What Do You Want To See in the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV?

krautland

I'm New Here
Sep 21, 2015
17
0
Skatol said:
I agree that built in WiFi would be nice for this. Have you tried the CamRanger? This works works very well and adds several features that are not native to the 5DIII.
Yes, it is a relatively expensive accessory but solves the issue you state, and does it well.
I have looked at it but ended up not buying it because I saw the 6D beginning to march in this direction and figured the next would definitely have it. I am not sure if the 5Ds has it as well now but I'm definitely expecting it for the 5D MKIV and 1DX MKII and will be disappointed if they omit it.
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
AvTvM said:
really hoping that Canon finally starts offering two 5D models. 5D (for stills, only minimalistic video) and 5DC [totally video-centric, with "stills possible"] ... just like 1DX/1DC or Sony a7/R/II vs. A7S. And yes, with similar pricing differential like between 1DX and 1DC ... up to 100%
Good video can bring a lot of sales.

And 100% more for a 5DC, 100%? What $8000? All that will happen is that would sell like a turkey and the non-C 5D would get less sales too and the price would go even higher for the 5D line so wouldn't everybody lose?
i said UP TO 1005 ... as in case of Canon EOS 1D-X vs. 1DC.

If pricing is handled like Sony does for their A7/II, A7R/II vs. A7S (II) - I would not mind either. As long as things are separated. It is impossible to get all the video minority requests and demands (4k, all sorts of codecs, all sorts of audio stuff, connectors, etc. etc.) reasonably implemented in what is essentially a stills camera. Even more so, since we expect the 5D IV to again be a mirrorslapper ...

Canon's 5D lineup should be structured exactly like Sony's A7 offering:
hi rez, expensive: 5Ds &R - A7R II
mid-rez, faster, less expensive: 5D IV - A7 II
video-centric, more expensive: 5DC - A7S II

I have no idea, how many A7S (II) Sony sells compared to A7/II and A7R II. My understanding is, that A7S seems to be doing well enough sales wise. But that is no concern of mine. All I want is a stop to those constant and crazy video demands on stills cameras. I do not want these features in my cameras, making menus even more bloated and causing all sorts of foul compromises regarding still imaging. And I do not want to pay for all that video stuff in my cameras, since I do not use it. Ever.
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,652
634
UK
www.flickr.com
AvTvM said:
All I want is a stop to those constant and crazy video demands on stills cameras. I do not want these features in my cameras, making menus even more bloated and causing all sorts of foul compromises regarding still imaging. And I do not want to pay for all that video stuff in my cameras, since I do not use it. Ever.
"Foul compromises"? Like what?
 

vscd

5DC
Jan 12, 2013
434
0
Germany
All I want is a stop to those constant and crazy video demands on stills cameras. I do not want these features in my cameras, making menus even more bloated and causing all sorts of foul compromises regarding still imaging. And I do not want to pay for all that video stuff in my cameras, since I do not use it. Ever.
I second that. Maybe I grew up with too much Unix but Windows. One Job - One Tool. A tool has to solve a specific problem, not to rescue the world. I would'n cry one second without any videofeatures on a still-camera.
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,652
634
UK
www.flickr.com
vscd said:
All I want is a stop to those constant and crazy video demands on stills cameras. I do not want these features in my cameras, making menus even more bloated and causing all sorts of foul compromises regarding still imaging. And I do not want to pay for all that video stuff in my cameras, since I do not use it. Ever.
I second that. Maybe I grew up with too much Unix but Windows. One Job - One Tool. A tool has to solve a specific problem, not to rescue the world. I would'n cry one second without any videofeatures on a still-camera.
While you're right that a multipurpose device will almost always do worse at some or all things than specialist ones, I don't think it's always clear cut. I can see how a video camera would produce better video results than a stills one, and vice versa, I don't see how adding that option harms the original purpose of the device. Do video cameras that take stills do *video* worse than those that don't? And more to the point here, does a stills camera like a DSLR do *still images* worse by having the option of recording video? Is there any evidence of that at all? (The only test cases I can think of offhand are the Nikon Df - which has no video options; does it produce better images than the D4 whose sensor it shares? Or the step from the 50D with no video and 60D with video - image quality didn't go down, did it?).

"Take the video out" seems one of those things a few people want, so they claim it would be better - but with no evidence to back it up.
 

