EOS 5D Mark IV - the crippled generalist

[scyrene]

But seriously; the same number of focus points as the 5D3 with hardly any additional spread?

Did you find the 61 AF points too few? Should everything increase in number? As for the spread, I recall someone saying that the AF points can't be spread as close to the edges of the frame in a FF camera, something to do with the angle of light being too acute round the edges? So a crop camera like the 7D2 can have them appear to be further spread, because it's a smaller sensor. (Genuine open question - do other brands' FF cameras have their AF points spread wider than Canon's?).

The lack of flip screen really gets me because when you only have seconds to capture that spontaneous shot of something that is low to the ground or higher up and your option is to fiddle around with wi-fi, get out your phone then try to get it to connect, properly balance the camera and the phone, deal with the camera to phone image screen lag, and then finally take the picture the subject or scene is long gone. Popping out a screen and pressing the shutter button works so much better than attempting to pull off the aforementioned feat in time or the blind spray and pray method. And even more so when you only have such a limited area of coverage with the focus points.

Fair enough; I like flip screens, though I've never used one. But it's a matter of style - it's not simply a case of 'flip is better/the next logical step in camera evolution' - some cameras have them, some don't (see also pop up flashes). the 5D series is one that doesn't. It might be nice to see a Canon FF camera with one, perhaps the 6D2. But it's not a matter of being cheap, or conservative - it's a choice on their part. For the time being, there's the 80D, or the other solutions discussed here.

 

[Ozarker]

But seriously; the same number of focus points as the 5D3 with hardly any additional spread?

Did you find the 61 AF points too few? Should everything increase in number? As for the spread, I recall someone saying that the AF points can't be spread as close to the edges of the frame in a FF camera, something to do with the angle of light being too acute round the edges? So a crop camera like the 7D2 can have them appear to be further spread, because it's a smaller sensor. (Genuine open question - do other brands' FF cameras have their AF points spread wider than Canon's?).

The lack of flip screen really gets me because when you only have seconds to capture that spontaneous shot of something that is low to the ground or higher up and your option is to fiddle around with wi-fi, get out your phone then try to get it to connect, properly balance the camera and the phone, deal with the camera to phone image screen lag, and then finally take the picture the subject or scene is long gone. Popping out a screen and pressing the shutter button works so much better than attempting to pull off the aforementioned feat in time or the blind spray and pray method. And even more so when you only have such a limited area of coverage with the focus points.

Fair enough; I like flip screens, though I've never used one. But it's a matter of style - it's not simply a case of 'flip is better/the next logical step in camera evolution' - some cameras have them, some don't (see also pop up flashes). the 5D series is one that doesn't. It might be nice to see a Canon FF camera with one, perhaps the 6D2. But it's not a matter of being cheap, or conservative - it's a choice on their part. For the time being, there's the 80D, or the other solutions discussed here.

When you get to use a flip, I predict you will like it very much.

I just wrote to commend your openness and honesty.

 

[time123]

But seriously; the same number of focus points as the 5D3 with hardly any additional spread?

Did you find the 61 AF points too few? Should everything increase in number? As for the spread, I recall someone saying that the AF points can't be spread as close to the edges of the frame in a FF camera, something to do with the angle of light being too acute round the edges? So a crop camera like the 7D2 can have them appear to be further spread, because it's a smaller sensor. (Genuine open question - do other brands' FF cameras have their AF points spread wider than Canon's?).

By that reasoning did the 5D3 really need 61 points? Maybe they should have just stuck with the 9 from the 5D2. I think that things which help the photographer should be improved upon, such as having more focus points at a wider spread.

I don't know that the other brands have much more of a spread than the 5D4 on their current FFs - although the new Sony A99 II has "79 point (all cross-type) dedicated phase-detection autofocus sensor with a total of 399 on-chip phase detection points", and the D5 has 150 something points (although 55 selectable) and a bit wider spread than the 1DX II - but I think most of the second-from-the-top FFs are also a few years old as is. I guess I am still a bit shocked that after 4.5 years a company worth billions upon billions of dollars would more or less recycle their tech and not do anything else. Especially when comparing the jump in tech between the 5D2 to the 5D3 and the considerably shorter release schedule between those two bodies. I would rather see Canon remain an industry leader than a follower.

