5D4 @ 30 MP X 7 fps --> enough upside from the 5DS for you?

[ahsanford]

If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.

That would (crudely) put the 5D4 throughput here in comparison:

1DX2 = 20.2 MP x 16 fps = 323.2 MP/s*
5DS = 50 x 5 = 250 MP/s
5D4 = 30 x 7 = 210 MP/s
7D2 = 20.2 MP x 10 fps = 202 MP/s

One would think parity with the 5DS would be in order here, and as such, one might think 8-9 fps might have been the better sweet spot of 'better than the 5D3' yet 'no threat to steal pricier 1DX2 sales'.

Agree/disagree?

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.

That would (crudely) put the 5D4 throughput here in comparison:

1DX2 = 20.2 MP x 16 fps = 323.2 MP/s*
5DS = 50 x 5 = 250 MP/s
5D4 = 30 x 7 = 210 MP/s
7D2 = 20.2 MP x 10 fps = 202 MP/s

One would think parity with the 5DS would be in order here, and as such, one might think 8-9 fps might have been the better sweet spot of 'better than the 5D3' yet 'no threat to steal pricier 1DX2 sales'.

Agree/disagree?

- A

I'm surprised by the 7fps.
I expected at least 8fps.

 

[Talley]

would of loved 8 but we all know that 7 was the highest they would go... gives enough reason to justify a 7D2 or 1DxII

 

[Maiaibing]

If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.

That would (crudely) put the 5D4 throughput here in comparison:

1DX2 = 20.2 MP x 16 fps = 323.2 MP/s*
5DS = 50 x 5 = 250 MP/s
5D4 = 30 x 7 = 210 MP/s
7D2 = 20.2 MP x 10 fps = 202 MP/s

One would think parity with the 5DS would be in order here, and as such, one might think 8-9 fps might have been the better sweet spot of 'better than the 5D3' yet 'no threat to steal pricier 1DX2 sales'.

Agree/disagree?

- A

Agree. Will be a deal breaker for me? Not in itself. And the 5DIV has some other nice features.

However, this puts a premium on the 5DIV's high iso quality as fps is no real reason to supplement the 5DSR with a 5DIV for me. YMMV.

 

[Ozarker]

If the latest rumor turns out to be true, 5D4 stills users will get 30 MP x 7 fps.

That would (crudely) put the 5D4 throughput here in comparison:

1DX2 = 20.2 MP x 16 fps = 323.2 MP/s*
5DS = 50 x 5 = 250 MP/s
5D4 = 30 x 7 = 210 MP/s
7D2 = 20.2 MP x 10 fps = 202 MP/s

One would think parity with the 5DS would be in order here, and as such, one might think 8-9 fps might have been the better sweet spot of 'better than the 5D3' yet 'no threat to steal pricier 1DX2 sales'.

Agree/disagree?

- A

I just don't get why people think 8,9, or 10 fps would be a threat to 1DX Mark II sales. The 7D Mark II probably steals zero sales from the 1DX Mark II. However, there is absolutely no way of knowing that.

In my opinion, each of the three cameras have their own market niche including personal budgets. 10 FPS with Compact Flash/SD Card slots is a far cry from the 1DX Mark II with 14 FPS in viewfinder mode and 16 fps in live view plus Cfast/CF card slots.

There are all kinds of differences between all three cameras. Many seem to think that FPS between the two FF cameras is the decider.

Personally, if the 5D mark IV and the 1DX Mark II were even on my radar right now (In my budget range) and the Mark IV had 10 fps I'd still get the 1DX mark II.

That's just me.

 

[ahsanford]

I just don't get why people think 8,9, or 10 fps would be a threat to 1DX Mark II sales. The 7D Mark II probably steals zero sales from the 1DX Mark II. However, there is absolutely no way of knowing that.

...

There are all kinds of differences between all three cameras. Many seem to think that FPS between the two FF cameras is the decider.

It's not the decider at all -- it's just another piece of the value proposition.

But knowing that Canon can absolutely increase the throughput over 30 x 7, one could presume that they are choosing not to do this for some profit-related reason.

• There might be a non-stills-related reason why Canon doesn't put a 2nd DIGIC in the body -- perhaps if some video-centric hardware needs to take the place in which more processing horsepower might reside.
  
  
• At a certain fps, the shutter / mirror setup gets dramatically more expensive for Canon to build.
  
  
• We don't know the market research that Canon has. Canon may very well know from extensive market research that 1DX2 sales would legitimately plummet if the 5D4 was (say) 30 MP x 10 fps. You say no to this phenomenon -- and yes, there's a TON more to a 1D rig than fps -- but I think that if you got the fps high enough (say, 10-12 fps), folks will take 90% as good a camera for 55% of the price.

