That's what makes it tough switching brands. I've been a devoted Canon user since day one and I'll never change. Nikon makes good cameras as well. If you have a lot invested in Nikon, it probably isn't worth it for you to switch.
Kind of ironic seeing this announcement just two articles above "Apple to again stay out of megapixel race with 8MP camera in 'iPhone 6s'".
We laugh at phone and point-shoot camera makers that boast super high megapixels on small sensors. How is this any different?
Full size DSLR's are nothing like a Camera phone or a point-and-shoot.
The average person shooting selfies, doesn't care about quality, and the cameras built into any sub-300$ device is sufficient. People who take professional photos at weddings, on the other hand want all the extra resolution and less noise in the picture. You only get a chance to take pictures at a wedding once, there's no re-takes. Parties, events and other documentary services require the better hardware because you want to make sure you only need to take the picture once.
The "next-generation" technology is light-field cameras. ( https://pictures.lytro.com/ ), where you can take a picture and literately "fix everything" in post. These are only at 40 "MegaRay" (about 4 Megapixels) right now. Once they can produce 8MP-equivalent pictures and video, people might prefer these for point-and-shoots, since they will ruin less of their vacation photos.
Your camera phone is meant for taking "in-the-moment" pictures, in places that you don't want to lug heavy expensive camera gear around. Climbing a mountain, backpacking are places where your cameraphone are preferred. Did you run into a celebrity on a cruise or ferry? Cool, let's take a photo together. 8MP is good enough, and higher resolutions have lower return on investment, because a 41Mpixel photo taken with a cameraphone without stabilization may as well be a 1MP photo. Nearly all photos taken by cameraphones have compression rates set to levels to maximize photo storage, even when set to best settings.
As far as Video on a Canon is concerned... It's a tickbox. They have a >4K sensor, but they don't take 4K video. That's reserved for the EOS-1D C (8000$), at 24FPS in YCbCr 4:2:2 MJPEG (4GB/min.) Compare with GoPro 4 (500$) at 4K30 in h.264. Current model Canon Consumer camcorders are two generations behind, and in fact most places utilizing consumer/prosumer camcorders switched to using DSLR's when they quit using tape and the Camera manufacturers stopped producing CCD video cameras (see "rolling shutter" effect, and "loss of nightvision" for why this was a bad thing.)
h.265 support needs to be mainstream before you will see 4K support in many devices, and guess what... 4K can be done with an 8MP sensor. So you may see an iPhone support 4K video recording at some point. A DSLR meanwhile is still your best option for recording video due to better lens systems.
I've read that the continuous auto focus is not as good as with high quality video cameras. If the scene does not require auto focus perhaps they are good enough.
You know, you have just reminded me. I picked a 70D body a while back specifically to play with Canon's new dual pixel video auto focusing system which is a apparently a massive improvement on their previous system. I loved the camera so much I have been shooting stills ever since and forgot all about the video capability ... OK next sunny day!
I own a Canon 5DM3 and I do tons of photography with it. There is no such thing (to my knowledge) of an "MKIII lens vs an MKII lens." The mount is the same. The speed of the AF has nothing to do with what the original poster is saying. He is saying there are lenses designed for high-megapixel sensors which to me is a not true.
I'm not talking about the mount. Consider the EF 1.4x ii vs the EF 1.4x iii. The decrease in AF time from the ii to the iii on your 5D3 will be greater than the difference on my 1D3. The EF1.4x iii is better able to take advantage of the capabilities of your 5D3's AF system.
Same goes for the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS iii vs the ii.
I'm still agreeing that there's no optical difference with respect to newer lenses and sensor resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
The 5DMIII and 1D both use the exact same sensor chip. It's the other internals that differentiate between the two. The 5DMIII is a fantastic camera for sports and wildlife. It just doesn't have the faster frames-per-second of the 1DX camera, but it's still pretty good.
The 1DX only has 18m MP vs. the 5D3 with 22.3. They're not the same sensor.
Regarding the AF systems, the only difference between the 1DX and 5D3 AF systems is that the 1DX has a 100K pixel RGB metering system that can better track subject movement and follow focus.
To be sure though, there are plenty of 5D3 bodies on the sidelines of NFL and NBA games. It's not all 1D bodies like it used to be.
The sensor is much more than 4K. I think it is the internal processing that is holding it up. To save out 4K lossless at 60 frames takes a lot of horsepower. Anyway, DLSRs have never been all that great at video. Canon does sell some excellent high end video cameras that also take mediocre stills.
