01-20-2016, 07:15 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-20-2016, 07:19 PM by Brightcolours.)
Quote:Yes, the 5DSr really only represents a 60% gain in horizontal and vertical resolution, but that can translate into smaller crops that are still print-worthy.
I recognize the limitations of the Canon sensors, but with the tremendous investment I have in legacy lenses, I really can't afford to switch to Nikon and I'm not yet impressed with using adapters on a Sony.
Anyway, as a landscape shooter, I generally don't find DR to be an issue in my choice of subject matter.
60% gain? No. From 5D mk III to 5DS® (not a follow up of the 5D mk III) a gain of 50.8% in horizontal (and of course also vertical) resolution.
The follow up of the 5D mk III will have a lower resolution sensor and will be an allround camera (higher FPS, much better video for instance). With the introduction of the 5DS® Canon already said all of this.
Quote:60% gain? No. From 5D mk III to 5DS® (not a follow up of the 5D mk III) a gain of 50.8% in horizontal (and of course also vertical) resolution.
The follow up of the 5D mk III will have a lower resolution sensor and will be an allround camera (higher FPS, much better video for instance). With the introduction of the 5DS® Canon already said all of this.
I own two 6D bodies (the landscape shooter preferred model), and that was the basis for my number.
Quote:Weird thing to "conclude". Nikon was the 1st one coming with a high res. sensor, buying it from Sony.
Their high FPS models have higher resolutions than their forebears, and naturally lower res. than their high res. models due to the data throughput required.
Wanna bet the D810 follow up will not be higher res.? I won't... It depends on what the next high res. FF sensor will be that Sony can offer Nikon.
I agree BC. Nikon have only gone to 20 Mps for their sports DSLRs, to match Canon's 7D Mk II and the 1DX to compete on frame rate and buffer...........
................leaving the D610/D750 with 24Mps.................... while the D810 is Nikon's resolution king......
Will they let it rest there with the D820? ......What?......... while Canon has the 5DSr and Sony the 7DR MkII beating them on the Mps stakes?..........Hmmm.... :blink:
My guess is it all boils down to what Sony's got cooking in the oven..........one things for sure they won't be reheating yesterdays bread!
01-23-2016, 11:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2016, 09:57 PM by Klaus.)
Quote:Weird thing to "conclude". Nikon was the 1st one coming with a high res. sensor, buying it from Sony.
Their high FPS models have higher resolutions than their forebears, and naturally lower res. than their high res. models due to the data throughput required.
Wanna bet the D810 follow up will not be higher res.? I won't... It depends on what the next high res. FF sensor will be that Sony can offer Nikon.
The D810 successor will have 42mp for marketing reasons I reckon.
The point is that the 5Ds is a stupid camera. The noise level is silly (full a FF camera) at low ISOs. Especially because Canon sensors are now inferior to Sony. The 5Ds has a worse score than the Sony A99 (24mp) over at DxO mark - the A99 is a 2012 camera.
I don't believe anyone except a HANDFUL of professionals stating that they require 50mp.
Nikon has released two cameras with 20mp (in the year 2016, not back in the days) which shows that they understood a thing or two now.
Quote:The point is that the 5Ds is a stupid camera. The noise level is silly (full a FF camera) at low ISOs. Especially because Canon sensors are now inferior to Sony. The 5Ds has a worse score than the Sony A99 (24mp) over at DxO mark - the A99 is a 2012 camera.
Do you really want to open the dynamic range debate, again?  That is the main reason Canon sensors score "badly" relative to Sony sensors over at DxO. Regardless of the MP count, the Sony sensors achieve a higher measured DR. So that in itself is not an argument for or against more MP.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
A D810 successor with less than 36 MP will turn out difficult to sell, I think. My experience is, the benefit to crop sometimes comes in handy with primes and at the cost of always write a 36...44 MB file just for the possibility to do so. A lower resolution like in D5 or D500 will do the picture as well. In some situations much better, in rare exceptions it would be nice to habe more pixels at hand - if it comes to cropping again.
popo, noise level and DR are two major properties of a sensor. If one says "but it has more res..." I just don't get the whole sentence, because in my mind I already walk away. It's nice for Canon owners to have a least one superior feature, but once used to big DR, I will not give that up easily.
We're picking at some sensor characteristics, and blaming it on others which isn't necessarily the case. I think there is the market space for both a lower and higher MP model so why not let the user choose what is best for them? C/N/S all do this in full frame space. I only wish they don't jack up the price of the higher MP models.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
The way I see it, 50 MP - as well as 42 - already scratches massively on Medium format domains. But the tolerances of the mechanics for lenses and bodies don't get tighter just like that. I don't think a manufacturer just can shrink a MF sensor to 135 dimensions without shrinking the tolerances of all involved mechanics as well, otherwise we will keep reading "issues" about not so precise focus-modules, not to mention AF accuracy.
My rule is, if it comes to reliable AF functions, the lenses to the camera should not be much older than the body. On Lensrentals I found an old blog post which showed a much better repeatability of the focus when the 5DIII worked with a new 24 mm than the 5DII with the same lens or the 5DIII with an older lens. The interesting part starts at " So What Does This Mean?"
So, do we really want a "miniature MF body" which can't be cheap? Or leave the SuperMegaPixel battle to the person really (???) needing 50...100 MP. The two features of the new Nikons which are attracting me most, are the high ISO and the onboard AF adjustment of the D500 (given, it's working and it's working with both genuine and third party lenses). For the rest I don't have any use.
As the OP, I don't appreciate the fact that a few people have hijacked this thread so they can ride their own hobby horse. Look, if I was just starting out and had no investment in lenses, etc. with any camera brand, I'd seriously consider Sony at this point rather than Canon.
If I were a lot wealthier than I presently am, I'd consider switching to Sony regardless of my legacy investment in Canon.
But my original premise was to learn if any of my original investment in Canon lenses, etc. would be useful if applied to a Canon 5DSr. I posed that question simply because I am NOT just starting out, nor am I able to afford the financial commitment necessary to switch to Sony.
Does Canon have shortcomings? Heck, yes, and I'm pretty sure I could find some in a Sony A7r II if I spent some time working with one as well.
hjcihak46, "hijacking" in this forum is nothing exceptional. If you don't like it, look out for forums with dungeon masters as moderators ^_^ We members are just too few to stay on topic all the time. And you were the one who asked us few members, so it would appear cool just to look for the information you're searching for and skip the rest.
Besides, I'm not convinced you'd loose that much of investment, when you switch to Sony and get a metabone adapter. Dave's Clichés once posted a video with a guy with a Canon 70-200/2.8, using that adapter in low light and he was quite amazed. See more at: http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/top...y/?p=32706
I must say, if I were a Canon shooter and had the opportunity to switch to Sony and could use all my lenses, I'd be very tempted. But for Nikon there's no meatiness with electrical coupling available.
With the 5DSr you would pay as much as for the Sony (alright the adapter is costly as well, so in total you'd pay more) and I think you'd get a better package overall - which doesn't mean the Sony menu get better. When I think about Sony I get a lot of hesitations and I think they spread themselves in too much systems. It's not always the best system surviving...
A couple of posts earlier you said
Quote:
Anyway, as a landscape shooter, I generally don't find DR to be an issue in my choice of subject matter.
Well, in my landscapes DR is something I need - but if you work differently, you answered your own question. I think you'd have the least trouble and the most "feeling at home"-experience if you stick with Canon. It's not your problem that I don't even remotely thinking about switching to Canon because I'd get 14 MP more than I already have as the rest of the camera doesn't impress me in any aspect.
|
