EOS 5D Mark IV - the crippled generalist

[Ozarker]

Been in plenty of situations where a deployed or slightly ajar flipscreen could've been cracked/damaged/knocked off, where the normal screen wouldn't. But in most of those scenarios I'd likely have only used the facility for a few minutes and then pushed it home. Are they as resistant to water and dust ingress? In the desert/at the colour run/at the muddy festival/when an egg lands on it etc? I can genuinely see one of the hinged arms getting caught on a strand of thread or on a wire or in someone's hair in a scrum and it getting bent/hurting someone, or twisted when being yanked from a camera bag in a hurry. And, if you're stuck in a muddy field with no support and limited backup for four days, if you're doing jobs day in and out where it just *has* to work, no flip screen is one less point of failure.
I'd love the feature but get why it would be a problem for a large chunk of users.

The flippy isn't as loosely flippy as you flippin' think and doesn't have to be flipped or flippy at all. Quit flippin' out with all the flippin' daydreams of flippin' scenarios over flippy flipped flip screens. I once had a non flippy screen punctured at a gay pride parade. I promptly flipped off the guy with the non-flippy stiffy.

 

[Ozarker]

It's inevitable, that sooner or later someone always starts lamenting as to what the camera doesn't have. When did a body come out that someone didn't complain about, whether it's a lack of pop-up flash or more (or less) mpxls or buffer or fps and so on? It's always so much more fun to read about what a camera does have and what you can do with it! If anyone thinks their camera isn't all it's cracked up to be, compare it to a 1D or D30, though I'm sure there are still some functional ones out there and in the right hands can also take fine photos. In any case, whenever someone asks for something they can't have, I reply that I too would like to be 22 again but it's not going to happen so just deal with it. Such is life.

Yes, and the constant whining and complaining just KILLS this forum. That is why some folks - who could indeed just pass-by and leave no comment - feel the urge to leave comments that criticize the complainers and the whiners. I began shooting with a SLR in 1980 and got my first DSLR (The original digital rebel) in 2004. Today's camera - whether from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. are FANTASTIC. Coupled with the ability to do post processing on the computer make photography today far more fun, more successful and better in every single way, in my experience. Many different camera models are offered, so that folks can have flip screens if they want, high MPs if they want, high FPS if they want. The choices are there.

But, for some reason, all people want to do is complain. Rather than look at the positive, all they see is the negative. They want a camera to have all the features that they want. Never mind that those features may not be what someone else wants. OTHERS DON"T MATTER.

In other words, they are childish. Calling them out as such may be unnecessary - and, yes, maybe even rude. But they ruin this forum, so we want, beg, plead with them to please grow up. And maybe just maybe, they will understand that by accepting reality - and using today's fantastic cameras HAPPILY - they will actually come to enjoy photography, rather than be consumed with their anger regarding stupid Canon!

You sound like a functionary of church or of a dictatory state who proposes that only positive reports be allowed in the congregation so that the sheep be not threatened in their faith.
To put it more heroic: Yes, perhaps I am that child breaking the waves and asking for more, ready to fail and ready to take the blame of the obidient and malevolent. As long as I stimulate some thought among all too content sheep, that is fine for me.

I don't know but it seems a little harsh to use "whiner, childish" and so on. I know, I get. Some people really do post with nothing but "what isn't there" simply to whip up the masses. Personally, I was simply making an observation that over many years and many forums, I've seen most bodies announced followed by posts over what the camera doesn't have and should have had. Back in the day when I used to frequent dpr, you should have seen the giant rant over the lack of popup flash on the 5d3! Somehow, life went on without it. fussy, I don't want to imply you should ever want to settle for less. Of course we should strive for more and demand more and maybe one day we would even get it. But without putting my hands on one (5d4) yet, I'd say calling it crippled isn't quite right. You might call it lacking in features. Or maybe I would. Understand that I'm simply making an observation, there are features I am not perfectly happy with either, but, to be cliche, "it is what it is, that's how it goes, that's life, you get what you're given", and so on. Sometimes that sucks but , that's life. Hopefully, you'll pick one up and will find you can make it work in spite of the shortcomings you see in it.

