More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV

[Wesley]

At the risk of getting my hopes up over unconfirmed capabilities, if Canon T Engineer called me up as said "two options: 1. we increase the DR of your 5D by 2EV, or 2. we enable you to adjust the focus in post by up to approximately an eyelash's length, I'd jump at the second option. Jump. For my usage, that would save far more photos than would be made possible by the additional range.

Do you have your AF calibrated?
Saving photos by changing focus within eyelash length seems more like a back/front focus issue.
I'd rather calibrate than shoot double the image size & use Canon DPP.

Think of shooting a person hand-held wide open... subject is swaying a little and so is the photographer. Each probably move more than an eyelash length. I shoot weddings... I'd welcome the new option.

"Think of shooting a person hand-held wide open... subject is swaying a little and so is the photographer."

If your focus is ruined enough by swaying a little than you shouldn't be shooting wide open.
Stop down and/or raise ISO.

"Each probably move more than an eyelash length."

Here's to hoping dual pixels can shift focus on a massive level.

 

[Wesley]

Yes, but it's a game. In fact, I totally disagree with LetTheRightLensIn that you should compare scaled values. Although those normalized 'Print' values are useful for engineers (and fangoils and measurebaters, too), it's the non-normalized 'Screen' values that should matter to photographers. For photographers, what matters is the difference between the brightest highlight detail and the darkest shadow detail that can be captured.

So wanna take me up on my gold sheet offer then? Yeah, didn't think so.

My IQ went down when I read your gold sheet analogy. Something about selling photos of gold sheets?

I don't think anyone understood wtf you were trying to say.

"How about this.... let us say you have two square sheets of gold 1cm thick. You photograph both from the same distance, using the same lens set at the same focal point, using the same size sensor with two cameras, the only difference being one camera has 9MP and the other camera has 36MP. Now let us say gold 1cm thick costs $10 per pixel with that setup using the 9MP sensor. And let us say it measures 10pixels x 10 pixels on that camera. But now how about I instead present you a photo of the sheet of gold for sale taken with the 36MP camera and I show you that the gold sheet covers 20x20 pixels and say that I have a great discount and charge only $9 per pixel instead of $10 and offer it to you for 20x20x$9, do you take the deal?"

 

[Diko]

Maybe its just me but I am not blown away by the specs. However, I thought that about the mark 2 to the mark 3 and I was blown away by the mark 3 when I got two of them. Not sure if I will swap the two I have out for a while. The Mark 3's are more than capable at the moment. Maybe the video guys will be more impressed.

Sean Gannon
www.finngrace.co.uk

Sean, what did you liked so much about the mk3?
Here I am trying to build parallel to the mk4. Since I am the opposite. mk2 was great. mk3 was a fail. Now mk4 is again lovely.

 

[tcmatthews]

A different point of view:

DPAF cannot, with its post proc, make the image sharper than it was when the shutter closed. You do not create information if it was not there to start with.

You can use double-size RAW to increase blur in parts of the image out of the focus, much alike to comparing two photos taken at f2.8 and f5.6. But, instead of depth map being fixed, as it would be the case for a single-size RAW, you can push blurred pixels respecting all optics laws and taking into account how far are they from the focus plane, and not just blindly softening the whole image. Beautiful, 2.8 L-series bokeh for masses.

Further, a 2:1 anamorphic lens can use DP RAW file to achieve full horizontal resolution, just convert each DP into 2x1 (two horizontal, one vertical), improve on your debayer, and 8:3 will be right there as you are starting from an apparent 9:3 image. Old film anamorphic technology had, in theory, different vertical and horizontal resolution as the grain did could not care less.

Gone with the Wind, anyone?

With only light intensity information you would be correct but with light phase information you can sharpen the image. If the DPAF collects both intensity and phase information. Depending on resolution of the phase information you could compensate for slight out of focus because the info is there in the phase information. I wonder at what point they would run into existing light field camera patents.

 

[Loswr]

Yes, but it's a game. In fact, I totally disagree with LetTheRightLensIn that you should compare scaled values. Although those normalized 'Print' values are useful for engineers (and fangoils and measurebaters, too), it's the non-normalized 'Screen' values that should matter to photographers. For photographers, what matters is the difference between the brightest highlight detail and the darkest shadow detail that can be captured.

