*UPDATED* Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

[rrcphoto]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

30 MP seems too low. I'm thinking it will still be higher. Also thought that image on Northlight looks photoshopped (its all blocky when you blow it way up):
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/camera_images_8/Canon/5d4/5d4.jpg

Still really hoping for some unexpected goodness with regard to speed, WiFi, 4k @60, card types, and edging up to ~36MP. Given that this camera has to last 3-4 years without a replacement I'm not sure the camera will hold up.

while the lettering may look wrong, there is no other camera body that has that pentaprism housing, shape and also joints.

 

[Sharlin]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

By the way, if some of you are getting this pissed off over CFast ... just wait til they confirm no DPAF ;D

It's likely to have DPAF; leaving it out would be a bonehead move. It's in all their recent release cameras: 80D, 7DII, 1Dx II, C100 II, C300 II. DPAF is one of Canon's biggest differentiators.
If it does have DPAF I'll probably upgrade my 5D3. No DPAF, and I'll be saving US$3300

I argued about this with PureClassA earlier -- apparently the 5D4 won't have DPAF, Canon's killer feature, unlike literally every other recent enthusiast-and-above Canon camera, because it would eat into the 1DX2 sales. I guess the 5D4 will instead inherit the Hybrid AF system from the Rebels :

 

[applecider]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

Running the image from north light through fotoforensics reveals that the canon logo and the "5D mark iv" areas are heavily photoshopped as is the watermark.

At least that's how I interpret it.

 

[brianftpc]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

It will have DPAF or Canon would not have gone out of their way to keep everything about this camera a secret for so long. They wanted to sell as many 1Dx mk2s as they could before letting that spec leak. I do not see the 6D mk2 having it however. If this camera does not have DPAF then they have eliminated a lot pf people's reson to upgrade from the 5D mk3 bc Im pretty sure when it comes to the pictures you will visibly see zero improvement in ISO performance. If people want more megapixels they will buy a 5DsR

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

Running the image from north light through fotoforensics reveals that the canon logo and the "5D mark iv" areas are heavily photoshopped as is the watermark.

At least that's how I interpret it.

Not necessarily, that might just be jpeg artifacts from the previous saves and EXIF strips. The pentaprism, which would lose next to nothing in compression and isn't like any other pentaprism shows no modifications.

 

[PureClassA]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

I didn't realize you were arguing. I wasn't. Just expressing my gut feeling about where this will be based on how I've perceived Canon to operate. I hope I'm wrong about DPAF not being there, but I dont think I will be. If the rumors were suggesting a 24MP sensor instead of 30, I'd be more inclined to buy it since they have a 20 and 24MP crop DPAF. Now we have a 20 FF DPAF in the 1DX2. A 24MP FF DPAF would make sense in a 5D4. But now we're talking 30MP. We will know one way or another in the next couple weeks.

By the way, if some of you are getting this pissed off over CFast ... just wait til they confirm no DPAF ;D

It's likely to have DPAF; leaving it out would be a bonehead move. It's in all their recent release cameras: 80D, 7DII, 1Dx II, C100 II, C300 II. DPAF is one of Canon's biggest differentiators.
If it does have DPAF I'll probably upgrade my 5D3. No DPAF, and I'll be saving US$3300

I argued about this with PureClassA earlier -- apparently the 5D4 won't have DPAF, Canon's killer feature, unlike literally every other recent enthusiast-and-above Canon camera, because it would eat into the 1DX2 sales. I guess the 5D4 will instead inherit the Hybrid AF system from the Rebels :

 

[KeithBreazeal]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

Not it.
"Cable release port moved to the front of the camera where the “Mark XX” badge was."
If so, we have no photo of the new body.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

Not it.
"Cable release port moved to the front of the camera where the “Mark XX” badge was."
If so, we have no photo of the new body.

?? ???

As was pointed out earlier, the 'Mark xx' badge is currently at the bottom front, so moving that labeling to the top front just under the EOS badge is entirely consistent.

 

[weilin]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

Not it.
"Cable release port moved to the front of the camera where the “Mark XX” badge was."
If so, we have no photo of the new body.

?? ???

As was pointed out earlier, the 'Mark xx' badge is currently at the bottom front, so moving that labeling to the top front just under the EOS badge is entirely consistent.

He's referencing the picture used as the "thumbnail" for this news post (obvious photoshop). I don't think he saw the actual photo in the article as you had to expand the article on the front page to see the actual link to the leaked image...

 

[kevl]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

You know what's funny? For years we've been reading about how Canon is going to go under because the Nikon D800-onward has had 36MP and Canon only had 22....

