Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specification List [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Clearly there's no way to know how accurate this first report may be, or if it's just a figment of someone's fertile imagination. It was just about 6 months ago I was wrestling with buying my first full frame camera. I was deciding between the 5D Mk III and the 5DS/R. I decided on the 5D Mk III because the 5DS/R basically just offered megapixels and almost every other characteristic was inferior to the Mk III and for $1000 more. I figured I'd get the Mk III, learn about full frame cameras and trade it in when the next model was released and they had refined the issues with low light functionality, refined the high density sensor (since it is being sold to other manufacturers) and get 4k video up to speed. Built-in GPS and WiFi were a foregone conclusion and there is a strong desire for touch screen capability and, articulated if deemed reliable (my 70D works magnificently). I was also evaluating the Sony Alpha A7R II since I believe mirrorless is the future of high end cameras as well as electronic shutters, it's just a matter of time. Anyone who cares about the wireless and GPS has already bought attachments for their cameras (I know I have) and the 5D line is hardly an entry point, so most buyers are already well stocked on everything they need. The CFast card is ridiculous unless they are going to greatly improve 4k video capability which isn't listed in the specs. The small megapixel sensor is a definite non-starter if you are trying to draw in new business or get people to upgrade (despite all the professional and artistic commentary on the "need" for more megapixels, the *FACTS* are certain, a larger megapixel sensor capture more information, makes cropping easier and can make significantly higher tack-sharp photos, and, whether or not a given person needs it, almost everyone wants it and it is the way of the future. The fact is, you don't need more than 12-16 megapixels, but I don't see anyone wanting a camera with that limitation either. The next iteration needs to at least match Nikon (36mp) or match Sony (42mp) and, in my opinion should match or exceed Canon's best sensor at over 50mp, but needs a better processor and the best glass to make the huge megapixel count workable. The photos I've seen from Sony with the best Zeiss glass are incredible. The next iteration will have a street price around $4500-$5000. They are going to have to offer a much, much greater set of options to get people to make the push with camera phones being what they are. I'm pretty sure this rumor is either a complete fabrication or Canon is leaving the camera business. When the Mark IV (or whatever they call it) comes out, it better stomp the competition or I'll start shopping elsewhere for something that can use Canon glass.
Upvote
0
romanr74 said:
So you're not ok paying extra 10% on bodies, so why should other people?
And yes, 5d3 is basically 1-slot camera. I think I used SD slot on mine once, had some shoot with slow enough stuff and must have pics, so set to record on both.
Upvote
0
justsomedude said:Refurb7 said:
Hey, I'm a Canon guy like most of us here. But there's not need to be flippant. It's been well documented all over the place that the 5D3 is way behind the Nikon and Sony offerings when it comes to shadow recovery. We can be honest about that without saying we're selling all our gear and switching sides...
I considered the old "A7RII switcheroo" last year. The photos those cameras are churning out just can't compete with anything Canon has on the market right now. The sensors are just insane when it comes to DR.
I've waited 14 months already... what's another 5 to see what Canon has up their sleeves?
I hope the 5D4 has the DR everyone here is hoping for. Fingers crossed...
I'm not flippant. I recognize that Nikon and Sony have more dynamic range and that it can be useful in some situations. The photo you linked to is a perfect example. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, you can use your Canon to make a photo that's just as good as that Nikon example. You expose it so that you don't have to push the shadows that much. That's how photography was done for the past 180 years and it worked out pretty well.
I learned photography in the film era and learned to never rely on pushing shadows to extremes because that always looked bad. Now Nikon and Sony offer the ability to push shadows to extremes and that's pretty cool. But I've worked for years without pushing shadows to extremes, and my photos look OK. If you look at the number of high level and world-renowned pros using Canon (fine art, commercial, editorial, photojournalism, wedding, portrait), their photos look OK too (at least OK). So you have to ask yourself, How is it that someone has noisy photos at ISO 100 using a Canon camera? It's mind-boggling. My average ISO is probably ISO 1600 and noise is a complete non-issue.
Further, if someone actually has this problem, such that they are desperate for Canon to solve it (calling Canon "unacceptable!"), and Sony or Nikon solves it for them, then it's equally mind-boggling that they would have not switched to Sony or Nikon at the earliest opportunity. It just makes no sense to linger with Canon if one needs 1.5 stop (or more) pushes and one's ISO 100 photos somehow have troublesome noise.
