# EOS 5D Mark IV - the crippled generalist



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

Dear All,

Like so many others I feel alienated from Canon by their decisions to cripple each of the cameras in their lineup in one way or the other. 

After so many years I was hoping Canon would for once address the generalists among photographers instead of offering bits and pieces here and there throughout their line-up. I wish I could buy a universal camera with multiple identical backups as in the old days of the EOS1n or EOS3. But neither the 5D IV nor the 1Dx II nor the 5DSr nor the 80D fullfill the modern needs of generalist photographers. 

Speaking of myself, I photograph wildlife with super-teles, I am into fine-art landscapes and for people-reportages I do wide-angle from the hip and around corners. In all these areas I have come to absolutely depend on a flippy tilt screen that is part of the camera. It just gives you all the freedom to choose the best possible angle of view and some of my best compositions I only found because I employed the flippy-tilt as my third eye. I find it hard to accept that the old Rolleiflex of my dad can do things Canons new generalist fails at. I am not overly lazy, immobile or bashful. I do lie down on the ground a lot in public and nature. However there are many situations when you either physically cannot move your body in the right spot or when doing so is impractical or even dangerous. The 70D/80D does the job, the 5D IV won't

These are my personal must-haves:

-Fullframe 
-reasonable speed and buffer
-articulating screen
-highest possible resolution, minimum 30 Megapixel
-weather sealing


list of shortcomings in the 5D IV:

-no articulating screen
-inclusion of AA-filter (Why not bringing a EOS 5D IVr to the market as alternative?)
-buffer is rather limited (why no XQD)
-only offering uncompressed MPEG makes filming 4k impractical to most of us
-no accessory EVF
-no truly silent mode

For the mean-time, I consider selling my 16-35 L IS and adding a Pentax K1 with a 15-30/2.8 to my equipment for reportage and landscape purposes. What I like about Pentax is the fact that allthough they do not have access to all the finest technologies like dual pixel af or even a fast regular autofocus, at least they try to give you everything they can in a single package. But ironically I prefer Canon's flippy-tilt concept over Pentax'.

So why can Canon not try to do their best? How arrogant must the company's managers be to think that they can keep crippling their cameras without loosing market-shares? I honestly mourn. But more so I am angry: Photographing with Canon nowadays feels like sitting in an Opera with a star cast but with those highly acclaimed singers not giving a S___ about the arts or the audience on that very evening. Bad performance. Guess I stick to my old recordings or buy a Pentax instead. Not a big voice but giving their best whenever they go on stage.

I foresee: If the 6D II will come out with a flippy-tilt screen, it will not have more than 5fps.
Deal-breaker? No. But then it will need to have 30Megapixel and no AA-filter. Then to the generalist who can sacrifice fps it could be a compromise that might be worth owning for a few years. The 5D IV definately isn't.

Canon's Earnesty Officially sucks.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 4, 2016)

whaaaaaa?

you were never getting an articulating screen on a 5D series.

You'd lose the AF joystick to fit it all in.

compare the back of a 80D to a 7D Mark II which is the same relative timeline, form factor and ergonomics and see how things shifted and got lost between those two cameras.

Now if the 6D Mark II does't have an articulating screen .. THAT would be worthy of a TL;DR post.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> You'd lose the AF joystick to fit it all in.



Thanks for reading  Just move the joystick to where the AF-On is now or into its immediate vicinity. Who needs three thumb-buttons in that area anyway? If you had only two and could select among three functions independently (FE/AF-Area selection/AF-on) I think that would do for most everyone. I for example have never used FE in my life.

Cheers


----------



## crashpc (Sep 4, 2016)

Canon and many forum members just think about how things SHOULD NOT be done, and should not be possible. I can´t help myself about this...


----------



## smorgo (Sep 4, 2016)

Whilst a flippy screen would be a great addition, we now have the option of using a wireless mobile device instead. Though it is more cumbersome in the situations where a flippy screen excels, it's ultimately much more flexible.

Of the two, I'm much happier to have the wireless capability.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 4, 2016)

fussy III said:


> What I like about Pentax is the fact that allthough they do not have access to all the finest technologies like dual pixel....



But they have pixel shift. Is that not a fine technology ? 

Looking at your lists surely you could say exactly the same thing about Pentax - 'crippled' video, AF, speed etc.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 4, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Dear All,
> 
> Like so many others I feel alienated from Canon by their decisions to cripple each of the cameras in their lineup in one way or the other.
> 
> ...



I think you are not looking for a generalist camera or the 5D4 would fit that role perfectly. What you need is a specific camera to your niche....yes I did say niche. On your personal must haves it's only the articulating screen...come on...get real. The silent mode IS the most quiet of all DSLR's in production....so for a second time....get real. 
Canon doesn't suck for most generalist photographers....just a few who think that Canon should make a custom camera built for their obscure needs.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > What I like about Pentax is the fact that allthough they do not have access to all the finest technologies like dual pixel....
> ...



I see a principal difference between not having a capacity and having it but holding back on behalf of marketing strategies. Further I was focusing on the photographical aspects rather than on video. And here Pentax is clearly doing their best whereas Canon's efforts are incoherent, strategical, and niggard. And I agree Pentax is being innovative with their Pixel-Shift. It is one of these evolutionary aspects that they probably will wisely incorporate into any future highend camera rather than crippling it away here and there. 

Let me twist the discussion a bit: 

What does everone else think what a generalist semiprofessional or professional camera made by Canon should have looked like in 2016?


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon doesn't suck for most generalist photographers....just a few who think that Canon should make a custom camera built for their obscure needs.




My needs can seem obscure only to the most untrained eye.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

smorgo said:


> Of the two, I'm much happier to have the wireless capability.



That is my point: Why is it always an either or with Canon? Why like stupid calfs have we accepted that way of thinking? Canon has trained us to do so. Meanwhile our creativity is suffering.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 4, 2016)

fussy III said:


> smorgo said:
> 
> 
> > Of the two, I'm much happier to have the wireless capability.
> ...


If you think, gear is stopping from you making great photos, check this list. There is a one made from 1200d and Rebel with kit lenses. 

https://www.dpreview.com/news/5480094425/take-a-peek-at-some-of-the-contenders-for-wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2016


----------



## crashpc (Sep 4, 2016)

ritholtz: Yes, you can do stuff with inferior tools. That is not really the point. Canon yould stop selling new models for 20 years, and people would still move on. I don´t even NEED a camera if somebody told me to decide between two hobbies. But we´re demanding creatures, striving for best, right?


----------



## candc (Sep 4, 2016)

Canon is very good at crippling differentiating the camera models so you have a reason to buy more cameras. 

If they made the 5dsr with a hardware binning lower res mode and a high speed crop mode then you wouldn't need anything else.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 4, 2016)

fussy III said:


> smorgo said:
> 
> 
> > Of the two, I'm much happier to have the wireless capability.
> ...


You want a Swiss Army knife, not a camera for the masses.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 4, 2016)

fussy III said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > You'd lose the AF joystick to fit it all in.
> ...



And you'd still have a ton more buttons to reallocate. Again compare the 80d to the 7d mark ii back.

There would have to be a higher shift of ergonomics to accommodate an articulating screen, and that doesn't happen in the same camera line with canon. The only notable exception was when they moved the 50d to 60d downlevel. (To accommodate that screen) and the howls were everywhere.

That's not crippling .. sorry.


The missing evf-dc1 functionality is indeed annoying.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 4, 2016)

crashpc said:


> ritholtz: Yes, you can do stuff with inferior tools. That is not really the point. Canon yould stop selling new models for 20 years, and people would still move on. I don´t even NEED a camera if somebody told me to decide between two hobbies. But we´re demanding creatures, striving for best, right?


I really don't know man. But looking at those pictures, spending on new camera doesn't look like a great idea if one wants to make great pictures and be creative. This is the list of gear used to make those pics. Someone posted on dpr. 

2x Canon 5D Mark III 2012
Nikon 3DS 2009
Canon 500D 2009
Nikon D800 2012
Canon 5D 2005
Nikon D300 2007
Canon 5DS R 2015
Canon 1200D 2014
Nikon D90 2008


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> There would have to be a higher shift of ergonomics to accommodate an articulating screen, and that doesn't happen in the same camera line with canon. The only notable exception was when they moved the 50d to 60d downlevel. (To accommodate that screen) and the howls were everywhere.



I saw no reason to howl then because Canon had introduced the 7D before changing the ergonomics of the 50D.
Ever after I was working with both 7D and 60D but found the 60D to be the better creative tool. It even had a more reliable AF so I ended up selling the 7D. Now I am left hoping for a 6D that I can operate like the 80D but that will work on a professional level AF-, fps- and megapixel-wise. Unrealistic considering Canon's policies.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 4, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > ritholtz: Yes, you can do stuff with inferior tools. That is not really the point. Canon yould stop selling new models for 20 years, and people would still move on. I don´t even NEED a camera if somebody told me to decide between two hobbies. But we´re demanding creatures, striving for best, right?
> ...



These shots could be done with even older bodies, really. As i suggested, it doesn´t say anything about camera manufacturers, today, about progress and innovation. And also about needs of people growing in time. We are here in spite of generations behind us didn´t have cars, emergency, processed food etc. Should we have enaugh today and forget future?


----------



## scyrene (Sep 4, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > Dear All,
> ...



I had typed out a detailed reply, but actually it boils down, once again, to - 'they didn't build the precise camera *I* want, how dare they!' :


----------



## scyrene (Sep 4, 2016)

Oh, and more generally: every choice in life is a compromise. If you find a camera that meets every single one of your personal needs, you are very lucky indeed. Point to a single device (a camera or anything else) that does EVERYTHING without compromise - well there isn't one.

The original list, incidentally, is hardly generalist. 30MP minimum, articulating screen, weather sealing, full frame - these are all nice, and all very much in the minority, both in terms of models offered and units sold. Accept it and move on.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

candc said:


> Canon is very good at crippling differentiating the camera models so you have a reason to buy more cameras.
> 
> If they made the 5dsr with a hardware binning lower res mode and a high speed crop mode then you wouldn't need anything else.



Right on. And I'd have bought one or two of them if it had had this option! And I'd buy two or three of them if they had a swivel. But instead I am complaining publicly about Canon and thinking of including an A7RII or a Pentax K1 with my 5dII, 70D and A7s, thereby creating an inhomogenous arsenal that seems so typical of serious modern day Canon-photographers! 

If Canon moved on to the best of its abilities with each step, they would win trust. And in that case we'd still update with every second generation instead of getting frustrated with their reasonings and sticking to our older trusted cameras. Even if we are stupid and dependant, we do not wish to get the feeling of being treated as such.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 4, 2016)

Canon offers cameras with flippy screens, if that is your number one requirement. They produce professional results. If Canon doesn't offer the VERY specific requirements you want, then get a camera from a company that does. Complaining on an internet forum does nothing. A child complains. An adult does what is necessary to meet their needs as best as possible.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > smorgo said:
> ...



Do not worry. I will continue taking great photos. However I would have liked to get better technology paired with my genious.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 4, 2016)

fussy III said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > You'd lose the AF joystick to fit it all in.
> ...



Some of us prefer back button focus over half shutter. Move that and that is crippling, taking a useful feature away in favor of adding a tilt screen, which, many of us don't want as it could make the body less rugged and less weather resistant. 

More to the point, a generalist camera is not one that is class leading in everything. A generalist camera is one that does all things good, leaving the excellence for more niche specific bodies. You want high res, get a 5ds, you want fps, get the 1Dx or the 7d, you want flippy screen then get a non weather sealed body...your not getting all that in one without sacrificing something


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

dak723 said:


> A child complains. An adult does what is necessary to meet their needs as best as possible.



Not only children complain. At times, literate perfectionists may feel inclined to do the same, I am afraid. 
But thanks to your instructive ways of showing empathy, I will probably make it through another 20 years of Canon as best as possible.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



I already addressed this. I am using the AF-On button since the mid 90ies, only then it was appr. 7,5 mm further to the right. I'd accept a relocation if only this allowed for the inclusion of a swivel.

How about Canon and their stupid "Canon can do it!" motto? When was the last time we said "wow" and were truly baffled by the introduction of a new Canon DSLR? When did we last say: "Wow, they did it, unpredicted, great and usefull"? Taking out 9 Megapixel-photos from a video is nice but I am talking about larger concepts (with optical viewfinders).


----------



## dtgphoto (Sep 4, 2016)

I can't believe that fussy iii is moaning about the spec. I have been using the 70d and the articulating screen is useful but it comes out at a weird angle and tbh it is easier to use wifi and that doubles as a remote too. Saves money on remote and reaches further than wires.

Personally I can't wait for mine.

Regards


Generalist photographer from UK


----------



## Maui5150 (Sep 4, 2016)

Go to Nikon.

Buh-bye. 

I am disappointed Canon has not made a camera yet that makes me coffee


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

dtgphoto said:


> I can't believe that fussy iii is moaning about the spec. I have been using the 70d and the articulating screen is useful but it comes out at a weird angle and tbh it is easier to use wifi and that doubles as a remote too. Saves money on remote and reaches further than wires.
> 
> Personally I can't wait for mine.
> 
> ...



Remote control doesn't interest me in the first place. That can be done with any kind of accessory and that is ok for me. But incorporation of the swivel into the camera to me is everything - no delays, no storing away, less clumsy, less extra weight, no loose accessory parts that can drop to the ground or into the water, easier motioning.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

Maui5150 said:


> Go to Nikon.
> 
> Buh-bye.
> 
> I am disappointed Canon has not made a camera yet that makes me coffee



By the time Canon is making the machines that suit your needs, I will hopefully have switched.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 4, 2016)

Dancing with joy not tilty screen toy.

80D?


----------



## dtgphoto (Sep 4, 2016)

fussy III said:


> dtgphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe that fussy iii is moaning about the spec. I have been using the 70d and the articulating screen is useful but it comes out at a weird angle and tbh it is easier to use wifi and that doubles as a remote too. Saves money on remote and reaches further than wires.
> ...



Do you not have your phone with you anyway ?

No need for extra accessories 

Sounds to me like your just doing an impression of a dog barking at passing cars


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 4, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > fussy III said:
> ...



Larger concepts? You're talking about a flippy screeen! So, instead of having nice ergonomics and bodies that match button placement, you want the tilt screen and to hell with everything else? Lol, realize that the flip screen is not something the majority wants, has asked for or needs. Like others have said, no manufacturer is going to make a camera specifically for you. I'm pretty sure if pros and a matures were all begging for a flip screen it would be there. But, not all are asking for that, in fact, many are very vocal in saying we don't want a gimmick feature that compromises the ruggedness of the build.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 4, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Speaking of myself...



You can't always get what you want.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> But, not all are asking for that, in fact, many are very vocal in saying we don't want a gimmick feature that compromises the ruggedness of the build.



The Swivel a Gimmick? I hardly ever meet anyone photographing seriously and ably who has ever used it saying that they don't want it. At least not in nature or reportage photography. It may be different in the studio were you work with Hasselblad in Capture on a large screen.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

dtgphoto said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > dtgphoto said:
> ...



Seems to me you never worked on reportage photography with stretched arm and only one hand at the camera and the other holding on to a rock, an iron bar or the likes. Seems you don't see any need to avoid uncertainties like battery-failure or a failing connections. Seems like you were never in a hurry getting things attached to the camera or out of the way when finding a new and more important subject. I WANT THE SWIVEL INTEGRATED - and I have good reasons for that. You may not share them. I wish that car was passing. But it is standing, stubborn and motionless, it seems.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 4, 2016)

If Canon made a body that had everything the masses wished for, it would be a much larger body to incorporate all the goodies. Each button needs an ergonomic spacing on the outside. Inside the body is a massive engineering feat to connect everything and still be reliable and weather sealed. Every component takes up valuable space and eats battery power. Heat dissipation is another concern with design layout. One consideration most people forget is that the camera needs to be serviceable and is a major part of the engineering.
I think it would be interesting for Canon to produce a video that shows all the teams converging on the CAD operator and throwing all the standard and wish list items into one design, then show the workflow to a final product.
I'm still amazed by my SL-1. How'd they get all that stuff into that tiny body?
And on a final spew, if Canon made a camera with everything we all wanted, there would be two bodies to choose from- a $400 Rebel and a $12,000 "Mother of God".


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> If Canon made a body that had everything the masses wished for, it would be a much larger body to incorporate all the goodies.



Bigger body? So be it, as long as they eventually start treating the swivel as a professional need in the fullframe line-up. Those 50% of photographers who do not wish do without any longer should be addressed somehow. Especially as the 70/80D have the nicest swivels on the market. 

Why not a concept with modular hardware parts? Why not the option to move some of the functions onto an easily navigated touch-display as in the new Hassi? How many of the seven buttoms on the left side does any one photographer really access on a regular basis anyway? Why not making them assignable to a chosen task? Why not moving them below a decent swivel on a camera with an integrated battery-grip for either two LP-E6 or a new type of larger battery?

Come on, this can be done with a bit of creativity, courage and positive attitude.


----------



## LDS (Sep 4, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Seems like you were never in a hurry getting things attached to the camera or out of the way when finding a new and more important subject. I WANT THE SWIVEL INTEGRATED - and I have good reasons for that. You may not share them. I wish that car was passing. But it is standing, stubborn and motionless, it seems.



And you have time to play with the swivel? Something that can also get in the way and break when you're in a hurry? Most reportages need sturdy cameras with nothing that can break easily, make the camera less sturdy (and sealed) and get in the way. Usually you have no time to set the LCD screen position, you get the camera and shoot. After all, there will be a reason why so many 5D and 1D are used in the field by reporters, instead of cameras with swivels screen. Guess Canon talks a lot with its main and more important users, to understand what they need and what they not. People who usually spend time shooting, and not complaining on forums.

IMHO were swivels screen are most useful - besides amateurish selfies - is when you can carefully position the camera in some uncomfortable position, and in my experience tethering - wired or wireless - is more useful in such situations. Sometimes, even much safer...


----------



## geekpower (Sep 4, 2016)

grunching, but if you want a camera that does it all, it's either going to be prohibitively large and expensive, or disappointingly mediocre. those who can afford the former can also afford multiple specialist cameras, and those who can't would usually prefer to ditch features they don't need in exchange for better quality in the ones they do.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 4, 2016)

fussy III said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Canon doesn't suck for most generalist photographers....just a few who think that Canon should make a custom camera built for their obscure needs.
> ...



Ha...if you think I have an untrained eye...then you are truly naive and blind. Go look me up.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



I do not follow such obscure proposals.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 4, 2016)

LDS said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like you were never in a hurry getting things attached to the camera or out of the way when finding a new and more important subject. I WANT THE SWIVEL INTEGRATED - and I have good reasons for that. You may not share them. I wish that car was passing. But it is standing, stubborn and motionless, it seems.
> ...



Your comment only proves you have not fully exploited the benefits of the swivel of the 70 or 80D and did not experience how easily the swivel can be folded into a safe resting position. I am actually able to compose proper photographs with it and get close to wildlife without risking my health. There are countless benefits to a swivel. But repeating myself won't help to convince those who work differently and don't care about a swivel. 
Enough from my side. Thanks for the resonance. I honestly expected more people to agree with my critique. Time will tell.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 4, 2016)

It happens every time a new camera pops up, some of us are disappointed with missing features. Sometimes they are only useful in limited circumstances, sometimes niche.

The feature that I find missing is the lack of a lighted focus point. I realize that having that LCD inside the viewfinder can be useful, but I'd find lighted focus points more so.

A articulating viewfinder is also useful, but I've never expected it in a professional camera where the tradeoffs make it unlikely to happen.

I am happy with the Dual Pixel Sensor and live view that is basically a mirrorless camera with reasonably fast AF for non moving subjects. I'd even consider video now that it tracks and focuses automatically. 


The EOS-3 was the top of the line camera, you should compare features to the 1DX II. However, I'd bet the 5D MK IV beats it by a mile for features.


----------



## greger (Sep 4, 2016)

Canon could solve the articulating screen discussion by releasing 2 versions of the 5D IV. One with the swivel screen and one without. The model that sells more would indicate what the pro-sumer wants in a camera. If your worried about rain use rain sleeves. If the articulating screen gets damaged send it in for repair. Flipping the screen towards the camera back protects it from scratches.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 4, 2016)

*TROLL ALERT*

Weird specific needs - hyperbole - ignoring other views - repeating inflammatory statements.

Let's leave 'fussy' to stew in his own disappointment and move on, eh?


----------



## Labdoc (Sep 4, 2016)

Thought I'd hate the flippy until I tried it. Mostly stays closed which protects the screen. Very useful for video, overhead shots and shots in weird places. CR survey today shows http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30526.msg620826;topicseen#msg620826 It's the most wanted (19.4%) feature after higher FPS (21.6%). So it may not be as ridiculous as it sounds.

As to toughness. Hate to admit this but I just accidentally tossed my 80D out of a vehicle going 20mph, a little scrape on the flash mount but no other damage, including flippy.

My big disappointment is send the camera already. I'll learn to live without the flippy.


Not whining but a little surprised. The 80D has a 10X digital zoom in HD movie mode. There's not much on how it works in the manual but most likely via cropping. Why not on the new 5D MK4 when not in 4K?


----------



## Drum (Sep 4, 2016)

But Fussy you won't agree with any one else? can you not see that a smartphone that acts as your screen and camera controller is better in multiple ways than a tilt-screen. you use a tilt screen for ergonomics -Adapting to the user- there could be no more ergonomically tilted screen than the one on a smart phone. 
As for reportage- how often would a reporter actually use live view (as with a tilt) and risk missing the shot due to the slow AF?

Compare the 5D iv to any other camera manufacturers models and then say you are disappointed, unless there is a contender that you consider that actually has a Lens system that is in ANY WAY comparable to Canon


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2016)

scyrene said:


> I had typed out a detailed reply, but actually it boils down, once again, to - 'they didn't build the precise camera *I* want, how dare they!' :



^^This 

Plus, does anyone actually think someone who chooses 'fussy' as his/her forum identity is going to be satisfied?!?


----------



## Labdoc (Sep 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I had typed out a detailed reply, but actually it boils down, once again, to - 'they didn't build the precise camera *I* want, how dare they!' :
> ...



Never, but don't dis the flippy. It could be done. 6D? LOL


----------



## sebasan (Sep 4, 2016)

Come on! Having a tablet or smartphone and conecting the camera via wifi is so much better than a tilt-flip-whatever screen.
I didn't know about that after the 5DIV specifications were realesed and some people complaints, but when the wifi characteristic was explained in some post, I stopped thinking about tilt-flip-whatever screen at the moment.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 4, 2016)

I want a camera that suggests a better angle and framing of the subject and won't shoot the image unless you comply. Maybe just something like "seriously?" in the viewfinder.


----------



## Labdoc (Sep 4, 2016)

sebasan said:


> Come on! Having a tablet or smartphone and conecting the camera via wifi is so much better than a tilt-flip-whatever screen.
> I didn't know about that after the 5DIV specifications were realesed and some people complaints, but when the wifi characteristic was explained in some post, I stopped thinking about tilt-flip-whatever screen at the moment.


 That would work in a number of situations but if you are mobile it's hard to juggle all that. I don't side with the OP in that it's some horrible oversight. Also don't think the classic nature of the 5D needs a flippy, folks can get an 80D if it breaks their heart. But is some situations it really works well but not something to get all fussy about.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 4, 2016)

I think the 5D IV would have been an ideal camera to introduce a flippy screen.
It's really convenient for taking photographs.
I don't get much sun in my country but when the sun is out you often can't see the screen at all.
Its a huge aid to live screen focusing and architectural photography.
I don't do much video but it makes complete sense for that too.
Having the option to connect to a phone is good but it would be better if it was a flippy screen.
I have an old G12 and the flippy screen was well designed on that. 
I find the 5D IV less attractive to buy because of it.
I'm sure they'll introduce it to the 5D V and with a faster frame rate and better ISO performance.


----------



## tron (Sep 5, 2016)

greger said:


> Canon could solve the articulating screen discussion by releasing 2 versions of the 5D IV. One with the swivel screen and one without. The model that sells more would indicate what the pro-sumer wants in a camera. If your worried about rain use rain sleeves. If the articulating screen gets damaged send it in for repair. Flipping the screen towards the camera back protects it from scratches.


Some other person proposed a version with no AA filter (or AA filter canceled like 5DsR) so practically a 5DIVR. So the combined proposals (articulating screen or not, AA filter or not) make for 4 combinations (It's 2 in the power of 2). Do you think it's practical? And what if someone proposes a 3rd option? It's 2 in the power of 3! Must I continue?


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 5, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Let me twist the discussion a bit:
> 
> What does everone else think what a generalist semiprofessional or professional camera made by Canon should have looked like in 2016?



A lot like the 5D mark IV. 

-Fullframe 
-reasonable speed and buffer
-articulating screen
-highest possible resolution, minimum 30 Megapixel
-weather sealing
-articulating screen
-no AA-filter
-deep buffer/ faster card than CF
-accessory EVF
-truly silent mode

Name one camera that has all this.
Apparently this isn't uniquely a canon problem


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 5, 2016)

scyrene said:


> *TROLL ALERT*
> 
> Weird specific needs - hyperbole - ignoring other views - repeating inflammatory statements.
> 
> Let's leave 'fussy' to stew in his own disappointment and move on, eh?



This......before this thread...he only had a few posts. He's certainly making a name for himself. I dare say that once this thread is over, he'll start another account under a new name and re-troll.


----------



## Roo (Sep 5, 2016)

I shot ice hockey with a 5D mark IV for a couple of hours on the weekend and, for me, it is the logical evolution of the mark III. It was like shooting with an old friend that has learned a few more tricks. If you're familiar with the mark III, the new features were easily found and implemented without need for the manual. Touch screen is fine, Anti flicker worked well indoors, the ai servo focus point illumination implementation is not the same as the 1Dx but it will be noticed more where it's needed - in low light. Unfortunately, I haven't got the software yet to play with the RAW files.

One thing that surprised me was that I thought the shutter was noticeably quieter...so much so that I thought I had set it on silent shutter mode. 

Caveat - I have no interest in video, so I didn't test the functionality at all.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 5, 2016)

Roo said:


> I shot ice hockey with a 5D mark IV for a couple of hours on the weekend and, for me, it is the logical evolution of the mark III. It was like shooting with an old friend that has learned a few more tricks. If you're familiar with the mark III, the new features were easily found and implemented without need for the manual. Touch screen is fine, Anti flicker worked well indoors, the ai servo focus point illumination implementation is not the same as the 1Dx but it will be noticed more where it's needed - in low light. Unfortunately, I haven't got the software yet to play with the RAW files.
> 
> One thing that surprised me was that I thought the shutter was noticeably quieter...so much so that I thought I had set it on silent shutter mode.
> 
> Caveat - I have no interest in video, so I didn't test the functionality at all.



Pretty clean shot. What was the ISO? I see the shutter speed was pretty high with only a slight blur on the puck.


----------



## Roo (Sep 5, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > I shot ice hockey with a 5D mark IV for a couple of hours on the weekend and, for me, it is the logical evolution of the mark III. It was like shooting with an old friend that has learned a few more tricks. If you're familiar with the mark III, the new features were easily found and implemented without need for the manual. Touch screen is fine, Anti flicker worked well indoors, the ai servo focus point illumination implementation is not the same as the 1Dx but it will be noticed more where it's needed - in low light. Unfortunately, I haven't got the software yet to play with the RAW files.
> ...



It was shot at 1/500th, iso2000, f2.8. Due to the variable lighting, I usually have it on auto iso with a +1 exposure compensation. The jpegs looked very clean up to iso 3200.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 5, 2016)

Roo said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > Roo said:
> ...



