Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Talk [CR2]

[scyrene]

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.

I don't disagree with what you're saying in general (I don't know enough about it), but this is not necessarily true. There are lenses that other companies simply don't make, or for which the Canon option is the best (or the best within a certain budget). I don't think any of the Sony converts on these forums has said they got rid of their/would never again buy Canon lenses.

 

[scyrene]

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 ?

"[N]ot the first full frame that has gazillion megapixel" isn't a first really - newer cameras have more MP than older ones. 30+ is a gazillion but 20+ isn't? And 50+? It's a continuum, even if some leaps are larger than others. Ditto 'extremely low light'. So ISO 409600 is *extremely* but 204800 or 102400 aren't? One or two stops.

And I'd imagine there are fewer true firsts to be had as time goes on...

 

[scyrene]

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.

*Sigh* I know you're not really listening to facts, but I'll repeat what someone else said (further up this thread or in another? There's a lot of repetition) by listing some of the improvements - you know, actual facts, rather than your opinion on the camera.

There's actually a section on the Wikipedia article that describes the improvements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III#Compared_to_EOS_5D_Mark_II

I will quote selectively to highlight:

"100–25600 ISO (expandable to H1 (51200), H2 (102400)), compared to 100–6400 ISO (expandable to H1 (12800), H2 (25600))"
So an extra stop of ISO at the low end and two stops at the high end.

"61 Point AF + 41 Crosstype AF compared to 9 Point AF + 6 Assist Points. The Mark III's autofocus system is inherited from the recently announced EOS-1D X, and marks the first time since the EOS-3 film SLR that Canon has put its top-of-the-line autofocus system in a non-1-series body."
You've acknowledged this but it bears repeating, this was a massive improvement.

6 frames per second continuous shooting compared to 3.9 frame/s
That's a more than 50% increase!

"Silent, low vibration TTL shooting modes (single shot or 3 frames/s), compared to live-view-only silent shooting modes."
Makes a big difference to some.

"Headphone-out to monitor audio, the previous one having none."
Quite useful for video?

"Dual card slots—one CompactFlash (CF) with full UDMA support, and one SD (including SDHC and SDXC cards, but does not exploit the UHS-I mode). The Mk II has only one CF slot."
Judging by the shrillness of some folk on here, dual card slots matter a lot to some people.

And marginal improvements in resolution, rear screen, viewfinder coverage. You can belittle it all you want, but ignoring or rejecting these things is wilful ignorance. The 5D3 is a better camera than the mark 2. Naturally as a model matures and gets newer iterations, it's going to be less fundamentally different to its predecessors (clearly the mark 1 of anything is a big change as there's nothing previous to compare it to!).

 

[clarksbrother]

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.

Then perhaps, if you have never used video on a DSLR, and you have no expertise or experience using video on a DSLR, then you have no knowledge or any information on which to make an informed opinion on why there are those of us who do want video improvements on the 5D IV and to why it's a much more suitable platform than a "video camera".

I wouldn't presume to lecture someone who has significant photography experience on what's a suitable platform for their uses, especially if I didn't have any knowledge or expertise on the subject (for the record, I do, professionally).

 

[clarksbrother]

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.

I don't disagree with what you're saying in general (I don't know enough about it), but this is not necessarily true. There are lenses that other companies simply don't make, or for which the Canon option is the best (or the best within a certain budget). I don't think any of the Sony converts on these forums has said they got rid of their/would never again buy Canon lenses.

Agree, but I think it's far more likely that the chances of them buying new lenses are greatly, greatly diminished. I would guess that they would be likely to get a lens adapter to use their existing collection but over time they would transition over to the new lens ecosystem. Adapters are usually a compromise that can get old after a while. That said, looking at the Sony lens lineup (http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/lenses/lineup/) there are a lot fewer gaps than one would imagine. Those gaps are often filled in pretty well by Sigma as well.

 

[scyrene]

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.

I don't disagree with what you're saying in general (I don't know enough about it), but this is not necessarily true. There are lenses that other companies simply don't make, or for which the Canon option is the best (or the best within a certain budget). I don't think any of the Sony converts on these forums has said they got rid of their/would never again buy Canon lenses.

