Upgrade to 5D Mark IV or Cheaper Cam for a Wedding Photographer?

[hawaiisunsetphoto]

If you upgrade, you're set with no worries. I'd lean that way.

 

[scyrene]

I can't imagine any wedding situation where you'd need to be hitting ISO 25600 unless you have some very slow lenses and/or are picking some needlessly high shutter speeds; I've shot death metal concerts—which are a lot darker and more energetic than any wedding!—with older Canon cameras never going above ISO 3200.

I took pictures at my friend's wedding reception (the party after the ceremony) and I found I was hitting ISO 12800-25600 in some shots. Getting pictures of people dancing in low light isn't extreme or unusual, is it?

 

[Robsergar]

I tend to agree with Orangutan's comments regarding dual slots. I think the risk is overstated, but this is a debate that ignites fierce feelings on the part of some and can only be resolved through personal choice.

Disclaimer: I have no experience with the 5DIV. My comments are based having used a 5DIII, a 7DII and now a 1DX II, but I expect the experience to be similar.

High ISO: I think I see a marginal improvement from the 5DIII to the 1DX II, but it is only marginal. From what I have read, the 5DIV is not significantly weaker than the 1DX II, so you will probably see a little improvement, but nothing major.

Autofocus: My main comment is this: autofocus isn't magic.

I found the autofocus of the 7DII slightly better than that of the 5DIII and the 1DX II slightly better than the 7DII, but only slightly and frankly they all leave a lot to be desired. I don't shoot weddings, but I do shoot sports and a fair number of events. In my experience, the most accurate focusing remains single point and none of the alternatives ever works quite as well at getting the subject in focus. For action or moving subjects, I shift to one of the multi-point options, which can be an effective compromise. I find the full-on all-point autofocus pretty worthless for most of my shooting, but that may just be my style.

(Side note: I do think the multi-point autofocus may be a little better at capturing birds in flight, where the camera can have an easier time picking out the subject from the background)

There is, of course, also the problem of depth of field in the kinds of low-light situations I encounter at events, and you are likely to be encountering at weddings. Yeah, you can get one person in focus, but there is seldom enough depth of field to get a second or third person in focus. No autofocus system can overcome that. You can only compensate through careful composition.

So, my point is really this. If you are hoping that the newer autofocus systems will solve your problems, you will be disappointed. They can help, but as I said, they aren't magic.

Live View: I don't shoot that way, so can't really help. But, I generally find looking at the live view screen to be too cumbersome. I'm just too used to viewfinders.

I also have no experience with 4K screen grabs, but I doubt it would be as easy as many people fantasize.

Do you think the 5D4 AF is better than the 7D2 AF? And the 5D4 comparing it to the 1Dx2?

 

[Mikehit]

Do you think the 5D4 AF is better than the 7D2 AF? And the 5D4 comparing it to the 1Dx2?

The 5D4 AF is better than the 7D2 - it is more assured and hunts less and there are a higher % of keepers even for stationary subjects.
As for 5D4 vs 1Dx2 - it depends on what you shoot. With a 2x tc the 1Dx2 focusses better, with a 1.4x tc there is little in it. And if you are into fast-moving things like birds of prey against a varying complex background the 1Dx2 will track better.
If your subjects are less demanding then the 5D4 is an excellent choice even with 100-400mkii with 1.4 MkIII tc.

 

[YuengLinger]

The biggest reasons I took the plunge on a (used) 5D MkIV were the improved ISO performance and low light AF. I take a lot of low light photos. I used to have a 5D MkIII and a 6D, and it always bothered me how the center point of the 6D would focus better in low light than any of the points on the MkIII. The 6D's high ISO performance was also marginally better than the MkIII.

It bothered me that there was no one camera that had it all. Either I could use the 6D for it's great center AF point and slightly better high ISOs, or I could have all of the other things that the MKIII brings to the table over the 6D.

The MkIV is, as you would hope for such a new/expensive camera, the best of both worlds in my opinion. It seems to be just as capable if not better than the 6D in focusing in low light. And all of the AF points seem to have very good low light sensitivity, not just the center one as on on the 6D. The high ISO performance seems to be significantly improved over the MkIII as well.

If low light shooting is something you highly value, I would recommend the MkIV. It is a beast as far as low light focusing and high ISO performance goes. (At least as far as today's standards go!)

