# "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?



## beckstoy (Nov 29, 2013)

I know that if they actually rolled out the 5DM4, I'd be very interested in it. However, if you own a 5DM3 and have realized how amazing this camera truly is, what would it take to make you grab one immediately?

I'm so happy with my 5DM3 that I truly can't wrap my brain around what they'd have to put into a mark IV to make a guy like me jump in.

Thoughts?


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 29, 2013)

The ONLY thing I'd really want is a faster SD card slot.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 29, 2013)

I think the 5D Mark III is all I'd ever want (and certainly all I need) at the moment. The only benefit of a 5DIV would have been lowered price of the III. Having said that, I just purchased it for a very good deal and I am absolutely ecstatic in anticipation.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 29, 2013)

beckstoy said:


> I know that if they actually rolled out the 5DM4, I'd be very interested in it. However, if you own a 5DM3 and have realized how amazing this camera truly is, what would it take to make you grab one immediately?
> 
> I'm so happy with my 5DM3 that I truly can't wrap my brain around what they'd have to put into a mark IV to make a guy like me jump in.
> 
> Thoughts?


1. One full stop better in high iso
2. 8-10 fps regardless battery levels
3. More dual cross type AF points
I know I'm dreaming here...

Ok...getting back to real world now. We might see extra features like wifi, gps, 1/3 stop better, 7fps and the price will be @ mid $4000.

I will follow RLPhoto footsteps this time. ..bvi deals )


----------



## Gino (Nov 29, 2013)

* A significant improvement in Dynamic Range (at least 15 EV) sensor performance. *This is the most important enhancement I'm looking for.*

* The enhancements that the 1DX autofocus and metering system offers (Intelligent Tracking and Recognition with face detection). Hopefully with wider focus points coverage.

* A much improved buffering capacity for shooting RAW at 6-7 fps in full resolution

* In camera crop mode with 8 fps 

* Dual compact flash memory card slots

Also, I like using a pro body with larger lenses, because they balance so much better, and I'm not a fan of battery grips. What I think would be very cool is if Canon offered the 5DM4 in two body styles: 
1. The current body style (optional battery grip would still be available)
2. Pro body style (offered at a $300-400 premium)...there would still be a big enough gap in performance from the 1DX MkII, so the 5DMK4 would not cannibalize 1DX sales.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 30, 2013)

beckstoy said:


> I know that if they actually rolled out the 5DM4, I'd be very interested in it. However, if you own a 5DM3 and have realized how amazing this camera truly is, what would it take to make you grab one immediately?
> 
> I'm so happy with my 5DM3 that I truly can't wrap my brain around what they'd have to put into a mark IV to make a guy like me jump in.
> 
> Thoughts?



MUCH improved low ISO DR

working autoiso (utterly trivial to implement for zero cost)

native 2k raw video (and for sure nothing that would prevent ML from unlocking it perfectly)

native 4k video

(continue the no line-skipped video)

add basic video usability features built-in, zebras, magic focus box, focus peaking, etc. it's ridiculous they leave such basics out

vastly improved metering

vastly improved macro flash metering

7-8fps

39.3MP

built-in GPS

edit: oh yeah and interchangeable focusing screens

(keep it as close to the small size it now as possible, can get a little bigger if dual digics or slightly larger battery require it, but hopefully not a 1 series brick)


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Nov 30, 2013)

Better iso specs, 40mp chip, dual I/o s.lots, dual battery, faster processor(s), interchangeable screens, mag body that's weather sealed at 3k$


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 30, 2013)

The 5D MK III design is pretty old. It sat around for a year due to the Japan earthquake, so the technology is dated. I like mine, its a great camera, but I'd be very interested to see a updated model with dual pixel sensor, dual CF slots (or CFAST).
It could use built-in wifi, and a touch screen (due to my lost feeling in my fingers), I doubt if there would be any big boost at high ISO, but even a half stop is huge.


----------



## Harry Muff (Nov 30, 2013)

Any worthwhile improvement to the 5D would put it in the league of the 1DX and therefore would be a bad idea for Canon.


----------



## rpt (Nov 30, 2013)

5D4 - No!
5D5 - No!
5D6 - We'll see...


----------



## AtSea (Nov 30, 2013)

JPAZ said:


> The ONLY thing I'd really want is a faster SD card slot.



This and the issue with the black dot auto-focus at night. The 1DX got a firmware update for it.. (although it was mostly a bandaid solution). Otherwise, it's just plain fantastic.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 30, 2013)

i wouldn't be on the bleeding edge of a mk4 this time i'd wait a while
with the mk3 2 out of 4 copies had severe problems that needed either a replacement or repair

things that still bug me about the mk3 that they really should fix with a firmware update at least

1) no proper auto iso and EC in MF mode i.e. have iso set to auto and ec set to +1 it will vary the iso
as i always find the camera meters underexposure from where i want to be.

2) AF points... not easy to see a lot of the time, this is very annoying still

3) be able to program that stupid rate button to a useful function (i would use it to enable/disable AEB, this would be very handy)

other than that i'm still very happy with the mk3 cameras


----------



## deleteme (Nov 30, 2013)

I think the only bells and whistles that could be added would not be anything that would make me chuck my MkIII.
Better Hi ISO? I doubt I would see the improvement in the real world. Real low light shooting is such a crappy affair that AF and other issues rear their heads before any client looks at noise.

Better DR? They may improve it but again, will I see it in my deliverables? Doubt my client will.