Upvote
0
Refurb7 said:justsomedude said:Refurb7 said:
Hey, I'm a Canon guy like most of us here. But there's not need to be flippant. It's been well documented all over the place that the 5D3 is way behind the Nikon and Sony offerings when it comes to shadow recovery. We can be honest about that without saying we're selling all our gear and switching sides...
I considered the old "A7RII switcheroo" last year. The photos those cameras are churning out just can't compete with anything Canon has on the market right now. The sensors are just insane when it comes to DR.
I've waited 14 months already... what's another 5 to see what Canon has up their sleeves?
I hope the 5D4 has the DR everyone here is hoping for. Fingers crossed...
I'm not flippant. I recognize that Nikon and Sony have more dynamic range and that it can be useful in some situations. The photo you linked to is a perfect example. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, you can use your Canon to make a photo that's just as good as that Nikon example. You expose it so that you don't have to push the shadows that much. That's how photography was done for the past 180 years and it worked out pretty well.
I learned photography in the film era and learned to never rely on pushing shadows to extremes because that always looked bad. Now Nikon and Sony offer the ability to push shadows to extremes and that's pretty cool. But I've worked for years without pushing shadows to extremes, and my photos look OK. If you look at the number of high level and world-renowned pros using Canon (fine art, commercial, editorial, photojournalism, wedding, portrait), their photos look OK too (at least OK). So you have to ask yourself, How is it that someone has noisy photos at ISO 100 using a Canon camera? It's mind-boggling. My average ISO is probably ISO 1600 and noise is a complete non-issue.
Further, if someone actually has this problem, such that they are desperate for Canon to solve it (calling Canon "unacceptable!"), and Sony or Nikon solves it for them, then it's equally mind-boggling that they would have not switched to Sony or Nikon at the earliest opportunity. It just makes no sense to linger with Canon if one needs 1.5 stop (or more) pushes and one's ISO 100 photos somehow have troublesome noise.
For whatever reasons, you're choosing to ignore the critical point here. This isn't really about noise, or DR, or even photographic technique. And I'm not saying a Canon 5D3 can't be used to take great photos. Hell, a good photographer can still reliably use the original 5D for the majority of general photographic tasks. And if you want to take your logic/argument a few steps further, most folks could even get away with a 60D.
The conversation here is really about basic innovation. Nikon/Sony have been doing it for years, Canon is still stuck in 2nd gear for some reason.
Sure, you can keep going back to the tool shed to use the same push mower to trim your lawn for the next 15 years... but when competitors are providing better and more cost effectice options, at some point you start asking yourself, "why am I still using this?"
So, sure... an original 5D can take noiseless photos when used "correctly," but the better question is, why would I still be using an original 5D?
Upvote
0
ehouli said:
The 6D outperforming the 5D3 sensor (and it's only a hair better, let's be fair) was a bit of a one-off that most attribute to the 6D coming to market later than the 5D3, not b/c Canon wants the 6D to outperform the 5D3 for any reason at all.
Consider: the 5D3 mops the floor with the 6D in so many areas, and the market values that -- the 5D3 has retained its price far better than the 6D over time.
But I understand where your expectation is coming from. Canon absolutely did not want large chunks of photographers to say 'I don't do X (e.g. shoot video, need a fancy tracking AF setup, need high FPS, etc.), so all I need is the 6D and I'm reeling in shots as good the 5D3,' but because the sensor was so strong, that's exactly what happened.
I think Canon will see to it that doesn't happen again with the 5D4 / 6D2 releases -- the 5D4 needs to be better across the board so that every user has something better to look forward to with the 5D4 over the 6D2. In other words, Canon's job is to have you like the $1500-2000 6D2, but they want you to be absolutely salivating for a $3500 5D rig.
- A
Upvote
0
justsomedude said:Refurb7 said:justsomedude said:Refurb7 said:
Hey, I'm a Canon guy like most of us here. But there's not need to be flippant. It's been well documented all over the place that the 5D3 is way behind the Nikon and Sony offerings when it comes to shadow recovery. We can be honest about that without saying we're selling all our gear and switching sides...
I considered the old "A7RII switcheroo" last year. The photos those cameras are churning out just can't compete with anything Canon has on the market right now. The sensors are just insane when it comes to DR.
