Where are the Rumors? EOS 5D Mark IV

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If anything I'm getting a whiff of disappointment in the BIS Exmor R full frame sensor.

really?
did you see even the new high ISO and high ISO DR tests at Fred Miranda. The thing is a beast even at high ISO. It looks like more than a stop better than the A7R in below mid-tones high ISO stuff.

the oversampled 4k without any line skipping or even binning is pretty astonishing

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I agree that shutterlag went too far, but I also know that Canon needs to step up. In this world, a tech company can't lag. There's nothing called 'catch up game'. Either you innovate and lead or perish.

Why is it that "innovation" is always taken to mean "sensor innovation"?

So you accept canon has some 'innovation' to do with sensors right? lol! I hope they do that. That's it.

Argue all you want, sensor is an absolute key part of a camera right? And you'd expect a leading camera manufacturer would get the key part of the camera right/better than others. Isn't that normal?! And as I said, innovate or perish. Time will tell if Canon did the right thing.

Funny how back in the 20D era all Canon users went on about was how the sensor was all that mattered, back when Nikon tended to have noticeably worse sensors, but better featured bodies. Don't forget that a lot of people went with Canon for DSLR because they had the best sensors. It's not like a 20D had solid AF or anything. Heck I was talking a guy from Getty who was getting so sick of the Nikon sensors he was saying he was seriously thinking of moving to Canon. Now suddenly a DSLR almost might be fine even if they didn't even a put a sensor in it at all ;D.

And yeah of course the otehr stuff matters too, but why bend over backwards to actually CHEER Canon for not even bothering and just sitting back and not bothering as they kings of hill and don't have to do anything (as they so nicely put it during a show in Europe some years back). How the heck does that do any good for the Canon user? Even if you don't want to whine about it, why cheer it and actively fight to knock down any suggestions that they push forward? Root for your local sports team not some mega corp brand!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I agree that shutterlag went too far, but I also know that Canon needs to step up. In this world, a tech company can't lag. There's nothing called 'catch up game'. Either you innovate and lead or perish.

Why is it that "innovation" is always taken to mean "sensor innovation"?

So you accept canon has some 'innovation' to do with sensors right? lol! I hope they do that. That's it.

Argue all you want, sensor is an absolute key part of a camera right? And you'd expect a leading camera manufacturer would get the key part of the camera right/better than others. Isn't that normal?! And as I said, innovate or perish. Time will tell if Canon did the right thing.

Well, I don't quite fully follow your argument. Canon isn't innovating in sensors. As an aside, remember they have the highest resolution FF sensor on the market. Or are you referring to low ISO DR again? See how it just keeps getting narrower and narrower and eventually zones in on that low ISO DR thing again. It's a fixation point for some. Remember that Canon, overall, has the best lenses, the best mount (EF), best speedlite system, best service, best AF system, highest resolution sensor, and most importantly, highest sales.

I guess when you look at it, they are certainly much better off than the completion, wouldn't you say? Or does low ISO DR trump all of that?

Canon produces a system that works. WORKS. No way in hell I'd ever show up to a sports event that I shoot with a Sony A7R II, because I want to keep my job. I don't really give a rats behind of its DR from ISO 100-400.

They are way behind in video now, both usability features and actually image quality and specs.
They are now behind for high ISO DR too and with high ISO having limited DR to begin with, the DR affects a greater percentage of tonal area and percent of each shot up there.

And the 5Ds doesn't just work for your sports events anyway so that is a red herring. You'd still need to use a different Canon body for that anyway, at which point, when adding an additional body that won't be a main action body, might not an A7RII or such offer someone a lot more for their buck? Instead of just getting a lot more MP they could also get that plus a lot more DR at low ISO AND now high ISO too it seems as well as much more advanced video. A lot more cost effective and also easier to not need to drag like THREE bodies around and possibly even a second lens system.

 

[bdunbar79]

I agree that shutterlag went too far, but I also know that Canon needs to step up. In this world, a tech company can't lag. There's nothing called 'catch up game'. Either you innovate and lead or perish.

Why is it that "innovation" is always taken to mean "sensor innovation"?

So you accept canon has some 'innovation' to do with sensors right? lol! I hope they do that. That's it.

Argue all you want, sensor is an absolute key part of a camera right? And you'd expect a leading camera manufacturer would get the key part of the camera right/better than others. Isn't that normal?! And as I said, innovate or perish. Time will tell if Canon did the right thing.

