Some EOS 5D Mark IV Information [CR1]

[LonelyBoy]

Please provide a list of "all the many other important aspects" where Canon is "way behind."

...if you have a chance to work for a while with a 1DC, 645z, GH4, D810, A7S etc you will see how many things you hate about the limitations of a 5D3, 5Ds or 7D2: dynamic range, noise, no 4k video, missing swivel screen, no internal stabilization, missing focus peaking etc. The 645z for example is not mirrorless and not for video, but still has decent focus peaking, which is a great help for manual lenses and has nothing to do with sensor size etc. The A7RII will give the option to use speedboosters in crop mode, which means you could use a Zeiss Otus that has one stop more light and is stabilized. Canon won't have all these advantages in their 5D4. It's a shame because the Canon lens lineup is the best, and the body handling as well. Workflow and image results are just better with other cameras. Canon most likely could deliver much more, but won't do because obviously still too many users have been too loyal or too uninformed to realize that and didnt vote with their wallets yet. I say this as a user who owns 100+ Canon products including always the latest top gear.

Note everyone cares about all that though - without caring for manual focus, focus peaking doesn't appeal. I always shoot through the viewfinder, so a swivel screen doesn't appeal either. Never shot a second of video so I don't care a whit for 4k.

And, of course, you started your list of "other aspects than sensor where Canon is way behind" with "DR and noise".

 

[Silvertt7]

Please provide a list of "all the many other important aspects" where Canon is "way behind."

...if you have a chance to work for a while with a 1DC, 645z, GH4, D810, A7S etc you will see how many things you hate about the limitations of a 5D3, 5Ds or 7D2: dynamic range, noise, no 4k video, missing swivel screen, no internal stabilization, missing focus peaking etc. The 645z for example is not mirrorless and not for video, but still has decent focus peaking, which is a great help for manual lenses and has nothing to do with sensor size etc. The A7RII will give the option to use speedboosters in crop mode, which means you could use a Zeiss Otus that has one stop more light and is stabilized. Canon won't have all these advantages in their 5D4. It's a shame because the Canon lens lineup is the best, and the body handling as well. Workflow and image results are just better with other cameras. Canon most likely could deliver much more, but won't do because obviously still too many users have been too loyal or too uninformed to realize that and didnt vote with their wallets yet. I say this as a user who owns 100+ Canon products including always the latest top gear.

Note everyone cares about all that though - without caring for manual focus, focus peaking doesn't appeal. I always shoot through the viewfinder, so a swivel screen doesn't appeal either. Never shot a second of video so I don't care a whit for 4k.

And, of course, you started your list of "other aspects than sensor where Canon is way behind" with "DR and noise".

If you've even done even a little bit of work near water you will realize how invaluable a swivel screen is... In fact, there are plenty of times where creativity and composition require an odd angle, making looking at the viewfinder impossible. You either shoot blind and take multiple shots or use a swivel.

 

[douglaurent]

It's especially important to note that some of us users are mad about Canon not just only because they hold back technology intentionally while the products are expensive. Maybe that always has been the case, but historically it was never that obvious as it is now. As an owner of a Canon 5D2 in November 2008, would i have complained the same way? Not at all, the other manufacturers did hardly have anything better to offer, and Canon was on top and innovative by bringing the 1080p video mode to full frame. But right now in July 2015, all other manufacturers are more innovative and seem to care about consumers, and there's lots of attractive features offered to them. Canon should better be implementing any imaginable feature they have on their internal 5D4 possibility list, otherwise their DSLR branch could go the Nokia way.

 

[kevl]

If the future of Canon is mediocrity then it becomes worth it to consider switching systems to Nikon or just going to Sony and using Canon glass.

I don't need a $4000 consumer camera... I won't even consider purchasing one.

I won't talk you down from that ledge. Go to Sony and Nikon. Do it. Nothing is stopping you. That added DR will win you a Pulitzer, I'm sure.

But keep in mind, most professionals keep buying 5D3's and racking up awards with them. There's more to a camera body than low-ISO DR and how many pixels you have.

- A

LOL

 

[kevl]

If the future of Canon is mediocrity then it becomes worth it to consider switching systems to Nikon or just going to Sony and using Canon glass.

