EOS 5D Mark IV - the crippled generalist

[Mikehit]

To be fair, the differences between the 5DSR and the 5DS are so slight that many wondered if it was even worth paying the additional £300 for the 5DSR. The differences are there if you look for them side-by-side but I think it shows how small the difference actually is.

As for your other points, adding 2fps and adding 100% larger raw buffer would add cost to a camera already deemed by many to be too expensive. Way to go to creating a commercially successful camera, eh!!
So yes, it may well be 'a stretch'

 

[tron]

To be fair, the differences between the 5DSR and the 5DS are so slight that many wondered if it was even worth paying the additional £300 for the 5DSR. The differences are there if you look for them side-by-side but I think it shows how small the difference actually is.

As for your other points, adding 2fps and adding 100% larger raw buffer would add cost to a camera already deemed by many to be too expensive. Way to go to creating a commercially successful camera, eh!!
So yes, it may well be 'a stretch'

But it would improve its use in birding so I am not so sure that it would be unwelcomed. As an example:How many have bought the cheaper 5Ds vs 5DsR ?

 

[neuroanatomist]

To be fair, the differences between the 5DSR and the 5DS are so slight that many wondered if it was even worth paying the additional £300 for the 5DSR. The differences are there if you look for them side-by-side but I think it shows how small the difference actually is.

As for your other points, adding 2fps and adding 100% larger raw buffer would add cost to a camera already deemed by many to be too expensive. Way to go to creating a commercially successful camera, eh!!
So yes, it may well be 'a stretch'

But it would improve its use in birding so I am not so sure that it would be welcomed. As an example:How many have bought the cheaper 5Ds vs 5DsR ?

Amazon.com sales rank right now, 5DsR is at #61, 5Ds ($200 cheaper) is at #335.

FWIW, the 5DIV is at #2 (obviously not comparable as it's new). I guess people don't know it's 'crippled'. :

 

[j-nord]

To be fair, the differences between the 5DSR and the 5DS are so slight that many wondered if it was even worth paying the additional £300 for the 5DSR. The differences are there if you look for them side-by-side but I think it shows how small the difference actually is.

As for your other points, adding 2fps and adding 100% larger raw buffer would add cost to a camera already deemed by many to be too expensive. Way to go to creating a commercially successful camera, eh!!
So yes, it may well be 'a stretch'

But it would improve its use in birding so I am not so sure that it would be welcomed. As an example:How many have bought the cheaper 5Ds vs 5DsR ?

Amazon.com sales rank right now, 5DsR is at #61, 5Ds ($200 cheaper) is at #335.

FWIW, the 5DIV is at #2 (obviously not comparable as it's new). I guess people don't know it's 'crippled'. :

5DSR was/is significantly out selling the 5DS as neuro backed up. A lot of people seem interested in maximum detail, others are fine with or prefer an AA filter. AA filters definitely make sense for the portrait/wedding crowd where fabrics have a good chance of producing moire and human subjects often don't want to be photographed in more detail. To be clear I said the AA filter 'somewhat' cripples the sensor as a clear troll To say I'd prefer without an AA filter would be more honest. It's certainly not a deal breaker.

To the point about more fps and more buffer costing more, I stated that the resources put into Dual Pixel RAW and 4K video (4k video people of course disagree or maybe agree because they have their own set of complaints) would have been be better allocated to those two areas.

I'd be willing to buy a new 5DIV even if it were say $100-200 more if it were truly more 'all round' than it is, for me. As it is, I find it hard to believe the shutter couldn't comfortably be driven at 8 or even 9 fps with out significantly effecting reliability. Buffer = RAM = throw more RAM at it, RAM is cheap and we know there is space in the body.

These specs are completely within reason. To compare, the FAR cheaper 80D does 7fps and 25 frame RAW buffer (only 21 on the 5DIV). Yes, the 80D has less m-pix but is also nearly 1/3 the price. The 5DS/R is older, cheaper AND does more m-pix per second.

