03-28-2017, 12:53 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-28-2017, 12:55 AM by Arthur Macmillan.)
I can hardly wait for the OP's conclusions. DPR seems to always be displaying multiple personality disorder!
Rishi sets the record straight from the very start:
"But while heads turn, eyes widen, and colleagues fight over who gets to take the camera out for a shoot,..."
And on inherent higher performance of larger sensor size:
"For the same f-number and shutter speed (or ‘focal plane exposure’), a larger sensor is exposed to more total light. The same light per unit area is projected by the lens, but the larger sensor has more area available capturing it. An image made with more light has less relative photon shot noise (the noise that results from the fact that light arrives randomly at the imaging plane). The more light you capture, the more you ‘average’ out these fluctuations, leading to a cleaner image."
He doesn't bother to point out that more will fit on the larger frame for a given magnification!
But he lets us know from the very start (if we didn't know) that this camera will be capable of doing things that a smaller sensor camera cannot. So much so, that they are fighter over it at the office. End of article, right?
Nooooooooo! Rishi has to go and make the case for why you don't need more capability, instead of focusing on what the camera can do. DPR split personality syndrome. You get it every time!
DPR always gives you well informed facts. I loved:
"And, no, the ‘but larger formats have more compression because you use longer focal length lenses for the same field-of-view’ argument is false. Just say no to the compression myth. For equivalent focal lengths/apertures, there's no extra compression."
I totally agree! But it isn't long before he makes statements like:
"We’ve seen some 50MP files from the 5DS R paired with truly stellar lenses where we simply can’t imagine anything better, resolution-wise. In fact, at ~F5.6-6.2 equivalent, I'm not seeing a major resolution advantage of the medium format cameras over the full-frame cameras in our studio scene comparison tool, and the 50MP full-frame image below isn't exactly starved for resolution, is it?"
Which basically is a statement that could be used to argue anything, including that the Canon 5DS R is already a better camera than anyone could possibly need.
again, in case you missed it:
"we simply can’t imagine anything better, resolution-wise"
Even I don't say that, and and I don't really have the interest to processes huge sized images. It doesn't mean that I don't want the choice of going to the highest resolution possible when I want to.
In fact, that's a game a lot of people play. I have a friend who just sold his Canon 5DS R to get the 5D MK IV. I agree that the MK iv is easier to use in everyday situations, and a good performer. It's his decision. I'd rather have the 5 DS R. That's because for what I like shooting it is vastly superior, except when I don't need it, I can grab my 70D (when I get it fixed). It is reasonably fast and light. Or my T1i if light weight is the idea. Well, that's just me. But even though most of you would probably like the 5D MK iv better, at least I hope you wouldn't pretend that there is no reason to own a 5DS R!
One final little jab at DPR. Don't get me wrong! They provide great information! But part of the syndrome is to do things like compare two different photos that look quite different and say, see: Look, there is no difference! Only...there is? Does that not bother anybody?
OK, Obicon...I took the bait! Still, if I had that kind of money, I'd spend it on lenses and lighting. Or better yet...learning how to use what I already have!
Rishi sets the record straight from the very start:
"But while heads turn, eyes widen, and colleagues fight over who gets to take the camera out for a shoot,..."
And on inherent higher performance of larger sensor size:
"For the same f-number and shutter speed (or ‘focal plane exposure’), a larger sensor is exposed to more total light. The same light per unit area is projected by the lens, but the larger sensor has more area available capturing it. An image made with more light has less relative photon shot noise (the noise that results from the fact that light arrives randomly at the imaging plane). The more light you capture, the more you ‘average’ out these fluctuations, leading to a cleaner image."
He doesn't bother to point out that more will fit on the larger frame for a given magnification!
But he lets us know from the very start (if we didn't know) that this camera will be capable of doing things that a smaller sensor camera cannot. So much so, that they are fighter over it at the office. End of article, right?
Nooooooooo! Rishi has to go and make the case for why you don't need more capability, instead of focusing on what the camera can do. DPR split personality syndrome. You get it every time!
DPR always gives you well informed facts. I loved:
"And, no, the ‘but larger formats have more compression because you use longer focal length lenses for the same field-of-view’ argument is false. Just say no to the compression myth. For equivalent focal lengths/apertures, there's no extra compression."
I totally agree! But it isn't long before he makes statements like:
"We’ve seen some 50MP files from the 5DS R paired with truly stellar lenses where we simply can’t imagine anything better, resolution-wise. In fact, at ~F5.6-6.2 equivalent, I'm not seeing a major resolution advantage of the medium format cameras over the full-frame cameras in our studio scene comparison tool, and the 50MP full-frame image below isn't exactly starved for resolution, is it?"
Which basically is a statement that could be used to argue anything, including that the Canon 5DS R is already a better camera than anyone could possibly need.
again, in case you missed it:
"we simply can’t imagine anything better, resolution-wise"
Even I don't say that, and and I don't really have the interest to processes huge sized images. It doesn't mean that I don't want the choice of going to the highest resolution possible when I want to.
In fact, that's a game a lot of people play. I have a friend who just sold his Canon 5DS R to get the 5D MK IV. I agree that the MK iv is easier to use in everyday situations, and a good performer. It's his decision. I'd rather have the 5 DS R. That's because for what I like shooting it is vastly superior, except when I don't need it, I can grab my 70D (when I get it fixed). It is reasonably fast and light. Or my T1i if light weight is the idea. Well, that's just me. But even though most of you would probably like the 5D MK iv better, at least I hope you wouldn't pretend that there is no reason to own a 5DS R!
One final little jab at DPR. Don't get me wrong! They provide great information! But part of the syndrome is to do things like compare two different photos that look quite different and say, see: Look, there is no difference! Only...there is? Does that not bother anybody?
OK, Obicon...I took the bait! Still, if I had that kind of money, I'd spend it on lenses and lighting. Or better yet...learning how to use what I already have!