Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specification List [CR1]

[Refurb7]

C. To get pixel sharp photos at 32MP, people would have to buy top of the line lenses and use pro techniques to stabilize the cameras, such as tripods. That is not what the average Joe is going to do. The average Joe will use a 5.5" phone (as Apple has recently discovered), bottom of the line lenses, such as EF-S kit lenses, etc, and wouldn't care less how his photos look on anything better than FHD resolution.

Such nonsense.

1) Every single lens you have performs better with more megapixels available. Try a 5DS/R one day.

2) You do not have to anything to stabilize your 32 MPIX camera compared to a 24 MPIX camera (or my 50 MPIX 5DSR or my coming 5DSRIII with 100 MPIX). This is such a wide spread myth and misunderstanding. When Joe views his results on print or on screen the 32 MPIX picture he took will look exactly as sharp as the same picture he took using a 24 MPIX camera (everything else equal). Exactly.. However Joe has the option of one day learning to use pro techniques and gaining more image sharpness with a 32 MPIX camera he can ever achieve with a 24 MPIX camera.

Its the same misunderstanding as when people think you have to resample a 5DSR picture to get better high ISO than from a 5D3. You do not have to do anything at all. Zilch. Zero. Just print or open up your smugmug page and you will enjoy the improved high iso from the 5DSR over the 5D3. As simple as that.

You are confusing 100% test shots with real life viewing of pictures. The results Joe - and everyone else in the world for that matter - enjoys looking at and sharing. Resampling is something we do for tests only. It provides the visual confirmation that the 5DSR will give you better high iso results than the 5D3.

I agree 100%. Cameras shake the same in your hands regardless of how many megapixels they have. No one had to change their stabilization technique going from 4mp to 10mp, or from 10mp to 21mp. Likewise, no reason to change it for 32mp or 50mp. Resolution doesn't matter to degree of shakiness. Pixels always record the same degree of shake within the picture area.

 

[Loswr]

C. To get pixel sharp photos at 32MP, people would have to buy top of the line lenses and use pro techniques to stabilize the cameras, such as tripods. That is not what the average Joe is going to do. The average Joe will use a 5.5" phone (as Apple has recently discovered), bottom of the line lenses, such as EF-S kit lenses, etc, and wouldn't care less how his photos look on anything better than FHD resolution.

Such nonsense.

1) Every single lens you have performs better with more megapixels available. Try a 5DS/R one day.

2) You do not have to anything to stabilize your 32 MPIX camera compared to a 24 MPIX camera (or my 50 MPIX 5DSR or my coming 5DSRIII with 100 MPIX). This is such a wide spread myth and misunderstanding. When Joe views his results on print or on screen the 32 MPIX picture he took will look exactly as sharp as the same picture he took using a 24 MPIX camera (everything else equal). Exactly.. However Joe has the option of one day learning to use pro techniques and gaining more image sharpness with a 32 MPIX camera he can ever achieve with a 24 MPIX camera.

Well, that's a relief. I thought when Canon hit 100 MP, I'd have to trade in my RRS tripod for a KSI 'quadpod':

Hard to fit that sucker and the N2 tank to float it into my backpack, y'know?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

4K display has 8MP. How is three times that resolution not future proof?

8K is 32MP, it's the math

A. So future proofing "in this age of 4K displays" (kind of you to drop the quote) is 8K? In this age, 4K hasn't come anywhere near 100% penetration, I wouldn't bet on the future popularity of 8K.

B. Those 4K and 8K screens will be used for two things: video editing (= small target audience), and watching movies (= very large screens, intended to be watched from a distance). I wouldn't bet on either of those being oft used to watch photos.

C. To get pixel sharp photos at 32MP, people would have to buy top of the line lenses and use pro techniques to stabilize the cameras, such as tripods. That is not what the average Joe is going to do. The average Joe will use a 5.5" phone (as Apple has recently discovered), bottom of the line lenses, such as EF-S kit lenses, etc, and wouldn't care less how his photos look on anything better than FHD resolution.

A. the HDTV industry plans to make practically every non-total budget set 4k, ultra wide gamut and HDR within a couple years. SOme photo people already are using >4k displays.

B. Nobody would use them for photo viewing??? People are using 4k screens for photo viewing right now and it's a huge difference! Instead of everything look all digital, photos on screen finally have some of the feel of a print or slide. My 4k monitor is maybe the best photo related purchase I made in years. And I thirst for an 8k display one day.

C. You are going a little overboard on what it takes to get a decent 32MP shot. Sure some can't tell VHS from UHD blu-ray or don't care but that isn't the serious photo person, none of those people will buy any of this Nikon/Sony/Canon stuff or a photo monitor or anything anyway.

