# 5D4 in-camera JPGs and RAW files posted at DPR



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2016)

A small gallery of 5D4 shots here:
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/0574215952/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-real-world-samples-gallery

In-camera JPG and RAW files for each shot are posted.

Pics 5-6 are identical, one as-taken in-camera, the other as processed in a beta of ACR.

Pics 10-11 are a before-and-after like they did with 5-6, but this time they took a landscape shot and seasoned it with a tasteful and delicate +100 shadow push. :

- A

(CR organization question: Are these pre-release samples supposed to go here in Reviews, or does it stay in EOS Body Rumors until it's released?)


----------



## tpatana (Aug 29, 2016)

Interesting. Some of the 32k iso shots didn't look promising.

Also, are they located in Seattle? Any of them attend local shoots, so should I have seen them somewhere? Or they hide from public?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Interesting. Some of the 32k iso shots didn't look promising.
> 
> Also, are they located in Seattle? Any of them attend local shoots, so should I have seen them somewhere? Or they hide from public?



No idea. I don't believe they had a camera in advance (i.e. I don't think they were under NDA) or they would have published their gallery on the first day. 

I looked at the EXIF data of the files and it was dated 27 August -- this would imply DPR got a pre-production rig on/around the day of the announcement and frantically ran around with it in as many settings as possible (at the house, on an engagement shoot, at a concert, etc.) to give us all an early look, but I could be wrong.

- A


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 29, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Interesting. Some of the 32k iso shots didn't look promising.


My - immediate, spontaneous - reaction too. There can be a lot of "excuses" for this; pre-producyion, software, treatment etc. But not encouraging. Will be great once we have the updated DPP RAW converter to play with.

+2 stop high iso over the 5DIII is probably the last element that can win me over.

Colors etc. are nice and reminds me of the improvements we got with the 5DS/R.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I looked at the EXIF data of the files and it was dated 27 August -- this would imply DPR got a pre-production rig on/around the day of the announcement and frantically ran around with it in as many settings as possible (at the house, on an engagement shoot, at a concert, etc.) to give us all an early look, but I could be wrong.
> 
> - A


Yup. Canon disclosure clause was very precise about this. The people who posted some early samples about ten days ago are very unlikely to be on the distribution list next time...


----------



## benperrin (Aug 29, 2016)

A lot of mis-focused shots. Looks like whoever shot these didn't know what they were doing.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 29, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Interesting. Some of the 32k iso shots didn't look promising.



Has there ever been a camera where photos shot at the maximum native ISO look "promising"?



Maiaibing said:


> +2 stop high iso over the 5DIII is probably the last element that can win me over.



Unfortunately physics does not agree with you. There's a reason Canon only increased the max ISO by 1/3 EV...


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 29, 2016)

*Real World 5D4 Samples Have Dropped!*

From DPREVIEW... that ISO 32,000 is pretty damn impressive! (and fairly usable... for certain things)

https://www.dpreview.com/samples/0574215952/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-real-world-samples-gallery

_EDIT:_

Looks like Canon finally added some factory samples to their .JP website as well...

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk4/


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 29, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > +2 stop high iso over the 5DIII is probably the last element that can win me over.
> ...


?? Physics agrees because that "other" brand can do 2 full stops better. We only do not know yet if Canon is able to match this.

5DIII nominal iso was way, way too high. The sensor was in fact a modest improvement over the 5DII. 5DS/R already has better high iso even with 50 MPIX. The not-very-new discount camera 6D is even better still. 

5DIV has Canon's newest sensor and 30 MPIX - so lets see is we get significantly improved high iso from 5DIII to 5DIV.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 29, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



Are there any cameras that can objectively produce high ISO shots 2 stops cleaner than the 5D3?


----------



## Eldar (Aug 29, 2016)

Over the last couple of releases, I have read so much junk about what you can get out of these cameras that my scepticism outweighs their conclusions. The 5DS/R was (by some) ******* beyond ISO800 and yet I get perfectly usable results at ISO6400. I even have ISO12800 shots (with limited DR) that I am able to print at acceptable sizes. So until I either see images from someone I trust/know or have been able to verify it myself, I take the quality assessments of these images with a grain of salt.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 29, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > ?? Physics agrees because that "other" brand can do 2 full stops better. We only do not know yet if Canon is able to match this.
> ...



Only in Maiaibing's dreams. I welcome them to link to either https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison or http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm to prove their point. Or are they still confusing low-ISO and high-ISO DR?

To be fair, the D5 can do a stop better than the 5D3, and the 7R2 quite impressively 2/3 stops or so. But that's as far as it goes.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 30, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> ?? Physics agrees because that "other" brand can do 2 full stops better.



Lol.


----------



## tron (Aug 30, 2016)

benperrin said:


> A lot of mis-focused shots. Looks like whoever shot these didn't know what they were doing.


Or they knew exactly what they were doing... :


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



Yeah, one stop I could believe. It was always my impression that the 1Dx was usable to one stop higher than the 5D3. The D5 (and by the look of it the 5D4) have made impressive strides in high ISO jpegs, but the raw files aren't much different. As others have said, we appear to have hit the limits of what's possible with current technology.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2016)

The B&H video mentions that they have a DIGIC 6 processor just for the image processing and the quality of the jpegs was particularly praised. Accepting this was a panel of pro-Canonites on a promo video, it suggests that any increases in image quality are as likely due to the fancy techno-gabble programming as any new sensor tech.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 30, 2016)

tr573 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > ?? Physics agrees because that "other" brand can do 2 full stops better.
> ...


Yes, but the joke is you... From that "other" site this site does not want us to link to:
"ISO 204,800 and beyond: up to a 2 EV advantage" A7S compared to 5DIII


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 30, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...


