Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Talk [CR2]

[clarksbrother]

...
5) Minimum ISO in video mode is 500... really Canon... REALLY???!?!?!?
...

This isn't that big of a deal. If you look at the Cinema EOS line the minimum ISO is 640.

You need to think of ISO for video differently to ISO for still photography.

Yes and no. Under bright lighting conditions, if I want to smooth out 24p footage at 4K, it's helpful to have a little bit of motion blur for faster action items. (Yes, I know you can do it in post, but the more I can shoot in camera, the better) This means if I want to keep that, I have to crank down my F-Stop, which means I lose what little shallow DOF I had from the 1 inch sensor in the first place. Having it arbitrarily set so high when it seems to be nothing more than a software config is pretty silly.

So get a 1DC, or a C300 MkII, or an iPhone, a GH4, A7RII.............

I did, a GH4. Very happy with the video so far. Much like the 5D Mark II and III rolling shutter can be an issue, but really only at 4K - have to plan shots out a little more carefully. For the price, the camera is a bargain. V-Log makes it a no-brainer especially if you need a B-camera for video shots or just something small for run-n-gun.

 

[privatebydesign]

...
5) Minimum ISO in video mode is 500... really Canon... REALLY???!?!?!?
...

This isn't that big of a deal. If you look at the Cinema EOS line the minimum ISO is 640.

You need to think of ISO for video differently to ISO for still photography.

Yes and no. Under bright lighting conditions, if I want to smooth out 24p footage at 4K, it's helpful to have a little bit of motion blur for faster action items. (Yes, I know you can do it in post, but the more I can shoot in camera, the better) This means if I want to keep that, I have to crank down my F-Stop, which means I lose what little shallow DOF I had from the 1 inch sensor in the first place. Having it arbitrarily set so high when it seems to be nothing more than a software config is pretty silly.

So get a 1DC, or a C300 MkII, or an iPhone, a GH4, A7RII.............

I did, a GH4. Very happy with the video so far. Much like the 5D Mark II and III rolling shutter can be an issue, but really only at 4K - have to plan shots out a little more carefully. For the price, the camera is a bargain. V-Log makes it a no-brainer especially if you need a B-camera for video shots or just something small for run-n-gun.

So going back to the point, why should Canon give a damn about what you want? You already have your small 4K camera which they have shown no desire to make as yet, they are happy and you are happy, just don't expect them to put good 4K in the 5D MkIV.

 

[AvTvM]

the more responses I see in this thread and many others before, the more am i convinced that Canon should split the 5D line into a stills-model (5D IV) and a video-model (5Dc) with 4k. There seems to be sufficient demand for a 4k video DSLR with EF mount. Even if it would cost 500 more than the stills model, it would probably sell.
Sony took the right decision with their A7 trifecta (A7 / A7R / A7S (II) S) ... Canon would be well advised to also offer 3 versions: 5D IV (stills, universal), 5Ds/R (Resolution) and 5Dc (Video)

 

[NorBro]

YES - there is more than a sufficient demand for a 4K DSLR from CANON!

I've only recently joined this forum just for fun and it's instantly come to my attention that it's heavily influenced by photography (why not, right?).

But if you go to some of the filmmaking forums (where 1/100 people may specialize in stills), Canon is being ripped apart. I and others who love the company still fight for them, but even the C300 Mark II is kind of a joke still living on the excellent C300's reputation. I don't think anyone ever bought the C500, did they? The C100 is extremely popular with wedding guys, and I don't think anyone uses a 5D Mark III anymore to shoot unless they are a photographer too. (Quality is atrocious for 2015 although Magic Lantern has saved it to some degree.)

The 1DC is that special camera that not many people got to use because it was just too expensive for a filmmaking DSLR (I think over $12K at one point), and it certainly is not justifiable now with the 3-year-old tech (sorry, Canon is not Arri) and soft 1080/60P.

Anyone/everyone that's into video, including myself, who still loves Canon is really desperate for a new 4K DSLR from them.

So I don't care if it's in a 1DXII, 1DCII, 5DMarkIV, XD#X#X.......just make something!!!!!!!!!!

(And I own lots of cinema cameras, but the point is I want a small footprint CANON-made 4K DSLR not only for the wonderful color science, but because the company can truly make an amazing product when it really wants to.)

 

[clarksbrother]

So going back to the point, why should Canon give a damn about what you want? You already have your small 4K camera which they have shown no desire to make as yet, they are happy and you are happy, just don't expect them to put good 4K in the 5D MkIV.

