# EOS 5D Mark IV review--from the trenches



## YuengLinger (Oct 25, 2016)

Very refreshing review, with many sample shots taken from actual weddings (rather than taken just for the review!). Seems sincere, and it was written after being used for five weddings.

And, oh my goodness, no hysteria when glitches were encountered!

Enjoy!

http://www.andydavison.com/canon-eos-5d-mkiv-user-review/


Side note: Google seems very poor recently for finding reviews of bodies and lenses. Same stale few results are returned, but mostly, way mostly, advertisements. Andy Davison's review came up when I searched Bing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Google seems very poor recently for finding reviews of bodies and lenses. Same stale few results are returned, but mostly, way mostly, advertisements. Andy Davison's review came up when I searched Bing.



I suppose SEO mainly targets Google. 

Canon : Sony :: Google : Bing.


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 25, 2016)

Quote: "All that said, the MK IV is good enough to keep me with Canon for another generation……I think!"


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 25, 2016)

Can anybody elaborate on battery life experience Mark IV vs. Mark III?


----------



## Act444 (Oct 25, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Can anybody elaborate on battery life experience Mark IV vs. Mark III?



Don't have any scientific evidence or testing to back me up, but I have noticed the 5D4 does seem to go through a battery noticeably quicker than the 5D3, even if not using Live View. I'm used to not having to take a spare for a day's shooting with the III (I used to, then found I never had to use them)...I feel like I have to return to carrying spares now with the IV, as after shooting a signing for a couple hours, starting at near a full charge, by the time I packed up I was already down to 2 bars!


----------



## xps (Oct 25, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Can anybody elaborate on battery life experience Mark IV vs. Mark III?


It consumes a little bit more energy. I took a lot of fotos in the last weeks, shooting my grandson´s wedding, and the christenings of two of my great-grandsons. Oh, and my wife´s 80th birthday.
Compared with the second body - a 5DIII with primes - the 5DIV with zooms consumed two batteries (6 vs 4) more than the 5DIII a day. 
Maybe the touch display changed my behaviour and I looked at the taken pictures more frequent.
Visibly, the 5DIV is worth the increased sum. Sooo much better image quality at high iso.
Canon knew why they were able to rise the price so enourmous.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 26, 2016)

I guess they had a choice between using the battery that served them so well with the 5DIII, 7DI/II and the 6D, or putting in a 1Dx-sized battery (unacceptable increase in body size) or identify/develop a completely new battery.


----------



## PhotoSimon (Oct 26, 2016)

Battery life is down on the mkiv by about 30% by my estimation

Normally at a wedding I'll change batteries on my mkiii at around 1200 frames. On the mkiv it was abut 850.

I also spoke to Canon CPS UK about this and they said it's due to the higher power consumption of the new sensor, the motor / mirror mechanism from the 5DS/R and the touchscreen. They confirmed it's down compared to the mkiii bur should be around the same level of performance as the 5DS/R


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 26, 2016)

Thank you for the feedback, appreciated.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 26, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Very refreshing review...


Thanks for sharing.



xps said:


> ...
> I took a lot of fotos in the last weeks, shooting my grandson´s wedding, and the christenings of two of my great-grandsons. Oh, and my wife´s 80th birthday. ...


I hope, you could also take the time to celebrate with them  
The schedule sounds like a little bit of stress ;D



> Visibly, the 5DIV is worth the increased sum. Sooo much better image quality at high iso.
> Canon knew why they were *able to rise the price * so enourmous.


Good, but still not good enough for me at this price.


----------



## fussy III (Oct 26, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Quote: "All that said, the MK IV is good enough to keep me with Canon for another generation……I think!"



More precisely: "If that screen had been articulated though, it really would have felt more like a future-proofed camera (although perhaps less water-proof). All that said, the MK IV is good enough to keep me with Canon for another generation……I think!"


