Mercedes vs. Lexus.... huh? A 2 week spin w/ a Mk IV

[arthurbikemad]

Me too, even though DPAF/touch screen AF and the new metering etc etc is no big upgrade from my Mk3 :

 

[LonelyBoy]

The self righteous stills shooters not wanting to have to pay for all that video overhead in software, hardware and price remind me a lot of my ex wife who insisted on having 2 devices PDA and phone, and now updates to the new apple as soon as it is released.

Cool story bro. Only, your ex (no wonder she's your ex, btw) wanted both the PDA and the phone. Rolling video into my DSLR doesn't help me not carry around a video camera; it makes me subsidize your camera. Personally, I wish they'd all drop the video features from DSLRs and all the self-righteous video shooters would buy video cameras or cry themselves to sleep at night. Then I could lick up all the tears like Cartman.

 

[unfocused]

Rolling video into my DSLR doesn't help me not carry around a video camera; it makes me subsidize your camera. Personally, I wish they'd all drop the video features from DSLRs and all the self-righteous video shooters would buy video cameras or cry themselves to sleep at night...

How many times do we have to listen to this?

Having video features on a DSLR takes nothing away from a stills camera. It doesn't add a penny to the cost. In fact, it reduces the cost.

I may never use video on my DSLRs, but I certainly am not going to begrudge anyone who does.

 

[K]

So far, Canon still has the glass to beat.

This is a fact. Will not deny it.

However, Nikon glass, for any reasonable and practical purpose outside of the most fanatical pixel peeping scrutiny - is just as good in 95% of cases and pretty darn close in the rest. I'm not aware of any lens of Nikon that beats Canon, but there might be 1 or 2.

If you can't deliver top level results with Nikon's top of the line glass, the problem is not the gear.

I think this is overemphasized in order to justify the weaker in features Canon bodies.

 

[Mikehit]

Rolling video into my DSLR doesn't help me not carry around a video camera; it makes me subsidize your camera. Personally, I wish they'd all drop the video features from DSLRs and all the self-righteous video shooters would buy video cameras or cry themselves to sleep at night...

How many times do we have to listen to this?

Having video features on a DSLR takes nothing away from a stills camera. It doesn't add a penny to the cost. In fact, it reduces the cost.

I may never use video on my DSLRs, but I certainly am not going to begrudge anyone who does.

What makes you think adding video to a stills camera does not add a penny to the cost?
You can argue (and I suspect you are) that adding it widens the market for the camera and so adds sales where the income offsets the cost of adding video, but that is one massive set of assumptions.
So you have to ask 'if we did not add video would sales drop'. It may well do considering specs drive the sale-ability and the quality of reviews from people who merely measure against the spec sheet.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Rolling video into my DSLR doesn't help me not carry around a video camera; it makes me subsidize your camera. Personally, I wish they'd all drop the video features from DSLRs and all the self-righteous video shooters would buy video cameras or cry themselves to sleep at night...

How many times do we have to listen to this?

Having video features on a DSLR takes nothing away from a stills camera. It doesn't add a penny to the cost. In fact, it reduces the cost.

I may never use video on my DSLRs, but I certainly am not going to begrudge anyone who does.

Prove it. Not that Nikon Df either, which was a special case. Every time video is truly "just thrown in" the video freaks whine and complain that it doesn't have the right formats, bit rates, ports, modes, compression, etc that they need. Those things DO add to the price; that's why they aren't on the stills cameras. It's very much a "give a mouse a cookie" situation.

And I was really echoing the dismissive attitude of the OP.

 

[Act444]

It would be helpful if you went into specifics, as I'm looking to buy a Mark IV. Interesting that the salesman at Canon told me going to a Mark IV was like going from a Toyota to a Mercedes. That kind of had the opposite effect on me, as my current Toyota has over 200k miles and is still going strong and the only Mercedes owner I know is sorry he bought the thing, as parts cost a fortune.

There were a lot of negative reviews of the 5D mk4 when it first came out, mostly from the video community and I must confess that this caused me to delay my decision to upgrade from the 5D mk 3. However, last week I finally decided to buy a 5D mk4 and all I can say is that I wish I had done so sooner.
There are many small improvements that add up to a much better overall package than the mk3, even if there is no one remarkable feature that is a game changer.
I particularly like are the improved image quality as it really shows what some of my better lenses can do. Also I like the rear LCD monitor which is a lot clearer, much better than the mk3, and its ability to focus very quickly even when it is almost dark.
Yes, I know it is possible to buy a camera that having better video features, but I find that 1080p is more than adequate for what I do.
Knowing what I know now I would definitely make the same decision again and this time I would not hesitate before upgrading.

I went through a similar phase - I initially was resistant to upgrading - didn't like the big increase in MP or the softer default output...but after weighing a 1DX for action and deciding against it, I settled on the IV as a good compromise to get improved AF for action shooting while keeping size and noise level down. I liked it enough that eventually I decided to give up my old III. It's the little things that improve the overall shooting experience - and actually, the keeper rate as well. And the increased MP has become useful because I have more room to crop and still maintain 300 dpi if I want to print. Overall, it's a solid upgrade (if not a leap).

Only two complaints, really: buffer too small - should be able to shoot at least 22-23 RAW before filling - and weaken the AA filter or better yet, eliminate it altogether. Fortunately, for the latter, I can turn to my 5DSR.

 

[RayValdez360]

People are (very slowly) moving away from canon, mainly videographers. I have met so many people that switched. If people werent moving away why do you think so many Sony videographers are using Canon lenses. I did press conference yesterday and I seen two of the bigger companies uses fs7 with 70-200 canon lenses.

 

[GHPhotography]

People are (very slowly) moving away from canon, mainly videographers. I have met so many people that switched. If people werent moving away why do you think so many Sony videographers are using Canon lenses. I did press conference yesterday and I seen two of the bigger companies uses fs7 with 70-200 canon lenses.

Market share would suggest the opposite, Canon is gaining ground while others are losing it. Now, this is for ILCs in general, you may be 100% correct for run and gun/budget filmmakers, but Canon's strategy of limiting video features on DSLRs and selling dedicated video cameras seems to be working for the company as a whole.

On a side note- if Canon were to release a global shutter DSLR/MILC next year with a decent 4K codec they would probably dominate the video market as well, simply because so many people are familiar with their bodies and already have lenses.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I would phrase it as "some people are very slowly moving away from Canon, and others are moving more quickly to Canon".

Certainly I feel zero regret about my choice to go with Canon again a few years ago, when I started shooting again.

Oh and I still love the crap out of my Lexus GX460.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Dear God, these "Canon hasn't made me my personal perfect camera, so they're stuffed" posts are tedious.

And - in particular, OP - the epitome of self-righteousness...

Oh, and being disinterested in some arbitrary feature that you happen to have a hard-on for, doesn't make stills-shooters self-righteous.

It makes them - what's the word? - Oh yeah...

Disinterested.

Different things, see?