# More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV



## rushfan21122 (Aug 16, 2016)

Finally, Full specs and images of upcoming Canon EOS 5D Mark IV has leaked online. See the detail below. 5D Mark IV will be officially announced on August 25, 2016.

Specs:

Sensor: Effective pixels 30.4 million pixels, dual pixel CMOS
AF point: 61 points
ISO: 100-102400 (extension) standard ISO up to 32000
Continuous shooting: 7 frames / sec.
Video: 4K 30fps, HD120fps
150,000-pixel RGB + IR photometry sensor
touch screen
Anti-flicker
Built-in GPS, Wi-Fi · NFC connection
Media: SDXC / SDHC / SD, CompactFlash Type II
The main terminal: USB 3.0, HDMI
Size: 150.7 x 116.4 x 75.9mm
Weight: 890g

pics
http://www.cameraegg.org/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-full-specs-and-images/


----------



## Gnocchi (Aug 16, 2016)

No photos


----------



## Click (Aug 17, 2016)

Finally. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Alejandro (Aug 17, 2016)

Zoom wheel?

No 360 options wheel?


----------



## tpatana (Aug 17, 2016)

Interesting. And starting to sound like I'll be ordering one.

What's the little thingy between the joystick and wheel, next to Q?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

I was totally not going to get one...but that Rate button makes it sooooooo tempting. If only there was also a Direct Print button too, instead of stupid, useless things like playback and delete, I'd preorder two of them!

  ;D


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I was totally not going to get one...but that Rate button makes it sooooooo tempting. If only there was also a Direct Print button too, instead of stupid, useless things like playback and delete, I'd preorder two of them!
> 
> ;D



clearly STUPID CANON.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> What's the little thingy between the joystick and wheel, next to Q?



Release button for the card door perhaps. 

I suddenly feel bad about buying a Mark III, but not to the point that I feel the need to upgrade.

Jim


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

Jim Saunders said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > What's the little thingy between the joystick and wheel, next to Q?
> ...



there's markings on the side that show you slide the door out like normal.. so that wouldn't make sense. could be a door lock, but all the way over there?


----------



## tpatana (Aug 17, 2016)

Jim Saunders said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > What's the little thingy between the joystick and wheel, next to Q?
> ...



The door looks similar slider as Mk3, so probably no.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 17, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> there's markings on the side that show you slide the door out like normal.. so that wouldn't make sense. could be a door lock, but all the way over there?



The only other half-way obvious thing I can think of is that the fabled two-action lens release has been finally implemented, but beyond that I'm out of ideas.

Jim


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

Modified version of the 7DII's AF selection lever.


----------



## uxr51 (Aug 17, 2016)

Lets hope the 1080p @120FPS is real 1080p resolution. The 1DX II real resolution is around 720p like in the 5dII.


----------



## Click (Aug 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...




It's not the on/ off switch for the lens-release audible alarm requested by Dilbert? ;D


----------



## edilson (Aug 17, 2016)

uxr51 said:


> Lets hope the 1080p @120FPS is real 1080p resolution. The 1DX II real resolution is around 720p like in the 5dII.



Sorry dude, but HD means 720p, not Full HD
Until now, 120fps @ 720p


----------



## Macoose (Aug 17, 2016)

Some people aren't going to like it because there isn't a flippy screen!
[I wonder who...] :


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 17, 2016)

No tilty flippy. No sale. Damn you Canon...


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

rushfan21122 said:


> Specs:
> 
> ISO: 100-102400 (extension) standard ISO up to 32000



Finally! ISO digits rumor. 

However alongside the rest of the new and/or updated features most of which could be available already in 2012. :/

Back then they would be trully inovative. 

Hate me for my opinion as much as you like I have been around for a while so most probably I have already read your opinion about Canon (milking or profit-oriented company ideas) somewhere else in this forum


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 17, 2016)

Diko said:


> rushfan21122 said:
> 
> 
> > Specs:
> ...



Finally a 1/3 stop increase compared to the 5D3?


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > rushfan21122 said:
> ...


 Nope. Finally the iso was mentioned as a (stable...?!?) rumor. But good point though. Thanks. Reedited it to be clearer what I meant. 

As for the 1/3 stop increase - I expext based on the DR feedback from 1Dx m2 this one 1/3 stop to be better than if it was 1/3 stop more eventually on the 5D m3 due to the new ideas implemented in the new CMOS.


----------



## afonsoclj (Aug 17, 2016)

Probably will be my definitive camera, until Canon gives me IBIS or some kind of Foveon sensor ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

Diko said:


> Hate me for my opinion as much as you like I have been around for a while so most probably I have already read your opinion about Canon (milking or profit-oriented company ideas) somewhere else in this forum



What hate you for an opinion that's completely irrelevant to the quality or popularity of the camera?


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 17, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> No tilty flippy. No sale. Damn you Canon...



One of the reasons I switched to mirror less


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 17, 2016)

Curious as to this "Dual Pixel RAW" alluded to. Can't wait to get some clarification on what exactly that is. Dual ISO?


----------



## Bboogie (Aug 17, 2016)

When can you pre-order, very nice..


----------



## davidj (Aug 17, 2016)

I'm guessing that 30.4MP means 4500px by 6750px. I'm not sure what this means for video.


----------



## dolina (Aug 17, 2016)

Price and when will it ship? ;D


----------



## vjlex (Aug 17, 2016)

That expression Google translated as "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file" is "これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル" which might be better translated as "Editable Dual Pixel RAW files (a feature which was previously unavailable up to now)"

Still not completely clear on what this means, but I wonder if this is the new feature they're talking about. It claims it's a never before done feature.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 17, 2016)

It seems to have a new button underneath the AF point selector (joystick).


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

Want want want want want


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 17, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> It seems to have a new button underneath the AF point selector (joystick).



Modified version of AF selector introded on 7D2 I would bet


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 17, 2016)

shunsai said:


> That expression Google translated as "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file" is "これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル" which might be better translated as "Editable Dual Pixel RAW files (a feature which was previously unavailable up to now)"
> 
> Still not completely clear on what this means, but I wonder if this is the new feature they're talking about. It claims it's a never before done feature.



Thanks! I was about to send that to a Japaense buddy for translation. Thats kinda what I thought it said more or less. What we may be looking at there (now Im almost positive) is the long rumored Dual ISO function that ML created in for the 5D3 but now applied by Canon itself with their DPAF sensors, which frankly is a total no-brainer perfect marraige of tech and firmware. I would have to believe this will absolutely get added to the DX2 via firmware since it too already has all the hardware in place to do this. They probably just didnt have it perfected in time for its release and saved it for a huge aplash with the 5D4


----------



## myjtp (Aug 17, 2016)

Soooo 120FPS @ 1080HD? or 120FPS @ 720HD?


----------



## nickvera (Aug 17, 2016)

is the 4k cropped like the dxii ? ? ? ?


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 17, 2016)

The sensor resolution catches me off guard for sure. I'm pleasantly surprised there. I'm indifferent about the CF card and not C-Fast. This means my collection of 1066X Lexar cards will still be relevant for a few more years in my primary body...but it also means that my media storage collection won't be taking the leap into the modern era. I would have really liked 8fps, but I'll take 7fps since it's more than the current 5D3 I use for backup duty for sports. A concern I have is buffer depth. The files out of a 30mp sensor coming in at 7fps will likely bog the camera down a bit, so hopefully it remains speedy AND can write to both card slots quickly.

But the inclusion of WiFi, touchscreen, Dual-Pixel, a 30mp sensor with on chip ADC and lower read noise, and 4K are sure to make this a big hit without a doubt...there will be haters.

Primary questions about the camera:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Autofocus in Low Light - having just experienced horrible AF issues on two dark shoots this month, I'm really itching for a camera that can autofocus like my 6D and 7D2 can in low light...if not improve upon it. Nothing more frustrating than knowing your next camera is getting announced this month and you're experiencing a problem you hate with your current one!!

[*]Buffer Depth on Both Card Slots - every 5D3 owner that shoots RAW knows the struggle of the dreaded SD card slot buffer being pathetic. I really think this will be solved, but I'd love to know for a fact.

[*]Silent Shooting Mode - this is certainly going to be a very popular camera with wedding photographers and jounralists so continuous silent shooting will hopefully see a little jump in speed.

[*]Linked Exposure Metering to AF Point - not something that's make/break for me since none of my cameras do it, but it would be a great feature.
[/list]

I'm excited. I'll be ordering mine hopefully before October, but either way, this will be in my hands this year.

- Kevin


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 17, 2016)

This looks like a worthy upgrade.

Wish they came out with it a month agao.

scott


----------



## tpatana (Aug 17, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> shunsai said:
> 
> 
> > That expression Google translated as "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file" is "これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル" which might be better translated as "Editable Dual Pixel RAW files (a feature which was previously unavailable up to now)"
> ...



Assuming it's only FW addition (quite fair to assume so I think), they could bring it to 1DX2 too with FW update, and basically any model they've even done if the DIGIC just can handle the added processing.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 17, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> The sensor resolution catches me off guard for sure. I'm pleasantly surprised there. I'm indifferent about the CF card and not C-Fast. This means my collection of 1066X Lexar cards will still be relevant for a few more years in my primary body...but it also means that my media storage collection won't be taking the leap into the modern era. I would have really liked 8fps, but I'll take 7fps since it's more than the current 5D3 I use for backup duty for sports. A concern I have is buffer depth. The files out of a 30mp sensor coming in at 7fps will likely bog the camera down a bit, so hopefully it remains speedy AND can write to both card slots quickly.
> 
> But the inclusion of WiFi, touchscreen, Dual-Pixel, a 30mp sensor with on chip ADC and lower read noise, and 4K are sure to make this a big hit without a doubt...there will be haters.
> 
> ...



I already have 4x 64GB of the 1066x cards, and there just was sale on those so I was wondering if I should get more. Getting exited, if they just confirm it's 1080p120 and not 720p120, I'm quite confident I need to buy one.


----------



## LordVader (Aug 17, 2016)

Hmm...
How genuine may this be...

" CompactFlash TypeII" seriously? After they dropped Type II finally for the 5DIII and the 5DS(r) ...

doubt it


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 17, 2016)

Looks good, and I only got my 1DX2 yesterday, maybe my 5D3 will have to be sold and save up for a Mk4, for now ai will just have to make do with the 1DX2s measly 20mp lol


----------



## noms78 (Aug 17, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> No tilty flippy. No sale. Damn you Canon...



Wait for 6D mark II...


----------



## hne (Aug 17, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> shunsai said:
> 
> 
> > That expression Google translated as "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file" is "これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル" which might be better translated as "Editable Dual Pixel RAW files (a feature which was previously unavailable up to now)"
> ...