Higher frame rate? Only in silent mode but then it wouldn't be silent anymore.
WiFi? The implementation is poor in all the cameras and when it busts I will have to send it in as opposed to switching out an Eye-Fi card.
Better video? Don't shoot video.
Better AF? Nice but not switch bait.

IOW I love my camera. If a new one comes out I will buy the cheap MkIIIs as they come up used.


----------



## pedro (Nov 30, 2013)

My 5D3 purchased in August 2012 is the best type of digital photography gear I ever had (coming from a sony cybershot DSC-P30, F828 and a Canon 30D). To MF stars via 10x LV in a dark night is amazing, no moonlight required...I will go on with it for at least the next 5 years. My simple lens line up in my signature is all I ever need. So with a rather small photography budget I keep saving up for a 5DV. The only thing I'd expect by then: 1/2 or a full stop better high ISO beyond 25k and 24 MP max. As it never ceases to amaze you'll find me sneaking around about once a night per week...


----------



## Eldar (Nov 30, 2013)

Most have been said, but in general I am fairly happy with the 5DIII. I have had absolutely no issues with it. In general I am easily tempted, so I suppose that will happen this time to. But to create an interest beyond just having the latest and greatest, I would want:

Significantly improved dynamic range at any ISO

Significant improvement in resolution, beyond what the 800/800E have. 

Real auto ISO in manual mode, including an easily available exposure compensation function (like the one we currently have in other modes)

More intelligence in the AF system, ref. 1DX type performance, including visible AF confirmation points in low light.

Faster memory cards. I can live with having two types, but would prefer 2xCF.

Higher fps would be nice, but I will use the 1DX when speed is required anyway. To process 10fps series of 45MP images ... not fun!

Improved AF in live view would be nice, but not at the expense of resolution or DR.

Video: No requirements. If I could save $100 on a non-video body, I would probably go for that.


----------



## DanThePhotoMan (Nov 30, 2013)

Unless they improved high ISO performance by two or three stops, I don't think there's anything else that could entice me. If they could make a camera that has the native performance of what ML can do, I would be highly impressed, but I really don't see them putting out anything that has HDR Video or RAW out. Even if they did do that though, what would be the purpose of buying it if you could just get a cheaper 5d3 and have the same features through ML? It'll be fun to see what they do though. Technology is going some crazy places.


----------



## wayno (Nov 30, 2013)

I have a 5D3 too and I think it's a pretty cool camera. 

(That said, my Fujifilm X100S is better at high ISO noise, IMO but it's not the all-round flexible beast that the 5D3 is.)

But... I am still rather amused at the accolades being lauded on it by what seems to be CR all-and-sundry when only a couple of years ago, it was being s***-canned by every second person on here. I really like my 5D3 - I like it a lot more than I thought I would, coming from the 5D2. The IQ is no better (again, IMO) but it's functionality/playability is excellent in comparison to the older camera. However, I still feel naggingly that it could have been just that bit better. I think it's high-ISO performance is a bit overhyped, to be honest.

Do I like it? Yes... a lot. Is it a dealbreaker of a camera? Hmmm... not so sure. I'm looking forward to what the 5D4 has to offer and I have no doubt it will be ludicrously overpriced for awhile...


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 30, 2013)

All this 5D4 talk has got me thinking about what it would take to make me plunk down more cash and it's not really the sensor. 

1. Built in RT transmitter. 
2. Linked AF metering to point
3. a blinky AF point. 
4. Improved sync speed to 1/250th or higher if possible.
5. Wifi - GPS 
6. 7 fps
7. Dual CF
8. Lastly is a modest bump in the sensor IQ.


----------



## drjlo (Nov 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> All this 5D4 talk has got me thinking about what it would take to make me plunk down more cash and it's not really the sensor.
> 
> 1. Built in RT transmitter.
> 2. Linked AF metering to point
> ...



That's a good wish list. But for my uses, most of those are not make-or-break issues to decide if I upgrade my Mk 3 to 4. I really only wish for 2 things:

1. AF. While much improved, Mk 3 still has some intermittent AF weirdness with certain lenses, mostly in AI servo but sometimes even one-shot AF can be wildly off for no apparent reason. I wish for more/better AF processor and higher voltage battery (or more efficient use of battery for AF system?) for Mk 4, and at least -3 EV AF sensitivity in low light, in addition to Canon finally deciding to implement AF assist light in-body like Nikon.

2. Little more IQ. Give us non-videographers the option to order Mk 4 without loss-pass filter, but not at a higher price like silly Nikon does with D800E. As far as DR, I'm not asking for much but just give us a little more freedom to bring up the shadow a little cleaner and bring down the highlights a teeny better. 

Sold!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 30, 2013)

1. 5D MK III will NOT be out in 2014 
2. Even if it was out in 2014, I will not buy it ... coz the 5D MKIII is an AWESOME camera and will easily kick a55 all the hyped up cameras like Nikon D800, Df or the a7 or a7r, even 2 years from now.


----------



## Vossie (Nov 30, 2013)

Funny that not too many people speak about Improved DR, while the fierce D800 vs 5D3 discussions and the numerous DxO mark discussions always claim Canon has much worse DR compared to competition. I may not be top bad after all 

-An intergrated RT transmitter would be great
-Also a button to instantly switch from zone AF to center point (for as long as you hold the button) would be nice (it might be that that function is already there and that I just haven't figured out how to program it  )


----------



## M.ST (Nov 30, 2013)

deleted


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 30, 2013)

Vossie said:


> Funny that not too many people speak about Improved DR,


Now you have it ... see the above post from M.S.T ;D


----------



## Moulyneau (Nov 30, 2013)

I am totally satisfied with the 5D3 and would not seek any upgrade before some time (and I don't see why it should be upgraded so early). Besides, the 7D2 is coming ... and is likely to dig a hole in my 2014 Canon budget


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 1. Built in RT transmitter.
> 2. Linked AF metering to point
> 3. a blinky AF point.
> 4. Improved sync speed to 1/250th or higher if possible.
> ...



