More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV

[3kramd5]

How are they anything alike? If rumors are correct, they serve entirely different purposes.

In any case, expectations built around rumors are prone to disappointments.

How are they alike? They're both new features previously not seen before and hyped up by rumor talk.

Already there are those that want the latest shiney before knowing how it performs.

Oh, I misunderstood; though you were meaning DPRAW (if such a thing exists) is canon's way of getting the same effect as pixel shift.

Incidentally, hasn't pixel shift been seen before Pentax from at least Hasselblad?

 

[privatebydesign]

How are they anything alike? If rumors are correct, they serve entirely different purposes.

In any case, expectations built around rumors are prone to disappointments.

How are they alike? They're both new features previously not seen before and hyped up by rumor talk.

Already there are those that want the latest shiney before knowing how it performs.

Oh, I misunderstood; though you were meaning DPRAW (if such a thing exists) is canon's way of getting the same effect as pixel shift.

Incidentally, hasn't pixel shift been seen before Pentax from at least Hasselblad?

Indeed .. and Olympus .. but neither of those were DSLRs so had limited market appeal/fan base.

Err, the Hasselblad and Pentax are both DSLR's, don't let Neuro catch you saying they arent!

 

[neuroanatomist]

How are they anything alike? If rumors are correct, they serve entirely different purposes.

In any case, expectations built around rumors are prone to disappointments.

How are they alike? They're both new features previously not seen before and hyped up by rumor talk.

Already there are those that want the latest shiney before knowing how it performs.

Oh, I misunderstood; though you were meaning DPRAW (if such a thing exists) is canon's way of getting the same effect as pixel shift.

Incidentally, hasn't pixel shift been seen before Pentax from at least Hasselblad?

Indeed .. and Olympus .. but neither of those were DSLRs so had limited market appeal/fan base.

Err, the Hasselblad is a DSLR, don't let Neuro catch you saying it isn't!

Lol, too late. Then there is the implication that somehow a Pentax dSLR would have a broad market appeal/fan base. More facts from dilbertland.

 

[privatebydesign]

I edited that to include the Pentax well before you posted, how do you do that? Time travel? Quantum states?

 

[privatebydesign]

How are they anything alike? If rumors are correct, they serve entirely different purposes.

In any case, expectations built around rumors are prone to disappointments.

How are they alike? They're both new features previously not seen before and hyped up by rumor talk.

Already there are those that want the latest shiney before knowing how it performs.

Oh, I misunderstood; though you were meaning DPRAW (if such a thing exists) is canon's way of getting the same effect as pixel shift.

Incidentally, hasn't pixel shift been seen before Pentax from at least Hasselblad?

Indeed .. and Olympus .. but neither of those were DSLRs so had limited market appeal/fan base.

Err, the Hasselblad and Pentax are both DSLR's, don't let Neuro catch you saying they arent!

It's a medium format camera so at least in my head it's in a different category to the usual crud that Canon & Nikon turn out. Don't give a rats ass what anyone else says.

The Hasselblad is a medium format DSLR, Pentax has both a FF and APS DSLR with pixel shifting. I don't care if you care about what others say, I do care when statements are factually incorrect, to say "neither of those were DSLR's" when they both are, is factually incorrect.

 

[privatebydesign]

...
The Hasselblad is a medium format DSLR, Pentax has both a FF and APS DSLR with pixel shifting. I don't care if you care about what others say, I do care when statements are factually incorrect, to say "neither of those were DSLR's" when they both are, is factually incorrect.

Ah, I see you have a reading error in what I wrote.

Let me rewrite it the above for you:

"Incidentally, hasn't pixel shift been seen before Pentax from at least Hasselblad and Olympus .. but neither of those were DSLRs so had limited market appeal/fan base."

At least to me the "neither" only refers to Hasselblad & Olympus.

I call bullshit.

Even as you have rewritten it, the Hasselblad IS still a DSLR.

 

[tpatana]

They should make tiny holes on the mirror, which align with the DPAF pixels. This way they could use PDAF for the actual AF, and meanwhile the DPAF pixels would make sure it's just right even if AFMA is not done.

 

[wockawocka]

Could the multi raw output be utilised for super clean high iso images?

 

[lloyd709]

Assuming the duel pixel raw thing is mainly about micro adjusting the focusing it seems to me to not be very useful for the average professional. Large files cost in terms of space and time and for me I don't think I could justify shooting them just to have the option to micro adjust the odd image. On average I guess when I set up a shot I normally take 20 or 30 frames varying things slightly. On my MkIII probably 80% of them are spot on in terms of focus accuracy giving me more than enough to work with. I really think they should be using the space (in terms of file size) to improve dynamic range and colour depth.

 

[naylor83]

BTW, what on earth is a "valve timer"? Sounds like something from a combustion engine?

