Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Talk [CR2]

[pedro]

If it wasn't for the video capability, these cameras would not be as popular as they are today. Independent filmmakers and videographers accidentally discovering the power of the 5D Mark II gave it new life.

Yes, you do need video. And yes, it needs to be 4K.

I would pay for a model that strictly has video features and no stills. Of course I would like to have stills, but Canon truly needs a great successor to the 1DC.

There are people who are just as passionate about video as many of you are about your stills.

That's why I and many other Canon (stills) users around th world would like to see 2 models (like 1D-X vs. 1Dc) for the 5D line:
* 5D IV ... focused on stills, no video capture, no video out, no microphones, no earphone jack, no video menus, no "Record Video" switch or button - but with LiveView.
* 5Dv ... video-focused model (similar to 1Dc or like Sony A7S I) with all 4k bells and whistles on it

That way, it would also become very evident, how little interest there really is for video-DLSRs ... when you have to pay for it, rather than getting (4k) video as a freebie on the back of stils users.

Would like to see an a7s -ish Canon as well...

 

[Takingshots]

Small window of opportunity for CAnon to catch up.

Get real, the 5D mkIII is probably one of the, if not the, best selling FF DSLR ever. How is that playing catch up?

5D III was the only "universally useful and still affordable" Canon DSLR. (6D too crippled, 1D-X too big and expensive), Nikon DSLRs clearly better (D800, D810 and D750), but system switch is a huge move for anybody with (lots of) EF glass (and Nikon is clearly inferior in lenses) and/or more than 1 camera body. Sony A7 first gen was an "untested system with few lenses and obvious teething problems". That has changed with Mk. II generation of Sony A7 series. Also, more 4k alternatives for video-leaning users became available. And Fuji made good progress with their much smaller&lighter X-MILC system.

Ever since, Canon has been and is loosing customers, including many valuable enthusiasts and semi-pro 5D1, 2 and 3 users who also bought a good deal of all EF L glass ever sold and speedlites (first 580's then a new full set of 600's).

A lot of these have either added a Sony or are in the process of switching - still holding on to their EF lenses, as adapting got better and better. Others who wanted smaller/lighter gear (including aging, health issues, but affluent segment) have "downsized" and gone to Fuji, others did not yet, because they still prefer FF over APS-C.

A lot of people on the fence right now. Willing to give Canon one more chance to finally catch up to best in class in 5D category: universal, highly capable, reliable FF camera system, not too big, not excessively expensive). Another minor ho-hum facelift like the one from 5D2 to 5D 3 will not be enough for Canon now to keep these clients. There are more alternatives this time round. Sony is for real.

Well said.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Anyone who thinks the upgrade from 5DII to 5DIII was "minor" or "ho hum" clearly either never used both cameras, or wasn't paying attention. The only thing that was a minor change was the MP count.

 

[crashpc]

Anyone who thinks the upgrade from 5DII to 5DIII was "minor" or "ho hum" clearly either never used both cameras, or wasn't paying attention. The only thing that was a minor change was the MP count.

Not really. In grand scheme, for certain users, it´s not enaugh of an upgrade.
It seems that I´m going for 5D II instead of new crop camera, and not 5D III. If it was so much better for my use, I would buy 5D III. Doesn´t happen. Not great enaugh upgrade...

 

[Sporgon]

Anyone who thinks the upgrade from 5DII to 5DIII was "minor" or "ho hum" clearly either never used both cameras, or wasn't paying attention. The only thing that was a minor change was the MP count.

Not really. In grand scheme, for certain users, it´s not enaugh of an upgrade.
It seems that I´m going for 5D II instead of new crop camera, and not 5D III. If it was so much better for my use, I would buy 5D III. Doesn´t happen. Not great enaugh upgrade...

If you're going for a 5DII instead of a 5DIII there is only one reason in the real world - cost.

 

[AvTvM]

Anyone who thinks the upgrade from 5DII to 5DIII was "minor" or "ho hum" clearly either never used both cameras, or wasn't paying attention. The only thing that was a minor change was the MP count.