9. RGB metering

Excellent list - however it makes you wonder about the existing 1dx as they'll want to keep on selling it and your list includes some distinguishing items. And if they update the "sports" 1dx to the 1dx2 I'm wondering what's there to add other than a complete tech refresh.


----------



## 100 (Nov 30, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I used the 5D Mark III only one year and cannot recommend the camera.
> 
> If the 5D Mark IV hit the market in late 2014 with two CFast card slots, better DR, better IQ, dual pixel technology not only for AF and has a bigger buffer (and no stupid rate button) for faster framerate for JPG/RAW then I buy a second one.



If you have 2 x 1D X, 2 x 1Ds Mark III and a Hasselblad H5D-60, why did you use/need a 5D Mark III for a whole year? The silent shutter mode is just about the only thing the 1D bodies lack and that's really good on de 5D.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 30, 2013)

Moulyneau said:


> I am totally satisfied with the 5D3 and would not seek any upgrade before some time (and I don't see why it should be upgraded so early). Besides, the 7D2 is coming ... and is likely to dig a hole in my 2014 Canon budget


+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Or people like me that care about DR and IQ just haven't bought a 5D3 because it doesn't add any value over the 5D2 ...



People like you...who are in the minority. :


----------



## Danielle (Nov 30, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> 1. 5D MK III will NOT be out in 2014



+1000, it will not be out next year! Not a chance in hell. - just being serious here.

Oh and I side with neuro above. In my opinion, and probably many others, the 5d3 is a light year ahead of the 5d2 and I don't mean the AF system. It's severely better at everything.


----------



## Dick (Nov 30, 2013)

5D4 would have to offer something great to get me to jump in. I guess the main issues with 5D3 (for me) are the poor DR and the unreliable focusing. Slight enhancements would not cut it. They would really need to take leaps.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 30, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Vossie said:
> 
> 
> > Funny that not too many people speak about Improved DR,
> ...


It was top of my list.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2013)

Dick said:


> I guess the main issues with 5D3 (for me) are the poor DR and the *unreliable focusing*.



WTF?


----------



## fotorex (Nov 30, 2013)

Yes,

I would jump in and replace my 5DM2 with a 5DM3. 

Frank


----------



## Eldar (Nov 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the main issues with 5D3 (for me) are the poor DR and the *unreliable focusing*.
> ...


I´d like to see DR improve, but to call it poor is to stretch it. If you take 1DX out of the competition, which body beats the AF performance of the 5DII? It´s either a rubbish statement or a body worthy of a service ...


----------



## Dick (Nov 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the main issues with 5D3 (for me) are the poor DR and the *unreliable focusing*.
> ...



Indeed. The "take 3 photos to get one in focus" is really annoying, but it also deals with the lenses used. I think that the body confirms focus with a beep way too easily. There also seem to be great manufacturing tolerances. On my 5D3, the points on the right don't focus as nicely as the points on the left.



Eldar said:


> It´s either a rubbish statement or a body worthy of a service ...



Take your pic. The body has been sent in under warranty and they said that it is indeed that way and can't be fixed without messing up other things.

--> Adding better quality control to the list of needed improvements!


----------



## Eldar (Nov 30, 2013)

Dick said:


> Take your pic. The body has been sent in under warranty and they said that it is indeed that way and can't be fixed without messing up other things.
> 
> --> Adding better quality control to the list of needed improvements!


Sounds like you need a new service contact. My experience with the 5DIII AF, provided you use it properly, is very positive and way beyond what I have seen from anything, but the 1DX.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 30, 2013)

Dick said:


> I guess the main issues with 5D3 (for me) are the poor DR and the unreliable focusing.



How much dynamic range do you need and at what ISO do you need it? 

DR drops off as ISO is increased and Canon's approach has been to offer good high-ISO bodies. If you shoot primarily in a studio environment (where you can control the light and always shoot in low ISO) then it makes sense to use a camera that has better DR, but in general photography and real-world scenarios you often have to shoot in less than ideal light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2013)

Dick said:


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



"Can't be fixed without messing up other things?" Smells like BS. Your body is clearly defective, since a 1/3 hit rate is clearly not normal, nor is one side being worse (although obviously the center points are better, at least with faster lenses).

OTOH, you mention lenses. If they're Sigma, that could be the issue. If they're Canon, they may need service too - both lens and body must function properly for AF to work. My camera has the same AF sensor as yours, and might miss 1-2% of shots, not counting user error. 



StudentOfLight said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the main issues with 5D3 (for me) are the poor DR and the unreliable focusing.
> ...



+1

The 'tipping point' (where Canon DR starts to exceed Nikon/Sony DR is usually ISO 800-1600. Personally, I shoot higher more than lower.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 30, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Or people like me that care about DR and IQ just haven't bought a 5D3 because it doesn't add any value over the 5D2 ...



Umm...I guess 61points AF system doesn't mean anything :


----------



## Niki (Nov 30, 2013)

5d4 
+iso
wifi
video
4k raw


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 30, 2013)

Dick said:


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



Operator error maybe :

I have been shooting with 85L II @ f1.2 to f1.6 outdoor with outer points on 5D III, no problem so far.


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 30, 2013)

They would have to hit it out of the park or at least make it interesting.

