How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?

[meson1]

Ok. Here's my contribution. Quite a bit is the same as what others have suggested, but there's a couple of extra ideas in there:

[list type=decimal][*]Built in Wi-fi.
[*]UHS-II SD Card Slot alongside the CF card slot or ditch the SD slot and have two CF card slots.
[*]Even bigger buffer space.
[*]Option to allow asynchronous dual card writing, so it writes to whichever card you specify and then automatically copies to the other card when the camera is less busy.
[*]Built in wireless radio flash control.
[*]Option to automatically switch flash to High Speed Sync mode when shutter speed is greater than the flash sync speed.
[*]Dual pixel sensor.
[*]4K Video Recording.
[*]IR remote control sensor on the back of the camera as well as the front.
[*]Reduction or elimination of rolling shutter effects (in particular skew) during video recording.
[*]Higher resolution sensor perhaps in the 24-36MP range providing it does not compromise low light/high ISO performance.
[*]Improved dynamic range.
[*]USB3 connectivity including in-camera battery charging.
[*]Eye tracking autofocus.
[*]Allow setting of custom white balance in live view mode without having to take a picture and go fiddle about in the menus. Furthermore display the Kelvin value of the custom white balance. And an option to sample the white balance based on the current EV metering mode, for example, if you're using spot metering, you can base your WB on a sample taken from the spot instead of the whole screen. Have three or more custom white balance slots.
[*]Allow more compositional overlays in live view mode, e.g. thirds, golden rectangle, golden diagonals, golden spiral etc.
[*]Hyperfocal focusing mode and/or reintroduction of depth of field mode. Saves having to muck about with phone apps or cheat sheet charts when you already have a reasonably powerful computer in the camera itself.

[*]Come to that, how about camera apps? You get apps on your phones and tablets. Why not give the camera scope to host custom third party apps?[/list]

 

[edurieux]

• Ok. Here's my contribution. Quite a bit is the same as what others have suggested, but there's a couple of extra ideas in there:
  

  • Come to that, how about camera apps? You get apps on your phones and tablets. Why not give the camera scope to host custom third party apps?

  
  It is not possible, let me explain why :
  
  DSLRs are running on very tiny processors in term of computing power, probably to have a good battery life. Creating features on the Canon OS requires very strict programmation due to this. Handling "third-party" may cause a tremendous amount of bugs/lags on the camera. But you can look at Magic Lantern, a good way to improve your Canon dslr.

 

[meson1]

Ok. Here's my contribution. Quite a bit is the same as what others have suggested, but there's a couple of extra ideas in there:

• Come to that, how about camera apps? You get apps on your phones and tablets. Why not give the camera scope to host custom third party apps?

It is not possible, let me explain why :

DSLRs are running on very tiny processors in term of computing power, probably to have a good battery life. Creating features on the Canon OS requires very strict programming due to this. Handling "third-party" may cause a tremendous amount of bugs/lags on the camera. But you can look at Magic Lantern, a good way to improve your Canon dslr.

Yes. A number of thoughts occur to me on this.

The processor(s) are also probably highly specialised to cope with things that the camera has to do. Furthermore, I imagine Canon would not want to open up their gear in this way, because people might then use it to circumvent Canon's designed-in differentiators between the various models. i.e. they might not want people buying a lower model camera and trying to bring it up to the spec of a higher model using features provided by readily available apps (within the limitations of the hardware of course).

Another thing against it is that the 5D4 is aimed largely at the professional market where reliability and dependability is everything. Apps could compromise this. Apps are more of a consumer idea, so if they were to start anywhere, it would be on lower end cameras... if at all.

Still it was a thought. It does depend of how Canon might go about it, how much of their architecture they open up and how tightly they control it. It doesn't have to be as loosely controlled as Google Play or Apple's AppStore. After all, if they can persuade people to spend their money on extra apps and features, it opens up an extra revenue stream for them. But as I say, thinking about it the 5D series isn't really the place for this to start. So that makes this idea fall outside the scope of this topic.

 

[risc32]

actually i wasn't kidding at all. i get the sense i know a great deal more about Ti and carbon fiber than you guys do. not only that you guys must not very active people, tons of stuff is made from these products these days. you certainly can buy a Ti carbon weave racket just about anywhere. expensive? well, not in the amount we're talking about for a camera body. In the fields of racing/aero/space these items have been around for decades.... my watch is solid Ti, my motorcycle is made up many large pieces of Ti, carbon, aluminum, mag, a ceramic aluminum sintered matrix, and some good old steel as well. i know what i'm talking about. berylium? please, how about econel? you don't know nuthin' about metals or tennis.

