EOS 5D Mark IV Update [CR2]

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don't get it. Most 5D3 owners when asked say they rarely if ever use the video feature. So Canon REPORTEDLY makes a big video splash with their most important stills camera. I wish they would offer a model without video at a reduced price.
Marc

I thought Canon themselves recently said it make a model cost more if they took out video since it boosts sales more than any development and parts costs (of which barely any new parts are required).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It sells cameras. Its like the high MP chase, its a feature that sells more cameras, so the customer gets what he wants, or at least what he thinks he wants.

Ah, the high MP chase. How many times do we hear people on this forum ask for more MP and lower noise knowing full well (or they should) that higher MP is the enemy of low noise. I used a 6 MP Rebel (the original 300d) for nine years before upgrading. I did not want the tiny pixels of all the available crop cameras at that time (all 18 MP) so I spent far more than I wanted to get the larger pixels of the 6D. In those 9 plus years, sensor efficiency increased a lot, so a 6 MP crop camera would have been great, with higher IQ than any other crop camera on the market. And able to print 12" x 8" which is as large as I need. Alas, with the higher and higher MP that camera companies feel the need to produce, we'll never get the best IQ possible. Thanks techie-nerds for screwing up the possibility of a really high quality crop camera with your constant demand for more MPs..

The impact of higher MP counts in the realm they have hit doesn't impact SNR that much and one of the big reasons people go crop and high MP count is for lots of reach for wildlife (and it can help for sports too). SO believe it or not there are people who find high MP counts useful other than technie-nerds. :

 

[Sharlin]

I thought Canon themselves recently said it make a model cost more if they took out video since it boosts sales more than any development and parts costs (of which barely any new parts are required).

This, a thousand times. Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of people who don't have the faintest idea about

a) what the actual market looks like (no, your friends and this forum do not make a representative sample)

b) basic statistics (see above bit about representative samples)

c) basic economics

d) their own ignorance (see Dunning-Kruger effect)

 

[bdunbar79]

I thought Canon themselves recently said it make a model cost more if they took out video since it boosts sales more than any development and parts costs (of which barely any new parts are required).

This, a thousand times. Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of people who don't have the faintest idea about

a) what the actual market looks like (no, your friends and this forum do not make a representative sample)

b) basic statistics (see above bit about representative samples)

c) basic economics

d) their own ignorance (see Dunning-Kruger effect)

Very accurate assessment.

 

[dak723]

It sells cameras. Its like the high MP chase, its a feature that sells more cameras, so the customer gets what he wants, or at least what he thinks he wants.

Ah, the high MP chase. How many times do we hear people on this forum ask for more MP and lower noise knowing full well (or they should) that higher MP is the enemy of low noise. I used a 6 MP Rebel (the original 300d) for nine years before upgrading. I did not want the tiny pixels of all the available crop cameras at that time (all 18 MP) so I spent far more than I wanted to get the larger pixels of the 6D. In those 9 plus years, sensor efficiency increased a lot, so a 6 MP crop camera would have been great, with higher IQ than any other crop camera on the market. And able to print 12" x 8" which is as large as I need. Alas, with the higher and higher MP that camera companies feel the need to produce, we'll never get the best IQ possible. Thanks techie-nerds for screwing up the possibility of a really high quality crop camera with your constant demand for more MPs..

The impact of higher MP counts in the realm they have hit doesn't impact SNR that much and one of the big reasons people go crop and high MP count is for lots of reach for wildlife (and it can help for sports too). SO believe it or not there are people who find high MP counts useful other than technie-nerds. :

Never said high MP wasn't useful and that some folks won't benefit. But lot's of folks would be better off with a low MP camera. There's room for both - and probably the average camera user would be better off with a low MP camera.

Your statement that the high MPs in the crop camera sensors doesn't impact SNR that much does not jive with what a lot of folks who know physics have written.

 

[bdunbar79]

It sells cameras. Its like the high MP chase, its a feature that sells more cameras, so the customer gets what he wants, or at least what he thinks he wants.

Ah, the high MP chase. How many times do we hear people on this forum ask for more MP and lower noise knowing full well (or they should) that higher MP is the enemy of low noise. I used a 6 MP Rebel (the original 300d) for nine years before upgrading. I did not want the tiny pixels of all the available crop cameras at that time (all 18 MP) so I spent far more than I wanted to get the larger pixels of the 6D. In those 9 plus years, sensor efficiency increased a lot, so a 6 MP crop camera would have been great, with higher IQ than any other crop camera on the market. And able to print 12" x 8" which is as large as I need. Alas, with the higher and higher MP that camera companies feel the need to produce, we'll never get the best IQ possible. Thanks techie-nerds for screwing up the possibility of a really high quality crop camera with your constant demand for more MPs..

