Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Specification List [CR1]

[Orangutan]

I disagree about SD cards. They are flimsy and they can snap and have issues with the lock mech. Speeds be damned, they are just not robust enough.

Never had those kinds of problems, were they cheapo SD cards?

What kinds of situations gave you those problems? In the old days of tiny capacity it was necessary to switch cards frequently and quickly. These days, if I need to swap my 64GB cards I don't wait until they get down to 0 -- that gives me a chance to swap calmly and deliberately.

 

[pierlux]

I disagree about SD cards. They are flimsy and they can snap and have issues with the lock mech. Speeds be damned, they are just not robust enough.

Of course SD cards are more breakable than CF. But you can't have bent pins inside the slot! Overall, I think pros and cons of each tend to be tantamount. That said, I'd much prefer to have CFast + CF. Very unlikely, unfortunately.

 

[Don Haines]

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.

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.

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.

If there is an SD card slot in the 5DIV, it is a fairly safe bet that it will be UHS-2.... At my local store I can pick up a 64G card with 250MB/sec write speeds, while the fastest CF cards they have top out at 150MB/sec write speeds...... and I can pull out that SD card from the camera and put in in my laptop, in my TV, read it with my phone....

To me, it makes sense to have two slots and one is for blistering speed (cFast) and the other is for versatility (SD). Compact Flash may well be reaching the end of it's life as it now fails at both......

 

[Ph0t0]

I'm just hoping for more DR. Nikon and Sony kill Canon on this. MP is not that important to me and many others. I start getting noise from 100iso images by only pushing 1.5 stops in lightroom from RAW photos on my 5d mark III's. Unacceptable Canon!!!! I just can't give up all my L lenses. Looks like I may have to wait for the 6d mark II.

You must be doing something wrong. I've been shooting Canon for some 15 years and never have this problem.

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".

Well professionals are always able to take good photos with the gear available, but that does not mean that their photos couldn't be better with better gear. And for those that are out there trying to do something creative and pushing the boundaries the gear can be the limiting factor. I can go out and take some nice shoots with my Iphone, but because of its camera limitations I will be forced to use different approach than I would have perhaps wished to.
People shoot good photos with the original 1D, but if your thing is shooting milky way over mountains and landscapes, that camera will definitely limit you in that regard.
And about the DR... I've never been a fan of overprocessed badly exposed HDR images, but at the same time I do shoot a lot of models on locations and when shooting a big scene outdoors there are often dark parts in the images that I would like to lighten and bring out more without loosing to many details.
And as a hobby I like hike to mountains and shoot wildlife and landscapes. Typically I shoot animals during the day and in the evening and then make some landscape shoots at dusk. So you can probably imagine that the shooting styles of those two are completely different and that my photos can always benefit from more resolution, DR and faster AF. That doesn't mean that photos that I took with my old cameras are not good, but in a lot of cases they could benefit from if I shoot them with a newer camera.

Most of my friends are in photography business as well and I can tell you that those of them that are better photographers and artists would always grab the better camera if offered and those of them that have been shooting the same kind of portraits and weddings for the last 30 years really couldn't care less about MP, DR, AF etc... But the latter mostly belong to a group of photogs that were hugely upset when film started giving way to digital.
So my view is that a lot or most true professionals have needs that are trying to be meet by Canon and other manufacturers, not because their knowledge would be lacking but because they want to create new and exciting images.

 

[Maiaibing]

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.

Even in the 5DSR the SD card is very workable. You notice the difference if shooting a lot at once, but its not a big issue.

 

[Refurb7]

I'm just hoping for more DR. Nikon and Sony kill Canon on this. MP is not that important to me and many others. I start getting noise from 100iso images by only pushing 1.5 stops in lightroom from RAW photos on my 5d mark III's. Unacceptable Canon!!!! I just can't give up all my L lenses. Looks like I may have to wait for the 6d mark II.

You must be doing something wrong. I've been shooting Canon for some 15 years and never have this problem.

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".