 

[RGF]

To be fair, the differences between the 5DSR and the 5DS are so slight that many wondered if it was even worth paying the additional £300 for the 5DSR. The differences are there if you look for them side-by-side but I think it shows how small the difference actually is.

As for your other points, adding 2fps and adding 100% larger raw buffer would add cost to a camera already deemed by many to be too expensive. Way to go to creating a commercially successful camera, eh!!
So yes, it may well be 'a stretch'

But it would improve its use in birding so I am not so sure that it would be welcomed. As an example:How many have bought the cheaper 5Ds vs 5DsR ?

Amazon.com sales rank right now, 5DsR is at #61, 5Ds ($200 cheaper) is at #335.

FWIW, the 5DIV is at #2 (obviously not comparable as it's new). I guess people don't know it's 'crippled'. :

5DSR was/is significantly out selling the 5DS as neuro backed up. A lot of people seem interested in maximum detail, others are fine with or prefer an AA filter. AA filters definitely make sense for the portrait/wedding crowd where fabrics have a good chance of producing moire and human subjects often don't want to be photographed in more detail. To be clear I said the AA filter 'somewhat' cripples the sensor as a clear troll To say I'd prefer without an AA filter would be more honest. It's certainly not a deal breaker.

To the point about more fps and more buffer costing more, I stated that the resources put into Dual Pixel RAW and 4K video (4k video people of course disagree or maybe agree because they have their own set of complaints) would have been be better allocated to those two areas.

I'd be willing to buy a new 5DIV even if it were say $100-200 more if it were truly more 'all round' than it is, for me. As it is, I find it hard to believe the shutter couldn't comfortably be driven at 8 or even 9 fps with out significantly effecting reliability. Buffer = RAM = throw more RAM at it, RAM is cheap and we know there is space in the body.

These specs are completely within reason. To compare, the FAR cheaper 80D does 7fps and 25 frame RAW buffer (only 21 on the 5DIV). Yes, the 80D has less m-pix but is also nearly 1/3 the price. The 5DS/R is older, cheaper AND does more m-pix per second.

So? Canon makes it decision about what to put in a camera

They are very successful. One of their goals (besides from making a profit and staying in business) is to differentiate the different models in their product lines. This is basic business 101.

If you are critical of Canon's decisions I would like to see your credentials - have you had responsibility for a consumer-facing technology oriented company. What has your success been.

Are you a Monday morning coach or can you really successful run a business.

It is not easy, there are compromises, ...

 

[tron]

To be fair, the differences between the 5DSR and the 5DS are so slight that many wondered if it was even worth paying the additional £300 for the 5DSR. The differences are there if you look for them side-by-side but I think it shows how small the difference actually is.

As for your other points, adding 2fps and adding 100% larger raw buffer would add cost to a camera already deemed by many to be too expensive. Way to go to creating a commercially successful camera, eh!!
So yes, it may well be 'a stretch'

But it would improve its use in birding so I am not so sure that it would be welcomed. As an example:How many have bought the cheaper 5Ds vs 5DsR ?

Amazon.com sales rank right now, 5DsR is at #61, 5Ds ($200 cheaper) is at #335.

FWIW, the 5DIV is at #2 (obviously not comparable as it's new). I guess people don't know it's 'crippled'. :

I don't know either. Just got a 5D4. But to tell the truth I made some moderate to high iso tests with 400DO II and I did not check the sensor yet. I will try to check it today.

 

[jeffa4444]

Re: EOS 5D Mark IV - the crippled generalist2

But surely Canon has innovated in core areas of DSLR performance in the past in ways that it just isn't now?

