# EOS 5D Mark IV Testing Has Begun [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 19, 2015)

```
<p>We’re told test bodies for the EOS 5D Mark IV have made their way to select photographers. The timeline for an announcement is still some time in Q4 of 2015.</p>
<p>While there has been talk about a new DIGIC processor for the EOS-1D X Mark II, it is unknown if the EOS 5D Mark IV will see the rumored DIGIC 7 processor as well. If it doesn’t, one can assume that the EOS-1D X Mark II won’t come soon after the EOS 5D Mark IV and will likely fall into the winter of 2016, with availability coming soon after.</p>
<p>2016 is an Olympic & Euro year, with the summer games being held in August and Euro beginning in June. 2016 is a Photokina year as well, which comes in September.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
<p> </p>
```


----------



## PureClassA (May 19, 2015)

Exciting rumor news! But I'm not convinced the 1DX2's imminence is solely dependent upon the Digic 7 being in the 5D4. I would think that the Digic 6 would probably suffice the rumored specs of the 5D4 just fine. If so, why waste a 7 on it? Canon could just as well be sitting on the 7 the same way Intel and other chip makers sit on faster CPUs for incremental releases. I know we can all joke "well it IS Canon..." But I don't think we see this pushed back til after the summer olympics of 2016.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 19, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> I would think that the Digic 6 would probably suffice the rumored specs of the 5D4 just fine. If so, why waste a 7 on it?



Poor /me is all confused about those digic numbers, can anyone please explain what's the difference anyway? 

Afaik the digic is a composite chip from the usual arm core and some custom hard-wired functions ... so what actual real-world features are connected with a digic 7 that a digic 6 camera cannot have?


----------



## Vikmnilu (May 19, 2015)

Now that I just bought the Mark III 

but seriously, got a good deal, first DSLR that I have bought new and it's an amazing camera for the next years! Cannot be happier 

Victor


----------



## NorbR (May 19, 2015)

The football fan in me needs to point out that the Euro will actually be held in June and July. So before the Olympics.

Admittedly this doesn't change much ... the Euro certainly has less international impact than the Olympics, so whatever big splash Canon might want to make would still happen in Rio more than in France.


----------



## meywd (May 19, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I would think that the Digic 6 would probably suffice the rumored specs of the 5D4 just fine. If so, why waste a 7 on it?
> ...



mostly its just a difference in bandwidth/buffer size, and clock speed == more FPS for higher res.


----------



## hazitroll (May 19, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I would think that the Digic 6 would probably suffice the rumored specs of the 5D4 just fine. If so, why waste a 7 on it?
> ...



As much I know the DIGIC chips handle the noise reduction/JPEG compression, lens correction and other image altering calculations. From one side it is like the upgrade from a core i3 to an i7, but it is not only speed, but the algorithms the use can be more complex.


----------



## meywd (May 19, 2015)

from wikipedia on the DIGIC 6



> Introduced in 2013, the DIGIC 6 image processor enables improved low-light performance up to ISO 6400, with reduced noise. In addition, it enables improved AF times and reduced lag over previous models. The improved performance allows for shots at up to 14 fps.
> 
> Further advancements attributed to DIGIC 6 can be experienced in movie mode, which records in MP4 format and doubles the frame-rate to 60 fps at 1080p. It also features reduced noise at 30 fps and improved image stabilization.


----------



## sanj (May 19, 2015)

Banana smile. Sold my 5d3 yesterday. 

But very confused. To get the 5dr or 5d4???????

No rush, 1dc is there for now. Will evaluate both the 5d bodies carefully for my needs and decide. Nice to have options!


----------



## sanj (May 19, 2015)

When can we expect some specs?


----------



## Dylan777 (May 19, 2015)

Feel like a kid in the candy shop every 4-5yrs ;D

1Dx II

1Dx II

1DX II


----------



## Marsu42 (May 19, 2015)

hazitroll said:


> From one side it is like the upgrade from a core i3 to an i7, but it is not only speed, but the algorithms the use can be more complex.



I'm not so sure this comparison is valid as afaik (looking at ML development) a lot of functionality is hardwired or even on dedicated chips (like (part of) the phase af system), so a "speed upgrade" of the arm core doesn't really matter for actual features.

Things that - off the top of my hat - that could be implemented in a digic7 upgrade are maybe in the region of x265 compression, 1080p/120fps video, idunno. Otherwise it's just a number which doesn't say anything, esp. not how *large* the difference digic6->7 is or if it's more of a marketing stunt ("look mom, my camera has a digic7!").


----------



## pedro (May 19, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>We’re told test bodies for the EOS 5D Mark IV have made their way to select photographers. The timeline for an announcement is still some time in Q4 of 2015.</p>
> <p>While there has been talk about a new DIGIC processor for the EOS-1D X Mark II, it is unknown if the EOS 5D Mark IV will see the rumored DIGIC 7 processor as well. If it doesn’t, one can assume that the EOS-1D X Mark II won’t come soon after the EOS 5D Mark IV and will likely fall into the winter of 2016, with availability coming soon after.</p>
> <p>2016 is an Olympic & Euro year, with the summer games being held in August and Euro beginning in June. 2016 is a Photokina year as well, which comes in September.</p>
> <p>More to come…</p>
> <p> </p>


sure thing, ready for shelves around christmas for early adopters...christmas comes in a little more than seven months...;-) hope it does see the Digic 7 though... 
*So, will the probable and rumored 5Dc (18 MP) be announced later in Q2 or Q3 2016? Any info about that? Or was it just some CR0-ish wishful thinking?*


----------



## mtavel (May 19, 2015)

Dear Mr. Santa Claus,

14+ stops of dynamic range please.

I've been good this year!

-Timmy

P.S.

Oh yeah.... and focus points that I can see in dark scenes. Thanks!


----------



## RobPan (May 19, 2015)

Good news for me! In January my 5d3 was stolen, but fortunately it was insured. Now I'm waiting for the 5D4. I loved the 5D3, but as I was photographing mostly in Indonesia and often in the evening, the lighting left much to be desired. Even the 5D3 sometimes could not cope with the low light levels. E.g. during dance rehearsals at the Mangkunegaran Palace. Only during performances we had enough light. Photographing in peoples homes was difficult as well. Many people have no more than a maximum of 450 Watt or 900 Watt (for all appliances added up), barely enough for a fridge and a water pump. Energy saving lamps are expensive. So even today lighting is often insufficient. Yes, better than in the days people used oil lamps (not so very long ago), but still... I very much welcome the improvement in (very) high-ISO performance of the 5D4 which has been promised. No, I prefer not to use flash.

Kind regards, R.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2015)

mtavel said:


> Dear Mr. Santa Claus,
> 14+ stops of dynamic range please.
> I've been good this year!
> -Timmy
> ...



Hopefully you're not lying about being good, Timmy, or else you'll get coal Nikon in your stocking. 

Ho ho ho!


----------



## awinphoto (May 19, 2015)

Great, another camera begging to take my money with it... My 5d3 is still proving to be a workhorse... i dont see me needing to replace that until probably later next year, but who knows, given the specs and my gas, who knows what is to come... how much does a kidney run on the black market now-a-days?


----------



## gsealy (May 19, 2015)

It all depends on the specs. The 5DIII is a great camera and is highly versatile. A lot of people are not going to ditch it unless the 5DIV gives them a reason to do so. I am one of them. 

Two trends we are seeing from Canon:
1.) They are segmenting the market by providing narrowly featured cameras.
2.) They are following a more _evolutionary_ strategy than a _revolutionary _strategy. 

So given 1 and 2, it seems as though we will see modest improvements in MP, ISO, DR, and processor. We will see modest improvement in HD video, but not 4K. Just a guess. We will see.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2015)

gsealy said:


> They are following a more _evolutionary_ strategy than a _revolutionary _strategy.



The last revolution was film -> digital. You could argue that dSLR -> MILC is a revolution...but that's still ongoing, and sometimes the revolutionaries lose the war.


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 19, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Poor /me is all confused about those digic numbers, can anyone please explain what's the difference anyway?
> 
> Afaik the digic is a composite chip from the usual arm core and some custom hard-wired functions ... so what actual real-world features are connected with a digic 7 that a digic 6 camera cannot have?



The Digic 6 has a 6 after it, and the Digic 7 has a 7 after it. 7 is bigger than 6, so it means that it's better and 6 is now worthless.


----------



## awinphoto (May 19, 2015)

mtavel said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > how much does a kidney run on the black market now-a-days?
> ...



Management, while i would love to provide images of the item for sale, due to technical restrictions it is proving to be quite difficult and thanks to the rising cost of medical care, getting scans or medical imaging is too much, but you are free to inspect after the procedure... and actuations is 33 years old. =)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 19, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I would think that the Digic 6 would probably suffice the rumored specs of the 5D4 just fine. If so, why waste a 7 on it?
> ...



Canon usually upgrades the Digic to have a more powerful processor and supporting components, which gives faster through put that allows for more FPS, faster video, like 4K, and better jpeg processing. They sometimes roll in functions of other chips that are were separate.

The 5D MK III has Digic 5, so its a bit dated. The 7D has dual Digic 6 chips. A Digic 7 might equal the power of dual Digic 6 processors. Power management in a camera is a big deal, so new Digic processors usually make use of new low power chips that give more processing per watt.


----------



## Diko (May 19, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> gsealy said:
> 
> 
> > They are following a more _evolutionary_ strategy than a _revolutionary _strategy.
> ...


 I believe the next gen different-from-CMOS sensors could be next revolution. E.g. Quantum CIS. But I think we need like 100 times more horse power in the CPU.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 19, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The 5D MK III has Digic 5, so its a bit dated. The 7D has dual Digic 6 chips. A Digic 7 might equal the power of dual Digic 6 processors.



That leaves /me still confused ... so the t6i is twice as powerful as a 5d3?



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Power management in a camera is a big deal, so new Digic processors usually make use of new low power chips that give more processing per watt.



Good point there.


----------



## Maiaibing (May 19, 2015)

gsealy said:


> Two trends we are seeing from Canon:
> 2.) They are following a more _evolutionary_ strategy than a _revolutionary _strategy.



This is actually the opposite of the strategy Canon announced earlier this year to turn around their falling DSLR sales with more distinct improvements from one generation to next. But also longer between generations.


----------



## slclick (May 19, 2015)

Has Canon cycled top end body releases or testing at least to coincide with the Olympic Games?


----------



## Diko (May 19, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D MK III has Digic 5, so its a bit dated. The 7D has dual Digic 6 chips. A Digic 7 might equal the power of dual Digic 6 processors.
> ...


 Not neceserally. IMO the DIGIC label is marketing. They prepare a set of instructions (e.g. Face Recognition) and put them in factory serial number...

C73015 (Canon|Gen 7 |import for Rebel | Created 2015) ;-)


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Well...
> 
> If the 5D4 is DIGIC 6 then it won't do 4k.
> 
> If the 5D4 is DIGIC 7 then there is a chance it will do 4k. But if it doesn't do 4k and has DIGIC 7 then *no Canon DSLR will do 4K* until DIGIC 8 arrives.



I see. So...the EOS 1D C, with dual Digic 5+ and 4K video capture is...not made by Canon? ...not a dSLR? Or is dilbert just flat out wrong...again?

:


----------



## surge (May 19, 2015)

Are there any hints if Canon is considering 10-bit H265 instead of antique 8-bit H264? Even for HD 10 bit would be a great improvement? That would require a new processor, Digic 7, etc...


----------



## gsealy (May 19, 2015)

Here is a link to a processor discussion. It is interesting and it will clear up some things.

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/digic_processors.shtml


----------



## Lee Jay (May 19, 2015)

You wouldn't believe my top requests for this model:

- Dual pixel focusing
- Sensor performance per unit area similar to 7DII
- Pop up flash (no, I'm not kidding)
- Under $2,000 (sorry, just trying to see how many of you I could get spew beverage onto the monitor)

Two nice to haves but not that important are:

- 4k video
- Lower base ISO read noise

To be honest, I might be done with full-frame. I've just reconfigured my lens kit to better support my 7DII, and I'm liking how that's going so far. However, full-frame still has its advantages even with the new lens setup.


----------



## RGF (May 19, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Feel like a kid in the candy shop every 4-5yrs ;D
> 
> 1Dx II
> 
> ...



but there are several new counters of goodies

1DX II is on one side of the aisle

5DS/5DSR and 5D IV on the other.

Which to choice? Can I have get an advance on next year's allowance?


----------



## RGF (May 19, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> gsealy said:
> 
> 
> > They are following a more _evolutionary_ strategy than a _revolutionary _strategy.
> ...



Okay what is MILC?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2015)

RGF said:


> Okay what is MILC?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable-lens_camera


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 19, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D MK III has Digic 5, so its a bit dated. The 7D has dual Digic 6 chips. A Digic 7 might equal the power of dual Digic 6 processors.
> ...



Here is a dated explanation is consumer terms from Canon. It gives relative processing power differences.


"Now, let’s talk about speed. A DIGIC 5 processor is approximately six times faster than DIGIC 4. A DIGIC 5+ is approximately three times faster than DIGIC 5, and 17 times faster than DIGIC 4. In terms of image quality alone, this means the processor can perform more separate calculations, on a pixel-to-pixel basis, immediately after an image is recorded. This translates into more opportunities to evaluate each image and optimize its quality before it’s even written to the memory card.
"

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/digic_processors.shtml

http://www.canon.com/technology/interview/digic4/digic4_p1.html

There is a good high level history of Digic Processors on Wikipedia, but nothing even close to specific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIGIC


----------



## e17paul (May 19, 2015)

Vikmnilu said:


> Now that I just bought the Mark III
> 
> but seriously, got a good deal, first DSLR that I have bought new and it's an amazing camera for the next years! Cannot be happier
> 
> Victor



Judging by past record, you would not have got a better deal by waiting. A friend bought a 5D2 at the same time as bought my 6D, features are more or less equivalent, and the price paid was very similar.

The 6D2 at launch price is likely to be equivalent in features and much reduced street price of the 5D3, while the 5D4 will be significantly more expensive until the price tapers down.


----------



## macsavageg4 (May 19, 2015)

Should be a fun camera. It will be my next full frame body.


----------



## K-amps (May 19, 2015)

Please announce the 6dii soon!


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (May 19, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Feel like a kid in the candy shop every 4-5yrs ;D 1DX II



I think I need to begin saving for (my guess) an $8K investment . . .


----------



## rfdesigner (May 19, 2015)

Sorry for sounding dim, but on this side of the pond "Euro" is the stuff they use for money on the continent.

When it comes to sports there's any amount of "euro" competitions.. which one are we referring to?


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (May 19, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> The Digic 6 has a 6 after it, and the Digic 7 has a 7 after it. 7 is bigger than 6, so it means that it's better *and 6 is now worthless*.



Ok, this made me laugh out loud . . . ;D


----------



## meywd (May 19, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> Sorry for sounding dim, but on this side of the pond "Euro" is the stuff they use for money on the continent.
> 
> When it comes to sports there's any amount of "euro" competitions.. which one are we referring to?



mostly football


----------



## rfdesigner (May 19, 2015)

meywd said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry for sounding dim, but on this side of the pond "Euro" is the stuff they use for money on the continent.
> ...



thanks, nothing to get excited about then.


----------



## cayenne (May 19, 2015)

Ok...I know what an "Olympic Year" is.

What exactly is an "Euro Year"? Never heard that term before....


----------



## meywd (May 19, 2015)

cayenne said:


> Ok...I know what an "Olympic Year" is.
> 
> What exactly is an "Euro Year"? Never heard that term before....



every 4 years is a world cup year, and also every four years is a euro year, so every 2 years one of these happen.


----------



## LukasS (May 19, 2015)

meywd said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Ok...I know what an "Olympic Year" is.
> ...



Those fond memories of painted green grass...


----------



## PureClassA (May 19, 2015)

Exactly. Canon DSLRs not having 4k video has precisely nothing to do with Digic. It's simply locked out/not added in. We got 14FPS from dual Digic 5 at 18mp (with a dedicated Digic 4 just for AF). And now, Dual Digic 6 is soon to give us 5FPS at 50MP (and handle AF as well). So one single Digic 6 chip should be able to give us perhaps 6-7FPS at 25MP. If Canon really wants to go over 8FPS in a 5 body, then maybe we get a Digic 7 to do it. BUT, given the fact it seems as though the new 1DX2 will "maintain the same FPS as previous model" (from prior CR post), I don't suspect they will push the envelope on the 5 body much higher if any than it is now.




neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Well...
> ...


----------



## applecider (May 19, 2015)

Why should we care if a camera has digit 4, 5 , 6, or 7?

I am no expert but generally as microprocessors advance the process lithography is smaller which has several consequences.

Firstly silicon wafers have a defined surface area, so the more processors one can get on a wafer the cheaper the end product. That's nice even if it doesn't mean we'll see lower prices.

But smaller chips (smaller because the process is smaller even though more circuitry is more involved) require less power so the potential for longer battery life is there.

Smaller process can yield faster clock speed cpu's at the same wattage 
so more stuff can be done and of course the more processing that can be done while images are being captured the better the image can be. Higher iso images tend to have larger file sizes than the same image at a lower iso, so higher iso imaging becomes possible, and lag times writing could go down.

So I'd say that that all other things being equal I'd want a camera with the latest digic. I'm waiting for the time when photoshop runs on camera......


----------



## jprusa (May 19, 2015)

Could see one for the upcoming Women's World Cup maybe ??


----------



## PureClassA (May 19, 2015)

All good stuff. But if all I'm doing is surfing the internet and posting cat pictures (Don Haines) I don't need a 6 core Xeon processor (a la MacPro). It's faster. It's way cool. But isn't really giving me anything more than an i3 or i5 for what I'm doing. Point being is that I suspect a Digic 6 chip (or perhaps a 6+) will do everything thus far rumored about a 5D4, and therefore no need to put a new Digic 7 chip in it. But, on a 1DX2, I think it's safe to assume that Dual Digic 7 chips would show up, as a 20MP 10FPS crop body 7D2 is already using dual Digic 6, and probably not quite to their limits. I suspect one is enough to get 6FPS at 25MP



applecider said:


> Why should we care if a camera has digit 4, 5 , 6, or 7?
> 
> I am no expert but generally as microprocessors advance the process lithography is smaller which has several consequences.
> 
> ...


----------



## gmon750 (May 19, 2015)

PLEASE use the same body as the 5D Mark III!! 

I just purchased an Aquatica underwater housing for my Mark III (I couldn't wait any longer) and if it works with my housing, I'll be first in line to buy the Mark IV. 

You did that with the 5DS, so here's hoping!


----------



## Tugela (May 19, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Well...
> ...



Hardware encoding in Digic 6 is limited to H.264 1080p60 maximum. That series of processors uses mp4 files at 35 mbps as its native format. To do anything better you need to do it in software, which is why more advanced Canon cameras often use two or more processors. They have to otherwise the processors could not handle the computing demands. Whenever you see dual (or more) processors in a camera the reason is that the tech available to the engineers is not up to the task. Those cameras probably have additional dedicated hardware included as well to assist in that, so it is technically an inefficient solution to the engineering problem. To shoot 4K efficiently with a single processor you will need a Digic 7/Digic DV5 processor. The DV5 is already here, so it is reasonable to presume that the corresponding Digic 7 won't be far off.

IMO 4K footage won't appear in Canon consumer cameras until the Digic 7 processors are included, so if the 5D4 comes with something like dual Digic 6 processors it is going to be crippled from the get go. It would be a camera built for the past, not for the future. Given the option of using dual Digic 6 processors or waiting a bit longer to use Digic 7 processors, the smart thing for Canon to do is wait. Otherwise they will have locked one of their flagship products for the next few years into obsolete tech, much like they did unwisely with the 7D2.


----------



## Lepoth (May 19, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> You wouldn't believe my top requests for this model:
> 
> - Dual pixel focusing
> - Sensor performance per unit area similar to 7DII
> ...



Don't forget about dual card slots and the ability to shoot rainy weddings.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 19, 2015)

Tugela said:


> Hardware encoding in Digic 6 is limited to H.264 1080p60 maximum. That series of processors uses mp4 files at 35 mbps as its native format. To do anything better you need to do it in software, which is why more advanced Canon cameras often use two or more processors. They have to otherwise the processors could not handle the computing demands. Whenever you see dual (or more) processors in a camera the reason is that the tech available to the engineers is not up to the task. Those cameras probably have additional dedicated hardware included as well to assist in that, so it is technically an inefficient solution to the engineering problem. To shoot 4K efficiently with a single processor you will need a Digic 7/Digic DV5 processor. The DV5 is already here, so it is reasonable to presume that the corresponding Digic 7 won't be far off.
> 
> IMO 4K footage won't appear in Canon consumer cameras until the Digic 7 processors are included, so if the 5D4 comes with something like dual Digic 6 processors it is going to be crippled from the get go. It would be a camera built for the past, not for the future. Given the option of using dual Digic 6 processors or waiting a bit longer to use Digic 7 processors, the smart thing for Canon to do is wait. Otherwise they will have locked one of their flagship products for the next few years into obsolete tech, much like they did unwisely with the 7D2.



Crippled... to those who are really interested in video. I'd be just fine with 1080p - I think I've shot video once. If "crippling" the video keeps the price down - at all - I say go right ahead.


----------



## vscd (May 19, 2015)

The 5D3 already has Dual Card Slots. 



> Pop up flash (no, I'm not kidding)



Nooo! Please not. No one really need a popup flash with a lousy Light directly on the cam... but maybe a build-in radio trigger coold satisfy a lot of people. I would like to see some new engineered stuff on the Viewfinder. Damn, the time is right to make a hybrid optical Viewer with elektronic information on it. Make a Zebra, a global shutter and get rid of that picture bridge.

Take back the A-Dep function and maybe the Eyecontrolled focus... and for the DR Freaks, make +2EV more Range


----------



## kphoto99 (May 19, 2015)

vscd said:


> The 5D3 already has Dual Card Slots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't think of a pop up flash as a flash, but as an optical flash commander. Now does that sound better?


----------



## Lee Jay (May 19, 2015)

vscd said:


> The 5D3 already has Dual Card Slots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do - all the time. When I'm on travel, and running around doing a million different things, setting up off camera flashes is simply not an option. So I need an on-camera flash. A 580EX is so large that it displaces a lens. So I carry a little tiny Sunpac to replace the missing pop up. It's a pain, it's fragile, and it's not ready to use when I need it in all cases. The pop up is often just the blip of fill I need and it's way better that the alternative which is nothing at all or a POS little on-camera flash.