RobPan

EOS T7i
Mar 18, 2012
71
0
vscd said:
All I want is a stop to those constant and crazy video demands on stills cameras. I do not want these features in my cameras, making menus even more bloated and causing all sorts of foul compromises regarding still imaging. And I do not want to pay for all that video stuff in my cameras, since I do not use it. Ever.
I second that. Maybe I grew up with too much Unix but Windows. One Job - One Tool. A tool has to solve a specific problem, not to rescue the world. I would'n cry one second without any videofeatures on a still-camera.
I do a lot of traveling. One camera for both is very practical for me. I used to take two cameras with me: one for stills and a video camera. I am very happy with the 5D3 which does both. I do not have troubles with 'bloated menus', let alone 'foul compromises regarding still imaging'. Would not know what that could mean. Regards.
 

Sabaki

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 4, 2012
800
0
45
Cape Town, South Africa
Improved DR? √ Blinking AF points? √ Cleaner base ISO? √ More cross type AF points? √

Keep these:
Menu layout from 5Diii/7Dii. Button configerations from 5Diii and 7Dii.

So yeah, most of us are in agreement regarding certain features. I have a few obscure requests too.

1. Grid overlays can blink too, just like the AF points
2. A fully 3D electronic level (for us TS-E owners)
3. Hyperfocal distance indicator
4. Improved dual card functionality
5. Viewfinder window! We need to be able to close the Viewfinder for long exposures and those eyepiece covers just do not work


That's it! Oh and I too would prefer zero video functions but I do not see that happening
 

yoms

EOS T7i
Jul 4, 2012
83
44
Hi,

I take for granted that the new features present in the 7DII will find their way in a 5DIV
- Improved Auto-ISO mode,
- Dual Pixel AF,
- Intervalometer / time lapse,
- EOS ITR,
- Improved RGB sensor,
- GPS,
- USB3.0.

My wish-list:
- Same body shape, weight, grip and design
- 24MP
- Better DR, +15 stops
- 7 to 8 FPS
- Longer exposures values (at least, let us set 5 - 10 values)
- "Something" that deals once and for all with micro-adjustment & AF inaccuracy on fast primes. May it be a double AF system "External AF module + Dual Pixel to fine tune focus just before taking shot" or something else, but something!
See http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27450
- Improved AF : more points, wider spread, more dual cross type points

Desirable:
- 1 extra customizable button near the lens mount
- 5 x C modes rather than 3 (there's still free room on the wheel :p - I love them modes!)
- Some sort of Gorilla / Saphire glass for both LCD that would make irrelevant the use of any screen protector
 
Sep 25, 2015
1
0
As someone who rarely switches the camera over to stills mode....

Please, dear god please, add a higher frame rate for video @ 1080p. Not being able to do slow motion in full HD seems so antiquated at this point. Also, better DR, that every competitor has figured out but Canon can't seem to get right. The dual point AF found in the 70d would be an awesome addition but isn't something I would call a must. But better AF in some respect, definitely. The icing on the cake as other people have already said, would be capability to shoot RAW video. I honestly don't care if I can shoot 4k, just please let me shoot RAW 1080 footage. I hate the lack of latitude I have with my footage, particularly when I watch my GH4 friends work with their footage in post.

The only reason I haven't switched camera brands is I don't want to match footage between my 4 cameras. But I've said for a while that if the 5d mark iv doesn't really take a positive step for video I'm saving up and replacing my whole lineup with either Sony or Panasonic.
 

a4jp.com

I'm New Here
Sep 5, 2015
11
0
I think USB-C would be nice as well as built in wifi and GPS. It takes ages to download files when you don't have a PC with a good card reader with you. It would be great to use an iPad to be able to see a detailed preview of the shots as the back screen doesn't rotate.