5D3 is essentially the 5D2 with an AF system that should already have been in the Mk. II. IQ and sensor hardly any difference.

Btw: yes, I currently own and use a 5D III. Did not own a 5D2 but shot with it occassionally.

 

[unfocused]

Anyone who thinks the upgrade from 5DII to 5DIII was "minor" or "ho hum" clearly either never used both cameras, or wasn't paying attention. The only thing that was a minor change was the MP count.

Exactly!

Before the 5DIII came out, there were many self-appointed "experts" on this forum who confidently predicted that Canon would "cripple" the autofocus of the 5DIII. When that didn't happen they had to find something else to whine about. In the meantime, actual photographers started buying and using the camera and loved it. Many of us still do. I don't want revolutionary change. I want incremental improvement to a great all around tool that helps me pay the bills.

...Canon has been and is loosing customers, including many valuable enthusiasts and semi-pro 5D1, 2 and 3 users who also bought a good deal of all EF L glass ever sold and speedlites (first 580's then a new full set of 600's).

I'd love to know where you get your statistics.

If you are looking at the CIPA numbers and extrapolating from those that somehow Canon is losing customers, that's not what the statistics show. It's one thing to be critical of Canon. Everyone has the right to criticize. But when people just make up their own facts they lose all credibility.

You have specific desires that you want Canon to meet. If they don't meet them, they may lose you as a customer. Fair statement of fact.

But, I don't share your desires. I want a reasonable upgrade that reflects the not-insignificant improvements made in the 7DII and 5Ds, plus a few other things that I'm hoping for (usable wifi and touchscreen would be a bonus).

In the end, Canon has to look at their market research and decide how to meet the desires of the majority of their customers and potential customers.

To infer some sort of "failure" or "loss" from those very rational business decisions is just delusional and belongs in the realm of conspiracy theorists.

 

[privatebydesign]

Anyone who thinks the upgrade from 5DII to 5DIII was "minor" or "ho hum" clearly either never used both cameras, or wasn't paying attention. The only thing that was a minor change was the MP count.

Not really. In grand scheme, for certain users, it´s not enaugh of an upgrade.
It seems that I´m going for 5D II instead of new crop camera, and not 5D III. If it was so much better for my use, I would buy 5D III. Doesn´t happen. Not great enaugh upgrade...

Bullshit. The AF on the MkIII is worth the upgrade between the MkII ad MkIII, if you come back with 'I don't need AF' then the 6D is much better than the 5D MkII.

There are no quantum jumps in IQ, AF, DR etc etc coming, there is slow and steady improvement in all aspects of camera functionality, I am not saying that every iteration of every model suits every buyer, especially when you factor in cost. But to say the 5D MkII is more suitable than a 5D MkIII or 6D for anybody that isn't solely basing their purchase decision on cost is farcical, or you simply haven't used them all and compared the RAW files.

 

[arthurbikemad]

I'm another who hardly ever uses video, used it once this year for some interview stuff, I don't care for groundbreaking advances, just a little better will do, as long as the camera feels the same and I don't have to relearn menus or buttons then that's great, by all means add features, built in RT for speedlights would be nice, better AF and low light and if you wish more MP, be nice too if it uses same batteries as old Mk3, otherwise, bring it on, I will buy if looks good, or I may jump in on a 1DX to go with my Mk3 then wait a while for price drop, bugs, and firmware to settle on the Mk4.

 

[Loswr]

5D3 is essentially the 5D2 with an AF system that should already have been in the Mk. II. IQ and sensor hardly any difference.

The 5DII had a good sensor and IQ. The 5DIII improved EVERYTHING ELSE, expect that which didn't need fixing.

 

[Don Haines]

Anyone who thinks the upgrade from 5DII to 5DIII was "minor" or "ho hum" clearly either never used both cameras, or wasn't paying attention. The only thing that was a minor change was the MP count.