----------



## LOALTD (May 20, 2015)

I want:


More DR: it doesn't even have to be 14+, just give me a bit more than every other Canon camera released over the past 5 years.
4k video: H.265 would be nice...there's already a Samsung mirroless cam with this capability
RAW 1080p @ 60fps: or at least a VASTLY better compressed 1080p codec, make it look as good as the jpeg's
Dual Pixel AF: would be so great for video focusing!




What we'll get:
Better high ISO jpeg performance, marginally better high ISO RAW performance
1fps shooting speed increase
An extra button or two
Strobing light correction
built-in intervolometer (FINALLY)
"IV" badge  




I actually think that the new 5D might get Dual-Pixel AF...about 50/50 chance. Just trying not to get my precious little hopes up. :'(


----------



## Dylan777 (May 20, 2015)

RGF said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Feel like a kid in the candy shop every 4-5yrs ;D
> ...



This at moment in my life, I do not need 30-50MP body. I'll skip it for now.

My kids activities keep my photography hobby very busy. So much memories to capture 4 & 6yrs


----------



## Dylan777 (May 20, 2015)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Feel like a kid in the candy shop every 4-5yrs ;D 1DX II
> ...



+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> Don't think of a pop up flash as a flash, but as an optical flash commander. Now does that sound better?



No, because they should incorporate RF control for the 600EX-RT and subsequent -RT releases. Optical is legacy.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 20, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I would think that the Digic 6 would probably suffice the rumored specs of the 5D4 just fine. If so, why waste a 7 on it?
> ...



speed

perhaps better image processing cooked in bits

maybe new video bits

maybe two instead of one high speed interface per DIGIC?

definitely speed


----------



## RobD (May 20, 2015)

vscd said:


> The 5D3 already has Dual Card Slots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How about something new - a small but full tilt / swivel flash for bouncing? This will be a high ISO beast and a very little flash would go a long way. It's time to redefine what a pop-up flash looks like.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 20, 2015)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I thought they mostly used separate compression chips, but I could be wrong.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 20, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D3 already has Dual Card Slots.
> ...



+1

it won't get one though because all the faux pros won't be able to look like they think a real pro must look and they'll go ape on Canon if they put one in


----------



## kphoto99 (May 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't think of a pop up flash as a flash, but as an optical flash commander. Now does that sound better?
> ...


One does not preclude the other. 
Since you are in charge make it happen.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The 1DC is part of the Cinema EOS line and is branded and sold first and foremost as a video camera, not a stills camera.



Is the EOS 1D C a dSLR, or not a dSLR? Does the EOS 1D C offer 4K video capture, or not? Let's see what Canon says...



Canon (CPN Europe)]
The Canon [color=red][b]EOS-1D C[/b][/color] is a groundbreaking [color=red][b]DSLR[/b][/color] for the movie world that [color=red][b]offers 4K digital cinema resolution[/b][/color] said:


> If the 5D4 is DIGIC 7 then there is a chance it will do 4k. But if it doesn't do 4k and has DIGIC 7 then *no Canon DSLR will do 4K* until DIGIC 8 arrives.



So, dilbert...are you going to admit that you were wrong this time, or is this another one of those 'the Canon DIGISUPER lens is actually a camera' situations?


----------



## RGF (May 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Okay what is MILC?
> ...



Oh, an EVIL camera ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2015)

@dilbert – you are flat out wrong (again), and you (again) refuse to admit it. It says a lot about a person when they refuse to admit when they are wrong, and none of what it says is good.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2015)

ElBerryKM13 said:


> I haven't been reading these forums for more than a few months and i wonder how soon do you guys think they will announce this camera based on this rumor? I'm pretty sure you guys posted same rumor a few years back when they were testing mark III.



Over time, these rumors have been both very close to the mark...and wildly off base. So, it's pretty hard to say. If I had to guess, I'd say they'll let the 5Ds/5DsR enter the market and run for a while without adding a 5DIV into the mix.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 20, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



Right. That's why Nikon doesn't put them on their 5D style cameras, the D750 and D800 series.

Oh wait, they do.

People who oppose them do so largely out of smugness as you describe, not out of legitimate reasons. They're great for macros, a catch light, a little fill or a shot that you can't possibly get using fast lenses and high ISOs. People who think any flash located anywhere near the lens is useless ought to figure out why professional ring lights exist (I hate them by the way - nasty alien looking ring catch lights in the eyes).


----------



## CvH (May 20, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D3 already has Dual Card Slots.
> ...



+1


----------



## martti (May 20, 2015)

I think it is a brilliant idea to have some selected photographers test the 5DIV before it hits the market.
This differs from the politics of Sony who let their clients do the beta testing of their products.
I am sure that the 5DIV will have some features that irritate the skin off some readers here.
While others quickly find an excuse to upgrade.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 20, 2015)

I wonder how much it will cost....


----------



## gjones5252 (May 20, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> I want:
> 
> 
> More DR: it doesn't even have to be 14+, just give me a bit more than every other Canon camera released over the past 5 years.
> ...



This! i want this, i just hope its not what you think. I just know i love my 3 and i can always get another one of them. i could always use the 5dr as well but i could really use more resolution in the video segment as opposed to the photo. 

I would however take a 28-30 mp camera that could do 4k(internal and better codec out from hdmi) with 5fps min. happy with iso but wouldnt complain about some DR love.


----------



## martti (May 20, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I wonder how much it will cost....



Probably within 15 per cent of the Nikon D810.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The 1DC is part of the Cinema EOS line and not part of the regular DSLR line. When I wrote "No Canon DSLR will do 4K video", I was not including Cinema EOS cameras in that statement.



Come on, dilbert, the 1dc is a 1dx with modified firmware and a larger heatsink, and you know it. Canon write that it's "the first Canon hybrid *DSLR* to offer onboard 4K motion imaging": http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_1d_c

Actually the 1dc was one of the reasons I asked about the importance of the digic number above since it proves you can do 4k right now, though seemingly not with a single digic and it leaves you with a heat problem. But there are more features on digic chips that are used in each and every camera it's in.


----------



## vscd (May 20, 2015)

> People who oppose them do so largely out of smugness as you describe, not out of legitimate reasons. They're great for macros, a catch light, a little fill or a shot that you can't possibly get using fast lenses and high ISOs. People who think any flash located anywhere near the lens is useless ought to figure out why professional ring lights exist (I hate them by the way - nasty alien looking ring catch lights in the eyes).



So, you see how hard it is for the Canon-Engineers to get something done without the customer nagging on the result. For me a flash or a swivelscreen has no place on a Pro-Cam, others just pray for it. 98% of the time the weight of the flash is carried useless, sucking on the battery in some cases and make the body (more) weather-unsealed and prone to dust. I even pay for the additional parts. I see really no advantage of those mickey mouse flashes except of beeing an optical masters. I prefer Radio controlled ones.

For example, a 270 EX is a damn small flash with a great light, it's able to bounce the light up and you can do a lot more with it than with a flash on the body. It weights less than a small lens and it dosn't suck on the battery. So on holidays you can carry it the whole day on the body if you want, but the good thing is... anyone else can spare the weight.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 20, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I would think that the Digic 6 would probably suffice the rumored specs of the 5D4 just fine. If so, why waste a 7 on it?
> ...



It's all about throughput. If the sensor is the engine...then the processor is the gearbox and differential. 
A single digic Y is equvilent to the throughput of the previous generation dual digic X. So the dual digic in the 1DX is good for 225mbs. So the newer single digic will match that and the dual will exceed it by 50%. it's an interesting observation that Canon have pushed ahead with their digic designs, more than the cameras which use them. So the 1DX should have got a dual Digic 6...but it likely to get a single digic 7 instead (same throughput..smaller chip and foot print).
With the 5D4, I'm wondering if it'll need a dual 6, a single 6 or single 7. If a dual 5 is good for 225mbs then a single 6 should be in a simular category. 225 (mps) / 28(mp) = 8fps...similar figures we've seen rumored. 
Dual 6 or single 7~ 335mbs > 335 / 14 = 24mp. Again, similar stats we've been quoted for the 1DX2. 
Here's a thought...a dual Digic 7...yeilds a colossal 500mbs...35mp @ 14fps...or 62mp @ 8fps...food for thought. It can't be long until the mega pixel war is truly over and we become more concerned with frame rate and feature list than how many mega pixies our camera has...


----------



## TommyLee (May 20, 2015)

mtavel:
Dear Mr. Santa Claus,
14+ stops of dynamic range please.
I've been good this year!
-Timmy
P.S.
Oh yeah.... and focus points that I can see in dark scenes. Thanks!

///////////

and adjustable/EC in manual / with auto ISO..... and spot meter following the focus point...

or else 
I'll put out LAST yrs moldy cookies..... for the third yr....
and ..publish those fotos of you and the elf....
-Timmy / aka Tom


----------



## Canon1 (May 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @dilbert – you are flat out wrong (again), and you (again) refuse to admit it. It says a lot about a person when they refuse to admit when they are wrong, and none of what it says is good.
> ...



Wow, you guys are annoying. 

This camera would need to really need to step it up for me to consider it. I'm so pleased with my 5d3 that this next generation might be a generation skipped. just about the only feature that would interest me is even cleaner files at high ISO, which will likely be a marginal improvement or none at all if they introduce a higher mp sensor. 

Anyone else out there with a 5d3 thinking the same thing, or would something else compel you to upgrade?


----------



## tron (May 20, 2015)

Canon1 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


This is my #1 wish for 5d4 with increased DR a close second...


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 20, 2015)

I think it will have more MP's but still have the same DR at ISO 6400 as the current 1Dx.


----------



## pedro (May 20, 2015)

Well, altough my question might seem a bit off topic, is the once rumored 5Dc 18 MP still likely to re-enter the rumor mill? As the original poster refered to a quote allegedly uttered by a Canon representative along with the 5DIV.


----------



## rfdesigner (May 20, 2015)

TommyLee said:


> mtavel:
> Dear Mr. Santa Claus,
> 14+ stops of dynamic range please.
> I've been good this year!
> ...



I think you'll get the EC in Manual+AutoISO.. I skimmed the 5Ds manual and it seems to have it so I'd be shocked in the 5DIV didn't


----------



## scottkinfw (May 20, 2015)

I would like to see speedier and more accurate focusing.
sek



awinphoto said:


> Great, another camera begging to take my money with it... My 5d3 is still proving to be a workhorse... i dont see me needing to replace that until probably later next year, but who knows, given the specs and my gas, who knows what is to come... how much does a kidney run on the black market now-a-days?


----------



## scottkinfw (May 20, 2015)

Another benefit. They come in handy in the event that the AA batteries die in your flash. It has saved my pic before.

sek



Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> @dilbert – you are flat out wrong (again), and you (again) refuse to admit it. It says a lot about a person when they refuse to admit when they are wrong, and none of what it says is good.



OK, you got him this time, but it all seems pretty kettle, pot, black to me.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 20, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Yes, Nikon does, but Canon doesn't because the Canon crowd will go nuts on them if they do.
Dig into the comments and you'll see a lot of smugness in the viralent anti-popup clamor from many.
None of the reasons you list there have anything to do with why one should not be included on the camera.

And I was actually supporting your prior comment or so I thought, but oh well.


----------



## slclick (May 20, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Why is not being an advocate of something low quality considered smug?


----------



## Lee Jay (May 20, 2015)

slclick said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Because the alternative is nothing and there's no rule that says you have to use it. It does no harm and is useful in some situations so arguing against it can be nothing else.


----------



## slclick (May 20, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Well I do see your point but it is also one more point of engineering and potential failure. I'm no strobist myself and do 95% of my shooting in natural/available light(macro the exception)I would prefer that area to be used for a better VF and shutter mech. 

Sure my point is in the minority, just like wanting a stills only body but my main point was to counter the smugness stone thrown with sensibility. Maybe your so called 'nothing alternative' is a positive one. Less is more.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 20, 2015)

HEVC (H.265) & Rec. 2020
"HEVC was designed to substantially improve coding efficiency compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP, i.e. to reduce bitrate requirements by half with comparable image quality, at the expense of increased computational complexity.[1] HEVC was designed with the goal of allowing video content to have a data compression ratio of up to 1000:1.[67] Depending on the application requirements, HEVC encoders can trade off computational complexity, compression rate, robustness to errors, and encoding delay time.[1] Two of the key features where HEVC was improved compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC was support for higher resolution video and improved parallel processing methods.[1]

HEVC is targeted at next-generation HDTV displays and content capture systems which feature progressive scanned frame rates and display resolutions from QVGA (320x240) to 4320p (8192x4320), as well as improved picture quality in terms of noise level, color spaces (Rec.2020), and dynamic range.

Especially for Dilbert and Neuroanatomist. 
H.265 was designed to compliment Rec.2020 (about 4.5X the color space of Rec.709) and to take advantage of computational improvements in dual & quad processing as well as dedicated processing (like the Arm Big / Little processors used in new iPhones & iPads). These also produce less heat and use less power when not under load its simply not true to say parallel processing is less efficient its the exact opposite newer processors reduce errors and have enabled faster readouts and multi-tasking the other advantage is less readout / dark current noise because signals can be reprocessed before writing to cards etc.


----------



## LOALTD (May 21, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> HEVC (H.265) & Rec. 2020
> "HEVC was designed to substantially improve coding efficiency compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC HP, i.e. to reduce bitrate requirements by half with comparable image quality, at the expense of increased computational complexity.[1] HEVC was designed with the goal of allowing video content to have a data compression ratio of up to 1000:1.[67] Depending on the application requirements, HEVC encoders can trade off computational complexity, compression rate, robustness to errors, and encoding delay time.[1] Two of the key features where HEVC was improved compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC was support for higher resolution video and improved parallel processing methods.[1]
> 
> HEVC is targeted at next-generation HDTV displays and content capture systems which feature progressive scanned frame rates and display resolutions from QVGA (320x240) to 4320p (8192x4320), as well as improved picture quality in terms of noise level, color spaces (Rec.2020), and dynamic range.
> ...




Indeed! If a camera model is going to be refreshed/replaced every year or so...I can see not adding H.265 support. As a hobbiest videographer, it really is a pain to work with given current tech. It is visionary of Samsung to include it in the NX1


I stress: CURRENT


For a camera that is going to be kicking around for 3-4 years before replacement (like a full-frame DSLR)...H.264 is going to seem very primitive, very quickly. Not to mention, it's hard drive space hungry!


Intel Skylake is coming out at the end of this year (allegedly) and will have hardware-support for H.265/HEVC. Things will get much better for this codec once that happens! Also: the newest Snapdragon chips from Qualcomm already support hardware decoding (although maybe not encoding, I can't remember) of H.265/HEVC and are in most non-Samsung, non-Apple smartphones.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 21, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> t's all about throughput. If the sensor is the engine...then the processor is the gearbox and differential.



Thanks for explaining, all, I wasn't aware a digic chip has such a fixed processing data rate.



jeffa4444 said:


> Especially for Dilbert and Neuroanatomist.



Our two CR regulars obviously are about to make a name for themselves beyond a post count :->


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > it won't get one though because all the faux pros won't be able to look like they think a real pro must look and they'll go ape on Canon if they put one in
> ...



A few weeks ago I was at an event where cameras were allowed but use of flash was *strictly* prohibited. We were told in advance, and at the door, and someone walked around to every individual with a camera to deliver a personal reminder. Needless to say, I was feeling very smug as I answered haughtily that _my_ camera doesn't have a flash to turn off. 

I hope I looked like I think a real pro must look as I was standing there with my EOS M.


----------



## LOALTD (May 21, 2015)

dilbert said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...




Can you point me to where it says that? HEVC and H.265 do not even appear anywhere in that review.


None of the Intel GPU's currently out fully accelerate HEVC/H.265. Broadwell has hybrid support, it still causes a significant hit to the CPU. Not good for video work and passable for playback:


"In summary, our experiments suggest that 4Kp60 HEVC decoding with hybrid acceleration might not be a great idea for Intel GPUs at least."


http://www.anandtech.com/show/9152/futureproofing-htpcs-for-the-4k-era-hdmi-hdcp-and-hevc


----------



## Perio (May 21, 2015)

Anticipated topics on 5d IV:
Should I choose 5d IV over 5d III?
Should I get 5d IV + 7d II vs. 1dx II?
I bought 5d IV and used it for few days but my pictures at 200k ISO still look noisy. Canon screwed its customers again.
5d IV sucks. I hope 5d V will be better, otherwise I switch.


----------



## RyanGstudios (May 21, 2015)

For me the only thing i would LOVE and that would make me switch would be USB3 tethering. Plain and simple.

I would love 
14+ stops of DR
ISO12k noise like the current 1600 on the 5DIII
Dual CF slots
Gigabit ethernet for tethering (if no usb3) or both
H.256 ability
I would actually LIKE a swivel LCD for video work
Same body, same batteries
an LCD that is closer to replicating the exposure of the images I take 

Some way to pick my file size before capture. Going from 22mp as the highest all the way to 10mp is a huge jump and I would love a 14mp option or 12mp. Not sure if this is a hardware or software limitation but 10mp isn't enough and 22mp is too much for some of my work

I could care less about 4k video as I think 1080P is just fine

Ryan G


----------



## David (May 21, 2015)

Scampi1965 said:


> Whilst I am sure the IV will be an impressive beast, it is going to be too little too late. As a long time Canon user, I am agitated with the lack of progress in my gear ergo I am agitated with Canon. The IV should have some before that monstrous 50MP beast they released earlier this year. What a shocker and what a mistake.
> 
> I love my 5Diii but I need more from it and that "more" was due well before now. I am not the kind of guy who needs the latest of everything but I do expect basic technology to be at my fingertips and most of what I want was available when the iii was released. I bet good money most of what I want won't be in the IV either. We are not talking simple things like GPS, wireless connectivity, face detect, tilting screen and most of all, competitive DR.
> 
> ...




Not sure if CaNikon really is embarrassingly far behind. After severe testing the Sony A7 line I found the concept acceptable for special purposes but no way as usable as a DSLR. Even the OM-D cameras are genius in its own kind but lack in IQ what shows most in PP. I want to say that a bad concept can not lead to somewhere....therefore a 'far behind' is not possible. I would like to see Canon to continue as they did with e.g. smaller FF-cams, more refined and quieter shutters, improved sensors. If they can figure out a mirrorless camera with an OVF and/or the usability of todays DSLRs then we will see something relevant. Todays mirrorless cams did not arrive where we are with DSLRs and the new features praised in mirrorless cams by far do not show as relevant as marketing wants us to believe. I found more negative things in mirrorless cams that needed a work around than in my years old DSLR, IMHO. And my DSLR has live view too, if needed, so what? And this experience was quite expensive to find out...


----------



## GmwDarkroom (May 21, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Intel's latest NUC already has on-chip H.265 decoding:
> http://www.tomsguide.com/us/intel-broadwell-nuc-mini-pc,review-2688.html


According to Intel, any processor from the higher end Haswells and -- I believe -- all Broadwell CPUs will support H.265 decoding on the IGP via software update.

However it's not isolated to NUCs which are just ultra small form factor PC with a regular low power Intel chip & chipset on board.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 21, 2015)

dilbert said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Dilbert you really can be a plank I can see why Neuroanatomist losses his rag with you. Yes I cut that from Wikipedia for quickness but I understand the basis of it because unlike you I sit on committees that decide standards and impliment them globally and work within an international organisation at the highest end of image capture I could go on but its pointless on people like you.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 21, 2015)

dilbert said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


It depends on when Canon climbed on-board HEVC / H.265 a number of companies now have hardware / software on everything from servers, set-top boxes, video cards etc. that support both H265/H.264 and in one case these chips are not expensive. I dont know whether the DIGIC processors are entirely in-house designed or designed in partnership with SoC suppliers. The other intruging thing is Canon have gone a different route with the XC-10 and the C300MKII both using a Canon XF-AVC codec still utilising H.264 and not compatable with Sony an industry standard by comparison.


----------



## pedro (May 21, 2015)

Perio said:


> Anticipated topics on 5d IV:
> Should I choose 5d IV over 5d III?
> Should I get 5d IV + 7d II vs. 1dx II?
> I bought 5d IV and used it for few days but my pictures at 200k ISO still look noisy. Canon screwed its customers again.
> 5d IV sucks. I hope 5d V will be better, otherwise I switch.



you actually missed one: Should I get 5d IV or wait for the 5DV? 8)


----------



## LOALTD (May 21, 2015)

Enjoying the DIGIC Debate. I don't have a firm grasp on the innner workings of DIGIC processors, but the wiki is interesting:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIGIC


I wasn't aware that the C300 Mk II uses a DIGIC 5 *DV*


From a raw throughput perspective, the dual DIGIC 6's in the 7D Mk II/5DS/R should easily be able to do H.264 4k at 24p:
50.3MP*5fps = 253 MP/s
8.8MP*24fps = 211.2 MP/s




However, if we look at 4k at 30fps...which many folks love (but I think looks gross):
8.8MP*30fps = 264 MP/s


That's more throughput than the 5DS/R offers. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be done, though.


Here's some info on the DRIMe V SoC that powers the Samsung NX1 (which does real-time H.265 encoding...the only camera I know of, so far):


http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/09/27/photokina-interview-samsung-NX1-redefine-pro-performance-quantum-leap-tech


----------



## vscd (May 21, 2015)

> Sure my point is in the minority, just like wanting a stills only body but my main point was to counter the smugness stone thrown with sensibility. Maybe your so called 'nothing alternative' is a positive one. Less is more.



You're not alone.  But it's also funny that you have the same opinion about the videofunction inside actual DSLRs. Maybe we're more or less oldschool photographers, no hipsters with popupflashs, swivel screens or 4k video-nonsense. The only Thing I would like on 4k is to get enough fps for freezing fast motions.

I don't see any sense in a cheap flash which I never use (and I *mean *never! I carried the analogue EOS5 for 10 years). But I would have to carry the flash around 100% of the time. Users who need such a toy should get a Speedlight and glue it to the Body.


----------



## slclick (May 21, 2015)

vscd said:


> > Sure my point is in the minority, just like wanting a stills only body but my main point was to counter the smugness stone thrown with sensibility. Maybe your so called 'nothing alternative' is a positive one. Less is more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny, I have a EOS 5 as well.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (May 21, 2015)

What are you guys arguing concerning Digic 6/7 and 4K video/h.265?

H.265 encoding? yes that would need new processor support, and yes of course more power. I don't see Canon implementing H.265 anytime soon as there's no current support for it. 

Where I come from: even their Cinema line newest products (C300 MKII + XC-10) use a supported H.264 codec.

They're not going to release a 5D now with an HEVC codec, neither do I want them, I don't want to transcode all my footage before editing, in fact I claim that would turn away most professional videographers, and that's why Canon still doesn't do it in their C300 mk II. They clearly see it's not due now (whether they're wrong or right, but I do agree) 

With HEVC out of the way, 

4K? 