4K video wouldn't kill your other camera sales either. It is built differently for people that want to add different accessories. It would really suck if you had a low res sensor in the 4K version of your camera and a higher res version but without the 4K. I wouldn't buy either if this happened. Also remember 4K monitors have been out for more than a year now and 5K monitors are out in the shops in the next few months. There will even be an 8K monitor here in Japan at the start of next year. Even Sony's tiny little cameras and iPhones have 4K video now. I know the quality is completely different but an iPhone has 4K video...
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
scyrene said:
AvTvM said:
All I want is a stop to those constant and crazy video demands on stills cameras. I do not want these features in my cameras, making menus even more bloated and causing all sorts of foul compromises regarding still imaging. And I do not want to pay for all that video stuff in my cameras, since I do not use it. Ever.
"Foul compromises"? Like what?
e.g.
* cluttered menus with all sorts of unneccessary video "cruft"
* typically a non re-programmable red "start video recording" button in an ergonomically very valuable position
* sensors + imaging pipelines that are designed to record and pump high-volume data streams for up to 30 minutes = a very different optimization compared to what I want: deliver lowest possible noise and highest possible DR for stills capture
* higher price than a pure stills camera -> see Sony A7 vs. A7S. I want a lower cost, stills-centric 5D model.
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,652
634
UK
www.flickr.com
AvTvM said:
scyrene said:
AvTvM said:
All I want is a stop to those constant and crazy video demands on stills cameras. I do not want these features in my cameras, making menus even more bloated and causing all sorts of foul compromises regarding still imaging. And I do not want to pay for all that video stuff in my cameras, since I do not use it. Ever.
"Foul compromises"? Like what?
e.g.
* cluttered menus with all sorts of unneccessary video "cruft"
* typically a non re-programmable red "start video recording" button in an ergonomically very valuable position
* sensors + imaging pipelines that are designed to record and pump high-volume data streams for up to 30 minutes = a very different optimization compared to what I want: deliver lowest possible noise and highest possible DR for stills capture
* higher price than a pure stills camera -> see Sony A7 vs. A7S. I want a lower cost, stills-centric 5D model.
Thanks for clarifying. I don't see much video stuff in the 5D3 menus... Not that I go through the menus often anyway. Do you? A compromise would be to either stick all video menus functions at the end, so you wouldn't encounter them, or have an option to hide them. Menus are going to continue getting more complex as cameras gain more capabilities - all those extra autofocus options for instance.

I like the idea of custom functions for as many buttons as possible, even all of them. Making the recording button do other things wouldn't require the removal of video.

I dunno about imaging pipelines, but all the cameras with the lowest noise and highest DR for several years (for each sensor size category) also do video (The Df is the only exception I can think of, and it hardly supports your argument). Doesn't seem to harm them. Can you elaborate, or is this supposition?

Has anyone *ever* demonstrated (with evidence!) that *removing* video features would lower the price? Plenty of people have claimed both ways - that it would lower prices and that it would raise them. The A7s is more expensive not because it's aimed at video, but because it's a more niche product, no?
 

vscd

5DC
Jan 12, 2013
434
0
Germany
"Take the video out" seems one of those things a few people want, so they claim it would be better - but with no evidence to back it up.
The price is higher because of much higher computationspeed and heatingpipes. The whole engineercrew have to consider everything towards video, which eats ressources on really important stuff (global shutter, dynamic range, better ovf).

I understand that some people want to have it all together in one cam, but I suppose an iphone would be the better solution. In don't see any hammer with a clamp on it, would be awesome to have both together. If I build something I can't carry both along with me.
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,652
634
UK
www.flickr.com
vscd said:
"Take the video out" seems one of those things a few people want, so they claim it would be better - but with no evidence to back it up.
The price is higher because of much higher computationspeed and heatingpipes. The whole engineercrew have to consider everything towards video, which eats ressources on really important stuff (global shutter, dynamic range, better ovf).

I understand that some people want to have it all together in one cam, but I suppose an iphone would be the better solution. In don't see any hammer with a clamp on it, would be awesome to have both together. If I build something I can't carry both along with me.
But don't more generalist cameras tend to sell more? So even if it costs more to put in the engineering (and is 50fps @2MP is more taxing than 6fps @22MP?), the inclusion of video may lead to greater sales, which pushes the price down. It's not as simple as you're suggesting.
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
scyrene said:
vscd said:
"Take the video out" seems one of those things a few people want, so they claim it would be better - but with no evidence to back it up.
The price is higher because of much higher computationspeed and heatingpipes. The whole engineercrew have to consider everything towards video, which eats ressources on really important stuff (global shutter, dynamic range, better ovf).

I understand that some people want to have it all together in one cam, but I suppose an iphone would be the better solution. In don't see any hammer with a clamp on it, would be awesome to have both together. If I build something I can't carry both along with me.
But don't more generalist cameras tend to sell more? So even if it costs more to put in the engineering (and is 50fps @2MP is more taxing than 6fps @22MP?), the inclusion of video may lead to greater sales, which pushes the price down. It's not as simple as you're suggesting.
it is cheaper without video. See Sony A7 series. I'd relly love to see the breakdown in sales numbers for the much cheaper Sony A7 (II) vs. video-optimized A7S (II). And at Canon: I GUESS that 1D-X sales outnumber 1D C unit sales by 100:1.
 

