Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Talk [CR1]

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The higher megapixel count means smaller individual pixels on the physical sensor, meaning less light gathered by that pixel, meaning less sensitivity to light.

although with gapless micro-lenses and if they put circuitry on the back or make it smaller it doesn't make all that much difference at a 32MP vs 24MP level (maybe a trace but I don't you could see the difference very easily, if even at all, maybe 50MP vs 12MP you could start to see a little), now 300MP vs 24MP, especially if not using BSI and such, could make a difference though

If they can make a 32MP camera with exactly (if not better) light sensitivity at ISO100, then I'm on board. Otherwise, I will gladly take it as a 24MP camera.
[/quote]

I don't get the option of choosing different megapixel modes. That part sounds sketchy.

It makes all the sense in the world, if done properly (i.e. like on Nikon and NOT like on 5Ds (which, absurdly, only makes it work for JPGs and not RAWs, which means it essentially accomplishes nothing, no chance to get better fps, no improved buffer performance, no savings in space on cards or HD, etc.). Why waste tons of storage space, card space, clog up camera buffer, get fps held back by processing bottle necks if you are shooting some distance limited wildlife or sports and the whole outer edge area is just waste?

Granted the 32MP vs 24MP is sort of a weird ratio for such things, maybe that doesn't make sense.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

But I have to reiterate my original question: Why does a 5DS or a 7D2 get two DIGIC chips and 5D3/5D4 only gets one?

I'm not whining nearly so much as being curious. Just spitballing some reasons:

[list type=decimal]
[*]The (presumed) higher quality video that the 5D line records requires dedicated hardware that would make a second DIGIC chip problematic to fit in the housing, supply power to, etc.


[*]The 5D4's market identity will change relative to the 5D3 -- perhaps it will be a 'video first / stills second' sort of rig where stills fps are deprioritized and a second chip isn't needed.


[*]In the 5D4 design tradeoff of being (a) sexier than the 5D3 'enough' to get people to upgrade, yet (b) not sexy enough to steal 1D sales, Canon believes it can squeeze enough performance out of one chip at something like (as a hypothetical) 24 MP X 7 fps. The fear being that a (who knows?) 28 MP x 10 fps throughput that a second chip might enable will drive shutter/mirror costs too high or will steal some 1D sales.


[*]Battery life takes a hit with two chips, right? (But surely most folks would gladly take +3-4 fps for a 20% battery hit...) This can't be the main reason, can it?

[/list]

Candidly, #2 is nuts and #4 seems a reach (as a primary reason), so I'm looking for some technical read to back up #1 or perhaps we should call this what it is -- Canon will nerf the 5D4 because they feel like it, they can get away with it, etc.

- A

whatever it is, it is not #1
they used to claim space, but the 5Ds kinda proved that wrong
it's probably just internal market segmenting and trying to maximize per body profit to the nth degree

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Keith the whole of Britain regardless of what team they support like the Leicester City story this season it certainly turned the big four on their heads.

How can you not? Movies will be made about this season. It's that simple. A team worth one fifth of the best teams won the league going away. Greatest sports story in my lifetime by a large, large margin.

Closest analogy for Americans would be the 1980 Miracle on Ice carried out over an entire professional season, a 14th/15th/16th seed in the NCAA tourney winning it all, or a minor league baseball team (somehow) winning the World Series. It simply does not happen.

So, in that way, anyone who follows soccer/football is a Foxes fan this year.

- A

it was pretty incredible (although I'm sure the impact doesn't quite sink in the way it would to someone from the UK), it was exciting to watch them pull it off

 

[j-nord]

30+mpix is what I was expecting for the 5DIV. Glad to see it still might be the case. I'm back to wondering if ill be going 5DSR or 5DIV or possibly even 6DII (who knows maybe the 6DII will hit 30+mpix if the 5DIV does).

 

[pierlux]

But I have to reiterate my original question: Why does a 5DS or a 7D2 get two DIGIC chips and 5D3/5D4 only gets one?

Hehehe! Be careful, or this forum will coin, in addition to the EF 50mm f/1.4 L IS USM "ahsanford edition", also the EOS 5D Mark IV "Dual-Digic ahsanford Limited Edition".

Deep Purple live in Japan, Tokyo, 17th August 1972, Ian Gillan @ engineers at the sound console, just before playing "The Mule":
"...everything up here... please... and a bit more monitor if you got it... "

sound engineer @ Ian Gillan:
"... can I have everything louder than everything else?"

