Canon 5D Mark IV or 5DSr

I've been using a Canon 5D Mark II for awhile now and it is time to upgrade.  I waited until all the new cameras were announced but I am now unsure which to move forward with 5D Mark IV or the 5DSr.  The camera will mainly be used for landscape photography and the very occasional wildlife.  It will be used with 16-35L IS, 24-70 II, 70-300L.

The only advantage I see in the 5DSr is the higher resolution.  This is appealing however I questions whether I need this much resolution.  I usually print stuff on the larger side but not huge, 24x36 or slightly larger.  At this size can you see a difference between 30 mp and 50mp?  If not at what point can you start to see a difference?

A few downsides I potentially see ...I'm concerned about the carefulness that the 5DSr seems to require in regards to technique.  I always use a tripod RRS TVC-33 w/ BH55 but often times shoot in windy conditions, with the tripod in flowing water etc.  I'm not so much worried about my technique but the conditions.  Is this something to worry about at 50mp vs. 30mp or do both require a similar amount of attention.

Another disadvantage seems to be the dynamic range and noise however since I'm use to bracketing and layering in photoshop with the 5D II this seems to be a minor disadvantage.  I'd imagine that even with the improved dynamic range and noise of the 5D Mark IV bracketing will still be needed.

Any feedback or thoughts to help with my decision would be appreciated.

Thanks, Aaron

You will definitely be able to see a difference printed at 24x36.  Realize you have 67% more pixels on the 5DSR AND it cancels the effect of the AA filter allowing it to record at least twice as much fine detail than the 5D4.  With the solid technique that you described, as long as you are using an electronic first curtain you should be fine.  As for dynamic range, that is the downfall of the 5DS line but it is also easily made up by taking a highlight oriented shot and a shadow oriented shot and then combining them in post when you are faced with a high dynamic range situation.

If you had said that you don't print over 13x19 then i would have said get the 5D4 but at 24x36 your creating a whole lot of pixels that weren't actually photographed when printing from a 5D4 image where on the 5DsR you are crating a whole lot less and what you are starting out with is crisper due to the AA filter cancelation.  For the usage that you described, this one is an easy choice for me.

At 300ppi a 36x24 image is 10800x7200 pixels, the 5DSR is 8688x5792, the 5D4 is 6720x4480 so you can see the amount of interpolation, or "fake pixels" that need to be generated are a whole lot less for the 5DSR.  In fact you need to generate 54% more pixels on the 5DSR where you need to generate 158% more pixels on the 5D4.  In other words about 2 out of every 3 pixels printed on the 5DSR are real pixels where less than 2 out of 5 pixels on the 5D4 are real pixels in that print.  There are more "fake" pixels in the 5D4 print then there are real photographed pixels.

But, if you want the best of both worlds, get a Sony a7R Mk II - no AA filter at all (not just cancellation), much better dynamic range than either and a whole lot more pixels than the 5D4.  You can mount any of your lenses on it with an adapter.  Then there's medium format you could consider...

As always, EJ makes excellent points.

I haven't touched a 5D IV but I've been using a 5Dsr and A7r II as my 2 main bodies for about a year. I almost always have the 24-70 mounted on the Sony with Metabones IV adapter, sometimes switching to the 16-35. The 5Dsr usually pairs with a 100-400, sometimes a 500. I've been shooting about half wildlife and half landscapes so our situations are somewhat similar.

I like using the Sony and usually use manual focus. It's easier to work with high dynamic range files from the Sony sensor.

That said, if I had to choose between the Sony and 5Dsr as my only body I'd pick the Canon in a heartbeat. The difference between 5Dsr files and 5D3 files (which I liked) is huge. Given that you're proficient and comfortable with blending exposures and that your technique seems excellent I doubt you'd be disappointed with the 5Dsr results.

Thanks, guys.

E.J. in regards to prints it seems the differences are substantial from a technical perspective but does this carryover into the actual print itself? I'm sure it does but I can't say that I've been disappointed in the look of the prints I've done so far with the "fake pixels". Maybe I just don't know what I'm missing since I don't have an actual print to compare to.

