Equipment Canon 5Ds Leaked

News of Canons new camera have been leaked, the 5Ds sporting a Full Frame Sensor and 50.6MP.

More info: Here

I have to say, WANT, but i know full well i wouldn't use it to anything near it's potential.

Sam

 

What a pointless development. There are no lenses in existence that can get even close to the resolution required to make use of a 35mm sized 50MP sensor.

I wish camera manufacturers woudl stop being silly and spend R&D money on lower noise sensors instead of packing more pixels in.

There isn't a lens I can buy to make full use of a 36MP 35mm sized sensor, so what is the point in making a 50MP one? The images will just be bigger... for no reason, as they'll have no more detail.. as that will be limited by the lens.

All the retards and amateurs will flock to buy it though.

 

I'm only buying it if it has racing stripes. That tells me it processes images faster.

 

Are you sure? The equivalent pixel density is pretty much bang on to an 18MP aps-c sensor. My crop body doesn't seem to be limited by good full frame glass.

 

Every time there is a bump up in the MP count, there is always this argument. Following this logic, we should all be still shooting with 2-4MP sensors, as they were "good enough" once upon a time. There is nothing wrong with pushing the envelope of design....unless you are an early adopter.

Okay, its not for you, but that is just a ridiculous statement. It will sell and it will sell well. And it won't just be "retards and amateurs", it will be pros.

 

No, I think it is a valid question.

APS-C cameras only use the central part of the lens, which is the sharpest area. Full frame obviously hits the edges, and you can easily see the problems - increased chromatic aberrations, vignetting and a generalised drop in resolution. Now, Canon's L series are generally excellent and I'm sure Canon have been internally aware of the 5Ds development and factored it in to their lens designs in recent years.

The problem might come for those with older L lenses. Say, the Mk I version of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. The newer MkII may well have the needed resolution at the edges.

The high resolution isn't impossible to solve, which is why I think Canon have probably kept it well in mind. Medium format (eg: Hasselblad) has been digital for a good while, and all the Carl Zeiss glass has held up well, but that's because it's Carl Zeiss and was designed to be the absolute best at the time.

 

The 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM was released in Sept 2001. Around that time, Canon had the 1DS (2002) which was a 11.1MP full frame camera. The 1DS was probably the lens' intended partner (speculation on my part as I was not into photography all that much in 2002) and they probably produced some stunning pics together.
Since the 1DS, on the Canon line, we are up to 22MP full frame sensors. That's a doubling in resolution while the same lens still performs remarkably well. Will it hold out to the next doubling of resolution? Probably not, but then it is a 14year old lens. In any other line of tech, anyone would be chuffed to get 14 year's worth of use out of a piece of kit.

I'm glad you mention medium format. Carl Zeiss are not the only manufacturers of medium format lenses. Pentax/Ricoh make their own MF lenses for their line of medium format cameras that sport 40MP sensors. Their lenses are significantly cheaper than the Zeiss glass, but are incredibly sharp to the edges. Don't forget too that a MF sensor is significantly larger that full frame, and the resulting image projection required from the lens is similarly larger.

Going back to Full Frame, Canon are not the only manufacturer of EF lenses. Sigma are making some incredibly sharp lenses for their ART line of lenses. The 50mm f1.4 ART is a remarkable lens. Zeiss make some Outus, Distagon and Planar manual focus EF lenses (which are silly expensive). Are these equal to 50MP? We shall see.

 

I only mention Zeiss as I was using Hasselblad as my example for MF.

The point is that the resolution thing is a problem, but likely a solvable one if not already so. The 5Ds is unlikely to take well to cheap (non L or equivalents) lenses, and may well possibly out-resolve older versions of top end glass. However if coupled with a "modern" lens (or one designed to exceptionally high standards) it should be fine.

 

Looks shiny, it'll be expensive & shiny, I'm in the "I'll only buy it when mine breaks" camp and even then depending on price I still might look for a mark 3

 

Yes I'm sure. You can't just compare pixel density, and if you post up a RAW file from your camera, I will point out why it's lens limited. If you see any diffraction or optical aberrations BEFORE you're seeing any aliasing, then it's lens limited.. simple as that. The fact is, on your camera, the sensor can out resolve the lens on a great many lenses.

