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



## supaspiffy (Jul 2, 2017)

Hi guys,

I'm tempted to really pull the trigger on that $2799 Canon Store refurbished 5D Mark IV but I just need a little push to either side of the fence! I'm a part time wedding photographer and I carry a 5D Mark III and a 6D with me. Things are working out fine but there are still some things left to be desired. These are the real world issues facing me…

1)	I want to carry two dual slot full frame cameras with me for professional work, so I'm looking to upgrade that 6D. Although I know the chances of memory cards breaking is extremely low, working pros keep talking about how dual slots are a must and it only takes one incident to ruin you. I recently had a scare when one of my SD cards started to physically split apart, but thankfully I could still salvage the images from it.

Are dual slots really a big deal to working pros? I figure if I have a dual slot camera for redundancy and insurance, what’s really the point of having it on one when the other one doesn’t?

2)	High ISO can always be better. I’ve had weddings when flash can’t be effectively bounced or is not allowed, so I’m cranking that ISO for those outdoor reception shots. There’s plenty of times when I’m hitting 25600 and I have to noise reduce the hell out of the images in post. This tends to create manikin-like people so I have to thread a fine line choosing how much of it to do.

Would the 32000 ISO and better sensor tech of the 5D Mark IV provide a noticeable difference from the 5D Mark III when I process noise reduction on the images? Would I notice the improvements in a meaningful away? I’m viewing the images on a 27’’ Thunderbolt display.

3)	Autofocus is a big thing for me. For all its AF prowess, I think my 5D Mark III still pumps out too many out of focus pics for me to feel comfortable. Or maybe I’m just a terrible shot! But I do find myself shooting in technically challenging situations all the time… either it’s really dark to reliably focus or I’m shooting against the sun. 

Will the new Dual Pixel AF system in 5D Mark IV allow me to just reliably track subjects in the dark or against the sun for stills? Do I need to enable Live View or would it still kick in through the viewfinder?

My other issue right now is that I have to slowly select focus points every time I want to nail focus on portraits. And during events when people are moving, selecting focus points can sometimes be way too slow to capture fleeting moments. Would the intelligent face tracker allow me to just shoot subjects on the fly without having to select single focus points for reliable AF? Would the face tracker also make selecting focus points redundant?

4)	Sometimes I forget to set exposure properly when the lighting changes on me. Before I notice, I’d end up with a batch of severely overexposed or underexposed shots. This is when a EVF would really help me! I know shooting in Live Mode through the LCD would allow me to check the exposure before taking the shot, but in the 5D Mark III and 6D, Live View AF was too slow and unreliable for this to realistically be an option. 

With the Dual Pixel AF in the 5D Mark IV, would Live View AF work just as fast as AF through the viewfinder? In fact if I wanted to, could I just shoot from the LCD indefinitely as a way to nail exposure every time, without sacrificing AF performance?

5)	The 4K screen grab feature really intrigues me because I could totally see myself just using it on really fast paced action sequences, when I can’t trust myself to press the shutter button at exactly the right time. 

Aside from the monstrous file sizes, which I feel is obviously necessary for high res screen grabs to work, would the quality be on par with actual stills? Would I be able to edit them almost the same way as I could with higher megapixel RAW or jpeg stills?

The other option is to just get another full frame camera with dual slots like a 5D Mark III or a 5D Mark II. The 5D Mark II could be bought for about a thousand these days, but it would be a step down in image quality from the 6D, and it’s also over a decade old. A 5D Mark III would cost double that but getting another one would not really help with the above issues I’ve outlined. 

So my choices as I see them…

1. For a thousand more bucks, I could upgrade the 6D to a 5D Mark IV and be good for the next 3-4 years at least. If i was going to do this, I would sell the 6D for about $1000, and a Tammy 70-200 lens to fund the upgrade. 

2. Or I could save some extra money and get an older camera with two dual slots.

3. Stick with my current setup (5D Mark III and 6D) and don’t even worry about dual slots and having that security when working paid jobs, because realistically memory card failure don’t even happen.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jul 3, 2017)

Those are really great questions, Spiffy! Sorry I can't answer most of them - I hope other forum members can, because I'd like to hear what they have to say.

I can say that dual pixel autofocus only works in live view due to the nature of the beast.

Also, I want to comment on your fear of memory card failure. My thought is that it happens very rarely and can be avoided entirely by purchasing high-Gig top tier cards. If you are only using a fraction of the capacity, they won't wear out like small capacity cards which get filled up regularly. Treat them very carefully too, so you don't cause mechanical damage.