So wanna take me up on my gold sheet offer then? Yeah, didn't think so.

Huh? ???

 

[Loswr]

True – normalization is certainly useful and important in some cases. But it's important to understand what your doing, and why, or you risk looking like an idiot.

And it's also important to not decide to use it when it makes Canon look good and decide to not use it when it makes Canon look bad, it's important to always use it. hint hint.

It's important to not use that knowledge to mislead others just to pump up your most favored brand and to be fair and honest about things. hint hint.

Oh, yeah...that totally explains why I bashed DxO's Scores before, but now that Canon is matching SoNikon at low ISO DR, I am posting all over the place how DxO's Scores are so great and useful.

Except, I'm not. hint hint. :

 

[smorgo]

A different point of view:

DPAF cannot, with its post proc, make the image sharper than it was when the shutter closed. You do not create information if it was not there to start with.

You can use double-size RAW to increase blur in parts of the image out of the focus, much alike to comparing two photos taken at f2.8 and f5.6. But, instead of depth map being fixed, as it would be the case for a single-size RAW, you can push blurred pixels respecting all optics laws and taking into account how far are they from the focus plane, and not just blindly softening the whole image. Beautiful, 2.8 L-series bokeh for masses.

Further, a 2:1 anamorphic lens can use DP RAW file to achieve full horizontal resolution, just convert each DP into 2x1 (two horizontal, one vertical), improve on your debayer, and 8:3 will be right there as you are starting from an apparent 9:3 image. Old film anamorphic technology had, in theory, different vertical and horizontal resolution as the grain did could not care less.

Gone with the Wind, anyone?

While it's literally true that you can't create information that wasn't there, you are dismissing the fact that the sensor is now capturing an additional dimension of information. Lytro proved how that can be used to reconstruct an image that couldn't be captured in two dimensions. The DP sensor isn't capturing the same amount of information as the Lytro Light Ray sensor, but that additional dimension is still there.

 

[rrcphoto]

With the release of this camera, the only thing Nikon will have over Canon, is doing 5 stop exposure lifts at ISO 64.

I'll take that trade off.

If Canon wants to really take a chunk out of Nikon's entry level FF market, offer dual SD cards on the 6D2, and it is game over.

Specs are looking good overall. Not sure anyone can really complain, except for the video guys who want $15,000 equipment and features in a $3,000 DSLR.

it's funny .. but at the EXTREME shadow boosting (ie: dpreview) there is banding on the D810, very similar to the bands at the top and bottom of the D5 (the D5 is has horrendous banding)

of course no one mentions those.

as far as the video specs .. those are amusing how people expect the same as the 1Dx Mark II in a 1/2 smaller volome camera sans heatpipe and sink, 30WH battery and 3 DIGIC processors.

everyone basically declared the 5D Mark III probably one of the most well rounded cameras made (I'd say the D700 was that for Nikon) .. canon stepped it up in every area.. and added some interesting "tricks" as well, and damn me, if everyone's not complaining about how it's not exciting..

maybe I don't get it .. it's camera ..not a porn mag..

 

[rrcphoto]

A different point of view:

DPAF cannot, with its post proc, make the image sharper than it was when the shutter closed. You do not create information if it was not there to start with.

but it is there spatially.

computational photography can do alot of tricks.. this really is probably just the start for canon.. I think some of their newer patents deal with what they can do with hexapixels versus dual pixels.

if you miss focus by 10 feet, it's certainly not going to be able to correct it.. but with parallax information you have the ability to perhaps microadjust it, because you have the image data at slightly different perspectives and thus.. focus distances.

assuming the rumor is true.. then canon tends to err on the conservative side .. this isn't sony and make believe here.

 

[zim]

Well, I'm disappointed, if they tried harder they could have made it 150 million!

Jack

 

[tron]

Maybe its just me but I am not blown away by the specs. However, I thought that about the mark 2 to the mark 3 and I was blown away by the mark 3 when I got two of them. Not sure if I will swap the two I have out for a while. The Mark 3's are more than capable at the moment. Maybe the video guys will be more impressed.

Sean Gannon
www.finngrace.co.uk

Sean, what did you liked so much about the mk3?
Here I am trying to build parallel to the mk4. Since I am the opposite. mk2 was great. mk3 was a fail. Now mk4 is again lovely.