My defense here was solely aimed at dak723. Your initial criticism of my post wasn't the least bit insulting or inadequate. Perhaps on my part I should have omitted the word "crippled" two out of three times. But in the light of what a generalist camera could (or should) have been, I really do feel the lack of a flippy makes the 5DIV a crippled generalist.

A generalist per definition should try to accomodate most all of the needs of a demanding crowd and it should suit most any purpose. Perhaps we can see that many in this forum would agree that of those features which are truly decisive to getting certain images that stand out from the crowd, the lack of a flippy is signifying the most obvious gap between a great and a generalist camera. And since Canon has a great concept for a swivel working in the 80D, it is really quite hard to understand they haven't integrated it into any fullframe or pro-level camera for so many years now. However I do understand the reservations of moving on from the camera-back layout of the 5D IV to a concept approaching the 80D or to an entire new concept.

Granted. But if not the 5D-series is to receive a flippy-swivel, than another camera sharing the otherwise universalistic features of the 5D IV should. There should be a full-frame camera with brutally fast AF, megapixels, weather-resistance, fast fps, large buffer AND flippy-swivel.

After all this discussion I believe it to be quite obvious that the market for such an EOS would be huge and might even exceed that of the 5D IV. And that may even hold true in case a slightly higher pricepoint cannot be circumnavigated by the engineers.

Thanks to anyone who has seriously engaged in the discussion, be it from the flippy-brigade on from their opponents side.

And now he's sober.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

But there is a chance that the new 6d ii will have a flip screen. It will be less robust but may incorporate other features just like 6d vs 5d3.

Incredible that people continue to claim this. Flip screen have no more failure or break rate than normal screens. End of story.

Check out LensRentals stats info.

The problem with this is its comparing apples to oranges. How many pro/semi-private bodies have flip screens vs how many enthusiast/behinner/consumer bodies have flip screens? I'd be willing to bet that if there were more pro bodies with flip screens you'd find more of them breaking.

Because pro body owners are more likely to abuse their high dollar gear. :

Yup, it's kind one of the reasons we like pro/semi-private level gear

 

[tpatana]

No dpaf if using 120fps. Why's that?

 

[justaCanonuser]

I'm in the flippy screen camp. It's great for landscapes where the camera needs to be really low or high. The Sony a7r2 actually does this fairly well where you can use the tilt screen to frame the shot quickly then use your smartphone to change white balance, shutter etc and keep shooting from a convenient spot. It's not a necessity but it would make the camera a lot easier to use. But there are many genres where the flippy screen wouldn't add any extra value so I can understand some people not wanting it.

You can do that vice versa with a 5D4: use your smartphone to frame and use Canon's superior button layout to dial the settings. I didn't miss much a flippy screen on my 5D3 (in fact in rugged areas, in rain and sand storm, I was happy not to worry about it) but I missed in-camera WiFi just to be able to do that sometimes, e.g. shooting macros.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Sigh, flicking quickly through this and other threads about the 5D4 I think that any camera manufacturer in this world will never be able to satisfy all people. If they did try that, they'd have to split their product line into hundreds of sub-lines and finally would discover that a lot of people complaining in threads never buy such a higher priced camera. So they'd run into a bankruptcy trap. I think it is good that Canon listens to some real photographers and not to everyone. Same with Nikon.

For me, the 5D4 is anything but a "crippled" generalist camera, I think in the hands of a real photographer it will able to deliver very good quality in many different settings. Being focused on stills shooting, I understand well that videographers aren't happy with its 4K offerings: MJPEG codec without log files is underwhelming. Looks like this is the only serious flaw in the 5D4's concept. This may have to be fixed by Canon with a firmware update - if they overcome their anxiety to protect their C-Series. Or Magic Lantern will fill this gap with an intelligent hack.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Sigh, flicking quickly through this and other threads about the 5D4 I think that any camera manufacturer in this world will never be able to satisfy all people. If they did try that, they'd have to split their product line into hundreds of sub-lines and finally would discover that a lot of people complaining in threads never buy such a higher priced camera. So they'd run into a bankruptcy trap. I think it is good that Canon listens to some real photographers and not to everyone. Same with Nikon.