5D: ground-breaking prosumer level FF DSLR.
5D II: Huge resolution leap. Far ahead of the competition. Awesome video.
5D III: Better all round camera with very marginal sensor upgrade, with DR and read noise still being a major problem in high DR situations. Good video, but competition has caught up.
5D IV: The sensor is now up to date, but rest of the camera is barely different to the 5DIII

really?
- more intelligent viewfinder, level,etc in viewfinder.
- GPS, wifi and NFC
- increased fps
- lowered blackout/shutter lag.
- better mirror / shutter motor - decreased shutter shock.
- better weathersealing and build quality including tripod mount.
- better AF (f/8 all points), 5 high precision cross types.
- improved itR (added second DiGiC Processor for iTR and AF/AE - the only non 1 series to have a dedicated AF DiGiC)
- Improved Auto-ISO
- added Flicker control and white balance priority
- added intervalometer,
- added DPRAW and DLO in camera
- fixed SD card write speed,
- sensor is 30Mp versus 21MP, improved color, DR,etc.
and that's just off the top of my head.

Did you just take a look at the 5,000 foot specifications and come to your conclusion?

The 6D had GPS & wi-fi in late 2012 six months after the release of the 5D MKIII, it also had better low light abilities and less banding. 5D MKIII users went on about the crippled AF in the 6D but generally it's been fine for the market it was aimed at landscape & travel.

The improvements listed above started to show up with the 7D MKII, 80D, 5DS/R and even flicker control on the 750 / 760D. For a camera retailing for Euro 3700 / £ 3600 it should have had better 4K codecs & better DR and whilst the camera is definitely an improvement over the 5D MKIV it's no ground breaker either (such as the 5D MKII was).

At the current price point it's expensive, if it falls it maybe a better cost to benefit decision but if it remains at this price and the 6D MKIV gets a similar spec. to the 80D in a ff body Canon will see a decline in Europe of 5D sales without question.

 

[Antono Refa]

I'd be willing to buy a new 5DIV even if it were say $100-200 more if it were truly more 'all round' than it is, for me. As it is, I find it hard to believe the shutter couldn't comfortably be driven at 8 or even 9 fps with out significantly effecting reliability. Buffer = RAM = throw more RAM at it, RAM is cheap and we know there is space in the body.

These specs are completely within reason. To compare, the FAR cheaper 80D does 7fps and 25 frame RAW buffer (only 21 on the 5DIV). Yes, the 80D has less m-pix but is also nearly 1/3 the price. The 5DS/R is older, cheaper AND does more m-pix per second.

One limitation on fps rate is mirror movement. The 80D's mirror is far smaller than the 5DmkIV's, as is its shutter.

The appropriate comparison is the 1DXmkII, which can do 14 fps, demonstrating Canon can make both a shutter and a mirror mechanism that work at 8 or 9 fps.

The real point is the 1DXmkII and the 5DS are the top of the line cameras, and the 5DmkIV is a compromise camera at a lower price point. Canon could put more RAM, shutter & mirror mechanism, and maybe electronics to support higher fps, but the camera would cost more - and that might hurt sales.

 

[fussy III]

5DIV is kind of disappointing as a do it all stills camera. I get the priorities/compromises that Canon made (except the useless duel pixel RAW R&D).

- 5DIV has adequate m-pix IMO but somewhat crippled by the AA filter (I know the target, wedding, market probably wants the AA filter)
- fps leaves some to be desired, 8fps seems like it was low hanging fruit. But, I'd prefer 9fps (or a little more m-pix and 8fps) which seems with in reason when compared to the through put of the 5DSR.
- no tilt screen - I know a lot of the target market doesn't want or doesn't think they want a tilt screen but as a generalist camera it should have one IMO.

So what option do I have for a generalist FF camera? 5DIV is the closest Ill get this generation I guess. Low expectations for the 6DII with m-pix and fps. The 5DSR II will have at least 50m-pix if not more but again have low fps. I guess I'm out of luck If I want a modern FF body for both wildlife and landscape.

My issues with the EOS 5D Mark IV are similar, even when lack of articulating screen is left aside. This new camera gives me no incentive whatsoever to replace my outdated 70D and 5DII. Neither do I find good reason to buy any other Canon camera at the moment. This is why:

My 70D will deliver a more detailed image than a crop from 30MP of the 5D IV. The 70D has the same fps, good tracking AF and a buffer that is not truly bad in comparison. If I wanted a detailed crop, the 5Dsr would be an option, but slow fps and foreseeable improvements in dynamic range with the next generation make an investment of some 4k$ economically unfeasable. If simply I need that fullframe capacity for wide angle with autofocus, the image quality of the 5DII that I own is not so much worse than 5DIV.
If I had an immediate need to step up in any single field of photography employing my Canon lenses, the most obvious choice would be in landscape photography with a purchase of the Sony A7RII for megapixels and DR.

