aceflibble said: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.
unfocused said: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.
Robsergar said:Do you think the 5D4 AF is better than the 7D2 AF? And the 5D4 comparing it to the 1Dx2?
Kit Lens Jockey said: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.
360iViews said:ajfotofilmagem said: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.Jerryrigged said:Mikehit said: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!
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.
scyrene said:aceflibble said: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?
Rejay14 said:scyrene said:aceflibble said: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 :Rejay14 said:scyrene said:aceflibble said: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.
Maximilian said: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 said:Maximilian said: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.
Maximilian said:Rejay, that sounds like a real expert :Rejay14 said:scyrene said:aceflibble said: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.
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.
Rejay14 said: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 said:Well Maxi.. I would think that a bounced flash at iso 3200 would barely be noticeable to ANYONE, but to each his own.