PLUS - many are forgetting one of the greatest reasons for more MP and that is REACH. That is great for sports and fantastic for wildlife. (It also doesn't hurt to get a bit more cropping freedom in post for landscape stuff or truly wildly detailed 19"+ prints.)

That said, especially since the camera isn't the single best for sports/wildlife hah, it's really the DR and over-sampled 4k video even more than the MP count (although that is nice and does help at times compared to 5D3) on A7R II that has been nicest for me.

 

[Tiderace]

Re thirsting for 8K display would require a giant screen folks. Human beings cannot see the difference between a 4K and HD until the screen is a 72 inch screen. So to have an 8K screen one's home would have to be totally HUGE!!!! So the real changes coming that make a difference in video and photography is dynamic range and noise reduction. HDR for video and better low light photography without blowing out the highlights.

 

[Antono Refa]

C. To get pixel sharp photos at 32MP, people would have to buy top of the line lenses and use pro techniques to stabilize the cameras, such as tripods. That is not what the average Joe is going to do. The average Joe will use a 5.5" phone (as Apple has recently discovered), bottom of the line lenses, such as EF-S kit lenses, etc, and wouldn't care less how his photos look on anything better than FHD resolution.

Such nonsense.

Thanks for giving a warning.

1) Every single lens you have performs better with more megapixels available. Try a 5DS/R one day.

That it performs better does NOT mean it would be pixel sharp at 32MP, which is what it needs to be to justify the photo being displayed on 32MP screen.

2) You do not have to anythingto stabilize your 32 MPIX camera compared to a 24 MPIX camera

You do need it if you want the photo to look pixel sharp on a 32MP screen.

When Joe views his results on print or on screen the 32 MPIX picture he took will look exactly as sharp as the same picture he took using a 24 MPIX camera (everything else equal).

Exactly - on a 32MP screen, it would look like over sampled 24MP photo, which is blurry.

Exactly.. However Joe has the option of one day learning to use pro techniques and gaining more image sharpness with a 32 MPIX camera he can ever achieve with a 24 MPIX camera.

The question was not about whether Joe would have an option. The question was whether his photos would look good on a 32MP screen, and the answer is they wouldn't until such time as he actually learned to use pro techniques. Which in most cases be never.

 

[Antono Refa]

4K display has 8MP. How is three times that resolution not future proof?

8K is 32MP, it's the math

A. So future proofing "in this age of 4K displays" (kind of you to drop the quote) is 8K? In this age, 4K hasn't come anywhere near 100% penetration, I wouldn't bet on the future popularity of 8K.

B. Those 4K and 8K screens will be used for two things: video editing (= small target audience), and watching movies (= very large screens, intended to be watched from a distance). I wouldn't bet on either of those being oft used to watch photos.

C. To get pixel sharp photos at 32MP, people would have to buy top of the line lenses and use pro techniques to stabilize the cameras, such as tripods. That is not what the average Joe is going to do. The average Joe will use a 5.5" phone (as Apple has recently discovered), bottom of the line lenses, such as EF-S kit lenses, etc, and wouldn't care less how his photos look on anything better than FHD resolution.

A. the HDTV industry plans to make practically every non-total budget set 4k, ultra wide gamut and HDR within a couple years. SOme photo people already are using >4k displays.

And some would be how many, in percents?

I don't know anyone who has a 4K display.

C. You are going a little overboard on what it takes to get a decent 32MP shot. Sure some can't tell VHS from UHD blu-ray or don't care but that isn't the serious photo person, none of those people will buy any of this Nikon/Sony/Canon stuff or a photo monitor or anything anyway.

My point is that most people aren't serious photo persons. Actually, people who have cameras with higher than 24MP are a minority among pro photographers.

PLUS - many are forgetting one of the greatest reasons for more MP and that is REACH.

The original point was that to future proof photos, that is to make them look good when everybody and his sister would have 8K displays, one would have to buy 32MP and over cameras.

The more you crop from a 36MP photo, the worse it would look on those 8K screens. You want to crop for reach and have sharp 32MP photo? Then future proofing requires you to buy a 5DS/R and even sharper lenses, or maybe a medium format camera.

If you think that's going to be mainstream, you need to switch your dealer.

 

[Loswr]

Maybe Joe should just stick with the good ol' stuff.

 

[tpatana]

Maybe Joe should just stick with the good ol' stuff.

Another forum, someone told that his parents said the picture quality didn't improve when they bought FHD tv to replace their old tube.

Another person there commented that it's because Matlock wasn't shot in FHD

 

[Loswr]

 

[scyrene]

A. the HDTV industry plans to make practically every non-total budget set 4k, ultra wide gamut and HDR within a couple years. SOme photo people already are using >4k displays.

