Where are the Rumors? EOS 5D Mark IV

dilbert said:
Sensors have improved, yes. Well kind of. Look at the numbers on sensorgen.

For example, the 30D has similar read noise to the 6D (27 & 26 e-), the 70D is down to 13e- and amazingly the 7DII comes in at 12.9 vs the 7D at 8.3. Which would make the 7DII 50% noisier than the 7D! Canon went a bit backwards there.

Not that I believe everything Northrup says, but he appears to discredit your notion that the 7D2 went "backwards" compared to the 7D in terms of noise. The whole video sets up his observations, but the 7D2 vs. 7D comparison starts at 7:25.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTuBr0W0Zhw&list=PLwIVS3_dKVpsjSZrQ7H-Nw8GQ7ZuDYyaD&index=30

He further argues that the 7D2 is only 3% worse in "Sensor Efficiency" than the Nikon D810. Extrapolating, Northrup argues that Canon has made a huge leap in image quality. He claims that if they Canon can make the image sensor bigger and scale it to full frame, Canon will be able to match the D810 noise levels. For this reason, he is looking forward to the release of the 5D Mark IV. This discussion starts at approximately 13:33.
 
Upvote 0
bdunbar79 said:
jeffa4444 said:
bdunbar79 said:
CanonGuy said:
bdunbar79 said:
Bottom line is that your argument that Canon isn't innovating is asinine at best. Canon is innovating in other areas and just because it's not in the area that you want, you draw some stupid conclusion that Canon in general isn't innovating and they are doomed. That's what you sound like. Whether that's exactly what you are saying or not is irrelevant because that's the perception you are drawing. Canon innovates in areas A, B, C and Sony innovates in areas D, E, F. Only disadvantages Sony has are 1. Sales, 2. Lenses, 3. Service, 4. AF, 5. Speed lites. Whether Sony innovated with AF in the A7R II doesn't matter; it's still worse than Canon's AF system. I personally, along with other sports photogs and PJ's, still can't use any Sony equipment.

I think Canon systems are best for sports considering fps, AF and lens. No doubt. But many (if no the majority) of the professional bodies are bought by the wedding and and portrait photographers. And I believe, canon bodies are not best there. I am about to retire my backup 5D iii and 6D and I'm considering 810+35 art OR A7r ii+eos adapter. Deny it as you like, I myself have seen quite a few of fellow photographers going to the same route.

I personally seen the demise of companies who were in denial phase. I hope canon is not one of them. I would hate to sell my excellent collection of L glasses.

Not really a good example. I can tout off anecdotal evidence just like you. I've shot plenty of weddings, know plenty of wedding photographers, and most if not all use a 5D3 and Canon L glass. None I know are changing. Why? Two reasons: 1. AF system of the 5D3 and 2. The flash system (600EX-RT's).

Both examples don't really mean much. Some regions are heavier in Nikon users and others Canon.

Personally when shooting weddings I rely heavily on AF, which eliminates the A7R II right away. I'd consider the D810, sure. But I'd rather have the security of the AF system of the 1Dx. Since I don't push shadows in wedding photography the DR is plenty and the noise is much less than the D810 at higher ISO's.

I could use more DR at lower ISO's during noon-time sports events in high sun. That is absolutely awful. There I could certainly use shadow-pushing ability. But I need it in a camera with the AF of the 1Dx.
Silly question maybe but have you actually used the Sony A7rII? Its not actually on sale yet in the UK (due) and Im sure still rare in the US. I never write something off until Ive tested it or used it and your assumptions about its AF dont jazz with people who have tested it.

Silly question? I had other adjectives, but yes I have.

So, not surprisingly, you're completely wrong.
http://reviews.gizmodo.com/heres-how-fast-canon-lenses-focus-on-the-new-sony-a7r-m-1725106830
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r_II/
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=related-news&utm_medium=text&ref=related-news

Three different reviews, three different people, all stating how good the AF is and there are others.
 
Upvote 0
dilbert said:
unfocused said:
Except that's not really a pertinent point because it is just one isolated bit of information and does nothing to provide an accurate picture of either company's long or short term prospects.
...
So, we know that Sony lost 126 billion yen last year, but hopes to make 140 billion yen this year. And, we know they are going to issue stock and borrow for a total of $4 billion. If you feel comfortable investing your money in Sony based on that, go right ahead.