Not really. In grand scheme, for certain users, it´s not enaugh of an upgrade.
It seems that I´m going for 5D II instead of new crop camera, and not 5D III. If it was so much better for my use, I would buy 5D III. Doesn´t happen. Not great enaugh upgrade...

BullS___. The AF on the MkIII is worth the upgrade between the MkII ad MkIII, if you come back with 'I don't need AF' then the 6D is much better than the 5D MkII.

There are no quantum jumps in IQ, AF, DR etc etc coming, there is slow and steady improvement in all aspects of camera functionality, I am not saying that every iteration of every model suits every buyer, especially when you factor in cost. But to say the 5D MkII is more suitable than a 5D MkIII or 6D for anybody that isn't solely basing their purchase decision on cost is farcical, or you simply haven't used them all and compared the RAW files.

+1
The 5D2 to 5D3 was a whole lot of little improvements. Looked at individually, nothing changed dramatically, but the sum package was a much nicer camera. I would expect this to happen again with the 5D4....

 

[AvTvM]

5D3 is essentially the 5D2 with an AF system that should already have been in the Mk. II. IQ and sensor hardly any difference.

The 5DII had a good sensor and IQ. The 5DIII improved EVERYTHING ELSE, expect that which didn't need fixing.

Yeah right. 5D2 had a slightly subpar sensor when it came out and a really poor AF system but it offered FF sensor and shallow DoF Full HD (1080p) on the cheap. Video folks loved it, stills folks had to put up with it.
5D3 had a reasonable but not great AF system, really poor sensor compared to best in class when it came out. And subpar video capabilities. Incremental iteration it was ...
Video folks have largely moved on already, stills shooters have mostly been holding still (hehe) ... but many have left Canon and many more will if there's yet another incremental upgrade with the Mk. IV (which i fully expect, knowing Canon quite well after many years of follwing the industry closely). Cipa statistics are not detailed in any way, nor does Canon publish unit sales (other than umpteen million EOS sold) - but the picture is fairly clear and the writing is on the wall. Mene mene tekel peres.

To me 5D IV does not matter. Mk. III will be my last mirrorslapper ever. Next up will be FF sans mirror for me.

 

[bdunbar79]

5D3 is essentially the 5D2 with an AF system that should already have been in the Mk. II. IQ and sensor hardly any difference.

The 5DII had a good sensor and IQ. The 5DIII improved EVERYTHING ELSE, expect that which didn't need fixing.

Yeah right. 5D2 had a slightly subpar sensor when it came out and a really poor AF system but it offered FF sensor and shallow DoF Full HD (1080p) on the cheap. Video folks loved it, stills folks had to put up with it.
5D3 had a reasonable but not great AF system, really poor sensor compared to best in class when it came out. And subpar video capabilities. Incremental iteration it was ...
Video folks have largely moved on already, stills shooters have mostly been holding still (hehe) ... but many have left Canon and many more will if there's yet another incremental upgrade with the Mk. IV (which i fully expect, knowing Canon quite well after many years of follwing the industry closely). Cipa statistics are not detailed in any way, nor does Canon publish unit sales (other than umpteen million EOS sold) - but the picture is fairly clear and the writing is on the wall. Mene mene tekel peres.

To me 5D IV does not matter. Mk. III will be my last mirrorslapper ever. Next up will be FF sans mirror for me.

In other words, you are completely clueless. Completely. The 5D3 has the SAME AF system as the 1Dx. But you're right, it's ok, but not great. I don't even know what to say to you.

 

[scyrene]

To me 5D IV does not matter. Mk. III will be my last mirrorslapper ever. Next up will be FF sans mirror for me.

WE KNOW. You've made your position on cameras with mirrors repeatedly. Ad nauseam in fact. You announce this as if it's a surprise.

 

[Loswr]

5D3 is essentially the 5D2 with an AF system that should already have been in the Mk. II. IQ and sensor hardly any difference.

