Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Being Tested by Photographers

[scyrene]

Canon seems more interested in video and high ISOs.

What about the most recent cameras they've released? The 1DxII in particular seems to have (by all accounts) increased low ISO DR which may have cost it high ISO improvements (while the D5 has done the opposite).

 

[Loswr]

I dont really understand why people always reduce the upgrades represented in the 5D mkIII over the 5D mkII to the extra 1 MP.

Apparently there are a few people on these forums who have the ability to take pictures with only a small piece of silicon, and those plastic and metal bits around it are merely there to keep fingerprints off the imaging surface. So for them, sensor = camera.

 

[ahsanford]

I dont really understand why people always reduce the upgrades represented in the 5D mkIII over the 5D mkII to the extra 1 MP. In my opinion the mkIII is much more camera than the mk II. This starts when you take the camera in your hands and includes upgrades like the following (from www.imaging-resource.com, www.photographylife.com, terrible memory):

[truncated]
I must have forgotten many...

I don't shoot video, but for stills shooters the AF system was worth the upgrade alone. That was easily the 5D3's biggest upgrade, followed (IMHO) by the silent shutter.

- A

 

[Ripley]

For God's sake Canon, please vindicate our patience with the 5D IV. If not, I might be gone when the A7R III arrives...

 

[ahsanford]

What about the most recent cameras they've released? The 1DxII in particular seems to have (by all accounts) increased low ISO DR which may have cost it high ISO improvements (while the D5 has done the opposite).

Maybe however the DxO rate the D5 with a "sports score" less than both the D4 and D4s. It's not clear if the D5's upper limits of ISO stupidity are the cause here or if it just isn't as good.

Dilbert -- I hadn't thought of that. DXO is famous for punishing companies' products for offering something they don't necessarily have to. The 35L II famously was listed as being less sharp (on aggregate) than the Sigma 35 Art because the Canon stops down to f/22 while the Sigma only stops down to f/16. :

Along those same lines, one wonders how DXO's absurd black box transfer function scoring system punished Nikon for the D5's 3.2M ISO claims, which renders all images into murky chromatic turdstorms.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

For God's sake Canon, please vindicate our patience with the 5D IV. If not, I might be gone when the A7R III arrives...

Just curious, do you honestly think it will be a breakthrough / revolutionary product?

At this stage, Canon are nation-builders, not mountain climbers. They consistently make hiqh quality products with modest incremental improvements that sprinkle in really useful tech that other lines will adopt someday. So I'd argue that you don't need to wait to know what's coming*.

I fully expect a fairly vanilla spec sheet (that we've all been talking about) plus a secret-sauce sort of surprise new tech that you are not expecting (a la DPAF, anti-flicker, etc.). If that isn't enough to sate your lust for new/hot/gamechanging/best things, stop waiting. You might want to buy something else that will give you the tech endorphins you crave.

- A

* Unless what you are waiting for is a DXO sensor score. Go buy a Sony right now if that is the euphoria you crave.

 

[Loswr]

Along those same lines, one wonders how DXO's absurd black box transfer function scoring system punished Nikon for the D5's 3.2M ISO claims, which renders all images into murky chromatic turdstorms.

It doesn't. The Biased Score metric comprises three factors: DR at base ISO, color depth at base ISO, and the ISO at which a fixed SNR threshold is reached. So, an astronomical ISO will not impact the scoring.

However, they do not provide the relative weightings for those three factors, nor do they provide assurances that those weightings are kept constant for all sensors tested.

 

[ahsanford]

Along those same lines, one wonders how DXO's absurd black box transfer function scoring system punished Nikon for the D5's 3.2M ISO claims, which renders all images into murky chromatic turdstorms.

It doesn't. The Biased Score metric comprises three factors: DR at base ISO, color depth at base ISO, and the ISO at which a fixed SNR threshold is reached. So, an astronomical ISO will not impact the scoring.

However, they do not provide the relative weightings for those three factors, nor do they provide assurances that those weightings are kept constant for all sensors tested.

So they are only mostly insane on sensors vs. completely insane on lenses. Got it, thx.

- A

 

[bdunbar79]

Along those same lines, one wonders how DXO's absurd black box transfer function scoring system punished Nikon for the D5's 3.2M ISO claims, which renders all images into murky chromatic turdstorms.

It doesn't. The Biased Score metric comprises three factors: DR at base ISO, color depth at base ISO, and the ISO at which a fixed SNR threshold is reached. So, an astronomical ISO will not impact the scoring.

However, they do not provide the relative weightings for those three factors, nor do they provide assurances that those weightings are kept constant for all sensors tested.

