SwnSng said:
MP & FPS improvements sound good to me, but dynamic range and low light capability improvements in a 5Dmk4 would be much more compelling for me to buy a second camera body.
I'm prepared to wait.
Upvote
0
EOS 5D Mark IV Mentioned [CR1]
- Thread starter pedro
- Start date
MP & FPS improvements sound good to me, but dynamic range and low light capability improvements in a 5Dmk4 would be much more compelling for me to buy a second camera body.
I'm prepared to wait.
TeT said:
This is about right if you compare pixel sizes 1:1. Current APS-C sensors with ~20MP have much smaller pixels than the FF sensors have (except 5Ds of course) as they are way bigger but don't have much more megapixels in numbers - BUT of course the bigger pixels are the big advantage that allow the much better low light capabilites of FF.
If you'd blow up a 7D Mark II sensor to FF size while keeping the same pixel size you'd come up at somewhat 50MP which is exactly what the 5Ds did. The 5D Mark IV will get a little bit more resolution than it's predecessor but nowhere near 5Ds and will probably perform WAY better in low light. Well, I'm getting the 5Ds anyway and probably the Mark IV will also come sooner or later to replace my III.
Upvote
0
You're not wrong. My gripped 5DIII is taller, wider and heavier than my 1D MkIV. And the 1DX is bigger again than the MkIV. It's size creep...just like imported cars deferring to the whims of the unfortunately dominant US market, they just keep larding up with each new model.Tugela said:
Mirrorless just has to be the future. The FF A7s is probably similar sized to your antique Minolta. All my video work is now done with a Panasonic GH4. This camera has opened my eyes to the viability and functionality of mirrorless and the power of a well executed touch-screen. OMG this design would make an awesome FF camera.
Nevertheless, I'll likely be first in line for the 5D MkIV just as I was for the brilliant MkIII regardless of the final specs. In the unlikely event Canon decide to ship the MkIV with 4K, then they'd better back it up with focus peaking and zebras. And touch screen. This is not an amateur feature. Touch screen.
But the Canon that I would will get very excited about is the inevitable FF pro level mirrorless. Just a matter of when. Maybe this decade...
-pw
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
pwp said:
This is something I don't understand. Sure, there are a lot more electronics packed into today's cameras, but at the same time, my old Canon F1 had two huge empty cavities for the film canister and take up reel. The SL1 proves that they really don't need to be as big as they are.
Upvote
0
pwp said:
Do we think that mirrorless is the size answer, I dont... Many have voiced that the A7 is too slight of build and I would be surprised if the A7II is not more robust of body...
+1 on touch screen. Programmable touch screen will win over even the stoutest critic...
Upvote
0
TeT said:
Mirrorless will allow you to reduce the camera size but you don't have to. Sony also makes a77's and a99's which are regular dslr sized and shaped bodies.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
Hold on there guys, my 1VHS's are taller and wider than my 1Ds MkIII's, thought the later is fatter.
Upvote
0
Gino said:
Yea, 28 MP is great. I don't need 9 FPS with the 1Dx (or 1Dx M2). Builtin GPS, better AF, better DR, higher ISO, and wireless flash control (hard to do since there are different regs in nearly country) would be a plus.
Upvote
0
pwp said:
Really though I would argue that the Sony FE cameras released so far as more on the level of the 6D or Nikon D610 in terms of their target market where FF DSLR's have actually been shrinking to their smallest size/weight ever, the Nikon D750 does this whilst retaining a higher level feature set.
The other big difference I would say is that your old Minolta came from an era of manual focus primes and short zooms. In todays market the specs and AF users desire in their lenses mean that there going to be of a significant size as we've seen with the recent Sony FE 35mm 1.4 and 90mm Macro, both of which seem to balance poorly with the smaller bodies to me and make any saving inc amera depth largely irrelevant.
One thing to consider as well is whether you even need to swap mounts on a FF system. With smaller formats the most obvious advantage is reduced depth due to the smaller flange distance(that with DSLR's is a FF legacy) but given the size of FF lenses and the problems that small flange distances create I'm not sure that advantage is so significant here. I would argue the bigger advantage in terms of size on a FF system is actually the ability to drop the larger prism and AF sensor. Lens designs could even start to push back into the camera whilst retaining the EF mount.
With Sony I think one of the key reasons they switched mounts was a desire to cut out competition from third party manufacturers. You look at there mirrorless business tactics and I think there clearly "get them to buy the body cheap, make the money on the lenses" which wouldn't work with Sigma, Tamron, etc offering vastly better value.
My guess for the future would be that if Canon and Nikon look to replace DSLR's with a new mirrorless mount it will be at APSC, at FF I think if we see a mirrorless camera it will either retain the DSLR mounts or it will be aimed at a more niche market focusing on slower primes.
Upvote
0
I hope most of these specs are true but, I would really like to see better DR and ISO performance.
Upvote
0
This sounds great. A bit more resolution, better low light/high iso performance, and increased fps. I really want to see a great improvement in AF as well- closer to 1DX level. And of course, come in at about $3500 or less USD. If this can be delivered by say July this year, awesome. Nice to dream anyway.
sek
sek
Upvote
0
Similar threads