It has nothing to do with H.265, there are plenty of cameras shooting 4K compressed to H.264, 

-the C300 mk II (XF-AVC)
-the XC-10 (XF-AVC)
-the 1DC (motion Jpeg Mjpeg (not MPEG and not H.264 but not H.265)
-F5/F55 (XAVC)
-FS7 (XAVC)
-GH4 (H.264)
-LX100 (H.264)
-J5 (H.264)
-FZ1000 (H.264)

and many others. In fact the only camera that shoots H.265 is the Samsung NX1 and it's the most hated feature on the otherwise great video camera, it needs lengthy transcoding before even viewing the images not to mention editing and grading. A complete nightmare to anyone who used it, some can tolerate it, most can't.

5D? They don't need H.265 to give us 4K resolution, they can use the Motion-Jpeg codec from the 1Dc to Compact Flash cards, or the XF-AVC from the cinema line (XC10) to CF or CFast cards, it's 205mbps and 305mbps 4:2:2, both can be handled by either...

Anyway a 5D image but sharp would blow away viewers. Just get rid of the softness, either by going 4K or giving very sharp 1080p like the C100 mk II. Both options are both welcome by me. Just get rid of the damn 720p-ish resolution.


----------



## editreject (May 22, 2015)

One thing is for certain. The camera will look exactly like the mock-up in the original post. Copy/Paste.


----------



## HighLowISO (May 22, 2015)

I'm so lucky I'm still shooting a 5DII, and I don't need to worry about any of this video crap. Life is good and simple; to me it will seem like a giant leap in AF which is all I really need, if they drop the weight I'll be grateful. They could have a built in ArcaSwiss plate, that would be sweet. A brighter viewfinder with grid, I'll like that. A bigger buffer for RAW+JPG oh for sure that will be there as the 5DII is way behind. This time I'll be easy to please, I feel sorry for those 5DIII owners


----------



## meywd (May 22, 2015)

HighLowISO said:


> I'm so lucky I'm still shooting a 5DII, and I don't need to worry about any of this video crap. Life is good and simple; to me it will seem like a giant leap in AF which is all I really need, if they drop the weight I'll be grateful. They could have a built in ArcaSwiss plate, that would be sweet. A brighter viewfinder with grid, I'll like that. A bigger buffer for RAW+JPG oh for sure that will be there as the 5DII is way behind. This time I'll be easy to please, I feel sorry for those 5DIII owners



I guess that's what owners of the 5D said when the 5DIII came out


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 22, 2015)

slclick said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I don't know. I just copied over his term, which wasn't really what I had in mind.


----------



## mark99 (May 22, 2015)

They need to get it out, Nikon and Sony are pulling so far ahead now, Canon and its drip feed technology have an awful lot of catching up to do.
Cut the big announcements and razzmatazz, when your last in the race, get your head down and concentrate on getting back up the leader-board.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2015)

mark99 said:


> They need to get it out, Nikon and Sony are pulling so far ahead now, Canon and its drip feed technology have an awful lot of catching up to do.
> Cut the big announcements and razzmatazz, when your last in the race, get your head down and concentrate on getting back up the leader-board.



Which leader-board are you looking at? :


----------



## meywd (May 22, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> mark99 said:
> 
> 
> > They need to get it out, Nikon and Sony are pulling so far ahead now, Canon and its drip feed technology have an awful lot of catching up to do.
> ...



Don't feed the trolls


----------



## JohnBran (May 22, 2015)

Lepoth said:


> Don't forget about dual card slots and the ability to shoot rainy weddings.




Oh nooo!! 6DII topic was killed with this, dont do it here! 
lol ;D ;D ;D


----------



## romanr74 (May 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Please no flash. Please no tilting swifeling falling off clumsy breaking apart prone display. 

Please RF flash control. Please hybrid viewfinder.


----------



## slclick (May 22, 2015)

Interchangeable focus screens!


----------



## Lee Jay (May 22, 2015)

vscd said:


> > Sure my point is in the minority, just like wanting a stills only body but my main point was to counter the smugness stone thrown with sensibility. Maybe your so called 'nothing alternative' is a positive one. Less is more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, by never using it, you really have no idea what it can do.


----------



## Don Haines (May 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


So much depends on the compression algorithm being used..... and don't forget that the 1DC shots 4K video and has dual digic 5+......


----------



## slclick (May 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > > Sure my point is in the minority, just like wanting a stills only body but my main point was to counter the smugness stone thrown with sensibility. Maybe your so called 'nothing alternative' is a positive one. Less is more.
> ...



Come on, you can do better than that!

VSCD may have 10x the experience with strobes, on and off camera than you or I. 

Internet boards are always so full of strong, angry statements about very minor details.


----------



## vscd (May 22, 2015)

> So, by never using it, you really have no idea what it can do.



Weird logic. If you say you can do something I can't do with a external flash on the same camera then I think all 1D Series Cameras are nothing for you. Of course a small flash can be used if you have nothing else with you and you need a flash light, but you can even get a nail in the wall with a spoon. But I prefer to be prepared on a job and carry the hammer with me instead of a spoon all the time.

Even the design sucks (check the clean body of a EOS1). Did you ever see a Speedlight 90EX for real? You can attach it on your body and probably will forget that the thing is still on the body...

There you have your spoon. 8)


----------



## Lee Jay (May 22, 2015)

vscd said:


> > So, by never using it, you really have no idea what it can do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have three full-sized flashes.

Let me ask you this. Let's say you're going to a low-light situation you haven't seen before and you have to decide which to take. You can take a 580EX *OR* a 35/1.4L. Which would you take? Remember, you don't know what you're going to find.

I'd rather take the fast lens and a popup than have no fast lens at all, especially since the popup is so useful for so many things.

The flash I currently use on my 5D is a Sunpac RD2000. It's very tiny, bounceable, and has a diffuser. It even runs on just two AA batteries. Perfect right? No, it's a pain in the neck. It's often not available when I need it, it's fragile and it gets stuck on things.


----------



## vscd (May 22, 2015)

> It's often not available when I need it



So, the body is only the insurrance for you to not forget your flashequipment? Hmm, I can live with that but why have a lot of other people to suffer for it?  Really, it's more difficult to make a 100% viewfinder with a flash on top of the prism. It weights more, is prone to break and costs s few bucks more than necessary. 

Maybe I could change my mind with something really interesting like a flash with turnable head or at least a possibilty to pop up in 90 degree but most of them are lousy spotlights.

And to your comparison with lens or 35 f1.4... I don't get the point, sorry. If I go to available light shootings I don't use a flash at all (or again a bigger one far away). That's the reason why they call it "available" light.


----------



## Sporgon (May 22, 2015)

slclick said:


> Interchangeable focus screens!



+1

I think there is every chance it will have. Canon have introduced it to the 7DII. Given the sort of camera a 7DII is I can't see in what world that camera would have an interchangeable screen and a 5DIV not. 

By the way, chalk up my entry into the 'I hate pop up flash' club.


----------



## Eldar (May 22, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Interchangeable focus screens!
> ...


I´ll join you for both interchangeable focus screens and the "I hate pop up flash" club.


----------



## meywd (May 22, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...


+1


----------



## Lee Jay (May 22, 2015)

vscd said:


> > It's often not available when I need it
> 
> 
> 
> So, the body is only the insurrance for you to not forget your flashequipment?



Do we have a language barrier or something?

The little flash is fragile and catches on things. So I don't put it on the camera unless I need it. If I need it, I might need it for a fleeting moment that's too short for me to get it, mount it, and wait for it to charge, whereas the popup is ready with a button press and a second of charging.



> Hmm, I can live with that but why have a lot of other people to suffer for it?  Really, it's more difficult to make a 100% viewfinder with a flash on top of the prism. It weights more, is prone to break and costs s few bucks more than necessary.



It doesn't cost anyone anything but the small cost to the body. If you don't like it, don't use it. Nikon and Canon have both figured out how to incorporate popup flashes on full-frame bodies. It weighs nothing compared to a 580 or 600.


> And to your comparison with lens or 35 f1.4... I don't get the point, sorry. If I go to available light shootings I don't use a flash at all (or again a bigger one far away). That's the reason why they call it "available" light.



I have room in my bag for *either the 35L or the 580EX*. Let's say I'm on travel. I don't know where I'm going or what I'll see. So which should I leave behind? Answer - I leave the 580 because it's useful in fewer situations than the 35L, but I sometimes need at least something, so I take the Sunpac, which is often not ready when I need it.

If I had a popup, I would have a reliable flash ready when I need it, and I wouldn't have to leave a lens behind to have it with me.

It's absolutely amazing how many people complain about the popup on these threads while no one who uses a 7D series camera makes the same complaint. And the little difference in prism size isn't the reason. It's just smugness like having a popup deflates your manhood or something.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Let me ask you this. Let's say you're going to a low-light situation you haven't seen before and you have to decide which to take. You can take a 580EX *OR* a 35/1.4L. Which would you take? Remember, you don't know what you're going to find.



What a strange contrived scenario.


----------



## slclick (May 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > > It's often not available when I need it
> ...



Why do you equate smugness with choice? I do not see the implied emotion you seem so hell bent on proving.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 22, 2015)

slclick said:


> Why do you equate smugness with choice? I do not see the implied emotion you seem so hell bent on proving.



How do you equate a lack of choice with choosing?

There's no good reason NOT to have one available. The D750, D800 and D810 demonstrate that, and those are cameras in the 5D's market. The 7D series demonstrates that it's not a device that makes the camera less reliable or rugged. If you choose not to use it, that's your choice, but not having it is not making a choice, it's having the manufacturer make the choice for you.


----------



## slclick (May 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you equate smugness with choice? I do not see the implied emotion you seem so hell bent on proving.
> ...



Semantics on the forum. Good golly.


----------



## Tugela (May 22, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



Those cameras use Digic DV5 processors, which are/should be the video equivalent of the Digic 7. Since they use H.264 it is likely that a Digic 7 will do the same. If the 5D4 comes with Digic 7 processors, it will probably shoot a somewhat scaled down version of XF-AVC at 4K. If it comes with Digic 6 then it will probably shoot 1080p60 like the 7D2.


----------



## Tugela (May 23, 2015)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> What are you guys arguing concerning Digic 6/7 and 4K video/h.265?
> 
> H.265 encoding? yes that would need new processor support, and yes of course more power. I don't see Canon implementing H.265 anytime soon *as there's no current support for it*.



That is not true. Current generation Intel processors support it, as do the latest GPUs I believe. It can also be played natively in at least some 4K TV sets.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> There's no good reason NOT to have one available.



There's no good reason NOT to have popup left and right mics on the camera for better stereo sound recording. There's no good reason NOT to include a cap-keeper with every lens. Oh, those things aren't important to you, so you don't want them? How terribly smug of you... : 

I'm not against popup flashes _per se_, except from the 'it's one more thing that can break' standpoint (on a couple of occasions I've put sufficient pressure on the prism housing of my 1D X that I suspect a popup flash would have cracked). But...I find them useless, and why would I want something on my camera that I have no intention of using? The power is insufficient and the light quality is horrible. If a popup flash is 'the only way to get the shot' then I might as well use my iPhone. As for having to choose what to bring, the US Coast Guard has a motto for that – Semper Paratus. So you chose the 35L over the Speedlite? If it was important, you'd have brought both. No room in the bag? You need a bigger bag...

Worth noting that a popup flash had good utility for a while, as an optical master for off-camera flash. The RT system obviated that use to a great extent.


----------



## slclick (May 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > There's no good reason NOT to have one available.
> ...



We were doing quite well thank you on our own and then you had to come along and add all that common sense to the discussion. Sheesh. Oh and btw, I never had read anyone using the term 'pishposh' while bashing the pop up flash. And we all know it's is a smugness requirement. Really, it's in the handbook.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 23, 2015)

dilbert said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Dilbert your really special you state what I put has nothing to do with it and yet with another poster point to those as I do already supporting H.265 in hardware and software your arrogance knows no bounds.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2015)

dilbert said:


> *Since the 1DC is using DIGIC 6* and that has h.264 1080p capability, it would seem that this cannot be used in a 4k pipeline else the 1DC would use that already (it doesn't) for 4K. i.e. the h.264 in DIGIC 6 is likely optimized and designed for 1080p use only.



: : :


----------



## LOALTD (May 23, 2015)

As other's have pointed out, you don't have to have H.265/HEVC to do 4K.


Only *ONE* camera (Samsung NX1) currently encodes using this compression.


I just brought it up because it would be nice to have in a camera that typically has a 3-4 year lifespan. In only a year or two even devices like the Roku and Apple TV will have H.265/HEVC hardware support (you can quote me on that!). Smartphones like the LG G4 and HTC M9


I agree that the Samsung NX1 footage is a P-I-T-A to edit right now. But that will evaporate as soon as non-linear editing programs and Intel's next generation have solid support for it. It's just in the growing pains stage right now. 


Hell, give me H.265 1080p, I want to save some damn HDD space!


----------



## romanr74 (May 23, 2015)

dilbert said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I hate these rubber-things to be honest. But they are nothing you are supposed to fiddle around with every other minute...


----------



## Marsu42 (May 23, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> Only *ONE* camera (Samsung NX1) currently encodes using this compression.



Support generally starts with one camera, so nothing's wrong with that - but it does prove the tech is there, and postprocessing software will be quick to add h265 in addition to h264 as the former is just an updated version of the latter given newer hardware is faster and can cope with it.

Actually I'm amazed Samsung pulled this off given the computation requirements of h265, so probably they use the very lowest compression profile they could and the difference to optimized h264 might not be that large.



LOALTD said:


> As other's have pointed out, you don't have to have H.265/HEVC to do 4K.



... and ...



LOALTD said:


> Hell, give me H.265 1080p, I want to save some damn HDD space!



I'm really not a video person, but I'd like to mention that taking this argument further, you don't even need to have x264 but could be happy with mpeg4 asp like in xvid - or high-bitrate mpeg2 like on a dvd. So it's really about finding the sweet spot, and *card* space capacity as well as the camera-card interface is a bottleneck.


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2015)

> The little flash is fragile and catches on things. So I don't put it on the camera unless I need it. If I need it, I might need it for a fleeting moment that's too short for me to get it, mount it, and wait for it to charge, whereas the popup is ready with a button press and a second of charging.



Nice story bro, but senseless in my opinion. You don't have to wait for a charge because you have to be prepared on location (turn the damn thing on). 



> It doesn't cost anyone anything but the small cost to the body.



You wish. It costs extra circuits, lines to the battery and a lot of engineering around the prism. 



> If you don't like it, don't use it.



You don't get it, right? I DONT WANT TO HAVE IT AT ALL. Would you put a Arca Swiss Plate on a 5D just for the two who needs them, just to carry it around, never using it? Ever heard of modular systems?




> Nikon and Canon have both figured out how to incorporate popup flashes on full-frame bodies. It weighs nothing compared to a 580 or 600.



Your arguments are all invalid, I never spoke about a 580EX on your body all the time, I spoke about a 90EX. Please read again. And this one, I cite your sentence "weights nothing compared to a 580 or 600".



> I have room in my bag for *either the 35L or the 580EX*.



You need a place for the 90EX because you want to substitute your micekymouse-flash. I think this one will fit in your bag.



> It's just smugness like having a popup deflates your manhood or something.



As always, people who run out of arguments go to the testicle-slang...


----------



## docsmith (May 23, 2015)

Coming to this party a bit late, so my apologies if this has already been covered, but my wishlist for a 5DIV:

Even more of a spread of the cross type AF points...maybe a few more as well
More and a better spread of the f/8 AF points. Say 19 f/8 AF points similar to the original 7D system (this may be more of a 1DX II feature, but I'd love to see it in the 5DIV)
This has been said a number of ways, but less noise in the dark currant/shadows/etc. This will lead to a bump in DR, but it really is specific to wanting darker black
8 fps
Metering centered around the active focus point
22-28 MPs A few more would be nice, but not necessary


----------



## kphoto99 (May 23, 2015)

For people who suggest using 90EX instead of a popup flash. The GN of most Canon popup flash is 17 to 19, the GN of the 90EX is 9. So the popup is twice as powerful as the 90EX. 
Canon could add bounce to the popup the same way as they added bounce to the flash on the M3. Would that make it more useful?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> For people who suggest using 90EX instead of a popup flash. The GN of most Canon popup flash is 17 to 19, the GN of the 90EX is 9. So the popup is twice as powerful as the 90EX.



The 7DII popup is GN 11. The 70D is GN 12. The T6i/750D is GN 9.4. 

Sorry, but which 'most Canon popup flash' are you talking about??


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2015)

This thread has to have the most BS ever, in any thread ever on here, and that's really saying a lot.


----------



## K (May 23, 2015)

What is up with all the misinfo on the Digic processors and existing camera specs in this thread? It's not like the specs aren't published for years now.


Anyway...


We have now seen Canon's latest sensor technology in the 5DS, 7D2 and the 760D. In some ways, it is a minor improvement, in other ways, they've made a decent jump. What we haven't seen is this sensor technology is a larger pixel size, and whether that will make a difference or not.

What we've already seen is about the same DR, but a slight decrease in noise and boost in IQ. This is actually a good sign, considering the 3 cameras released with this new sensor technology all have crop-sensor pixel density. None of these new cameras is a stop better. Instead, they've upped the pixel count while either being about the same or about 1/3 stop better on noise and an obvious boost in IQ.

I expect a FF camera with 24-28 MP to be able to make that full stop improvement for noise. I think Canon will pull that off. At least one of the 5D4's will have native 51K ISO.

If the 5D4 comes in a "cinema" version also as is rumored using an 18MP sensor, that will likely just be the 1DX's sensor inherited and that is already a full stop better at higher ISO.


I don't expect 9fps. 7-8 will be most realistic.


Big area of improvement that Canon will make a selling point on will be AF. Focus points will probably be in the same realm number wise, but probably more sensitivity, more dual-cross types, better metering, intelligent tracking etcetera etcetera.


In the end, if you got 1 stop better ISO, more MP, a little more FPS, and improved AF - these main factors would be worthy of justifying the 5D4 as an upgraded camera. Don't expect massive leaps. More evolutionary. Of course, it will get all the new bells and whistles like distortion control, anti-flicker and the new viewfinder, menus....


Yet, some will still freak out and say this camera didn't deliver. 


I will say this though, one of these 5D4's is going to have to have 4K. No way about it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2015)

"In the end, if you got 1 stop better ISO, more MP, a little more FPS, and improved AF - these main factors would be worthy of justifying the 5D4 as an upgraded camera. Don't expect massive leaps. More evolutionary. Of course, it will get all the new bells and whistles like distortion control, anti-flicker and the new viewfinder, menus...."

I will be the first to pre-order if this is the case.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 23, 2015)

vscd said:


> > The little flash is fragile and catches on things. So I don't put it on the camera unless I need it. If I need it, I might need it for a fleeting moment that's too short for me to get it, mount it, and wait for it to charge, whereas the popup is ready with a button press and a second of charging.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice story bro, but senseless in my opinion. You don't have to wait for a charge because you have to be prepared on location (turn the damn thing on).



*"The little flash is fragile and catches on things. So I don't put it on the camera unless I need it."*

I have a little flash that's better in every way than a 90EX - bouncable, smaller, has a diffuser, GN 20 versus 9, AA batteries instead of AAA batteries, hotshoe folds flat. But it's fragile and catches on everything because it sticks up from the camera. I'm always afraid I'm going to tear it off or tear off the hot shoe with it by getting it snagged on something (which happens constantly). SO IT ISN'T MOUNTED UNLESS I NEED IT.

A popup in the down position is vastly more rugged and less intrusive than _*any flash mounted to the hot shoe*_, and it's ready in a second or two with the push of a button. No opening the bag, getting out the flash, mounting it, getting it ready, shooting, and putting it back. Button, flash, done. There's no chance of catching it on anything because you put it back down when not in use.

Geeze, you'd think I was explaining the finer points of supersonic chocked flow expansion or something.

The damned flash gets caught on things so I don't mount it on the camera unless I need it. I've had it rip the entire camera off my shoulder getting caught on someone's bag who was walking by the other way. I caught it by the strap just a few inches before it hit the pavement.

Is that so hard to understand?

The fact that they're included on the cheapest and smallest cameras Canon sells indicates cost and size aren't a real issue. Hell, a $299 teeny tiny refurbished SL1 has one rated at a guide number of 9.4 meters versus 9.0 meters for the 90EX. http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-sl1-body-refurbished The Rebels have a guide number typically in the 13 meter range, and we can't have one on a body as big and expensive as a 5D body? Give me a break.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 23, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> Canon could add bounce to the popup the same way as they added bounce to the flash on the M3. Would that make it more useful?



In my experience (from 60d) the pop-up flash isn't sufficient for bound (or diffusion) in any case, and even if working the poor thing at 100% output will make it refuse service b/c of overheating after some flashes.

Basically the pop-up is nice as an optical master indoors, or for small fill flash as it's very near the optical axis and the drop shadow is smaller than from a large flash on the hotshoe when used w/o bracket.

Let's rather hope Canon manages to build a rt-flash controller right inside the 5d4 and other upcoming cameras.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 23, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Basically the pop-up is nice as an optical master indoors, or for small fill flash as it's very near the optical axis and the drop shadow is smaller than from a large flash on the hotshoe when used w/o bracket.



I use it for those two applications and for macros sometimes.

I don't use flashes as a main light unless they are off-camera and in some sort of diffusion system like an umbrella, unless there's just no other way to get the shot at all (which is rare, but it does happen once in a while).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Basically the pop-up is nice as an optical master indoors, or for small fill flash as it's very near the optical axis and the drop shadow is smaller than from a large flash on the hotshoe when used w/o bracket.



The drop shadow may be smaller with a popup flash, but the lens/hood shadow with a larger lens... Well, that's just another aspect of its uselesness. 




Marsu42 said:


> Let's rather hope Canon manages to build a rt-flash controller right inside the 5d4 and other upcoming cameras.



+1


----------



## Lee Jay (May 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Basically the pop-up is nice as an optical master indoors, or for small fill flash as it's very near the optical axis and the drop shadow is smaller than from a large flash on the hotshoe when used w/o bracket.
> ...



In practice, that's almost never an issue except with ultrawides. Even with the hood on, there's no problem with a lens like the 70-200/2.8 or even the 24-105 in most cases.


----------



## kphoto99 (May 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > For people who suggest using 90EX instead of a popup flash. The GN of most Canon popup flash is 17 to 19, the GN of the 90EX is 9. So the popup is twice as powerful as the 90EX.
> ...