Many photographers have horror stories about cards that went bad at the worst possible time, but I would bet most of those happened several years ago or involved cheap cards. The Sandisk and Lexar cards we have now are really reliable if you don't abuse them.

I stopped using the second card slot in my 5D3 shortly after I got it and haven't lost an image in a decade.

I'm sure other forum members will disagree... have at it, friends!


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 3, 2017)

On image security....

If you have a camera with 2 cards, write RAW to both....
If your camera has one slot and you are worried, look at dumping to the cloud over WiFi......

On grabbing frames from video.....
Never a good idea..... For video, you want a slow shutter speed to blur the images.... this way, motion in your video is smooth.... and if you grab a frame, it is blurred..... If you shoot video at a faster shutter speed, the individual frames are sharper, but when viewed as video it becomes jumpy and you loose the smooth flow of motion, and the whole reason for shooting video is to capture motion!

On sensor quality....
As a rule of thumb, the last camera released is the best one, but the camera to camera improvements are very small and you will be hard pressed to detect a difference. If you are talking generation to generation, then you will certainly notice the difference.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 3, 2017)

Here is my two bits, and its why I don't fool with weddings.

If you are shooting a once in a lifetime opportunity such as a wedding, and charging for it, the Bride is certainly going to be very very unhappy if you tell her a card failed and you lost the photos. If its a serious wedding, she will have her attorney on you in a Flash (Pun Intended). Failing to use a dual card camera would be a easy target for a smart attorney, no matter what your contract says, it would be foreseeable neglect on your part, particularly since other photographers have already warned you, and you even posted it publicly.

If you want to be a serious wedding photographer, get dual card cameras, and two of them. Having the latest and greatest cameras is not that important, two 5D MK II's would be fine. Forget uploading to the cloud as you shoot. Its unlikely that there will be high speed internet available to you while photographing a wedding, and uploading raw images takes a long time. Plus, if a card fails, there would be nothing to upload.

Having a second photographer is a good thing, people need to be redundant as well, getting ill is not unheard of, but its not so foreseeable like a card failure.


----------



## jprusa (Jul 3, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Here is my two bits, and its why I don't fool with weddings.
> 
> If you are shooting a once in a lifetime opportunity such as a wedding, and charging for it, the Bride is certainly going to be very very unhappy if you tell her a card failed and you lost the photos. If its a serious wedding, she will have her attorney on you in a Flash (Pun Intended). Failing to use a dual card camera would be a easy target for a smart attorney, no matter what your contract says, it would be foreseeable neglect on your part, particularly since other photographers have already warned you, and you even posted it publicly.
> 
> ...


two 5D MK II's would be fine.

5d 3 's right Mt Spokane?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 3, 2017)

Two cameras is a given, one for wide and one for long..... you don't want to be swapping lenses as she walks down the aisle........

I have never (while paid) been the main photographer at a wedding, but many times have been second shooter.... you can't concentrate on the bride and concentrate on the guests at the same time..... you can't shoot stills and video at the same time.... two people is a given for any client who is willing to hire a pro.....


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 3, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> two people is a given for any client who is willing to hire a pro.....



I disagree: it's business, whatever the client and contractor agree to is the appropriate deal.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 3, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> a *once in a lifetime* opportunity such as a wedding


Not so much, anymore.  



> very unhappy if you tell her a card failed and you lost the photos.


While I agree that dual-card is a good idea, you're cherry-picking your risks: there are many risks during a wedding shoot (illness, car trouble, etc), and all must be considered. It makes no sense to have dual-slots, but drive an unreliable vehicle or to go out on a bender the night before.



> If its a serious wedding, she will have her attorney on you in a Flash (Pun Intended). Failing to use a dual card camera would be a easy target for a smart attorney, no matter what your contract says


Presumably, your smart attorney has looked at your contract and told you it's solid, and is defensible against claims of negligence.



> it would be foreseeable neglect on your part


There are many foreseeable problems, you can't 100% mitigate all of them. How do you decide which are the most important, and deserving of a chunk of your income? 



> particularly since other photographers have already warned you, and you even posted it publicly.


Warnings could be factual or simple fear. We can't make rational risk-management decisions based on ignorance and fear.




> If you want to be a serious wedding photographer, get dual card cameras, and two of them.