Agree, but I think it's far more likely that the chances of them buying new lenses are greatly, greatly diminished. I would guess that they would be likely to get a lens adapter to use their existing collection but over time they would transition over to the new lens ecosystem. Adapters are usually a compromise that can get old after a while. That said, looking at the Sony lens lineup (http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/lenses/lineup/) there are a lot fewer gaps than one would imagine. Those gaps are often filled in pretty well by Sigma as well.

I think you're right that the overall demand will diminish from those people; I'd add though, that Canon bodies take third party lenses, so that part might even out, and the more specialist lenses that people would still look to Canon for (tilt shift, extreme macro, and a lot of the super telephoto options) must surely have higher margins that the more everyday ones. Incidentally has anyone ever seen (or even seen for sale) a Sony 500mm f/4? I had no idea such a thing existed! (Oh, delving a little, it says 'built to order', so that explains it).

 

[unfocused]

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...
...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.

*Sigh* I know you're not really listening to facts...
...You can belittle it all you want, but ignoring or rejecting these things is willful ignorance. The 5D3 is a better camera than the mark 2. Naturally as a model matures and gets newer iterations, it's going to be less fundamentally different to its predecessors (clearly the mark 1 of anything is a big change as there's nothing previous to compare it to!).

*double sigh* I get so tired of people who are so focused on their own narrow wants that they refuse to accept that if a company is not making their dream product, that doesn't mean they are somehow doomed to failure.

Too many people on this forum way overestimate the importance of small differences in specifications. Having a longer list of new features does not automatically translate into either success or a better product.

I would say that most people, by the time they have reached the level where they are buying a 5D, know pretty much what they are getting and have chosen it because of what it offers -- one of the best all-around professional and advanced amateur cameras on the market. Most buyers are not chasing specifications. They need a reliable, all-around camera that can do everything well. The original 5D was that camera at the time, but it was not perfect. The 5DII was an improvement but was not perfect. The 5DIII was an improvement over the 5DII, but it isn't perfect either. The 5DIV will improve on the 5DIII, but it won't be perfect.

I'm not a car person, but I'll use a car analogy. If I have been buying Mustangs since the 1960s, I don't want Ford to replace it with something totally new. I want the next Mustang to continue to offer the same things that have prompted me to buy earlier versions. I don't want some completely new 5DIV, I want an improved version of the 5DIII.

 

[Sporgon]

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...
...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.

*Sigh* I know you're not really listening to facts...
...You can belittle it all you want, but ignoring or rejecting these things is willful ignorance. The 5D3 is a better camera than the mark 2. Naturally as a model matures and gets newer iterations, it's going to be less fundamentally different to its predecessors (clearly the mark 1 of anything is a big change as there's nothing previous to compare it to!).

*double sigh* I get so tired of people who are so focused on their own narrow wants that they refuse to accept that if a company is not making their dream product, that doesn't mean they are somehow doomed to failure.

Too many people on this forum way overestimate the importance of small differences in specifications. Having a longer list of new features does not automatically translate into either success or a better product.

I would say that most people, by the time they have reached the level where they are buying a 5D, know pretty much what they are getting and have chosen it because of what it offers -- one of the best all-around professional and advanced amateur cameras on the market. Most buyers are not chasing specifications. They need a reliable, all-around camera that can do everything well. The original 5D was that camera at the time, but it was not perfect. The 5DII was an improvement but was not perfect. The 5DIII was an improvement over the 5DII, but it isn't perfect either. The 5DIV will improve on the 5DIII, but it won't be perfect.

I'm not a car person, but I'll use a car analogy. If I have been buying Mustangs since the 1960s, I don't want Ford to replace it with something totally new. I want the next Mustang to continue to offer the same things that have prompted me to buy earlier versions. I don't want some completely new 5DIV, I want an improved version of the 5DIII.

Porche 911 owners would all be nodding in agreement

I thought AvTvM was a rather fine fellow when he ceased calling slrs ''mirror slappers'' and toned it down to ''mirror flippers'' in deference to those of us that find the term ''mirror slapper'' so irrationally irritating, but I see he has reverted back to type. Shame.

 

[Sinjunb]

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 ?

