DPreview First impression review 5D IV

[Loswr]

I have benefited from Neuro's expertise and suggestions in this forum so many times that I consider very unlikely that he could/might be wrong. But he could, after all

Thanks, glad to help!

As for being wrong, I can be, have been, and will be again, and I appreciate the benefits of learning from my mistakes.

 

[3kramd5]

...
Yes DPR is biased and unless we stand up and illustrate that fact whatever they say will be taken at face value.
...

If there is any bias then it will be because Amazon makes less money selling Canon cameras than it does other vendors.

I disagree; bias isn't necessarily intentional, nor is it necessarily a sign of stupidity.

Ask an internal medicine doc what to do and he'll prescribe medicine. Ask a surgeon what to do and he'll suggest surgery. Neither doctors are stupid, neither is chasing a higher profit margin, but both are biased by what they know and what they do.

 

[CanadianInvestor]

I have benefited from Neuro's expertise and suggestions in this forum so many times that I consider very unlikely that he could/might be wrong. But he could, after all

Thanks, glad to help!

As for being wrong, I can be, have been, and will be again, and I appreciate the benefits of learning from my mistakes.

Larry Ellison has stated, 'I used to think. Now I just read The Economist'. In my case, I used to study optics and things photography. Now I just look up what neuro says and I'm sorted. In this tread, I've learnt a lot ... at least the bits I understood. The rest, I'll defer to our friend, neuro, who has been known to admit his errors.

 

[Loswr]

The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test: the official DPR expert "against" a non-DPR Canon expert (Neuro himself?): they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
Then, they should repeat the same test using a Nikon D5/D810 (after having trained the Canon expert on how to make the most of it), on the same subjects.

A friend and I did something similar a while back, perhaps better in that no one had to be trained, but worse in that we didn't shoot hiccuping butterflies. We were at a local birding spot, him using a D810 and Nikon 500/4 VR and me with the 1D X and 600/4 IS, both on gimbals side by side. Both of us had substantial experience with our gear, learning to get the best from it. We compared results, and found that while both cameras had a very high keeper rate in terms of in-focus images, the 1D X did slightly better. With the much higher frame rate and deeper buffer, I had a noticeably higher compositional keeper rate (mainly based on wing position, where higher fps gives more choices).

The key takeaway from our impromptu comparison was that both systems delivered some really excellent images.

 

[Jack Douglas]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways including "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,"[1][2] or "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."

Thanks for your explanation of why we should not think your comments are malicious.

Nice try, but you'd be stretching the definition of the word to find any of my comments as being malicious.

So you have ruled out "malicious", leaving stupidity?

My laugh for today.

Jack

 

[Don Haines]

The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test: the official DPR expert "against" a non-DPR Canon expert (Neuro himself?): they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
Then, they should repeat the same test using a Nikon D5/D810 (after having trained the Canon expert on how to make the most of it), on the same subjects.

A friend and I did something similar a while back, perhaps better in that no one had to be trained, but worse in that we didn't shoot hiccuping butterflies. We were at a local birding spot, him using a D810 and Nikon 500/4 VR and me with the 1D X and 600/4 IS, both on gimbals side by side. Both of us had substantial experience with our gear, learning to get the best from it. We compared results, and found that while both cameras had a very high keeper rate in terms of in-focus images, the 1D X did slightly better. With the much higher frame rate and deeper buffer, I had a noticeably higher compositional keeper rate (mainly based on wing position, where higher fps gives more choices).

The key takeaway from our impromptu comparison was that both systems delivered some really excellent images.

Yes, so often we forget that we are comparing very good against very good, where the overall differences are small and in the end, both systems work well..... where we compare camera bodies, yet the choice of lens may have more impact.....

 

[Sharlin]

A friend and I did something similar a while back, perhaps better in that no one had to be trained, but worse in that we didn't shoot hiccuping butterflies. We were at a local birding spot, him using a D810 and Nikon 500/4 VR and me with the 1D X and 600/4 IS, both on gimbals side by side. Both of us had substantial experience with our gear, learning to get the best from it. We compared results, and found that while both cameras had a very high keeper rate in terms of in-focus images, the 1D X did slightly better. With the much higher frame rate and deeper buffer, I had a noticeably higher compositional keeper rate (mainly based on wing position, where higher fps gives more choices).