You can't just keep increasing the available resolution of a sensor and expect to keep making gains in image sharpness. You're limited by the lens. I've not got a single lens that can make full use of my D800E's sensor, and I've used other lenses such as Zeiss Otus lenses on it, and neither can they. With that in mind, what's being gained by a 50MP sensor except greater pixel density, and hence lower high ISO performance.

Now all manufacturers have sensors between 24-36MP, they REALLY need to stop the MP war and concentrate on dynamic range, as it's getting silly now.

It's not the same argument though, because when we had 2, 4, 8, 12 MP cameras lenses COULD resolve more than that. The best prime lens you can get your hands on in Canon and Nikon fit at the moment is probably the Zeiss Otus 55mm.. DxO tests show it can resolve around 24mp.

But logic dictates that ever increasing sensor resolutions are not sustainable. There's a finite limit to what lenses can resolve, and we've already run into that wall with the likes of the D800/Sony A7r et al. Any D800(E)/D810/Sony A7R owner will tell you the same... you're seeing the limitations of the lenses now, and it's lenses are the deciding factor in sharpness, NOT the camera... and that's at 36MP. So increasing to 50MP will do what in your mind? Hmmm? Where's that extra sharpness going to come from?


You just can't keep sticking the same old lenses on ever increasing resolution of sensor and keep expecting gains, because you're just not going to get any. They should either concentrate on dynamic range (ultimately more useful) or start to have a radical rethink about their lens line-up.

If you want more sharpness, go medium format.

And another thing Instagib. You print? If so, how big?

What really makes me laugh is people who buy these camera and never actually print their work... LOL Even a 4K monitor is only 8MP. What the **** do you need a 50MP sensor for just to post stuff online or view it on a monitor? If you NEVER print... yes... you don't really need more than a 12MP camera IMO... well.. not just my opinion.. you just don't. A D800/D810 can just about manage A1 without looking TOO rough.... it can comfortably do A2 if you use good lenses and know what you're doing.

Then there's the "cropping" argument. a 50MP sensor will let you crop more. Well.. no.. you're just magnifying the afore mentioned lens defects if you do. Crop into a 50MP 35mm sensor and as already pointed out... you'll probably get results similar to shots on a APS-C camera with a similar pixel density.

There really is no get out of jail free card here.... we're at the mercy of lenses with, let's be honest, the small 35mm format. That needs addressing... not ever increasing MP numbers. It's just silly.

No it's not... anyone who expects any dramatic increase in sharpness is deluded. There will be a little, as at the moment, the best Canon offers is around 24MP, and some lenses can cut it those numbers, but anyone with something already around the 36MP mark will notice nothing... they'll just get bigger files with less aliasing... but no more actual sharpness because the lens will not be able to give any.

Pro's will buy it if it gives an advantage to them. Pro's treat cameras like tools, and you don't re-invest in tools that offer you no advantage. If pros buy it, it won't be for it's 50MP... it may well have other advantages over a MKIII that I'm not aware of right now. If they do buy it for it's 50MP then it's proof that all being "pro" doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing. Anyone can be "pro"... just charge people money for your work.. then you're a pro. Being pro is not some magical status that means you suddenly know your ass from your elbow.

I reckon more amateurs than pros will buy it so they can play the "mine's better than yours" game.

You're as good as your images... not your camera.


I really hope Nikon don't respond and take up the challenge... I'd MUCH rather they pump money into R&D to improve dynamic range thank you every much... or lens design. If the latter... sure.. bring it on... but they won't. They'll keep increasing numbers to fool idiots.

Then again, I don't give a crap... need more res.. I'll break out the Phase One.

 

Interesting discussion. I can see Nikon joining the megapixel race with their aptly named "pro-sumer" level D7xxx cameras. Just as they took a long time to jump from 12MP with the D700/D3, I don't think they're in any hurry to better the resolution of the D800; whereas Canon were in a different place, having to better both their 5D3 and Nikon's D800, at least as they saw it.