I will have to keep looking for incentives from Canon. I, too, want that modern body for wildlife AND landscape (AND tiltscreen reportage). Anyone buying into the EF-system at the moment ought to consider a combo 80D and A7RII to be the most generalistic approach. Kind of sad that is for Canon.

 

[Mikehit]

Anyone buying into ANY system at the moment ought to consider a combo... 80D and A7RII to be the most generalistic approach. Kind of sad that is for Canon all manufacturers.

I think that is more accurate

 

[j-nord]

To be fair, the differences between the 5DSR and the 5DS are so slight that many wondered if it was even worth paying the additional £300 for the 5DSR. The differences are there if you look for them side-by-side but I think it shows how small the difference actually is.

As for your other points, adding 2fps and adding 100% larger raw buffer would add cost to a camera already deemed by many to be too expensive. Way to go to creating a commercially successful camera, eh!!
So yes, it may well be 'a stretch'

But it would improve its use in birding so I am not so sure that it would be welcomed. As an example:How many have bought the cheaper 5Ds vs 5DsR ?

Amazon.com sales rank right now, 5DsR is at #61, 5Ds ($200 cheaper) is at #335.

FWIW, the 5DIV is at #2 (obviously not comparable as it's new). I guess people don't know it's 'crippled'. :

5DSR was/is significantly out selling the 5DS as neuro backed up. A lot of people seem interested in maximum detail, others are fine with or prefer an AA filter. AA filters definitely make sense for the portrait/wedding crowd where fabrics have a good chance of producing moire and human subjects often don't want to be photographed in more detail. To be clear I said the AA filter 'somewhat' cripples the sensor as a clear troll To say I'd prefer without an AA filter would be more honest. It's certainly not a deal breaker.

To the point about more fps and more buffer costing more, I stated that the resources put into Dual Pixel RAW and 4K video (4k video people of course disagree or maybe agree because they have their own set of complaints) would have been be better allocated to those two areas.

I'd be willing to buy a new 5DIV even if it were say $100-200 more if it were truly more 'all round' than it is, for me. As it is, I find it hard to believe the shutter couldn't comfortably be driven at 8 or even 9 fps with out significantly effecting reliability. Buffer = RAM = throw more RAM at it, RAM is cheap and we know there is space in the body.

These specs are completely within reason. To compare, the FAR cheaper 80D does 7fps and 25 frame RAW buffer (only 21 on the 5DIV). Yes, the 80D has less m-pix but is also nearly 1/3 the price. The 5DS/R is older, cheaper AND does more m-pix per second.

So? Canon makes it decision about what to put in a camera

They are very successful. One of their goals (besides from making a profit and staying in business) is to differentiate the different models in their product lines. This is basic business 101.

If you are critical of Canon's decisions I would like to see your credentials - have you had responsibility for a consumer-facing technology oriented company. What has your success been.

Are you a Monday morning coach or can you really successful run a business.

It is not easy, there are compromises, ...

Great defense of Canon. You missed the point. I was stating why I, personally, am disappointed in the decisions Canon made for the 5DIV. I discussed why the changes I would have like to seen would have been with in reason but I have no illusions about Canon doing what is best for Canon and the general market.

I want one FF body that can cover the landscape to wildlife range adequately while obviously not being the best at either. 5DIV falls a little short given available technology but there is no better alternative that I know of.

 

[j-nord]

Anyone buying into ANY system at the moment ought to consider a combo... 80D and A7RII to be the most generalistic approach. Kind of sad that is for Canon all manufacturers.