 

[Jim Saunders]

actually i wasn't kidding at all. i get the sense i know a great deal more about Ti and carbon fiber than you guys do. not only that you guys must not very active people, tons of stuff is made from these products these days. you certainly can buy a Ti carbon weave racket just about anywhere. expensive? well, not in the amount we're talking about for a camera body. In the fields of racing/aero/space these items have been around for decades.... my watch is solid Ti, my motorcycle is made up many large pieces of Ti, carbon, aluminum, mag, a ceramic aluminum sintered matrix, and some good old steel as well. i know what i'm talking about. berylium? please, how about econel? you don't know nuthin' about metals or tennis.

Perhaps you mean Inconel? Show me a titanium camera housing, or a carbon fiber one, and we'll talk.

Jim

 

[sarangiman]

They seem to aim for building the smallest, tightest bodies possible for every single model.

Some find that preferable.

Their ergonomics don't fit my hands well (it's like they were designed explicitly for people with really tiny hands...I have rather large hands).

Fixed in the D810. I used to have the same complaint, as I also have big hands.

Nikon has a couple lenses that I think are very nice, like the 14-24, but in general it doesn't seem like Nikon glass overall is up at the same level as Canon glass...and lens testing often demonstrates this. Canon lenses on say the 5D III resolve as much or more measurable resolution in output images than Nikon lenses on the D800/D810 most of the time.

Right... yet another urban legend. Like the 'Canon high ISO is the best!' one.

So let's recap the above data which directly contradict your statement "Canon lenses on say the 5D III resolve as much or more measurable resolution in output images than Nikon lenses on the D800/D810 most of the time.": 60% increase in effective resolution going from the 5D3+16-35 to the D800E+14-24; 43% increase going from 5D3+70-200 to D800E+70-200; 38% increase going from 5D3+35L to D800E+35G. I can hear it already: it's DxO so it must be wrong & biased, right? It's not at all possible that a higher resolution sensor (no AA filter) with a modern lens design actually gives you, er, higher resolution, is it?

These broad generalizations are just silly. Which is why I don't make them. I've only been pointing out the very specific arenas in which Nikon offers advantages. You've been pretty unwilling to accept some of them (like the advantages of a separate RGB metering sensor - even in the Canon line itself) without even trying yourself.

Further more, while you always have glowing things to say about pretty much everything Nikon, not everyone who has used them has so many good things to say.

Like when I complained about missing Canon's plethora of cross-type points, wider-baseline dual-cross-type central sensors, some of their glass, and their wireless flash system?

In my posts of late, I've simply been calling out the arenas in which Nikon is better, not saying Nikon is better in every regard for everyone.

You of all people should understand that, as you & I have the same end goal - we want a system that has the best of both.

 

[sarangiman]

What I've denied is your claims that Canon's AF system in the 5D III cannot do certain things. I tested those things. My 5D III performed fine doing AF with the 16-35mm f/2.8 with close, moving subjects. It's not 100% perfectly accurate, but I'm sorry, I don't believe for a moment that the Nikon system is 100% perfectly accurate either.

But that's not what I claimed. I said that, especially in comparison to Nikon's 3D focus tracking, it's ultimately so unreliable as to be practically useless for my shallow DOF wedding photography using fast 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 primes. Because I could not trust it. It gets confused too easily, and this'd come as no surprise if you performed my little thought experiment on how the algorithm actually works. And I'm *not* alone in my opinion. Sure, rewind 10 years, and the 5D III's subject tracking would've been the best thing since sliced bread. It's a very cute, clever algorithm. And I think it still works quite well for sports. It just hasn't kept up with what the metering sensors in the 1D X and Nikon's can do, or what the imaging sensors can do in mirrorless cameras now (although without phase detection, the latter are still lagging IMHO). Arguing against this is literally arguing against the benefits subject recognition via a sensor bring. And, again, you'd know this if you just picked up a D810 & put it in 3D tracking and waved the camera around a bit. It sticks to subjects almost as well as the Sony AF method you praise.

As for the lens stuff, there's too much to respond to, but generally my entire point of those examples was this: I pulled a few of the lenses I own to show you that your statement that generally Canon lenses are better clearly requires more proof. Old lens design, new lens design - I picked both, you're still going to find something to complain about. But my point stands - you can't just go and say that generally a 5D3+Canon lenses will outresolve a Nikon D800E+Nikon lenses. That statement needs proof, b/c I easily pulled up 4 examples proving otherwise. And it's ridiculous to suggest anyway - that a sensor with literally 50% more resolution is somehow going to perform worse when paired with similar, high-end lenses.