The key takeaway from our impromptu comparison was that both systems delivered some really excellent images.

Yes, so often we forget that we are comparing very good against very good, where the overall differences are small and in the end, both systems work well..... where we compare camera bodies and the choice of lens may have more impact.....

What I'd like to see are tests where there is less subject separation and more confusing foreground/background elements than in birding, as it seems to be specifically those sorts of situations the DPR claims Canon's tracking has trouble. Also, using the full area mode in such confusing situations.

At least with my lowly 80D - and I fully admit I'm a newbie at using complex AF systems - with full 45pt mode the AF just often gets distracted and locks on contrasty background elements when it loses the actual subject for a moment. OTOH with enough subject separation it seems to work pretty well. The Live View Face&Tracking is definitely superior, though, as seems to be the case with the 5D4 as well.

 

[Macoose]

Two things I took away from the Mr Neuro/Rishi discussion:

1. Mr Neuro got Rishi to read part of a Canon manual. Something the young man may have not done before.
It may have been a little heated at times, but some people don't like being forced out of their comfort zone.

2. A good discussion on iTR and how it works. This was something I needed and am better for it.



Thanks!

 

[docsmith]

I'm sorry we lost you as a reader.

But I do find fascinating that the one site that actually covered interesting findings like:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Dual Pixel AF is now available for the 1st time in a FF camera in Servo mode for stills
[*]Dual Pixel AF with face detection is now incredibly useful due to a simple tap of the joystick jumping between detected faces, which it'll track after you've selected
[*]Dual Pixel AF is inherently accurate because of on-sensor AF that is insensitive to optical path distance differences, and is insensitive to residual spherical aberration of lenses, no longer necessitating LUTs to deal with RSA as a function of subject distance and aperture
[*]Dual Pixel AF with 4K/30p effectively gives you a way of shooting 17:9 8.8MP JPEGs at 30 frames per second, with AF
[*]That the above is limited by rolling shutter (recent update)
[*]That Dual Pixel Raw gives you a couple of nose pores of refocusing range for a typical 85mm headshot (recent update)
[*]That if the 1D X II and 80D are indicative, we expect DR improvements that place the camera half-way to the best of the competition (not so unreasonable to extrapolate, is it, when the biggest improvement comes from going to on-sensor ADCs, with miniscule improvements from generation to generation, and considering that the last 'generation' was, like, a few months ago...)
[*]A suggested simple fix to Custom Controls that'd literally benefit most Canon shooters, and some examples of where the current system falls short - in an effort to, you know, suggest something that'd actually better the cameras to Canon
[/list]

That was all, well, 'not so useful' compared to what other sites provided?

Could you please tell us what it is that was useful that other sites provided? We're always looking to improve.

As for overall positivity, I respectfully disagree, being the person who wrote that a particular set of features on this camera 'might just change your life forever', and all the constant gushing on DPR re: the latest L-series lenses. But you're of course entitled to your own opinion.

I'd just question the immediate opinion of readers when we receive feedback like 'where in the review did you talk about F8 focus, or the a7 cameras overheating and poor menus'? Considering these were all written directly into the concluding pages of respective reviews, if not directly in pros/cons tables, I really do have to raise an eyebrow and ask: ?

-Rishi

Finally have a bit of time to respond....never said the review wasn't useful. Of course there is something of benefit. I know it would be easier to argue is I said something so drastic, but, didn't.

My point was and is that I considered what was written unduly negative. People can throw bias around, I did. And that may be correct. And yes, you like DPAF. I'll even acknowledge that you doubled down and stated that you "love" DPAF (6 of your 8 points above were about DPAF). But in reading this thread, I wonder if the issue is perspective.

Your perspective is that of a reviewer who handles a lot of different gear from different brands. Perhaps you think your job is to compare those different brands. If this assumption of mine is true, then this is where I think this is, at least partially, if not mostly, the issue.