Ah, but there's the rub - I'm forced to go that route because Canon doesn't provide anything in that space. A M4/3 sensor will never stack up against a full frame for light gathering, neither will the bokeh, it's just physics.

Why should they give a damn? Because I and people like me probably represent a solid 8-10% of their sales. Yes a company will focus more attention on features that the majority want, but to eschew and potentially alienate a very significant portion of your sales base isn't good business.

Some numbers for thought. From 2006 to 2008, Canon and Nikon almost saw almost identical DSLR sales number increases. For instance, in 2007, Canon sold 3.18M units worldwide. Nikon sold, 2.98M. In 2008, Canon sold 3.73M, Nikon sold 3.62M. In later 2008 into 2009, Canon introduced video in the 5D Mark II, the T1i and the 7D. EVERY DSLR manufacturer decreased in sales in 2009 except for Canon who increased 16.8% to 4.36M (Panasonic increased from .15 to .27M but statistically unimportant). For instance, Nikon decreased from 3.62 to 3.35M, even newcomer Sony who had seen strong gains decreased from 1.31 to 1.06M.

What did Canon do, they added amazing video features, and anyone would have a very hard time convincing me that just because Canon added groundbreaking video features to the 5D Mark II (and to a much lesser extant, the Mark III) that it hurt the ability of those cameras to take amazing photos or truly impeded those who don't use the video functionality at all.

This isn't a zero sum game. Canon can add great video functionality to their cameras without nerfing their ability to take amazing photos. They've proved that. To assume that one has to come at the sacrifice at the other is silly.

 

[clarksbrother]

...I don't think anyone ever bought the C500, did they? ...

We use one at work - even for the large global media company that I work for, they were just too expensive and impractical. If it was a marquee project we'd break it out and shoot stuff on it using a Steadicam rig. We have some 300s floating around...not sure we ever bothered with the 300 II honestly...

That said, we have dozens of 5D Mark II and Mark III in the company. From a practical standpoint, the form factor and price make it a much more attractive option for everyday usage.

 

[privatebydesign]

So going back to the point, why should Canon give a damn about what you want? You already have your small 4K camera which they have shown no desire to make as yet, they are happy and you are happy, just don't expect them to put good 4K in the 5D MkIV.

Ah, but there's the rub - I'm forced to go that route because Canon doesn't provide anything in that space. A M4/3 sensor will never stack up against a full frame for light gathering, neither will the bokeh, it's just physics.

Why should they give a damn? Because I and people like me probably represent a solid 8-10% of their sales. Yes a company will focus more attention on features that the majority want, but to eschew and potentially alienate a very significant portion of your sales base isn't good business.

Some numbers for thought. From 2006 to 2008, Canon and Nikon almost saw almost identical DSLR sales number increases. For instance, in 2007, Canon sold 3.18M units worldwide. Nikon sold, 2.98M. In 2008, Canon sold 3.73M, Nikon sold 3.62M. In later 2008 into 2009, Canon introduced video in the 5D Mark II, the T1i and the 7D. EVERY DSLR manufacturer decreased in sales in 2009 except for Canon who increased 16.8% to 4.36M (Panasonic increased from .15 to .27M but statistically unimportant). For instance, Nikon decreased from 3.62 to 3.35M, even newcomer Sony who had seen strong gains decreased from 1.31 to 1.06M.

What did Canon do, they added amazing video features, and anyone would have a very hard time convincing me that just because Canon added groundbreaking video features to the 5D Mark II (and to a much lesser extant, the Mark III) that it hurt the ability of those cameras to take amazing photos or truly impeded those who don't use the video functionality at all.

This isn't a zero sum game. Canon can add great video functionality to their cameras without nerfing their ability to take amazing photos. They've proved that. To assume that one has to come at the sacrifice at the other is silly.

As far as I can see Canon don't yet consider 4K a consumer feature, and they are not alone, neither do Apple in the latest Apple TV (that has a three year life cycle). Until they do the cameras they consider 'consumer cameras' won't get 4K, the 1DX MkII will by default because they won't make a 1DC MkII, the 5D MkV will because it will be a standard feature by then.

Again, I believe you are missing product maturity out of your numbers equations, people are not buying more DSLR's because those that want them are happy with the capabilities of the ones they have, yes adding video by mistake to the 5D MkII created sales Canon didn't anticipate, but now people have cameras that do very high quality 1080 most are happy with that, the difference between good 1080 and mediocre 4K is that the 1080 is 'better' especially when viewed on the majority of todays tv and video screens and it is considerably easier to edit, grade, process, transcode and store, most consumers don't want the hassle of slow computers and mediocre 4K, yet. The people that do want and need 4K are generally content creators who are looking for an extended shelf life for their footage, they are not what Canon would consider the consumer stills camera market core.