The 5DII had a good sensor and IQ. The 5DIII improved EVERYTHING ELSE, expect that which didn't need fixing.

Yeah right. 5D2 had a slightly subpar sensor when it came out and a really poor AF system but it offered FF sensor and shallow DoF Full HD (1080p) on the cheap. Video folks loved it, stills folks had to put up with it.
5D3 had a reasonable but not great AF system, really poor sensor compared to best in class when it came out. And subpar video capabilities. Incremental iteration it was ...
Video folks have largely moved on already, stills shooters have mostly been holding still (hehe) ... but many have left Canon and many more will if there's yet another incremental upgrade with the Mk. IV (which i fully expect, knowing Canon quite well after many years of follwing the industry closely). Cipa statistics are not detailed in any way, nor does Canon publish unit sales (other than umpteen million EOS sold) - but the picture is fairly clear and the writing is on the wall. Mene mene tekel peres.

To me 5D IV does not matter. Mk. III will be my last mirrorslapper ever. Next up will be FF sans mirror for me.

In other words, you are completely clueless. Completely. The 5D3 has the SAME AF system as the 1Dx. But you're right, it's ok, but not great. I don't even know what to say to you.

+1

I think it's one too many mirror-slaps to the head.

 

[Don Haines]

Anyone who thinks the upgrade from 5DII to 5DIII was "minor" or "ho hum" clearly either never used both cameras, or wasn't paying attention. The only thing that was a minor change was the MP count.

Not really. In grand scheme, for certain users, it´s not enaugh of an upgrade.
It seems that I´m going for 5D II instead of new crop camera, and not 5D III. If it was so much better for my use, I would buy 5D III. Doesn´t happen. Not great enaugh upgrade...

If you're going for a 5DII instead of a 5DIII there is only one reason in the real world - cost.

I had to make the decision between getting a 5D, or paying twice as much for a 5D2. I went with the 5D2 and regretted it.

I had to suffer with 21 megapixels, instead of 12.....
I had to suffer with ISO 25,600, instead of 3200....
the rear monitor was only 4 times the resolution.....

oh the humanity!!!!!

and then the 5D3 came out... (did not get it as I was happy with 5D2)
obviously a step backwards.....
megapixels downgraded from 21.1 to 22.1
ISO downgraded from 25,600 to 102,400
AF points downgraded from 9 to 61
FPS downgraded from 3.9 to 6
storage downgraded from single slot to dual slots
rear screen downgraded from 900Kpixels to 1040Kpixels

I wonder how much they will downgrade the 5D4....

 

[Go Wild]

Hello to everyone. I´m not trying to make a point in this reply, but just give you my humild opinion. I own a 5D markIII and i use it a lot, and i mean...a lot! I´m a professional photographer, mostly wildlife photographer, but i also have to do some marriage services, product photography and comercial (mostly for websites, not big prints). Well, like we use to say...Europe is in crysis and we just need to make what money want´s you to make. This is just important to tell you that I trully need a super versatile camera, although, i have a Canon 7D markII for 70% of the wildlife work, but when light come down, 5D is the answer.

And what a superb peace of machine the MkIII is...!! Very often i push her to the limits and never, ever makes me feel bad , or failed. Ever. So when i read someone say that is going to leave DSLR and 5D markIII for a mirrorless....I just think it is foolish...you´re about to switch from a camera that is remarcable confort in hands, to a camera that feels weird in the hands (Sony mirorless). You switch from a camera that gives you about 800 shots/900 in batery life, for a camera that gives you about 200 shots! Really?? Do you imagine taking pictures in a wedding with this? I sooht easily about 1500 shots in a wedding. Thats what? 7 batterys? Reaally? No..not for me! You switch from a camera tha have a remarcable AF sistem for one camera that have a poor af sistem? Then if you gor for the new A7R II We´re talking of 4000€, and the 5D markIII is selling at 2500€. (Prices in euros sorry.)
And for what? Because someone say to you that Sony is better in DR? Because it records in 4K?
Just in minor situations DR of Canon get´s me concerned....but believe me, you get the shot well done, you get that shot, and no one really be concerned in DR!
Despite what i said, i really like that the new MkIV would give some good improvement in DR. If it makes me loose my mind? Hell no!

