Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]

[davidmurray]

I can believe most of this, it looks great, but I'm skeptical about the 18MP AND the Dual CFast. Why would they add a new card to the camera while removing the card that most people already have? Traditionally (At least in recent history), cameras in this range have had one SD and one CF. Why wouldn't they just replace the CF with CFast? why remove SD?

I have invested in using good CF cards for my camera and prefer to get back the ROI rather than having to invest in another card format.

I'm looking for incremental improvement in DR, IQ, high ISO capability, FPS and megapixels. Incremental would be nice - if I wanted seriously higher specs then I would be looking at the next model up.

I don't care for video in my stills camera so have no interest in 4K video in a 5D.

To get 4K video I would upgrade my video camera. For me a video camera needs a different style of controls for creatively recording motion pictures.

 

[jrista]

This is the way I see it. And of course Lee Jay and PBD can add/correct me if needed.

To increase high ISO performance to me is to increase DR at high ISO/light-limited situations. I need to increase FWC or max signal per pixel or QE, however you look at it. You need to lower read noise. HOW you do those two things I'm not really commenting about but if you can do that you can increase S/N at high ISO. You already have less read noise with smaller pixels so why can't you increase the size or efficiency of the photodiode in the pixel? I've been in discussions about smaller parts in and around the pixel to make way for larger photodiodes, for instance. I can also see where the FWC could be more important than read noise and overcome the higher read noise by adding more signal because signal is additive whereas noise is added SQRT. So in that case, larger pixels might still win. This of course is all at equal sensor size and equal technology.

Increasing FWC (probably a poor term to use, max saturation is probably better) is definitely a way that you can improve DR at higher ISO. Reducing read noise can certainly help, but at higher ISO read noise is already quite low, 3e- or less these days usually, and it's tough to complain about that. The saturation point at higher ISOs is usually only a couple thousand e-, sometimes as little as a few hundred e-, so increasing the charge capacity of each pixel is probably the better way to improve SNR at high ISO. There is also the simple fact that you really want to improve the signal, and reducing noise doesn't exactly do that per-se...only increasing the charge capacity and the charge accumulated per unit time does. Increasing Q.E. can certainly help, but at very high ISO, you suffer from clipping problems (so, while with high Q.E. you might have the necessary sensitivity, if it isn't paired with a capacity increase, it might be a useless improvement to sensitivity.)


Increasing photodiode size is certainly one way to improve charge capacity, but there have been other recent innovations (usually for super small pixel sizes) that use layered photodiodes to capture deeper penetrating photons and convert them to charge as well (not for the purposes of color, just increased charge capacity). There have also been innovations in photodiode design...charge accumulates at a layer at some particular depth inside the PD, around where N-type and P-type silicon interface. I've read of a couple patents that have been changing the curve of that interface layer to increase capacity without increasing PD size, or to change the structure of that layer. A curved or shaped layer has more surface area, and thus more room for electrons and electron holes to accumulate.


If you could double your signal with the same read noise, you could certainly gain some DR. For example, if you have 300e- saturation at ISO 12800 and 3e- RN, you would have ~6.67 stops DR. If you increase saturation to 600e-, you would have ~7.67 stops of DR. You gained a stop. Doubling charge in a photodiode without increasing it's size could be tough, so it's unlikely to see quite that much of a change without some other technological innovations. A reduction in process size, use of a curved N/P interface layer in the PD, use of BSI, etc.

 

[Lee Jay]

This is the way I see it. And of course Lee Jay and PBD can add/correct me if needed.

To increase high ISO performance to me is to increase DR at high ISO/light-limited situations. I need to increase FWC or max signal per pixel or QE, however you look at it. You need to lower read noise. HOW you do those two things I'm not really commenting about but if you can do that you can increase S/N at high ISO. You already have less read noise with smaller pixels so why can't you increase the size or efficiency of the photodiode in the pixel? I've been in discussions about smaller parts in and around the pixel to make way for larger photodiodes, for instance. I can also see where the FWC could be more important than read noise and overcome the higher read noise by adding more signal because signal is additive whereas noise is added SQRT. So in that case, larger pixels might still win. This of course is all at equal sensor size and equal technology.