The buying of that stock will likely be done by people who've got both more money than any of us and more knowledge of what the market is doing and Sony's plans (i.e institutions looking to invest on behalf of customers that have dedicated analysts.)

So Canon is projecting 245 billion net profit this year. Which is 105 billion more than Sony is projecting. And, while this article does not state what Canon's profits were last year, we know they made a profit, since they project to make a slightly smaller profit this year, while Sony suffered a loss last year.

Sony's profit reports are trending up and Canon's are trending down.
Your both comparing Apples to Oranges. Sony has a much larger product / division portfolio than Canon and its domestic electronics business plus mobile has been the real issue. The sensor business where the $ 4BN is mainly going has 40% of the global market and Sony is upgrading its fab plants and investing in more R&D because the growth in the sensor market is predicted to remain double digit, its a company in transition. Canon divided into three divisions Office, Imaging, Industrial & other is seeing falls in Imaging, slight growth in Office and serious investment into Industrial & other to beef up Surveillance. The irony is Sony is a customer of Canon & Canon a customer of Sony but there the similarity end.
 
Upvote 0
barracuda said:
dilbert said:
Sensors have improved, yes. Well kind of. Look at the numbers on sensorgen.

For example, the 30D has similar read noise to the 6D (27 & 26 e-), the 70D is down to 13e- and amazingly the 7DII comes in at 12.9 vs the 7D at 8.3. Which would make the 7DII 50% noisier than the 7D! Canon went a bit backwards there.

Not that I believe everything Northrup says, but he appears to discredit your notion that the 7D2 went "backwards" compared to the 7D in terms of noise. The whole video sets up his observations, but the 7D2 vs. 7D comparison starts at 7:25.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTuBr0W0Zhw&list=PLwIVS3_dKVpsjSZrQ7H-Nw8GQ7ZuDYyaD&index=30

He further argues that the 7D2 is only 3% worse in "Sensor Efficiency" than the Nikon D810. Extrapolating, Northrup argues that Canon has made a huge leap in image quality. He claims that if they Canon can make the image sensor bigger and scale it to full frame, Canon will be able to match the D810 noise levels. For this reason, he is looking forward to the release of the 5D Mark IV. This discussion starts at approximately 13:33.

I don't find the min read noise figures on the sensorgen site have much relevance. However i wouldn't say the same for the QE and max saturation figures. There's something practical in these, though I'm not sure exactly how it works out. Maybe a combination of QE and saturation.

The reason I mention it is because back in the day I found the 20D to be a very pleasing camera. When the 30D came out with it's larger screen I got one of those, and was immediately disappointed with the results compared with the 20D, especially so as it appeared to have the same sensor - 8 mp if I remember rightly.

Looking at the Sensorgen info you'll see that although the sensor specs between the 20D and 30D appeared to be identical from Canon, Sensorgen has the QE of the 20D at 35% and saturation at 80911 and the 30D at 33% and 45363 respectively. Quite a difference in saturation capacity despite the same size pixels. In fact I would say that the 30D was the worst EOS I ever used.

Also some cameras that I really liked the IQ from have eithera relatively high QE or max sat readings, for instance the D200 - good 53% QE but 'poor' max sat, whereas cameras that I really didn't like, like the Pentax K7, had both low QE and max saturation capacity.

If you look at the 7DII / 70D results you can see that the 7DII does have improvements over the 70D, probably microlens tech / quality etc.

The information also shows that the quality of the sensor infrastructure on the 6D and 5DIII are probably similar despite the difference in price of the cameras.

So I can't really put my finger on exactly what practical info the site is giving us. I really like the 5D (original) - low QE but very high max sat. Maybe this tells us to overexpose the 5D slightly and get the best IQ currently available at low ISO ;)

I'll just add that another camera I really admire the low ISO 'IQ' from is the 1Dx, and this is a camera that has both high QE and very high sat sat capacity.

Unfortunately the 1Dx is both far too large and far too expensive for my tastes !
 