Ian Gillan @ sound engineer:
"Yeah, can I have everything louder than everything else? All right..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K12-eUX8UFg

I'm not whining nearly so much as being curious. Just spitballing some reasons:

[list type=decimal]
[*]The (presumed) higher quality video that the 5D line records requires dedicated hardware that would make a second DIGIC chip problematic to fit in the housing, supply power to, etc.


[*]The 5D4's market identity will change relative to the 5D3 -- perhaps it will be a 'video first / stills second' sort of rig where stills fps are deprioritized and a second chip isn't needed.


[*]In the 5D4 design tradeoff of being (a) sexier than the 5D3 'enough' to get people to upgrade, yet (b) not sexy enough to steal 1D sales, Canon believes it can squeeze enough performance out of one chip at something like (as a hypothetical) 24 MP X 7 fps. The fear being that a (who knows?) 28 MP x 10 fps throughput that a second chip might enable will drive shutter/mirror costs too high or will steal some 1D sales.


[*]Battery life takes a hit with two chips, right? (But surely most folks would gladly take +3-4 fps for a 20% battery hit...) This can't be the main reason, can it?

[/list]

Candidly, #2 is nuts and #4 seems a reach (as a primary reason), so I'm looking for some technical read to back up #1 or perhaps we should call this what it is -- Canon will nerf the 5D4 because they feel like it, they can get away with it, etc.

- A

I recall we already had this conversation. I think probably the main real reason is cost, but not the only. The 7D series got 2 because, as a mini-1Dx, requires speed. The 5Ds/sr got 2 since 2.5 fps on a single Digic would indeed be too miserable of a speed even for a studio/landscape camera, and because fps is probably only a part of the story having to deal with 50 MP of data and AF algorithms at the same time.

In a past thread it was mentioned the drop in fps occurring when the battery charge of the 5D III is below 50% or thereabouts, imagine what would happen driving the shutter + mirror + AF + more data @ 9-10 fps on a LP-E6n or whatever the battery will be called in the Mark IV... has anybody mentioned doom yet?

 

[pvalpha]

Well... If we're daydreaming - I'm hoping for something in the 32-36mp range with 8-10fps.

With CFast its definitely more than possible to drive 36mp (filesize would be roughly 38-42MB raw) to the card at 8fps and your buffer would still seem nearly limitless. Of course, that depends on Canon's implementation of the CFast SATA bus...

If they were to get wacky - BSI could improve DR (further reduces the distance between the ADCs and the sensor information clusters, reducing transmission noise and power), reduce sensor noise, and actually increase the dot-pitch surface area. I do believe increasing the collection surface area might make a minor boost to light gathering ability... less photons falling on non-pool areas and more photons falling on the microlenses for the sensor pools.

Another thing would be a hybrid optical-electronic viewfinder. This would be a plus if they could get the optical transmission to a healthy percentage and build a way to project a EVF without light leaking back through the pentaprism to fubar the AF.

USB 3.1 Type-C please. (not so much a daydream as a requirement for a lot of things.)

And if you can put a GPS into the top - you can put wifi and bluetooth there too. *shrug* Oh, and an internal RT for the RT speedlights.

Actually, why not put GPS in the speedlights, and sell a radio transmitter with an AF assist system. Let them triangulate position of the transmitters and the camera... It would allow you to coordinate the light sources and take that info to use in side of 3d rendering applications. With the right electronics in the flashes and the transmitter you could create a point cloud of the target using IR focus assist beams... combined with the luminance and directional information, you could create super high resolution 3-d mapped models with a couple shots. Combine with photogrammetry...

And for the universe's sake - an articulated touch screen. Should be able to dust and weather seal it.

Can we please chuck the AA filter? Code a software AA filter (or put some raytracing logic in the digic)... but make it something we can turn off. Even mobile phones can do this in real time for raytraced mobile games (this is not a truly valid gripe, cause its not quite that simple... but still - Daydreams!). Every optical component between sensor and the end of your lens hood can potentially degrade the IQ. Yes, this includes the microlenses on the sensor pools - but necessary evils...

Oh, go to a smaller chip processes and cut the power requirements by 2/3rds. Like I said, if we're daydreaming... lets daydream.

If you want something that would be worth $3000-$3500 USD... do it right. Cake! And eat it too!

 

[ahsanford]

I recall we already had this conversation. I think probably the main real reason is cost, but not the only. The 7D series got 2 because, as a mini-1Dx, requires speed. The 5Ds/sr got 2 since 2.5 fps on a single Digic would indeed be too miserable of a speed even for a studio/landscape camera, and because fps is probably only a part of the story having to deal with 50 MP of data and AF algorithms at the same time.

