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?).

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.

Um, ok :

What logical fallacies have I stated?

As I stated earlier, I *believe* I heard a credible person here mention at some point that the absolute spread of AF points on FF cameras is limited - with current technology*. So more AF points would mean more crowding. You can imagine an AF sensor that spreads them across the frame, and then there's room for more, but that seems wishful thinking at this point. Selecting one can already be finnicky in some shooting conditions, and having more, smaller, more closely packed AF points wouldn't make for better handling. It might allow for finer control, but at some point the returns are outweighed by the time and complication of selecting the precise one you want. Right?

I have no problem agreeing to disagree. Loads of folk turn up round here complaining that Canon is too conservative. I just don't see the point of making so much fuss. There are other, perhaps one could say, less conservative brands. Buy those. Or don't.

*If you have evidence that I'm wrong, fine - great! But do you?

PS you're anonymous here too. It's irrelevant - the quality of arguments and evidence is what counts.

 

[dak723]

If you believe that more AF points will increase your ability to focus, that's great. That would be a reason to want more or seek out a camera that has more. But to just say that there should be an increase in AF points because it's a new camera and the numbers should increase with each new generation is just the usual techno-geek "more must be better" mindless thinking that is so pervasive on the internet.

61 AF points is already way more than I prefer. To me, the more points, the more I just have to turn off! That's just me - but it might be others, too. And has been discussed ad nauseum, more MPs is not necessarily better either. These are cameras folks - not smartphones. There have been no revolutionary changes since the first DSLRs came out. If you are judging cameras by their specs and how many new innovations are in each generation, you are missing the point. It's about taking pictures people. If you have a camera that you can keep for 6 or 7 years, and works reliably, that is easy to use and takes great pictures - that's a GOOD thing. If you only need to buy a camera because your old one is near the end of its life cycle - that's a good thing! When Sony comes out with a new camera every two years - what does that tell me? It tells me that they don't think the original camera was very good. It tells me that they are trying to sucker me into a new camera purchase by adding fancy new bells and whistles.

Don't complain if the new generation camera doesn't seem to be worth getting because your old camera is just as good - be GLAD! You just saved thousands of dollars you can spend elsewhere!

 

[Ozarker]

If you believe that more AF points will increase your ability to focus, that's great. That would be a reason to want more or seek out a camera that has more. But to just say that there should be an increase in AF points because it's a new camera and the numbers should increase with each new generation is just the usual techno-geek "more must be better" mindless thinking that is so pervasive on the internet.

61 AF points is already way more than I prefer. To me, the more points, the more I just have to turn off! That's just me - but it might be others, too. And has been discussed ad nauseum, more MPs is not necessarily better either. These are cameras folks - not smartphones. There have been no revolutionary changes since the first DSLRs came out. If you are judging cameras by their specs and how many new innovations are in each generation, you are missing the point. It's about taking pictures people. If you have a camera that you can keep for 6 or 7 years, and works reliably, that is easy to use and takes great pictures - that's a GOOD thing. If you only need to buy a camera because your old one is near the end of its life cycle - that's a good thing! When Sony comes out with a new camera every two years - what does that tell me? It tells me that they don't think the original camera was very good. It tells me that they are trying to sucker me into a new camera purchase by adding fancy new bells and whistles.

Don't complain if the new generation camera doesn't seem to be worth getting because your old camera is just as good - be GLAD! You just saved thousands of dollars you can spend elsewhere!

61 points is a lot of points. I think they are good to have for zone AF though.

I'm very glad to not be upgrading and you are right I'll wait for the next iteration if there is one.

 

[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.

Um, ok :

What logical fallacies have I stated?

As I stated earlier, I *believe* I heard a credible person here mention at some point that the absolute spread of AF points on FF cameras is limited - with current technology*. So more AF points would mean more crowding. You can imagine an AF sensor that spreads them across the frame, and then there's room for more, but that seems wishful thinking at this point. Selecting one can already be finnicky in some shooting conditions, and having more, smaller, more closely packed AF points wouldn't make for better handling. It might allow for finer control, but at some point the returns are outweighed by the time and complication of selecting the precise one you want. Right?

I have no problem agreeing to disagree. Loads of folk turn up round here complaining that Canon is too conservative. I just don't see the point of making so much fuss. There are other, perhaps one could say, less conservative brands. Buy those. Or don't.

*If you have evidence that I'm wrong, fine - great! But do you?

PS you're anonymous here too. It's irrelevant - the quality of arguments and evidence is what counts.