Please note that the dual pixels get their light from different sides of the lens, so the alignment won't be perfect for dual-ISO case. It would be as close as calling it a 60Mpx sensor. What this COULD be used for is:

Tweaking focus after the shot
Simulating the use of a smaller aperture after the shot (though to get a good result, you'd need the pixels to be split both horizontally and vertically)
Stereoscopic imaging through the creation of a depth map from the split-pixel difference information
Offline AF-MA by going through your RAW files, doing some statistics on difference between PDAF and DPAF values

...and several other processing-intensive things similar to what's being done with the Lytro cameras. If we can get our hands on all the info needed for this in the RAW files, it's gonna open up some really nice new possibilities. It'd also lead to quite a delay before the raw format is properly supported by 3rd-party software (Adobe probably already have devs working on it)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2016)

"ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file"

?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2016)

shunsai said:


> That expression Google translated as "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file" is "これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル" which might be better translated as "Editable Dual Pixel RAW files (a feature which was previously unavailable up to now)"
> 
> Still not completely clear on what this means, but I wonder if this is the new feature they're talking about. It claims it's a never before done feature.



it would be amazing if it read each pixel with some sort of dual ISO in true native fashion (nothing like the ML stuff), like it could read everything say under ISO1600 at both ISO 100,200,400,800 and also at ISO1600 at the same time and then you use the ISO1600 read for clean shadows and use the regular read for all the non-shadow stuff

if it had the on chip ADC of the 1DX2/80D (which are still a good deal worse than Exmor) but also did a dual ISO read of each pixel (at one go) I'd think that might give the best DR we have yet seen along with no negatives

but maybe it means something not quite as amazing, maybe it's just like the ML stuff and it applies every other row in block and has other issues


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > shunsai said:
> ...



it depends, if it's really done well and wouldn't have the negatives of what ML does, then it would need to be hardware


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2016)

The fact they call it Dual Pixel RAW though makes it sound less promising.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

Reposting: 

effective 30.4MP CMOS sensor
dual pixel AF CMOS
* ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file*
AF 61 points
150,000-pixel RGB + IR photometry sensor
anti-flicker
continuous shooting 7 frames / sec
ISO100-102400 (extended sensitivity)
touch panel
dust and water specification
video 30Fps 4K
can cut out the JPEG still image of 8MP from 4K video
for the slow motion 120fps of HD video
time-lapse movie
GPS built-in
Wi-Fi, NFC
media SD / SDHC / SDXC and CompactFlash TypeII
USB3.0 terminal, HDMI terminal
size X 116.4Mm X 150.7Mm 75.9Mm
weight 890g

There's still a ton of fine print we don't have yet, but red stuff is surely the secret sauce we've been hearing about. This is what everyone will buzz about until legit marketing collaterals or a manual leaks.

I don't want to speculate that it's referring to Dual ISO (like from Magic Lantern, but optimized, designed expressly to do this, etc.) but someone already beat me to it on another thread. Here's hoping -- that could be wild, gamechanging stuff.

- A


----------



## x-vision (Aug 17, 2016)

shunsai said:


> That expression Google translated as "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file" is "これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル" which might be better translated as "Editable Dual Pixel RAW files (a feature which was previously unavailable up to now)"
> 
> Still not completely clear on what this means, but I wonder if this is the new feature they're talking about. It claims it's a never before done feature.



I think this just refers to in-camera RAW editing.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 17, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> A specifications list has appeared at Digicame-Info and it pretty much matches what we have posted recently. It also looks like the image we posted was real as well.



Congrats to CanonRumors for being the fist one (again) with the correct specs!


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 17, 2016)

I'm trying to figure out why I'm fairly unimpressed. Hopefully in action the camera will be amazing, as a 5DSr user those specs don't light a fire under my wallet.

It's 60g lighter, which is a big thing to improve but did it cost the Mag Alloy as a result. 7fps but what's the buffer etc.

But it's a start.


----------



## padam (Aug 17, 2016)

It is an evolutionary step, more fps, better AF and lower read noise on the sensor, just like the 1DX II to the 1DX.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 17, 2016)

x-vision said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > A specifications list has appeared at Digicame-Info and it pretty much matches what we have posted recently. It also looks like the image we posted was real as well.
> ...



Thank-you, I hear far more hate than love (which comes with the territory). Even after this posting, I'm still getting hate emails from other web sites (they think they're incognito).

This was the hardest product to get specifications for ever. I assume it's only going to get more difficult.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 17, 2016)

Some will never be impressed no matter what the spec maybe. I have mates who are not impressed by the 5D4 spec, they would still not be happy if the camera had pop out legs, walked itself to weddings and shot the whole even by itself hahaha


----------



## midluk (Aug 17, 2016)

I'm sure the dual pixel raw (if it really uses the dual pixels and not just performs a normal readout twice) will not be dual ISO. Do you like bokeh discs that are blown in one half and not blown in the other half? Both pixels read with the same ISO would however increase the dynamic range of the raw file slightly, although very inefficiently (double file size for 14->15 bit), just increasing the bits per pixel for the normal raw would be the much better choice for this.

It will likely be more about drawing depth information from the image or confirmation of focus precision.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 17, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Great work CRguy. Work like this is like keeping the power grid running. Nobody thanks you for your daily hard work, but just wait to when it's not working - people will go all angry-villager on you with pitchforks and torches.

That being said, I'm getting more and more satisfied by my decision to pick up a lightly used 1DX for sports/action rather than waiting for the 5D4.


----------



## M_S (Aug 17, 2016)

Resolution is what I expect from such a camera. Very appreciated. I even would have liked a 32 MP resolution but oh well. 
As for video: [email protected] is a bit of a downer. I expected more (PAL 50 or NTSC 60 frames) from this than just the basics nowadays. I expect HD is [email protected] and that would be a downer too. Reviews from 1DXII in that area weren't really good (image too soft) and I hoped for an improvement in the 1080p department. We will see if this reads better when the final specs come out. So far I only read about 4:2:2 8 bit output. Not the best either for serious colour grading. I expect the motion jpg codec to be in it as well, possibly up to 500MBit/s, which would stress the card space a lot. A good codec would improve here as well. What about C-Log? Any info on that? The 1DXII is a miss in that region too....
So all in all its a mixed bag so far which brings this camera to at least to "yesterday", in certain areas to the "now", but I am hard pressed to say it brings it to the "future". There is a lot to improved upon judging from the specs.
I have to think hard to upgrade from my Mark III or go elsewere.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 17, 2016)

kaihp said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...



I have a friend that bought 2 1DX's for the price of a 1DX2, it's a great camera and is pretty much the best value for a DSLR out there right now on the used market.


----------



## AdamBotond (Aug 17, 2016)

Probably its just me, but that 5D mark IV label on top looks just awfully cheap.


----------



## vishaltpt (Aug 17, 2016)

Very very Underwhelmed with the specs of 5D4 

I was hoping for at least 36mp with No ALF (variable ALF like rxr2) for sharper images, great low light, DR & some new technology derived from the Mirrorless world....something vow like what 5D2 offered when released.

...How is this camera any better than Sony a7r2 / s2 , Nikon 810 ??? which are at their end life cycles & nearing upgrades themselves.

I don't think I can stick with this 5D4 for the next 4 years. Come on be realistic !! Canon philosophy with the 5D line seems to be 'Let's give them just a little so as not to jeopardize their higher end cameras/cine Line'. Canon is still playing the catch up game.Very soon we'll have the Hasselblad X1 medium format mirrorless, the pentax 645Z2, a7r3,.... coming to market. Way Better Image quality & prices are coming down.

I was waiting to upgrade from the 5D2. As a stills photographer & occasional video (70:30 ratio) ...the 5D3 did not offer much so was waiting for the 5D4...and now....this is not significant motivation enough for me to push the $$'s canon's way....I was sitting on the fence with the sony system with the new awesome GMaster pro & batis ,loxia lenses. Now I would be looking at the SONY a7r2 - a7r3 seriously....the awful battery life on the Sony, a general reluctance to switch & huge canon lens collection is what is holding me back tough....but imho still sticking with 5d4 now when there are so many choices would be a dodo approach...I want the best that's available & pl don't say go buy the 5DSR!! it has many issues & is very niche for my needs.


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 17, 2016)

This is looking more and more interesting. The dual pixel raw files sound interesting, but I think we can trust Canon to underdeliver on its potential. I don't expect any automatic AF tuning, for instance. That would be far to convenient =)

I'm sure the new button on the back is the AF area mode selector, revised from the 7D2. The lever on the 7D2 is a little tiring for the thumb, and a regular button should be easier to use.

I really hope they have made the NFC/Wifi connection process fast and easy to use, once set up. My current setup with an Eyefi mobi pro in my 7D2 is more convenient than other implementations I've tried, the 70D for instance.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 17, 2016)

naylor83 said:


> ut I think we can trust Canon to underdeliver on its potential.



Having waited eagerly for the 7D2 to come out and the discussions around its delay, my reading is quite different in that Canon will only release a function when they know it works. There is a difference between what is technically possible and what is reliable.
I think this is also why their teleconverters actively block AF once the aperture reaches f8/f11 (depending on the model) and why they do not make ridiculous claims like Nikon about ISO 3,000,000.


----------



## jonneymendoza (Aug 17, 2016)

vishaltpt said:


> Very very Underwhelmed with the specs of 5D4
> 
> I was hoping for at least 36mp with No ALF (variable ALF like rxr2) for sharper images, great low light, DR & some new technology derived from the Mirrorless world....something vow like what 5D2 offered when released.
> 
> ...



Whats wrong with the a7r2? i have had it for almost a year and since owning it, i have barely used my 5d3 as the a7r2 is superior in IQ, compactness and features.

In terms of battery life, you can get a battery grip and it still a bit lighter then carrying a 5d3. 

If the mythical A9 does what its rumoured to do(unlimited buffer raw shots, 70mp version, same build/size as a 5d3) im afraid this 5d4 could be dead by the end of the year.

Already as you say you can grab the holy grail of zooms in 2.8 fashion thats as good as the canon's plus zeiss primes! the lenses are coming rapidly mate on the sony front!


----------



## Sator (Aug 17, 2016)

これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル

The Google translation is totally mangled: "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file". 

I would translate that as "dual pixel RAW files open up previously unobtainable degrees of latitude in post-production processing". Or more literally "dual pixel RAW files opens up possibilities in post-processing adjustments that we previous did not have"


----------



## azizjhn (Aug 17, 2016)

;D Great News for me it is everything I wished for my next camera since I'm using 6D right now except there is no flip out screen

- 7 FPS with better autofocus
- 4K with DPAF 
- Touch screen
- Nice they added a GPS & Wifi at least I'm not gonna lose it : 
- Dual Card Slots
- Timelapse

Anything else is welcome addition.
now I'm waiting for the price


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 17, 2016)

I've updated the post with an explanation of Dual Pixel RAW.

_“The way Dual Pixel works, 30MP DP sensor means a 60MP dual pixel raw file with a new RRGGGGBB pattern (vs RGGB), so potentially better dynamic range, and maybe an improved debayering algorithm.”_ @duvrai via Twitter


----------



## azizjhn (Aug 17, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> I've updated the post with an explanation of Dual Pixel RAW.
> 
> _“The way Dual Pixel works, 30MP DP sensor means a 60MP dual pixel raw file with a new RRGGGGBB pattern (vs RGGB), so potentially better dynamic range, and maybe an improved debayering algorithm.”_ @duvrai via Twitter



I wish it is something close to X-trans pattern so they can remove the AA filter to get even more sharper image


----------



## Eldar (Aug 17, 2016)

jonneymendoza said:


> If the mythical A9 does what its rumoured to do(unlimited buffer raw shots, 70mp version, same build/size as a 5d3) im afraid this 5d4 could be dead by the end of the year.
> 
> Already as you say you can grab the holy grail of zooms in 2.8 fashion thats as good as the canon's plus zeiss primes! the lenses are coming rapidly mate on the sony front!


I am willing to bet that the 5DIV will outperform any comparable Sony camera by a significant margin in volumes, value and lifespan. I wonder what features you refer to that "kill" Canon? 

A 70MP Sony camera would have very limited value for the majority of users, because getting any return on that massive resolutin is rather difficult and you would have to spend a fortune on lenses, of which there aren't that many (unless you go for adapters). And limitless buffer depth for raws, at 70MP ..., good luck with your post processing and storage procurements.

Yes, Sony are releasing new lenses and they also have some very attractive lenses from Zeiss. All at a very higt cost and the reviews of the Sony lenses are not exactly raving. And; they don't reach Canon's offering to their knees and their service sucks. Three key lenses: 16-35/4: Sony: $1348, Canon: $999. 24-70/2.8: Sony: $2198, Canon: $1799. 70-200/2.8: Sony: $2598, Canon: $1999. Canon provides higher quality and a $1347 saving.