Thanks Roo. That's a fairly bright arena. When I shoot rodeo events at our fair grounds, the night shooting totally sucks. I need at least ISO 8000, I tried using the 5DS because it has flicker detection. Light was much more even but you could see the shadows shifting left and right due to the light circuits being wired on two separate phases. I can't wait to get the Mark IV and compare the results.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 5, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > KeithBreazeal said:
> ...



That's very interesting feature of the flicker detection, I didn't even think that. Next question is that would it be more lights somewhere in-between when both phases are almost at peak.

.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2016)

fussy III said:


> smorgo said:
> 
> 
> > Of the two, I'm much happier to have the wireless capability.
> ...



You say "our" creativity is suffering. YOUR creativity may be suffering, but I see photos from truly creative folks whose creativity is obviously not suffering. 

Don't expect a camera to give you talent you don't have. 

The camera is just a tool. You've got to harness your own creativity. :


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I had typed out a detailed reply, but actually it boils down, once again, to - 'they didn't build the precise camera *I* want, how dare they!' :
> ...



AvTvMs alter ego.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 5, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't expect a camera to give you talent you don't have.



Finally a well-founded critique de mon oeuvre! Chapeau, Mr. "If you can't be nice do not say anything at all". 
I must admit however that my sentence "Meanwhile our creativity is suffering." was poorly crafted.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I had typed out a detailed reply, but actually it boils down, once again, to - 'they didn't build the precise camera *I* want, how dare they!' :
> ...



If you are as smart as every now and then I came to assume you were, you should have known the answer: No, not even himself is thinking that! But a tilty would have made me settle for a few years.

btw: Thanks for not joining the troll-accusations. Words like "troll" or "fanboy" seem so unaristocratic, if not meaningless.


----------



## Diko (Sep 5, 2016)

> However I would have liked to get better technology paired with my genious.





fussy III said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > A child complains. An adult does what is necessary to meet their needs as best as possible.
> ...





dtgphoto said:


> Sounds to me like your just doing an impression of a dog barking at passing cars



I miss that "tilty-flippy thingy" too, but you say because of the general purpose 5D4 as a _*tool*_ your creativity is suffering. OK. But what about of* creativity for solving problems*? *Adaptability *is the main tool of nature to make the best-survives problem. What about you?

I am tired of hearing of people whining pretentiously that, you see, they couldn't make a good picture because [sarcams]_they didn't had enough time for coffee because their brand new camera didn't have that feature built in_[/sarcams].

WiFi on phone and/or tablet is a great replacement. A few years ago there was no tilty-flippy on DSLR, you know? I wonder how back then people managed to do great photos? I wonder how really would your photos be highly appreciated? Taking it from an unique angle that otherwise anyone could shoot with a swivel? And personally I must admit that I prefer to be the only one with uber cool pic in the crowd, instead of every second amateur having the same pic. Phone, or on blindly (since that is my current way) I will do everything to make that photo.

Creativity in every aspect is boosting additional tools. Once they are created new frontiers arise. ;-)


----------



## Joe M (Sep 5, 2016)

It's inevitable, that sooner or later someone always starts lamenting as to what the camera _doesn't_ have. When did a body come out that someone didn't complain about, whether it's a lack of pop-up flash or more (or less) mpxls or buffer or fps and so on? It's always so much more fun to read about what a camera _does_ have and what you can do with it! If anyone thinks their camera isn't all it's cracked up to be, compare it to a 1D or D30, though I'm sure there are still some functional ones out there and in the right hands can also take fine photos. In any case, whenever someone asks for something they can't have, I reply that I too would like to be 22 again but it's not going to happen so just deal with it. Such is life.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 5, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > But, not all are asking for that, in fact, many are very vocal in saying we don't want a gimmick feature that compromises the ruggedness of the build.
> ...



That's anecdotal, and not representative of the market as a whole. As for me, I use the viewfinder for 99% of my shooting. And no, it's not in a studio, nor is it tethered, and not shooting on an MF rig. 

The only time I'm using lice view is for macro shots of wedding rings, and the occasional nighttime landscape shot. So yes , for me, and I'd dare say most of us who shoot stills the flippy screen is a gimmick


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 5, 2016)

greger said:


> Canon could solve the articulating screen discussion by releasing 2 versions of the 5D IV. One with the swivel screen and one without. The model that sells more would indicate what the pro-sumer wants in a camera. If your worried about rain use rain sleeves. If the articulating screen gets damaged send it in for repair. Flipping the screen towards the camera back protects it from scratches.



I'm no engineer but, aa or no aa is a way easier design to implement than one with a flippy and one without. All doing this would do is drive up the cost of the body. Why do that when you can research the wants and needs of the market? Even looking here at CR, the most asked for things were DR, low Iso IQ, MP's, and fps...and it's seems as though canon addressed this. If their market research showed that a flippy screen was wanted by a majority of the user base then it would be in the mk4. It's not because not enough people are demanding it and quite a few current 5D users don't want the flippy.

I don't ever want to have to worry while shooting a wedding that the flippy screen will get caught on a chair while weaving through a crowded reception hall...


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 5, 2016)

Has anyone heard of a right angle viewfinder attachment lately?

If you are shooting a DSLR.. and through the ovf..seems the answer has existed from back in film days.

Then again that's just too easy. :


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 5, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Has anyone heard of a right angle viewfinder attachment lately?
> 
> If you are shooting a DSLR.. and through the ovf..seems the answer has existed from back in film days.
> 
> Then again that's just too easy. :



Yup! I have the one Canon makes. Great for those non-flippy-screen bodies. Old school.


----------



## dtgphoto (Sep 5, 2016)

i may be wrong but the camera ansel adams used didn't have flippy screen.

i know my old ae1 program didnt.

really the 5d4 is absolutely the best allrounder canon have ever made - shouldnt the people that have invested in superb canon glass like me embrace the evolution of the species ? 

mine is on order... and i cant wait.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 5, 2016)

fussy III said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Don't expect a camera to give you talent you don't have.
> ...



If you thought that was mean, well then you really are "fussy". Enfant triste.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 5, 2016)

Which brings me to the subject of "Smart" phones and people that shoot vertically oriented videos.


----------



## testthewest (Sep 5, 2016)

scyrene said:


> *TROLL ALERT*
> 
> Weird specific needs - hyperbole - ignoring other views - repeating inflammatory statements.
> 
> Let's leave 'fussy' to stew in his own disappointment and move on, eh?



I wonder what posts like this are supposed to do? Somebody is sharing his feelings in a post and you had the chances to just pass by and do something else with your life, instead you attack him needlessly. I read most of the posts before - none were nearly as condensing as yours, which exactly as you blame him to be: hyperbole and ignoring other views.

I also feel alot of the things he brought up are not unreasonable and disappoint me as well. I had really hoped for a tilt/flip screen. Is that hyperbole? I wonder why we need a AA filter, if the 5DSr outsells the 5DS so much, that the removal of a piece (so less costs, right?) almost adds 400€ in my region. So these can't be weird specific needs, it seems the majority sees it different.
I don't care too much about video, but I think people have a point if they ask why there couldn't be 2 video codec-options on a 3500$ camera.

If all those things were "weird specific things", then why is the complaining so much?
I feel the truth is canon has not met alot of peoples hopes. You, going full fanboy mode, seem to be blind to valid critisms as if you were paid by canon. Do you really think this is a great camera?

Sure there are nice things (which I will mention to provide a balanced opinion):
- The sensor is good enough compared to the sony sensor
- The DPAF is great
- That new DP-raw seems like a cool feature
- 30 MPix is a bit low, but good enough
- 7 FPS is great. Most understand that higher FPS should be on dedicated sports cameras.


----------



## Mr. Milo (Sep 6, 2016)

It's ok to complain but the 5D Mark IV is what it is. Nothing will change the specs. It's either you're going to buy it or not. Still complaining? Then take your butt to Sony, Nikon, Panasonic or whatever.

The list of stuff that YOU WANTED; not SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN, is supposed to get you to pony up more cash for the C-line series. That's for the filmmakers.

For the Photographers, it's a great camera. DPAF with Touchscreen, Dual Pixel RAW, and ghosting reduction. Also, Canon designed the mirror flapper in a new way. That's effin' fantastic. More bump in megapixels will not make you a better photographer. I don't get it. No crybabies here. I would be excited for this camera next week in my hands and I'll be set for the next 6 years.

If you followed Canon's history then you know how they operate. If they gave what you want then it's a $10,000 digital film camera that can take awesome pictures. We're not going to buy that because most here cannot afford it. And it discourages customers from investing into their C-line.

If you want more, get a 1DX Mark II. You're a megapixel whore? Get a 5DS R.

You want 4K with C-log then get a Canon XC 15.

I'm still banging out stuff with a Canon 5D Mark II and my audience is not complaining about the lack of 4K, c-log, crushed blacks, dynamic range.

If you cannot do a quality short doc or promo piece with an old dated 5D Mark II then a 5D Mark IV will not make you better. You just flat out suck and make excuses for not being determined to analyze your work to raise your game.

"Oh but I didn't get full frame 4K so my clients will notice and not hire me for gigs"..serious? Wow. Stupid.

"My dynamic range doesn't have enough stops." Not many people gives a crap.

"Too much noise." Again, not many people will notice. It comes down to "Did you get the picture? I was counting on you" type crap. They're not going to say "There's too much noise" unless your stuff is going for Print.


----------



## vjlex (Sep 6, 2016)

I'm in the "flipscreen" camp. I've wanted it on a fullframe camera long before purchasing the 5D Mark II. I wanted it on the III, and I wanted it on the IV. I still plan to get the IV, but that doesn't negate that I believe it is a good feature that adds more versatility to the camera than it would take away.

Wirelessly connecting a smartphone to act as a viewfinder is cool and might be useful in a lot of cases a flipscreen would, but it is not the same as having a screen that allows you to hold your camera above your head in a crowd and still see what you're shooting. I think using your smartphone as a viewfinder is also going to require one or both of your hands and demand that your camera is attached to a tripod.

I really have a hard time understanding why so many people fight so ardently for less options instead of more. And all the rudeness and insults and condescension really seems uncalled for.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 6, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Like so many others I feel alienated from Canon by their decisions to cripple each of the cameras in their lineup in one way or the other.



I hear you, brother.

When it comes to cars, I'd like a car that can do 0-60mph in 4seconds, is a supreme off-roader, can haul a boat, can sit 8 people, etc. - and all the while is compact and has a fuel efficiency of 30+ mpg. 

Is that too much to ask??


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 6, 2016)

I have one camera with a flip screen- a G12.
It's most important feature is flipping it inward to protect the LCD. 
Originally, the LCD was to review photos until some nerd decided that a still camera could be tortured by adding a video mode. A monster, they created. 
The only thing I don't miss is the old dial-up modem.
I ordered the Mark IV and I'll be perfectly happy with it.


----------



## tron (Sep 6, 2016)

shunsai said:


> I'm in the "flipscreen" camp. I've wanted it on a fullframe camera long before purchasing the 5D Mark II. I wanted it on the III, and I wanted it on the IV. I still plan to get the IV, but that doesn't negate that I believe it is a good feature that adds more versatility to the camera than it would take away.
> 
> Wirelessly connecting a smartphone to act as a viewfinder is cool and might be useful in a lot of cases a flipscreen would, but it is not the same as having a screen that allows you to hold your camera above your head in a crowd and still see what you're shooting. I think using your smartphone as a viewfinder is also going to require one or both of your hands and demand that your camera is attached to a tripod.
> 
> I really have a hard time understanding why so many people fight so ardently for less options instead of more. And all the rudeness and insults and condescension really seems uncalled for.


rudeness is wrong but still flip screen on that camera is wrong (just my opinion). But there is a chance that the new 6d ii will have a flip screen. It will be less robust but may incorporate other features just like 6d vs 5d3.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 6, 2016)

tron said:


> But there is a chance that the new 6d ii will have a flip screen. It will be less robust but may incorporate other features just like 6d vs 5d3.


Incredible that people continue to claim this. Flip screen have no more failure or break rate than normal screens. End of story.

Check out LensRentals stats info.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 6, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > But there is a chance that the new 6d ii will have a flip screen. It will be less robust but may incorporate other features just like 6d vs 5d3.
> ...



Now that you've made that statement it's gotten my curiosity up. Where did you see this analysis of what percentage of flip screens get damaged? I find common sense suggesting otherwise.

I'd like a flip screen on my 6D but not on a 1 series camera and probably not on the 5 series although if it had it I'd accept that. I've had it and used it on a previous Nikon and I'd say I was definitely more careful when handling it and cognizant of it's fragility. Now if I was shooting in challenging circumstances where it might get broken I probably wouldn't be using it. Not to mention that it isn't particularly useful with long lenses when hand held which is mainly my interest.

Canon obviously views it as a potential weak link in their top of the line cameras.

Jack


----------



## Refurb7 (Sep 6, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Dear All,
> 
> Like so many others I feel alienated from Canon by their decisions to cripple each of the cameras in their lineup in one way or the other.
> 
> ...



You must be some super duper photographer if Canon doesn't make a camera that's good enough for you. Anyway, if you must shoot from a low angle, here is a solution to the flippy screen problem:

Canon Angle Finder C, $199 at B&H Photo. 
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183200-REG/Canon_2882A001_Angle_Finder_C.html
Or get the third party version (Ziv brand) for $60.

You're welcome.


----------



## Refurb7 (Sep 6, 2016)

fussy III said:


> What does everone else think what a generalist semiprofessional or professional camera made by Canon should have looked like in 2016?



It should look like the 5DIV, which looks perfect to me. I shoot professionally and have no problem with any of the specs or design.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2016)

To all those suggesting an Angle Finder C... It's pretty much a non-starter because of its main limitation – it doesn't help with the classic hand-held selfie.


----------



## Diko (Sep 6, 2016)

shunsai said:


> I'm in the "flipscreen" camp....
> 
> ...Wirelessly connecting a smartphone to act as a viewfinder is cool and might be useful in a lot of cases a flipscreen would, but it is not the same as having a screen that allows you to hold your camera above your head in a crowd and still see what you're shooting. I think using your smartphone as a viewfinder is also going to require one or both of your hands and demand that your camera is attached to a tripod.
> 
> I really have a hard time understanding why so many people fight so ardently for less options instead of more. And all the rudeness and insults and condescension really seems uncalled for.


 That last one thing keeps amazing me as well.

Otherwise: I think that with a camera on a monopod (raised above your head) and a smartphone or you could do much better photos than anything else.

DISCLAIMER to all those couch potatoes that can't go out of their comfort zone and do something newer and better: I am no ninja and yet find that the perfect solution for unique journalistic photos in a crowd.

Another scenario is oin a tripod with extremely low light conditions. Than instead of a smartphone I would highly recommend a tablet for better evaluation of the scenario.

EDIT: +1 for the neuro comment. I couldn't said it better.

Man, I gotta get some sarcasm classes from this dude.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 6, 2016)

testthewest said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > *TROLL ALERT*
> ...



My post was supposed to give people who were engaging in fair discussion a bit of warning that the originator of that discussion was probably not interested in it. Trolling is an overused term, but here it seems quite apt - a thread was started whose aims (at least as far as *I* can determine them) were malign, to rile people, and stir things up. And my post is quite clear on the reason I think that.



testthewest said:


> Somebody is sharing his feelings in a post and you had the chances to just pass by and do something else with your life, instead you attack him needlessly. I read most of the posts before - none were nearly as condensing as yours, which exactly as you blame him to be: hyperbole and ignoring other views.



Sure :



testthewest said:


> I also feel alot of the things he brought up are not unreasonable and disappoint me as well. I had really hoped for a tilt/flip screen. Is that hyperbole?



I'll assume you're writing in good faith, so, nope. It's not hyperbole to say 'I wish the 5D4 had an articluated screen', it's hyperbole to call it 'crippled' for that reason (or any other minor gripe). I trust you can understand that?



testthewest said:
 

> I wonder why we need a AA filter, if the 5DSr outsells the 5DS so much, that the removal of a piece (so less costs, right?) almost adds 400€ in my region.



You realise that nothing has been removed in the 5DsR? A cancelling filter has been added in front of the AA filter. Whether it should add that much to the price, well I dunno. I chose the non-R version primarily because I didn't think the price difference was justified.



testthewest said:


> So these can't be weird specific needs, it seems the majority sees it different.



Majority? Got a citation for that?



testthewest said:


> I feel the truth is canon has not met alot of peoples hopes. You, going full fanboy mode, seem to be blind to valid critisms as if you were paid by canon. Do you really think this is a great camera?



Yup, clearly I'm a fanboy (which you seem to define as 'anyone not relentlessly negative and critical about everything Canon does'). Yawn. And do I think this is a great camera? Um, yes. Was the 5D3 a great camera? I think the consensus is it was. And this improves on almost everything. It may not have specific features YOU want, but that doesn't make it a bad camera, and it certainly doesn't make it 'crippled'. If you can't see that, then perhaps you need to check your expectations.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 6, 2016)

Incidentally, for the record, I'd be quite happy to see a flip-out screen introduced. It wouldn't be crucial to my decision whether to buy the camera or not, but it would allow greater creative freedom for what I do - especially as I find crouching, kneeling, and getting up off the ground increasingly difficult.

(This is what a non hyperbolic post looks like).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Incidentally, for the record, I'd be quite happy to see a flip-out screen introduced. It wouldn't be crucial to my decision whether to buy the camera or not, but it would allow greater creative freedom for what I do - especially as I find crouching, kneeling, and getting up off the ground increasingly difficult.
> 
> (This is what a non hyperbolic post looks like).



You Canon-hater. How dare you suggest that anyone would want a feature which Canon, in their infinite wisdom and beneficence, should choose not to provide?!?

(This is not what a non-hyperbolic post looks like.)

;D


----------



## scyrene (Sep 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally, for the record, I'd be quite happy to see a flip-out screen introduced. It wouldn't be crucial to my decision whether to buy the camera or not, but it would allow greater creative freedom for what I do - especially as I find crouching, kneeling, and getting up off the ground increasingly difficult.
> ...



:-*


----------



## gruhl28 (Sep 6, 2016)

The lack of a flip-out screen is, for me, the main thing keeping me from wanting to upgrade to full frame.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 6, 2016)

gruhl28 said:


> The lack of a flip-out screen is, for me, the main thing keeping me from wanting to upgrade to full frame.


What about flip out flash which can act as commander.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 6, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > But there is a chance that the new 6d ii will have a flip screen. It will be less robust but may incorporate other features just like 6d vs 5d3.
> ...



The problem with this is its comparing apples to oranges. How many pro/semi-private bodies have flip screens vs how many enthusiast/behinner/consumer bodies have flip screens? I'd be willing to bet that if there were more pro bodies with flip screens you'd find more of them breaking.


----------



## Azathoth (Sep 6, 2016)

gruhl28 said:


> The lack of a flip-out screen is, for me, the main thing keeping me from wanting to upgrade to full frame.



+1

I also want to upgrade to full frame, but unless canon releases a 6dmk2 with a flippy lcd screen, I'l stick with my 70d for a long time.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2016)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ...I'd be willing to bet that if there were more pro bodies with flip screens you'd find more of them breaking.



I'd be willing to take that bet.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2016)

testthewest said:


> Somebody is sharing his feelings in a post and you had the chances to just pass by and do something else with your life, instead you attack him needlessly. I read most of the posts before - none were nearly as condensing as yours, which exactly as you blame him to be: hyperbole and ignoring other views.



Dang! I thought my post was lots more condescending



unfocused said:


> You can't always get what you want.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 6, 2016)

Regarding that Canon angle finder, which I bought last year. It is not the best solution by any means. In theory yes and it does serve some purposes, but not that well.

Jack


----------



## dak723 (Sep 6, 2016)

Joe M said:


> It's inevitable, that sooner or later someone always starts lamenting as to what the camera _doesn't_ have. When did a body come out that someone didn't complain about, whether it's a lack of pop-up flash or more (or less) mpxls or buffer or fps and so on? It's always so much more fun to read about what a camera _does_ have and what you can do with it! If anyone thinks their camera isn't all it's cracked up to be, compare it to a 1D or D30, though I'm sure there are still some functional ones out there and in the right hands can also take fine photos. In any case, whenever someone asks for something they can't have, I reply that I too would like to be 22 again but it's not going to happen so just deal with it. Such is life.



Yes, and the constant whining and complaining just KILLS this forum. That is why some folks - who could indeed just pass-by and leave no comment - feel the urge to leave comments that criticize the complainers and the whiners. I began shooting with a SLR in 1980 and got my first DSLR (The original digital rebel) in 2004. Today's camera - whether from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. are FANTASTIC. Coupled with the ability to do post processing on the computer make photography today far more fun, more successful and better in every single way, in my experience. Many different camera models are offered, so that folks can have flip screens if they want, high MPs if they want, high FPS if they want. The choices are there.

But, for some reason, all people want to do is complain. Rather than look at the positive, all they see is the negative. They want a camera to have all the features that they want. Never mind that those features may not be what someone else wants. OTHERS DON"T MATTER.

In other words, they are childish. Calling them out as such may be unnecessary - and, yes, maybe even rude. But they ruin this forum, so we want, beg, plead with them to please grow up. And maybe just maybe, they will understand that by accepting reality - and using today's fantastic cameras HAPPILY - they will actually come to enjoy photography, rather than be consumed with their anger regarding stupid Canon!


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 6, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Regarding that Canon angle finder, which I bought last year. It is not the best solution by any means. In theory yes and it does serve some purposes, but not that well.
> 
> Jack


Yeah, you still have to get down and put your eye to it; but, it beats eating dirt to get those low angle shots. A floppy screen would be more useful, but maybe more prone to problems too.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 6, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Dear All,
> 
> Like so many others I feel alienated from Canon by their decisions to cripple each of the cameras in their lineup in one way or the other.
> 
> ...



The camera is not "crippled" (from the point of view of being a hybrid) as many people like to think. The basic problem is that the processors Canon have are far behind those available to their competitors in terms of sophistication and technology, and this is what limits them. If they could produce hybrids that rivaled their competitors products, they would, but the processor limitations mean that they can't.

That is why with Canon you have to get a stills camera or a video camera, but not one that does both well. 

It is NOT some kind of cynical marketing plot by Canon. It is the manifestation of the limitations of their processors.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 6, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > ...I'd be willing to bet that if there were more pro bodies with flip screens you'd find more of them breaking.
> ...



If you don't flip out a flip screen, it cant break. 

Pro bodies not having them because "they can break" is a weak argument.

Pro bodies don't have them because pro's don't need them (although they can be useful to some) and adding them adds to the cost of the camera (hence less profit). It boils down to a cost/benefit/profit decision.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 6, 2016)

Use your smart phone as a flippy screen. Now Wi-Fi compatible!


----------



## fussy III (Sep 6, 2016)

dak723 said:


> Joe M said:
> 
> 
> > It's inevitable, that sooner or later someone always starts lamenting as to what the camera _doesn't_ have. When did a body come out that someone didn't complain about, whether it's a lack of pop-up flash or more (or less) mpxls or buffer or fps and so on? It's always so much more fun to read about what a camera _does_ have and what you can do with it! If anyone thinks their camera isn't all it's cracked up to be, compare it to a 1D or D30, though I'm sure there are still some functional ones out there and in the right hands can also take fine photos. In any case, whenever someone asks for something they can't have, I reply that I too would like to be 22 again but it's not going to happen so just deal with it. Such is life.
> ...



You sound like a functionary of church or of a dictatory state who proposes that only positive reports be allowed in the congregation so that the sheep be not threatened in their faith.
To put it more heroic: Yes, perhaps I am that child breaking the waves and asking for more, ready to fail and ready to take the blame of the obidient and malevolent. As long as I stimulate some thought among all too content sheep, that is fine for me.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 6, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Use your smart phone as a flippy screen. Now Wi-Fi compatible!



Nice but not new to me.
Let me ask you: Are you proposing I have that thing constantly mounted to my camera? Now that is threatning the camera! It would eventually get hooked by vegetation etc. The hot-shoe looks equally threatened. This combination is quite unbalanced and top-heavy. And if the whole thing goes down, I cannot even contact the Pro-Service for replacement.


A flippy-swivel instead can be moved aside and to the center position. Here it can be inverted if unfavorable conditions are foreseen, making the camera less prone to damage than a body with a regular display that is constantly exposed to the possibilty of accidenatlly hitting a hard corner.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 6, 2016)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



You never know unless you try ...


----------



## pixel8foto (Sep 6, 2016)

Been in plenty of situations where a deployed or slightly ajar flipscreen could've been cracked/damaged/knocked off, where the normal screen wouldn't. But in most of those scenarios I'd likely have only used the facility for a few minutes and then pushed it home. Are they as resistant to water and dust ingress? In the desert/at the colour run/at the muddy festival/when an egg lands on it etc? I can genuinely see one of the hinged arms getting caught on a strand of thread or on a wire or in someone's hair in a scrum and it getting bent/hurting someone, or twisted when being yanked from a camera bag in a hurry. And, if you're stuck in a muddy field with no support and limited backup for four days, if you're doing jobs day in and out where it just *has* to work, no flip screen is one less point of failure.
I'd love the feature but get why it would be a problem for a large chunk of users.


----------



## Lurker (Sep 6, 2016)

> Wirelessly connecting a smartphone to act as a viewfinder is cool and might be useful in a lot of cases a flipscreen would, but it is not the same as having a screen that allows you to hold your camera above your head in a crowd and still see what you're shooting. I think using your smartphone as a viewfinder is also going to require one or both of your hands and demand that your camera is attached to a tripod.



You must be young, holding your camera over your head and looking up at a flippy screen might work for you now but in the long term is not good for your neck and shoulders.

Sounds like what you need is a heavy duty selfie stick. A monopod with a cell phone holder attached to the leg (with zip ties or tape). When you put the camera up over your head the phone is raised to eye level. One hand on to hold the monopod up, one to stabilize and operate the phone/camera.

I bet if you reached out to RRS, Hejnar Photo, Kirk, or any other favorite accessory hardware manufacturer they might be able to make a clamp for you or already have components that could be used for one. 



> I really have a hard time understanding why so many people fight so ardently for less options instead of more. And all the rudeness and insults and condescension really seems uncalled for.



As I see it, Canon has leapfrogged the flippy screen thing. Options cost money. Options require support. Options add complexity. Complexity increases the risk of failure. Failure is unacceptable.

What I don't get is how some people get so hung up on old technology they can't see how a new technology can be applied to solve their problem.


----------



## Jsalk (Sep 6, 2016)

Thanks for doing this.

I had been a canon user for 20+ years. In the digital era I had the 5D, skipped the 5D II because I was disappointed with the AF system and bought into the 5D Mark III feeling that this was a decent enough update by Canon. I did feel that they held back though. This is due to their history of making amazing film cameras like the T90 and A1 and the A1R.

The 5D cameras have never failed me in even the most challenging situations. But as I grew as a photographer, I felt that features like "spot coupled AF ", more robust weather proofing, zebra and other manual focus aids would really enhance the cameras. Built in intravelometer is a no brainier. 

This is not because of the other guys having it, but the things I missed as I was using these cameras.

I eventually moved to the Sony A7R II, while keeping 5 of my most precious canon EF lenses (24-70 II, 70-200 II, 85 II, Zeiss 15 and 135)

I had a specific reason to move and that was size. I have some Zeiss ZM and Loxia lenses which are quite small and of high quality. Since I was moving to more landscape and urban photography from sports and wildlife, the manual lenses more than suited my style. Manual focusing was a pleasure using the A7r ii. I can do it very quickly and far more accurately with this camera. I can also use my favorite lens the 135 APO far easier than I could with my Mark III.

The A7R II is not a canon 5D series replacement, i think the 5D cameras are far superior.

I kept my canon lenses so that I could use some them with a future Canon that had the features that I needed. 
It has not happened with either the 5DsR or the 5D Mark IV.