OK, I'll repeat myself one last time for all of this. The logical fallacy was the one I stated, the slippery slope. You take my idea that I thought there would be more autofocus points (of which I had no number specified), then say I wanted a thousand, then a million autofocus points and argue the idea that I wanted a million autofocus points.

That's fine that some person on an Internet forum said that was the limit. But I still have a hard time believing a company worth billions and billions of dollars and a minimum of 4.5 years can't come up with anything other than this and but even if that was truly the max I still would personally find having more points with a wider spread useful. And it is possible to make things easy to use or complex to use, if you so choose. See OS X. You can use the pretty GUI to get stuff done or use the BSD-based OS it was built on and work from the command line (not Adobe stuff, actual server stuff - although if you really wanted to you could always choose to launch Adobe stuff from the command line or write scripts to pass arguments through Adobe products to automate things).

In spite of my reasoning as to why I would like more autofocus points and illustrating multiple scenarios where it would prove useful some folks are stuck thinking that I and others who feel there are certain limitations or areas of improvement just want to say "more is better because more" without even attempting to consider any other possible uses unless very explicitly spelled out in the exact same thread. I personally don't care about super high-speed flash sync but I can still hypothesize why some people would want it without having to be insulting or let them know they should just take what they can get and shut up. And if your imagination on concepts of what additional features could do are that limited then that's what Google is for.

Ultimately I wouldn't consider making my disappointments list in a topic about what people felt were disappointing in the 5D4 causing a fuss. It's the whole point of the topic. Of anyone making a fuss I'd consider you to be it since this isn't the "nothing could possibly be better in the 5D4" thread. And there are already enough people running around this place that take any mention that something could be improved on a Canon product as a direct personal insult or as if they were a paid in full shill ready to defend our dear leader at any given moment.

Yup, I choose to be anonymous too but my point was that if you have to resort to petty mockery that a grade-school troll would use (pretending I am crying, give me a break) then for the sake of others that have to interact with you in real life I just hope you are a more pleasant person to deal with.

And why have none of the shills attacked my complaint about the lack of focus point metering that Canon could so easily include yet? Not one! Come on guys, try harder! It must not be worthless if Canon chooses to include it in the 1DX series. And if even entry level Nikon's spanning back who knows how many years can have the processing power to manage it then surely the 5D3.4 can. Or is this something you actually agree with me on?

 

[tpatana]

Just had my first studio shoot. This is awesome camera.

Not sure did I press some funny button or what, but for some time the M-Raw was turned on instead of full raw.

 

[scyrene]

OK, I'll repeat myself one last time for all of this. The logical fallacy was the one I stated, the slippery slope. You take my idea that I thought there would be more autofocus points (of which I had no number specified), then say I wanted a thousand, then a million autofocus points and argue the idea that I wanted a million autofocus points.

That's not quite what I said. I asked at what point would you be satisfied? You want there to be more each time, or at least this is what I infer from your posts (apologies if I misinterpreted). Unless you disagree that each increase yields diminishing returns, then it's a fair question to ask. What I've been driving at is, more of everything every time is a simplistic and incorrect way of looking at technological advancement. That's not strictly the slippery slope fallacy.

In spite of my reasoning as to why I would like more autofocus points and illustrating multiple scenarios where it would prove useful some folks are stuck thinking that I and others who feel there are certain limitations or areas of improvement just want to say "more is better because more" without even attempting to consider any other possible uses unless very explicitly spelled out in the exact same thread. I personally don't care about super high-speed flash sync but I can still hypothesize why some people would want it without having to be insulting or let them know they should just take what they can get and shut up. And if your imagination on concepts of what additional features could do are that limited then that's what Google is for.

Okay, fair enough. Maybe you're not just a 'more is better' person, it can be hard to tell from forum posts. Of course a given feature may be much more important to you than to me. We're all different. The point is, a camera is a compromise. They can't put in everything everyone wants and keep the price competitive (not to mention weight, etc etc). The problem some of us here have is that people labour under the illusion that other manufacturers' products are not compromises - that they give away a lot more. They don't. They prioritise different areas, it's as simple as that.

Where we differ, it seems, is that you think that Canon should improve everything (or just the things you personally prioritise?), whereas I feel more sanguine and assume they targeted what people most requested or demanded (such as low ISO DR). Since they cannot improve everything within the price bracket, some things stay the same.