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 26, 2016)

PhotoSimon said:


> Battery life is down on the mkiv by about 70% by my estimation
> 
> Normally at a wedding I'll change batteries on my mkiii at around 1200 frames. On the mkiv it was abut 850.
> 
> I also spoke to Canon CPS UK about this and they said it's due to the higher power consumption of the new sensor, the motor / mirror mechanism from the 5DS/R and the touchscreen. They confirmed it's down compared to the mkiii bur should be around the same level of performance as the 5DS/R



You mean down 30%.


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 26, 2016)

fussy III said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: "All that said, the MK IV is good enough to keep me with Canon for another generation……I think!"
> ...



less precise actually. you make it sound like the conclusion is only dampened by the missing articulating screen. however it is summarizing the entire paragraph/review.


----------



## fussy III (Oct 26, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



All that said, semantics are often multilayered.


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 26, 2016)

fussy III said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > fussy III said:
> ...



ehm, you're just, wrong...


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 26, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Side note: Google seems very poor recently for finding reviews of bodies and lenses. Same stale few results are returned, but mostly, way mostly, advertisements. Andy Davison's review came up when I searched Bing.



Helps if you constrain the search to only most recent results from the search tools menu.


----------



## Zen (Oct 27, 2016)

"Don't have any scientific evidence or testing to back me up, but I have noticed the 5D4 does seem to go through a battery noticeably quicker than the 5D3, even if not using Live View. I'm used to not having to take a spare for a day's shooting with the III (I used to, then found I never had to use them)...I feel like I have to return to carrying spares now with the IV, as after shooting a signing for a couple hours, starting at near a full charge, by the time I packed up I was already down to 2 bars!"

Same here. No scientific data, but very noticeable in daily use. I always carried an extra with my 5d3s, but now 3 extras go in the bag whenever I go out. Not really a problem, but just need to be aware.

z


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 27, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Side note: Google seems very poor recently for finding reviews of bodies and lenses. Same stale few results are returned, but mostly, way mostly, advertisements. Andy Davison's review came up when I searched Bing.
> ...



Thank you. Good tip!


----------



## pwp (Oct 27, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Side note: Google seems very poor recently for finding reviews of bodies and lenses. Same stale few results are returned, but mostly, way mostly, advertisements. Andy Davison's review came up when I searched Bing.
> ...



The sorely missed option in Google searches is "Discussions". Remember that? It was fantastic. Presumably this was dropped to keep traffic headed towards more commercially oriented sites. Grrrrrr

-pw


----------



## PhotoSimon (Oct 27, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> PhotoSimon said:
> 
> 
> > Battery life is down on the mkiv by about 70% by my estimation
> ...



Corrected - Thanks for spotting


----------



## Viggo (Oct 27, 2016)

The thing that caught my attention was, "+1 stop in Lr" I mean why? I have friends who "neeeeeeds" a Sony because they keep shooting two-three stops under. I pull down my images about -0,4 in Lr or leave them at zero, I don't shoot under, yet I have no problems getting accurate exposure in camera and no pushing or lifting in post. 

My 85 f1.8 underexposes compared to my 35 and 200, so when shooting normal exposed images I use +1 EC plus the +6/8 my 0 ev already offset to, yet still the histograms are just a tad to the right. 

What bothers me is that people I know push every singel image and yet complain about the sensor or "Canon" in general. If you don't want to expose correctly, why blame the camera, sensor or entire brand?

And now this, a pro photographer just admits like it's nothing he pushes a image a full stop in post? wow...

/rant over/


----------



## Andy Davison (Oct 27, 2016)

Hi there - as the author of this short review, just a quick reply to Viggo's observations about correcting exposure in post-production. It may well be a weakness in my technique that I'm not able to guarantee spot-on exposures when working largely candidly for 14 hours in constantly changing and usually far less-than-ideal light on wedding days but I'm always grateful to be able to have the flex to bring back some highlight or shadow detail when I've not managed to nail things in-camera. Sometimes it's just a tweak, sometimes it can be a stop or 2 but the joy of modern cameras is that we have that flex when we need it. Clearly, when you have control of light and subject placement, such flexibility is rarely needed but it can be a life-saver for a candid wedding photographer. I wish I had Viggo's capacity to correctly expose every image but I'm simply not that good and having the technology to now be able to deliver an image to the bride and groom that perhaps previously would have been unrecoverable is wonderful.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 27, 2016)