Upvote 0
Its going to be so awesome when the 5D Mark IV is announced and we can all discuss the specs :)

Right now its just like Canon Rumors is Dilbert v. Everyone and Everyone v. Dilbert. :o :P

I'm waiting until this body comes out and I'll upgrade from my 6D. I'm hoping for the following:
- A really good (perhaps interactive) Micro AF Adjust. At the moment its a bit over my head to be honest (and my lenses are good enough).
- Super awesome AF - I want to take action photos at 200mm f2 and my 6D leaves a lot to be desired.
- 8+ FPS - I'd like a baby 1DX
- Intelligent AF - to track the eyes and colours
- Spot metering on many points and expose to the skin tones of the model
- better low light performance :)
- dual ISO mode built in
- headphone jack
- ettl-III (why not?)
- wifi and gps are things that i dont mind either way, but would be very nice
- base iso (not extended) less than 100.
- 18+ Megapixels
- very low light focusing ability
- higher flash sync speed
- somewhat weather sealed
- better DR (but this is not the highest on my list)
- 1080p with better quality and lower compression
- 1080p and 720p at more like 120 fps or so
- anti-flicker mode
- dual CFast 2.0
- Master Radio flash transmitter built in

Mike.
 
Upvote 0
I'll play. It's certainly more fun than responding to our favorite troll.

mikekx102 said:
Its going to be so awesome when the 5D Mark IV is announced and we can all discuss the specs :)

Right now its just like Canon Rumors is Dilbert v. Everyone and Everyone v. Dilbert. :o :P

I'm waiting until this body comes out and I'll upgrade from my 6D. I'm hoping for the following:
- A really good (perhaps interactive) Micro AF Adjust. At the moment its a bit over my head to be honest (and my lenses are good enough). Agree. I believe one of the reasons for DPAF was to allow for the eventual implementation of an in-camera AFMA.Implementing it in the 5D IV would make me seriously consider replacing my 5DIII.

- Super awesome AF - I want to take action photos at 200mm f2 and my 6D leaves a lot to be desired. The 5DIII is already awesome. Not sure we'll get super-awesome, but something close to the 7DII would be nice.

- 8+ FPS - I'd like a baby 1DX Reasonable

- Intelligent AF - to track the eyes and colours Interesting. Not sure how much I care though

- Spot metering on many points and expose to the skin tones of the model I find Canon's metering to be darn near perfect. Unless there is some serious problem with backlighting, etc., I never have to do more than a minor tweak of the raw file.

- better low light performance :) Very important. Although I don't know how much better it can get. I'm mainly concerned that it doesn't get worse because they add more megapixels. But I think Canon is smarter than that.

- dual ISO mode built in Doesn't excite me

- headphone jack Already there

- ettl-III (why not?) What are you looking for? ETTL II is damn near perfect in my experience.

- wifi and gps are things that i dont mind either way, but would be very nice. I'd put a touch screen ahead of either one

- base iso (not extended) less than 100. Doesn't do anything for me. I'm need the high ISO performance, not the low.

- 18+ Megapixels In my dreams, they'd keep the megapixel count the same. But, I'm reconciled to 24 mp.

- very low light focusing ability Sounds good, but I usually haven't had a problem

- higher flash sync speed Please

- somewhat weather sealed Well it already is more than somewhat weather sealed. I expect some improvement though.

- better DR (but this is not the highest on my list) Probably my lowest priority

- 1080p with better quality and lower compression I mostly use a 70D when I need video and honestly, my videos live on the web, so this isn't a big deal for me. I wouldn't be surprised to see 4K though.

- 1080p and 720p at more like 120 fps or so See above. Slow motion would be nice though.

- anti-flicker mode I'm sure it will have this

- dual CFast 2.0 I'm fine with the current setup. I like the lower price of SD cards and the fact that they are available anywhere is very handy.

- Master Radio flash transmitter built in Since I've already got an ST-E3-RT I don't care

Mike.
 
Upvote 0
barracuda said:
dilbert said:
unfocused said:
...
Sources please.

dilbert said:
unfocused said:
...
You do understand that your reasoning is a non-sequitur.

Dilbert: Canon sales are shrinking.

Me: Please back that up with some data.

Go read the latest quarterly results. Or doesn't that qualify as data?

And more to the point, Canon said that their sales were shrinking in their quarterly statement.

I suppose Canon need to provide data to back up their statements?

There are quarterly financial results for Canon and Sony available online. You're just as capable of using Google and reading them as I am but I will repeat the pertinent point: year on year, Canon's profit is dropping whilst Sony's is growing.

Dilbert, you may have to dig a little deeper into Canon's financials so as not to mislead.