What's interesting is that Pentax has actually made the camera that canon should have - the K1.
IBIS, focus peaking, weather sealed, diffraction correction (wow), etc.
Unfortunately that meant new lens system. But for the cost of the 5D Mark IV, I can get a K1 and a 15-30 2.8 which is a superb ultra wide zoom. It is actually slightly sharper than the legendary Nikon 14-24.

So like you, I have evolved to a similar position, not by watching other manufacturers, but by evolving as a photographer over time.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 6, 2016)

Lurker said:


> Options cost money. Options require support. Options add complexity. Complexity increases the risk of failure. Failure is unacceptable.



Which is exactly why I'm switching to a pinhole camera! 

Seriously, the flip / touch screen is a blessing to us old farts who have bad knees, shoulders, and backs. From what I understand the macro folks like them too.


----------



## Joe M (Sep 7, 2016)

fussy III said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Joe M said:
> ...



I don't know but it seems a little harsh to use "whiner, childish" and so on. I know, I get. Some people really do post with nothing but "what isn't there" simply to whip up the masses. Personally, I was simply making an observation that over many years and many forums, I've seen most bodies announced followed by posts over what the camera doesn't have and should have had. Back in the day when I used to frequent dpr, you should have seen the giant rant over the lack of popup flash on the 5d3! Somehow, life went on without it. fussy, I don't want to imply you should ever want to settle for less. Of course we should strive for more and demand more and maybe one day we would even get it. But without putting my hands on one (5d4) yet, I'd say calling it crippled isn't quite right. You might call it lacking in features. Or maybe I would. Understand that I'm simply making an observation, there are features I am not perfectly happy with either, but, to be cliche, "it is what it is, that's how it goes, that's life, you get what you're given", and so on. Sometimes that sucks but , that's life. Hopefully, you'll pick one up and will find you can make it work in spite of the shortcomings you see in it.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 7, 2016)

Lurker said:


> > Wirelessly connecting a smartphone to act as a viewfinder is cool and might be useful in a lot of cases a flipscreen would, but it is not the same as having a screen that allows you to hold your camera above your head in a crowd and still see what you're shooting. I think using your smartphone as a viewfinder is also going to require one or both of your hands and demand that your camera is attached to a tripod.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One of the things I do is technical documentation and it often involves very cramped spaces. I have held onto a 60D just because it has the tilt/swivel screen. There are definitely times and places for just about any feature... but as to if it is valuable enough to include on every camera, that is a matter of opinion.... and which ever side of the issue you stand on, you are guaranteed opposition and arguments....


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 7, 2016)

Often the OP sets the tone of a thread with the topic title. 

Adding the screen name "fussy" into the mix, along with the topic of "crippled," is clearly meant to provoke, to irk, to annoy.

Too bad so many of us took her bait! There is no evidence that fussy is even a hobbyist or in any way cares about photography.


----------



## vjlex (Sep 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> To all those suggesting an Angle Finder C... It's pretty much a non-starter because of its main limitation – it doesn't help with the classic hand-held selfie.



Honestly speaking, that's one of the bonus features I like about my M3! Can't deny that I would try to use it for that on a 5D body! 



Don Haines said:


> One of the things I do is technical documentation and it often involves very cramped spaces. I have held onto a 60D just because it has the tilt/swivel screen. There are definitely times and places for just about any feature... but as to if it is valuable enough to include on every camera, that is a matter of opinion.... and which ever side of the issue you stand on, you are guaranteed opposition and arguments....



That just made me wonder how feasible it would be to have some form of official Canon modular flip screen accessory. Something that could be mounted, maybe not on the hotshoe, but via the USB port or HDMI port, but a bit more rigid/sturdy than just a cable connection (although I admit, the picture of the smartphone connected via USB intrigues me). Preferably an accessory powered by the camera itself. That way people who don't want or need it would never have to opt for one. If it were designed right, I might consider that. Does something like that exist?


----------



## dsut4392 (Sep 7, 2016)

Add me to the flippy screen brigade, I sorely miss the lack of it on my 6D, having previously had a 60D. Primarily wilderness landscape, travel and macro shooter, occasional video.
I get the people that would miss the buttons that would have to move, but don't understand the anxiety about supposed fragility. If you're concerned that it's more fragile when the screen is flipped out, DON'T FLIP IT OUT, problem solved. Being able to fold the LCD inwards is actually an advantage, I have some small scratches and patches where the coating has worn off on my 6D screen, while my 60D screen stayed pristine until I sold it.
Didn't expect to see one on a 5D series, but hopeful it comes to a 6DII.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 7, 2016)

And it don't even support the speed boosters! Such crippled piece of crap. I'm going to Sony.


----------



## vjlex (Sep 7, 2016)

dsut4392 said:


> flippy screen brigade



 
Haha, I love it.


----------



## Azathoth (Sep 8, 2016)

dak723 said:


> Joe M said:
> 
> 
> > It's inevitable, that sooner or later someone always starts lamenting as to what the camera _doesn't_ have. When did a body come out that someone didn't complain about, whether it's a lack of pop-up flash or more (or less) mpxls or buffer or fps and so on? It's always so much more fun to read about what a camera _does_ have and what you can do with it! If anyone thinks their camera isn't all it's cracked up to be, compare it to a 1D or D30, though I'm sure there are still some functional ones out there and in the right hands can also take fine photos. In any case, whenever someone asks for something they can't have, I reply that I too would like to be 22 again but it's not going to happen so just deal with it. Such is life.
> ...



Why are you being so negative towards others? Be happy and smile. Stop complaining.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 8, 2016)

Joe M said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



My defense here was solely aimed at dak723. Your initial criticism of my post wasn't the least bit insulting or inadequate. Perhaps on my part I should have omitted the word "crippled" two out of three times. But in the light of what a generalist camera could (or should) have been, I really do feel the lack of a flippy makes the 5DIV a crippled generalist.

A generalist per definition should try to accomodate most all of the needs of a demanding crowd and it should suit most any purpose. Perhaps we can see that many in this forum would agree that of those features which are truly decisive to getting certain images that stand out from the crowd, the lack of a flippy is signifying the most obvious gap between a great and a generalist camera. And since Canon has a great concept for a swivel working in the 80D, it is really quite hard to understand they haven't integrated it into any fullframe or pro-level camera for so many years now. However I do understand the reservations of moving on from the camera-back layout of the 5D IV to a concept approaching the 80D or to an entire new concept.

Granted. But if not the 5D-series is to receive a flippy-swivel, than another camera sharing the otherwise universalistic features of the 5D IV should. There should be a full-frame camera with brutally fast AF, megapixels, weather-resistance, fast fps, large buffer AND flippy-swivel. 

After all this discussion I believe it to be quite obvious that the market for such an EOS would be huge and might even exceed that of the 5D IV. And that may even hold true in case a slightly higher pricepoint cannot be circumnavigated by the engineers.

Thanks to anyone who has seriously engaged in the discussion, be it from the flippy-brigade on from their opponents side.


----------



## x-vision (Sep 8, 2016)

fussy III said:


> A generalist per definition should try to accomodate most all of the needs of a demanding crowd and it should suit most any purpose.



A generalist is a jack of all trades, master of none. 
If your demands are too high, you would be better served by a specialist, not by a generalist.

You seem to expect that a single camera should be a specialist at everything. 
Good luck with that.


----------



## deadwrong (Sep 8, 2016)

IN regards to pullout, flippy screens......I had one i a older G5 canon camera, i used it so much that it stopped working. Rendering the camera useless. However, i had one on my Canon video camera years later and it still works fine.

My thoughts on this is that its not a necessary item on a heavily weighted stills camera. Its just another thing to potentially break. 

If i had the money Id get the IV but 4600$ Canadian is tough to justify at the moment :-\. I might go with a cheaper mark iii but i hate the thought of spending 3k on old technology, then wishing i had gone the other way. 

Canon will keep the price high to suck in all the early adopters, until the mark iii stock is depeleted. Then there after it will slowly drop say around next summer. Not sure i can wait! :-\


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 8, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > What does everone else think what a generalist semiprofessional or professional camera made by Canon should have looked like in 2016?
> ...



Ditto
When I look back over my 5 1/2 decades of photography. I went from 35 to 4x5 & 2 1/4 in the search for the elusive combination of resolution and good film. When film technology improved enough, I went back to 35.
I bought a Pentax with auto-focus- that was wicked-cool! 
Then, in 1983, I dumped $250,000 into video.
Seven years ago, I went back to still photography and decided to go with Canon because of their optics. 
After all my years chasing the elusive perfect camera,(dark room gear included) I'm settled in and enjoying photography.
The 5DS and 5D Mark IV will probably be my last investment in bodies.

I do not miss the old days one bit!



Bodie Days 2016 antique tin-type camera being used 0203 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 9, 2016)

Based on spec sheet, not much changed with buffer speed. But in actual use, looks like 5d4 is lot faster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIPgkax3iOA


----------



## Aglet (Sep 9, 2016)

Canon lost me a few years ago but I have to say the 5d4 is looking like a pretty _good_ generalist body that I'd certainly consider if still buying Canon gear.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 9, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Based on spec sheet, not much changed with buffer speed. But in actual use, looks like 5d4 is lot faster.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIPgkax3iOA



It's not a fair test, the 5D3's buffer is very limited with the SD card. Take out the SD card and set the recording mode to standard in the menu, the 5D3's buffer lasts nearly twice as long.


----------



## deadwrong (Sep 9, 2016)

Not a hit with Hitler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJYXrilGk_8


;D


----------



## tron (Sep 9, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > Based on spec sheet, not much changed with buffer speed. But in actual use, looks like 5d4 is lot faster.
> ...


+1 The SD speed is a well known fact. Situation is much much better with a CF UDMA 7 150MB/sec card.
They corrected it somehow in 7D2.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 10, 2016)

The small talk at a workshop I attended today where 65% of users were Canon users and the majority had the 5D MKIII is that the 5D MKIV at £ 3599 body only in the UK is too expensive. None said they would upgrade at that price and these were people heavily invested in Canon. 

Canon have a problem in what is one of their biggest markets its bound to affect sales across the board, sure some will upgrade but this is truly a considered purchase at £1300 more than the 5D MKIII sells for.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 10, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The small talk at a workshop I attended today where 65% of users were Canon users and the majority had the 5D MKIII is that the 5D MKIV at £ 3599 body only in the UK is too expensive. None said they would upgrade at that price and these were people heavily invested in Canon.
> 
> Canon have a problem in what is one of their biggest markets its bound to affect sales across the board, sure some will upgrade but this is truly a considered purchase at £1300 more than the 5D MKIII sells for.



It's expensive. It will come down in price as they always do. I'm sure Neuro would point out that for Canon, the target market may well not be 5D3 owners anyway, but rather 7D2/6D owners.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 11, 2016)

crip·pled
ˈkrip(ə)ld/
adjective
(of a person) unable to walk or move properly; disabled.
"a crippled old man"
(of a machine) severely damaged.
"the pilot displayed skill and nerve in landing the crippled plane"


No, the mk IV is not severely damaged, nor is is unable to work properly. It doesn't have every bell and whistle, nor does it cater to niche markets.


----------



## tron (Sep 11, 2016)

scyrene said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > The small talk at a workshop I attended today where 65% of users were Canon users and the majority had the 5D MKIII is that the 5D MKIV at £ 3599 body only in the UK is too expensive. None said they would upgrade at that price and these were people heavily invested in Canon.
> ...


I am not sure I agree with this.
1. I am a 5D3 owner. I will upgrade when price goes down by part exchanging my 5D3.
2. 6D owners want best value for money without having all goodies like very good AF, many fps, etc. I cannot see why they will not go to 6DII which will have an equally good sensor and will be much cheaper at the same time.
3. 7D2 owners are a little more complicated. I am a 7D2 owner and true a 5D4 would fall in between 5D3 and 7D2 in pixel density and speed. Some others may have already got some EF-S lenses they will no longer need if they sell their 7d2. (I do not since unfortunately my only EF-S lens a 10-22 had been stolen with my 5D4 and a lot of good EF lenses). I truly do not have an opinion on this.


----------



## TeT (Sep 11, 2016)

I don't get it. Really crippled.

The 5DIV is an upgrade from the 5DIII. Fills the same niche that its predecessors did.... Granted there are more capabilities to available now, but Canon is very consistent from generation to generation with its lineup Rebel/xxD/XD/1D/Cinema Cameras all have their role with some specialty thrown in on the side.

I suppose the OP wants a Corvette at the Camaro price that seats 10 like his mini van, roof rack anyone...


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 11, 2016)

[/quote]I am not sure I agree with this.
1. I am a 5D3 owner. I will upgrade when price goes down by part exchanging my 5D3.
2. 6D owners want best value for money without having all goodies like very good AF, many fps, etc. I cannot see whey they will not go to 6DII which will have an equally good sensor and will be much cheaper at the same time.
3. 7D2 owners are a little more complicated. I am a 7D2 owner and true a 5D4 would fall in between 5D3 and 7D2 in pixel density and speed. Some others may have already got some EF-S lenses they will no longer need if they sell their 7d2. (I do not since unfortunately my only EF-S lens a 10-22 had been stolen with my 5D4 and a lot of good EF lenses). I truly do not have an opinion on this.
[/quote]

I shoot a 7d mk2 and both 1dxs. I also have a 5d mk3 that I like better than all my other cameras but don't use it due to shooting and AF speed & small buffer. I shoot action 95% of the time, I was set on buying a 5d mk4 until I found out it still has a short buffer. I could live with 7 fps though 8 or 9 would be sweet.


----------



## tron (Sep 11, 2016)

Cthulhu said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure I agree with this.
> ...


If you see the-digital-picture site you will see that you can achieve about 5 seconds at 7fps with 5D4 if you use only a 150MB/sec UDMA 7 Compact flash card. Also the buffer depth in 5D3 is not so bad if you use the same combination.


----------



## reef58 (Sep 11, 2016)

fussy III said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > fussy III said:
> ...



Why don't you just go buy the camera that works for you? If Canon made a do everything camera then they would only need one model. That is not the way they are headed, so maybe it is time to switch to the camera out there that has all the bells and whistles you need.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 11, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Do not worry. I will continue taking great photos. However I would have liked to get better technology paired with my genious [sic].



Clearly spelling wasn't included in your gift, which makes your comment rather ironic. :


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 12, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The small talk at a workshop I attended today where 65% of users were Canon users and the majority had the 5D MKIII is that the 5D MKIV at £ 3599 body only in the UK is too expensive. None said they would upgrade at that price and these were people heavily invested in Canon.
> 
> Canon have a problem in what is one of their biggest markets its bound to affect sales across the board, sure some will upgrade but this is truly a considered purchase at £1300 more than the 5D MKIII sells for.



When the 5DIII was announced in the UK, it was pretty much in the same price bracket: £3500. It was so high, I wrote a letter to the UK head of Canon. It took him around three months to reply, but his letter was beautifully written and included a very nice book. He basically said that the UK RRP (price) had an expectation of heavy dealer subsidies. So the RRP allows a large amount of negotiation on price and doesn't expect many cameras to actually sell at that RRP. In the states, this doesn't happen. Canon sets the price and that's generally the price across the USofA. Other countries have different markets. So what does this mean for the UK market? It means that in the first few months, the camera will sell at RRP because the dealer can sell every unit that Canon will supply them initially....while stocks are low and demand from early adopters is high. Once supply has stabilised....ie every dealer can bulk order and get them all delivered in a few days...and all the "I will pay any amount to have the latest camera" brigade have snapped up the early and over priced supply (while making their unboxing videos on youtube)...then the shelf price will drop quite quickly. Expect to pay around £3000 in December and around £2500, some time in 2017. Or go get one from Japan / Digial Rev or buy State side.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 12, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The small talk at a workshop I attended today where 65% of users were Canon users and the majority had the 5D MKIII is that the 5D MKIV at £ 3599 body only in the UK is too expensive. None said they would upgrade at that price and these were people heavily invested in Canon.
> 
> Canon have a problem in what is one of their biggest markets its bound to affect sales across the board, sure some will upgrade but this is truly a considered purchase at £1300 more than the 5D MKIII sells for.



sorry.. are you saying the UK is one of canon's biggest markets or just that the Mark III upgraders are?


----------



## benperrin (Sep 12, 2016)

I'm in the flippy screen camp. It's great for landscapes where the camera needs to be really low or high. The Sony a7r2 actually does this fairly well where you can use the tilt screen to frame the shot quickly then use your smartphone to change white balance, shutter etc and keep shooting from a convenient spot. It's not a necessity but it would make the camera a lot easier to use. But there are many genres where the flippy screen wouldn't add any extra value so I can understand some people not wanting it.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 12, 2016)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Because pro body owners are more likely to abuse their high dollar gear. :


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 12, 2016)

pixel8foto said:


> Been in plenty of situations where a deployed or slightly ajar flipscreen could've been cracked/damaged/knocked off, where the normal screen wouldn't. But in most of those scenarios I'd likely have only used the facility for a few minutes and then pushed it home. Are they as resistant to water and dust ingress? In the desert/at the colour run/at the muddy festival/when an egg lands on it etc? I can genuinely see one of the hinged arms getting caught on a strand of thread or on a wire or in someone's hair in a scrum and it getting bent/hurting someone, or twisted when being yanked from a camera bag in a hurry. And, if you're stuck in a muddy field with no support and limited backup for four days, if you're doing jobs day in and out where it just *has* to work, no flip screen is one less point of failure.
> I'd love the feature but get why it would be a problem for a large chunk of users.



The flippy isn't as loosely flippy as you flippin' think and doesn't have to be flipped or flippy at all. Quit flippin' out with all the flippin' daydreams of flippin' scenarios over flippy flipped flip screens. I once had a non flippy screen punctured at a gay pride parade. I promptly flipped off the guy with the non-flippy stiffy.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 12, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Joe M said:
> 
> 
> > fussy III said:
> ...



And now he's sober.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 12, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



Yup, it's kind one of the reasons we like pro/semi-private level gear


----------



## tpatana (Sep 13, 2016)

No dpaf if using 120fps. Why's that?


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 13, 2016)

benperrin said:


> I'm in the flippy screen camp. It's great for landscapes where the camera needs to be really low or high. The Sony a7r2 actually does this fairly well where you can use the tilt screen to frame the shot quickly then use your smartphone to change white balance, shutter etc and keep shooting from a convenient spot. It's not a necessity but it would make the camera a lot easier to use. But there are many genres where the flippy screen wouldn't add any extra value so I can understand some people not wanting it.



You can do that vice versa with a 5D4: use your smartphone to frame and use Canon's superior button layout to dial the settings. I didn't miss much a flippy screen on my 5D3 (in fact in rugged areas, in rain and sand storm, I was happy not to worry about it) but I missed in-camera WiFi just to be able to do that sometimes, e.g. shooting macros.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 13, 2016)

Sigh, flicking quickly through this and other threads about the 5D4 I think that any camera manufacturer in this world will never be able to satisfy all people. If they did try that, they'd have to split their product line into hundreds of sub-lines and finally would discover that a lot of people complaining in threads never buy such a higher priced camera. So they'd run into a bankruptcy trap. I think it is good that Canon listens to some real photographers and not to everyone. Same with Nikon.

For me, the 5D4 is anything but a "crippled" generalist camera, I think in the hands of a real photographer it will able to deliver very good quality in many different settings. Being focused on stills shooting, I understand well that videographers aren't happy with its 4K offerings: MJPEG codec without log files is underwhelming. Looks like this is the only serious flaw in the 5D4's concept. This may have to be fixed by Canon with a firmware update - if they overcome their anxiety to protect their C-Series. Or Magic Lantern will fill this gap with an intelligent hack.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 13, 2016)

justaCanonuser said:


> Sigh, flicking quickly through this and other threads about the 5D4 I think that any camera manufacturer in this world will never be able to satisfy all people. If they did try that, they'd have to split their product line into hundreds of sub-lines and finally would discover that a lot of people complaining in threads never buy such a higher priced camera. So they'd run into a bankruptcy trap. I think it is good that Canon listens to some real photographers and not to everyone. Same with Nikon.
> 
> For me, the 5D4 is anything but a "crippled" generalist camera, I think in the hands of a real photographer it will able to deliver very good quality in many different settings. Being focused on stills shooting, I understand well that videographers aren't happy with its 4K offerings: MJPEG codec without log files is underwhelming. Looks like this is the only serious flaw in the 5D4's concept. This may have to be fixed by Canon with a firmware update - if they overcome their anxiety to protect their C-Series. Or Magic Lantern will fill this gap with an intelligent hack.



Right on.

Furthermore generalizations are just that ; they don't fit everyone as well as one might think

"2. 6D owners want best value for money without having all goodies like very good AF, many fps, etc. I cannot see why they will not go to 6DII which will have an equally good sensor and will be much cheaper at the same time."

I bought the 6D knowing I would upgrade and that it was going to save me from throwing away another $1000 when I did, and so my next camera will be the 5D4 or 1DX II. I'm glad I took the 6D over the 5D3 for that reason since honing my skills with it was just fine and the $1000 went into glass.

Jack


----------



## turtle (Sep 13, 2016)

The 5D is always going to be a top quality generalist and I think Canon kinda sorta got this camera right (ignoring specific gripes). I think where they have it wrong is in the EU/UK pricing and with the sense that the body is creeping upwards in price relative to its *core* performance and certainly relative to the capabilities of the competition.

If we consider the D610 and 6D to be comparable and the 5D IV and D810 very roughly comparable (though they emphasise different capabilities), where is Canon's D750? It seems that this camera occupies a tremendously appealing middle ground offering superb core performance, without the frills and at a great price. Personally (and I think I am far from alone), I am looking for a 'won't break the bank' body containing strong AF and an up to date sensor and Canon has been making us wait a hell of a long time to satisfy this most basic requirement. The sad thing is, if Canon were to give me such a body, I would buy three of them... tomorrow, but at the price of the 5D IV they won't be selling me a single one. 

The difficulty I think Canon faces is this: if the 6D II is released in a form that essentially incrementally improves on the likes of the D750, how the heck are they going to sell 5D IV bodies? It will be a mighty premium to gain slightly tougher build and a few peripheral technical features that invariably have close to zero impact on the real world utility of the camera to 99% of users. To allow for a really great 6D II, they needed to dazzle us with the 5D IV and I do not feel they have done that, especially not for those expecting better 4K integration. I predict an anti-climax with the 6D II and yet more Canon users wondering why they are once again being painted into a corner. 

Back in 2012 I bought a 5D III to update on my 5D II (which I kept), although I only had a small array of lenses. All my money was still in Leica M film kit. I had seriously and with clenched teeth passed up the D810 and a switch out to Nikon Glass. Since then I grew my Canon kit and bought many more lenses, believing this was a wise investment in the medium to long term. After all, I was used to the Canon interface etc. I now horribly regret that decision and I suspect I am one of very many users who assumed back then that Canon would soon be providing us with the sort of body specs Nikon has been delivering: great sensors, great price to performance ratios. Instead, I feel they have cynically exploited their committed user base rather than enticing us in more positive ways. That's a real shame. I am sitting out the 5D IV unless prices drop dramatically. Even they I would only consider buying grey market, due to the massive price difference one can already obtain (£600). If that is not viable, I will consider the 6D II, assuming they haven't crippled it to sustain the 5D IV. 

Is this the sort of thought process Canon thinks is sustainable? Compared to the price of 2 x 5D IV bodies (UK), I can buy 2 x D750s and all the (top quality) lenses I need to shoot weddings with. I could then sit on my L glass, using the odd bit of specialist glass with my 5D III once in a while. I'd be no worse off vs. buying the two 5D IV bodies. I don't want to do this, but it is absurd that I am even considering it. And I would do it simply because I don't like feeling I am being forced to pay through the nose for something that represents poor value for the feature set I actually need. Canon makes great glass, but after the 5D III was released with (already) ancient sensor architecture, the 5DIV needed to either be 'absolutely amazing (but justifiably expensive)', or 'very good and very good value'. I actually don't think it is either.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 14, 2016)

turtle, it seems to me you present valid criticism. Probably the biggest thing I've observed is complaints about price. That could translate into lack of sales and an adjustment in price. Let's hope.

Jack


----------



## dak723 (Sep 14, 2016)

turtle said:


> The 5D is always going to be a top quality generalist and I think Canon kinda sorta got this camera right (ignoring specific gripes). I think where they have it wrong is in the EU/UK pricing and with the sense that the body is creeping upwards in price relative to its *core* performance and certainly relative to the capabilities of the competition.
> 
> If we consider the D610 and 6D to be comparable and the 5D IV and D810 very roughly comparable (though they emphasise different capabilities), where is Canon's D750? It seems that this camera occupies a tremendously appealing middle ground offering superb core performance, without the frills and at a great price. Personally (and I think I am far from alone), I am looking for a 'won't break the bank' body containing strong AF and an up to date sensor and Canon has been making us wait a hell of a long time to satisfy this most basic requirement. The sad thing is, if Canon were to give me such a body, I would buy three of them... tomorrow, but at the price of the 5D IV they won't be selling me a single one.
> 
> ...



It is sad to continually people expecting things from Canon that would go against what Canon has done for years. These are the cameras they offer. It has nothing to do with what Nikon offers. If you seriously believe the Nikon offers more of what you want for a better price, you would be foolish not to switch. On the other hand, there are probably thousands of photographers who prefer their 5D III over the products Nikon offers. Unless you are a pixel peeper, you won't see much difference in IQ from almost any of the top brand cameras. In terms of reliability, Canon seems to consistently produce the best cameras. If you already have the 5D III, then there is probably very little reason to upgrade. There aren't revolutionary upgrades. There is very little difference between cameras if you ignore the techno-geeks and the pixel peepers who count the grains of noise to determine if the newer model is maybe 5% better.

Who knows, maybe Canon will offer a FF camera situated between the 6D and the 5D IV. You could wait to see what the 6D II will offer, but don't be surprised if it remains the entry level, least expensive FF as it is now. Based on its success and Canon's success, Canon seems to know what they are doing - even if it doesn't satisfy your personal wishes. 

Just my opinions of course. But it seems odd, given the high level of today's cameras, that so many are unhappy.


----------



## pwp (Sep 14, 2016)

dak723 said:


> ...Just my opinions of course. But it seems odd, given the high level of today's cameras, that so many are unhappy.



Could be the one's who grumble the most shoot the least....

I agree with you, today's cameras are just fantastic, and continue to evolve nicely. Perhaps the negativity peddlers got stuck in time, around ten years ago. The digital revolution was in full swing and just about every new model brought something new, useful and exciting to the table. By definition, revolutions don't last forever and the era of radical updates has plateaued right out. Good! And the manufacturers have substantially delivered on just about everything we'd been asking for, and then some. 

-pw


----------



## turtle (Sep 14, 2016)

But surely Canon has innovated in core areas of DSLR performance in the past in ways that it just isn't now?

5D: ground-breaking prosumer level FF DSLR.
5D II: Huge resolution leap. Far ahead of the competition. Awesome video.
5D III: Better all round camera with very marginal sensor upgrade, with DR and read noise still being a major problem in high DR situations. Good video, but competition has caught up.
5D IV: The sensor is now up to date, but rest of the camera is barely different to the 5DIII for stills shooters. Pitiful 4K integration. 

I see a downward slope here in terms of performance relative to the competition, alongside quite a steep price increase.

For the vast majority of stills shooters (including a great many of Canon's bread and butter: wedding shooters), the 5D IV offers little tangible benefit over the D750 and that just should not be the case for a camera costing over twice as much. For video shooters, it seems to be a very poor price-performance ratio compared to the competition. So how does it justify its very steep price? 

IMHO by far the biggest performance boost in the IV comes from the new sensor with on sensor ADCs.... BUT, put into context, all this does is give us roughly the sensor performance we have been seeing with Sony and Nikon cameras for how long? The Canon loses a bit of low ISO DR and gains a bit of high ISO DR, but I think it is fair to say it is no better or worse overall than the D750 sensor. I also struggle to see where the rest of the camera is meaningfully better than the D750 for a still shooter. Better build, sure, but at a cost of how much?

