Who's up for buying the new 5d s / r and why

[RobertTheFat]

Somebody with a very powerful computer, because (s)he's going to need it.

[Ronnie_Fleming]

Thats a good point Bob, not a great deal of information has been talked about regarding this. Where would i find out about the requirements, excuse my ignorance.

Ronnie

[RexGig]

The 5Ds R is of growing interest, to me, for landscape and nature photography. I know I would probably need to up-grade computers, but have been planning to do that, soon, anyway. I will not, likely, be an early adopter, unless I retire within this year. (Retirement will bring a financial windfall, as I am paid for a massive amount of unused leave, prorated over time.) Another reason for not hurrying to acquire a 5Ds R is that I tend to prioritize lenses, and the EF 16-25/4L, 11-24L, and 100-400L II have my attention. I have a pair of new 7D Mark II bodies, so the 100-400L II would be particularly relevant.

Actually, I had considered acquiring a Nikon D810, as a high-resolution body, but the recent introduction of the EF 11-24L has re-focused my attention on Canon. (I love lenses, made by both Canon and Nikon, too much to ever be likely to settle upon one brand of camera.)  

To be clear, I am not committed to a 5Ds-series camera. The presumed successor of the 5D III, which would, likely, have much better high-ISO performance, may prove to be the more-desirable choice. The same might be true of the next 1D-series camera, or the existing 1D X. The excellent new EF 11-24L will, largely, drive my selection process.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@RexGig wrote:

To be clear, I am not committed to a 5Ds-series camera. The presumed successor of the 5D III, which would, likely, have much better high-ISO performance, may prove to be the more-desirable choice. The same might be true of the next 1D-series camera, or the existing 1D X. The excellent new EF 11-24L will, largely, drive my selection process.

---

Frankly, I'm a tad surprised that Canon named the new hi-res cameras in the 5D series, instead of, say, 4D. I'm sure they'll keep the 5D look and feel, but the fact is that the new cameras figure to be almost as different, and used as differently, from the 5D3 as the 7D series is. I suppose that Canon may feel that they're approaching numerological gridlock at the top end of their product line and simply didn't want to use up another single-digit name.

[ebiggs1]

This type of camera all depends on what you want. As MP goes up, usually the high ISO and speed goes down.  If these are not in your requirment needs, OK, go for it.

[jazzman1]

Speaking of Pc power when I'm processing RAW with Canon Digital photo Professional my processor in my Pc peaks and dips at top performance, and my Ram useage is appox 1/3.  My Pc is an Intel 7i and I have 8GB ram installed.  I never used any other photo processing software for pics but I have used software for editing my video's.  Many programs I'm sure will pull much more processing power than the ones I use.   In order to not have their Pc overwhelmed, they would need to make sure their pc is well powered, with a good graphics card, and fast processor  Since I'm going to get a few new photo processing software programs I plan to upgrade my gear to at least 4 more Gigs of Ram and maybe 8.  Depends on the power usuage of the new programs.  Processing programs are power usuage intense.

[ebiggs1]

My personal computer is a I7 with 16 GB of RAM.  It has two 2TB hard drives.  A GeForce 660 video card and two 27: monitors.  I also have two 2TB external backup HDs.

It will run LR and PS at the same time with no noticable slow down.  Plus email and music.

[TCampbell]

It's a high-megapixel / low-ISO camera.  That makes a great fit for studio use and landscape use.  But not a great fit for events (e.g. weddings), sports, wildlife, etc.

Studio photography is different in that you set the exposure based on the creative needs of the shot (and ignoring ISO) and then you match the lights to the needs of the exposure (rather than adjust ISO).  If your studio is equipped with good lighting, then there's really no need to shoot at anything other than base ISO.

Also if you're on a tripod, and your subject isn't moving (e,g. landscapes and some types of archticture shots) there's no need for high ISO and the cameras are a great fit.

If you're doing hand-held photography in broad enough areas where you can't necessarily alter the lightig and you need to be able to shoot at high ISO, then a 5D III or 1D X is a better fit.

I think this would be an awesome camera for portrait, product, food, fashion, landscape, architecture, and art photography...  basically if the camera is either in a studio, being used with controlled lighting, or being used on a tripod... then probably these new cameras will have the advantage.  

Landscape and architecture uses may be questionable as to whether or not its actually "better" due to the higher focal ratios involved to create a broad depth of field.  The camera becomes diffraction limited at lower f-stops due to the higher megapixel count.  This doesn't mean the images wont look as good as, say, a 5D III... it simply means the images may fail to look noticeably better if the Airy Disk is too large to fit on one "pixel".  Implied in all of this is that you equip the camera with outstanding glass that has extremely good detail resolving power (good "accutance").