EOS 5D Mark IV Testing Has Begun [CR2]

[SwnSng]

GO OUT and shoot!

Yay, now we're talking, my favorite kind of post - someone in an internet forum telling people not to post in an internet forum

He he, Been out for several hours. This is probably the best keeper for the day, where a Great Crested Grebe is enjoying the first sun rays of the day, while giving her newly hatched a hug
1DX, 600 f4L IS II + 1.4xIII

Wonderful shot, Eldar. touche


Untitled by Thai, on Flickr

 

[Eldar]

GO OUT and shoot!

Yay, now we're talking, my favorite kind of post - someone in an internet forum telling people not to post in an internet forum

He he, Been out for several hours. This is probably the best keeper for the day, where a Great Crested Grebe is enjoying the first sun rays of the day, while giving her newly hatched a hug
1DX, 600 f4L IS II + 1.4xIII

Wonderful shot, Eldar. touche


Untitled by Thai, on Flickr

 

[benperrin]

Just my 2 cents. I think the image quality from the 5ds/r is pretty amazing. IMHO the test shots seem to be mostly better than a d810 where detail is concerned. So hasn't Canon then made the right move by not catering to people on this thread and going with a Sony sensor? I mean sure short term the idea might sound like a good one from a sales point of view but we now know that Canon is capable of 15 stops of dynamic range with their new EOS video camera. We assume this technology is coming to the 5d4. Which is going to give Sony a bigger run for their money and force them to react. We all win.

On the other hand Sony cornering the market sounds like a disaster for us dslr people. There'd be no serious competition as the 3 market leaders would all be using exactly the same sensors. Just a thought...

 

[Orangutan]

Oh shut up. You know darn well every Nikon shooter and their brother would have promptly dumped all of their gear and bought the 5D3 if it had high DR at low ISO.

I can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic.

On the off-chance that you're serious, consider the implications: suppose Canon had made the 5D3 exactly the same, but with the Sony 36MP sensor from D800, and suppose Nikon shooters did move to 5D3 kit it in throngs. That would mean that everything about Nikon except the sensor sucked cesspits. That's pretty strong criticism of Nikon, and pretty strong praise for the 5D3.

 

[3kramd5]

Oh shut up. You know darn well every Nikon shooter and their brother would have promptly dumped all of their gear and bought the 5D3 if it had high DR at low ISO.

I can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic.

On the off-chance that you're serious, consider the implications: suppose Canon had made the 5D3 exactly the same, but with the Sony 36MP sensor from D800, and suppose Nikon shooters did move to 5D3 kit it in throngs. That would mean that everything about Nikon except the sensor sucked cesspits. That's pretty strong criticism of Nikon, and pretty strong praise for the 5D3.

I'm going with sarcasm.

 

[Eldar]

You do not see much shots like that one by Eldar coming from the DR fanatics.
Might be that yuo can be a DR fanatic in your office whereas to shoot this swimming ostrich with its calf you actually have to be in close contact with cold water and mud. Wakie wakie 4 h something....

kudos, Eldar!

Thanks Martti. I got an all time high likes and comments on a nature photographer group on Facebook for this one

But to keep the discussion going; This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. I had been following these birds in a shadow area and had my exposure set for that. Like many of you, I try to be as close to the right in the histogram as possible, for best noise performance, which puts me in danger of over exposing. In this case, the sun had just risen above the horizon, she had just emerged from the shade and I had not had time to adjust exposure yet (manual mode, auto-ISO). So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown. So it is easy to say that it was my fault, but on the other hand, I believe most of you, doing this kind of photography, has experienced just the same.

 

[Marsu42]

You do not see much shots like that one by Eldar coming from the DR fanatics.

True 'nuff, those drones never shot a good picture in their whole life, that's why they keep on drooling about more dynamic range! Meanwhile, we loyal Canon go on getting beautiful pictures because we know proper camera handling and keep on concentrating on picture *content* while the Sonikon trolls bite their teeth on specs.

And thanks for your insightful comment, elevating the discussion to a whole new level - and making me stop read any of it, this is just getting too dumb (sorry to be explicit, but this is the best word I can come up with).

 

[Sporgon]

You do not see much shots like that one by Eldar coming from the DR fanatics.

