Canon 5DS

Yes, its a camera for Photo work not Video,
so
No, it shouldn't need a headphone jack in that regard!
But I'm sure there are people that read that info and are glad to know that it hasn't, just like it appears that Shenan is.

The 50MP Photo camera would be great for what I do (the higher the MP's go the better the Zoom without a Super Zoom, just like you can with 4k back to 1080), but that camera is no good for me because I want better than "Continuous shooting 5 frames / sec". Someone will probably say I'm stupid, but I don't see why every Photo camera can't do better than that by now.
How many people here wouldn't care if a 1920 x 1080 video camera couldn't do 60p/50p now? (or am I mistaken and its a lot?)
 
Last edited:
dustylense said:
The real question is, why would you even CONSIDER a 50mp camera for "serious" video work? Headphone jack or not! Again, this camera is made for photographers who won't give 2 sh**s about a video function much less a headphone jack. And I'm one of them.
The 5dmk4 coming later this year will be the hybrid stills video camera. And it will have a headphone jack.
Click to expand...
I personally wouldn't. I replied under the mistaken assumption that this was the replacement for the 5D4. So carry on, everyone. :)
 
dustylense said:
The real question is, why would you even CONSIDER a 50mp camera for "serious" video work? Headphone jack or not! Again, this camera is made for photographers who won't give 2 sh**s about a video function much less a headphone jack. And I'm one of them.
Click to expand...

Clearly in this day and age this won't be considered the camera for serious video work so I do agree with you, but... there are still professionals who find themselves in positions where having the video option is necessary. When video was introduced on the 5DII it was at the request of news photographers so they could get quick video clips while shooting stills. Those guys don't need that anymore? I'm gearing up for a two week photo shoot in the mountains of Japan and I'm seriously considering leaving the C100 at home even though I know I'll need to shoot some video while I'm there. Carrying an extra dedicated video body in my one backpack is going to slow me down a lot when we're waist deep in the snow. Would the C100 footage look better than the 5d3? Definitely. But since the shoot is going to be 75% stills, I'm having a hard time justifying the extra weight. Oh yeah, this will still be "serious" video work even though it's only 25% of the job.
Aaaaanyway, how much does a headphone jack really cost? $1? $2? I can't imagine it would cost too much on Canon's scale and having one would allow you to do a better job of video in a pinch.
 
Phil vG said:
Yes, its a camera for Photo work not Video,
so
No, it shouldn't need a headphone jack in that regard!
But I'm sure there are people that read that info and are glad to know that it hasn't, just like it appears that Shenan is.

The 50MP Photo camera would be great for what I do (the higher the MP's go the better the Zoom without a Super Zoom, just like you can with 4k back to 1080), but that camera is no good for me because I want better than "Continuous shooting 5 frames / sec". Someone will probably say I'm stupid, but I don't see why every Photo camera can't do better than that by now.
How many people here wouldn't care if a 1920 x 1080 video camera couldn't do 60p/50p now? (or am I mistaken and its a lot?)
Click to expand...

Because every time you increase the pixel count the more bandwith/CPU-power you need to process it. 25 megapixel are about 25 MB, 50 megapixel is gonna be around 50-60 MB per RAW-file, then imagine you also make a JPEG copy in largest size and qualtiy, now the CPU needs to encode that and then send it to your card, meanwhile it will have to buffer it. So the camera needs to buffer 50 x 5 pictures, 250 MB, plus the JPEGS so lets say 300 MB per sec. Then there are other issues like the sensor, how much and how fast you can push it without overheating, usually you can shoot more in cropped mode because it doesn't generate as much heat (and of course file size). So basically the improvement in newer and faster hardware is nullified by the incease in pixels that usually goes along with it. This is why "sports cameras" usually are about half the pixel count of the "full frame slow cameras".

I myself am not so interested in a 50 MP camera simply because the "cheap" glass I have probably will be the weakest link. I have 5D mk3, and shooting F1.4 or 2.8 is soft as it is already (don't need more pixels of "softness"). I guess for landscapes where shooting at F 5.6-8 is normal my lenses would be OK, but other then that, it would be overkill.
 
Last edited:
Photo Rumors is reporting that 5Ds will be priced at €3,500 across the pond, making it a likely mid-$3,000's product here in the US as well. 5Dr will be slightly more.
 
I too hope Canon finally makes some headway on DR. My D810 is now 3 stops better than my 5d and it really shows in challenging environments (let alone the extra, often very useful, resolution).
 
"Damn, I bought this Canon 5D Mark iii and these video features ruin my photography assignments" Said nobody, ever. Which makes us wonder who the f are Canon listening to when designing new products? My problem with this camera is that it's way too specific. It's going back to the original 5D, a photo only camera but with 50 MP at the same price of the Mark III when it came out. F you Canon. We're asking you to follow in the Sony/Panasonic trend in delivering a solid hybrid product that competes with the new guys. Or in the case of pure photographers, a dedicated photo camera with better DR, etc. etc. YES, I know some people will buy this for the sole reason of the 50 MP. But what else is new?? Where's the innovation?? What's even more frustrating is that THIS CAMERA WILL STILL HAVE VIDEO CAPABILITY. But Canon decided that you can only shoot in one mode 1080p, 30p (Why not get rid of video capabilities?). Just as we all asked for, no? The lower ISO and the slow 5 FPS makes this camera ideal for studio photography, but unsuitable for low light and sports. So unless someone is dying to get those 50 MP, I don't see why anyone would sell their Mark III to get this one.
 
Last edited:
Here come the Canon bashers again.

This camera isn't for you... Why not go and shoot on one of the numerous hybrids that do suit you? It really is that simple.