All things considered, I'm pretty amazed at what Nikon's 24MP APS-C sensor can produce with a cheap kit lens, so I can understand the appeal of a 50MP full frame sensor, but I'd never want one myself.

 

They're already at 24MP with the D7100, so I can't imagine DX cameras going a great deal higher. They'll fight back with an equally stupid FX camera though I reckon.

They need to put cash into developing a sensor that performs at ISO3200 the same as current sensors do at ISO800 or so... THAT will be a killer camera. They need to develop lenses that can actually make full use of the sensors they actually have NOW instead of new sensors that require lenses that do not exist.

 

I don't recall saying they were.

Yep.. can't resolve even close to 50MP though.

Re: Otus. Can resolve roughly 24MP.. or 30ish depending on who's test you read. The 85 a little sharper at 29MP, or 35.. depending who's review you trust the most. Let's assume 30ish... still gonna run into problems with the current crop of sensors in the 36MP bracket. It will not be able to take full advantage of a 50MP sensor.

How many people will pay the £3000 for a prime lens though? Will YOU be doing? Take bets on how many people who buy a 5DS also buy exclusively Otus Primes. Even if they did, that limits you to a 55mm and a 85mm.

No.. they're not. They're actually pretty crap lenses, and I've no idea why people fork out so much cash for them. Those designs have been around decades.


Here's a Planar T* on a D810.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Carl-...1.4-50mm-ZF2-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D810__963

Pretty pathetic actually.

Here's the much vaunted 25mm Distagon T
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Carl-...-25mm-F2-ZF2-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D810__963

Better... very good actually... but not anywhere close to dealing with a 50MP sensor.

Both these Zeiss Planar lenses are very old designs and absolutely NOT worth the money. You'd be MUCH better off with Sigma ART series primes.... if you're ego can stand it that is... if you're actually bothered about your images instead of what people think about your gear.

 

You make some compelling arguments and I will cede the point.

As you asked a direct question, I get some of my images printed. I don not print myself as I don't have the gear or the money to invest. Most my stuff goes into A4 photo books, or 300mm x 200mm canvas prints. Once, when I knew less, I got a 600*400mm print done from a 6MP Sony T9 compact. That was a waste of money as it looked like ass. Now that was a MP limitation.

You have a Phase One? Now that's a serious piece of kit.

 

That was for Cei.....

Really couldn't give a crap what other people think tbh. I happily buy Sigma lenses. Conversely, I wouldn't personally touch any modern Zeiss lenses as they are horrendously priced and grossly OTT for what I want from photography.

 

Sigma ART lenses are seriously good.

I still maintain it's time for a paradigm shifting development in lens design. We're well overdue.

I don't own it, but have full access to an IQ180 based system whenever needed.

 

80MP- Go big or go home I suppose.

The down side there though, is that any shift will cost a fortune, and the manufacturers will simply pass the costs on to the consumer. It's a bit lose-lose for the end user; the choice will be; lenses that ware not up to the task, lenses that cost even more, or stick with what you've got.

Personally, I'm heading back to film anyways.

 

I wondered about Sigma ART lenses. I assume that Sigma have sorted out their ropey QC then? Once upon a time, buying a Sigma EX lens was likened to playing the lottery, and with good reason!

 

You'd be surprised how often I don't use it.

If anyone, for whatever reason requires more sharpness than they can get from 35mm.. why don't they just go medium format?

Anyway.. yes, sure the lenses will be expensive.. to begin with... but n more than you can pay now. £3100 for a standard lens for example (Otus). I doubt they'll be as expensive as that as they'll be made in larger volume.

 

Some sample images from the 5DS here.

https://photographylife.com/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-image-samples

Click on the images to load into the pop up window, then right click and save the image out to view it in PS.

They vindicate my standpoint made in this thread perfectly. Not really any more impressive than what a D800E or D810 can do. They're lens limited.

It's good.. as you'd expect, and there's less aliasing because the file itself is higher resolution, but not really any more detail.

They're all ISO100 pics though. I really want to see how it performs at ISO3200 or higher though.