Canon's second quarter results ending June 30, 2015 can be found here: http://www.canon.com/ir/results/2015/rslt2015q2e.pdf

In it, while they do say "demand continued to decline for interchangeable-lens digital cameras and digital compact cameras", they go on to say that "Within the Imaging Systems Business Unit, although total sales volume of interchangeable-lens digital cameras declined due to market shrinkage, unit sales of interchangeable-lens digital cameras increased from the same period of the previous year in Japan thanks to healthy demand for such new models as the EOS 5DS, EOS 5DS R, and EOS M3."

They further state that "As for digital compact cameras, although sales volume declined amid the ongoing contraction of the market due to the effects of the growing popularity of smartphones, profitability improved thanks to the growing ratio of high-added-value models featuring high image quality and high-magnification zoom capabilities, along with a smooth transition from old products to new products."

In the supplemental section of the report, where Canon breaks down sales by geographic area and business unit, they report the following for their Imaging System unit, which includes digital cameras:

2Q2015=2nd quarter 2015
1H2015=1st half 2015

Change year over year:

Japan: 2Q2015 = +21.7%, 1H2015 = -7%
Americas: 2Q2015 = +7.8%, 1H2015 = +3.3%
Europe: 2Q2015 = -9.1%, 1H2015 = -10.8%
Asia and Oceania: 2Q2015 = -6.7%, 1H2015 = -4.9%
Total: 2Q2015 = 0.0%, 1H2015 = -4.8%

So in the second quarter, digital camera sales actually increased in Japan and the Americas; they decreased in Europe and Asia/Oceania (presumably ex-Japan); and overall, the Imaging System unit was flat (0.0%) in the second quarter.

Your comment, "Sony's sales are growing, Canon's sales are shrinking" is misleading on at least a couple of points:

Your inference in this context is that Canon (and Sony, for that matter) only sell digital cameras, which of course isn't the case. Further, you're implying that Canon cameras are losing market share to Sony, which is not stated anywhere in Canon's financials that I could find. They do, however explain that "sales volume declined amid the ongoing contraction of the market due to the effects of the growing popularity of smartphones", which we all are well aware of.

Further, they state that "unit sales of interchangeable-lens digital cameras increased from the same period of the previous year in Japan thanks to healthy demand for such new models as the EOS 5DS, EOS 5DS R, and EOS M3.". One can infer that this is the case for the Americas as well, since second quarter and first half sales from their Imaging Systems increased 7.8% and 3.3%, respectively.

While it's true that digital camera sales declined in Europe and Asia/Oceania, there is no indication from the financials that the declines in those regions were due to market share losses to Sony or any other competitor. It may just be because Europe has been in an economic slowdown for some time, and China's growth is beginning to slow as well. One has to look no further than China's recent stock market meltdown to gauge their level of discretionary spending.

Hope this helps.

Nicely written.
 
Upvote 0
dilbert said:
barracuda said:
dilbert said:
Sensors have improved, yes. Well kind of. Look at the numbers on sensorgen.

For example, the 30D has similar read noise to the 6D (27 & 26 e-), the 70D is down to 13e- and amazingly the 7DII comes in at 12.9 vs the 7D at 8.3. Which would make the 7DII 50% noisier than the 7D! Canon went a bit backwards there.

Not that I believe everything Northrup says, but he appears to discredit your notion that the 7D2 went "backwards" compared to the 7D in terms of noise.
...

Does he provide measurements of data using software or just observations using his own eye?

The above numbers come from sensorgen.info, which unfortunately doesn't yet have 5Ds/R data.

Yes he does. He uses DxoMark Sensor/ISO Scores as the basis for his argument. I guess you missed that.
 
Upvote 0
dilbert said:
barracuda said:
...
Dilbert, you may have to dig a little deeper into Canon's financials so as not to mislead.
...
Your comment, "Sony's sales are growing, Canon's sales are shrinking" is misleading on at least a couple of points:

Your inference in this context is that Canon (and QSony, for that matter) only sell digital cameras, which of course isn't the case.

No. Canon's profits are dropping. Profits drop when sales drop. Sony's profits are increasing. Profits increase from increased sales. When sales drop, profits drop.

Not true. Improved margins increases profitability as well. A company can have increased profits even when the top line (revenue/sales) decreases.

In fact, Canon's financials state: "profitability improved thanks to the growing ratio of high-added-value models featuring high image quality and high-magnification zoom capabilities, along with a smooth transition from old products to new products." Are you disputing that statement or just ignoring the parts of the financials that don't support your position?

