Would I buy a high MP Canon EOS 5D4?
YES! (with provisos)
Until the D800, I had been a loyal Canon user since my first real digital camera.
In this last generation of cameras (5D3, D800), half of all of my friends and associates (pro and amateur) have switched away from Canon, to either Nikon or Sony.
File storage cost is not an issue for me. Storage is extremely cheap, all things considered, and continues to get cheaper!
Cost-effective image quality is paramount for me. (A $50,000+ "medium-format" system is not cost effective for me.) Image quality includes dynamic range, noise, resolution, banding and other artifacts, false-color, and many other factors.
At significant cost and inconvenience I switched from Canon to Nikon and went with the D800 instead of the Canon 5D3. I wanted to stay with Canon. But the Nikon files are much more malleable in that I can better enhance shadow detail and dynamic range.
I am a full-time pro and do aerial photography, architecture, landscapes, cityscapes, portraiture, lifestyle, and product photography. The image quality that the Nikon D800 series gives me is currently the best solution for me.
The physical attributes of the camera are acceptable (focusing, button placement, ergonomics, etc.). The 5D3 is better in some ways, and the D800 is better in some ways, so it is a wash. Both do a pretty good job in creating a physically usable photographic tool.
Would I go back to Canon if they offered higher image quality?
Yes, but only if it were extremely compelling.
I am sick of Canon's betraying me and their lack of good faith. (likewise with Nikon). Canon could and should provide a camera with these productivity features that most pros need or could use:
This is mostly technology that is current and readily available even on some of the cheapest consumer-grade cameras!
Lenses that are fully up to the task are a crucial part of this mix. Sigma seems to be taking this seriously with their "Art" line of lenses. Truly excellent zoom lenses in the $1000-$2500 price range seem reasonable. We already have some truly excellent primes for as little as $125 (Canon 50mm f1.8 ).
Bayer technology has some inherently huge limitations to image quality, but most of those can be overcome by increased sampling (higher resolution).
YES!!!! I want a high MP (50MP+) camera (5D4?) from Canon!!!
A lower resolution (25MP), and higher-ISO 6D camera line could directly handle the niche needs of event-only photographers, who sometimes crank out a HUGE number of frames per day.
But Canon are really going to have to up their game to win me (and many of my friends and associates) back!
YES! (with provisos)
Until the D800, I had been a loyal Canon user since my first real digital camera.
In this last generation of cameras (5D3, D800), half of all of my friends and associates (pro and amateur) have switched away from Canon, to either Nikon or Sony.
File storage cost is not an issue for me. Storage is extremely cheap, all things considered, and continues to get cheaper!
Cost-effective image quality is paramount for me. (A $50,000+ "medium-format" system is not cost effective for me.) Image quality includes dynamic range, noise, resolution, banding and other artifacts, false-color, and many other factors.
At significant cost and inconvenience I switched from Canon to Nikon and went with the D800 instead of the Canon 5D3. I wanted to stay with Canon. But the Nikon files are much more malleable in that I can better enhance shadow detail and dynamic range.
I am a full-time pro and do aerial photography, architecture, landscapes, cityscapes, portraiture, lifestyle, and product photography. The image quality that the Nikon D800 series gives me is currently the best solution for me.
The physical attributes of the camera are acceptable (focusing, button placement, ergonomics, etc.). The 5D3 is better in some ways, and the D800 is better in some ways, so it is a wash. Both do a pretty good job in creating a physically usable photographic tool.
Would I go back to Canon if they offered higher image quality?
Yes, but only if it were extremely compelling.
I am sick of Canon's betraying me and their lack of good faith. (likewise with Nikon). Canon could and should provide a camera with these productivity features that most pros need or could use:
This is mostly technology that is current and readily available even on some of the cheapest consumer-grade cameras!
- Built-in Wi-Fi
- Built-in GPS with automatic clock and time-zone setting (I always need to know where a file was captured, and always need my clock and time zone to be accurate. And having to reset the clocks on 5-20 devices every time I cross a time zone (sometimes multiple times per day) is absurd!!!)
- User-configurable "A-Dep" to accurately control depth of field
- Speech recognition IPTC field data insertion, and voice memo
- Excellent image quality with 50MP+ resolution
Lenses that are fully up to the task are a crucial part of this mix. Sigma seems to be taking this seriously with their "Art" line of lenses. Truly excellent zoom lenses in the $1000-$2500 price range seem reasonable. We already have some truly excellent primes for as little as $125 (Canon 50mm f1.8 ).
Bayer technology has some inherently huge limitations to image quality, but most of those can be overcome by increased sampling (higher resolution).
YES!!!! I want a high MP (50MP+) camera (5D4?) from Canon!!!
A lower resolution (25MP), and higher-ISO 6D camera line could directly handle the niche needs of event-only photographers, who sometimes crank out a HUGE number of frames per day.
But Canon are really going to have to up their game to win me (and many of my friends and associates) back!
Upvote
0
In most countries the photographers who make events work with 60D and 6D. 
In richer countries 5D Mark ii, and 5D Mark iii are most at events. ??? 