Because some folks are interested in setting up straw-men arguments; yes, a good photographer with the camera can take good pictures. Just like it has always been with any camera ever made. You won't find me denying that. I'm just discussing the technology behind it and thought Canon could do more. Also, yes, in many styles of photography every second counts and fiddling around with a wi-fi connection and the necessary add-ons does prevent shots from being captured. My personal example: while hiking through a narrow trail a native lizard pops out of the dense foliage on the ground to cross the two to three foot wide trail into more dense foliage. I want a portrait shot of it and not a shot of the top of it's back but there is hardly any room and I still try to get low then spray and pray. I didn't pray hard enough and/or was ignored, the lizard was gone, and I was left with a pile of worthless shots and no more lizards to be seen on the hike.

And it's true, I don't have an inside track on Canon's marketing department so if they determined they can make just as much money by releasing a camera with fewer interesting features or holding back on other tech because they know they figured they will still sell enough then so be it. But I don't own any Canon stock and I'm not going to be coming up with random rationales other than they knew they could still make lots of money selling whatever they decided to make as the 5D3.5/4.

I am also still surprised no one else mentions the focus point exposure metering. If this isn't a blatant example of an unnecessary reduction of features for no reason other than the old "marketing said we could still make tons of money" I don't know what is. And if it is not a useful feature why would they clutter up the menus further and put it in the 1DX series? Does anyone have any better examples?

 

[scyrene]

But seriously; the same number of focus points as the 5D3 with hardly any additional spread?

Did you find the 61 AF points too few? Should everything increase in number? As for the spread, I recall someone saying that the AF points can't be spread as close to the edges of the frame in a FF camera, something to do with the angle of light being too acute round the edges? So a crop camera like the 7D2 can have them appear to be further spread, because it's a smaller sensor. (Genuine open question - do other brands' FF cameras have their AF points spread wider than Canon's?).

By that reasoning did the 5D3 really need 61 points? Maybe they should have just stuck with the 9 from the 5D2. I think that things which help the photographer should be improved upon, such as having more focus points at a wider spread.

So are you gonna answer the question? Let's take your logic to its conclusion: a thousand AF points is better. And a million is better than that! There's such a thing as diminishing returns. I'm certainly not saying 61 is enough, or too many. But you seem to be stuck as 'more is better waaaaah!'.

I guess I am still a bit shocked that after 4.5 years a company worth billions upon billions of dollars would more or less recycle their tech and not do anything else. Especially when comparing the jump in tech between the 5D2 to the 5D3 and the considerably shorter release schedule between those two bodies.

I can only assume they thought the number of points was enough, and that other aspects (like metering sensor, AF algorithms, etc) were more important. Each generation won't improve in the same ways, different areas of technology are at different stages of maturity.

 

[d]

I can only assume they thought the number of points was enough, and that other aspects (like metering sensor, AF algorithms, etc) were more important. Each generation won't improve in the same ways, different areas of technology are at different stages of maturity.

Or perhaps this is the last 5D body that will feature a mirror and associated AF technology, so Canon saw little reason to sink significant resources in improving a technology that will be discarded in the next generation body.

 

[tpatana]

Just did dpraw testing with row of batteries. 24mm, 70mm and 200mm. F4 and F8 from about 1 meter distance for first, others F2.8 and F8 from about 3 meter distance.

Most clear measurable was [email protected]. It shifted about half battery width, so I'd say 5mm (both ways). [email protected] seemed to be about inch both ways.

All others were "hmm... it's moving/shifting/changing, but it's difficult to see where"

Granted, my setup wasn't optimal so need to test more. But based on this, I'm not sold yet.

 

[romanr74]

Like it or not, Canon will go there soon on every top end model. The XXD's are just the laboratory.

Are you the product manager or is this just an unsubstantiated claim (which I believe it is)?

 

[romanr74]

When you get to use a flip, I predict you will like it very much.

There are different preferences out there. I do NOT like filp screens, I never got used to them, I would not buy a 5D if it had a flip screen and there was an alternative.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

When you get to use a flip, I predict you will like it very much.

There are different preferences out there. I do NOT like filp screens, I never got used to them, I would not buy a 5D if it had a flip screen and there was an alternative.

I feel I must agree with this comment. It all depends on how you use the camera and what your preferences are. You can't just assume that everyone wants a tilty flippy screen.
Although I have never owned a camera with a tilty flippy screen, my friend did allow me to borrow his 650D for a day and so I have had an opportunity to use one. I hardly used the LCD - except for navigating through the menus and most of the time it was turned around to protect it.

