Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Talk [CR2]

[jeffa4444]

Perhaps Canon could use this method of DR improvement ......

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/noiseless-frame-summation-in-cmos.html

 

[Hector1970]

I bought a 5D MK II over the Nikon D700 because mainly of the video capability. And i never shot a video on it.

Then, beeing in the Canon Eco System, i upgraded to a 5D MK III and i never shot video on it.

I dont know if i will buy the MK4, but what i now know is, i will not care if it offers 4K video or not ;D

I think the way you bought the 5D MK II is the way a good section of buyers with approach the 5D Mark IV.
4K probably isn't the first consideration but if the Nikon or Sony Equivalent has it , it can appear a lesser camera. It's other attributes might compensate but the camera's are getting very similar with not alot to distinguish between them.
I think Canon should be careful. People might wait for another camera if the 5D IV doesn't have 4K. The 5D III is still a great camera.

 

[cpsico]

I would be all on board for an 18 megapixel low light camera

 

[Tiderace]

Goodbye to Canon for us despite owning 5D Mark III and many lenses. soft images, focus problems, lack of 4K and 1080P soft video images with no sound on HDMI out. They have messed with us long enough. They are too calculated, too expensive, and no longer the only big boy in town, wake up Canon, the horse is out of the barn and left you behind, genuinely sorry to say, even with dual pixel focusing etc.

Next photography camera will be the Sony A7RII and video the PWX FS5. You just got too expensive and too little to offer guys

 

[Loswr]

I t better perform better than what's in the market, no, no ultra low megapixel good ISO bullS___
it must minimally perform better AND have as much megapixels as something like the Sony A7R2

if it has lesser megapixels than A7R2 and yet performs worse (ISO+Dynamic Range) and not have 4K
then i really don't know what Canon is doing

What they're doing is selling more cameras than all other brands. It's evident that those who define camera performance as low ISO DR are a very small minority of people who matter to manufacturers – namely, camera buyers.

 

[gsealy]

Well, no 4K in the 5DIV is too bad. I was kind of hoping for that. At the same time perhaps Canon will improve upon the 2K that they do have with 10 bit, 4:2:2, DPAF, wider DR, and so on. We have to wait and see.

What I like about the 5DIII is that it so versatile, and that adds greatly to its value. If we are shooting video with a camcorder/cinema camera, then the 5DIII can serve as an extra camera to get specialty shots using various lenses. That adds a lot to the production. So a 5DIV with 4K would fit a nice role there. Oh well, there are numerous alternatives and more coming each month as the price points for 4K continue to go downward. I can wait because 4K is not really, really essential yet. But we ARE getting there.

 

[jeffa4444]

I t better perform better than what's in the market, no, no ultra low megapixel good ISO bullS___
it must minimally perform better AND have as much megapixels as something like the Sony A7R2

if it has lesser megapixels than A7R2 and yet performs worse (ISO+Dynamic Range) and not have 4K
then i really don't know what Canon is doing

What they're doing is selling more cameras than all other brands. It's evident that those who define camera performance as low ISO DR are a very small minority of people who matter to manufacturers – namely, camera buyers.

They are selling more cameras and more lenses than the competition. However it is fair to say a lot of Canon users that frequent this site (and therefor show interest in the brand) are not entirely statisfied with the company development & progress in certain areas one of which is DR. I for one can live with the present DR but I wont deny that I would like at least two more stops and think it would make a big difference particularly dealing with noise in enlargements.

 

[photo212]

Let's applaud Canon for striking the 4K video nonsense from a still camera. It keeps the price down for the rest of us, and that is a great thing! For those wanting a video camera, here's my suggestion: Buy a video camera.

As far as more megapickles, dill or kosher, I'm full of pickles. I do not need more. I do not really want more. Fills memory cards faster. Takes longer to download/upload. Means my late-2010 desktop is getting poised for a forced upgrade.

Better quality sensors, not quantity. 18MP will do fine. 22MP great, maybe even 24MP, but then the curve turns downhill for me. I'm paying for things I do not need. Just as the 50MP 5Ds revealed, many Canon lenses are not up to the task of resolving the light that tightly. More costs in getting the latest and greatest Version II or III. I will gladly pay for less noise and more dynamic range. That is the quality I seek.

I realize others have differing opinions for their personal wants and needs. The cost of one size fits all is too high.

 

[PurMar]

So even in 2016 stupid arse Canon will not add 4k support to their camera that might be priced north of 2500$.

The vast majority of 5D buyers don't care about 4K video.

I disagree here. When I got 5dm2 I did not expect to shoot a lot of video, but eventually I used it many times to shoot video for one or other company. It may represent only 5% of my activity, but it is still worth of $1000s each year. Should I buy a dedicated camera for that? Not worth it?

