EOS 5D Mark IV Testing Has Begun [CR2]

[privatebydesign]

First is popup with tissue, second is naked 600-EX-RT.

Both prove beyond doubt that direct flash, either from a 'free' popup or $450 top of the line hotshoe flash, is horrible.

And if you're out-doors? Bounce is a little tough off the moon because of the two and a half second delay.

Why would you bounce off what is often the primary light source? Seems like a silly idea to me.

 

[benperrin]

And if you're out-doors? Bounce is a little tough off the moon because of the two and a half second delay.

You realise that you're wasting your breath right? The next 5d won't have a popup flash anyway. Get over it.

 

[slclick]

Rock The Body

 

[slclick]

Better yet

 

[Loswr]

I'm just following your lead.

Feel free to point out factual errors that I've posted, where I have not acknowledged my error when it was pointed out.

You never acknowledge your errors, you just go quiet and disappear.

So...no, you apparently can't point out such an example, but you're quite willing to post yet another factual error of your own to toss on the ever-growing pile.

I even have the courtesy to acknowledge my errors when you are the one pointing them out (link).

 

[Don Haines]

which image is with the pop-up flash and which image is with a 600EX-RT?

and today's tip is to put a Kleenex tissue in front of your flash to soften the light.... works on expensive flashes and pop-ups....

My guess is the first one is a pop up and the second one is 600EX-RT

same guess, by the size and color of the flash ;D

And we have a winner!
There was no Kleenex in front of either flash, and yes there is a color difference.... Good Eye!

 

[ishdakuteb]

http://www.brucepercy.co.uk/blog/2013/08/08/do-we-really-need-high-dynamic-range

Good link, and some points well made, though the We-need-14-stops-DR-and-lift-6-stops brigade will no doubt disagree - verdantly.

It's an article that essentially says "I learned how to operate within the bounds of my tools."

I'm sure that there are blog entries from other photographers who write about how wide dynamic response of their camera is essential.

If my camera can respond to and record details with a dynamic range of 14 stops then there is much more that I can do with that image in post than if it is captured in 5.

I can squeeze 14 stops into 5 without losing detail or introducing noise.
I cannot expand 5 stops into 14 without introducing noise and possibly detail too.

Showing an image is much worthier than talking crap? Agree? Or you just stay chicken forever to show us your image? Don't go out and steal images like one of your buddy to show us... Your last two landscape images are crap even though I am not good enough comparing to many of people out there...

 

[romanr74]

and today's tip is to put a Kleenex tissue in front of your flash to soften the light.... works on expensive flashes and pop-ups....

Colored tissue = instant flash gel. You know how with some brands of tissues, the last few are orangish to indicate the box is nearly empty? Boom – CTO to balance tungsten.

The tissue thing works even better if you sneeze into it really bad before using...

 

[romanr74]

http://www.brucepercy.co.uk/blog/2013/08/08/do-we-really-need-high-dynamic-range

Good link, and some points well made, though the We-need-14-stops-DR-and-lift-6-stops brigade will no doubt disagree - verdantly.

It's an article that essentially says "I learned how to operate within the bounds of my tools."

I'm sure that there are blog entries from other photographers who write about how wide dynamic response of their camera is essential.

If my camera can respond to and record details with a dynamic range of 14 stops then there is much more that I can do with that image in post than if it is captured in 5.

I can squeeze 14 stops into 5 without losing detail or introducing noise.
I cannot expand 5 stops into 14 without introducing noise and possibly detail too.

Showing an image is much worthier than talking crap? Agree? Or you just stay chicken forever to show us your image? Don't go out and steal image your like one of your buddy to show us... Your last two landscape images are crap even though I am not good enough comparing to many of people out there...

Couldn't agree more. Still no pictures from must be photography gods...

 

[3kramd5]

http://www.brucepercy.co.uk/blog/2013/08/08/do-we-really-need-high-dynamic-range

Good link, and some points well made, though the We-need-14-stops-DR-and-lift-6-stops brigade will no doubt disagree - verdantly.

It's an article that essentially says "I learned how to operate within the bounds of my tools."

I'm sure that there are blog entries from other photographers who write about how wide dynamic response of their camera is essential.

If my camera can respond to and record details with a dynamic range of 14 stops then there is much more that I can do with that image in post than if it is captured in 5.

I can squeeze 14 stops into 5 without losing detail or introducing noise.
I cannot expand 5 stops into 14 without introducing noise and possibly detail too.

Showing an image is much worthier than talking crap? Agree? Or you just stay chicken forever to show us your image? Don't go out and steal images like one of your buddy to show us... Your last two landscape images are crap even though I am not good enough comparing to many of people out there...

I'm not sure what your looking for. Do you want him to post a picture taken with his gear (canon) that disproves his position that canon gear is inadequate? If so, said picture would be good, while "crap" may support his point.

