More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV

[Mikehit]

3. Moderate conservative 30mp. Not great for landscape work, detailed studio portraiture, cropping in post.

Unlike the equally conservative Nikon 800/810, eh? You know the one that many raved about as giving unprecedented level of detail.

 

[Diko]

9. Built in LPF reduces sharpness of images. Medium Format is loved for that besides the smooth tonal gradations & 16 bit.

Well did you just compared a MF with FF?!? I just stopped taking you seriously.

Really, it took you until his 9th point to stop taking him seriously?

Indeed. Had to stop on his posts count. But have to admit even I get caught to be trolled from time to time. :/

 

[Talley]

More important will a RSS L plate from the 5D3 w/o grip fit the 5D4?

I'd rather have to not repurchase a L plate.

 

[Maui5150]

Thanks for catching that. It's good that you've never made a typo that's been incorrectly interpreted by an autocorrect feature, you must be quite proud of yourself.

Pride is a sin. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

 

[Sator]

Phew...at last we have some sensible consensus. Another go at a really neutral and quite literal translation that still reads like proper English:

これまでに無い=previously non-existent

後処理の調整=adjustments in post-processing

が可能な=which are made/rendered (ie adjustments in post-processing) possible

デュアルピクセルRAWファイル=(by) dual pixel RAW file(s)

"Previously impossible adjustments in post-processing are rendered possible by dual pixel RAW files"

I tend to favour translations that capture the mood of the original, but this is a vanilla translation that is easy to defend against people who prefer literal translations. I've read this to mean it increases the latitude by which adjustments can be made in post...take that however you will. I tend to think it will be far less spectacular than the hyperbolic advertising language implies.

 

[Loswr]

..... His point – "pixels that are twice as high as they are wide" – is individual pixels with a 2:1 aspect ratio. A somewhat bigger difference than you're discussing.

Finally I understood what you have missunderstood on what I might have written too briefly

My fault!

What I meant was double the count of the pixels, not the dimensions of the pixels. ;-)

Got it. Still, a 30 MP sensor with a 3:2 aspect ratio would yield images of approximately 6750x4500. If you're doubling the count of the pixels with the dual pixels which are all split along the same (vertical) axis, that resulting 60 MP image becomes 13500x4500. When you display such an image on any typical display (camera LCD, phone, monitor, TV) it's going to display as a 3:1 image.

 

[M_S]

In addition to my previous post, which comes in parts to the same conclusion:
http://www.eoshd.com/2016/08/depth-look-video-specs-canon-5d-mark-iv/

Seems to me not quite an offering so far.

 

[bseitz234]

Please feel free to comment and correct what I have put together in the last 15 min. And to correct my observations.

My guess is the "M Focus" is just because there's not a lens attached, and it looks like there is one in the 5d3 photo. I seem to recall seeing similar behavior on my 7D recently.

 

[dlee13]

A specifications list has appeared at Digicame-Info and it pretty much matches what we have posted recently. It also looks like the image we posted was real as well.

Congrats to CanonRumors for being the fist one (again) with the correct specs!

Thank-you, I hear far more hate than love (which comes with the territory). Even after this posting, I'm still getting hate emails from other web sites (they think they're incognito).

This was the hardest product to get specifications for ever. I assume it's only going to get more difficult.

Probably DXOMark not happy that the 5D4 will make it hard for them to hate on Canon

 

[mikekx102]

..... His point – "pixels that are twice as high as they are wide" – is individual pixels with a 2:1 aspect ratio. A somewhat bigger difference than you're discussing.

Finally I understood what you have missunderstood on what I might have written too briefly

My fault!

What I meant was double the count of the pixels, not the dimensions of the pixels. ;-)

Got it. Still, a 30 MP sensor with a 3:2 aspect ratio would yield images of approximately 6750x4500. If you're doubling the count of the pixels with the dual pixels which are all split along the same (vertical) axis, that resulting 60 MP image becomes 13500x4500. When you display such an image on any typical display (camera LCD, phone, monitor, TV) it's going to display as a 3:1 image.

Sounds good! I hear the kit lens is anamorphic

 

[Maiaibing]

I was tempted by the 5DSR, but the outdated sensor technology (same as the 5D2 except for the pixel count) made me wait for the 5D4.

5DS/R sensor is actually better than both the 5D2 and the 5D3 sensor in every single image aspect: DR, iso-noise, color, anti-flickr, banding etc. + you get all the pixels, so harsh to claim Canon used 5D2 sensor technology for its 50 MPIX camera.

Anyway, lets see what the 5D4 can do. I'm hoping for +2 stops over the 5D3 based on the excellent 5DS/R sensor.

 

[Maiaibing]

They have proven again and again that it just isn't their style.

5DII was a revolution in a camera - why should 5DIV not be?

We will soon find out...

 

[swithdrawn]

I really, really hope they oversample the 4K image and not just pull a 1:1 readout from the center of the sensor like on the 1DXII. On such a large sensor, that would be a 1.6 crop according to my rough (and possibly wrong) calculations, worse than APS-C... leaving Sony with the only real 4k full frame video camera.

 

[freejay]

I'm pretty sure that this "Dual Pixel raw" thing will be a possibility to use the sensor's distance/sharpness data later in DPP (or if later implemented in Lightroom for example) to do corrections/effects only in unsharp or sharp, close or far away parts of the picture.

