Canon EOS 5DS, 5DS R & EF 11-24mm f/4L

  • Thread starter Thread starter olv
  • Start date Start date
Andy90 said:
Both the 5DS and the 5DR have a low pass filter. It is exactly the same sensor. The 5DR however 'self' cancels the effects.

The 5DR will have a greater resolution than the 5DS but will exhibit more Moire patterns on certain things such as closely woven/patterned cloth or certain patterns in nature.

Whether or not you like the Moire interference or can put up with it is subjective. That's why Canon allow you to purchase option A or Option B - same thing that Nikon did with the D800 and D800E.

Pentax solved this problem a few years ago by having a sensor with no low pass filter and then utilising the in camera IS to mimic the effects of having a low pass filter to reduce Moire if you wanted to.
Click to expand...



Nikon quickly stopped giving a choice a d bow the D800 has no Aa filter and neither does the D7100.

If the D800E showed moire then so did the D800, just slightly less. It is very hard to get either to show moire, and when it does show then it is easy to prevent by small change in Aperture or zoom/position. So Nikon just didn't bother giving the choice with the D810.

At 50Mp there is simply no need for the low pass filter.
My guess is the 2 models allows canon to eek out a few hundred extra for the R version, and is someone is paranoid then they can go traditional.


I ended with the D800 non-E purely because it was $600 cheaper and I knew the D810 would come around soon and devalue either purchase.

Plenty of people shoot the D800E for studio, moire justbdoent.show becuase the lens acts as the low pass filter. wide open lenses aren't sharp enough, stopped doqn to f/5.6 there is too much diffraction. You need A very sharp prime stopped down to f/2.8 and photographing a rpeating texture at exactly the right distance to see it.
 
D.P. said:
My guess is the 2 models allows canon to eek out a few hundred extra for the R version, and is someone is paranoid then they can go traditional.


You need A very sharp prime stopped down to f/2.8 and photographing a rpeating texture at exactly the right distance to see it.
Click to expand...


Yes they're playing on the paranoia of photographers, as I said it is a subjective choice.

As for the second comment, extremely sharp prime lenses and photographing repeated textures at exactly the right distance is exactly what a lot of Architectural photographers experience, particularly with the repeating window textures of hi-rise blocks. The same can be said of fashion photography - hounds tooth checks are particularly bad for this.

Your probably aware of the effect, but for those that aren't, the following link shows what moire looks like

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=p...bm=isch&q=photographs+of+buildings+with+moire

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=p...tbm=isch&q=photographs+of+clothing+with+moire

As I said it all boils down to personal choice, but professionals who spend thousands of pounds going to exotic locations, with professional models, expensive designer clothes and a few assistants to get a shot for a client, probably like the choice :) stuff it up and your unlikely to get the gig the next time - for us mere mortals we pays our money and takes our choice. It's not important enough for us, but for those making big money it is.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
My guess is the 2 models allows canon to eek out a few hundred extra for the R version, and is someone is paranoid then they can go traditional.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a weird decision, you would have thought the overheads in R&D, development, assembly, testing, packaging, etc, etc would not make this viable to recover, especially in a product that isn't destined to sell in mass volumes.
 
Andy90 said:
Yes they're playing on the paranoia of photographers, as I said it is a subjective choice.

As for the second comment, extremely sharp prime lenses and photographing repeated textures at exactly the right distance is exactly what a lot of Architectural photographers experience, particularly with the repeating window textures of hi-rise blocks. The same can be said of fashion photography - hounds tooth checks are particularly bad for this.

Your probably aware of the effect, but for those that aren't, the following link shows what moire looks like

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=p...bm=isch&q=photographs+of+buildings+with+moire

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=p...tbm=isch&q=photographs+of+clothing+with+moire

As I said it all boils down to personal choice, but professionals who spend thousands of pounds going to exotic locations, with professional models, expensive designer clothes and a few assistants to get a shot for a client, probably like the choice :) stuff it up and your unlikely to get the gig the next time - for us mere mortals we pays our money and takes our choice. It's not important enough for us, but for those making big money it is.
Click to expand...


It doesn't tend to affect architectural photos because to get sufficient DoF the lens is stopped down to f/8 at least and diffraction has already ensured that moire is not visible.

As I said, with the D800E and non-e if the E version showed moire then it would also appear in the non-E version so was entirely redundant and is why Nikon did away with it. At 50Mp there is really now reason for a Low pass filter.

Those examples you linked to aren't from a 50Mp sensor
 
Last edited:
Genoma said:
Sounds like a weird decision, you would have thought the overheads in R&D, development, assembly, testing, packaging, etc, etc would not make this viable to recover, especially in a product that isn't destined to sell in mass volumes.
Click to expand...