 

[ishdakuteb]

http://www.brucepercy.co.uk/blog/2013/08/08/do-we-really-need-high-dynamic-range

Good link, and some points well made, though the We-need-14-stops-DR-and-lift-6-stops brigade will no doubt disagree - verdantly.

It's an article that essentially says "I learned how to operate within the bounds of my tools."

I'm sure that there are blog entries from other photographers who write about how wide dynamic response of their camera is essential.

If my camera can respond to and record details with a dynamic range of 14 stops then there is much more that I can do with that image in post than if it is captured in 5.

I can squeeze 14 stops into 5 without losing detail or introducing noise.
I cannot expand 5 stops into 14 without introducing noise and possibly detail too.

Showing an image is much worthier than talking crap? Agree? Or you just stay chicken forever to show us your image? Don't go out and steal images like one of your buddy to show us... Your last two landscape images are crap even though I am not good enough comparing to many of people out there...

I'm not sure what your looking for. Do you want him to post a picture taken with his gear (canon) that disproves his position that canon gear is inadequate? If so, said picture would be good, while "crap" may support his point.

I knew that this question would be brought up, but he is trying to educated people on many aspects of photography, so he must have a good image to show. However, the answer regarding on gear that he use is that I can deliver a decent image even with my old Canon 30D (bought used), then there must be a way that he can deliver a decent image with his new gear. He might claim that Canon 30D is different from new ones, I have another 2 which is Canon 7D and Canon 5D Mark III, all he has to do is just pick one to against with...

He does not like to take portrait, candid, or journalism; this is part of the reason that I started to learn landscape. I have served him with all my best, haven't I ;D

 

[3kramd5]

I knew that this question would be brought up, but he is trying to educated people on many aspects of photography, so he must have a good image to show.

Not necessarily. He's talking about dynamic range, not "photography." I'm sure there are people at canon/sony/toshiba/etc who could talk circles around pretty much anyone when it comes to sensor DR, but who can't produce a "good" image.

Obviously good/great images can be produced with Canon gear, and I don't think anyone outside of a competitor's marketing department would argue that. Dilbert is hung up on the term "image quality," but that shouldn't be confused with a quality image

 

[ishdakuteb]

I knew that this question would be brought up, but he is trying to educated people on many aspects of photography, so he must have a good image to show.

Not necessarily. He's talking about dynamic range, not "photography." I'm sure there are people at canon/sony/toshiba who could talk circles around pretty much anyone when it comes to sensor DR, but who can't produce a "good" image.

Obviously good/great images can be produced with Canon gear, and I don't think anyone outside of a competitor's marketing apartment would argue that. Dilbert is hung up on the term "image quality," but that shouldn't be confused with a quality image

Very great answer!... "Dilbert is hung up on the term "image quality"" is simply because his skills cannot help him getting around that. He has been complaining for number of years about Canon and keep telling that he is going to buy other brands. But what do we see, he is stepping no where, but in one place... so his skills of photography...

To me, light quality makes image quality, not image quality is made by number of excessive post process/edit quantity

 

[vscd]

Surely Canon would want to make their cheapest camera cheaper by removing the flash, yes?

No, because the targetaudience has no glue and demand popup-flashs.

I've read many different justifications for owning a specific model of camera but to see someone defend a choice based on "beauty" to me reads like an emotional argument and one that another person can never argue against because it is a subjective judgement rather than objective one. Have you thought of tricking your camera up to make it look even more pretty? Give it some blue glowing lights underneath?

When the arguments are running off, people get foolish. No, I don't buy the cam on it's design only and it has also no blue light on it, but it's like a car... ugly design can be a problem for some people. Why not? Photographs have some sense on design. Maybe you're not "sensible" enough for productdesign. Not my fault.

Except that almost every SLR (from the days of film) was full frame and I can recall only two such models (EOS-1 and EOS-3 - the "pro" models) that didn't have a builtin flash.

Do you see the connection once again?

Plus batteries. If you leave the batteries in the flash then they'll drain slowly so you need to pack those separately too. You kind of run out of pockets and things pretty quickly and life becomes more uncomfortable.

Bullshit. Sorry. You should buy better batteries instead. I carry my accumulators weeks or months on my flash and htey don't drain... I suggest you to try Eneloop from Panasonic.

 

[Lee Jay]

And if you're out-doors? Bounce is a little tough off the moon because of the two and a half second delay.

You realise that you're wasting your breath right? The next 5d won't have a popup flash anyway. Get over it.

I did. I just think it's idiotic.

I just did a major reconfig:

5D -> 7D Mark II
Sigma 15mm fisheye -> Canon 8-15 fisheye
24-105L -> 18-135STM
35L -> Sigma 18-35/1.8
Keeping the 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2x TC III
85/1.8 -> Sell
17-40L -> Sell

Overall, the new system is more flexible with fewer lenses, has just as good of IQ in every situation and better in some, is faster in every way, costs less, and does include a built-in flash.