Bulb timer. Bad translation.

Oh, of course. Thanks =D

 

[naylor83]

They should make tiny holes on the mirror, which align with the DPAF pixels. This way they could use PDAF for the actual AF, and meanwhile the DPAF pixels would make sure it's just right even if AFMA is not done.

The DPAF pixels cover 80% of the sensor surface, so the mirror would just be one big hole ;D

 

[mikekx102]

So the updated specification says:

Dual Pixel RAW: record one normal RAW file as well as a Dual Pixel RAW file. You can then use Canon’s Digital Photo Professional and have access to three new post processing techniques listed below:

Image Micro-adjustment: by using the depth information, fine adjustment enables the position of the maximum sharpness and resolution
Bokeh Shift: to change the position of the previous blur (original: re-positions the viewpoint of foreground bokeh for a more pleasing result)
Ghosting Reduction: reduces the ghost and flare.

People were saying that it could be used for a better version of Magic Lantern's Dual ISO mode, and some people appear disappointed that it is the above instead. But we should note that the camera will still output the Dual Pixel RAW files, and while Canon's DPP software may only be able to edit a bokeh shift, ghosting reduction and image micro-adjustment, Adobe or others may release software to perform dual ISO. Hopefully, anyway.

 

[mikekx102]

The DPAF pixels cover 80% of the sensor surface, so the mirror would just be one big hole ;D

So a DPAF Raw file would only have dual pixels for the centre 80% of the picture? Would it be reasonable to expect that this camera could have 100% Dual Pixels on the sensor because it is used in post processing, instead of only auto-focus as in previous camera bodies.

 

[naylor83]

The DPAF pixels cover 80% of the sensor surface, so the mirror would just be one big hole ;D

So a DPAF Raw file would only have dual pixels for the centre 80% of the picture? Would it be reasonable to expect that this camera could have 100% Dual Pixels on the sensor because it is used in post processing, instead of only auto-focus as in previous camera bodies.

I'm pretty sure all DPAF cameras have 100% dual pixels, but only the centre 80% are used (for AF).

 

[Sator]

IBIS is idiotic for SLR.

Much as I hate to drag the discussion back to IBIS, but a few points.

Firstly, since this is a discussion about the 5DIV, I don't really think that sensors of 50MP or less absolutely need IBIS. I manage fine without it on the 5DsR. Reduction of IQ sometimes from hand shake forces you to push up the ISO at touch, but this is not a major factor. IBIS on a m4/3 camera or even on the 24MP a7II is a touch of a gimmick. Not totally useless, but the a7II probably needs it only to control excessive shutter shock. The 5DIV will be fine without IBIS.

Canon will only really need to develop its own version of IBIS when we go up beyond 50MP. With a 120MP sensor, it will absolutely need IBIS, or else it will be a waste of resolution if it keeps getting degraded by handshake. The problem with IBIS is that the sensor has to move and this can increase corner shading, especially if the mount diameter is too small. Reduction of corner shading was the main reason Sony added BSI to the a7RII according to the design team. The EOS mount has a very generous diameter, and so it is an ideal mount to add IBIS to. Better than the FF mounts from Sony, Nikon, or Pentax. When the time is ripe, I suspect that Canon will add IBIS to the EOS mount. They just don't want to add it as a gimmick to bulk up the specs sheet and merely to keep up with the Jones next door.

As for the idea that IBIS is a "mirrorless thing", that is simply incorrect. It was Minolta who first developed IBIS, and the a99 and a77II DSLRs ("DSLTs") still use Minolta's original 2-axis IBIS (SteadyShot). Sony/Minolta had 2-axis IBIS in a camera long before mirrorless cameras existed, but at the time sensor resolution was so low that eliminating hand shake was not that important, and so Minolta's innovation passed unnoticed under the radar.

There are also differences in what IBIS vs ILIS can achieve. Last month's issue of CAPA (in Japanese) discussed how IBIS can correct for pitch, shift, and roll, whereas ILIS can only control pitch. Also ILIS degrades image quality, and adds to the size/bulk of a lens design. IS is something you should be forced to add to a system based on optical fundamentals, not merely as a marketing tool.

 

[BeenThere]

So the updated specification says:

Dual Pixel RAW: record one normal RAW file as well as a Dual Pixel RAW file. You can then use Canon’s Digital Photo Professional and have access to three new post processing techniques listed below:

Image Micro-adjustment: by using the depth information, fine adjustment enables the position of the maximum sharpness and resolution
Bokeh Shift: to change the position of the previous blur (original: re-positions the viewpoint of foreground bokeh for a more pleasing result)
Ghosting Reduction: reduces the ghost and flare.

