Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Talk [CR2]

[Canon Rumors Guy]

There's plenty of market research that says 5D buyers don't care about 4K on DSLRs and that the % of sales of "5D" cameras for the primary purpose of video is single digits.

I think you misread; note that I said, video, not 4K. I also said that somewhere around 50% of users CARE about video, I said nothing of primary purpose. I would agree that the primary purpose of probably 9 out of 10 5D buyers is still. But video most certainly plays a role. For many people, 4K is a bit of a litmus test for manufacturers. It's a clear indication that they are willing to innovate and provide the end user with the best feature set it can. Think of it like purchasing an expensive car. If you're spending $60,000 on a new car, and it doesn't have heated seats, LED headlights and satellite navigation, no matter how good the engine/transmission are, you're going to ask yourself what the heck the manufacturer was thinking. That car manufacturer, just like Canon, is not a market provider of one. Yes, their product may in fact serve the needs of the consumer quite well. The problem is, someone else may do it better, for the same price. (With heated seats...)

That's a poor analogy, there's a lot of $60,000+ performance cars without heated seats and Nav, because those features simply aren't important to the purpose of the vehicle, and they can even be a negative.

I don't think anyone is asking that. The advantage of the 5D series is that it takes great stills, and you can still capture some video that will stack up against the best of what's on the market - it may not be nearly as easy to do that, but the capability is there. As for the, "Let someone else make the 4K camera" part, I know many company executives across a broad spectrum of industries that would be HORRIFIED by taking that stance in any market (I'm not referring to 4K, I just mean the ethos of, "Let someone else eat our lunch."

Canon wants to make a great 4K & 8K workflow, why waste time making bad 4K cameras?

The 1D C proved people didn't want the DSLR form factor for 4K workflow, even when pricing was cut almost in half, way more people chose the 1080P C300.

 

[aceflibble]

Considering how the professional market has moved well away from using DSLR for video, I don't know why they would bother throwing resources away on putting 4k in any DSLR body now. 4K in a DSLR is nothing more than a bullet point to satisfy online commenters who will rarely be buying the camera anyway. The cost of putting 4K in a machine does not outweigh the tiny, tiny bump in sales you get from fraturing it. If anything, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the higher price demanded by puting 4K in a camera actually equates to fewer sales than if you didn't have 4k and priced the body lower.

Not to mention, Canon already makes so little money on bodies that there's no reason to go all-out. Lenses re the only thing that are really profitable now. A body that sells for £1000 street only makes about £45 profit. Bodies that cost £2500-£3500—the range any new 5D falls in—tends to go from a £30 loss to a £40 profit, depending on the SKU. If they're making a loss or barely any profit on the body, why would they make it even worse for themsleves by putting in costly 4K?

If you are serious enough about video that you're chasing 4k, you shouldn't be looking at DSLR. You should have stopped looking at DSLR several years ago. Grab a C300, grab an FS7, or hell, if you want something small, grab something like a GH4 or A7SII. There is literally no benefit whatsoever to continuing to try to use DSLR for video, and there are many drawbacks. I get that there will be a few hobbyists still trying to cling to DSLR video, but for you, just go to mirrorless if you really need 4K, though I question your 'need' for that, too. If you're a professional, shame on you for even thinking about wanting a new 5D body for video.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

Maybe Nikon and Canon have an agreement to keep 4K away from certain levels of their DSLR lineups?

Someone who wants the stills capabilities of the D750, D810, or 5D will not being switching to a GH4 or A7s just to gain some video ability if it is not their primary use.

Once Nikon puts 4K into a non-D5 body, Canon will only then be forced to play along.

 

[clarksbrother]

Not to mention, Canon already makes so little money on bodies that there's no reason to go all-out. Lenses re the only thing that are really profitable now. A body that sells for £1000 street only makes about £45 profit. Bodies that cost £2500-£3500—the range any new 5D falls in—tends to go from a £30 loss to a £40 profit, depending on the SKU. If they're making a loss or barely any profit on the body, why would they make it even worse for themsleves by putting in costly 4K?

1) Just curious where you got the stats on the profit per body. Don't doubt it, just curious where the numbers came from.

2) 4K isn't as costly as you may think. It's mostly a software thing especially when you consider the improvements they try to make from a sensor side continually (i.e. faster sensor read/global shutter, heat dissipation for less noise, faster sensor data bus so you can get more full res FPS). All the same tech required for better camera specs are almost the same as what's required for 4K.

 

[padam]

It is very annoying considering the fact that the Digic 7 processors and the sensor will surely have enough processing power and readout capability for 4k video.

It is just the decision of the Canon marketing people, but it may just backfire in the long-term as more and more cameras enter the market with lower price points and less restrictions on features.