Which is not to say that the AF system hasn't been improved - the headline figure of number of AF points is not all that matters, to return to the first point above. Incidentally, I must have missed the 'multiple scenarios' you illustrated where more AF points would be useful (I don't doubt they exist, but I think it's pretty marginal for most people) - the lizard thing was about a flip screen, no?

And why have none of the shills attacked my complaint about the lack of focus point metering that Canon could so easily include yet? Not one! Come on guys, try harder! It must not be worthless if Canon chooses to include it in the 1DX series. And if even entry level Nikon's spanning back who knows how many years can have the processing power to manage it then surely the 5D3.4 can. Or is this something you actually agree with me on?

This has been discussed at length elsewhere. Some people think it would be an awesome feature, some people suggest its usefulness is limited. I think the consensus is that Canon is quite deliberately hoarding it for the 1-series. Some call it product differentiation, some call it crippling. I'm indifferent to the feature.

PS "shills" - I thought we didn't go in for 'petty mockery'? :

 

[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)?

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?

i didn't find substance for that claim here, sorry. can i opt for something else than beer? there are different preferences with drinks too...

 

[tpatana]

Really need to buy that grip. No fun without, and hands got way more tired.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Well...the 6DII's rumoured specs should quell this thread quite nicely and punt it into obscurity.

 

[fussy III]

Well...the 6DII's rumoured specs should quell this thread quite nicely and punt it into obscurity.

This is [CR1], so treat it accordingly. (quote)

Besides 5 or 6 fps at 25 Megapixel would make the 6DII yet another crippled generalist. It wouldn't have the capacity to replace an 80D with its higher pixel density. So the 80D is lacking the full-frame sensor whereas the 6DII will produce low resolution crops. Even when compared to the 5DIV, crops will be of lower resolution. Congratulations, buyer!

 

[scyrene]

Well...the 6DII's rumoured specs should quell this thread quite nicely and punt it into obscurity.

This is [CR1], so treat it accordingly. (quote)

Besides 5 or 6 fps at 25 Megapixel would make the 6DII yet another crippled generalist. It wouldn't have the capacity to replace an 80D with its higher pixel density. So the 80D is lacking the full-frame sensor whereas the 6DII will produce low resolution crops. Even when compared to the 5DIV, crops will be of lower resolution. Congratulations, buyer!

Wait, do you say 'generalist' when you mean 'the best at everything'? The 5D3 has been a successful generalist camera for years and has 6fps max. Is that not enough any more? Are subjects faster than they were in 2012?

 

[d]

Well...the 6DII's rumoured specs should quell this thread quite nicely and punt it into obscurity.

This is [CR1], so treat it accordingly. (quote)

Besides 5 or 6 fps at 25 Megapixel would make the 6DII yet another crippled generalist. It wouldn't have the capacity to replace an 80D with its higher pixel density. So the 80D is lacking the full-frame sensor whereas the 6DII will produce low resolution crops. Even when compared to the 5DIV, crops will be of lower resolution. Congratulations, buyer!

What exactly are you expecting from an entry-level full frame camera? 25MP @ 6fps sounds like a pretty good camera to me.

 

[Loswr]

Well...the 6DII's rumoured specs should quell this thread quite nicely and punt it into obscurity.

This is [CR1], so treat it accordingly. (quote)

Besides 5 or 6 fps at 25 Megapixel would make the 6DII yet another crippled generalist. It wouldn't have the capacity to replace an 80D with its higher pixel density. So the 80D is lacking the full-frame sensor whereas the 6DII will produce low resolution crops. Even when compared to the 5DIV, crops will be of lower resolution. Congratulations, buyer!

What exactly are you expecting from an entry-level full frame camera? 25MP @ 6fps sounds like a pretty good camera to me.

She/he is apparently expecting a 1D X II with a 5DsR sensor stuffed into a 6-series body and priced at $1000. If Canon doesn't deliver, they're doomed. :

 

[fussy III]

Well...the 6DII's rumoured specs should quell this thread quite nicely and punt it into obscurity.

This is [CR1], so treat it accordingly. (quote)

Besides 5 or 6 fps at 25 Megapixel would make the 6DII yet another crippled generalist. It wouldn't have the capacity to replace an 80D with its higher pixel density. So the 80D is lacking the full-frame sensor whereas the 6DII will produce low resolution crops. Even when compared to the 5DIV, crops will be of lower resolution. Congratulations, buyer!

What exactly are you expecting from an entry-level full frame camera? 25MP @ 6fps sounds like a pretty good camera to me.