When you say that "Canon's profits are dropping", that refers to all their business units which, in addition to digital cameras, include office multifunction devices (MFD's) and semiconductor lithography products . If you're going to refer to Canon's financials in this forum, I believe the relevant numbers to be considered are those pertaining to camera sales, and those numbers indicate an overall year-over-year flat 2nd quarter.

Once again, you may have to dig a little deeper into Canon's financials so as not to mislead.
 
Upvote 0
gsealy said:
You can't look at the purchase of a lens for say $1000 then expect to sell it for more money. We all know it doesn't happen that way unless it is some sort of a collector's item. However, it is still an investment. The reason is that the money spent on the lens allows the user to earn income from using it that they would not otherwise gain. This is the same in any business. If Verizon invests in 4G by buying $Billions of equipment, then they can compete better in the telecom marketplace and make a ton of money. In the end Verizon will depreciate that equipment to $0 and then sell it or scrap it. But they still made money from spending the money on that equipment, so it is very much an investment.

The thing about a lens is that it has a longer life cycle than a camera. Realistically, a lens is going to have about a 10 year depreciation life, but a camera is probably only about 3 years. So, this means that the user has a longer time to get a 'return' from a lens than from a camera.

You do understand that an "investment" can be "any allocation of a resource to a purpose", right? The fact that it's often taken, now, to mean "allocation of money into a financial product intended to return a gain" does not mean that that's the only definition, nor that you can correct people who use it otherwise.

Buying a lens is absolutely an investment. It's not an investment that's likely to return a profit upon hypothetical resale, but it is an investment. For a pro it may even provide a financial gain overall, but it's still an investment for an amateur.
 
Upvote 0
jeffa4444 said:
bdunbar79 said:
jeffa4444 said:
bdunbar79 said:
CanonGuy said:
bdunbar79 said:
Bottom line is that your argument that Canon isn't innovating is asinine at best. Canon is innovating in other areas and just because it's not in the area that you want, you draw some stupid conclusion that Canon in general isn't innovating and they are doomed. That's what you sound like. Whether that's exactly what you are saying or not is irrelevant because that's the perception you are drawing. Canon innovates in areas A, B, C and Sony innovates in areas D, E, F. Only disadvantages Sony has are 1. Sales, 2. Lenses, 3. Service, 4. AF, 5. Speed lites. Whether Sony innovated with AF in the A7R II doesn't matter; it's still worse than Canon's AF system. I personally, along with other sports photogs and PJ's, still can't use any Sony equipment.

I think Canon systems are best for sports considering fps, AF and lens. No doubt. But many (if no the majority) of the professional bodies are bought by the wedding and and portrait photographers. And I believe, canon bodies are not best there. I am about to retire my backup 5D iii and 6D and I'm considering 810+35 art OR A7r ii+eos adapter. Deny it as you like, I myself have seen quite a few of fellow photographers going to the same route.

I personally seen the demise of companies who were in denial phase. I hope canon is not one of them. I would hate to sell my excellent collection of L glasses.

Not really a good example. I can tout off anecdotal evidence just like you. I've shot plenty of weddings, know plenty of wedding photographers, and most if not all use a 5D3 and Canon L glass. None I know are changing. Why? Two reasons: 1. AF system of the 5D3 and 2. The flash system (600EX-RT's).

Both examples don't really mean much. Some regions are heavier in Nikon users and others Canon.

Personally when shooting weddings I rely heavily on AF, which eliminates the A7R II right away. I'd consider the D810, sure. But I'd rather have the security of the AF system of the 1Dx. Since I don't push shadows in wedding photography the DR is plenty and the noise is much less than the D810 at higher ISO's.

I could use more DR at lower ISO's during noon-time sports events in high sun. That is absolutely awful. There I could certainly use shadow-pushing ability. But I need it in a camera with the AF of the 1Dx.
Silly question maybe but have you actually used the Sony A7rII? Its not actually on sale yet in the UK (due) and Im sure still rare in the US. I never write something off until Ive tested it or used it and your assumptions about its AF dont jazz with people who have tested it.

Silly question? I had other adjectives, but yes I have.

So, not surprisingly, you're completely wrong.
http://reviews.gizmodo.com/heres-how-fast-canon-lenses-focus-on-the-new-sony-a7r-m-1725106830
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r_II/
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=related-news&utm_medium=text&ref=related-news

Three different reviews, three different people, all stating how good the AF is and there are others.

http://joshanon.com/blog/2015/08/09/from_canon_to_sony_almost

Real world review from someone using Canon and wanting to migrate.