True 'nuff, those drones never shot a good picture in their whole life, that's why they keep on drooling about more dynamic range! Meanwhile, we loyal Canon go on getting beautiful pictures because we know proper camera handling and keep on concentrating on picture *content* while the Sonikon trolls bite their teeth on specs.

And thanks for your insightful comment, elevating the discussion to a whole new level - and making me stop read any of it, this is just getting too dumb (sorry to be explicit, but this is the best word I can come up with).

Marsu, your English is truly excellent. I didn't think 'insightful' was a real word, but it is !

 

[benperrin]

This guy gets it.

The last camera I bought wasn't a Canon and it is looking likely that the next one won't either simply because Canon don't have cameras that I want: for one, I've given up walking around a city with a DSLR over my shoulder and now use something much smaller with smaller lenses. This means less weight and a more enjoyable day.

Well then stop complaining about Canon cameras when you don't use them anyway and go out and shoot something you enjoy. You sound like you've found a system that suits you perfectly and yet you still go on these forums and complain...

 

[Don Haines]

I respectfully disagree with this statement:

"Hypothesis; If Canon had sourced the 36MP sensor used in the D810 and A7r (I think it is) and released a 5DS&5DSR version with that two years ago. What would have happened to their market share, up or down? I think the answer is obvious. Would it require massive R&D investments? No. Would Sony sell? Yes, they sell to everyone."

It's not obvious. The 5D Mark III outsold the D800/E so it wasn't a larger concern for most shooters, even professionals. Could it have gone up or down, I don't know, but the answer is not obvious.

You are totally missing the point. The point is not to compare 5DIII with D800/E sales. The point is how many of the sold D800/E/D810/A7r would have been Canon cameras instead, if they had done as stated above and how many Canon users would have bought one of those in addition to a 5DIII (or a 1DX). It is pretty obvious that sum would be a positive number and most likely a substantial one.

This guy gets it.

The last camera I bought wasn't a Canon and it is looking likely that the next one won't either simply because Canon don't have cameras that I want: for one, I've given up walking around a city with a DSLR over my shoulder and now use something much smaller with smaller lenses. This means less weight and a more enjoyable day.

I think you just defined the market segment for Sony and micro four-thirds.....

For some people, size and weight are the deciding factors in which camera to get. Things such as IQ and DR are secondary to them.... they don't care if it is better or worse than Canon or Nikon, they just care that the camera is small(er)....

 

[Loswr]

This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. ... So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown.

So if you have 12-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are blown...but if you have 14-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are not blown?

 

[msm]

This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. ... So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown.

So if you have 12-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are blown...but if you have 14-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are not blown?

Or maybe he would have just used his brain (something you don't seem capable of) and lowered the ISO and still get the same shutter time and same noise in the shadows as his 1Dx while preserving the highlights?

 

[Loswr]

This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. ... So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown.

So if you have 12-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are blown...but if you have 14-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are not blown?

Or maybe he would have just used his brain (something you don't seem capable of) and lowered the ISO and still get the same shutter time and same noise in the shadows as his 1Dx while preserving the highlights?

Here's the full quote, where that issue was addressed. I highlighted the relevant part so it's easier for you to find, as evidently clicking the link was too taxing for you.

But to keep the discussion going; This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. I had been following these birds in a shadow area and had my exposure set for that. Like many of you, I try to be as close to the right in the histogram as possible, for best noise performance, which puts me in danger of over exposing. In this case, the sun had just risen above the horizon, she had just emerged from the shade and I had not had time to adjust exposure yet (manual mode, auto-ISO). So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown. So it is easy to say that it was my fault, but on the other hand, I believe most of you, doing this kind of photography, has experienced just the same.

Perhaps you'll now use your truly dizzying intellect to address my original question of how more DR would have helped... :

 

[Eldar]

This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. ... So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown.

So if you have 12-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are blown...but if you have 14-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are not blown?

Or maybe he would have just used his brain (something you don't seem capable of) and lowered the ISO and still get the same shutter time and same noise in the shadows as his 1Dx while preserving the highlights?

Here's the full quote, where that issue was addressed. I highlighted the relevant part so it's easier for you to find, as evidently clicking the link was too taxing for you.