Also, I wasn't referring to the overall DxO score; I was referring to the P-MPix score, which takes into account lens MTF & sensor resolution and characteristics.

In case you haven't sensed a them here yet over the years - I'm fighting your general claims. Like Canon high ISO is better (glad we've dispensed with that finally!), Canon lenses are better, Canon sensors have more DR at higher ISO, Canon lenses + a 22MP sensor somehow still generally outresolve Nikon lenses with a 36MP sensor, etc. etc.

These claims are misleading.

Also, I'm not a Nikon fan. I'm a fan of some of the technologies Nikon uses, as well as some of the technologies in the Canon system (dual cross-type, wider baseline, wireless flash, DPAF). I'm a technology proponent. Therefore, I cringe at false generalizations that ignore the realities of better, and worse, technologies.

 

[RichM]

I've had my 5d3 for about 18 months, and find very little need for improvement. It meets almost all of my expectations for a camera in this range. My 7d is definitely due for an upgrade, and I'm looking forward to getting the 7d2. But I have to admit I'm not in much of a rush to upgrade my 5d3, and have very few suggestions for improvements. As always, improvements in high ISO, improvements in DR, and improvements in overall IQ are what we all want. Beyond that, I still LOVE my 5d3!

 

[sarangiman]

You should know, though, that you do come off as a very strong Nikon fan, given that you regularly seem to try to insinuate that Canon technology is inferior to Nikon technology...for pretty much every technology these kinds of cameras have. I haven't ever really seen you argue that anything Canon does is better. I've seen you make one-liner statements kind of to that effect, but when it comes right down to it...you seem to think Nikon is superior in every respect. That perfectly fine, everyone has and is entitled to their own opinions and preferences...but, it does come off a certain way. It comes off to me the same way I must come off to you, only the brands are switched.

I see what you're saying, but here's why it's like this:

I come in and specifically counter some false generalization that Nikon X is worse than Canon X (like the D800 AF is inferior to the 5D3 AF). That requires pages and texts of explanation, b/c no one here wants to accept it. You won't even try the Nikon out, resorting to some basic tests with your Canon that may or may not correlate with the real-world shooting scenarios where I've tried both systems. So I try to explain, post videos, then eventually give up.

OTOH, I only provide 'one-liners' when it comes to a superior Canon tech (dual cross-type points providing more potential detail to focus on, wider base-lines providing more accuracy, potentially anyway, the wireless flash system, etc.) b/c no one here is making some false generalization about those being poor or worse than Nikon. And, naturally, since this is Canonrumors, where Canon people reside who don't want to think they made the wrong decision (that included me for many, many years - and if you must know, I still have my 5D3 and will continue to have it until I've convinced myself from empirical data that Nikon is not noticeably worse in AF precision with 24/35/85 primes - though Roger Cicala's initial data suggest the systems are comparable). For now, though, the D810 has solved many of the problems people have asked solutions for here, while introducing little to no negatives (yet).

So in the end it boils down to this: I don't need pages of text to convince you that Canon is better in one respect or the other. You'll gladly digest it in one line, one phrase even. Something Nikon is better at? Not a chance, without writing a novel & presenting irrefutable data. Which, obviously, I can't do. That's fine. But I am glad I refuted the general statement that '5D3 AF is clearly superior to D800 AF', b/c maybe that'll actually make someone try the systems out before being misled by a generalization that may or may not be applicable to him or her.

Make sense now?

 

[sarangiman]

Well, at this point all I can say is that we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope you understand my intention of challenging generalizations. In all seriousness, thanks for refraining from emotional posts, and having more of a dialogue.

As for the AF tracking thing - I haven't been changing my story, but given the volume of posts, I don't blame you for seeing it as such. But I also don't think any more text is going to do any convincing, so I'll rest my case there. My initial purpose of the AF stuff was to challenge the assertion that the 5D3 AF is clearly superior to the D800 AF, and I think I made my points re: that pretty clear. I'll rephrase my initial 'opinion' that the 5D3 is almost useless for reliable subject tracking to (and you're right, that is more my opinion than a stated fact): Nikon's recent DSLRs have significantly more reliable, accurate, and robust subject tracking across the frame than any Canon DSLR I've tested to date, though the 1D X comes close. And it's b/c the secondary color sensor undoubtedly helps tell the AF system what to track. Without this, the AF algorithms are rather blind in that they can only work with a map of detected subject distances at any given AF point at any given instant, not have any understanding of what those subjects are in order to track them.

