Canon EOS 5D Mark IV to be 30mp? [CR1]

[jebrady03]

I would argue the 5D# camp, if offered the choice of:

+2 fps / +2 stops high ISO / same 22 MP

Same fps, same high ISO as 5D3 / 30 MP

I would argue that due to direct costs incurred by Canon, the former would be significantly more expensive than the latter and therefore not directly comparable.

Why so? Were it 30 or 22 MP, both would represent a standalone 5D4 sensor that other bodies wouldn't use.

Or would a 30 MP sensor leverage sensor fab equipment that already exists at Canon (that I am not aware of)?

So why would one cost more than the other? Do explain, I'm honestly curious -- I'm fairly ignorant of cost & fab considerations.

- A

I don't have a good grasp on fab considerations, but a 2 stop high ISO improvement wouldn't be achieved by an 8mp lower pixel count. MUCH more would have to be done to the sensor to achieve a 2 stop improvement. Additionally, the cost to increase the durability of the shutter/mirror box/whatever would add to the cost of the camera as well. But mostly, I assume the marked increase in production costs would be related to the sensor and the 2 stop improvement.

But to your point... YEAH! I'd take 22 mp and a 2 stop improvement over the DR of the 1DX Mark II (which is where I suspect the 5D Mark IV will perform regardless of pixel count, perhaps slightly better). That would give it industry leading DR, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[ahsanford]

I don't have a good grasp on fab considerations, but a 2 stop high ISO improvement wouldn't be achieved by an 8mp lower pixel count. MUCH more would have to be done to the sensor to achieve a 2 stop improvement. Additionally, the cost to increase the durability of the shutter/mirror box/whatever would add to the cost of the camera as well. But mostly, I assume the marked increase in production costs would be related to the sensor and the 2 stop improvement.

But to your point... YEAH! I'd take 22 mp and a 2 stop improvement over the DR of the 1DX Mark II (which is where I suspect the 5D Mark IV will perform regardless of pixel count, perhaps slightly better). That would give it industry leading DR, if I'm not mistaken.

Forgive me for not being clear -- I meant a two stop improvement over the 5D3, not the 1DX2.

I'm asking everyone who currently owns a 5D3 what they want more: 8 more MP or 'other things than resolution' (more fps, better high ISO, etc.). My money is on the latter.

- A

 

[kaihp]

Forgive me for not being clear -- I meant a two stop improvement over the 5D3, not the 1DX2.

I'm asking everyone who currently owns a 5D3 what they want more: 8 more MP or 'other things than resolution' (more fps, better high ISO, etc.). My money is on the latter.

I'm with you

With 30MP, I would expect it to stay at 6fps.

 

[AdamBotond]

Forgive me for not being clear -- I meant a two stop improvement over the 5D3, not the 1DX2.

I'm asking everyone who currently owns a 5D3 what they want more: 8 more MP or 'other things than resolution' (more fps, better high ISO, etc.). My money is on the latter.

I'm with you

With 30MP, I would expect it to stay at 6fps.

+1 and many more. Moderate MP increase is appreciated, but only as long as it is not at cost of fps, DR and high-iso capabilities. We are talking about 6 MP differential here (between the lowest and highest expected MP count for 5DIV). Maybe its just me, but I don't really see a scenario where you stuck with 24 MP, but 30 MP would save the day. Those who are after high MP and don't care much about fps, DR, high-ISO already have a choice in 5Ds(R).

 

[gsealy]

I am thinking that somebody just rounded 28.x MP up to 30 MP.

 

[ahsanford]

+1 and many more. Moderate MP increase is appreciated, but only as long as it is not at cost of fps, DR and high-iso capabilities. We are talking about 6 MP differential here (between the lowest and highest expected MP count for 5DIV). Maybe its just me, but I don't really see a scenario where you stuck with 24 MP, but 30 MP would save the day. Those who are after high MP and don't care much about fps, DR, high-ISO already have a choice in 5Ds(R).