About the video....well....everybody has a point here...It would do no harm if 4K is there...but i think stills photographers do not care if it isn´t, because the full HD wiil do good for their purposes of some pontual films. If they can make a cheaper machine without the 4k, please Canon, leave 4K behind!! If Canon can make more imporvements on Stills, please, leave 4K behind. If i want a camera to film 4K i definitly have a lot of options in the market. People always seek for something that gives you all for the small price.
Well, but for me no issue in this. Photography cameras ARE for Photography. Video cameras, ARE for video. Period. Buy a 5d markIII and a Sony A7S, or a Canon C300. Too expensive? Well...you have to decide whats important to you.

What i would live to see in new camera:

- Built in timelapse/intervalometer (like 7D markII ou 5D S)
- Dinamic range improvement (Nikon and Sony are better - 5DS is reaally better and aproaches Nikon and Sony)
- Buffer capability improved. (better Raw recording preformance)
- More MP´s - About 30 MPs (this one is related to the nex one)
- Improvement in High ISO capability - Ok, i ask for more MP´s so in theory, more MP´s less high iso performance. (Well, if Nikon has it in the Nikon D810 with 36 mp´s why can´t we have it in Canon! And the Nikon D810 is about the same price of the MKIII
- Better info sistem in viewfinder.
- Focus peaking - Come on Canon, you can do this in your machines with no problem!!
- Slightly better AF performance in cross type af points
- Improvement in digic processor. - Just for give even more fast AF
- Well...surprise me and I´ll buy the machine!!

Sorry for some errors in writting!!

 

[unfocused]

...
I'd love to know where you get your statistics.

If you are looking at the CIPA numbers and extrapolating from those that somehow Canon is losing customers, that's not what the statistics show.
...

CIPA numbers show the number of DSLR sales in decline.
CIPA numbers show the number of MILC sales as steady.

Good job Dilbert. You managed to be both wrong and irrelevant. Try reading posts once in a while before making drive-by comments.

Your comment underscores exactly what I said. You cannot infer anything about Canon's relative position in the marketplace by reading CIPA numbers. They do not break sales down by brand.

Oh, and you might want to actually look at the data. The difference in the year-over-year trend for both mirrorless and DSLRs is not statistically significant and DSLR sales are actually up 3% in the Americas year-over-year – the dollar value is up 20% in the Americas. Dollar value outside of the Americas, Asia and Europe is up 25% for DSLRs.

Using statistically insignificant variations in the market over the short term to make long-term claims just looks ignorant.

 

[Antono Refa]

About the video....well....everybody has a point here...It would do no harm if 4K is there...but i think stills photographers do not care if it isn´t, because the full HD wiil do good for their purposes of some pontual films. If they can make a cheaper machine without the 4k, please Canon, leave 4K behind!!

4K would require CFast card slots. A pair of 32GB CFast cards costs at least U.S.$250 w/ S&H. SD & CF cards cost nothing, because I already paid for those.

So, unless 4K actually reduces camera price by U.S.$250, keep it out.

 

[privatebydesign]

About the video....well....everybody has a point here...It would do no harm if 4K is there...but i think stills photographers do not care if it isn´t, because the full HD wiil do good for their purposes of some pontual films. If they can make a cheaper machine without the 4k, please Canon, leave 4K behind!!

4K would require CFast card slots. A pair of 32GB CFast cards costs at least U.S.$250 w/ S&H. SD & CF cards cost nothing, because I already paid for those.

So, unless 4K actually reduces camera price by U.S.$250, keep it out.

Not true, the 1DC uses regular CF cards, the Panasonic GH4 uses SD cards, clearly CFast is not "required" for 4k.