I've waited 14 months already... what's another 5 to see what Canon has up their sleeves?
I hope the 5D4 has the DR everyone here is hoping for. Fingers crossed...
I'm not flippant. I recognize that Nikon and Sony have more dynamic range and that it can be useful in some situations. The photo you linked to is a perfect example. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, you can use your Canon to make a photo that's just as good as that Nikon example. You expose it so that you don't have to push the shadows that much. That's how photography was done for the past 180 years and it worked out pretty well.
I learned photography in the film era and learned to never rely on pushing shadows to extremes because that always looked bad. Now Nikon and Sony offer the ability to push shadows to extremes and that's pretty cool. But I've worked for years without pushing shadows to extremes, and my photos look OK. If you look at the number of high level and world-renowned pros using Canon (fine art, commercial, editorial, photojournalism, wedding, portrait), their photos look OK too (at least OK). So you have to ask yourself, How is it that someone has noisy photos at ISO 100 using a Canon camera? It's mind-boggling. My average ISO is probably ISO 1600 and noise is a complete non-issue.
Further, if someone actually has this problem, such that they are desperate for Canon to solve it (calling Canon "unacceptable!"), and Sony or Nikon solves it for them, then it's equally mind-boggling that they would have not switched to Sony or Nikon at the earliest opportunity. It just makes no sense to linger with Canon if one needs 1.5 stop (or more) pushes and one's ISO 100 photos somehow have troublesome noise.
For whatever reasons, you're choosing to ignore the critical point here. This isn't really about noise, or DR, or even photographic technique. And I'm not saying a Canon 5D3 can't be used to take great photos. Hell, a good photographer can still reliably use the original 5D for the majority of general photographic tasks. And if you want to take your logic/argument a few steps further, most folks could even get away with a 60D.
The conversation here is really about basic innovation. Nikon/Sony have been doing it for years, Canon is still stuck in 2nd gear for some reason.
Sure, you can keep going back to the tool shed to use the same push mower to trim your lawn for the next 15 years... but when competitors are providing better and more cost effectice options, at some point you start asking yourself, "why am I still using this?"
So, sure... an original 5D can take noiseless photos when used "correctly," but the better question is, why would I still be using an original 5D?
You're analogies really don't make sense. The 5D3 is not some push mower. It is used by some of the best photographers on the planet to make great photos and win awards, etc. Neither is the original 5D some push mower. I have a friend who still uses two original 5D and they do everything he needs.
Canon has plenty of basic innovation that actually helps photographers. The anti-flicker feature. Radio flash. Wide angle zoom. Medium and small raw files. Dual-pixel AF. Blue spectrum refractive optics. DO lenses. Why do people overlook these?
Competitors are not providing "better and more cost effective" anything for most of photography. Canon provides better and more effective solutions for many photographers.
When Canon so obviously meets the needs of some the very best photographers around, I have to ask why Canon doesn't meet the needs of some guy on a photography forum? Is it because he is some super-user with superior needs and ultra-high quality demands, who makes giant prints that can't show the slightest grain and can't be touched by default noise reduction in Lightroom? Or is it because his photographic knowledge is fundamentally lacking, and he hopes that a couple of extra stops of low ISO dynamic range will somehow magically make his photography "acceptable".
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
I wouldn't say a hair better, the banding it's almost not present and it's the 6D the preferred camera for astrophotography instead of the 5D Mk III because it's strong banding (not as strong as the original 7D), it means that on high ISO the 6D manages noise way better, of course on low ISOs there is no apparent difference.
Upvote
0
ehouli said:
I guess I don't stare as intensely at IQ samples like you might be doing. We each value different things.
My point is that it's not in Canon's best interests to have the 6D outperform the 5D line in any way other than at a consumer feature level -- like offering a handy dandy 'astro' stop on the mode wheel, being made more of plastic than metal, or having a tilty-flippy screen or something.
The 5D4 should have more of just about everything to the 6D2:
- More AF points / options / tuneability
- Better in high ISO
- Higher fps and larger buffer
- More/better video options
- Faster maximum shutter speed
- More custom modes on the main dial.
The mantra would be "Anything you (6D2) can do, I (5D4) can do better." That will help clearly define why it costs nearly twice as much.