It is funny how that works out. I am no longer in the serious video business but back in the day when push came to shove we always ended up using Sony equipment such as BVW Betacam SP and their digital descendants for HD when it came in (I can't even remember the names now). We had Canon's video offerings to play with but never used them. However for still Photography we always used Canon. BTW Now I am reading Son's Alpha range are pretty good hybrids but I have never played with one anyone here used them?
Full size DSLR's are nothing like a Camera phone or a point-and-shoot.
The average person shooting selfies, doesn't care about quality, and the cameras built into any sub-300$ device is sufficient. People who take professional photos at weddings, on the other hand want all the extra resolution and less noise in the picture. You only get a chance to take pictures at a wedding once, there's no re-takes. Parties, events and other documentary services require the better hardware because you want to make sure you only need to take the picture once.
The "next-generation" technology is light-field cameras. ( https://pictures.lytro.com/ ), where you can take a picture and literately "fix everything" in post. These are only at 40 "MegaRay" (about 4 Megapixels) right now. Once they can produce 8MP-equivalent pictures and video, people might prefer these for point-and-shoots, since they will ruin less of their vacation photos.
Your camera phone is meant for taking "in-the-moment" pictures, in places that you don't want to lug heavy expensive camera gear around. Climbing a mountain, backpacking are places where your cameraphone are preferred. Did you run into a celebrity on a cruise or ferry? Cool, let's take a photo together. 8MP is good enough, and higher resolutions have lower return on investment, because a 41Mpixel photo taken with a cameraphone without stabilization may as well be a 1MP photo. Nearly all photos taken by cameraphones have compression rates set to levels to maximize photo storage, even when set to best settings.
As far as Video on a Canon is concerned... It's a tickbox. They have a >4K sensor, but they don't take 4K video. That's reserved for the EOS-1D C (8000$), at 24FPS in YCbCr 4:2:2 MJPEG (4GB/min.) Compare with GoPro 4 (500$) at 4K30 in h.264. Current model Canon Consumer camcorders are two generations behind, and in fact most places utilizing consumer/prosumer camcorders switched to using DSLR's when they quit using tape and the Camera manufacturers stopped producing CCD video cameras (see "rolling shutter" effect, and "loss of nightvision" for why this was a bad thing.)
h.265 support needs to be mainstream before you will see 4K support in many devices, and guess what... 4K can be done with an 8MP sensor. So you may see an iPhone support 4K video recording at some point. A DSLR meanwhile is still your best option for recording video due to better lens systems.
I have been waiting and waiting for more news on light-field technology. It is very exciting. I dream of selecting the FP and DOF in post ... can you imagine the fun?
In Canon’s case, they’re already getting a lot of pushback on dynamic range. Canon has for some time now been lagging the Sony/Nikon gains in this realm, and the new 50mp cameras don’t change anything in that respect, it seems. Even Canon, when directly asked, is saying that the new camera won’t gain dynamic range over previous ones.
That’s not a bad thing, per se. But it does mean that the pixel push is really only about sampling density, not improvement in other aspects of the sensor. Even the Canon faithful seem to be a little disappointed by that, though they’ll take any improvement they can get, obviously. The 5DS should be a great studio camera, for example, as you control the dynamic range of a scene with lighting. For landscape work, those Canon shooters will likely still want to look at HDR to push their work upwards more towards medium format results, though.
You're comparing phone cameras and compact point-and-shoot cameras to full-frame professional cameras that are meant for folks that want to take serious photographs and probably uses them as tools in their careers?
Really?? At this point, it's not even worth further debate with you.. just a waste of electrons.
If "full frame" DSLR users ridicule the phone and point-shoot cameras for playing the megapixel game, then medium format camera users who "want to take serious photographs and probably uses them as tools in their careers" have every right to ridicule the 5DS for the same reason.
If "full frame" DSLR users laugh at the phone and point-shoot cameras for playing the megapixel game, then medium format camera users who "want to take serious photographs and probably uses them as tools in their careers" have just as might right to laugh at the 5DS for the same reason.
Every DSLR camera user I know (APS, Full frame or both) all have iPhones and love the cameras ... not sure where you get the idea any laugh at an iPhone camera's pixel count. All those I know fully understand about 'using the right tools for the job'.
LOL. That's true, and L lenses really do make a difference too. I had convinced myself otherwise for many years. Now I own a few I am can really see the difference in my images..
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
LOL. That's true, and L lenses really do make a difference too. I had convinced myself otherwise for many years. Now I own a few I am can really see the difference in my images..