This is why I think it's extremely likely the 5D4 will have 4k. It would be a backwards, archaic move for Canon to not put it in when probably even Nikon will have an affordable 4k DSLR next year. They'd be the only ones in the game with such underspecced video, and as many people here are saying "the market isn't there", I don't think that's true at all. The market was there for the 5D2 and has only grown since then, and most of those people will not pay a $5k premium for the Canon name. $1k or even $2k, sure, but that's it. I don't know where this idea is coming from that young filmmakers/videographers can all now afford 1DC's or C300's.

The only way I can see the 5D4 not having 4k is if the 1DXmk2 comes out at a price point of around $4500-$5000, which I'm pretty sure it won't.

 

[clarksbrother]

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.

I don't disagree with what you're saying in general (I don't know enough about it), but this is not necessarily true. There are lenses that other companies simply don't make, or for which the Canon option is the best (or the best within a certain budget). I don't think any of the Sony converts on these forums has said they got rid of their/would never again buy Canon lenses.

Agree, but I think it's far more likely that the chances of them buying new lenses are greatly, greatly diminished. I would guess that they would be likely to get a lens adapter to use their existing collection but over time they would transition over to the new lens ecosystem. Adapters are usually a compromise that can get old after a while. That said, looking at the Sony lens lineup (http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/lenses/lineup/) there are a lot fewer gaps than one would imagine. Those gaps are often filled in pretty well by Sigma as well.

I think you're right that the overall demand will diminish from those people; I'd add though, that Canon bodies take third party lenses, so that part might even out, and the more specialist lenses that people would still look to Canon for (tilt shift, extreme macro, and a lot of the super telephoto options) must surely have higher margins that the more everyday ones. Incidentally has anyone ever seen (or even seen for sale) a Sony 500mm f/4? I had no idea such a thing existed! (Oh, delving a little, it says 'built to order', so that explains it).

FWIW for someone who would navigate to that ecosystem for video reasons, the need/want for tilt shift/extreme macro and super telephoto are an almost non-issue/concern. I've used a 400mm for video of wildlife in Africa and on an NFL sideline...and...well I think that's it. That said, those use cases are much fewer and farther between in the video world than in the photography world. Your bread and butter are between 20mm and 135mm mostly.

Delving off topic and to play devils advocate, I wonder if the margins on the specialty lenses are really that much higher. The development costs are probably the same, but the total production is much lower which means that development/tooling cost gets spread out amongst a smaller amount of lenses decreasing margins. *shrugs*

 

[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.

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.

*Sigh* I know you're not really listening to facts, but I'll repeat what someone else said (further up this thread or in another? There's a lot of repetition) by listing some of the improvements - you know, actual facts, rather than your opinion on the camera.

La la la la la. The only thing that matters is the sensor. La la la la la I can't hear you. The only other thing that matters is that mirrorless has already killed the dSLR. La la la la la. My brain is yelling too loud in my ears, and the horrible noise of a flipping mirror is even louder. La la la la la.

 

[bdunbar79]

I think the best is inferring that the 5D2 should have had, in 2008, the AF system of the 1Dx, which wasn't available until 2012. So, Canon was 4 years late in their revolutionary AF system...

Even though Nikon or Sony still can't match it...

But enough fun, the 5D2 to the 5D3 was so very minor in improvements.

 

[Loswr]

I think the best is inferring that the 5D2 should have had, in 2008, the AF system of the 1Dx, which wasn't available until 2012. So, Canon was 4 years late in their revolutionary AF system...

Even though Nikon or Sony still can't match it...

But enough fun, the 5D2 to the 5D3 was so very minor in improvements.

Oh, come on. It should have had no mirror, too. Anyway, Sony cameras now have way more AF points. Who cares about the quality of them, there are more and that's all that matters. Unless we're talking about megapixels, in which case quality matters more than quantity, at least now that Sony has fewer. And no mirror.

Why can't you get with the program?

 

[Proscribo]

Oh, come on. It should have had no mirror, too. Anyway, Sony cameras now have way more AF points.

I'm pretty sure Canon's DPAF has a lot more AF "points" than any Sony camera!

 

[scyrene]

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.

