LuLa link on Canon 5Ds

[chauncey]

https://luminous-landscape.com/canon...t-performance/
I still haven't yet pulled the trigger on that new body...I found that treatise interesting as he
compared it with the same body that I've used for years.

That fact that the "normal" client, for the most part, couldn't discern a difference in printed
images...he could and, IMHO, that matters!

I have made a habit of photomerging images, simply to create those large images which could
be routinely coughed out by that 5Ds.

My questions are...would my large, merged images, equal the print IQ as might be obtained
by that high MP body, assuming my skills were up to the task and equal pixel/dpi numbers?

[dje]

My questions are...would my large, merged images, equal the print IQ as might be obtained
by that high MP body, assuming my skills were up to the task and equal pixel/dpi numbers?

Interesting question Wm. My initial thoughts are that the stitched shot from the 1Ds III is similar to using a larger sensor. For example, say you stitched 4 images together (2 across and 2 down), then the resulting image would be a maximum size of 11,232 pixels x 7488 pixels and the equivalent sensor size would be a maximum of 70mm x 48mm. The pixel count of the 5Ds is 8688 x 5792 on a 35mm x 24mm sensor. The pixel pitch of the 1Ds III is about 6.4 um whereas the pixel pitch of the 5Ds is about 4 um. So the 5Ds will get more resolution out of the lens because of it's finer pixel pitch but this wll be counter-balanced by the larger size of the stitched image ( ie less magnification required and less resolution required from the lens). Also, lens focal length to get the same FOV will be different and the lens performance at different focal lengh will be different in each case.

My gut feeling is that the stitched iamge will win out in the resolution stakes.

Dave

[Manfred M]

The answer, as always, is "it depends".

Both are full-frame cameras and if you look at the specs in DxO mark, the 5Ds shows better numbers, but not outstandingly so, and the only place where the score differences might make me look at is are the low light performance. The colour depth and dynamic range are pretty close, with a slight advantage (not surprisingly) to the newer camera.

When printing to very large sizes (2ft x 3ft) and are pixel peeping, then you could likely see the difference, assuming that you are shooting high end lenses, using a very sturdy tripod that has been weighted and sandbagged and are shooting at the "sweet spot" of your lenses (f/8 - f/11), then yes, you might just see a tiny bit of a difference, if you are young and keen and have good eyes. Us older guys, perhaps not... This of course suggest you are very meticulous in your PP work and are very good at sharpening your image.

Start printing at more normal sizes, I suspect you would be hard-pressed to see any difference at all. I suspect a stitched image out of your current camera will blow the 5Ds out of the water.

You really seem keen to get one of these camera, but before doing so, I suggest you rent one for a week and do some really hard testing.

[Donald]

You really seem keen to get one of these camera, but before doing so, I suggest you rent one for a week and do some really hard testing.

Or, on the other hand, just get it and start enjoying it. That's what I've done!

[dje]

I should just clarify that my comments were based on the assumption the Wm was asking how a stitched image from his 1Ds III would compare to a single image from a 5Ds. That may not be what he meant though.

Dave

[chauncey]

That may not be what he meant though.

That is essentially what I was asking.

on the other hand, just get it and start enjoying it

I don't recall Donald...are you an anal retentive pixel peeper as am I. Are you ecstatic with yours?

[Donald]

I don't recall Donald...are you an anal retentive pixel peeper as am I.

No, not at all.

Are you ecstatic with yours?

Yes I am. However, I have not yet been out in the field with it (literally, given that landscape is my thing) to test it fully in the environment in which I'll use. But what has amazed me (and remember also that B & W is my thing), is the depth and range of tone that it produces.

I'm not sure if that is a deliberate built-in as part of the design or just a by-product of other innovation in it, or just what a 5D has always been like. And I certainly never saw it featured as a unique-selling-point in any of the marketing. But what it produces straight out of camera (either as raw or JPEG - tested both) has got a 'depth' and richness of tone that I haven't seen in my 40D or 7DMkII.