Built-in WiFi/GPS
Built-in RF Flash controller
Higher MP and better image quality
Finally get rid of the Compact Flash card and replace it with something faster. (CFast?)
Fast SD card reader
USB 3
Faster processor and the dual pixel auto focus for live view.
built in focus peeking
4 k video

First I do not own a 5D Mark III. If I was a working photographer I would have bought one. There are really only three things that has keep me from buying one.
[list type=decimal]
[*]Price
[*]Compact Flash Card /slow SD card writer
[*]Image Quality
[/list]

I have always felt the Mark III was $500-$1000 more expensive than it should be for its still image quality. I am also not a fan of buying technology that is out of date and it is about time they retire Compact Flash Cards for one of the new standards. It will be painful because none of the new standards are compatible. I do not have a collection of devices that can use Compact Flash so spending all that money for cards that will only be used for one camera was not really that appealing for me.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the main issues with 5D3 (for me) are the poor DR and the *unreliable focusing*.
> ...



Agreed. WTF. Your doing it wrong.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 30, 2013)

Amazing camera. I'll be pleasantly surprised if the rumored late 2014 announcement and early 2015 release is true. That would be earlier than expected, but would make sense if they are planning on rolling out new sensor tech. Then I'd expecte the rumored two FF DSLRs to be replacements for the 5DIII and 1DX and, of course, the rumored 7DII all with the new sensor tech.

We will see. I am certainly in no rush. The 5DIII is a great camera. Things that would make me tempted for a 5DIV:

bump to ~28 MP
Better High ISO performance (color, DR and noise)
Better DR--say 14-15 stops
Better color rendition
up to 8 fps

But I can see myself shooting the 5DIII for years to come. If the 5DIV is a modest upgrade, I'll likely sit on the sidelines.


----------



## mlc_dave (Nov 30, 2013)

I came from the Nikon side with a D300. I wanted to go FF but I didn't want/need 30+ MP so I jumped on a 2012 Holiday bundle on the 5DMIII + 24-105. I love this thing.

Now while I enjoy my 5DMIII and it's increased resolution there are things that were worse than my old D300. That said I can agree that with a 5DMIV I'd love to see:


1. DR - I could bump my shadows up +1-1.5 in LR and still retain detail. With my 5DMIII I generally try not to bump up shadows because it immediately causes banding/visual garbage which I have to later filter out. 

2. As others have mentioned I miss illuminated AF points in dark settings. Please make this happen Canon.

3. Able to program DOF button to not just AI Servo but AI + Zone AF. This would save steps switching from stationary targets to things like precessions at weddings. (Maybe you can do this, I haven't found out how?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2013)

dilbert said:


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



Because Nikon/Sony sensors have had better low ISO DR than Canon sensors for several years/camera generations now, and Canon continued to outsell Nikon during those years...and is still doing so today. Clearly, the majority of consumers are making buying decisions where low ISO DR isn't the priority.


----------



## bitm2007 (Nov 30, 2013)

> what would it take to make you grab one immediately?



A competitively priced full frame DSLR that's truly aimed at landscape photographers would be great

35+ MP
Electronic Viewfinder
ISO 50-25600
Better DR than 5D3

To keep costs down

No Video
Basic AF/MF
3 FPS


----------



## Dick (Nov 30, 2013)

StudentOfLight said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the main issues with 5D3 (for me) are the poor DR and the unreliable focusing.
> ...



I don't really need better high ISO performance. Lifting shadows could work better for low ISO shots. The D800 works nicely with bright backgrounds, whereas with 5D3 you choose to get the background or the subjects in front of it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 30, 2013)

Dick said:


> I don't really need better high ISO performance. Lifting shadows could work better for low ISO shots. The D800 works nicely with bright backgrounds, whereas with 5D3 you choose to get the background or the subjects in front of it.



... or use Magic Lantern's dual_iso module to lift the dr of iso 100 to 14ev+ which solves exactly the situation you described.


----------



## Gino (Nov 30, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really need better high ISO performance. Lifting shadows could work better for low ISO shots. The D800 works nicely with bright backgrounds, whereas with 5D3 you choose to get the background or the subjects in front of it.
> ...



Don't you risk damaging the sensor using Magic Lanter's dual_iso module? Here is the warning that is stated:

*Warning*
This code changes low-level sensor parameters. In the technical doc you can see how this method messes with the feedback loop for optical black, for example. Therefore, it's safe to assume it can fry the sensor or do other nasty things. My 5D3 is still alive after roughly one week of playing with this, but that's not a guarantee.

We don't pay for repairs. Use it at your own risk. 

With the large R&D budget that Canon has, I see no reason why Canon can't just produce a better sensor that produces 14+ EV of DR, so we get the best of both worlds; high ISO performance for lowlight conditions, like wedding photography, and higher DR at lower ISO for landscape photography.

And yes, I'm willing to pay a premium if Canon can deliver a 5D MkIV with a sensor that can deliver strong high ISO performance with a much improved DR at lower ISO...*cost is only an issue in the absence of value!*


----------



## pdirestajr (Nov 30, 2013)

I think owners of the 5DIII that would consider "upgrading" to an imaginary 5D4 are probably people with really deep pockets and lots of disposable income- so more power to you! As a professional artist I try to keep gear expenses to necessity. I can't see how dropping another 3k+ (If I owned a 5D3) would be a wise move.

And since Canon has released 3 relatively new FF bodies in recent years (1DX, 5D3 and 6D), I really can't see how it would make much sense for them to release any new bodies with incremental upgrades.