Well, I don't quite fully follow your argument. Canon isn't innovating in sensors. As an aside, remember they have the highest resolution FF sensor on the market. Or are you referring to low ISO DR again? See how it just keeps getting narrower and narrower and eventually zones in on that low ISO DR thing again. It's a fixation point for some. Remember that Canon, overall, has the best lenses, the best mount (EF), best speedlite system, best service, best AF system, highest resolution sensor, and most importantly, highest sales.

I guess when you look at it, they are certainly much better off than the completion, wouldn't you say? Or does low ISO DR trump all of that?

Canon produces a system that works. WORKS. No way in hell I'd ever show up to a sports event that I shoot with a Sony A7R II, because I want to keep my job. I don't really give a rats behind of its DR from ISO 100-400.

They are way behind in video now, both usability features and actually image quality and specs.
They are now behind for high ISO DR too and with high ISO having limited DR to begin with, the DR affects a greater percentage of tonal area and percent of each shot up there.

And the 5Ds doesn't just work for your sports events anyway so that is a red herring. You'd still need to use a different Canon body for that anyway, at which point, when adding an additional body that won't be a main action body, might not an A7RII or such offer someone a lot more for their buck? Instead of just getting a lot more MP they could also get that plus a lot more DR at low ISO AND now high ISO too it seems as well as much more advanced video. A lot more cost effective and also easier to not need to drag like THREE bodies around and possibly even a second lens system.

I don't follow. I would most certainly choose the 5Ds for sports over the A7R II. There's no adapter and the AF system is way better. At high ISO, the 1Dx is plenty clean enough. I'd rather have the current tonal range I'm getting and have nailed-down AF vs. better tonality and OOF shots. The more keepers, the better. 5Ds = more keepers too.

 

[NancyP]

I will give the 7D2 some workouts at ISO 100 on tripod, but I expect that it will spend most of its time at ISO 400 to 800, for birds in flight. I tend to shoot either birds/macro (APS-C, for the pixel density - more pixels on bird with same focal length) or landscapes/macro/nightscapes (FF 6D, a splendid camera for those uses).

 

[privatebydesign]

Well, I don't quite fully follow your argument. Canon isn't innovating in sensors. As an aside, remember they have the highest resolution FF sensor on the market. Or are you referring to low ISO DR again? See how it just keeps getting narrower and narrower and eventually zones in on that low ISO DR thing again. It's a fixation point for some. Remember that Canon, overall, has the best lenses, the best mount (EF), best speedlite system, best service, best AF system, highest resolution sensor, and most importantly, highest sales.

I guess when you look at it, they are certainly much better off than the completion, wouldn't you say? Or does low ISO DR trump all of that?

Canon produces a system that works. WORKS. No way in hell I'd ever show up to a sports event that I shoot with a Sony A7R II, because I want to keep my job. I don't really give a rats behind of its DR from ISO 100-400.

I totally agree with you. Canon has the best lens, AF, highest MP sensor and highest sales. That's why I am a CPN member for last 4 years I do not do sports or landscape photography. I only shoot weddings. And I believe they have quite a bit of work to do there. I do not want to mention low ISO DR. Rather I want to ask, is there room for improvement for canon for me and 1000 other wedding photographers? I think the answer is yes. if you think the answer is 'no', then that's absolutely fine. everyone is entitled to their own opinion. but, if canon also thinks that's a 'no', then we have company that's lagging in one area. That one may become two/three in next 2/3 years.

Tech world moves very fast. look at blackberry, nokia, microsoft mobile and so on so on. they were great companies with billions in revenue. all went down in merely 2/3 years.

anyways, happy clicking.

But cameras, particularly the ones we most talk about here, are not pure tech items. The much higher investment for most of the people interested in multi thousand dollar DSLR's/FF mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras is in lenses. Your examples were two phone companies (and a third which mistimed buying one of the first two), which we use for a few years and upgrade with no other hardware investment, those don't align with the business model of high end camera systems.

Not suggesting Canon, and all the other camera companies, don't have work to do, just pointing out that the all too often used phrase of 'innovate or die in the tech world' doesn't actually apply particularly well to camera system investments where lenses are upgraded in the ten year or so cycle.

 

[Don Haines]

Well, I don't quite fully follow your argument. Canon isn't innovating in sensors. As an aside, remember they have the highest resolution FF sensor on the market. Or are you referring to low ISO DR again? See how it just keeps getting narrower and narrower and eventually zones in on that low ISO DR thing again. It's a fixation point for some. Remember that Canon, overall, has the best lenses, the best mount (EF), best speedlite system, best service, best AF system, highest resolution sensor, and most importantly, highest sales.