NOW Canon is going to go under because they might release a 30MP camera and that will destroy image quality because of camera shake.... you know the thing no Nikon shooter I know complains about? Camera shake in their images.

I'm just not concerned. I will be strive to be even more careful when I shoot with it, but the reality is that I'll still be getting amazing photos just like I do now.

 

[kevl]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications

I was quite happy using floppy disks but someone took away the floppy disk drives *cry*

Please explain how the difference between a floppy disk (8" 5.25" or 3.5" take your pick) and a USB drive, or rewriteable CD (either of which could be argued to be a direct replacement) is the same or even similar to the difference between a CF card and a CFast card. You're just being silly.

Neither is XQD backward compatible with anything else nor do SATA plugs go into PATA sockets, PCIe cards into PCI slots and so on. That's technology.

If there is an advantage to adopting new technology that outweighs the cost of doing so then it makes sense to do so. If there is not, it does not. As has been discussed for about 8 pages, there is no advantage to the 5D purchaser to put CFast cards in the 5DIV.

SD suffers from the same disease as CF: slowness.

My Hyundai Elantra is slower than a Porche. I wonder how Hyundai stays in business...

Hint the Elantra can exceed the speeds the roads in Canada are designed for already so a Porche is purchased for other reasons such as compensating for endowment.

 

[fegari]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications

...
forget trying to convince the crowd that more mpxls DO NOT CREATE more blur or difraction...both are already there independently of the sensor mpxls, they depende in other more fundamental factors (lens, focal used, shutter speed etc..) , what people seem to believe is that more mpx will produce blur or more difraction, they do not, more Mpxls only ALLOW you to see it more IF you display at 1:1 size.
...

You're confusing general blur (from out of focus regions) with blur induced by shake.

What I'm talking about is the reason Canon is putting IS in its lenses and other companies put IBIS in cameras.

It is the reason Phase One put a seismograph in their latest camera.

As pixels get smaller, a smaller amount of force and thus movement is required to smear a point of light from illuminating one pixel to multiple pixels (to use an extreme example) and the difficulty in getting a sharp capture increases.

Smaller pixels increases the risk of a blurry subject being captured rather than a sharp subject as a result of camera movement during the time of exposure.

No, I was not at all confusing general blur (from out of focus regions) with blur induced by shake.

To your second argument
"Smaller pixels increases the risk of a blurry subject being captured rather than a sharp subject as a result of camera movement during the time of exposure"

=>No one is disputing that but that is only "perceibable" in the 5DS if you display at 1:1 and there is zero difference if you print or display at same screen size (which is how you compare apples to apples for that)

The "blur smear" (and I shall point out I'm referring to "shake", just in case) has travelled and identical lenght in both sensors. Imagine it as a scratch in your sensor: when you see the sensor with your naked eye (analogue to the print or display size) it will measure exactly the same lenght in both sensors. Now put those two sensors under a microscope and that same scrath covers -let's imagine an arbitrary scratch lenght of 10 pixels in the 5D3 but 20 pixels in the 5DS, meaning it will not be seen "worse" in the 5DS unless you crop the hell out of the 5DS photos, which again is not how you compare this kind of thing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications

...
forget trying to convince the crowd that more mpxls DO NOT CREATE more blur or difraction...both are already there independently of the sensor mpxls, they depende in other more fundamental factors (lens, focal used, shutter speed etc..) , what people seem to believe is that more mpx will produce blur or more difraction, they do not, more Mpxls only ALLOW you to see it more IF you display at 1:1 size.
...

You're confusing general blur (from out of focus regions) with blur induced by shake.

Fegari is quite manifestly describing motion blur and/or camera shake. Dilbert, as a general rule in any discussion where someone is confused about something, the someone who is confused is always you.

 

[unfocused]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications

except some forget that the 1dx Mark II has a bitching huge heatsink and a massive freaking battery to do 4K at those speeds.

but yes, it's all on the CFast card

Excellent point.

This is a good point and one I hadn't thought about, but I do know this: whenever I pull a CFast card out of the card reader I'm amazed at how hot that sucker is.

 

[jonneymendoza]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

to reduce blurry shots on a 5dsr, it should have had built in IS

 

[unfocused]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

Oh, more touchscreen functionality is sold as a feature.
There is literally no excuse for Canon not at least leaving it to the owner to decide wether or not you want cut or full touchscreen functionality on your 6k $ camera body...