Yep, you are right.

Now I'm wondering why I had an overinflated expectation of power of the popup. What is the most powerful build in flash on any modern camera?


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2015)

> The fact that they're included on the cheapest and smallest cameras Canon sells indicates cost and size aren't a real issue.



The fact that no Canon Fullframe cam has a flash inside says nothing to you? You want a flash, I don't want a flash to carry around... so we have different needs. Let's see who will be recognized. I think it's far more important to implement a Radio Controller oder switchable focusscreens.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 23, 2015)

vscd said:


> > The fact that they're included on the cheapest and smallest cameras Canon sells indicates cost and size aren't a real issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that no Canon Fullframe cam has a flash inside says nothing to you?



It says Canon is stupid in this area and Nikon isn't.


----------



## Sporgon (May 23, 2015)

I've no problem with pop up flash on a cheap, portable, casual camera. I do _not_ want pop up flash on an expensive, FF camera that's whole _raison d'etre_ is superior image quality. If I'd been involved in the 7DII it wouldn't have had a pop up flash, but I would have still incorporated it on the cheaper models.

This is nothing to do with being a 'camera snob'. It's to do with the fact that in 99% of shooting occasions the cheaper cameras produce an image that is indistinguishable from the more expensive ones, so if you're the sort of person who wants a bit of direct, harsh fill or overall illumination now and again why have you bothered to spend that cash on a FF ? And if you insist on it go buy a Nikon; it's easy. 

And Lee; it's not Canon being stupid, rather honest. If you want pop up flash you should be saving your money and by a crop camera pal.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 23, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I've no problem with pop up flash on a cheap, portable, casual camera. I do _not_ want pop up flash on an expensive, FF camera that's whole _raison d'etre_ is superior image quality. If I'd been involved in the 7DII it wouldn't have had a pop up flash, but I would have still incorporated it on the cheaper models.
> 
> This is nothing to do with being a 'camera snob'. It's to do with the fact that in 99% of shooting occasions the cheaper cameras produce an image that is indistinguishable from the more expensive ones, so if you're the sort of person who wants a bit of direct, harsh fill or overall illumination now and again why have you bothered to spend that cash on a FF ? And if you insist on it go buy a Nikon; it's easy.
> 
> And Lee; it's not Canon being stupid, rather honest. If you want pop up flash you should be saving your money and by a crop camera pal.



I've owned a 5D since it was released. My biggest disappointment with it over the years is the images I've missed because it lacks a flash.

If you all would actually learn how to use a flash you wouldn't find it so useless. You know why I haven't posted examples? Lightroom can't tell internal from external flash via the EXIF and I can't tell from the images unless they were bounced or off-camera.

The popup works just fine for a little fill or a little catch light - sometimes even better than a 580EX because it's closer to the lens. I have a flash bracket. I have three external flashes. I have light stands and modifiers. I have a full set of gels for all of them. I know what can be done with flash. I also know you don't carry any of that around with you when you are traveling, hiking in caves, walking around theme parks, riding on a boat or submarine, etc. The only good reason to get a flash a little farther from the lens (as opposed to off camera) is to avoid red-eye. If you are shooting with mostly available light and just using the flash as fill or catchlight, that isn't the issue and the near-lens flash is actually better. That's why they sell ring lights, for example!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Sure, it's 'almost never an issue' when you're talking about using lenses/hoods designed for a FF image circle on a crop sensor camera... The Canon EF-S 17-55mm hood casts a shadow with the popup flash. 

Since you're advocating a popup on Canon FF bodies, the 'almost never an issue' logic is flawed. Consider that on Nikon FX bodies, the popup flash causes a shadow with the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens..._without the hood_. 

I guess Canon is so stupid they haven't added a feature they know will cause problems in common use cases, while Nikon is smart enough to know users won't mind a black shadow in their images (or more likely, Nikon FF _users_ are smart enough to know the popup is best used as an optical flash commander and not to light a scene).


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2015)

@Lee Jay

Posting Photos of Nikonbodies says nothing because I know which camera carries a flash and which not (therefor I wrote "Canon fullframes"). Nikon can include a flash on the D800 because there are a lot of people outside who pay $3000 for a camera because they have the money and no clue on photography. I know people who shoot with the hyper-fullframe because it's an Award Winning Camera on a local photomagazine. They have a D800 and shoot in full-automatic-mode with a 18-300 mm 3rd-Party lens for selfies. Those people demand a flash like you because they also buy lense with the greatest Zoom-range. 

On the Probodies form Nikon (D3/D4) there is also no flash and I guess there will be none in future. On Mediumformat you won't find it eighter. No place for water to enter and why bother including a feature that 90% of your target audience is likely to ignore. I guess Nikon uses the pop-up as a trigger for their lighting system. Radio Controlled Flashs may be the better way to sync, so I would spare the room for the radiosending device...


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2015)

...by the way, you can read it officially from Canon:

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/eos6d_builtin_flash_alternative.shtml

;D


----------



## Sporgon (May 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess Canon is so stupid they haven't added a feature they know will cause problems in common use cases, while Nikon is smart enough to know users won't mind a black shadow in their images (or more likely, Nikon FF _users_ are smart enough to know the popup is best used as an optical flash commander and not to light a scene).



Seriously, I guess Nikon include a pop up flash on their 'prosumer' FF bodies because as a policy they don't want the cameras to lack _anything_ that might lead a potential purchaser to not purchase 'because it hasn't got........'

Canon seem to be in a more secure position where they can leave out this 'feature' on FF because it's mostly a load of cobblers.


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2015)

> Seriously, I guess Nikon include a pop up flash on their 'prosumer' FF bodies because as a policy they don't want the cameras to lack _anything_ that might lead a potential purchaser to not purchase 'because it hasn't got........'



Yepp... that's also my thought. Nice cite from the web may bring some further funny aspects...

[...]
Back in the late 90s Minolta built a professional grade film camera called the Maxxum 9. It got panned by the photography industry press because it has a pull up flash. Of course "everyone knows" that pro cameras don't have a built in flash. Nobody has made that mistake since. [...]

;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Canon seem to be in a more secure position where they can leave out this 'feature' on FF because it's mostly a load of *cobblers*.



Canon are cobblers?


----------



## Don Haines (May 24, 2015)

I'm still waiting for a digital back 8x10 with a pop-up flash


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (May 24, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > What are you guys arguing concerning Digic 6/7 and 4K video/h.265?
> ...




No I mean Canon will support it when video software supports it. 

No NLEs support HEVC = no support. Period.

I've no idea how a few encoding/decoding software & hardware relate to video production (the main purpose of the codec). Of course there are phones and TVs and transcoding apps that support it, long time ago. 

Until Premiere, After Effects, Speedgrade, Avid media Composer, Sony Vegas, Da vinci resolve take/support H.265, it's not going to be used by video professionals, they will hate the codec canon decided to force upon them, one they need hours of transcoding before they can edit or view their footage. 

That's not how Canon works, they release a supported codec that is accepted everywhere, even the XF-AVC codec on the flagship C300 MKII is taken by _every _piece of software/hardware there is, before the camera is released. If you want transcode H.265 to H.264 for hours after ingesting just to be able to cut, Canon doesn't offer that sorry, get an nx1,

but before you get an nx1 for H.265 first read how every video shooter hates the codec on that camera, as it offers no storage advantage (you need to transcode back to the big old h.264, or the huge ProRes to use it anyway) AND the compression quality is *worse *than H.264 of all the other 4K cameras, it shows horrible banding and compression blocking in the shadows. Imagine that. H.264 1080p mode on nx1 shows better compression quality than H.265 on the same camera albeit with bigger files which is negated by the fact you'll expand the H.265 to the same or bigger size as soon as you ingest the footage. Still want H.265 in your next DSLR? okay. 

In the video world no one is requesting H.265 on an upcoming Canon DSLR, only on photography forums where they heard h.265 is a bigger number than h.264 thus Canon is ******* if they don't give us this ''feature". Absolutely none video producers request H.265, not a single one anywhere, not until the industry standard NLEs support it. Its day will come, it will replace H.264, but not now.



Let's leave video talk to video people, you guys are an absolute landmine of photography knowledge.


----------



## romanr74 (May 24, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > > The fact that they're included on the cheapest and smallest cameras Canon sells indicates cost and size aren't a real issue.
> ...



I *don't want* a built in Flash in my future 5D IV.


----------



## Sporgon (May 24, 2015)

romanr74 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



This original post by Lee reminds me that Nikon should sack their designer.


----------



## Sporgon (May 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Canon seem to be in a more secure position where they can leave out this 'feature' on FF because it's mostly a load of *cobblers*.
> ...



More useful than pop up flash on a FF


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Canon is happy to be last. Even proud to be last.



Canon is happy and proud to be first where it really matters to them.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 24, 2015)

dilbert said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > > Seriously, I guess Nikon include a pop up flash on their 'prosumer' FF bodies because as a policy they don't want the cameras to lack _anything_ that might lead a potential purchaser to not purchase 'because it hasn't got........'
> ...



Well, not including a flash made me buy one from Sunpac, not Canon, and not including the flash made me buy a 7D Mark II and a Sigma 18-35/1.8 instead of a 5D Mark something and a 35/2 IS. So, that choice has cost Canon a little over $2,000 of my money so far, and probably another $3,200 or so in the winter when I don't buy a 5D Mark IV.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Well, not including a flash made me buy one from Sunpac, not Canon, and not including the flash made me buy a 7D Mark II and a Sigma 18-35/1.8 instead of a 5D Mark something and a 35/2 IS. So, that choice has cost Canon a little over $2,000 of my money so far, and probably another $3,200 or so in the winter when I don't buy a 5D Mark IV.



I'm sure they're heartbroken and have spent many hours shedding crocodile tears into their tea over that... :


----------



## slclick (May 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Well, not including a flash made me buy one from Sunpac, not Canon, and not including the flash made me buy a 7D Mark II and a Sigma 18-35/1.8 instead of a 5D Mark something and a 35/2 IS. So, that choice has cost Canon a little over $2,000 of my money so far, and probably another $3,200 or so in the winter when I don't buy a 5D Mark IV.
> ...



I'd like to hear a testimony from someone who buys multiple high end electronics from a single source and truly believes they create exactly the ideally configured goods that single consumer desires and sells them at a fair price. 

Two things:


You can please some of the people...yadda yadda yadda...

and:


So many times I hear the complaining on this forum and a certain Stones song runs through my mind.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2015)

slclick said:


> So many times I hear the complaining on this forum and a certain Stones song runs through my mind.



Sympathy for the Devil?


----------



## wsheldon (May 24, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Well, not including a flash made me buy one from Sunpac, not Canon, and not including the flash made me buy a 7D Mark II and a Sigma 18-35/1.8 instead of a 5D Mark something and a 35/2 IS. So, that choice has cost Canon a little over $2,000 of my money so far, and probably another $3,200 or so in the winter when I don't buy a 5D Mark IV.



If you're that fond of tiny direct flashes, pick up a white box 90ex for about $35 and stick it on your 5D, 1DX, 6D, etc. Same power, master flash capability, and very compact plus it's removable. Personally I can't think of a single time I used the pop-up on my xxD bodies where I *liked* the effect, even for fill or catch-lights, so I was pleased to see it removed to create a more robust top plate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2015)

:-[


wsheldon said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Well, not including a flash made me buy one from Sunpac, not Canon, and not including the flash made me buy a 7D Mark II and a Sigma 18-35/1.8 instead of a 5D Mark something and a 35/2 IS. So, that choice has cost Canon a little over $2,000 of my money so far, and probably another $3,200 or so in the winter when I don't buy a 5D Mark IV.
> ...


----------



## Lee Jay (May 24, 2015)

wsheldon said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Well, not including a flash made me buy one from Sunpac, not Canon, and not including the flash made me buy a 7D Mark II and a Sigma 18-35/1.8 instead of a 5D Mark something and a 35/2 IS. So, that choice has cost Canon a little over $2,000 of my money so far, and probably another $3,200 or so in the winter when I don't buy a 5D Mark IV.
> ...



As I've said repeatedly, I have a better compact flash than the 90EX, and I don't like that solution because it's always getting caught on things. That's actually why I like the popup - it's a far more rugged and reliable solution than an external flash because you can snap it down when not in use and it doesn't catch on things that way.


----------



## RGF (May 24, 2015)

No pop up flash, if possible eye tracking to set focus point (like the Eos 3)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 24, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I've no problem with pop up flash on a cheap, portable, casual camera. I do _not_ want pop up flash on an expensive, FF camera that's whole _raison d'etre_ is superior image quality. If I'd been involved in the 7DII it wouldn't have had a pop up flash, but I would have still incorporated it on the cheaper models.
> 
> This is nothing to do with being a 'camera snob'. It's to do with the fact that in 99% of shooting occasions the cheaper cameras produce an image that is indistinguishable from the more expensive ones, so if you're the sort of person who wants a bit of direct, harsh fill or overall illumination now and again why have you bothered to spend that cash on a FF ?



huh? so because someone doens't mind have some rescue flash now and then, they need to give up everything else a FF delivers because they couldn't possibly care about FF?? huh?
sure sounds like you are trying to prove that it actually has everything to do with being a camera snob, kinda ironic. Anyway, thanks for helping to prove our point.



> And Lee; it's not Canon being stupid, rather honest. If you want pop up flash you should be saving your money and by a crop camera pal.



that's ridiculous logic


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 24, 2015)

dilbert said:


> And obviously what matters to Canon doesn't necessarily matter to us and vice versa.



Yep, you are obviously right about that... but I have not seen your photography skills being improved after years being on CR complaining about Canon, plus you have not switched... Below image is shot for you (Note: With 5D Mark III and 24-105mm, not an HDR, straight into the sun, lenses hood was off to get the sun flare) while I was in Lone Pine, CA with a friend and a collodion/wet plate photography group (number of them are my co-workers)...

Details still show isn't it? Also shot with low ISO, which is ISO 100...

Thus, stop complaining and start learning...


----------



## Sporgon (May 24, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> that's ridiculous logic



Tell me, in your opinion, why does Nikon fit the 610, 750 and 810 with a pop up flash ?


----------



## slclick (May 24, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > that's ridiculous logic
> ...



Because Canon doesn't


----------



## vscd (May 24, 2015)

> Tell me, in your opinion, why does Nikon fit the 610, 750 and 810 with a pop up flash ?



Because there are a lot people outside who have money but no glue and they buy cams with 20x Zoomrange and popup-flashes. You can get them to buy stuff with a single feature on it and if uncle smith buys a cam for his famliy he surely flashes his selfies and the kiddies on every familyparty.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 24, 2015)

ishdakuteb said:


> Thus, stop complaining and start learning...



Doesn't your internal smug warning pop up if you write something like this? Prey, how much dynamic range do you figure this scene has? If it's well inside Canon's limit, a trained monkey could expose it correctly. But try again at noon, and re-shoot straight into the sun for us, then look at the shadow details again.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, stop complaining and start learning...
> ...



Mad dogs and foolish photographers go out in the noon-day sun. 

And to your other point, dilbert has been complaining here for years, and he still hasn't how to confirm basic facts before posting.


----------



## Don Haines (May 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


As a general rule of thumb.... people with inexpensive cameras also use inexpensive lenses..... People with expensive cameras use expensive lenses....

So, on the inexpensive cameras, the lens blocking the pop-up flash is not much of an issue..... but for those with their expensive cameras and f2.8 (or faster) lenses, it is.

Perhaps that is the real reason for no pop-up flashes on the more expensive cameras...


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ishdakuteb said:
> ...



LOL... It was actually in the morning though (at sun-rising time, about a little big pass 8am, opposite side of the Mount Whitney). i did not plan to go there at all, but the large format group leader was trying to talk me into it...

Oh... forget to tell that wet plate people does not like golden hours at all, seem like that to me since i was trying to convince them go there in the next day, cloudy day, but they refused it.


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 24, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, stop complaining and start learning...
> ...



it depends, but i guarantee that dilbert cannot deliver the same image quality even though he has used DSLRs much longer than I do, and I am just start shooting, and learning landscape not even 7 months... i will try your suggestion next time, but what do you do when just shooting sun only? . Sun at noon is on your head which does not include scene. If I can get that one, it is much easier than the shot above... Below image is the one that I shot (Crop alot since I was using 50mm lenses, just practice so why care right. All I care was how much I can get back what I want...), while I was in front of my house, with Canon 30D, which is not bad though (I think it about the same scenario of your high_dr_b.png though, but Canon 30D does not support ML )...

Again, techniques are priority to me...

To answer your question: none of the current camera has enough dynamic range, so work the way out of it... but i am not a big fan of HDR...

Sorry to ask: Are you most of the time expose correctly, even with a black tape cover your LCD? If not, see your above quote about a trained monkey... and yes, you do not have to ask, I expose correctly up to 90% of the time since I have trained my self that way from the day that I decided to choose journalism photography is my favorite, even with on camera flash (No popup flash since I have not trained my self to use pop-up flash)...


----------



## candc (May 24, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



That's a good point. It is a bit puzzling why canon decides to put a built in flash on some dslr's and not others. They seem to abide by the aps-c yes ff no rule. I don't think a popup flash is important to the wildlife shooters the 7dii is aimed at but I think it would be nice on the 6d.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> So, on the inexpensive cameras, the lens blocking the pop-up flash is not much of an issue..... but for those with their expensive cameras and f2.8 (or faster) lenses, it is.
> 
> Perhaps that is the real reason for no pop-up flashes on the more expensive cameras...



It isn't blocked by the 35/1.4L. It isn't blocked by the 24-105/4L IS. It isn't blocked by the 70-200/2.8's.


----------



## slclick (May 25, 2015)

I'd like interchangeable focusing screens (again)






anything to break up this idiotic popup flash pingpong


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So, on the inexpensive cameras, the lens blocking the pop-up flash is not much of an issue..... but for those with their expensive cameras and f2.8 (or faster) lenses, it is.
> ...


It is a generalization, not an absolute.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So, on the inexpensive cameras, the lens blocking the pop-up flash is not much of an issue..... but for those with their expensive cameras and f2.8 (or faster) lenses, it is.
> ...



But it _is_ blocked by the EF*-S* 17-55mm f/2.8. So...what's significantly different about that lens compared to the ones you listed? (Since you seemed to miss this last time, hint: look at the bold part.) 

Now...extrapolate that to use of those lenses on a FF camera with a popup flash. Or if that's too hard, talk to some people about those camera you posted pictures of before...


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2015)

candc said:


> It is a bit puzzling why canon decides to put a built in flash on some dslr's and not others. They seem to abide by the aps-c yes ff no rule. I don't think a popup flash is important to the wildlife shooters the 7dii is aimed at but I think it would be nice on the 6d.


I agree.

There is also the convenience factor. Very often (at least for me), I just have the camera and a second lens.... the pop-up flash, although far inferior to my real flash, has come in very useful.


----------



## Bennymiata (May 25, 2015)

If you don't want it, don't use it, but I would find a pop-up flash handy to have on my 5d3 from time to time.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 25, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> If you don't want it, don't use it, but I would find a pop-up flash handy to have on my 5d3 from time to time.



Exactly. I don't see why people are against a feature that causes no harm when not in use, and which could come in handy at times.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



It isn't blocked by the 17-55 with the hood removed. People are supposed to use their heads.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> It isn't blocked by the 17-55 with the hood removed. People are supposed to use their heads.



Yes, they are....but some don't. For example, one of the oft-stated uses of the popup flash is for outdoor fill. Fill is needed when there are shadows on the subject due to the angle of the sun, and many times that means the sun is at an angle where it's likeky to cause flare. The hood is designed to prevent that flare, but if one removes it so the flash isn't blocked...

Oh, wait...now I get it. You mean people should stick their heads in front of the lens to block the flare after removing the hood to avoid the shadow from the popup flash.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 25, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Bennymiata said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't want it, don't use it, but I would find a pop-up flash handy to have on my 5d3 from time to time.
> ...



Personally, I couldn't care less, but can you say with certainty that Canon wouldn't have to design compromise on the prism design (as the white paper suggests) to include one? If not, the 'causes no harm when not in use' is not a given.


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't blocked by the 17-55 with the hood removed. People are supposed to use their heads.
> ...


Neuro, you obviously don't understand 

Flashes are only for use indoors... and indoors you don't need lens hoods...

No real photographer uses fill flash as that would be altering the lighting conditions and therefore un-natural.... do that and your pictures will be banned from National Geographic ....


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Neuro, you obviously don't understand
> 
> Flashes are only for use indoors... and indoors you don't need lens hoods...
> 
> No real photographer uses fill flash as that would be altering the lighting conditions and therefore un-natural.... do that and your pictures will be banned from National Geographic ....



Don, I am not really sure about national geographic rule on capturing people images, but for landscape, it is not allowed to move/clean up, even a leaf on the ground, or alter the scene during post process. You have stated that "no real photographer" uses fill flash outdoor and it should be used indoor only. This was what I understand when I first started to learn journalism. However, it is not completely right. Yes, for journalism, you do not need it since who care about hard shadow appearing under eyes, nose, etc... But for wedding, outdoor portrait photographers, and fashion photographers, they either use one of the following or combination of them under certain situation:
1. Reflector, or
2. Flash, or
3. Constant light such as Lowell iLight (kinda hot when using it), Ice Light (licensed to Jerry Ghionis), etc...

I have been learning about light in the past almost 3 years and still do (since I love journalism), plus keeping track of number of renown journalism photographers (most of them are wedding photographers from all around the world) so that why I pretty much have my confident in saying this. Even Cliff Mautner, a master of natural light, still has to use flash in certain situations. In short, nothing is absolute and again I am not really sure about National Geographic rule on capturing people...

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong...


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2015)

ishdakuteb said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, you obviously don't understand
> ...


you are right.... but did you realize that I was poking fun....

I am a big believer in using whatever the appropriate tool is to capture the image to the best of one's abilities and not to be bound by perceived rules. Fill flash is one of those very useful tools.... who hasn't taken a portrait shot with light from the back (sunset background is one example).... without a fill flash you are shooting a silhouette...


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



LOL... No wonder I can not find that rule posting on National Geographic, about the landscape rule, I have known for a little more than years via B&H but I did not really care until I recently decided to learn about landscape...


----------



## Marsu42 (May 25, 2015)

ishdakuteb said:


> Sun at noon is on your head which does not include scene.



Not so, I don't live near the equator and unless it's high summer time the sun is never that high. And I I like uwa shots, so often the sun is in the frame or near the frame's edge.