Really? From that "other" site this site does not want us to link to:
"ISO 204,800 and beyond: up to a 2 EV advantage" A7S compared to 5DIII


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Really? From that "other" site this site does not want us to link to:
> "ISO 204,800 and beyond: up to a 2 EV advantage" A7S compared to 5DIII



[quote author=DPR]
For example, at ISO 409,600 the shadows and darker midtones of the A7S show a nearly 2 EV advantage over the 5D Mark III and A7R - where, at web resolutions (5 MP), the noise levels of the A7S look visually similar to ISO 102,400 on the other cameras.
[/quote]

So, at ISO 409,600 the noise levels look visually similar to ISO 102,400 on the 5DIII (H2 setting). Since H2 on the 5DIII pretty much looks like unusable crap, it's really great that you can shoot two stops higher on the A7S and get the same unusable crap. Go DPR! Go Sony!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Really? From that "other" site this site does not want us to link to:
> ...



So, at ISO 409,600 the noise levels look visually similar to ISO 102,400 on the 5DIII (H2 setting). Since H2 on the 5DIII pretty much looks like unusable crap, it's really great that you can shoot two stops higher on the A7S and get the same unusable crap. Go DPR! Go Sony!
[/quote]

Since the Olympics, my African Grey is saying, go, go Canada. I'm sure I can get go go Sony out of him if I try, after all he also does go go Oilers. 

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, at ISO 409,600 the noise levels look visually similar to ISO 102,400 on the 5DIII (H2 setting). Since H2 on the 5DIII pretty much looks like unusable crap, it's really great that you can shoot two stops higher on the A7S and get the same unusable crap. Go DPR! Go Sony!



Not sure if that is 

 

or 

;D

or

: (statin' the bleedin' obvious)

PS Don't forget Nikon's ISO 3,000,000


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 30, 2016)

*Re: Real World 5D4 Samples Have Dropped!*

Jpeg images with a ton of nr look good at first, but in actual real world photos, not those taken by someone who has a prototype camera loaned by Canon, things may start to look differently.

Until production cameras are available, there are no genuine Real World Photos, just ones taken with prototype cameras that may or may not match production cameras.


----------



## GuyF (Aug 30, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Since the Olympics, my African Grey is saying, go, go Canada. I'm sure I can get go go Sony out of him if I try...



Steady on, Jack. I think that would constitute cruelty to animals.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 30, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



Well boy howdy that sure looks like a useful metric to me


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 30, 2016)

tr573 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > tr573 said:
> ...


Nice try. 

But your statement was that it went against physics. So you're caught with your pants down and try to flee by derailing the discussion by shifting the topic.

I'm sure you will not repeat your silly claim again. End of story. ;D


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 30, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> But your statement was that it went against physics. So you're caught with your pants down and try to flee by derailing the discussion by shifting the topic.
> 
> I'm sure you will not repeat your silly claim again. End of story. ;D



There's also the tiny issue that the A7S is a 12 Mpix camera. Apples and oranges.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> ?? Physics agrees because that "other" brand can do 2 full stops better. We only do not know yet if Canon is able to match this.





Maiaibing said:


> Really? From that "other" site this site does not want us to link to:
> "ISO 204,800 and beyond: up to a 2 EV advantage" A7S compared to 5DIII



Sorry, but where have you demonstrated that the A7S is 2 stops better at high ISO? Based on the title of a DPR article? When DPR's own comparator tool clearly demonstrated that title to be false?







Yeah, that's proving your point... : : :


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 30, 2016)

Or in RAW, yeah, quite comparable, right.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 30, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



I said zero words about physics. I laughed at your claim that it was two stops better , and I continue to laugh because even the claim made by DPR that it is at those ISOs is ridiculous as evidenced by the photo samples on their own site. 

both of those photos are unusable trash , and judging which one is 'better' is an exercise in futility - assigning a hard mathematical value to how much better one is, is even more futile and worthy of a 'lol' at best. 

I fail to see how posting photos displaying the claim that DPR & You made, from their own website , is shifting the topic. Please tell me how you assign 'two stops' better performance to one vs the other. Go ahead, I'm waiting.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 30, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Or in RAW, yeah, quite comparable, right.



Clearly two stops better!


----------



## tr573 (Aug 30, 2016)

tr573 said:


> I said zero words about physics. I laughed at your claim that it was two stops better , and I continue to laugh because even the claim made by DPR that it is at those ISOs is ridiculous as evidenced by the photo samples on their own site.
> 
> both of those photos are unusable trash , and judging which one is 'better' is an exercise in futility - assigning a hard mathematical value to how much better one is, is even more futile and worthy of a 'lol' at best.
> 
> I fail to see how posting photos displaying the claim that DPR & You made, from their own website , is shifting the topic. Please tell me how you assign 'two stops' better performance to one vs the other. Go ahead, I'm waiting.



And by the by, even DXO doesn't make this ridiculous claim - on normalized photos, which is what DPR was referring to, remember

"For example, at ISO 409,600 the shadows and darker midtones of the A7S show a nearly 2 EV advantage over the 5D Mark III and A7R - where, at web resolutions (5 MP), the noise levels of the A7S look visually similar to ISO 102,400 on the other cameras."

DXO shows the SNR to be slightly less than one stop better on the A7S2 than the 5D3. So yes, I will fully admit that by buying a 12MP camera, it seems you can get slightly less than one stop better noise performance ONLY at ridiculous ISO's that are not good for much other than security footage, which nobody would buy this kind of camera for anyway because they would buy a nightvision camera instead.


----------



## zim (Aug 30, 2016)

I seem to remember this argument discussion before, I think the answer was that the two stop advantage was at a specific bit of the image, you've picked the wrong 'bit' ;D


----------