But to keep the discussion going; This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. I had been following these birds in a shadow area and had my exposure set for that. Like many of you, I try to be as close to the right in the histogram as possible, for best noise performance, which puts me in danger of over exposing. In this case, the sun had just risen above the horizon, she had just emerged from the shade and I had not had time to adjust exposure yet (manual mode, auto-ISO). So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown. So it is easy to say that it was my fault, but on the other hand, I believe most of you, doing this kind of photography, has experienced just the same.

Perhaps you'll now use your truly dizzying intellect to address my original question of how more DR would have helped... :

Even though the question was not directed to me (I think); If I was not concerned with shadow noise, as much as I am, I would not be so inclined to push my exposure to the right. If so, I would have had headroom (even a bit at 11 stop DR), when the lighting conditions changed. So indirectly, it is more about the noise problem than the DR problem, but both would have helped. (I don´t believe it takes a "truly dizzying intellect" to see that).

 

[msm]

This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. ... So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown.

So if you have 12-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are blown...but if you have 14-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are not blown?

Or maybe he would have just used his brain (something you don't seem capable of) and lowered the ISO and still get the same shutter time and same noise in the shadows as his 1Dx while preserving the highlights?

Here's the full quote, where that issue was addressed. I highlighted the relevant part so it's easier for you to find, as evidently clicking the link was too taxing for you.

But to keep the discussion going; This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. I had been following these birds in a shadow area and had my exposure set for that. Like many of you, I try to be as close to the right in the histogram as possible, for best noise performance, which puts me in danger of over exposing. In this case, the sun had just risen above the horizon, she had just emerged from the shade and I had not had time to adjust exposure yet (manual mode, auto-ISO). So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown. So it is easy to say that it was my fault, but on the other hand, I believe most of you, doing this kind of photography, has experienced just the same.

Perhaps you'll now use your truly dizzying intellect to address my original question of how more DR would have helped... :

Even though the question was not directed to me (I think); If I was not concerned with shadow noise, as much as I am, I would not be so inclined to push my exposure to the right. If so, I would have had headroom (even a bit at 11 stop DR), when the lighting conditions changed. So indirectly, it is more about the noise problem than the DR problem, but both would have helped. (I don´t believe it takes a "truly dizzying intellect" to see that).

Exactly, but this concept is obviously too hard to grasp for someone who don't understand logic.

 

[Loswr]

This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. ... So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown.

So if you have 12-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are blown...but if you have 14-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are not blown?

Or maybe he would have just used his brain (something you don't seem capable of) and lowered the ISO and still get the same shutter time and same noise in the shadows as his 1Dx while preserving the highlights?

Here's the full quote, where that issue was addressed. I highlighted the relevant part so it's easier for you to find, as evidently clicking the link was too taxing for you.

But to keep the discussion going; This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. I had been following these birds in a shadow area and had my exposure set for that. Like many of you, I try to be as close to the right in the histogram as possible, for best noise performance, which puts me in danger of over exposing. In this case, the sun had just risen above the horizon, she had just emerged from the shade and I had not had time to adjust exposure yet (manual mode, auto-ISO). So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown. So it is easy to say that it was my fault, but on the other hand, I believe most of you, doing this kind of photography, has experienced just the same.

Perhaps you'll now use your truly dizzying intellect to address my original question of how more DR would have helped... :

Even though the question was not directed to me (I think); If I was not concerned with shadow noise, as much as I am, I would not be so inclined to push my exposure to the right. If so, I would have had headroom (even a bit at 11 stop DR), when the lighting conditions changed. So indirectly, it is more about the noise problem than the DR problem, but both would have helped. (I don´t believe it takes a "truly dizzying intellect" to see that).

Do you have an AE Microadjustment applied? Else, with auto ISO and no EC (according to EXIF), how are you pushing exposure to the right?

 

[Eldar]

Do you have an AE Microadjustment applied? Else, with auto ISO and no EC (according to EXIF), how are you pushing exposure to the right?

I do not understand why this must become a debate, but here goes;

It is very simple; I start with auto ISO and no adjustment. Then I fire I shot and check the histogram. Whether that requires compensation up or down or none at all, depends on the lighting conditions. In this case, I did not adjust EC, because it gave me what I wanted when the bird was in the shade (no clipping in the high end). When it moved into the sun, I should have under exposed about a stop. As you can see though, the image is not ruined, but I could have had a bit more structure and content in the white area below its eye.

