# How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?



## RLPhoto (Sep 16, 2014)

This is a list of things I have found I'd like fixed or updated to in the 5D4 in retrospec of the 7DII release.

Stills Side

1. Blinky AF point
2. Linked AF point Spot Metering
3. 1/250th Sync speed bump. (1/500 would be even more sweet)
4. Built in RT transmitter
5. 7 FPS bump and improved buffer for dual card writing. (pitiful if you use the SD card slot currently.)
6. Dual CF or SD, just pick one or the other.
7. Add dual custom buttons like the 1Dx besides the lens mount.
8??. Did anyone notice the second curtain sync C-fn through PC sync missing in the mk3? I was positive this was on my 5Dc or the 5D2...
9. Make the Rate button do something else beside's rate and protect. :/
10. Slight screen bump in resolution/size and/or Touchscreen with optional toggle.
11. Lastly, Any ISO/IQ/Resolution bump is nice but these other features are much more important to me.
12. Glowing buttons like d4.

Video side. 

1. DPAF
2. 4K
3. RAW Video Internally (if possible, Magic lantern will get it anyway.)
4. Peaking
5. Crop Mode 1080P

Thats all I could think of at this moment and if you'd like to add, please do.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 16, 2014)

ISO compensation in M.
Integral dovetail on the bottom or dual mounting screws.
Stiffer spring or second action for the lens release button.

Jim


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 16, 2014)

I agree with the below.

I would also like to see faster/better af
Better ISO
Some better resolution
Some Better dr

sek


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 16, 2014)

3 fixed the biggest limitation of 2 (AF)
4 ought fix the biggest linitoation of 3 (resolution)


----------



## Ruined (Sep 16, 2014)

1. Interchangable focus screen (still baffled they took this out of 5D3)
2. ISO performance comparable to 6D


----------



## andrewflo (Sep 16, 2014)

After seeing the marginal improvements the 7DII offers over the 7D with *5 years* of development and technological advances behind it, I'm really nervous to see what the 5DIV could possibly bring to the table.

I really really really want to see all the amazing things we're dreaming of. But man, if we think the 5DIV is coming out in 2015, that's *3 years* of advancement... even less than the 7DII had invested in it.

Buuut... I would love to see

DPAF
1 stop or more improvement in ISO
1080p 60fps
4K video (not holding my breath)
WiFi
Built-in RT (like someone else suggested) would be amazing!
7D's AF system
Built in AF assist lamp wouldn't hurt, but not vital
Focus peaking/Zebras (not holding my breath)


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 16, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> 6. Dual CF. or SD slot is optional, just pick one or the other.



There, I fixed that for you.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 16, 2014)

My list is not very long:

- Resolution (should be minimum 40MP)
- DR improvement (at low ISO is OK with me, provided they improve it enough)
- Metering locked to AF point
- EC at auto ISO in manual mode

I have never used video on any of my SLRs and I don´t believe I´ll start now ...


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 16, 2014)

A mode dial with 7 letter C's and one M.


The ability to set minimum and maximum ISO, shutter speed, and aperture whenever they are automated.

It would be neat to have something that automatically switches between using a faster shutter speed in daylight and using a higher ISO at your desired minimum shutter speed indoors.

I suppose you could even have a priority tree for which settings to use to compensate for changing conditions first. Have the option to start closing the aperture only after the shutter is already moving as fast as it can (or any speed you set), and vice versa.


----------



## dolina (Sep 16, 2014)

Have better specs than cameras from Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji and other brands.

Ditch CF and SD.

Go CFast that exceeds the 167MB/s limit of CF cards. SD cards should be the province of the 6D only.


----------



## jrista (Sep 16, 2014)

My list...designed to be the all-arounder:

- Histogram based on RAW *!* (screw JPEG! )
- Higher frame rate (8fps, using CP-ADC for low noise, high speed readout)
- More dynamic range (high and low ISO...two stops low, as much as possible high)
- More resolution (~50mp)
- Layered sensor (drop the bayer! with binning capability, so I could bin 2x2, 3x3, maybe even 4x4 for very high ISO, as I'd rather have the SNR than anything ...yes, this would mean 150 million photodiodes)
- iTR metering
- f/8 AF with center zone support (say 13 center af points usable at f/8)
- AF-point linked meter
- DPAF-automated AFMA (and, therefor, DPAF)
- Dual CF (w/ CFast2 support)


----------



## stefsan (Sep 16, 2014)

I know it's just bells and whistles, but I would quite like the GPS, USB3 and that new lever around the joystick to choose AF settings quickly. Otherwise I would only expect the 5DIV to change in small ways – like getting the new metering and AF systems that look so good on the 7DII spec sheet, a sensor with really low read noise (no banding) and perhaps a few megapixels more resolution, a higher frame rate and a bigger buffer for RAWs (and probably a double processor to handle the data volume), two CF card slots and the weather sealing of the 7DII. That would be all, tank you ;D


----------



## Eric05 (Sep 16, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> This is a list of things I have found I'd like fixed or updated to in the 5D4 in retrospec of the 7DII release.
> 
> Stills Side
> 
> ...



I do agree with most of your points, just different priorities :

1 ISO / IQ / DR bump first, please (not interested in resolution bump but IQ and DR are priorities for me)
2 USB3, for tethered shooting
3 Dual CF or C Fast
4 1/250th sync speed (I think we can't hope for more)
5 10 fps, same as 7D II, MKIV deserves a dual Digic !
6 Better AF
7 Better lasting batteries


And for video side, I do agree with you (what is DPAF ? Sorry, I'm french). Of course Magic Lantern could do the job but it could be more simple if Canon listen to us...

I was disappointed by the 5D MKIII compared to the MKII, I hope I won't be with the MKIV... After all, the 7D MKII is a pretty good upgrade.


----------



## Chris Geiger (Sep 16, 2014)

Lift the 30 minute limit for video recording, at least in the US. It should record until it runs out of memory or battery power.


----------



## Eric05 (Sep 16, 2014)

Oh, and last but not least I hope it will use the H265 codec !


----------



## moreorless (Sep 16, 2014)

The big issue I'd guess will be whether any high resolution Canon body is a 5D4 or something new. If its using multi layer sensor tech my guess would be it'll be a new line(3D?) and the 5D line will remain more of an all rounder.

Obvious changes for that 5D4 would seem to be 4K video, a slight resolution/FPS bump and a slightly improved AF system.

If Canon wanted a headline feature to really catch the eye(besides ultra high resolution) my guess would be a hybrid viewfinder that can switch between an OVF and an EVF.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 16, 2014)

Keep the Canon button and knob layout(s). Keep the menuing system. Keep all the system compatibility.

Give me world leading resolution.

Believe me, I'll figure out how to use it. 

Even if it's really good only at ISO settings from 50(L) up to 1200 or there-abouts. For Dark of Night work, there are plenty of decent product offerings already, so no need to overlap capabilities if you think it'll cost too much.


----------



## Bullwye (Sep 16, 2014)

I would love to see the auto ISO functionality improved.

First it should take notice of IS lenses allowing lower ISO.
Second it should be improved when using a flash (atm only ISO 400).
Last but not least it would be cool to bind the min. shutter speed limitation to the focal length and have a correction for this. For instance if I have a 50mm lens and I know my hands are not very steady, I simply put the limitation to 1/125. But on a zoom lens this is not possible currently. Note: Setting it to AUTO takes the focal length into account, but then it would give me 1/200 at 200mm but with shifts that could be corrected to 1/400 or 1/100 based on your personal requirements.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

Fix all the silly little things like crippled AutoISO. 7D2 has done that so I'm sure 5D4 will.

Give it metering linked to AF point. So far even the 7D2 lacks that and only some 1 series have it.

MUST have Exmor-level low ISO.

Bump MP up.

MUST have high quality 4k video 10bit 4:2:2 and either 1080pRAW or really, really high quality, crisp, 10-12bit 1080p. No line skipping for anything.

Give it zoomed video modes for more reach for wildlife video shooting.

Bring back interchangeable VF screens. Apparently 7D2 did this so 5D4 would too I'd think.

Maintain at least 6fps despite bumping MP up.

Give it the improved 7D2 AF and metering.

Give it the low-end usability basics for video of magic focus zoomed box, focus peaking, zebras.

Give it RAW histogram.

Give it touch screen and DPAF.

Give it pop-up flash.

Give it GPS.

Give it articulating screen.

Give it APS-C crop mode to save space when shooting reach limited stuff.

Higher flash sync.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

The fps and AF and most basic body specs of the 7D2 are awesome. So it should be awesome at that core stuff.

But the lack of 4k and a new sensor process is worrisome for the future which is bad since I was always looking more towards the 5D4.

I'm no longer sure if the 5D4 will even be able to match Exmor or have 4k video. Everyone who has spoken with Canon reps is sounding super negative all of a sudden about the chances for even the 5D4 to get 4k video. I find that shocking and hard to believe. But I'm getting told that if I expect 4k on the 5D4 that I'm most likely setting myself up for disappointment as Canon still feels 4k is a super premium feature only fit for the $8000+ class buyer for the foreseeable future. And they don't even see them giving it basic low end features like focusing aids or zebras and such since those are 'ultra premium' features in Canon's mind still, apparently.