They may well do. The tv manufacturers need people to keep buying tvs. So they need consumers to believe that their current model is obsolete for whatever reason. Will 4K become the norm? Probably. Will 8K? Who knows? Look how 3D tv panned out. Incidentally, how many people are currently using displays over 4k? A vanishingly small percentage, I'd imagine.

B. Nobody would use them for photo viewing??? People are using 4k screens for photo viewing right now and it's a huge difference! Instead of everything look all digital, photos on screen finally have some of the feel of a print or slide. My 4k monitor is maybe the best photo related purchase I made in years. And I thirst for an 8k display one day.

Again, *how many* are doing that? A few, but many? A lot? Probably not, at least yet. I personally want high res displays for editing. But how many consumers - even those with DSLRs - do much editing, and how many of those are pixel peepers, who'd benefit most from this?

PLUS - many are forgetting one of the greatest reasons for more MP and that is REACH. That is great for sports and fantastic for wildlife. (It also doesn't hurt to get a bit more cropping freedom in post for landscape stuff or truly wildly detailed 19"+ prints.)

I totally agree with this. For me, reach is the number one reason my next camera will be a 5Ds. Too few people take cropping into account - but then, I suppose most people don't crop most shots very much, if at all.

 

[scyrene]

C. To get pixel sharp photos at 32MP, people would have to buy top of the line lenses and use pro techniques to stabilize the cameras, such as tripods. That is not what the average Joe is going to do. The average Joe will use a 5.5" phone (as Apple has recently discovered), bottom of the line lenses, such as EF-S kit lenses, etc, and wouldn't care less how his photos look on anything better than FHD resolution.

Such nonsense.

Thanks for giving a warning.

1) Every single lens you have performs better with more megapixels available. Try a 5DS/R one day.

That it performs better does NOT mean it would be pixel sharp at 32MP, which is what it needs to be to justify the photo being displayed on 32MP screen.

2) You do not have to anythingto stabilize your 32 MPIX camera compared to a 24 MPIX camera

You do need it if you want the photo to look pixel sharp on a 32MP screen.

When Joe views his results on print or on screen the 32 MPIX picture he took will look exactly as sharp as the same picture he took using a 24 MPIX camera (everything else equal).

Exactly - on a 32MP screen, it would look like over sampled 24MP photo, which is blurry.

Exactly.. However Joe has the option of one day learning to use pro techniques and gaining more image sharpness with a 32 MPIX camera he can ever achieve with a 24 MPIX camera.

The question was not about whether Joe would have an option. The question was whether his photos would look good on a 32MP screen, and the answer is they wouldn't until such time as he actually learned to use pro techniques. Which in most cases be never.

To be fair to you, you did say 'pixel sharp', so although Maiaibing's comments are true generally, they don't apply to your specific objection. To get pixel sharp (i.e. 100% magnification) images at higher res, you do indeed need faster shutter speeds, ceteris paribus. Although it's not a deal breaker - the 7DII has a similar pixel pitch to the 5Ds and people manage to get sharp images with it.

 

[doog]

Phones are 4K in my neighborhood- vid camera and display. My BenQ monitor is 4K, although I wish it were 16:10 instead of TV aspect ratio.
I accumulate high-end glass at a rate slightly faster than Canon can rebrand and market it. So yeah, I'm all in for latest-greatest in video, but none of this pixel-racing discussion seems relevant to stills image-capture. Many readers and writers here understand the complexities of that (stills) subject. I've talked myself out of immediately jumping on the 1DxII, but pixel-density ("reach") sure isn't why.

 

[gregory4000]

I doubt Canon is stupid enough to release a general purpose pro camera with less than 36 MPs since Nikon, Sony and Pentax are all at or above that number.

Um, Canon has the highest MP FF DSLR of any manufacturer at present. The top of the line from Nikon and Canon are both 20MP. And plenty of professionals here complain about 'too high' MP counts. So... you're talking out of a place that isn't your mouth.

(I'm one of the proponents of higher MP counts in general - or at least that they are not the bad thing some people say. But to claim the 5D4 would be 'stupid' if it were lower than 36MP is... stupid).

I think you're way off here. I'm no pro but a simple look at the Nikon website shows the D810 at 36.6 MP and the D750 and D610 both at 24.3 - both are FX sensors.

And a simple look at Canon site shows 5DS(R) at 50Mp, 5D3 at 22Mp, 6D at 20MP.
So I believe all of you that simply ignore the 50MP FF camera are ... off. Let's don't forget that the next Nikon will be 42MP if they use Sony's new sensor. This is close to Canon's 50MP.

