FA+
Shop
Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R - Are the 50MP worth it?
10 years ago
“What i like about photographs is that they capture a moment that’s gone forever, impossible to reproduce.”
― Karl Lagerfeld Let's dust off this page a little, shall we?
Hey guys and gals!
Canon recently released their two megapixel monsters, the 5Ds and 5Ds R with 50.6MP.
However, I am not convinced that this huge resolution actually offers any benefits.
Here are some sample RAW files from Jared Polin, taken at the Grand Canyon:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/3.....5dsr_raw_1.zip
http://www.mediafire.com/download/l.....5dsr_raw_2.zip
They are DNGs, so any RAW converter should be able to open them. I'll also post some other samples below for those who don't have a RAW converter.
They were all taken at ISO 100 and the problem that I see is that they are very noisy. You don't notice it until you start pixel peeping but I do have a big concern with this... Is the high resolution even worth it when the image is not very clean?
Noise eats details. So isn't a cleaner image that loses details because of a smaller resolution just as good as a huge image that loses details because of noise?
Here's another one of his shots:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jared.....n/19578691446/
And let's compare it to one of mine:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mathi.....l/15694751682/
I tried to pick two shots that were taken with similar lenses and at the same focal length. He used a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, which is Canon's top of the line telezoom, and I used my trusty 25 years old Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED.
The only two differences are that he shot his photo at ISO 100 and f/5.6, I shot mine at ISO 800 and f/4.
Let's look closer, his shot at full resolution:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jared.....91446/sizes/o/
And mine at full resolution: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mathi.....51682/sizes/o/
Those might take a while to load :P
While it is obvious that his is cleaner than mine, I still don't think that the difference is extremely dramatic. And in my opinion that is sad because mine was shot at ISO 800, that's full 3 stops more! He used Canon's new $3899 top of the line full frame camera with their top of the line telezoom, and I used a 5 years old APS-C camera that I got used for 450€ and a 25 years old tele that doesn't even have a stabilizer.
So what can you even do with those two cameras? The resolution is no real advantage because they sacrificed noise performance for massive resolution, you can't crop the images because then the noise and loss in fine details become apparent and it isn't even good for video because they neutered it in that regard.
What do you think about it? Personally, I think they are boring and not worth the investment. At ISO 100 my 5 years old D7000 is cleaner, it shoots a bit faster and the 5D Mk III, which these two are supposed to be upgrades for, is better for video. So what is even the point.
Hey guys and gals!
Canon recently released their two megapixel monsters, the 5Ds and 5Ds R with 50.6MP.
However, I am not convinced that this huge resolution actually offers any benefits.
Here are some sample RAW files from Jared Polin, taken at the Grand Canyon:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/3.....5dsr_raw_1.zip
http://www.mediafire.com/download/l.....5dsr_raw_2.zip
They are DNGs, so any RAW converter should be able to open them. I'll also post some other samples below for those who don't have a RAW converter.
They were all taken at ISO 100 and the problem that I see is that they are very noisy. You don't notice it until you start pixel peeping but I do have a big concern with this... Is the high resolution even worth it when the image is not very clean?
Noise eats details. So isn't a cleaner image that loses details because of a smaller resolution just as good as a huge image that loses details because of noise?
Here's another one of his shots:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jared.....n/19578691446/
And let's compare it to one of mine:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mathi.....l/15694751682/
I tried to pick two shots that were taken with similar lenses and at the same focal length. He used a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, which is Canon's top of the line telezoom, and I used my trusty 25 years old Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED.
The only two differences are that he shot his photo at ISO 100 and f/5.6, I shot mine at ISO 800 and f/4.
Let's look closer, his shot at full resolution:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jared.....91446/sizes/o/
And mine at full resolution: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mathi.....51682/sizes/o/
Those might take a while to load :P
While it is obvious that his is cleaner than mine, I still don't think that the difference is extremely dramatic. And in my opinion that is sad because mine was shot at ISO 800, that's full 3 stops more! He used Canon's new $3899 top of the line full frame camera with their top of the line telezoom, and I used a 5 years old APS-C camera that I got used for 450€ and a 25 years old tele that doesn't even have a stabilizer.
So what can you even do with those two cameras? The resolution is no real advantage because they sacrificed noise performance for massive resolution, you can't crop the images because then the noise and loss in fine details become apparent and it isn't even good for video because they neutered it in that regard.
What do you think about it? Personally, I think they are boring and not worth the investment. At ISO 100 my 5 years old D7000 is cleaner, it shoots a bit faster and the 5D Mk III, which these two are supposed to be upgrades for, is better for video. So what is even the point.
I've noticed that Hasselblad lenses on the MKII have a sharper image.
My concern here is mainly the noise, not the sharpness if the lens. No matter how amazing your lens is, noise kills your fine details.
https://www.youtube.com/user/VistaClues
It's all in the lens as we've always been taught. Megapixels are usually irrelevant for most photo enthusiasts. Only people who explicitly do work for advertising and professional firms will ever use more than 16 MP.
I'm in the process of replacing my Lumix with that new Nikon with the 82x zoom. In a few months, of course. It's all in the lens. If you ask me, however, any camera will do: it's the photographer that makes the picture. The camera's just a means to an end.
Also, even the best lenses will reach a limit of their fine sharpness, so a great lens that looks superb on a lower MP sensor may start to show those limitations as people are pixel-peeping with 50 MP to play with.