Canon 5ds r

[jjtarnow]

After some soul searching I decided to buy the new Canon 5ds r this past weekend. I walked into the store not sure whether I should buy the 5ds or the 5ds r...after some discussions with Steve at Unique Photo in NJ I opted for the 5ds r" (as a side note...after I decided on the 5ds r he informed me that the 5ds r is actually outselling the straight 5ds 3:1). I started shooting some A/B tests with my 5d mkIII to see what the difference looks like in execution. First off...the raw file size is massive and I am going to need some bigger cards (and more fixed storage) if I am going to continue to exclusively shoot in raw. Secondly, I primarily shoot landscape and sports...I really bought the camera for landscape shooting BUT the ability to crop action shots with no visible distortion with this thing is stunning...the A/B showed meaningfully better quality 5ds r v. the mkIII. As hoped, blowing up landscape shots shows much better on the 5ds r than the mkIII. I would concur with Canon's own site highlighting that this is a specialized camera and is not meant to replace the mkIII. The low light high ISO comparison favored the mkIII, burst shooting with the 5ds r (using the same speed cards) favored the mkIII as well. Lastly, the new computer cable format is a bit annoying but I understand why they had to make the change.

Bottom line....I like it but it will not be replacing the mkIII.

 

[goodguy]

Congrats on your new camera, the 5DS is an interesting camera not for everyone but it does fulfill a certain niche for people who need tons of resolution.
I have a feeling that in a year or so Nikon will come out with a D810 replacement with 60MP or even more, this MP race is just going to go up and up.

Enjoy your new camera

 

[DzReal]

The low light high ISO comparison favored the mkIII, burst shooting with the 5ds r (using the same speed cards) favored the mkIII as well.

I'm really interested in the 5ds, too. But is the iso limit a problem? Well, how about shooting some night views?

 

[beagle100]

Do you really need 50 million pixels ?

 

[Braineack]

The cropping power is intense but all the landscape shots I've seen so far look poor quality--lack fine detail, grainy, purple hue in shadows.

I can see this being a wonderful studio camera, but I don't see why all the landscapers are running to it. I'd rather have a, better, smaller image that I can upsize to 50MP than a 50MP that only looks good when you downsize it.

The file sizes in RAW are 50-60MB. and I've read complaints about short battery life, hitting the buffer just bracketing a few shots. (and taking too long to run denoise on images )

I don't think I'd buy it unless I really needed such a large file to print.

 

[Braineack]

Here's a perfect example...

this shot looks great downsized for the web:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/60/1157160.jpg

but now look at a portion of the frame cropped to 100%:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/33/1157233.jpg
(unsure if NR has been applied [sure looks like it], but he mentioned no sharpening was added.)

If the whole point of having 50MP is so you can print larger, why would you want to print an image that actually looks bad when viewed large?
If the whole point of having 50MP is so you can crop more, why would you want to crop an image that actually looks bad when zoomed in?

Like I said, I've seen some stellar studio shots with it and I think this is really where the camera shines--and what it was pretty much build for.