The impact of higher MP counts in the realm they have hit doesn't impact SNR that much and one of the big reasons people go crop and high MP count is for lots of reach for wildlife (and it can help for sports too). SO believe it or not there are people who find high MP counts useful other than technie-nerds. :

Never said high MP wasn't useful and that some folks won't benefit. But lot's of folks would be better off with a low MP camera. There's room for both - and probably the average camera user would be better off with a low MP camera.

Your statement that the high MPs in the crop camera sensors doesn't impact SNR that much does not jive with what a lot of folks who know physics have written.

Unfortunately for you, his statement is absolutely correct. I'm wondering if you understand the fundamentals of this. Smaller pixels have lower read noise, but higher shot noise agreed. But if you increase the QE of the photodiodes, smaller pixels can in fact improve enough so that they produce just as much or even less noise than their older generation larger pixels. QE being the key here on this point.

But you've ignored the most important factor, and that is sensor size. Sensor size far outweighs pixel size. How do you suppose the 5Ds and 7D2 compare? They have the exact same pixel size but the 5Ds has much better overall S/N because the SENSOR is larger.

Hopefully I've given you a few key considerations to consider that you weren't prior to your statement. Sensors with smaller pixels can certainly outperform sensors with larger pixels, based upon QE and sensor size.

 

[ranplett]

What does 4K video, electronic viewfinder & articulating screens have in common?

What does 4K video, electronic viewfinder & articulating screens have in common?

Photographers all love to banter about the importance of having them or not. If it doesn't take much effort to implement good video, why not have it? How would that detract from your shooting experience? I'd rather have more features on my camera than less, provided that they implement it well. And Canon does implement well, albeit conservatively.

I'd love to have 4K video option. Would I use it much? Probably only about 3 or 4% of the time. But the 5D mkII is still treating me quite well in terms of stills. Yeah pattern noise is horrible sometimes, and AF isn't the greatest, but it still fulfills 97% of my shooting needs.

 

[Besisika]

It all boils down to me wondering how many of you use your tools to their fullest potential and how many just have GAS and love to read spec sheets and argue.

I don't want myself to get too deep into this conversation. Your question got me thinking about what is actually the issue, if there is one or two. Good question.
I think, there is nobody who uses the tool to its fullest potential; simply impossible.
But it is not necessarily a GAS either to call for a better one - not always.
The key is that everybody has specific needs. If the current gear doesn't allow him to do what he wants or the task would be easier or faster with a better result if the gear is improved then he would scream for an improvement. He would not be satisfied if the new gear doesn't help his cause and would call it a crap. In the process, he totally ignores the other improvements.
We look at the overall improvement and find it impressive, but not him.
I don't think that is a GAS.
If a trailer can protect your family from the weather, why buy a house? Would that be a GAS?

Apple to oranges.

Look we all know that tech and gadgetry gets people going around here. GAS is real and the drool really starts flowing around announcement time. All logic is pissed to the wind when GAS sets in. Marketing has brainwashed even the most sensible of us that newer is better and we NEED it. YMMV because you're level headed, right?

Got it, I see what you mean.

 

[Ozarker]

As of all the 5D's, it will most likely be introduced in September on Photokina 2016. Canon would not like to make the same mistake again,
by putting two cameras in the market at the same time (1Dx and 5D3), cuz most of the users wouldnt go for the pricier camera. Period.

Most users don't go for the pricier camera anyway. Releasing them at the same time or different times makes no difference. They are two different target markets. At any rate, a six month difference in release makes no difference.

 

[Ozarker]

The first thing I think of when I hear the tired 'crippling' remark is how if there was no differentiation then you might as well make one camera. A very expensive camera. More whining, more missing the point of offering a broad range of value and feature sets for a global customer base. NOT a CR base.

Yup. And they want it all for $2.98. I love the ones who buy the product and then say they got ripped off on price as though Canon made them buy the product.

 

[Nininini]

Megapixels are underrated instead of overrated imo. There is nothing that gives you more detail than higher MP.

4k gives you FAR FAR more detail in your video footage over 1080P, and even 1080P footage sampled down from 4k is far more detailed and sharp than regular 1080P. There is no lens you can put on a camera with 1080P video that will come anywhere close to a 4k camera with a crap lens in terms of information and detail captured.

The "megapixel race" happens because it matters. Megapixels are the single most important metric determining sharpness and detail.