The 7D2 needs more throughput to be speedy for wildlife. Agree.

The 5DS needs more throughput to not have a medium-format low fps rate due to massive files. Agree.

...and the 5D4 needs more throughput to differentiate itself from less expensive cameras. Better AF and video alone will not justify a 5D4 at $3500 over 6D2 at $2000.

The argument that a crop wildlife rig warrants extra processing horsepower and a FF landscape/studio rig warrants extra processing power implies a professional all-arounder like the 5D4 might warrant it as well. The implied corollary to your argument -- the 5D4 is middle of the road in resolution and framerate and therefore doesn't need that throughput -- is entirely a construct of Canon's. One more chip, and pow, plus 3-4 fps and folks might be getting really excited about it.

- A

 

[kaihp]

Keith the whole of Britain regardless of what team they support like the Leicester City story this season it certainly turned the big four on their heads.

How can you not? Movies will be made about this season. It's that simple. A team worth one fifth of the best teams won the league going away. Greatest sports story in my lifetime by a large, large margin.

Closest analogy for Americans would be the 1980 Miracle on Ice carried out over an entire professional season, a 14th/15th/16th seed in the NCAA tourney winning it all, or a minor league baseball team (somehow) winning the World Series. It simply does not happen.

Denmark winning the 1992 European Football Cup, after loosing out the spot in the Cup to Yugoslavia in the preliminaries, and then called in from vacation when Yugoslavia gets a ban due to the civil war.

Interestingly, both the Leicester and Denmark 1992 Cup story involves a Schmeichel as a top goalie
Those were the days, and they ain't coming back again! (They did a movie about the Miracle of 1992).

One more chip, and pow, plus 3-4 fps and folks might be getting really excited about it.

I would be lining up to cheer if the 5D4 got a better AF system and 8-10FPS over a 24MP/7fps incremental bump, but I must have gotten old, grumpy and pessimistic, because I just don't see it coming.
Why? Because Canon.

 

[unfocused]

Sorry to be mean, but many of the comments here are laughable.

Fact: The 5D IV will be better than the 5D III.

Fact: The 5D IV will not be as good as the 1D X II.

There isn't that much space between the two, so if people are realistic it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what is likely and what isn't.

Fact: Canon has done extensive market research and knows what features they need to include.

Fact: If it doesn't have the features you want, no amount of whining on the Internet will change the fact that your desires do not reflect what a majority of buyers consider important.

Fact: Arguing over processors is pointless. Canon will use whatever processor is needed to provide the feature set they have already determined is needed for the camera to sell. In other words, the features drive the processor. The processor does not drive the feature set.

So, for those of you dreaming of unicorns, you might as well start composing your rants now.

 

[jeffa4444]

With the recent price rises in Canada and June increases in Europe of 10% Canon will struggle to get the sales volumes they have had for the 5D MKIII. UK inflation is around 2% that's reflected in pay settlements so there will be a disconnect and given the various promotions they have had prior to this increase it will get tougher if they want them to stick.

 

[ahsanford]

[Responding in line below]

Fact: The 5D IV will be better than the 5D III. --> this is guaranteed.

Fact: The 5D IV will not be as good as the 1D X II. --> largely but not categorically true. The 5D4 will have a higher resolution sensor than the 1DX II (which may not be important to you, but it matters to some). It also will be considerably smaller and lighter. Also, 5D4 folks may get an exclusive new feature like the silent shutter, anti-flicker, etc. that we've seen in the past. :

Fact: Canon has done extensive market research and knows what features they need to include. --> undoubtedly true.

Fact: Arguing over processors is pointless. Canon will use whatever processor is needed to provide the feature set they have already determined is needed for the camera to sell. In other words, the features drive the processor. The processor does not drive the feature set. --> then Canon believes the 5D3 crowd doesn't need much on the throughput end to move users to the 5D4. Burst rate and MP count will not climb tremendously with the 5D4, so it had better offer a hell of a sensor. And it's not whining or complaining at all. I rarely shoot at 6fps on my 5D3 today. I'm simply asking why a $3500 camera is worthy of less throughput than a camera currently priced at $1499. 'Because Canon doesn't need to give it any more horsepower to get us to buy it' may 100% be true, but it's still a pretty flat answer.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

...
Canon will use whatever processor is needed to provide the feature set they have already determined is needed for the camera to sell. In other words, the features drive the processor. The processor does not drive the feature set.
...