Increasing FWC (probably a poor term to use, max saturation is probably better) is definitely a way that you can improve DR at higher ISO. Reducing read noise can certainly help, but at higher ISO read noise is already quite low, 3e- or less these days usually, and it's tough to complain about that. The saturation point at higher ISOs is usually only a couple thousand e-, sometimes as little as a few hundred e-, so increasing the charge capacity of each pixel is probably the better way to improve SNR at high ISO.

You aren't thinking about this correctly.

At high ISO, FWC is limited artificially by all the gain. The cells are fully capable of holding a lot more charge, and they do, but the A-D saturates because of all the analog gain.

Assuming you are at high ISO because you are light-limited (not a bad assumption, IMHO), then the ONLY way to increase DR is to reduce read noise (assuming Bayer dyes, same QE, etc.).

 

[KeNgoaiDao]

Damm nice ;D

 

[K]

Rockwell is saying on his site that there likely will be no 5D4. That the 5DS is the replacement for the 5D3.

Didn't Canon state that it is NOT a replacement for the 5D3? Which implies there's going to be a different replacement for it?

Unless Canon is lying to keep 5D3 sales going until the 5DS is out in the summer.

On the other hand...we're seeing unauthorized dealers essentially blowing out 5D3's for $2K ...

That makes me completely wrong about my speculation on the declining price of the 5D3 as the 5D4 approaches. I figured the 5D3 would hold higher value and price until a true replacement was closer. For the 5D3 to have a street price of $2K new right now, which is still 3-4 months out till the 5DS hits the stores, let alone later this year in the fall before an speculated announcement of a 5D4 and then the wait after that before it hits the stores....

The price drops of the 5D3 gives weight to theory that the 5DS is the replacement...Otherwise, why the big drops? Still, it is an unauthorized dealer. When the big shops drop it more, that will be confirmation.

Perhaps the 6D Mark II "upmarket" move is going to be that fall announcement? Perhaps that will be the low-light, general use camera?

What is interesting is, his forecast specs call for NO 4K video. Even though all other rumors state the 5D4 will have 4K.

His forecast specs for the 5D4 seem to me to be the specs of the 6D Mark II. Which is like a 2nd generation 5D3. The same way the 6D was like a 2nd generation 5D Mark II.

He also mentions 10fps. That is bizarre. That equals the 7D Mark II. A FF camera with 61 focus points and 10FPS...why would anyone buy the 5DS other than to have crazy high megapixels?


If true, what becomes of 4K video? Will Canon force the video crowd to buy their flagship DSLR for that? That wouldn't surprise me.

I think his forecast is way off....If he does have a connection, he likely is getting info on the 6D2 and calling it the 5D4.


But the dropping prices of the 5D3 does make me wonder...they are way too premature for a 5D4.


Rumors are rumors, but business is business and no one likes to lose money. Inventory reduction is critical when something is about to become obsolete. I consider these business decisions to be a forecasting tool of sorts.

 

[privatebydesign]

Rockwell is an idiot, a smart one, who will say anything for page hits.

The 5DS/R are not 5D MkIII replacements, there will be a 5D MkIV and probably a 5DC too to round out the leveraging of the 5 series name.

The 'blowout' prices are because of currency fluctuations, the very strong dollar, and the fact that the USA is a dominant expendable income market. Essentially it is easier and more profitable for, for instance, Thai importers to resell their inventory Grey market in the USA for a stronger currency at what seem like cheap local prices that when converted back to Baht actually make them more money than retail in Thailand.

 

[K]

Rockwell is an idiot, a smart one, who will say anything for page hits.

The 5DS/R are not 5D MkIII replacements, there will be a 5D MkIV and probably a 5DC too to round out the leveraging of the 5 series name.