So you mean it's not scientific? Not in the least bit? But, but...I...wanna...believe...

 

[ahsanford]

Along those same lines, one wonders how DXO's absurd black box transfer function scoring system punished Nikon for the D5's 3.2M ISO claims, which renders all images into murky chromatic turdstorms.

It doesn't. The Biased Score metric comprises three factors: DR at base ISO, color depth at base ISO, and the ISO at which a fixed SNR threshold is reached. So, an astronomical ISO will not impact the scoring.

However, they do not provide the relative weightings for those three factors, nor do they provide assurances that those weightings are kept constant for all sensors tested.

So you mean it's not scientific? Not in the least bit? But, but...I...wanna...believe...

Using their own goofy metrics, the D5 was arguably no improvement (sensor-wise) over the D4S (it lost a stop of dynamic range at base ISO) and a 2 year old D810 outclassed it in all three of their summary metrics, yet DXO still had the nerve to call it "a worthy successor".

#dxo #fairandbalanced

- A

 

[Mr. Milo]

So I am not really seeing a 5D4 handling 4K in anything approaching competitive level. The Digic 7 will not outcompete it's video sibling for video, and going beyond that you would be in 1DXII territory, which would put a question marks on that cameras viability.

It is possible that a 5D4 might be able to shoot 4K in some limited form, but I suspect that video people will be disappointed by whatever it puts out.

Thought it was Photographers who will be disappointed. Read somewhere that Canon is prepping this more on the Videographer side. Besides, the 5DS R exists.

5D4 "might" shoot 4K in limited form? It's confirmed that it films 4K. What do you mean limited? Like Nikon 4K, 3 minute limit? If it does, the 5D4 is a massive disappointment after waiting 4 years. I don't think Canon is going to do that.

Not many people knew about 4K picture grab and 4K DCI in Canon 1DX Mark II. We'll just have to wait and see before killing people's expectations on this camera.

 

[tron]

So I am not really seeing a 5D4 handling 4K in anything approaching competitive level. The Digic 7 will not outcompete it's video sibling for video, and going beyond that you would be in 1DXII territory, which would put a question marks on that cameras viability.

It is possible that a 5D4 might be able to shoot 4K in some limited form, but I suspect that video people will be disappointed by whatever it puts out.

Thought it was Photographers who will be disappointed. Read somewhere that Canon is prepping this more on the Videographer side. Besides, the 5DS R exists.

5D4 "might" shoot 4K in limited form? It's confirmed that it films 4K. What do you mean limited? Like Nikon 4K, 3 minute limit? If it does, the 5D4 is a massive disappointment after waiting 4 years. I don't think Canon is going to do that.

Not many people knew about 4K picture grab and 4K DCI in Canon 1DX Mark II. We'll just have to wait and see before killing people's expectations on this camera.

Maybe limited meant not 60fps at 4K

 

[ahsanford]

So I am not really seeing a 5D4 handling 4K in anything approaching competitive level. The Digic 7 will not outcompete it's video sibling for video, and going beyond that you would be in 1DXII territory, which would put a question marks on that cameras viability.

It is possible that a 5D4 might be able to shoot 4K in some limited form, but I suspect that video people will be disappointed by whatever it puts out.

Thought it was Photographers who will be disappointed. Read somewhere that Canon is prepping this more on the Videographer side. Besides, the 5DS R exists.

5D4 "might" shoot 4K in limited form? It's confirmed that it films 4K. What do you mean limited? Like Nikon 4K, 3 minute limit? If it does, the 5D4 is a massive disappointment after waiting 4 years. I don't think Canon is going to do that.

Not many people knew about 4K picture grab and 4K DCI in Canon 1DX Mark II. We'll just have to wait and see before killing people's expectations on this camera.

The 5D4 will certainly have some sort of feature / benefit for stills users that the 1DX2 does not. For instance, the 5D3 had a higher resolution than the 1DX, and it also had a silent shutter that the 1DX did not. So I expect the 5D4 will have a stills feature that might be left out of the 1DX2. They sky will not fall and the price of the 1DX2 will not plummet as a result -- Canon will wisely pick what this feature might be to prevent this.

Now repeat the entire exercise above for video. Same thing could happen. The idea that a single video feature the 5D4 receives that the 1DX2 does not 'ruins 1DX2 sales' is explosively unlikely because Canon likes making money. It's not like they'll give the 5D4 8K or fundamentally higher quality output or anything -- it might just be an innovate way to attach a microphone or monitor, a different coding format, etc.