Well professionals are always able to take good photos with the gear available, but that does not mean that their photos couldn't be better with better gear. And for those that are out there trying to do something creative and pushing the boundaries the gear can be the limiting factor. I can go out and take some nice shoots with my Iphone, but because of its camera limitations I will be forced to use different approach than I would have perhaps wished to.
People shoot good photos with the original 1D, but if your thing is shooting milky way over mountains and landscapes, that camera will definitely limit you in that regard.
And about the DR... I've never been a fan of overprocessed badly exposed HDR images, but at the same time I do shoot a lot of models on locations and when shooting a big scene outdoors there are often dark parts in the images that I would like to lighten and bring out more without loosing to many details.
And as a hobby I like hike to mountains and shoot wildlife and landscapes. Typically I shoot animals during the day and in the evening and then make some landscape shoots at dusk. So you can probably imagine that the shooting styles of those two are completely different and that my photos can always benefit from more resolution, DR and faster AF. That doesn't mean that photos that I took with my old cameras are not good, but in a lot of cases they could benefit from if I shoot them with a newer camera.

Most of my friends are in photography business as well and I can tell you that those of them that are better photographers and artists would always grab the better camera if offered and those of them that have been shooting the same kind of portraits and weddings for the last 30 years really couldn't care less about MP, DR, AF etc... But the latter mostly belong to a group of photogs that were hugely upset when film started giving way to digital.
So my view is that a lot or most true professionals have needs that are trying to be meet by Canon and other manufacturers, not because their knowledge would be lacking but because they want to create new and exciting images.

Lightening shadows is not going to make my photos new or exciting or more creative, or the slightest bit better.

 

[scyrene]

I disagree about SD cards. They are flimsy and they can snap and have issues with the lock mech. Speeds be damned, they are just not robust enough.

Never had those kinds of problems, were they cheapo SD cards?

What kinds of situations gave you those problems? In the old days of tiny capacity it was necessary to switch cards frequently and quickly. These days, if I need to swap my 64GB cards I don't wait until they get down to 0 -- that gives me a chance to swap calmly and deliberately.

Yeah, I don't find SD cards a problem either. I can't help wondering if the view they are flimsy and unreliable is just received wisdom.

 

[Loswr]

Lightening shadows is not going to make my photos new or exciting or more creative. Far from it.

No, but extreme shadow lifts can make them look flat, front-lit and uninteresting. If that's your thing, extreme shadow pushes are the way to go, and Exmor makes it possible!

 

[ahsanford]

I disagree about SD cards. They are flimsy and they can snap and have issues with the lock mech. Speeds be damned, they are just not robust enough.

Never had those kinds of problems, were they cheapo SD cards?

What kinds of situations gave you those problems? In the old days of tiny capacity it was necessary to switch cards frequently and quickly. These days, if I need to swap my 64GB cards I don't wait until they get down to 0 -- that gives me a chance to swap calmly and deliberately.

Yeah, I don't find SD cards a problem either. I can't help wondering if the view they are flimsy and unreliable is just received wisdom.

I am the surely-in-the-minority weirdo that has *only* used SD in my 5D3 this past 4 years. My list of reasons is quite long, actually:

• I don't shoot much 'high write demand' work family/friends.
• I'm not a pro and would not be devastated if I lost a day's shooting.
• My Mac has an SD reader onboard, and I hate the desktop clutter a card reader would bring.
• I find that everyone and their mother has an SD reader in their home computers if I need to swap out shots while visiting.
• They are cheaper.

As far as reliability goes, I've cracked the outer shell of one SD card, but that was due to keeping it in an overkill card protector waterproof/airtight clamshell vault that slightly flexed the card via an interference fit. Shame on me for thinking it that wouldn't shorten it's lifespan. The cracked case was fixed with a 1-2mm thin strip of clear tape. Still works like a charm.

All that said, I recognize my viewpoint is in the minority. Why not take a page from Nikon here and offer multiple card setups? The camera would come with the basic (CF + SD) setup, but we could have the option to pull that out like a cartridge and replace it with a dual CF setup of some sort.

- A

 

[scyrene]

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.

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.

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.

If there is an SD card slot in the 5DIV, it is a fairly safe bet that it will be UHS-2.... At my local store I can pick up a 64G card with 250MB/sec write speeds, while the fastest CF cards they have top out at 150MB/sec write speeds...... and I can pull out that SD card from the camera and put in in my laptop, in my TV, read it with my phone....

To me, it makes sense to have two slots and one is for blistering speed (cFast) and the other is for versatility (SD). Compact Flash may well be reaching the end of it's life as it now fails at both......