There are lots of unknowns about the 5DIV, even though we have a few spec items clarified, so to pass bastant judgement at this stage looks a bit foolish. DR, noise and high ISO performance, low light AF, buffer depth ... etc. To me, this looks to be a very capable camera for the user community it is addressing and I am really looking forward to read the first deep dives.


----------



## Rejay14 (Aug 17, 2016)

vishaltpt said:


> I was waiting to upgrade from the 5D2. As a stills photographer & occasional video (70:30 ratio) ...the 5D3 did not offer much so was waiting for the 5D4...and now....this is not significant motivation enough for me to push the $$'s canon's way....



If you see no advances from 5D2-> 5D3 -> 5D4 then perhaps upgrading bodies is not your thing..I get it. But as a working professional, I saw a HUGE leap from 2->3 and a marginal leap (in pre-release mumblings) to the MkIV, which makes me hesitate. But not for 3 full upgrades.


----------



## rawshooter (Aug 17, 2016)

As long as I get my focus points illuminated in servo AF its a buy.


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 17, 2016)

To echo a lot of the negative sentiment that will ultimately come about from ANY new camera release.

It's about the individual needs of the user. Any camera I use must be lightweight and have features that allow me to make an exposure as quickly as possible.

The 1DX2 doesn't have the resolution I need, it's way too loud and way too heavy to shoot handheld for 12 hours with.

On a side note, I hear what some are saying about Canon protecting their pro line up but it shouldn't mean punching professional wedding photographers in the face. If it had the 1DX2 button configuration options and CF menu system I'd be pretty made up. But I doubt it will and makes it no better than what I already have.


----------



## jonneymendoza (Aug 17, 2016)

Eldar said:


> jonneymendoza said:
> 
> 
> > If the mythical A9 does what its rumoured to do(unlimited buffer raw shots, 70mp version, same build/size as a 5d3) im afraid this 5d4 could be dead by the end of the year.
> ...



value?

Well when both the 5ds and a7r2 came out, the a7r2 had more features and better value in my book.

right now, the canon cameras are more robust and have better AF. no ifs or buts about that.

Do you mean sales volume? who cares, this is not iphone. Canon outsells Nikon in every shape or form. does that mean Nikon suck in every department?

Matter of fact, D810/D750 looks slightly more attractive then this 5d4!! 

What would be your excuse when Nikon announces a D900 that quite possibly will blow away the 5d4?

Its not just the sony that canon need to look out for. what about nikon?


----------



## azizjhn (Aug 17, 2016)

jonneymendoza said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > jonneymendoza said:
> ...



*"**Matter of fact, D810/D750 looks slightly more attractive then this 5d4!!"* How ??

*"What would be your excuse when Nikon announces a D900 that quite possibly will blow away the 5d4?"*
You mean Sony Ar2 sensor with D5 Autofocus with 4K without DPAF & inferior low light performance due to higher megapixel & less FPS.
I think it will be like 5D3 vs D810. The 5D4 will be superior all-rounder & the D900 or whatever the name is will be better for high detail photography which it will be beating the 5DS.


----------



## Sator (Aug 17, 2016)

There seems to be a rumour that Sony will produce a 75MP camera with unlimited buffer. However, that is more a result of SAR failing to screen out nutty rumours and feeding the mindless masses with any fantasy they are fed just as clickbait. A 75MP camera will NOT have unlimited buffer. I am always amazed at the gullibility of Sony fanboys, and their willingness to believe anything they read on the internet.

Also, Sony semiconductors has a consistent track record of never allowing the format below to exceed the resolution of the next format above it. The next format above FF is 4433 medium format, which is currently stuck at 51MP. Hasselblad just released a camera based on the 51MP 4433 sensor, and Fuji is rumoured to be developing a camera based on this sensor. It would totally destroy confidence in Sony semiconductors if Sony cameras released a 75MP FF camera now (especially as the semiconductor firm and the camera firm are now two separate companies). Given that Sony semiconductors have consistently never allowed the format below to surpass the resolution of the next format above it, without exceptional reason to think otherwise, there are absolutely no grounds whatsoever to speculate that the semiconductor firm would suddenly start to change their practice now.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 17, 2016)

Rejay14 said:


> vishaltpt said:
> 
> 
> > I was waiting to upgrade from the 5D2. As a stills photographer & occasional video (70:30 ratio) ...the 5D3 did not offer much so was waiting for the 5D4...and now....this is not significant motivation enough for me to push the $$'s canon's way....
> ...



The 5D line was basically split in 2012. The 5D3 was a clear move upwards in terms of capabilities and that was also reflected in the price. It is telling that Canon continued to sell the 5D2 in parallel with its "successor" until autumn 2012... when the 6D was released. The 5D4, on the other hand, is a "natural" successor to the 5D3.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 17, 2016)

Rejay14 said:


> vishaltpt said:
> 
> 
> > I was waiting to upgrade from the 5D2. As a stills photographer & occasional video (70:30 ratio) ...the 5D3 did not offer much so was waiting for the 5D4...and now....this is not significant motivation enough for me to push the $$'s canon's way....
> ...


Probably depends much on what's important to you.

To me picture IQ counts the most and here the difference between 5D2 and 5D3 was almost zero.

I think the leap this time around may be much bigger than anything the 5D3 offers. 

However, generally its probably always wise to consider "jumping" camera generations to get better glass. You can get some very serious lenses for 3.500$.


----------



## suburbia (Aug 17, 2016)

jonneymendoza said:


> If the mythical A9 does what its rumoured to do(unlimited buffer raw shots, 70mp version, same build/size as a 5d3) im afraid this 5d4 could be dead by the end of the year.



Slight thin ice comparing myths with rumours!


----------



## Eldar (Aug 17, 2016)

jonneymendoza said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > jonneymendoza said:
> ...


Sales volume and monetary value.

Yes, Nikon is most likely more of a threat than Sony. A Nikon D900, which is something I am sure the Nikon camp is dreaming of, may well be a great camera. Just like the D810 is a great camera, with a much better sensor than the 5DIII, but with some faults. Canon could make the 5DIV better than it will be, but they save for the next version and to separate their various models. If the D900 is good enough, they will be forced to release stuff a little earlier, which benefits us.

If you limit your lenses to just a few, it is of less cosequence to jump camp. However, for the majority of serious shooters, the investments in glass keeps you with your brand. Unless it becomes too painful.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 17, 2016)

Now, suddenly there's a spec list that may make me even preorder! Cannot wait to see what this new double format brings to the table. Just a few RAW files to study before release please.

To me this seems like the innovative jump I have been waiting for Canon to take for so long.

To those already complaining about 30 MPIX - lets see how many of you end up not using this function to avoid the resulting 60 MPIX RAW files. 

Anyway, my CF cards, PC and hard drives are all upgraded and ready for 100 MB files - just bring it on. ;D

Go Canon!


----------



## jonneymendoza (Aug 17, 2016)

Eldar said:


> jonneymendoza said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



i got lots of canon glasses but keeping my wallet closed to jump ship to sony.

For me, using both sony and canon is the perfect mix for me. Sony for travel, street and landscape and the canon for photo shoots and action stuff.

The thing is, i am not a blind canon fanboy. i appreciate stuff coming from any brand and i would jump ship if i know one camp is better then the other. Life is too short to be a fanboy of a brand. You aint married to a brand for petes sake and you can easily sell your L glasses for near same retail you got it for.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 17, 2016)

Diko said:


> rushfan21122 said:
> 
> 
> > Specs:
> ...



5D3 iso claim was a (very) bad joke. Banding and all. Already with the 5DS/R Canon showed very good progress on every single aspect of the 5D3 sensor. I expect 5DIV to be two full stop better than 5D3 - for real + no banding.


----------



## azizjhn (Aug 17, 2016)

Is it me or there is someone else wish for "Canon EVF-DC1 Electronic Viewfinder" Support for video shooting :'(


----------



## symmar22 (Aug 17, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Rejay14 said:
> 
> 
> > vishaltpt said:
> ...



Absolutely, I will (likely) upgrade from my 5D2s for the same reasons, IQ is what counts to me, 99% of my pictures are made between 100 and 400 ISO, and the 5D3 was no IQ upgrade for me : same amount of pixels, same shadow noise, almost the same banding, and marginally less DR at 100 ISO. 

AF or frame rate is no matter to me, and the better construction of the 5D3, doesn't change the fact that my 5D2s never needed service in almost 7 years. I was tempted by the 5DSR, but the outdated sensor technology (same as the 5D2 except for the pixel count) made me wait for the 5D4. I will wait until the sensor is thoroughly reviewed, but I have good hope that it is finally a big improvement. Likely not Sony sensor level, but it's my working gear, and the main points are ergonomics, reliability and the whole range of TS-E lenses that have no replacement elsewhere.

I only wish Canon would finally replace some prehistoric lenses, that are becoming embarrassing : 

- all the 50mm (except the 1.8, for the price it's OK)
- all the "gold rings" 20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2
- and finally the 25 years old 45 and 90mm TS-E (though the 90mm is still very good, there is a little margin for improvement).


----------



## George D. (Aug 17, 2016)

Yeap, so far not spectacular, rather conservative, but looks good. From the Mk.II I'm definitely upgrading. And if it's got even better IQ than the Mk.III I guess this will turn out a winner for Canon. Await sensor performance.


----------



## E (Aug 17, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> naylor83 said:
> 
> 
> > ut I think we can trust Canon to underdeliver on its potential.
> ...



But Canon has left out things that 1 D C could do on the 1 D X II. (Canon Log format, for instance.)

So they most definitely are holding back, when they shouldn't. I was really hoping to feel comfortable with buying the camera I wanted, both for stills (looks good) and video (not good) this year. I like the look of materials shot with Canon.

I was waiting for a Mark IV with slow motion in 1080p, but it seems as if they're not going to give us that.


----------



## Gadger (Aug 17, 2016)

jonneymendoza said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > jonneymendoza said:
> ...




I wish you would, it would make this thread easier to read


----------



## jonneymendoza (Aug 17, 2016)

Gadger said:


> jonneymendoza said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



How are you finidng the 1dx?


----------



## George D. (Aug 17, 2016)

Moreover, these specs do not reveal some new R&D, a new technology or something, meaning price can be very reasonable...


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 17, 2016)

x-vision said:


> shunsai said:
> 
> 
> > That expression Google translated as "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file" is "これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル" which might be better translated as "Editable Dual Pixel RAW files (a feature which was previously unavailable up to now)"
> ...


With Canon since 5DIII...


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 17, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> Autofocus in Low Light - having just experienced horrible AF issues on two dark shoots this month, I'm really itching for a camera that can autofocus like my 6D and 7D2 can in low light...if not improve upon it. Nothing more frustrating than knowing your next camera is getting announced this month and you're experiencing a problem you hate with your current one!!


Already 5DS/R does this. 5DIV will follow I'm sure.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 17, 2016)

LordVader said:


> Hmm...
> How genuine may this be...
> 
> " CompactFlash TypeII" seriously? After they dropped Type II finally for the 5DIII and the 5DS(r) ...
> ...



" CompactFlash TypeII" *compatible?* Seems likely.


----------



## pwp (Aug 17, 2016)

AdamBotond said:


> Probably its just me, but that 5D mark IV label on top looks just awfully cheap.


No, not just you. It did raise my eyebrow, but it's a very minor point. Unsubtle, not the prettiest bit of branding, it's a bit "look at me!" Could work best in the US market, the global home of vulgar oversized branding. Look at US cars!

If it continues to offend, there's always the neatly cut black tape solution.

-pw


----------



## Gadger (Aug 17, 2016)

jonneymendoza said:


> Gadger said:
> 
> 
> > jonneymendoza said:
> ...