I wonder whether even ardent Canon users would not buy into Nikon were they starting from scratch in DSLR land once again. I genuinely believe that Canon will sell this camera primarily because of a captive market, but I also believe that the same customer base is becoming increasingly irritated with Canon's segmentation strategy and pricing. Maybe I am wrong, but time will tell. For me personally, I am impressed with Canon's business acumen, because we all know they are doing well relative to Nikon, but I do not think this has any relation to the price-performance ratio of their cameras..... 

I was hoping for aggressive pricing and I think it would have made much more sense for Canon to have done this. As it stands, a lot of people will sit it out I think.




dak723 said:


> It is sad to continually people expecting things from Canon that would go against what Canon has done for years. These are the cameras they offer. It has nothing to do with what Nikon offers. If you seriously believe the Nikon offers more of what you want for a better price, you would be foolish not to switch. On the other hand, there are probably thousands of photographers who prefer their 5D III over the products Nikon offers. Unless you are a pixel peeper, you won't see much difference in IQ from almost any of the top brand cameras. In terms of reliability, Canon seems to consistently produce the best cameras. If you already have the 5D III, then there is probably very little reason to upgrade. There aren't revolutionary upgrades. There is very little difference between cameras if you ignore the techno-geeks and the pixel peepers who count the grains of noise to determine if the newer model is maybe 5% better.
> 
> Who knows, maybe Canon will offer a FF camera situated between the 6D and the 5D IV. You could wait to see what the 6D II will offer, but don't be surprised if it remains the entry level, least expensive FF as it is now. Based on its success and Canon's success, Canon seems to know what they are doing - even if it doesn't satisfy your personal wishes.
> 
> Just my opinions of course. But it seems odd, given the high level of today's cameras, that so many are unhappy.


[/quote]


----------



## scyrene (Sep 14, 2016)

turtle said:


> But surely Canon has innovated in core areas of DSLR performance in the past in ways that it just isn't now?
> 
> 5D: ground-breaking prosumer level FF DSLR.
> 5D II: Huge resolution leap. Far ahead of the competition. Awesome video.
> ...



Wasn't the biggest leap from 5D2>3 the AF system? From mediocre to almost as good as the 1Dx's? A big deal, addressing the biggest complaint. Similarly, one of the biggest complaints in the 5D3 was apparently DR, and they addressed that this time.



turtle said:


> I see a downward slope here in terms of performance relative to the competition, alongside quite a steep price increase.



Really? So the D800>D810 was a bigger leap? Also, taking into account exchange rates and inflation, how much more expensive is the 5D4 than the 5D3?


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 15, 2016)

turtle said:


> But surely Canon has innovated in core areas of DSLR performance in the past in ways that it just isn't now?
> 
> 5D: ground-breaking prosumer level FF DSLR.
> 5D II: Huge resolution leap. Far ahead of the competition. Awesome video.
> ...


really? 
- more intelligent viewfinder, level,etc in viewfinder.
- GPS, wifi and NFC
- increased fps
- lowered blackout/shutter lag. 
- better mirror / shutter motor - decreased shutter shock.
- better weathersealing and build quality including tripod mount.
- better AF (f/8 all points), 5 high precision cross types. 
- improved itR (added second DiGiC Processor for iTR and AF/AE - the only non 1 series to have a dedicated AF DiGiC)
- Improved Auto-ISO
- added Flicker control and white balance priority
- added intervalometer, 
- added DPRAW and DLO in camera
- fixed SD card write speed, 
- sensor is 30Mp versus 21MP, improved color, DR,etc.
and that's just off the top of my head.

Did you just take a look at the 5,000 foot specifications and come to your conclusion?


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 15, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Really? So the D800>D810 was a bigger leap? Also, taking into account exchange rates and inflation, how much more expensive is the 5D4 than the 5D3?



the 810 and the 610 were emergency .. we're screwed if we don't do something bug fix releases.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 15, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> turtle said:
> 
> 
> > But surely Canon has innovated in core areas of DSLR performance in the past in ways that it just isn't now?
> ...



The whiners just like whining. Their comments are a joke. Period.

Jack


----------



## turtle (Sep 15, 2016)

I don't think so. I think core performance is much more important than long lists of small tweaks, many of which are largely meaningless and with others already existing in cameras a fraction of the price. Everything new comes with 'its so much better' marketing blurb. The real question is how much these things _really_ mean to a photographer.

I don't recall insulting anyone.... You can throw cheap insults around all you like, but it just makes you sound like a petulant fanboy and only diminishes your credibility. If you wish to regain it, perhaps answer the main question I essentially asked:

In what areas does this camera justify its much higher price over a D750? And don't forget that the D750 has some features not found on the 5D IV. I'll help you: don't say 'it has an improved tripod mount'.



Jack Douglas said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > turtle said:
> ...


----------



## scyrene (Sep 15, 2016)

turtle said:


> I don't think so. I think core performance is much more important than long lists of small tweaks, many of which are largely meaningless and with others already existing in cameras a fraction of the price. Everything new comes with 'its so much better' marketing blurb. The real question is how much these things _really_ mean to a photographer.
> 
> I don't recall insulting anyone.... You can throw cheap insults around all you like, but it just makes you sound like a petulant fanboy and only diminishes your credibility. If you wish to regain it, perhaps answer the main question I essentially asked:
> 
> In what areas does this camera justify its much higher price over a D750? And don't forget that the D750 has some features not found on the 5D IV. I'll help you: don't say 'it has an improved tripod mount'.



Where was the insult? Someone saying 'whiner'? That's not an insult, no more than 'fanboy'. It's subjective, but not insulting (unless one has exceedingly thin skin). 

If you think there were no major improvements between each 5D model, having just been given a few good examples, then you're ignoring reality.

As for Nikon models, the question I'd put is, are each manufacturer's cameras meant to line up precisely? Is the next model (or the one after that, if you skip a generation) enough for existing Canon users to want to upgrade to? Jumping from one system to another, or running two or more side by side, is still a minority pursuit, I would have thought. And as I said above, does Nikon make massive leaps between iterations of a camera line? I don't think they add more than Canon does.


----------



## Takingshots (Sep 15, 2016)

At current mediocre specifications and pricing, I will continue to use my current camera until it stops clocking and in the meanwhile my wallet is safe ....


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Sep 15, 2016)

turtle said:


> I don't think so. I think core performance is much more important than long lists of small tweaks, many of which are largely meaningless and with others already existing in cameras a fraction of the price. Everything new comes with 'its so much better' marketing blurb. The real question is how much these things _really_ mean to a photographer.
> 
> I don't recall insulting anyone.... You can throw cheap insults around all you like, but it just makes you sound like a petulant fanboy and only diminishes your credibility. If you wish to regain it, perhaps answer the main question I essentially asked:
> 
> ...



If I am a new user looking at which camera is right for me...the situation hasn't changed. I would look at a host of reasons on which camera system to invest in. It goes beyond "this camera has the best 4K" or "ISO 64 has the highest dynamic range". The SYSTEM is called a system because it involves more than just a few features of the camera.

Controls is one of the biggest reasons I can think of why one might prefer one camera to another. It's one of the reasons I still prefer to use my 5DIII over my A6000.

Canon now has better dynamic range than the D810 from ISO400 on (essentially equal at ISO200).

This is the same cycle that occurs with every camera release and it never ceases to amaze me. First roll in the people amazed at the new camera. Then they settle in because either they have said everything they want to say...or maybe they are actually using the new camera. Then roll in the people that say Canon is failing and their products are a piece of crap. This is usually when the discussion goes downhill. I would say we are there right now .

The 5D Mark IV is not a perfect product. If its not right for you then don't buy it. Get whatever works for you.


----------



## sebasan (Sep 15, 2016)

Turtle is the tipical "few comments" boy which copy and paste in every forum he can the same text.
In resume, a troll.
If he like so much the D750, get one and go take photos. They are going to be awesome or awfull like the canon 5d mark III photos he could take, because at the end the most important thing with these pro tools is whoever use them.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 16, 2016)

Who needs a fragile flippy screen when you have the new wi-fi feature...iphone compatible app...you can choose all the camera settings and even the live view AF from the phone screen. Flippy screens are so pre-5D4....


----------



## scyrene (Sep 16, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Who needs a fragile flippy screen when you have the new wi-fi feature...iphone compatible app...you can choose all the camera settings and even the live view AF from the phone screen. Flippy screens are so pre-5D4....



People keep talking abput using a phone or similar as an external controller, but I genuinely don't quite see how it works - unless you're using a tripod. How do you handhold a DSLR and a phone at the same time and retain any control?


----------



## tpatana (Sep 16, 2016)

scyrene said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Who needs a fragile flippy screen when you have the new wi-fi feature...iphone compatible app...you can choose all the camera settings and even the live view AF from the phone screen. Flippy screens are so pre-5D4....
> ...



I ordered 2 holders. One has couple options including the 1/4 screw so I can mount it almost anywhere, including the cage and the flash hotshoe. Other holder has the pipe clam attachment, so I can have it on any pole/pipe, including the steadicam pole.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 16, 2016)

tpatana said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Still, I would agree with Scyrene, in many situations, an iPhone or iPad is just not going to be as convenient as a built in screen. Anyone who has had to hold a camera up over their head to shoot above a crowd (as in a press gang bang) knows that a separate unit is not a good solution. I also get tired of this myth of flip screens being fragile. It's just not true. In fact, I would be willing to bet that a flip screen is way more robust than a flat screen on a camera back, where it is much more likely to get banged about. Plus, I am quite certain that a flip screen is far easier to weather seal and much easier to replace if it happens to somehow break. 

I'm officially neutral on the desire for one. I wouldn't mind it, but don't consider it a make or break feature. The biggest downside in my mind is the penalty one pays in loss of real estate on the backside of the camera to make room for the hinges. I like my buttons where they are. I suspect that may have more to do with why Canon doesn't put the flipscreen on professional level bodies than any questions about durability.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 16, 2016)

tpatana said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Oooh, okay. I hadn't thought of that.


----------



## turtle (Sep 16, 2016)

Ah, such condescension from another person who can only respond to reasoned posts with insults (and poor spelling in this case). I'd be interested for you to show me the other forums I have copied and pasted the same text into ad nauseam, but we both know you made that bit up. 

I was eagerly awaiting the release of the 5D IV, like many people. My reaction to it is lukewarm, but at the UK price, much colder. This forum can be very 'you're either with us, or against us' which is a shame. Criticism immediately invokes insults, rather than responses to the actual points raised. Just reading through this thread makes this clear. Those who've criticised have been responded to with derision. What seems to be escaping many of the protagonists is that this sort of blind loyalty and inability to tolerate constructive criticism _from potential customers with valid concerns_ is precisely why the 5D IV was released with such a limited buffer (for its price point) and conventional CF/SD card slots. 

Maybe we can get past the idea that criticism or disagreement is trolling? Maybe we can also understand that insults, however minor you (and your ilk) may consider them to be, are still insults. They serve no constructive purpose and are the preserve of weak minds unable to formulate more intelligent responses. Along the way you may also like to note that the opinions I have raised are also shared by quite a few reviewers and other professional photographers online. 

P.S. Do you have a portfolio Sebasan?



sebasan said:


> Turtle is the tipical "few comments" boy which copy and paste in every forum he can the same text.
> In resume, a troll.
> If he like so much the D750, get one and go take photos. They are going to be awesome or awfull like the canon 5d mark III photos he could take, because at the end the most important thing with these pro tools is whoever use them.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 16, 2016)

turtle said:


> I was eagerly awaiting the release of the 5D IV, like many people. My reaction to it is lukewarm, but at the UK price, much colder.



I'm not over the moon about the price either. But from what I can tell, most of that isn't Canon's fault. Anyhow, it's already dropped to £3100 on SLR Hut (if you don't mind buying grey market).



turtle said:


> This forum can be very 'you're either with us, or against us' which is a shame. Criticism immediately invokes insults, rather than responses to the actual points raised. Just reading through this thread makes this clear. Those who've criticised have been responded to with derision. What seems to be escaping many of the protagonists is that this sort of blind loyalty and inability to tolerate constructive criticism _from potential customers with valid concerns_ is precisely why the 5D IV was released with such a limited buffer (for its price point) and conventional CF/SD card slots.
> 
> Maybe we can get past the idea that criticism or disagreement is trolling? Maybe we can also understand that insults, however minor you (and your ilk) may consider them to be, are still insults. They serve no constructive purpose and are the preserve of weak minds unable to formulate more intelligent responses. Along the way you may also like to note that the opinions I have raised are also shared by quite a few reviewers and other professional photographers online.
> 
> ...



With all due respect, if you waltz into a forum and start saying things like 'there were no major upgrades from the 5D2 to the 5D3', you can expect short shrift from other users. Some of us have furnished you with evidence as to why we think you're wrong. A combative or dismissive tone is likely to elicit a likewise response (see below).



turtle said:


> turtle said:
> 
> 
> > I think core performance is much more important than long lists of small tweaks, many of which are largely meaningless and with others already existing in cameras a fraction of the price. Everything new comes with 'its so much better' marketing blurb. The real question is how much these things _really_ mean to a photographer.
> ...


----------



## sebasan (Sep 16, 2016)

I don't respond to trolls in general but i have to make some point. I am not an english native speaker, sorry if my spealling is not good. Besides being a troll, are you a xenophobic too?
The most annoying thing about these people is that they "poison" a thread and make it unreadable in most cases.
There are a lot of forum members doing critiscism without being a troll, and those discussion are always interesting.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 17, 2016)

unfocused said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Well....they "myth" as you put it came from the lips of Chuck Westfall a few years back. He should know and he says that Canon have built a number of robust prototypes but they just were not robust enough to put on a professional line of cameras.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 17, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...


There is no possible way that a flip screen will ever be as robust as a fixed screen.... EVER! except for when the flip screen is closed and the display is protected from scratches....

That said, is it robust enough? Very few of us are going to try to pick up the camera by the flip screen..... and if you bump it, it moves, not breaks off, moves! Water sealing isn't a problem.... Remember when the 5D2 and 60D came out...... and how the 60D with its flippy screen had superior water sealing to the 5D2? And where are all the people who should be complaining about breaking their flippy screens? A remarkable silence! Every time this issue has been raised on the forum people respond with how their fixed screens were damaged and how if it were flipped over into the stow position like the flippy screens, it would not have happened....


----------



## unfocused (Sep 17, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I also get tired of this myth of flip screens being fragile. It's just not true.
> ...



Just like Canon's spokesmodels claimed you couldn't put wifi or GPS in a pro-level body until the market demanded that they do it, then it suddenly became possible.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 17, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> There is no possible way that a flip screen will ever be as robust as a fixed screen.... EVER! except for when the flip screen is closed and the display is protected from scratches....
> 
> That said, is it robust enough? Very few of us are going to try to pick up the camera by the flip screen..... and if you bump it, it moves, not breaks off, moves! Water sealing isn't a problem.... Remember when the 5D2 and 60D came out...... and how the 60D with its flippy screen had superior water sealing to the 5D2? And where are all the people who should be complaining about breaking their flippy screens? A remarkable silence! Every time this issue has been raised on the forum people respond with how their fixed screens were damaged and how if it were flipped over into the stow position like the flippy screens, it would not have happened....



I think your first sentence is rather bold and without any documentation. Perhaps you meant to say that is what you believe, because without access to test results, we can't know that. I believe it can be made equal to or greater than an integrated screen because the screen holder can be engineered solely for the purpose of protecting the screen, while an integrated screen must take into consideration the overall design limitations of the total body. In fact your second paragraph (which I agree with) contradicts your first, since weatherproofing is certainly a factor in whether or not a feature is robust and if a flip screen has superior weatherproofing, then by definition an integrated screen cannot be more robust. 

Nonetheless, we are in basic agreement and I am certain that when Canon finally does implement flip screens into its pro level bodies, they will assure us that they are better than integrated screens.


----------



## davidmurray (Sep 17, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Dear All,
> 
> Like so many others I feel alienated from Canon by their decisions to cripple each of the cameras in their lineup in one way or the other.
> 
> ...



No amount of childlike self-centered toy-throwing will change the fact that the 5D4 is an excellent camera well suited for a very wide range of situations - wider than its predecessor the 5D3. If you're so desperate for a flippy screen then buy a camera that has one. I for one am glad the 5D4 doesn't have that because I value robustness over having a flippy screen.

I got one consider the 5D4 to be an excellent camera for general purpose use.

I for one value having the anti-aliasing filter because I really don't like moire patterns in my images unless they were the subject of the photo!

Aliasing artifacts are bad - in sound AND in images.

And, as far as image resolution is concerned, a 5D3 prints comfortably onto A2 paper without needing to compromise on print resolution, and the 5D4 can easily print larger!

I can't think of a "general purpose" situation that needs images larger than A2.

Can you?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 17, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > There is no possible way that a flip screen will ever be as robust as a fixed screen.... EVER! except for when the flip screen is closed and the display is protected from scratches....
> ...


My language may not have been very clear..... please allow me the luxury of a re-write 

This assumes the same quality of screen. It is installed into a device. That mounting can either be directly into a camera body, or into an articulated mount. The articulated mount involves extra (and moving) parts and therefore has a greater probability of mechanical failure. Although this is true in theory, in practice there has not been a significant problem with articulated screens breaking.

Protection of the screen is a separate factor. An articulated screen in the stored position offers greater protection to the screen than the screen has on a non-articulated mount, yet when in the folded-out position, offers less protection.

Anecdotal evidence in this forum has shown that a greater number of people have complained of damage to screens that could have been prevented by having an articulated screen in the stowed position, than have complained of broken or failed articulated screens. This raises the interesting situation where for the typical user, the protection of the screen far outweighs the probability of failure/breakage of the articulated screen.

With weatherproofing, the same degree of weatherproofing of the screen to the articulated mount or to the camera body should provide the same level of sealing. The ends of the flex cable, where it enters the body or the display section of the articulated mount, is trivial to seal. Therefore, there really shouldn't be much difference , if any, between the two.

Does this make more sense?


----------



## CSD (Sep 17, 2016)

One major flaw for the articulated screens that would make the camera unusable for many is the fact the hinge would remove almost all the left hand side buttons, things like your rate button, erase, view and so on. Things that you use day-to-day in actual projects. Yes they can be replaced by a touch screen but then your consuming more power to run that display, touch processor and also the software processor compared which all adds up compared to a software processor and display. The fragility of the hinge and/or the assembly is only one factor against it when you're considering in the ergonomics of the 5D chassis which hasn't changed much and most people are happy with.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 17, 2016)

CSD said:


> One major flaw for the articulated screens that would make the camera unusable for many is the fact the hinge would remove almost all the left hand side buttons, things like your rate button, erase, view and so on. Things that you use day-to-day in actual projects. Yes they can be replaced by a touch screen but then your consuming more power to run that display, touch processor and also the software processor compared which all adds up compared to a software processor and display. The fragility of the hinge and/or the assembly is only one factor against it when you're considering in the ergonomics of the 5D chassis which hasn't changed much and most people are happy with.



No, you don't lose the buttons. They are all there just in a different place. : The only button missing is the picture style button which is on a rotating knob anyway. Don't you guys who say these things about articulating screens even look at the camera's?

Rate button? It is on the back screen where one is looking at the photo anyway. I don't know that anyone rates a photo without looking at the back screen. Are you reviewing and rating photos through the viewfinder?

Sheesh!

The got dang screen doesn't make the camera unusable for ANYBODY!

If you don't like the screen you don't like the screen. That's fine. Just be honest and don't make stuff up out of thin air. 

Many people would have loved and articulating screen on the 5D Mark IV. Tell me; where did you get the figure that MOST people are happy without the screen?


----------



## tpatana (Sep 17, 2016)

Well, not counting wheel and joystick, your picture has 9 button, 5D4 has 13.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 17, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Does this make more sense?



All valid points. No disagreement here.


----------



## vjlex (Sep 17, 2016)

Did they finally get rid of the Print button, because that one had to be the biggest waste of real estate on the back of the camera IMO. The Rate button is a close second. And the Picture Styles button is third. I would gladly lose a couple buttons that could easily be re-assigned (for those who need them) if it meant a flip screen.

I'm not neutral. I was definitely hoping for a flip screen. But lack of one hasn't deterred me from admiring and planning to invest in a 5D Mark IV. It may seem futile to some, but I for one hope more people keep making noise about it. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Voicing your dissatisfaction does not "poison" a thread or make it "unreadable". It's the internet. You're neither forced to read nor respond.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 18, 2016)

shunsai said:


> Did they finally get rid of the Print button, because that one had to be the biggest waste of real estate on the back of the camera IMO. The Rate button is a close second. And the Picture Styles button is third. I would gladly lose a couple buttons that could easily be re-assigned (for those who need them) if it meant a flip screen.
> 
> I'm not neutral. I was definitely hoping for a flip screen. But lack of one hasn't deterred me from admiring and planning to invest in a 5D Mark IV. It may seem futile to some, but I for one hope more people keep making noise about it. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Voicing your dissatisfaction does not "poison" a thread or make it "unreadable". It's the internet. You're neither forced to read nor respond.



True on all counts. 

I'd get a Mark IV in a minute screen or not. My body (The one I was born with  ) is getting old and the flip screen would be great.


----------



## sebasan (Sep 18, 2016)

shunsai said:


> Did they finally get rid of the Print button, because that one had to be the biggest waste of real estate on the back of the camera IMO. The Rate button is a close second. And the Picture Styles button is third. I would gladly lose a couple buttons that could easily be re-assigned (for those who need them) if it meant a flip screen.
> 
> I'm not neutral. I was definitely hoping for a flip screen. But lack of one hasn't deterred me from admiring and planning to invest in a 5D Mark IV. It may seem futile to some, but I for one hope more people keep making noise about it. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Voicing your dissatisfaction does not "poison" a thread or make it "unreadable". It's the internet. You're neither forced to read nor respond.



I think that you miss the point in what i was refering. I wasn't talking about the discussion on the flip screen and other interesting aspects. "There are a lot of forum members doing critiscism without being a troll, and those discussion are always interesting." I said that too and I think that you didn't read it.


----------



## vjlex (Sep 18, 2016)

sebasan said:


> I think that you miss the point in what i was refering. I wasn't talking about the discussion on the flip screen and other interesting aspects. "There are a lot of forum members doing critiscism without being a troll, and those discussion are always interesting." I said that too and I think that you didn't read it.



I think the thing about the "troll" label is that it has become a pejorative catchall for anyone we disagree with or don't like how they said something. It's a term I don't like, and don't use because it's grossly overused and in my opinion, a bit childish. It's not really our job to police the forums and determine whose opinion is valid and whose is invalid.

I mean no disrespect (as a matter of fact, I respect your command of the English language, despite not being a native speaker). I did read your post though. And I'm pretty sure I got the point. My take on it is just that, not everything that we interpret as whining or complaining or "trolling" is actually "trolling". It doesn't take away from the discussion for me as much as trying to shutdown someone else's opinion does.


----------



## sebasan (Sep 18, 2016)

shunsai said:


> sebasan said:
> 
> 
> > I think that you miss the point in what i was refering. I wasn't talking about the discussion on the flip screen and other interesting aspects. "There are a lot of forum members doing critiscism without being a troll, and those discussion are always interesting." I said that too and I think that you didn't read it.
> ...



I am not a really active user posting, but i am constantly reading this forum and others. I can be wrong of course, but that experience show me that some comments and members don't contribute to much to the discussion. I am not a police of the forums and intend to be, but sometimes I get tired and "explote" against those comments. I wasn't the only one to do it.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 18, 2016)

shunsai said:


> I think the thing about the "troll" label is that it has become a pejorative catchall for anyone we disagree with or don't like how they said something. It's a term I don't like, and don't use because it's grossly overused and in my opinion, a bit childish. It's not really our job to police the forums and determine whose opinion is valid and whose is invalid.
> 
> I mean no disrespect (as a matter of fact, I respect your command of the English language, despite not being a native speaker). I did read your post though. And I'm pretty sure I got the point. My take on it is just that, not everything that we interpret as whining or complaining or "trolling" is actually "trolling". It doesn't take away from the discussion for me as much as trying to shutdown someone else's opinion does.



You're absolutely right. Troll is an overused term. However, that does not mean it is always inaccurate (to be more precise it now has more than one meaning in this context). And it's often quite hard to tell if someone is a troll in the sense of making outrageous comments just to upset people and create arguments, or if they genuinely believe what they're saying, or else they're just prone to ridiculous exaggeration.

It's also not really possible to 'shut down' someone's opinion on here, unless you get them banned from the forum. Dissecting their arguments, demanding evidence, or dismissing their comments based on their tone or content doesn't stop them from replying, or anyone else. It's part of how debate works, especially on the internet.


----------



## d (Sep 18, 2016)

While "troll" is overused on many forums, I feel that it doesn't get used that often here on CR without being warranted. I only really notice it being used for seemingly new members with single digit post counts whose opening post is to heavily criticise some aspect of Canon for not being like Sony/Nikon/whatever.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 18, 2016)

d said:


> While "troll" is overused on many forums, I feel that it doesn't get used that often here on CR without being warranted. I only really notice it being used for seemingly new members with single digit post counts whose opening post is to heavily criticise some aspect of Canon for not being like Sony/Nikon/whatever.



Especially ones that say 'I've been a Canon user for twenty+ years and own [lists high end gear], and THIS TIME I'm selling up and moving to Nikon' :


----------



## cpsico (Sep 18, 2016)

After using the camera for a bit, I think it does exactly what its designed to do. It has a complex focus system. But you can switch modes with one hand while looking through the view finder. 

Its has the best image quality of any canon i have used. Even the Halo'd 1 Ds Mark III, which I will continue to use till the day it dies!!! But long boring story short, if you can't afford a 1D camera and a 6D won't do it for you, this is the camera to have. 

This is straight out of camera with a little bit of tone curve( I dialed back exposure because of all the dark tones, then had to bring it back up a bit). 

I think the 6d is the best for casual shooting still, but this is better, even more so than my 1 Ds Mark III which kind of feels like cheating to say. But its IQ is great!! I long for the day when a true studio camera in a 1D body comes out again.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 18, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps on my part I should have omitted the word "crippled" two out of three times. But in the light of what a generalist camera could (or should) have been, I really do feel the lack of a flippy makes the 5DIV a crippled generalist.
> ...



... yet no less frustrated with Canon.


----------



## cpsico (Sep 18, 2016)

Whats truly ironic is how much the stills image quality in canons DSLR cameras have improved since they abandoned higher end video features to there video line. I guess making a camera that is better for video really does take its toll on still image quality!!


----------



## Josh Denver (Sep 18, 2016)

turtle said:


> t I think it is fair to say it is no better or worse overall than the D750 sensor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/quote]

Built. This alone is worse the cose difference to many. But if you want to a list a ''struggling to find where it's better'' I can give you one off thw top of my head

-30mp resolution stills, yet similar ISO performance
-Dual pixel AF: live view Continuous AF ans video AF D750 can't touch. 
-Liveview implementation on D750 lags when you punch in! And is nearly useless in AF.
-DPRAW: ability for focus plane microadjusrment in post! AND 1+ stop of DR so more than d750.
-More AF points and bigger coverage, and works at f8! Nothing a nikon dreams of
-D810 level viewfinder, in glass quality and size and LCD overlay, just look through both
-Faster burst rate and buffer sustained for longer tracking
-USB 3 and NFC connections.
-Immensely more complex shutter mechanism driven by a separate motor vs springs giving almost no shutter shock and quiet shutter, and most importantly 1/8000s speed.
-Touchscreen operation and higher resolution LCD
-Built in GPS tracking

These are the stills improvements I can remember. Video:

-4K vs soft HD. 
-APS-C Crop is CRAP, aliased, soft, vs 1:1 4K!
-4:2:2 chroma subsampling = broadcast approved for EU vs can't be used.
-500mbps vs 24mbps, and as expected immense compression quality difference. 
-C300 Quality HDMI OUTPUT (IN-Camera oversampling.
That was all dx/aps-c modes. FF mode: 
-90mbps ALL-I codec with choice of lower quality Long GOP option vs 24mpbs Long Gop. 
-Usable HDMI ouput (not only 30p!)
-Dual pixel auto focus almost an industry changing technology of the cinema world
-Can pull focus with a tablet 
-1080p 60p doesn't lose quality
-Incredible HDR video mode using that fact
-120p slowmotion at full frame 
-True film 24p mode vs 29.97p

I think I can go on but my thumbs hurt. it's an enturely different class of camera, a class NIkon also makes and charges the same for. D750 is a wonderfull camera we hope the 6D Mark two gets some notes from.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 19, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> -C300 Quality HDMI OUTPUT (IN-Camera oversampling.



