[Ryan Tischer]

I shot with the 5D II for over two years and had the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and the 24-105mm f/4L. From my experience the Canon wide angle glass stinks compared to the MF Pentax lenses. I don't have any experience with the Nikon FF glass. With my Canon images were never sharp in the corners, even stopped down. I think you'd have to use Zeiss glass or at least the Nikon 14-24mm to get lenses that actually resolve enough for that sensor's tiny pixels. Or maybe I just had two bad copies of those lenses. I think for landscape shooters the wide angle glass is very important, at least for me it's a deal breaker. Also, the Canons are very noisy in the shadows. I was blown away by what you could pull from shadows with the 645D once I started using that system.


One of the issues mentioned by some professional landscape shooters was the uselessness of the Nikon live view in the D800, and they chose the 5D III over the higher megapixel D800 for that reason. I have a feeling they weren't planning to make many large prints like I do. Not sure if they fixed the live view in the 810, but perhaps that could still be an advantage for Canon.


After shooting for nearly 3 years with the 645D I am pretty used to not needing live view and now feel it's a luxury with the 645Z. I do use it often now, but don't need to since I know my lenses well.

[Kolor-Pikker]

I shot with the 5D II for over two years and had the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and the 24-105mm f/4L. From my experience the Canon wide angle glass stinks compared to the MF Pentax lenses. I don't have any experience with the Nikon FF glass. With my Canon images were never sharp in the corners, even stopped down. I think you'd have to use Zeiss glass or at least the Nikon 14-24mm to get lenses that actually resolve enough for that sensor's tiny pixels. Or maybe I just had two bad copies of those lenses. I think for landscape shooters the wide angle glass is very important, at least for me it's a deal breaker. Also, the Canons are very noisy in the shadows. I was blown away by what you could pull from shadows with the 645D once I started using that system.

Yeah, the 16-35 was widely considered as simply decent and I don't think anyone ever bought the old 24-105 for sharpness, it's advantages were the stabilization, extra zoom, and the fact that it was incredibly cheap, since it was a kit lens for the mk2. The 16-35 does make for an excellent reportage lens though. Canon's strength's are their prime lenses - the 24 TS-E and f/1.4 are monstrously sharp, as are the 35, 85 & 135L. Before the 24-70 2.8 II came out, the only zooms I could wholeheartedly recommend were painted white.

One of the issues mentioned by some professional landscape shooters was the uselessness of the Nikon live view in the D800, and they chose the 5D III over the higher megapixel D800 for that reason. I have a feeling they weren't planning to make many large prints like I do. Not sure if they fixed the live view in the 810, but perhaps that could still be an advantage for Canon.

I almost forgot about the botched D800 live view, aka "how not to sample the sensor 101". But I don't think a slightly fuzzy view would be too much of a deal breaker if you really wanted the features the D800 offered, it was already a considerable step up for people whose cameras never had LV at all, like medium format users. Fuzzy 10x magnification is better than no magnification every day of the week.

After shooting for nearly 3 years with the 645D I am pretty used to not needing live view and now feel it's a luxury with the 645Z. I do use it often now, but don't need to since I know my lenses well.

I had a 645D for an extended period of time on loan from a friend, and I could have bought it from him for a steal at any time really, but decided to go for the Z instead, just because of LV. Yes, not the extra pixels, nor the dynamic range. In my case, LV is pretty much a job requirement, I gotta confirm that what I shoot will be sharp at 16x magnification.

[JohnBee]

here's a comparison between the two, the 645z its just too good....

Been playing with some of low ISO 5DS R RAW files, and I must say that I've genuinely impressed with the amount of detail that can be had from this particular sensor. Can't say the same for the noise and DR performances, though I could see where this sensor could definitely be popular for landscape shooters and/or those looking for a cheaper alternative to a MF solution.

PS. based on my rough observations, I'd say the 5DS R comes very close to the 645D in terms of detail in many areas throughout the test scene. Enough(perhaps) to say that it could come down the optical performances. :/

[itshimitis]

For landscapers though DR and shadow noise are key, and I don' think it will perform well in these areas.

[JohnBee]

For landscapers though DR and shadow noise are key, and I don' think it will perform well in these areas.

True, though I wasn't able to properly assess those areas due to RAW developer compatibility and so the verdict is still out. Granted, at first glance, I didn't feel any hindrances with noise when pushing the image in PP, which was somewhat surprising given the gains in resolution. Though the true test will be when we'll be able to properly adjust the RAW files once the developers have been updated.

