Any 5DSr owners out there?

Wailin

Thinking of taking the plunge for the massive pixel increase from my 6D. Just wondering are there any owners in here and how do you find it. I know they can be very unforgiving for showing up flaws in lens and handling. I shoot landscapes and use tripod so shouldn't be too much of an issue in that sense.

An extra 400 would get me the mk iv which I know is a better all round camera but with 70% less pixels. Be interested to hear from users of both.

Paulw

I have one. I love it. The detail is amazing.

It is poor in low light. It's ISO performance is bad, especially after ISO800.

It certainly does show up lens weakness. So, you need the latest lens to make the most of the body.

A photo, ISO800, f/4, 1/200, using the 85mm f/1.2. Click on them to see larger size -

_N8A7483 by Paul Walsh, on Flickr

Then, 100% crop -

_N8A7483-2 by Paul Walsh, on Flickr

Wailin

Yes I'm aware of the poor ISO performance which is a bit of a concern since I shoot astrophotography shots too and can be up to ISO 3200. Another reason to opt for the mkiv which has excellent high iso performance.

Food for thought, thanks Paul.

Myksyk

Hummed and hawed between the 5dsr and MkIV for ages but went for the IV after considerable thought. It's a great camera. Obviously less res than the 5dsr but offering more than enough to compensate for that.

Wailin

Myksyk wrote: »

Hummed and hawed between the 5dsr and MkIV for ages but went for the IV after considerable thought. It's a great camera. Obviously less res than the 5dsr but offering more than enough to compensate for that.

Thanks Myksyk. Probably going to opt for the IV myself. Im sure even the 10mp jump from the 6D would be very noticeable. Did you get a good price on it?

The better dynamic range and ISO performance just about edges it but it's a tough one when I primarily shoot landscape

Myksyk

Got it in Whelans in Limerick who have been good to me (not as good as I've been to them tho!). There was a deal at the time so I got a free battery grip. Think it was around 3.7k. I see it's 3,599 there now. With good glass you will simply not be disappointed with what you get out of a camera like this.

wersal gummage

Just curious, do people really see a massive improvement with an extra few megapixels? I don't mean zoomed in or magnified like crazy on a monitor - but in prints.

I've been sort of half considering the 5dmk iv or 5dsr. What size prints would you need to see a difference between the two in resolution? Say on a portrait both shot under same conditions?

I'm using a 5d mk ii and it is really sharp when focus is correct, I've only printed to A4 size but I really can't imagine the extra detail would be noticeable even going to the 5dsr?

Wailin

You wont see much improvement in detail in small prints like A4. Its when printing much larger that the difference comes out. Or if you pixel peep on your monitor at 100%. Really for those who like to print large landscapes, portraits etc.

Paulw

I've prints at home that are 5x4, 6x2 and 6x4 (ft not inches). So, for large prints like that, the extra detail is needed. For normal A4 prints, you really won't notice it.

It will also depend on the medium your images are printed on (canvas, photo paper, acrylic, etc).

wersal gummage

^
Thanks to both. That is what I expected alright. Currently living in a fairly average sized house and don't think my income level will ever allow that to change greatly, so opportunities to hang massive prints very, very limited!

Paul W, I presume regular ink prints require the highest quality files and the other stuff like canvas doesn't produce so much detail so you'd get away with a lower quality /resolution file?? What is acrylic like?

Paulw

Inkjet wouldn't be brilliant quality. Canvas even less. Acrylic would require high quality.

If you go to http://360-dpi.com/ and look at acrylic, you'll see my print that Steve printed up. Up close, you can see the detail or lack of. From 5-6ft away, it's fine, but a poor quality image/print would be obvious.

PixelTrawler

I have a Mark IV, never used the sr.

Mark IV is a cracking camera, if you dont need the 50 meg resolution Id recommend it. Really good in low light. Shadow recovery is excellent, its very fast. Oh and the touchscreen is really nice to have. Its going to be a bit more forgiving on lenses, not having that super resolution.

That being said I also upgraded all my lenses to get the best out of it.

I find the AF a nice step up from the mark 3 also, less prone to losing lock, and quicker to get it back.

Wailin

I went ahead and ordered the mk 4 a few days ago after much deliberation. Looking forward to getting my hands on it.

Should be a big step up from the 6d at least. Lens I have should complement it and good enough. 16-35 f4, 70-200 f2.8 ii, sigma 24mm art and canon 35mm 1.4L.