The only thing I'm less sure the 5D4 will have over the 6D2 is megapixels. Many have argued the easiest way to segment the FF space is to give the 5D4 something D810-like in resolution while limiting the 6D2 to an 'entry' level of 24 MP. I don't agree with that personally. I think the 5D3/5D4 users value the quality of those pixels far more than the quantity, and I think framerates will suffer if they go higher res with the 5D4.
- A
Upvote
0
tpatana said:
Just a couple of remarks on this matter.
For photographers who upgrade cameras in 4-5 years intervals, almost certainly new cards are mandatory, regardless of new standards (of course, Nikon and Sony shooters who upgrade every 1-2 years if they can afford to may think differently :
). When I purchased the 5D II I had to buy new CF cards, the ones I used with the 300D were absolutely much too slow and too small. Also the 7D II urged me to buy a couple of faster, bigger CF cards. Sure I could use my previous ones, but 10 fps and the opportunity to emtpty the buffer faster prompted me to upgrade.But why are you assuming you'll have to pay 10% of the camera price for cards? By the time the 5D IV hits the shelves, CFast cards will probably cost 50% less than the current pricing. It has always been like this, with UDMA, UDMA6, UDMA7... Manufacturers just don't sell enough CFast cards these days, but very soon things will change.
Clearly you're not interested in 4K video, otherwise you wouldn't complain about CFast, neither am I. So I wonder why can't you consider purchasing a couple of good SD cards and eventually wait a bit longer for the price of CFast to lower considerably. A 2-pack Lexar 128GB Professional 1000x, 150 MB/s UHS-II SDXC SD cards (256 GB, isn't that enough capacity and enough speed?) is available for $119.99 at B&H, you can bet for even less by September-October, that's 2-3% of the camera price. Should you need faster, you could temporarily settle for 2x 64GB at higher speed for approx the same price, plus it seems we'll have built-in WiFi in the 5D IV... 8)
On a side note, by the time I'll purchase the 5D IV (presumably late 2017-early 2018), CFast cards will be the standard for most pro/semipro cameras, they will be sold in remarkable numbers and will be available at 1/4-1/5 of the current price, so CFast really is not going to be an issue for me in prospect.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
tpatana said:
People are confusing SD Card performance and Canon 5DIII write/buffer performance. SD Cards are painfully slow on my 5D III, but when I put the same card in my 7DII the performance is indistinguishable from the CF Card.
Upvote
0
Refurb7 said:justsomedude said:Refurb7 said:justsomedude said:Refurb7 said:
Hey, I'm a Canon guy like most of us here. But there's not need to be flippant. It's been well documented all over the place that the 5D3 is way behind the Nikon and Sony offerings when it comes to shadow recovery. We can be honest about that without saying we're selling all our gear and switching sides...
I considered the old "A7RII switcheroo" last year. The photos those cameras are churning out just can't compete with anything Canon has on the market right now. The sensors are just insane when it comes to DR.
I've waited 14 months already... what's another 5 to see what Canon has up their sleeves?
I hope the 5D4 has the DR everyone here is hoping for. Fingers crossed...
I'm not flippant. I recognize that Nikon and Sony have more dynamic range and that it can be useful in some situations. The photo you linked to is a perfect example. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, you can use your Canon to make a photo that's just as good as that Nikon example. You expose it so that you don't have to push the shadows that much. That's how photography was done for the past 180 years and it worked out pretty well.
I learned photography in the film era and learned to never rely on pushing shadows to extremes because that always looked bad. Now Nikon and Sony offer the ability to push shadows to extremes and that's pretty cool. But I've worked for years without pushing shadows to extremes, and my photos look OK. If you look at the number of high level and world-renowned pros using Canon (fine art, commercial, editorial, photojournalism, wedding, portrait), their photos look OK too (at least OK). So you have to ask yourself, How is it that someone has noisy photos at ISO 100 using a Canon camera? It's mind-boggling. My average ISO is probably ISO 1600 and noise is a complete non-issue.
Further, if someone actually has this problem, such that they are desperate for Canon to solve it (calling Canon "unacceptable!"), and Sony or Nikon solves it for them, then it's equally mind-boggling that they would have not switched to Sony or Nikon at the earliest opportunity. It just makes no sense to linger with Canon if one needs 1.5 stop (or more) pushes and one's ISO 100 photos somehow have troublesome noise.