As for the Sony A7 series for your Canon glass - that's not a bad option. The Metabones Smart Adapter III is pretty darn good, if you can work around some of its quirks. Don't expect fast or professional AF, of course, but it could work for your landscapes (the AF is not going to work for your bird photography). Unfortunately, shutter shock is a real issue with the A7R, and since it seems you like telephoto shots, I don't think the A7R will work for you. The A7 will work; I doubt you'll like the A7S b/c it has worse base ISO DR than the A7R... and it's pretty obvious in landscape shooting when raising shadows (it's still better than Canon, but if you're picking up a body to avoid low DR, then... that's not the right one). That plus its resolution cost, all for a tiny bump in ISO performance at the highest ISOs (I really only see a significant benefit at ISO 25.6k and above).

I myself have toyed w/ the idea of having an A7 + 'f/4 holy trinity' of 16-35 (now that it's released), 24-70, and 70-200 as my travel/landscape camera. But keep deciding wavering - b/c I'm not sure the size/weight benefits outweigh the downsides enough. And now there's a system where you can say the lenses don't seem to take full advantage of the 36MP the A7R offers (not that the 70-200 could, b/c of shutter shock), yielding numbers not far off from Canon 5D Mark III + similar lenses. I must say, though, it's really cool that you can hold a A7 + 24-70 far above your head, swing it around like a toy, get some high up vantage points, etc., and never feel a single ache/soreness in your hands/arm!

Not to beat the Nikon drum again, but, the D810 with electronic front curtain is the only way I know of getting the most out of a 36MP sensor currently. Plus it has a half to 2/3 EV more DR than the A7R, b/c somehow Nikon squeezed out higher effective FWC per-pixel from what ostensibly seems to be a similar sensor. But I can understand your desire to select a system that'll use your Canon glass. It's just that the A7R probably isn't it. Shutter shock was actually the reason I got rid of my A7R. Yes you can mitigate it to some extent by strapping massive weights to your camera, but (a) that defeats the purpose of the system, and (b) that's just not something I want to be worrying about when there's clearly a better alternative.

 

[sarangiman]

You know, I thought of a potential reason why sports photographers may not talk about or use 3D tracking. If there are multiple players wearing similar jerseys far enough away that the detail discerned is not specific enough to any one player, this might confuse the AF system, and it may jump from player to player.

Here, the arguably less sophisticated system of the 5D3 (or 1D X with iTR off) might actually have an advantage: b/c these algorithms usually look for the concomitant loss of one subject at a particular subject distance and the appearance of a subject with similar subject distance elsewhere.

Now I'm really curious to see if iTR turned off works better for this type of shooting than iTR turned on/Nikon's 3D tracking. But again, as I said earlier, I don't think sports are the best use-case for 3D focus tracking to begin with.

Anyway, perhaps that's at least part of the reason for some of the general lack of awareness and enthusiasm for 3D focus tracking. Furthermore, Google searches on these topics indicates there's quite a lot of confusion re: iTR/3D tracking and when and when not to use it. So I'm rarely moved by the 'if this were so great, wouldn't people be raving about it?' argument - people do find interesting ways to use technology that aren't immediately adopted or known in a widespread fashion.

In fact, it's kind of funny, but, Canon's own Rudy Winston in his technical article on iTR (dated just last year), writes:

• "The EOS-1D X is the world’s first SLR with the ability to perform Face Detection when using the standard eye-level viewfinder (all previous D-SLRs with face detection capability could only do it during Live View operation, when the camera’s actual imaging sensor was used to read the scene)."
• "While this new metering sensor is used to fine-tune exposure metering, Canon’s engineers realized that its ability to recognize subjects could be used in other important ways too. [for subject analysis]"

(http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/eos1dx_afpoint_selection_using_color_information.shtml)

Well, I suppose he'd never picked up a Nikon... as those were both previously available, for many years. I mean the statement "all previous D-SLRs with face detection capability could only do it during Live View operation" is flat out false, unless you were to interject 'Canon' after 'previous'.

So if Canon's own people don't know, please excuse me for being skeptical re: whether or not that many people actually know how useful 3D focus tracking and scene analysis off the RGB metering sensor can actually be. Save for those that have thoroughly tried and tested both (or more) systems.

