Canon 5D S v Canon 5D mkIV

Paulw

Any opinions on the two cameras?

I am sitting on the fence right now, but leaning strongly towards the 5D S. No need for video, just stills.

flyingsnail

I would love to be in a position to make that choice, I am hoping this means there will be some good second hand mk3s about :P

On the 5Ds side there is the higher resolution and its around €600 cheaper but the mk IV has the AF system from the 1Dx MK2 and the possible better high ISO performance.

On paper at least the 5D IV seems to be a better all round work horse,
better AF, Higher frame rate, higher ISO and I have to admit I am really curious as to how the adjustable focus in post works in the real world.

Paulw

I don't need an all around workhorse. I have a 1D X mkII for that.

I want a camera for landscape and PR stuff. Not needing massive low light performance.

I've been trying out a 5D S today, and I am very impressed. The amount of detail in images is very impressive.

When the 5D mkIV was announced, I was unimpressed. Decent video (but not nearly as good as 1D X mkII), only CF and SD slots, very small buffer, better focus and ISO performance than previous, but no improvement.

Anyway, I will wait and think about it some more.

flyingsnail

Well you have one hell of a beast for your workhorse.

I do have to admit there are certain aspects to the mk IV that are underwhelming, my 7D from 2009 has the a bigger raw buffer at 23 vs 21 and I had fully expected at least one cfast slot.

wersal gummage

How much extra is the R? I wonder if you try and offload it in a few years if the R version will be rarer and more sought after?

If you are shooting landscapes do you need extra pixels? I'm guessing you are shooting on a tripod and at something like infinity, so the mark 4 will be sharp from centre to corners?

Paulw

wersal gummage wrote: »

How much extra is the R? I wonder if you try and offload it in a few years if the R version will be rarer and more sought after?

If you are shooting landscapes do you need extra pixels? I'm guessing you are shooting on a tripod and at something like infinity, so the mark 4 will be sharp from centre to corners?

The R is an extra €300 (depending on where you shop). You can find deals online, especially on UK sites, especially with the exchange rate currently.

I never worry about resale values. My plan is usually to use the camera until I no longer need it. A body will last me anything from 4 to 8 years.

Extra pixels will always mean more detail, especially in landscapes.

I have played with a 5D S over the weekend. I am very very impressed. Did some landscapes and some portraits. All my shots, so far, have been handheld. Why would I need a tripod for every shot?

wersal gummage

Not sure I said you would need a tripod, just assumed most landscape work would be done on a tripod? With various filters and longer shutters etc? I'd have thought a 30mp camera would have all the details you need for a massive print of a landscape? This is just opinion, I haven't used either camera and you have!

Anyway, I don't have an opinion really on the two cameras, was just asking if the extra mp is necessary, and perhaps it is and is noticeable in the details as you mention (I wouldn't have thought it would be noticeable)

Paulw

Here's an example -

A photo of my daughter.

_N8A7483 by Paul Walsh, on Flickr

Now, a 100% crop on to the right eye.

_N8A7483-2 by Paul Walsh, on Flickr

That's with the 5D S, 85mm f/1.2 lens, at f/4, 1/200, ISO 800, just using natural window light, no PP.

I've a few landscapes, and it's a similar amount of detail at a 100% crop. It just makes the whole image look crisper and cleaner.

Yep, obviously, doing slow exposures, you need a tripod, mirror lockup etc.

Myksyk

My reading of the reviews is that the 5dsr is better than the 5ds ... with significant extra detail because of the lack of Canon's anti-aliasing filter (see Tony Northrup on this as one example). (What is it with Canon and that filter?).

Paulw

Myksyk wrote: »

My reading of the reviews is that the 5dsr is better than the 5ds ... with significant extra detail because of the lack of Canon's anti-aliasing filter (see Tony Northrup on this as one example). (What is it with Canon and that filter?).

It's not that the SR has the lack of about anti-aliasing filter but it actually has two, one which cancels out the other.

But yeah the SR is supposed to be sharper and have more detail. It's also about €300 more expensive.

Effects

Paulw wrote: »

Extra pixels will always mean more detail, especially in landscapes.

There's also the topic of the quality of lenses for the 5Ds.

Personally I'm going with the MkiV in January.

Myksyk

Have a look at the article on dpreview published yesterday called "Canon 5D Mark IV brings dramatic dynamic range improvements to the 5D line" ... it goes into detailed comparison of the 5div and 5ds. Says that the iv is bringing massive improvements in dynamic range compared to the 5ds.

Paulw

I already bought a 5D SR. Got it Wed.

flyingsnail

very jelly

Splinters

Myksyk wrote: »

Have a look at the article on dpreview published yesterday called "Canon 5D Mark IV brings dramatic dynamic range improvements to the 5D line" ... it goes into detailed comparison of the 5div and 5ds. Says that the iv is bringing massive improvements in dynamic range compared to the 5ds.

I'm not surprised to be honest. This has long been the area Canon have been weakest in and was the main reason I switched from Canon to Nikon. I'm not a gear fanboy for any brand though so its nice to finally see Canon get some decent dynamic range. Although from the look of that dpreview article they're still significantly behind Nikon and Sony.

cowboyBuilder

Very nice !!

2 flagship cameras from Canon , I'm green, but presumably you are a pro ?

either that or a really enthusiastic amateur

Paulw

Semi-pro, but the gear all pays for itself.

wersal gummage

What are your initial impressions of the camera?

Paulw

It's just brilliant for portraits and great for landscapes. Lots of detail in the image.

Not good at higher ISO (but why would you expect it to be?), slow to get initial focus, but tracks well. I haven't looked at video, but don't plan to use it for video. Easy to handle. Similar menu system to other Canon bodies.

Basically, I really really like it, and will use it a lot.

cowboyBuilder

Paulw wrote: »

Semi-pro, but the gear all pays for itself.

Nice

Wailin

Paulw wrote: »

It's just brilliant for portraits and great for landscapes. Lots of detail in the image.

Not good at higher ISO (but why would you expect it to be?), slow to get initial focus, but tracks well. I haven't looked at video, but don't plan to use it for video. Easy to handle. Similar menu system to other Canon bodies.

Basically, I really really like it, and will use it a lot.

Considering upgrading from my 6D. Did you get a good deal on the camera and where would you recommend shopping for one.?