Well said!

 

[scyrene]

I disagree about SD cards. They are flimsy and they can snap and have issues with the lock mech. Speeds be damned, they are just not robust enough.

Never had those kinds of problems, were they cheapo SD cards?

What kinds of situations gave you those problems? In the old days of tiny capacity it was necessary to switch cards frequently and quickly. These days, if I need to swap my 64GB cards I don't wait until they get down to 0 -- that gives me a chance to swap calmly and deliberately.

Yeah, I don't find SD cards a problem either. I can't help wondering if the view they are flimsy and unreliable is just received wisdom.

I am the surely-in-the-minority weirdo that has *only* used SD in my 5D3 this past 4 years. My list of reasons is quite long, actually:

• I don't shoot much 'high write demand' work family/friends.
• I'm not a pro and would not be devastated if I lost a day's shooting.
• My Mac has an SD reader onboard, and I hate the desktop clutter a card reader would bring.
• I find that everyone and their mother has an SD reader in their home computers if I need to swap out shots while visiting.
• They are cheaper.

As far as reliability goes, I've cracked the outer shell of one SD card, but that was due to keeping it in an overkill card protector waterproof/airtight clamshell vault that slightly flexed the card via an interference fit. Shame on me for thinking it that wouldn't shorten it's lifespan. The cracked case was fixed with a 1-2mm thin strip of clear tape. Still works like a charm.

All that said, I recognize my viewpoint is in the minority. Why not take a page from Nikon here and offer multiple card setups? The camera would come with the basic (CF + SD) setup, but we could have the option to pull that out like a cartridge and replace it with a dual CF setup of some sort.

- A

You're not alone! I mostly shot with SD. I used CF to begin with because I had them left over from my earlier cameras. Then later, I had to work from an old PC which only had a working CF slot. But otherwise I used the SD as it was cheaper for the same capacity and I never noticed the difference otherwise. But I don't do extremely fast action like birds in flight (usually) or sport. However, as I'm about to get a 5Ds with a view to maybe a 1DxII I've just ordered a new CF... but I'm glad I can still use the SD for the time being!

 

[ahsanford]

Lightening shadows is not going to make my photos new or exciting or more creative. Far from it.

No, but extreme shadow lifts can make them look flat, front-lit and uninteresting. If that's your thing, extreme shadow pushes are the way to go, and Exmor makes it possible!

+1. One shot HDR for the win!

Kidding. That s--- hurts my eyes.

I actually deliberately resort to that nonsensical 'blast shadows' / 'obliterate highlights' move, but only on my cell phone, believe it or not. Shooting our two black dogs with poor interior lighting is like a dynamic range nut punch, but needs must in that case.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

Lightening shadows is not going to make my photos new or exciting or more creative. Far from it.

No, but extreme shadow lifts can make them look flat, front-lit and uninteresting. If that's your thing, extreme shadow pushes are the way to go, and Exmor makes it possible!

+1. One shot HDR for the win!

Kidding. That s--- hurts my eyes.

I actually deliberately resort to that nonsensical 'blast shadows' / 'obliterate highlights' move, but only on my cell phone, believe it or not. Shooting our two black dogs with poor interior lighting is like a dynamic range nut punch, but needs must in that case.

- A

That's why I shoot pictures of black squirrels in the snow.... It doesn't matter what camera I use, none have sufficient DR so I can forget about it and enjoy photography.....

 

[Ozarker]

Still no dual slot? Like CF+CF or SD+SD?

Who in the world would want SD+SD? CF+CF yes. But never SD+SD.

 

[tpatana]

Clearly you're not interested in 4K video, otherwise you wouldn't complain about CFast, neither am I.

You bit misunderstood my rant. Yes, I'd rather use CF so I don't need to update my cards, but I understand that for good 4k CFast is mandatory.

My rant was against the logic that if person can afford device for price of X, surely they can afford extra item for price of Y. I really hate that comment, I can't understand why people say it.

 

[romanr74]

Clearly you're not interested in 4K video, otherwise you wouldn't complain about CFast, neither am I.

You bit misunderstood my rant. Yes, I'd rather use CF so I don't need to update my cards, but I understand that for good 4k CFast is mandatory.

My rant was against the logic that if person can afford device for price of X, surely they can afford extra item for price of Y. I really hate that comment, I can't understand why people say it.