Over much chagrin with my fellow photographers, I only buy the L lenses. Sure, they are a lot pricier, but they are built like tanks and the optical quality is always the best.... usually.
Yeah, there are lower-cost alternatives like Tamron and even Canon's own non-L lenses, but honestly for me, my lenses will be the only lenses I will need, they will hold their value, and they are heirlooms as far as I'm concerned. I can always be sure that the lenses will perform admirably as long as I'm around.
I'm looking to buy two more lenses to complete my collection... and then I'm done. In due time.
If "full frame" DSLR users ridicule the phone and point-shoot cameras for playing the megapixel game, then medium format camera users who "want to take serious photographs and probably uses them as tools in their careers" have every right to ridicule the 5DS for the same reason.
I read comments from photographer sites that ridicule the 5DS for its monster pixel count. Frankly, I think those that do that are simply wannabe photographers and self-annointed "know-it-alls" like most Fandrdoids that don't really understand what the end-use is for a camera like this.
I think if Canon came out with the 5DM4, along with these two cameras at the same time there wouldn't be as much static going on.
I keep thinking ... ... 50 MP ... OMG . I am glad I got a new Mac Pro now. It is bad enough doing HDR with 22 MP RAW... my composite 16 bit pictures are well over a 100MB each now. Thank heavens HDs are cheap these days!
Over much chagrin with my fellow photographers, I only buy the L lenses. Sure, they are a lot pricier, but they are built like tanks and the optical quality is always the best.... usually.
Yeah, there are lower-cost alternatives like Tamron and even Canon's own non-L lenses, but honestly for me, my lenses will be the only lenses I will need, they will hold their value, and they are heirlooms as far as I'm concerned. I can always be sure that the lenses will perform admirably as long as I'm around.
I'm looking to buy two more lenses to complete my collection... and then I'm done. In due time.
I recently got the 100-400mmL IS. It may not be the fastest but boy it is flexible for wild life and the images are amazing. Next I think I want the 70-200L f.2.8 do you have that one? If so what do you think?
People don't come here for camera news. There are plenty of sites that do, why here ?
Come on, who forced you to read this thread. BTW I bought a new 6 Core Mac Pro just because of my Canons and lenses so there is a connection. Plus at least here the Canon fans are also Mac fans so it is a double win for me , at least. :smokey:
<<"mstone: The sensor is much more than 4K. I think it is the internal processing that is holding it up. To save out 4K lossless at 60 frames takes a lot of horsepower. Anyway, DLSRs have never been all that great at video. Canon does sell some excellent high end video cameras that also take mediocre stills.">>
A well known Canon USA spokesperson, Chuck Westfall, stated that with so many scan lines the "jelly" effect would be more of a problem than buyers of this caliber would care for.
The "jelly" effect is where panning is going on--or--the subject is moving laterally, and as the scan lines progress form top to bottom, the image has moved laterally during the scan, causing a sort of slightly leaning image of moving object. Smaller chips on dedicated pro video cameras do not show this effect.
In actuality, you could mitigate the "jelly effect using a faster shutter speed of say 250th of a second at 29, 30 etc., but then you will not have the frame-to-frame smoothness you need that you get from say a 30th of a second (where you match or go lower than the frame rate). The "jelly" effect can be seen on current full frame sensors ( to a logical lesser extent on C size "crop" sensors) and is the main weakness of video IQ in DSLRs.
Canon will likely leave video improvements for a 5D Mark IV sometime this year (perhaps 4K, maybe zebra stripping and most likely phase detect focus incorporated in the imaging sensor (as in 70D and 7D Mark II). I hope this helps you better understand that no single camera can satisfy a pro in all aspects of photography. That's why I have 3 bodies for my work, including a 1Dx (as close as I've come to a near complete camera -- so far.
btw: The dual Digic processors could handle the task, at least at 30 fops or lower for 4K. Probably could handle at 60fps.
Well, those who are jumping ship for dynamic range have already done so. For weddings and events, photographers bring lighting, so DR doesn't matter that much. If you fully use the DR on a Sony sensor to overcome silhouetting, it still looks a bit unnatural (HDR). I can see it as a use case for real estate photography for sure. Maybe some landscape stuff. Other than that, I'm not that limited by the lower DR.
I just prefer the handling of Canon bodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I read comments from photographer sites that ridicule the 5DS for its monster pixel count. Frankly, I think those that do that are simply wannabe photographers and self-annointed "know-it-alls" like most Fandrdoids that don't really understand what the end-use is for a camera like this.
