More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV

[Lurker]

Just to finalize....If you have a 5DIII, a 1dx, 1dxII, 5ds r and you can´t get the best of the results....well, it´s time to consider that the fault it is not in the equipment....

Kind of a tired cliché. If, as suggested, hardware doesn't matter then why aren't we still shooting film with manual film advance or glass plates. Why are so many people upset over the lack of or over abundance of pixels? Why isn't 7 fps fast enough? Why should Canon use CFast? I think it's because pretty much everyone knows that equipment does matter.

Maybe someone doesn't get good results because they're pushing themselves beyond their limits. Maybe it's because they're pushing the equipment beyond its limits. Wanting to do that which can't be done is pretty much the basis for all technological advancement don't you think?

I get what you're trying to say. A good photographer can make great images with any equipment but they do have to limit the subject matter to the capability of the equipment. I doubt the best photographer alive can consistently grab great photos of a Peregrine dive with an iphone. I'm absolutely certain that in many situations "they" could make better photos with their iphone than I could with my DSLR. I'm also absolutely certain I can take better photos with better equipment. The equipment helps me overcome my limitations.

Some of my limitations I could over come with practice. This is a hobby and I choose to put my resources into other parts of my life. Some of my limitations are the ravages of age, injury, and illness that I can't (or choose not spend the time, energy and $ to) overcome.

Equipment does matter. If it doesn't matter to you it simply means you and technology have advanced far enough to allow you to accomplish what you want. The fact that this has happened for you does not imply that it has, or should have, happened for anyone else.

Peace brothers and sisters.
Respect each other regardless of status, ability, equipment, goals or media choice.
Remember we all do basically the same thing, capture light for the purpose of conveying a message or feeling.

 

[Go Wild]

Just to finalize....If you have a 5DIII, a 1dx, 1dxII, 5ds r and you can´t get the best of the results....well, it´s time to consider that the fault it is not in the equipment....

Kind of a tired cliché. If, as suggested, hardware doesn't matter then why aren't we still shooting film with manual film advance or glass plates. Why are so many people upset over the lack of or over abundance of pixels? Why isn't 7 fps fast enough? Why should Canon use CFast? I think it's because pretty much everyone knows that equipment does matter.

Maybe someone doesn't get good results because they're pushing themselves beyond their limits. Maybe it's because they're pushing the equipment beyond its limits. Wanting to do that which can't be done is pretty much the basis for all technological advancement don't you think?

I get what you're trying to say. A good photographer can make great images with any equipment but they do have to limit the subject matter to the capability of the equipment. I doubt the best photographer alive can consistently grab great photos of a Peregrine dive with an iphone. I'm absolutely certain that in many situations "they" could make better photos with their iphone than I could with my DSLR. I'm also absolutely certain I can take better photos with better equipment. The equipment helps me overcome my limitations.

Some of my limitations I could over come with practice. This is a hobby and I choose to put my resources into other parts of my life. Some of my limitations are the ravages of age, injury, and illness that I can't (or choose not spend the time, energy and $ to) overcome.

Equipment does matter. If it doesn't matter to you it simply means you and technology have advanced far enough to allow you to accomplish what you want. The fact that this has happened for you does not imply that it has, or should have, happened for anyone else.

Peace brothers and sisters.
Respect each other regardless of status, ability, equipment, goals or media choice.
Remember we all do basically the same thing, capture light for the purpose of conveying a message or feeling.

Yes totally agree! That was not my point, of course equipment matters! And a lot!! But sometimes , me included, we do intend to blaim Canon or other manufacturer, not to do the best equipment.... I am only saying this because the critics to the new camera sounds a bit unfair to canon side, in my point of view. The technology has reach a great point now, and we do have in the market great stuff to work! What is the best seems to be the talking...for me is what is the best for my needs.

And yes, The new Canon 5dIV will make huge photos just like Nikon or Sony´s... It´s not going to be so bad and Canon is not sooo bad company. Did someone notice the eisa awards? 1DxII and 80D.

 

[George D.]