Can you tell more details on this? Colors better?



> -120p slowmotion at full frame



One thing nobody told me until I had the camera in had, and the camera told. After enabling 120p, you lose AF during video  I'm sad puppy over that. I guess there's some technical reason on this, hoping for ML to fix it.

Also curious to see what ML can do on the video modes, e.g. if 4k full frame is possible.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 19, 2016)

shunsai said:


> Did they finally get rid of the Print button, because that one had to be the biggest waste of real estate on the back of the camera IMO. The Rate button is a close second. And the Picture Styles button is third. I would gladly lose a couple buttons that could easily be re-assigned (for those who need them) if it meant a flip screen.
> 
> I'm not neutral. I was definitely hoping for a flip screen. But lack of one hasn't deterred me from admiring and planning to invest in a 5D Mark IV. It may seem futile to some, but I for one hope more people keep making noise about it. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Voicing your dissatisfaction does not "poison" a thread or make it "unreadable". It's the internet. You're neither forced to read nor respond.



I like the rate button. It's handy while working with models who want input into selection but won't be around during post.

That said, I can live without it.


----------



## Labdoc (Sep 19, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> shunsai said:
> 
> 
> > Did they finally get rid of the Print button, because that one had to be the biggest waste of real estate on the back of the camera IMO. The Rate button is a close second. And the Picture Styles button is third. I would gladly lose a couple buttons that could easily be re-assigned (for those who need them) if it meant a flip screen.
> ...



There is room under the screen for a hinge. No button loss. Pics of the new Sony A99 II have this feature ,not mentioning this to promote Sony but to show it can be done. Not the best location but it keeps the buttons.


----------



## deadwrong (Sep 19, 2016)

OK better think SERIOUSLY about SONY now......

http://thenewcamera.com/sony-a99-ii-announced-press-release-full-specification-and-more/


WOW.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 19, 2016)

You know, for all the hype Sony cameras get...I tried an A7R II in store a few months back and not only did I find the handling funky, I also hated the way the camera rendered skin tones...

Of course, this is not to say it's a bad camera - it's not - but just because it ticks all of your boxes doesn't mean it will tick all of everyone else's


----------



## fussy III (Sep 20, 2016)

deadwrong said:


> OK better think SERIOUSLY about SONY now......
> 
> http://thenewcamera.com/sony-a99-ii-announced-press-release-full-specification-and-more/
> 
> ...



I am not surprised by the A99 II. I see smart and ambitious managers at work there who listen to photographers.

The Sony A99 II like the Pentax K-1 are truly addressing generalists to the maximum of each company's capacities. Compared to these efforts Canon has again been holding back with their 5D IV. That is what I have been talking about and what I regard as actively crippling. I believe the omissions of the 5D IV weren't about pricepoint or incapacities but about internal strategies. Now or never: Reach out, Canon!

My gripes with the Sony A99II: I still much prefer optical viewfinder + on the old A99 (have been using it for a month), the liveview on the tilt-screen was ridiculous. It did not even have a gravity sensor and did not switch automatically into high-format when needed. (btw: The viewfinder blackouts were terrible as well but this sure has been solved now.) The fact that Canon has at hands the best live-view AF and at the same time the best flippy-concept makes it all the more frustrating that they have not implemented this combination into a fullframe body yet.

I do believe Canon would perhaps have integrated the flippy into the 5D IV but they did not want to combine it with 4K to protect the Cinema-Line. Accordingly, the 6D II will have a flippy, 5fps but no 4K. However I think that is a big mistake by Canon to hold back in that fashion. Not only videographers want more. Photographers do, too!

But what really is pushing things further at photokina to me comes from Fuji.
EVFviewfinder-wise the new *Fuji GFX* did what I had long been argumenting for and been dreaming of. Fuji managers it seems are not only listening but creating art themselves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzR6f91AjWc

WOW WOW WOW

No need to get fussy here!!!
Guess I am in love.


----------



## time123 (Sep 20, 2016)

fussy III said:


> deadwrong said:
> 
> 
> > OK better think SERIOUSLY about SONY now......
> ...



Caution: another opinion disagreeing with Canon's 5D approach.

I'm inclined to agree here. After holding off getting a 5D3 for so long (and continuing to pile on the L's) then seeing the 5D3.5 5D4 I too am underwhelmed. If they released the current 5D4 after two and a half or three years after the 5D3 then I really wouldn't have much to say but after four and a half years I am a bit disappointed. The ever increasing release schedule for this line also makes me concerned. I get that they are "conservative" but I feel that at this point it is just an unimpressive excuse for having to do anything revolutionary.

But seriously; the same number of focus points as the 5D3 with hardly any additional spread? Or even basic things like hoarding the focus point exposure metering for only the 1DX II although most every other decent, modern non-Canon DSLR has it? Pretending that flip screens are only for amateurs and can only be made out of nineteenth century Fabergé eggs with no possible way to seal and secure it if you don't want to use it?

The lack of flip screen really gets me because when you only have seconds to capture that spontaneous shot of something that is low to the ground or higher up and your option is to fiddle around with wi-fi, get out your phone then try to get it to connect, properly balance the camera and the phone, deal with the camera to phone image screen lag, and then finally take the picture the subject or scene is long gone. Popping out a screen and pressing the shutter button works so much better than attempting to pull off the aforementioned feat in time or the blind spray and pray method. And even more so when you only have such a limited area of coverage with the focus points.

On the topic of Fuji and viewfinders oh how I adore the Fuji XPro2 hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder. Now that is some truly sweet tech that captures the best of both worlds. At least Canon added more information relayed through static images to the viewfinder in the 5D4.

I guess let's see what the 5D5 brings us in March 2022.


----------



## d (Sep 20, 2016)

time123 said:


> The lack of flip screen really gets me because when you only have seconds to capture that spontaneous shot of something that is low to the ground or higher up and your option is to fiddle around with wi-fi, get out your phone then try to get it to connect, properly balance the camera and the phone, deal with the camera to phone image screen lag, and then finally take the picture the subject or scene is long gone. Popping out a screen and pressing the shutter button works so much better than attempting to pull off the aforementioned feat in time or the blind spray and pray method. And even more so when you only have such a limited area of coverage with the focus points.



What are these numerous, low to the ground, once-in-a-lifetime, millisecond duration, Pulitzer-worthy shots that everyone is continually failing to capture with their 7D, 5D, and 1D bodies??? I just don't see flip screens being a make-or-break feature in a bodies such as these - give me the solidity and durability of an integrated, fixed screen any day.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 20, 2016)

d said:


> time123 said:
> 
> 
> > The lack of flip screen really gets me because when you only have seconds to capture that spontaneous shot of something that is low to the ground or higher up and your option is to fiddle around with wi-fi, get out your phone then try to get it to connect, properly balance the camera and the phone, deal with the camera to phone image screen lag, and then finally take the picture the subject or scene is long gone. Popping out a screen and pressing the shutter button works so much better than attempting to pull off the aforementioned feat in time or the blind spray and pray method. And even more so when you only have such a limited area of coverage with the focus points.
> ...



Where's your Pulitzer-worthy shot standing flat on your feet or laying in the mud?

Older guys find the flip useful. Older guys have most of the $$$$ to spend. 30 year old "Pros" are here today and gone tomorrow. Retired guys looking for hobbies spend the dough.

Besides, just because a screen can flip doesn't mean you have to flip it. In that case (not flipping), it is just as solid and durable as any other screen.

So yes, for older people with bad knees, backs, etc... a flip screen IS a make or break feature. Like it or not, Canon will go there soon on every top end model. The XXD's are just the laboratory.

Few people thought there would be a touch screen on a 1D or 5D. Now there is.

Weather sealing? Anything can be sealed.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 20, 2016)

time123 said:


> But seriously; the same number of focus points as the 5D3 with hardly any additional spread?



Did you find the 61 AF points too few? Should everything increase in number? As for the spread, I recall someone saying that the AF points can't be spread as close to the edges of the frame in a FF camera, something to do with the angle of light being too acute round the edges? So a crop camera like the 7D2 can have them appear to be further spread, because it's a smaller sensor. (Genuine open question - do other brands' FF cameras have their AF points spread wider than Canon's?).



time123 said:


> The lack of flip screen really gets me because when you only have seconds to capture that spontaneous shot of something that is low to the ground or higher up and your option is to fiddle around with wi-fi, get out your phone then try to get it to connect, properly balance the camera and the phone, deal with the camera to phone image screen lag, and then finally take the picture the subject or scene is long gone. Popping out a screen and pressing the shutter button works so much better than attempting to pull off the aforementioned feat in time or the blind spray and pray method. And even more so when you only have such a limited area of coverage with the focus points.



Fair enough; I like flip screens, though I've never used one. But it's a matter of style - it's not simply a case of 'flip is better/the next logical step in camera evolution' - some cameras have them, some don't (see also pop up flashes). the 5D series is one that doesn't. It might be nice to see a Canon FF camera with one, perhaps the 6D2. But it's not a matter of being cheap, or conservative - it's a choice on their part. For the time being, there's the 80D, or the other solutions discussed here.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 20, 2016)

scyrene said:


> time123 said:
> 
> 
> > But seriously; the same number of focus points as the 5D3 with hardly any additional spread?
> ...



When you get to use a flip, I predict you will like it very much.

I just wrote to commend your openness and honesty.


----------



## time123 (Sep 20, 2016)

scyrene said:


> time123 said:
> 
> 
> > But seriously; the same number of focus points as the 5D3 with hardly any additional spread?
> ...



By that reasoning did the 5D3 really need 61 points? Maybe they should have just stuck with the 9 from the 5D2. I think that things which help the photographer should be improved upon, such as having more focus points at a wider spread.

I don't know that the other brands have much more of a spread than the 5D4 on their current FFs - although the new Sony A99 II has "79 point (all cross-type) dedicated phase-detection autofocus sensor with a total of 399 on-chip phase detection points", and the D5 has 150 something points (although 55 selectable) and a bit wider spread than the 1DX II - but I think most of the second-from-the-top FFs are also a few years old as is. I guess I am still a bit shocked that after 4.5 years a company worth billions upon billions of dollars would more or less recycle their tech and not do anything else. Especially when comparing the jump in tech between the 5D2 to the 5D3 and the considerably shorter release schedule between those two bodies. I would rather see Canon remain an industry leader than a follower.

Because some folks are interested in setting up straw-men arguments; yes, a good photographer with the camera can take good pictures. Just like it has always been with any camera ever made. You won't find me denying that. I'm just discussing the technology behind it and thought Canon could do more. Also, yes, in many styles of photography every second counts and fiddling around with a wi-fi connection and the necessary add-ons does prevent shots from being captured. My personal example: while hiking through a narrow trail a native lizard pops out of the dense foliage on the ground to cross the two to three foot wide trail into more dense foliage. I want a portrait shot of it and not a shot of the top of it's back but there is hardly any room and I still try to get low then spray and pray. I didn't pray hard enough and/or was ignored, the lizard was gone, and I was left with a pile of worthless shots and no more lizards to be seen on the hike.

And it's true, I don't have an inside track on Canon's marketing department so if they determined they can make just as much money by releasing a camera with fewer interesting features or holding back on other tech because they know they figured they will still sell enough then so be it. But I don't own any Canon stock and I'm not going to be coming up with random rationales other than they knew they could still make lots of money selling whatever they decided to make as the 5D3.5/4.

I am also still surprised no one else mentions the focus point exposure metering. If this isn't a blatant example of an unnecessary reduction of features for no reason other than the old "marketing said we could still make tons of money" I don't know what is. And if it is not a useful feature why would they clutter up the menus further and put it in the 1DX series? Does anyone have any better examples?


----------



## scyrene (Sep 21, 2016)

time123 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > time123 said:
> ...



So are you gonna answer the question? Let's take your logic to its conclusion: a thousand AF points is better. And a million is better than that! There's such a thing as diminishing returns. I'm certainly not saying 61 is enough, or too many. But you seem to be stuck as 'more is better waaaaah!'.



time123 said:


> I guess I am still a bit shocked that after 4.5 years a company worth billions upon billions of dollars would more or less recycle their tech and not do anything else. Especially when comparing the jump in tech between the 5D2 to the 5D3 and the considerably shorter release schedule between those two bodies.



I can only assume they thought the number of points was enough, and that other aspects (like metering sensor, AF algorithms, etc) were more important. Each generation won't improve in the same ways, different areas of technology are at different stages of maturity.


----------



## d (Sep 21, 2016)

scyrene said:


> I can only assume they thought the number of points was enough, and that other aspects (like metering sensor, AF algorithms, etc) were more important. Each generation won't improve in the same ways, different areas of technology are at different stages of maturity.



Or perhaps this is the last 5D body that will feature a mirror and associated AF technology, so Canon saw little reason to sink significant resources in improving a technology that will be discarded in the next generation body.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 21, 2016)

Just did dpraw testing with row of batteries. 24mm, 70mm and 200mm. F4 and F8 from about 1 meter distance for first, others F2.8 and F8 from about 3 meter distance.

Most clear measurable was [email protected] It shifted about half battery width, so I'd say 5mm (both ways). [email protected] seemed to be about inch both ways.

All others were "hmm... it's moving/shifting/changing, but it's difficult to see where"

Granted, my setup wasn't optimal so need to test more. But based on this, I'm not sold yet.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 21, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Like it or not, Canon will go there soon on every top end model. The XXD's are just the laboratory.



Are you the product manager or is this just an unsubstantiated claim (which I believe it is)?


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 21, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> When you get to use a flip, I predict you will like it very much.



There are different preferences out there. I do NOT like filp screens, I never got used to them, I would not buy a 5D if it had a flip screen and there was an alternative.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 21, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > When you get to use a flip, I predict you will like it very much.
> ...



I feel I must agree with this comment. It all depends on how you use the camera and what your preferences are. You can't just assume that everyone wants a tilty flippy screen.
Although I have never owned a camera with a tilty flippy screen, my friend did allow me to borrow his 650D for a day and so I have had an opportunity to use one. I hardly used the LCD - except for navigating through the menus and most of the time it was turned around to protect it.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 21, 2016)

d said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I can only assume they thought the number of points was enough, and that other aspects (like metering sensor, AF algorithms, etc) were more important. Each generation won't improve in the same ways, different areas of technology are at different stages of maturity.
> ...



Interesting hypothesis.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2016)

scyrene said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Yeah, mirrorless means the death of the dSLR within 5 years. Now, when have I heard that before? Oh, yes...7 years ago.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Like it or not, Canon will go there soon on every top end model. The XXD's are just the laboratory.
> ...



I'm ensconced in my "Product Manager" chair behind my "Product Manager" desk at my secret Area 102 lair in Mesquite, Nevada. I'm sitting here with my good friend C.R. Nostradamus, who frequents this site and your posts also. The only difference is that my completely unsubstantiated claim is true while any unsubstantiated claim you've ever made on a Rumors site is completely false.

DPAF, touch screens, etc... all have been trickled up to the higher end. Now the 1DX Mark II and 5D Mark IV have both. Have you, Romanr74 ever posted that a 1D series body would never have a *touch* screen or should never? What about 5D? That *touch* screens are just gimmicks and will never make it to the pros?

The flips will be there. In fact, if the next 5D series body doesn't get a flip I'll buy you a steak dinner and all the beer you can drink right up the road from my lair at the Casa Blanca Casino.

P.S. The market is getting older, not younger. Ageing boomers are the wealthiest generation ever. They will steer market forces for a very long time to come. Their knees and backs are failing many of them. The flip makes the hobby more enjoyable for them. They like the top end gear. 

Their hipster snowflake grandchildren will be replaced by robots that can actually put in a shift or two. (Disclaimer: Not all hipsters are bad nor are they all snowflakes).

That's my substantiation.

What is your's to the opposite?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2016)

Ian_of_glos said:


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



True, but in the same line of reasoning we can't assume everyone doesn't want the tilty flippy. 

Canon will do whatever Canon thinks will maximize profits and market share regardless of what we individuals might think or desire.


----------



## time123 (Sep 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...



Definitely an interesting hypothesis. I think it really makes sense when you consider how fast miniaturized computing has matured and continues to grow. It seems to me that is what is ultimately needed for the mirrorless systems to be put on par with the mirrored systems: more computing power and the capacity to balance the power utilization with it. With more computational power you can actually have autofocus systems that can keep up with high end DSLRs - and with some of the more modern mirrorless releases you can see great strides from even just a couple years back. With better screens you can have sharpness and refresh rates in the viewfinder that are on par with a DSLR. And of course with mirrorless you have fewer moving parts meaning less things to break/wear out so it seems that making the camera even tougher and weather-resistant would be cheaper or easier to implement as well.

I must say I am quite intrigued by the M5 which I consider to be their first real jump into mirrorless-land aimed towards a more demanding crowd. If mirrorless is ultimately the route Canon goes I sincerely hope I get to use my EF lenses (and lets thrown in EF-S lenses too for good measure to broaden the audience) at native speeds. If I have to use an adapter, sure that's fine although I'd rather not add more bulk if I don't have to, but the autofocus speed and image quality are critical. 

Just as an interesting point of reference for portable computational power I found some information on iPhone benchmarks (https://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks). The iPhone 4S and iPhone 7 are about 4.5 years apart (see 5D3 --> 5D4) and the 4S got an overall score of 282 while the 7 got a score of 3307 which is almost a 12-fold increase. I don't have any data but if I had to guess the battery life between the two phones is probably roughly equal so battery technology and efficiencies are improving there as well. It will definitely be exciting to see what comes next in the upcoming years. Interesting hypothesis indeed.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...



Makes me want to cry. All that worthless "L" glass going to the landfill.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > When you get to use a flip, I predict you will like it very much.
> ...



Do what you want, dude. Lots of people don't want them. Lots do. 

Which body did you own that you could never get used to the flip on?

I had the opposite problem. Going from a 70D to a 5D mark III was tough to get used to. I really do miss the screen... but I'm a rickety old man. Well, lots of miles on me anyway.

Personally, I'd buy a 1D or 5D with a flip. I especially enjoyed it on my 70D (sold it). I had a T5i before that. Liked the flip then too, especially coming of the XSi.

The flip is a real knee and back saver. That's my main "Like" about it.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 21, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I had the opposite problem. Going from a 70D to a 5D mark III was tough to get used to. I really do miss the screen... but I'm a rickety old man. Well, lots of miles on me anyway.
> 
> Personally, I'd buy a 1D or 5D with a flip. I especially enjoyed it on my 70D (sold it). I had a T5i before that. Liked the flip then too, especially coming of the XSi.
> 
> The flip is a real knee and back saver. That's my main "Like" about it.



I am pretty agnostic when it comes to flip screens - it is one of those features that I am not clamouring for but were it to be on the camera I would use it, mainly for shots with a low viewpoint (for me that means flower/insect macro).


----------



## time123 (Sep 21, 2016)

scyrene said:


> time123 said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Well, if you don't feel that 61 is too many then we are already on the same page but you'd be better off not setting up logical fallacies (good old slippery slope) and arguing against those and especially making a fake crying sound. I cringe every time I see that kind of unintelligent junk as part of a debate/discussion on the Internet. Is that how you actually discuss things with people in real life or is the anonymity of the Internet taking its toll? As I had originally said I was surprised that Canon didn't increase the number of autofocus points so obviously, yes, I felt that 61 was too few for a product that is 4.5 years newer. I thought that your question was rhetorical because this inference of mine was clear but apparently not for everyone. This topic is about what people feel are shortcomings on the 5D4. This is one of mine.

There are plenty of advantages to a camera that has more auto-focus points with further spread. If you only shoot with the center point then only use the center point. But if you are using a very wide aperture focusing and recomposing can easily throw off the shot. Or capturing moving subjects coming in from further from the sides or top/bottom of the scene. The scenarios where this is useful goes on and on. There are plenty of photographers that find more points with more spread useful even if you don't. 

Although 100% coverage would be pretty wild but the AF system and the things you could do with something so complex would be crazy. But I couldn't imagine the "Canon 1DX VII Auto-focus System for Dummies, Volumes 1-4" being a very popular seller. I never had a chance to use it but the Samsung NX1 had somewhere around 90% coverage. So yes, in many instances more is better and of course only to a point. Again though, arguing against conclusions I didn't make isn't conducive to a productive discussion. In fact, you might say it is pointless (get it? Bad puns for everyone!)

Sure, new generations won't increase in the same ways but the big talking point variables - which also tend to be very useful - in product lines that only come out once every 4-5 years (or fewer in for certain brands of cameras) generally increase or decrease for the better with each iteration but this was certainly an exception. I'm not discounting the other improvements which seem to be pretty excellent. To me though calling a piece of the technology mature so that they don't have to make any major advancements is the same type of excuse as calling them conservative and one that I don't buy. I'm sure their marketing team did their homework, decided that not too many people wouldn't be up in arms about having the same number of AF points and they could still make tons of money so that's what they did because they know once you are tied into an ecosystem they kind of got you.

We may need to agree to at least partially disagree here.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 21, 2016)

time123 said:


> Just as an interesting point of reference for portable computational power I found some information on iPhone benchmarks (https://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks). The iPhone 4S and iPhone 7 are about 4.5 years apart (see 5D3 --> 5D4) and the 4S got an overall score of 282 while the 7 got a score of 3307 which is almost a 12-fold increase. I don't have any data but if I had to guess the battery life between the two phones is probably roughly equal so battery technology and efficiencies are improving there as well. It will definitely be exciting to see what comes next in the upcoming years. Interesting hypothesis indeed.



Another interesting parallel is that the bigger battery is needed for the ever-increasing electronic functionality. And the increasing functionality means a bigger unit - this has been seen with the iphones as well as cameras: I recall the near howls of disappointment when the Panasonic GH4 (vs the G models) and the Olympus E-MII (vs the E-M5) were both bigger than their predecessors with complaints that it was going against the MFT ethos of smaller bodies for equal performance.


----------



## time123 (Sep 21, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> time123 said:
> 
> 
> > Just as an interesting point of reference for portable computational power I found some information on iPhone benchmarks (https://browser.primatelabs.com/ios-benchmarks). The iPhone 4S and iPhone 7 are about 4.5 years apart (see 5D3 --> 5D4) and the 4S got an overall score of 282 while the 7 got a score of 3307 which is almost a 12-fold increase. I don't have any data but if I had to guess the battery life between the two phones is probably roughly equal so battery technology and efficiencies are improving there as well. It will definitely be exciting to see what comes next in the upcoming years. Interesting hypothesis indeed.
> ...



You inspired me to do a bit more research:

iPhone 4s
Dimensions: Height: 4.5 inches (115.2 mm), Width: 2.31 inches (58.6 mm), Depth: 0.37 inch (9.3 mm)
Total volume: 62781 mm
Weight: 4.9 ounces (140 grams)

iPhone 7
Dimensions 138.3 x 67.1 x 7.1 mm (5.44 x 2.64 x 0.28 in)
Total volume: 65887 mm
Weight 138 g (4.87 oz)

So the 7 actually weighs slightly less than the 4S and is only 5% larger in volume. I think that there are major advancements is all the different types of technologies (chip size, power utilization, battery capacities) that would still allow the cameras to be fairly small if they so desired. Personally though I like having a camera with a bit of heft and size but they could also always make a vertical grip stuffed with batteries for them too.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 21, 2016)

time123 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > time123 said:
> ...



Um, ok :

What logical fallacies have I stated?

As I stated earlier, I *believe* I heard a credible person here mention at some point that the absolute spread of AF points on FF cameras is limited - with current technology*. So more AF points would mean more crowding. You can imagine an AF sensor that spreads them across the frame, and then there's room for more, but that seems wishful thinking at this point. Selecting one can already be finnicky in some shooting conditions, and having more, smaller, more closely packed AF points wouldn't make for better handling. It might allow for finer control, but at some point the returns are outweighed by the time and complication of selecting the precise one you want. Right?

I have no problem agreeing to disagree. Loads of folk turn up round here complaining that Canon is too conservative. I just don't see the point of making so much fuss. There are other, perhaps one could say, less conservative brands. Buy those. Or don't.

*If you have evidence that I'm wrong, fine - great! But do you?

PS you're anonymous here too. It's irrelevant - the quality of arguments and evidence is what counts.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 22, 2016)

If you believe that more AF points will increase your ability to focus, that's great. That would be a reason to want more or seek out a camera that has more. But to just say that there should be an increase in AF points because it's a new camera and the numbers should increase with each new generation is just the usual techno-geek "more must be better" mindless thinking that is so pervasive on the internet.

61 AF points is already way more than I prefer. To me, the more points, the more I just have to turn off! That's just me - but it might be others, too. And has been discussed ad nauseum, more MPs is not necessarily better either. These are cameras folks - not smartphones. There have been no revolutionary changes since the first DSLRs came out. If you are judging cameras by their specs and how many new innovations are in each generation, you are missing the point. It's about taking pictures people. If you have a camera that you can keep for 6 or 7 years, and works reliably, that is easy to use and takes great pictures - that's a GOOD thing. If you only need to buy a camera because your old one is near the end of its life cycle - that's a good thing! When Sony comes out with a new camera every two years - what does that tell me? It tells me that they don't think the original camera was very good. It tells me that they are trying to sucker me into a new camera purchase by adding fancy new bells and whistles.

Don't complain if the new generation camera doesn't seem to be worth getting because your old camera is just as good - be GLAD! You just saved thousands of dollars you can spend elsewhere!


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 22, 2016)

dak723 said:


> If you believe that more AF points will increase your ability to focus, that's great. That would be a reason to want more or seek out a camera that has more. But to just say that there should be an increase in AF points because it's a new camera and the numbers should increase with each new generation is just the usual techno-geek "more must be better" mindless thinking that is so pervasive on the internet.
> 
> 61 AF points is already way more than I prefer. To me, the more points, the more I just have to turn off! That's just me - but it might be others, too. And has been discussed ad nauseum, more MPs is not necessarily better either. These are cameras folks - not smartphones. There have been no revolutionary changes since the first DSLRs came out. If you are judging cameras by their specs and how many new innovations are in each generation, you are missing the point. It's about taking pictures people. If you have a camera that you can keep for 6 or 7 years, and works reliably, that is easy to use and takes great pictures - that's a GOOD thing. If you only need to buy a camera because your old one is near the end of its life cycle - that's a good thing! When Sony comes out with a new camera every two years - what does that tell me? It tells me that they don't think the original camera was very good. It tells me that they are trying to sucker me into a new camera purchase by adding fancy new bells and whistles.
> 
> Don't complain if the new generation camera doesn't seem to be worth getting because your old camera is just as good - be GLAD! You just saved thousands of dollars you can spend elsewhere!



61 points is a lot of points. I think they are good to have for zone AF though.

I'm very glad to not be upgrading and you are right  I'll wait for the next iteration if there is one.