Yes it was such a fail that I sold my 5DII to get a second 5DIII. It was such a fail that it was a superset of 5DII. Faster fps, 2 cards, top AF system. A superset of a great camera cannot be a fail. But logic is a rare thing on CR forum...

 

[rrcphoto]

Maybe its just me but I am not blown away by the specs. However, I thought that about the mark 2 to the mark 3 and I was blown away by the mark 3 when I got two of them. Not sure if I will swap the two I have out for a while. The Mark 3's are more than capable at the moment. Maybe the video guys will be more impressed.

Sean Gannon
www.finngrace.co.uk

Sean, what did you liked so much about the mk3?
Here I am trying to build parallel to the mk4. Since I am the opposite. mk2 was great. mk3 was a fail. Now mk4 is again lovely.

Yes it was such a fail that I sold my 5DII to get a second 5DIII. It was such a fail that it was a superset of 5DII. Faster fps, 2 cards, top AF system. A superset of a great camera cannot be a fail. But logic is a rare thing on CR forum...

hard to be a fail when it's continually been one of the top selling full frame cameras since it's inception.

even now in NA, at least according to amazon, it outsells out all sony A7 series cameras.. even the ultra cheap A7 that they can't even give away for free.

a 4+ year old camera that can sustain that kind of sales over it's lifecycle is nothing but a fantastic success.

 

[tron]

Maybe its just me but I am not blown away by the specs. However, I thought that about the mark 2 to the mark 3 and I was blown away by the mark 3 when I got two of them. Not sure if I will swap the two I have out for a while. The Mark 3's are more than capable at the moment. Maybe the video guys will be more impressed.

Sean Gannon
www.finngrace.co.uk

Sean, what did you liked so much about the mk3?
Here I am trying to build parallel to the mk4. Since I am the opposite. mk2 was great. mk3 was a fail. Now mk4 is again lovely.

Yes it was such a fail that I sold my 5DII to get a second 5DIII. It was such a fail that it was a superset of 5DII. Faster fps, 2 cards, top AF system. A superset of a great camera cannot be a fail. But logic is a rare thing on CR forum...

 

[Wesley]

Maybe its just me but I am not blown away by the specs. However, I thought that about the mark 2 to the mark 3 and I was blown away by the mark 3 when I got two of them. Not sure if I will swap the two I have out for a while. The Mark 3's are more than capable at the moment. Maybe the video guys will be more impressed.

Sean Gannon
www.finngrace.co.uk

Sean, what did you liked so much about the mk3?
Here I am trying to build parallel to the mk4. Since I am the opposite. mk2 was great. mk3 was a fail. Now mk4 is again lovely.

Yes it was such a fail that I sold my 5DII to get a second 5DIII. It was such a fail that it was a superset of 5DII. Faster fps, 2 cards, top AF system. A superset of a great camera cannot be a fail. But logic is a rare thing on CR forum...

hard to be a fail when it's continually been one of the top selling full frame cameras since it's inception.

even now in NA, at least according to amazon, it outsells out all sony A7 series cameras.. even the ultra cheap A7 that they can't even give away for free.

a 4+ year old camera that can sustain that kind of sales over it's lifecycle is nothing but a fantastic success.

How can you know it outsell all A7's? It looks like Amazon separates DSLR & mirrorless sales and only shows ranking.

If Amazon is a good source for camera sales than I'm impressed a FF camera is in top 3.

 

[K]

The leap from the 5D2 to the 5D3 was significant. Perhaps not in sensor or IQ, but it was in every single other way a huge advance.

The advancement from the 5D3 to the 5D4 is not as significant, but is still a decent upgrade. This time around, it is likely to be in the sensor. I'm not a fan of the 5D3 sensor, only in regards to the exposure latitude. Heinous banding and noise without doing much adjustment. 6D is far better in this regard, and wasn't that much newer of a camera. 5D3 was not forgiving on exposure at all.

The 5D3's features in many regards hit a sort of ceiling. It is for that reason that it is unlikely for Canon to offer a 6D2 with the same AF and speed and all that. In other words, in the 6D2 rumor threads, the 6D2 just cannot become a rebadged 5D3 the same way the 6D was basically a 5D2 with a newer sensor. The specs of the 5D3 are too good, and such a camera would be too close to the 5D4.