vscd

5DC
Jan 12, 2013
434
0
Germany
But don't more generalist cameras tend to sell more?
So you think the 1DX C sells more than the 1DX? I don't think so. Of course marketing is important and the folks on Canonforums are shouting for 4k, but I think there are *far* more important problems to solve than to include this new hype (in my view) in every new body on the market. They should invest the manpower into a great viewfinder as hybrid between OVF and EVF or to get up to Sony in DR. Speeding up the x-sync or a lighter Body would be welcome, too.
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,652
634
UK
www.flickr.com
vscd said:
But don't more generalist cameras tend to sell more?
So you think the 1DX C sells more than the 1DX? I don't think so. Of course marketing is important and the folks on Canonforums are shouting for 4k, but I think there are *far* more important problems to solve than to include this new hype (in my view) in every new body on the market. They should invest the manpower into a great viewfinder as hybrid between OVF and EVF or to get up to Sony in DR. Speeding up the x-sync or a lighter Body would be welcome, too.
Interesting choice. Of course price comes into it too - the 1DC is by far the most expensive Canon DSLR.

Those are worthy things to add/improve. But you're not providing evidence for the earlier claim that removing video lowers price. (Apologies if you weren't saying that).
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,652
634
UK
www.flickr.com
AvTvM said:
scyrene said:
vscd said:
"Take the video out" seems one of those things a few people want, so they claim it would be better - but with no evidence to back it up.
The price is higher because of much higher computationspeed and heatingpipes. The whole engineercrew have to consider everything towards video, which eats ressources on really important stuff (global shutter, dynamic range, better ovf).

I understand that some people want to have it all together in one cam, but I suppose an iphone would be the better solution. In don't see any hammer with a clamp on it, would be awesome to have both together. If I build something I can't carry both along with me.
But don't more generalist cameras tend to sell more? So even if it costs more to put in the engineering (and is 50fps @2MP is more taxing than 6fps @22MP?), the inclusion of video may lead to greater sales, which pushes the price down. It's not as simple as you're suggesting.
it is cheaper without video. See Sony A7 series. I'd relly love to see the breakdown in sales numbers for the much cheaper Sony A7 (II) vs. video-optimized A7S (II). And at Canon: I GUESS that 1D-X sales outnumber 1D C unit sales by 100:1.
Are any of your examples video-free versus video-enabled? Was the claim not 'remove video to decrease price'? It was not 'more video-specialised cameras cost more'. Again, the 1Dx-1DC comparison in particular is hardly an apt one - not least because the 1DC is the only Canon DSLR to date with Canon Log stuff and 4K, so can command a premium. Why not D4 versus Df? Or I dunno, 50D-60D? There are no current Canon cameras that only do stills - so it's hard to do direct comparisons of course. If you're softening the claim to - more specialised cameras cost more, then sure. But a stills-only camera is more specialised than a stills camera with some video functions. There are people who want video too, and there are people who perceive video functions as a benefit or even normal - an audience you'd be excluding, and therefore diminishing the market for the imaginary camera.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
scyrene said:
AvTvM said:
scyrene said:
vscd said:
"Take the video out" seems one of those things a few people want, so they claim it would be better - but with no evidence to back it up.
The price is higher because of much higher computationspeed and heatingpipes. The whole engineercrew have to consider everything towards video, which eats ressources on really important stuff (global shutter, dynamic range, better ovf).

I understand that some people want to have it all together in one cam, but I suppose an iphone would be the better solution. In don't see any hammer with a clamp on it, would be awesome to have both together. If I build something I can't carry both along with me.
But don't more generalist cameras tend to sell more? So even if it costs more to put in the engineering (and is 50fps @2MP is more taxing than 6fps @22MP?), the inclusion of video may lead to greater sales, which pushes the price down. It's not as simple as you're suggesting.
it is cheaper without video. See Sony A7 series. I'd relly love to see the breakdown in sales numbers for the much cheaper Sony A7 (II) vs. video-optimized A7S (II). And at Canon: I GUESS that 1D-X sales outnumber 1D C unit sales by 100:1.
Are any of your examples video-free versus video-enabled?
I have yet to see one legitimate example. The a7s is not the a7 plus video.

If I were to venture a guess, if canon developed a video-only cam and an equivalent stills-only cam, each with different electrical designs, the increased NRE and decreased volume would spike the cost over a model with both.
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,463
2,295
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
3kramd5 said:
...if canon developed a video-only cam and an equivalent stills-only cam, each with different electrical designs, the increased NRE and decreased volume would spike the cost over a model with both.
Absolutely. This is one of the silliest myths around. What do people think digital cameras are anyway? They are video cameras at their very core. The incremental cost, if any, is small and more than offset by the increased sales. The "I-want-a-stills-only-camera" crowd needs to just get over it. The ship has sailed.