The 'blowout' prices are because of currency fluctuations, the very strong dollar, and the fact that the USA is a dominant expendable income market. Essentially it is easier and more profitable for, for instance, Thai importers to resell their inventory Grey market in the USA for a stronger currency at what seem like cheap local prices that when converted back to Baht actually make them more money than retail in Thailand.

I just checked one major retailer, and the 5D3 with printer kit after rebate is now $2549

It is dropping a bit quick for a replacement camera that is supposed to be coming no earlier than November.

I think the key is 4K video.


Is there any reason why Canon would NOT put 4K in a 5D camera? I think it would be a disaster if they don't. Only way would be they plan to just include it in the next 1DX and just have a single flagship that literally does everything well (except super high megapixels). I think that is a bad idea to keep 4K video at an over $5K price point. What is Nikon's roadmap for including 4K in a DSLR? If it isn't anytime soon, why should Canon rush to it? Who knows..

If they release a 5DC...then why would there also be a Mark IV? Four total cameras in the 5D range...a bit excessive.

5DC, a 4K camera with 18MP, and great low light. That could justify the $3800 price range.

The 6D Mark II, essentially a 2nd generation 5D3 will fill the gap as the basic, all-around DSLR in the $2.5K price range.

 

[jrista]

This is the way I see it. And of course Lee Jay and PBD can add/correct me if needed.

To increase high ISO performance to me is to increase DR at high ISO/light-limited situations. I need to increase FWC or max signal per pixel or QE, however you look at it. You need to lower read noise. HOW you do those two things I'm not really commenting about but if you can do that you can increase S/N at high ISO. You already have less read noise with smaller pixels so why can't you increase the size or efficiency of the photodiode in the pixel? I've been in discussions about smaller parts in and around the pixel to make way for larger photodiodes, for instance. I can also see where the FWC could be more important than read noise and overcome the higher read noise by adding more signal because signal is additive whereas noise is added SQRT. So in that case, larger pixels might still win. This of course is all at equal sensor size and equal technology.

Increasing FWC (probably a poor term to use, max saturation is probably better) is definitely a way that you can improve DR at higher ISO. Reducing read noise can certainly help, but at higher ISO read noise is already quite low, 3e- or less these days usually, and it's tough to complain about that. The saturation point at higher ISOs is usually only a couple thousand e-, sometimes as little as a few hundred e-, so increasing the charge capacity of each pixel is probably the better way to improve SNR at high ISO.

You aren't thinking about this correctly.

At high ISO, FWC is limited artificially by all the gain. The cells are fully capable of holding a lot more charge, and they do, but the A-D saturates because of all the analog gain.

Assuming you are at high ISO because you are light-limited (not a bad assumption, IMHO), then the ONLY way to increase DR is to reduce read noise (assuming Bayer dyes, same QE, etc.).

I understand it perfectly.

I agree that if you are light limited (a possible use case for high ISO), then you would need lower read noise to increase DR. I disagree that's the only use case for high ISO. I frequently shoot at high ISO when there is plenty of light, easily enough to saturate the entire sensor in a fraction of a second, because I need motion-stopping shutter speeds for very fast motion (just watch a Chickadee or Bushtit sometime...those things NEVER stop moving, and they make these ultra fast micro-moves that blur with shutter speeds lower than around 1/2000th or so). Increased EQE and increased FWC would result in greater IQ at the higher ISO settings I often need to use for these birds. Personally, I would rather not go with larger pixels to achieve that higher FWC though...I want my resolution.