Paulw

Wailin wrote: »

Should be a big step up from the 6d at least. Lens I have should complement it and good enough. 16-35 f4, 70-200 f2.8 ii, sigma 24mm art and canon 35mm 1.4L.

I have the 16-35mm f/4 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 II lenses. Excellent lenses.

Best of luck with the new camera.

Wailin

Paulw wrote: »

I have the 16-35mm f/4 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 II lenses. Excellent lenses.

Best of luck with the new camera.

Thanks Paul.

wersal gummage

Paulw wrote: »

I have one. I love it. The detail is amazing.

It is poor in low light. It's ISO performance is bad, especially after ISO800.

Paul, a few months on, still very happy with the camera?

I'm still mulling this over (same question as asked by the original post). I gather, having read quite a bit online, that the mk iv is the better all round camera for general use (which is what I'd be using it for). I'm drawn to the crop modes though. Nearly always have a prime on the camera and the 1.3 and 1.6 is very appealing.

The dual pixel focus sounds good on the mk iv but I guess it's mostly for video, which I don't use.

Concerned about the iso performance on the dsr, having read very mixed reviews. Some people are saying it's excellent while others saying it's terrible... I guess some of the websites are probably incentivised so hard to put too much store in what they are saying. I tend to shoot around iso 100-400 for the most part, but indoors over the winter months I'd often be up around 2500/3000... You are suggesting anything above 800 isn't great?

Also I've read a lot of commentary that suggests that it's common to get blurred images, I find this one a bit odd. Presume it's sorted with appropriate shutter speed?

Anyway, grateful for any additional thoughts you'd be willing to share!

Wailin

Just my input. Having used the mk iv for the last 6 months i can say its an excellent camera and a big upgrade from my previous 6D. All you get with the 5dsr is lots more pixels which will be of absolutely no benefit unless you're printing very large. Even the jump from 20mp to 30mp with the 6d and mk iv was not very noticeable for me.

Noise with the 6d was quiet good but the mk iv is far superior and i would say the 5dsr is even worse than the 6d. Since you shoot at up to 3000 this could be an issue with the 5dsr, not so much with the mk iv.

At the end of the day what you go for depends on your needs. If you shoot landscapes and mostly use a tripod i would lean toward the 5dsr. For a camera that covers everything really well, the mk iv takes some beating and easily out performs the 5dsr in almost every area apart from resolution and sharpness.

I was in the exact same predicament as yourself and am happy with the mk iv. You won't go wrong with either, both great cameras.


Edit: Dual pixel autofocus is nonsense really and something I've never used.

wersal gummage

Thanks for that.

I understand that the 5dmk iv is probably the better all rounder, and probably more suitable for what I want. I've read a lot of comments that the 5dsr is a special or limited purpose camera, for indoor studio type stuff. I'm just very drawn to the inbuilt crop options...

I don't need 50mp and would almost certainly turn the settings down to capture photos in medium sized files.

To be honest, I'd probably buy the 6d mark ii if it had the little auto focus button selector, that is something I use constantly on current camera.

The 5dsr is coming in a bit cheaper than the mark iv. Although I suppose the mark iv is newer and has better iso...

Wailin

6D mk ii is a big disappointment apparently. The sensor does not provide much improvement over the original and lags way behing 5d mk iv.

To be perfectly honest if you've no intention of using the resolution of the 5dsr i think it would be pointless to choose it over the mk iv.

What benefit is the crop factor? You can crop post production or frame your shots better so you don't have to consider it?

wersal gummage

Thanks again Wailin, appreciate the input.

Yeah maybe the crop factor is nothing much. As I mentioned, I pretty much always use prime lenses. I like the idea of having a few extra options with a prime lense. I don't really do much post processing work (bar some basic stuff as I shoot raw files). So I like the idea of framing the photo when shot rather than afterwards and then cropping quite heavily. I suppose with the larger mp of the dsr, you probably end up with a pretty large cropped file, whereas I'd find the post processor of the mark iv unappealing and would lose a lot of file size.

Wailin

Are you tied to canon? Would you consider nikon? Great sensors on the D750 and D810, D850 too expensive for now.

wersal gummage

I think so yeah. A bag full of the "L"s

endacl

Massdrop have the MkIV for $2999 at the moment. That’s about €2.5k. Even including shippping and a potential customs bill, that’s a nice price.