Just to finalize....If you have a 5DIII, a 1dx, 1dxII, 5ds r and you can´t get the best of the results....well, it´s time to consider that the fault it is not in the equipment....

Kind of a tired cliché. If, as suggested, hardware doesn't matter then why aren't we still shooting film with manual film advance or glass plates. Why are so many people upset over the lack of or over abundance of pixels? Why isn't 7 fps fast enough? Why should Canon use CFast? I think it's because pretty much everyone knows that equipment does matter.

Maybe someone doesn't get good results because they're pushing themselves beyond their limits. Maybe it's because they're pushing the equipment beyond its limits. Wanting to do that which can't be done is pretty much the basis for all technological advancement don't you think?

I get what you're trying to say. A good photographer can make great images with any equipment but they do have to limit the subject matter to the capability of the equipment. I doubt the best photographer alive can consistently grab great photos of a Peregrine dive with an iphone. I'm absolutely certain that in many situations "they" could make better photos with their iphone than I could with my DSLR. I'm also absolutely certain I can take better photos with better equipment. The equipment helps me overcome my limitations.

Some of my limitations I could over come with practice. This is a hobby and I choose to put my resources into other parts of my life. Some of my limitations are the ravages of age, injury, and illness that I can't (or choose not spend the time, energy and $ to) overcome.

Equipment does matter. If it doesn't matter to you it simply means you and technology have advanced far enough to allow you to accomplish what you want. The fact that this has happened for you does not imply that it has, or should have, happened for anyone else.

Peace brothers and sisters.
Respect each other regardless of status, ability, equipment, goals or media choice.
Remember we all do basically the same thing, capture light for the purpose of conveying a message or feeling.

Yes totally agree! That was not my point, of course equipment matters! And a lot!! But sometimes , me included, we do intend to blaim Canon or other manufacturer, not to do the best equipment.... I am only saying this because the critics to the new camera sounds a bit unfair to canon side, in my point of view. The technology has reach a great point now, and we do have in the market great stuff to work! What is the best seems to be the talking...for me is what is the best for my needs.

And yes, The new Canon 5dIV will make huge photos just like Nikon or Sony´s... It´s not going to be so bad and Canon is not sooo bad company. Did someone notice the eisa awards? 1DxII and 80D.

Noticed, noticed: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30550.msg615418#msg615418

Hey, we're all enthusiasts here right up to pro. We demand the impossible from Canon. And that's good for them and us.

 

[Tugela]

Digic 6? As predicted.

 

[Loswr]

Digic 6? As predicted.

Does that mean no 4K?

 

[Mikehit]

- Improvement in autofocus - The AF in 5DIII isn´t bad, but it´s not also very good.

: :-\

wth?

CRAZIEST statement Ive read in 50+ pages of posts.

Even my 5d3 is on the table giggling at that one. 8)

And again, it´s all very personal.... Put a 7d markII and a 5D markIII. The 7D markII is a better AF than the 5d markIII for wildlife!

I struggle a little with 5D markIII to focus in poor light and also in BIF´s. Again...why is it stupid or crazy just because it is not your opinion? Read what i said, it is not bad, but could be better. For most of the purposes, the af is just great! For events, or weddings, never fail me. But for wildlife, is not perfect. Just that! If Canon improve it a bit, is it bad??

By the way, i am not sure on that, but the Af sistem is not the same from 1Dx. It is very similar but not the same. And you notice that with long lenses and telecoverters.

Maybe i dont use the best words. What i was meaning is that (for me) the 5d3 miss a little point in AF witch could be improved. But that´s only my feeling from use in real life in wildlife concerns. However, i don´t want to be unfair, the af is great and i love my camera!!

I would refer to Jack's comment above - instead of just saying 'AF needs improvement' it really helps the discussion to explain shy you think it needs improvement. No one is denying your opinion but it adding some details helps separate the genuine discussion from the trolls. And you are more likely to get a meaningful reply.

 

[Jack Douglas]

- Improvement in autofocus - The AF in 5DIII isn´t bad, but it´s not also very good.