Sounds dumb to me, since a 5D3+ML would be better for video than the 5D4 then. The 5D4 would have DPAF and 60fps and that is it. It would take ML some time, if ever, to get RAW out of it and until then it would have worse video quality and video usability than the hacked 5D3.

And some feel that they may not even have an Exmor like sensor ready even for the 5D4 either.

I've purchased 6 different and 7 total Canon DSLR, but I'm getting a bad feeling it may be time to quit. 
For the first time I'm really stating giving all sorts of other items from other brands really serious looks.
I can't believe how negative the impressions of where Canon may be going I'm hearing from people who went to the trade shows. They are all saying Canon seems to have lost the plot and afraid they will total drop the ball on the 5D4 (no real sensor improvements other than some more MP and no 4k or anything really interesting for video at all beyond DPAF  ). Some said Canon told them forget 4k or any video usability features unless the market and users literally force them into it with extreme demand made clear. They insist all that stuff it for high-end people owner and far beyond DSLRs. I hope it was just reps trying to push current stuff and some misinterpreting going on. But even the guy who works for a different Canon division who met some DSLR guys said that was his impression too.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 16, 2014)

dolina said:


> Have better specs than cameras from Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji and other brands.
> 
> Ditch CF and SD.
> 
> Go CFast that exceeds the 167MB/s limit of CF cards. SD cards should be the province of the 6D only.



While not as fast as the CFast, SDXC UHS-II cards can now reach 250MB/s write speeds.


----------



## dolina (Sep 16, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> While not as fast as the CFast, SDXC UHS-II cards can now reach 250MB/s write speeds.


SD form factor is suitable for consumer and space-constraint application.

CFast form factor is suitable for professional/prosumer.

I can see UHS-II cards being used on the successor of the 6D, 70D, 700d, etc but for 1D, 5D and 7D bodies it makes more sense to go CFast.

UHS-II is constrained to 312MB/s while CFast is 600MB/s.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 16, 2014)

dolina said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > While not as fast as the CFast, SDXC UHS-II cards can now reach 250MB/s write speeds.
> ...



Of course, whatever works for a professional, he or she will use it- these rigid boundaries are merely theoretical. 
I am not very familiar with CFast. They seem to have been around for a while, why hasn't any major manufacturer started using it yet? What about the Nikon XQD cards?- I believe they can write as fast as 500MB/s (the newer version might be even faster)


----------



## dolina (Sep 16, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Of course, whatever works for a professional, he or she will use it- these rigid boundaries are merely theoretical.
> I am not very familiar with CFast. They seem to have been around for a while, why hasn't any major manufacturer started using it yet? What about the Nikon XQD cards?- I believe they can write as fast as 500MB/s (the newer version might be even faster)


CFast is the designated replacement for CF cards. CF cards are based on the PATA bus so are constrained to 167MB/s of UDMA 7 spec. Now CFast on the other hand uses the SATA bus that is currently limited to 600MB/s

4K resolution video cameras that currently use CFast are those from ARRI and Black Magic Design. ARRI Amira allows for up to 200fps vs the more standard 24p/30fps/60fps 1080p video we are more familiar with.

It is very much possible that we'll be seeing SLRs with CFast next year or 4 years from today. There is still some wiggle room with CF cards at say 1100x? Speeds of current CF cards top 1066x and are hella expensive.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 16, 2014)

I would like to see a weight saving, not the physical size but 950g with a bat and card currently. Around 800g would be nice, i don't find it a problem but when your shooting all day with say the 70-200mm MKII its a 2.5kg camera.

I like the MP count but a small bump to 24 would be nice, standard stuff like uprated ISO maybe native 51,000 where 12,800 and 25,600 are more useable. Sort banding issues and maybe a little DR but to me its not its DR capability just the banding when you recover.

7-8FPS would put this camera in a really nice segment so it can be used as both sports camera and a run and gun event camera.

Might be interesting too see a crop mode, when your really in a pinch that uses a 1.6x version of the sensor. Not necessary but would be useful on the odd occasion.

TBH I love the 5DMKIII it will be very difficult to update it for stills.

Video theres a lot they could do, but I'm not a video shooter. If they added the AF functions of the 70D/7DMKII I would be more inclined to use it.


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 16, 2014)

~30MP sensor that is at least as good as sonys EXMOR
4K video (clean hdmi output)
M.2 port
~8 FPS
USB3
Ethernet
improved RGB + IR metering sensor
GPS
WIFI (paring via QR codes)
1/320s x-sync
300000 shutter actuations 
optional electronic shutter for faster shutter times.

ps:
fully automated AFMA in camera. should be possible via contrast detection. 
i have a patent for that in mind.. just have to fill it.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 16, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> This is a list of things I have found I'd like fixed or updated to in the 5D4 in retrospec of the 7DII release.
> 
> Stills Side
> 
> ...



I am hoping for the inclusion of the intelligent Tracking and Recognition system (iTR AF) which the 1D X has for a while and the 7DII now too. I hope that they don't leave it out in order to separate from the flagship line.

I also hope for 4K but I doubt it will come, because the Nikons don't have it and because I think, the CF card interface is to slow for a decent quality. I wonder when they'll replace the CF cards with something else. The CompactFlash Revision 6.0 (November 2010) added UltraDMA Mode 7 (167 MByte/s) but there is no successor to this, the Parallel-ATA standard, on which CF is based upon, is dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDMA


----------



## lo lite (Sep 16, 2014)

Eldar said:


> My list is not very long:
> 
> - Resolution (should be minimum 40MP)



No, no and no! I don't want a debacle like the Nikon D8x0 line was/is. 40MP would be an entirely different body line, maybe a revitalized 1Ds X. Better they keep the pixel count around the low 20s and improve on DR and high ISO.



Eldar said:


> - EC at auto ISO in manual mode



That one would be great indeed. And it can be done in software.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 16, 2014)

+1 I really don't want a high MP camera, shooting a wedding at 1500 shots is 48gbs on the 5DMKIII and 100gbs on the D800, then after processing add that again just ridiculous. 

24mp is more than enough for anything unless you are cropping hugely.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 16, 2014)

What if the electronics could enable great DR, high ISO _*AND *_resolution at the same time? If it could, would you buy it?

... and for those who don't want 50+mpixel RAW to deal with, some in-camera RAW that down-rezed to whatever you felt you or your computer could handle...

If Sony announces and if Nikon adopts the 46mpixel FF sensor in January (much-rumored) and Canon does not come up to challenge Sony/Nikon on banner specs and sensor IQ, how many people (pros and avid enthusiasts alike) do you think will be dumping their Canon gear?



lo lite said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > My list is not very long:
> ...


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 16, 2014)

tomscott said:


> +1 I really don't want a high MP camera, shooting a wedding at 1500 shots is 48gbs on the 5DMKIII and 100gbs on the D800, then after processing add that again just ridiculous.
> 
> 24mp is more than enough for anything unless you are cropping hugely.



when 24MP are enough for everything why do some people buy 50+ MP medium format cameras?

look beyond your horizon...

maybe the 5D MK4 can be a high megapixel camera with a special mode that chews out downsampled JPG´s and RAW´s for wedding photographer?
that would make both partys happy.


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> > And they don't even see them giving it basic low end features like focusing aids or zebras and such since those are 'ultra premium' features in Canon's mind still, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, sounds like the Kodak disease.



damn right and then look what features other cameras offer.

canon seems to become an action shooter company only. 

AF... as good as a precise and fast AF is.. at one point a better AF is wasted on some customers. 
just as more MP are wasted on others.

for years canon has not done much (nothing) for the studio/landscape shooter. 

i really hope that will change with the 5D MK4.


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> - viewfinder that doesn't require your nose to be chopped off



That one is available now, as a 1DX


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 16, 2014)

It sounds like Canon has developed a nice 1" sensor. And given their reluctance to upgrade the 100-400mm, I think they should replace the FF sensor with the 1" sensor. With a crop factor of 2.7x, this means my 70-200 become a very sharp 190-540 and my 135mm becomes a 365/f2 lens. And one of those new Sigma's becomes a 405-1620mm.

Add in the 7dii's AF system and you've got a pretty formidable sports and wildlife package.


----------



## Quest for Light (Sep 16, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> It sounds like Canon has developed a nice 1" sensor.



that´s 99% a sony sensor also found in the RX100 models.

but yes they are at least clever to buy it from sony.... :


----------



## moreorless (Sep 16, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The fps and AF and most basic body specs of the 7D2 are awesome. So it should be awesome at that core stuff.
> 
> But the lack of 4k and a new sensor process is worrisome for the future which is bad since I was always looking more towards the 5D4.
> 
> ...



Canon might I spose be keeping 4K for the 1DX update but really I'm not sure I see the logic to that. I'm guessing the 1Dc may have been forced on Canon purely because the 1DX was the only camera able to cope with 4k(cooling?) but I'm not sure I see that body as being an classic all rounder.

They might also have been some way down the line with 5D4 developed by the time 4K started to crop up on lower end bodies but it does also seem to me that Canon reps seemed geared to be negative. Not sure what the logic would be there, perhaps not wanting to build up expectations to give more positivity around release?