Whatever the reason, 30 x 7 = Canon offering the 5D# community less throughput than the 5DS model from a year ago. That doesn't make sense at face value unless there's a gulf in price between the two.

- A

 

[Talley]

I just don't get why people think 8,9, or 10 fps would be a threat to 1DX Mark II sales. The 7D Mark II probably steals zero sales from the 1DX Mark II. However, there is absolutely no way of knowing that.

...

There are all kinds of differences between all three cameras. Many seem to think that FPS between the two FF cameras is the decider.

It's not the decider at all -- it's just another piece of the value proposition.

But knowing that Canon can absolutely increase the throughput over 30 x 7, one could presume that they are choosing not to do this for some profit-related reason.

• There might be a non-stills-related reason why Canon doesn't put a 2nd DIGIC in the body -- perhaps if some video-centric hardware needs to take the place in which more processing horsepower might reside.
  
  
• At a certain fps, the shutter / mirror setup gets dramatically more expensive for Canon to build.
  
  
• We don't know the market research that Canon has. Canon may very well know from extensive market research that 1DX2 sales would legitimately plummet if the 5D4 was (say) 30 MP x 10 fps. You say no to this phenomenon -- and yes, there's a TON more to a 1D rig than fps -- but I think that if you got the fps high enough (say, 10-12 fps), folks will take 90% as good a camera for 55% of the price.

Whatever the reason, 30 x 7 = Canon offering the 5D# community less throughput than the 5DS model from a year ago. That doesn't make sense at face value unless there's a gulf in price between the two.

- A

5Ds has a slower buffer to CF. Glad they kept it to the same total bandwidth as the 7D2... it means faster buffer dump.

 

[Sharlin]

Whatever the reason, 30 x 7 = Canon offering the 5D# community less throughput than the 5DS model from a year ago. That doesn't make sense at face value unless there's a gulf in price between the two.

5Ds has a slower buffer to CF. Glad they kept it to the same total bandwidth as the 7D2... it means faster buffer dump.

Yeah. The throughput of the 5Ds comes at a price - a max burst of only 14 RAWs. Of course, it's not exactly an action camera so that's not too bad. With the 5D4, however, I'm sure Canon wants a bit more buffer depth than that. I'm reminded of a rumor that claimed the 80D would get 8fps but with a shorter burst compared to the 70D - turned out to have just 7fps but with a deeper buffer instead.

 

[j-nord]

My very first thought when I saw 30x7 was... could have easily done 8fps maybe 9 and if it were, I'd be much more inclined to upgade to a 5DIV.

The 7fps on the 5DIV leaves me to believe that the 6Dii will only be 5 or maybe 5.5 at best (6D is 4.5). Now I'm pretty convinced Ill be looking at a used 5DSR or 6Dii for upgrade. 7fps + 30mpix just isn't a compelling enough to justify the significant increase in cost (unless they've included a tilty screen and kept it under the radar... really hope the 6Dii has one).

 

[rrcphoto]

But knowing that Canon can absolutely increase the throughput over 30 x 7

actually we do NOT know the reasons behind it yet.

for example;

- the CIPA rating may be quite a bit better from the 5Ds 700 shot CIPA rating.
- canon could be doing 16 bit raw (they hit the limit of 14 bit raw with the 1DX Mark II)

and even though the 1DX can do 14 fps with AF and AE (since we're comparing apples to apples!) - it has three processors. the 5D most likely still remains with two.


and seriously .. enough with quoting this myth that canon doesn't like internal competition between camera bodies.

canon's on RECORD as saying it totally supports internal competition and there's no fundamental logic to stat that canon cares if you purchase a 1DX versus a 5D.

as a matter of fact, people claimed that before the 5d mark II came out versus the 1Ds Mark III - what happened there?

 

[j-nord]

and seriously .. enough with quoting this myth that canon doesn't like internal competition between camera bodies.

canon's on RECORD as saying it totally supports internal competition and there's no fundamental logic to stat that canon cares if you purchase a 1DX versus a 5D.

as a matter of fact, people claimed that before the 5d mark II came out versus the 1Ds Mark III - what happened there?

I agree that I don't think Canon consciously nerfs bodies because they are worried they will sell better, instead its a matter of comfortably hitting a price point. They know they can do w+x+y but if they add z they are going to go over the price point. They build the body to the price/margin point they are trying to reach. Canon could always do more but that means higher prices. This is how product development works, at least for well established companies/markets.

 

[Ozarker]

• I just don't get why people think 8,9, or 10 fps would be a threat to 1DX Mark II sales. The 7D Mark II probably steals zero sales from the 1DX Mark II. However, there is absolutely no way of knowing that.
  
  ...
  
  There are all kinds of differences between all three cameras. Many seem to think that FPS between the two FF cameras is the decider.

  
  It's not the decider at all -- it's just another piece of the value proposition.
  