The price also has a lot to do with how many processors are on board. Cameras are engineered to achieve a (profitable) price point as well as a feature set - nothing comes for free. Want another processor? Sure. How much more is everyone willing to pay for that camera? Yeah....

Dilbert -- respectfully, I'm not buying it. The 5DS has two chips in the same damn housing for (what we will assume) will be a similar 5D4 asking price. The only cost-confounding element to putting another chip in the 5D4 is if it forces a costlier/sturdier shutter/mirror design due to the increased fps, which makes sense.

It may turn out that Canon absolutely could put a second chip in, but the added throughput would simply put the fps up above a threshhold Canon marketing believes it might jeopardize 1DX II sales. That's still my #1 reason why we'll likely only see one chip -- to cap fps at a nice but not stellar value. 7-8 fps makes sense as a 'better than the 5D3 but not 1DX II threat-worthy', as has been discussed elsewhere here at CR.

- A

 

[Cheweyhead]

Any ideas of whether the 5d4 body will be similar to the 5d3? Trying to decide whether to purchase (preferred) or rent an underwater housing. Kinda of need it sooner than later.

 

[NaturaLight]

I NEED FPS, NOT MPs!!!

 

[privatebydesign]

I NEED FPS, NOT MPs!!!

Get a 1DX, they will be cheaper than a 5D MkIV anyway.

 

[pierlux]

Premise: should the 5D mark IV be priced US $ 3,500 and sport dual Digic, 28-32 MP @ 9-10 fps I will be so happy, enthusiastic and incredibly surprised about it that I will violate my solemn vow of not being an early adopter this time instead of waiting for the 6D Mark II announcement before deciding where to put my money, and preorder it at day one zero. Better, I'll obtain it a few days before the official release in Italy by way of my "fast tracks" I already took advantage from for both the 5D II and 7D II.

BUT... Canon are a business firm. They stay (healthy) in the market. Someone says about them they're greedy marketers. I say it couldn't be otherwise. Therefore,

...
One more chip, and pow, plus 3-4 fps and folks might be getting really excited about it.

- A

At which cost? Would such a camera be offered for less than US $ 4,000-4,500? Excitement would immediately turn to disappointment.

Ahsanford, I love talking with you and, as once neuro said to me, I admire your optimism. But I respectfully think you're overoptimistic. And it isn't a matter for Canon of cannibalizing sales of other cameras, I may be wrong, but I think Canon don't care a rat's a$$ where their income comes from, be it from a rebel or from their flagship. They simply can't offer a camera which, when ungripped (thus powered on a single LP-E6n (or LP-E20 or whatever)), sees its burst speed drop to 5 or less fps as soon as the battery charge drops. That's Nikon's style, not Canon's. I will publicly apologize if this happens, but, really, I don't see Canon releasing a camera which enables higher frame rate only when gripped + 2 batteries, or sporting a "crop mode" to allow more fps. It simply isn't Canon's style. I'm a Canon shooter by chance, but I feel lucky I am. 13 years ago, coming from film (Olympus), I was unaware of what the future of digital imaging was going to set aside for us. I went Canon because they offered a 6 MP DSLR for 1,000 Euros, that's it. Now I feel proud and privileged to be a Canon shooter because I don't have to deal with tightrope walker specs, oil-sputtered sensors, exploding batteries, heartache service, 1-2 years lifespan products and so on, not to mention the "ecosystem" (lenses, free software and so on).

I (optimistically) expect more than an incremental upgrade in MP, fps and features such as GPS and WiFi: auto AFMA for one, feel free to add your plausible guess for the sake of plausible talkabout. But, 32-36 MP, dual Digic and 9-10 fps for US $ 3,500 or thereabouts (also given the expected forthcoming rise in price for us western buyers) is way too much optimism even for an optimistic guy as I am.

Sorry to be mean, but many of the comments here are laughable.

Fact: The 5D IV will be better than the 5D III.

Fact: The 5D IV will not be as good as the 1D X II.

There isn't that much space between the two, so if people are realistic it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what is likely and what isn't.

I think this sums up well what to expect with respect to the the 5D Mark III replacement.

 

[mb66energy]

Just an idea to explain the coexistence of 32- and 24 MPix modes in a camera:

R G is the Bayer pattern for a quadruplet of photosite filters.
G B

Perhaps they have found an algorithm to fold that information into a RGB format omitting the 4th pixels data storage needs in the raw file. Smaller raw files with a slight loss of quality - if this happens on the sensor bus and cpu load will be reduced. Perhaps they use a 16bit ADC so the data can be folded more efficiently from 4 photosites to 3 ADC values ...?

