DPR's Canon 5DS R review is up

[CuriousMike]

I was intrigued if only for the FIFTY megapixels.

I'm no longer intrigued.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/11

 

[Imp]

IIRC, the Sony A7s has lower megapixels and better performance at high ISO compared to higher pixel-count A7 and A7r models because the surface area per pixel is larger -- all full-frame.

 

[CuriousMike]

All I know is this.

In one scene, I see bricks.

In another scene, I see @#$%#@$%^@#$%@

 

[tdawg]

IIRC, the Sony A7s has lower megapixels and better performance at high ISO compared to higher pixel-count A7 and A7r models because the surface area per pixel is larger -- all full-frame.

Yeah, but the screenshot above says A7R II and the comparison is between the 5DSR and Nikon D810 (so screenshot is a bit misleading at first glance)

 

[tdawg]

All I know is this.

In one scene, I see bricks.

In another scene, I see @#$%#@$%^@#$%@

Yeah, that is impressively bad for the Canon

 

[CuriousMike]

I think it's worthwhile reading thru the rest of the review - there are definitely some positives for the Canon.

 

[Pocatello]

It's a good camera for Canon users with expensive Canon lenses, but a few of them are ditching their Canon cameras for the Sony A7RII using adapters for their Canon lenses. Sony produces nice camera, but the money is in expensive lenses, for both Nikon and Canon.

 

[Aharami]

Canon has been on the fail train lately. I'm going to wait until they release the 5Dmk3 successor. If it can't compete with the market (A7RII, D810), which I'm highly doubtful they will be able to, I'm going to switch over to Sony

 

[paperwastage]

Canon has been on the fail train lately. I'm going to wait until they release the 5Dmk3 successor. If it can't compete with the market (A7RII, D810), which I'm highly doubtful they will be able to, I'm going to switch over to Sony

there are still issues with sony (wouldn't totally rely on it as a sole production camera). battery life/overheating for videos, bad menu organization, need to wait when buffer-clearing

maybe minor annoyances for some, but could be major hurdles for others

 

[luv2liv]

i am giving up on canon.
as soon as i can sell all my canon gears, i will go to sony! sony has better night shots, stabilization built into the body, and articulating screen for capturing low shots. not sure why canon cant catch up with the competition

 

[CuriousMike]

Sony doesn't have
a) battery life
b) lens selection
c) battery life
d) ovf

You might read up on people who dump all their Canon/Nikon/Whatever gear and go full Sony ( or other ) and see how they fair.

The grass isn't always greener on the other side - sometimes, watering your own lawn is the way to go.

 

[MrSquished]

Sony doesn't have
a) battery life
b) lens selection
c) battery life
d) ovf

You might read up on people who dump all their Canon/Nikon/Whatever gear and go full Sony ( or other ) and see how they fair.

The grass isn't always greener on the other side - sometimes, watering your own lawn is the way to go.

you can always carry a spare battery. that's easy.

 

[Imp]

Sony doesn't have
a) battery life
b) lens selection
c) battery life
d) ovf

Seriously, I have an A7. The battery life sucks. Camera is amazing though.

Even worse, they made me pay for an external charger. The USB micro socket was way too sticky.

 

[tdawg]

Sony doesn't have
a) battery life
b) lens selection
c) battery life
d) ovf

You might read up on people who dump all their Canon/Nikon/Whatever gear and go full Sony ( or other ) and see how they fair.

The grass isn't always greener on the other side - sometimes, watering your own lawn is the way to go.

Battery life is so poor compared to the Nikon I replaced with the a7, and lens selection (for AF lenses) does disappoint at present, but I love being able to use my dad's Leica m-mount lenses on this and I don't miss the OVF of my Nikon at all.

I shoot mainly landscapes, so the one native lens I bought was the 16-35 f4, but have shot an anniversary party and the Seattle Pride Parade with the a7 and have not been disappointed (rented the 24-70 and 70-200 to shoot them).

Rest assured, the Sony is not perfect (what camera is, really?) and there are small things I miss from my d600 (mainly the ability to set copyright info in the menu system for EXIF, and the built in flash to control slave speedlights), but there are features the Sony has that Nikon doesn't and I wouldn't want to give them up. All I really want is vastly better battery life, but that isn't likely given the physical size limitations of the battery packs.

 

[CuriousMike]

I'm not really trying to dig too hard at Sony - I'd love to play with one of their bodies once my Nikon glass can meter / AF. But that isn't likely to happen.

My point is more broadly that there are success stories... and failure stories... of people moving from one system to the next.

It really comes down to what you shoot and what you're expecting to gain with that in the new system.

 

[tdawg]

I'm not really trying to dig too hard at Sony - I'd love to play with one of their bodies once my Nikon glass can meter / AF. But that isn't likely to happen.

My point is more broadly that there are success stories... and failure stories... of people moving from one system to the next.

It really comes down to what you shoot and what you're expecting to gain with that in the new system.

Agree 100%.

 

[jtvang125]

Unless battery tech makes a major leap, the battery life of mirrorless cameras are always going to be worse than DSLRs. They're usually smaller so you're going to be limited to a much smaller battery. You also have a sensor that constantly needs to be on to send a live view to the EVF or LCD. And then you have power usage from the EVF or LCD themselves. Very power hungry devices on tiny batteries limited by their compact size.

In a comparison of battery life between a Sony a6000 and a Canon EOS M3 using CIPA as a reference, the Sony actually comes out way on top. 420 shots to 250. This can vary widely depending on your shooting but gives a good starting point.

I have an a7 too and yes the battery life is poor but 2 batteries can get me through a whole day of shooting. 3 if I take a lot of videos. A battery change takes 10 seconds so this really isn't a big deal to me.

 

[Kippa]

The Canon 5Ds R was never meant to be a "successor" to the 5D MK III and was meant specifically for people who want to mainly shoot at low ISOs and want hires images. I'd quite happily take the 5Ds R if I had the chance as I shoot architecture using a tripod and ISO 100 99% of the time. If you wanted a good canon camera to perform well at 6400 ISO then you need to invest in the 5D MK III. Basically the 5Ds R is a specific tool for a specific job and it does it well. I'm not a Canon fanboy, it's just that people expected this high megapixel camera to perform well in higher isos which the camera wasn't really built for or to be used as.

As for the sensor tech, it will be interesting to see how the 5D MK IV performs if and when it comes out. There are a string of processes that go into making an image, one of them is the sensor itself but one is constantly missed in quite a lot of photo talk is the analogue to digital conversion part, which is more room for improvement with regards to signal noise when you boost up the ISO. Even if they kept the same sensor and tweaked the analogue to digital conversion you might get a stop or two cleaner image going from the 5D MK III to the 5D MK IV.

 

[turtile]

The Canon 5Ds R was never meant to be a "successor" to the 5D MK III and was meant specifically for people who want to mainly shoot at low ISOs and want hires images. I'd quite happily take the 5Ds R if I had the chance as I shoot architecture using a tripod and ISO 100 99% of the time. If you wanted a good canon camera to perform well at 6400 ISO then you need to invest in the 5D MK III. Basically the 5Ds R is a specific tool for a specific job and it does it well. I'm not a Canon fanboy, it's just that people expected this high megapixel camera to perform well in higher isos which the camera wasn't really built for or to be used as.

I think Canon wanted to compete with the D800. The problem is the fact that the D800 is pretty old now, still has higher dynamic range (good for landscapes/outdoors). So basically, the new body can only see an advantage in the studio.