----------



## time123 (Sep 22, 2016)

scyrene said:


> time123 said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



OK, I'll repeat myself one last time for all of this. The logical fallacy was the one I stated, the slippery slope. You take my idea that I thought there would be more autofocus points (of which I had no number specified), then say I wanted a thousand, then a million autofocus points and argue the idea that I wanted a million autofocus points.

That's fine that some person on an Internet forum said that was the limit. But I still have a hard time believing a company worth billions and billions of dollars and a minimum of 4.5 years can't come up with anything other than this and but even if that was truly the max I still would personally find having more points with a wider spread useful. And it is possible to make things easy to use or complex to use, if you so choose. See OS X. You can use the pretty GUI to get stuff done or use the BSD-based OS it was built on and work from the command line (not Adobe stuff, actual server stuff - although if you really wanted to you could always choose to launch Adobe stuff from the command line or write scripts to pass arguments through Adobe products to automate things).

In spite of my reasoning as to why I would like more autofocus points and illustrating multiple scenarios where it would prove useful some folks are stuck thinking that I and others who feel there are certain limitations or areas of improvement just want to say "more is better because more" without even attempting to consider any other possible uses unless very explicitly spelled out in the exact same thread. I personally don't care about super high-speed flash sync but I can still hypothesize why some people would want it without having to be insulting or let them know they should just take what they can get and shut up. And if your imagination on concepts of what additional features could do are that limited then that's what Google is for.

Ultimately I wouldn't consider making my disappointments list in a topic about what people felt were disappointing in the 5D4 causing a fuss. It's the whole point of the topic. Of anyone making a fuss I'd consider you to be it since this isn't the "nothing could possibly be better in the 5D4" thread. And there are already enough people running around this place that take any mention that something could be improved on a Canon product as a direct personal insult or as if they were a paid in full shill ready to defend our dear leader at any given moment.

Yup, I choose to be anonymous too but my point was that if you have to resort to petty mockery that a grade-school troll would use (pretending I am crying, give me a break) then for the sake of others that have to interact with you in real life I just hope you are a more pleasant person to deal with.

And why have none of the shills attacked my complaint about the lack of focus point metering that Canon could so easily include yet? Not one! Come on guys, try harder! It must not be worthless if Canon chooses to include it in the 1DX series. And if even entry level Nikon's spanning back who knows how many years can have the processing power to manage it then surely the 5D3.4 can. Or is this something you actually agree with me on?


----------



## tpatana (Sep 22, 2016)

Just had my first studio shoot. This is awesome camera.

Not sure did I press some funny button or what, but for some time the M-Raw was turned on instead of full raw.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 22, 2016)

time123 said:


> OK, I'll repeat myself one last time for all of this. The logical fallacy was the one I stated, the slippery slope. You take my idea that I thought there would be more autofocus points (of which I had no number specified), then say I wanted a thousand, then a million autofocus points and argue the idea that I wanted a million autofocus points.



That's not quite what I said. I asked at what point would you be satisfied? You want there to be more each time, or at least this is what I infer from your posts (apologies if I misinterpreted). Unless you disagree that each increase yields diminishing returns, then it's a fair question to ask. What I've been driving at is, more of everything every time is a simplistic and incorrect way of looking at technological advancement. That's not strictly the slippery slope fallacy.



time123 said:


> In spite of my reasoning as to why I would like more autofocus points and illustrating multiple scenarios where it would prove useful some folks are stuck thinking that I and others who feel there are certain limitations or areas of improvement just want to say "more is better because more" without even attempting to consider any other possible uses unless very explicitly spelled out in the exact same thread. I personally don't care about super high-speed flash sync but I can still hypothesize why some people would want it without having to be insulting or let them know they should just take what they can get and shut up. And if your imagination on concepts of what additional features could do are that limited then that's what Google is for.



Okay, fair enough. Maybe you're not just a 'more is better' person, it can be hard to tell from forum posts. Of course a given feature may be much more important to you than to me. We're all different. The point is, a camera is a compromise. They can't put in everything everyone wants and keep the price competitive (not to mention weight, etc etc). The problem some of us here have is that people labour under the illusion that other manufacturers' products are not compromises - that they give away a lot more. They don't. They prioritise different areas, it's as simple as that.

Where we differ, it seems, is that you think that Canon should improve everything (or just the things you personally prioritise?), whereas I feel more sanguine and assume they targeted what people most requested or demanded (such as low ISO DR). Since they cannot improve everything within the price bracket, some things stay the same.

Which is not to say that the AF system hasn't been improved - the headline figure of number of AF points is not all that matters, to return to the first point above. Incidentally, I must have missed the 'multiple scenarios' you illustrated where more AF points would be useful (I don't doubt they exist, but I think it's pretty marginal for most people) - the lizard thing was about a flip screen, no?



time123 said:


> And why have none of the shills attacked my complaint about the lack of focus point metering that Canon could so easily include yet? Not one! Come on guys, try harder! It must not be worthless if Canon chooses to include it in the 1DX series. And if even entry level Nikon's spanning back who knows how many years can have the processing power to manage it then surely the 5D3.4 can. Or is this something you actually agree with me on?



This has been discussed at length elsewhere. Some people think it would be an awesome feature, some people suggest its usefulness is limited. I think the consensus is that Canon is quite deliberately hoarding it for the 1-series. Some call it product differentiation, some call it crippling. I'm indifferent to the feature.

PS "shills" - I thought we didn't go in for 'petty mockery'? :


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 25, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


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



i didn't find substance for that claim here, sorry. can i opt for something else than beer? there are different preferences with drinks too...


----------



## tpatana (Sep 25, 2016)

Really need to buy that grip. No fun without, and hands got way more tired.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 28, 2016)

Well...the 6DII's rumoured specs should quell this thread quite nicely and punt it into obscurity.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Well...the 6DII's rumoured specs should quell this thread quite nicely and punt it into obscurity.



This is [CR1], so treat it accordingly. (quote)

Besides 5 or 6 fps at 25 Megapixel would make the 6DII yet another crippled generalist. It wouldn't have the capacity to replace an 80D with its higher pixel density. So the 80D is lacking the full-frame sensor whereas the 6DII will produce low resolution crops. Even when compared to the 5DIV, crops will be of lower resolution. Congratulations, buyer!


----------



## scyrene (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Well...the 6DII's rumoured specs should quell this thread quite nicely and punt it into obscurity.
> ...



Wait, do you say 'generalist' when you mean 'the best at everything'? The 5D3 has been a successful generalist camera for years and has 6fps max. Is that not enough any more? Are subjects faster than they were in 2012?


----------



## d (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Well...the 6DII's rumoured specs should quell this thread quite nicely and punt it into obscurity.
> ...



What exactly are you expecting from an entry-level full frame camera? 25MP @ 6fps sounds like a pretty good camera to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

d said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



She/he is apparently expecting a 1D X II with a 5DsR sensor stuffed into a 6-series body and priced at $1000. If Canon doesn't deliver, they're *******. :


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

d said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



True. Pretty good. But not quite there.


----------



## d (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > fussy III said:
> ...



Where exactly?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 29, 2016)

I haven't waded through all 16 pages of this, but re: the first poster's desire for a deeper buffer - in my testing with a Lexar Professional 1066x UDMA 7 CF card I was able to get 32 RAW images before it began to slow down.

So here's my question: how many of you actually need a deeper RAW buffer than that...and what for?

For my own style of shooting that may the only time I push the buffer that deep in the years ahead that I own the camera.

P.S. Starting today I will be releasing a series where I break down the sensor performance in detail. Today's episode covers dynamic range, episode 2 is high ISO performance, and the third episode looks at resolution.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > fussy III said:
> ...



To all the police-dogs: Yes, I *am* looking for a tool. 

Something that is not so obviously crippled in the light of other EOS-bodies. A camera that does not have written on its forehead "lacking". A trustful piece of equipment that puts me at ease for a few years. What I was stating about the rumored specs of the 6DII is obvious since I am simply remaining faithful to my initial definition of a generalist, a camera that easily could have come to life if the lord was gentle on us. 

To give an example of the effects of crippling in the real world, let's not even talk about my personal wishes , let's talk about the many loyal customers that Canon has which both are photographing and filming at a high standard with high demands: Say the 6DII will have 4K in fullframe and a workable codec. Fine. Videoguys happy. But what about the demanding photo+video-grapher among us? If he/she is at one moment filming with the 6DII (as rumored) but in the next wishes to get high-res action shots, he/she will feel inclined to switch to a 5DIV for that purpose. If he/she wants to use the same lens for both purposes, that will not only mean that he/she will have to accomodate ...self with a different button-layout when switching but also will have to unmount and remount the lens. 

And this dilemma between two cameras lost in the action is the result of a philosophy of crippling on Canon's part. The more I think about it, the more justified I find my usage of the word. Price is an entirely different story.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> And this dilemma between two cameras lost in the action is the result of a philosophy of crippling on Canon's part. The more I think about it, the more justified I find my usage of the word. Price is an entirely different story.



Product differentiation. 'Crippled' is your subjective interpretation of a business reality.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> And this dilemma between two cameras lost in the action is the result of a philosophy of crippling on Canon's part. The more I think about it, the more justified I find my usage of the word. Price is an entirely different story.



Can you let me know if there is any camera on the market that does everything you want in one body.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:



> I haven't waded through all 16 pages of this, but re: the first poster's desire for a deeper buffer - in my testing with a Lexar Professional 1066x UDMA 7 CF card I was able to get 32 RAW images before it began to slow down.
> 
> So here's my question: how many of you actually need a deeper RAW buffer than that...and what for?
> 
> ...



That indeed would make the EOS 5D IV seem suited as a generalist with regards to buffer. One down ...


----------



## fentiger (Sep 29, 2016)

1DX11 is pretty much a camera that can do it all from landscape to wildlife and action


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't waded through all 16 pages of this, but re: the first poster's desire for a deeper buffer - in my testing with a Lexar Professional 1066x UDMA 7 CF card I was able to get 32 RAW images before it began to slow down.
> ...



So explain why a buffer of 35 images is not enough.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > And this dilemma between two cameras lost in the action is the result of a philosophy of crippling on Canon's part. The more I think about it, the more justified I find my usage of the word. Price is an entirely different story.
> ...



The subjective interpretations of customers play an objective role in business. Moral and trust do play a role in business. The way you are looking at "business reality" is just another interpretation and it is solely based on the sales statistics of the past.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



You misunderstood my post. I actually said something nice about the camera


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> The subjective interpretations of customers play an objective role in business. Moral and trust do play a role in business. The way you are looking at "business reality" is just another interpretation and it is solely based on the sales statistics of the past.



Customer interpretation does play a part. And the fact Canon are number one suggests that the general customer does not think the same as you. 
I am not using sales to justify Canon continue as they are, nor did I buy from Canon because of their sales, but I am using sales to illustrate that Canon know what they are doing. If they were so incompetent at designing cameras they would not be number one. It is a classic case 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'.

In this case, the pudding you want has all sorts of exotic bits an pieces added at (a) no extra cost or (b) increase the price to a point its sales plummet. Neither make good business sense.


----------



## d (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> ...
> 
> If he/she is at one moment filming with the 6DII (as rumored) but in the next wishes to get high-res action shots, he/she will feel inclined to switch to a 5DIV for that purpose. If he/she wants to use the same lens for both purposes, that will not only mean that he/she will have to accomodate ...self with a different button-layout when switching but also will have to unmount and remount the lens.
> ...



In what world is 25MP (rumoured 6DII) not high-res, but 30 MP (5DIV) is? Would you actually bother to switch cameras in the middle of shooting for this?


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

d said:


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



No you wouldn't. You would just think "Why the ... do I have to make do with 25?"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > The subjective interpretations of customers play an objective role in business. Moral and trust do play a role in business. The way you are looking at "business reality" is just another interpretation and it is solely based on the sales statistics of the past.
> ...



Exactly. Not sure why people have such a hard time comprehending basic business concepts. Maybe their own wants drown out any common sense thoughts in their heads.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > The subjective interpretations of customers play an objective role in business. Moral and trust do play a role in business. The way you are looking at "business reality" is just another interpretation and it is solely based on the sales statistics of the past.
> ...



It already is a reality that there are a significant number of potential buyers out there sharing my critisizm, be it photographers or videographers. Just search the web. This is not propaganda, these are all people who are really into what they are doing. Many are fealing let down by Canon. And to many pricing is not the primary concern.

Besides there is a reality outside business that could tell Canon that it isn't nice to piss people off.


----------



## d (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > fussy III said:
> ...



Sounds like your "high standard", "high demand" photographer/videographer (who is shooting on an entry-level FF body...but each to their own) doesn't really grasp the only very slight increase in resolution a 30MP sensor has over a 25MP sensor. We're talking around 600 extra pixels along the long side of the sensor...where there were 10 pixels, now there are 11. Real-world differences are going to be so slight as to be negligible. 

So your "real-world" scenario is kinda pointless.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

d said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...



I wonder why Canon isn't making 8Megapixel DSLRs any longer?? Resolution is pointless!


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: EOS 5D Mark IV *

Germany's best selling newspaper...


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Germany's best sold newspaper...



How in the world do they manage to keep the price down with all those features included? Surely a miracle. Or is the publishing house perhaps redigesting the same contents in other publications? Maybe a concept Canon can learn from?


----------



## d (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> I wonder why Canon isn't making 8Megapixel DSLRs any longer?? Resolution is pointless!



You've forgotten your own argument!! I'll remind you: 25MP -> 30MP to get "high-res" images.

Going from 8MP to 30MP would be a significant jump in resolution (you'd nearly double your pixel count along each edge), but going from 25 to 30 to attain "high-res" images, as an example of a "real world" dilemma Canon is placing photographers in, is laughable.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

d said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why Canon isn't making 8Megapixel DSLRs any longer?? Resolution is pointless!
> ...



Good is good, better is better


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> It already is a reality that there are a significant number of potential buyers out there sharing my critisizm, be it photographers or videographers. Just search the web. This is not propaganda, these are all people who are really into what they are doing. Many are fealing let down by Canon. And to many pricing is not the primary concern.
> 
> Besides there is a reality outside business that could tell Canon that it isn't nice to piss people off.



So I ask again - which camera does everything you want and includes all the things in your wishlist at a price you are willing to pay?


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > It already is a reality that there are a significant number of potential buyers out there sharing my critisizm, be it photographers or videographers. Just search the web. This is not propaganda, these are all people who are really into what they are doing. Many are fealing let down by Canon. And to many pricing is not the primary concern.
> ...



Keep asking


----------



## d (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > fussy III said:
> ...



And BS is BS.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

d said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...



Agreed


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > fussy III said:
> ...



I was just interested if there was any manufacturer on the market illustrating what Canon should be doing in addition to what Canon are already doing. It seems not. And you have to ask why not....


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Sorry about my laconic response. I sort of gave the answer in my initial post that started the threat. Pentax K1 is getting close to what I am hoping for but is (compared to Canon) obviously lacking in lens-selection, speed and AF. 
To give a more personal answer: If I cannot have it all in one camera (or as it is not even in one system), I believe I will keep my Canon 500/4.0, perhaps add a 100-400/5.6 II but otherwise move to Fujifilm GFX where I expect I can use a range of Pentax 645 / 67 lenses that I own. I will probably buy the Standard-Zoom and the ultra-wide for the Fujifilm GFX that are not overly heavy and offer AF. I understand that I am trading speed and the optical viewfinder for image-quality with the Fuji.
But the slow speed of The Fujifilm GFX is caused by current technical limitations, not by company-philosophie. The short flange will allow to adapt or even tilt my existing 645-lenses. And I intend to make good use the extra resolution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> It already is a reality that there are a significant number of potential buyers out there sharing my critisizm, be it photographers or videographers. Just search the web. This is not propaganda, these are all people who are really into what they are doing. Many are fealing let down by Canon. And to many pricing is not the primary concern.



Let me translate for you:

"It is known that..." = "I think that..."

"It is widely known that..." = "Me and a few other people think that..."

How many is 'many'? What sort of research have you done? Let me guess – you read the Internet. Maybe talked to a few people. Canon collects actual data from users and others. If even 10% of buyers register their purchases, that's a few hundred thousand data points per year. Then there are surveys, contracted market research, etc. But...you've read the Internet, so you know what 'many' people want.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Plus, does anyone actually think someone who chooses 'fussy' as his/her forum identity is going to be satisfied?!?





neuroanatomist said:


> To all those suggesting an Angle Finder C... It's pretty much a non-starter because of its main limitation – it doesn't help with the classic hand-held selfie.





neuroanatomist said:


> You Canon-hater. How dare you suggest that anyone would want a feature which Canon, in their infinite wisdom and beneficence, should choose not to provide?!?
> (This is not what a non-hyperbolic post looks like.)
> ;D





neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, mirrorless means the death of the dSLR within 5 years. Now, when have I heard that before? Oh, yes...7 years ago.





neuroanatomist said:


> She/he is apparently expecting a 1D X II with a 5DsR sensor stuffed into a 6-series body and priced at $1000. If Canon doesn't deliver, they're *******. :





neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly. Not sure why people have such a hard time comprehending basic business concepts. Maybe their own wants drown out any common sense thoughts in their heads.



I start to understand your concept of meaningful contributions :


----------



## xps (Sep 29, 2016)

Some thoughts from this video are IMO tue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o43OfZ5rIbI

Well designed Workhorse, good upgrade, but in some aspects not on par with the compretitors


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 29, 2016)

xps said:


> Some thoughts from this video are IMO tue:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o43OfZ5rIbI
> 
> Well designed Workhorse, good upgrade, but in some aspects not on par with the compretitors



I have to say I tend to agree. I continue to struggle if this is a worthwhile upgrade from the Mark III - on the body side I've lost some "confidence" that they are fully up to the game - be it intentional or not - while on the glass side they do fantastic (yet expensive).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> I start to understand your concept of meaningful contributions :



No, you don't. But it's not worth further discussion since the explanation would clearly be lost in you. 

In any case, I recall you said, "I'm done." Like I suggested, Google 'metacognition'. Or, if that's too hard, Google 'liar'.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > I start to understand your concept of meaningful contributions :
> ...



I said "I'm gone". Google 'Alzheimer' or 'reading comprehension'... 

Now I am done.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 29, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I haven't waded through all 16 pages of this, but re: the first poster's desire for a deeper buffer - in my testing with a Lexar Professional 1066x UDMA 7 CF card I was able to get 32 RAW images before it began to slow down.



Interesting. Was the scenery very low details and shot at iso100? Because I did test with exactly same card and ended up with ~22 RAWs until it slowed down. I can't remember my settings for sure, but normal-ish scene and I think it was iso400.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

romanr74 said:


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



Apologies for misquoting you. Still, I'd rather be incorrect than a liar...twice. 

Bye.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Readers of this forum will simply have to accept that there will always be contributors arguing like shareholders, not like photographers. 

To the share-holder in you: Even if you measure Canon by its relative success, it remains a relative one. I honestly believe they could fare far better on the market now and in the future (and in the past 10 years) if they displayed a more generous attitude. I have no facts but the strategic omissions of features are obvious even to you as I have gathered.

I remember the ties I once had to the company. These ties were made of trustworthyness, honesty and a more ambitious attitude overall. That was back in the days when it basically only mattered which lens you put on the camera. Things change.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> To the share-holder in you: that really sounds like another snide backhanded insult. Why do we have to be ' a shareholder' or have any vested interest in the status quo? I think we generally agree that most of the features under discussion would be great. The only things really under discussion is how important they are to the target market and their technical feasibility. You and others claim either a conspiracy or marketing incompetence in not incorporating them. Others (like myself) do not see the as key _to Canon's target market_ or not yet sufficient quality to merit inclusion. Talk of fanboyism and 'shareholders' is simply and excuse to not listen to reasonable counterarguments, stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'no point in talking to fanboys' Even if you measure Canon by its relative success, it remains a relative one. is that not that the one that matters? They are competing with other camera manufacturers for a defined market  I honestly believe they could fare far better on the market now and in the future (and in the past 10 years) if they displayed a more generous attitude this is an interesting word 'generous' - do you mean by including more features at no extra cost so cutting their profits to give you what _you _think is important?. I have no facts but the strategic omissions of features are obvious even to you as I have gathered. you admit you have no facts yet your comments are worded so powerfully to suggest an innate knowledge of Canon's abilities. Yes, their omissions are 'strategic' and every manufacturer makes them. Do you go onto Sony sites and pan them for their failure to match Canon's AF, how they are 'crippling' their otherwise brilliant camera? I suspect not...
> 
> I remember the ties I once had to the company. These ties were made of trustworthyness, honesty and a more ambitious attitude overall. That was back in the days when it basically only mattered which lens you put on the camera. Things change. one big change has been that all companies have hit technological brick walls in almost all directions and we are waiting for the next big breakthrough (there has been no real increase in sensor performance for at least 4 years now). For 10 years people got used to quantum leaps every year with new models and there is still that lingering disappointment with every new camera that being an incremental upgrade with additions aimed at small parts of the market. Some look on the lack of mega steps and lead calls of conservatism' or 'market protection'. Others accept the situation and some decide other marques provide what they want and change brands with no recriminations or whinging or claims of Canon's incompetence


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: EOS 5D Mark IV *



fussy III said:


> Readers of this forum will simply have to accept that there will always be contributors arguing like shareholders, not like photographers.



+1

I am currently not a Canon shareholder. I'm looking at Canon as an enthusiast photographer. What I like in a company or provider of whatsoever service or product is when you can feel the passion for the product or service. Given minimal business acumen, this in my opinion is the key to becoming economically successful. With growing size and market share, companies struggle to maintain a comparable level of enthusiasm and passion but fall into a pattern of economically controlled thinking, of maintaining market share, of avoiding mistakes, of avoiding risk, of observing and managing the market vs. creating a market, of being managed through marketing and finance departments vs. by passionate creators and inventors. This is where Canon is. They do what they believe they have to do to maintain their position. Economically that's perfectly right. Yet it certainly doesn't boost innovation...


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> +1
> 
> I am currently not a Canon shareholder. I'm looking at Canon as an enthusiast photographer. What I like in a company or provider of whatsoever service or product is when you can feel the passion for the product or service. Given minimal business acumen, this in my opinion is the key to becoming economically successful. With growing size and market share, companies struggle to maintain a comparable level of enthusiasm and passion but fall into a pattern of economically controlled thinking, of maintaining market share, of avoiding mistakes, of avoiding risk, of observing and managing the market vs. creating a market, of being managed through marketing and finance departments vs. by passionate creators and inventors. This is where Canon is. They do what they believe they have to do to maintain their position. Economically that's perfectly right. Yet it certainly doesn't boost innovation...



I am very much of the opinion that Canon incorporates new functions when they are sure the new camera will be a definite upgrade _as a package_. That apparently is one reason the 7D2 took so long to come out - they had some last minute additions and wanted to make sure the camera as a whole was better than the one they had originally trialled. They didn't rush it and the success of the camera shows they were right not to. 
Sometimes their upgrades are lots of relatively little things that and up to a significantly better camera and this seems to be the growing impression with the 5D4.
The M5 shows they are not yet there on their mirrorless technology so will not even think about a mirrorless 5D/1D. That is a sensible position.
They have market view that serious 4K video is the realm of professionals and a professional will not pick the 5D4 as their video camera of choice. And the 1080 they have provided in the 5D4 is perfectly adequate quality for people who want to rattle off a few seconds/minutes of video during a day otherwise dedicated to stills photography. Again perfectly reasonable, and that decision helps keep the cost of the camera to the very top end of what many are saying they are willing to pay. What is wrong with that?

Too many people confuse 'comprehension' with 'complicity' - I am not sure if this is because they themselves are unable to understand something without agreeing with it, or if they just want to state their point of view and will use any insult to reinforce their argument, or if they are intellectually illiterate.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> It already is a reality that there are a significant number of potential buyers out there sharing my critisizm, be it photographers or videographers. Just search the web. This is not propaganda, these are all people who are really into what they are doing. Many are fealing let down by Canon. And to many pricing is not the primary concern.



Depends what you mean by 'significant'. Hence people keep coming back to sales. People have been complaining for years. But it's had no tangible effect on sales. So we conclude their numbers weren't weren't significant.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

scyrene said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > It already is a reality that there are a significant number of potential buyers out there sharing my critisizm, be it photographers or videographers. Just search the web. This is not propaganda, these are all people who are really into what they are doing. Many are fealing let down by Canon. And to many pricing is not the primary concern.
> ...



How do you know it had no tangible effects? Just because Canon is still selling it does not mean that they could not sell even better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Readers of this forum will simply have to accept that there will always be contributors arguing like shareholders, not like photographers.
> 
> To the share-holder in you: Even if you measure Canon by its relative success, it remains a relative one. I honestly believe they could fare far better on the market now and in the future (and in the past 10 years) if they displayed a more generous attitude. I have no facts but the strategic omissions of features are obvious even to you as I have gathered.



To the photographer in you: like me, you want things from Canon – certain features or products, lower prices, etc. As potential customers, Canon wants something from us – our money. In one sense, that's a cooperative relationship, but in another, it's adversarial...particularly when one wants something Canon has apparently been unwilling to provide. 

A key point is that we are dependent on camera manufacturers to provide the gear we need/want. While our perspective is that of photographers and our goal is making images, those manufacturers have a very different motivation – returning value to shareholders. 

So, consider that an understanding of business practices and realities is very relevant to a discussion of photography-relevant features, because those features aren't something we can just add, ourselves. Put simply, "Know your enemy." I read that in a book. 

Alternatively, people can just go on complaining about this missing feature or that here on CR, or they can piss into the wind, which is about as effective. 




romanr74 said:


> This is where Canon is. They do what they believe they have to do to maintain their position. Economically that's perfectly right. Yet it certainly doesn't boost innovation...



Yeah, except for the thousands of patents they file annually. Couldn't be anything innovative in there. 




Mikehit said:


> Too many people confuse 'comprehension' with 'complicity' - I am not sure if this is because they themselves are unable to understand something without agreeing with it, or if they just want to state their point of view and will use any insult to reinforce their argument, or if they are intellectually illiterate.



^^This

I want many things – a high MP 1-series body, a 600/4 DO, an 11-24 and TS-E 17 that take drop-in filters, bodies with built-in RT flash control, etc. I'm disappointed that Canon doesn't offer a small-as-possible full-featured FF mirrorless with a set of pancake primes with IS. 

But I also understand the business realities that are part of the reason Canon isn't making those products that I want. That seems to be too big a leap for some forum members, and so instead, people who see and understand reality are called simple-minded fanboys.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> How do you know it had no tangible effects? Just because Canon is still selling it does not mean that they could not sell even better.



Ah, the old 'we don't know everything so whatever claim I make is equally justified'.
The very least we can say is that it has not done them any harm.

I could rephrase your question as 'How do you know that if Canon met all your wishes the camera would be financially viable'. That is, be profitable based on unit price x number of units? You don't and my guess is that the Canon marketing guys know better than you what will be profitable. Cameras at this level will not be the loss-leaders because loss leaders are the models that are sold to get people to end up with the 5D4.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> "Know your enemy." I read that in a book.



Agreed. I just wish I could focus entirely on my struggle with the elements when photographing rather than worrying about the shortcomings of my tools. I am not enjoying this!



neuroanatomist said:


> Alternatively, people can just go on complaining about this missing feature or that here on CR, or they can piss into the wind, which is about as effective.



I do believe holding on to these discussions contributes to something bigger than to collecting urin in my face.


----------



## fussy III (Sep 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > How do you know it had no tangible effects? Just because Canon is still selling it does not mean that they could not sell even better.
> ...



So the only substantial facts to remain are the obvious shortcomings of the 5DIV and the fact that Canon is still faring well compared to some competitors when it comes to sale-statistics of previous modells.

Everything else is entirely part of the irrational human sphere. Reality is just another superstition. Business-numbers and marketing philosophies are made by people, generated by the plasticity of human behavior, not by some godly wisdom. Men has history, conviction and language. Men changes. Business changes. 