See, my perspective is from not only someone who likes gear, but as someone who has invested into Canon. It would take something monumental to make me change brands. There was a point, when I bought my 5DIII, when I considered the Nikon D800. But I went 5DIII and now have >$15,000 invested.

So, while it would take something monumental to get me to switch brands, I absolutely plan to someday upgrade from the 5DIII to another Canon camera. Thus, from my perspective, what has improved from the 5DIII to the 5DIV is relevant. Or comparing the 5DIV to the 5DsR/1DxII. And you did some of that. But not much. Statements about expectations that the sensor is improved but still not as good as Sony, or about a Canon menu system that I am going to use no matter what camera I have is at best irrelevant but if done repetitiously, a massive turn off.

So, from the perspective of someone handling many different brands, perhaps distinguishing between the brands is relevant. But I wonder how many readers share that perspective? At best, I would think only those about to buy into a system. But for those of us already in the system, it really isn't.

I do watch and read a good number of reviews, and there are some reviewers that seem to think that you can Frankenstein a camera together. Take what you like from each brand. But, of course, at a minimum because of patents, you can't. Apparently, as is evidenced above, you would take Canon's DPAF. Great. But I have to buy an entire camera as I've yet to see a camera with the best features of each brand for sale.

 

[jdramirez]

So, from the perspective of someone handling many different brands, perhaps distinguishing between the brands is relevant. But I wonder how many readers share that perspective? At best, I would think only those about to buy into a system. But for those of us already in the system, it really isn't.

I do watch and read a good number of reviews, and there are some reviewers that seem to think that you can Frankenstein a camera together. Take what you like from each brand. But, of course, at a minimum because of patents, you can't. Apparently, as is evidenced above, you would take Canon's DPAF. Great. But I have to buy an entire camera as I've yet to see a camera with the best features of each brand for sale.

A friend over the weekend asked if Sony cameras were hype or not... I said I didn't know... and I don't care... because I'm so deeply dug in with Canon, that it isn't even worth my time to consider a switch... so I don't.

 

[tr573]

Dual Pixel AF with face detection is now incredibly useful due to a simple tap of the joystick jumping between detected faces, which it'll track after you've selected

Not sure if this was overlooked , but this isn't a new feature Rishi. The 7D2 and 5DS (not dual pixel that one of course) will both cycle through faces with a tap of the joystick in face detect mode.

 

[Don Haines]

...
What I'd like to see are tests where there is less subject separation and more confusing foreground/background elements than in birding, as it seems to be specifically those sorts of situations the DPR claims Canon's tracking has trouble. Also, using the full area mode in such confusing situations.
...

Like when you have to shoot "through" wire fencing?

been there, done that..... The AF system said BIRD!!!! no, FENCE!!!! no, BIRD!!!! no, FENCE!!!! and kept jumping back and forth...... so rather than spend a week re-reading the AF manual, I put it into manual...

 

[StudentOfLight]

...
What I'd like to see are tests where there is less subject separation and more confusing foreground/background elements than in birding, as it seems to be specifically those sorts of situations the DPR claims Canon's tracking has trouble. Also, using the full area mode in such confusing situations.
...

Like when you have to shoot "through" wire fencing?

been there, done that..... The AF system said BIRD!!!! no, FENCE!!!! no, BIRD!!!! no, FENCE!!!! and kept jumping back and forth...... so rather than spend a week re-reading the AF manual, I put it into manual...

the RTFM approach - Resorting To Focusing Manually ;D

 

[Viggo]

I just thought about that yesterday, it should be a way to limit focusing range in a more specific way than just the limiter on some lenses. That way you could focus on the fence and set "mfd" a meter in front or something.

I used the limiter last night when standing behind the net of a soccer goal, it worked , so more freedom and options to tune that distance would be great.

 

[Sharlin]

...
What I'd like to see are tests where there is less subject separation and more confusing foreground/background elements than in birding, as it seems to be specifically those sorts of situations the DPR claims Canon's tracking has trouble. Also, using the full area mode in such confusing situations.
...