For me, the 5D4 is anything but a "crippled" generalist camera, I think in the hands of a real photographer it will able to deliver very good quality in many different settings. Being focused on stills shooting, I understand well that videographers aren't happy with its 4K offerings: MJPEG codec without log files is underwhelming. Looks like this is the only serious flaw in the 5D4's concept. This may have to be fixed by Canon with a firmware update - if they overcome their anxiety to protect their C-Series. Or Magic Lantern will fill this gap with an intelligent hack.

Right on.

Furthermore generalizations are just that ; they don't fit everyone as well as one might think

"2. 6D owners want best value for money without having all goodies like very good AF, many fps, etc. I cannot see why they will not go to 6DII which will have an equally good sensor and will be much cheaper at the same time."

I bought the 6D knowing I would upgrade and that it was going to save me from throwing away another $1000 when I did, and so my next camera will be the 5D4 or 1DX II. I'm glad I took the 6D over the 5D3 for that reason since honing my skills with it was just fine and the $1000 went into glass.

Jack

 

[turtle]

The 5D is always going to be a top quality generalist and I think Canon kinda sorta got this camera right (ignoring specific gripes). I think where they have it wrong is in the EU/UK pricing and with the sense that the body is creeping upwards in price relative to its *core* performance and certainly relative to the capabilities of the competition.

If we consider the D610 and 6D to be comparable and the 5D IV and D810 very roughly comparable (though they emphasise different capabilities), where is Canon's D750? It seems that this camera occupies a tremendously appealing middle ground offering superb core performance, without the frills and at a great price. Personally (and I think I am far from alone), I am looking for a 'won't break the bank' body containing strong AF and an up to date sensor and Canon has been making us wait a hell of a long time to satisfy this most basic requirement. The sad thing is, if Canon were to give me such a body, I would buy three of them... tomorrow, but at the price of the 5D IV they won't be selling me a single one.

The difficulty I think Canon faces is this: if the 6D II is released in a form that essentially incrementally improves on the likes of the D750, how the heck are they going to sell 5D IV bodies? It will be a mighty premium to gain slightly tougher build and a few peripheral technical features that invariably have close to zero impact on the real world utility of the camera to 99% of users. To allow for a really great 6D II, they needed to dazzle us with the 5D IV and I do not feel they have done that, especially not for those expecting better 4K integration. I predict an anti-climax with the 6D II and yet more Canon users wondering why they are once again being painted into a corner.

Back in 2012 I bought a 5D III to update on my 5D II (which I kept), although I only had a small array of lenses. All my money was still in Leica M film kit. I had seriously and with clenched teeth passed up the D810 and a switch out to Nikon Glass. Since then I grew my Canon kit and bought many more lenses, believing this was a wise investment in the medium to long term. After all, I was used to the Canon interface etc. I now horribly regret that decision and I suspect I am one of very many users who assumed back then that Canon would soon be providing us with the sort of body specs Nikon has been delivering: great sensors, great price to performance ratios. Instead, I feel they have cynically exploited their committed user base rather than enticing us in more positive ways. That's a real shame. I am sitting out the 5D IV unless prices drop dramatically. Even they I would only consider buying grey market, due to the massive price difference one can already obtain (£600). If that is not viable, I will consider the 6D II, assuming they haven't crippled it to sustain the 5D IV.

Is this the sort of thought process Canon thinks is sustainable? Compared to the price of 2 x 5D IV bodies (UK), I can buy 2 x D750s and all the (top quality) lenses I need to shoot weddings with. I could then sit on my L glass, using the odd bit of specialist glass with my 5D III once in a while. I'd be no worse off vs. buying the two 5D IV bodies. I don't want to do this, but it is absurd that I am even considering it. And I would do it simply because I don't like feeling I am being forced to pay through the nose for something that represents poor value for the feature set I actually need. Canon makes great glass, but after the 5D III was released with (already) ancient sensor architecture, the 5DIV needed to either be 'absolutely amazing (but justifiably expensive)', or 'very good and very good value'. I actually don't think it is either.