Agree, of course. We've beaten this to death, but for these two values:

24 MP = 6,000 x 4,000
30 MP = 6,708 x 4,472

That computes to a whopping 1.12x crop at equivalent detail for the 30 MP rig. Why even bother? Because 30 > 24 and therefore we can better rationalize the investment with ourselves?

I fully well appreciate the value of added detail or the ability to crop for those that need it, but incremental bumps are far far far less important than most people think.

I can't tell if folks are either ignorant of how little impact 24 vs 30 MP has, or if they are in dreamland and want a D810-like 'do everything brilliantly well' (best res, best high ISO, best low ISO DR) sort of sensor.

- A

 

[unfocused]

If this is true (and I think that is a big if), then I will be even more pleased that I pulled the trigger on the 1DX II.

It might be possible that at 30 mp, you can get the same high ISO performance and the same frame rate as the current 5DIII, but I doubt you will see any improvement in either one. You may get better dynamic range at base ISO, but not as good as the IDX II.

Everything has a price and you can't expect a 30mp sensor from the same generation will match the high ISO performance and dynamic range of a 21.5mp sensor.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

With all this talk about the 5D4's resolution, I have to say that I'm more interested in it's fps than mp.

 

[RGF]

I would like to see 30MP (perhaps even 32).

I doubt that Canon will give us 9 FPS (at 30-32 MP) but 8 maybe likely.

At 30+MP, I will sell both my 5DM3 and 5DsR and go with the new 5DM4

I can only hope.

 

[deletemyaccount]

I'm not trolling by any means but a question to ask if the 5DIV's sensor is able to compete with Nikon's aged D800 sensor. I realize there is more to a camera than a sensor but undeniably we need to see catch up after sufficient time.

 

[tron]

i had speculated in the past that "30" sounds better when compared to "36" instead of "28" compared to "36"

it just "sounds" like it's much closer.

Why must it compete/compare with 36MP cameras? Canon already has a 50MP to trump 36MP and 42MP. Instead Canon can market a 28-30MP camera as more a performance oriented camera. It may have a small increase in fps--I think 8fps would be nice; I doubt that Canon would go higher than 9fps for product separation reasons. If it can glean a modicum of improved low-light performance and, yes, better DR than the 80D, I'd line up to get one (I'd line up even if it stayed at 22-24MP if it had these other improvements).

+1000 A sane person stating the obvious...

 

[Ozarker]

i had speculated in the past that "30" sounds better when compared to "36" instead of "28" compared to "36"

it just "sounds" like it's much closer.

Why must it compete/compare with 36MP cameras? Canon already has a 50MP to trump 36MP and 42MP. Instead Canon can market a 28-30MP camera as more a performance oriented camera. It may have a small increase in fps--I think 8fps would be nice; I doubt that Canon would go higher than 9fps for product separation reasons. If it can glean a modicum of improved low-light performance and, yes, better DR than the 80D, I'd line up to get one (I'd line up even if it stayed at 22-24MP if it had these other improvements).

He just said it "sounds" better. :

 

[Ozarker]

I don't have a good grasp on fab considerations, but a 2 stop high ISO improvement wouldn't be achieved by an 8mp lower pixel count. MUCH more would have to be done to the sensor to achieve a 2 stop improvement. Additionally, the cost to increase the durability of the shutter/mirror box/whatever would add to the cost of the camera as well. But mostly, I assume the marked increase in production costs would be related to the sensor and the 2 stop improvement.

But to your point... YEAH! I'd take 22 mp and a 2 stop improvement over the DR of the 1DX Mark II (which is where I suspect the 5D Mark IV will perform regardless of pixel count, perhaps slightly better). That would give it industry leading DR, if I'm not mistaken.

Forgive me for not being clear -- I meant a two stop improvement over the 5D3, not the 1DX2.

I'm asking everyone who currently owns a 5D3 what they want more: 8 more MP or 'other things than resolution' (more fps, better high ISO, etc.). My money is on the latter.

- A

More FPS, better high ISO, touch screen, DPAF, Auto AMFA. I don't care about the 8MP, not at all.