In roman times, many servants claimed they were happy being servants. Some women in Switzerland until recently preferred not to be entitled to vote for parliament. However most modern day western women by today's standards would feel deprived if they were not entitled to vote. 

Customers continue to learn to educate themselves. This is not the last word.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 29, 2016)

tpatana said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't waded through all 16 pages of this, but re: the first poster's desire for a deeper buffer - in my testing with a Lexar Professional 1066x UDMA 7 CF card I was able to get 32 RAW images before it began to slow down.
> ...



I was shooting at ISO 100 and making sure to have a faster shutter speed so that wasn't the issue. I also had all of the "optimizers" (Peripheral Illumination, DLO, etc...) turned off. With an SD card under the same circumstances I got 28 RAWs.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 29, 2016)

xps said:


> Some thoughts from this video are IMO tue:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o43OfZ5rIbI
> 
> Well designed Workhorse, good upgrade, but in some aspects not on par with the compretitors



I thought this was a pretty well balanced take on it...though perhaps skewed a bit towards the video side.

It is relevant to compare it to the natural competitors from other manufacturers in a general sense.

For my personal work, however, what the A7R II or D810 are doing is irrelevant; I have 20 lenses in Canon mounts, flash units, triggers, extension tubes, and a whole whack of other gear all within the Canon ecosystem. I'm more concerned about whether it is a worthy upgrade for Canon shooters, and so far, my conclusion is that it definitely is. I'm really enjoying using the camera, and I'm discovering all kinds of meaningful ways that it is impacting my daily workflow as a photographer and a reviewer. It's too expensive, but when hasn't that been true of brand new Canon gear?


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Business-numbers and marketing philosophies are made by people, generated by the plasticity of human behavior, not by some godly wisdom. Men has history, conviction and language. Men changes. Business changes.
> 
> In roman times, many servants claimed they were happy being servants. Some women in Switzerland until recently preferred not to be entitled to vote for parliament. However most modern day western women by today's standards would feel deprived if they were not entitled to vote.
> 
> Customers continue to learn to educate themselves. This is not the last word.



Every one of those is a fair point, and a valid warning against complacency. So is Canon being complacent and ******* to failure, are they overly cautious and not taking full advantage, or are they gauging the market right and not committing themselves to technologies that are headline grabbing but ultimately low priority for a vast majority of their users? 

On the other side of the fence are the people buying the cameras justified in buying gear that is patently sub-standard or is it a case of 'if only they removed the scales from their eyes they would see the beauty and wonder that is full-on fully functioning ultimate video'. Are they aware of what their priorities are or are they wilfully blind?


----------



## turtle (Sep 29, 2016)

It seems _The Camera Store_ felt very lukewarm about the 5D IV and they are in the business of selling cameras. Others have offered more praise. None seem to have raved about it. 

Opinions will surely remain divided and this thread is not going to change that; however, it is probably evident that both sides are actually right. They have to be. Think about it. 

I do believe that had Canon offered more of what they could have in the camera it would have meant more thrilled potential customers. This may have had an adverse effect on sales in their Cine and 6D/1DX lines. I therefore agree with earlier comments suggesting that Canon's best business strategy is not necessarily one that will result in lots of happy consumers _today_. I there suggest that wise business decisions that leave lots of potential customers feeling jaded will only ever work in the short term. Upset people don't keep coming back for more. In fact, they will sometimes cut their nose off to spite their face out of protest. This seems to be where quite a few Canon customers are right now and these are people who have been waiting a very long time for the 5D IV. Even if you are one of the ones who thinks this camera is ace, its not hard to see that plenty of people don't feel the same way.

Lets remember, this is not just about the 5D IV. As others have said, it is about faith in the ethos of the company and whether it makes the right partner for years to come. It seems to me that more and more people are feeling a keen 'no' on that point. That cannot possibly be good for Canon. I'd love to know how sales are going, because maybe few customers really care? Maybe they are selling like hot cakes; however, I get the impression that this is not the case, even when early adoption should mean it should be. There seems to be a huge 'wait and see' attitude with many potential buyers looking to see what everyone else does and how the reviews are shaping up. 

Does anyone have inside info regarding sales?


----------



## scyrene (Sep 29, 2016)

fussy III said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > fussy III said:
> ...



Maybe look up 'tangible'. Or if you prefer a different word - discernable, measurable, demonstrable. You are the one with the hypothesis, you ae the one who should try to find evidence for it.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Readers of this forum will simply have to accept that there will always be contributors arguing like shareholders, not like photographers.



Indeed, unless one has so much money that they can afford to put all their cameras and lenses in a trash compactor and not think twice, one would be a fool NOT to think like a shareholder.

I have a ridiculous amount of money invested in Canon equipment. I chose to do so of my own free will and don't regret it one bit. My photography equipment gives me a lot of joy and for the past two years it has also helped me eat. 

I could have just as easily chosen Nikon and doubt I would have any regrets with that decision either. But, a large part of that self-satisfaction comes from knowing that both companies have been in the business for nearly a century and one or the other has been the market leader for well over half a century. 

I would never consider sinking all my resources into another brand simply because they don't have the track record and I have no confidence in their commitment to the market. I think like a shareholder because it is in my best interest and because in a sense, I am a shareholder, even though I don't own a penny of Canon or Nikon stock.

In my view, anyone who has managed to convince themselves that their success is limited by the state of today's equipment ought to find a new business or hobby.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 30, 2016)

While I do think Canon has to be careful to keep innovating and not just keep up I completely agree with sentiment that no photographer can complain that Canons cameras or lenses are limiting their photography. I'm like most people I want this bell and this whistle on the camera but I can't deny Canon make damn fine cameras. The button placement and menus are perfect. They meter well and focus accurately.
I too want Canon to survive as I'm heavily invested.
I like to be wowed too from time to time.
For Canon forum readers go take some photographs and go have real and not imaginary experiences of Canon gear.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, except for the thousands of patents they file annually. Couldn't be anything innovative in there.



The number of patents filed is a very weak indicator (if an indicator at all) for the quality of innovation...


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> But I also understand the business realities that are part of the reason Canon isn't making those products that I want. That seems to be too big a leap for some forum members, and so instead, people who see and understand reality are called simple-minded fanboys.



not quite, one more leap there: people who justify and defend every decision canon makes through that argument i consider fanboys.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, except for the thousands of patents they file annually. Couldn't be anything innovative in there.
> ...



...except for every other indicator that's ever been tried. (Apologies to Winston Churchill.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Now I am done.





romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, except for the thousands of patents they file annually. Couldn't be anything innovative in there.
> ...



They are certainly a better indicator of innovation than your own words are an indicator of your veracity. 

Habitual prevarication, lack of impulse control, there's a new section of DSM-5 that seems relevant.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 30, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > But I also understand the business realities that are part of the reason Canon isn't making those products that I want. That seems to be too big a leap for some forum members, and so instead, people who see and understand reality are called simple-minded fanboys.
> ...



I don't think anyone is justifying or defending every such decision, we're *explaining* it. I think everyone on this forum, myself and Neuro included, would appreciate large improvements in all components and features. The difference is that we accept the reality of business: money talks. Failure to recognize that is...inexplicable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2016)

Orangutan said:


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



Exactly. 

But some people, if you explain that the sun rises in the east or that most rocks – even very small ones – don't float, can't grasp those simple concepts, let alone the more complex business realities. Worse, and quite sad, are those who do understand those business concepts, but believe their own opinion trumps that objective reality.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Now I am done.
> ...



you realize that you are in a pattern of constant insulting and discrediting, do you? as i said in my post you quote on top, i'm done with the emotional argument with you. you seem not to be....


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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



you are argueing with imaginary posters on this one...


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

Orangutan said:


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



you don't have to explain it, it is understood. yet that doesn't imply the other end of the business equation must perfectly like it and shall not be allowed to express...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 30, 2016)

"I just wish I could focus entirely on my struggle with the elements when photographing rather than worrying about the shortcomings of my tools. I am not enjoying this!"

This statement says it all. What craftsman worries about the shortcomings of quality tools! It's not the tools that are the problem if there is one. As others have said if you can't get first rate photos with what's out there it might be time to find some other hobby or occupation.

Jack


----------



## fussy III (Sep 30, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> "I just wish I could focus entirely on my struggle with the elements when photographing rather than worrying about the shortcomings of my tools. I am not enjoying this!"
> 
> This statement says it all. What craftsman worries about the shortcomings of quality tools! It's not the tools that are the problem if there is one. As others have said if you can't get first rate photos with what's out there it might be time to find some other hobby or occupation.
> 
> Jack



Any craftsman striving for perfection does worry about the quality of tools, especially when they are neither on par with the possible nor with his intentions/visions etc.. If he doesn't strive for that perfecection, that will eventually show in his work. It will aquire that mediocre look of complacency.

I am photographing with a 5D II, a 70D and an A7s. I am not rich. But I know what I am looking for if I am to invest big money once more. And I have learned what makes a difference to the kind of work I am doing. Simple as that.

Assume what you want about my abilities. I am beyond that and do not feel inclined to engage in clock comparisons.


----------



## vjlex (Sep 30, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Readers of this forum will simply have to accept that there will always be contributors arguing like shareholders, not like photographers.



Well-said. That's exactly how it comes across to me as well sometimes.




neuroanatomist said:


> I want many things – a high MP 1-series body, a 600/4 DO, an 11-24 and TS-E 17 that take drop-in filters, bodies with built-in RT flash control, etc. I'm disappointed that Canon doesn't offer a small-as-possible full-featured FF mirrorless with a set of pancake primes with IS.
> 
> But I also understand the business realities that are part of the reason Canon isn't making those products that I want. That seems to be too big a leap for some forum members, and so instead, people who see and understand reality are called simple-minded fanboys.



Personally, the former half of this quote is more of the type of comments I like to hear. I think we can all acknowledge there is a reality that we don't always agree with. Particularly when it comes to what we personally would like in a camera. I don't think we've gathered on a rumor site to strictly discuss "reality." I personally like hearing people discuss what they think would make their photography equipment even better or what they think is lacking. It's also nice to hear what people do appreciate about what they currently have. I think there is room for both of these types of discussions here.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

shunsai said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > Readers of this forum will simply have to accept that there will always be contributors arguing like shareholders, not like photographers.
> ...



I perfectly agree!


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 30, 2016)

shunsai said:


> Personally, the former half of this quote is more of the type of comments I like to hear. I think we can all acknowledge there is a reality that we don't always agree with. Particularly when it comes to what we personally would like in a camera. I don't think we've gathered on a rumor site to strictly discuss "reality." I personally like hearing people discuss what they think would make their photography equipment even better or what they think is lacking. It's also nice to hear what people do appreciate about what they currently have. I think there is room for both of these types of discussions here.



That is perfectly reasonable. What gets irritating for me is when these desires are then extended with statements like Canon are not doing it so are therefore ******* because of their incompetence when by all objective measures they do know what they are dong. They talk about how essential it is to incorporate the highest possible video quality while occasionally admitting it is a minority interest for stills photographers. And using emotive words like 'shameful' and other such hyperbole will get emotive responses. 

It seems you like to hear comments about what other people want canon to add but don't like to hear comments about why some of believe it is not happening, and I think the latter is also interesting because it helps understand why Canon haven't done it and understand what their priorities actually are. Only then can you make a valid purchasing decision. You may say we (?) don't gather on a rumour site to discuss 'reality' but if that is the case you can scrap all discussion about how to use the gear and scrap all the galleries. You can delete 95% of the forum.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> "I just wish I could focus entirely on my struggle with the elements when photographing rather than worrying about the shortcomings of my tools. I am not enjoying this!"
> 
> This statement says it all. What craftsman worries about the shortcomings of quality tools! It's not the tools that are the problem if there is one. As others have said if you can't get first rate photos with what's out there it might be time to find some other hobby or occupation.



If the nail doesn't go in straight, it's usually the hammer's fault. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> as i said in my post you quote on top, i'm done with the emotional argument with you. you seem not to be....



Did you say that?



romanr74 said:


> I said "I'm gone". Google 'Alzheimer' or 'reading comprehension'...
> 
> Now I am done.



If you think you implied it, you failed. It's that metacognition thing, again...seems to be a significant problem for you. Regardless, you're clearly not done tossing out inane one-liners unsupported by facts.


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I want many things – a high MP 1-series body, a 600/4 DO, an 11-24 and TS-E 17 that take drop-in filters, bodies with built-in RT flash control, etc. I'm disappointed that Canon doesn't offer a small-as-possible full-featured FF mirrorless with a set of pancake primes with IS.
> 
> But I also understand the business realities that are part of the reason Canon isn't making those products that I want. That seems to be too big a leap for some forum members, and so instead, people who see and understand reality are called simple-minded fanboys.



I think that is called "living in the real world." Not always a pleasant place to live....but in the final analysis, much less frustrating than living in fantasy.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

On a serious note Neuro: Are you stoned?



neuroanatomist said:


> If the nail doesn't go in straight, it's usually the hammer's fault. :





neuroanatomist said:


> If you think you implied it, you failed. It's that metacognition thing, again...seems to be a significant problem for you. Regardless, you're clearly not done tossing out inane one-liners unsupported by facts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2016)

shunsai said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I want many things – a high MP 1-series body, a 600/4 DO, an 11-24 and TS-E 17 that take drop-in filters, bodies with built-in RT flash control, etc. I'm disappointed that Canon doesn't offer a small-as-possible full-featured FF mirrorless with a set of pancake primes with IS.
> ...



Statements of the type in the first part are great when posted, they often lead to good discussion and sometimes good ideas for further improvements. Unfortunately, such statements are almost always followed by a second clause that is an unsupportable assertion which doesn't follow logically from the first clause. 

For example:

"The 11-24L lacks a drop-in filter slot, so it's a terrible, useless lens."

"I want a high MP 1-series body, the 1D X II has only 20 MP so it's a failure." 

"Canon doesn't make a FF mirrorless camera, if they would do so they'd sell millions of them but since they haven't and Sony does, Canon's business will suffer."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> as i said in my post you quote on top, i'm done with the emotional argument with you.





romanr74 said:


> On a serious note Neuro: Are you stoned?



On a serious note, romanr74: have you suffered a traumatic brain injury? That and psychosis are among the causes of habitual prevarication.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 30, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> you don't have to explain it, it is understood. yet that doesn't imply the other end of the business equation must perfectly like it and shall not be allowed to express...



I think you misunderstand: no one is saying you're not allowed to express your desires or expectations for improvement of a particular feature, or lower cost -- that's entirely fine. The problem is that some posters extrapolate their own needs as the most common case, e.g. AvTvM, while others develop conspiracy theories of how Canon is manipulating the market to maintain its profits, and still others whine about pricing.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> no one is saying you're not allowed to express your desires or expectations for improvement of a particular feature, or lower cost -- that's entirely fine. The problem is that some posters extrapolate their own needs as the most common case, e.g. AvTvM, while others develop conspiracy theories of how Canon is manipulating the market to maintain its profits, and still others whine about pricing.



And some posters extrapolate market share into infinite wisdom. All good then...


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 30, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > no one is saying you're not allowed to express your desires or expectations for improvement of a particular feature, or lower cost -- that's entirely fine. The problem is that some posters extrapolate their own needs as the most common case, e.g. AvTvM, while others develop conspiracy theories of how Canon is manipulating the market to maintain its profits, and still others whine about pricing.
> ...



If you truly believe this you should read more carefully. If this is supposed to be funny...it's not.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> If you truly believe this you should read more carefully.



is true for this:



romanr74 said:


> And some posters extrapolate market share into infinite wisdom.



but not for this:



Orangutan said:


> The problem is that some posters extrapolate their own needs as the most common case, [...], while others develop conspiracy theories of how Canon is manipulating the market to maintain its profits [...]



correct?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > you don't have to explain it, it is understood. yet that doesn't imply the other end of the business equation must perfectly like it and shall not be allowed to express...
> ...



I think when people complain about 'not being allowed to express', what they really mean is they don't want their statements of opinion refuted by facts and data.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 30, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > no one is saying you're not allowed to express your desires or expectations for improvement of a particular feature, or lower cost -- that's entirely fine. The problem is that some posters extrapolate their own needs as the most common case, e.g. AvTvM, while others develop conspiracy theories of how Canon is manipulating the market to maintain its profits, and still others whine about pricing.
> ...


How do we measure success of the company? Sales, profits and returns are common measure used if certain company is a success or failure. When someone says Canon ******* or going to fail, looking into this information is obviously first place to start with.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 30, 2016)

Absolutely. 
People complained about specifications of the 5D2 and the company kept growing
People complained about the time it took to release the 7D2 and complained about how it was out of date before it was even released and an indicator of Canon's lack of imagination. And the company kept growing
People complained about specifications of the 5D3 and how they were going to impact future growth... and yes... the company kept growing
People complained about how the 1DX2 had not really taken the 1DX line forward and developments were disappointingly incremental...but the Professionals really like it and buy it for the total package...and it looks like the company is still growing.

I wonder who Canon is listening to?


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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



If it is relevant/meaningful facts there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever...


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 30, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> If it is relevant/meaningful facts there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever...



You mean:
"Canon don't know what they are doing" - counterargument that they are #1 so probably do
"Canon should make FF mount compatible with EF lenses" - counterargument - not the way they have chosen to design their EF-S lenses they won't 
"Canon can implement mirrorless technology immediately and should do so" - counterargument - mirrorless technology does not yet offer the level of capability to maintain the standards relevant to their core market (action, sports and wildlife)

Someone wanting video, mirrorless or whatever is an irrefutable fact. Raising comments like the above is personal opinion and totally refutable and all the responses above are perfectly valid.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > If it is relevant/meaningful facts there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever...
> ...



So let us stay factual then... 

Talking for myself: I mean none of that! I never said any of that!

I only challenge if market share (or other sales numbers) are the perfect indicator for the validity of current product decisions (which will reflect in future sales numbers). They are obviously a very strong indicator that business decisions (product being one component of them) were right in the past.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 30, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> I only challenge if market share (or other sales numbers) are the perfect indicator for the validity of current product decisions (which will reflect in future sales numbers). They are obviously a very strong indicator that business decisions (product being one component of them) were right in the past.



I totally agree with that and your previous post that relying on past success can lead to complacency and it is a trap that a lot of big corporations fall into time and again. But I don't think anyone has quoted sales figures to justify the current design but in response (as I said) to claims Canon do not know what they are doing. 

I will adapt a discussion I have had with colleagues in the past to make it relevant to photography: They could pack the 5DIV with all the technology and the best sensor, all the best video and all the best AF systems, touch swivelly screen - they could make it so that the *only* between 5D4 and 1DX is the more durable build. At $3,500 it would probably slay the market and although unit profit wold be reduced the high volume would overcome it.
They could also make a lower end (a 7D variant if you will) with all that stuff but APS-C instead of full frame. 
Then make a plastic-bodied version at $300 as a loss leader. 

All makes sense, right?
Odd that no company on earth does that with their product lines. I wonder why. If I want to buy a photocopier that simply does 20 pages per minute instead of 8 I can't - the faster one comes with all sorts of add-ons that they could also add into their lower end models. Ditto for washing machines, cars and anything else.

Canon concentrates on AF performance and less on other things. Sony concentrate more on video and cross-platform compatability and their AF is not as good. Buy whichever suits best.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I think when people complain about 'not being allowed to express', what they really mean is they don't want their statements of opinion refuted by facts and data.
> ...



Oh, really?

Suppose someone stated that a particular entry-level camera model was a failure, and that a competitor's roughly similar model was a much more compelling offering for dSLR buyers. Then, suppose there were data showing the relative sales of the two models, indicating that the model which was supposedly a 'failure' was, in fact, much more popular with camera buyers – and thus refuting the statement that it was less compelling for buyers. 

Do you believe those data would be relevant or meaningful? 



romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Josh Denver said:
> ...



If you think sales figures are relevant to a discussion of which camera model is more compelling to buyers, then why would you respond as you did? Your response, "...the usual fanboy sales numbers bullS___..." is clearly not aligned with your statement that, "If it is relevant/meaningful facts there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever..." So perhaps the problem is exactly what I've previously suggested – you have a serious defecit in metacognition.

If you _don't_ think sales figures are relevant to a discussion of which camera model is more compelling to buyers...well, metacognition deficits are among the least of worries for a low grade moron.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > I only challenge if market share (or other sales numbers) are the perfect indicator for the validity of current product decisions (which will reflect in future sales numbers). They are obviously a very strong indicator that business decisions (product being one component of them) were right in the past.
> ...



We agree that the 5dmkiv secenario you describe doesn't make sense. Product differentiation is a relevant factor in the approach to market to maximize sales and earnings. Market segmentation is a relevant factor to achieve the same target. You have different customers out there with different budgets and you want to address as many of these as possible. You have customers out there you're able to sell more than one product at the time if they are reasonably differentiated. All good, all economically useful...

Where people sometimes seem to struggle is when they compare what they consider (correctly or incorrectly) as direct competitors between Canon and other brands, and they believe that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. I chose that formulation on purpose to accomodate for the fact that the subjective impression might be wrong. Yet I share the feeling that Canon at the moment is giving rather conservative specs to their products vs. competition and that they might be a little bit in complacency mode. Future sales numbers will be able to tell if the feeling was right or wrong.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Neuro, I was admittedly an asshole with you on this one because to my mind you too often and too fast refer to sales numbers, and I believe that overall business decisions are more relevant to sales numbers than pure product decisions/specs. So in my opinion this is partly meaningfull/relevant but cleary not sufficient. And you're clearly not a saint neither when it comes to communication stile...

At some point in time I hope you will find back to a somewhat cultivated discussion pattern (as I believe I did quite a few posts ago).


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> ...Where people sometimes seem to struggle is when they compare what they consider (correctly or incorrectly) as direct competitors between Canon and other brands, and they believe that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence...
> 
> ...I share the feeling that Canon at the moment is giving rather conservative specs to their products vs. competition and that they might be a little bit in complacency mode. Future sales numbers will be able to tell if the feeling was right or wrong.



Canon and Nikon are both conservative companies. That's just the nature of market leaders. The consequences to Canon or Nikon for implementing half-baked technological improvements are much greater than for a company like Sony, which does not have a large installed user base or the century-long reputation to maintain.

What is consistent about Canon (and what keeps so many of their customers loyal) is that the company consistently underpromises and overdelivers. Invariably, when a new major release is announced, you will see complaints about how Canon did not include this or that feature that competitors include in their comparable models. That is also, invariably, followed by users who, once they actually get the camera in their hands and start using it, raving about how great the camera is and how much better it performs than the spec sheet might indicate. 

That usually leads to the camera dominating its market segment. The best case in point is the 6D, which was widely panned as being significantly under-spec'd in comparison to the competing Nikon model. Yet, people who bought the 6D consistently rave about how well the camera performs and what sales figure are available seem to indicate that it may be the best selling full frame camera ever.

That's why so many of us have concluded that those who insist Canon is somehow "behind" in the market don't really understand what is going on in the market. Canon is conservative, but certainly not complacent. If you want the longest spec sheet of features, Canon and Nikon are not the cameras for you. If you want a tool that you can depend on day in and day out for years, there are really only two choices.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 30, 2016)

unfocused said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Where people sometimes seem to struggle is when they compare what they consider (correctly or incorrectly) as direct competitors between Canon and other brands, and they believe that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence...
> ...


If Canon released 5d4 with similar video AF limitation as a99 ii (video AF only in P mode and that is fixed with f/3.5 aperture), there will be thread from romanr74 talking about how canon *******, under specked and going to file chapter 11 soon.

Regarding lack of FF mirrorless camera from Canon, I think Canon has all the parts and technology needed. Look at how big and expensive is latest sony 70-200 f/2.8 lens. They can just make FF mirrorless body with EF mount. DPAF is also less complicated in terms of lens compatibility compared to hybrid Sony PDAF which needs constant updates to lens and adapters firmware for each iteration. I guess, Canon is just taking their time based on their own market research.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 30, 2016)

unfocused said:


> That's why so many of us have concluded that those who insist Canon is somehow "behind" in the market don't really understand what is going on in the market. Canon is conservative, but certainly not complacent. If you want the longest spec sheet of features, Canon and Nikon are not the cameras for you. If you want a tool that you can depend on day in and day out for years, there are really only two choices.



Please, delete this paragraph...it is obviously far too rational (not to mention accurate) for this forum. 

Honestly, if I were you, I would cut and paste this paragraph and use it in every "Canon is *******" or "Let's start a list of all the things missing from Canon's latest DSLR" thread.


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 1, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> If Canon released 5d4 with similar video AF limitation as a99 ii (video AF only in P mode and that is fixed with f/3.5 aperture), there will be thread from romanr74 talking about how canon *******, under specked and going to file chapter 11 soon.



what is so difficult about reading what people write? i never said anything like ******* or chapter 11.


----------



## Monchoon (Oct 1, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon released 5d4 with similar video AF limitation as a99 ii (video AF only in P mode and that is fixed with f/3.5 aperture), there will be thread from romanr74 talking about how canon *******, under specked and going to file chapter 11 soon.
> ...



I have to agree " what is so difficult about reading what people write?"

Where did he write that you said that?


----------



## ritholtz (Oct 1, 2016)

Monchoon said:


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


I am talking about somebody creating a thread about Canon doom in the future. I should have avoided using his name as a place holder.


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 2, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Absolutely.
> People complained about specifications of the 5D2 and the company kept growing
> People complained about the time it took to release the 7D2 and complained about how it was out of date before it was even released and an indicator of Canon's lack of imagination. And the company kept growing
> People complained about specifications of the 5D3 and how they were going to impact future growth... and yes... the company kept growing
> ...



Canon at least claims to listen to the market place and is painfully aware of the fact that its DSLR sales have clollapsed over the last 5 years, that is meanwhile misjudged the DSLR market and that it needs to devise a strategy to turn around its fledging camera business.

May I suggest you read the last few years of Canon investor relations materials where all this is available.

There were lots of very strong opinions on what Canon would bring to the 5DIV and why. And the majority view here at CR Forums seemed to be more or less the opposite of what turned out to be the reality: Canon asked 5DIII users what they wanted the most and accordingly gave the 5DIV 1) More MPIX 2) Better AF 3) Better DR.

Overall, based on my time here, CR Forum members seem to be unusually off-target when it comes to Canon as a company and Canon's marketing strategies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Overall, based on my time here, CR Forum members seem to be unusually off-target when it comes to Canon as a company and Canon's marketing strategies.



Very true. I think that is due, in large part, to people mistakenly thinking their own personal desires are representative of a majority of Canon customers.


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 2, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> I should have avoided using his name as a place holder.



tx


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 2, 2016)

There may be something 'lost in translation' but...



Maiaibing said:


> Canon at least claims to listen to the market place and is painfully aware of the fact that its DSLR sales have clollapsed over the last 5 years the whole DSLR market dropped, and Canon seems to have kept pace better than the opposition, that is meanwhile misjudged the DSLR market and that it needs to devise a strategy to turn around its fledging camera business. who misjudged? Canon's business is hardly 'fledging'
> 
> May I suggest you read the last few years of Canon investor relations materials where all this is available.
> 
> ...


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 7, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> There may be something 'lost in translation' but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 7, 2016)

Thank you for the clarification Miaibing - I misread your second point but it makes sense now.


----------



## tron (Oct 9, 2016)

"Crippled" or not I ordered one. I do have 2 5D3 cameras that I will not easily sell but I know the reasons for 5D4. More pixels (but not so many), much better DR in low ISO, better AF and EC in auto iso manual exposure mode (a feature that newer cameras like 5Ds(R) and 7D2 have and that they could easily add to 5D3 via firmware). I do not care about video but I care about some ML features for stills that I will lose. Anyway I will test it thoroughly before selling even one 5D3...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 9, 2016)

I've got a new highly detailed examination of the high ISO performance of the 5D Mark IV as compared to the 6D (the best high ISO performer of the previous gen of Canon cameras).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAN3ElBtMyU


----------



## JohnMcDi (Oct 18, 2016)

Some action photos of MKIV from the Thailand round of japanese SuperGT series.


