More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Yeah, even my inexpensive little EF-M 28mm macro has Hybrid IS. Although 2-axis correction of translational motion (shift) is useful at close-up distances (as is roll, which ILIS can't correct – pie are squared, but lenses are round), at non close-up distances, angular motions (pitch and yaw) are the primary cause of shake artifacts.

 

[Sator]

I own the a7II, and the effect of IBIS is very subtly incremental and hardly anywhere near as night-and-day dramatic as deluded Sony fanboys claim...they merely play this feature up and grossly exaggerate its importance just for the sake of having bragging rights to have one more bell or whistle that really isn't yet necessary in a game of petty oneupmanship on internet fora. BTW Sony did further improve on dampening the shutter for the a7RII, implying that such a development was necessary in the first place. Still it is nowhere near as well dampened as the 5DsR.

BTW here is a Canon patent for IBIS (albeit for FF lenses used on an APS-C body):

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-03-07

 

[pokerz]

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.

And you can choose from IBIS, OIS, both and off.
Imagine how much a Canon IS len costs you :-[

 

[K]

Bummer.

According to the rumor, the FTP feature only means it is compatible with Canon's outrageously priced wireless file transmitter???

That's lame by Canon. With built in Wifi, having file transfer option should be automatic and in-body. The hardware and tech is all there, this is just another business decision (bad one too), to try and sell overpriced devices.

That's not a good move in my opinion as we're very well into the wireless age with so many connectivity methods and devices. To hold back on that, in the DSLR realm where a lot of tech isn't there or is dreadfully slow to implement, is just not good.

I get Canon holding back on AF spot metering and some other bells and whistles to separate lines. But on Wifi in this day and age?

Doesn't make sense. Why even offer Wifi on any of these cameras? Someone who is going to spend that kind of money on their egregiously over priced file transmitter isn't going to own a 5D or lower series body. $579? That is laughable. Wifi to remotely control the camera? Wifi is gimmicky without all the capabilities.

 

[ahsanford]

According to the rumor, the FTP feature only means it is compatible with Canon's outrageously priced wireless file transmitter???

That's lame by Canon. With built in Wifi, having file transfer option should be automatic and in-body. The hardware and tech is all there, this is just another business decision (bad one too), to try and sell overpriced devices.

We don't know enough yet -- all we have is "FTP · FTPS can be transferred wirelessly also only in the body" which is dubiously translated and we lack a 5D4 manual to see what it can/can't do.

I'd be really surprised if they put in a half cooked WiFi in a $3k+ rig, especially with that redesigned top. It looks like Canon made some nontrivial body design changes to allow WiFi to work, so I expect the full-flavored version of it.

- A

 

[naylor83]

Bummer.

According to the rumor, the FTP feature only means it is compatible with Canon's outrageously priced wireless file transmitter???

That's lame by Canon. With built in Wifi, having file transfer option should be automatic and in-body. The hardware and tech is all there, this is just another business decision (bad one too), to try and sell overpriced devices.

That's not a good move in my opinion as we're very well into the wireless age with so many connectivity methods and devices. To hold back on that, in the DSLR realm where a lot of tech isn't there or is dreadfully slow to implement, is just not good.

I get Canon holding back on AF spot metering and some other bells and whistles to separate lines. But on Wifi in this day and age?

Doesn't make sense. Why even offer Wifi on any of these cameras? Someone who is going to spend that kind of money on their egregiously over priced file transmitter isn't going to own a 5D or lower series body. $579? That is laughable. Wifi to remotely control the camera? Wifi is gimmicky without all the capabilities.

If the camera itself doesn't handle FTP transfers you should be able to set up some app in your phone to upload any images it receives from the camera.

 

[rrcphoto]

Bummer.

According to the rumor, the FTP feature only means it is compatible with Canon's outrageously priced wireless file transmitter?

why would you think that? FTP is a generic protocol.

 

[tpatana]

Bummer.

According to the rumor, the FTP feature only means it is compatible with Canon's outrageously priced wireless file transmitter???

That's lame by Canon. With built in Wifi, having file transfer option should be automatic and in-body. The hardware and tech is all there, this is just another business decision (bad one too), to try and sell overpriced devices.

That's not a good move in my opinion as we're very well into the wireless age with so many connectivity methods and devices. To hold back on that, in the DSLR realm where a lot of tech isn't there or is dreadfully slow to implement, is just not good.