Aaron Jors wrote:Thanks, guys.  

E.J. in regards to prints it seems the differences are substantial from a technical perspective but does this carryover into the actual print itself?  I'm sure it does but I can't say that I've been disappointed in the look of the prints I've done so far with the "fake pixels".  Maybe I just don't know what I'm missing since I don't have an actual print to compare to.

It depends on how critically you look at them but yes, in general, the more real data you have, the more 3D and spatially accurate the print will be perceived once you start going significant;y beyond the resolution of what was captured because you are reproducing more fine detail.  It's one of the reasons why medium format is having a resurgence.

Nobody can really tell you what you would value in print. For me the advantage of 40 - 50 MP bodies (Pentax digital 645's in my case) was visible even at 13x19 and quite compelling beyond that size, to the extent I stopped shooting my 35mm gear years ago. Of course my situation isn't apples-to-apples since the larger sensor size and differing optics of the Pentax 645 system don't compare directly to something like the a7R II or 5DS series. And I jumped into the Pentax system at a time when the Nikon D800 was brand new, the closest competitor resolution- and DR-wise in the 35mm world. But for me, there's a tangible and visible improvement in print to be had by shooting a camera system with better dynamic range and higher resolution.

Not only do I work at the highest level I pragmatically can with my own photography and print, but for the past couple of years I've been working at a high end photographic print shop. I see virtually everything come through our order queue, and (assuming competence by the photographer) I can easily discern the files from cameras that are being pushed past their limits vs. those from systems that are comfortably working at those same limits. You can talk technicalities, but for me in qualitative terms it comes down to prints that have clarity, depth, dimension, good grain structure, preservation of subtleties (not just the extremes) in tone and hue... essentially, an almost organic way of rendering the scene and the light into the print.

The more you have to upscale the digital file for a given print size, the more you have to de-noise it, structure-ize it, sharpen it, interpolate it, etc. Therefore the more worked, plasticky and "digital" the rendering becomes. Exactly where the edge of acceptable vs. unacceptable will be for you, is a subjective call on your part. I've printed work for clients that was enlarged massively beyond anything I could ever tolerate for my own work. But it made them happy so I did it, accepted their payment, and felt good about it. I've also done the opposite, printing work for a few clients who are even more demanding than I am about my own work... though that is rare.

Putting a number to it strictly in terms of resolution (which is not at all the full story for print), my personal preference is to keep the real file resolution at or above 360 PPI for excellent results, and at or above 240 PPI for very good results. To print a 5D IV file at 24x36, you're already down around 180 PPI, which is my personal limit for acceptability. Whereas the 5DS would be at 240 PPI, up at the beginning of the range for my view of "very good". I find steps of 60 PPI are definitely visible steps in print. So yes, I'd personally say the difference in print would be visible, and to me, a material improvement between a 5D IV class image and a 5DS class image when printed to 24x36.

I'm currently working on a print series of stitched pano's from a Hasselblad H5D-50C for a client. Most of the files are at least ~30,000 px across targeting 60" print width, which is around 500 PPI. (The layered working files are around 16 GB in size.) The client considers this his limit of acceptability. Some of the files are lower resolution, around 360 PPI, and the detail rendering is clearly not the same. He tolerates them because the compositions are strong, and the field shooting limits at the time constrained him from getting higher resolution captures.

Photographer Ming Thein makes a limited series of his best prints (badged as "ultraprints") with a demanding workflow including printing them at 720 PPI. I haven't seen them, but I do know he isn't printing them massively sized. One might be tempted to pass this off as pure marketing hype on Thein's part, but I know why he makes the claims he does and I'm reasonably confident I would see a tangible clarity and detail to them that 360 PPI prints would not have. And certainly not something 1/4 of the print resolution, i.e. 180 PPI.

Best advice? Rent the competing bodies, shoot some seriously-approached test files, and print them at scale. Decide for yourself based on that. I did that when I was first looking at the Pentax 645D, and the rest was history for me.