How are you finidng the 1dx?

Great thanks, paired up with the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x and pleased with the results. Took it to RAF Fairford air show in July. Photos in the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM lens sample photo section. Going add 5D4, as sold my 5D3 last year and missed it. And will then sell the 7DMKII. But I will wait for the 5D4 reviews first.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Modified version of the 7DII's AF selection lever.



I think this is the single most exciting thing that Canon has added to their bodies recently, hopefully it trickles down to the 800D.
I'd rather have a dedicated ISO wheel, but this looks like a very intuitive step forward in controls.


----------



## padam (Aug 17, 2016)

George D. said:


> Moreover, these specs do not reveal some new R&D, a new technology or something, meaning price can be very reasonable...


It has more to do with the recent surge of the Japanese yen.
So for the US, maybe (slightly less than the Mark III original price), but for the EU, definitely not.


----------



## Maui5150 (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> What hate you for an opinion...



One thing is for sure... You ain't got bad grammar


----------



## gn100 (Aug 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Interesting. And starting to sound like I'll be ordering one.
> 
> What's the little thingy between the joystick and wheel, next to Q?



It pops open the back so you can load film ....!! ;D


----------



## jonneymendoza (Aug 17, 2016)

i think i will pre order and buy this to replace my 5d3


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

Maui5150 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > What hate you for an opinion...
> ...



Thanks for catching that. It's good that you've never made a typo that's been incorrectly interpreted by an autocorrect feature, you must be quite proud of yourself.


----------



## smorgo (Aug 17, 2016)

I'm still using a Mark 1 and it's been driving me mad for years.

If the rumoured specs are right, the Mark 4 will have every feature that I've been hoping for. As long as the IQ is at least as good as the Mark 3, I'm all in.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 17, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Rejay14 said:
> 
> 
> > vishaltpt said:
> ...



Actually, it's been split three times. 5DII > 5DIII & 6D + 5DS/R. The 5DS/R are not a 5DIII or IV, but a seperate linage. When they get replaced, they will be a 5DS/R II. 

I'm looking forwards to a 5D4 in my bag. One of my 5DIII's is looking pretty tired and it's up for it's three year replacement soon.


----------



## pwp (Aug 17, 2016)

smorgo said:


> I'm still using a Mark 1 and it's been driving me mad for years.
> 
> If the rumoured specs are right, the Mark 4 will have every feature that I've been hoping for. As long as the IQ is at least as good as the Mark 3, I'm all in.



Upgrading from a 5D MkI will blow your socks off, regardless of the rumoured specs. 

-pw


----------



## IglooEater (Aug 17, 2016)

I'm eager to know what the dual pixel in camera raw means. I can't believe it records the pixels all separately in a 60mp raw file- at 7fps it would be 30% more data flow than the 1dx II.
Anyone wiser than me on this issue? maybe I'm missing something obvious?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > shunsai said:
> ...



Sort of. What about cropping and leveling?


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> I'm eager to know what the dual pixel in camera raw means. I can't believe it records the pixels all separately in a 60mp raw file- at 7fps it would be 30% more data flow than the 1dx II.
> Anyone wiser than me on this issue? maybe I'm missing something obvious?



Probably be only supported in one shot mode. Probably be still 30mp but you get dynamic range from basically TWO shots at the same exact time then combined into one ALL during the raw stage.

I think it's Canons way for the ML split ISO thingy. One pixel will be at ISO 400 and one will be at say 1600 to give you two stops more dynamic range on shadows albiet at the cost of a slightly bit more noise... or perhaps ISO 100 on one pixel and 400 on another, or even 800 on another.

I bet you anything this is what it is and it'll be a game changer for sure. Maybe kind of gimmicky but effective. Call in IN CAMERA HDR on steroids... because it'll be a single shot HDR.


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 17, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> naylor83 said:
> 
> 
> > ut I think we can trust Canon to underdeliver on its potential.
> ...



I'm sure there is something to that, but the fact that they didn't bother to work out how to do wifi and touch screens in both the 5D3 and the 7D2 was mind-blowingly annoying, limiting two otherwise brilliant cameras.


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> But the inclusion of WiFi, touchscreen, Dual-Pixel, a 30mp sensor with on chip ADC and lower read noise, and 4K are sure to make this...


... my next general purpose camera.



shunsai said:


> That expression Google translated as "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file" is "これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル" which might be better translated as "Editable Dual Pixel RAW files (a feature which was previously unavailable up to now)"
> 
> Still not completely clear on what this means, but I wonder if this is the new feature they're talking about. It claims it's a never before done feature.


 Could it be: A set of two modes. Either *30 MP High DR RAW file* mode and *60 MP Low/regular DR RAW file* mode. 

Where by the next Canon 5D*s* m*2* when out to have *50 MP High DR RAW file* mode and *30 MP Low/regular DR RAW file* mode. I know - things will not be that simple, but I can always hope.

I am more interested if ML could utilize this new tech.... whatever it is ;-)



tpatana said:


> Getting exited, if they just confirm it's 1080p120 and not 720p120....


 I am afraid that *HD* is not *FullHD* ergo it would be _720p120_. But hey ML might fix that ;-)



noms78 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > No tilty flippy. No sale. Damn you Canon...
> ...


 "Tilty flippy" is especially nice for photojournalism in crowds. I miss that feature for sure. 

On the other hand I am skeptic about the touchscreen. Haven't shot anything so far on a DSLR with touchscreen and not sure (in case that the extra knob on the rear is really that new locking mechanism) if would suit me good enough. 



sunnyVan said:


> There would be too few distinguishing differences between a 5dmk4 and 6dmk2. Why would anyone *pay twice as much* for a 5dmk4 just for 4k video and better build quality?


 So far from what I recall *6dmk2 won't be that cheap as the last one and it will be more feature-rich[CR2]* and those feature *won't be bad* at all.



mclaren777 said:


> People keep wondering about that new button on the back. Wasn't this answered a while ago here on CR...
> 
> *"Other ergonomic changes, such as a new locking switch on the rear of the camera."*


 True. Thanks, m8.

*Last thoughts*: I am so happy I skipped the 5Dm3. That is why I said Canon should have brought most of those features (except for the advanced CMOS feautures) a generation ago. Yes WiFi included. They announced they solved the wi-fi issue 6 months after 5Dm3. 

Now with that ISO, WiFi, and 30MPs I can't allow myself to skip this time.


----------



## taaviholtta (Aug 17, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> I'm eager to know what the dual pixel in camera raw means. I can't believe it records the pixels all separately in a 60mp raw file- at 7fps it would be 30% more data flow than the 1dx II.
> Anyone wiser than me on this issue? maybe I'm missing something obvious?



I'm curious to know that as well. Could there be possibility that sensor works something like Nokia's PureView camera system. Sensor would create abigger pixel from smaller ones....kinda virtual pixel but bigger than physical ones in a sensor?


----------



## rcarca (Aug 17, 2016)

Has anyone done a full comparison of 5Dii, 5Diii and 5Div specs in a table? It would be interesting to see...

I acknowledge my ignorance of the finer details - but very curious to understand more about the dual pixel stuff!

From what I have seen, it looks exciting to me. Someone said they "need" it. I don't "need" it, but I do "want" it badly! Now I "need" to find the money...


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

taaviholtta said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > I'm eager to know what the dual pixel in camera raw means. I can't believe it records the pixels all separately in a 60mp raw file- at 7fps it would be 30% more data flow than the 1dx II.
> ...



1Dx M2 = _Dual _DIGIC *6+* 
5D M4 = _Single _DIGIC *7* (CR2) ;-)

Make your own conclusions ;-)



rcarca said:


> Has anyone done a full comparison of 5Dii, 5Diii and 5Div specs in a table? It would be interesting to see...
> 
> I acknowledge my ignorance of the finer details - but very curious to understand more about the dual pixel stuff!
> 
> From what I have seen, it looks exciting to me. Someone said they "need" it. I don't "need" it, but I do "want" it badly! Now I "need" to find the money...



Don't even bother. All 5D M3 owners would have to commit mass group suicide, cause it will become obvious that the 5D M3 is nothing more than the usual "milking the cow" scam.


----------



## nightscape123 (Aug 17, 2016)

So the question I have is, can the potential "dual ISO" functionality of the dual pixels be used instead as a low noise mode? Instead of shooting the dual pixels at 2 different ISOs, can you shoot them instead at the same ISO and reduce the noise?


----------



## ThePhotoBrewery (Aug 17, 2016)

azizjhn said:


> ;D Great News for me it is everything I wished for my next camera since I'm using 6D right now except there is no flip out screen
> 
> - 7 FPS with better autofocus
> - 4K with DPAF
> ...



Same here. Coming from the 6D, this camera offers all I want and need for what I do. Really looking forward to it now.


----------



## jchung (Aug 17, 2016)

Dual Pixel huh? Fuji's patent expired? They did dual pixels in the sensor in their S3 Pro. All Canon needs to do now is make then octagonal pixels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

Diko said:


> shunsai said:
> 
> 
> > That expression Google translated as "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file" is "これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル" which might be better translated as "Editable Dual Pixel RAW files (a feature which was previously unavailable up to now)"
> ...



A 60 MP mode that produces images with a 3:1 aspect ratio. Pano mode?


----------



## smorgo (Aug 17, 2016)

pwp said:


> Upgrading from a 5D MkI will blow your socks off, regardless of the rumoured specs.
> 
> -pw



Absolutely. I've nearly jumped for the Mark 3 on numerous occasions, but I really wanted to hold out for WiFi tethering. No more excuses (and funds are in the bank).


----------



## mikekx102 (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > shunsai said:
> ...



Well hang on, wouldn't it be 3:1, but with pixels that are twice as high as they are wide (ie. 3:1 pixel ratio, but 3:2 total area ratio)


----------



## Local Hero (Aug 17, 2016)

You guys have a lot more faith in Canon then me.

I bet the dual pixel thing is going to be at best something mildly interesting.

It's crazy to hope for something really revolutionary from Canon.

They have proven again and again that it just isn't their style.


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

I've seen all I need to see. 

Where is the PRE-ORDER button?

I'd love to know about the F8 auto focus and how many points it's spread across as well as will this camera feature -4EV focusing?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

mikekx102 said:


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



Sure, that would work great on all of those devices with displays they have rectangular pixels. How many of those do you have?


----------



## hne (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> mikekx102 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



We all have displays with pixels arranged in a rectangular grid. Rectangular with all sides equally long for that matter. But you don't have to have PAR (pixel aspect ratio) match DAR (display aspect ratio). If you have a DVD player hooked up to a TV manufactured in the last 5 years you're displaying non-square pixels on a square-pixel display.

Up until ITU Rec. 709 became the default spec to build consumer sets against, this was all we had for TV. TV pixel aspect ratio has traditionally (Rec 601) been 10:11 for 480i signals and 59:54 for 567i. For 4:3 display aspect ratio. Because of luma channel transmission bandwidth reasons. It wasn't until the world finally managed to agree on the HD specs that we got square pixels outside of the computer domain.


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

My take is that canon will have a simple menu option labeled something like "Dynamic Range Boost" mode which will limit the camera to 3FPS like you said but that the dual pixel will split ISO capabilities and will provide two stops more dynamic range in a single capture. Single image HDR style photo.