I'll leave the Fandroid bit out of this...
I was shooting a swim team last summer, doing action shots of individuals. One mom hadn't signed up her daughter for photos, figuring she would just copy what I was doing with her phone and save the money. Ok. After about 5 laps and one bad iPhone splashing, she asked a friend to borrow her point and shoot camera. After another couple laps, she went over and signed up for my photos. Some photos just plain require the right gear, and my keeper rate went up 10X when I went from the T2i to the 1D3.
<<"mstone: The sensor is much more than 4K. I think it is the internal processing that is holding it up. To save out 4K lossless at 60 frames takes a lot of horsepower. Anyway, DLSRs have never been all that great at video. Canon does sell some excellent high end video cameras that also take mediocre stills.">>
A well known Canon USA spokesperson, Chuck Westfall, stated that with so many scan lines the "jelly" effect would be more of a problem than buyers of this caliber would care for.
The "jelly" effect is where panning is going on--or--the subject is moving laterally, and as the scan lines progress form top to bottom, the image has moved laterally during the scan, causing a sort of slightly leaning image of moving object. Smaller chips on dedicated pro video cameras do not show this effect.
In actuality, you could mitigate the "jelly effect using a faster shutter speed of say 250th of a second at 29, 30 etc., but then you will not have the frame-to-frame smoothness you need that you get from say a 30th of a second (where you match or go lower than the frame rate). The "jelly" effect can be seen on current full frame sensors ( to a logical lesser extent on C size "crop" sensors) and is the main weakness of video IQ in DSLRs.
Canon will likely leave video improvements for a 5D Mark IV sometime this year (perhaps 4K, maybe zebra stripping and most likely phase detect focus incorporated in the imaging sensor (as in 70D and 7D Mark II). I hope this helps you better understand that no single camera can satisfy a pro in all aspects of photography. That's why I have 3 bodies for my work, including a 1Dx (as close as I've come to a near complete camera -- so far.
btw: The dual Digic processors could handle the task, at least at 30 fops or lower for 4K. Probably could handle at 60fps.
Jellybelly on the jelly effect.
I have to say I prefer a dedicated video camera for video and a dedicated DSLR for stills. For me the issue is outside of a studio environment I simply can't shoot video from an LCD and I sure as hell can't hold a DSLR using the LCD and shoot video. I did buy a great add on for a Canon body that helps a great deal [Kamerar VF-4+ Plus Universal LCD View Finder] but it still isn't quite the same.
Comments
I post this in jest but you never know ... I have no idea if this is true and Ken does have some far out views .... but: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikcan.htm
Full size DSLR's are nothing like a Camera phone or a point-and-shoot.
The average person shooting selfies, doesn't care about quality, and the cameras built into any sub-300$ device is sufficient. People who take professional photos at weddings, on the other hand want all the extra resolution and less noise in the picture. You only get a chance to take pictures at a wedding once, there's no re-takes. Parties, events and other documentary services require the better hardware because you want to make sure you only need to take the picture once.
The "next-generation" technology is light-field cameras. ( https://pictures.lytro.com/ ), where you can take a picture and literately "fix everything" in post. These are only at 40 "MegaRay" (about 4 Megapixels) right now. Once they can produce 8MP-equivalent pictures and video, people might prefer these for point-and-shoots, since they will ruin less of their vacation photos.
Your camera phone is meant for taking "in-the-moment" pictures, in places that you don't want to lug heavy expensive camera gear around. Climbing a mountain, backpacking are places where your cameraphone are preferred. Did you run into a celebrity on a cruise or ferry? Cool, let's take a photo together. 8MP is good enough, and higher resolutions have lower return on investment, because a 41Mpixel photo taken with a cameraphone without stabilization may as well be a 1MP photo. Nearly all photos taken by cameraphones have compression rates set to levels to maximize photo storage, even when set to best settings.
As far as Video on a Canon is concerned... It's a tickbox. They have a >4K sensor, but they don't take 4K video. That's reserved for the EOS-1D C (8000$), at 24FPS in YCbCr 4:2:2 MJPEG (4GB/min.) Compare with GoPro 4 (500$) at 4K30 in h.264. Current model Canon Consumer camcorders are two generations behind, and in fact most places utilizing consumer/prosumer camcorders switched to using DSLR's when they quit using tape and the Camera manufacturers stopped producing CCD video cameras (see "rolling shutter" effect, and "loss of nightvision" for why this was a bad thing.)
h.265 support needs to be mainstream before you will see 4K support in many devices, and guess what... 4K can be done with an 8MP sensor. So you may see an iPhone support 4K video recording at some point. A DSLR meanwhile is still your best option for recording video due to better lens systems.