----------



## Dick (Oct 18, 2016)

I don't know why discussions always go to this retarded direction. Seriously? If there is something someone doesn't like in a camera, the manufacturer's strategy related guessing game changes nothing. Neither do sales. Canon may beat Nikon in sales. Nikon can still have better sensors. Should people prefer the Canon sensors, because the bodies they are housed in generate better profits for the manufacturer? I work with corporate strategies. It's my job. So far I have not felt the need to discuss such things on camera forums. Aren't we discussing products after all? Cost cutting is a lame excuse to justify short comings in expensive gear - especially if competitors can do better and still offer more affordable alternatives. 

I'm not a brand fan boy. Love the Canon lenses (especially the 85L2), but dislike the performance of the camera bodies. If there were such great lenses for Nikon, I would have sold my Canon gear a while ago already. The strategies and sales numbers are completely irrelevant to me.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 18, 2016)

Dick said:


> Should people prefer the Canon sensors, because the bodies they are housed in generate better profits for the manufacturer? I work with corporate strategies. It's my job. So far I have not felt the need to discuss such things. Aren't we discussing products after all? *Cost cutting is a lame excuse* to justify short comings in expensive gear - especially if competitors can do better and still offer more affordable alternatives.



For someone who does corporate strategies for a living how can you miss the obvious - different priorities? 
I presume you are accusing Sony of 'cost cutting' by not having a AF system as good as Canon's. Or a system that blacks out the viewfinder at 10fps so you can't see what the heck it is you are tracking? Sony cost cutting in having an interface that is widely derided as poor? Sony cost cutting for offering some of the worst post-sales support which is an often quoted reason for professionals to not rely on Sony gear? Perhpas Sony cuyts back on these to maximise profits? 
Or maybe both manufacturers are building cameras to a cost and make different compromises.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> For someone who does corporate strategies for a living how can you miss the obvious - different priorities?



I know quite a few people who aren't very good at their jobs.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 19, 2016)

Dick said:


> I don't know why discussions always go to this *retarded* direction.



Clearly the corporate strategies you are familiar with are pretty tone-deaf and backward when it comes to the mentally challenged.



Dick said:


> ...Should people prefer the Canon sensors, because the bodies they are housed in generate better profits for the manufacturer?



Said no one...ever. Please find one example of anyone on this forum or anywhere else where someone has suggested this. 

Many, many people have suggested that the success of Canon DSLRs in the marketplace are a sign that the company is meeting the needs and wants of its customers. If you don't understand the difference, than you clearly do not belong in the profession you claim to be in.




Dick said:


> I work with corporate strategies. It's my job...Cost cutting is a lame excuse to justify short comings in expensive gear...



I'd be interested to learn of a company whose corporate strategy involves no consideration of cost. Please identify your company so I can make sure I never invest in it.



Dick said:


> ...especially if competitors can do better and still offer more affordable alternatives...Love the Canon lenses ...but dislike the performance of the camera bodies...



This is the heart of the matter. Many people do not believe that competitors can do better and still offer more affordable alternatives. In fact, having done our own evaluation, many of us have concluded that Canon offers the best product for our needs. If you disagree, then you shouldn't buy Canon. No one else cares. 

Now, going back to the marketplace. It is reasonable and rational to argue that Canon's success in the marketplace is due to its customers having decided that Canon offers the best products for the money. That is why people cite sales figures and the success of Canon in the marketplace. If you cannot understand that, then I can only wonder what job you have in corporate strategy – does it involve a mop and a bucket, a mailroom or maybe a copying machine?


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 19, 2016)

If you thought that Canon gear was expensive, then please see if you can justify the price of these two Nikon lenses that will be anounced shortly. Some people commented that for the price of the tilt-shift lens alone they can buy the Canon 5D Mark III and Canon 17mm TS lens and still be better of...

http://nikonrumors.com/2016/10/18/price-of-two-upcoming-nikon-lenses-leaked-in-japan-nikkor-19mm-f4e-ed-tilt-shift-and-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-vr.aspx/



Dick said:


> .. Cost cutting is a lame excuse to justify short comings in expensive gear - especially if competitors can do better and still offer more affordable alternatives.
> 
> ...If there were such great lenses for Nikon, I would have sold my Canon gear a while ago already...


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 19, 2016)

Dick said:


> Should people prefer the Canon sensors, because the bodies they are housed in generate better profits for the manufacturer?



No, its the other way around - the higher profits are an indication photographers think Canon has a superior system, e.g. they choose Canon for the lenses.

Put it another way, here are two strategies:

1. Make an excellent camera, and a "crippled" 85mm lens.

2. Make an excellent 85mm lens, and a "crippled" camera.

As you chose to spend your money on equipment made by the corporation that chose strategy #2, I'd say Canon's strategy is better than Nikon's.

This can be seen in other choices as well.

E.g. Canon doesn't have an uber 50mm lens, but customers can buy 3rd party (Sigma Art or Zeiss Otus). Nikon has an uber 50mm lens (The 58mm f/1.4G), but it's PC-E 19mm lens came out 7 years after Canon's. This isn't Canon being behind with an uber 50mm f/1.4 lens. This is Canon's strategy giving it an edge over Nikon for years.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, some people would like to own a brand that crushes the competition on all fronts, say have the best cameras, best lenses, best flashes, and best prices. Also, they'd like the competitors to stay in the market, because competition is good. Also, they'd rather not live in the same neighborhood as Peter Pan and the lost boys.

The bad news is they wouldn't get the first wish on their list.

The good news is they get the other two, and will continue to get it for at least some years.


----------



## solaris (Oct 20, 2016)

Short question:

Has someone compared if Mark IV uses the full USB 3.x speed ?
--> Test with 20 raws with Mark III / IV using EOS Utility and Stop watch

Since I assume Raws of Mark IV quite larger then Mark III calculation would be 

Number of Mark III Raws x Size of Mark III raws (MB) / transfer time [seconds] = Mark III USB 2.0 Speed in MB/secs
Number of Mark IV Raws x Size of Mark IV raws (MB) / transfer time [seconds] = Mark IV USB 3.0 Speed in MB/secs

results would be appreciated !

Frank


----------



## j-nord (Oct 21, 2016)

5DIV is kind of disappointing as a do it all stills camera. I get the priorities/compromises that Canon made (except the useless duel pixel RAW R&D). 

- 5DIV has adequate m-pix IMO but somewhat crippled by the AA filter (I know the target, wedding, market probably wants the AA filter)
- fps leaves some to be desired, 8fps seems like it was low hanging fruit. But, I'd prefer 9fps (or a little more m-pix and 8fps) which seems with in reason when compared to the through put of the 5DSR. 
- no tilt screen - I know a lot of the target market doesn't want or doesn't think they want a tilt screen but as a generalist camera it should have one IMO.

So what option do I have for a generalist FF camera? 5DIV is the closest Ill get this generation I guess. Low expectations for the 6DII with m-pix and fps. The 5DSR II will have at least 50m-pix if not more but again have low fps. I guess I'm out of luck If I want a modern FF body for both wildlife and landscape.


----------



## John2016 (Oct 23, 2016)

j-nord said:


> 5DIV is kind of disappointing as a do it all stills camera. I get the priorities/compromises that Canon made (except the useless duel pixel RAW R&D).
> 
> - 5DIV has adequate m-pix IMO but somewhat crippled by the AA filter (I know the target, wedding, market probably wants the AA filter)
> - fps leaves some to be desired, 8fps seems like it was low hanging fruit. But, I'd prefer 9fps (or a little more m-pix and 8fps) which seems with in reason when compared to the through put of the 5DSR.
> ...



Well written! Canon dslrs are used on so many movies (as C and D cameras) and "the artists" here try to excuse this "disaster" as foto camera...


----------



## d (Oct 23, 2016)

j-nord said:


> 5DIV is kind of disappointing as a do it all stills camera. I get the priorities/compromises that Canon made (except the useless duel pixel RAW R&D).
> 
> - 5DIV has adequate m-pix IMO but somewhat crippled by the AA filter (I know the target, wedding, market probably wants the AA filter)
> - fps leaves some to be desired, 8fps seems like it was low hanging fruit. But, I'd prefer 9fps (or a little more m-pix and 8fps) which seems with in reason when compared to the through put of the 5DSR.
> ...



What a load of rubbish! Sounds like you want your "generalist" camera to specialise at everything. 5D4 "crippled" by AA filter? CRIPPLED?!? Listen to yourself!! If you can't pick a suitable general-use Canon body from the current line-up...well, I don't think the problem is at Canon's end.


----------



## d (Oct 23, 2016)

John2016 said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > 5DIV is kind of disappointing as a do it all stills camera. I get the priorities/compromises that Canon made (except the useless duel pixel RAW R&D).
> ...



More rubbish!


----------



## John2016 (Oct 23, 2016)

d said:


> John2016 said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



Explain it please. What is rubbish?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2016)

John2016 said:


> Explain it please. What is rubbish?



Your statements are rubbish. If the 5DIV is a 'disaster', why would anyone choose to use it in a production? But by your own admission, they are. So, either you don't know what you're talking about...or you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 24, 2016)

Wow....is this thread _still_ rolling on (trolling on?)...geeze...I thought this would die off once the 5D4 started rolling and everyone found out how good it was!


----------



## John2016 (Oct 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> John2016 said:
> 
> 
> > Explain it please. What is rubbish?
> ...



Because somebody who wants to use small canon dslr camera as a action cam have not so many options... Strange that people only in this forum don't get it... You probably would be happy with your 1dXMKIII and 720 interlaced modus because you give a dam about filming. In Magic Lantern forum people are screaming about 5dMKIV hack. Why? For Stills?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 24, 2016)

John2016 said:


> Because somebody who wants to use small *canon dslr* camera as a action cam have not so many options...



Phrased that way, sure. Then again, some people are so narrow minded they use 1"-wide scratch pads.


----------



## John2016 (Oct 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> John2016 said:
> 
> 
> > Because somebody who wants to use small *canon dslr* camera as a action cam have not so many options...
> ...



Yes and some people are just *amateurs* not able to answer constructive question.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 24, 2016)

John2016 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > John2016 said:
> ...



Yes and some people are just *incapable* of comprehending the difference between asking a constructive question and whining like a petulant child.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 24, 2016)

d said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > 5DIV is kind of disappointing as a do it all stills camera. I get the priorities/compromises that Canon made (except the useless duel pixel RAW R&D).
> ...



Not an argument. If you had to pick one camera for both wildlife and landscape what would be? Obviously, a 2 camera solution would be a 1Dxii and a 5DSR. One would expect a generalist camera to straddle the middle of these 2 options. I think the 5DIV falls a little short of straddling that middle ground. No AA filter, +2fps and 50%-100% more RAW buffer and we'd have a killer all round camera (even with out the tilt screen). It would be both better at action and better at extracting detail vs the actual 5DIV spec. AND the 2 camera solution would still be better at their specialist areas. These specs really don't seem like a stretch either, that's the painful part. Not wasting time and money on Duel Pixel RAW and 4K video could have made these specs a reality.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 24, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Not wasting time and money on Duel Pixel RAW...


I think they probably took the opportunity from the technology available rather than designing it for that 



j-nord said:


> ...and 4K video could have made these specs a reality.



HERETIC !!! Burn the witch!!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 25, 2016)

The one valid point is adding to ONE FF camera in the line-up an articulating screen the obvious one being the upcoming 6D MKII. 

That still leaves the 5D MKIV, 5DS, 5DSr & the 1DX MKII with fixed screens. 

Ive found the 6D to be a very good "generalist" camera even though others have felt the AF is crippled and its been used for everything from landscape, travel (its two strongest niches), wildlife, air shows & portraits/glamour with very good results. Its not a good action camera but you don't get everything in life!

The 760D I have I actually very rarely use the flippy screen I normal park it like a fixed screen, mind you its rarely used compared to the 6D & 5DS.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 25, 2016)

d said:


> 5D4 "crippled" by AA filter? CRIPPLED?!? Listen to yourself!!



That's evidently become the buzz word du jour to describe complaints of any magnitude about the implementation or lack of feature on a camera.



j-nord said:


> Duel Pixel RAW


----------



## j-nord (Oct 25, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Duel Pixel RAW



You got me


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

j-nord said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



if you can't figure out how to use deconvolution based sharpening to reduce the AA effect when necessary, then you probably don't need a 5D Mark IV.

the AA "loss of sharpness" is so overblown it's pathetic.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 25, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...


Attacking one small part of the point and ignoring the rest is, well...


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 25, 2016)

To be fair, the differences between the 5DSR and the 5DS are so slight that many wondered if it was even worth paying the additional £300 for the 5DSR. The differences are there if you look for them side-by-side but I think it shows how small the difference actually is. 

As for your other points, adding 2fps and adding 100% larger raw buffer would add cost to a camera already deemed by many to be too expensive. Way to go to creating a commercially successful camera, eh!!
So yes, it may well be 'a stretch'


----------



## tron (Oct 25, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> To be fair, the differences between the 5DSR and the 5DS are so slight that many wondered if it was even worth paying the additional £300 for the 5DSR. The differences are there if you look for them side-by-side but I think it shows how small the difference actually is.
> 
> As for your other points, adding 2fps and adding 100% larger raw buffer would add cost to a camera already deemed by many to be too expensive. Way to go to creating a commercially successful camera, eh!!
> So yes, it may well be 'a stretch'


But it would improve its use in birding so I am not so sure that it would be unwelcomed. As an example:How many have bought the cheaper 5Ds vs 5DsR ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2016)

tron said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, the differences between the 5DSR and the 5DS are so slight that many wondered if it was even worth paying the additional £300 for the 5DSR. The differences are there if you look for them side-by-side but I think it shows how small the difference actually is.
> ...



Amazon.com sales rank right now, 5DsR is at #61, 5Ds ($200 cheaper) is at #335.

FWIW, the 5DIV is at *#2* (obviously not comparable as it's new). I guess people don't know it's 'crippled'. :


----------



## j-nord (Oct 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...


5DSR was/is significantly out selling the 5DS as neuro backed up. A lot of people seem interested in maximum detail, others are fine with or prefer an AA filter. AA filters definitely make sense for the portrait/wedding crowd where fabrics have a good chance of producing moire and human subjects often don't want to be photographed in more detail. To be clear I said the AA filter 'somewhat' cripples the sensor as a clear troll  To say I'd prefer without an AA filter would be more honest. It's certainly not a deal breaker.

To the point about more fps and more buffer costing more, I stated that the resources put into Dual Pixel RAW and 4K video (4k video people of course disagree or maybe agree because they have their own set of complaints) would have been be better allocated to those two areas.

I'd be willing to buy a new 5DIV even if it were say $100-200 more if it were truly more 'all round' than it is, for me. As it is, I find it hard to believe the shutter couldn't comfortably be driven at 8 or even 9 fps with out significantly effecting reliability. Buffer = RAM = throw more RAM at it, RAM is cheap and we know there is space in the body. 

These specs are completely within reason. To compare, the FAR cheaper 80D does 7fps and 25 frame RAW buffer (only 21 on the 5DIV). Yes, the 80D has less m-pix but is also nearly 1/3 the price. The 5DS/R is older, cheaper AND does more m-pix per second.


----------



## RGF (Oct 25, 2016)

j-nord said:


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



So? Canon makes it decision about what to put in a camera

They are very successful. One of their goals (besides from making a profit and staying in business) is to differentiate the different models in their product lines. This is basic business 101.

If you are critical of Canon's decisions I would like to see your credentials - have you had responsibility for a consumer-facing technology oriented company. What has your success been.

Are you a Monday morning coach or can you really successful run a business.

It is not easy, there are compromises, ...


----------



## tron (Oct 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...


I don't know either. Just got a 5D4. But to tell the truth I made some moderate to high iso tests with 400DO II and I did not check the sensor yet. I will try to check it today.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 26, 2016)

*Re: EOS 5D Mark IV - the crippled generalist2*



rrcphoto said:


> turtle said:
> 
> 
> > But surely Canon has innovated in core areas of DSLR performance in the past in ways that it just isn't now?
> ...


The 6D had GPS & wi-fi in late 2012 six months after the release of the 5D MKIII, it also had better low light abilities and less banding. 5D MKIII users went on about the crippled AF in the 6D but generally it's been fine for the market it was aimed at landscape & travel. 

The improvements listed above started to show up with the 7D MKII, 80D, 5DS/R and even flicker control on the 750 / 760D. For a camera retailing for Euro 3700 / £ 3600 it should have had better 4K codecs & better DR and whilst the camera is definitely an improvement over the 5D MKIV it's no ground breaker either (such as the 5D MKII was). 

At the current price point it's expensive, if it falls it maybe a better cost to benefit decision but if it remains at this price and the 6D MKIV gets a similar spec. to the 80D in a ff body Canon will see a decline in Europe of 5D sales without question.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 26, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I'd be willing to buy a new 5DIV even if it were say $100-200 more if it were truly more 'all round' than it is, for me. As it is, I find it hard to believe the shutter couldn't comfortably be driven at 8 or even 9 fps with out significantly effecting reliability. Buffer = RAM = throw more RAM at it, RAM is cheap and we know there is space in the body.
> 
> These specs are completely within reason. To compare, the FAR cheaper 80D does 7fps and 25 frame RAW buffer (only 21 on the 5DIV). Yes, the 80D has less m-pix but is also nearly 1/3 the price. The 5DS/R is older, cheaper AND does more m-pix per second.



One limitation on fps rate is mirror movement. The 80D's mirror is far smaller than the 5DmkIV's, as is its shutter.

The appropriate comparison is the 1DXmkII, which can do 14 fps, demonstrating Canon can make both a shutter and a mirror mechanism that work at 8 or 9 fps.

The real point is the 1DXmkII and the 5DS are the top of the line cameras, and the 5DmkIV is a compromise camera at a lower price point. Canon could put more RAM, shutter & mirror mechanism, and maybe electronics to support higher fps, but the camera would cost more - and that might hurt sales.


----------



## fussy III (Oct 26, 2016)

j-nord said:


> 5DIV is kind of disappointing as a do it all stills camera. I get the priorities/compromises that Canon made (except the useless duel pixel RAW R&D).
> 
> - 5DIV has adequate m-pix IMO but somewhat crippled by the AA filter (I know the target, wedding, market probably wants the AA filter)
> - fps leaves some to be desired, 8fps seems like it was low hanging fruit. But, I'd prefer 9fps (or a little more m-pix and 8fps) which seems with in reason when compared to the through put of the 5DSR.
> ...



My issues with the EOS 5D Mark IV are similar, even when lack of articulating screen is left aside. This new camera gives me no incentive whatsoever to replace my outdated 70D and 5DII. Neither do I find good reason to buy any other Canon camera at the moment. This is why:

My 70D will deliver a more detailed image than a crop from 30MP of the 5D IV. The 70D has the same fps, good tracking AF and a buffer that is not truly bad in comparison. If I wanted a detailed crop, the 5Dsr would be an option, but slow fps and foreseeable improvements in dynamic range with the next generation make an investment of some 4k$ economically unfeasable. If simply I need that fullframe capacity for wide angle with autofocus, the image quality of the 5DII that I own is not so much worse than 5DIV. 
If I had an immediate need to step up in any single field of photography employing my Canon lenses, the most obvious choice would be in landscape photography with a purchase of the Sony A7RII for megapixels and DR.

I will have to keep looking for incentives from Canon. I, too, want that modern body for wildlife AND landscape (AND tiltscreen reportage). Anyone buying into the EF-system at the moment ought to consider a combo 80D and A7RII to be the most generalistic approach. Kind of sad that is for Canon.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 26, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Anyone buying into *ANY* system at the moment ought to consider a combo... 80D and A7RII to be the most generalistic approach. Kind of sad that is for Canon all manufacturers.



I think that is more accurate


----------



## j-nord (Oct 26, 2016)

RGF said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Great defense of Canon. You missed the point. I was stating why I, personally, am disappointed in the decisions Canon made for the 5DIV. I discussed why the changes I would have like to seen would have been with in reason but I have no illusions about Canon doing what is best for Canon and the general market. 

I want one FF body that can cover the landscape to wildlife range adequately while obviously not being the best at either. 5DIV falls a little short given available technology but there is no better alternative that I know of.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 26, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone buying into *ANY* system at the moment ought to consider a combo... 80D and A7RII to be the most generalistic approach. Kind of sad that is for Canon all manufacturers.
> ...


I agree there is no generalist camera from any manufacturer that covers AF, m-pix, and fps/buffer to this level. I think manufactures are motivated to leave as much improvement on the table as they can since DSLR tech is really slowing down and reaching a peak. They are already at a point where its difficult to improve a camera just enough to convince users to upgrade while not screwing themselves over for the next generation or the one after. You can guarantee that Nikon and Canon are looking at least 2 generations ahead.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 26, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be willing to buy a new 5DIV even if it were say $100-200 more if it were truly more 'all round' than it is, for me. As it is, I find it hard to believe the shutter couldn't comfortably be driven at 8 or even 9 fps with out significantly effecting reliability. Buffer = RAM = throw more RAM at it, RAM is cheap and we know there is space in the body.
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 26, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I agree there is no generalist camera from any manufacturer that covers AF, m-pix, and fps/buffer to this level.



That is a reasonable viewpoint, yet some people are reacting as though Canon is being left behind as a manufacturer _of generalist cameras_. 



j-nord said:


> I think manufactures are motivated to leave as much improvement on the table as they can since DSLR tech is really slowing down and reaching a peak.


Or creating a camera with everything people want will either 
(a) be too expensive, or 
(b) be so bad at the things the manufacturer is not specialising in as to ruin their reputation




j-nord said:


> You can guarantee that Nikon and Canon are looking at least 2 generations ahead.


Exactly. So why some are getting so prissy and throwing their toys out of the pram I don't know. 

Canon - Sensor quality meets (even exceeds) the needs of most people out there. Video technology so-so, Mirrorless technology behind the curve. Good solid reputation. Sound technology but not setting the world on fire. 
Olympus/Panasonic - OK sort of tracking AF. Don't have the range of lenses. Did I mention battery life?
Sony - Excellent sensor tech. Good video quality but prone to overheating. AF better than Oly/Pana but not as good as Canon. Ergonomics poor. Probably too small to hold all day with a premium lens attached. Lenses non-existent. Weather sealing poor. After-sales service appalling.And did I mention battery life again?


----------



## j-nord (Oct 26, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > I agree there is no generalist camera from any manufacturer that covers AF, m-pix, and fps/buffer to this level.
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Oct 26, 2016)

Those complaining about the 5D IVs frame rate forget something very important. The 5D IV is used extensively by wedding and other event photographers who need the quietest shutter possible. As the 1DX II demonstrates, frame rate and silence are mutually exclusive. Increase frame rate and you increase noise. It's perfectly logical that Canon would keep the frame rate down in the 5D series in order to allow for a quieter shutter. (Yes, I'm sure product differentiation has something to do with it as well, but there would be a lot more whining on this thread and others if the 5D IV came anywhere close to the 1D X II in shutter noise.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I think manufactures are motivated to leave as much improvement on the table as they can since DSLR tech is really slowing down and reaching a peak. They are already at a point where its difficult to improve a camera just enough to convince users to upgrade while not screwing themselves over for the next generation or the one after. You can guarantee that Nikon and Canon are looking at least 2 generations ahead.



I'm not sure that in-line one-step upgrades are a major part of Canon's core strategy. Meaning that, for example, I don't think Canon aims for enticing 5DIII owners to get a 5DIV. Rather, the target market for the 5DIV are 6D, 5DII and xxD owners.


----------



## fussy III (Oct 26, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> fussy III said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone buying into *ANY* system at the moment ought to consider a combo... 80D and A7RII to be the most generalistic approach. Kind of sad that is for Canon all manufacturers.
> ...



I'd argue that Nikon at least gives it an effort with the D810 and its higher frame rate in crop mode (the 5Dsr does not even try). If Nikon keeps up that philosophy, then the next generation will have fps that will suit most every wildlife photographer's needs.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm not sure that in-line one-step upgrades are a major part of Canon's core strategy. Meaning that, for example, I don't think Canon aims for enticing 5DIII owners to get a 5DIV. Rather, the target market for the 5DIV are 6D, 5DII and xxD owners.



I agree completely. Perhaps this is generational thinking - but my guess is that older photographers who started with film cameras keep their digital camera longer and rarely upgrade to the next generation, while younger folks of the smartphone generation think that each new generation MUST be a big improvement. Despite the evidence that the upgrades for all camera makers have been minor for the past 13 years. There have been no revolutionary changes in that time and most of the advances have been in things like AF speed rather than IQ. 

For those that think the 5D IV can't do anything you want, I feel sorry for you. If you need the best spec numbers, maybe you ought to rethink why you own a camera.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 26, 2016)

dak723 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure that in-line one-step upgrades are a major part of Canon's core strategy. Meaning that, for example, I don't think Canon aims for enticing 5DIII owners to get a 5DIV. Rather, the target market for the 5DIV are 6D, 5DII and xxD owners.
> ...


Clearly you don't shoot action, particularly where the action is out of your control. Frame rate matters to catch the right moment. Can you catch that right moment with a low frame rate camera? Yes of course but you need to burn more frames, have more re-dos, and a bit of luck. Wildlife and sports don't typically allow you repeat attempts to get peak action shots.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 26, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Those complaining about the 5D IVs frame rate forget something very important. The 5D IV is used extensively by wedding and other event photographers who need the quietest shutter possible. As the 1DX II demonstrates, frame rate and silence are mutually exclusive. Increase frame rate and you increase noise. It's perfectly logical that Canon would keep the frame rate down in the 5D series in order to allow for a quieter shutter. (Yes, I'm sure product differentiation has something to do with it as well, but there would be a lot more whining on this thread and others if the 5D IV came anywhere close to the 1D X II in shutter noise.)


This is a good and likely reason why Canon would intentionally limit the frame rate. Unfortunately, for this generation, I think the only FF camera with a faster fps than the 5DIV will be the 1DxII.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2016)

j-nord said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > *For those that think the 5D IV can't do anything you want, I feel sorry for you. If you need the best spec numbers, maybe you ought to rethink why you own a camera.*
> ...



Yeah, how _did_ I and other photographers _ever_ manage to shoot sports or other fast-moving subjects, and catch peak action – like a Hail Mary TD reception – when the frame rate was determined by how fast our thumbs could push a lever? Like you say, it must've been burning lots of frames (on our 36-exposure memory cards), asking the refs and teams for do-overs, and luck.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...


Antagonistic 1DX birder :


----------



## tron (Oct 26, 2016)

tron said:


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


And... it's crippled  
It's the first time that something like that happens to me. I am frustrated. I was going to take it to a small vacation that involved bird shooting. True the issue wouldn't exhibit in photos but to be on the safe side I packed it to ensure it remains in new condition.

I have also included a screenshot in the specific thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31076.msg632556#msg632556

I hope the seller will tell me to ship it back...


----------



## tpatana (Nov 7, 2016)

Not sure if this is the best video example, lot of caveats here before you should watch this video.

This was shot at local gym, so poor-ish light. Settings: 1/200, F2.2, ISO1600.

Shooting 1080p60. Slowed down by 4x in PP, so playback is 15 fps. Also cropped roughly 50% on both axis, so 25% of the resolution really, and then resampled back to 1080p.

Plus the person holding camera (I was shooting stills) wasn't doing super good on holding the camera stable, so the camera swings around quite plenty. I didn't do any PP video stabilization.

And I didn't bring my Zoom so I just dropped audio completely and replaced with generic youtube soundtrack.

Enough excuses why this doesn't look that good? I hope so, here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSnxJBRYoj4


----------