Dual-slot is a good idea to mitigate one risk, but photographers should not fixate on it to the exclusion of all the other risks. Without really useful data on card failure rates, I don't think we can legitimately say that single slot is more of a risk than car trouble or illness.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 3, 2017)

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.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jul 3, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Perhaps, but you really don't want to get to the point where you are testing whose attorney was smarter. And, dual cards is an obvoius and relatively inexpensive insurance policy. 

Orangutan makes good points re. assessing and addressing all the risks. That's part of why second shooters are employeed.

As to OP's questions on AF and AE issues, seems like 5DIII or 5DIV are the only options to improve over the 6D. A 7DII would be an improvement as well, but OP states frequent low-light situations so discount the 7DII. I'm also assuming that 1DxII is out of budget.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 3, 2017)

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.


----------



## aceflibble (Jul 3, 2017)

It sounds to me like you want a Sony α9.

As far as the 5D4 goes, yes, it's an upgrade. If you were to bench the 6D, make the 5D4 your main camera and the 5D3 your secondary, that'd be a solid pair.

Yes, it's a step up in image quality, although not drastically so. (The 5DS R is of course the big leap in IQ, but then that's also slower.) Yes, it's a step up in AF, though the things you're asking to do are a bit of a stretch for any camera right now. (Mirrorless cameras do the face tracking kind of stuff better, but they're still worse in lower light; SLRs are the reverse, including the 5D4.) No, the 4K frame grabbing isn't on par with regular stills (if it was, there'd be literally no point in capturing stills whatsoever), but if you don't need to crop and an 8mp equivalent file is good enough for you, it's useful.

But none of this is such a leap forward that it's going to magically solve all the issues you're having. ISO 256000+ on any camera is noisy; that noise is very slowly going down with each generation, but it's still there. AF still is not perfect, especially in lower light and especially when tracking in lower light. An EVF or good Live View (same thing in effect) does help gauge exposure if you're not the type to measure but they're still not perfect and you're still relying on judging exposure via an calibrated screen.


As I said before, it does sound like what you want is a Sony α9, really. Better IQ, better tracking, as-good-as-currently-available EVF/screen shooting, and the 20fps rate and deep (though slow to clear when totally full) buffer means you're covered for 'action'. That's the only thing which, realistically, does everything you're asking for. The 5D4 is a step up from the 5D3 but not by that much, not enough to cover what you're looking for.



All that said, _at minimum_, get another 5D3 to replace the 6D. Dual card slots is a _must_, no excuses. 

In the last ~12 years since I went fully digital, I've had _one_ memory card fail. Only one. But that card failed after a full day of recording trade interviews for international broadcast (this was while working for a tech publication), and it failed in a body which did not have a second card. Biggest industry event of the year, a team of eight of us flown to Köln, and that one memory card cost us every single piece of coverage. By sheer luck, we happened to have some free time the next morning we had planned to use to relax and see the city. We managed to get in touch with enough of the companies and interviewees that evening and arranged to quick-fire reshoot everything in a single hour the next morning before our flights home. We got all but one interview re-recorded, edited on the plane, and got it all upload 'only' 8 hours after our deadline. (Anybody who has worked in any part of the tech industry knows how long 8 hours is in press time.) Suffice to say that of that team of eight people, only one _wasn't_ let go as a result. _One_ memory card failure in over a decade and it cost seven of us our positions.

If you shoot a wedding and have a card go bad, it's even worse. Myself and my team, we lost time, which lost money for the publication. Enough for most of us to be kicked out. But a week later and that publication is on to the next big story and the industry moves on and who cares. But if _you_ have a card fail, you haven't just screwed up for that day or that week. That couple and their family and friends will be missing those photos for their entire lives. (Or at least 6 months, depending on how pessimistic your view on marriage is.)
If you miss focus by a fraction or you slightly overexposed and have to pull the file back then yes, it's not ideal, but at least you produced _something_. If your card breaks then you'll be producing _nothing_.

No matter what, replace that 6D. The 6D's a good camera, but it's not made for reliability, and reliability is the most important thing for a wedding photographer. Used 5D3s are very reasonably priced now. Hell, a 7D2 has better AF than the 5D3 (about on par with the 5D4, actually) and has dual slots; sure, the image quality will take a hit, but I'd rather receive a noisier image than _no_ image.