For me, this camera is a sign that Canon might soon launch a video centric DSLR. Happy days.
 
jowei said:
The lower ISO and the slow 5 FSP makes this camera ideal for studio photography, but unsuitable for low light and sports. So unless someone is dying to get those 50 MP, I don't see why anyone would sell their Mark III to get this one.
Click to expand...

Why 5 frames per second would not be suitable for sports? Shooting sports doesn't mean just pressing the shutter button and choosing one frame and deleting the rest. A sports shooter has to understand the sport that he/she is shooting and then click at the right moment. Anticipation is the key. When Canon 1D (Mark I) was launched, the speed was 4fps. People were using it for sports. Some were even using the Canon 1Ds (11 MP, 3fps) for sports as well as wildlife.
 
oh, didn't you all hear? the serious sport shooters are all shooting with an epic dragon at 6k 100fps. Anything less and the NFL just won't hire you because you might miss the shot. They sure do still ***** about 6k not being a full 20mp though, red seriously needs to get on the ball with that, or pro photographers might create a thread like this.
 
Jay Birch said:
Here come the Canon bashers again.

This camera isn't for you... Why not go and shoot on one of the numerous hybrids that do suit you? It really is that simple.

For me, this camera is a sign that Canon might soon launch a video centric DSLR. Happy days.
Click to expand...

I'm a Canon user, a long time user. I guess it's ok for me to rant after 10 years when I might have to sell all my lenses for a change of brand.
 
jowei said:
I'm a Canon user, a long time user. I guess it's ok for me to rant after 10 years when I might have to sell all my lenses for a change of brand.
Click to expand...

Don't Canon currently offer a pretty full spectrum of products that use the EF lens mount for video... From the lowly Rebel range to the 4K C500?

What feature did you expect out of this camera that isn't in one of the above?
 
jowei said:
"Damn, I bought this Canon 5D Mark iii and these video features ruin my photography assignments" Said nobody, ever. Which makes us wonder who the f are Canon listening to when designing new products?
Click to expand...

Funny, but there really are a lot of loud mouthed still photographers who complain that any DSLR has video features. Seriously. They say exactly what you wrote above even though it's complete nonsense. They seem to think that the video features are costing them money and crippling the abilities of the camera for stills. Obviously we know that neither are true since the the video feature is mainly just a software implementation with a few dollars spent for a microphone port. The video capabilities have also increased the sales enough to easily offset any extra costs. I guess that Canon has to hear enough from these idiots that they're afraid that it might impact their sales of DSLRs to these photographers.
We can only hope that there will be a third 5D version with all the video features we want.
 
jowei said:
"Damn, I bought this Canon 5D Mark iii and these video features ruin my photography assignments" Said nobody, ever. Which makes us wonder who the f are Canon listening to when designing new products? My problem with this camera is that it's way too specific. It's going back to the original 5D, a photo only camera but with 50 MP at the same price of the Mark III when it came out. F you Canon. We're asking you to follow in the Sony/Panasonic trend in delivering a solid hybrid product that competes with the new guys. Or in the case of pure photographers, a dedicated photo camera with better DR, etc. etc. YES, I know some people will buy this for the sole reason of the 50 MP. But what else is new?? Where's the innovation?? What's even more frustrating is that THIS CAMERA WILL STILL HAVE VIDEO CAPABILITY. But Canon decided that you can only shoot in one mode 1080p, 30p (Why not get rid of video capabilities?). Just as we all asked for, no? The lower ISO and the slow 5 FPS makes this camera ideal for studio photography, but unsuitable for low light and sports. So unless someone is dying to get those 50 MP, I don't see why anyone would sell their Mark III to get this one.
Click to expand...

I kinda agree. If they want to make this a landscape cam for the all the wannabe Ansel Adams's out there, do that and forget the video. If they're going to relent and put video on a cam, then there are some basics that should be included especially on a cam pushing the $4k mark. Basics like a headphone jack, mic jack and a flip screen or just don't bother. It's just going to tick off potential customers. I hope at least that the coming of the 5DS/R portends a 5DIV that will actually compete with the GH4 and more.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
Funny, but there really are a lot of loud mouthed still photographers who complain that any DSLR has video features. Seriously. They say exactly what you wrote above even though it's complete nonsense. They seem to think that the video features are costing them money and crippling the abilities of the camera for stills. Obviously we know that neither are true since the the video feature is mainly just a software implementation with a few dollars spent for a microphone port. The video capabilities have also increased the sales enough to easily offset any extra costs. I guess that Canon has to hear enough from these idiots that they're afraid that it might impact their sales of DSLRs to these photographers.
We can only hope that there will be a third 5D version with all the video features we want.
Click to expand...
Even if adding video is worthwhile and makes back money and then some (obviously this has been the case), it is in fact extra an obstacle engineering wise and warranty wise. When you add features you kinda have to make sure they work too. A headphone jack that doesn't work will go on warranty and allow you to switch camera, etc. You can't just "throw it all in there", I mean, just look at this thread, people are so hung up on it lacking 4K and "only" being full HD which clearly shows that putting a headphone jack probably isn't "just enough", but you want metering too. "OMFG, how can they put a headphone jack and not have a dedicated menu for audio channel selections. I want to hear channel 1 only, not the backup channel that is on 2..."

Now, I do know that big companies like Canon and Sony like to cripple their stuff, but then you have companies like Black Magic that on the other hand promise stuff that isn't there or takes a long time to fix with firmwares. Spread yourself thin and people get upset because things aren't working as intended, or promise little and people are upset because it isn't enough of an improvement.

Also, seems to be a nice self-centric notion going around here on various threads in line like: "Ohh, this camera just announced isn't fitting my needs, must be crap then."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top