 

[scyrene]

I can only assume they thought the number of points was enough, and that other aspects (like metering sensor, AF algorithms, etc) were more important. Each generation won't improve in the same ways, different areas of technology are at different stages of maturity.

Or perhaps this is the last 5D body that will feature a mirror and associated AF technology, so Canon saw little reason to sink significant resources in improving a technology that will be discarded in the next generation body.

Interesting hypothesis.

 

[Loswr]

I can only assume they thought the number of points was enough, and that other aspects (like metering sensor, AF algorithms, etc) were more important. Each generation won't improve in the same ways, different areas of technology are at different stages of maturity.

Or perhaps this is the last 5D body that will feature a mirror and associated AF technology, so Canon saw little reason to sink significant resources in improving a technology that will be discarded in the next generation body.

Interesting hypothesis.

Yeah, mirrorless means the death of the dSLR within 5 years. Now, when have I heard that before? Oh, yes...7 years ago.

 

[Ozarker]

Like it or not, Canon will go there soon on every top end model. The XXD's are just the laboratory.

Are you the product manager or is this just an unsubstantiated claim (which I believe it is)?

I'm ensconced in my "Product Manager" chair behind my "Product Manager" desk at my secret Area 102 lair in Mesquite, Nevada. I'm sitting here with my good friend C.R. Nostradamus, who frequents this site and your posts also. The only difference is that my completely unsubstantiated claim is true while any unsubstantiated claim you've ever made on a Rumors site is completely false.

DPAF, touch screens, etc... all have been trickled up to the higher end. Now the 1DX Mark II and 5D Mark IV have both. Have you, Romanr74 ever posted that a 1D series body would never have a touch screen or should never? What about 5D? That touch screens are just gimmicks and will never make it to the pros?

The flips will be there. In fact, if the next 5D series body doesn't get a flip I'll buy you a steak dinner and all the beer you can drink right up the road from my lair at the Casa Blanca Casino.

P.S. The market is getting older, not younger. Ageing boomers are the wealthiest generation ever. They will steer market forces for a very long time to come. Their knees and backs are failing many of them. The flip makes the hobby more enjoyable for them. They like the top end gear.

Their hipster snowflake grandchildren will be replaced by robots that can actually put in a shift or two. (Disclaimer: Not all hipsters are bad nor are they all snowflakes).

That's my substantiation.

What is your's to the opposite?

 

[Ozarker]

When you get to use a flip, I predict you will like it very much.

There are different preferences out there. I do NOT like filp screens, I never got used to them, I would not buy a 5D if it had a flip screen and there was an alternative.

I feel I must agree with this comment. It all depends on how you use the camera and what your preferences are. You can't just assume that everyone wants a tilty flippy screen.
Although I have never owned a camera with a tilty flippy screen, my friend did allow me to borrow his 650D for a day and so I have had an opportunity to use one. I hardly used the LCD - except for navigating through the menus and most of the time it was turned around to protect it.

True, but in the same line of reasoning we can't assume everyone doesn't want the tilty flippy.

Canon will do whatever Canon thinks will maximize profits and market share regardless of what we individuals might think or desire.

 

[time123]

I can only assume they thought the number of points was enough, and that other aspects (like metering sensor, AF algorithms, etc) were more important. Each generation won't improve in the same ways, different areas of technology are at different stages of maturity.

Or perhaps this is the last 5D body that will feature a mirror and associated AF technology, so Canon saw little reason to sink significant resources in improving a technology that will be discarded in the next generation body.

Interesting hypothesis.

Yeah, mirrorless means the death of the dSLR within 5 years. Now, when have I heard that before? Oh, yes...7 years ago.

Definitely an interesting hypothesis. I think it really makes sense when you consider how fast miniaturized computing has matured and continues to grow. It seems to me that is what is ultimately needed for the mirrorless systems to be put on par with the mirrored systems: more computing power and the capacity to balance the power utilization with it. With more computational power you can actually have autofocus systems that can keep up with high end DSLRs - and with some of the more modern mirrorless releases you can see great strides from even just a couple years back. With better screens you can have sharpness and refresh rates in the viewfinder that are on par with a DSLR. And of course with mirrorless you have fewer moving parts meaning less things to break/wear out so it seems that making the camera even tougher and weather-resistant would be cheaper or easier to implement as well.