True. Pretty good. But not quite there.

 

[d]

Well...the 6DII's rumoured specs should quell this thread quite nicely and punt it into obscurity.

This is [CR1], so treat it accordingly. (quote)

Besides 5 or 6 fps at 25 Megapixel would make the 6DII yet another crippled generalist. It wouldn't have the capacity to replace an 80D with its higher pixel density. So the 80D is lacking the full-frame sensor whereas the 6DII will produce low resolution crops. Even when compared to the 5DIV, crops will be of lower resolution. Congratulations, buyer!

What exactly are you expecting from an entry-level full frame camera? 25MP @ 6fps sounds like a pretty good camera to me.

True. Pretty good. But not quite there.

Where exactly?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I haven't waded through all 16 pages of this, but re: the first poster's desire for a deeper buffer - in my testing with a Lexar Professional 1066x UDMA 7 CF card I was able to get 32 RAW images before it began to slow down.

So here's my question: how many of you actually need a deeper RAW buffer than that...and what for?

For my own style of shooting that may the only time I push the buffer that deep in the years ahead that I own the camera.

P.S. Starting today I will be releasing a series where I break down the sensor performance in detail. Today's episode covers dynamic range, episode 2 is high ISO performance, and the third episode looks at resolution.

 

[fussy III]

Well...the 6DII's rumoured specs should quell this thread quite nicely and punt it into obscurity.

This is [CR1], so treat it accordingly. (quote)

Besides 5 or 6 fps at 25 Megapixel would make the 6DII yet another crippled generalist. It wouldn't have the capacity to replace an 80D with its higher pixel density. So the 80D is lacking the full-frame sensor whereas the 6DII will produce low resolution crops. Even when compared to the 5DIV, crops will be of lower resolution. Congratulations, buyer!

What exactly are you expecting from an entry-level full frame camera? 25MP @ 6fps sounds like a pretty good camera to me.

She/he is apparently expecting a 1D X II with a 5DsR sensor stuffed into a 6-series body and priced at $1000. If Canon doesn't deliver, they're doomed. :

To all the police-dogs: Yes, I am looking for a tool.

Something that is not so obviously crippled in the light of other EOS-bodies. A camera that does not have written on its forehead "lacking". A trustful piece of equipment that puts me at ease for a few years. What I was stating about the rumored specs of the 6DII is obvious since I am simply remaining faithful to my initial definition of a generalist, a camera that easily could have come to life if the lord was gentle on us.

To give an example of the effects of crippling in the real world, let's not even talk about my personal wishes , let's talk about the many loyal customers that Canon has which both are photographing and filming at a high standard with high demands: Say the 6DII will have 4K in fullframe and a workable codec. Fine. Videoguys happy. But what about the demanding photo+video-grapher among us? If he/she is at one moment filming with the 6DII (as rumored) but in the next wishes to get high-res action shots, he/she will feel inclined to switch to a 5DIV for that purpose. If he/she wants to use the same lens for both purposes, that will not only mean that he/she will have to accomodate ...self with a different button-layout when switching but also will have to unmount and remount the lens.

And this dilemma between two cameras lost in the action is the result of a philosophy of crippling on Canon's part. The more I think about it, the more justified I find my usage of the word. Price is an entirely different story.

 

[Loswr]

And this dilemma between two cameras lost in the action is the result of a philosophy of crippling on Canon's part. The more I think about it, the more justified I find my usage of the word. Price is an entirely different story.

Product differentiation. 'Crippled' is your subjective interpretation of a business reality.

 

[Mikehit]

And this dilemma between two cameras lost in the action is the result of a philosophy of crippling on Canon's part. The more I think about it, the more justified I find my usage of the word. Price is an entirely different story.

Can you let me know if there is any camera on the market that does everything you want in one body.

 

[fussy III]

I haven't waded through all 16 pages of this, but re: the first poster's desire for a deeper buffer - in my testing with a Lexar Professional 1066x UDMA 7 CF card I was able to get 32 RAW images before it began to slow down.

So here's my question: how many of you actually need a deeper RAW buffer than that...and what for?

For my own style of shooting that may the only time I push the buffer that deep in the years ahead that I own the camera.

P.S. Starting today I will be releasing a series where I break down the sensor performance in detail. Today's episode covers dynamic range, episode 2 is high ISO performance, and the third episode looks at resolution.

That indeed would make the EOS 5D IV seem suited as a generalist with regards to buffer. One down ...