Now how many people will upgrade from the 5D MkIII to the 5D MkIV for the sole reason of 4K? I suspect on these forums twenty or thirty people, and we are camera geeks, so how does throwing that 4K premium in on this round of consumer cameras help Canon? If you look at it like that, which is just as valid as any other scenario, it makes no sense for Canon to give 4K away in the MkIV.

 

[clarksbrother]

Again, I believe you are missing product maturity out of your numbers equations, people are not buying more DSLR's because those that want them are happy with the capabilities of the ones they have, yes adding video by mistake to the 5D MkII created sales Canon didn't anticipate, but now people have cameras that do very high quality 1080 most are happy with that, the difference between good 1080 and mediocre 4K is that the 1080 is 'better' especially when viewed on the majority of todays tv and video screens and it is considerably easier to edit, grade, process, transcode and store, most consumers don't want the hassle of slow computers and mediocre 4K, yet. The people that do want and need 4K are generally content creators who are looking for an extended shelf life for their footage, they are not what Canon would consider the consumer stills camera market core.

Substitute out 1080P for 4K and SD for 1080p and you have the same argument made by photo purists in 2008 in regards to the 5D Mark II. Back in 2008, 1080P was generally a pain to edit and quite a few people were still fine with SD, although HD was starting to become ubiquitous.

Keep in mind, the same people/companies who bought the 5D Mark II in 2008 didn't buy into a system because it is "good enough". They buy on for immediate needed/wanted features and to futureproof. A lot of the same audience that bought on for 1080p back then would buy on for 4K today. You're not talking about grandma and grandpa who bought a $300 camera and couldn't care less about capabilities and future proofing.

Also - you make the assumption that 4K necessarily would have to be mediocre if implemented. I don't think even Evel Knievel could make that leap. I have yet to see an implementation of 4K on a full frame sensor on any brand that wasn't at least "good".

I do agree in regards to the shelf life on the footage though. We are getting usage out of 4K even today. Just in terms of my own usage, it's handy to have today but based on current trends, in about 18-24 months, its going to be an absolute necessity.

Now how many people will upgrade from the 5D MkIII to the 5D MkIV for the sole reason of 4K? I suspect on these forums twenty or thirty people, and we are camera geeks, so how does throwing that 4K premium in on this round of consumer cameras help Canon? If you look at it like that, which is just as valid as any other scenario, it makes no sense for Canon to give 4K away in the MkIV.

It makes sense to include because as someone pointed out several pages back in the thread, the real profits aren't from the camera bodies, it's from the lenses. You lose someone buying the bodies, you lose someone buying into the lens system.

Take a look through the whole thread, you've not seen a single person say, "If it doesn't have X number of dynamic range I'll swap to Nikon/Sony/etc" or, "If they don't increase AF accuracy I'll be forced to move to a different system." The thing is, Canon can make moderate non-dramatic improvements to the photography side of the equation and not lose an appreciable amount of customers buying into their system.

HOWEVER, if they fail to keep up on the video side of things, you've seen a vocal but sizable minority of people say they would swap. If they included those video features, it would once again not likely cause an exodus of photo-centric customers but would retain and possibly gain video-centric customers. Just seems to make good business sense.

 

[privatebydesign]

We'll see.

 

[unfocused]

All I can say is that there will be a lot of embarrassed people on both sides if this rumor is wrong and the 5D IV has 4K video.

 

[privatebydesign]

All I can say is that there will be a lot of embarrassed people on both sides if this rumor is wrong and the 5D IV has 4K video.

I won't be embarrassed, I'll just be wrong. I have been wrong once or twice before, just ask my wife ;D

I really don't care one way or the other, I have never owned a video shooting DSLR, though my next body will either be the 1DX MkII (4k or not), or the 5DSR (without 4k), I was really just trying to be a counter point, devils advocate, against all those that are positive it will and say Canon is doomed if it doesn't.

 

[andylok]

5D4...

Let's look at the history of 5D, which shaped the dslr world that we see today;

5D1 - the FIRST full frame 35mm DSLR in the market; a breakthrough in the industry, an icon.
5D2 - the FIRST full frame 35mm DSLR that does FULL-HD 1080p video capture, revolutionized the film industry.
5D3 - the....?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!.... kind of gets lost here.. not the first full frame to shoot 4k (SONY did that), not the first full frame that has gazillion megapixel (Nikon D800 done that), not the first full frame that does extremely low light (SONY again)...