 

[sarangiman]

When it comes to the A7r, for me, it would be used solely for landscapes. I've said that on many occasions. That's also a big part of the reason why the D810 is not the most appealing option...it's a very pricey camera, on top of the need for new lenses (which just skyrockets the price even more)...just for landscapes.

Again, my goal is NOT to replace my entire Canon kit. I'm not "moving" to the A7r...I would simply be adding the A7r. I would be adding it very specifically just for landscapes. From what I know about the shutter shock issue, it primarily affects longer focal lengths when used on a tripod when there isn't enough weight to keep everything steady. A lot of people (particularly on DPR forums) have asked about it, and a lot of people who own the A7r have replied saying they have never encountered the issue at all. I have no intention of trying to slap my 600mm lens on the A7r, nor any other long focal lengths. I might like to try it a few times on the A7s, but I have no expectations that the AF system would work well through the metabones adapter. Maybe someday, but that isn't my goal right now...and if Canon can remain competitive at high ISO, it never will be.

The A7r would pretty much exclusively just be a wide to ultra-wide angle landscape camera. Maybe some macro stuff in the long run (with an MP-E 65mm, if the thing would work with the adapter.) The vast majority of my work with it would be 16-35mm, at the wider end, which should reduce the impact of any potential SS issue even further.

Right, that's why I was saying it might make sense for you. As an additional camera for your landscape work. I've found shutter shock to *not* be an issue under ~70mm focal length, but of course that depends on your tripod, setup, etc. So you'll be fine with the 16-35 & the A7R. Btw, once you hear & feel the shutter on it, you'll no longer be surprised that SS is actually an issue... but it's easily demonstrated as well now that the 70-200 FE is out.

I'd worry about macro work on the A7R - I'd expect shutter shock to be an issue, since macro is just as affected by camera shake as telephoto. Unless you're using a flash.

That MP-E 65mm is fantastic. I've still got mine & intend to use it with that A7 I'm always toying with the idea of buying...

 

[rfdesigner]

metering wise I'd like some statistical options on how each of the zones are weighted.

Currently Evaluative mode uses all zones and takes the average.. I'd love to see some options to this:

1: Average
2: maximum
3: minimum
4: median
5: 2nd/3rd/4th etc brightest/dimmest zone.
6: average of brightest/dimmest N zones.
7: average of middle N zones (ignore brightest and dimmest N readings before average)
8: And of course, AF linked, but with median or average weighting (median ignores extremes)

And with all that, more zones.

By combining with this with exposure compensation in theory anyone could set their camera up to do anything.

The best bit about all this: it should all be just software.

ETTR
optimal for dark objects against a bright sky.
optimal for bright objects on a dark background.
etc.
etc.

In addition: hardware addition, I'd like the camera to highlight in the viewfinder and in the EXIF the zones being used.

Just what I'd like to see.

 

[3kramd5]

actually i wasn't kidding at all. i get the sense i know a great deal more about Ti and carbon fiber than you guys do.

It's possible, I'm neither a metallurgist nor a materials engineer. I just know enough to make appropriate desicions about which materials to use in design applications.

not only that you guys must not very active people

Interesting leap.

tons of stuff is made from these products these days. you certainly can buy a Ti carbon weave racket just about anywhere.

There may be many tennis rackets which utilize carbon fibers and titanium to some degree. Much of it is marketing, a far cry from truly meaningful materials, like "Carbotanium".

What do you suppose is the fiber volume ratio of a GFRP/Ti weave racket available for $30?

expensive? well, not in the amount we're talking about for a camera body.

Have you looked at a camera body recently?

Could you lay one up? Sure. But it's far more cost effective to cast and machine.

In the fields of racing/aero/space these items have been around for decades

Three examples no rational person would consider inexpensive.

i know what i'm talking about. berylium? please, how about econel? you don't know nuthin' about metals or tennis.

You know enough to list some materials, misspelling both. Inconel? Good old 6Al-4V (I presume your expertise means I need only spell out the alloy rather than the raw material) has a better strength to weight ratio.

AlBeMet trounces them both, and is easier to machine.

If the specific application doesn't require great corrosion resistance and thermal consistency, you'd be crazy to use Inconel with all else being equal.

 

[RLPhoto]

I would like to add the return of the EG-s Screens again. I did like them alot in my 5Dc.

 

[Eldar]

I would like to add the return of the EG-s Screens again. I did like them alot in my 5Dc.

Agreed! If I can´t get a good precision screen for manual focus, I don´t believe I will buy the camera.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Or at least make changing focusing screens an option for those consumers who want that functionality