- A

 

[Loswr]

The idea that a single video feature the 5D4 receives that the 1DX2 does not 'ruins 1DX2 sales' is explosively unlikely because Canon likes making money.

Is Magic Lantern a feature?

 

[Ozarker]

can not see the 5D4 trumping the 1D2 on too many things, some thing has to give, my question is what?

Frame rate: 7 fps vs. 14; Autofocus won't be as good; High ISO performance won't be as good because of the 24mp sensor instead of the 1D's 20 mp; smaller buffer; weathersealing won't be as good; SD/CFast slots instead of CF/CFast. Probably some other differences as well.

This is spot on.

Nawwww. It will be 10FPS + CF/ Cfast or dual CF. "Probably some other differences as well." Very insightful. :

 

[Ozarker]

can not see the 5D4 trumping the 1D2 on too many things, some thing has to give, my question is what?

Areas where the 5D4 will trump the 1DX2 -- they aren't that many or all that amazing, but here's my guess:

Certain: Less cost

Certain: Cheaper accessories, a larger accessories third party ecosystem, etc.

Certain: Less size/weight

Likely: a new/'first' feature that isn't on the 1DX 2 --> remember the 5D3 gave us silent shutter and in-camera HDR mode, the 7D2 gave us anti-flicker mode an in-camera timelapse mode, the 80D gave us DPAF, etc.

Possibly: Wifi onboard

Unlikely: Radio master onboard (I'm dreaming, but if this is *the* wedding photographer's camera, that's an awesome way to sell it)

Unlikely: A tilty-flippy screen (...if you call that 'trumping' the 1DX2, which most would say yes but there are still some holdouts)

- A

Actually, the 70D gave us DPAF.

 

[Ozarker]

It really miffs me that we are not informed of a cutoff date for posting our personal spec selections before they finalize a product.

Meanwhile my 5D3 still works!

That's because the Canon development team keeps a running tab on Canon Rumors feature demands and keeps modifying the specs. They know that if they don't do so, Canon is doomed. The 5DIV was going to be announced in January, but they decided to delay it, so they could mine this site for additional feedback.

Based on what they have learned it will be a failed "mirrorslapper" that has somewhere between 20 and 45 mp.; between 3-18 fps, will shoot either 1080 HD, or 4K or 8K or 16K (or might not have any video at all because some people resent "paying" for video); either will or won't have a tilt screen, touch screen, wifi or gps; might have better dynamic range at base ISO; might have DPAF; is likely to have an autofocus system; and will have slots for memory cards.

Yes, this website is heavily influencing Canon's business decisions. They fear putting out a machine not demanded by every Tom, Dick, and Harry posting demands here. :

 

[Ozarker]

I am told that it is 28 MP and the shadow noise is still not very good. It has been tested for four months now.

But in overall, it is a good camera.

Since you only have four posts, I'll try not to be mean. But, we frequently see posts like yours which try to give the impression of having some inside knowledge. In order to be credible, you need to explain your source, otherwise it can just appear you are trolling.

Believe it or not is your personal choice. Do you think it is appropriate to disclose the photographers' names to ruin their occupation?

I also have the information on 16-35 III/2.8 too. Having lots of posts doesn't mean credibility.

Please, tell us a bit more then. Like FPS, video capabilities, etc.

This was the conversation between the OP and the "source": "Psst... Hey bud, come here. The 5D IV/X is gonna have 28mp with poor shadow noise."

"Seriously? What else?"

"I won't tell you. Just wanted you to have a taste. Just know it has been in the field and being tested for four months. It's gonna suck, see. Suck I tell ya! Mums the word...err, I mean Sony. Now get away from me kid, you're bothering me."

 

[Ozarker]

...Canon always castrates their cameras to protect "High-end" products.

No they don't. That is a complete myth.

Lots of lower end models get better and more useful features than the flagship or the 5 series or the example between 7D, 70D, 7DII. There's a lot more tech trickling up than trickling down. The 1D series is not the big profit center people think it is.

 

[unfocused]

...Canon always castrates their cameras to protect "High-end" products.

No they don't. That is a complete myth.

Lots of lower end models get better and more useful features than the flagship or the 5 series or the example between 7D, 70D, 7DII. There's a lot more tech trickling up than trickling down. The 1D series is not the big profit center people think it is.

I get really tired of these claims of "crippling" or in this case "castration" (ouch! -- although if cameras could breed it would be quite something.)

Just what is it that people fail to understand about product differentiation? Of course, one model is not going to have all the features of the more expensive model. To expect that is just silliness. Oh wait...I forgot...these features are free and don't cost anything to add, so Canon is just being greedy by not including every feature on every body.