----------



## zim (Aug 17, 2016)

Wee holes below the "Mark IV" pheeeewwww......... ;D


----------



## vishaltpt (Aug 17, 2016)

Issues with 5D4 as a general purpose all round camera:

1. *No Flip screen. *The flippy is so convenient for video. Great for overhead shots in protests, crowd. Great for doing full length portraits.
2. *No 120 fps at FHD.* What!!! Sony , Panasonic put that in their cameras decades back. 120 fps is real slomo not 60 fps. Canon wake up! Its 2016. We want a serious, creative tool.
3. *Moderate conservative 30mp.* Not great for landscape work, detailed studio portraiture, cropping in post.
4. *Poor video codecs.* 8 bit. Not broadcast quality video specs. GH4 & A7s2 are way better tools for video work.
5. *No focus peaking.*
6. *No zebra.*
7. Horribly low * 1/125 sync speed.* Very limiting.
8. *No IBIS* stabilization.
9. Built in LPF reduces sharpness of images. Medium Format is loved for that besides the smooth tonal gradations & 16 bit.
10. *DR* less than the competition.

All in all ; as previously said it is a very *“Yesterday Camera" *on all the specs than a “Tomorrow” one. Can it last another 4 years.You bet.

There is nothing new here. Just better AF maybe. That’s it. For majority of Pros who shoot video on manual focus fancy names like ‘dual pixel this’ & ‘dual pixel that’ doesn’t make sense. Likewise for Stills the Competition offers better IQ.


----------



## DrToast (Aug 17, 2016)

Wish a new grip wasn't necessary.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 17, 2016)

vishaltpt said:


> Issues with 5D4 as a general purpose all round camera:
> 
> 7. Horribly low * 1/125 sync speed.* Very limiting.



Wait, what? Where in the world did this come from?


----------



## Sator (Aug 17, 2016)

shunsai said:


> That expression Google translated as "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file" is "これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル" which might be better translated as "Editable Dual Pixel RAW files (a feature which was previously unavailable up to now)"
> 
> Still not completely clear on what this means, but I wonder if this is the new feature they're talking about. It claims it's a never before done feature.



I can see how you might wringe this reading out of this passage, but I think it is written in typical Japanese hyperbolic promotional language. I would not read too much into it as other are doing. 

これまでに無い=previously non-existent 

後処理の調整=adjustments in post-processing

が可能な=which are made/rendered (ie adjustments in post-processing) possible

デュアルピクセルRAWファイル=dual pixel RAW file

That is why if had been hired as the translator I would translate that as "dual pixel RAW files open up previously unobtainable degrees of latitude in post-production processing". Or more literally "dual pixel RAW files opens up possibilities in post-processing adjustments that previously never existed".

If you wanted to say "editable dual pixels" in Japanese it would be better to say 直接調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル implying that direct editing at pixel level is possible. But I do not think that is at all what is being implied here. It is clearly more a case of the files offering greater latitude in post. It _may_ be little more than a hyperbolic way of saying that you can recover shadows better.


----------



## rcarca (Aug 17, 2016)

tr573 said:


> vishaltpt said:
> 
> 
> > Issues with 5D4 as a general purpose all round camera:
> ...



Quite! He might be right, but I cannot read that into the details on the listing!!! And why on earth would they move to IBIS given the legacy of their lenses???


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (Aug 17, 2016)

Thanks CR for piecing all those Rumors together  ;D ...any Guestimates on what the Pixel size would be for us Astrophotographers


----------



## gsealy (Aug 17, 2016)

vishaltpt said:


> Issues with 5D4 as a general purpose all round camera:
> 
> 1. *No Flip screen. *The flippy is so convenient for video. Great for overhead shots in protests, crowd. Great for doing full length portraits.
> 2. *No 120 fps at FHD.* What!!! Sony , Panasonic put that in their cameras decades back. 120 fps is real slomo not 60 fps. Canon wake up! Its 2016. We want a serious, creative tool.
> ...



I think the thing is that Canon COULD put more into the camera, but they just don't. They are always holding back a bit. I look at the updated specs and I continue to come away with the notion that, for me, spending the $3500 or so is not worth it as an upgrade over what I already have. I really would like to buy the 5DIV from an emotional point of view and money is not an issue, but I can't bring myself to do it based on logical, analytical thinking. I can wait. Technology is changing fast and there are lots of new cameras coming out.


----------



## rcarca (Aug 17, 2016)

gsealy said:


> I think the thing is that Canon COULD put more into the camera, but they just don't. They are always holding back a bit.



Sure: they could put a lot more AND make it a loss leader and a lot of us here might be even happier. I doubt that will happen!!! (I almost wrote "all of us here" and then remembered I was on CR...)


----------



## George D. (Aug 17, 2016)

I don't know about post-processing capability but in-camera JPEG needs to be seriously improved.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

hne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mikekx102 said:
> ...



Ok, squares are technically rectangles. They're both quadrilaterals, and polygons, too...

His point – "pixels that are twice as high as they are wide" – is individual pixels with a 2:1 aspect ratio. A somewhat bigger difference than you're discussing.


----------



## midluk (Aug 17, 2016)

Sator said:


> That is why if had been hired as the translator I would translate that as "dual pixel RAW files open up previously unobtainable degrees of latitude in post-production processing". Or more literally "dual pixel RAW files opens up possibilities in post-processing adjustments that previously never existed".
> 
> If you wanted to say "editable dual pixels" in Japanese it would be better to say 直接調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル implying that direct editing at pixel level is possible. But I do not think that is at all what is being implied here. It is clearly more a case of the files offering greater latitude in post. It _may_ be little more than a hyperbolic way of saying that you can recover shadows better.



So the dual pixel part of this point may just be to make it sound cool in marketing and it really is just plain 16 bit raw.


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 17, 2016)

vishaltpt said:


> Issues with 5D4 as a general purpose all round camera:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Horribly low * 1/125 sync speed.* Very limiting.



Source? Because if true my decision is made for me.


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

Also notice on the top screen ISO 32,000

This will be the top limit of AUTO ISO and tells me that 25,600 will be more than usable now. If you take a look at the past:

5D3: 25,600
7D2: 16,000
1DX/2: 51,200
60D: 6400
7D: 6400
70D: 12,800
80D: 16,000
6D: 25,600

The advertising image of the top of the camera for all these cameras have shown the auto ISO upper limit. Previously that meant on the 5D3 the 25,600 and 1DX of 51,200 most felt that to be the absolute max borderline unsuable setting type thing. But many say that Canon placed these settings at the right mark and this is an indication that we'll see 1/3 stop improvement at the HIGH ISO side.... not including the base ISO DR improvement (which we don't know what that is yet but look at the 80D/1dx2 for indication)


----------



## vjlex (Aug 17, 2016)

Sator said:


> shunsai said:
> 
> 
> > That expression Google translated as "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file" is "これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル" which might be better translated as "Editable Dual Pixel RAW files (a feature which was previously unavailable up to now)"
> ...



Thanks! I like your translation better. I tend to do more literal translations when I can't be exactly sure what nuance they're going for. But yours is a good fit. I especially like "opens up new possibilities" for "これまでに無い~が可能な".


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2016)

Sator said:


> shunsai said:
> 
> 
> > That expression Google translated as "ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file" is "これまでに無い後処理の調整が可能なデュアルピクセルRAWファイル" which might be better translated as "Editable Dual Pixel RAW files (a feature which was previously unavailable up to now)"
> ...



Finally, some sanity here. 

As Neuro pointed out earlier "Thomas" really doesn't know how Canon's dual pixel autofocus sensors work.

Let's all also try to keep in mind that the rumored feature that was supposed to be completely new to a DSLR was in fact a *rumor*. Too many times, people actually believe what they read on the Internet.


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

vishaltpt said:


> 3. *Moderate conservative 30mp.* Not great for landscape work, detailed studio portraiture, cropping in post.


*General purpose* is NOT like *All-in-One*



vishaltpt said:


> 4. *Poor video codecs.* 8 bit. Not broadcast quality video specs. GH4 & A7s2 are way better tools for video work.


 I am sure if possible ML WILL enable 2k video at least. That is if the heating issues are not that much of an obstacle.



vishaltpt said:


> 5. *No focus peaking.*
> 6. *No zebra.*
> 7. Horribly low * 1/125 sync speed.* Very limiting.
> 10. *DR* less than the competition.


Man, do you realize we are on rumor level. Do you bet your 1-year income on those claims of lack of the above mentioned features? 

And I really don't understand where did especially this 1/125 come. And I still don't understand people that complain where there is high speed flash. I use it with my radio flash adaptors all the time. Up to 1/4000th I believe it was... The taxation is on the battery, of course.



vishaltpt said:


> 8. *No IBIS* stabilization.


 I still here people that complain from LENSE stabilization and you talk about body one. I am pretty confident that they have nothing to offer in a descent quality within the body as a stabilization solution. However I must admit that CANON might not want to have to sell only single version of their glasses.



vishaltpt said:


> 9. Built in LPF reduces sharpness of images. Medium Format is loved for that besides the smooth tonal gradations & 16 bit.


Well did you just compared a MF with FF?!? I just stopped taking you seriously.


I find the Canon 5D M4 quite on current track with not so ground-breaking new techs. Since this all is only on the plane of rumors I admit I might be wrong for the latter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

Diko said:


> vishaltpt said:
> 
> 
> > 9. Built in LPF reduces sharpness of images. Medium Format is loved for that besides the smooth tonal gradations & 16 bit.
> ...



Really, it took you until his _9th_ point to stop taking him seriously?


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ..... His point – "pixels that are twice as high as they are wide" – is individual pixels with a 2:1 aspect ratio. A somewhat bigger difference than you're discussing.



Finally I understood what you have missunderstood on what I might have written too briefly    

My fault!

What I meant was double the *count* of the pixels, not the *dimensions* of the pixels. ;-)


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

Please feel free to comment and correct what I have put together in the last 15 min. And to correct my observations.

EDIT: Aside from the front cable opening.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 17, 2016)

vishaltpt said:


> 3. *Moderate conservative 30mp.* Not great for landscape work, detailed studio portraiture, cropping in post.



Unlike the equally conservative Nikon 800/810, eh? You know the one that many raved about as giving unprecedented level of detail.


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > vishaltpt said:
> ...


 Indeed. Had to stop on his posts count. But have to admit even I get caught to be trolled from time to time. :/


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

More important will a RSS L plate from the 5D3 w/o grip fit the 5D4? 

I'd rather have to not repurchase a L plate.


----------



## Maui5150 (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for catching that. It's good that you've never made a typo that's been incorrectly interpreted by an autocorrect feature, you must be quite proud of yourself.



Pride is a sin. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa


----------



## Sator (Aug 17, 2016)

Phew...at last we have some sensible consensus. Another go at a really neutral and quite literal translation that still reads like proper English:

これまでに無い=previously non-existent 

後処理の調整=adjustments in post-processing

が可能な=which are made/rendered (ie adjustments in post-processing) possible

デュアルピクセルRAWファイル=(by) dual pixel RAW file(s)

"Previously impossible adjustments in post-processing are rendered possible by dual pixel RAW files"

I tend to favour translations that capture the mood of the original, but this is a vanilla translation that is easy to defend against people who prefer literal translations. I've read this to mean it increases the latitude by which adjustments can be made in post...take that however you will. I tend to think it will be far less spectacular than the hyperbolic advertising language implies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

Diko said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ..... His point – "pixels that are twice as high as they are wide" – is individual pixels with a 2:1 aspect ratio. A somewhat bigger difference than you're discussing.
> ...



Got it. Still, a 30 MP sensor with a 3:2 aspect ratio would yield images of approximately 6750x4500. If you're doubling the count of the pixels with the dual pixels which are all split along the same (vertical) axis, that resulting 60 MP image becomes 13500x4500. When you display such an image on any typical display (camera LCD, phone, monitor, TV) it's going to display as a 3:1 image.


----------



## M_S (Aug 17, 2016)

In addition to my previous post, which comes in parts to the same conclusion:
http://www.eoshd.com/2016/08/depth-look-video-specs-canon-5d-mark-iv/

Seems to me not quite an offering so far.