: :-\

wth?

CRAZIEST statement Ive read in 50+ pages of posts.

Even my 5d3 is on the table giggling at that one. 8)

And again, it´s all very personal.... Put a 7d markII and a 5D markIII. The 7D markII is a better AF than the 5d markIII for wildlife!

I struggle a little with 5D markIII to focus in poor light and also in BIF´s. Again...why is it stupid or crazy just because it is not your opinion? Read what i said, it is not bad, but could be better. For most of the purposes, the af is just great! For events, or weddings, never fail me. But for wildlife, is not perfect. Just that! If Canon improve it a bit, is it bad??

By the way, i am not sure on that, but the Af sistem is not the same from 1Dx. It is very similar but not the same. And you notice that with long lenses and telecoverters.

Maybe i dont use the best words. What i was meaning is that (for me) the 5d3 miss a little point in AF witch could be improved. But that´s only my feeling from use in real life in wildlife concerns. However, i don´t want to be unfair, the af is great and i love my camera!!

Just don't take responses too seriously. There is nothing wrong with what you say and of course everyone has an opinion. If someone else's opinion differs, that's fine. It's a big pot of opinions that we all consider and use in making wiser purchase decisions.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

If you were to start fresh with $10,000, which would you choose at this point?

1) Canon: 2x Mark IV bodies + 85mm + 24-70mm

2) Sony: 2x A7r2 bodies + 85mm gmaster + 24-70mm gmaster

3) Canon: 1x 1DX2 body + 85mm + 24-70mm


I am a lowly street and fashion photographer if anyone cares.

$10,000, start again....

5DSr $3,299.
11-24 $2,599
35 f2 IS $535
100 f2.8 L Macro $799
Profoto B1 + Controller and mods $2,600
RRS L-Plate $180

Sorry that was $10,012

Now that's interesting. Can you put a little context to what you would be focusing on with that acquisition. What would you be able or not able to do without any nagging regrets. That 100 macro I don't have but have really thought I should get it. There are pretty good deals used. I'm a little surprised you've included the 11-24, which I love but find challenging at the wide end.

Jack

 

[Loswr]

There are pretty good deals used.

CPW.

 

[Wesley]

unfocused, what are your portrait autofocus settings?

3kramd5: There are tools and features invented that's readily available now to aid and increase keepers but I'm seeing only excuses from others.

Why are those tools and features okay but a little leeway in post is useless?

Excuses? How about "I effed up"? Whether it's me or the camera or the model or a friggin cosmic ray, it makes no difference.

The tools and techniques suggested involve either gear which may be impractical or prohibited, or changing the look of the photo. Many clients like the very narrow DOF look in portraiture. Why else do world class portrait artists use moderately long focal lengths and wide apertures on large formats?

Shooting with wider DOF may increase the rate at which eyes are acceptably in focus, but decrease keeper rate because DOF is too wide thus the photo doesn't meet the aesthetic intent.

In any case, I'm not looking to increase keeper rate, I'm merely excited for the prospect of saving photos which are excellent in all aspects except focus is slightly off. I also shoot digital raw rather than instax. YMMV.

Because they are readily available now and not based on a guessing game hunch about a rumor.
Can you tell me exactly what dual pixels does right now?

Yes, the serve the autofocus system.

So your complaint is that I'm hoping a rumor manifests rather than potentially altering the appearance of my photos? Odd - this is a rumor site after all. Would you also suggest that the people who like the 30MP rumor should shoot with longer lenses and stich panoramas (tools and technique to increase resolution)?

"Yes, the serve the autofocus system."

???

Were you thinking dual pixel AF would let you adjust focus in post? /facepalm
The quotes and the word rumor refers to dual pixel RAW.

You were also vague.
Can I use it on m-raw / s-raw? Is it only for stationary objects? What's the range I can adjust the focus / bokeh?

 

[Wesley]

The 645z did it right. T/AV mode.

I'm surprised this hasn't been adopted already as it's a wonderful weay to do it. Rather than press the set button and flip the dial and not be able to see what's dialled in.

Pretty silly if you ask me as safety shift can't be trusted and manual mode allows proper creative intent.

and inherited in the K1. At first seemed like a useless gimmick mode, since I never had it in Canon bodies, but now that I use it, I'd rather have it than not. Simplifies the WF. I also love the special selector on top, its much quicker to change settings on the go. I would actually prefer fixed dials for SS/Aperture/iso/EC. We already have 3 dials on the 5d, just add one more. With higher DR on the newer sensors, I find using the EC much more than before (usually setting it to -2EV to protect highlights, recover the rest in post). point is, I didn't think I needed these before, but forced learning the K1 layout gave me some perspective.

Sorry guys but you're only going to get the cold shoulder here when you talk about Pentax.
I was told they're not relevant because of small market share when I brought them up :

 

[scyrene]

- Improvement in autofocus - The AF in 5DIII isn´t bad, but it´s not also very good.

: :-\

wth?

CRAZIEST statement Ive read in 50+ pages of posts.

Even my 5d3 is on the table giggling at that one. 8)

And again, it´s all very personal.... Put a 7d markII and a 5D markIII. The 7D markII is a better AF than the 5d markIII for wildlife!

I struggle a little with 5D markIII to focus in poor light and also in BIF´s. Again...why is it stupid or crazy just because it is not your opinion? Read what i said, it is not bad, but could be better. For most of the purposes, the af is just great! For events, or weddings, never fail me. But for wildlife, is not perfect. Just that! If Canon improve it a bit, is it bad??

By the way, i am not sure on that, but the Af sistem is not the same from 1Dx. It is very similar but not the same. And you notice that with long lenses and telecoverters.

Maybe i dont use the best words. What i was meaning is that (for me) the 5d3 miss a little point in AF witch could be improved. But that´s only my feeling from use in real life in wildlife concerns. However, i don´t want to be unfair, the af is great and i love my camera!!

The 7D2 came out two and a half years later, I should hope it is better! It's also a crop camera, so it's easier for the AF points to extend further out from the centre of the frame.

 

[Wesley]

If you were to start fresh with $10,000, which would you choose at this point?

1) Canon: 2x Mark IV bodies + 85mm + 24-70mm

2) Sony: 2x A7r2 bodies + 85mm gmaster + 24-70mm gmaster

3) Canon: 1x 1DX2 body + 85mm + 24-70mm


I am a lowly street fashion and runway photographer if anyone cares.

I would get the smaller bodies (5D or A7) for discrete street fashion and 85mm. Canon 85 1.8 or 85 Batis.

But 70-200 instead of 24-70 for runway.

 

[scyrene]

Just to finalize....If you have a 5DIII, a 1dx, 1dxII, 5ds r and you can´t get the best of the results....well, it´s time to consider that the fault it is not in the equipment....

Kind of a tired cliché. If, as suggested, hardware doesn't matter then why aren't we still shooting film with manual film advance or glass plates. Why are so many people upset over the lack of or over abundance of pixels? Why isn't 7 fps fast enough? Why should Canon use CFast? I think it's because pretty much everyone knows that equipment does matter.

You're right that it's a cliché, and I do generally object to the 'it's not the equipment that matters' mantra - we don't shoot small birds far away with ultrawide-angle lenses for example!

However, *some* people complaining about 7fps or 30MP or whatever are doing so for less noble reasons than that they have reached the limits of current technology. There is a strong drive in some people (perhaps many people) to complain regardless of what's on offer, or what improvements have been made. Or they look at bare numbers - camera X has 42MP so 30MP isn't enough! - without contextualising them, or realising that individual specifications in isolation aren't giving the whole picture. Greener grass, etc.

But it is also true to say that most of us do not exceed most of the capabilities of the better modern cameras in most situations. Of course, sometimes we do and we hope those areas will improve in future releases - in the meantime, there are often workarounds in terms of technique or processing.

 

[privatebydesign]

If you were to start fresh with $10,000, which would you choose at this point?

1) Canon: 2x Mark IV bodies + 85mm + 24-70mm

2) Sony: 2x A7r2 bodies + 85mm gmaster + 24-70mm gmaster

3) Canon: 1x 1DX2 body + 85mm + 24-70mm


I am a lowly street and fashion photographer if anyone cares.

$10,000, start again....

5DSr $3,299.
11-24 $2,599
35 f2 IS $535
100 f2.8 L Macro $799
Profoto B1 + Controller and mods $2,600
RRS L-Plate $180

Sorry that was $10,012

Now that's interesting. Can you put a little context to what you would be focusing on with that acquisition. What would you be able or not able to do without any nagging regrets. That 100 macro I don't have but have really thought I should get it. There are pretty good deals used. I'm a little surprised you've included the 11-24, which I love but find challenging at the wide end.

Jack

Hi Jack,

It is a very broad reaching general kit that I took traveling with me last time I did a trip (thought the 5DSr was a 1Ds MkIII). I wanted for nothing and missed nothing.

The 11-24 gives me angles and perspectives no other camera system can. It works well as a general walk around lens in tight spots and is a great landscape and environmental lens. Sure the 11 end takes some work to arrive at compelling compositions, but the 16-24 area is very well covered. It would be the first of the three I dropped.

The 35 f2 IS is the greatest walk around general purpose lens I have ever used. Great for environmental portraits, killer for stitched panos when used in portrait orientation, not too big and heavy or intrusive but fast enough and the IS is a godsend. With the pixel rich 5DSr it gives a very good rendering of a 50mm perspective, which although it has gone out of favour to a large extent still makes compelling images, just stand back and crop. If I could only have one lens it would be the 35 f2 IS.

The 100 L Macro is just as flexible, nice short tele, fast enough to give subject separation but small and light enough to be inclined to take. Great lens for detail shots as well as the occasional macro. Superb portrait lens, especially if you are bored by the single eyelash in focus nonsense.

The 5DSr because the only thing I miss about my early digital captures is resolution. I can work quite happily with the DR, colour, etc etc, but 4MP was too little and if we can capture 50MP, if I was buying new, it would need to be a very compelling reason not to.

Profoto B1 because light is all there is to make a picture and the B1 gives the the power and functionality in a quality package to make images not possible until comparatively recently.

I don't know what I couldn't shoot with that package apart from long tele work, which I rarely do anyway.

 

[scyrene]

scyrene:
"LOL okay so you *are* narrowminded. Or just lack imagination... or both. We're not complaining about *ruined* focus. The OP said he'd like the feature to readjust critical focus by a few millimetres, that's all. If they include that feature, it will help with wide open handheld portraiture. Telling him - or me, or anyone else - that our technique is bad is missing the point. Sometimes people shoot wide open, handheld, not totally still subjects (or even if they are), and readjusting the focus by a tiny bit could help make some borderline shots spot on. Not to mention that the AF point selection isn't as find as it might be, and can easily mistake an eyelash for a pupil, or whatever (my experience with the 85L at f/1.2 was that many shots had the focus just a touch out - and this was not a case of AFMA, but rather that selecting the AF point over the eye was not fine enough of a distinction)."

The focus is ruined if you need to readjust, plain & simple. Even more so on a thin DoF portrait.
Does Canon not have the ability to fine tune the focus with the focus ring after autofocus did its thing?

Or maybe you're using single shot AF on moving subjects...

"Additionally, newsflash: in lots of situations a monopod, let alone flash or other lighting, is not appropriate or allowed. This comes up whenever people talk about IS in wide angle and wide aperture lenses. I shouldn't have to give examples, but as I said above, you seem to lack imagination, so here are a couple: a party, where flash would be intrusive/alter the look of the shot (washing out ambient lighting), and where a tripod or monopod would be impractical due to space/crowdedness; or a venue in which flash and/or tripod/monopod is not allowed (say candid portraits in a cathedral).

Party shots doesn't need pin point accuracy.
Are you really shooting portraits of someone in a cramped space that can't fit a monopod or tripod?
Candid portraits imply distance. You'll have enough DoF to not worry about adjusting focus by a few mm.

Yeah, you're basically ignoring what I said so... my original brusque assessment was justified. If you can't think of places and occasions where someone blundering round with a tripod would be unwelcome, or using a flash would be rude or obtrusive, then you can't get out much.

PS describing real world limitations as 'excuses' is the height of dismissiveness. Nobody is perfect, even if you believe yourself to be; I'm just giving examples where this possible new feature might be useful. Also, it's funny how you're happy to accept previous technological advances like autofocus, but reject out of hand any novel post-shot focus adjustment.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what this new feature amounts to. It's certainly generated a lot of interesting speculation.

(If I used 'candid' incorrectly, I apologise for confusion: I don't mean 'shooting strangers from a distance', I mean intimate, unposed portraits taken from within the social context, e.g. being at a party and photographing people you're with).

 

[Jack Douglas]

K-amps has some great photo posts Wesley. I'm more inclined to listen to his opinions until I see some of your work. How about posting some photos, maybe start a new thread.

Jack

 

[Go Wild]

- Improvement in autofocus - The AF in 5DIII isn´t bad, but it´s not also very good.

: :-\

wth?

CRAZIEST statement Ive read in 50+ pages of posts.

Even my 5d3 is on the table giggling at that one. 8)

And again, it´s all very personal.... Put a 7d markII and a 5D markIII. The 7D markII is a better AF than the 5d markIII for wildlife!

I struggle a little with 5D markIII to focus in poor light and also in BIF´s. Again...why is it stupid or crazy just because it is not your opinion? Read what i said, it is not bad, but could be better. For most of the purposes, the af is just great! For events, or weddings, never fail me. But for wildlife, is not perfect. Just that! If Canon improve it a bit, is it bad??

By the way, i am not sure on that, but the Af sistem is not the same from 1Dx. It is very similar but not the same. And you notice that with long lenses and telecoverters.

Maybe i dont use the best words. What i was meaning is that (for me) the 5d3 miss a little point in AF witch could be improved. But that´s only my feeling from use in real life in wildlife concerns. However, i don´t want to be unfair, the af is great and i love my camera!!

I would refer to Jack's comment above - instead of just saying 'AF needs improvement' it really helps the discussion to explain shy you think it needs improvement. No one is denying your opinion but it adding some details helps separate the genuine discussion from the trolls. And you are more likely to get a meaningful reply.

- Improvement in autofocus - The AF in 5DIII isn´t bad, but it´s not also very good.

: :-\

wth?

CRAZIEST statement Ive read in 50+ pages of posts.

Even my 5d3 is on the table giggling at that one. 8)

And again, it´s all very personal.... Put a 7d markII and a 5D markIII. The 7D markII is a better AF than the 5d markIII for wildlife!

I struggle a little with 5D markIII to focus in poor light and also in BIF´s. Again...why is it stupid or crazy just because it is not your opinion? Read what i said, it is not bad, but could be better. For most of the purposes, the af is just great! For events, or weddings, never fail me. But for wildlife, is not perfect. Just that! If Canon improve it a bit, is it bad??

By the way, i am not sure on that, but the Af sistem is not the same from 1Dx. It is very similar but not the same. And you notice that with long lenses and telecoverters.

Maybe i dont use the best words. What i was meaning is that (for me) the 5d3 miss a little point in AF witch could be improved. But that´s only my feeling from use in real life in wildlife concerns. However, i don´t want to be unfair, the af is great and i love my camera!!

Just don't take responses too seriously. There is nothing wrong with what you say and of course everyone has an opinion. If someone else's opinion differs, that's fine. It's a big pot of opinions that we all consider and use in making wiser purchase decisions.

Jack

Yes ok, thank you for your comments.

I will try to explain. For the most of the situations, af in 5D3 is just great, i don´t use a lot the modes and i usually stick with the 1 mode, the more general, and the mode 2 if i am getting some obstacles between me and the animals.

My dificulties with the 5d3 are:

- in low light, althoug it makes a good service, sometimes the camera struggle to focus in a way that the 7d markII don´t, if we want to make a comparison.
- In BIF, if you use all the points of focus the camera easily loses focus to the blue sky. With the 7DII that doesn´t happen so frequently. But of course, could be my problem.
- If i use a teleconverter in the telephoto lens it is a pain to be able to track small fast animals, again, i feel more confortable getting the AF with 7dII than the 5d3.
- In 7dII i get a wider coverage area than in the 5d3
- And finally, ITR wich is just great for video and i think the new 5d4 will have.

ohh....and last, i do Hate that round bowl in the focus points!! The 7dII is cleaner and i do like most.


Finishing, my point is not to say that the 5d3 has a bad AF, on the contraire!!! I do LOVE my 5D3! I do LOVE the AF!! But when i put togheter, the 5d3 and the 7d2, for me it seems that the af is 7d2 is more responsive and works better with teleconverters in the 500mm F4.

So the point here, and regarding of what i said, i just want that the new 5d4 has some improvements in AF, that i see in the 7d2! Just that!

I don´t want to shock anybody!!

 

[Jack Douglas]

If you were to start fresh with $10,000, which would you choose at this point?

1) Canon: 2x Mark IV bodies + 85mm + 24-70mm

2) Sony: 2x A7r2 bodies + 85mm gmaster + 24-70mm gmaster

3) Canon: 1x 1DX2 body + 85mm + 24-70mm


I am a lowly street and fashion photographer if anyone cares.

$10,000, start again....

5DSr $3,299.
11-24 $2,599
35 f2 IS $535
100 f2.8 L Macro $799
Profoto B1 + Controller and mods $2,600
RRS L-Plate $180

Sorry that was $10,012

Now that's interesting. Can you put a little context to what you would be focusing on with that acquisition. What would you be able or not able to do without any nagging regrets. That 100 macro I don't have but have really thought I should get it. There are pretty good deals used. I'm a little surprised you've included the 11-24, which I love but find challenging at the wide end.

Jack

Hi Jack,

It is a very broad reaching general kit that I took traveling with me last time I did a trip (thought the 5DSr was a 1Ds MkIII). I wanted for nothing and missed nothing.

The 11-24 gives me angles and perspectives no other camera system can. It works well as a general walk around lens in tight spots and is a great landscape and environmental lens. Sure the 11 end takes some work to arrive at compelling compositions, but the 16-24 area is very well covered. It would be the first of the three I dropped.

The 35 f2 IS is the greatest walk around general purpose lens I have ever used. Great for environmental portraits, killer for stitched panos when used in portrait orientation, not too big and heavy or intrusive but fast enough and the IS is a godsend. With the pixel rich 5DSr it gives a very good rendering of a 50mm perspective, which although it has gone out of favour to a large extent still makes compelling images, just stand back and crop. If I could only have one lens it would be the 35 f2 IS.

The 100 L Macro is just as flexible, nice short tele, fast enough to give subject separation but small and light enough to be inclined to take. Great lens for detail shots as well as the occasional macro. Superb portrait lens, especially if you are bored by the single eyelash in focus nonsense.

The 5DSr because the only thing I miss about my early digital captures is resolution. I can work quite happily with the DR, colour, etc etc, but 4MP was too little and if we can capture 50MP, if I was buying new, it would need to be a very compelling reason not to.

Profoto B1 because light is all there is to make a picture and the B1 gives the the power and functionality in a quality package to make images not possible until comparatively recently.

I don't know what I couldn't shoot with that package apart from long tele work, which I rarely do anyway.

What a breath of fresh air in this thread. Now, I just have to take some time to reflect on what you say. I take it that the 30 MPs of the 5D4 is a positive in your estimation? Thanks for this.

Jack

 

[mnclayshooter]

Canon store is down for site upgrades... FYI

http://shop.usa.canon.com/maintenance.html?WT.mc_id=C126149