You know, you have just reminded me. I picked a 70D body a while back specifically to play with Canon's new dual pixel video auto focusing system which is a apparently a massive improvement on their previous system. I loved the camera so much I have been shooting stills ever since and forgot all about the video capability ... OK next sunny day!
I own a Canon 5DM3 and I do tons of photography with it. There is no such thing (to my knowledge) of an "MKIII lens vs an MKII lens." The mount is the same. The speed of the AF has nothing to do with what the original poster is saying. He is saying there are lenses designed for high-megapixel sensors which to me is a not true.
I'm not talking about the mount. Consider the EF 1.4x ii vs the EF 1.4x iii. The decrease in AF time from the ii to the iii on your 5D3 will be greater than the difference on my 1D3. The EF1.4x iii is better able to take advantage of the capabilities of your 5D3's AF system.
Same goes for the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS iii vs the ii.
I'm still agreeing that there's no optical difference with respect to newer lenses and sensor resolution.
The 5DMIII and 1D both use the exact same sensor chip. It's the other internals that differentiate between the two. The 5DMIII is a fantastic camera for sports and wildlife. It just doesn't have the faster frames-per-second of the 1DX camera, but it's still pretty good.
The 1DX only has 18m MP vs. the 5D3 with 22.3. They're not the same sensor.
Regarding the AF systems, the only difference between the 1DX and 5D3 AF systems is that the 1DX has a 100K pixel RGB metering system that can better track subject movement and follow focus.
To be sure though, there are plenty of 5D3 bodies on the sidelines of NFL and NBA games. It's not all 1D bodies like it used to be.
It is funny how that works out. I am no longer in the serious video business but back in the day when push came to shove we always ended up using Sony equipment such as BVW Betacam SP and their digital descendants for HD when it came in (I can't even remember the names now). We had Canon's video offerings to play with but never used them. However for still Photography we always used Canon. BTW Now I am reading Son's Alpha range are pretty good hybrids but I have never played with one anyone here used them?
I have been waiting and waiting for more news on light-field technology. It is very exciting. I dream of selecting the FP and DOF in post ... can you imagine the fun?
Yes, very high resolution, but not all that great at dynamic range.
According to Thom Hogan: (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-downside-to-more-pixels.html)
In Canon’s case, they’re already getting a lot of pushback on dynamic range. Canon has for some time now been lagging the Sony/Nikon gains in this realm, and the new 50mp cameras don’t change anything in that respect, it seems. Even Canon, when directly asked, is saying that the new camera won’t gain dynamic range over previous ones.
That’s not a bad thing, per se. But it does mean that the pixel push is really only about sampling density, not improvement in other aspects of the sensor. Even the Canon faithful seem to be a little disappointed by that, though they’ll take any improvement they can get, obviously. The 5DS should be a great studio camera, for example, as you control the dynamic range of a scene with lighting. For landscape work, those Canon shooters will likely still want to look at HDR to push their work upwards more towards medium format results, though.
You're comparing phone cameras and compact point-and-shoot cameras to full-frame professional cameras that are meant for folks that want to take serious photographs and probably uses them as tools in their careers?
Really?? At this point, it's not even worth further debate with you.. just a waste of electrons.
If "full frame" DSLR users ridicule the phone and point-shoot cameras for playing the megapixel game, then medium format camera users who "want to take serious photographs and probably uses them as tools in their careers" have every right to ridicule the 5DS for the same reason.
Every DSLR camera user I know (APS, Full frame or both) all have iPhones and love the cameras ... not sure where you get the idea any laugh at an iPhone camera's pixel count. All those I know fully understand about 'using the right tools for the job'.
LOL. That's true, and L lenses really do make a difference too. I had convinced myself otherwise for many years. Now I own a few I am can really see the difference in my images..
LOL. That's true, and L lenses really do make a difference too. I had convinced myself otherwise for many years. Now I own a few I am can really see the difference in my images..
Over much chagrin with my fellow photographers, I only buy the L lenses. Sure, they are a lot pricier, but they are built like tanks and the optical quality is always the best.... usually.
Yeah, there are lower-cost alternatives like Tamron and even Canon's own non-L lenses, but honestly for me, my lenses will be the only lenses I will need, they will hold their value, and they are heirlooms as far as I'm concerned. I can always be sure that the lenses will perform admirably as long as I'm around.