One note however, the ISO performance can be somewhat hard to subjectively rate on the MKIII vs the MkIV. The fact that you're getting almost 50% more resolution on the MkIV vs the MkIII means that if you pixel peep, you're going to be looking at the image that much closer. At first, the high ISO images on the MkIV seemed fuzzy to me. Not a lot of color noise, but fuzzy.

However, after I used it for a while, I've come to the conclusion that it does seem significantly better at high ISOs, and any observations to the contrary are probably just due to looking way too close at the image, which isn't a realistic way to view images.

+1 I think this sums up the performance side of the 5DIV consideration.

And, as a few others have suggested, you really must evaluate from a business perspective. What does your accountant say? If you don't have one, your bookkeeping software? Any tax advantages that cushion the cash outlay?

Finally, you mention AF problems with the 5DIII. This is unusual except in the very lowest light, and that can be addressed often with a Speedlite on camera set to AF assist only. Have you considered your Tamron lenses might not be up to the AF task? I shoot events (not weddings) in pretty sad light with a 5DIII. No problems with my Canon lenses.

(And Saturday night I get to use my 5DIV first time for a scholarship awards ceremony, all under glorious fluorescent tubes in a dimly lit church. Looking forward to the challenge. Did it three years back with the 5DIII and had decent results, normal keeper rate.)

 

[Miami Photographer]

I upgraded recently and extremely happy that I did

 

[Jerryrigged]

You also need to bear in mind personal experience and perception. Someone who lost all their images on a shoot due to card failure will have a different perception of that risk than someone who has never had a card failure, and different again from someone who had a card failure and was able to recover the images later on.

It irritates me when advocates of dual slot talk about 'negligence' or 'unprofessional' when someone uses single slot. As long as the photographer has made a reasoned judgement their decision is their own.

I shoot video with 5D Mark IV. After a recent wedding, I went to download the footage off of my 256GB Samsung Extreme Pro CF Card (a $297 investment). When shooting video, even a dual card camera only shoots to one card at a time (maybe some other high end cameras shoot to both simultaneously, but none that I'm aware of). Well, my Mac showed that half the clips were downloadable, but the others were corrupt. Fortunately, I was able to plug the card back into the camera, and download ALL of the clips using the USB connection! Well, now I'm a little gun shy... don't know if I can trust that card or not. I feel OK with photos (since I write raw to both cards), but without that redundancy for video, I'm not so sure!

Yes, it is possible to record video from both cards at the same time in 5D Mark IV. The problem is that the SD slot is just UHS-I speed, and can not record high bit rates. Try a "UHS-I U3" card, and you should record full hd in 2 cards without problems, but not 4K.

I learned this the hard way on a recent job, where my 4k videos were cutting off @ 3-4 seconds in camera (it made back end editing easier in a way). It turns out from my phone call to CPS on the way home from the shoot was that the SD card I thought was fast enough wasn't. I had to upgrade from a Lexar Pro 1000x 150mb/s to a Lexar Pro 2000x 300mb/s because the 1000x actually rated at around 100mb/s.

Unfortunately, you can only record to EITHER the CF or the SD card. Either one can record video, but only one at a time. Using Sandisk Extreme Pro cards, I can record 4K to either my 256GB CF card, or to my 256GB SD card. (See page 346 of 5D4 user manual)

 

[Rejay14]

I can't imagine any wedding situation where you'd need to be hitting ISO 25600 unless you have some very slow lenses and/or are picking some needlessly high shutter speeds; I've shot death metal concerts—which are a lot darker and more energetic than any wedding!—with older Canon cameras never going above ISO 3200.

I took pictures at my friend's wedding reception (the party after the ceremony) and I found I was hitting ISO 12800-25600 in some shots. Getting pictures of people dancing in low light isn't extreme or unusual, is it?

That means that you're not using a flash. A $120 Yongnuo will do more for your photography than anything at this point.

 

[Talys]

I can't imagine any wedding situation where you'd need to be hitting ISO 25600 unless you have some very slow lenses and/or are picking some needlessly high shutter speeds; I've shot death metal concerts—which are a lot darker and more energetic than any wedding!—with older Canon cameras never going above ISO 3200.

I took pictures at my friend's wedding reception (the party after the ceremony) and I found I was hitting ISO 12800-25600 in some shots. Getting pictures of people dancing in low light isn't extreme or unusual, is it?