 

[Jack Douglas]

turtle, it seems to me you present valid criticism. Probably the biggest thing I've observed is complaints about price. That could translate into lack of sales and an adjustment in price. Let's hope.

Jack

 

[dak723]

The 5D is always going to be a top quality generalist and I think Canon kinda sorta got this camera right (ignoring specific gripes). I think where they have it wrong is in the EU/UK pricing and with the sense that the body is creeping upwards in price relative to its *core* performance and certainly relative to the capabilities of the competition.

If we consider the D610 and 6D to be comparable and the 5D IV and D810 very roughly comparable (though they emphasise different capabilities), where is Canon's D750? It seems that this camera occupies a tremendously appealing middle ground offering superb core performance, without the frills and at a great price. Personally (and I think I am far from alone), I am looking for a 'won't break the bank' body containing strong AF and an up to date sensor and Canon has been making us wait a hell of a long time to satisfy this most basic requirement. The sad thing is, if Canon were to give me such a body, I would buy three of them... tomorrow, but at the price of the 5D IV they won't be selling me a single one.

The difficulty I think Canon faces is this: if the 6D II is released in a form that essentially incrementally improves on the likes of the D750, how the heck are they going to sell 5D IV bodies? It will be a mighty premium to gain slightly tougher build and a few peripheral technical features that invariably have close to zero impact on the real world utility of the camera to 99% of users. To allow for a really great 6D II, they needed to dazzle us with the 5D IV and I do not feel they have done that, especially not for those expecting better 4K integration. I predict an anti-climax with the 6D II and yet more Canon users wondering why they are once again being painted into a corner.

Back in 2012 I bought a 5D III to update on my 5D II (which I kept), although I only had a small array of lenses. All my money was still in Leica M film kit. I had seriously and with clenched teeth passed up the D810 and a switch out to Nikon Glass. Since then I grew my Canon kit and bought many more lenses, believing this was a wise investment in the medium to long term. After all, I was used to the Canon interface etc. I now horribly regret that decision and I suspect I am one of very many users who assumed back then that Canon would soon be providing us with the sort of body specs Nikon has been delivering: great sensors, great price to performance ratios. Instead, I feel they have cynically exploited their committed user base rather than enticing us in more positive ways. That's a real shame. I am sitting out the 5D IV unless prices drop dramatically. Even they I would only consider buying grey market, due to the massive price difference one can already obtain (£600). If that is not viable, I will consider the 6D II, assuming they haven't crippled it to sustain the 5D IV.

Is this the sort of thought process Canon thinks is sustainable? Compared to the price of 2 x 5D IV bodies (UK), I can buy 2 x D750s and all the (top quality) lenses I need to shoot weddings with. I could then sit on my L glass, using the odd bit of specialist glass with my 5D III once in a while. I'd be no worse off vs. buying the two 5D IV bodies. I don't want to do this, but it is absurd that I am even considering it. And I would do it simply because I don't like feeling I am being forced to pay through the nose for something that represents poor value for the feature set I actually need. Canon makes great glass, but after the 5D III was released with (already) ancient sensor architecture, the 5DIV needed to either be 'absolutely amazing (but justifiably expensive)', or 'very good and very good value'. I actually don't think it is either.

It is sad to continually people expecting things from Canon that would go against what Canon has done for years. These are the cameras they offer. It has nothing to do with what Nikon offers. If you seriously believe the Nikon offers more of what you want for a better price, you would be foolish not to switch. On the other hand, there are probably thousands of photographers who prefer their 5D III over the products Nikon offers. Unless you are a pixel peeper, you won't see much difference in IQ from almost any of the top brand cameras. In terms of reliability, Canon seems to consistently produce the best cameras. If you already have the 5D III, then there is probably very little reason to upgrade. There aren't revolutionary upgrades. There is very little difference between cameras if you ignore the techno-geeks and the pixel peepers who count the grains of noise to determine if the newer model is maybe 5% better.