Andy Davison said:


> Hi there - as the author of this short review, just a quick reply to Viggo's observations about correcting exposure in post-production. It may well be a weakness in my technique that I'm not able to guarantee spot-on exposures when working largely candidly for 14 hours in constantly changing and usually far less-than-ideal light on wedding days but I'm always grateful to be able to have the flex to bring back some highlight or shadow detail when I've not managed to nail things in-camera. Sometimes it's just a tweak, sometimes it can be a stop or 2 but the joy of modern cameras is that we have that flex when we need it. Clearly, when you have control of light and subject placement, such flexibility is rarely needed but it can be a life-saver for a candid wedding photographer. I wish I had Viggo's capacity to correctly expose every image but I'm simply not that good and having the technology to now be able to deliver an image to the bride and groom that perhaps previously would have been unrecoverable is wonderful.



Thanks for taking time to address my "rant". First off, I don't at all don't understand why all cameras underexpose so much by default. And as far as I know, the 1-series are the only camera where you can offset 0 ev in camera to solve the issue BEFORE shooting. And this is what I mean, I don't take especially great care in exposing correctly, I have done that within a day of getting my new camera, I simply shoot a grey card and bracket until I see 50,50,50 values with the eyedropper in Lr, I then add around 0,5-1.0 stop default to that. I turn down the screen brightness to where it doesn't look very bright when it really isn't. I also dial down one point on the contrast slider at my Picture Style. I turn off all in camera adjustments such as DLO and all of that. Although I never shoot jpeg, all of this is to help me getting the best possible preview in the field, for what the exposure will look like in Lightroom. 

When that is adjusted at home when I have the time, I shoot, and hardly chimp, but do check the histogram with the first couple of shots in any given situation. I shoot Av with auto iso and limit my shutter speed to whatever suits. I shoot and get to know the camera with where clipped is clipped. I realized back in the day when I ALWAYS had to add a stop in post that I didn't want that, and tried my best to solve it on a permanant basis.

Andy, this is nothing personal and I appriciate your review and your shots are superb! Again thanks, for your reply.


----------



## Andy Davison (Oct 27, 2016)

Hi Viggo - no offence taken at all and thank you for the kind words. Like everyone else, I'm still learning and enjoying the journey. Thanks for the really interesting insight into how you set up your cameras, I'll certainly give some of your process a go and see if I can get something more representative of the final image displayed in-camera. Thanks for taking the time to share how you work, really informative. Andy


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 27, 2016)

Viggo said:


> Andy Davison said:
> 
> 
> > Hi there - as the author of this short review, just a quick reply to Viggo's observations about correcting exposure in post-production. It may well be a weakness in my technique that I'm not able to guarantee spot-on exposures when working largely candidly for 14 hours in constantly changing and usually far less-than-ideal light on wedding days but I'm always grateful to be able to have the flex to bring back some highlight or shadow detail when I've not managed to nail things in-camera. Sometimes it's just a tweak, sometimes it can be a stop or 2 but the joy of modern cameras is that we have that flex when we need it. Clearly, when you have control of light and subject placement, such flexibility is rarely needed but it can be a life-saver for a candid wedding photographer. I wish I had Viggo's capacity to correctly expose every image but I'm simply not that good and having the technology to now be able to deliver an image to the bride and groom that perhaps previously would have been unrecoverable is wonderful.
> ...



Viggo, I too thank you for sharing your approach to preparing ahead of time for best exposures! And also for acknowledging, and reminding many of us, that in camera meters can change a bit from lens to lens. I first noticed that with my 135mm f/2--and it is a great practice to check the histogram especially after switching lenses.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 27, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Andy Davison said:
> ...



Glad to be of help! I'm just here to learn and enjoy photography myself, and I learn something eeeevery day.