Who would they be targeting with this new camera? I can only see a need for a high mega pixel camera in Canon's lineup.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2013)

dilbert said:


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



In fact, you either have very poor metacognition or you just like to insult people (or perhaps both).

My statement has quite a bit to do with yours, considering your entire statement and not just the first clause. I'd say a large majority of dSLR users care about IQ. I'd also say that a majority of dSLR users care about DR (at least, a majority of those who know what DR is...but frankly, that's probably a minority of dSLR users). 

But...you state that since the 5DIII does not improve on the (low ISO) IQ or (low ISO) DR of the 5DII (which are already very good, just not the best available), it adds no value. Since the 5DIII improves upon the 5DII in nearly every other way (AF, fps, build, card slots, etc.), that indicates that the *only* aspect of camera performance you care about is low ISO IQ/DR, and *that* puts you squarely in the minority.


----------



## Gino (Nov 30, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> *I think owners of the 5DIII that would consider "upgrading" to an imaginary 5D4 are probably people with really deep pockets and lots of disposable income- so more power to you!* As a professional artist I try to keep gear expenses to necessity. I can't see how dropping another 3k+ (If I owned a 5D3) would be a wise move.
> 
> And since Canon has released 3 relatively new FF bodies in recent years (1DX, 5D3 and 6D), I really can't see how it would make much sense for them to release any new bodies with incremental upgrades.
> 
> Who would they be targeting with this new camera? I can only see a need for a high mega pixel camera in Canon's lineup.



Wouldn't you agree, people with deep pockets, and a lot of disposable income, are usually a very good demographic to market to???...I'm just saying! Besides, if photographers, like yourself, are happy with their current gear, you're not going to upgrade regardless of the specs of a 5D MkIV anyway. 

Canon needs to sell camera bodies every year, so they're probably going to market to those who want the "latest and greatest" technology, and are willing to pay for it. I'm one of those consumers.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 30, 2013)

Gino said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Dick said:
> ...



Yeah, Alex (the main ml dev) is very conservative  which is a good thing ... 

... but he is personally on 5d3, is currently on vacation and has taken thousands of dual_iso shots w/o any problem. A large crowd of people are using it w/o problems for months, that includes me on 6D and 60D also with thousands of dual_iso shots. I'd wager to say this warning is outdated, it's from nearly half a year ago.

Not that I'm trying to forcibly convince anyone, but I wouldn't want to live w/o it anymore, its so immensely valuable for noon or sunrise/sunset shots with movement in the scene or pulling down highlights with clean shadows. The main reason Alex doesn't mark this module as mainstream stable would be that he's still fine-tuning cr2hdr, the postprocessing software that converts the dual_iso raw file to a "standard" raw with 14ev+ dr.


----------



## MLfan3 (Nov 30, 2013)

hope the 5D4 gets 4 k video and native raw video mode , if it gets that , I will get it.


----------



## MLfan3 (Nov 30, 2013)

one more thing, I would also like to get a mini 1DC, a 6D sized body with 1DC like sensor + 4k video.
something like Canon version of the Df but with quality video.


----------



## that1guyy (Nov 30, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> hope the 5D4 gets 4 k video and native raw video mode , if it gets that , I will get it.



Canon already said they don't believe RAW video should be on lower end cameras (relative to their Cinema range) so no Canon endorsed RAW video for you, especially not 4K.


----------



## RVB (Nov 30, 2013)

DR needs to improve and they need to get rid of banding and pattern noise,the D800 sensor is far better than any of Canon's sensor's,Canon really need to catch up with or surpass the D800 sensor.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Here's the tough to accept fact Dilbert. Canon doesn't really care to have you as a customer. 

Not being mean. Just explaining the way things work. 

It's all about conversion costs. Would Canon like for you to buy a 5DIII. Well, in an ideal world yes. But they have to look at what it will take to do that. You take way too long to make a decision, you don't spend very much and after the sale you are likely to be a high maintenance customer.

So, it's basic business sense that it's better to concentrate on customers who want to make a purchase, are going to make that purchase in the near future, are likely to make additional after-sales purchases and are likely to be content with their purchase decisions. 

You want to get the most for your money. So does Canon. They look at you (actually the profile of hundreds of customers like you) and compare what it will cost them to convert you to a buyer. They compare the cost to convert you to a buyer to the cost of other buyers, including existing customers, and focus on doing what it takes to attract interested customers rather than theoretical customers.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 1, 2013)

mlc_dave said:


> 1. DR - I could bump my shadows up +1-1.5 in LR and still retain detail. With my 5DMIII I generally try not to bump up shadows because it immediately causes banding/visual garbage which I have to later filter out.



I routinely bump crop files by this much without difficulty. To say nothing of what I can do with a 5D3 file.

Nikon fans typically "test" the two by turning all NR off on the Canon side (but not always on the Nikon side). You do realize that this is not how you actually process a RAW file with pushed shadows, right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


> No, it puts me in a group that is "probably a minority" (your definition) unless you have numbers to show otherwise? Furthermore, there is nothing to say that this group of people are all buying Nikon/Sony. They might have, but they may not. What I argue is that those that do care about IQ/DR haven't bought a 5D3 because it offers them no benefit over the 5D2.



Sure, espouse what ever fallacy you like. I'm sure Canon has such numbers, and for years they've apparently chosen to do nothing to substantially improve low ISO DR. The sales numbers clearly show people buying Canon dSLRs more than any other brand, despite a lack of substantial improvement in low ISO DR. 