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

I 100% agree!!!!!!!!!!!!

The next 5D has to offer something for the Landscape, Potrait and Studio crowd.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 16, 2014)

Quest for Light said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > > And they don't even see them giving it basic low end features like focusing aids or zebras and such since those are 'ultra premium' features in Canon's mind still, apparently.
> ...



While I would like to see these improvements, remember that Canon's marketing department has done a great job of anticipating overall consumer demand. I think that tells us that the current market for the 5-series is wedding/event photographers and amateurs. For both of these groups, it's far more important to increase the keeper-rate than to give the studio or landscape specialist a tool for producing images under specific conditions.

As tempting as it is to criticize Canon for their lagging low-ISO sensors, it's equally valid to criticize all the other manufacturers for their lagging AF and other features. Nikon seems to have found the "truth" with the D810's AF system.


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Quest for Light said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



But wouldn´t you say the AF is good enough now, when they include a slightly enhanced 1DX AF in the 5D MK4? 

So canon could focus on other things, make the rest of the customers happy?


----------



## lo lite (Sep 16, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> What if the electronics could enable great DR, high ISO _*AND *_resolution at the same time? If it could, would you buy it?
> 
> ... and for those who don't want 50+mpixel RAW to deal with, some in-camera RAW that down-rezed to whatever you felt you or your computer could handle...
> 
> ...



A resolution around 24MP would be enough for me. Higher resolution also means bigger files which I don't want. And what would I gain? More details (nice!) but for those you also need much better lenses otherwise your files are just bigger but not more detailed. Do you really want to pay 4 grands for a 50mm that resolves 50MP? http://www.zeiss.de/camera-lenses/de_de/camera_lenses/otus/otus1455.html And even more for a zoom lens. And how big and heavy those would have to be …

When do you really need such a resolution? Maybe as a landscape photographer this would be nice to have. But that's a niche. Please don't sacrifice a good all-round camera for this!

Btw. You might be too young to know this: Everything comes at a price. To think it would be possible that the electronics could enable great DR, high ISO and resolution at the same time is outright stupid. There are laws of physics. You always have to make compromises, you can never have it all. Life will teach you that.


----------



## Iron Man (Sep 16, 2014)

Hello everyone, first post here.

What would I like to see on a replacement 5D4

To put the camera on a tripod, press a button and the camera will know what I want to shoot and never miss the shot...............................
........................................... but in the meantime....

1. A few more megapixles may be nice, up to 28mp
2. GPS (think this will be a given)
3. Multi spot average metering (avail on the 1Dx, and this is supposed to be a pro camera too)
4. Ditching of the slow SD card reader, so Dual CF (not many people have the new Cfast card's, but plenty of the others)
5. GET RID OF VIDEO FUNCTIONS, that's the domain of video recorders.
6. Not bothered about super high iso, but make it better up to 6400.
7. More DR is alway's welcomed.
8. Integrated st-e3-rt would be welcomed.

not interested in wifi - don't want anyone finding a way to hack into it and put nikon firmware on it ;D


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

Iron Man said:


> 4. Ditching of the slow SD card reader, so Dual CF (not many people have the new Cfast card's, but plenty of the others)



SD cards are doing ~250MB/s write speeds today.
you need CFast 2.0 to significantly beat that.


----------



## Iron Man (Sep 16, 2014)

123Photog said:


> SD cards are doing ~250MB/s write speeds today.
> you need CFast 2.0 to significantly beat that.



Yes, that's true - but at £850 for a 128GB card - they can stick it were the sun don't shine I'm afraid. Maybe in a few years when the price is more sensible.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 16, 2014)

123Photog said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > While I would like to see these improvements, remember that Canon's marketing department has done a great job of anticipating overall consumer demand. I think that tells us that the current market for the 5-series is wedding/event photographers and amateurs. For both of these groups, it's far more important to increase the keeper-rate than to give the studio or landscape specialist a tool for producing images under specific conditions.
> ...



I haven't used a 5D, so I don't know. I suppose there's always a way to improve it with face-tracking, etc. Of course, being a financially-astute company, they may also believe that "good enough" means lower cost on the 5D4; this could translate to higher profits or to more competitive pricing.



> So canon could focus on other things, make the rest of the customers happy?


How many of those are there? Is it worth the cost? I've said multiple times that Canon is fully capable of competitive sensor tech *when* the market demands it. Yes, they could turn their attention to sensors, but will the profit justify the costs? I'd like them to do so, but they haven't asked me...


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 16, 2014)

Iron Man said:


> Hello everyone, first post here.
> 
> What would I like to see on a replacement 5D4
> 
> ...



You're asking Canon to make you a custom camera, and to change the 5D market position. Unless you have many millions to throw at Canon, that ain't gonna happen.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 16, 2014)

Well, fortunately for anyone who wants the smaller number of pixels, I'm _not_ in charge and from the way Canon seems to be headed, you'll easily have your wish granted.

FWIW, just about any lens made will out-resolve a 50mpixel sensor down through f/11.

Salesmen down at the local camera shop have been saying "You realize you'll need better lenses to take advantage of that new/bigger sensor, don't you?" Every single time nothing could have been further from the truth. 

When I pointed out to them that optical physics and the present (rather good) state of A/D electronics put sensors (and formerly film) in the position of limiting resolution, they changed their tune. Until I walked away from the counter. It comes down to the fact they want to sell more lenses. Fear and ignorance will do it every time.



lo lite said:


> ... When do you really need such a resolution? Maybe as a landscape photographer this would be nice to have. But that's a niche. Please don't sacrifice a good all-round camera for this!


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 16, 2014)

-Higher detail in video mode. That's my only complaint on the 5D video, it's gorgeous and better than most of the competition but only falls short in resolutiom. Do it either by making it 4K and we downsample in post or just make it perfect 1080p like the C100. 
-A7s ISO performance but not below 20MP
-Peaking/Zebras/Waveform monitor/raw histogram/ basically the ML stuff
-All the 7D mk II improvements in meteting/AF/DPAF/Antiflicker/and all the good stuff


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

I don´t need/want 50MP but 32MP would be great.

And if you ask me you can put even more on the sensor, get rid of the AA filter, when you oversample in camera.


----------



## tculotta (Sep 16, 2014)

Quoting lo lite: "When do you really need such a resolution? Maybe as a landscape photographer this would be nice to have. But that's a niche. Please don't sacrifice a good all-round camera for this!"

Niche? I would venture that a fairly high percentage of users of a 5D Mk. IV shoot enough scenics and landscapes to relish the idea of ~36 MP. However, a split or divergence in the Canon line to support landscape/ high MP users vs. the crowd you advocate for may not be out of line.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 16, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> Well, fortunately for anyone who wants the smaller number of pixels, I'm _not_ in charge and from the way Canon seems to be headed, you'll easily have your wish granted.
> 
> FWIW, just about any lens made will out-resolve a 50mpixel sensor down through f/11.
> 
> ...



You and jrista should chat about this. ;D


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 16, 2014)

tculotta said:


> Niche? I would venture that a fairly high percentage of users of a 5D Mk. IV shoot enough scenics and landscapes to relish the idea of ~36 MP. However, a split or divergence in the Canon line to support landscape/ high MP users vs. the crowd you advocate for may not be out of line.


"relish" does not equal $$$ Until they relish it enough to forgo their _tranya_ to pay for it, 36MP won't make it into the 5D4.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 16, 2014)

Well, I think this thread is a perfect illustration as to why not everyone is going to be happy no matter what Canon decides to do with the 5DIV.

As for me, it is pretty much the standard:

24-28 MP (used)
a few more stops DR (less shadow/dark noise)
cleaner low and high ISO
8-9 fps
Better battery for faster AF
All cross type AF points, with better spread
Improved color and tone sensitivity
Dual CF card slots
Built in intervalometer


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 16, 2014)

Nice list guys. Keep on dreaming ;D


----------



## Iron Man (Sep 16, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> You're asking Canon to make you a custom camera, and to change the 5D market position. Unless you have many millions to throw at Canon, that ain't gonna happen.



No I'm not - the original 5D did not have video functionality, so I would like to go back to that. People who want high quality video has the 1D C available (and that already supports 4K shooting).

I'm under no illusions that Canon would ever bow to a few people who would like 1 DSLR without video features, but there's nothing wrong with hoping...........


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 16, 2014)

Iron Man said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > You're asking Canon to make you a custom camera, and to change the 5D market position. Unless you have many millions to throw at Canon, that ain't gonna happen.
> ...



or Canon could make it film camera and include a drum scanner....


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 16, 2014)

I know. I know.

Rather, I'd suggest that jrista to talk with several people first. He'll need an optical physicist, a scientist who works for AMD or Intel on their mask processes, and perhaps an engineer from an optical group that makes "things" for the Three Letter Agencies.

Then he'd have a little background for the evidence which shows very clearly where his arguments could use a little updating. ;D ;D ;D




Orangutan said:


> ChristopherMarkPerez said:
> 
> 
> > Well, fortunately for anyone who wants the smaller number of pixels, I'm _not_ in charge and from the way Canon seems to be headed, you'll easily have your wish granted.
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 16, 2014)

Iron Man said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > You're asking Canon to make you a custom camera, and to change the 5D market position. Unless you have many millions to throw at Canon, that ain't gonna happen.
> ...