 

[Loswr]

How can you know it outsell all A7's? It looks like Amazon separates DSLR & mirrorless sales and only shows ranking.

Because you can look a level higher, where in Amazon's ranking for Camera & Photo the 5DIII is #526, and the a7RII (for example) is #3618.

 

[scyrene]

Think of shooting a person hand-held wide open... subject is swaying a little and so is the photographer. Each probably move more than an eyelash length. I shoot weddings... I'd welcome the new option.

If your focus is ruined enough by swaying a little than you shouldn't be shooting wide open.
Stop down and/or raise ISO.

Sheesh. I don't do tonnes of portraiture, but I've done enough - and used very wide aperture lenses with and without IS - to know that it's not as simple as you make out. First, wide aperture gives a look that many like, and cannot be replicated by other means. Second, with ambient lighting, it's quite easy to hit the practical upper ISO limit AND the minimum handholdable shutter speed EVEN shooting wide open. Any technological help with every aspect of photography is to be welcomed - the same attitude was used to dismiss IS, AF, automatic metering, and a host of other advances. They each have their place - for some of us, at least. Telling people they're wrong to desire a little extra leeway is pretty narrowminded.

 

[Loswr]

Think of shooting a person hand-held wide open... subject is swaying a little and so is the photographer. Each probably move more than an eyelash length. I shoot weddings... I'd welcome the new option.

If your focus is ruined enough by swaying a little than you shouldn't be shooting wide open.
Stop down and/or raise ISO.

Sheesh. I don't do tonnes of portraiture, but I've done enough - and used very wide aperture lenses with and without IS - to know that it's not as simple as you make out. First, wide aperture gives a look that many like, and cannot be replicated by other means. Second, with ambient lighting, it's quite easy to hit the practical upper ISO limit AND the minimum handholdable shutter speed EVEN shooting wide open. Any technological help with every aspect of photography is to be welcomed - the same attitude was used to dismiss IS, AF, automatic metering, and a host of other advances. They each have their place - for some of us, at least. Telling people they're wrong to desire a little extra leeway is pretty narrowminded.

Narrowminded? Nonsense – Wesley is clearly onto something. We should all just switch to P&S cameras so thin DoF is never a problem.

 

[IglooEater]

Maybe its just me but I am not blown away by the specs. However, I thought that about the mark 2 to the mark 3 and I was blown away by the mark 3 when I got two of them. Not sure if I will swap the two I have out for a while. The Mark 3's are more than capable at the moment. Maybe the video guys will be more impressed.

Sean Gannon
www.finngrace.co.uk

Sean, what did you liked so much about the mk3?
Here I am trying to build parallel to the mk4. Since I am the opposite. mk2 was great. mk3 was a fail. Now mk4 is again lovely.

Yes it was such a fail that I sold my 5DII to get a second 5DIII. It was such a fail that it was a superset of 5DII. Faster fps, 2 cards, top AF system. A superset of a great camera cannot be a fail. But logic is a rare thing on CR forum...

Newsflash- different folks have different needs.

 

[Wesley]

Think of shooting a person hand-held wide open... subject is swaying a little and so is the photographer. Each probably move more than an eyelash length. I shoot weddings... I'd welcome the new option.

If your focus is ruined enough by swaying a little than you shouldn't be shooting wide open.
Stop down and/or raise ISO.

Sheesh. I don't do tonnes of portraiture, but I've done enough - and used very wide aperture lenses with and without IS - to know that it's not as simple as you make out. First, wide aperture gives a look that many like, and cannot be replicated by other means. Second, with ambient lighting, it's quite easy to hit the practical upper ISO limit AND the minimum handholdable shutter speed EVEN shooting wide open. Any technological help with every aspect of photography is to be welcomed - the same attitude was used to dismiss IS, AF, automatic metering, and a host of other advances. They each have their place - for some of us, at least. Telling people they're wrong to desire a little extra leeway is pretty narrowminded.

If you're hitting the upper ISO limit and minimum handhold SS even shooting wide open than you really can't complain about ruined focus. You should know it was coming. At this point, I would be more worried about motion blur and the AF system retaining accuracy in that low light...

Use a monopod/tripod or HSS flash. More stable platform. Modeling light or speedlight infrared aid AF system.