  But knowing that Canon can absolutely increase the throughput over 30 x 7, one could presume that they are choosing not to do this for some profit-related reason.
  
  

  • There might be a non-stills-related reason why Canon doesn't put a 2nd DIGIC in the body -- perhaps if some video-centric hardware needs to take the place in which more processing horsepower might reside.
    
    
  • At a certain fps, the shutter / mirror setup gets dramatically more expensive for Canon to build.
    
    
  • We don't know the market research that Canon has. Canon may very well know from extensive market research that 1DX2 sales would legitimately plummet if the 5D4 was (say) 30 MP x 10 fps. You say no to this phenomenon -- and yes, there's a TON more to a 1D rig than fps -- but I think that if you got the fps high enough (say, 10-12 fps), folks will take 90% as good a camera for 55% of the price.

  
  Whatever the reason, 30 x 7 = Canon offering the 5D# community less throughput than the 5DS model from a year ago. That doesn't make sense at face value unless there's a gulf in price between the two.
  
  - A

  
  Well, many people in this thread and all over this board think FPS is the decider and place what I think is undue weight on it... including you. You say below that a higher frame rate on the 5D Mark III could be a threat to 1DX Mark III sales
  
  

  One would think parity with the 5DS would be in order here, and as such, one might think 8-9 fps might have been the better sweet spot of 'better than the 5D3' yet 'no threat to steal pricier 1DX2 sales'.
  
  - A

  
  You do it again here and even say that 10 fps would make the 5D IV 90% as good at 55% less in price... just because of shutter speed alone. WHAAAAAAAAATTT?
  
  

  Canon may very well know from extensive market research that 1DX2 sales would legitimately plummet if the 5D4 was (say) 30 MP x 10 fps. You say no to this phenomenon -- and yes, there's a TON more to a 1D rig than fps -- but I think that if you got the fps high enough (say, 10-12 fps), folks will take 90% as good a camera for 55% of the price.

- A

Then Mr. Talley does it here.

would of loved 8 but we all know that 7 was the highest they would go... gives enough reason to justify a 7D2 or 1DxII

Then you say this as to the 1D line:

People might want to get over the notion that high FPS is 'why you buy a 1D rig':

High fps does not define the 1D line, it's just the eye-popping spec everyone dwells on. 1D bodies have a TON of exclusive stuff that has nothing to do with speed and landscape / studio folks would give their left nut for it.

- A

Then there is this:

At a certain fps, the shutter / mirror setup gets dramatically more expensive for Canon to build.

- A

Mr. Sanford, how do you know the price for the differing shutter / mirror setup is dramatically more expensive for Canon to build?

Especially after saying this:

So why would one cost more than the other? Do explain, I'm honestly curious -- I'm fairly ignorant of cost & fab considerations.

- A

Canon makes far more money from the 5D line than the 1D line. I can't prove that. However the sales volume of the 5D line must be far higher than that of the 1D line.

I don't personally do not believe a 10 fps 5D would hurt the 1DX II sales in any appreciable manner. What Canon decides to do is only known to the deciders at Canon.

I am speaking to the idea that the 5D with a faster frame rate would be a threat to the 1DX II. I don't believe it. I also don't understand the undue weight placed on fps between the two.

I rather agree with rrcphoto:

and seriously .. enough with quoting this myth that canon doesn't like internal competition between camera bodies.

Canon's on RECORD as saying it totally supports internal competition and there's no fundamental logic to stat that Canon cares if you purchase a 1DX versus a 5D.

As a matter of fact, people claimed that before the 5d mark II came out versus the 1Ds Mark III - what happened there?

Mr. Sanford, you and I both know that there are people all over these boards saying that 10 fps on a 5D III body would kill 1DX II sales. I've seen it scores of times. That is all they dwell on.

Fact is, the same could be said for the 7D Mark II... except that it would be said it takes sales from the 5D and 1D lines. It may be a choice for birders, but I suspect many of those same people either choose not to spend on a 1DX II because they can't afford it to begin with.

I wonder how many birders with a 1DX would be just as happy with a 7D Mark II? Especially when the mythical "reach advantage" is thrown in.

 

[unfocused]

Don't forget silent shutter. For many 5D users (wedding photographers in particular, but others as well) this is far more important than frames per second. I'm still having some adjustment shock from losing the 5D silent shutter with the 1Dx II. There is absolutely nothing silent about that shutter. Keeping the shutter silent in the 5D may limit just how fast the frame rate can be.

 

[ahsanford]

and seriously .. enough with quoting this myth that canon doesn't like internal competition between camera bodies.

Respectfully disagree. Folks in the market for a 1D rig that instead opt for a camera that costs half as much is very bad for Canon and -- not shockingly -- Canon gives pricier models more/better/nicer/exclusive features than the cheaper rigs to discourage those sort of purchases. This is fact. (I'm harping on fps in this thread, but it's not just limited to that specification. A 1D rig has a boatload of exclusive goodies that a 5D has never had before.)