I get Canon holding back on AF spot metering and some other bells and whistles to separate lines. But on Wifi in this day and age?

Doesn't make sense. Why even offer Wifi on any of these cameras? Someone who is going to spend that kind of money on their egregiously over priced file transmitter isn't going to own a 5D or lower series body. $579? That is laughable. Wifi to remotely control the camera? Wifi is gimmicky without all the capabilities.

If you can afford 5D4, you can easily afford the wifi dongle too.

 

[rrcphoto]

Bummer.

According to the rumor

machine translation..

when I translate it I get:
" EOS's first FTP / FTPS transfer function (wireless file transmitter is not required)"


people should refrain from going off the deep end and look at the original japanese text and translate with different translators before going all crazy - until we get the official press announcements.

just a thought.

 

[WeekendWarrior]

Only 7 FPS though? That's only 1 faster than the mark 3 (which is pretty damn slow) - Everything else looks good but 8-9 FPS would of made a nice difference.

 

[3kramd5]

If you can afford 5D4, you can easily afford the wifi dongle too.

How do you figure? What if "you" have exactly the amount of money required to purchase a 5D4?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Only 7 FPS though? That's only 1 faster than the mark 3 (which is pretty damn slow) - Everything else looks good but 8-9 FPS would of made a nice difference.

#firstworldproblems

 

[privatebydesign]

If you can afford 5D4, you can easily afford the wifi dongle too.

How do you figure? What if "you" have exactly the amount of money required to purchase a 5D4?

Then you'd be better off getting a 5D MkIII on closeout and getting some cards and batteries for it. Plus an L-plate if you are a tripod user, or a tripod if you aren't.

 

[Talley]

Only 7 FPS though? That's only 1 faster than the mark 3 (which is pretty damn slow) - Everything else looks good but 8-9 FPS would of made a nice difference.

Go buy 1dx then or 7d2... canon has given you options.

 

[3kramd5]

If you can afford 5D4, you can easily afford the wifi dongle too.

How do you figure? What if "you" have exactly the amount of money required to purchase a 5D4?

Then you'd be better off getting a 5D MkIII on closeout and getting some cards and batteries for it. Plus an L-plate if you are a tripod user, or a tripod if you aren't.

That may be true for some/most (a tripod for someone who won't use one is a silly purchase, as is an L-plate), but is predicated on a number of assumptions, including: 1) that the 5D4 doesn't have some unique capability you want/need, and 2) that you'll make use of the accessories (cards and batteries), 3) you don't already own a 5D3.

Regardless, that's a discussion of value and wisdom, not one of affordability. The notion that if you can afford one thing you can necessarily afford that thing and more is false.

 

[daniela]

Only 7 FPS though? That's only 1 faster than the mark 3 (which is pretty damn slow) - Everything else looks good but 8-9 FPS would of made a nice difference.

I would be glad to get 7fps, where more than 80% are sharp! Nowadays my sharpnessrate is much lower. Better AF, more shar pictures will be better than just an higher fps-count

 

[lino]

Any idea what was that 'first in DSlr rumour which we had earlier

 

[neuroanatomist]

Only 7 FPS though? That's only 1 faster than the mark 3 (which is pretty damn slow) - Everything else looks good but 8-9 FPS would of made a nice difference.

Go buy 1dx then or 7d2... canon has given you options.

I liked the suggestion that the 5DIII at 6 fps is "pretty damn slow". It's a helluva lot faster than a thumb...

 

[Dantana]

Only 7 FPS though? That's only 1 faster than the mark 3 (which is pretty damn slow) - Everything else looks good but 8-9 FPS would of made a nice difference.

Go buy 1dx then or 7d2... canon has given you options.

I liked the suggestion that the 5DIII at 6 fps is "pretty damn slow". It's a helluva lot faster than a thumb...

It depends on the thumb. I upgraded to the Mark VI and my fps went way up. I have trouble buying gloves now though. Trade-offs.

 

[smorgo]

According to the rumor, the FTP feature only means it is compatible with Canon's outrageously priced wireless file transmitter???

That makes no sense at all. FTP is merely a protocol, a set of rules, for transferring files over a TCP/IP. It would cause more trouble than it's worth to require an additional WiFi transmitter just to support FTP when the built-in WiFi will doubtless be running a TCP/IP stack.