 

[Curmudgeon]

I'll go with Simon Young and a lot of others here who are wondering why, given current technology, anyone would actually want 32 MP on an all-around camera such as the 5D. I get it that depending on their type of photography, people frequently are blind to how deficits in certain features can be limitling for the types of photography they don't do. As primarily a landscaper, I've experienced the real-world challenges presented by the DR of Canon's sensors. I also know that if you bring the subject up on this forum there are plenty of folks eager to brand you a dilettante, a troll who should just go out and take pictures and learn to overcome the limits of the equipment.

I don't want to duplicate that kind of ignorance, but I'm genuinely curious about the value of 32-36 MP on an all-purpose camera. I can certainly think of the drawbacks. People with more technical expertise than me have disagreed on this thread about how much of a penalty high MP extracts in relation to fps, DR, file size, price, high ISO performance, etc. It may be more or less depending on the feature, but however small, it's always an inverse ratio in relation to MP. I remember when Nikon's 36 MP D3 came out. Reviewers and National Geographic photographers marveled at its stunning, almost medium-format resolution in a compact package you could lug up mountain passes into the world's scenic wonders. But universally, they also cautioned that to actually see the benefit of all that resolving power, you needed to shoot under almost clinical conditions: a heavy tripod, mirror lockup, remote or timed release, etc. The optical physics of 36 MP haven't changed. Who among the target market for a general-purpose full-frame camera shoots predominately under those conditions? Photojournalists, wedding photographers, studio portraitists, general assignment freelancers, street shooters, passionate amateurs? I doubt it.

O.K., say the magna-megapixelers, but as a landscaper, surely you can appreciate the value of 32-36 MP? Not really. To start: I know from experience how I lose the most shots, and if 32 MP means the 5D4 doesn't finally come into the 20-teens in DR, I'll stay with my 5D2. Or sadly, reluctantly, expensively, make the switch to Sony. Call me a troll. And there's this: take an expertly shot 24 MP exposure. Print it at 300 dpi across the centerfold of the glossiest of art magazines. Now do the same with a 32 MP shot. If you say you can tell the difference I'm pretty sure you're lying.

If you make your living traveling the arts and crafts fair circuit selling 4' prints, I can see where 32-36 MP would be of value. But that's what? Point 01% of the 5D market? And if raw resolution is the sine qua non, wouldn't you be better off with the 5Ds/r? And what are the real determinants of IQ? Why don't 1Dx(x) shooters complain about the fact that their cameras have fewer MP than the same-generation 5D, not to mention some cell phones? I don't mean to be tendentious. But it seems as if megapixelers want all the 5D's quick-focusing, high-ISO advantages lacking in their high resolution 5Ds/rs. And they want it without a price surcharge.

But I'm willing to have my mind changed. Explain to me why I should want the next 5D to have 30+ MP.

 

[C-A430]

We keep hearing (well, reading) that 5D4 must not jeopardize 1DX2, as if 1D was a consumer product.

Nikon caught up with Canon 10 years ago, allover lineup except 1D series. Actually, I think D5 is the first time they matched Canon 1D. Sony doesn't even try to compete in this category.
5D can not jeopardize 1D. Those paying $5,999.00 will not just say: "5D will do the job".

Canon HQ, boardroom, dusk
[dramatic music playing]

Executive #1:
"5D should have 4K and a new battery"

Executive #2:
"We should add flagship autofocusing as well."

Executive #3:
"That will drive the price up. I say then we must add 1D weather sealing!"

Executive #1:
"Sounds familiar! Don't we have that same camera already?"

Executive #4:
[extreme close-up]
"But 5D gives you 19% megapixels more !"

 

[symmar22]

I NEED FPS, NOT MPs!!!

Get a 1DX, they will be cheaper than a 5D MkIV anyway.

+1000

To all those who want FPS not MPs, the 1Dx or 1Dx2 is custom made for you, it's not an all round camera contrary to the 5D series. It's a camera for serious sport, real action, police duties and so on. Plus it's got only 18 or 20 MPs. The camera for action is already here, it's called 1Dx(2), if you are so in need for 8 , 9 or more FPs, then you need the 1Dx(2) because it's designed for it, from the battery output to the mirror frame. 8 FPs is already a specialized use for a camera.

It seems lots of people rave for super high FPS at low cost, well the option is a mirrorless camera or a pellicle mirror like in the old EOS 1N RS, simply because you eliminate all the complexity of developing and adjusting a mirror that can flap 10 times per second with no harm done. The bigger the mirror the more difficult and expensive to make.