That said, there are always workarounds to help cope with the admission of noise and limited DR, though if this sensor measures 12 stops as predicted, I'm thinking the DR won't be a deal breaker for most people. ie, I've only very rarely drawn past 11 stops in my own experiences to date.

[stevebrot]

The Canon 5Ds is going to be displayed as the best FF camera of the moment in 99% of the camera shops world wide.

Except that the reviews are going to pan its performance.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Comparisons and expectations in Pentax 645z vs Canon 5DSR 50.6 Mpx are UNREALISTIC. Why? Because... the pixel size of a 645 frame is physically larger than the pixel size of a 35mm frame. Much the same as the 645 frame size is physically larger than that of a 35mm frame. And while the number of pixels may be approximately the same amount in each frame size, the physical size in a single pixel in the 645 and 35mm are radically different; and in this context, comparisons and expectations are unrealistic. It is much the same as comparing "Chalk" with "Cheese". Realistically, comparisons could be done against other 645 systems and not 35mm systems, IMHO.

So what you're saying is that Canon has no business making a 50.6 Mpx full frame camera when there's a 645z out there, I concur....

Yep, that is what I think he was saying.

Actually, it is not a Chalk vs. Cheese comparison. In the final analysis, a pixel is a pixel is a pixel in the captured image. How they are made in the aggregate sense is the fine difference that defines excellence. If Canon is unable to maintain quality stuffing that many pixels in a smaller frame, then perhaps they should return to the drawing board, eh?

Steve

[JohnBee]

For landscapers though DR and shadow noise are key, and I don' think it will perform well in these areas.

First RAW developer support for 5DS R is out this evening. - let the fun begin

[Winder]

Pentax is not going to shake anything. Canon 5DS will still outsell the 645Z simply because the 645Z is invisible to the masses. The Canon 5Ds is going to be displayed as the best FF camera of the moment in 99% of the camera shops world wide.

It doesn't matter if the 645z is invisible to the masses. It was never designed for the masses. If Ricoh will release 3 key lenses with leaf shutters the 645z production will be sold out for the next 3 years. The Canon 5Ds might be displayed as the best FF camera in the world. The 645z is still bigger and better than the best FF camera.

[-Linus-]

The main reason for Canon to build this cam is to ensure that Canon users do not look at other brands.
Canon has every thing you need, more pixels, faster frame-rate, shorter & longer lenses!
Big Mama is still the best ;-=

-Linus-

[texandrews]

The main reason for Canon to build this cam is to ensure that Canon users do not look at other brands.

Yeah, i think that is about the size of it.

[Ryan Tischer]

The main reason for Canon to build this cam is to ensure that Canon users do not look at other brands.
Canon has every thing you need, more pixels, faster frame-rate, shorter & longer lenses!
Big Mama is still the best ;-=

-Linus-

I know quite a few landscape shooters that dropped Canon when the Nikon D800 came out, it seems Canon is about three years late to the high megapixel full frame party. Maybe they will get some shooters back now...at least they could use their Nikon glass on the Canon body (with an adapter like many have done with the 14-24mm), albeit with manual focus only so it would mostly be useful for landscape shooters.

[JohnBee]

here's a comparison between the two, the 645z its just too good....

Okay so I had a good go at the RAW from both systems and found that most of the samples used in comparing these two beastly systems are mostly skewed. ie, in most cases people seem to be using NR2 (noise reduction enabled) ISO100 samples with the Canon. - Not sure why, but there are NR0 samples that would be better suited to the task.

That said, I must admit that I've somewhat impressed at the level of detail that can be extracted from a lowly FF sensor, given the flurry of statements warning of theoretical limits that were given over the years.

At any rate, based on what I've seen, I'd add that the 645z holds the advantage over it's smaller FF brethren in terms of pixel quality. ie, when comparing both systems pixel to pixel, it becomes apparent that the 5DS R is running at the limit in terms of pixel quality and detail, whereas the 645z has plenty to give in terms of post processing latitude. - Which should come as no surprise with a MF system at twice the price.

Having said all that, what was most impressive in terms of observations with these high MP systems, was the overall differences between the existing 36mp and these 50mp images insofar as measurable gains. - to which I'd add, I could only describe as being only slightly noticeable to completely negligible at best. :/

[Digitalis]

I'd add that the 645D holds the advantage over it's smaller FF brethren in terms of pixel quality

just for clarification: you're referring to the 645Z aren't you?

[JohnBee]

just for clarification: you're referring to the 645Z aren't you?

Sorry, yes, it is the 645z