According to PetaPixel, Canon just raised the price on the Mark IV by $200, so I’m even less likely to buy one. If I really had wanted one, I should have bought it when it was selling for $1,900.
I keep coming back to the question of what equipment would improve my photography in real life. And I don’t find myself ever saying to myself, “I wish my camera would (or could) do . . . .” The closest I come is to imagine scenarios where I might take more landscapes if I had a medium format camera, and I haven’t convinced myself it is true, or even that in real life for me it would make that much of a difference. I did see that a tilt-shift lens is planned for the Fujifilm G series. Maybe that will change my mind if it comes out and the 100S becomes readily available. By then I probably will be concentrating on replacing my old Mac with a tricked out future model and forget photo equipment fantasies for a while.
I readily admit that there are better cameras than my 6D2, and I don’t begrudge those who use them or want them or even need them. And if the cameras had no interest to me at all, I wouldn’t be following these threads.
For me the biggest difference between the 5D Mark III and IV is flicker reduction. I still shoot under a lot of flickering lights in stadiums and gyms, though that is slowly beginning to change. It makes a huge difference in workflow. Without flicker reduction 6-7 of every 10 shots are unusable simply due to color shift from one side of the frame to the other unless you want to spend hours in post for a handful of images. With it greater than 9/10 are the exact same color and brightness and can be batch processed.
Just this year two of the high school stadiums I visit every other year with my local high school football team installed steady state LED lighting in their football stadiums. One is frustratingly dim, but the output is constant, full spectrum, and fairly easy to color balance. The other is brighter, but I haven't post-processed anything from it yet (just shot there this weekend). But they do like to strobe them on-off-on-off every time they score a touchdown. (At least until some kid on a visiting team goes into an epileptic seizure and sues the snot out of them.) As in totally off when any are off (every.single.light.at.the.same.time.) Not like colleges that have a pattern where there are always a few on while the others are off.
I had that discussing during a workshop last week, about the progression of shots when encountering rare species. Get a shot first to have something to show, then try to get closer and get progressively better photos. The instructor mentioned "going through the aperture steps" and we wondered why there's no aperture bracketing function, like AEB.
WIth electronic shutter you can take a series of pictures, automatically stopping further down after each one, in a fraction of a second.
I didn't say development announcement, I said marketing. I feel Canon was "pressured" to give more information regarding the R5 before the official announcement when they felt the narrative was being steered in the wrong direction. And just because Canon has "never" done something doesn't mean they can't change. For me it's not so much what I expected them to do, it's a "why not just confirm or refute" thing.