a 5DIV over the 5DSR. Upgrading from a 7D. Still keeping the 7D though.



Gratz on your selection.  I'm sure you'll be very happy with it.

I've owned the 5D II, 5D III, and 5D IV (still have the III & IV).  A friend owns the 5Dsr but I haven't shot with it.

There is both a 5Ds and a 5Dsr.  The "r" version removes the anti-aliasing filter.   The cameras are otherwise identical.  But the filter's job is to reduce any effects of moiré -- usually caused by patterns in (mostly) man-made objects... such as certain clothing patterns, or brick patterns, etc.   I was checking out your portfolio and for the most part I didn't see you shooting the types of subjects where moiré tends to be a problem, so you'd have probably been fine with that choice.

But the key difference between the 5Dsr and 5D IV is that the IV is the newest generation and has substantially better ISO performance and dynamic range.  It's a 30MP camera (and that's a lot.  There's an argument that once you pass about 18MP it gets hard to notice that the images are getting better.  Sure you can grab your magnifying loupe and pixel peep to notice the difference, but these are not difference most people viewing your work would ever notice.  So even with 30MP... you've still got quite a lot of detail.

The 5Dsr doesn't have great ISO performance nor great dynamic range.  But that's not it's sweet spot.  It's meant for the person who can take all the time in the world to capture the perfect shot.  Think "use it on a tripod" and "bring your lighting" or shoot several HDR shots (at low ISO) to create the dynamic range.  In those situations, ISO performance and even dynamic range isn't really a major issue.  It's not meant for situations where you need to shoot on-the-fly.  It's meant to use in the sort of situations where a film photographer might consider using a "view camera" with sheet film.  Those cameras could capture staggeringly high detail... but take more effort to set everything up for just one shot.

For best results...  feed your new high resolution sensor camera lots of high quality glass.    ;-)


----------



## AndyG (Mar 29, 2017)

TCampbell said:


> The 5Dsr doesn't have great ISO performance nor great dynamic range.  But that's not it's sweet spot.  It's meant for the person who can take all the time in the world to capture the perfect shot.



This is precisely why I went with the 5DIV. While I sometimes do take my time to set up shots, I felt the 5DIV will fit me better than the 5DS or 5DSR. Appreciate you sifting through my small portfolio to reaffirm my decision.

I have a Canon 50mm f/1.4 non-L lens and I have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS on the way. I have a Rokinon 16mm f/2.0, but it's for EF-S mounts only.  I'm looking forward to trying the 70-200. It's been on my list for a long long time. Eager to try out this camera!


----------



## TCampbell (Mar 30, 2017)

I have both the original EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and the version "II" (which is just a little bit better... but the original was certainly no slouch.)   I like the lens(es) so much, that it's the lens that literally just "lives" on the camera body (when it gets put away in the bag it gets put away with that lens on).   Subjects that I could shoot nearer and with a shorter focal length are typically shot with the longer focal length and me standing farther away. 

Rokinon does make some lenses for full-frame Canon mount... just not the 16mm f/2.   You can get a 12, 14, and 20mm... just no 16.


----------



## AndyG (Mar 31, 2017)

TCampbell said:


> I have both the original EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and the version "II" (which is just a little bit better... but the original was certainly no slouch.)   I like the lens(es) so much, that it's the lens that literally just "lives" on the camera body (when it gets put away in the bag it gets put away with that lens on).   Subjects that I could shoot nearer and with a shorter focal length are typically shot with the longer focal length and me standing farther away.
> 
> Rokinon does make some lenses for full-frame Canon mount... just not the 16mm f/2.   You can get a 12, 14, and 20mm... just no 16.



Right. I was looking for others. But, I've spent enough for now. Haha. The 5D showed up a few hours ago. Gonna enjoy putting it through its paces.


----------



## TCampbell (Apr 1, 2017)

The Rokinon's tend to be very popular among astro-imagers because when you're doing night-time sky images there isn't enough light to use auto-focus anyway AND you want a very low focal ratio.  That means the astro-photographer doesn't care about auto-focus nor about auto-aperture and the Rokinon offers neither feature (which is fine by the photographer) but they actually DO seem to have respectable optics (which is all the astro-photographer really wants.)

For most other uses - daytime shooting, then auto-focus and auto-aperture are nice features and the Rokinon lenses aren't necessarily ideal for that.


----------



## beagle100 (Apr 6, 2017)

AndyG said:


> TCampbell said:
> 
> 
> > I have both the original EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and the version "II" (which is just a little bit better... but the original was certainly no slouch.)   I like the lens(es) so much, that it's the lens that literally just "lives" on the camera body (when it gets put away in the bag it gets put away with that lens on).   Subjects that I could shoot nearer and with a shorter focal length are typically shot with the longer focal length and me standing farther away.
> ...



nice


----------