If the trend continue, I may switch my backup to Sony as that seams to be the camera that can handle most of what you throw at it.

 

[Loswr]

However it is fair to say a lot of Canon users that frequent this site (and therefor show interest in the brand) are not entirely statisfied with the company development & progress in certain areas one of which is DR.

Yes, some of the few thousand active members here are not satisfied. What fraction of Canon's user base do you suppose that represents?

Do you suppose it's also fair to say that a lot of Nikon and Sony users are not entirely satisfied with their brand?

 

[Antono Refa]

If the Canon 5DmkIV has 4K, people will boo hoo that they will defect to Nikon if the 5DmkV doesn't have auto focus in video, then they'll want all zoom lenses to be upgraded to be parfocal, and always more pixels, and within a decade they'll expect the 5D to take medium format SLR level stills and pro cinema 8K video, or they'll defect right then and there.

 

[Loswr]

I t better perform better than what's in the market, no, no ultra low megapixel good ISO bullS___
it must minimally perform better AND have as much megapixels as something like the Sony A7R2

if it has lesser megapixels than A7R2 and yet performs worse (ISO+Dynamic Range) and not have 4K
then i really don't know what Canon is doing

What they're doing is selling more cameras than all other brands. It's evident that those who define camera performance as low ISO DR are a very small minority of people who matter to manufacturers – namely, camera buyers.

They are all selling a lot lot less in the DSLR video world now though. And who is to say they might not have sold a lot more to the stills world or that if they stayed in 2007 for another 10 years they won't eventually lose those sales too?

But more importantly, who cares if they can get away with being conservative, offering less for more and not bother? Why is that something a Canon user would want to cheer on to the ends of the Earth??

And how is it good news if they haven't had sales crash even though they don't bother to keep up with DR, general sensor tech, video, etc.? That just means more chance you'll pay more for less next time or not see anything you feel like paying for at all no?

Anyway, while it's more expensive and a bit of pain to have to carry two bodies around now and so on, thank god for Sony, since I'm no living in the future when it comes to high MP counts and high DR and very crisp and natural 4k (although 10bits vs 8bits would sure be nice).

And you know the D820 will probably be 42MP FF at 6fps and 25MP at 8fps in 1.3x crop mode (with RAW not silly JPG only and with a more than usable buffer size), high quality 4k oversampled video, high DR, very good high ISO performance.

So why do you want the 5D4 to be like 24MP FF at 8fps, maybe the same old 2007 DR, no 4k and HD that would surely be worse quality than you can do with a 5D3+ML, possibly poor video usability features, etc.? Basically nothing more than a 5D3 with tweaked AF and 2 more fps after all these years for thousands of dollars of new expense?

Wow, you're so right. It's amazing that Canon manages to sell any dSLRs at all! How do they manage to even stay in business, let alone remaining the market leader for over a decade??

 

[scyrene]

I bought a 5D MK II over the Nikon D700 because mainly of the video capability. And i never shot a video on it.

Then, beeing in the Canon Eco System, i upgraded to a 5D MK III and i never shot video on it.

I've almost never shot video...

But sometimes when shooting animals, stills just doesn't really capture what's going on and then being able to shoot video makes a whole lot of difference. Same too with landscape. How does a single frame show others how quickly the clouds/fog is rolling over the hills and down the valley?

It's certainly the case that as light levels fall very low, video can step in where stills fail - if you have a tripod. I staked out an owl roost box once; stills I'd have to have kept the shutter speed up at 1/250+, but in video can go down to 1/30, and the reduced resolution hides a lot of noise too (the owl never emerged, but it was a salutary lesson).

 

[scyrene]

I would be all on board for an 18 megapixel low light camera

That would be the 1Dx ;P

 

[scyrene]

I hope Canon does improve DR in any 5D MKIII replacement but I equally hope they keep the MP count below 30MP at between 26-28MP because the pixel pitch does have a sweet spot and thats not 50MP which is more specialist.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Sweet spot how?

The higher the MP in a fixed area the higher the likelyhood of camera shake which trades-off resolution. Many Sony / Nikon users with 36MP cameras complain of higher instances of soft images through camera shake. Obviously any camera not handled correctly will give camera shake but there is some evidence to suggest a balance can be struck around 26-28MP on a 36x24mm sensor.
Since Ive had my 5DS Ive undertaken various shots & situations where Im trying to determine what is the "safest" shutter speed to focal length compared to my 6D when hand holding. Its not an exact science but generally as you would expect the longer the focal lenght the more critical this becomes. Its not just an issue in stills either because smaller pixels have an affect on panning speeds in video.