That means that you're not using a flash. A $120 Yongnuo will do more for your photography than anything at this point.

Yup. All things being equal, even if you can get a usable photo out of ISO 25600, you'll have a much nicer photo at ISO 100-800 that received more light.

But things are not equal at all -- because skillful use of a flash lets you create shadows and highlights that weren't previously present. And let's face it, any photo that you take at 5-figure ISOs need some help in the contrast department

Of course, if people are dancing, you can't exactly fire off a zillion strobes. Still, 10 good pictures > 200 bad ones.

 

[Maximilian]

I can't imagine any wedding situation where you'd need to be hitting ISO 25600 unless you have some very slow lenses and/or are picking some needlessly high shutter speeds; I've shot death metal concerts—which are a lot darker and more energetic than any wedding!—with older Canon cameras never going above ISO 3200.

I took pictures at my friend's wedding reception (the party after the ceremony) and I found I was hitting ISO 12800-25600 in some shots. Getting pictures of people dancing in low light isn't extreme or unusual, is it?

That means that you're not using a flash. A $120 Yongnuo will do more for your photography than anything at this point.

Rejay, that sounds like a real expert :
A lot of people don't like flashes during the reception, especially when they're on the dance floor.
And when you want to catch the disco light on the dancers a flash isn't the best choice.
But maybe they enjoy your additional strobe lights

Reminds me of one of the kindergarten mums that was trying to take pictures of our children's galanty show with a flash :

So I can absolutely second scyrene's experiences.

Edit:
By the way: I can remember a wedding where a video team was entering the dance floor with LEDs on and the dance floor was empty within 10 seconds. And I feel flashes almost as annoying as that in such situations.
Maybe they could have done so during the wedding waltz when only the couple was dancing but even then too much light is killing the mood. To me these are all available light shots.
Having the brides white dress with all that disco lights on it... much better than a "perfectly" lit video sequence.
I was able to deliver some great memories to several of my friends.

 

[Mikehit]

Edit:
By the way: I can remember a wedding where a video team was entering the dance floor with LEDs on and the dance floor was empty within 10 seconds. And I feel flashes almost as annoying as that in such situations.
Maybe they could have done so during the wedding waltz when only the couple was dancing but even then too much light is killing the mood. To me these are all available light shots.
Having the brides white dress with all that disco lights on it... much better than a "perfectly" lit video sequence.
I was able to deliver some great memories to several of my friends.

+1
There is this continual idea that your average customer cares about noise in photos. They don't. As long as it is a good image of a great occasion, and it is better than Uncle Harrys' photos taken with a cameraphone, that is all they want - the memory.

 

[john kriegsmann]

For my money I would buy a new Nikon D750. You can buy one at BH with a professional 24-120 f4 lens for $2,300. For the price of the new Canon Mk4 (3299) you could add a second professional Nikon lens. Nikon is blowing Canon out of the water. Their new 850 is class leading, the only DSLR truly in Medium Format territory recently scored a 100 DXO score.

 

[dak723]

Edit:
By the way: I can remember a wedding where a video team was entering the dance floor with LEDs on and the dance floor was empty within 10 seconds. And I feel flashes almost as annoying as that in such situations.
Maybe they could have done so during the wedding waltz when only the couple was dancing but even then too much light is killing the mood. To me these are all available light shots.
Having the brides white dress with all that disco lights on it... much better than a "perfectly" lit video sequence.
I was able to deliver some great memories to several of my friends.

+1
There is this continual idea that your average customer cares about noise in photos. They don't. As long as it is a good image of a great occasion, and it is better than Uncle Harrys' photos taken with a cameraphone, that is all they want - the memory.

It is not just the average customer who doesn't care about noise. And there is a great deal of difference between a photographer who cares about noise and someone who is obsessed with it. Most folks on this forum fall into the latter category, in my opinion. As someone who takes photos for more than the memory, and sells occasionally, I don't fret over some noise, and it is possibly the least important thing on my checklist of what makes a photo work.

The condescending attitude that permeates his forum regarding folks that don't obsess about DR and noise is really insulting. We are not just "snapshot" shooters or folks just slightly removed from camera phone photo-takers. I would strongly suggest to those who think you need to have little or no noise - and the most DR - to have a quality photo, to open their minds to the idea that subject, composition, lighting, mood, atmosphere are all more important aspects of what constitutes a good photo.

