Hi all,

I'm seriously considering getting a used 5DS or 5DS-R. My primary use for it will be landscape photography. But I may occasionally use it for architecture, wildlife, macro or people pics too.

I know the only difference is that the 5DS-R has the anti-alias filter cancellation, which allows it to render a little more fine detail. Sounds ideal for landscape. But I know that AA cancellation can lead to moiré in images under certain situations. It's most commonly seen in fabrics, in repeating lines in architecture, in bird feathers, etc. For that reason the 5DS with an AA filter might be a better alternative, possibly even at the cost of a little fine detail. Used 5DS also are selling for a little less than used 5DS-R.

I was hoping to get some feedback from folks who have used one camera or the other....

If you had the 5DS-R, did you have problems with moiré? If not, what were you shooting? If so, what was the situation and were you able to correct the problem in post-processing?

If you had the 5DS, did you ever feel a lack of fine detail due to its anti-alias filter? How did the images sharpen up in post-processing?

I realize it's unlikely that anyone would have used them both, though if someone has I'd really like to hear your thoughts. I think I've read or viewed all the reviews that discussed them both.

Thanks in advance!

P.S. No need to tell me I should be looking at a mirrorless camera instead of a DSLR, Paul. I'm willing to take the risk that my life's purpose won't be fulfilled and I will never attain sainthood!

Alan, my choice to get a DSR was the fact I was already shooting a 7D2. The menu structure is seamless-when my DSR showed up it was set up for an Asian language-the 7D2 allowed me to navigate to English. The 5DSR shares the same pixel density with the 7D2-expect slightly better ISO performance due to the larger sensor. The AF system was a huge disappointment for me but once I learned it, and to use Live View, the images are remarkable. A friend that shoots the Nikon D850 thinks that the resolution is better. I shoot through mostly Sigma lenses but have no regrets on purchasing the camera body. This is NOT a 7D2 AF system-hope your eyesight good.

I almost bought an R5 but decided, for the cost, it doesn't really give me much more, image quality wise, than I already have. If I were a professional photographer then maybe, but I'm not and what I already have works just fine. I've not changed the way I think about MILC'S, or about photography, and no camera has ever changed how I think about life. I'm simply not that shallow. By the way, the average "everyday camera" runs around 24 megapixels, which is just fine for most everyday photography.

If most of your macro are in the studio, shot with external lighting, or shot wide open outside, then I would highly recommend the 5Ds. If you using ISOs above 800 for your macro due to lighting, to prevent motion blur, to stop down or because of the light loss due to magnification, then I would use the 5D Mark IV. I love the 5DSr for my my macros where I don't have to push the ISO past 800 and thought the resolution trumped any disadvantages. Above ISO 800, I traded off the higher resolution of my 5Dsr for the cleaner image of the 5D Mark IV. I would look at your macro shots for last year and see if how often you shot at higher ISOs before I made my decision.

Irwin