I'm interested in getting a 5DSr, but I can't afford to also upgrade my 3 Canon L zooms, and 3 older primes as well.
My wish is to see, using a 50/1.4 at f/5.6, comparison images between a 6D or 5Diii with a 5DSr. I have no doubt the older lenses will provide images with the 5DSr, but my question is, will there be enough of gain in resolution and general image quality to justify the high cost of a 5DSr.
Can anyone post such comparison images?
I think lots of retests will be unrealistic. There'll be a few but the primary reason for that is more to feed the mathematical model to provide an estimation of the 21mp MTFs.
The problem is simply that way too many lenses are released and I can only test about 3 per month.
in most P&S and almost all phone cameras the sensors outresolve the lens, however everyone is looking for more megapixels, seems it is the same case here.
Wish they concentrated more on high ISO and dynamic range more than the resolution.
I would be ready to get a 5DMKIV with 15-20 MP but with an excellent high ISO and high dynamic range
Nikon seems to have realized that.
The problem with the 5DSr is all you are getting for all that money is an extra 29 Mps on what is pretty much the same old body.
Add to that a relatively uninspiring dynamic range and average noise figures( see DXO) and it seems that unless you are "hell bent" on resolution in every other way you haven't moved far forward from the 5D Mk III.
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.