Your tree leaves example shot shows that a higher sun doesn't necessarily exceed Canon's dr range, but often it does even with proper exposure - with Magic Lantern's raw histogram, it's easy enough to check



ishdakuteb said:



> To answer your question: none of the current camera has enough dynamic range, so work the way out of it... but i am not a big fan of HDR



In my experience, the difference between Canon 11-ish dr and Sonikon or dual_iso 14-ish dr does make a difference for real world shooting, it's just the difference between clipped sky or not with sufficient detail in backlit subjects (with using a little fill flash).

Of course shooting with 14ev often does give you a hdr-ish look, so if you don't like that at all Canon's dr limit probably won't matter a lot to you.



ishdakuteb said:


> Sorry to ask: Are you most of the time expose correctly, even with a black tape cover your LCD?



Well, no, but in my defense I have to say vs. my old 60d I find the 6d's metering is rather dodgy. But as I'm shooting moving animals a lot can expose ok on the first shot, but need a second shot after viewing the raw histogram to ettr and not clip more than I want.

If you can really get a sunset shot ettr'ed perfectly the first time (as the sun's core is always clipped) or have trained to much you can guess manual exposure all the time, kudos to you ... though you cannot expect everybody else to perform at that level. 

Btw personally I don't find having more margin for error a bad thing (either via more mp for cropping/rotating or mp for correcting exposure), and as a consumer it's absolutely ok to voice that preference.


----------



## Dick (May 25, 2015)

What comes to a pop up flash, it's a useless addition to any camera and I would personally pay extra not to have features I don't want to have, such as that stupid flash. Every pointless feature that potentially creates extra issues is something that shouldn't be there. 

Seriously, I can't think of a single case where using a pop up flash would be a good thing.


----------



## romanr74 (May 25, 2015)

I'd love to see the people with the most smartassy posts here (they will know they are meant) to show off some of their pictures. I don't really know why, but I'm convinced i'll not be impressed...


----------



## vscd (May 25, 2015)

> Exactly. I don't see why people are against a feature that causes no harm when not in use, and which could come in handy at times.



We explained it at least *10 times* to you, it's written here in the forum but it seems you can't read well enough. Just a short abstract again:

- cost
- ugly
- difficult prismdesign
- sucks an battery
- shitty light
- weathersealing
- ...

It harms me in any way as you are "harmed" by 90EX (It get stuck on something... mimimimi).


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 25, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So, on the inexpensive cameras, the lens blocking the pop-up flash is not much of an issue..... but for those with their expensive cameras and f2.8 (or faster) lenses, it is.
> ...


----------



## Sporgon (May 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> My camera bag is already full, where should I put this extra thing?



In your shirt pocket, or your pants, or under your hat..........


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I'm just following your lead.



Feel free to point out factual errors that I've posted, where I have not acknowledged my error when it was pointed out. 

The DIGISUPER 75 is still not a camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> It isn't blocked by the 35/1.4L.



I guess you were wrong about that. Taking a page from dilbert's book is never a good idea.


----------



## dak723 (May 25, 2015)

Dick said:


> Seriously, I can't think of a single case where using a pop up flash would be a good thing.



How about when you need a flash but aren't carrying one with you?

How about those of us (like me) who almost never need a flash, so we don't spend our hard earned money on one?

I have owned Canon cameras for 11 years. I needed to use the pop-up flash no more than 10 times in that time. I was glad I had it when I needed it. When I didn't need it, there were 0 times that I wished it wasn't there. Zero.

There are no logical reasons that a camera has no built in flash. You can argue to your hearts content about it - as people do on every subject here in the forum. But it is not really a debate about flash (or whatever the useless argument of the day is). It is about arguing for arguments sake. People on this forum seem to be tech-savvy, but being tech-savvy apparently doesn't mean you are smart. Some of the arguments on this forum seem to be carried out by 6 year olds.

I came to this forum because I enjoy photography and hoped to share my enthusiasm with other like minded folks. What I see here is constant whining and complaining, inane arguments about flashes and dual card slots, and constant bickering about DR. The fact that today's cameras are incredibly good at taking photos - far better than cameras have ever been - seems to elude most people here. 

How many folks come here very happy with their Canon cameras and the pics they take and suddenly doubt their equipment - thinking that Sony and Nikon must be much better according to all of these experts? Luckily for me, I bought the Sony A7 II to compare with my 6D. Luckily, I bought it from a store where it could be returned (and it was) so I didn't lose any money. In actual use, the Canon proved better for me. For others it may be a different outcome. But the reality seems to be that there is very little difference in cameras from different brands - which is quite logical since they all take excellent pics under normal usage. They take pics that are virtually indistinguishable from one another. But how many other folks come to this forum happy with their equipment and wanting to share their enthusiasm only to be dragged down - or put in doubt - by the constant complaining? 

If you aren't happy with your Canon camera, then please get another camera. Their are so many choices out there. Put yourself out of your misery and make the switch - please! Certainly you must realize that anyone so unhappy with their equipment who continues to use it, looks like an idiot or a person who would rather than complain than have what they want. 

It could be a fun place to be - here in the forum - but it is not. Sorry for the interruption. Please continue with the inane arguments and constant complaining about your wonderful cameras.


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Bennymiata said:
> ...


One would certainly never use the built-in flash to trigger the slave flashes.... how unprofessional!

And I agree that not having a flash is what makes a camera a pro camera. That's why I have a GoPro... a real "Pro" camera that has been used for footage on several Hollywood films. We use it for time-lapse photography outdoors.... it is far better for the job than a 1Dx would be....


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2015)

dak723 said:


> There are no logical reasons that a camera has no built in flash.



Several have been presented in this thread. For example, is it logical to include a feature that doesn't work properly with several lenses?


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > There are no logical reasons that a camera has no built in flash.
> ...


Is it logical to have manual mode on a camera when you usually shoot in aperture priority? It is a tool to be used when needed and ignored when not....

There are many reasons to have a built in flash, there are many reasons to not have it. There are times it will be useful and times that it is useless. The answer is a personal one and represents an individual's needs and preferences. There is no definitive answer to the question.


----------



## 100 (May 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > There are no logical reasons that a camera has no built in flash.
> ...



Autofocus doesn't work properly with TS-E lenses or the MP-E 65 for instance, with that kind of logic we should leave AF out too.


----------



## tron (May 25, 2015)

100 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...


This logic is flawed since the correct would be to say that AF is not supported on these lenses. Doesn't work properly implies it works somehow but not 100 correctly...

Also by the use of manual focusing we can get results. Something similar cannot be said for lenses that block the on-camera flash...


----------



## romanr74 (May 25, 2015)

so many so silly agruments and still no pictures... why am i not surprised?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Is it logical to have manual mode on a camera when you usually shoot in aperture priority? It is a tool to be used when needed and ignored when not....



Last time I checked, both manual and AV mode worked properly with all current Canon lenses. The same cannot be said of a popup flash, particularly on FF. 




Don Haines said:


> There are many reasons to have a built in flash, there are many reasons to not have it. There are times it will be useful and times that it is useless. The answer is a personal one and represents an individual's needs and preferences. There is no definitive answer to the question.



There's an answer, of sorts. If you want a popup flash on a FF camera, don't buy Canon.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 25, 2015)

tron said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Even a 580EX or 600RT doesn't properly illuminate the scene for an 11-24 or an 8-15 without a Stoffen diffuser or similar.

So, maybe they should stop making those flashes as well.

The popup on a crop body can't properly illuminate the scene for a 10-22 or 10-18. As such, this argument is irrelevant as those bodies have a popup flash.


----------



## knoxtown (May 25, 2015)

How could anyone in the market for a 5d think that a pop-up flash is an acceptable way to light a scene? It looks terrible. Fill light, blah, blah, blah. It's garbage, and I've never seen a working photographer use one or suggest he/she needed one. Not to mention, it makes weather sealing more difficult.


----------



## 100 (May 25, 2015)

tron said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You get focus confirmation of the TS-E 24 for instance, so it does work to some extent, but that’s beside the point. My point was that neuroanatomists argument (presented in the form of a question) isn’t a logical one to begin with. 

A popup flash doesn’t have to work perfect with all lenses to be a useful addition on a camera. Canon will have to redesign their non-popup flash cameras to fit one in so I can understand that they will not do that unless enough of their pro-users want them to do so, which is probably not the case.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Even a 580EX or 600RT doesn't properly illuminate the scene for an 11-24 or an 8-15 without a Stoffen diffuser or similar.
> 
> So, maybe they should stop making those flashes as well.
> 
> The popup on a crop body can't properly illuminate the scene for a 10-22 or 10-18. As such, this argument is irrelevant as those bodies have a popup flash.



Your argument is specious. 

The difference is that the flashes have a specified area of coverage based on lens focal length. Both the popup flash and external Speedlites provide coverage for a 35mm AoV. As you saw demonstrated earlier in this thread, the 35/1.4L does not work properly with the popup flash, but I suspect the 35/2 IS would work properly. 

Issues like that occur but are rare with crop bodies, but would be far more common if Canon were to put popup flashes on FF bodies.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Even a 580EX or 600RT doesn't properly illuminate the scene for an 11-24 or an 8-15 without a Stoffen diffuser or similar.
> ...


+1, The pic I posted earlier was shot with a 35L and 60D. On full frame the issue would be more apparent.


----------



## Ladislav (May 25, 2015)

I was considering adding 7D Mk II as a second body to my 6D because of its terrible AF system but with arrival of 5D Mk IV, the Mk III could get much cheaper + there will be a lot of used ones. I could even consider selling 6D and go straight for 5D Mk IV but only if 5D Mk IV brings features which would cover all my expectations. 

What I would like to see in 5D Mk IV? Honestly I don't care about more mega pixels, flash, video features, etc. I care about still photography performance, AF and connectivity features. That means give me a better sensor and AF than 5D Mk III + features like GPS, WiFi and maybe even Bluetooth for remote triggers and I will be very happy. I believe it will have at least GPS because it is already present in 7D Mk II with similar body.


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I don't think that Michael Bay (Mr Lens Flare) is someone that I want to learn from.



then show me what you have learned and gotten or all of them still looks as much ugly as number of years ago?


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 25, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Not so, I don't live near the equator and unless it's high summer time the sun is never that high. And I I like uwa shots, so often the sun is in the frame or near the frame's edge.



Such a great area for landscape... However, most landscape photographers that I know do not shoot during high noon (out in the field. see below links for more details), except black and white landscape photgraphers who always look for high contrast light/scenes (hints might be found in number of book for example, Ansel Adams in Color)



Marsu42 said:


> Your tree leaves example shot shows that a higher sun doesn't necessarily exceed Canon's dr range, but often it does even with proper exposure - with Magic Lantern's raw histogram, it's easy enough to check



I do not use ML, not on my 7D and not even on my 5D Mark III...



Marsu42 said:


> In my experience, the difference between Canon 11-ish dr and Sonikon or dual_iso 14-ish dr does make a difference for real world shooting, it's just the difference between clipped sky or not with sufficient detail in backlit subjects (with using a little fill flash).
> 
> Of course shooting with 14ev often does give you a hdr-ish look, so if you don't like that at all Canon's dr limit probably won't matter a lot to you.



DR never enough when shooting under high contrast light/scenes and none of current modern camera can handle it; therefore, I am okay with what I am having right now...

See link more information (written by a reknown medium format photographer that I have known, like I say, I do not just keep track of American phographers.)

http://www.brucepercy.co.uk/blog/2013/08/08/do-we-really-need-high-dynamic-range



Marsu42 said:


> Well, no, but in my defense I have to say vs. my old 60d I find the 6d's metering is rather dodgy. But as I'm shooting moving animals a lot can expose ok on the first shot, but need a second shot after viewing the raw histogram to ettr and not clip more than I want.
> 
> If you can really get a sunset shot ettr'ed perfectly the first time (as the sun's core is always clipped) or have trained to much you can guess manual exposure all the time, kudos to you ... though you cannot expect everybody else to perform at that level.
> 
> Btw personally I don't find having more margin for error a bad thing (either via more mp for cropping/rotating or mp for correcting exposure), and as a consumer it's absolutely ok to voice that preference.



I do not shoot animals, so I can not tell anything about it. But every single scene, most of the time, has a different metering number even though you camera has just moved only couples inches. Some photographers prefer shooting animals/wildlife in Av mode, some prefer manual mode and I am one of these people since manual mode does help in maintaining the same exposures when moving my camera from one to another angles... just make sure that animal do not either:
1. run into a dark scene from a bright scene, or
2. run into a bright scene from a dark scene

I will and always use Av mode when I am moving all the time (within couple minutes) from a bight to dark areas, or vice versa, same mode will be used for a cherry farm in a sunny and windy day (Flash definitely a big help under this situation.). However, different people have different of using cameras, just use it in a way that help you to deliver good images.

I first target journalism and like the way of handling lights by Cliff M... therefore, I decided to learn how to get a right exposure from started dates, ignoring about everything else, including post process... When capturing moment, I normally do not chimp at LCD, simply because I will likely to miss moments when chimping. In short, learning light is fun but also pain...


----------



## Dick (May 25, 2015)

dak723 said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, I can't think of a single case where using a pop up flash would be a good thing.
> ...



No. It doesn't do the tricks needed. I would never flash people in their faces and the pop-up flash is too weak for bouncing + very difficult in that kind of use.


----------



## vscd (May 25, 2015)

> If cost were a problem then why is it absent on Canon's most expensive DSLRs yet present on its cheapest DSLRs?



No total cost, but whatever the body will cost, a flash will cost a few bucks more on top.



> I don't know about you, but I don't buy a camera for its looks.



I do. If you ever recognized the clean head of an EOS1 you think that the D810 is ugly like hell. (It's great cam by the way).



> Difficult prism design? Many many cameras from Canon have had inbuilt flashes. I'm pretty sure Canon can handle a design with that now.



Did you ever ask yourself why there is a lot of premium price for a 100% Viewfinder? On APS-C even 95% is something nice but on fullframe most bodies miss the full view...

Putting a flash on APS-C is even easier with the small viewhole.



> Actually, the battery thing is one aspect of a popup flash that I really like.



Nice, I feel the opposite. 



> Some light is better than no light and if it isn't good enough for you then you can buy a better one.



You can also buy a better one, it's called 90EX.



> I might add that the majority of Canon camera buyers (who buy rebels, etc), rarely seem to buy flashes so this would appear to be a subjective rating and that it is "good enough" for a lot of people.



Then use a rebel.



> My camera bag is already full, where should I put this extra thing?



Did you ever see a 90EX? If it doesn't fit in your pocket you should think about your packingskills.


----------



## Sporgon (May 25, 2015)

ishdakuteb said:


> http://www.brucepercy.co.uk/blog/2013/08/08/do-we-really-need-high-dynamic-range



Good link, and some points well made, though the We-need-14-stops-DR-and-lift-6-stops brigade will no doubt disagree - verdantly.


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2015)

which image is with the pop-up flash and which image is with a 600EX-RT?

and today's tip is to put a Kleenex tissue in front of your flash to soften the light.... works on expensive flashes and pop-ups....


----------



## vscd (May 25, 2015)

> If you aren't happy with your Canon camera, then please get another camera. Their are so many choices out there. Put yourself out of your misery and make the switch - please! Certainly you must realize that anyone so unhappy with their equipment who continues to use it, looks like an idiot or a person who would rather than complain than have what they want.
> 
> It could be a fun place to be - here in the forum - but it is not. Sorry for the interruption. Please continue with the inane arguments and constant complaining about your wonderful cameras.



Nice words, but don't you make the same whining about the gear as you blame the others on? Some want a flash on fullframebodies, others don't. Actually there is none, let's keep it that way. 

There will be no solution between both sides, I guess. I don't want to carry stupid circuits 100% of the time just because some people need them once or twice in their lifetime. As Canon sometimes reads on forum I please them *NOT TO INCLUDE SUCH STUPID THINGS*. I think everything is said. ;D


----------



## Sporgon (May 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> which image is with the pop-up flash and which image is with a 600EX-RT?
> 
> and today's tip is to put a Kleenex tissue in front of your flash to soften the light.... works on expensive flashes and pop-ups....



The first is clearly taken with pop up because the cat is looking up as if to say "where did that pop up from"?

Glad to see we're now getting down to serious business - the cat pictures are out


----------



## slclick (May 25, 2015)

I'm giddy with anticipation of brick walls illuminated by a T2i


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > which image is with the pop-up flash and which image is with a 600EX-RT?
> ...


I would have done squirrels, but I have no flash photos of squirrels and it's raining out real hard.... I can always go outside with a well sealed camera and lens and use an umbrella to shield things from the rain..... but all that would prove is that the squirrels are smarter than me.... they are in their cosy dry nests.


----------



## kphoto99 (May 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> which image is with the pop-up flash and which image is with a 600EX-RT?
> 
> and today's tip is to put a Kleenex tissue in front of your flash to soften the light.... works on expensive flashes and pop-ups....


My guess is the first one is a pop up and the second one is 600EX-RT


----------



## meywd (May 25, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > which image is with the pop-up flash and which image is with a 600EX-RT?
> ...



same guess, by the size and color of the flash ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> and today's tip is to put a Kleenex tissue in front of your flash to soften the light.... works on expensive flashes and pop-ups....



Colored tissue = instant flash gel. You know how with some brands of tissues, the last few are orangish to indicate the box is nearly empty? Boom – CTO to balance tungsten.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2015)

First is popup with tissue, second is naked 600-EX-RT.

Both prove beyond doubt that direct flash, either from a 'free' popup or $450 top of the line hotshoe flash, is horrible.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 26, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> First is popup with tissue, second is naked 600-EX-RT.
> 
> Both prove beyond doubt that direct flash, either from a 'free' popup or $450 top of the line hotshoe flash, is horrible.



And if you're out-doors? Bounce is a little tough off the moon because of the two and a half second delay.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > First is popup with tissue, second is naked 600-EX-RT.
> ...



Why would you bounce off what is often the primary light source? Seems like a silly idea to me.


----------



## benperrin (May 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> And if you're out-doors? Bounce is a little tough off the moon because of the two and a half second delay.



You realise that you're wasting your breath right? The next 5d won't have a popup flash anyway. Get over it.


----------



## slclick (May 26, 2015)

Rock The Body


----------



## slclick (May 26, 2015)

Better yet


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



So...no, you apparently can't point out such an example, but you're quite willing to post yet another factual error of your own to toss on the ever-growing pile. 

I even have the courtesy to acknowledge my errors when _you_ are the one pointing them out (link).


----------



## Don Haines (May 26, 2015)

meywd said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


And we have a winner!
There was no Kleenex in front of either flash, and yes there is a color difference.... Good Eye!


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 26, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > ishdakuteb said:
> ...



Showing an image is much worthier than talking crap? Agree? Or you just stay chicken forever to show us your image? Don't go out and steal images like one of your buddy to show us... Your last two landscape images are crap even though I am not good enough comparing to many of people out there...


----------



## romanr74 (May 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > and today's tip is to put a Kleenex tissue in front of your flash to soften the light.... works on expensive flashes and pop-ups....
> ...



The tissue thing works even better if you sneeze into it really bad before using...


----------



## romanr74 (May 26, 2015)

ishdakuteb said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Couldn't agree more. Still no pictures from must be photography gods...


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 26, 2015)

ishdakuteb said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



I'm not sure what your looking for. Do you want him to post a picture taken with his gear (canon) that disproves his position that canon gear is inadequate? If so, said picture would be good, while "crap" may support his point.


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 26, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I knew that this question would be brought up, but he is trying to educated people on many aspects of photography, so he must have a good image to show. However, the answer regarding on gear that he use is that I can deliver a decent image even with my old Canon 30D (bought used), then there must be a way that he can deliver a decent image with his new gear. He might claim that Canon 30D is different from new ones, I have another 2 which is Canon 7D and Canon 5D Mark III, all he has to do is just pick one to against with...

He does not like to take portrait, candid, or journalism; this is part of the reason that I started to learn landscape. I have served him with all my best, haven't I ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 26, 2015)

ishdakuteb said:


> I knew that this question would be brought up, but he is trying to educated people on many aspects of photography, so he must have a good image to show.



Not necessarily. He's talking about dynamic range, not "photography." I'm sure there are people at canon/sony/toshiba/etc who could talk circles around pretty much anyone when it comes to sensor DR, but who can't produce a "good" image. 

Obviously good/great images can be produced with Canon gear, and I don't think anyone outside of a competitor's marketing department would argue that. Dilbert is hung up on the term "image quality," but that shouldn't be confused with a quality image


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 26, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > I knew that this question would be brought up, but he is trying to educated people on many aspects of photography, so he must have a good image to show.
> ...



Very great answer!... "Dilbert is hung up on the term "image quality"" is simply because his skills cannot help him getting around that. He has been complaining for number of years about Canon and keep telling that he is going to buy other brands. But what do we see, he is stepping no where, but in one place... so his skills of photography...

To me, light quality makes image quality, not image quality is made by number of excessive post process/edit quantity


----------



## vscd (May 26, 2015)

> Surely Canon would want to make their cheapest camera cheaper by removing the flash, yes?



No, because the targetaudience has no glue and demand popup-flashs.



> I've read many different justifications for owning a specific model of camera but to see someone defend a choice based on "beauty" to me reads like an emotional argument and one that another person can never argue against because it is a subjective judgement rather than objective one. Have you thought of tricking your camera up to make it look even more pretty? Give it some blue glowing lights underneath?



When the arguments are running off, people get foolish. No, I don't buy the cam on it's design only and it has also no blue light on it, but it's like a car... ugly design can be a problem for some people. Why not? Photographs have some sense on design. Maybe you're not "sensible" enough for productdesign. Not my fault.




> Except that almost every SLR (from the days of film) was full frame and I can recall only two such models (EOS-1 and EOS-3 - the "pro" models) that didn't have a builtin flash.



Do you see the connection once again? 



> Plus batteries. If you leave the batteries in the flash then they'll drain slowly so you need to pack those separately too. You kind of run out of pockets and things pretty quickly and life becomes more uncomfortable.



Bullshit. Sorry. You should buy better batteries instead. I carry my accumulators weeks or months on my flash and htey don't drain... I suggest you to try Eneloop from Panasonic.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 26, 2015)

benperrin said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > And if you're out-doors? Bounce is a little tough off the moon because of the two and a half second delay.
> ...



I did. I just think it's idiotic.

I just did a major reconfig:

5D -> 7D Mark II
Sigma 15mm fisheye -> Canon 8-15 fisheye
24-105L -> 18-135STM
35L -> Sigma 18-35/1.8
Keeping the 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2x TC III
85/1.8 -> Sell
17-40L -> Sell

Overall, the new system is more flexible with fewer lenses, has just as good of IQ in every situation and better in some, is faster in every way, costs less, and does include a built-in flash.

Canon is just too late in building a 5D replacement that interested me enough to buy it.