----------



## bseitz234 (Aug 17, 2016)

Diko said:


> Please feel free to comment and correct what I have put together in the last 15 min. And to correct my observations.



My guess is the "M Focus" is just because there's not a lens attached, and it looks like there is one in the 5d3 photo. I seem to recall seeing similar behavior on my 7D recently.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 17, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Probably DXOMark not happy that the 5D4 will make it hard for them to hate on Canon


----------



## mikekx102 (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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


Sounds good! I hear the kit lens is anamorphic


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 17, 2016)

symmar22 said:


> I was tempted by the 5DSR, but the outdated sensor technology (same as the 5D2 except for the pixel count) made me wait for the 5D4.



5DS/R sensor is actually better than both the 5D2 and the 5D3 sensor in every single image aspect: DR, iso-noise, color, anti-flickr, banding etc. + you get all the pixels, so harsh to claim Canon used 5D2 sensor technology for its 50 MPIX camera.

Anyway, lets see what the 5D4 can do. I'm hoping for +2 stops over the 5D3 based on the excellent 5DS/R sensor.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 17, 2016)

Local Hero said:


> They have proven again and again that it just isn't their style.


5DII was a revolution in a camera - why should 5DIV not be? 

We will soon find out...


----------



## swithdrawn (Aug 17, 2016)

I really, really hope they oversample the 4K image and not just pull a 1:1 readout from the center of the sensor like on the 1DXII. On such a large sensor, that would be a 1.6 crop according to my rough (and possibly wrong) calculations, worse than APS-C... leaving Sony with the only real 4k full frame video camera.


----------



## freejay (Aug 17, 2016)

I'm pretty sure that this "Dual Pixel raw" thing will be a possibility to use the sensor's distance/sharpness data later in DPP (or if later implemented in Lightroom for example) to do corrections/effects only in unsharp or sharp, close or far away parts of the picture.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 17, 2016)

midluk said:


> Sator said:
> 
> 
> > That is why if had been hired as the translator I would translate that as "dual pixel RAW files open up previously unobtainable degrees of latitude in post-production processing". Or more literally "dual pixel RAW files opens up possibilities in post-processing adjustments that previously never existed".
> ...



How did you make that leap?



StoneColdCoffee said:


> Thanks CR for piecing all those Rumors together  ;D ...any Guestimates on what the Pixel size would be for us Astrophotographers



Why guess? It's 30.4MP full frame. Do the maths!

30.4MP * (2^20 pixels/MP) = 31,876,710 pixels
H*V = 31,876,710 and given aspect ratio H/V = 3/2
Thus H is about 6,915.

Width/Horizontal Pixel Count = pitch
36mm/6,915pixels = 5.2 µ.

edit: my bad, you said pixel size. 

(36mm*24mm)/31,876,710=2.71e-5mm2, or about 27 µ2, less the walls.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2016)

Sator said:


> Phew...at last we have some sensible consensus. Another go at a really neutral and quite literal translation that still reads like proper English:
> 
> これまでに無い=previously non-existent
> 
> ...



Thanks for your excellent work in bringing some sanity to the discussion with a real translation. I suspect it will still be hard to rein in some of the hyperbolic speculation. 

I do wonder though, why the description specifically references DPAF Raw files. Not sure what DPAF has to do with it, unless what they are getting at is that there is greater latitude in post-processing than what we have seen in the past with DPAF files. Given that the 1Dx II has been widely lauded for its improved dynamic range using a DPAF sensor, I suspect they simply mean that the 5D IV will also have better dynamic range and more editing flexibility using its DPAF sensor.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 17, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Sator said:
> 
> 
> > Phew...at last we have some sensible consensus. Another go at a really neutral and quite literal translation that still reads like proper English:
> ...



+1


----------



## freejay (Aug 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> freejay said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure that this "Dual Pixel raw" thing will be a possibility to use the sensor's distance/sharpness data later in DPP (or if later implemented in Lightroom for example) to do corrections/effects only in unsharp or sharp, close or far away parts of the picture.
> ...



That could also be the case. But then: Why not do it in camera and already deliver better DR but do it in "post processing" (if translations are correct)?


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Sator said:
> ...


+1


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



Perhaps I misunderstand DPAF, but I thought all pixels were used for both phase detection (i.e. contributing to AF) and luminance (e.g. color once one considers the CFA).

Are you saying there are discrete AF pixels? In other words, are they really only getting luminance information from half of each photosite (as opposed to taking the sum of both photodiodes)?


----------



## skyoctane (Aug 17, 2016)

must have the precious


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Phew.... I forgot their order. True. Indeed. Maybe indeed it's all about higher DR in the end.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 17, 2016)

vishaltpt said:


> Issues with 5D4 as a general purpose all round camera:
> 
> 1. *No Flip screen. *The flippy is so convenient for video. Great for overhead shots in protests, crowd. Great for doing full length portraits.
> 2. *No 120 fps at FHD.* What!!! Sony , Panasonic put that in their cameras decades back. 120 fps is real slomo not 60 fps. Canon wake up! Its 2016. We want a serious, creative tool.
> ...


1. No flippy Screen - I have one on my OM-D E-M10, rarely use it. For landscape Wi-Fi to your iPhone or ipad with live view far more useful. For studio cable to lap top makes it redundant
2. The only good 120fps comes from the likes of Red & Arri not the toys from Panasonic or Sony. 
3. Buy a 5DS great for landscape & Studio. One size doesn't fit all
4. 5.6. Why buy a DSLR for Video. Serious video shooters don't, period
As for your other points you clearly don't get out more often & take photographs. We don't know the claimed DR yet of the 5D MKIV so your just making assumptions. 

With respect the 5D MKIV is not aimed at you, but for others it will be the successor to other well engineered canon cameras coupled to class leading optics.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 17, 2016)

Diko said:


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



I dont think it would ever be displayed like that. I suspect that's what the new RAW format has embedded whereby you'll need to use Canon DPP to translate a shot taken with this feature enabled back into the 6750x4500 aspect ratio once it recombined each pair of sub-pixels in DPAF.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

vishaltpt said:


> Issues with 5D4 as a general purpose all round camera:
> 5. *No focus peaking.*
> 6. *No zebra.*



Well, it's an SLR with a vanilla optical viewfinder. _Sorry._
Unless you were referring to LiveView, in which case, _you have no idea what features LV will have at this point._
#shush



vishaltpt said:


> 7. Horribly low * 1/125 sync speed.* Very limiting.



This has not been posted here or corroborated elsewhere. You appear to have made this up. 



vishaltpt said:


> 10. *DR* less than the competition.



Now you're just trolling. You have no possible way of knowing this. In fact, the dual-pixel mojo (if it's what we think it is) could give us exposure latitude the likes of which we've never seen. Again, _we have no idea_, and to state that we do is nuts.



vishaltpt said:


> There is nothing new here. Just better AF maybe. That’s it. For majority of Pros who shoot video on manual focus fancy names like ‘dual pixel this’ & ‘dual pixel that’ doesn’t make sense. Likewise for Stills the Competition offers better IQ.



You have conflated Dual Pixel AF with Dual Pixel Raw (or whatever the translation is calling it). One is for focusing. The other is the big new innovation this product is offering this photography world, and it could be pretty damn awesome. We shall see.

- A


----------



## freejay (Aug 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> freejay said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Sounds reasonable. But then (again ;-) : Where's the announced function, that has never been seen in a DSLR? Using all available pixels for best possible DR doesn't seem to be something unique...


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> vishaltpt said:
> 
> 
> > 7. Horribly low * 1/125 sync speed.* Very limiting.
> ...



Canon 5D3 sync speed is 1/200. Whoever told you the 5D4 is REDUCING the sync speed by nearly half is on some heavy medications. Or trolling


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Well, it's an SLR with *a vanilla optical viewfinder*...



What is that?


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 17, 2016)

Diko said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it's an SLR with *a vanilla optical viewfinder*...
> ...



You've never licked your viewfinder window before obviously...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

Diko said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it's an SLR with *a vanilla optical viewfinder*...
> ...



I'm 'speaking American' again, sorry. Vanilla = there's nothing out of the ordinary about it, and it won't focus peak / zebra through the viewfinder... because by definition it's an OVF (we strongly presume) without an EVF overlay.

- A


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 17, 2016)

I'm totally confused about this new "dual pixel" feature. Don't know what to believe any more.

I didn't quite understand the technical reason why separated pixel halves would give more DR than combining them (as previously in 7D2, 70D, 80D) in-camera?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



It's a pretty weird colloquialism when you think about it. It's not as if the default flavor of anything is vanilla. You need vanilla beans to make vanilla just like you need cocoa beans to make chocolate!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



Because it allows every photosite to contribute both AF and imaging information. If the AF pixels only serve AF, there's nothing special about it.


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



I also remember reading that both pixel halves contribute to both AF and luminance (=image pixels).


----------



## midluk (Aug 17, 2016)

freejay said:


> I'm pretty sure that this "Dual Pixel raw" thing will be a possibility to use the sensor's distance/sharpness data later in DPP (or if later implemented in Lightroom for example) to do corrections/effects only in unsharp or sharp, close or far away parts of the picture.


If "Dual Pixel raw" is more than markeding speech for "increased bit depth", this will likely be it.
Real distance-dependent haze removal!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 17, 2016)

naylor83 said:


> I'm totally confused about this new "dual pixel" feature. Don't know what to believe any more.
> 
> I didn't quite understand the technical reason why separated pixel halves would give more DR than combining them (as previously in 7D2, 70D, 80D) in-camera?



It probably wouldn't unless as has been suggested Canon has implemented at the hardware level the ability to drive sensitivity to each sub-pixel individually. I suspect people are grasping at straws given a poorly translated rumor. More likely, it will have on-sensor ADC, which facilitates lower read noise versus 7D2 and 70D.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 17, 2016)

jonneymendoza said:


> vishaltpt said:
> 
> 
> > Very very Underwhelmed with the specs of 5D4
> ...



I'll never figure out what you Sony guys mean when you say more compact. On top of that the ergonomics suck.
http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



From that link:

"...makes it possible to arrange focus detection pixels *without generating pixels unavailable as image capture* pixels"

In other words, the AF pixels are not AF only, they serve both, which is why it's special. DPAF differs from other OSPDAF in that you don't give up imaging pixels to allow for PDAF pixels.


----------



## Buck (Aug 17, 2016)

I haven't seen a spec for the battery, current 5d3 battery, new1dx2 battery or a completely new battery?


----------



## DrwMDvs (Aug 17, 2016)

My body is ready.


----------



## mbj68 (Aug 17, 2016)

I have to admit that half the fun of a new camera announcement is watching all the negative nellies waging warfare on anything Canon while getting their knowledge and logic destroyed by the depth of knowledge available here on CR. Of course the other half is finding out all the newest stuff coming out that my hands are itching to get a hold of! 

Keep up the good work everyone!

8)


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> naylor83 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm totally confused about this new "dual pixel" feature. Don't know what to believe any more.
> ...



except canon or anyone has never called a normal CR2 a "dual pixel RAW" file .. and even in the japanese comments.. the comments suggest this is a new raw format.

so it's either just a 16 bit raw file or it's something different alltogether.

a dual pixel sensor AND a raw file specifically isn't new .. that's been done since obviously the 60D so what's "new".

digicam is nearly 100% accurate. usually if you see posted details from their sources. that's it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



No, what it suggests is that within each R, G, and B pixel, there are two individual photodiodes instead of one. One reads from one half of the lens, one from the other, generating phase information. And together, they provide a brightness value for the entire pixel.

Thus, you can arrange AF pixels without losing imaging pixels, as opposed to other on sensor PDAF wherein the AF pixels replace imaging pixels (which isn't a big deal if you have a relatively small number of them).