I think that is more accurate

I agree there is no generalist camera from any manufacturer that covers AF, m-pix, and fps/buffer to this level. I think manufactures are motivated to leave as much improvement on the table as they can since DSLR tech is really slowing down and reaching a peak. They are already at a point where its difficult to improve a camera just enough to convince users to upgrade while not screwing themselves over for the next generation or the one after. You can guarantee that Nikon and Canon are looking at least 2 generations ahead.

 

[j-nord]

I'd be willing to buy a new 5DIV even if it were say $100-200 more if it were truly more 'all round' than it is, for me. As it is, I find it hard to believe the shutter couldn't comfortably be driven at 8 or even 9 fps with out significantly effecting reliability. Buffer = RAM = throw more RAM at it, RAM is cheap and we know there is space in the body.

These specs are completely within reason. To compare, the FAR cheaper 80D does 7fps and 25 frame RAW buffer (only 21 on the 5DIV). Yes, the 80D has less m-pix but is also nearly 1/3 the price. The 5DS/R is older, cheaper AND does more m-pix per second.

One limitation on fps rate is mirror movement. The 80D's mirror is far smaller than the 5DmkIV's, as is its shutter.
It's definitely easier to drive a smaller lighter shutter but from a consumer feature standpoint it's not a relevant reason to buy a camera 3x as much.

The appropriate comparison is the 1DXmkII, which can do 14 fps, demonstrating Canon can make both a shutter and a mirror mechanism that work at 8 or 9 fps.
I didn't make this comparison because I thought it would go with out saying

The real point is the 1DXmkII and the 5DS are the top of the line cameras, and the 5DmkIV is a compromise camera at a lower price point. Canon could put more RAM, shutter & mirror mechanism, and maybe electronics to support higher fps, but the camera would cost more - and that might hurt sales.

I think it's a hard argument to make that the 5DSR is/was top of the line for anything other than m-pix. It's an unusual case study as an in between generation camera. I think the 5DSR II will however be more clearly 'top of the line'.

 

[Mikehit]

I agree there is no generalist camera from any manufacturer that covers AF, m-pix, and fps/buffer to this level.

That is a reasonable viewpoint, yet some people are reacting as though Canon is being left behind as a manufacturer of generalist cameras.

I think manufactures are motivated to leave as much improvement on the table as they can since DSLR tech is really slowing down and reaching a peak.

Or creating a camera with everything people want will either
(a) be too expensive, or
(b) be so bad at the things the manufacturer is not specialising in as to ruin their reputation

You can guarantee that Nikon and Canon are looking at least 2 generations ahead.

Exactly. So why some are getting so prissy and throwing their toys out of the pram I don't know.

Canon - Sensor quality meets (even exceeds) the needs of most people out there. Video technology so-so, Mirrorless technology behind the curve. Good solid reputation. Sound technology but not setting the world on fire.
Olympus/Panasonic - OK sort of tracking AF. Don't have the range of lenses. Did I mention battery life?
Sony - Excellent sensor tech. Good video quality but prone to overheating. AF better than Oly/Pana but not as good as Canon. Ergonomics poor. Probably too small to hold all day with a premium lens attached. Lenses non-existent. Weather sealing poor. After-sales service appalling.And did I mention battery life again?

 

[j-nord]

I agree there is no generalist camera from any manufacturer that covers AF, m-pix, and fps/buffer to this level.

That is a reasonable viewpoint, yet some people are reacting as though Canon is being left behind as a manufacturer of generalist cameras.

I think manufactures are motivated to leave as much improvement on the table as they can since DSLR tech is really slowing down and reaching a peak.

Or creating a camera with everything people want will either
(a) be too expensive, or
- I refuse to believe adding some more RAM for a bigger buffer would add any significant cost, adding 2 fps might though, I don't know.
(b) be so bad at the things the manufacturer is not specialising in as to ruin their reputation

You can guarantee that Nikon and Canon are looking at least 2 generations ahead.

Exactly. So why some are getting so prissy and throwing their toys out of the pram I don't know.