Interestingly, I've been begging for a 100-400L replacement that works well with a 1.4x since 2005. Now that it's finally here, it's too late as well. I'll probably buy a Sigma 150-600C instead.


----------



## Sporgon (May 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Overall, the new system is more flexible with fewer lenses, has just as good of IQ in every situation and better in some, is faster in every way, costs less, and does include a built-in flash.
> 
> Canon is just too late in building a 5D replacement that interested me enough to buy it.



Sounds to me as if Canon has built just the camera for you - the 7DII. That's a little power house for £1,450 and the 20.2 dual pixel chip seems to be able to produce some stunning quality.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Hmm, so you bought one Canon body and two Canon lenses, how exactly did Canon lose out on that one?


----------



## Lee Jay (May 26, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > benperrin said:
> ...



I was going to buy two Canon bodies and four Canon lenses (add 5D4, 100-400L II and 1.4x TC III). That's and additional, what, $6,000 orso? And iI'll be selling Canon lenses used which will ultimately displace some new sales.


----------



## tron (May 27, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?

Have you bought Sigma 150-600C yet? If no I guess it is because you think 600mm are better than 400mm?

I think 7DII with the 100-400 is a very good combination. 

I have the new 100-400 and use it with my 5D3 and I can assure you it is excellent fully open. I do realize I am FL limited though but I would not get the Sigma. Maybe a 7DII but not the Sigma. Just my opinion...


----------



## Lee Jay (May 27, 2015)

tron said:


> It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?
> 
> Have you bought Sigma 150-600C yet? If no I guess it is because you think 600mm are better than 400mm?



I think 600mm on a lens that focuses using f/5.6 points is better than 560mm on a lens that focuses only with the f/8 points, especially when the optical performance is the same or better at 1/3 of a stop faster (f.7.1 versus f/8) and it's $1,089 versus $2,628 (100-400L II + 1.4x TC III).


----------



## privatebydesign (May 27, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, so you bought one Canon body and two Canon lenses, how exactly did Canon lose out on that one?
> ...



Corporation valuations would be much higher if they were based on customer _"I was going to buy"_ assertions, but they aren't and you didn't; however you did give Canon several thousand dollars, they are very happy.

Given the plethora of very high quality new lenses I don't think your 17-40 and 85 f1.8 will upset the new lens market. Anybody in the used 17-40 market is not in the 16-35 f4 IS market, and nobody cares about the sale of a used lens that can be had new with warranty for $349.


----------



## tron (May 27, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?
> ...


If you really need 600mm with an APS-C camera maybe. Otherwise the 100-400 beats it at the ... well 100-400 range! And good luck carring a 2.8Kg lens...


----------



## Don Haines (May 27, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?
> ...


+1


----------



## tron (May 27, 2015)

So get the Sigma and tell us your opinion 8)


----------



## Lee Jay (May 27, 2015)

tron said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



It's 1.9kg.


----------



## Don Haines (May 27, 2015)

tron said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


When you are after small birds, it seems like you never have enough mm's.... I bet if someone came out with an 800F8 that had good IQ, people would jump on it....


----------



## Eldar (May 27, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


Indeed. I use both the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders with my 600mm and very often have to crop more than I like. I don´t have a feeder, where I can be closer to the birds though.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 27, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



And I've used both wide and teleconverters on my telescope which is natively 2800mm and f/10. It's 2000mm and f/7 with the wide converter, and up to 5600mm with a 2x.


----------



## tron (May 27, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


Sorry I used this link:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082152-REG/sigma_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_dg_os.html

which is the sports version of the lens...


----------



## tron (May 27, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


YES! A smaller 800mm would be a bonus. I recently found out that (A 600mm wouldn't be enough!)


----------



## mtavel (May 27, 2015)

I don't remember ever seeing so much pop-up flash love in one place. This thread belongs in the internet hall of fame or something.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 27, 2015)

mtavel said:


> I don't remember ever seeing so much pop-up flash love in one place. This thread belongs in the internet hall of fame or something.



It's a highly useful tool that many don't seem to have a clue as to how to use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> mtavel said:
> 
> 
> > I don't remember ever seeing so much pop-up flash love in one place. This thread belongs in the internet hall of fame or something.
> ...



It's a highly useful tool for those enamored of the 'deer in the headlights' look.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > mtavel said:
> ...



Nice example of "don't seem to have a clue as to how to use".


----------



## privatebydesign (May 27, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> mtavel said:
> 
> 
> > I don't remember ever seeing so much pop-up flash love in one place. This thread belongs in the internet hall of fame or something.
> ...



Or, it is a useless piece of junk that never fails to disappoint. 

Both are valid opinions depending on how you look at it, what you shoot and what you need as far as results go. I think "highly useful" is stretching it somewhat, but when the popups became optical remote flash controllers it certainly upped the functionality of them.

For my uses I have zero interest in a popup flash, indeed a camera fitted with one would be less appealing to me than a body without the 'feature', maybe I don't have a clue how to use one, but I am happy to not use one, though I grant my use case might be coming from a completely different place than any other individual user.


----------



## kphoto99 (May 27, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > mtavel said:
> ...


The big difference is that if the popup exists you have the option of never using it, but if the popup does not exist nobody has an option of using it.

The arguments that it adds cost or makes it harder to weather seal the camera are disproved by cameras like the T3 and 7DII respectively.

As far as the argument that a lens hood block light, the solution would be to have an articulating/telescoping popup that goes higher. The great engineers at Canon should be able to solve that easily.


----------



## meywd (May 27, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



The great engineers at Canon didn't put it in the 1D or 5D series, which is what this whole debate is about, instead of a pop-up flash I want better high ISO performance so I don't have to use the thing at all.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 27, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> The arguments that it adds cost or makes it harder to weather seal the camera are disproved by cameras like the T3 and 7DII respectively.



For those cameras to disprove the arguments you would need:

1) an apples to apples costing for the T3 produced without a popup, and
2) a 7DII without a popup which somehow required the same engineering to weather seal a location where there is no cutout.

No, those two arguments are unequivocally true. What really varies is how much cost is added by both inclusions. For cameras with substantial production runs (e.g. the Rebel series and maybe the 7D series), a little more engineering isn't going to impact the cost as much as for cameras with fairly small production runs, like the 1D or D4.


----------



## mtavel (May 27, 2015)

> The great engineers at Canon didn't put it in the 1D or 5D series, which is what this whole debate is about, instead of a pop-up flash I want better high ISO performance so I don't have to use the thing at all.



Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Of course pop-up flash has it's uses. And as anything, the more skill you have, the better you can take advantage of it. But I typically see pop-up flash used out of necessity (lack of light) not because its light is flattering or complementary. Higher sensitivity and usable DR would keep us from having to resort to something like pop-up flash in most situations.

And think of all the people using pop up flash at a stadium or right in front of aquarium glass that could have been spared from humiliation by the 5D!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



So...who went quiet and disappeared?


----------



## andrewflo (May 27, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> As far as the argument that a lens hood block light, the solution would be to have an articulating/telescoping popup that goes higher. The great engineers at Canon should be able to solve that easily.



I've always thought how useful it might be to have a pop up flash that can articulate and bounce. Yes it would never match the usefulness of a Speedlite, but it'd be a nice option for casual captures.

But potentially eliminating the need to buy a Speedlite for casual use by making a bounceable pop up flash, in the eyes of Canon, obviously makes this idea not likely to a get a high R&D budget.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2015)

andrewflo said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > As far as the argument that a lens hood block light, the solution would be to have an articulating/telescoping popup that goes higher. The great engineers at Canon should be able to solve that easily.
> ...



FWIW, the popup flash on the EOS M3 can be pointed upward for bounce flash. 

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4715674623/hands-on-with-canon-eos-m3


----------



## andrewflo (May 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> andrewflo said:
> 
> 
> > kphoto99 said:
> ...



You're absolutely right  I was lucky enough to pick one up when I visited Japan a few weeks ago and decided to upgrade from the M to the M3 for this reason largely (among many of course).

I do have to admit that the bounce is too weak in anything but a small room with white ceilings but it's a great option to have built right into the tiny body.

Also, with the compactness of the M3 and the EVF using the hotshoe, I wonder if Canon would have a different thought towards giving the M3 a bounceable pop up flash as compared to giving one to the pro DSLR body.


----------



## benperrin (May 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's a highly useful tool for those enamored of the 'deer in the headlights' look.


Bahaha. Hilarious.



Lee Jay said:


> It's a highly useful tool that many don't seem to have a clue as to how to use.



I really don't see how you can say that just because people don't use it is equal to people not knowing how to use it. I made this point awhile ago but I think it's worth restating it. There are 3 different areas that highly influence the look of light. 1. Quantity 2. Quality 3. Direction. You could also say that temperature is another. My issue is that a popup flash will only ever deal with number 1 (quantity). You can add more light into the scene but you can't change the direction or quality without adding modifiers which defeat the purpose of the popup flash. This is why the popup flash is not considered a professional feature and is my guess as to why it isn't included on cameras like the 1dx and the 5ds. 

Now I understand why you want it on those cameras but I just don't think it's ever going to happen. Hence the debate is really kinda pointless when you think about it. Just my take on it. Of course you have different needs from your gear than I probably do so you are more than welcome to raise your point of view. Just don't assume that people don't like the popup flash because they don't know how to use it.

Have a good day,
Ben


----------



## Lee Jay (May 28, 2015)

benperrin said:


> I really don't see how you can say that just because people don't use it is equal to people not knowing how to use it. I made this point awhile ago but I think it's worth restating it. There are 3 different areas that highly influence the look of light. 1. Quantity 2. Quality 3. Direction. You could also say that temperature is another. My issue is that a popup flash will only ever deal with number 1 (quantity). You can add more light into the scene but you can't change the direction or quality without adding modifiers which defeat the purpose of the popup flash.



This is flat false, and why I said people don't know how to use it.

Let's say the light is coming straight from the side. Adding a little flash from the front effectively rotates the side light slightly to the front. If the front light is as powerful as the side light, it rotates it to about 45 degrees from the front. If it's double the power of the side light, it effectively rotates it more toward the front.

The purpose of a flash is NOT TO ADD LIGHT QUANTITY TO A SCENE. If you use it that way, you are doing it wrong. Oh sure, this can be done in a pinch just to get a shot, but that's generally going to result in lousy shots.

The purpose of a flash is to help control scene contrast. It can also control angle, color and diffusion, and a popup flash, used properly, can do all of these.


----------



## meywd (May 28, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't see how you can say that just because people don't use it is equal to people not knowing how to use it. I made this point awhile ago but I think it's worth restating it. There are 3 different areas that highly influence the look of light. 1. Quantity 2. Quality 3. Direction. You could also say that temperature is another. My issue is that a popup flash will only ever deal with number 1 (quantity). You can add more light into the scene but you can't change the direction or quality without adding modifiers which defeat the purpose of the popup flash.
> ...



and why use the pop up flash to make it @ 45 degrees while you can position the external flash @ 45 degrees from the start


----------



## benperrin (May 28, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> This is flat false, and why I said people don't know how to use it.
> 
> Let's say the light is coming straight from the side. Adding a little flash from the front effectively rotates the side light slightly to the front. If the front light is as powerful as the side light, it rotates it to about 45 degrees from the front. If it's double the power of the side light, it effectively rotates it more toward the front.
> 
> ...



The purpose of a flash is to add quantity to a scene. Even if you are using it for fill you are adding light that wasn't there before hence quantity. Notice that I never said you had to overpower a subject with flash. I fully understand the value of fill flash. 

Yes I agree that a flash can be used to control the contrast of a scene. However it can not change angle, only add light on axis. It does not 'rotate' the light. The best practice will always be to take the light source off the camera to control light direction and quality by using a modifier. However, if you are happy with the results of a popup flash then more power to you. Many are not. Like I said it's all pointless anyway as Canon will make the correct call by not adding a popup flash on the next 5d. If you don't like it you don't have to buy it, it's that simple.


----------



## Don Haines (May 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's a highly useful tool for those enamored of the 'deer in the headlights' look.


You can also use a pop-up flash on safari to take pictures of lions at night. The lower power of the pop-up flash can be compensated for with stealth..... Just creep up close to the sleeping lion, pop up the flash, and press the shutter..... It's foolproof.... what could possibly go wrong...


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't see how you can say that just because people don't use it is equal to people not knowing how to use it. I made this point awhile ago but I think it's worth restating it. There are 3 different areas that highly influence the look of light. 1. Quantity 2. Quality 3. Direction. You could also say that temperature is another. My issue is that a popup flash will only ever deal with number 1 (quantity). You can add more light into the scene but you can't change the direction or quality without adding modifiers which defeat the purpose of the popup flash.
> ...



That is such a bad and inaccurate reply it is laughable. 

Light just doesn't behave like that, two light sources are two light sources, they create their own shadows and their own issues, they are not the same as one light source in a different place.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2015)

Silly me, I thought solutions of chiral molecules rotated light, but it turns out a popup flash can do it, too. Kewl, you learn something new every day!


----------



## Don Haines (May 28, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Let's say the light is coming straight from the side. Adding a little flash from the front effectively rotates the side light slightly to the front. If the front light is as powerful as the side light, it rotates it to about 45 degrees from the front.


WOW! I did not know that photons behaved as vectors.... gotta let the optics researchers at work know about this one!


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> "turn down the contrast between the shadow of their face and the rest of the scene."



ah... ic... that how you have been using your flash for, no wonder... lol

question: mine to let me see your "LOW contrast subject and LOW contrast scene" image? it might be a feature article on petapixel or fstoppers about using flash someday, who knows ;D


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



no, i do not use it that way... you want to see mine again? i already posted in this forum couple images... or you want to see new one? if you want to see a new one, let me see yours... lol...

promise that i will ask my daughter to be my subject to increase DR with using flash, and the new image shot with flash is just for you to see it, and also promise that "on camera flash without any diffuser or softbox, which means bare flash... without flash looking"..

note: you already stated that canon is low dr, so using flash to low down dynamic range more that mean a greater chance to blow out highlight when shooting backlit? pretty smart use huh


----------



## Lee Jay (May 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Silly me, I thought solutions of chiral molecules rotated light, but it turns out a popup flash can do it, too. Kewl, you learn something new every day!



Congratulations... You've reminded me of the phrase "breathtaking inanity".


----------



## romanr74 (May 28, 2015)

hmmm...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2015)

Meanwhile...in another galaxy...some 5DIII users are still using their current gear and shooting great landscapes using time tested techniques for expanding DR and controlling contrast:





Canon 5DIII, 16-35IIL @31mm f22 @ 1/5th sec @ iso 200 

A three shot exposure blend, merged in photoshop.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I find no such post, would you mind providing a link (as you'll notice I did)? 

By the way, did you notice another recent admission of error, even though the mistake was from a three years ago and it was not a mistake based on the information readily available at the time. Still waiting for you to acknowledge some of your mistakes...


----------



## Don Haines (May 28, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Meanwhile...in another galaxy...some 5DIII users are still using their current gear and shooting great landscapes using time tested techniques for expanding DR and controlling contrast:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Despite not having the 21839 stops of DR required to capture the shadows and the sun, it's a nice picture


----------



## Marsu42 (May 28, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Meanwhile...in another galaxy...some 5DIII users are still using their current gear and shooting great landscapes using time tested techniques for expanding DR and controlling contrast



Um, what's the time-tested method for correct hdr merging if there's a horse or other animal running through this scene? It's not like anyone is disputing bracketing works just fine for static scenes and even grass or leaves movement often doesn't show a lot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile...in another galaxy...some 5DIII users are still using their current gear and shooting great landscapes using time tested techniques for expanding DR and controlling contrast:
> ...



You're welcome to your opinion. It's a good try, but the bark on the trees facing the camera is far too dark with too little detail. Those shadows really need a lot of lifting, and that's where Canon's poor IQ really limits creativity. Sure, you could try blending 10+ exposures, but there's still no way to make this image truly Exmortastic. As it is, the image is far too natural-looking.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Oh, I see. Well, given your demonstrated inability to recall and/or confirm facts prior to posting, your credibility supporting such unsupported assertions is quite weak.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile...in another galaxy...some 5DIII users are still using their current gear and shooting great landscapes using time tested techniques for expanding DR and controlling contrast
> ...



If it's got a horse in it...then it aint a landscape and doesn't count! it's social commentary and who cares about that? 

Seriously...one exposure for the grass...no movement...one exposure for the sky...no movement unless intended....One exposure fore the middle zone....three shots and 10 seconds in Photoshop. Very easy...no fuss, just needs a careful eye with the exposure and a stable tripod. 
I've been doing this for about 8 years now and I sold all my Lee filters as a result. The results are more natural and I really like the technique. 

Here's another example with a 2 shot blend with LOTS of movement in the foreground:


----------



## Don Haines (May 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...


This is just personal opinion and as such, has no scientific merit, but I find that on shots like this, if one does go through the multiple exposures and heroic measures to restore all the detail into the shadows, that one has ruined the feel or mood of the picture... At some point we transit from improving the image to ruining the image. This one (at least for me) is a good balance...

and yes, I do recognize the Neuro humour in your comments... "As it is, the image is far too natural-looking"  and wonder how many will take you literally instead of tongue-in-cheek.....


----------



## Eldar (May 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Sarcastic humour is often funny and it often makes me laugh. It may even make me laugh second time around. But when it is repeated countless times, with the same angle, it is rather boring. And this repeated sarcastic humour and persistent misinterpretation of what people want to use lower read noise and improved DR for is totally boring. If you don´t want it and don´t need it, be happy and enjoy your gear.

Yes, I am in the heap of idiots who ask for more DR from Canon. I have also given examples. Notably the sarcastic humour suddenly left that thread when we got a number of examples posted, where it was very easy to see why lower read noise and improved DR would matter. No, I do not want these improvements to LIFT the shadows into something unnatural, but to have clean shadows, with natural structures, without having blown highlights in the other end. 

For the record, I also make images as the one posted here, when it is possible. But when things are moving in the images, as in people, birds, animals, wind in the trees etc. etc. I does not look good.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Sarcastic humour is often funny and it often makes me laugh. It may even make me laugh second time around. But when it is repeated countless times, with the same angle, it is rather boring. And this repeated sarcastic humour and persistent misinterpretation of what people want to use lower read noise and improved DR for is totally boring. If you don´t want it and don´t need it, be happy and enjoy your gear.
> 
> Yes, I am in the heap of idiots who ask for more DR from Canon. I have also given examples. Notably the sarcastic humour suddenly left that thread when we got a number of examples posted, where it was very easy to see why lower read noise and improved DR would matter. No, I do not want these improvements to LIFT the shadows into something unnatural, but to have clean shadows, with natural structures, without having blown highlights in the other end.
> 
> For the record, I also make images as the one posted here, when it is possible. But when things are moving in the images, as in people, birds, animals, wind in the trees etc. etc. I does not look good.



Pretty much everybody here is in agreement, nobody doesn't want more, it is just the veracity and importance that differs.

CAn you point me to the thread with a number of examples?


----------



## Don Haines (May 28, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Yes, I am in the heap of idiots who ask for more DR from Canon. I have also given examples. Notably the sarcastic humour suddenly left that thread when we got a number of examples posted, where it was very easy to see why lower read noise and improved DR would matter. No, I do not want these improvements to LIFT the shadows into something unnatural, but to have clean shadows, with natural structures, without having blown highlights in the other end.


Count me in too....

My first digital camera stored 8 bit jpgs.... I am guessing at around 5 stops of DR.... we have come a long way and I expect everyone to eventually level out between 14 and 15 stops... and yes, I will always welcome more, but it is still only one aspect of imaging, a field where I have so much more to learn.....


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 28, 2015)

Again, for some reason, there is some critical DR value, like critical velocity, somewhere between 11.5 and 13.4 stops where you go form not enough to enough. Where that value is nobody really knows.

Why has it suddenly become important? Not sure, but maybe it's only because another company offers more DR at base ISO, relatively speaking. I wonder if it would be necessary if all manufacturers were about 11.5 stops at ISO 100.


----------



## Eldar (May 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Sarcastic humour is often funny and it often makes me laugh. It may even make me laugh second time around. But when it is repeated countless times, with the same angle, it is rather boring. And this repeated sarcastic humour and persistent misinterpretation of what people want to use lower read noise and improved DR for is totally boring. If you don´t want it and don´t need it, be happy and enjoy your gear.
> ...


Scott, it started when I posted this:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26325.msg520996#msg520996
(and like all other threads, it kind of derailed again a little later ...)


----------



## Eldar (May 28, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Again, for some reason, there is some critical DR value, like critical velocity, somewhere between 11.5 and 13.4 stops where you go form not enough to enough. Where that value is nobody really knows.
> 
> Why has it suddenly become important? Not sure, but maybe it's only because another company offers more DR at base ISO, relatively speaking. I wonder if it would be necessary if all manufacturers were about 11.5 stops at ISO 100.


What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple. 

I do not know who much dynamic range we can use in the future, given all the other limitations we have. Right now I would be ecstatic to have D810 read noise and DR at low ISO on a 5DIV or 1DX-II, without wrecking high ISO performance.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 28, 2015)

Eldar said:


> What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.



I don't visit Sony or Nikon forums, but are those users clamoring for Red Epic Dragon performance? Or is that not considered a neighbor?

(Not sarcasm, legitimate question)


----------



## Eldar (May 28, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.
> ...


I don´t visit those forums either, but from what I hear, they have so much else to complain about, so this is not on their radar ... Eeeehhh ..., probably not true. That´s the one area they beat Canon, so they tend to make a point out of that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2015)

Eldar said:


> What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.



Simple and easy aren't the same. You may covet your 6-burner Viking range (even if it isn't dynamic), but can you afford the kitchen remodel it would take to make space? Would you trade houses with your neighbor to get that range, even if it also meant you'd get his outdated, leaky plumbing?


----------



## meywd (May 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.
> ...



But Neuro, its clear that he doesn't want to do that, that's why he is asking for it in a Canon body.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > What you don´t have, you don´t have. What nobody can give you, you can´t have and don´t spend much time worrying about. But when your neighbour has it and you see what it can do, you want it. Rather simple.
> ...



The Sony and Nikon forums have their own issues. Sony have many QC issues and a frustration with available lenses, funnily enough Nikon forums are full of the same complaints! 

I agree the comparative lack of DR performance at low iso can be a frustration for some Canon shooters sometimes, but I'll take the lens selection, service, radio flash and all the other good things I get with Canon every time over more DR at base iso.