People were saying that it could be used for a better version of Magic Lantern's Dual ISO mode, and some people appear disappointed that it is the above instead. But we should note that the camera will still output the Dual Pixel RAW files, and while Canon's DPP software may only be able to edit a bokeh shift, ghosting reduction and image micro-adjustment, Adobe or others may release software to perform dual ISO. Hopefully, anyway.

I don't know. Would the higher ISO amplification need to be done before the A/D processing stage?

 

[neuroanatomist]

How are they anything alike? If rumors are correct, they serve entirely different purposes.

In any case, expectations built around rumors are prone to disappointments.

How are they alike? They're both new features previously not seen before and hyped up by rumor talk.

Already there are those that want the latest shiney before knowing how it performs.

Oh, I misunderstood; though you were meaning DPRAW (if such a thing exists) is canon's way of getting the same effect as pixel shift.

Incidentally, hasn't pixel shift been seen before Pentax from at least Hasselblad?

Indeed .. and Olympus .. but neither of those were DSLRs so had limited market appeal/fan base.

Err, the Hasselblad and Pentax are both DSLR's, don't let Neuro catch you saying they arent!

It's a medium format camera so at least in my head it's in a different category to the usual crud that Canon & Nikon turn out. Don't give a rats ass what anyone else says.

Yes, and in your head the 1D C isn't a dSLR, either. But we all know your head is a pretty F'd up place as far as facts are concerned. :

 

[tcmatthews]

IBIS is idiotic for SLR.

Much as I hate to drag the discussion back to IBIS, but a few points.

Firstly, since this is a discussion about the 5DIV, I don't really think that sensors of 50MP or less absolutely need IBIS. I manage fine without it on the 5DsR. Reduction of IQ sometimes from hand shake forces you to push up the ISO at touch, but this is not a major factor. IBIS on a m4/3 camera or even on the 24MP a7II is a touch of a gimmick. Not totally useless, but the a7II probably needs it only to control excessive shutter shock. The 5DIV will be fine without IBIS.

Canon will only really need to develop its own version of IBIS when we go up beyond 50MP. With a 120MP sensor, it will absolutely need IBIS, or else it will be a waste of resolution if it keeps getting degraded by handshake. The problem with IBIS is that the sensor has to move and this can increase corner shading, especially if the mount diameter is too small. Reduction of corner shading was the main reason Sony added BSI to the a7RII according to the design team. The EOS mount has a very generous diameter, and so it is an ideal mount to add IBIS to. Better than the FF mounts from Sony, Nikon, or Pentax. When the time is ripe, I suspect that Canon will add IBIS to the EOS mount. They just don't want to add it as a gimmick to bulk up the specs sheet and merely to keep up with the Jones next door.

As for the idea that IBIS is a "mirrorless thing", that is simply incorrect. It was Minolta who first developed IBIS, and the a99 and a77II DSLRs ("DSLTs") still use Minolta's original 2-axis IBIS (SteadyShot). Sony/Minolta had 2-axis IBIS in a camera long before mirrorless cameras existed, but at the time sensor resolution was so low that eliminating hand shake was not that important, and so Minolta's innovation passed unnoticed under the radar.

There are also differences in what IBIS vs ILIS can achieve. Last month's issue of CAPA (in Japanese) discussed how IBIS can correct for pitch, shift, and roll, whereas ILIS can only control pitch. Also ILIS degrades image quality, and adds to the size/bulk of a lens design. IS is something you should be forced to add to a system based on optical fundamentals, not merely as a marketing tool.

Because they implement first curtain electronic shutter the A7II and A7rII do not suffer shutter shock in the same way the A7r did. For the same reason you can shoot Canon cameras in live view with silent shutter mode II and reduce shutter shock and reduce camera shake for landscapes more than mirror lockup. The IBIS is more than a gimmick. That said it works best on shorter focal lengths and higher pixel pitches. But it has a very noticeable effect even with the A7II. Long telephoto lens will always be better served by ILIS.

 

[mistaspeedy]

I don't know. Would the higher ISO amplification need to be done before the A/D processing stage?

Yes... that's the main problem... I doubt that it will support dual ISO because each pixel in the dual-pixel pair would need to have a different hardware ISO amplification. Unless they specifically planned to do this and built hte hardware to support it, I doubt it will work the way many people would like it to work.

Only time will tell...

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mar

There are also differences in what IBIS vs ILIS can achieve. Last month's issue of CAPA (in Japanese) discussed how IBIS can correct for pitch, shift, and roll, whereas ILIS can only control pitch. Also ILIS degrades image quality, and adds to the size/bulk of a lens design. IS is something you should be forced to add to a system based on optical fundamentals, not merely as a marketing tool.

Hmm, the writers of the article are obviously not familiar with the 2009 Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS, it is ILIS and corrects for shift.