I don't need a $4000 consumer camera... I won't even consider purchasing one.

I won't talk you down from that ledge. Go to Sony and Nikon. Do it. Nothing is stopping you. That added DR will win you a Pulitzer, I'm sure.

But keep in mind, most professionals keep buying 5D3's and racking up awards with them. There's more to a camera body than low-ISO DR and how many pixels you have.

- A

You don't need to talk anyone down from moving away from Canon. That's Canon's job and so far they've been doing a terrible job. You're totally right, the camera is just a tool and won't automatically make your work better and win you awards. BUT the vast majority of people who spend money on these aren't doing it to win awards, they use them to earn an living, make some extra side money, for family/fun/personal use, etc.

As customers, if a company is no longer making compelling products, we will no longer purchase from them and go to other companies who will make better products. I've enjoyed Canon products for years and I hope I will continue to IF Canon continues to make good products. If Sony, Panasonic and others make better products, I will buy those. It's simple. You don't need to stop us and it's not your job to do so (unless you work in Canon's marketing team in which case get your ass to work!)

+1

I love my 5D3. If the AF points would glow red in the dark it would be everything I want right now.

That being said, when I spend 3-4K next year on a new body it is going to be the best my money can buy. Obviously I will consider more than DR and ISO performance, but I won't ignore those things either.

 

[ahsanford]

If you've even done even a little bit of work near water you will realize how invaluable a swivel screen is...

...to you.

To others, a tilty/swively screen is:

• A surface/seam/area for fluid and particulate ingress
• A nearly-essential component to the operation of the camera that has now been saddled with mechanical and electrical failure modes that did not exist with a solid/integral screen
• Largely relegated to LiveView use, which is only practical for some shooting applications

So as useful as they might be for some people in some circumstances, others want nothing to do with them.

And Nikon and Canon's market research backs that up -- they believe that the tilt-swivel crowd are generally in the consumer and prosumer lines. Of all of their current FF models (of which I believe there are 9 models still being made today), only one has a tilt -- the D750. Apparently, FF buyers are less interested in that feature as the 70D, D5500, Rebel, etc. users are.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

It's especially important to note that some of us users are mad about Canon not just only because they hold back technology intentionally while the products are expensive. Maybe that always has been the case, but historically it was never that obvious as it is now. As an owner of a Canon 5D2 in November 2008, would i have complained the same way? Not at all, the other manufacturers did hardly have anything better to offer, and Canon was on top and innovative by bringing the 1080p video mode to full frame. But right now in July 2015, all other manufacturers are more innovative and seem to care about consumers, and there's lots of attractive features offered to them. Canon should better be implementing any imaginable feature they have on their internal 5D4 possibility list, otherwise their DSLR branch could go the Nokia way.

All good points, thank you.

I think this is a clear user-expectation fault-line between Canon/Nikon and Sony.

Sony has built an army of users who love to dabble and bolt weird sh-- together. Partially, this is the upside of a small flange distance, IBIS, etc. -- it lets you breathe new life into old lenses, give a speedbooster a try, or it lets you bolt Canon glass on to your A7. That is value. But it's also representative of a culture of photographers who are making due with grand ambitions in a puny ecosystem of native products -- in many instances, the photographer was not excited to use an adapter but had to because Sony doesn't offer that lens yet.

Canon/Nikon folks -- esp. longtime users -- can certainly turn their nose up at adapters, third party flash gear, etc. because they are accustomed to having exactly what they need in their own first-party ecosystem.

So it's easy to see Sony as some exciting wild west sort of wingin'-it experience, where -- if you are crafty and patient to fight through some limitations of the tech -- you can do some things no one else can.

And then there are big/slow/safe Canon and Nikon, where there is little appetite to bolt an Otus on to a speedbooster. They just prefer to keep everything in-house, use stuff that works exactly the way they want it to, and take pictures. No alarms and no surprises. Everything works, but it's not always sexy.

Neither group/direction is better than the other. But each of us naturally falls into one of the two sets of sensibilities, I think.

- A

 

[LonelyBoy]

If you've even done even a little bit of work near water you will realize how invaluable a swivel screen is... In fact, there are plenty of times where creativity and composition require an odd angle, making looking at the viewfinder impossible. You either shoot blind and take multiple shots or use a swivel.