This has been hashed out on previous threads, you may want to go back and look. The (not universal) consensus is that a camera without video will not sell well-enough. The Nikon Df was the poster child for this.

Besides, video is nearly free: it has not much impact on the overall design of the camera. As soon as you have LiveView, you just record that and you have video. Video is not going away.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 16, 2014)

As someone who uses Canon DSLRs 90% of the time for video, I am very frowny on those requesting the removal of video from the next 5D. I mean why? I would never request they take away the stills function for example, i still like having it for those 10%!


----------



## LookingThroughMyLens81 (Sep 16, 2014)

My biggest complaints about the 5D3 are the weight and lack of "modes" coupled with a crippled SD slot. It's a heavy, bulky camera and it isn't fun for me to use because it weighs so much with the battery grip. I would love to see a "Sport/Action" mode as well as a "Portrait" mode for the next 5D but I don't see that happening. I'll likely buy the new 7D2 and use it as my main shooter since I shoot mostly Sports/Action stuff. As for the SD slot, that one speaks for itself and we don't need to rehash it. Compact Flash is just not user-friendly any more since stores stopped carrying the good cards and it's a very expensive format compared to current SDXC cards.


----------



## dancook (Sep 16, 2014)

I want a hybrid viewfinder, so I can use EVF with manual assists


----------



## tomscott (Sep 16, 2014)

Although it is currently Canons largest MP camera I don't think it was always meant to be. The 5D has always been the event/photo journos camera aka the main commercial area of photography. Therefore I highly doubt they will add a 50+mp sensor. 

Saying they should add a 50+mp sensor for the landscapers, ye fine but landscape photography is a niche, you might enjoy it but very few make money from it. Anyone who is shooting billboard size advertising etc won't even look at FF it is MF all day long. 

The high MP sector was always the 1DS but canon maybe doesn't see the need for a large mp count sensor camera otherwise one would be out now, or they are really struggling with sensor tech. The two main sectors as said are event (including sport) and journo and Canon already fills these sectors with the 1DX and 5DMKIII.


----------



## steliosk (Sep 16, 2014)

my list:
=====

- better DR or higher resolution (i'd vote better DR though in RAW and NOT JPEG : )

- fast SD slot

- some better ergonomics like assigning autoISO to a button, or even when the SET button when is assigned to adjust the ISO value by holding it and rotate the front dial, in the current condition/firmware it doesn't go to the autoISO, and you have to set it manually each time from the ISO button.

- PLEASE please! assign a button to custom WB, rather than taking an image, set the wb to custom, load the image.. DAMN! one click thats it! RATE and magnify buttons are useless assign one of them at least!
who uses RATE and JPEGs in such a beasty camera anyway..

- Restore magnification buttons in live view like its been in mark II or any other model. (hard to find the magnification button in the night which is in the other side of the camera)

well actually most of my requests can be done with a firmware upgrade 

in two words?, more button customization
but an upgraded sensor with higher DR is a must for 5D IV


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 16, 2014)

LookingThroughMyLens81 said:


> it isn't fun for me to use because it weighs so much with the battery grip.



Why not take the grip off?


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Sep 16, 2014)

Faster dealing with the files:
deeper buffer (6 frames raw+jpeg is poor) and/or faster SD interface.

Not more, but more spreaded AF- points.

Thats all for me.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Sep 16, 2014)

- Builtin WLAN, not for pic dump, for remote controling with a phone. DSLRController is nice.
- Builtin Magic Lantern Features, a lot of it...  Intervalometer with Ramping, Fokus Peaking, RawVideo, DualIso, ...
- Two or more additional custom buttons.
- CF and SD card is nice (you always have one of them), but SD should be capable of the highest transfer rate
- Microprism/Split Focussing Screen from Canon, no custom-made-vendors
- Transparent LCD in view finder, not only ruler/lines and the current settings - I want additional a live histogram. The light goes trough the mirror to the AF sensor. There is also place for a wide splitted 40 x 30 pixel sensor (every pixel separately), which gives the current picture in lowest resolution, but it should be enough to display a histogram...
- A little bit more dynamic range for shadow recovery would be nice
- ISO performance and megapixels are enough, maybe a easy to handle panorama mode, which helps to create a multiline-panorama - this technique give a lot more details than a 36/48/whatever megapixel sensor...


----------



## Niki (Sep 16, 2014)

123Photog said:


> Iron Man said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...




+1

nice…i'd buy it


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 16, 2014)

Quest for Light said:


> for years canon has not done much (nothing) for the studio/landscape shooter.



TS-E 17mm



Iron Man said:


> 5. GET RID OF VIDEO FUNCTIONS, that's the domain of video recorders.



Why? As long as they don't hinder stills functions, what's the big deal? Just don't toggle the switch.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 16, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Quest for Light said:
> 
> 
> > for years canon has not done much (nothing) for the studio/landscape shooter.
> ...


Or TS-E 24mm, or recently 16-35/4L, or lightweight 6D, ideal for travelling and treking, or sharp primes such as 24/2.8 IS USM for very light travelling...  If you really find Canon so much hindering your performance, go for Nikon, go for medium format, go for whatever makes you happy...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 16, 2014)

davidcl0nel said:


> - Microprism/Split Focussing Screen from Canon, no custom-made-vendors



I wished that all the new cameras came with this option. Most photographers would not use it, but for some photographers, it will be a great aid. At least give us the option.


----------



## lintoni (Sep 16, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Quest for Light said:
> 
> 
> > for years canon has not done much (nothing) for the studio/landscape shooter.
> ...


I accidentally did just that, yesterday. Thought I'd somehow broken the camera and it was stuck in Live View.  First time it's been in video mode since I bought it...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

lo lite said:


> I also hope for 4K but I doubt it will come, because the Nikons don't have it and because I think, the CF card interface is to slow for a decent quality.



CF cards can handle 1080p RAW so I'd think they should be able to handle a pretty decent quality 4k compressed. RAW is an utter bandwidth pig, it's gotta be more than 4x worse than moderately compressed 4k I'd think.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2014)

tculotta said:


> Quoting lo lite: "When do you really need such a resolution? Maybe as a landscape photographer this would be nice to have. But that's a niche. Please don't sacrifice a good all-round camera for this!"
> 
> Niche? I would venture that a fairly high percentage of users of a 5D Mk. IV shoot enough scenics and landscapes to relish the idea of ~36 MP. However, a split or divergence in the Canon line to support landscape/ high MP users vs. the crowd you advocate for may not be out of line.



More MP also help sports and wildlife shooters since you get more reach, so it helps more than just the ultra-detailed landscape shooters.

(of course it also makes it tougher to get full sensor reads for video and to keep speed up)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 16, 2014)

I take photos in low light, and I'd like to have the illuminated AF points back. Blinking black AF points are worthless if you can't see them.


----------



## Fatfaso (Sep 16, 2014)

The main thing I'm looking for is Dynamic Range that can match the DR in Nikon's D810. I would also like to have autofocus track a moving subject in a frame without me having to use the joystick (Nikon can do this as well). I don't really need a bump in megapixels, but I'm sure we'll get that anyways. I wouldn't mind an ISO improvement like that found on the Sony A7S. Also, if they could figure out away to keep the body as solid and robust as the Mark III, while having it weigh substantially less, I'd be on board with that as well.


----------



## ifp (Sep 16, 2014)

Fatfaso said:


> I would also like to have autofocus track a moving subject in a frame without me having to use the joystick (Nikon can do this as well).



Wouldn't that just be enabling the mode that uses all 61 points?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 16, 2014)

ifp said:


> Fatfaso said:
> 
> 
> > I would also like to have autofocus track a moving subject in a frame without me having to use the joystick (Nikon can do this as well).
> ...



+ servo, yes.


----------



## PhotoCat (Sep 16, 2014)

-increased iso100 dynamic range
-wifi to perform remote monitoring and shooting. also tethered shooting
-articulating screen to ease low/high-angle shooting
-lower noise in high ISO
-high native flash sync speed like 1/500 or 1/1000 to overpower the sun 
-real HDR jpg output like an iphone
-face detection AF in viewfinder. Exposure/Ettl based on face alone
-touch screen LCD and dual pixel sensor for easy focus racking from one subject to the next.
-built-in sensor IS (don't think canon marketing guys would allow this!)


----------



## jpk (Sep 17, 2014)

My 2. Not very scientific or technical or marketing oriented. 

Canon will do a modest upgrade with the 5D4. They will not try to have the 5D4 compete with the Nikon D8xx series, there's no need to. They will reserve the big MP body for another model. Canon will sell far more 5D4's than Nikon will sell D8xx's. Like the 7D2, refine what they have operationally and with a modest bump in MP's. That's all they need. 

I've shot with the 5D2/3, C300 and C500...... There's a reason why there's a sea of white lenses at sporting events and there's a reason why the 5D series and C300/C500 cameras are requested on shoots by DP's....... it's the look. 