 

[Loswr]

Megapixels are underrated instead of overrated imo. There is nothing that gives you more detail than higher MP.

So that's how I can get more detail in my bird photography – ditch the low 18 MP of my 1D X + 600/4 with TC, and get a 41 MP Nokia cameraphone. Because nothing gives more detail than higher MP.

Oh, and don't worry about that whole diffraction thing, physics is overrated.

:

 

[Nininini]

Megapixels are underrated instead of overrated imo. There is nothing that gives you more detail than higher MP.

So that's how I can get more detail in my bird photography – ditch the low 18 MP of my 1D X and get a 41 MP Nokia cameraphone.

For the same focal length, yes, a 41MP Nokia would easily beat the crap out of your 1DX in terms of detail.

You could put the most expensive zeiss on your 1DX, it would be nowhere close to the Nokia.

MP EASILY trumps anything else.

Nokia pureview sample:

 

[Maximilian]

Megapixels are underrated instead of overrated imo. There is nothing that gives you more detail than higher MP.

So that's how I can get more detail in my bird photography – ditch the low 18 MP of my 1D X and get a 41 MP Nokia cameraphone.

For the same focal length, yes, a 41MP Nokia would easily beat the crap out of your 1DX in terms of detail.

You could put the most expensive zeiss on your 1DX, it would be nowhere close to the Nokia.

MP EASILY trumps anything else.

Nokia pureview sample:

It seems that I need glasses 8) . Because i can only see soft blur where some details should be. :

 

[Sporgon]

Megapixels are underrated instead of overrated imo. There is nothing that gives you more detail than higher MP.

So that's how I can get more detail in my bird photography – ditch the low 18 MP of my 1D X and get a 41 MP Nokia cameraphone.

For the same focal length, yes, a 41MP Nokia would easily beat the crap out of your 1DX in terms of detail.

You could put the most expensive zeiss on your 1DX, it would be nowhere close to the Nokia.

MP EASILY trumps anything else.

Nokia pureview sample:

It seems that I need glasses 8) . Because i can only see soft blur where some details should be. :

+1,

I think Nini is confusing output size with resolution

 

[bdunbar79]

Megapixels are underrated instead of overrated imo. There is nothing that gives you more detail than higher MP.

4k gives you FAR FAR more detail in your video footage over 1080P, and even 1080P footage sampled down from 4k is far more detailed and sharp than regular 1080P. There is no lens you can put on a camera with 1080P video that will come anywhere close to a 4k camera with a crap lens in terms of information and detail captured.

The "megapixel race" happens because it matters. Megapixels are the single most important metric determining sharpness and detail.

Another topic poorly understood. Your last statement is false. Consider filling the frame each with a 1Dx (18 MP FF sensor) and a 7D (18 MP crop sensor). If you keep the same lens, and same aperture, same ISO, but simply change perspective to keep the frame full, the 18 MP 1Dx image will be sharper. That's because the smaller sensor undergoes a 1.6 enlargement ratio to get to the same final viewing output size and that decreases sharpness. If you also put LARGER pixels on subject that is better than the same number of SMALLER pixels.

Your case you presented may well be true, but the underlying fundamentals must be understood and you cannot just make that blanket claim, because it isn't true. I've presented a case where we have EQUAL MP's, and sharpness and detail are different in each. So MP's are not the singal metric.

 

[slclick]

I reached for my readers but alas, it wasn't me. It was Nokia.

 

[bdunbar79]

Megapixels are underrated instead of overrated imo. There is nothing that gives you more detail than higher MP.

So that's how I can get more detail in my bird photography – ditch the low 18 MP of my 1D X + 600/4 with TC, and get a 41 MP Nokia cameraphone. Because nothing gives more detail than higher MP.

Oh, and don't worry about that whole diffraction thing, physics is overrated.

:

Well yeah, who cares about the Nyquist Theorem? It is so overrated.

 

[Ph0t0]

Megapixels are underrated instead of overrated imo. There is nothing that gives you more detail than higher MP.

So that's how I can get more detail in my bird photography – ditch the low 18 MP of my 1D X and get a 41 MP Nokia cameraphone.

For the same focal length, yes, a 41MP Nokia would easily beat the crap out of your 1DX in terms of detail.

You could put the most expensive zeiss on your 1DX, it would be nowhere close to the Nokia.

MP EASILY trumps anything else.

Nokia pureview sample:

 

[Maximilian]

...

Aah! A miracle! I'm healed.

Thank you Ph0t0, for handing me some glasses... 8) 8) 8)