Following on from that we must remember the Exmor DR advantage is only at base iso and decreases fast until, at what are now relatively modest iso values, there is no appreciable difference. We need to stop saying 'Exmor has two stops more DR' and start including the caveat 'at base iso', truthfully how often do you shoot at base iso? Banding in the lifted shadows has certainly been mitigated in the latest Canon sensors, the 5DS/R files look very very good, so lets not lose track of what we are all talking about. 

We all want more DR, the difference between Exmor performance and Canon performance can be a big one but only at base iso and only in specific situations with some subjects. If you shoot those subjects and situations regularly I can feel your frustration, but revel in the 7D MkII and 200-400 with built in TC, because if you were shooting Nikon you'd be using the D7200 and the antiquated and almost universally hated 200-400 without the built in TC, and the actual DR difference at 320iso between the two is a much more modest 1 stop.


----------



## Eldar (May 28, 2015)

meywd said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


You got it!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2015)

Eldar said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You can keep on asking, although no one here can help. No doubt Canon is aware that other sensors deliver more DR, and that's been true for >5 years. Clearly, there are things they felt were more deserving of R&D expenditures. Like a new paint color for their white lenses.


----------



## msm (May 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...Clearly, there are things they felt were more deserving of R&D expenditures.



Or much more likely, they just aren't capable with their 20year old semiconductor technology...


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2015)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ...Clearly, there are things they felt were more deserving of R&D expenditures.
> ...



That would be a remarkably naive assessment. 

They probably look at it that they can make the money they are with the tech they are selling, ergo how much more revenue would they generate if they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new sensor fabrication line? Probably a wiser investment to diversify (cinema, security, etc) and bring a unique twist to their DSLR system like lens selection and flashes. Probably closer to the truth.......


----------



## Marsu42 (May 28, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Again, for some reason, there is some critical DR value, like critical velocity, somewhere between 11.5 and 13.4 stops where you go form not enough to enough. Where that value is nobody really knows.



As I shoot with dual_iso a lot, I have some grasp on how much dr I need for my general all-day outdoor shooting when I want to capture everything with one frame. It's indeed 13.5-ish *if* you expose perfectly and fill the whole historgram, so realistically add 1ev for some breathing space.

Of course there are scenes that require more (like shooting into the noon sun and wanting to capture shadow details from an object in front of it), but's that not the standard case. Imho everything above 15ev is simply for easy exposure.



bdunbar79 said:


> Why has it suddenly become important? Not sure, but maybe it's only because another company offers more DR at base ISO, relatively speaking. I wonder if it would be necessary if all manufacturers were about 11.5 stops at ISO 100.



I'd say that that's - if someone else dangles some tech in front of your nose and you see it's possible, you want to use it yourself. Goes for all kinds of products, not just dslrs.

The other reason is what you wrote above: The "enough dr" sensor is nearly feasible so you start thinking about "what if", while in the past it was always clear that there's no way around hdr bracketing so it didn't matter if your sensor had 8,9,10 or 11 ev dynamic range.


----------



## msm (May 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Regardless of their fab, there could be patent issues preventing them from doing it. I could have formulated myself better, but making statements that assume they are able to is just speculation and should be formulated as such not as facts.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2015)

msm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Considering the tech they have showcased, the number of patents they register every year, and their R&D size when compared to their competitors I feel fairly confident is stating my opinion that Canon have not spent the money on a sensor fab so far because they haven't seen the return opportunity, nit because they don't have the tech.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



+1

They've been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years. During that time, Canon has maintained market share and they remain the DSLR market leader. Why should they spend money to increase low ISO DR - to appease a few people who complain about it on the Internet? That makes no fiscal sense.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 28, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Exactly. I don't see why people are against a feature that causes no harm when not in use, and which could come in handy at times.



You know why? You just want a popup flash. Someone else just wants 4k video. Another guy wants a swivel screen. She wants a swivel screen. He wants a better microphone. Their kid wants a SIM slot to upload pics to Instagram directly from the camera. Sooner or later you end up with the Homercamera.

https://startupblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/homermobile.jpg

Each little feature, individually, might be cheap and feasible. Collectively, decisions must be made, and some things will be dropped in favor of others. The flash takes up non-zero space, and non-zero price. From my perspective, I hope they leave it out. I also hope they leave out 4k so that my purchase doesn't subsidize videographers (I have zero interest in shooting video, and don't want to pay for it), and those who want it have to get the 5DC (with, presumably, other optimizations). Canon cannot make everyone happy (nor can Nikon, nor Sony, nor anyone else). I sincerely hope they don't try to make the 5D4 be all things to all people, and that some people are disappointed. The alternative is they try to make the everything-to-everyone camera, and fail.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. I don't see why people are against a feature that causes no harm when not in use, and which could come in handy at times.
> ...



But I want it I want it I want it I want it! If I don't get it I'm not going to buy another Canon camera ever. No one else will either because everyone wants what I want!!


----------



## vscd (May 29, 2015)

> Each little feature, individually, might be cheap and feasible. Collectively, decisions must be made, and some things will be dropped in favor of others. The flash takes up non-zero space, and non-zero price. From my perspective, I hope they leave it out. I also hope they leave out 4k so that my purchase doesn't subsidize videographers (I have zero interest in shooting video, and don't want to pay for it), and those who want it have to get the 5DC (with, presumably, other optimizations). Canon cannot make everyone happy (nor can Nikon, nor Sony, nor anyone else). I sincerely hope they don't try to make the 5D4 be all things to all people, and that some people are disappointed. The alternative is they try to make the everything-to-everyone camera, and fail.



+1

Everything said...


----------



## Tugela (May 29, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Having lots of patents doesn't mean they have (or have access to) the critical patents.

Most of the time when companies like this don't do something that would seem obvious to do, it is because they don't have IP rights to do it, or they are blocked from using it in specific product areas through cross licensing deals.

I suspect that is the main reason why Canon's mirrorless options are so sad, for example. It isn't because they don't know how to do it, or don't want to do it, they have obstacles blocking them from doing it that are business related.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2015)

Tugela said:


> Having lots of patents doesn't mean they have (or have access to) the critical patents.
> 
> Most of the time when companies like this don't do something that would seem obvious to do, it is because they don't have IP rights to do it, or they are blocked from using it in specific product areas through cross licensing deals.
> 
> I suspect that is the main reason why Canon's mirrorless options are so sad, for example. It isn't because they don't know how to do it, or don't want to do it, they have obstacles blocking them from doing it that are business related.



But Sony, Olympus, Fuji, and Panasonic all freely share or cross-license all their IP? Unlikely. 

To see why Canon doesn't offer much in the MILC space, one need look no further than the CIPA data on the camera market. IP issues aren't why Canon didn't release the M2 or M3 in the USA...


----------



## emko (May 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



yea and in that same 6 years look at what Sony has achieved, selling 450 million units of their imaging sensor i doubt Canon is happy about this, they have nothing that competes with these sensors and that's why the top Phones all use Sony.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 29, 2015)

Has canon ever supplied sensors to a third party?


----------



## msm (May 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



To make that claim you would have to know how much money they *could* have made, not how much they made. So your post is nothing but speculation.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 29, 2015)

How much they could have made is, in fact, speculation.

That they haven't made significant changes suggests that they consider a large investment in sensor fab for DR purposes to be more of a risk than what they speculate it is worth, for the time being. Instead, they developed DPAF.

Hell, if their market research suggested that increasing DR would be a major bottom line win, they'd make it happen, either by sourcing a sensor or redesigning their own signal chain. But they haven't, because they speculate that it doesn't matter to their business.

I suspect that in the long run they're wrong. If they had even the same RN performance as the SOTA sensors, where could the other companies compete? They would own the market. But i haven't invested in market research. They have. Their speculation is worth more than any of ours.


----------



## Dick (May 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> But there is a Canon patent for what is clearly a m4/3 lens so obviously Canon does think it is a market that they need to be in.



Nothing obvious there. In the basic 5 Ps of strategy, one P stands for Ploy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2015)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > They've been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years. During that time, Canon has maintained market share and they remain the DSLR market leader. Why should they spend money to increase low ISO DR - to appease a few people who complain about it on the Internet? That makes no fiscal sense.
> ...



_Nothing_ but speculation? Is it speculation that Canon has been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years? Is it speculation that Canon has been and remains the dSLR market leader? I make a logical conclusion based on facts. Or if you prefer, it's nothing but speculation that the sun will set at the end of the day. 




dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Not exactly. For example, Eldar cares about DR, and he's still buying Canon. But, you're likely correct that those who care about DR _as the primary factor that influences their purchasing decisions_ have already stopped buying Canon cameras and are now buying either Nikon or Sony or Pentax, *and Canon is still the market leader.* Which is exactly my point.


----------



## lourenco (May 29, 2015)

Canon has the technology to make the 5D Mark IV a great competitor for Nikon / Sony if they want to make it happen. Canon C300 II has 15 stops of dynamic range with great shadow protection based on canons videos. I am sure that would fix the DR and shadow noise issue. 

I know the limits of my 5D3, and I know not to go past them. I use fill flash to fill the dark shadow areas if I need to see details in the shadow areas. 

It is nice to have more DR, but it has not prevented me from being able to sell photos.

I have used ML Dual ISO. I do like the Idea of being able to increase dynamic range. I only use it on a few photos during an event because it takes too long to convert the photos to DNG to edit/print them. I use fill flash instead. 

See photos below. Both were taken during the same run. There was another photography taking photos behind me. His photo on the top. He does not use fill flash. You can see my photo with fill flash has more details given the flash fills in the shadow areas. That makes a bigger difference for me.


----------



## msm (May 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> _Nothing_ but speculation? Is it speculation that Canon has been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years? Is it speculation that Canon has been and remains the dSLR market leader? I make a logical conclusion based on facts. Or if you prefer, it's nothing but speculation that the sun will set at the end of the day.



Logic you say? Your premises does not support your conclusion, as I have already tried to point out but you obviously missed. I.e. you are just speculating or perhaps trolling. Does beeing a market leader mean they can't do better? No difference between 80% and 40% market share? How do you know how much or little of the market they miss out due to this DR issue?


----------



## martti (May 29, 2015)

lourenco said:


> Canon has the technology to make the 5D Mark IV a great competitor for Nikon / Sony if they want to make it happen. Canon C300 II has 15 stops of dynamic range with great shadow protection based on canons videos. I am sure that would fix the DR and shadow noise issue.
> 
> I know the limits of my 5D3, and I know not to go past them. I use fill flash to fill the dark shadow areas if I need to see details in the shadow areas.
> 
> ...



Lourenco: You certainly made your point clear with the pair of pictures.
Maybe the fundamentalists do not accept your method of taking pictures but I am sure that your clients do.
Nice and clear. The point ant the picture.


----------



## meywd (May 29, 2015)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > _Nothing_ but speculation? Is it speculation that Canon has been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years? Is it speculation that Canon has been and remains the dSLR market leader? I make a logical conclusion based on facts. Or if you prefer, it's nothing but speculation that the sun will set at the end of the day.
> ...



I don't understand, do you hate that Canon has competition? do you want a monopoly? also it doesn't matter how many people skip Canon to buy from Nikon/Sony, because you can never know that number, even with statistics its all speculation. another thing, if every single camera on the market was the same (AF, DR, MP) why would there be more than one brand, they can then unite under one company and sell you that camera. with competition Canon will either have to up their game and match Sony/Nikon/Samsung/Pentax with what they offer, or they can research new stuff on their own, why do you need a company to innovate to buy their product, when their current product is good for 70-90% of most ppl needs, I don't say innovation is bad, I say its just marketing BS, the same goes with Apple vs Microsoft, Apple vs Samsung, German Car companies, if you like a product buy it, when someone buys a Lamborghini there is a high chance they already have a Mercedes, a Land Rover, a Porsche, and 10 more cars, why not buy all Lamborghinis? or Ferraris? because each has its own strengths and weaknesses


----------



## JohnBran (May 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Maybe its taken time to get that ball rolling . 
What i mean from my experience i was using Canon for 10 years and for last year and a bit was waiting for something from Canon to address their inferior DR. I was in market for new Canon camera. I really wanted to stay with Canon but on the end recently sold rest of my canon lenses and moved over to Nikon. Actually getting used to Nikon was not as difficult as i was expecting. They are pretty much the same. If Canon creates something amazing in about 6 years i'll be back


----------



## Eldar (May 29, 2015)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > _Nothing_ but speculation? Is it speculation that Canon has been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years? Is it speculation that Canon has been and remains the dSLR market leader? I make a logical conclusion based on facts. Or if you prefer, it's nothing but speculation that the sun will set at the end of the day.
> ...


These are very valid points. When we add that the total market is shrinking, Canon should be very concerned with two things. One is to keep up the market interest for the products they supply and the other is to maximise their market share of whatever the market is.

It is clear that they are pushing video as one area to secure their future, but today they have close to nothing to compete with cell phones and GoPro type cameras and they are bleeding one way or the other, because of their sensor performance. It is obvious that Canon is concerned with what Sony, Nikon, Samsung, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax and all the rest of them are doing. 

Hypothesis; If Canon had sourced the 36MP sensor used in the D810 and A7r (I think it is) and released a 5DS&5DSR version with that two years ago. What would have happened to their market share, up or down? I think the answer is obvious. Would it require massive R&D investments? No. Would Sony sell? Yes, they sell to everyone.

If the market for DSLR is insufficient to support a new sensor fab today, it will most likely be insufficient also in the future. If so, Canon should milk whatever they can get out of their current fabs, on their cheaper product lines and source from someone for their high end cameras. All their R&D could then go into the areas where their competitive position is way better than within sensors.

I, for one, am seriously questioning their strategies.


----------



## Sporgon (May 29, 2015)

JohnBran said:


> ...waiting for something from Canon to address their inferior DR. I was in market for new Canon camera. I really wanted to stay with Canon but on the end recently sold rest of my canon lenses and moved over to Nikon.



Thank God for that ! 

At least you didn't stick with Canon and then come here to whinge about them ;D

Compared with years ago it's now really easy to get out of a system. On line sites like e bay make it very easy to sell used gear, and both Nikon and Canon hold their used value. Also many people now have just a body, a couple of zoom lenses and a flash. Not like the days when you have umpteen fixed focal length lenses and had to take a massive hit at the local second hand camera shop.


----------



## JohnBran (May 29, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> JohnBran said:
> 
> 
> > ...waiting for something from Canon to address their inferior DR. I was in market for new Canon camera. I really wanted to stay with Canon but on the end recently sold rest of my canon lenses and moved over to Nikon.
> ...



Hahaha true! 

and totally agree with you regarding lenses. One thing i've realised over the time is that i only need 3 prime lenses and that covers all my needs so jumping from system to system is not that hard, maybe even staying with both systems is my ultimate goal. 
I'll have 3 good primes on Canon and Nikon and when i'm due camera body upgrade then i just pick the best on the market at the time - its win-win !


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 29, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> JohnBran said:
> 
> 
> > ...waiting for something from Canon to address their inferior DR. I was in market for new Canon camera. I really wanted to stay with Canon but on the end recently sold rest of my canon lenses and moved over to Nikon.
> ...



I've not met a single professional photographer who's found the "limited" Canon DR to be a restriction or has hampered any of their sales or creativity...so go figure. In the mean time there's a few Nikon amateurs who have read some stuff on the internet and want to make a big issue with it and feel like they have "enlightened knowledge". . I say "a few" because the Canon 5DIII is still out selling any of the Nikon full frame cameras. 

If you want to buy Nikon, go for it...it's your money to waste. In the mean time, photographers are getting our there and taking pictures...you never know...this photography lark might catch on.


----------



## Sporgon (May 29, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I've not met a single professional photographer who's found the "limited" Canon DR to be a restriction or has hampered any of their sales or creativity...



Nor have I.

The emphasis being on _professional_ of course.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2015)

I respectfully disagree with this statement:

"Hypothesis; If Canon had sourced the 36MP sensor used in the D810 and A7r (I think it is) and released a 5DS&5DSR version with that two years ago. What would have happened to their market share, up or down? I think the answer is obvious. Would it require massive R&D investments? No. Would Sony sell? Yes, they sell to everyone."

It's not obvious. The 5D Mark III outsold the D800/E so it wasn't a larger concern for most shooters, even professionals. Could it have gone up or down, I don't know, but the answer is not obvious.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2015)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > _Nothing_ but speculation? Is it speculation that Canon has been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years? Is it speculation that Canon has been and remains the dSLR market leader? I make a logical conclusion based on facts. Or if you prefer, it's nothing but speculation that the sun will set at the end of the day.
> ...



If Canon were LOSING market share to Nikon and Sony that would be one thing.


----------



## SwnSng (May 29, 2015)

6 months ago not so sure..but now i'm dead sure that I want Canon to make a sensor with 14-15 stops of DR just so all the DRoning would just stop...but i'm sure they would just then pick something else to beat-up to death.

GO OUT and shoot!


----------



## Eldar (May 29, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I respectfully disagree with this statement:
> 
> "Hypothesis; If Canon had sourced the 36MP sensor used in the D810 and A7r (I think it is) and released a 5DS&5DSR version with that two years ago. What would have happened to their market share, up or down? I think the answer is obvious. Would it require massive R&D investments? No. Would Sony sell? Yes, they sell to everyone."
> 
> It's not obvious. The 5D Mark III outsold the D800/E so it wasn't a larger concern for most shooters, even professionals. Could it have gone up or down, I don't know, but the answer is not obvious.


You are totally missing the point. The point is not to compare 5DIII with D800/E sales. The point is how many of the sold D800/E/D810/A7r would have been Canon cameras instead, if they had done as stated above and how many Canon users would have bought one of those in addition to a 5DIII (or a 1DX). It is pretty obvious that sum would be a positive number and most likely a substantial one.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 29, 2015)

SwnSng said:


> GO OUT and shoot!



Yay, now we're talking, my favorite kind of post - someone in an internet forum telling people not to post in an internet forum


----------



## Eldar (May 29, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> SwnSng said:
> 
> 
> > GO OUT and shoot!
> ...


He he, Been out for several hours. This is probably the best keeper for the day, where a Great Crested Grebe is enjoying the first sun rays of the day, while giving her newly hatched a hug 
1DX, 600 f4L IS II + 1.4xIII


----------



## Don Haines (May 29, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > SwnSng said:
> ...


NICE!


----------



## Marsu42 (May 29, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > SwnSng said:
> ...



Nice one, for a change this doesn't just have enthusiast's top notch iq and smooooooth bokeh, but some emotional content for a change


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2015)

Eldar said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I respectfully disagree with this statement:
> ...



I'm guessing not many at all of the sold D800/E/810 cameras would have ever been or ever had the potential of being Canon purchased cameras instead. That would require people changing systems.


----------



## martti (May 29, 2015)

You do not see much shots like that one by Eldar coming from the DR fanatics.
Might be that yuo can be a DR fanatic in your office whereas to shoot this swimming ostrich with its calf you actually have to be in close contact with cold water and mud. Wakie wakie 4 h something....

kudos, Eldar!


----------



## msm (May 29, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > SwnSng said:
> ...



Nice one indeed. May I ask where you shoot these birds? Østensjøvannet?


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> And those who care about DR have already stopped buying Canon cameras and are now buying either Nikon or Sony or Pentax. A customer once lost is harder to regain.



So what you're saying is, the lost customers are lost, and the thing to do is focus on continuing to satisfy current customers instead of whining non-customers. Got it.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> And if they don't and someone else does then people that want the convenience of a built in flash or built in SIM slot or swivel screen change brand ... there are lots of people that upload directly to Instagram/facebook.



Right... did you miss the point of my post? Do you think all of that (plus everything else that anyone would ever want) can be implemented in the same camera, keeping it small and light and cheap enough for mainstream users, and done well?


----------



## Eldar (May 29, 2015)

msm said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...


Yupp! It is about 2km from where I work, so I go there around 5:30 and stay a few hours before work. Quite exceptional to have a lake like that so close to the city


----------



## msm (May 29, 2015)

Eldar said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



That's a nice way to do it, another reason why I should have had a car or MC I guess, since the collective system here in Oslo doesn't wake up until several hours later


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2015)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > _Nothing_ but speculation? Is it speculation that Canon has been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years? Is it speculation that Canon has been and remains the dSLR market leader? I make a logical conclusion based on facts. Or if you prefer, it's nothing but speculation that the sun will set at the end of the day.
> ...



I didn't miss your point. No one _knows_ how much or little of the market Canon misses because of DR, and by that token no one knows that the sun will rise in the morning. But who is in the best position to guess the differential market share for DR...you? Me? Or a company that spends significant amounts of money on market research? We can observe where Canon has improved their dSLRs, we can observe what other manufacturers offer, we can observe market share. From those observations, we can draw conclusions. Canon has not substantially improved low ISO DR. Other makers deliver more low ISO DR. Canon remains the market leader. Connect the dots, it's not hard. 




Eldar said:


> Hypothesis; If Canon had sourced the 36MP sensor used in the D810 and A7r (I think it is) and released a 5DS&5DSR version with that two years ago. What would have happened to their market share, up or down? I think the answer is obvious. Would it require massive R&D investments? No. Would Sony sell? Yes, they sell to everyone.



I don't think the answer is obvious at all. Well, maybe it's obvious that market share would have increased, but by how much...and at what cost? If a 5% increase in market share requires 20% greater production costs, is it fiscally sound? Market share is important, but what really matters are revenues, profits, and shareholder value. Would you like to have a company that had 100% of the market share for replacement parts for the Edsel? 

Consider that in the fourth quarter of last year, the Apple iPhone had ~15% of the global smartphone market share. Pretty unimpressive, right? Samsung is really clobbering them, right? But...for that same quarter Apple had ~93% of the global smartphone _profits_. So, who's clobbering who?


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2015)

Oh shut up. You know darn well every Nikon shooter and their brother would have promptly dumped all of their gear and bought the 5D3 if it had high DR at low ISO.


----------



## SwnSng (May 29, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > SwnSng said:
> ...



Wonderful shot, Eldar. touche 




Untitled by Thai, on Flickr


----------



## Eldar (May 29, 2015)

SwnSng said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...


----------



## benperrin (May 30, 2015)

Just my 2 cents. I think the image quality from the 5ds/r is pretty amazing. IMHO the test shots seem to be mostly better than a d810 where detail is concerned. So hasn't Canon then made the right move by not catering to people on this thread and going with a Sony sensor? I mean sure short term the idea might sound like a good one from a sales point of view but we now know that Canon is capable of 15 stops of dynamic range with their new EOS video camera. We assume this technology is coming to the 5d4. Which is going to give Sony a bigger run for their money and force them to react. We all win.

On the other hand Sony cornering the market sounds like a disaster for us dslr people. There'd be no serious competition as the 3 market leaders would all be using exactly the same sensors. Just a thought...