I live in central Texas. Not much water around, and I don't shoot around it. This only drives home the fact that things that are important to one shooter may not be to another.

 

[ahsanford]

Try getting a shot that is...
- from knee height or lower (if you want extra points, make the surface muddy or water/wet)
- from above your head and straight ahead (put a fence or people in your way)
... without a swivel screen.

It doesn't need to swing out to the side but being able to shoot when the camera is above your head or so low down that you would have to lay down is quite useful. I didn't realise how useful the low down was until I tried it.

Dilbert, I hear you -- the upsides are clear. But some folks are leery about breaking off their LCD or it conking out on them in the field. A solid screen is more robust -- that can't be really be denied, can it?

I'm just saying that right now, the number of folks who value LCD robustness outnumber those who want it to swivel... in the FF segment. Clearly that's not the case elsewhere.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If the problem is as bad as you make it out to be, why aren't forums filled with people talking about it?

You're more likely to find that a broken screen is more of a problem than a broken swivel mechanism.

You may 100% be right. I don't think it's an epidemic -- I think it's a perception, and that's driving the market's relative valuation of the feature.

I'm working under the assumption that a basic market preference is competently being captured by two mature companies, and that preference is that FF buyers don't want to risk a swivel or see little value in it.

What's missing is Canon/Nikon rolling up their sleeves to defeat that perception with data. Perhaps if they published their torture testing or gave word of 1 year of rough field testing, perceptions might change.

- A

 

[Famateur]

Just thinking about that interview of a high-up Canon dude in which he stated that Canon would choose the best sensor available, regardless of maker.

When the 5DS(R) was announced, it was (at the time) the best sensor, regardless of maker -- for its intended purpose: 50MP resolution. Clearly that was Canon's top priority with these new bodies.

Then I think about the interview (same one?) in which the Canon dude indicated that they would focus on resolution with one body and light sensitivity with another (I would expect 5DS(R) for resolution and 5DIV for sensitivity).

With the R&D put into Dual Pixel AF (and now Hexa Pixel?), I get the feeling that Canon intends to stick with its own in-house sensors for its high-end DSLRs.

We now hear rumors that a lot of R&D has gone into the 5DIV which might explain a later announcement/launch than many would like.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the sensor that goes into the 5DIV will be the best sensor available at the time -- regardless of maker -- for its purpose (sensitivity). Can't wait to see what is eventually announced...

Naive optimism? Perhaps. Canon didn't get to the top by being stupid, and while I see many of the same red flags as others (from the outside), I'm not as eager to label them as another Kodak...

Carry on...

 

[Famateur]

If the problem is as bad as you make it out to be, why aren't forums filled with people talking about it?

You're more likely to find that a broken screen is more of a problem than a broken swivel mechanism.

You may 100% be right. I don't think it's an epidemic -- I think it's a perception, and that's driving the market's relative valuation of the feature.

I'm working under the assumption that a basic market preference is competently being captured by two mature companies, and that preference is that FF buyers don't want to risk a swivel or see little value in it.

What's missing is Canon/Nikon rolling up their sleeves to defeat that perception with data. Perhaps if they published their torture testing or gave word of 1 year of rough field testing, perceptions might change.

- A

As a fan of articulating screens, this has been a fun side discussion to follow. Seems like well reasoned thoughts on both sides. While the three Canon bodies I've had with articulating screens (going back to 2004?), all still work as they did on day one (despite snow, salt water and desert sand dunes*), I get the concerns that pros would have. Torture testing data would be cool.

One thought: Nikon's FF body with an articulating screen happens to be the most recently released, and it was a first for the FF lineup. Seems like that body was intended to get close-ish to a 5DIII for people wanting to spend a bit less. It'll be interesting to see if more Nikon FF bodies sport the articulating screen or if this was just one more feature to throw at it to compensate for where it lags the 5DIII.

I personally hope Canon slaps an articulating screen on at least the 6DII.

* While the screen swivels smoothly, you should hear the sandy grind when the lens retracts on my g12! The photos captured made it all worth it, though. Most of that sand has fallen out somewhere along the way since...

 

[ahsanford]

Just thinking about that interview of a high-up Canon dude in which he stated that Canon would choose the best sensor available, regardless of maker.