 

[Dylan777]

On the other side of the fence, rumors are coming together for a 42MP successor to Sony's A99 (which was not a mirrorless camera.) If Sony can deliver a similar frame rate to the 5DIV but the 5DIV only has 28MP and the A99II has 42MP, the Canon offering is going to look a bit lack luster (rumor also talks of close to 500 AF points.)

A thirty-something megapixel 5DIV sounds closer to a thirty-something D810 in terms of megapixels than would a twenty-something megapixel 5DIV. (This is the marketing perspective, even if there is SFA difference between 28 and 30 in real life.) How important is marketing? It is reason something costs ninety nine dollars ninety nine rather than one hundred dollars because ninety nine is less than one hundred, even if the reality is a difference of only one cent.

I love Sony ff mirrorless and don't mind spending decent money at a7 series and native lenses. Wish I have more options in ff mirrorless.

I will have hard time spending my money on Sony Dslr, especially when we look at native lens selection and premium price tag.

 

[noms78]

My money is on a 32MP sensor with 24MP Mraw, improved DR (at least 1 stop), same or better ISO performance compared to mk3, 7 fps, improved AF, 4k 24-30fps video (with crop), improved menu and playback functionality,

Nice to have: automated AFMA?, integrated electronic viewfinder with live histogram? ability to customise buttons to functions (e.g. it would be great to toggle both MLU and 2-4 sec timer with one button press)

The 5D4 needs to be competitive with the D810. The first generation of 5DS/R only beats Nikon/Sony in resolution (it sucks for ISO performance and makes no progress in DR) so I see the 5DS/R as a temporary "bridge camera" not an true answer to the competition. The successor to the 5DS/R (possible BSI sensor with improved DR) will be the real answer but do we really need 50+MP? To appreciate the resolution one needs to have a 30"+ 4k monitor or print insanely large.

 

[IglooEater]

After some quick googling, I couldn't find any solid charts or anything to back this. However just based on my own observation, I'm figuring 30MP will be less resource-intensive to process than 22.3MP was back in 2012, relative to computer performance of the day.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

After some quick googling, I couldn't find any solid charts or anything to back this. However just based on my own observation, I'm figuring 30MP will be less resource-intensive to process than 22.3MP was back in 2012, relative to computer performance of the day.

Assuming PC users have upgraded, although even if they haven't if their computer handles 130MB tiffs, it'll handle 180MB tiff's pretty well. If they have upgraded and don't use Adobe's glacially slow (at previews) products it'll feel much faster. IS there any slower product for previewing than Bridge or LR?

 

[tpatana]

My money is on a 32MP sensor with 24MP Mraw, improved DR (at least 1 stop), same or better ISO performance compared to mk3, 7 fps, improved AF, 4k 24-30fps video (with crop), improved menu and playback functionality,

I'd be ok with these, if the FHD is at least 120fps. Also I'd be ok for ~4-5fps for stills.

Nice to have: automated AFMA?, integrated electronic viewfinder with live histogram? ability to customise buttons to functions (e.g. it would be great to toggle both MLU and 2-4 sec timer with one button press)

Automated afma would be awesome. Live histogram is long shot. If we go there, we could add zebra then too.

 

[can0nfan2379]

......print insanely large.

Yes. Printing at 24" x 36" and up I appreciate the extra resolution.

 

[SchnauzerFace]

More FPS, better high ISO, touch screen, DPAF, Auto AMFA. I don't care about the 8MP, not at all.

Yesssss to this. I just don't see how +8MP would be worth the tradeoff that we'd likely have to take (more noise in high ISO is my biggest worry, but significantly larger file sizes and fewer fps would be unfavorable tradeoffs, too).

And as someone who will be using this in (semi)-equally parts for video and stills, I don't see the added MP doing any favors for video. I know there are definitely photogs who need max MPs for extra large physical prints, but I have to believe that share of the market is very, very small. And, I also have to believe that most of those users with specialized needs won't be looking to invest in a 5DIV anyway.