Tony Northrup's video review is similar (but more successful).

I have also seen a video review via sonyalpha with a guy shooting a tennis player with a 600mm f/4.

No dispute that it definitely helps if you want to transition, plus a $600 attachment is cheaper than a decent Zeiss/Sony lens. But, it is does seem to depend on the lens you are using it with, the focal length, whether your subject is static or you tracking it, and whether you are taking a single shot or burst.

Just as per the D8xx and 5Ds/R, I suspect we will see a list of what lenses work well, what ones are acceptable, and which ones cause problems.
 
Upvote 0
Just like DxOmark scores, people tend to extrapolate things. Just because the AF was improved in the A7R II, that automatically means it's the best AF system in the world, including over the 1Dx. Which is ridiculous of course. But hey, if you want to, go ahead:
 

Attachments

  • i-want-to-believe.jpg
    i-want-to-believe.jpg
    31.1 KB · Views: 1,269
Upvote 0
bdunbar79 said:
Who cares how good the AF is? It's not better than my gear, so that's all that matters. Nothing to offer me.

I think this is more significant than many people realize. I may be taking too many liberties with your comment, but it seems to me that there are many customers of many brands and products who really aren't interested in chasing the latest technology. That's something that often gets lost on this forum.

If you have a product that meets your needs and is working well, most people aren't going to jump ship on a whim. That's true of both professionals and amateurs. In fact, it may be even more true of professionals. Regardless of the business, professionals tend to stick with what they know works for them. There are too many risks involved in switching brands.

Honestly, photographic technology has reached the point where differences between brands and models are very small; and one always knows that whatever one company releases, the rest will soon follow with something similar or even a little better.
 
Upvote 0
unfocused said:
bdunbar79 said:
Who cares how good the AF is? It's not better than my gear, so that's all that matters. Nothing to offer me.

I think this is more significant than many people realize. I may be taking too many liberties with your comment, but it seems to me that there are many customers of many brands and products who really aren't interested in chasing the latest technology. That's something that often gets lost on this forum.

If you have a product that meets your needs and is working well, most people aren't going to jump ship on a whim. That's true of both professionals and amateurs. In fact, it may be even more true of professionals. Regardless of the business, professionals tend to stick with what they know works for them. There are too many risks involved in switching brands.

Honestly, photographic technology has reached the point where differences between brands and models are very small; and one always knows that whatever one company releases, the rest will soon follow with something similar or even a little better.

unfocused, your point not only stands from brand-to-brand, it's even true within a single brand now. I can't imagine anyone who's shooting with a 5D Mk 3 right now will feel a dire need to upgrade to a 5D Mk 4 when it releases - simply because, to be honest, the 5D Mk 3 is a really, really great camera.

I remember stalking the web hungrily before the 5D Mk 3 announcement, desperate to get something that improved the AF and FPS performance of my 5D Mk 2 ... and pretty much from the moment I traded in for the Mk 3, I've barely felt any compulsion to browse camera body rumors. Lenses ... haha, that's another story. Still hoping that Canon will release a 500mm f/5.6 prime...
 
Upvote 0
Really hoping we get some news on the 5D IV soon. It's the only Canon camera I am interested in at the moment, as a replacement for my 5D III. The 5D III is really long in the tooth, and I'm not happy with its IQ. The 5Ds/r, on the other hand, has shown some decent improvements in IQ. If those improvements move over to the 5D IV, without any increases (and preferably with reductions) in noise, along with a higher frame rate (preferably 8fps), I'll be a happy camper.

I'm just starting to wonder when....it's been a long time now...
 
Upvote 0
[/quote]

unfocused, your point not only stands from brand-to-brand, it's even true within a single brand now. I can't imagine anyone who's shooting with a 5D Mk 3 right now will feel a dire need to upgrade to a 5D Mk 4 when it releases - simply because, to be honest, the 5D Mk 3 is a really, really great camera.

I remember stalking the web hungrily before the 5D Mk 3 announcement, desperate to get something that improved the AF and FPS performance of my 5D Mk 2 ... and pretty much from the moment I traded in for the Mk 3, I've barely felt any compulsion to browse camera body rumors. Lenses ... haha, that's another story. Still hoping that Canon will release a 500mm f/5.6 prime...
[/quote]

+1 for camera and lens
 
Upvote 0