I must say I am quite intrigued by the M5 which I consider to be their first real jump into mirrorless-land aimed towards a more demanding crowd. If mirrorless is ultimately the route Canon goes I sincerely hope I get to use my EF lenses (and lets thrown in EF-S lenses too for good measure to broaden the audience) at native speeds. If I have to use an adapter, sure that's fine although I'd rather not add more bulk if I don't have to, but the autofocus speed and image quality are critical.

Just as an interesting point of reference for portable computational power I found some information on iPhone benchmarks (https://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks). The iPhone 4S and iPhone 7 are about 4.5 years apart (see 5D3 --> 5D4) and the 4S got an overall score of 282 while the 7 got a score of 3307 which is almost a 12-fold increase. I don't have any data but if I had to guess the battery life between the two phones is probably roughly equal so battery technology and efficiencies are improving there as well. It will definitely be exciting to see what comes next in the upcoming years. Interesting hypothesis indeed.

 

[Ozarker]

I can only assume they thought the number of points was enough, and that other aspects (like metering sensor, AF algorithms, etc) were more important. Each generation won't improve in the same ways, different areas of technology are at different stages of maturity.

Or perhaps this is the last 5D body that will feature a mirror and associated AF technology, so Canon saw little reason to sink significant resources in improving a technology that will be discarded in the next generation body.

Interesting hypothesis.

Yeah, mirrorless means the death of the dSLR within 5 years. Now, when have I heard that before? Oh, yes...7 years ago.

Makes me want to cry. All that worthless "L" glass going to the landfill.

 

[Ozarker]

When you get to use a flip, I predict you will like it very much.

There are different preferences out there. I do NOT like filp screens, I never got used to them, I would not buy a 5D if it had a flip screen and there was an alternative.

Do what you want, dude. Lots of people don't want them. Lots do.

Which body did you own that you could never get used to the flip on?

I had the opposite problem. Going from a 70D to a 5D mark III was tough to get used to. I really do miss the screen... but I'm a rickety old man. Well, lots of miles on me anyway.

Personally, I'd buy a 1D or 5D with a flip. I especially enjoyed it on my 70D (sold it). I had a T5i before that. Liked the flip then too, especially coming of the XSi.

The flip is a real knee and back saver. That's my main "Like" about it.

 

[Mikehit]

I had the opposite problem. Going from a 70D to a 5D mark III was tough to get used to. I really do miss the screen... but I'm a rickety old man. Well, lots of miles on me anyway.

Personally, I'd buy a 1D or 5D with a flip. I especially enjoyed it on my 70D (sold it). I had a T5i before that. Liked the flip then too, especially coming of the XSi.

The flip is a real knee and back saver. That's my main "Like" about it.

I am pretty agnostic when it comes to flip screens - it is one of those features that I am not clamouring for but were it to be on the camera I would use it, mainly for shots with a low viewpoint (for me that means flower/insect macro).

 

[time123]

But seriously; the same number of focus points as the 5D3 with hardly any additional spread?

Did you find the 61 AF points too few? Should everything increase in number? As for the spread, I recall someone saying that the AF points can't be spread as close to the edges of the frame in a FF camera, something to do with the angle of light being too acute round the edges? So a crop camera like the 7D2 can have them appear to be further spread, because it's a smaller sensor. (Genuine open question - do other brands' FF cameras have their AF points spread wider than Canon's?).

By that reasoning did the 5D3 really need 61 points? Maybe they should have just stuck with the 9 from the 5D2. I think that things which help the photographer should be improved upon, such as having more focus points at a wider spread.

So are you gonna answer the question? Let's take your logic to its conclusion: a thousand AF points is better. And a million is better than that! There's such a thing as diminishing returns. I'm certainly not saying 61 is enough, or too many. But you seem to be stuck as 'more is better waaaaah!'.

I guess I am still a bit shocked that after 4.5 years a company worth billions upon billions of dollars would more or less recycle their tech and not do anything else. Especially when comparing the jump in tech between the 5D2 to the 5D3 and the considerably shorter release schedule between those two bodies.

I can only assume they thought the number of points was enough, and that other aspects (like metering sensor, AF algorithms, etc) were more important. Each generation won't improve in the same ways, different areas of technology are at different stages of maturity.

Well, if you don't feel that 61 is too many then we are already on the same page but you'd be better off not setting up logical fallacies (good old slippery slope) and arguing against those and especially making a fake crying sound. I cringe every time I see that kind of unintelligent junk as part of a debate/discussion on the Internet. Is that how you actually discuss things with people in real life or is the anonymity of the Internet taking its toll? As I had originally said I was surprised that Canon didn't increase the number of autofocus points so obviously, yes, I felt that 61 was too few for a product that is 4.5 years newer. I thought that your question was rhetorical because this inference of mine was clear but apparently not for everyone. This topic is about what people feel are shortcomings on the 5D4. This is one of mine.