 

[greger]

Why are you wasting time asking other people’s opinion! I would be pulling the trigger on getting the 5D l V immediately. Ask questions later kinda situation. I don’t think anyone would regret owning the latest 5D Camera. Dual card slots are worth the cost of peace of mind.

 

[Rejay14]

Disregard people that are telling you to change brands. That is ridiculous. You have invested in a camera system and you'll do nothing but lose money if you change.

The 5D3 is a perfectly capable camera. Get another one, used/refurbished, rock it and expand your business. I used a Mark 3 for years. I now have a 1DXII and a 5D4, because I could afford it. The 5D3 was limiting me in a minute way, but I could have lasted 4 more years with it. It's an amazing body. Your dual card argument is valid.

Keep loyal to the system that you use. The Canon/Nikon argument is the same as the Ford/Chevy argument. Stick with the one that you have and enjoy.

Jeff

 

[Rejay14]

I can't imagine any wedding situation where you'd need to be hitting ISO 25600 unless you have some very slow lenses and/or are picking some needlessly high shutter speeds; I've shot death metal concerts—which are a lot darker and more energetic than any wedding!—with older Canon cameras never going above ISO 3200.

I took pictures at my friend's wedding reception (the party after the ceremony) and I found I was hitting ISO 12800-25600 in some shots. Getting pictures of people dancing in low light isn't extreme or unusual, is it?

That means that you're not using a flash. A $120 Yongnuo will do more for your photography than anything at this point.

Rejay, that sounds like a real expert :
A lot of people don't like flashes during the reception, especially when they're on the dance floor.
And when you want to catch the disco light on the dancers a flash isn't the best choice.
But maybe they enjoy your additional strobe lights

Reminds me of one of the kindergarten mums that was trying to take pictures of our children's galanty show with a flash :

So I can absolutely second scyrene's experiences.

Edit:
By the way: I can remember a wedding where a video team was entering the dance floor with LEDs on and the dance floor was empty within 10 seconds. And I feel flashes almost as annoying as that in such situations.
Maybe they could have done so during the wedding waltz when only the couple was dancing but even then too much light is killing the mood. To me these are all available light shots.
Having the brides white dress with all that disco lights on it... much better than a "perfectly" lit video sequence.
I was able to deliver some great memories to several of my friends.

Well Maxi.. I would think that a bounced flash at iso 3200 would barely be noticeable to ANYONE, but to each his own. I'll just keep on making 6 figures and ignoring your opinion if it's ok with you.

BTW: What's your expert website address? mine is PrestigePhotoPro.com if you would like to bash some more.

 

[SecureGSM]

how much one is making statement is utterly irrelevant and does not prove anything besides it reveals ethical issues associated with one's personality.

Well Maxi.. I would think that a bounced flash at iso 3200 would barely be noticeable to ANYONE, but to each his own. I'll just keep on making 6 figures and ignoring your opinion if it's ok with you.

BTW: What's your expert website address? mine is PrestigePhotoPro.com if you would like to bash some more.

 

[Rejay14]

I posted the reply based on the comment about "expert". I agree, I am no expert, but I am a reasonable facsimile of an ok camera button pusher guy

 

[MrFotoFool]

Very recently I traded in my 5D3 and 1D4 to get a 5D4. I just tested it out a week ago at San Diego Zoo and Safari Park. The autofocus tracking is amazing - much better than my 5D3 and at least as good if not better than my 1D4. I realize zoo photography is not wedding photography, but it still involves fast tracking of moving subjects. I was also amazed at the ability to lock focus in extremely low light. I could not be happier and I think you will love the 5D4. I also did one shot indoors at iso 12,800 that looks pretty good. I have not tried higher, but that is the highest iso I have ever used on a photo. On my 5D3 I was afraid to go above 3,200.

 

[Luds34]

Well Maxi.. I would think that a bounced flash at iso 3200 would barely be noticeable to ANYONE, but to each his own.

I tend to agree. In really low light I'm a fan of shooting really fast glass (35mm f/1.4) wide open and dragging the shutter to still get the ambiance while bouncing flash from the hot shoe to light the scene and give some color/constrast and shadows at a more reasonable ISO (800 to 3200 depending on the situation). Once you hit ISO 12800+ photos just lose their punch.