5D4 - what can we expect for it to be another industry FIRST that will revolutionize ?

 

[Ozarker]

All I can say is that there will be a lot of embarrassed people on both sides if this rumor is wrong and the 5D IV has 4K video.

I won't be embarrassed, I'll just be wrong. I have been wrong once or twice before, just ask my wife ;D

I really don't care one way or the other, I have never owned a video shooting DSLR, though my next body will either be the 1DX MkII (4k or not), or the 5DSR (without 4k), I was really just trying to be a counter point, devils advocate, against all those that are positive it will and say Canon is doomed if it doesn't.

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

 

[Loswr]

Let's look at the history of 5D, which shaped the dslr world that we see today;

5D1 - the FIRST full frame 35mm DSLR in the market; a breakthrough in the industry, an icon.

I think you need to study history a little better.

 

[AvTvM]

Let's look at the history of 5D, which shaped the dslr world that we see today;

5D1 - the FIRST full frame 35mm DSLR in the market; a breakthrough in the industry, an icon.

I think you need to study history a little better.

True. 5D1 was the first AFFORDABLE (for many enthusiasts) FF DSLR.

I very much agree with the gist of andylok's FIRST posting. Canon really did loose its magic between 5D2 and 5D3. It just got the AF system the 5D2 should already have had. From industry and tech leader, Canon fell behind.

5D IV with 4k but no significant improvement on the stills side (=sensor performance, speed, Af performance, firmware features eg intervalometer, auto iso, exposure metering on Active AF point, etc) will also not be enough.

If and as long as Canon stubbornly refuses its customers an all-out FF mirrorless system (which would much more naturally allow for inclusion of 4k video in a very affordable and small-footprint camera) then Canon should at least deliver an all-out, but affordable to most enthusiasts (=5D class) mirrorslapper ... But Canon obviously is still pretty much clueless. Weirdo products like the XC10 instead of a kick-ass 5DIV plus a kick-ass 5Dc video-centric model prove this. Apparently Canon still believe they can sell big $$$ 1Dc/1Dx-2 bombers to the masses. They won't.

A lacklustre 5D IV will be bad for Canon and good for the final changeover from mirrorslappers to mirrorless camera systems. Sony being the first and most immediate winner, their willingness to really innovate and deliver next gen "truly-digital" imaging gear will pay off. Deservedly so.

 

[pedro]

5D4...

Let's look at the history of 5D, which shaped the dslr world that we see today;

5D1 - the FIRST full frame 35mm DSLR in the market; a breakthrough in the industry, an icon.
5D2 - the FIRST full frame 35mm DSLR that does FULL-HD 1080p video capture, revolutionized the film industry.
5D3 - the....?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!.... kind of gets lost here.. not the first full frame to shoot 4k (SONY did that), not the first full frame that has gazillion megapixel (Nikon D800 done that), not the first full frame that does extremely low light (SONY again)...

5D4 - what can we expect for it to be another industry FIRST that will revolutionize ?

Maybe a FIRST BIG LETDOWN, due to the fact that there ain't nothing that will revolutionize? ;D

 

[dufflover]

Why are people treating 4K as if it's mutually exclusive with it being a good still cameras or having improved DR? The cost of 4K is probably minuscule these days, probably just a standard software module for EOS cameras they build into the Digic firmware to make it work.
If there's no 4K, it ain't because of comprises or costs. It's crippli... I mean product protection.

 

[koenkooi]

Why are people treating 4K as if it's mutually exclusive with it being a good still cameras or having improved DR? The cost of 4K is probably minuscule these days, probably just a standard software module for EOS cameras they build into the Digic firmware to make it work.
If there's no 4K, it ain't because of comprises or costs. It's crippli... I mean product protection.

4k will most likely mean it's using HEVC as codec, which is *very* computationally expensive. So it needs to be implemented in hardware, unless they go the 1DC route where canon uses mjpeg instead of a h26x type codec.

 

[Donkey_Kong]

100% of my income comes from photography. I was hanging out when the 5DIII was released, just as I anticipate the 5DIV. In the entire time I've been operating as a professional, I've NEVER put my camera into video mode. If you want to shoot video, NEWSFLASH: buy a video camera. In conclusion, I could not care less if Canon do or don't include 4K video in the 5DIV, so long as it performs exceptionally as an SLR.

 

[tron]

I do not care about video but I understand that others may care (But let's not forget that it is a camera that takes stills and the video is an addon).

I believe it all depends on the price and the still features:

Price: Would it be the same, a little cheaper, or much cheaper without video?

Still features: Would they be hit by video, improved, or would they be the same?