Canon - Sensor quality meets (even exceeds) the needs of most people out there. Video technology so-so, Mirrorless technology behind the curve. Good solid reputation. Sound technology but not setting the world on fire.
Olympus/Panasonic - OK sort of tracking AF. Don't have the range of lenses
Sony - Excellent sensor tech. Good video quality but prone to overheating. AF better than Oly/Pana but not as good as Canon. Ergonomics poor. Probably too small to hold all day with a premium lens attached. Lenses non-existent. Weather sealing poor. After-sales service appalling.
From an ecosystem standpoint, no one can touch Canon. Other manufactures may offer something better here and there but overall cannot compete.

 

[unfocused]

Those complaining about the 5D IVs frame rate forget something very important. The 5D IV is used extensively by wedding and other event photographers who need the quietest shutter possible. As the 1DX II demonstrates, frame rate and silence are mutually exclusive. Increase frame rate and you increase noise. It's perfectly logical that Canon would keep the frame rate down in the 5D series in order to allow for a quieter shutter. (Yes, I'm sure product differentiation has something to do with it as well, but there would be a lot more whining on this thread and others if the 5D IV came anywhere close to the 1D X II in shutter noise.)

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think manufactures are motivated to leave as much improvement on the table as they can since DSLR tech is really slowing down and reaching a peak. They are already at a point where its difficult to improve a camera just enough to convince users to upgrade while not screwing themselves over for the next generation or the one after. You can guarantee that Nikon and Canon are looking at least 2 generations ahead.

I'm not sure that in-line one-step upgrades are a major part of Canon's core strategy. Meaning that, for example, I don't think Canon aims for enticing 5DIII owners to get a 5DIV. Rather, the target market for the 5DIV are 6D, 5DII and xxD owners.

 

[fussy III]

Anyone buying into ANY system at the moment ought to consider a combo... 80D and A7RII to be the most generalistic approach. Kind of sad that is for Canon all manufacturers.

I think that is more accurate

I'd argue that Nikon at least gives it an effort with the D810 and its higher frame rate in crop mode (the 5Dsr does not even try). If Nikon keeps up that philosophy, then the next generation will have fps that will suit most every wildlife photographer's needs.

 

[dak723]

I'm not sure that in-line one-step upgrades are a major part of Canon's core strategy. Meaning that, for example, I don't think Canon aims for enticing 5DIII owners to get a 5DIV. Rather, the target market for the 5DIV are 6D, 5DII and xxD owners.

I agree completely. Perhaps this is generational thinking - but my guess is that older photographers who started with film cameras keep their digital camera longer and rarely upgrade to the next generation, while younger folks of the smartphone generation think that each new generation MUST be a big improvement. Despite the evidence that the upgrades for all camera makers have been minor for the past 13 years. There have been no revolutionary changes in that time and most of the advances have been in things like AF speed rather than IQ.

For those that think the 5D IV can't do anything you want, I feel sorry for you. If you need the best spec numbers, maybe you ought to rethink why you own a camera.

 

[j-nord]

I'm not sure that in-line one-step upgrades are a major part of Canon's core strategy. Meaning that, for example, I don't think Canon aims for enticing 5DIII owners to get a 5DIV. Rather, the target market for the 5DIV are 6D, 5DII and xxD owners.

I agree completely. Perhaps this is generational thinking - but my guess is that older photographers who started with film cameras keep their digital camera longer and rarely upgrade to the next generation, while younger folks of the smartphone generation think that each new generation MUST be a big improvement. Despite the evidence that the upgrades for all camera makers have been minor for the past 13 years. There have been no revolutionary changes in that time and most of the advances have been in things like AF speed rather than IQ.

For those that think the 5D IV can't do anything you want, I feel sorry for you. If you need the best spec numbers, maybe you ought to rethink why you own a camera.

Clearly you don't shoot action, particularly where the action is out of your control. Frame rate matters to catch the right moment. Can you catch that right moment with a low frame rate camera? Yes of course but you need to burn more frames, have more re-dos, and a bit of luck. Wildlife and sports don't typically allow you repeat attempts to get peak action shots.