More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV

ahsanford said:
lino said:
Is the button next to the Q button EVF/OVF selector ???

That would 100% have been on a spec list. An EVF/OVF would be a gamechanger of the highest order and would have certainly been listed as a key selling point.

So I doubt that's what it is. (Would be awesome, though.)

- A

Plus there would really be no need for a separate EVF/OVF switch apart from the control that switches to live view.
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
I think that goes in the bucket of 'amazingly useful feature for a very small number of people, so Canon trapped it in the 1D platform only'.
Actually one of the main target groups of the 1Dx series are the photo journalists. And exactly there this little fella is needed and is created for. ;-)
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
Reminder: POLLS!

What do you hate? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30526.0

What do you love? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30527.0

DO IT.

Not shockingly, we're seeing a 2:1 ratio of complaints to fist pumps (so far).

- A

too really get a more realistic view, you need to allow the poll to allow for multi-selection, the whole pick THE one thing bit tends to given a very distorted impression
 
Upvote 0
New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM

Filter diameter: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
Weight: 790g



EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: 83.5 x 118 mm
Weight: 795g
 

Attachments

  • 16351.jpg
    16351.jpg
    18.5 KB · Views: 946
  • 16352.jpg
    16352.jpg
    19 KB · Views: 953
  • 241051.jpg
    241051.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 949
  • 241052.jpg
    241052.jpg
    21.2 KB · Views: 945
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
Diko said:
neuroanatomist said:
Diko said:
Who is that Bill?

This Bill.
I know that. Thanks. And why they call it Bill?

I dunno, maybe the guy is a huge fan of the legislative process?

Crazy guy named Bill must be a scientist who tests this stuff professionally... wonder if he posts on here.... ::) ::)
 
Upvote 0
Re: New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105

rushfan21122 said:
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM
Filter diameter: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
Weight: 790g

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM
Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: 83.5 x 118 mm
Weight: 795g

Current 16-35mm
Approx. 3.48 x 4.39" (88.5 x 111.6 mm)
Weight 1.4 lb (635 g)

Current 24-105L

Approx. 3.3 x 4.2" (8.38 x 10.67 cm)
Weight 1.47 lb (670 g)
 
Upvote 0
Re: New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105

rrcphoto said:
rushfan21122 said:
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM
Filter diameter: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
Weight: 790g

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM
Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: 83.5 x 118 mm
Weight: 795g

Current 16-35mm
Approx. 3.48 x 4.39" (88.5 x 111.6 mm)
Weight 1.4 lb (635 g)

Current 24-105L

Approx. 3.3 x 4.2" (8.38 x 10.67 cm)
Weight 1.47 lb (670 g)

Thanks! was just about to add the same info!!
 
Upvote 0
Re: New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105

rushfan21122 said:
rrcphoto said:
rushfan21122 said:
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM
Filter diameter: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
Weight: 790g

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM
Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: 83.5 x 118 mm
Weight: 795g

Current 16-35mm
Approx. 3.48 x 4.39" (88.5 x 111.6 mm)
Weight 1.4 lb (635 g)

Current 24-105L

Approx. 3.3 x 4.2" (8.38 x 10.67 cm)
Weight 1.47 lb (670 g)

Thanks! was just about to add the same info!!

so both are a little longer, and certainly meatier.. which is good..both needed improvement.
 
Upvote 0
Re: New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105

Where is this data and image set posted?

rrcphoto said:
rushfan21122 said:
rrcphoto said:
rushfan21122 said:
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM
Filter diameter: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
Weight: 790g

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM
Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: 83.5 x 118 mm
Weight: 795g

Current 16-35mm
Approx. 3.48 x 4.39" (88.5 x 111.6 mm)
Weight 1.4 lb (635 g)

Current 24-105L

Approx. 3.3 x 4.2" (8.38 x 10.67 cm)
Weight 1.47 lb (670 g)

Thanks! was just about to add the same info!!

so both are a little longer, and certainly meatier.. which is good..both needed improvement.
 
Upvote 0
Many seem to forget that - if Canon keeps the product cycles - these specs will be the standard until the year 2020.

But inn the year 2020, a lot of features not included in the 5D4 like in body stabilization, focus peaking, video log, 4k 60fps etc etc will be available in similar priced or cheaper cameras since up to 6 years by then!

It is obvious that Canon's marketing department thinks that the slowest possible speed of innovation is still the way to sell most products. They are wrong, because for many the improvements are not enough to upgrade.