On a sidenote I just started using the Expodisc for wb, and it changed my photography for ever. I spent 90% of my editing time trying to get proper wb, and being colorblind, failed miserably. Auto WB sucks bigtime, and now I can also use the Expodisc as a lightmeter for my B1, even in HSS, where no lightmeter works


----------



## JoeDavid (Oct 27, 2016)

Viggo said:


> Thanks for taking time to address my "rant". First off, I don't at all don't understand why all cameras underexpose so much by default. And as far as I know, the 1-series are the only camera where you can offset 0 ev in camera to solve the issue BEFORE shooting.



I still have my 5D Mark III so I took all three bodies (5Dm3, 5Dm4, and 5DS) with me a couple of weeks ago to shoot a landscape scene. It was overcast so a relatively low contrast scene. To keep a little detail in the drab sky I used live view on all three cameras to adjust the exposure just keeping the highlights in range on the histogram. The odd thing is that it took a correction of -2/3EV on both the 5Dm3 and 5DS but only -1/3EV on the 5Dm4 (and, yes, I was using the same lens on each body). Given the same DPP and Photoshop processing, the 5Dm3 and 5DS yielded pretty much the same image, contrast and color, with the obvious resolution difference between the two. The 5Dm4 image had slightly less contrast and saturation but still the standard "Canon color". That was with using the "neutral" Picture style in DPP for all three.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 27, 2016)

JoeDavid said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for taking time to address my "rant". First off, I don't at all don't understand why all cameras underexpose so much by default. And as far as I know, the 1-series are the only camera where you can offset 0 ev in camera to solve the issue BEFORE shooting.
> ...



I find that the only way to really solve the issue, shoot a gray card with spot meter in even light, and also good and low light. Then use the eye dropper to correct wb, and you'll see how low the actually expose.

It's always a balance when shooting something real. I don't expose for either the darkest shadows or the brightest highlights unless I intend to expose that correctly and it's my main subject. I expose for the midtones, and ETTR them. If I was always keeping ALL highlights correctly exposed all images would be 6-8 stops under. Expose what's important correctly, somethings in an image will always be clipped in each end.

Try to shoot underexposed keeping highlights and then push shadows and midtones and see what a noisy mess it is, compared to shooting over and pull exposure and highlights down and then lift shadows.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 27, 2016)

Here's a superquick test.

The histogram is for the +7/8 shot at iso 800 and as you can see it's barley to the right, and one full stop over the camera default shot which was shot at iso 400. And even with a +0.45 push in Lr doesn't clip any of the whites.


----------



## JoeDavid (Oct 27, 2016)

Viggo said:


> It's always a balance when shooting something real. I don't expose for either the darkest shadows or the brightest highlights unless I intend to expose that correctly and it's my main subject. I expose for the midtones, and ETTR them. If I was always keeping ALL highlights correctly exposed all images would be 6-8 stops under. Expose what's important correctly, somethings in an image will always be clipped in each end.



In reality I usually have plenty of memory cards with me, especially when on an extended photo trip, so I bracket RAW files to get the best overall exposure to work with in Photoshop. In most cases I can come up with a file that gives me the image I want without having to resort to HDR methods although I will use HDR if I have to. The thing is that with the mark IV the ability to pull up shadows is greatly improved over the earlier 5D bodies at low ISOs. For the landscape images I've shot with it so far it hasn't been anywhere near the problem it was with the mark III or 5DS. I haven't seen any banding or "ugly" false color in the amounts of correction that I've needed.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 27, 2016)

JoeDavid said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > It's always a balance when shooting something real. I don't expose for either the darkest shadows or the brightest highlights unless I intend to expose that correctly and it's my main subject. I expose for the midtones, and ETTR them. If I was always keeping ALL highlights correctly exposed all images would be 6-8 stops under. Expose what's important correctly, somethings in an image will always be clipped in each end.
> ...