When it comes to actually nailing the shots, to me it sounds like your first priority is to have your lenses & bodies calibrated for focus so you can be sure there's absolutely minimal technical error, and after that, sharpen up your skills more than anything. 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 can't imagine any focus situation at a wedding where the 5D3's AF isn't good enough either; that thing will keep up with a peregrine falcon (which moves at over 200mph and completely unpredictably; by far my favourite AF speed & accuracy/tracking test for any camera). The whole reason that the 5D4 isn't selling so well is precisely because it's not that far ahead of the 5D3 and the 5D3 still handles basically everything well.


This really sounds to me like either your standards are unrealistically high (refer back to Sony α9 comments) or your standards are reasonable but you yourself are missing the boat dramatically. (See directly above.)


Set a second 5D3 as your absolute minimum, and from there, think about what else you do actually need vs what might actually be user error. If you do decide in the end that you do need all of the things you listed before, the Sony α9 is the only body on the market which will do it _all_. The 5D4 won't be enough. If you decide you only need a body to solve _some_ of your problems—especially just basic image quality and getting that second card slot—then the 5D4 will be a good upgrade for you, though the 5DS R (image quality) and 1DX & 1DX2 (speed) are also worth keeping in mind, depending on exactly which points you wish to prioritise. (Of course there are also the Nikon equivalents; right now Nikon beats Canon in image quality as they're still using Sony sensors, but AF is about even and if you're already deeply invested in premium Canon lenses, switching likely would not be worth it for you.)



Orangutan said:


> While I agree that dual-card is a good idea, you're cherry-picking your risks: there are many risks during a wedding shoot (illness, car trouble, etc), and all must be considered. It makes no sense to have dual-slots, but drive an unreliable vehicle or to go out on a bender the night before.


That's why you don't do either of those things, either, and such things are utterly irrelevant to the conversation. This isn't an either-or situation. You don't say "well my memory card corrupted, but at least I didn't turn up hungover, eh?" Just because there are other things which can go wrong doesn't mean you should or can be blasé about all potential problems. 

"Yeah well I figure I can risk it 'cause I could also be hit by a bus tomorrow so what difference does it make."


----------



## Gordon_C78 (Jul 5, 2017)

Interesting reading through all the comments.

Im in a similar situation to the original poster. I am just starting out on the wedding photography circus here in the uk, first shoot as a second shooter in the next couple of weeks. I am working with a reputable local photographer as a free second shooter so anything I get is a bonus and not expected by the wedding party. Despite having many years of photography experience I want some good real life experience of this sector before trying to charge anything!

I'm looking to upgrade body's very soon as my well used 650d is somewhat long in the tooth! To be fair although its an older and somewhat basic body I always maintain its the human factor rather than the equipment that makes the biggest difference, that and some good glass! All my glass is good quality full frame and will be adding a f2.8 24-70 shortly (prob Tamron/Sigma's latest offering as cant justify the silly canon price for non IS!)

I was waiting for the 6D2 release but im somewhat less than impressed and confused. Here in the UK a new 6D2 is the same as a new 5D3! Ok, one is the latest shiny new FF offering, and the other is 5 years old. Still something is drawing me more to the 5D3 rather than the 6D2. 5D4 is simply out of reach at the moment!

So here's the plan:

1. Purchase 6D2/5D3 (thats the really difficult decision!) and a new 24-70 f2.8 to supplement existing primes and longer zooms, whilst retaining 650d as (somewhat old) backup.

2. Practice, practice practice as second shooter

3. Earn a little cash and then add a second FF to replace 650d (5D4?)

Does this seem reasonable?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jul 5, 2017)

If you are making decent money from wedding, I would upgrade.

I was shooting with 2 6Ds for weddings and felt dual SD, AF, ISO performance, MP was worth it.


----------



## Drum (Jul 5, 2017)

Ok I won't get involved in the second card debate, I have both the 5D3 and 5Div and have been more than happy with the upgrade. The higher iso shots are easier to clean up, I haven't been upto 25000 but I did find that 16000 was easier to clean up. 
The most thing that I am happy with is the lower light AF. the mark 3 would really struggle in lower light to lock on but I found in a similar situation the mark iv focused fast and smooth and locked on. ok no 2 situations are exactly the same but it felt to me very similar. 
The touch screen on the mark iv is also pretty good, I don't use live view very much but touch screen af may encourage me to do so. changing settings without the Q button is faster too. 
If you are used to the mark 3, my opinion is that the mark iv is a good upgrade. I haven't done any video on it so I haven't used all the features yet.