Canons have the look and the Nikon's do not. Sometimes it is not all about mega megapixels and matching spec for spec. There is a visual quality that Canon has. I don't know if it's the way Canon imagers process the information vs Sony/Nikon imagers. But in the end it's all about the look. 

DP's love the look of Canons and Canon glass. It's that simple.


----------



## DRR (Sep 17, 2014)

I want them to produce whatever you guys will buy so that a ton of 5DIII flood the market.


----------



## risc32 (Sep 17, 2014)

*-carbon fiber or Ti body*. hell my inexpensive tennis racket from Walmart is made from a Ti carbon weave. it cost like $30-40 weights nothing, is super tough. really, get it done canon.
-better DR (cause, i don't know if you guys have heard, but it sucks to the point of making the camera a paperweight)
*-red Af confirmation"squares" in the viewfinder*
*-a battery that can give it that 1D speed*, even if shooting rate stays at whatever it is. 6.5 or something. i never know what to do with that .5 a frame anyway actually so you could just make it 6 fps.
make the second card slot, whatever it is just as fast as the main, you know, so i could actually use it for backing up my RAW files as i work. i mean, jpg back ups are better than nothing, but really? 
*- eye control AF,* or at the very least make the af points cover the areas around the 1/3rds marks. the center is good to, sometimes it is like i'm having target practice at the range, but most of the time, i don't put the "target" in the center of the frame.
* -i'm out*


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 17, 2014)

risc32 said:


> *-carbon fiber or Ti body*. hell my inexpensive tennis racket from Walmart is made from a Ti carbon weave. it cost like $30-40 weights nothing, is super tough. really, get it done canon.



This is a joke, I presume.


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 17, 2014)

A built in condom dispenser because the 5D3 sure seems popular with the ladies ;D Or maybe it's just me


----------



## unfocused (Sep 17, 2014)

I'm sure Canon will figure out some things that will make me want it, but right now, I can't imagine what they would be. 5DIII has everything I need and more.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 17, 2014)

V8Beast said:


> A built in condom dispenser because the 5D3 sure seems popular with the ladies ;D Or maybe it's just me


 
I think it's your 70-200 f/2.8 8)


----------



## V8Beast (Sep 17, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I'm sure Canon will figure out some things that will make me want it, but right now, I can't imagine what they would be. 5DIII has everything I need and more.



Same here. There are a few things that could be improved, which have been covered in great detail by other posters, but right now I'm planning on skipping the next generation of the 5D line. The 5D3 will serve my needs for many years to come.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 17, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > *-carbon fiber or Ti body*. hell my inexpensive tennis racket from Walmart is made from a Ti carbon weave. it cost like $30-40 weights nothing, is super tough. really, get it done canon.
> ...



I assume as much; titanium and carbon fibre in any meaningful application does not change hands that cheaply.

Jim


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 17, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > risc32 said:
> ...



Dunno, how much metal is in a tennis racket compared to a camera body? I found a titanium racket at Amazon for $35.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 17, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



You probably found a tennis racket claiming to be titanium on amazon for 35 dollars. Machining a Ti tennis racket would be costly even if you re-sell unused material. You could machine one out of 12"X36"X.5" plate, and the raw material alone would cost on the order of $1000. Besides, titanium would be a strange choice for a tennis racket. There may be some Titanium in the racket, just like risc32 may have a carbon fiber or two in his (a Ti/Carbon hybrid weave? I call BS), but the majority of the structure is likely fiberglass. 

Unfortunately, we live in a world where terms with literal meaning have been co-opted by marketing departments.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 17, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I could be convinced otherwise but I expect marketing had more to do with titanium mentioned in the context of the racket than engineering. It could be titanium whiskers in the matrix of carbon fibers to essentially pin the layers together, in which case it would be a fairly small proportion by weight. (Then again it could be white titanium dioxide paint.)

Titanium sheet alone is miserably expensive never mind anything cast and machined from it.

The relevant question is whether either material would make a meaningfully better body; magnesium is affordable and easier to cast and machine than titanium. It also conducts heat and electricity well enough to be useful; titanium conducts both poorly. Carbon fiber isn't really suited to the job of filling fine details and supporting many threaded bosses.

I'd like everything to weigh less, but I'm pretty sure Canon's engineers have a solid grasp what works and is still reasonably affordable. I would dearly like to sit in on their brainstorming though...

Jim

ETA - If I was going to machine a tennis racket out of anything I'd try beryllium; it'd be heavier and your machinist might get lung cancer but it'd be _stiff_.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 17, 2014)

My list, in order from most important to least:


Make it a feature-for-feature upgrade from the 6D. This means:
Built-in Wi-Fi
Built-in GPS
No banding problems at high ISO levels

Add DPAF
Add eye tracking
Add 4K video
Add auto-AFMA


----------



## Perio (Sep 17, 2014)

Make the introductory price a little cheaper


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 17, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Jim Saunders said:
> ...



Chicken dinner to this man.



Jim Saunders said:


> It could be titanium whiskers in the matrix of carbon fibers to essentially pin the layers together, in which case it would be a fairly small proportion by weight. (Then again it could be white titanium dioxide paint.)
> 
> Titanium sheet alone is miserably expensive never mind anything cast and machined from it.
> 
> ...



It would be very stiff, but if you hit the ground trying to catch a ball on the rise, it might break (since it's also brittle) 

No need to worry about cancer; just wet machine it, like these:


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 17, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> ifp said:
> 
> 
> > Fatfaso said:
> ...



I think he means 'Intelligent Tracking and Recognition', or iTR, using the RGB metering sensor - which does this far more accurately and reliably, for certain shooting scenarios, than the 5D Mark III ever could. The metering sensor also enables 'face detection AF in viewfinder. Exposure/Ettl based on face alone' -- which PhotoCat wanted. And enables spot-metering linked to the AF point as well. 

Canon DSLRs below the 1D X have been behind in all these regards compared to Nikon for many years now.

What'd be great about them putting this stuff into the 5D3 would be the marriage of iTR/'3D focus tracking' (what Nikon calls it) with Canon's stellar dual-cross-type technology, and extensive use of cross-type AF points.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> My list...designed to be the all-arounder:
> 
> - Histogram based on RAW *!* (screw JPEG! )
> - Higher frame rate (8fps, using CP-ADC for low noise, high speed readout)
> ...



"iTR metering"? 

iTR is the AF tracking mode that uses the metering sensor for subject recognition and tracking... 

I must say, I'm quite surprised at the number of people in this thread asking for:

[list type=decimal]
[*]More DR at base ISO
[*]More resolution
[*]Spot metering linked to AF point
[*]Programmable Auto ISO
[*]EC in M mode (and while we're at it: in a less stupid implementation than the 1D X's)
[*]Face detection & tracking outside of Live View
[*]... and at least one guy asking for better subject tracking across the frame after initially choosing a subject (well that makes 2 of us now, since this is one of my wishes as well)
[/list]

So... I'm just wondering how many here realize that the *D810, D800, and D750* already have _every single one_ of those features...

Or perhaps that's the point - everyone here wants what Nikon already offers? Either way, it's kind of funny 

I'm going to add one more thing to the list:

- *AFMA for every single AF point*, and then, yes, DPAF/CDAF-automated AFMA... b/c AFMA is already incredibly annoying as it is - imagine doing it for 65 points! 

I want this b/c I'm finding more and more that you can't trust the factory calibration process to have calibrated every focus point perfectly. 

Falk Lumo did some great work that showed AFMA inconsistencies across the AF sensor, _on top of_ a skew that resulted in the left AF problem:






This is taken from his article here: http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/D800Focus/SensorArray.html


----------



## Aglet (Sep 17, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> So... I'm just wondering how many here realize that the *D810, D800, and D750* already have _every single one_ of those features...


Perhaps just the few of us who've actually made the switch and learned what features our new toys, uhm, tools possess.
Frankly, many of those cool features I rarely have use for. I merely moved to get much improved raw files for landscape work. 
I do want to borrow a buddy's 150-600mm Tamron and try the D800's AF tracking for BiF shots.
I don't care if I don't have a high frame rate, just good focus.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 17, 2014)

Aglet said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > So... I'm just wondering how many here realize that the *D810, D800, and D750* already have _every single one_ of those features...
> ...



Haha, well said.

Initially I'd wanted to switch for the RAW dynamic range, which is great for landscapes, as well as for exposure latitude in post-processing. But then I realized just how powerful all those other features are.

Particularly: subject tracking in 3D focus tracking mode. Which I never used on the 5D3 b/c it was far too unreliable, no matter what use-case I chose in the menu nor how I optimized any one of those use-cases.

But then there's also programmable auto ISO, which is so much better than constantly having to manually change the minimum shutter speed as I switch primes at a wedding (since the 1/focal-length rule is not always applicable).

And now b/c of the ease of EC in M mode with Auto ISO - and b/c of the incredible sensor performance - I rarely have to worry about blown highlights even in high ISO situations b/c I just dial in a massive amount of negative EC. In low light scenarios that'd require ISO 800 and above anyway, this usually means I'm not paying _any_ shot noise cost by dialing in negative EC, since all it's doing is lowering the actual ISO amplification used (_*not*_ changing the focal plane exposure). So, for example, instead of ISO 1600, EC -3 will use ISO 200. Since downstream read noise is low, I pay very little (albeit _non-zero_) noise cost compared to just using ISO 1600. Meanwhile, I gain 3 stops of highlight detail b/c of the lower ISO. I then selectively raise exposure in post, protecting highlights.