I agree, I think Canon will release the best that their able too. The question is that will it loose its lead to companies like Sony who is trying hard to chip into their market share. Sony will be releasing a pro camera later this year.
This camera will have a 70+ mega pixel sensor, zero buffering "zero" ( yet I doubt it will shoot any faster than five FPS). larger than the A7 series yet a little smaller than a DSLR and high ISO's and best part...15 stops of DR. With companies like this who are quickly innovating with interesting products, I predict two things will happen. One, cameras will increase their mega pixel size to keep up. And legendary companies like Nikon and Canon will have to upgrade their devices more often. A lot of changes can occur in 4 years. enough to make your device "seem" out dated.

 

[MrToes]

A whole lot of people bought into Canon during the 5D2 era because they could get cinematic quality video and awesome stills in one body... (Be they pros or hobby shooters) And now they still want the best. 30+MP, 4K, touch screen, zebras, edge to edge AF, WiFi, etc would get that done. No harm in wanting the best of both worlds in a body,... Especially if you already own Canon glass.
[/quote]

I would love it all also! Waiting.......

 

[Antono Refa]

To be fair to you, you did say 'pixel sharp', so although Maiaibing's comments are true generally, they don't apply to your specific objection. To get pixel sharp (i.e. 100% magnification) images at higher res, you do indeed need faster shutter speeds, ceteris paribus. Although it's not a deal breaker - the 7DII has a similar pixel pitch to the 5Ds and people manage to get sharp images with it.

It's the original poster who said >30MP are needed to future proof the photos for the day everyone would watch their photos on 8K screens.

My objection is that claim is equivalent to saying people would pixel peep all their photos all the time, hence pixel sharp photos would be the norm.

I'm sure people do get sharp photos from the 7DmkII. I doubt those people pixel peep every single photo they take and say 'oh damn, this one isn't sharp enough for the 6K display I'll buy in 5 years, off to the trash bin with it'.

 

[romanr74]

4K display has 8MP. How is three times that resolution not future proof?

8K is 32MP, it's the math

A. So future proofing "in this age of 4K displays" (kind of you to drop the quote) is 8K? In this age, 4K hasn't come anywhere near 100% penetration, I wouldn't bet on the future popularity of 8K.

B. Those 4K and 8K screens will be used for two things: video editing (= small target audience), and watching movies (= very large screens, intended to be watched from a distance). I wouldn't bet on either of those being oft used to watch photos.

C. To get pixel sharp photos at 32MP, people would have to buy top of the line lenses and use pro techniques to stabilize the cameras, such as tripods. That is not what the average Joe is going to do. The average Joe will use a 5.5" phone (as Apple has recently discovered), bottom of the line lenses, such as EF-S kit lenses, etc, and wouldn't care less how his photos look on anything better than FHD resolution.

How on earth can a pixel not be sharp? It has no way of expressing sharpness whatsoever...

 

[glness]

Why would you need a CFast slot at 24mp and 7fps?

 

[romanr74]

C. To get pixel sharp photos at 32MP, people would have to buy top of the line lenses and use pro techniques to stabilize the cameras, such as tripods. That is not what the average Joe is going to do. The average Joe will use a 5.5" phone (as Apple has recently discovered), bottom of the line lenses, such as EF-S kit lenses, etc, and wouldn't care less how his photos look on anything better than FHD resolution.

Such nonsense.

Thanks for giving a warning.

1) Every single lens you have performs better with more megapixels available. Try a 5DS/R one day.

That it performs better does NOT mean it would be pixel sharp at 32MP, which is what it needs to be to justify the photo being displayed on 32MP screen.

2) You do not have to anythingto stabilize your 32 MPIX camera compared to a 24 MPIX camera

You do need it if you want the photo to look pixel sharp on a 32MP screen.

When Joe views his results on print or on screen the 32 MPIX picture he took will look exactly as sharp as the same picture he took using a 24 MPIX camera (everything else equal).

Exactly - on a 32MP screen, it would look like over sampled 24MP photo, which is blurry.

Exactly.. However Joe has the option of one day learning to use pro techniques and gaining more image sharpness with a 32 MPIX camera he can ever achieve with a 24 MPIX camera.

The question was not about whether Joe would have an option. The question was whether his photos would look good on a 32MP screen, and the answer is they wouldn't until such time as he actually learned to use pro techniques. Which in most cases be never.

I think the term "pro techniques" is misleading, but your argument holds true for photos on whatever screen. 99.9+% of photos taken don't look good on any display... So what was the point exactly?

 

[davidj]

Why would you need a CFast slot at 24mp and 7fps?

4K video.

 

[cesjr86]

Lets all agree to say no to dual yet different card slots! CFast makes sense CFast + SD doesn't. Same with CFast + CF. If you can afford to spend $3200/$6000 on your camera you can afford to upgrade your cards to a significantly better one.