I agree with you, I wouldn't hate more dynamic range either. But Landscape is 50% dark shadows and 50% very bright light, so that requires a different technique all together as you explain.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 27, 2016)

Viggo said:


> The thing that caught my attention was, "+1 stop in Lr" I mean why? I have friends who "neeeeeeds" a Sony because they keep shooting two-three stops under. I pull down my images about -0,4 in Lr or leave them at zero, I don't shoot under, yet I have no problems getting accurate exposure in camera and no pushing or lifting in post.
> 
> My 85 f1.8 underexposes compared to my 35 and 200, so when shooting normal exposed images I use +1 EC plus the +6/8 my 0 ev already offset to, yet still the histograms are just a tad to the right.
> 
> ...



When I'm shooting the kids' soccer games (in Av), there is one direction toward the treeline where the auto exposure goes wonky. In that direction, the background is dark and the camera (7DII or 5DIII) tries to compensate by pushing the exposure but the kids' skin and uniforms (if light gray) get blown out. Whenever I'm on this field, I set EC to -2/3, and that gets it closer in that direction. In post, I usually have to lift the shots away from that treeline about 2/3-1 stop, and maybe -2/3 to 0 for shots toward the treeline. Perhaps spot metering is the answer, but I've never tried a 1 series camera.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 27, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The thing that caught my attention was, "+1 stop in Lr" I mean why? I have friends who "neeeeeeds" a Sony because they keep shooting two-three stops under. I pull down my images about -0,4 in Lr or leave them at zero, I don't shoot under, yet I have no problems getting accurate exposure in camera and no pushing or lifting in post.
> ...



I also shoot my sons soccer games, and they often play in fields where the sun comes in from the side, and the forrest surrounding the field, that is havoc for evaluative metering. When I switched to spot meter linked to AF the problem went away.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 27, 2016)

Here's a typical example of the diffculties, and how I ETTR a shot. I care about exposing my son properly, and deal with the highlights and shadows later. I try to give myself the best possible starter and what results in best color and the least noise.

And it shows just how far you can go in ETTR.. The only thing blown here is the very top of his head, and the outline on his arm, and to expose that correctly would require HDR to not having the rest of the image suck big time.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 28, 2016)

Viggo said:


> Here's a typical example of the diffculties, and how I ETTR a shot. I care about exposing my son properly, and deal with the highlights and shadows later. I try to give myself the best possible starter and what results in best color and the least noise.
> 
> And it shows just how far you can go in ETTR.. The only thing blown here is the very top of his head, and the outline on his arm, and to expose that correctly would require HDR to not having the rest of the image suck big time.



What more could you do in that sunlight? Looks like late morning or early afternoon. Seems like a good strategy.


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 28, 2016)

That's a well done, in-depth review. With really good photos! I appreciate it.

I'm still super-happy with the 5D3 and have no immediate plans to buy a 5D4, but I have saved Andy's review for future reference.


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 28, 2016)

Judging by the long shadows from the pole, it looks like the shot was taken during early morning or late afternoon time.The quality of light does look a bit unforgiving and harsh so ETTR was the perfect strategy. Good shot though.



YuengLinger said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a typical example of the diffculties, and how I ETTR a shot. I care about exposing my son properly, and deal with the highlights and shadows later. I try to give myself the best possible starter and what results in best color and the least noise.
> ...


----------



## ritholtz (Oct 28, 2016)

Looks like all Canon people who make money in photography, owns 24-70mm f2.8 II and Canon 35L f1.4 II.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 28, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Looks like all Canon people who make money in photography, owns 24-70mm f2.8 II and Canon 35L f1.4 II.



And your comment is relevant to the discussion because ________________...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 28, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Looks like all Canon people who make money in photography, owns 24-70mm f2.8 II and Canon 35L f1.4 II.



I don't, I have the 24-70 f2.8 MkI and the 35mm f2.0 IS.


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 28, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Looks like all Canon people who make money in photography, owns 24-70mm f2.8 II and Canon 35L f1.4 II.



I use the 24-70mm f2.8L II for work. It's just a brilliant masterpiece of a lens. I can't recommend it enough. So good!

I don't have the 35L f1.4 II but it looks to be equally brilliant. Instead, I have the Sigma 35 Art and the Canon 35/2 IS which are both fine lenses.


----------