But I think a 5DC may very well be on the cards taking the place of the 1DC at a lower price point (which may become obsolete if the 1DX Mark II gets 4k) and then this makes sense (still annoying though)

 

[geonix]

The 5D II and 5D III had been pioneers in DSLR video. A lot of people started to use DSLRs for video because of these models.

With its other specs the 5D III had been (and still is to those who still use it) an excellent allrounder.

If the 5d IV will not include 4K it won't be an excellent allrounder anymore. 4K is the video standard of the future (acutally it is already now to some) and if I want to buy a 3000+ bugs camera I will be quite disappointed if it doesn't offer standard specs for video. Especially if even entry-class cameras from other companies and smart-phones do offer 4k.

Canon brought the viedeo option into the DSLRs and by not including 4K into their "consumer" and "pro-sumer" line soon they will damage their DSLR lineup substantially. There is no way back. People expect a high-end DSLR to also have decent viedeo functions.

The 5d IV will probably come 2016, maybe they even wait up until photokina as they did with the 7d II, and if Canon then still thinks 4K is unnecessary or not needed. Well...

 

[robinlee]

I do not mind if they split the line like Sony A7II A7RII and A7SII, but seriously Canon, please ensure your DR is vastly improved, higher FPS (8 at least), high buffer rate and CFast card upgrade... these are the areas I am looking for improvement to justify my upgrade.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I do not mind if they split the line like Sony A7II A7RII and A7SII, but seriously Canon, please ensure your DR is vastly improved, higher FPS (8 at least), high buffer rate and CFast card upgrade... these are the areas I am looking for improvement to justify my upgrade.

I am looking for increased DR mostly, that's the single most important technical feature for me to draw me into the 5DMk IV. Other than that I bet there will be the usiual improvements in ergonomics and customize-able features which are also good to have. The MkIII is a great camera and has no obvious shortcomings like the MkII had, so the MkIV will have to be extra good to get people to upgrade.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Thankfully my 5D3 is in my opinion the perfect SLR and I cannot see buying a replacement camera in the foreseeable future - maybe not ever. However, to add to the video debate, I have zero (and I mean zero) interest in shooting video. I have never quite understood the reason for putting video in SLR cameras - to me shooting video is a completely different discipline/feel and requires a camcorder. When I got my 5D2 (my first digital SLR) and then 5D3 I had wished they offered a version without video. It just adds an extra button and extra menu items that I do not need and I like to have things as uncluttered as possible.

 

[Viggo]

I would rather have a minijack on my 1dx than 4K. I have maybe shot 1 hour in three years, all in very short familyfun sequences. On my small Sony handycam, I've shot maybe 50 hours in the same time frame.

 

[mml4]

I hope to replace my 6D with a Mark 4 when it is released. I don't want video capability in my still camera as it is of no interest to me and the thought I am paying $ for it turns me off. At the price point this camera will sell at I shouldn't have to pay for things I don't want! I would rather have built in GPS than video capability.
Marc

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

The 5D II and 5D III had been pioneers in DSLR video. A lot of people started to use DSLRs for video because of these models.

With its other specs the 5D III had been (and still is to those who still use it) an excellent allrounder.

If the 5d IV will not include 4K it won't be an excellent allrounder anymore. 4K is the video standard of the future (acutally it is already now to some) and if I want to buy a 3000+ bugs camera I will be quite disappointed if it doesn't offer standard specs for video. Especially if even entry-class cameras from other companies and smart-phones do offer 4k.

Canon brought the viedeo option into the DSLRs and by not including 4K into their "consumer" and "pro-sumer" line soon they will damage their DSLR lineup substantially. There is no way back. People expect a high-end DSLR to also have decent viedeo functions.

The 5d IV will probably come 2016, maybe they even wait up until photokina as they did with the 7d II, and if Canon then still thinks 4K is unnecessary or not needed. Well...

The 5D Mark II was a fluke for Canon and they admit that. However, it did tell them that filmmakers were looking at different ergonomics and design ideas and Cinema EOS system was born. All the R&D dollars for video, 4K & 8K are going into that line of products. I do think we'll see a cheaper 4K solution with an EF mount from Canon in the future, but it will be a video camera first.

Canon has also said the days of making a "do everything" camera is over and that their products were going to become more focused for the job at hand.

 

[Perio]

If I remember correctly, people in CR have been talking some time ago that HD video adds little to the cost of the DSLR. How much more would it cost to have 4k video capabilities in 5d mk4?

For me personally, 5ds color rendition in 5d mk4 would be much more desirable than 4k video. But I may not be a target population for 5d mk4.