You're still stating two sophisms: first, that *low ISO* DR defines IQ - maybe it does for you, but it doesn't for everyone (there's that minority thing, again). Canon has _more_ DR at high ISO, a fact you choose to ignore. Second, you are arguing that 'people who care about IQ/DR' care about that _only_, to the exclusion of all other aspects of camera performance. A specious argument, at best. 

I didn't think even you could be that dilbert-y, but I admit I was wrong about that.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > It's all about conversion costs.
> ...



You misunderstand. I'm not talking about converting from one camera system to another. I'm talking about converting a potential customer into a paying customer. All companies have to do a cost-benefit analysis to determine if a category of potential customers is worth the cost of converting them into paying customers. 

The point is that it isn't cost-effective for Canon to try to convert you. You're just not worth it to them.



dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Would Canon like for you to buy a 5DIII. Well, in an ideal world yes. But they have to look at what it will take to do that. You take way too long to make a decision, you don't spend very much and after the sale you are likely to be a high maintenance customer.
> ...



Not really. You've been posting on this site for years. More than 2,000 posts. It's pretty easy to sketch your profile.



dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > So, it's basic business sense that it's better to concentrate on customers who want to make a purchase, are going to make that purchase in the near future, are likely to make additional after-sales purchases and are likely to be content with their purchase decisions.
> ...



Just more proof of my previous point. To you they are "fan-bois." Canon calls them "loyal customers." What Canon knows is that I will open my wallet for their products. So, what I want in new products is going to carry more weight than trolls who seldom if ever actually purchase Canon products.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 1, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Any worthwhile improvement to the 5D would put it in the league of the 1DX and therefore would be a bad idea for Canon.



riiight so they can just keep selling the 5D3 forever while everyone else moves on just to protect the old 1DX. great way to go out of business. that would be too conservative and internal segment protecting even for them.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 1, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Vossie said:
> ...



mine too, funny how it was on the top of half the posts that guy posted


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


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



or maybe it's not so simple as that?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 1, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really need better high ISO performance. Lifting shadows could work better for low ISO shots. The D800 works nicely with bright backgrounds, whereas with 5D3 you choose to get the background or the subjects in front of it.
> ...



it also has various problematic issues along with loss of resolution so it's not the greatest solution


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 1, 2013)

that1guyy said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > hope the 5D4 gets 4 k video and native raw video mode , if it gets that , I will get it.
> ...



maybe they can still wake up though, if they read the forums, especially the video ones

but they are probably too conservative and would rather play it the old way than keep charging forward with their past and future potential golden goose


----------



## wayno (Dec 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


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



I resisted buying a 5d3 for ages based on the IQ/DR argument. And I maintain the 5d3 is no better: in fact, I think the 5d2 has fractionally more image 'oomph' but I could well be subjectively skewed. That said, the 5d3 is a lot better practically in terms of usability than the 5d2. And then there's the better AF which ultimate leads to better images anyway...


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Dec 1, 2013)

My wishlist is not long:
a faster SD- interface or double CF.
and an increase of the buffer size. 6 or 7 with RAW + jpeg is a joke.
combined with the slow SD a real PITA.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 1, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> it also has various problematic issues along with loss of resolution so it's not the greatest solution



No, I hope I didn't imply that - of course 14ev native dr would be 1000% preferable. The issues with dual_iso are loss of resolution in far highlights and shadows (where only one interlaced line covers it), you need to set the wb manually and you need to run an utility on every dual_iso shot... but that's about it. 

Still, much more preferable than clipped highlights, noisy shadows w/o resolution or extreme postprocessing hassle (single-image hdr), I'm extremely happy dual_iso is around because I like to shoot back-lit scenes.


----------



## Niki (Dec 1, 2013)

maybe just a few firmware updates…turning the 5d3 into a 5d4


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2013)

dilbert said:


> On the topic of image sharpness as a result of using autofocus, if the testing from dpreview is anything to go by then the AF in the 70D (using the dual-pixel thing) is better again than that in the 5D3 and that using live-view mode on either the 5D2 or 5D3 is better than traditional AF.



Again you intentionally miss the point, or fail to comprehend it. CDAF on a dSLR can't even keep up with a bride wedding-marching slowly down the aisle, much less any real action. PDAF on the 5DIII is vastly superior to the 5DII. 

But I guess DRones don't shoot anything that moves very fast and/or always shoot at the hyperfocal distance, since you've already said you believe the AF improvements are irrelevant. 



dilbert said:


> Then there are very few "loyal customers" as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that upgrades with every iteration from a manufacturer like "fan-bois" posting on the 'net do.



Then there are very few people who "believe low ISO DR is the only important feature" of a dSLR as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that makes camera choices based solely on low ISO DR like the "DRones" posting on the 'net do.


----------



## Traktor (Dec 2, 2013)

I can't help but feel that Canon have targetted the Wedding photographer specifically with the 5D3. For weddings, 22 megapixels is enough for PQ without having massive files that take up storage, like with the D800. Six frames per second vs 4 from a D800 and a better autofocus will give more usable shots. This is the feedback I've heard from a couple of guys.

Unfortunately I do mainly landscapes, so haven't seen a reason to upgrade from my 5D2 bought in 2009. I don't believe that Canon will upgrade the 5D line next year, but I do think there is room for a high resolution camera with another stop of DR, a lower frame rate and maybe the 19 point AF system from the lower spec cameras.
The 5D3 would be weddings/events, the 1DX for rugged/sports/outdoors and another line for landscapes/studio work? I can only hope.