When the 5DS(R) was announced, it was (at the time) the best sensor, regardless of maker -- for its intended purpose: 50MP resolution. Clearly that was Canon's top priority with these new bodies.

[ truncated ]

I think Canon will buy where they are hopelessly behind (i.e. 1" sensors) and build everywhere else, especially on the top end.

Partially it's pride, but I imagine economics has a lot to do with it. The number of people who might flee the company because sensor reviews are not best-in-class represent a small but measurable dollar/yen value. But buying Sony's sensors will not be cheap either, and it will undercut their profitability to some extent. You know there is some statistical sales bean-counter-y marketing guy who has run the numbers on this and said that it doesn't add up.

Also, I wonder about Sony getting a head start with all of these slick new sensors. Consider: where's the Nikon D820 (or D900) announcement we're all waiting for? A sensor isn't a piece of code or API you can integrate into your stuff as the bugs are being worked out -- you have to wait for it to arrive and then figure out how best to use it. Sony has to have a time-to-market advantage over its licensees, which would compound the penalty Canon is under (dollars, and now time) to use their sensors.

So as much as it could make sense to buy a top-end FF sensor, I think there's wisdom in Canon not snapping up Sony's best tech. Just like bolting a Canon lens on to an a7 with the promise of native AF performance, it looks good on paper but the realities of it might be a b----.

- A

 

[douglaurent]

I really would love to see the numbers when Canon releases one 5D4 with and one without swivel screen for the same money. I can't imagine more than 10% choosing the one without. Been travelling the world in all weather conditions and never had a problem with swivel screens or external monitor solutions, but hated the cameras who didn't have them 1000 times. If someone breaks the swivel screen, he probably has smashed the whole camera or treated it in a bad way pros wouldnt normally do it. I guess the "I don't want a swivel screen" talk comes more from the perspective of someone who is invested in cameras who don't have it, or needs to stick to product lines who don't have it, and talks himself into the idea that less features are better anyway.

 

[ahsanford]

I really would love to see the numbers when Canon releases one 5D4 with and one without swivel screen for the same money. I can't imagine more than 10% choosing the one without. Been travelling the world in all weather conditions and never had a problem with swivel screens or external monitor solutions, but hated the cameras who didn't have them 1000 times. If someone breaks the swivel screen, he probably has smashed the whole camera or treated it in a bad way pros wouldnt normally do it. I guess the "I don't want a swivel screen" talk comes more from the perspective of someone who is invested in cameras who don't have it, or needs to stick to product lines who don't have it, and talks himself into the idea that less features are better anyway.

Re: the first blue passage above: that's not reasonable -- an articulating screen has more components and costs more. A more reasonable question would be if offered two models of 5D4, would you pay $75 more for a swivel screen, and yeah, I think it would be a great experiment to run. It will not be 90-10 or Canon would already be offering it. This is ground floor market research -- they've done it, and this end of their market doesn't want it that badly (apparently).

That will likely change over time as fans of the middle trim-lines with tilting screens grow to love and trust them to hold up, but for now, the market apparently isn't there.

As for the second passage: good lord, I'm not arguing for a non-articulating screen to validate my 5D3 purchase, convinced the world I'm right or to win an argument in an online forum. I'm not 14 years old. I am trying to explain there might be a reason why Canon and Nikon aren't all-in with tilting screens other than 'they are idiots' or 'they are greedy' or 'they don't listen to us'. If they felt it would move more units, I'm sure they'd offer it.

- A

 

[Famateur]

I really would love to see the numbers when Canon releases one 5D4 with and one without swivel screen for the same money. I can't imagine more than 10% choosing the one without. Been travelling the world in all weather conditions and never had a problem with swivel screens or external monitor solutions, but hated the cameras who didn't have them 1000 times. If someone breaks the swivel screen, he probably has smashed the whole camera or treated it in a bad way pros wouldnt normally do it. I guess the "I don't want a swivel screen" talk comes more from the perspective of someone who is invested in cameras who don't have it, or needs to stick to product lines who don't have it, and talks himself into the idea that less features are better anyway.