I guess when you look at it, they are certainly much better off than the completion, wouldn't you say? Or does low ISO DR trump all of that?

Canon produces a system that works. WORKS. No way in hell I'd ever show up to a sports event that I shoot with a Sony A7R II, because I want to keep my job. I don't really give a rats behind of its DR from ISO 100-400.

I totally agree with you. Canon has the best lens, AF, highest MP sensor and highest sales. That's why I am a CPN member for last 4 years I do not do sports or landscape photography. I only shoot weddings. And I believe they have quite a bit of work to do there. I do not want to mention low ISO DR. Rather I want to ask, is there room for improvement for canon for me and 1000 other wedding photographers? I think the answer is yes. if you think the answer is 'no', then that's absolutely fine. everyone is entitled to their own opinion. but, if canon also thinks that's a 'no', then we have company that's lagging in one area. That one may become two/three in next 2/3 years.

Tech world moves very fast. look at blackberry, nokia, microsoft mobile and so on so on. they were great companies with billions in revenue. all went down in merely 2/3 years.

anyways, happy clicking.

But cameras, particularly the ones we most talk about here, are not pure tech items. The much higher investment for most of the people interested in multi thousand dollar DSLR's/FF mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras is in lenses. Your examples were two phone companies (and a third which mistimed buying one of the first two), which we use for a few years and upgrade with no other hardware investment, those don't align with the business model of high end camera systems.

Not suggesting Canon, and all the other camera companies, don't have work to do, just pointing out that the all too often used phrase of 'innovate or die in the tech world' doesn't actually apply particularly well to camera system investments where lenses are upgraded in the ten year or so cycle.

+1
Cameras are expendable. Lenses are an investment....

We expect that our cameras will be obsolete in a few short years, but many of us have lenses that are ten or more years old and expect our recent lens purchases to last that long as well..

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I agree that shutterlag went too far, but I also know that Canon needs to step up. In this world, a tech company can't lag. There's nothing called 'catch up game'. Either you innovate and lead or perish.

Why is it that "innovation" is always taken to mean "sensor innovation"?

So you accept canon has some 'innovation' to do with sensors right? lol! I hope they do that. That's it.

Argue all you want, sensor is an absolute key part of a camera right? And you'd expect a leading camera manufacturer would get the key part of the camera right/better than others. Isn't that normal?! And as I said, innovate or perish. Time will tell if Canon did the right thing.

Well, I don't quite fully follow your argument. Canon isn't innovating in sensors. As an aside, remember they have the highest resolution FF sensor on the market. Or are you referring to low ISO DR again? See how it just keeps getting narrower and narrower and eventually zones in on that low ISO DR thing again. It's a fixation point for some. Remember that Canon, overall, has the best lenses, the best mount (EF), best speedlite system, best service, best AF system, highest resolution sensor, and most importantly, highest sales.

I guess when you look at it, they are certainly much better off than the completion, wouldn't you say? Or does low ISO DR trump all of that?

Canon produces a system that works. WORKS. No way in hell I'd ever show up to a sports event that I shoot with a Sony A7R II, because I want to keep my job. I don't really give a rats behind of its DR from ISO 100-400.

They are way behind in video now, both usability features and actually image quality and specs.
They are now behind for high ISO DR too and with high ISO having limited DR to begin with, the DR affects a greater percentage of tonal area and percent of each shot up there.

And the 5Ds doesn't just work for your sports events anyway so that is a red herring. You'd still need to use a different Canon body for that anyway, at which point, when adding an additional body that won't be a main action body, might not an A7RII or such offer someone a lot more for their buck? Instead of just getting a lot more MP they could also get that plus a lot more DR at low ISO AND now high ISO too it seems as well as much more advanced video. A lot more cost effective and also easier to not need to drag like THREE bodies around and possibly even a second lens system.

I don't follow. I would most certainly choose the 5Ds for sports over the A7R II. There's no adapter and the AF system is way better. At high ISO, the 1Dx is plenty clean enough. I'd rather have the current tonal range I'm getting and have nailed-down AF vs. better tonality and OOF shots. The more keepers, the better. 5Ds = more keepers too.

Yeah 5Ds over A7RII for sports, but it doesn't really cut it for sports either. It doesn't even have a true crop mode to get a decent buffer or even just 6fps. So the point is you need anotehr body anyway if you get a 5Ds. It's not really an all-around body either. Less so than the 5D3 was. So at that point, for many, it might be more value to add something like an A7RII to a 5D3 rather than add a 5Ds.

 

[bdunbar79]

Yes I agree with on that.