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

Buck said:


> I haven't seen a spec for the battery, current 5d3 battery, new1dx2 battery or a completely new battery?



I'd be surprised if it's not the LP-E6N like the 7D and 5ds.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

PureClassA said:


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



I agree, but then you can't really call it a 60 MP image, now, can you?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

mbj68 said:


> I have to admit that half the fun of a new camera announcement is watching all the negative nellies waging warfare on anything Canon while getting their knowledge and logic destroyed by the depth of knowledge available here on CR. Of course the other half is finding out all the newest stuff coming out that my hands are itching to get a hold of!
> 
> Keep up the good work everyone!
> 
> 8)



Speaking of which: POLLS!

What do you hate? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30526.0

What do you love? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30527.0

DO IT.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Right, which confirms that as usual, dilbert doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.


----------



## mmeerdam (Aug 17, 2016)

How about dpaf-raw means you can selectively (per pixel / per area) reduce noise (and moire) because dpaf information provides a recording if something was in focus/sharp at the moment of capture.

It could mean you can reduce noise in out of focus parts far stronger while keeping sharp in-focus defined edges crisp.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Diko said:
> ...



no, it's not...

it's either just a weird way of saying .. it's a new sensor .. and better raw (ie: like the 1Dx Mark II .. stated it had greater lattitude).

or they did something clever.

IMO.. the ability to know the distance of each pixel could be intriguing... you are then photographing both the x,y image and also the spacial distance.

that could be useful for complex NR algorithms that would for instance only worry about detail in the plane of focus, or even deconvolution of the AA filter and/or diffraction perhaps.


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 17, 2016)

mmeerdam said:


> How about dpaf-raw means you can selectively (per pixel / per area) reduce noise (and moire) because dpaf information provides a recording if something was in focus/sharp at the moment of capture.
> 
> It could mean you can reduce noise in out of focus parts far stronger while keeping sharp in-focus defined edges crisp.



I really like the sound of that! Not getting my hopes up though.


----------



## mmeerdam (Aug 17, 2016)

> IMO.. the ability to know the distance of each pixel could be intriguing... you are then photographing both the x,y image and also the spacial distance.
> 
> that could be useful for complex NR algorithms that would for instance only worry about detail in the plane of focus, or even deconvolution of the AA filter and/or diffraction perhaps.



this is what i meant but better worded!
Maybe you can even alter blur amount / bokeh somewhat based on this?

edit: if this is true - it's even bigger than i thought, it opens up a lot of potential to have depth information included.


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Interesting. And starting to sound like I'll be ordering one.
> 
> What's the little thingy between the joystick and wheel, next to Q?



That's af arear quick select. Its a little toggle switch they put the same on the 7d mk2 battery grip


----------



## testthewest (Aug 17, 2016)

As someone quite new to this site and photography in general I have one thing I don't understand about the new 5D Series model:
Why doesn't it have the flip screen of the cheaper models like my 70D? I find this option really helpful in alot of situations and truely wonder: Why did they omit it? Do more expirienced photographers not like this feature?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

testthewest said:


> As someone quite new to this site and photography in general I have one thing I don't understand about the new 5D Series model:
> Why doesn't it have the flip screen of the cheaper models like my 70D? I find this option really helpful in alot of situations and truely wonder: Why did they omit it? Do more expirienced photographers not like this feature?



Tilty-flippy screens, for one reason or another, have been thought of as a consumer (soccer mom / hockey dad / millenial selfie) sort of photographic need that serious photogs don't need.

Pros / skeptics / older photographers have for a long time said that they saw it as a risk -- it was flimsy and could break, it could threaten weather sealing, they'd have to baby their rig with such a feature on it, etc.

But three things happened: 

1) Video in SLRs took off 
2) The consumer-grade versions of these things showed a great track record in the field of holding up well
3) People with brains realized if you don't want tilty-flippy, you can just leave it locked down and use it like your prior (rigid screen) camera.

_Now_, I'd say a good 75% of this forum wants a tilty-flippy. I have little doubt that it will be near the top of my 'gripe' poll with these 5D4 leaked specs.

- A


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 17, 2016)

I am not a spec geek. I am a 5D3 owner and absolutely don't care about video, AF points (i always center focus and recompose) and FPS. Should I consider upgrading to 5D4? What do you guys say? I exclusively shoot weddings btw. I will get a new body at the end of this year and just researching my options. 

I wish they had released a model without 4k at a lower price. I never recorded a 5 sec video with my 5D3 or 6D :'( Yeeeiii for the videographers I guess haha


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

Another thing I hope they put in the 5D4 is the voltage increasing thing they did to the 7D2 so it drives the big white lenses faster like the 1D series cameras do. I would much appreciate if they added this feature.


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

CanonGuy said:


> I am not a spec geek. I am a 5D3 owner and absolutely don't care about video, AF points (i always center focus and recompose) and FPS. Should I consider upgrading to 5D4? What do you guys say? I exclusively shoot weddings btw. I will get a new body at the end of this year and just researching my options.



Your only option should be the 1dx2 unless you don't like 20mp then 5DsR or 5D4 are about it unless you jump ship and then I don't think thats an option since you shoot weddings and like having better skin tones.


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 17, 2016)

Talley said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a spec geek. I am a 5D3 owner and absolutely don't care about video, AF points (i always center focus and recompose) and FPS. Should I consider upgrading to 5D4? What do you guys say? I exclusively shoot weddings btw. I will get a new body at the end of this year and just researching my options.
> ...



Can you elaborate a bit on that? I didn't have any clue about that! Thanks in advance for helping out. IDx2 is a bit out of my price range at this point.


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

CanonGuy said:


> Talley said:
> 
> 
> > CanonGuy said:
> ...


Just read a ton by wedding pros that most that have shot canon and nikon prefer Canon for the skin tones.


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

I heard the 5D4 has the same toggle lever like found on the BG-E16 16 grip for the 7D2 because the BG-E16 will be the grip for the 5D4 as well and wanted to keep the same exact lever for both areas of the camera instead how the 7D2 each position is a different style lever.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 17, 2016)

This is all giving me a canon tumor. www.canontumors.com


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

Talley said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a spec geek. I am a 5D3 owner and absolutely don't care about video, AF points (i always center focus and recompose) and FPS. Should I consider upgrading to 5D4? What do you guys say? I exclusively shoot weddings btw. I will get a new body at the end of this year and just researching my options.
> ...



Respectfully disagree. This dual pixel stuff (if it's the dual-ISO-like-thing we think it might be) could be a game changer for latitude in RAW files. I'm no wedding photog, but this might be useful with events under awnings / tents where it's dim inside and glaringly blown out outside.

The 5D# line -- as much as is a do-everything camera -- is Canon's go-to wedding line. I defer to the wedding guys here, but were I CanonGuy, I'd sit and wait for the announcement, testing, reviews, etc. I'd be stunned if they didn't put in some sort of 'killer app' for the wedding crowd (like the 5D3 silent shutter was).

- A


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 17, 2016)

vishaltpt said:


> Issues with 5D4 as a general purpose all round camera:
> 
> 1. *No Flip screen. *The flippy is so convenient for video. Great for overhead shots in protests, crowd. Great for doing full length portraits.
> 
> ...



The frustration and the people with just a few posts coming in and creating an account to voice their opinions like myself is mainly due to the fact that we all have quite an investment in Canon glass while we are stuck with non-native solutions because the native solution provider can't deliver..


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > As someone quite new to this site and photography in general I have one thing I don't understand about the new 5D Series model:
> ...


...and 4) LensRentals came out with stats to show that out of their hundreds of camera bodies tilty-flippy screens have no higher damage rate than ordinary screen.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 17, 2016)

*Modified lever*

I suspect that the modified lever on the picture may be modified in order so that people can advance AND go back with it. The one problem with the 7D2 is that the lever only allows you to advance forward.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

jayphotoworks said:


> vishaltpt said:
> 
> 
> > Issues with 5D4 as a general purpose all round camera:
> ...



Jayphotoworks, you look to have embedded commentary in someone else's quote (vishalpt's post didn't have all that context), so I'll reply to you:

How does an OVF have focus peaking or zebras? It's an SLR, and by definition, you're looking through an optical pathway through the lens that precludes the possibility for EVF-like functionality. (Unless you wanted some mythical OVF/EVF hybrid)

Or were you referring to how the rig will operate as a video camera in LiveView? If so, how do you know that it does / does not have zebras/peaking from a spec list? That's not a bullet point sort of feature you'd see at this stage. 

- A


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

*Re: Modified lever*



[email protected] said:


> I suspect that the modified lever on the picture may be modified in order so that people can advance AND go back with it. The one problem with the 7D2 is that the lever only allows you to advance forward.



I always used mine for exposure compensation.


----------



## K (Aug 17, 2016)

We know from the 1DX2 and the 80D, that the 5D4 is not going to have less than 13 stops of DR. Just no way about it. Now, whether it will have the same, slightly less, slightly more than those two cameras remains to be seen.

But let us use the 13 stops as a base point. With Dual-Pixel Raw, (this could very well be the DSLR first that was rumored), how much DR can be added to the final result? 1.5 - 2 stops?

Thus, it is entirely plausible that Canon might hit that "15 stops" of DR they were promising they would soon achieve. I don't believe they were specifically referring to the cinema line.

For high DR scenes, having some setbacks to achieve this method of DR increase is reasonable. Generally, landscape and other types don't need high FPS, and by default require a fair amount of post processing. That is, anyone who actually cares about, knows about or needs high DR, is nearly 99% guaranteed to be post-processing images. Even the mighty Exmor with 14.5 stops produces crap images out of camera until you go in and post process to take advantage of the DR.


Based on the rumored specs, this camera sounds great!!! I personally don't care about video, so its alleged shortcomings there don't bother me one bit. However, I would add - that DPAF in and of itself is probably worth the lower video resolution and weaker codec for a lot of video applications, because if you can't focus, or focus smoothly - what good is 4K? What good is the highest bit rates? Nothing. When set stationary, or connected to a shoulder rig system - this is where all the video guys whine about the 5D series not having XY and Z. But that's because they want a poor man's cinema setup.


Anyway, Canon will probably merge the 5DS and 5DSR the same way Nikon did because the R version outsells by quite a bit, and all that camera needs is the newer sensor tech and it will be a killer high res camera with plenty of DR and decreased shadow noise. 


It will be interesting to see what Nikon pulls out with the D820/D850/D900 or whatever it will be called. Since they use Sony sensors, it is clear it won't be revolutionary. It won't be the huge leap that was seen with the D810. 42mp, similar DR and noise performance, and probably just an increase in FPS, say 6. I doubt they'll hit 7 in a non-cropped mode. Like Canon, they are maxed out on AF system for the time being and maxed out on most bells and whistles.

Given that, I think the 5D4 is well positioned to compete against even the next update from Nikon. 

However, if Canon plans a 5 year update cycle, then Nikon will update twice in that time, their next gen after that will surely surpass the 5D4.


For me, the 6D2 is the most anticipated camera. They said it is going upmarket. But as always, without dual-card slots, it is not an option for me.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 17, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> vishaltpt said:
> 
> 
> > Issues with 5D4 as a general purpose all round camera:
> ...


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

jayphotoworks said:


> vishaltpt said:
> 
> 
> > Issues with 5D4 as a general purpose all round camera:
> ...



what you are responding to, the original poster doesn't even know if half that stuff is there or not.

2. so what? it's a stills camera that shoots video.
3. is idiotic.
4. A7S2 isn't broadcast quality codec either. h.264 100mps bitrate is not broadcast quality.
5. he doesn't know that and not reported either way.
6. he doesn't know that and not reported either way.
7. is moronic and inaccurate and not reported either way.
8. well duh.
9. he doesn't know that either way.
10. he doesn't know that either way.

so it's a bunch of bitching base upon right now, his imagination.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

K said:


> Given that, I think the 5D4 is well positioned to compete against even the next update from Nikon.