So, I disagree that the only way to increase DR at high ISO is to reduce read noise. Just look at the A7s...that sucker has a MASSIVE FWC (true full well capacity, the base ISO maximum charge capacity of the photodiode) of 155557e-! It's saturation point at say ISO 12800 is 1298e-. Now that's thanks to having a greater fill factor...more total light sensitive surface area in the sensor, and per pixel, because the pixels are huge. The saturation point at the same ISO for the 6D is 604e-. Both cameras have similar read noise at that ISO, 1.8e- and 1.6e- respectively, but one has 9.7 stops DR and the other has 8.4 stops. Why does one have more DR than the other, if the only way to improve DR at high ISO is to reduce read noise? The camera with the higher DR actually has higher read noise! The 6D has a lower fill factor, less total light sensitive surface area.

The capacity of a photodiode is primarily limited by it's area, and the sensitivity is limited by area and EQE. Sensor sensitivity is affected by total light sensitive area in the sensor. So if Canon had made the 6D with the 65nm process Samsung is using, they could have increased the photodiode area. I don't have time at the moment to actually calculate how much area increase Canon could achieve without changing pixel size, but suffice it to say they could increase light gathering capacity and sensitivity by increasing photodiode area. There are still EQE losses due to the use of microlenses and CFA. Improve microlenses (aspheric lenses have been researched to better focus off-axis light onto photodiodes), replace the CFA with color splitters, move to BSI and basically gain nearly the entire surface area of the sensor as light sensitive area, and you increase the amount of light reaching each photodiode, which makes them saturate faster, thus utilizing that increased capacity, therefor allowing you to reduce gain further (which reduces the amplification of everything, noise included.) That improves IQ, even at high ISO.

 

[privatebydesign]

Rockwell is an idiot, a smart one, who will say anything for page hits.

The 5DS/R are not 5D MkIII replacements, there will be a 5D MkIV and probably a 5DC too to round out the leveraging of the 5 series name.

The 'blowout' prices are because of currency fluctuations, the very strong dollar, and the fact that the USA is a dominant expendable income market. Essentially it is easier and more profitable for, for instance, Thai importers to resell their inventory Grey market in the USA for a stronger currency at what seem like cheap local prices that when converted back to Baht actually make them more money than retail in Thailand.

I just checked one major retailer, and the 5D3 with printer kit after rebate is now $2549

It is dropping a bit quick for a replacement camera that is supposed to be coming no earlier than November.

I think the key is 4K video.


Is there any reason why Canon would NOT put 4K in a 5D camera? I think it would be a disaster if they don't. Only way would be they plan to just include it in the next 1DX and just have a single flagship that literally does everything well (except super high megapixels). I think that is a bad idea to keep 4K video at an over $5K price point. What is Nikon's roadmap for including 4K in a DSLR? If it isn't anytime soon, why should Canon rush to it? Who knows..

If they release a 5DC...then why would there also be a Mark IV? Four total cameras in the 5D range...a bit excessive.

5DC, a 4K camera with 18MP, and great low light. That could justify the $3800 price range.

The 6D Mark II, essentially a 2nd generation 5D3 will fill the gap as the basic, all-around DSLR in the $2.5K price range.

Personally I think 4K is overblown, the kind of "I need it" feature that people say they want but when they get it it isn't what they thought, like 54MP in a 135 format camera. Sure some people do need it, but most of us don't.

For a start 4K is a pain to work with, it is expensive and time consuming to work with too. Also, while shooting larger than 1080 makes huge sense for cropping and stabilization, shooting 4k at 4k brings back all those issues you just overcame, you don't need to shoot 4k to get good cropping and stabilization capability in true 1080.

From a marketing point of view, sure the 5?? will have to have 4k, but really? Besides, I can see the best route for Canon being the 5DS, 5DSR, a 5D MkIV with limited 4K 28MP and boosted specs all around, and a 5DC that has a low MP sensor and all the video functionality the 1DC has with the option of internal 4k to CFast, headphone socket, Log Gamma etc etc. Meanwhile the 6D MkII will be the guts of the 5D MkIII in a poly shell with a couple of bits taken out and a couple of extras thrown in, well that is Canon history and there is no reason to suppose it should be different to any major degree

And, even at $2549 for a 5D MkIII now, that is realizing over ¥300,000, three years ago it sold for $3,499 and the exchange rate made that ¥290,000. In other words, it is retailing for more money to the Japanese now than it did three years ago and inflation in Japan is zero!