I don't disagree with what you're saying in general (I don't know enough about it), but this is not necessarily true. There are lenses that other companies simply don't make, or for which the Canon option is the best (or the best within a certain budget). I don't think any of the Sony converts on these forums has said they got rid of their/would never again buy Canon lenses.

Agree, but I think it's far more likely that the chances of them buying new lenses are greatly, greatly diminished. I would guess that they would be likely to get a lens adapter to use their existing collection but over time they would transition over to the new lens ecosystem. Adapters are usually a compromise that can get old after a while. That said, looking at the Sony lens lineup (http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/lenses/lineup/) there are a lot fewer gaps than one would imagine. Those gaps are often filled in pretty well by Sigma as well.

I think you're right that the overall demand will diminish from those people; I'd add though, that Canon bodies take third party lenses, so that part might even out, and the more specialist lenses that people would still look to Canon for (tilt shift, extreme macro, and a lot of the super telephoto options) must surely have higher margins that the more everyday ones. Incidentally has anyone ever seen (or even seen for sale) a Sony 500mm f/4? I had no idea such a thing existed! (Oh, delving a little, it says 'built to order', so that explains it).

FWIW for someone who would navigate to that ecosystem for video reasons, the need/want for tilt shift/extreme macro and super telephoto are an almost non-issue/concern. I've used a 400mm for video of wildlife in Africa and on an NFL sideline...and...well I think that's it. That said, those use cases are much fewer and farther between in the video world than in the photography world. Your bread and butter are between 20mm and 135mm mostly.

Delving off topic and to play devils advocate, I wonder if the margins on the specialty lenses are really that much higher. The development costs are probably the same, but the total production is much lower which means that development/tooling cost gets spread out amongst a smaller amount of lenses decreasing margins. *shrugs*

I suppose you're right.

 

[tscholent]

There’s not a lot of information coming in about the replacement to the EOS 5D Mark III, which we expect to be announced no earlier than the spring of 2016. All signs point to it coming after the successor to the EOS-1D X.

The latest thing we’ve been told is that the camera would have a higher resolution than the EOS-1D X Mark II, which at last count would be in the area of 24mp. While the camera would remain a good videography DSLR, again we’re told that 4K is not part of the plans for the EOS 5D Mark IV

This makes a lot of sense to me, the 5D Mark III has a higher res than the 1D X so no surprise that will continue.

The no 4K may well ruffle some feathers though.

Many other items such as built in ND filters,Pro connections,global shutter,higher frame rates and most important
current codecs are motivating movie makers away from DSLR’s ( hell , a Sony FS5 or a BM URSA Mini at $6000 and $3000respectively come with most of it ).That also tells us that even though a Canon C100MII with HD 30fps (60fps with ext.rec.)was trying to bridge a gap for frustrated Canon DSLR owners but gradually lagged behind competitors.Canon still graphers would be better served with 2 processors,2 card slots or better yet , a A7RII competitor.

 

[PureClassA]

Mirror Slapper = Hate Speech : We must protest on a college campus.

 

[AvTvM]

And I'd imagine there are fewer true firsts to be had as time goes on...

Funny, I can see so many potential FIRSTS for Canon, it's mindboggling ... Just a few:
* first FF mirrorless FF camera without any mechanical moving parts ... mirror flapping, no shutter curtains shuttering, no iris blades convulsing ...
* first lightfield solid state camera with 100 MP spatial resolution
* or much more humbly, first Canon DSLR with real 13 stops DR ...

 

[AvTvM]

Mirror Slapper = Hate Speech : We must protest on a college campus.

Hehe i got "mirrorslapper" trademarked .. but feel free to call 'em "mirrorflipper", "mirrorsnapper" or "mirror-banger" if that sounds more benign, positive and politically correct to you. ;-)

 

[tron]

5D4 does not need anything ... "FIRST" just the obvious improvements:

1. 2/3 - 1 stop improvement in High ISO

2. 2 to 3 stops DR improvement in ISO 100 (7DII and even more 5DS(R) are already better than 5D3 so they are moving towards this direction)

3. 7.5 - 8 fps

4. A few more AF points (all cross type) maybe a little more spread out.

5. The already existing features (in other Canon cameras):

a. Ec in Auto ISO Manual Mode
b. Any speed selectable as minimum in Auto ISO Av Mode