By all accounts camera shake is more apparent at 100% the higher the number of megapixels (or, I guess, more accurately the finer the pixels), but once again normalised it's the same regardless (i.e. printed on A4 shake would be no more visible in a 6MP vs 24MP vs 50MP camera, everything else being equal). What I'm getting at is, given all these things are gradual - a sliding scale, with per-pixel noise and visible shake increasing with more MP (rather than there being any sudden change or cutoff at any point), how can there be *a* 'sweet spot'? Surely each of us might draw a line in a different place?

 

[scyrene]

Let's applaud Canon for striking the 4K video nonsense from a still camera. It keeps the price down for the rest of us, and that is a great thing! For those wanting a video camera, here's my suggestion: Buy a video camera.

As far as more megapickles, dill or kosher, I'm full of pickles. I do not need more. I do not really want more. Fills memory cards faster. Takes longer to download/upload. Means my late-2010 desktop is getting poised for a forced upgrade.

Better quality sensors, not quantity. 18MP will do fine. 22MP great, maybe even 24MP, but then the curve turns downhill for me. I'm paying for things I do not need. Just as the 50MP 5Ds revealed, many Canon lenses are not up to the task of resolving the light that tightly. More costs in getting the latest and greatest Version II or III. I will gladly pay for less noise and more dynamic range. That is the quality I seek.

I realize others have differing opinions for their personal wants and needs. The cost of one size fits all is too high.

I think a 2010 PC is going to start creaking in the near future anyway...

But you could always shoot Mraw/Sraw on a higher res sensor, if you're concerned about memory and bandwidth?

 

[George D.]

In any case for movie mode people the 5D4 upgrade will definitely be Full HD 1080p at 60fps (from 30fps), Sans-voir. Anything higher than 60 fps not to speak of 4K is spec for shooting the soccer World Cup. That's definitely not the 5D4 arena. Looking good for Canon.

Now CR bring in the stills specs please. ISO and the rest.

 

[Ozarker]

I'll definitely remember that the next time I need to get out of my armchair and walk into my studio! ;D

I'll also remember that that image is from the studio of Marcelo Isarrualde. I mean really... :

It's the thought of a well designed studio that counts! ;D
Thanks for knowing the name. I was looking all over for it.

You. Are. So. Busted!

It has got nothing to do with a well designed studio! You tried to pass that off as your own studio, and that is pathetic.........

Wow.

 

[unfocused]

So why do you want the 5D4 to be like 24MP FF at 8fps...a 5D3 with tweaked AF and 2 more fps...

Actually, that doesn't sound half bad to me.

Give me the sensor performance that is obvious in the 7D II (higher ISO performance with better and more natural looking grain, rather than the old electronic noise) with slightly better high ISO performance.

Add in the 7DII autofocus and the flippy lever for picking autofocus points. Maybe add a touch screen and bring it into the 21st century in terms of connectivity and I'll be very pleased. I'm not interested in some tech geek bragging rights. I want an even better all-around camera that helps me pay the bills.

 

[Etienne]

I t better perform better than what's in the market, no, no ultra low megapixel good ISO bullS___
it must minimally perform better AND have as much megapixels as something like the Sony A7R2

if it has lesser megapixels than A7R2 and yet performs worse (ISO+Dynamic Range) and not have 4K
then i really don't know what Canon is doing

What they're doing is selling more cameras than all other brands. It's evident that those who define camera performance as low ISO DR are a very small minority of people who matter to manufacturers – namely, camera buyers.

We can argue about when, or IF, Canon's business will suffer, but there's no denying the fact that Sony is starting to offer compelling, innovative cameras that push the limits more than Canon's, and in some cases make Canon's look obsolete as soon as they hit the shelves ... like the Sony FS5 vs C100, and the EOS-M vs A6000, or the A7x series vs [Canon has nothing here], and the Canon Xf200 and XA30 vs Sony PXW-X70

As a Canon fan, I want this to change. But I've already bought the Sony PXW-X70 (when I was considering the XF200), and next year it will be the FS5 instead of the C100, and possibly an A7s II.

Loads of professionals are singing the praises of these Sony Cameras for good reason. And load of pros who used to love the 5DII and 5DIII for both video and photography are leaving for Sony and others. Canon appears to be unable to meet the grade in these categories. Personally I love my 5DIII for photography and would not trade it for any of the current Sony or Nikon cameras if photography was my only concern. But it's not. I travel as light as possible, and I need to get as much out of each piece of gear that I can, which means a DSLR has to be able to act as a second or third video camera as well as a stills camera. The 5D4 has to be just as good at video as it is at stills to hold any interest to me. And the C100 mk III (whenever that arrives) has to match the FS5 to even be considered.