Like when you have to shoot "through" wire fencing?

Well, that too I guess but I was thinking more about action/sports situations where you want to track a single person among many. My personal interest is in swing dancing where I'd like to track one of the partners when they're continuously moving past one another.

 

[JohanCruyff]

The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test: the official DPR expert "against" a non-DPR Canon expert (Neuro himself?): they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
Then, they should repeat the same test using a Nikon D5/D810 (after having trained the Canon expert on how to make the most of it), on the same subjects.

A friend and I did something similar a while back, perhaps better in that no one had to be trained, but worse in that we didn't shoot hiccuping butterflies. We were at a local birding spot, him using a D810 and Nikon 500/4 VR and me with the 1D X and 600/4 IS, both on gimbals side by side. Both of us had substantial experience with our gear, learning to get the best from it. We compared results, and found that while both cameras had a very high keeper rate in terms of in-focus images, the 1D X did slightly better. With the much higher frame rate and deeper buffer, I had a noticeably higher compositional keeper rate (mainly based on wing position, where higher fps gives more choices).

The key takeaway from our impromptu comparison was that both systems delivered some really excellent images, but obviously most of my 1DX 100ISO pictures were completely unusable, since I could not underespose and push 5 stops due to the poor Dynamic Range of my inadequate tool.

You forgot to mention one important detail, so I fixed it for you. 8)

Seriously speaking: nice test, and thanks for sharing!

 

[Orangutan]

The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test... they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
Then, they should repeat the same test using a Nikon D5/D810 (after having trained the Canon expert on how to make the most of it), on the same subjects.

Just assign two DPR staff to the test, one a Canon expert and one a Nikon expert. Make sure they have a week to learn their cameras. Have them shoot head-to-head, then switch cameras and do it again. Offer a $1,000 bonus to the one with the higher keeper rate over both shoots (winner-take-all, no split). This will motivate each photographer to learn how to squeeze the most out of each camera, not to complain that it doesn't work exactly like the other one. Not only will they RTFM very carefully, but will practice until they really UTFC.

 

[3kramd5]

...
What I'd like to see are tests where there is less subject separation and more confusing foreground/background elements than in birding, as it seems to be specifically those sorts of situations the DPR claims Canon's tracking has trouble. Also, using the full area mode in such confusing situations.
...

Like when you have to shoot "through" wire fencing?

been there, done that..... The AF system said BIRD!!!! no, FENCE!!!! no, BIRD!!!! no, FENCE!!!! and kept jumping back and forth...... so rather than spend a week re-reading the AF manual, I put it into manual...

the RTFM approach - Resorting To Focusing Manually ;D

haha

 

[3kramd5]

The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test... they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
Then, they should repeat the same test using a Nikon D5/D810 (after having trained the Canon expert on how to make the most of it), on the same subjects.

Just assign two DPR staff to the test, one a Canon expert and one a Nikon expert. Make sure they have a week to learn their cameras. Have them shoot head-to-head, then switch cameras and do it again. Offer a $1,000 bonus to the one with the higher keeper rate over both shoots (winner-take-all, no split). This will motivate each photographer to learn how to squeeze the most out of each camera, not to complain that it doesn't work exactly like the other one. Not only will they RTFM very carefully, but will practice until they really UTFC.

And if you did that every two weeks for a couple of years, you might start to see some data emerge.

 

[Deleted member 378221]

Yeah, I don't think there's really a subjective test for AF performance. I mean even if you put up two shooters with the same camera one could come back saying it is awesome and the other finding it sucks, only depending on expertise. Now add on top different familiarity with the two systems and that sometimes it's just not your day.

I think both systems are more than good enough for what they are used, especially in the hands of someone having used the system for years. And while I find such comparisons interesting in general, I doubt that at the professional level anyone would sell all their lenses to switch between Nikon and Canon.

I know there are always a few people contemplating or even actually doing this move, but for me unless a new flagship Canon camera really, really tanks and there is no alternative using the last generation, nothing will get me to sell my lens connection and switch to another manufacturer. Like someone here said before, grass is not always greener on the other side, it's just a different shade.