If I was less concerned with shadow noise and I had a couple of more stops of DR, I would have under exposed also in the shaded area, because it would have given me the DR I needed and it would also provide headroom in both ends of the histogram. These subjects do not stay still, so lighting is changing all the time. Canon´s light metering is good, but not perfect, so headroom is always good to have.

I hope that was clarifying.

 

[LonelyBoy]

This guy gets it.

The last camera I bought wasn't a Canon and it is looking likely that the next one won't either simply because Canon don't have cameras that I want: for one, I've given up walking around a city with a DSLR over my shoulder and now use something much smaller with smaller lenses. This means less weight and a more enjoyable day.

There's a difference between "gets it" and "agrees with you". You don't know how such a move would have affected profitability. Chasing market share at the expense of profitability is a horrible move, and given the state of the mirrorless market, Canon lost most of their interest in you as soon as you "[gave] up walking around a city with a DSLR". Just like when someone buys a cheap desktop tower, Apple doesn't feel the need to make one just to chase every possible customer. Nor does Honda feel the need to make a sports car if someone trades their Civic in on a Mustang.

You got out of the DSLR market? Canon bid you adieu. They're interested in customers they can make real money from. That's not mirrorless, not now.

 

[Loswr]

Do you have an AE Microadjustment applied? Else, with auto ISO and no EC (according to EXIF), how are you pushing exposure to the right?

I do not understand why this must become a debate, but here goes;

It is very simple; I start with auto ISO and no adjustment. Then I fire I shot and check the histogram. Whether that requires compensation up or down or none at all, depends on the lighting conditions. In this case, I did not adjust EC, because it gave me what I wanted when the bird was in the shade (no clipping in the high end). When it moved into the sun, I should have under exposed about a stop. As you can see though, the image is not ruined, but I could have had a bit more structure and content in the white area blow its eye.

If I was less concerned with shadow noise and I had a couple of more stops of DR, I would have under exposed also in the shaded area, because it would have given me the DR I needed and it would also provide headroom in both ends of the histogram. These subjects do not stay still, so lighting is changing all the time. Canon´s light metering is good, but not perfect, so headroom is always good to have.

I hope that was clarifying.

Yes, that clarifies. More DR would not have helped the shot, which was my point. If you're using the default metering, autoexposure, and not applying EC, and you blow a highlight, it's blown. You're saying more DR would change your behavior, you'd ETTL or at least ETTR less and routinely underexpose your shots (either by setting a stop of negative AE Microadjustment or by leaving a negative EC as default), planning to push them all in post. I suppose that could work.

I wonder...do people with SoNikon sensors always apply negative EC and push their shadows back up in post?

 

[Eldar]

Do you have an AE Microadjustment applied? Else, with auto ISO and no EC (according to EXIF), how are you pushing exposure to the right?

I do not understand why this must become a debate, but here goes;

It is very simple; I start with auto ISO and no adjustment. Then I fire I shot and check the histogram. Whether that requires compensation up or down or none at all, depends on the lighting conditions. In this case, I did not adjust EC, because it gave me what I wanted when the bird was in the shade (no clipping in the high end). When it moved into the sun, I should have under exposed about a stop. As you can see though, the image is not ruined, but I could have had a bit more structure and content in the white area blow its eye.

If I was less concerned with shadow noise and I had a couple of more stops of DR, I would have under exposed also in the shaded area, because it would have given me the DR I needed and it would also provide headroom in both ends of the histogram. These subjects do not stay still, so lighting is changing all the time. Canon´s light metering is good, but not perfect, so headroom is always good to have.

I hope that was clarifying.

Yes, that clarifies. More DR would not have helped the shot, which was my point. If you're using the default metering, autoexposure, and not applying EC, and you blow a highlight, it's blown. You're saying more DR would change your behavior, you'd ETTL or at least ETTR less and routinely underexpose your shots (either by setting a stop of negative AE Microadjustment or by leaving a negative EC as default), planning to push them all in post. I suppose that could work.

I wonder...do people with SoNikon sensors always apply negative EC and push their shadows back up in post?

Sorry John, you just don´t get it, do you :
(my last post on this topic ...)