 

[3kramd5]

A FF camera with 61 focus points and 10FPS...why would anyone buy the 5DS other than to have crazy high megapixels?

Um, its pixel count IS its sales pitch.

 

[dolina]

A FF camera with 61 focus points and 10FPS...why would anyone buy the 5DS other than to have crazy high megapixels?

Um, its pixel count IS its sales pitch.

Some people think it'll make their images get the medium format look.

 

[veryfelina]

As someone who is mainly interested in wildlife photography and therefore needs to crop images often in post-processing, I am not too excited about an 18 MP fullframe sensor.
After the announcment of the 5Ds and 5Ds R I would have guessed the 5D Mark IV will have a sensor with something inbetween 25 and 30 MP.
Without question it has its advantages to have big, light-consuming pixels, but overall resolution is also critcal.

We'll see. CR2 can also be a wrong guess in the end.

And how will a 5D Mark IV with 18 MP be postioned on the market against a Nikon D810, 36 MP or a D900 with 40 MP ?

My point exactly, I totally agree with you!
I want better performance in low light but I'm also wishing for something around 30MP. And I would really like to see a rotative touch screen. I have a 650D and a 70D and I really love that feature!

 

[tron]

As someone who is mainly interested in wildlife photography and therefore needs to crop images often in post-processing, I am not too excited about an 18 MP fullframe sensor.
After the announcment of the 5Ds and 5Ds R I would have guessed the 5D Mark IV will have a sensor with something inbetween 25 and 30 MP.
Without question it has its advantages to have big, light-consuming pixels, but overall resolution is also critcal.

We'll see. CR2 can also be a wrong guess in the end.

And how will a 5D Mark IV with 18 MP be postioned on the market against a Nikon D810, 36 MP or a D900 with 40 MP ?

My point exactly, I totally agree with you!
I want better performance in low light but I'm also wishing for something around 30MP. And I would really like to see a rotative touch screen. I have a 650D and a 70D and I really love that feature!

Why should 5DIV be positioned against Nikon's high megapixel cameras? There is a 5Ds(R) for this.
5DIV should be positioned against D750. Have you forgotten this model?

 

[K]

Rockwell is an idiot, a smart one, who will say anything for page hits.

The 5DS/R are not 5D MkIII replacements, there will be a 5D MkIV and probably a 5DC too to round out the leveraging of the 5 series name.

The 'blowout' prices are because of currency fluctuations, the very strong dollar, and the fact that the USA is a dominant expendable income market. Essentially it is easier and more profitable for, for instance, Thai importers to resell their inventory Grey market in the USA for a stronger currency at what seem like cheap local prices that when converted back to Baht actually make them more money than retail in Thailand.

I just checked one major retailer, and the 5D3 with printer kit after rebate is now $2549

It is dropping a bit quick for a replacement camera that is supposed to be coming no earlier than November.

I think the key is 4K video.


Is there any reason why Canon would NOT put 4K in a 5D camera? I think it would be a disaster if they don't. Only way would be they plan to just include it in the next 1DX and just have a single flagship that literally does everything well (except super high megapixels). I think that is a bad idea to keep 4K video at an over $5K price point. What is Nikon's roadmap for including 4K in a DSLR? If it isn't anytime soon, why should Canon rush to it? Who knows..

If they release a 5DC...then why would there also be a Mark IV? Four total cameras in the 5D range...a bit excessive.

5DC, a 4K camera with 18MP, and great low light. That could justify the $3800 price range.

The 6D Mark II, essentially a 2nd generation 5D3 will fill the gap as the basic, all-around DSLR in the $2.5K price range.

Personally I think 4K is overblown, the kind of "I need it" feature that people say they want but when they get it it isn't what they thought, like 54MP in a 135 format camera. Sure some people do need it, but most of us don't.