For instance, can you tell me why it's 2016 and spot metering at any AF point is still an exclusive feature to the 1D line? ...when Nikon offers it on their Rebel equivalent? ...when most cell phones offer that feature? The only reasonable explanation is that Canon has nerfed non-1D rigs to protect 1D sales.

So do various lines 'compete' in some sense at Canon? Absolutely. The 7D2 got anti-flicker before the 1DX2 got it, and the 6D line got -3 EV AF before the 5D line got it. But Canon will not undermine it's priciest / most prestigious rigs to the point that folks will pay 50% of that pricier model for 90% of the functionality. They will engineer a relatively smoothly climbing 'continuum of value' in their portfolio where there are no obvious bargains and there are no clearly overpriced ripoffs.

- A

 

[drmikeinpdx]

You'll have to pry my 5D3 from my cold, dead hands!

 

[ahsanford]

Well, many people in this thread and all over this board think FPS is the decider and place what I think is undue weight on it... including you. You say below that a higher frame rate on the 5D Mark III could be a threat to 1DX Mark III sales

One would think parity with the 5DS would be in order here, and as such, one might think 8-9 fps might have been the better sweet spot of 'better than the 5D3' yet 'no threat to steal pricier 1DX2 sales'.

- A

FPS is just one aspect of a camera's value proposition. You may not give a damn about it. But some person on the fence of going for the 1DX2 because they have a need for crazy high FPS may not care a lick about other 1D goodies, and a 'budget 1DX2' of a 5D4 clocking in at 10-12 fps might get their money instead.

Putting this another way, let's imagine that you had an Canon internal projection of 5D4 vs. 1DX2 sales and you were allowed to play with feature-based Excel sliders to jazz up what the future specs on the 5D4 might be. If you keep increasing the 5D4 FPS value, eventually you'll find an inflection point at which 1DX2 sales would suffer. That's common sense, isn't it?

So, no, FPS isn't everything. FPS isn't the only reason to get a 1D rig. But having a clear gap between the 5D line ad 1D line on this feature helps Canon defend its asking price of the 1D line. So does having a gap in metering, having a gap in build quality, having a gap in AF, etc.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

- the CIPA rating may be quite a bit better from the 5Ds 700 shot CIPA rating.

Forget to comment on this. Excellent point. Single DIGIC rigs are leaving some throughput on the table compared to dual DIGIC rigs, but the battery life is clearly better.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

New models from Canon improve or evolve each area of the cameras performance. Just looking at the number of MP is being short sighted.

The performance of the sensor, communications, autofocus capabilities, video capabilities, Canon tweaks them all to provide a improved product I'm almost every area.

This means that some will see no reason to buy because their desired tweak is not there, but many will buy a product that is upgraded in every area which Canon believes is the best solution that has worked for them in the past.

So, we may see a improved sensor with on chip A-D converter, maybe dual pixel, Wi-Fi, GPS, better autoexposure, better autofocus, a few more MP, better video, you get the point.

If your current camera does the job, unless there is a badly needed new feature, you might skip a model before upgrading. I shoot in very low theatrical lighting, often at ISO 25600, so unless that is substantially better, I'd be inclined to pass. A Good used 1DX can be had cheaply which might be a low light improvement enough for me to switch at little cost.

 

[rrcphoto]

- the CIPA rating may be quite a bit better from the 5Ds 700 shot CIPA rating.

Forget to comment on this. Excellent point. Single DIGIC rigs are leaving some throughput on the table compared to dual DIGIC rigs, but the battery life is clearly better.

- A

Keep in mind apparently this has all the bells and whistles that suck battery life. Wifi, GPS, NFC, etc.

DPAF is also a CPU / battery life drainer as well.

It could be that to include all they wanted and maintain the heat and power management, FPS and data throughput had to be relaxed.

 

[Maximilian]

... throughput here in comparison:
1DX2 = 20.2 MP x 16 fps = 323.2 MP/s*
5DS = 50 x 5 = 250 MP/s
5D4 = 30 x 7 = 210 MP/s
7D2 = 20.2 MP x 10 fps = 202 MP/s

One would think parity with the 5DS would be in order here, and as such, one might think 8-9 fps might have been the better sweet spot...

Agree/disagree?

I would have preferred some 8 FPS with maybe just 28 or less MP but it is as it is.
To me both new 5D4 numbers are higher than I mostly needed them.

And as I stated here before several times I am not the crowd to buy the 5D4 because I don't expect too much improvement in IQ over the 5D3, especially at higher ISO numbers. And the other new features are not important in my buying decision.

One point could be a big IQ improvement in the new 24-105L II and a good discount in the kit with this lens.
(I still might need a backdoor argument )