At least Canon could offer more expensive versions of the 5D4 with swivel screen etc. No idea why that's not possible!!!
 
Upvote 0
douglaurent said:
Many seem to forget that - if Canon keeps the product cycles - these specs will be the standard until the year 2020.

But inn the year 2020, a lot of features not included in the 5D4 like in body stabilization, focus peaking, video log, 4k 60fps etc etc will be available in similar priced or cheaper cameras since up to 6 years by then!

It is obvious that Canon's marketing department thinks that the slowest possible speed of innovation is still the way to sell most products. They are wrong, because for many the improvements are not enough to upgrade.

At least Canon could offer more expensive versions of the 5D4 with swivel screen etc. No idea why that's not possible!!!

of course you make the assumption that most people buy the camera for video features.

you could be seriously wrong you know.

also .. canon's market user base is somewhere around 24-28 million in the last 4 or so years.

they have MORE than enough users that are qualified to upgrade to the 5D Mark III on pure photography reasons, over your whiney little video ones. As you say "Many seem to forget that.........."

Cheers and have a blessed day.
 
Upvote 0
douglaurent said:
It is obvious that Canon's marketing department thinks that the slowest possible speed of innovation is still the way to sell most products. They are wrong, because for many the improvements are not enough to upgrade.

Many seem to forget that Canon has led the ILC market for 13+ years and they're currently gaining market share. Many seem to think that they know better than Canon how to design, make and sell ILCs, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
 
Upvote 0
Re: New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105

PureClassA said:
Where is this data and image set posted?

rrcphoto said:
rushfan21122 said:
rrcphoto said:
rushfan21122 said:
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM
Filter diameter: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
Weight: 790g

http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-ef-24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-usm-images/

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM
Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: 83.5 x 118 mm
Weight: 795g

Current 16-35mm
Approx. 3.48 x 4.39" (88.5 x 111.6 mm)
Weight 1.4 lb (635 g)

Current 24-105L

Approx. 3.3 x 4.2" (8.38 x 10.67 cm)
Weight 1.47 lb (670 g)

Thanks! was just about to add the same info!!

so both are a little longer, and certainly meatier.. which is good..both needed improvement.
 
Upvote 0
Re: New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105

rushfan21122 said:
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM

Filter diameter: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
Weight: 790g



EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: 83.5 x 118 mm
Weight: 795g

Thanks for posting the pics.

Looks like the 16-35 f/2.8L III is internal zooming like its predecessor (expected) -- at least the front element looks like it will remain behind the filter threads I mean. No way to tell if it's BR or not from outer markings, so that will be a longer spec list / marketing announcement sort of tell.

Curious about the 24-105L II -- same 77mm filter thread but weight/length is hard to peg b/c the various sites are inconsistent with caps/hoods/etc. But it appears to have gotten a little longer and little heavier.

- A
 
Upvote 0
Zoom Lock?

The 24-105 shows the focus switch and the top of the IS switch in positions corresponding to the older lens. But on the right -- another switch -- could that be a zoom lock? Really my number one desired feature on a 24-105 mkII.

http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-ef-24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-usm-images/

Lots of good info here: Thanks, CanonRumors guy!
 
Upvote 0
Also, we don't have a reverse view on the 24-105L II, so we don't know if that rabbit-in-a-hat 0.7x macro mode from the 24-70 f/4L IS made it into this model as well.

There is a boss on the right of the barrel that (presumably) has the lock switch to prevent telescoping out when placed in your bag, but in the 24-70 f/4L IS that same boss has a reverse position to unlock that 0.7x macro mode. I suppose it's possible that this 24-105L II also gets the same treatment, but it's likely just a lock switch.

- A
 

Attachments

  • 241052.jpg
    241052.jpg
    21.2 KB · Views: 1,139
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
Also, we don't have a reverse view on the 24-105L II, so we don't know if that rabbit-in-a-hat 0.7x macro mode from the 24-70 f/4L IS made it into this model as well.

There is a boss on the right of the barrel that (presumably) has the lock switch to prevent telescoping out when placed in your bag, but in the 24-70 f/4L IS that same boss has a reverse position to unlock that 0.7x macro mode. I suppose it's possible that this 24-105L II also gets the same treatment, but it's likely just a lock switch.

- A

it doesn't have a yellow line in the distance scale. not empirical proof but probably not likely it's a macro.
 
Upvote 0