 

[Big_Ant_TV_Media]

I finally got sick of the "let's wait until...." game and just bought a 7D2. There will always be something better down the pike. There are still people getting good service from 5 year old 7D originals, I have gotten good service from the less well built 60D for 5 years, here's hoping that the 7D2 lasts 5+ years of birding in crappy as well as good weather.

Let us know what your opinion of the 7DII's output at ISO 100 is compared with the 6D - perfect technique applied of course I'm tempted by a 7DII myself.

here various shots i taken with my 7D2 shooting the NFL NY GIANTS
1st image ISO 640
9W9A3581-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr
2nd image ISO 800
9W9A3569-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr

 

[gregory4000]

That's because Canon has given up. The A7R2 has such superior feature set that the existing plans for the 5Dmk4 have been scrapped.

Stop taking drugs! They are bad for your health.

Your missing his point.
What sony did with the A7Rii is offer a lot of great features in one camera.
Great 4K video, Great resolution, Dynamic range that Canon is a bit behind on ( please take no offense). etc...
And with OUTSTANDING pre sales Canon, I hope is taking notice consumers reactions.
Personally, I hope canon is delaying, for the reason of offering us a great all in one camera.
You'ed have to be on drugs not to desire that!

 

[privatebydesign]

That isn't how I recall the comment. It was more like 'Adobe, and others, are given the RAW file specs, and possibly samples, 6 months out', that is a completely different thing, there is no way on earth Canon are sending out complete cameras, or there specs, to all and sundry. Adobe and other key software companies need some kind of preempt from Canon to make the cameras attractive to early adopters, if those early adopters are forced to make too many concessions or wait too long to actually manipulate their files they won't buy the cameras.

However, even those pre release files will be subject to last minute changes, hence the delays we sometimes get for ACR updates even after a camera has been out for a while.

yes, that's exactly how it is likely to be - mods to the RAW spec, which I thought was similar to TIFF in the way it worked, and perhaps a sample or two - maybe not even a complete picture or maybe even a simulated RAW ie not from the camera itself - it doesnt have to be real, but the values have to be correct.

And yes, ACR always requires tweaks / testing after the camera has released with full firmware...

Correct, adobe does not need to know anything about the camera, and i doubt canon would give them that information. All adobe needs is a few sample images to work with to dial in default colors and exposure settings.

Do any of you commenting on what Adobe needs work for Adobe?
Or in the development of image processing software?

If I do, or did, I wouldn't tell you on an internet forum.

 

[privatebydesign]

...
If I do, or did, I wouldn't tell you on an internet forum.

Let us know when you've got something of substance to add.

Ditto.............

 

[privatebydesign]

...
Funny how back in the 20D era all Canon users went on about was how the sensor was all that mattered, back when Nikon tended to have noticeably worse sensors, but better featured bodies. Don't forget that a lot of people went with Canon for DSLR because they had the best sensors. It's not like a 20D had solid AF or anything. Heck I was talking a guy from Getty who was getting so sick of the Nikon sensors he was saying he was seriously thinking of moving to Canon. Now suddenly a DSLR almost might be fine even if they didn't even a put a sensor in it at all ;D.
...

+1

It is interesting how things have changed.

Back in the 20D era the differences in Canon and Nikon sensors were huge, now the differences are not as big and they are in specific metrics not overall performance, MP numbers, DR (high iso and low iso), actual iso performance, colour rendering etc etc. If you can't take a good picture with any digital camera nowadays it isn't the sensor that is the problem, back in 2004 that wasn't the case.

 

[bdunbar79]

...
Well, I don't quite fully follow your argument. Canon isn't innovating in sensors. As an aside, remember they have the highest resolution FF sensor on the market.
...

Squeezing more MP onto a sensor is not an indicator of innovation.

Using pixels as autofocus points is innovation.

Building sensors differently (BSI) is innovation.

Building sensors differently to support high frame rates is innovation.

Building sensors such that the relationship between ADCs and pixels is different is innovation.

Building sensors to function in a non-Bayer grid is innovation.

Being an innovator implies doing something different to before. Just doing more of something is not in itself enough to be an innovation.

AF, lenses, service, speedlites all still suck though.

 

[sanj]

Is it at all a possibility that 5ds/r are the 5d3 replacements?

I can assure you that they are not.

Thanks!!

 

[LonelyBoy]

So you accept canon has some 'innovation' to do with sensors right? lol! I hope they do that. That's it.