Linkydink: https://www.massdrop.com/buy/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-dslr-camera

Wailin

If you don't mind grey import you can get the mk IV for €2399 at E infinity. I bought mine there, had it within a week. No duty or delivery charge.

https://www.e-infin.com/eu/item/3071/canon_eos_5d_mark_iv_dslr_camera_(body_only)

wersal gummage

Mark iv it is... After much hesitation. Went for it on the basis that most reviews seem to suggest ISO above 1600 on the 5dsr starts to show problems. I have that already on a ten year old mark ii and is one of the main things I'd like to improve with a new camera.

I know I'll be happy with the camera but suspect I'll always look at the 5dsr and wonder what if!!

Wailin

I went through the exact same torture, and still do wonder sometimes. I shoot mainly landscape so the 5DSR would be perfect in most cases for me. Reason i didn't go for it in the end was because i shoot astro stuff and low noise is very important. Mk IV won in the end because of that.

Decent comparison of the two that will probably only make your choice harder!

https://youtu.be/DVpxBzlUkBk

wersal gummage

Wailin wrote: »

Decent comparison of the two that will probably only make your choice harder!

Thanks. Had already watched that!

When I said "mark iv it is", I meant I've ordered one. Hopefully it will last for a very long time, I generally don't spend money on cameras but lenses instead. Last time I bought a new camera was the 50d back around 2008 or whenever that was out. I upgraded now from the 5d mark ii primarily for noise and autofocus reasons. I'm most shooting (when indoors) with the 35 1.4 and, more recently, the 50 1.2 and I even find at those apertures that I need to bump up the ISO much further than I'd like on occasion. I also have the 24-105 F4 which I rarely use, but I think having the ability to shoot at 6400 (I've even seen pretty decent looking examples from the mark iv at 10k) will allow me to use that lense again more often. Also, and I know this is mostly my weakness rather than the camera, but I find a good few of my photos of my fast moving kid are not in perfect focus (shooting at high shutter speeds but typically not using the centre focus point as I don't always want a pure portrait, but rather a sort of natural, unstaged image including the scene or surroundings ). So I'm thinking the mark iv will have better autofocus and will hopefully allow me to catch a few more keepers. I'm not kidding myself though, I know a pro would probably nail the focus every time with the mark ii and with better technique than I have.

Anyway, if for some bizarre reason I regret it, I can always buy the 5dsr mark ii around 2020 or so when presumably it will be 18 months or so old and will be starting to drop in price a bit.

I wonder will Canon get away with introducing the next 5dsr with such poor low light performance when the Nikon 850 seems such a capable camera, also with high resolution....

Anyway, thanks for the comments and food for thought which helped sway me probably in the right direction!

Wailin

Canon will come out with a better sensor for the 5dsr, but by that stage so will Nikon! I hope you enjoy the camera, let us know how you get on. I don't use half the features on mine and the autofocus rarely gets used. Can't comment on how good it is but apparently it's very accurate.

I use the 35mm 1.4 a lot too, great lens!

Wailin

Any update wersal? Did you get the camera and how are you finding it?

wersal gummage

Sorry, don't really spend much time on this website. Yes, camera arrived a few days after I ordered it, so several weeks ago now. All good so far. Am finding that the autofocus /automatic selection point for focusing isn't great, in live view either. 90% of the time I'm manually selecting my focus point, but occasionally, when just taking a few Christmas snaps of family and kids, I would like to be able to just let the camera do some smart face recognition stuff.... Not much use. My mobile phone is more accurate! Anyway, I know it's not a point and shoot camera, but somewhat surprised it can't be used as such. At one point over Christmas I put the phone on full auto mode and gave the camera to someone else so that I could be in a photo with my family for once! They took a load of photos and, when I later checked them, all had focus issues - fairly significantly so.

Haven't really had any time yet for decent landscape stuff, this would be my favourite type of photography but with little daylight, poor conditions and young kinds....

Wailin

I would hazard a guess that any focus issues you're having are down to user error rather than camera issues. It has one of the most intelligent focussing of any camera...but, you need to have it set to your style of shooting. The previous mk iii was superb and the mk iv has even improved on it.

Plenty of videos on youtube showing best user set ups, lots of options on it as im sure you're aware and its probably set up wrong.