The overhead cost is why a Nikon stopped offering 2 models because it was pointless.
 
Something else to consider is almost no Medium format digital has or had an AA filter and these cameras are absolutely the weapon of choice for studio, landscape and architecture professionals, and all of these cameras have and had lower pixel densities than the D800E let alone the new 5Ds - moire was never an issue made studio photographers stop using MFD camera and pick up a DSLR instead.

The Leica m8 and M9 also don't have AA filters and moire was not an issue.
Also a lot of Nikon D3x professional togs paid to get the AA filter removed.


The only time I have had an issue with moire was with a 6Mp D70 which does have a AA filter.

My only point is an AA filter is pretty much worthless at these resolutions. You can only experience it if the lens out resolves the sensor and that automatically means it almost never exists. No lens is sharp enough wide open and every lens is diffraction limited by around f/5.6 and certainly f/8.0. The Zeiss Otus stopped down to f/4.0 is probably the best candidate to induce moire on a D800E/D810, and I'm not sure it will be enough for the 5Ds.
 
What I mea t was the M8 and M9 were only sold on versions without an AA filter and thatbwaznt considered a problem with them. Yes you could force them to show moir, worse still at wide s it had a left-right color cast due to the short flange distance.


This doesn't distract from the fact MFD don't have AA filters and are widely used in studio and fashion without issue, even at lower pixel densities.
 
OK so I'm seriously considering getting one as an upgrade for my 5dii. I mainly shoot architecture as part of my job (I'm an architect) as well as a bit of everything else on the side. I think it will be a big step up and given I already have all L lenses to make the most of the detail. I love doing big prints for people (and myself) so think the MP boost is great.

So which would be best? 5DS or 5DS-R? I like the extra detail and have never had a problem with moire before... I'm therefore leaning to the 5DS-R. Or have I got it backwards?
 
Last edited:
I would go for the R version. Only reason not to would be to save money but in this case there isn't a huge difference.i wanted the D800E but the plain D800 was $500 cheaper and came with a lot of desired extras such as a spare official Nikon battery and Lexar pro 1000x 32GB CF card, $2700 vs $3200 without the extras just wasn't worth it for me.


Yiu will find moire exceedingly difficult to generate and it is is likely if the R shows moire then the non-R will as well just to a slightly less extent.
 
D.P. said:
What I mea t was the M8 and M9 were only sold on versions without an AA filter and thatbwaznt considered a problem with them. Yes you could force them to show moir, worse still at wide s it had a left-right color cast due to the short flange distance.


This doesn't distract from the fact MFD don't have AA filters and are widely used in studio and fashion without issue, even at lower pixel densities.
Click to expand...

You don't need to force them, photograph buildings or fabrics a lot and you will see it. Capture One has a powerful tool to try and remove it but it is always a compromise. The Otus can show moire wide open in the corners on a 36mp sensor.
 
jonneymendoza said:
ok so it seems the 11-24 has every right to justify its price purely because it has no distortion whatsoever on the wide view?
Click to expand...

There are a few factors:
It is the worlds widest rectilinear lens
There is minimal distortion
It in undoubtedly very sharp into the corners
It is a very complex, large, heavy lens with a lot of expensive glass elements in it
 
In photography, a rectilinear lens is a photographic lens that yields images where straight features, such as the walls of buildings, appear with straight lines, as opposed to being curved. In other words, it is a lens with little or no barrel or pincushion distortion. At particularly wide angles, however, the rectilinear perspective will cause objects to appear increasingly stretched and enlarged as they near the edge of the frame. These types of lenses are often used to create forced perspective effects.
Click to expand...

just for future quote.

i am very very interested in this lens D.P

when is it out?
 
D.P. said:
I would go for the R version. Only reason not to would be to save money but in this case there isn't a huge difference.i wanted the D800E but the plain D800 was $500 cheaper and came with a lot of desired extras such as a spare official Nikon battery and Lexar pro 1000x 32GB CF card, $2700 vs $3200 without the extras just wasn't worth it for me.


Yiu will find moire exceedingly difficult to generate and it is is likely if the R shows moire then the non-R will as well just to a slightly less extent.
Click to expand...

Good point. Plus given Lightroom now has a built in moire removal tool, it's now possible to remove moire whereas it's not possible to add the extra detail gained on the the 5DR.

Having said that... I've not ever had to use the moire removal tool in lightroom before so can't testify to it's capability... maybe someone else on here can?
 
I've got a mate who works for Canon UK and lets me borrow stuff over the weekend, the new 11-24 will certainly go on the list.

Looks like an amazing lens although good composition with a UWA is not always easy...
 
I do like how you have gone from it's only a over priced UWA and only f4, to gotta have it now :D It does look good but I don't do anything like enough landscapes to justify the cost. Maybe in a couple of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom