Poll: Most wanted new features for 5D Mark IV
- Thread starter andrewflo
- Start date
tron said:
For ISOs in the 4 and 5 digits, I think smaller pixels do better, all else being equal.
Where people go wrong is they compare different size pixels all at 1:1. That's not fair. They should be compared at the same final size. In that case, smaller pixels generally win, and win easily.
Upvote
0
FPS, focus system improvements in line with 7D2, increased buffer performance, better high ISO performance, AF during video, and faster flash sync would be nice. All of these things are the incremental changes that one would expect with an upgrade that can leverage expected technological improvements.
One thing that I do NOT want in a 5D4 is higher pixel count. 22 megapixels is plenty. I don't want to deal with RAW files bigger than 30 MB. Instead, I'd rather see Canon introduce a sibling to the 5D3 and 1Dx with the high megapixel sensor. Keep the 5D and 1D series in their current pixel count range to keep their low light and high speed buffer performance benefits.
One thing that I do NOT want in a 5D4 is higher pixel count. 22 megapixels is plenty. I don't want to deal with RAW files bigger than 30 MB. Instead, I'd rather see Canon introduce a sibling to the 5D3 and 1Dx with the high megapixel sensor. Keep the 5D and 1D series in their current pixel count range to keep their low light and high speed buffer performance benefits.
Upvote
0
I most want to see this killer sensor we keep hearing rumors about. I expect the camera to have significantly better dynamic range and also better high ISO image quality. I most want to see ISO 6400 and maybe ISO 12800 be usable for prints.
In terms of resolution, a touch more would be nice, but I really do not need more than 24 MP. I far prefer any improvement in DR and high ISO than MP.
I expect that they'll add the ergonomic improvements recently introduced in the 7D2, though I do not expect it to match the 7D2 in fps.
I do strongly believe that if Canon repeats what they did with the 7D2 (put essentially a 5 year old sensor in a revamped body) that it will not be tolerated with a more premium camera like the 5D4.
In terms of resolution, a touch more would be nice, but I really do not need more than 24 MP. I far prefer any improvement in DR and high ISO than MP.
I expect that they'll add the ergonomic improvements recently introduced in the 7D2, though I do not expect it to match the 7D2 in fps.
I do strongly believe that if Canon repeats what they did with the 7D2 (put essentially a 5 year old sensor in a revamped body) that it will not be tolerated with a more premium camera like the 5D4.
Upvote
0
V8Beast said:Interesting info. Didn't know about the transmission problems. I thought Canon didn't include built-in transmitters because they're greedy and want to force people to buy a $300 transmitter. I'm sure that plays some factor in it, thoughMarsu42 said:
With Canon, generating as much profit as you can squeeze out of customers is always a consideration :-\ esp with an item such overpriced as the st-e3 transmitter initially was.
But if radio waves wouldn't be blocked, they'd have put wifi into the 7d2 instead of going for a "screw under" external wifi block. Probably rt and wifi might work *somehow*, but customers would expect the same performance as an external unit, and that might really be a problem.
But Canon being Canon, they skipped gps on the 70d because the little brother cannot have more features than the flagship model 7d2
Upvote
0
more (usable, so make sure the banding is also fixed and it's not like Exmor DR and 5D2 banding that makes most of the extra DR unusable anyway) DR most especially at low ISO, 4k video (not waxy), 10bit video
maintain the 6fps (at the very least in a cropped mode, NOT some silly sRAW or mRAW nonsense mode, something that is real RAW and maintains reach for sports and wildlife; if it is in the cropped mode it should maybe hit 7fps or even 8fps although I guess an 8fps mirror box starts adding too much to the cost on a FF perhaps so maybe 7fps) although if the MP count did not go up then the fps needs to go to 8fps in FF mode 100% for sure and at 30-36MP it should probably handle the FF mode in 6fps and not need to drop to cropped mode for that, if it goes 40-50MP then it maybe needs the crop mode to hit 6fps unless they want to give it dual digic
more MP
4:2:2 (4:4:4 for 1080p)
focus peaking and zoomed focusing box
zoomed video mode for wildlife (and not some silly 640x480 zoomed mode nonsense either)
zebras
having the back LCD calibrated would do wonders, you could dial in correct colors right on scene, all those color cards and stuff don't work unless you want neutral which kills all sorts of interesting lighting
maintain the 6fps (at the very least in a cropped mode, NOT some silly sRAW or mRAW nonsense mode, something that is real RAW and maintains reach for sports and wildlife; if it is in the cropped mode it should maybe hit 7fps or even 8fps although I guess an 8fps mirror box starts adding too much to the cost on a FF perhaps so maybe 7fps) although if the MP count did not go up then the fps needs to go to 8fps in FF mode 100% for sure and at 30-36MP it should probably handle the FF mode in 6fps and not need to drop to cropped mode for that, if it goes 40-50MP then it maybe needs the crop mode to hit 6fps unless they want to give it dual digic
more MP
4:2:2 (4:4:4 for 1080p)
focus peaking and zoomed focusing box
zoomed video mode for wildlife (and not some silly 640x480 zoomed mode nonsense either)
zebras
having the back LCD calibrated would do wonders, you could dial in correct colors right on scene, all those color cards and stuff don't work unless you want neutral which kills all sorts of interesting lighting
Upvote
0
I'd love to see Canon support the new DNG spec.
It includes arbitrary downsampling and both lossless and lossy compressed raw files.
The raw files are much closer to raw than Canon's sraw and mraw files, which have white balance baked in.
The lossy compressed full-res DNGs are way better than mraws, and they're smaller as well. Having the option to arbitrarily downsample and then lossy compress raw files, while still retaining almost everything that's wonderful about raw, would be a major advantage over shooting JPEGs.
It includes arbitrary downsampling and both lossless and lossy compressed raw files.
The raw files are much closer to raw than Canon's sraw and mraw files, which have white balance baked in.
The lossy compressed full-res DNGs are way better than mraws, and they're smaller as well. Having the option to arbitrarily downsample and then lossy compress raw files, while still retaining almost everything that's wonderful about raw, would be a major advantage over shooting JPEGs.
Upvote
0
kirispupis said:
Yeah I completely agree. They can get away with in a 7D2, but the 5D4 really needs to catch up to low ISO quality beyond just the MP count of the other brands at this point. It can't just be a 5D3 sensor scaled to 36+ MP or a 7D2 sensor scaled by *1.6*1.6.
Upvote
0
tron said:
Scale A7R to A7 and the difference really isn't there. Maybe the A7S, with somewhat different tech too keep in mind, would still do a little bit better.
Upvote
0
Well the one thing the poll tells us is that the 'DRoners' are an insignificant bunch because DR votes are in very last place by a good margin 
.
.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:Well the one thing the poll tells us is that the 'DRoners' are an insignificant bunch because DR votes are in very last place by a good margin
The problem is, "better dynamic range" is meaningless. I think base ISO DR is a relatively meaningless pursuit but I want "better dynamic range" at high ISO where DR is necessarily far more limited. So, should I vote for that one or not? I voted not because it doesn't specify what it means.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Isn't the a7R meant to be both a higher resolution image producer and a marginally better High-ISO performer than the a7? If so, it kinda messes up the resolution vs low light argument, doesn't it?...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