Again, the issue here is that there is a change in state-of-the-art technology for memory cards taking place. I do not understand how you want to stay on old/legacy CF technology with a brand new camera, when CFast is going to be the standard in a few months. I also hate to replace my CF cards at considerable cost, but I would hate even more to have a camera with a 3500ish dollar price tag which is not up to date technology wise...

 

[Ph0t0]

Lightening shadows is not going to make my photos new or exciting or more creative. Far from it.

No, but extreme shadow lifts can make them look flat, front-lit and uninteresting. If that's your thing, extreme shadow pushes are the way to go, and Exmor makes it possible!

+1. One shot HDR for the win!

Kidding. That s--- hurts my eyes.

I actually deliberately resort to that nonsensical 'blast shadows' / 'obliterate highlights' move, but only on my cell phone, believe it or not. Shooting our two black dogs with poor interior lighting is like a dynamic range nut punch, but needs must in that case.

- A

That's why I shoot pictures of black squirrels in the snow.... It doesn't matter what camera I use, none have sufficient DR so I can forget about it and enjoy photography.....

I don't think that you understood what I was saying at all. Perhaps I wasn't too clear.
I never said that lifting shadows all over the image makes the picture look good. I was trying to say that new technologies help professionals create new and exciting images and push the boundaries and that if you are doing something creative there are lot of occasions where you do need high ISO more MP or more DR.
And when talking about DR I stated that I'm not a fan of HDR overprocessing. However I do find the ability to brighten a certain area of the photo useful- be it a small detail on the scene or a line in the shadows that would help the storytelling of the image or improve its aesthetics.

 

[romanr74]

Lightening shadows is not going to make my photos new or exciting or more creative. Far from it.

No, but extreme shadow lifts can make them look flat, front-lit and uninteresting. If that's your thing, extreme shadow pushes are the way to go, and Exmor makes it possible!

+1. One shot HDR for the win!

Kidding. That s--- hurts my eyes.

I actually deliberately resort to that nonsensical 'blast shadows' / 'obliterate highlights' move, but only on my cell phone, believe it or not. Shooting our two black dogs with poor interior lighting is like a dynamic range nut punch, but needs must in that case.

- A

That's why I shoot pictures of black squirrels in the snow.... It doesn't matter what camera I use, none have sufficient DR so I can forget about it and enjoy photography.....

I don't think that you understood what I was saying at all. Perhaps I wasn't too clear.
I never said that lifting shadows all over the image makes the picture look good. I was trying to say that new technologies help professionals create new and exciting images and push the boundaries and that if you are doing something creative there are lot of occasions where you do need high ISO more MP or more DR.
And when talking about DR I stated that I'm not a fan of HDR overprocessing. However I do find the ability to brighten a certain area of the photo useful- be it a small detail on the scene or a line in the shadows that would help the storytelling of the image or improve its aesthetics.

I believe creativity is about technique much more than about technology...

 

[justsomedude]

Its true. You can be creative without technology. But couldn't you be more creative with better technology? Even the artists brush evolved over time.

^^^^ this

All artists employ technology in one form or another. The idea that it's only about "creative technique" or "the mind's eye," is a silly, arrogant, and extreme position. Paints have evolved, canvas materials have evolved, brushes have evolved dramatically, hell, even cameras in 1940 were far better than those in 1900. And Ansel Adams spent hours - days even - tweaking his photos in the dark room. He said it best himself, “The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance.”

If technology had no place in the creative process, we'd all still be shooting bellows cameras.

Give it a rest.

 

[ahsanford]

Its true. You can be creative without technology. But couldn't you be more creative with better technology? Even the artists brush evolved over time.

^^^^ this

[truncated]

If technology had no place in the creative process, we'd all still be shooting bellows cameras.

Give it a rest.

No one's saying technology is irrelevant, we're just saying -- in big, bold letters -- 1-2 stops more DR is not going to take your photography to new heights, and it's sure as hell not worth leaving your chosen camera company's ecosystem to obtain.

I'll take what Canon gives me because -- on aggregate -- they are still no contest the best fit for my needs w.r.t. service, reliability, lens selection, handling, ergonomics, budget, etc. To leave all that for a shade more DR seems nuts to me.

- A