The funny thing is: if Canon were to properly implement EC in M mode with Auto ISO, I'd actually use it in an opposite manner to what I described above. In other words: to brighten the image (via ISO amplification) to near where I want the final image brightness to be, _not_ to apply negative EC - since there *is* a noise cost to brightening in post-processing vs. raising the ISO in-camera. So one could make the argument that if any of these cameras needs EC in M mode with Auto ISO, it's Canon, not Nikon - with the latter you can just select your shutter speed and aperture, then dial in a relatively low ISO and then choose your exposure in post-processing via the exposure slider. 

Anyway, I'm rambling now.

*What Canon stuff do I miss?*
I do miss cross-type points all over the frame, the wireless flash system, and some Canon glass, though. And sometimes I get the feeling that Canon's center AF point focused faster and more confidently in very low light than the D810 - which wouldn't be surprising. Although both systems are rated down to EV -2, the 5D Mark III is 'looking' for much more detail with its horizontal, vertical, and dual-diagonal sensors.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Dilbert - I believe what Falk Lumo was showing there was the AF sensor miscalibration fiasco Nikon underwent with the D800. 

I do know Roger's (incredible, laudable, and informative) work - yes, the PDAF sensors are making measurements from non-central light rays, and have to then be corrected for the image-forming light which uses both central & non-central rays. This is lens-specific, and also, at least partly, where AFMA comes in.

My point was: manufacturing tolerances are not so tight that you can assume that the AF sensor surface is perfectly flat, or that it's perfectly aligned compared to the image sensor. Therefore, different focus points may need different AFMA values for optimal focus, and who knows - this might vary from lens to lens as well. We really just don't know exactly what AFMA is doing, or the math involved, although some suggest it's a correction to that correction value that corrects for the PDAF sensor's non-central light-ray measurements. Which itself will be dependent upon the degree of spherical aberration for any given lens.

I wonder if Reikan's developer has collated this sort of data from people using his software... would be incredibly interesting.


----------



## candyman (Sep 17, 2014)

Much similar to what others already expressed:



1. AF point illumination during AI Servo
2. EOS iTR
3. Reduction of noise in higher ISO than current in 5D MK III
4. EC when using auto ISO in manual mode
5. Slightly higher megapixel up to max. 24
6. USB 3.0
7. Dual CF (CFast support) - I don't use the sd it all :-(
8. Higher frame rate up to at least 8fps
9. More dynamic range
10. Shutter durabillity 300,000
11. Improved quality of joy-stick (no chance it will fall off!)
12. Built-in GPS (I now have the GP-E2)


What I really like to have is the automatic AFMA adjustment in camera upon attaching the Canon lens to Canon camera (with zoom lenses in minimal 2 positions - wide and end)


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 17, 2014)

sarangiman said:


> So... I'm just wondering how many here realize that the *D810, D800, and D750* already have _every single one_ of those features...
> 
> Or perhaps that's the point - everyone here wants what Nikon already offers? Either way, it's kind of funny



Why is this insightful or funny? It's human nature to want what someone else already has. Or perhaps you're making the standard Nikon fanboi error of assuming that the body is the entire system. My guess is that a lot of Nikonians want what Canon already offers: great selection of lenses and accessories and high manufacturing quality (*cough* D610 *cough*). And the D810 is clearly a nod toward the 5D3's strength as an event camera.

Ideally, I'd like to be able to select the best components from each brand, but proprietary mounts and connections force us into brand lock-in. Depending on your particular style of photography, either Nikon or Canon will serve your needs better, but there's no harm or shame in wishing for it all.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 17, 2014)

It´s kind of funny that on the day Canon releases the 7DII, this thread starts.

These threads tend to derail every time. We should have one common goal and that is to make sure Canon spend all their R&D money on the equipment we want. And instead we end up describing each other as DRones, Nikonites, Canonasses or what have you.

Yes, Canon´s cameras are probably better cameras than Nikon, but the sensor in a Nikon camera is better for most of our use, than Canons sensors are. Yes, Canons lens lineup is better than anybody else's, but I still want to be able to buy Zeiss lenses. Yes, Canons CPS is probably the best service in the business and I want that. But I also want at least the same quality sensor in my Canon camera as I could get in a Nikon camera. This is very very simple and it has nothing to do with being a Canonmonkey or a Nikonass. And please don´t reply with the crap statements about sales volumes etc. It´s a waste of CR space. The majority of those buying a DSLR does not even know that there is something called DR. And if they do, they believe it stands for Doctor!

Some of us wants a 24MP camera with splendid DR and high ISO performance. I wish you could get it. I want a 40MP body with splendid DR at lower ISO. Someone wants 4k video. I could´t care less, but I hope you´re gonna get it.

Some of the more agitated Canon sensor defenders here starts to sound like an antique arguing the slide ruler´s advantage over a calculator.

I am still able to live a happy life with my 1DX and 5DIII. But I was very disappointed when I realized that there was no 5DIV or 1DXs coming to Photokina, with a Nikon/Sony busting sensor in it ...


----------



## meson1 (Sep 17, 2014)

Ok. Here's my contribution. Quite a bit is the same as what others have suggested, but there's a couple of extra ideas in there:

[list type=decimal][*]Built in Wi-fi.
[*]UHS-II SD Card Slot alongside the CF card slot or ditch the SD slot and have two CF card slots.
[*]Even bigger buffer space.
[*]Option to allow asynchronous dual card writing, so it writes to whichever card you specify and then automatically copies to the other card when the camera is less busy.
[*]Built in wireless radio flash control.
[*]Option to automatically switch flash to High Speed Sync mode when shutter speed is greater than the flash sync speed.
[*]Dual pixel sensor.
[*]4K Video Recording.
[*]IR remote control sensor on the back of the camera as well as the front.
[*]Reduction or elimination of rolling shutter effects (in particular skew) during video recording.
[*]Higher resolution sensor perhaps in the 24-36MP range providing it does not compromise low light/high ISO performance.
[*]Improved dynamic range.
[*]USB3 connectivity including in-camera battery charging.
[*]Eye tracking autofocus.
[*]Allow setting of custom white balance in live view mode without having to take a picture and go fiddle about in the menus. Furthermore display the Kelvin value of the custom white balance. And an option to sample the white balance based on the current EV metering mode, for example, if you're using spot metering, you can base your WB on a sample taken from the spot instead of the whole screen. Have three or more custom white balance slots.
[*]Allow more compositional overlays in live view mode, e.g. thirds, golden rectangle, golden diagonals, golden spiral etc.
[*]Hyperfocal focusing mode and/or reintroduction of depth of field mode. Saves having to muck about with phone apps or cheat sheet charts when you already have a reasonably powerful computer in the camera itself.

[*]Come to that, how about camera apps? You get apps on your phones and tablets. Why not give the camera scope to host custom third party apps?[/list]


----------



## edurieux (Sep 17, 2014)

meson1 said:


> Ok. Here's my contribution. Quite a bit is the same as what others have suggested, but there's a couple of extra ideas in there:
> 
> Come to that, how about camera apps? You get apps on your phones and tablets. Why not give the camera scope to host custom third party apps?



It is not possible, let me explain why :

DSLRs are running on very tiny processors in term of computing power, probably to have a good battery life. Creating features on the Canon OS requires very strict programmation due to this. Handling "third-party" may cause a tremendous amount of bugs/lags on the camera. But you can look at Magic Lantern, a good way to improve your Canon dslr.


----------



## meson1 (Sep 17, 2014)

edurieux said:


> meson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. Here's my contribution. Quite a bit is the same as what others have suggested, but there's a couple of extra ideas in there:
> ...


Yes. A number of thoughts occur to me on this.

The processor(s) are also probably highly specialised to cope with things that the camera has to do. Furthermore, I imagine Canon would not want to open up their gear in this way, because people might then use it to circumvent Canon's designed-in differentiators between the various models. i.e. they might not want people buying a lower model camera and trying to bring it up to the spec of a higher model using features provided by readily available apps (within the limitations of the hardware of course).

Another thing against it is that the 5D4 is aimed largely at the professional market where reliability and dependability is everything. Apps could compromise this. Apps are more of a consumer idea, so if they were to start anywhere, it would be on lower end cameras... if at all.

Still it was a thought. It does depend of how Canon might go about it, how much of their architecture they open up and how tightly they control it. It doesn't have to be as loosely controlled as Google Play or Apple's AppStore. After all, if they can persuade people to spend their money on extra apps and features, it opens up an extra revenue stream for them. But as I say, thinking about it the 5D series isn't really the place for this to start. So that makes this idea fall outside the scope of this topic.