Who knows, maybe Canon will offer a FF camera situated between the 6D and the 5D IV. You could wait to see what the 6D II will offer, but don't be surprised if it remains the entry level, least expensive FF as it is now. Based on its success and Canon's success, Canon seems to know what they are doing - even if it doesn't satisfy your personal wishes.

Just my opinions of course. But it seems odd, given the high level of today's cameras, that so many are unhappy.

 

[pwp]

...Just my opinions of course. But it seems odd, given the high level of today's cameras, that so many are unhappy.

Could be the one's who grumble the most shoot the least....

I agree with you, today's cameras are just fantastic, and continue to evolve nicely. Perhaps the negativity peddlers got stuck in time, around ten years ago. The digital revolution was in full swing and just about every new model brought something new, useful and exciting to the table. By definition, revolutions don't last forever and the era of radical updates has plateaued right out. Good! And the manufacturers have substantially delivered on just about everything we'd been asking for, and then some.

-pw

 

[turtle]

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 for stills shooters. Pitiful 4K integration.

I see a downward slope here in terms of performance relative to the competition, alongside quite a steep price increase.

For the vast majority of stills shooters (including a great many of Canon's bread and butter: wedding shooters), the 5D IV offers little tangible benefit over the D750 and that just should not be the case for a camera costing over twice as much. For video shooters, it seems to be a very poor price-performance ratio compared to the competition. So how does it justify its very steep price?

IMHO by far the biggest performance boost in the IV comes from the new sensor with on sensor ADCs.... BUT, put into context, all this does is give us roughly the sensor performance we have been seeing with Sony and Nikon cameras for how long? The Canon loses a bit of low ISO DR and gains a bit of high ISO DR, but I think it is fair to say it is no better or worse overall than the D750 sensor. I also struggle to see where the rest of the camera is meaningfully better than the D750 for a still shooter. Better build, sure, but at a cost of how much?

I wonder whether even ardent Canon users would not buy into Nikon were they starting from scratch in DSLR land once again. I genuinely believe that Canon will sell this camera primarily because of a captive market, but I also believe that the same customer base is becoming increasingly irritated with Canon's segmentation strategy and pricing. Maybe I am wrong, but time will tell. For me personally, I am impressed with Canon's business acumen, because we all know they are doing well relative to Nikon, but I do not think this has any relation to the price-performance ratio of their cameras.....

I was hoping for aggressive pricing and I think it would have made much more sense for Canon to have done this. As it stands, a lot of people will sit it out I think.

It is sad to continually people expecting things from Canon that would go against what Canon has done for years. These are the cameras they offer. It has nothing to do with what Nikon offers. If you seriously believe the Nikon offers more of what you want for a better price, you would be foolish not to switch. On the other hand, there are probably thousands of photographers who prefer their 5D III over the products Nikon offers. Unless you are a pixel peeper, you won't see much difference in IQ from almost any of the top brand cameras. In terms of reliability, Canon seems to consistently produce the best cameras. If you already have the 5D III, then there is probably very little reason to upgrade. There aren't revolutionary upgrades. There is very little difference between cameras if you ignore the techno-geeks and the pixel peepers who count the grains of noise to determine if the newer model is maybe 5% better.

Who knows, maybe Canon will offer a FF camera situated between the 6D and the 5D IV. You could wait to see what the 6D II will offer, but don't be surprised if it remains the entry level, least expensive FF as it is now. Based on its success and Canon's success, Canon seems to know what they are doing - even if it doesn't satisfy your personal wishes.

Just my opinions of course. But it seems odd, given the high level of today's cameras, that so many are unhappy.

[/quote]

 

[scyrene]

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 for stills shooters. Pitiful 4K integration.

Wasn't the biggest leap from 5D2>3 the AF system? From mediocre to almost as good as the 1Dx's? A big deal, addressing the biggest complaint. Similarly, one of the biggest complaints in the 5D3 was apparently DR, and they addressed that this time.

I see a downward slope here in terms of performance relative to the competition, alongside quite a steep price increase.

Really? So the D800>D810 was a bigger leap? Also, taking into account exchange rates and inflation, how much more expensive is the 5D4 than the 5D3?

 

[rrcphoto]

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?