For whatever reasons, you're choosing to ignore the critical point here. This isn't really about noise, or DR, or even photographic technique. And I'm not saying a Canon 5D3 can't be used to take great photos. Hell, a good photographer can still reliably use the original 5D for the majority of general photographic tasks. And if you want to take your logic/argument a few steps further, most folks could even get away with a 60D.
The conversation here is really about basic innovation. Nikon/Sony have been doing it for years, Canon is still stuck in 2nd gear for some reason.
Sure, you can keep going back to the tool shed to use the same push mower to trim your lawn for the next 15 years... but when competitors are providing better and more cost effectice options, at some point you start asking yourself, "why am I still using this?"
So, sure... an original 5D can take noiseless photos when used "correctly," but the better question is, why would I still be using an original 5D?
You're analogies really don't make sense. The 5D3 is not some push mower. It is used by some of the best photographers on the planet to make great photos and win awards, etc. Neither is the original 5D some push mower. I have a friend who still uses two original 5D and they do everything he needs.
Canon has plenty of basic innovation that actually helps photographers. The anti-flicker feature. Radio flash. Wide angle zoom. Medium and small raw files. Dual-pixel AF. Blue spectrum refractive optics. DO lenses. Why do people overlook these?
Competitors are not providing "better and more cost effective" anything for most of photography. Canon provides better and more effective solutions for many photographers.
When Canon so obviously meets the needs of some the very best photographers around, I have to ask why Canon doesn't meet the needs of some guy on a photography forum? Is it because he is some super-user with superior needs and ultra-high quality demands, who makes giant prints that can't show the slightest grain and can't be touched by default noise reduction in Lightroom? Or is it because his photographic knowledge is fundamentally lacking, and he hopes that a couple of extra stops of low ISO dynamic range will somehow magically make his photography "acceptable".
I agree with you, for the best photographers, the III is a marvel, and one they can love and use perfectly. I don't mind admitting my photography is not as good as a "the very best photographers around." The best photographers in the world can live with, like, and even love the III. But, for a lot of photographers, myself included, we are not taking photos on their level. This is my own fault, I should get better. They have the expertise, experience, and ability to produce perfect photos using the equipment to the best of their ability. I on the hand, am leaning on my equipment more because I don't always take the perfect photo. I also do a lot of travel photography, and unlike a lot of professionals and other fortunate individuals I don't always have the time or ability to get the perfect shot. I also don't have someone I can send my photos to get perfect photoshop work done. All of this means that the camera and lens aid me when I screw up.
I love my III, and just bought a 5Ds, hopefully here this week. I have never come across a photo where I said, I bet (insert Sony, Nikon, Pentax, etc.) camera would have gotten this image where my III can't. But... I would love to play with A7SII high ISO, and the D800 shadow improvements. Just to see if my own inadequacies as a photographer can't be mitigated some by the equipment I use.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
People are confusing SD card performance on someone other's gear with SD card performance on their gear. I own a 5d mkIII and SD card performance on this body is not good. Even if an SD card can fly to the moon in a spaceship, that doesn't help me. Further, reliability of SD card is inferior to CF card reliability and technology wise in my opinion a compromise on a 5d body...
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Let's hope for the best, but if Canon does go the High-MP count game, then they should start changing the 6D2 identity, because as you say, FPS rate will suffer and probably should give better FPS rates to the 6D2 to make it a faster camera for action/nature and leave the 5D4 as the D810 contender.
But for the sake of photography I hope they don't begin the contending game, that's why they released the 5DS/5DSR line and it would be better if they keep it that way.
Upvote
0
romanr74 said:
People forget that we're discussing a spec list of the 5D IV, extrapolating the SD write performance of the 5D III and assuming it will be a bottleneck also in the IV is nonsense. Unfortunately, SD speed in the 5D III was a well-known drawback, but, as unfocused noted, the 7D II SD write speed is much higher than that of the 5D III, we can reasonably expect the 5D IV to be even better than the 7D II in this respect.
romanr74 said:
Reliability of SD cards is no longer a problem. Given the possibility to perform an in-camera low level format, deterioration of SD cards performance over time is no longer an issue, too. Concerning compromises, every single aspect of camera design and engineering is a compromise; unfortunately for the 5D III users, the SD card was a big problem for many, and using SD cards faster than 45 MB/s was of no benefit, so I can understand the annoyance of many. But I'd be optimistic for the future in this respect.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