Having looked at this question for a while, it seems the consensus is that the detail of 50mpx with no AA filter trumps 30, provided dynamic range, higher iso, more frames per second and f8 auto focus are not needed. For me, that sounds like the 5ds R is better for landscapes off a tripod in good lighting and/or static subjects in general. Also special situations that requires major cropping or extremely large prints provided your technique is really good.  That said, there are bird photographers that like it in that they can shoot birds in flight with loose cropping and then crop in post to position the bird with in the frame prefectly ending up with an image similar to a 7DII.  It will give you a higher success rate as position in the frame is not as critical.  The 5d4 is the Swiss army knife in that it does everything fairly well.  The 5dsR and the 1DXII are more a specialists camera.

I recently went through a similar thought process, 5D4 or A7rII or 5DsR. But I do not print big, shots need to pass muster for stock but otherwise it is mostly small prints and occasional A3 print.

The difference for me was I wanted a body that could also drive my 500 f4 and 200-400. Having tested the A7rII I was confident it could handle shorter range lenses and up to the 70-200 was pretty quick to focus. But the longer lenses for wildlife, no way. Just not snappy enough for me. The lack of joystick or even touchscreen made choosing an AF point tedious too. Would love to have one for landscapes, as I did use my A7R for, but I could not afford two new bodies.

5DsR was a front runner, considering the price now and a few used bodies around. BUT again I know that this body might be needed to shoot wildlife in low light. I know, from various RAW file comparisons on the net, that I can re sample the 50MP files down to 18MP and have close to the 1Dx noise control and good detail (with some colour shift) up to ISO6400. But all those pixels do mean you have to shoot faster, a blurred 50MP file does not re-sample quite so nicely. I also do not need 50MP files, In terms of pure detail though this body would be the one, if it were just down to landscapes.

5D4 was and still is pricey. But it does have great AF and I can use all of lenses and it is quick to focus. Even at f8 I now have a whole frame of AF points which means I can use my 100-400 II more often and the AF is still quick. Over ISO2000 the DR is no match for the 1Dx but up to ISO800 it is very good. Noise is fine and easily sorted at higher ISOs. 30MP is more than enough for me and what I do, too much in many cases. I feel this is a very general tool, Jack of all trades and all that. All the Wifi, GPS, touchscreen, etc is just marketing IMO. As is the pointless dual pixel RAW thing. It should have had a CFast slot, personally I would rather have invested in new cards than the old UHS-1 SD cards which is all this thing supports (and work best for 4K)!

So the 5D4 is expensive, but while a lot of people are mulling over the price I will be taking pictures.
For pure Landscape and general I would buy the A7rII.
For pure detail and resolution the 5DsR. You already use, IMO, the worst performing FF sensor Canon ever created for shadow pulling. Anything else will be eye opening but if you are going to HDR or layer 50MP files your PP machine will need to be up to the task

I would definitely hire the bodies and compare for yourself.

Can't contribute too much more vs what has been said above - I've owned the 5DSr for the better part of this year and have rented the 5D4 for a weekend. The 5D4 is definitely the better all around body and noticeably faster in operation. 

That said, the difference between 30MP and 50MP with cancelled AA is huge. It's difficult to not feel let down using lower res bodies once you've become accustomed to sharp and well exposed 50MP files. You do need to be slightly more careful with your technique with the 5DSR, but it's not quite the night and day difference some folks mention. If it is, then perhaps you've been too sloppy in the past

Aaron, I agree with Greg above. Once you use the 5DsR, it's hard to pull yourself away from it because of the incredible resolution. I've shot with the camera for the past year and a half throughout Latin America, and I have not really had to pay any special attention to technique in terms of getting sharp images. Work as you normally would to get sharp images, making taking just a tiny bit of extra care, and you will be fine.

As Neilyb mentioned, initial pixel-level noise aside, once you downsize/upsize to normalize for subject coverage or print size, there really is very little difference in high ISO noise among the current Canon camera bodies. The 5DsR has about one stop more dynamic range than the Canon bodies that came before it, but it looks like the 5D4 has one more stop still.

If you don't need 50 MP, I think the 5DIV, with its faster frame rate, increased DR, and latest gen AF, will serve you better as an all-around body for wildlife/birds, landscapes, and macro.

Cheers,
Greg Basco