----------



## risc32 (Sep 18, 2014)

actually i wasn't kidding at all. i get the sense i know a great deal more about Ti and carbon fiber than you guys do. not only that you guys must not very active people, tons of stuff is made from these products these days. you certainly can buy a Ti carbon weave racket just about anywhere. expensive? well, not in the amount we're talking about for a camera body. In the fields of racing/aero/space these items have been around for decades.... my watch is solid Ti, my motorcycle is made up many large pieces of Ti, carbon, aluminum, mag, a ceramic aluminum sintered matrix, and some good old steel as well. i know what i'm talking about. berylium? please, how about econel? you don't know nuthin' about metals or tennis.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 18, 2014)

risc32 said:


> actually i wasn't kidding at all. i get the sense i know a great deal more about Ti and carbon fiber than you guys do. not only that you guys must not very active people, tons of stuff is made from these products these days. you certainly can buy a Ti carbon weave racket just about anywhere. expensive? well, not in the amount we're talking about for a camera body. In the fields of racing/aero/space these items have been around for decades.... my watch is solid Ti, my motorcycle is made up many large pieces of Ti, carbon, aluminum, mag, a ceramic aluminum sintered matrix, and some good old steel as well. i know what i'm talking about. berylium? please, how about econel? you don't know nuthin' about metals or tennis.



Perhaps you mean Inconel? Show me a titanium camera housing, or a carbon fiber one, and we'll talk.

Jim


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> They seem to aim for building the smallest, tightest bodies possible for every single model.



Some find that preferable.



jrista said:


> Their ergonomics don't fit my hands well (it's like they were designed explicitly for people with really tiny hands...I have rather large hands).



Fixed in the D810. I used to have the same complaint, as I also have big hands.



jrista said:


> Nikon has a couple lenses that I think are very nice, like the 14-24, but in general it doesn't seem like Nikon glass overall is up at the same level as Canon glass...and lens testing often demonstrates this. Canon lenses on say the 5D III resolve as much or more measurable resolution in output images than Nikon lenses on the D800/D810 most of the time.



Right... yet another urban legend. Like the _'Canon high ISO is the best!'_ one.



















So let's recap the above data which *directly contradict* your statement "Canon lenses on say the 5D III resolve as much or more measurable resolution in output images than Nikon lenses on the D800/D810 most of the time.": *60%* increase in effective resolution going from the 5D3+16-35 to the D800E+14-24; *43%* increase going from 5D3+70-200 to D800E+70-200; *38%* increase going from 5D3+35L to D800E+35G. I can hear it already: it's DxO so it must be _wrong_ & _biased_, right? It's not at all possible that a higher resolution sensor (no AA filter) with a modern lens design _actually_ gives you, er, higher resolution, is it?

These broad generalizations are just silly. Which is why I don't make them. I've only been pointing out the very specific arenas in which Nikon offers advantages. You've been pretty unwilling to accept some of them (like the advantages of a separate RGB metering sensor - even in the Canon line itself) without even trying yourself.



jrista said:


> Further more, while you always have glowing things to say about pretty much everything Nikon, not everyone who has used them has so many good things to say.



Like when I complained about missing Canon's plethora of cross-type points, wider-baseline dual-cross-type central sensors, _some_ of their glass, and their wireless flash system?

In my posts of late, I've simply been calling out the arenas in which Nikon is better, _not_ saying Nikon is better in every regard for everyone.

You of all people should understand that, as you & I have the same end goal - we want a system that has the best of both.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 18, 2014)

> What I've denied is your claims that Canon's AF system in the 5D III cannot do certain things. I tested those things. My 5D III performed fine doing AF with the 16-35mm f/2.8 with close, moving subjects. It's not 100% perfectly accurate, but I'm sorry, I don't believe for a moment that the Nikon system is 100% perfectly accurate either.



But that's not what I claimed. I said that, _especially in comparison to Nikon's 3D focus tracking_, it's ultimately so unreliable as to be practically useless for my shallow DOF wedding photography using fast 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 primes. Because I could not trust it. It gets confused too easily, and this'd come as no surprise if you performed my little thought experiment on how the algorithm actually works. And I'm *not* alone in my opinion. Sure, rewind 10 years, and the 5D III's subject tracking would've been the best thing since sliced bread. It's a very cute, clever algorithm. And I think it still works quite well for sports. It just hasn't kept up with what the metering sensors in the 1D X and Nikon's can do, or what the imaging sensors can do in mirrorless cameras now (although without phase detection, the latter are still lagging IMHO). Arguing against this is literally arguing against the benefits subject recognition via a sensor bring. And, again, you'd know this if you just picked up a D810 & put it in 3D tracking and waved the camera around a bit. It sticks to subjects almost as well as the Sony AF method you praise.

As for the lens stuff, there's too much to respond to, but generally my entire point of those examples was this: I pulled a few of the lenses I own to show you that your statement that _generally_ Canon lenses are better clearly _requires more proof_. Old lens design, new lens design - I picked both, you're still going to find something to complain about. But my point stands - you can't just go and say that generally a 5D3+Canon lenses will outresolve a Nikon D800E+Nikon lenses. That statement needs proof, b/c I easily pulled up 4 examples proving otherwise. And it's ridiculous to suggest anyway - that a sensor with literally 50% more resolution is somehow going to perform worse when paired with similar, high-end lenses.

Also, I wasn't referring to the overall DxO score; I was referring to the P-MPix score, which takes into account lens MTF & sensor resolution and characteristics.

In case you haven't sensed a them here yet over the years - I'm fighting your _general_ claims. Like Canon high ISO is better (glad we've dispensed with that finally!), Canon lenses are better, Canon sensors have more DR at higher ISO, Canon lenses + a 22MP sensor somehow still generally outresolve Nikon lenses with a 36MP sensor, etc. etc.

These claims are misleading.

Also, I'm not a Nikon fan. I'm a fan of some of the _technologies_ Nikon uses, as well as some of the _technologies_ in the Canon system (dual cross-type, wider baseline, wireless flash, DPAF). I'm a _technology_ proponent. Therefore, I cringe at false generalizations that ignore the realities of better, and worse, _technologies_.


----------



## RichM (Sep 18, 2014)

I've had my 5d3 for about 18 months, and find very little need for improvement. It meets almost all of my expectations for a camera in this range. My 7d is definitely due for an upgrade, and I'm looking forward to getting the 7d2. But I have to admit I'm not in much of a rush to upgrade my 5d3, and have very few suggestions for improvements. As always, improvements in high ISO, improvements in DR, and improvements in overall IQ are what we all want. Beyond that, I still LOVE my 5d3!


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> You should know, though, that you do come off as a very strong Nikon fan, given that you regularly seem to try to insinuate that Canon technology is inferior to Nikon technology...for pretty much every technology these kinds of cameras have. I haven't ever really seen you argue that anything Canon does is better. I've seen you make one-liner statements kind of to that effect, but when it comes right down to it...you seem to think Nikon is superior in every respect. That perfectly fine, everyone has and is entitled to their own opinions and preferences...but, it does come off a certain way. It comes off to me the same way I must come off to you, only the brands are switched.



I see what you're saying, but here's why it's like this:

I come in and specifically counter some false generalization that Nikon X is worse than Canon X (like the D800 AF is inferior to the 5D3 AF). That requires pages and texts of explanation, b/c no one here wants to accept it. You won't even try the Nikon out, resorting to some basic tests with your Canon that may or may not correlate with the real-world shooting scenarios where I've tried both systems. So I try to explain, post videos, then eventually give up.

OTOH, I _only_ provide 'one-liners' when it comes to a superior Canon tech (dual cross-type points providing more potential detail to focus on, wider base-lines providing more accuracy, potentially anyway, the wireless flash system, etc.) b/c _no one here is making some false generalization about those being poor or worse than Nikon_. And, naturally, since this is *Canon*rumors, where *Canon* people reside who don't want to think they made the wrong decision (that included me for many, many years - and if you must know, I still have my 5D3 and will continue to have it until I've convinced myself from empirical data that Nikon is _not_ noticeably worse in AF precision with 24/35/85 primes - though Roger Cicala's initial data suggest the systems are comparable). For now, though, the D810 has solved many of the problems people have asked solutions for here, while introducing little to no negatives (yet).

So in the end it boils down to this: I don't need pages of text to convince you that Canon is better in one respect or the other. You'll gladly digest it in one line, one phrase even.  Something Nikon is better at? Not a chance, without writing a novel & presenting irrefutable data. Which, obviously, I can't do. That's fine. But I am glad I refuted the general statement that '5D3 AF is clearly superior to D800 AF', b/c maybe that'll actually make someone try the systems out before being misled by a generalization that may or may not be applicable to him or her.

Make sense now?


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 18, 2014)

Well, at this point all I can say is that we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope you understand my intention of challenging generalizations. In all seriousness, thanks for refraining from emotional posts, and having more of a dialogue. 

As for the AF tracking thing - I haven't been changing my story, but given the volume of posts, I don't blame you for seeing it as such. But I also don't think any more text is going to do any convincing, so I'll rest my case there. My initial purpose of the AF stuff was to challenge the assertion that the 5D3 AF is clearly superior to the D800 AF, and I think I made my points re: that pretty clear. I'll rephrase my initial 'opinion' that the 5D3 is almost useless for reliable subject tracking to (and you're right, that is more my opinion than a stated fact): Nikon's recent DSLRs have significantly more reliable, accurate, and robust subject tracking across the frame than any Canon DSLR I've tested to date, though the 1D X comes close. And it's b/c the secondary color sensor undoubtedly helps tell the AF system what to track. Without this, the AF algorithms are rather blind in that they can only work with a map of detected subject distances at any given AF point at any given instant, not have any understanding of what those subjects are in order to track them.