For a start 4K is a pain to work with, it is expensive and time consuming to work with too. Also, while shooting larger than 1080 makes huge sense for cropping and stabilization, shooting 4k at 4k brings back all those issues you just overcame, you don't need to shoot 4k to get good cropping and stabilization capability in true 1080.

From a marketing point of view, sure the 5?? will have to have 4k, but really? Besides, I can see the best route for Canon being the 5DS, 5DSR, a 5D MkIV with limited 4K 28MP and boosted specs all around, and a 5DC that has a low MP sensor and all the video functionality the 1DC has with the option of internal 4k to CFast, headphone socket, Log Gamma etc etc. Meanwhile the 6D MkII will be the guts of the 5D MkIII in a poly shell with a couple of bits taken out and a couple of extras thrown in, well that is Canon history and there is no reason to suppose it should be different to any major degree

And, even at $2549 for a 5D MkIII now, that is realizing over ¥300,000, three years ago it sold for $3,499 and the exchange rate made that ¥290,000. In other words, it is retailing for more money to the Japanese now than it did three years ago and inflation in Japan is zero!

I personally think 4K and any video in a DSLR is useless. But that's me. Dedicated video cameras are better. But...if Canon dodges 4K...all the video people will freak out and whine and moan about it across the internet for a long time. Being that Canon themselves claim to be cinema/video focused in DSLR's....and there's a respectable segment of video users - it would be bad. Plus, Nikon could release it first in a lower level DSLR and that would be a huge blow to Canon.

Truth is, 4K implementation doesn't have to be perfect. Sadly, it is all about marketing. They could add this capability, even if in a very primitive form. The same way HD video started off. At the start, it wasn't 60fps. ...Better to have, and not be perfect, than not to have at all. Because the competition will have it sooner or later.

Now, aside from the video/cinema angle Canon says they're all about - they promote themselves as being low-light kings. We know for a fact the 5DS isn't a low light camera maxing out at 6400 ISO native. Thus, it stands to reason there is some kind of low-light camera on the way.

I do not believe there will be 2 more models of 5D. Having 4 total models in the line would be ridiculous.

Canon has produced for the studio, landscapers and still shooters with the 5DS. A megapixel beast. It has also produced for the sports and wildlife guys with the 7D Mark II - a speed demon with killer AF.

What is left? Video and serious low light. Those two features are related to one another. Thus, a 5DX is more likely. A sensor anywhere from 18-30 MP, native ISO to 51K and 4K video. It can be priced right with the 5DS line.

That would make sense.

One question is - what becomes of the lower end FF market segment? Does Canon keep the 6D in the same price range it originally was as an entry level, crippled FF camera? Or do they move it up? Why move it up? The idea to that is that there is a void in the lineup and price brackets. True, but Canon may not think that at all.

Sure, for entry level FF, here's your crippled FF camera at round $2,200. If you want a serious FF, you pay $3,500 or more. That is how it used to be. Canon made you spend at least $1,200 more to make the jump.

Now, if that happens - Nikon will love it. Because they will offer very capable FF DSLR's for under $2,500. The D610 and D750 have good AF, good sensors, double card slots and other great features that the 6D does not have. Nikon will own that segment. Will Canon surrender it? Possible. If Canon believes the 7D Mark II to be that good, they might feel that is "entry level" pro camera - with the 6D being a FF at a bit more and that's that. Foolish in my opinion as no one considers a crop camera truly "pro"

Ok, so the opposite is that the 6D moves upmarket like the rumors say. Ok, by how much? Can't be too close to $3K...because at that point people will just save up, wait for rebates and sales, and just spend $3,300 - $3,400 for the 5D line instead.

If the 6D moves up to the $2,500 range...then Nikon now owns the entry level FF market as the D610 is going for $1,600. $1,000 is a big difference in this price bracket. These aren't flagships.