I am certainly very envious of the Sony/Nikon sensor, particularly with what can be done with the shadows - it really is astonishing. I am very close to ordering an A7R, especially as they are offering a free metabones adapter in Australia. That Sony sensor matched with the Canon TSE lenses would be a dream!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > On the topic of image sharpness as a result of using autofocus, if the testing from dpreview is anything to go by then the AF in the 70D (using the dual-pixel thing) is better again than that in the 5D3 and that using live-view mode on either the 5D2 or 5D3 is better than traditional AF.
> ...



The thing is that if it had stayed Canon with the crippled bodies and best sensors then you'd be going on about the AF/body performance drones and telling everyone what a joke they are because obviously it's the sensor that counts since this is photography.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The thing is that if it had stayed Canon with the crippled bodies and best sensors then you'd be going on about the AF/body performance drones and telling everyone what a joke they are because obviously it's the sensor that counts since this is photography.



The thing is that you don't know what the heck you're talking about, but I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, especially since it only serves to make you look foolish. 

My point has consistently been than what matters is *camera system* performance - sensor + AF + frame rate/buffer + lenses + flashes + ergonomics and operability + etc. Viewed in that light, I find it completely unsurprising that Canon has dominated the market and continues to do so. 

Nice to see you finally acknowledge that, sensor notwithstanding, Nikon and Sony bodies are crippled. Apologies if I've misrepresented your opinion as blatantly and egregiously as you did mine. :


----------



## jrista (Dec 2, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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



The argument Neuro is making is that sensor is not the sole, nor necessarily most important, thing that "counts" for photography. The argument Neuro (and myself) have often made is that other components matter more than the sensor for a majority of forms of photography. AF system, for example, often along with frame rate, are frequently the single most important things that count for IQ in a very broad range of types of photography...I mean, in anything that involves action, it doesn't matter if you have 12 stops or 14 stops of DR...if you can't nail focus, nail it perfectly, and nail it every time, then the most significant upgrade you could make would be to a camera with a better AF system.

That is most certainly NOT to say that more DR is meaningless. Of course not. DR is always useful in the circumstances where you can benefit from it. I personally can't wait for Canon to release a camera with improved low ISO read noise and more megapixels, because as far as I am concerned, when it comes to my landscape photography, sensor IS the single most important thing, and I always manually focus for it. But landscape photography accounts for a relatively small fraction of photography in general...sports and other forms of action photography, wedding photography, portrait/studio photography account for a much more significant portion of photography where nailing focus, as perfectly as possible as often as possible, is really the single most important thing. More DR is useful, more megapixels are useful, but focus...focus is truly essential.

It isn't like this argument hasn't been made clearly in the past, either. It is a relatively simple point, one that is difficult to _mis_interpret, but one that seems to be frequently twisted and misrepresented. Sure, DR is useful, megapixels are useful, we always want more...but they are more often than not _not_ the most important thing to producing the best image quality. In this respect, Canon has served their customers well, and delivered on exactly what their customers asked for. As a result, Canon's business has continued to thrive, because, far short of making a crappy or inferior product...they make a phenomenal product that is superior in almost every respect.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2013)

JPAZ said:


> The ONLY thing I'd really want is a faster SD card slot.



I'd personally prefer the SD card slot be dumped for a second CF card slot. Mixing and matching card types has always seemed like a bad idea to me. Either go with both SD, and the fastest and latest version at that...or go with both CF (and preferably the latest and fastest version of that, like CFast 2.0).


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Vossie said:
> 
> 
> > Funny that not too many people speak about Improved DR, while the fierce D800 vs 5D3 discussions and the numerous DxO mark discussions always claim Canon has much worse DR compared to competition. I may not be too bad after all
> ...



If we look at just the RAW sensor IQ, the 5D III is most definitely an improvement over the 5D II. I created this GIF out of Roger Clark's (of clarkvision.com) 5D II and 5D III noise tests:






(See full size here: http://i.imgur.com/Upt5Qhi.gif)

There are several improvements in IQ with the 5D III over the 5D II:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Far less vertical and horizontal banding (horizontal effectively eliminated)
[*]More natural random grain look thanks to less hatching
[*]Less "popcorn noise", as there are fewer hot pixels, especially at higher ISO
[*]ISO 6400 on the 5D II is no better than ISO 1600, there is CLEARLY an improvement on the 5D III
[*]Total noise from ISO 400 onward has dropped relative to the 5D II
[/list]



You can also see, from the comparison in this link, that the 5D III exhibits practically ZERO color noise at higher ISO, where as the 5D II was riddled with it:

http://bydawnlight.zenfolio.com/p470233883/h4F3F6310#h4f3f6310

So, sorry, but the visual evidence says otherwise...there IS an IQ improvement between the 5D II and 5D III, in many ways a significant improvement. Combine the improved IQ with the vastly improved AF system and faster frame rate, and the 5D III is a very worthwhile upgrade.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Dec 9, 2013)

A big enough subjset of:

* Improved AF, e.g. illuminated AF points & improved coverage.

* Improved IQ, e.g. in high ISO performance.

* Built in RT transmitter. 

* GPS.


Bonus:

* Interchangeable focusing screens, compatible with the 5Dmk2's focusing screens..

* Faster SD slot, supporting UHS-1.


What would set me off is:

* A new 5D is plenty expensive, I don't want to spend more on new batteries and new memory cards.

* >24MP. I don't really need more than that, extra pixels come with a price, esp in lenses that can actually sharp enough. I'll have to save for a while to upgrade to the 5DmkIV, the only way I'll buy a Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 is if I win the lottery.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> So, sorry, but the visual evidence says otherwise...there IS an IQ improvement between the 5D II and 5D III, in many ways a significant improvement.