As for the Sony A7 series for your Canon glass - that's not a bad option. The Metabones Smart Adapter III is pretty darn good, if you can work around some of its quirks. Don't expect fast or professional AF, of course, but it could work for your landscapes (the AF is not going to work for your bird photography). Unfortunately, shutter shock is a real issue with the A7R, and since it seems you like telephoto shots, I don't think the A7R will work for you. The A7 will work; I doubt you'll like the A7S b/c it has worse base ISO DR than the A7R... and it's pretty obvious in landscape shooting when raising shadows (it's still better than Canon, but if you're picking up a body to _avoid_ low DR, then... that's not the right one). That plus its resolution cost, all for a tiny bump in ISO performance at the highest ISOs (I really only see a significant benefit at ISO 25.6k and above).

I myself have toyed w/ the idea of having an A7 + 'f/4 holy trinity' of 16-35 (now that it's released), 24-70, and 70-200 as my travel/landscape camera. But keep deciding wavering - b/c I'm not sure the size/weight benefits outweigh the downsides enough. And now_ there's_ a system where you can say the lenses don't seem to take full advantage of the 36MP the A7R offers (not that the 70-200 could, b/c of shutter shock), yielding numbers not far off from Canon 5D Mark III + similar lenses. I must say, though, it's really cool that you can hold a A7 + 24-70 far above your head, swing it around like a toy, get some high up vantage points, etc., and never feel a single ache/soreness in your hands/arm!

Not to beat the Nikon drum again, but, the D810 with electronic front curtain is the only way I know of getting the most out of a 36MP sensor currently. Plus it has a half to 2/3 EV more DR than the A7R, b/c somehow Nikon squeezed out higher effective FWC per-pixel from what ostensibly seems to be a similar sensor. But I can understand your desire to select a system that'll use your Canon glass. It's just that the A7R probably isn't it. Shutter shock was actually the reason I got rid of my A7R. Yes you can mitigate it to some extent by strapping massive weights to your camera, but (a) that defeats the purpose of the system, and (b) that's just not something I want to be worrying about when there's clearly a better alternative.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 18, 2014)

You know, I thought of a potential reason why sports photographers may not talk about or use 3D tracking. If there are multiple players wearing similar jerseys far enough away that the detail discerned is not specific enough to any one player, this might confuse the AF system, and it may jump from player to player.

Here, the arguably _less_ sophisticated system of the 5D3 (or 1D X with iTR off) might actually have an advantage: b/c these algorithms usually look for the concomitant _loss_ of one subject at a particular subject distance and the _appearance_ of a subject with similar subject distance elsewhere. 

Now I'm really curious to see if iTR turned off works better for this type of shooting than iTR turned on/Nikon's 3D tracking. But again, as I said earlier, I don't think sports are the best use-case for 3D focus tracking to begin with.

Anyway, perhaps that's at least _part_ of the reason for some of the general lack of awareness and enthusiasm for 3D focus tracking. Furthermore, Google searches on these topics indicates there's quite a lot of confusion re: iTR/3D tracking and when and when not to use it. So I'm rarely moved by the 'if this were so great, wouldn't people be raving about it?' argument - people do find interesting ways to use technology that aren't immediately adopted or known in a widespread fashion.

In fact, it's kind of funny, but, Canon's own Rudy Winston in his technical article on iTR (dated just last year), writes: 


"The EOS-1D X is the world’s first SLR with the ability to perform Face Detection when using the standard eye-level viewfinder (all previous D-SLRs with face detection capability could only do it during Live View operation, when the camera’s actual imaging sensor was used to read the scene)."
"While this new metering sensor is used to fine-tune exposure metering, Canon’s engineers realized that its ability to recognize subjects could be used in other important ways too. [for subject analysis]"

(http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/eos1dx_afpoint_selection_using_color_information.shtml) 

Well, I suppose he'd never picked up a Nikon... as those were both previously available, for many years. I mean the statement "all previous D-SLRs with face detection capability could only do it during Live View operation" is _flat out false_, unless you were to interject 'Canon' after 'previous'. 

So if Canon's own people don't know, please excuse me for being skeptical re: whether or not that many people actually know how useful 3D focus tracking and scene analysis off the RGB metering sensor can actually be. Save for those that have thoroughly tried and tested both (or more) systems.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> When it comes to the A7r, for me, it would be used solely for landscapes. I've said that on many occasions. That's also a big part of the reason why the D810 is not the most appealing option...it's a very pricey camera, on top of the need for new lenses (which just skyrockets the price even more)...just for landscapes.
> 
> Again, my goal is NOT to replace my entire Canon kit. I'm not "moving" to the A7r...I would simply be _adding_ the A7r. I would be adding it very specifically just for landscapes. From what I know about the shutter shock issue, it primarily affects longer focal lengths when used on a tripod when there isn't enough weight to keep everything steady. A lot of people (particularly on DPR forums) have asked about it, and a lot of people who own the A7r have replied saying they have never encountered the issue at all. I have no intention of trying to slap my 600mm lens on the A7r, nor any other long focal lengths. I might like to try it a few times on the A7s, but I have no expectations that the AF system would work well through the metabones adapter. Maybe someday, but that isn't my goal right now...and if Canon can remain competitive at high ISO, it never will be.
> 
> The A7r would pretty much exclusively just be a wide to ultra-wide angle landscape camera. Maybe some macro stuff in the long run (with an MP-E 65mm, if the thing would work with the adapter.) The vast majority of my work with it would be 16-35mm, at the wider end, which should reduce the impact of any potential SS issue even further.



Right, that's why I was saying it might make sense for you. As an additional camera for your landscape work. I've found shutter shock to *not* be an issue under ~70mm focal length, but of course that depends on your tripod, setup, etc. So you'll be fine with the 16-35 & the A7R. Btw, once you hear & feel the shutter on it, you'll no longer be surprised that SS is actually an issue... but it's easily demonstrated as well now that the 70-200 FE is out. 

I'd worry about macro work on the A7R - I'd expect shutter shock to be an issue, since macro is just as affected by camera shake as telephoto. Unless you're using a flash.

That MP-E 65mm is fantastic. I've still got mine & intend to use it with that A7 I'm always toying with the idea of buying...


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 18, 2014)

metering wise I'd like some statistical options on how each of the zones are weighted.

Currently Evaluative mode uses all zones and takes the average.. I'd love to see some options to this:

1: Average
2: maximum
3: minimum
4: median
5: 2nd/3rd/4th etc brightest/dimmest zone.
6: average of brightest/dimmest N zones.
7: average of middle N zones (ignore brightest and dimmest N readings before average)
8: And of course, AF linked, but with median or average weighting (median ignores extremes)

And with all that, more zones.

By combining with this with exposure compensation in theory anyone could set their camera up to do anything.

The best bit about all this: it should all be just software.

ETTR
optimal for dark objects against a bright sky.
optimal for bright objects on a dark background.
etc.
etc.

In addition: hardware addition, I'd like the camera to highlight in the viewfinder and in the EXIF the zones being used.

Just what I'd like to see.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 18, 2014)

risc32 said:


> actually i wasn't kidding at all. i get the sense i know a great deal more about Ti and carbon fiber than you guys do.



It's possible, I'm neither a metallurgist nor a materials engineer. I just know enough to make appropriate desicions about which materials to use in design applications.



risc32 said:


> not only that you guys must not very active people



Interesting leap.



risc32 said:


> tons of stuff is made from these products these days. you certainly can buy a Ti carbon weave racket just about anywhere.



There may be many tennis rackets which utilize carbon fibers and titanium to some degree. Much of it is marketing, a far cry from truly meaningful materials, like "Carbotanium".

What do you suppose is the fiber volume ratio of a GFRP/Ti weave racket available for $30?



risc32 said:


> expensive? well, not in the amount we're talking about for a camera body.



Have you looked at a camera body recently? 

Could you lay one up? Sure. But it's far more cost effective to cast and machine.



risc32 said:


> In the fields of racing/aero/space these items have been around for decades



Three examples no rational person would consider inexpensive.



risc32 said:


> i know what i'm talking about. berylium? please, how about econel? you don't know nuthin' about metals or tennis.



You know enough to list some materials, misspelling both. Inconel? Good old 6Al-4V (I presume your expertise means I need only spell out the alloy rather than the raw material) has a better strength to weight ratio.

AlBeMet trounces them both, and is easier to machine.

If the specific application doesn't require great corrosion resistance and thermal consistency, you'd be crazy to use Inconel with all else being equal.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 18, 2014)

I would like to add the return of the EG-s Screens again. I did like them alot in my 5Dc.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 18, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I would like to add the return of the EG-s Screens again. I did like them alot in my 5Dc.


Agreed! If I can´t get a good precision screen for manual focus, I don´t believe I will buy the camera.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 18, 2014)

Or at least make changing focusing screens an option for those consumers who want that functionality


----------