I don't know, it all depends. Nikon has positioned themselves all across the spectrum and have various levels covered. Nikon does not have the diversity of cameras that Canon does. They are all mostly similar, with incremental improvements going up the chain, with the exception of the D810 being 36MP. The rest of the features are close. In contrast to Canon who has a 7D2 sports camera, then a 5DS high MP camera - they are more specialized and seem to be going for specialization.

The pride Canon has for the 7D2, and the attitude they display in interviews and marketing leads me to believe they actually fancy it as fitting into an entry level pro camera. For all practical purposes (and Canon is very practical about photography, which is why they don't get hung up with nonsense) it is all about the usefulness and IQ - not whether it is crop or FF. And yes, the 7D2 will be used by pros for all kinds of things, including weddings. In the end, it is good enough. But for marketing perspective and all the photography nerds out there -it's NOT FULL FRAME. Thus, not a "real" IQ competitor to Nikon D610.

If the above is true, maybe that's it for the line up? 7D at the entry level, 6D as a midrange, and then the 5D line with the 3 specialty cameras up top.

Any other theory demands that Canon either:

1. Create a whole other model of camera (unlikely)
2. Loads up the 6D with enough features and power to cover everything the D610 and D750 can do (unlikely, because that camera will be so good, who will pay for the 5D4? - not me lol )

 

[mkourouyan]

Any word if the 5D M4 will have the dual pixel auto-focus for the video, similar to the 70D? Or maybe some other AF for video?

 

[reginaldwalton]

Only 18MP?

 

[mclaren777]

18 MP sounds heavenly! This rumor has me quite excited.

 

[kevl]

I'm a tad bit late to the game but this spec list makes zero sense to me.

Unless the DR is 3 stops better than the 5DIII and the low light noise is 2 - 2.5 stops better going down in megapixels is a very very bad idea.

Someone above wondered why the 5D should be set against the Nikon D810 and perhaps the upcoming D900 - well because at $4,000 that's what you can get from Nikon and frankly Nikon has better DR and noise performance in the D810 than the 5Ds will have... The 5Ds is an ad-on to your Canon kit so you will stay with Canon, it is not a competitor to the Nikon for agnostic purchasers.

The 5DIV has to best Nikon in the price range and target market or Canon is actually going to loose real market share. 18MP only makes sense if it is going to have D4s kind of DR and noise performance.

12 frames per second is clearly wrong. Birders and sports guys should be using the 7DII or the 1Dx not a 5D... Why would you spend $4K on a camera only to crop the images down and get less quality than you'd have on a better suited camera that costs half as much... and if you are serious about your sports and bird photos enough to spend $4K on your body, why would you not choose the body that actually get the camera that is right for the job and get the 1Dx?

As for a new card? I don't think that is wise... but who knows. Nikon hasn't had success with their new card and the 7DII isn't using a new card so I think this rumour is also wrong. I don't think we'll see a new card until we see a body that needs one. ie the 1Dx replacement... IF it needs something faster than a CF card which it probably won't.

All in all I think CR2 was over the top for this set of specs.

The only part that seems to be CR2 worthy is 4K. The 5DIV will have 4K. I am 99.99% sure.

 

[kevl]

5DIV wants:
24-30 megapixels
2 stops better DR
1 stop better low noise performance
1 CF 1 SD card (I hated the SD at first, but it allows me to sort better)
Illuminated AF points (selectable)

This is all I want. The 5DIII is already an awesome camera.

 

[3kramd5]

Birders and sports guys should be using the 7DII or the 1Dx not a 5D... Why would you spend $4K on a camera only to crop the images down and get less quality than you'd have on a better suited camera that costs half as much...

If you properly equip yourself with appropriate lenses for your subject at your proximity, you'll need not crop and will get better images due to having a substantially larger sensor.

I'm particularly confused by why you suggest a 5D is inappropriate for birding due to a necessity of cropping, but that a 1Dx is appropriate even though it has the same sensor size.