 

[sleepnever]

Put me in one of those camps that doesn't care about 4K video. Sometimes, when its my son's birthday or he's doing something super cute (cooking with my wife), I'll bust out the 5D3 for some video. Otherwise, camera phone covers it.

As for the Megapixels, I'd really like to see a bump. Nothing massive, but 28-30 would be a nice resolution bump. 50 is too much right now, especially because I still use my camera for a variety of things.

 

[YuengLinger]

Considering how the professional market has moved well away from using DSLR for video, I don't know why they would bother throwing resources away on putting 4k in any DSLR body now. 4K in a DSLR is nothing more than a bullet point to satisfy online commenters who will rarely be buying the camera anyway. The cost of putting 4K in a machine does not outweigh the tiny, tiny bump in sales you get from fraturing it. If anything, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the higher price demanded by puting 4K in a camera actually equates to fewer sales than if you didn't have 4k and priced the body lower.

Not to mention, Canon already makes so little money on bodies that there's no reason to go all-out. Lenses re the only thing that are really profitable now. A body that sells for £1000 street only makes about £45 profit. Bodies that cost £2500-£3500—the range any new 5D falls in—tends to go from a £30 loss to a £40 profit, depending on the SKU. If they're making a loss or barely any profit on the body, why would they make it even worse for themsleves by putting in costly 4K?

If you are serious enough about video that you're chasing 4k, you shouldn't be looking at DSLR. You should have stopped looking at DSLR several years ago. Grab a C300, grab an FS7, or hell, if you want something small, grab something like a GH4 or A7SII. There is literally no benefit whatsoever to continuing to try to use DSLR for video, and there are many drawbacks. I get that there will be a few hobbyists still trying to cling to DSLR video, but for you, just go to mirrorless if you really need 4K, though I question your 'need' for that, too. If you're a professional, shame on you for even thinking about wanting a new 5D body for video.

+1. (Until the silly last sentence.)

 

[JMZawodny]

The 5D Mark II was a fluke for Canon and they admit that. However, it did tell them that filmmakers were looking at different ergonomics and design ideas and Cinema EOS system was born. All the R&D dollars for video, 4K & 8K are going into that line of products. I do think we'll see a cheaper 4K solution with an EF mount from Canon in the future, but it will be a video camera first.

Canon has also said the days of making a "do everything" camera is over and that their products were going to become more focused for the job at hand.

I am another photographer that does not care whether the 5D4 will shoot 4k. All I do care about is whether the sensor will include on chip digitization. My personal needs are split between high DR at low ISO or acceptable noise at high ISO (25,600 or higher). This alone will likely determine whether I get the 5D4 or 1Dx2. What I do not want to see is the cost of the 5D4 increased or the engineering compromised just to do 4K (this would include a more costly body and the likely adoption of CFast).

 

[Eldar]

Having enjoyed the 5DSR for some months, I really wonder what they have included to tempt me into a 5DIV. To accept less resolution, they must have added a few vital capabilities. More fps, wider DR, high ISO noise improvements, improved AF (coverage and tracking) and improved power consumption/battery life would all be nice ...But I believe I will get all of those with the 1DX-II ... At least I hope they keep body size and ergonomics pretty close to the 5DSR.

 

[vscd]

I also don't care about 4k. I would go further: 4k is something I don't want on my body. Why? Enough buttons are dedicated to videofunctionality, I don't use anyway.

But, I would like to see some improvement on the DR (but I'm not yelling for it) and the new features of the 7DM2 (Flickering detection, better Auto ISO). What I *really* would like to see is some stuff which is really easy to make and mostly standard of Magic Lantern:

- Intervall shot
- Bulb Mode with free programmable time
- Live Buld Mode (like on the Olympus OM-D 5)
- stop down button on the side of the right hand

And hey Canon, please try to invent something in between OVF and EVF. EVFs suck, but mirroring more Information into the OVF (on demand) would be the perfect way. It's no problem, the Fuji X100T even show how to start...

P.S. For me 18MP would be enough if the ISO get's noisefree result @25600. 8)

 

[George D.]

Just because Nikon D5 is rumored with 4K doesn't mean Canon 5D4 has to jump on the bandwagon. 5D4 is a serious hi-end Stills photographer's camera. If any couple wants to shoot it's wedding like a Hollywood production please rent EOS C.

 

[PureClassA]

The percentage of 5D body buyers buying for video is very small compared
To stills. Well sure, because there are frankly far better options avilabale for video at or below the same price point. I'd be curious to know what the sames figures are for the a7s and s2 and the GH4 since I would have to assume a very high if not nearly all who are buying those cameras are using them for video. And for pros, an a72 is still a very useful tool as a second or small camera fir certain shots.

I would just like to see Canon at least get something competitively priced with the fs7 or now the fs5.