 

[3kramd5]

That is why if had been hired as the translator I would translate that as "dual pixel RAW files open up previously unobtainable degrees of latitude in post-production processing". Or more literally "dual pixel RAW files opens up possibilities in post-processing adjustments that previously never existed".

If you wanted to say "editable dual pixels" in Japanese it would be better to say 直接調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル implying that direct editing at pixel level is possible. But I do not think that is at all what is being implied here. It is clearly more a case of the files offering greater latitude in post. It may be little more than a hyperbolic way of saying that you can recover shadows better.

So the dual pixel part of this point may just be to make it sound cool in marketing and it really is just plain 16 bit raw.

How did you make that leap?

Thanks CR for piecing all those Rumors together ;D ...any Guestimates on what the Pixel size would be for us Astrophotographers

Why guess? It's 30.4MP full frame. Do the maths!

30.4MP * (2^20 pixels/MP) = 31,876,710 pixels
H*V = 31,876,710 and given aspect ratio H/V = 3/2
Thus H is about 6,915.

Width/Horizontal Pixel Count = pitch
36mm/6,915pixels = 5.2 µ.

edit: my bad, you said pixel size.

(36mm*24mm)/31,876,710=2.71e-5mm2, or about 27 µ2, less the walls.

 

[unfocused]

Phew...at last we have some sensible consensus. Another go at a really neutral and quite literal translation that still reads like proper English:

これまでに無い=previously non-existent

後処理の調整=adjustments in post-processing

が可能な=which are made/rendered (ie adjustments in post-processing) possible

デュアルピクセルRAWファイル=(by) dual pixel RAW file(s)

"Previously impossible adjustments in post-processing are rendered possible by dual pixel RAW files"

I tend to favour translations that capture the mood of the original, but this is a vanilla translation that is easy to defend against people who prefer literal translations. I've read this to mean it increases the latitude by which adjustments can be made in post...take that however you will. I tend to think it will be far less spectacular than the hyperbolic advertising language implies.

Thanks for your excellent work in bringing some sanity to the discussion with a real translation. I suspect it will still be hard to rein in some of the hyperbolic speculation.

I do wonder though, why the description specifically references DPAF Raw files. Not sure what DPAF has to do with it, unless what they are getting at is that there is greater latitude in post-processing than what we have seen in the past with DPAF files. Given that the 1Dx II has been widely lauded for its improved dynamic range using a DPAF sensor, I suspect they simply mean that the 5D IV will also have better dynamic range and more editing flexibility using its DPAF sensor.

 

[3kramd5]

Phew...at last we have some sensible consensus. Another go at a really neutral and quite literal translation that still reads like proper English:

これまでに無い=previously non-existent

後処理の調整=adjustments in post-processing

が可能な=which are made/rendered (ie adjustments in post-processing) possible

デュアルピクセルRAWファイル=(by) dual pixel RAW file(s)

"Previously impossible adjustments in post-processing are rendered possible by dual pixel RAW files"

I tend to favour translations that capture the mood of the original, but this is a vanilla translation that is easy to defend against people who prefer literal translations. I've read this to mean it increases the latitude by which adjustments can be made in post...take that however you will. I tend to think it will be far less spectacular than the hyperbolic advertising language implies.

Thanks for your excellent work in bringing some sanity to the discussion with a real translation. I suspect it will still be hard to rein in some of the hyperbolic speculation.

I do wonder though, why the description specifically references DPAF Raw files. Not sure what DPAF has to do with it, unless what they are getting at is that there is greater latitude in post-processing than what we have seen in the past with DPAF files. Given that the 1Dx II has been widely lauded for its improved dynamic range using a DPAF sensor, I suspect they simply mean that the 5D IV will also have better dynamic range and more editing flexibility using its DPAF sensor.

+1

 

[freejay]

I'm pretty sure that this "Dual Pixel raw" thing will be a possibility to use the sensor's distance/sharpness data later in DPP (or if later implemented in Lightroom for example) to do corrections/effects only in unsharp or sharp, close or far away parts of the picture.

Reading all of the translations, I suspect that what will happen is that the AF pixel part of DPAF will be used to reduce noise from the primary color pixel.

That could also be the case. But then: Why not do it in camera and already deliver better DR but do it in "post processing" (if translations are correct)?

 

[Diko]

"Previously impossible adjustments in post-processing are rendered possible by dual pixel RAW files"

.... I suspect they simply mean that the 5D IV will also have better dynamic range and more editing flexibility using its DPAF sensor.

+1

+1

 

[3kramd5]

...
I do wonder though, why the description specifically references DPAF Raw files. Not sure what DPAF has to do with it, unless what they are getting at is that there is greater latitude in post-processing than what we have seen in the past with DPAF files. Given that the 1Dx II has been widely lauded for its improved dynamic range using a DPAF sensor, I suspect they simply mean that the 5D IV will also have better dynamic range and more editing flexibility using its DPAF sensor.

Maybe in the 1DXII it isn't possible for the camera to use the AF pixels to complement the color pixels? Or at least it doesn't at present...

Perhaps I misunderstand DPAF, but I thought all pixels were used for both phase detection (i.e. contributing to AF) and luminance (e.g. color once one considers the CFA).

Are you saying there are discrete AF pixels? In other words, are they really only getting luminance information from half of each photosite (as opposed to taking the sum of both photodiodes)?