Argue all you want, sensor is an absolute key part of a camera right? And you'd expect a leading camera manufacturer would get the key part of the camera right/better than others. Isn't that normal?! And as I said, innovate or perish. Time will tell if Canon did the right thing.

Are you going to admit that Canon does a ton of innovation everywhere else? Because you didn't, in the post I replied to, and none of the other naysayers will either. Why are you treating innovation as if it is exclusively a matter for sensors?

 

[Hector1970]

...
Cameras are expendable. Lenses are an investment....

I disagree completely.

In real terms, a lens with a static price depreciates with inflation over time. For example, if you buy a lens for $1000 and inflation is running at 3%, unless you sell the lens 3 years later for $1100, you've lost money. If the lens (new) still costs $1000 in 3 years time, that represents static pricing that has a value that decreases with inflation. If a lens starts out at $1000 and in 3 years is still $1000 in a market that has a CPI of 3% then in real terms the price of the lens has dropped to $912.

Would anyone buy a 17-40/f4L now?
Did the value of the 17-40/f4L go up or down after the release of the 16-35/f4L IS?

Then there is 3rd party.
Tamron and Sigma are applying incredible pressure on the value of lenses.

Or to put it differently...

If you bought $100,000 worth of Canon lenses today and $100,000 worth of Apple or Google stock, in 3 years, which would represent a net gain? The resale of the Canon lenses or the shares?

But it's still an investment. Not a very good one money wise as with most lens depreciate in value after you buy them. However you have to add the value they give in terms of enjoyment and achievement and maybe then they are a worthwhile investment. Your Apple shares might be worth more but as never get to use them or even physically see them you don't get much enjoyment out of them.
I always think your should spend your money on experiences rather than objects. I find with Lens even though they are an object I enjoy the experience they give me. The initial spike of happiness on purchasing dips a bit but keeps going over time. I still love my 70-200mm II years later or my 24 TSE. I enjoy using them
Camera's are probably relatively more disposable and my glass seems to stay with me longer. Cameras burn out faster than I break lens.
I knew the day the 5DIII came out I wanted it.
I hope its the same with the 5DIV. So far I haven't seen something that would guarantee I'd switch. I haven't seen a wow feature so far. With the 5DIII it fixed alot of the 5D II concerns and was a great all-round package. Its hard to improve upon.
I've been tempted by the 5DS / 5DR but I shoot too generally and under all types of conditions and think they are move for tripod shoot on a perfect day.

 

[bdunbar79]

...
Well, I don't quite fully follow your argument. Canon isn't innovating in sensors. As an aside, remember they have the highest resolution FF sensor on the market.
...

Squeezing more MP onto a sensor is not an indicator of innovation.

Using pixels as autofocus points is innovation.

Building sensors differently (BSI) is innovation.

Building sensors differently to support high frame rates is innovation.

Building sensors such that the relationship between ADCs and pixels is different is innovation.

Building sensors to function in a non-Bayer grid is innovation.

Being an innovator implies doing something different to before. Just doing more of something is not in itself enough to be an innovation.

AF, lenses, service, speedlites all still suck though.

Refer to the post I quoted and tell me if AF, lenses, service or speedlites relate to sensors.

Reread my ENTIRE post and don't just cut bits and pieces out that help your argument. You are talking about ONE little tiny area of innovation. All of that stuff Sony did was to get more DR at low ISO. Could have gotten higher ISO performance, but nonetheless that's all it did. In the real world it didn't do anything else.

Sony is in the sensor business. They had better innovate in sensors, because after all, that's their business. Canon is in the system business. Their system far outshines Sony or any other company because all of their stuff works for the vast majority of photographers, amateurs and pros alike. You can't ignore all of the innovations of Canon and point out pretty much the one area they aren't with the competition.

They are not as innovative right now in sensor tech as Sony. They trounce Sony pretty much everywhere else in innovation.

 

[scyrene]

Funny how back in the 20D era all Canon users went on about was how the sensor was all that mattered, back when Nikon tended to have noticeably worse sensors, but better featured bodies. Don't forget that a lot of people went with Canon for DSLR because they had the best sensors. It's not like a 20D had solid AF or anything. Heck I was talking a guy from Getty who was getting so sick of the Nikon sensors he was saying he was seriously thinking of moving to Canon. Now suddenly a DSLR almost might be fine even if they didn't even a put a sensor in it at all ;D.

It's probably not the same people, a lot of us have come along in the intervening years. It's also worth pointing out that all sensors have improved since then. It could be that it's an area that's now mature - I don't take a view either way but it's possible. A bit like, you don't tend to judge a phone on its ability to send/store text messages, because they are all more than good enough.