There are plenty of advantages to a camera that has more auto-focus points with further spread. If you only shoot with the center point then only use the center point. But if you are using a very wide aperture focusing and recomposing can easily throw off the shot. Or capturing moving subjects coming in from further from the sides or top/bottom of the scene. The scenarios where this is useful goes on and on. There are plenty of photographers that find more points with more spread useful even if you don't.

Although 100% coverage would be pretty wild but the AF system and the things you could do with something so complex would be crazy. But I couldn't imagine the "Canon 1DX VII Auto-focus System for Dummies, Volumes 1-4" being a very popular seller. I never had a chance to use it but the Samsung NX1 had somewhere around 90% coverage. So yes, in many instances more is better and of course only to a point. Again though, arguing against conclusions I didn't make isn't conducive to a productive discussion. In fact, you might say it is pointless (get it? Bad puns for everyone!)

Sure, new generations won't increase in the same ways but the big talking point variables - which also tend to be very useful - in product lines that only come out once every 4-5 years (or fewer in for certain brands of cameras) generally increase or decrease for the better with each iteration but this was certainly an exception. I'm not discounting the other improvements which seem to be pretty excellent. To me though calling a piece of the technology mature so that they don't have to make any major advancements is the same type of excuse as calling them conservative and one that I don't buy. I'm sure their marketing team did their homework, decided that not too many people wouldn't be up in arms about having the same number of AF points and they could still make tons of money so that's what they did because they know once you are tied into an ecosystem they kind of got you.

We may need to agree to at least partially disagree here.

 

[Mikehit]

Just as an interesting point of reference for portable computational power I found some information on iPhone benchmarks (https://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks). The iPhone 4S and iPhone 7 are about 4.5 years apart (see 5D3 --> 5D4) and the 4S got an overall score of 282 while the 7 got a score of 3307 which is almost a 12-fold increase. I don't have any data but if I had to guess the battery life between the two phones is probably roughly equal so battery technology and efficiencies are improving there as well. It will definitely be exciting to see what comes next in the upcoming years. Interesting hypothesis indeed.

Another interesting parallel is that the bigger battery is needed for the ever-increasing electronic functionality. And the increasing functionality means a bigger unit - this has been seen with the iphones as well as cameras: I recall the near howls of disappointment when the Panasonic GH4 (vs the G models) and the Olympus E-MII (vs the E-M5) were both bigger than their predecessors with complaints that it was going against the MFT ethos of smaller bodies for equal performance.

 

[time123]

Just as an interesting point of reference for portable computational power I found some information on iPhone benchmarks (https://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks). The iPhone 4S and iPhone 7 are about 4.5 years apart (see 5D3 --> 5D4) and the 4S got an overall score of 282 while the 7 got a score of 3307 which is almost a 12-fold increase. I don't have any data but if I had to guess the battery life between the two phones is probably roughly equal so battery technology and efficiencies are improving there as well. It will definitely be exciting to see what comes next in the upcoming years. Interesting hypothesis indeed.

Another interesting parallel is that the bigger battery is needed for the ever-increasing electronic functionality. And the increasing functionality means a bigger unit - this has been seen with the iphones as well as cameras: I recall the near howls of disappointment when the Panasonic GH4 (vs the G models) and the Olympus E-MII (vs the E-M5) were both bigger than their predecessors with complaints that it was going against the MFT ethos of smaller bodies for equal performance.

You inspired me to do a bit more research:

iPhone 4s
Dimensions: Height: 4.5 inches (115.2 mm), Width: 2.31 inches (58.6 mm), Depth: 0.37 inch (9.3 mm)
Total volume: 62781 mm
Weight: 4.9 ounces (140 grams)

iPhone 7
Dimensions 138.3 x 67.1 x 7.1 mm (5.44 x 2.64 x 0.28 in)
Total volume: 65887 mm
Weight 138 g (4.87 oz)

So the 7 actually weighs slightly less than the 4S and is only 5% larger in volume. I think that there are major advancements is all the different types of technologies (chip size, power utilization, battery capacities) that would still allow the cameras to be fairly small if they so desired. Personally though I like having a camera with a bit of heft and size but they could also always make a vertical grip stuffed with batteries for them too.