Canon is just too late in building a 5D replacement that interested me enough to buy it.

Interestingly, I've been begging for a 100-400L replacement that works well with a 1.4x since 2005. Now that it's finally here, it's too late as well. I'll probably buy a Sigma 150-600C instead.

 

[Sporgon]

Overall, the new system is more flexible with fewer lenses, has just as good of IQ in every situation and better in some, is faster in every way, costs less, and does include a built-in flash.

Canon is just too late in building a 5D replacement that interested me enough to buy it.

Sounds to me as if Canon has built just the camera for you - the 7DII. That's a little power house for £1,450 and the 20.2 dual pixel chip seems to be able to produce some stunning quality.

 

[privatebydesign]

And if you're out-doors? Bounce is a little tough off the moon because of the two and a half second delay.

You realise that you're wasting your breath right? The next 5d won't have a popup flash anyway. Get over it.

I did. I just think it's idiotic.

I just did a major reconfig:

5D -> 7D Mark II
Sigma 15mm fisheye -> Canon 8-15 fisheye
24-105L -> 18-135STM
35L -> Sigma 18-35/1.8
Keeping the 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2x TC III
85/1.8 -> Sell
17-40L -> Sell

Overall, the new system is more flexible with fewer lenses, has just as good of IQ in every situation and better in some, is faster in every way, costs less, and does include a built-in flash.

Canon is just too late in building a 5D replacement that interested me enough to buy it.

Interestingly, I've been begging for a 100-400L replacement that works well with a 1.4x since 2005. Now that it's finally here, it's too late as well. I'll probably buy a Sigma 150-600C instead.

Hmm, so you bought one Canon body and two Canon lenses, how exactly did Canon lose out on that one?

 

[Lee Jay]

And if you're out-doors? Bounce is a little tough off the moon because of the two and a half second delay.

You realise that you're wasting your breath right? The next 5d won't have a popup flash anyway. Get over it.

I did. I just think it's idiotic.

I just did a major reconfig:

5D -> 7D Mark II
Sigma 15mm fisheye -> Canon 8-15 fisheye
24-105L -> 18-135STM
35L -> Sigma 18-35/1.8
Keeping the 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2x TC III
85/1.8 -> Sell
17-40L -> Sell

Overall, the new system is more flexible with fewer lenses, has just as good of IQ in every situation and better in some, is faster in every way, costs less, and does include a built-in flash.

Canon is just too late in building a 5D replacement that interested me enough to buy it.

Interestingly, I've been begging for a 100-400L replacement that works well with a 1.4x since 2005. Now that it's finally here, it's too late as well. I'll probably buy a Sigma 150-600C instead.

Hmm, so you bought one Canon body and two Canon lenses, how exactly did Canon lose out on that one?

I was going to buy two Canon bodies and four Canon lenses (add 5D4, 100-400L II and 1.4x TC III). That's and additional, what, $6,000 orso? And iI'll be selling Canon lenses used which will ultimately displace some new sales.

 

[tron]

And if you're out-doors? Bounce is a little tough off the moon because of the two and a half second delay.

You realise that you're wasting your breath right? The next 5d won't have a popup flash anyway. Get over it.

I did. I just think it's idiotic.

I just did a major reconfig:

5D -> 7D Mark II
Sigma 15mm fisheye -> Canon 8-15 fisheye
24-105L -> 18-135STM
35L -> Sigma 18-35/1.8
Keeping the 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2x TC III
85/1.8 -> Sell
17-40L -> Sell

Overall, the new system is more flexible with fewer lenses, has just as good of IQ in every situation and better in some, is faster in every way, costs less, and does include a built-in flash.

Canon is just too late in building a 5D replacement that interested me enough to buy it.

Interestingly, I've been begging for a 100-400L replacement that works well with a 1.4x since 2005. Now that it's finally here, it's too late as well. I'll probably buy a Sigma 150-600C instead.

It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?

Have you bought Sigma 150-600C yet? If no I guess it is because you think 600mm are better than 400mm?

I think 7DII with the 100-400 is a very good combination.

I have the new 100-400 and use it with my 5D3 and I can assure you it is excellent fully open. I do realize I am FL limited though but I would not get the Sigma. Maybe a 7DII but not the Sigma. Just my opinion...

 

[Lee Jay]

It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?

Have you bought Sigma 150-600C yet? If no I guess it is because you think 600mm are better than 400mm?

I think 600mm on a lens that focuses using f/5.6 points is better than 560mm on a lens that focuses only with the f/8 points, especially when the optical performance is the same or better at 1/3 of a stop faster (f.7.1 versus f/8) and it's $1,089 versus $2,628 (100-400L II + 1.4x TC III).