Could not agree more. No reason not to have full touchscreen capability on the 1D x II, given that the hardware is already baked into the camera. Canon needs to offer this as a firmware option.

 

[Mikehit]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications

You're confusing general blur (from out of focus regions) with blur induced by shake.

What I'm talking about is the reason Canon is putting IS in its lenses and other companies put IBIS in cameras.

[1] It is the reason Phase One put a seismograph in their latest camera.

[2] As pixels get smaller, a smaller amount of force and thus movement is required to smear a point of light from illuminating one pixel to multiple pixels (to use an extreme example) and the difficulty in getting a sharp capture increases.

Smaller pixels increases the risk of a blurry subject being captured rather than a sharp subject as a result of camera movement during the time of exposure.

[1] you are confusing reducing a problem (that I do not believe exists) with aiming to get the best possible quality out of an expensive camera. Not taking full precautions to remove camera shake risks reducing the Phase 1 to little more than a 30MP DSLR. Taking all precautions makes the Phase One vastly superior regards image quality. Big difference in the two propositions.
Putting cheap tyres on a Ferrari does not make it worse than a Skoda, but it reduces the difference between them.

[2] I agree. But linear distance covered by the blur covers the same distance on both sensors (assuming same sensor size and same lens is used). And if the sensors are the same size, that blur covers the same distance on prints of equal size.
Please explain why it is not the case.

 

[AWR]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

kevl talking pile of s....
You don't know what you are saying.

5D II and III have benefited greatly from their video capabilities.
Sticking with CF will end that.

Every other choice has better options. As said, if you are Stills Only, then it's okay to you, but I, among many have not only chosen 5D3 for what it is, but for what Magic Lantern did turn it into.

And If kevl would understand ML, then he wouldn't say silly things like that.

For long time, biggest problem for ML has been CF cards data handling limitations.
Not all 4K is good 4K. Canon will without a doubt give us sorry codec from 2010 to protect C100II and the rest.
And yes C100II and 1DXII both have silly codec to protect C300II. Competition has outrun all of these. Because the pricing. And silly codecs. Also many are still stunned about ME SH200S (or what ever) kind of products, when people are running for FS5 RAW.

Magic Lantern and DPAF, those two and skin colors, there's the only things keeping video people on 5DIV. And now it seems Canon is hurting ML with lack of proper modern media like CFast.

Leaving DPAF out would be suicide, that wont happen.

But we saw this coming. And If Sony can finally make sense with their colors, it's gonna be bad times ahead for Canon video.

 

[unfocused]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications & Image

What is with all this blurry shot stuff?

I put a lot of stock in real user experience, and I have not seen a lot of complaints from actual 5D s owners.

I can understand concerns about 30mp for the following reasons:

High ISO performance: Will there be sacrifices in High ISO performance with a 30mp DPAF sensor (I can't imagine the 5DIV NOT being DPAF)? If the 1Dx went from 18 to 20 mp DPAF with little improvement in high ISO performance, it's hard to imagine that the 5DIV will see much improvement in high ISO performance going from the same generation (as the 1Dx) 22 mp sensor to the same generation (as the 1Dx II) 30 mp DPAF sensor.

Storage and editing: This has been debated ad infinitum. Not going to start up that debate again, but it is certainly legitimate for people not to want to see their file sizes increased by nearly 50% unless there is a distinct benefit to the larger file sizes, and for many if not most users, it's unlikely to be the case. This is more of an issue for users (like myself) who use and preserve multiple layers in Photoshop (so I can go back and re-edit later if needed), since each layer is going to increase the file size.

Just me, but it seems like the blurry picture argument is the least legitimate concern about a 30 mp sensor.

 

[midluk]

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specifications

...
=>No one is disputing that but that is only "perceibable" in the 5DS if you display at 1:1 and there is zero difference if you print or display at same screen size (which is how you compare apples to apples for that)
...

Isn't that the point of having more pixels, to be able to produce bigger images at 1:1?

Of course the elephant in the room here is that most people never print or display images at 1:1, rather everything gets resized down to (approximately) 1920x1080 for web/laptop/tv display and thus 48MP out of 50MP are "wasted." But yet camera makers are giving us more and more pixels and newer displays also have more and more pixels.

I think this is the important point.

If you want more pixels, you likely have a use case for looking at them at 1:1.
If you don't look at the images at 1:1 anyway, smaller files with fewer pixels are much easier to handle and you should not argue for more pixels.

If your images are not sharp on the pixel level because of camera shake, but only appear sharp when you resize them 2:1, you are better off with fewer original pixels in the first place.