Re: the first blue passage above: that's not reasonable -- an articulating screen has more components and costs more. A more reasonable question would be if offered two models of 5D4, would you pay $75 more for a swivel screen, and yeah, I think it would be a great experiment to run. It will not be 90-10 or Canon would already be offering it. This is ground floor market research -- they've done it, and this end of their market doesn't want it that badly (apparently).

That will likely change over time as fans of the middle trim-lines with tilting screens grow to love and trust them to hold up, but for now, the market apparently isn't there.

As for the second passage: good lord, I'm not arguing for a non-articulating screen to validate my 5D3 purchase, convinced the world I'm right or to win an argument in an online forum. I'm not 14 years old. I am trying to explain there might be a reason why Canon and Nikon aren't all-in with tilting screens other than 'they are idiots' or 'they are greedy' or 'they don't listen to us'. If they felt it would move more units, I'm sure they'd offer it.

- A

Well put. I'm firmly in the camp that believes Canon does plenty of in-depth market research and will move when the market (en masse) demands.

 

[applecider]

The articulated screen issue is exactly why a new 5DIV should have WiFi and decent cellphone eos remote apps.

If cell phones or better yet tablets could be used to do screen duplication then articulating screens would be potentially redundant. Of course it would be a bit of a kludge, but having an entire tablet screen to live view would be killa. And you make the remote release redundant and think of the potential for putting focus peaking and intervalometer function on the external screen. Maybe I'm just too geeky.

 

[Tugela]

Just thinking about that interview of a high-up Canon dude in which he stated that Canon would choose the best sensor available, regardless of maker.

When the 5DS(R) was announced, it was (at the time) the best sensor, regardless of maker -- for its intended purpose: 50MP resolution. Clearly that was Canon's top priority with these new bodies.

Then I think about the interview (same one?) in which the Canon dude indicated that they would focus on resolution with one body and light sensitivity with another (I would expect 5DS(R) for resolution and 5DIV for sensitivity).

With the R&D put into Dual Pixel AF (and now Hexa Pixel?), I get the feeling that Canon intends to stick with its own in-house sensors for its high-end DSLRs.

We now hear rumors that a lot of R&D has gone into the 5DIV which might explain a later announcement/launch than many would like.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the sensor that goes into the 5DIV will be the best sensor available at the time -- regardless of maker -- for its purpose (sensitivity). Can't wait to see what is eventually announced...

Naive optimism? Perhaps. Canon didn't get to the top by being stupid, and while I see many of the same red flags as others (from the outside), I'm not as eager to label them as another Kodak...

Carry on...

They can say all they want, but they have to stick with their own sensors because their mirrorless competitors sure as hell are not going to give them the good stuff until it has been out for a few years and is about to be superseded by the next generation. Canon have no choice. There will be marketing spin of course, but in the end they will have to use their own dated tech because no one will give them the modern stuff. But in the long run the companies with experience in silicon development are going to win out because that is where the future of photography lies.

 

[douglaurent]

Well put. I'm firmly in the camp that believes Canon does plenty of in-depth market research and will move when the market (en masse) demands.
[/quote]

Indeed Canon does plenty of excellent market research, unfortunately their conclusion is to squeeze as much money out of the consumers for as long as possible by splitting requested features into many different products, instead of thinking what the people really want. Many want to have high photo resolution and 4K alongside swivel screens, higher dynamic range etc at the same time in one product. As a Canon user, right now you would have to buy and carry around a 5DsR, a 760D and a C300II to do something similar you could with one Sony A7RII, while spending 6x as much money. Consumers should demand what's in the best interest of their own bank account, and not Canon's bank account. I personally would even buy a C300II although it's twice expensive as the Sony FS7, but i won't because they save 4K 60fps for the even more expensive C500II that will cost 3.5x as much as the Sony. This is where my brand loyalty ends.

 

[romanr74]

...
Dilbert, I hear you -- the upsides are clear. But some folks are leery about breaking off their LCD or it conking out on them in the field. A solid screen is more robust -- that can't be really be denied, can it?

I'm just saying that right now, the number of folks who value LCD robustness outnumber those who want it to swivel... in the FF segment. Clearly that's not the case elsewhere.
...

If the problem is as bad as you make it out to be, why aren't forums filled with people talking about it?

You're more likely to find that a broken screen is more of a problem than a broken swivel mechanism.

Did I ever mention that I hate swivel-screens?