 

[rrcphoto]

Really? So the D800>D810 was a bigger leap? Also, taking into account exchange rates and inflation, how much more expensive is the 5D4 than the 5D3?

the 810 and the 610 were emergency .. we're screwed if we don't do something bug fix releases.

 

[Jack Douglas]

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 whiners just like whining. Their comments are a joke. Period.

Jack

 

[turtle]

I don't think so. I think core performance is much more important than long lists of small tweaks, many of which are largely meaningless and with others already existing in cameras a fraction of the price. Everything new comes with 'its so much better' marketing blurb. The real question is how much these things really mean to a photographer.

I don't recall insulting anyone.... You can throw cheap insults around all you like, but it just makes you sound like a petulant fanboy and only diminishes your credibility. If you wish to regain it, perhaps answer the main question I essentially asked:

In what areas does this camera justify its much higher price over a D750? And don't forget that the D750 has some features not found on the 5D IV. I'll help you: don't say 'it has an improved tripod mount'.

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 whiners just like whining. Their comments are a joke. Period.

Jack

 

[scyrene]

I don't think so. I think core performance is much more important than long lists of small tweaks, many of which are largely meaningless and with others already existing in cameras a fraction of the price. Everything new comes with 'its so much better' marketing blurb. The real question is how much these things really mean to a photographer.

I don't recall insulting anyone.... You can throw cheap insults around all you like, but it just makes you sound like a petulant fanboy and only diminishes your credibility. If you wish to regain it, perhaps answer the main question I essentially asked:

In what areas does this camera justify its much higher price over a D750? And don't forget that the D750 has some features not found on the 5D IV. I'll help you: don't say 'it has an improved tripod mount'.

Where was the insult? Someone saying 'whiner'? That's not an insult, no more than 'fanboy'. It's subjective, but not insulting (unless one has exceedingly thin skin).

If you think there were no major improvements between each 5D model, having just been given a few good examples, then you're ignoring reality.

As for Nikon models, the question I'd put is, are each manufacturer's cameras meant to line up precisely? Is the next model (or the one after that, if you skip a generation) enough for existing Canon users to want to upgrade to? Jumping from one system to another, or running two or more side by side, is still a minority pursuit, I would have thought. And as I said above, does Nikon make massive leaps between iterations of a camera line? I don't think they add more than Canon does.

 

[Takingshots]

At current mediocre specifications and pricing, I will continue to use my current camera until it stops clocking and in the meanwhile my wallet is safe ....

 

[Sdiver2489]

I don't think so. I think core performance is much more important than long lists of small tweaks, many of which are largely meaningless and with others already existing in cameras a fraction of the price. Everything new comes with 'its so much better' marketing blurb. The real question is how much these things really mean to a photographer.

I don't recall insulting anyone.... You can throw cheap insults around all you like, but it just makes you sound like a petulant fanboy and only diminishes your credibility. If you wish to regain it, perhaps answer the main question I essentially asked:

In what areas does this camera justify its much higher price over a D750? And don't forget that the D750 has some features not found on the 5D IV. I'll help you: don't say 'it has an improved tripod mount'.

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 whiners just like whining. Their comments are a joke. Period.

Jack

If I am a new user looking at which camera is right for me...the situation hasn't changed. I would look at a host of reasons on which camera system to invest in. It goes beyond "this camera has the best 4K" or "ISO 64 has the highest dynamic range". The SYSTEM is called a system because it involves more than just a few features of the camera.

Controls is one of the biggest reasons I can think of why one might prefer one camera to another. It's one of the reasons I still prefer to use my 5DIII over my A6000.

Canon now has better dynamic range than the D810 from ISO400 on (essentially equal at ISO200).

This is the same cycle that occurs with every camera release and it never ceases to amaze me. First roll in the people amazed at the new camera. Then they settle in because either they have said everything they want to say...or maybe they are actually using the new camera. Then roll in the people that say Canon is failing and their products are a piece of crap. This is usually when the discussion goes downhill. I would say we are there right now .

The 5D Mark IV is not a perfect product. If its not right for you then don't buy it. Get whatever works for you.