----------



## Orangutan (May 30, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Oh shut up. You know darn well every Nikon shooter and their brother would have promptly dumped all of their gear and bought the 5D3 if it had high DR at low ISO.


I can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic.

On the off-chance that you're serious, consider the implications: suppose Canon had made the 5D3 exactly the same, but with the Sony 36MP sensor from D800, and suppose Nikon shooters did move to 5D3 kit it in throngs. That would mean that everything about Nikon *except *the sensor sucked cesspits. That's pretty strong criticism of Nikon, and pretty strong praise for the 5D3.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 30, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh shut up. You know darn well every Nikon shooter and their brother would have promptly dumped all of their gear and bought the 5D3 if it had high DR at low ISO.
> ...



I'm going with sarcasm.


----------



## Eldar (May 30, 2015)

martti said:


> You do not see much shots like that one by Eldar coming from the DR fanatics.
> Might be that yuo can be a DR fanatic in your office whereas to shoot this swimming ostrich with its calf you actually have to be in close contact with cold water and mud. Wakie wakie 4 h something....
> 
> kudos, Eldar!


Thanks Martti. I got an all time high likes and comments on a nature photographer group on Facebook for this one 

But to keep the discussion going; This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. I had been following these birds in a shadow area and had my exposure set for that. Like many of you, I try to be as close to the right in the histogram as possible, for best noise performance, which puts me in danger of over exposing. In this case, the sun had just risen above the horizon, she had just emerged from the shade and I had not had time to adjust exposure yet (manual mode, auto-ISO). So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown. So it is easy to say that it was my fault, but on the other hand, I believe most of you, doing this kind of photography, has experienced just the same.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 30, 2015)

martti said:


> You do not see much shots like that one by Eldar coming from the DR fanatics.



True 'nuff, those drones never shot a good picture in their whole life, that's why they keep on drooling about more dynamic range! Meanwhile, we loyal Canon go on getting beautiful pictures because we know proper camera handling and keep on concentrating on picture *content* while the Sonikon trolls bite their teeth on specs.

And thanks for your insightful comment, elevating the discussion to a whole new level - and making me stop read any of it, this is just getting too dumb (sorry to be explicit, but this is the best word I can come up with).


----------



## Sporgon (May 30, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > You do not see much shots like that one by Eldar coming from the DR fanatics.
> ...



Marsu, your English is truly excellent. I didn't think 'insightful' was a real word, but it is !


----------



## benperrin (May 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> This guy gets it.
> 
> The last camera I bought wasn't a Canon and it is looking likely that the next one won't either simply because Canon don't have cameras that I want: for one, I've given up walking around a city with a DSLR over my shoulder and now use something much smaller with smaller lenses. This means less weight and a more enjoyable day.


Well then stop complaining about Canon cameras when you don't use them anyway and go out and shoot something you enjoy. You sound like you've found a system that suits you perfectly and yet you still go on these forums and complain...


----------



## Don Haines (May 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


I think you just defined the market segment for Sony and micro four-thirds.....

For some people, size and weight are the deciding factors in which camera to get. Things such as IQ and DR are secondary to them.... they don't care if it is better or worse than Canon or Nikon, they just care that the camera is small(er)....


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2015)

Eldar said:


> This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. ... So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown.



So if you have 12-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are blown...but if you have 14-stops of DR and you overexpose the scene, your highlights are _not_ blown?


----------



## msm (May 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. ... So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown.
> ...



Or maybe he would have just used his brain (something you don't seem capable of) and lowered the ISO and still get the same shutter time and same noise in the shadows as his 1Dx while preserving the highlights?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2015)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Here's the full quote, where that issue was addressed. I highlighted the relevant part so it's easier for you to find, as evidently clicking the link was too taxing for you. 



Eldar said:


> But to keep the discussion going; This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because I accidentally over exposed it. I had been following these birds in a shadow area and had my exposure set for that. Like many of you, I try to be as close to the right in the histogram as possible, for best noise performance, which puts me in danger of over exposing. In this case, the sun had just risen above the horizon, she had just emerged from the shade and *I had not had time to adjust exposure yet* (manual mode, auto-ISO). So you can see that the white part under her eye is a bit blown. So it is easy to say that it was my fault, but on the other hand, I believe most of you, doing this kind of photography, has experienced just the same.



Perhaps you'll now use your truly dizzying intellect to address my original question of how more DR would have helped... :


----------



## Eldar (May 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Even though the question was not directed to me (I think); If I was not concerned with shadow noise, as much as I am, I would not be so inclined to push my exposure to the right. If so, I would have had headroom (even a bit at 11 stop DR), when the lighting conditions changed. So indirectly, it is more about the noise problem than the DR problem, but both would have helped. (I don´t believe it takes a "truly dizzying intellect" to see that).


----------



## msm (May 30, 2015)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Exactly, but this concept is obviously too hard to grasp for someone who don't understand logic.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2015)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Do you have an AE Microadjustment applied? Else, with auto ISO and no EC (according to EXIF), how are you pushing exposure to the right?


----------



## Eldar (May 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do you have an AE Microadjustment applied? Else, with auto ISO and no EC (according to EXIF), how are you pushing exposure to the right?


I do not understand why this must become a debate, but here goes;

It is very simple; I start with auto ISO and no adjustment. Then I fire I shot and check the histogram. Whether that requires compensation up or down or none at all, depends on the lighting conditions. In this case, I did not adjust EC, because it gave me what I wanted when the bird was in the shade (no clipping in the high end). When it moved into the sun, I should have under exposed about a stop. As you can see though, the image is not ruined, but I could have had a bit more structure and content in the white area below its eye.

If I was less concerned with shadow noise and I had a couple of more stops of DR, I would have under exposed also in the shaded area, because it would have given me the DR I needed and it would also provide headroom in both ends of the histogram. These subjects do not stay still, so lighting is changing all the time. Canon´s light metering is good, but not perfect, so headroom is always good to have.

I hope that was clarifying.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> This guy gets it.
> 
> The last camera I bought wasn't a Canon and it is looking likely that the next one won't either simply because Canon don't have cameras that I want: for one, I've given up walking around a city with a DSLR over my shoulder and now use something much smaller with smaller lenses. This means less weight and a more enjoyable day.



There's a difference between "gets it" and "agrees with you". You don't know how such a move would have affected profitability. Chasing market share at the expense of profitability is a horrible move, and given the state of the mirrorless market, Canon lost most of their interest in you as soon as you "[gave] up walking around a city with a DSLR". Just like when someone buys a cheap desktop tower, Apple doesn't feel the need to make one just to chase every possible customer. Nor does Honda feel the need to make a sports car if someone trades their Civic in on a Mustang.

You got out of the DSLR market? Canon bid you adieu. They're interested in customers they can make real money from. That's not mirrorless, not now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2015)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have an AE Microadjustment applied? Else, with auto ISO and no EC (according to EXIF), how are you pushing exposure to the right?
> ...



Yes, that clarifies. More DR would not have helped the shot, which was my point. If you're using the default metering, autoexposure, and not applying EC, and you blow a highlight, it's blown. You're saying more DR would change your behavior, you'd ETTL or at least ETTR less and routinely underexpose your shots (either by setting a stop of negative AE Microadjustment or by leaving a negative EC as default), planning to push them all in post. I suppose that could work. 

I wonder...do people with SoNikon sensors always apply negative EC and push their shadows back up in post?


----------



## Eldar (May 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Sorry John, you just don´t get it, do you : 
(my last post on this topic ...)


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2015)

Yes, Eldar – I get it. 

Some people think more DR is the solution to every problem – it's not. If you accidentally overexpose, as you stated you had done, more DR won't help. 

I predict you'll be disappointed with the 5Ds and its poor low ISO DR image quality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2015)

I also get there are people who want more DR than Canon delivers. What I don't get is why they continually complain about it here, where it does no good. Complain to Canon, better yet, stop buying Canon cameras. 

Except that dilbert assures us that everyone who cares about DR has already stopped buying Canon, so clearly Canon's business is suffering because their sensors deliver less low ISO DR. So I guess Canonjust doesn't get it, either. : :


----------



## msm (May 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I also get there are people who want more DR than Canon delivers. What I don't get is why they continually complain about it here, where it does no good. Complain to Canon, better yet, stop buying Canon cameras.
> 
> Except that dilbert assures us that everyone who cares about DR has already stopped buying Canon, so clearly Canon's business is suffering because their sensors deliver less low ISO DR. So I guess Canonjust doesn't get it, either. : :



I get that there are people who hare happy with what Canon delivers. What I don't get is why some of them continually have to defend Canon no matter what, attack anyone who complains about Canon, attack review sites that give Canon unfavorable reviews and bash offerings from the competition at any opportunity. Does anything good come from that?

As some have reached over 16000 posts on the subject it is quite clear what camp has the biggest fanatics. Thats almost 10posts every day for 5years.

Does it hurt you if someone says something bad about your camera? Would you spend as much energy defending your wife or family?


----------



## Eldar (May 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, Eldar – I get it.
> 
> Some people think more DR is the solution to every problem – it's not. If you accidentally overexpose, as you stated you had done, more DR won't help.
> 
> I predict you'll be disappointed with the 5Ds and its poor low ISO DR image quality.


Sorry, could´t help posting one more ...

No, DR is not the solution to every problem and the only one persistently stating that is you. I have never said so and I have not read that statement from anyone else either (excluding a multi time blocked Swede with various aliases). You expect everyone else to respect your posts and what you have said, so it would be courteous of you to do the same.

In this particular case. The use of the term over exposure and under exposure relates to the metering provided by the camera, not the final image. The goal is to have a correctly exposed image. And you must have me excused, but your question about Sonikon people always applying negative EC and pushing their shadows back up in post looks quite stupid ...

Canon suffer from shadow noise. To minimise that problem I push my exposure as high as possible, without clipping (it is not over exposed, i am just using the available DR I have). The risk I am running by doing that is exactly what happened in this image. The lighting changed and I had no head room in my dynamic range and it clipped.

If I had a sensor equal to the D810, I would be less concerned with shadow noise, because it is quite a bit better at that. I would be less focused on exposing to the right and I would operate within the available dynamic range, as I should. In this particular case I would have been able to correctly expose the shadow images AND have enough head room to manage the changed lighting and also expose the sunny image within the available dynamic range. So to repeat myself; This image in itself does not require more DR than I can get from my 1DX, but a couple of more stops would have given me the head room I needed to capture both scenes. 

By the way, shadow noise seem to be improved on the 5DSR, compared to the 5DIII, so I may be less concerned with this issue then. Time will show. 

It is also wrong to say I accidentally over exposed. I intently exposed as high as possible in the shadow images, without clipping, so my over exposure in the sunny images could easily have been predicted and it is fair to say that I asked for it.


----------



## scottkinfw (May 30, 2015)

I'd love to be a tester, send one over right now!



martti said:


> I think it is a brilliant idea to have some selected photographers test the 5DIV before it hits the market.
> This differs from the politics of Sony who let their clients do the beta testing of their products.
> I am sure that the 5DIV will have some features that irritate the skin off some readers here.
> While others quickly find an excuse to upgrade.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2015)

Eldar said:


> In this particular case. The use of the term over exposure and under exposure relates to the metering provided by the camera, not the final image. The goal is to have a correctly exposed image. And you must have me excused, but your question about Sonikon people always applying negative EC and pushing their shadows back up in post looks quite stupid ...



You are the one who stated more DR would have helped your shot, and you then took the time to explain that with more DR, you would not generally choose to expose so far to the right. In order for more DR to preserve highlights when using autoexposure, you'd need to have applied negative EC...and in changing light, that means you'd always be underexposing. 

I won't call your statements stupid, but they certainly lack internal logical coherence.




Eldar said:


> It is also wrong to say I accidentally over exposed. I intently exposed as high as possible in the shadow images, without clipping, so my over exposure in the sunny images could easily have been predicted and it is fair to say that I asked for it.



Fine, but you are the one who initially phrased it in exactly that way:



Eldar said:


> This shot would have benefited from more DR. Not because the scene demanded it, but because *I accidentally over exposed it*.


----------



## sanj (May 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I also get there are people who want more DR than Canon delivers. What I don't get is why they continually complain about it here, where it does no good. Complain to Canon, better yet, stop buying Canon cameras.
> 
> Except that dilbert assures us that everyone who cares about DR has already stopped buying Canon, so clearly Canon's business is suffering because their sensors deliver less low ISO DR. So I guess Canonjust doesn't get it, either. : :



Maybe to bug you? ;D


----------



## sanj (May 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I think more and more options will be available for this kind equipment in future. I see a trend. I want to use both a small, good IQ at high ISO tiny camera with good focus when I don't want my presence felt and my 1dx with 85 f2 in neon lit streets when I can.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2015)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I also get there are people who want more DR than Canon delivers. What I don't get is why they continually complain about it here, where it does no good. Complain to Canon, better yet, stop buying Canon cameras.
> ...



Maybe. Admittedly, it's a bit frustrating to see people ignoring the reality that's staring them in the face. 

I'll try and do better about not responding to the most egregiously idiotic posts...but I make no promises.


----------



## sanj (May 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



hahahahaha.


----------



## Eldar (May 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'll try and do better about not responding to the most egregiously idiotic posts...but I make no promises.


He he, It is raining like hell here today, so I have nothing better to do. I could of course read up and try to compensate for my poor skills and get my basic understanding of exposure and dynamic range up to at least junior level, to make sure I do not contribute to more egregiously idiotic posts ... 

John, you would do us all a favour if you do as you state above. In many cases you are a knowledgeable guy, who post good posts, with enlightening information. Some of them are even helpful. But you must stop being offended when someone has a negative opinion about your favourite toy. Don´t be insulted and don´t feel obliged to jump in the trenches. The majority of the posts, which you call fact based, appear like anything but fact based to us. Too many of them appear as emotional "don´t mess with my precious" posts, so stop claiming that you are factual and the rest of us isn´t. It is simply wrong.

I´ll ignore your insulting (yes, that is what they are) statements above and I´ll ignore your persistent lack of will to understand what I say (Yes, it is persistent lack of will, because I am sure you have the intellect) and I look forward to a life on CR, where you do as you state in the quote above. We know you are happy with what you have, we know you are onboard with Canon´s strategies, we know you hate DxO and we know that you focus on the system. You don´t have to give us 10 posts a day, repeating that. And if we forget, we have a backlog of 16.000 posts to consult.

Have a good weekend!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2015)

Just to be clear, Eldar - your posts are generally eloquent and clear, even when I don't agree with your content.


----------



## sanj (May 30, 2015)

Elder I am sure you know this, but when I typed 'hahahaha' above it in no manner whatsoever implied that your comments where idiotic. I just found Neuro reaction funny (in a nice way) and laughed. Just making my self clear. 

I am the on the side that wants Canon to have industry best DR both at low and high ISO. 

I also like the way you have written to Neuro above. Polite and to the point without anger. Gentleman!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2015)

sanj said:


> I am the on the side that wants Canon to have industry best DR both at low and high ISO.



Do you know anyone who's _not_ on that side? ???


----------



## Sporgon (May 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



You do now.http://www.colinprior.co.uk/profile/


It appears that you 'don't know' many things dilbert. Using ''I don't know'' to emphasis the validity of your point is , in your case, an unfortunate phrase, albeit accurate.


----------



## sanj (May 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I have full faith it is matter of time. I know your reply will be it is too late already, but I trust it is a matter of time.


----------



## sanj (May 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I am the on the side that wants Canon to have industry best DR both at low and high ISO.
> ...



Modification: "I am on the side that wants Canon to have industry best DR both at low and high ISO and feel that this is important." Makes more sense now probably.


----------



## msm (May 30, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Thanks for the link, many nice panoramas there.


----------



## Mr1Dx (May 30, 2015)

To Eldar & Neuro,
I do see good points from both sides. May I suggest we keep the debate at gent's level. 

Eldar,
I'm familiar with your situation. My most recent trip to South Africa Safari, when tracking the male Lion walking in/out the trees - applying EC wasn't my priority one. With today digital photography, software plays huge role in post. I was able to fix most situations. On the others side, better sensor would reduce times in PP.

Best,
John


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



You're entirely right. Canon is on the side of "Canon having industry-best fat sacks of cash." They're doing quite well in that arena.


----------



## dak723 (May 30, 2015)

I am on the side that delivers the best photograph. And so far, for me, that has been Canon. Yes, better than the Sony A7 II. High DR means that in extreme conditions you can create a wider range of tones before reaching white or black. More DR, in itself, does not mean a better photograph. The fact that pixel peepers do not understand this is because they are not looking at the entire photograph - they are too busy peeping at pixels. For those looking at photos, Canon does a fine job. For those looking at pixels, Canon lags behind. 

And, by the way, most of my photos are landscapes. And in my side-by-side comparisons when I bought the Sony A7 II to compare with (and potentially replace) my Canon 6D, I shot only landscapes. And the Canon took the better shots, in my opinion. So sorry Dilbert.


----------



## vscd (May 30, 2015)

Today I just went out with the kids to make some ridiculous pictures with an old Canon 5D (Mark Zero) and the non-professional lousy 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 (and later an Samyang 14mm).

I could not even read the downside of the airplane against the horrible blown out sun. The lense flares to death and I couldn't focus without liveview on the cam. Must be something wrong with my totally outspecced cam from 2005 and it's somewhat 9 to 11 Stops of DR. :

Who cares... I got a lousy, but moody picture, and what's more important: * I was outside and had fun *


----------



## LukasS (May 31, 2015)

vscd said:


> Today I just went out with the kids to make some ridiculous pictures with an old Canon 5D (Mark Zero) and the non-professional lousy 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 (and later an Samyang 14mm).



Good choice, I've had a photo shoot with a gorgeous model on tuesday and among many nice shots there were around three out of focus that had that WoW factor (light, pose and frame). But I got over it and went to PP other shots .


----------



## Don Haines (May 31, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


I think that when people start out, everything is their goal. After they gain experience, they tend to drift towards the aspects that particularly interest them.....


----------



## sanj (May 31, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yep.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 31, 2015)

dilbert said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Right, so what you're saying is you actually missed my point, because the list was not meant to be all-inclusive. Classic case of missing the forest for the trees - that was not all the features anyone has ever asked for, but the list of what I came up with off the top of my head (and it seems you removed some of them). Canon (and Nikon, and Samsung, and Sony...) can't include every feature everyone would ever want. Acting like they're idiots for leaving out what you want (while including what many others want, and selling lots of cameras) is incredibly myopic.


----------



## martti (May 31, 2015)

Give me Zorki! Give me Jupiter lenses! Tavaritshe! What's wrong with you...Lubitel rules!


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 1, 2015)

msm said:


> What I don't get is why some of them continually have to defend Canon no matter what, attack anyone who complains about Canon, attack review sites that give Canon unfavorable reviews and bash offerings from the competition at any opportunity. Does anything good come from that?



I've not noticed this, perhaps you could share some examples. What I do notice is that when someone makes inaccurate or overgeneralized statements about the advantages of this or that camera, there's often someone (**cough**Neuro*cough**) to step in and remind them where they went too far. I think it's safe to say that everyone here acknowledges that at low ISO the Sony sensors have better DR and better shadow noise, those are not really points of contention. The differences of opinion are related to (1) under what conditions those advantages are important (e.g. low ISO vs. high ISO, certain lighting conditions); (2) whether there are other cases when Canon sensors render a better image (some have stated they prefer Canon skin tones);(3) the trade-offs needed to get that low ISO advantage (e.g. QA problems, poor service, falling behind in lenses).

I don't think anyone questions the assertion that Canon sensors can be improved in some areas; the question each person has to answer is whether the kit they have serves their needs or if it's worthwhile to accept the expense / trouble of switching or expanding the kit. What I do find offensive is when people harp so hard on low-ISO DR that I feel they're trying to tell me I'm too stupid to make my own decisions. I know the limitations of my gear, and can make those decisions for myself.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> I know the limitations of my gear, and can make those decisions for myself.



Yes, but clearly you can't make them properly, otherwise you'd have already ditched Canon for the vastly superior IQ of an Exmor-based system. That's what all right-thinking picture takers have already done. You can tell that just by looking at the market share.   8)


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 17, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> The 5D Mark III outsold the D800/E so it wasn't a larger concern for most shooters, even professionals.



This is a very interesting claim. Can you please share the numbers? As far as I know these sales have never been released. We are very many who would like to see them.


----------



## dolina (Jun 19, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D Mark III outsold the D800/E so it wasn't a larger concern for most shooters, even professionals.
> ...


I think the assumption is based on conjecture that the appeal of Canon's video feature will improve sales of the camera over the Nikon equivalent.

I dont even expect the 5DS or 5DS R to outsell the D810 because of the prohibitive pricing. Nearly $1,000 more for more pixels.


----------



## cristianaurel (Jun 19, 2015)

Removed by Mod


----------



## meywd (Jun 19, 2015)

cristianaurel said:


> I've heard that the Canon 5D Mark IV changed the name in SONY A7R II and the Canon lens work perfect on that body. Anyone can help with more details? New Sony body and the poor quality of image will make Canon body looks like Titanic end.



did you hear that from the press release?


----------



## caMARYnon (Jun 19, 2015)

cristianaurel said:


> I've heard that the Canon 5D Mark IV changed the name in SONY A7R II and the Canon lens work perfect on that body. Anyone can help with more details? New Sony body and the poor quality of image will make Canon body looks like Titanic end.


 Esti foarte tare! Pentru astea trei propozitii te-ai chinuit sa-ti faci cont pe un site specializat canon ? ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 19, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D Mark III outsold the D800/E so it wasn't a larger concern for most shooters, even professionals.
> ...



You're right. I went off amazon.com sales data, which is public. Of course not all buyers went there to purchase it, but I thought it might be a good overall representation of sales distribution and would mirror the market, FAIRLY well.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 20, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I went off amazon.com sales data, which is public. Of course not all buyers went there to purchase it, but I thought it might be a good overall representation of sales distribution and would mirror the market, FAIRLY well.



Unfortunately not. Also, global sales do not follow US sales. Kakaku.com (Japan) gives us some guidance on the Japanese market (actually capturing a far wider market share than amazon.com in the US but in a far smaller market place). But again limited. EU camera body sales (largest of the three markets) info is really difficult to find. And what is rest of Asia buying?

Normally we should expect a Canon 5x to outsell a Nikon 8xx on the user basis alone. But the year the 800 and 5DIII were released Nikon's I/DSLR sales fared better (relatively) to Canon's. Since high end sales are much lower than consumer grade sales we do not know what roles the 5DIII and D800/E played in all this - if any. 

I also guess 5DIII is selling better - especially because meanwhile there's a D810 out. But it remains an assumption.


----------