----------



## Jerryrigged (Jul 10, 2017)

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!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 11, 2017)

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.
> ...


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.


----------



## 360iViews (Jul 11, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Jerryrigged said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jul 12, 2017)

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.


----------



## MintChocs (Jul 16, 2017)

Save yourself some cash. If you live in a country where you can rent a 5Dmkiv then do that, if you want the features of face tracking, exposure in the viewfinder etc then then the forthcoming Sony A7iii maybe something to consider. Question is why do you need to shoot at ISO 25000? Faster glass might be an option as more light would make it easier for the AF system.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Jul 16, 2017)

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


----------



## scyrene (Jul 16, 2017)

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?


----------



## Robsergar (Aug 2, 2017)

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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2017)

Robsergar said:


> 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 (Aug 2, 2017)

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.
> 
> ...



+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 (Aug 3, 2017)

I upgraded recently and extremely happy that I did


----------



## Jerryrigged (Aug 4, 2017)

360iViews said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Jerryrigged said:
> ...



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 (Oct 6, 2017)

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.
> ...



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


----------



## Talys (Oct 6, 2017)

Rejay14 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > aceflibble said:
> ...



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 (Oct 6, 2017)

Rejay14 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > aceflibble said:
> ...


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 (Oct 6, 2017)

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.


----------



## john kriegsmann (Oct 6, 2017)

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 (Oct 6, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Edit:
> ...



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 (Oct 6, 2017)

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 (Nov 2, 2017)

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 (Nov 2, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> Rejay14 said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene 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.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 2, 2017)

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




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 (Nov 2, 2017)

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 (Nov 2, 2017)

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 (Nov 2, 2017)

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 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.


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 2, 2017)

Oh and to the OP, a 5D4 might be a nice upgrade for you. Only you can decide if it is worth the investment. However, I think you'll probably find it will be an incremental improvement and ultimately, there is no "silver bullet" that will alleviate your issues. Wedding photography is some of the most challenging photography and no camera is going to magically capture perfect images for you on every shot.

But best of luck and if you do upgrade please come back and share your experience!

Happy shooting!


----------



## jayphotoworks (Nov 2, 2017)

I've used the GH5, the 5DIV and the A9 this year. Here are some comments not in the order of the OP's question:

1) For stills all of them can record to separate or multiple cards, but only the GH5 and A9 can record video to both cards at the same time in 4K/1080.

2) High ISO performance with modern cameras are very similar, but the 5DIV moved to an on-chip ADC so it will be much closer to modern generation Sony sensors which seems to be the benchmark these days. It will also give you much more latitude to recover unexposed images if needed vs the 5D3 generation of bodies.

3) DPAF is great, but you have to be in live view mode. Going to live view mode will also give you exposure simulation as well which will render the scene approx. how it will appear when captured to card. 

4) You will also lose one point of stability if you are shooting at arm's length in live view mode. I used a Zacuto enforcer grip with a Z-Finder on the LCD to shoot the 5DIV in live view mode when capturing movies to regain that lost point of stability. It will however block the screen, so you have to rely on the joystick for AF point adjustment. 

5) DPAF AF speed however is not as fast or reliable in difficult conditions as the 5DIV's native OVF/PDAF shooting mode. The camera was really designed from the ground up for OVF shooting vs say the GH5 or A9 which was built from the group up for mirrorless shooting. A different set of priorities.

6) Anti-Flicker on the 5DIV is great for shooting a lot of wedding venues that have a combination of cheap led and fluorescent lights. It is a VERY useful feature which you won't get with a 5D3.

7) Rolling shutter is a big deal on the 5DIV in 4K, so 4K grabs for high action sequences might be problematic and you will probably experience some disappointment with skewed images aka the "Jello effect." I can't find exact timings on the 5DIV, but on comparison tests, the 5DIV is quite a bit slower than the 1DX2.

https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/7057004492/5DIV_vs_1DXII-thumbnail.jpeg

These are also timings from modern cameras for comparison: 

A9 FF 20fps 6.68ms 
1dx2 1080 60p/120p 6.7ms
1dx2 4K 14.7ms
gh5 15ms
a7r2 4K 19.9ms
c200 4K/1080 16.1ms

Some cameras are faster in 1080 vs 4K. I couldn't find A9 timings in movie mode, but in 20fps 24MP mode, it is 6.68ms. Sony also uses a marketing term "anti-distortion" which apparently corrects jello, but it is probably mainly due to its use of a stacked sensor design.


----------