I'm looking to buy two more lenses to complete my collection... and then I'm done. In due time.
He used to be Nikon only fanboy but now he claims his 5D3 is the best camera he has ever owned.
If "full frame" DSLR users ridicule the phone and point-shoot cameras for playing the megapixel game, then medium format camera users who "want to take serious photographs and probably uses them as tools in their careers" have every right to ridicule the 5DS for the same reason.
I read comments from photographer sites that ridicule the 5DS for its monster pixel count. Frankly, I think those that do that are simply wannabe photographers and self-annointed "know-it-alls" like most Fandrdoids that don't really understand what the end-use is for a camera like this.
I think if Canon came out with the 5DM4, along with these two cameras at the same time there wouldn't be as much static going on.
I keep thinking ... ... 50 MP ... OMG . I am glad I got a new Mac Pro now. It is bad enough doing HDR with 22 MP RAW... my composite 16 bit pictures are well over a 100MB each now. Thank heavens HDs are cheap these days!
But only shoot JPEG and Post is for sissies.
I recently got the 100-400mmL IS. It may not be the fastest but boy it is flexible for wild life and the images are amazing. Next I think I want the 70-200L f.2.8 do you have that one? If so what do you think?
Come on, who forced you to read this thread. BTW I bought a new 6 Core Mac Pro just because of my Canons and lenses so there is a connection. Plus at least here the Canon fans are also Mac fans so it is a double win for me , at least. :smokey:
A well known Canon USA spokesperson, Chuck Westfall, stated that with so many scan lines the "jelly" effect would be more of a problem than buyers of this caliber would care for.
The "jelly" effect is where panning is going on--or--the subject is moving laterally, and as the scan lines progress form top to bottom, the image has moved laterally during the scan, causing a sort of slightly leaning image of moving object. Smaller chips on dedicated pro video cameras do not show this effect.
In actuality, you could mitigate the "jelly effect using a faster shutter speed of say 250th of a second at 29, 30 etc., but then you will not have the frame-to-frame smoothness you need that you get from say a 30th of a second (where you match or go lower than the frame rate). The "jelly" effect can be seen on current full frame sensors ( to a logical lesser extent on C size "crop" sensors) and is the main weakness of video IQ in DSLRs.
Canon will likely leave video improvements for a 5D Mark IV sometime this year (perhaps 4K, maybe zebra stripping and most likely phase detect focus incorporated in the imaging sensor (as in 70D and 7D Mark II). I hope this helps you better understand that no single camera can satisfy a pro in all aspects of photography. That's why I have 3 bodies for my work, including a 1Dx (as close as I've come to a near complete camera -- so far.
btw: The dual Digic processors could handle the task, at least at 30 fops or lower for 4K. Probably could handle at 60fps.
Yes, very high resolution, but not all that great at dynamic range.
According to Thom Hogan: (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-downside-to-more-pixels.html)
Well, those who are jumping ship for dynamic range have already done so. For weddings and events, photographers bring lighting, so DR doesn't matter that much. If you fully use the DR on a Sony sensor to overcome silhouetting, it still looks a bit unnatural (HDR). I can see it as a use case for real estate photography for sure. Maybe some landscape stuff. Other than that, I'm not that limited by the lower DR.
I just prefer the handling of Canon bodies.
I read comments from photographer sites that ridicule the 5DS for its monster pixel count. Frankly, I think those that do that are simply wannabe photographers and self-annointed "know-it-alls" like most Fandrdoids that don't really understand what the end-use is for a camera like this.
I'll leave the Fandroid bit out of this...
I was shooting a swim team last summer, doing action shots of individuals. One mom hadn't signed up her daughter for photos, figuring she would just copy what I was doing with her phone and save the money. Ok. After about 5 laps and one bad iPhone splashing, she asked a friend to borrow her point and shoot camera. After another couple laps, she went over and signed up for my photos. Some photos just plain require the right gear, and my keeper rate went up 10X when I went from the T2i to the 1D3.
Jellybelly on the jelly effect.
I have to say I prefer a dedicated video camera for video and a dedicated DSLR for stills. For me the issue is outside of a studio environment I simply can't shoot video from an LCD and I sure as hell can't hold a DSLR using the LCD and shoot video. I did buy a great add on for a Canon body that helps a great deal [Kamerar VF-4+ Plus Universal LCD View Finder] but it still isn't quite the same.