Thanks for doing these gifs, it's interesting and I think I can spot the 5d2's banding - but maybe I'm just looking for it.

Having said that, *significant* in a non-scientific context is very subjective, as far as I remember the context then was the horrendous price jump to $3500 that caught many people off guard and created higher expectations towards the sensor than Canon currently can (you'd probably say: wants to) deliver.

What doesn't show up in the gif and what I have to admit I'm guilty of underestimating: The newer ff sensors react *much* better to postprocessing either in nr or sharpening, multiplying the seemingly moderate step up in noise pattern. Esp. with DxO's prime nr it's stunning how iso 6400 looks on the 6d, if only it wouldn't take my laptop 30 minutes to denoise a single picture ...


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > So, sorry, but the visual evidence says otherwise...there IS an IQ improvement between the 5D II and 5D III, in many ways a significant improvement.
> ...



Oh, its definitely there...I see it clearly. Same crap I have in my 7D, too. 



Marsu42 said:


> Having said that, *significant* in a non-scientific context is very subjective, as far as I remember the context then was the horrendous price jump to $3500 that caught many people off guard and created higher expectations towards the sensor than Canon currently can (you'd probably say: wants to) deliver.



I'd say "Than Canon could have delivered"...past tense, the 5D III is only a couple months away from it's second birthday. I also believe that Canon would be incapable of producing any higher resolution sensors on their current fabrication process, and I believe in two years time, they could have improved. 




Marsu42 said:


> What doesn't show up in the gif and what I have to admit I'm guilty of underestimating: The newer ff sensors react *much* better to postprocessing either in nr or sharpening, multiplying the seemingly moderate step up in noise pattern. Esp. with DxO's prime nr it's stunning how iso 6400 looks on the 6d, if only it wouldn't take my laptop 30 minutes to denoise a single picture ...



Aye, which is in significant part due to the considerable improvement in banding. Horizontal banding was pretty much eliminated, and vertical banding occurs in these "soft" vertical stripes, rather than the harsh kind that occurred in sensors prior to the 5D III and 1D X. The more random, "natural" appearance of the noise, rather than a patterned, unnatural appearance, greatly helps in it's elimination. 

As for DXO, while I admit I may be doing something wrong, I have found their software to be the worst of all the available options for editing RAW files. DXO seems to produce the noisiest results, PARTICULARLY for Canon files (they do much better with Nikon files). Compared to LR, DXO tools result in what I would call about two thirds of a stop WORSE noise performance strait out of camera. Compared to DPP, it is more like a stop worse (I do have to say, as much as I hate DPP's UI, it produces the cleanest noise output for Canon RAW files of ANYTHING, free or for pay...it's really too bad Adobe has't looked into Canon's own RAW demosaicing algorithms.)

I don't know if it is an intentional bias, or just a fundamental lack of interest in properly supporting Canon. I have given DXO's tools several dedicated tries, but in general they are lacking, they seems to be *far* slower than Lightroom or DPP, and specifically in Canon's case, the output is just terrible. All things being equal, that isn't surprising. Canon is not a DXO supporter, DXO has never given Canon much time or interest (it is often months or even years before DXO will test certain Canon cameras, whereas they will test Sony and Nikon cameras right out the gate, as soon as they can get their hands on a few copies.) 

If you want the cleanest RAW conversions, DPP can't be beat. It's standard deviation of noise is about two thirds to half that of LR, and a full order of magnitude better than anything I've tried from DXO. (The only thing I DON'T like about it is it doesn't deal with aliasing as well as LR...edges come out of LR with this clean, crisp look, whereas you can clearly see stairstepping and in some cases moire a lot more often with DPP.)


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> As for DXO, while I admit I may be doing something wrong, I have found their software to be the worst of all the available options for editing RAW files. DXO seems to produce the noisiest results, PARTICULARLY for Canon files (they do much better with Nikon files).



I'm *only* talking of the newest nr algorithm labeled "prime" from dxo pro optics 9 ... it's impractical to use for my laptop and doesn't import raw dng, but I compared the trial version enough to know it gives stunning results in comparison to ACR/LR on higher iso settings... I guess Adobe will follow suit esp. if you say dpp is also better (I never really tried the latter either).



jrista said:


> they seems to be *far* slower than Lightroom or DPP, and specifically in Canon's case, the output is just terrible.



Their "prime" is incredibly slow, and the whole dxo software is also way slower than LR for me. Plus I don't like their "settings" style "smart" interface but prefer the plain ACR/LR sliders, maybe out of habit and because I didn't have an in-depth look... but I have to admit you can get very nice "one click" results with dxo's "one shot hdr" settings while with ACR/LR you're quickly getting the feared "hdr look" with high dr images w/o a lot of hassle (tone curves, local adjustment, other external software like enfuse).


----------



## jrista (Dec 11, 2013)

Rista Jukku said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Um, DPP doesn't do any NR at all unless you apply it yourself. DPP, fundamentally, is just a basic RAW demosaicing engine. It's demosaicing isn't even all that great, and the results are usually more detailed/sharper than Adobe Lightroom, however that comes at the cost of some increase in demosaicing artifacts and some aliasing.

DXO, on the other hand, while it can be sharp, is NOISY as hell. It is clearly not a Canon issue, because both LR and DPP produce less noisy results than DXO without any additional processing, with DPP being the least noisy and sharpest. The problem with DPP is it doesn't do much...it isn't an image processor, it is really just a raw converter. You demosaic, maybe tweak a few basic sliders here and there, and save to TIFF, then process, but you lose a LOT of editing latitude that way.


----------