Nice post -- appreciated it.

One comment, from the snippet I quoted above: this might only be true of the _D750_ follow up, not the D810 follow up. If Nikon's D820 (or D900?) drops a 50+ MP rig that somehow retains it's EXMOR super DR goodness _and_ solid high ISO performance, most of the Canon faithful will again cry foul that they cannot have it all: the 5DSR will be behind in DR and high ISO, and the 5D4 will be behind in detail.

So as much as I am not the 'grass is greener elsewhere' sort of guy -- I'm super happy with Canon for reasons other than the sensor -- I'm not convinced that one FF rig that hits its marks will put to bed the general problem of 'sensor unrest'. 

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > Given that, I think the 5D4 is well positioned to compete against even the next update from Nikon.
> ...


except canon is readying it's 120MP 5Ds camera based upon new tech.


----------



## olix (Aug 17, 2016)

I''ll wait for a review between 5D4 and A7SII, maybe A7SIII... and GH5 (IBC conference , august 2016) for low budget video
I guess Canon will be screwed :-\


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

jayphotoworks said:


> The frustration and the people with just a few posts coming in and creating an account to voice their opinions like myself is mainly due to the fact that we all have quite an investment in Canon glass while we are stuck with non-native solutions because the native solution provider can't deliver..



Can't deliver what? Oh, what _you personally_ want. News flash: Canon doesn't care what you personally want. They care about making the most profit they can, which often means finding the lowest common denominator feature set that is sufficient to induce a sizeable fraction of the target market to buy the camera while keeping production costs as low as possible. Honestly, Canon doesn't care if you like the camera, their market research has done a good job of predicting the necessary feature set to drive popularity relative to other options. The fact that Canon has been the ILC market leader for well over a decade, and that their lead is growing, suggests they do a very good job of providing the features that will saitsfy the majority of their user base.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > vishaltpt said:
> ...



Yes, I don't expect those in an OVF given the nature of the design of an SLR, but for the liveview implementation, the 1dx2 didn't have any of those features, so it would be difficult to expect that on the 5d4. I can always add some of the missing features back in via external monitoring, but that defeats the purpose as at that point I can simply move to other options that excel specifically for video.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > The frustration and the people with just a few posts coming in and creating an account to voice their opinions like myself is mainly due to the fact that we all have quite an investment in Canon glass while we are stuck with non-native solutions because the native solution provider can't deliver..
> ...



Sure, Blackberry had the same idea. Look at where they are now.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> except canon is readying it's 120MP 5Ds camera based upon new tech.



And I have little doubt something gets lost in chasing one metric so aggressively.

Canon seems to be marching down a path of great high ISO or great resolution (I'll leave DR out of that tradeoff as Canon's currently fighting through their migration to on chip ADC, right, which muddies the waters a bit there). But Nikon did not go that route -- let's tip our cap to the D810 sensor in that it simultaneously topped out (or nearly topped out) in resolution / DR / high ISO. That's a freakishly good sensor.

I'm perfectly happy with Canon, but in our ecosystem, we must choose between two different paths to the image quality we need, and each has tradeoffs. Nikon just hands you one indisputably overall best rig. There's a simplicity in that for those looking for 'best' gear.

Again, I'd never leave Canon and they delight me far more than they frustrate me, but I must respect Nikon's approach to this. 

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > except canon is readying it's 120MP 5Ds camera based upon new tech.
> ...



true.

however you could say that nikon FINALLY managed to do that right. how many years did nikon not?

However I do welcome an oversampled full frame RAW file from the aspect of clarity with the same sized prints as you could get with a 36-50mp image.

the oversampling will reduce noise either by computational algorithms or straight image size reduction. it will also remove the digital artifacts by bayer array demoisacing and false sharpness.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> however you could say that nikon FINALLY managed to do that right. how many years did nikon not?



The word 'do' is dubious. They bought a lovely sensor. I suppose, to their small credit, they implemented it very well.

- A


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 17, 2016)

Hey, I just had a thought. You know how we're complaining about the cost of Cfast which it turns out not to have.

How about buying all those new batteries? New battery type confirmed right?


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > The frustration and the people with just a few posts coming in and creating an account to voice their opinions like myself is mainly due to the fact that we all have quite an investment in Canon glass while we are stuck with non-native solutions because the native solution provider can't deliver..
> ...



Nothing makes snowflakes melt faster than logic and reason, especially when it comes to business and economics.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

jayphotoworks said:


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



Almost all companies have the same idea. Some are just better at it than others. For example, BB topped out at ~20% global smartphone market share, Canon is close to 50% global ILC market share. 

When you can show some _tangible_ evidence that Canon is making the wrong decisions, come back and let's talk. Meanwhile, 'I don't want this camera' is pretty meaningless.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > however you could say that nikon FINALLY managed to do that right. how many years did nikon not?
> ...



well it took them two tries to get it right.

people say that nikon updates quickly... they had to .. the D800 and D600 releases were disasters.


----------



## applecider (Aug 17, 2016)

Maiaibing,

2 stops of high iso improvement is a little much to expect I'd think. A real 1/2 stop or slightly more such that we all could see the difference would make me pretty happy.


----------



## K (Aug 17, 2016)

Not sure why, but Canon doesn't take advantage of current technology for I/O ...This stuff has been out with specs for long enough that it could have been implemented unless the 5D4 was designed years ago.

Two areas -

The SD card. It should have been UHS-II compatible. This allows high speeds and backward compatibility. Save money by using old cards, or buy the latest and greatest for speed.

CF is good, because CF is pretty fast as is - been around a while and not too costly. CFast is very expensive and not widely used. It's almost proprietary. XQD that Sony uses is faster, and a better platform - but also rare and expensive. Such costs almost beg the innovation of a built-in SSD for DSLR's with SD-card for removable. CF didn't have that issue in the early days, as it was a mainstream card format that competed with others across many different applications and devices. In this day and age, what mainstream equipment is using CFast? The mainstream, almost completely standard removable format is the SD card. 

Next,

USB3 speed is good, but why the old connector? Why not use the new USB-C connector? It is smaller, more reliable, less prone to problems and is the newest tech with the most speed. On a space-cramped platform like a DSLR, it would make sense to go to this smaller connector. This is going to be a $3,300+ device. Why not offer up the fastest tethering possible? It's also backward compatible with old USB standards, so no harm to any legacy users.

Canon went through the redesign of moving the name plate to make space because all the I/O is cramped. Seems like USB-C was the solution....


I happy it has USB3 for the speed for tethering which I use, but the USB3 connector is annoying and more fragile, without offering any benefits due to its form factor / size.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 17, 2016)

All Canon needs to do is update the sensor in the 5Ds and they'll have the best landscape/portrait body on the market (and arguably already do without updating).

The only point where I see weakness in that strategy is that, just maybe, Canon shouldn't have combined the 1D line. Given the longstanding popularity of the 1DsMkIII, if portrait photographers actually do want the 1D body design then maybe there really should be more than one 1D on the market.


----------



## JoeDavid (Aug 17, 2016)

Cool! I hope Canon has someone monitoring this website. It sounds like only me, Eldar, and maybe a couple more people will be buying this camera so no need for all of that marketing crap. If you believe the BS on this forum they'll only have to make 4 or 5 cameras, sell them to us directly, and be done with it! :


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > As someone quite new to this site and photography in general I have one thing I don't understand about the new 5D Series model:
> ...



Good post Sanford. Old men with cranky knees like I have really like the flip screen feature.

To the OP: There are a lot of us who'd have been happy with the screen on the 5D mark IV.

There are bunches on the other side of the issue too. I also had a 70D and absolutely loved the feature. I've also missed DPAF which is also extremely useful on a tripod with the camera in live view.

Maybe on the next iteration of the 5D series we will see it. People say it is mainly for video guys. Nope. It is extremely handy on a tripod too, whether the tripod is set very low or very high, it is a great feature.

The 5D Mark IV gets a touch screen this time. maybe next time around it will flip and rotate. I sure hope so. I'll be 3-5 years older by then with even crankier knees.


----------



## K (Aug 17, 2016)

applecider said:


> Maiaibing,
> 
> 2 stops of high iso improvement is a little much to expect I'd think. A real 1/2 stop or slightly more such that we all could see the difference would make me pretty happy.



I think so too. The last 4 Canon DSLRs showed about 1/3 to 1/2 stop increase in ISO performance. And in my opinion comparing photos side by side - closer to 1/3 improvement really. 1/3 stop is hard to tell apart from previous generation, and in most cases the difference is just that minimal. Requires comparing various scenarios and photos and pixel peeing them.

DR increase is what Canon needs. They caught up some, but still quite behind. At least we know this generation of Canon sensors is out of the pathetic 11 stop range, and into the respectable 13 stop range. While they aren't Exmor level, 13.x stops of DR is quite a lot and a potent boost. Again, most photography doesn't need that much DR, and shadow lifting is still ugly no matter what. But Canon now has more DR if we need it. Such extreme DR scenarios really require HDR no matter what the Sony trolls tell you. In the 13-15 stop realm, it is pushing some stylistic limits. Photos just leave the realm of being photos and become more of a graphic art by boosting shadows and maintaining so much highlight. If that's what you want, go for it. But I don't care for such unrealistic images. The web is saturated, pun intended, by these kind of surreal images of what should be realistic landscapes. Tons of low-ISO DR helps no one who needs to photograph at common ISO's of 400-1600. 

Short of it all, it is nice to have - but still overrated.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

9VIII said:


> The only point where I see weakness in that strategy is that, just maybe, Canon shouldn't have combined the 1D line. Given the longstanding popularity of the 1DsMkIII, if portrait photographers actually do want the 1D body design then maybe there really should be more than one 1D on the market.



I've been saying this for some time. People with $6k burning a hole in their pocket shouldn't have to choose between 50 MP *OR* a 1D feature set. 

- A


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2016)

K said:


> ...Requires comparing various scenarios and photos and *pixel peeing* them...



Now that's an image I will have a hard time erasing from my brain!


----------



## Act444 (Aug 17, 2016)

I second whoever requested information about whether this camera will have an AA filter. 

Actually, what WOULD be awesome is if this "Dual Pixel Raw" thing was actually a method of potentially removing false colors in post, therefore negating the need for an AA filter in the first place? In other words, a way to control AA strength without the need for hardware. Yeah, I know, keep dreaming. : I suspect it will be tied more to DR latitude in editing. But is it a nice thought or what...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

K said:


> Canon went through the redesign of moving the name plate to make space because all the I/O is cramped.



Was that why? Or was it to put the remote triggering port in a location more amenable to use of an L-plate? Maybe this is the 'new feature never seen on a dSLR that will be convient for photographers'?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 17, 2016)

Let me preface what I am about to say by stating that I was a perfectly happy Canon shooter for well over a decade prior to several years ago.

Not going to speak to what the fate of Canon will be as none of us really knows. 

What I can speak to though, is what I see around me as well as my own situation. Amongst my group of photo buddies (about 12 of us), there used to be 10 Canon guys and 2 Nikon. All of the pros in the group still shoot Canon (several considering the transition away). However, they have also all since incorporated a Sony body into the bag whether it be for stills, video, or a combo of both. The bulk of the money in the group over the last 2-3 years has been spent on equipment from companies other than Canon. All of the hobbyists in the group have completely ditched DSLR and moved to Sony and Fuji (this includes me). 

While I still personally use some Canon glass adapted to my new systems, I only have four Canon branded lenses left with the other three EF mount ones being Sigma Art and Contemporary lenses. I have held off on selling off the last of my Canon branded glass (and refusing to invest in Sony glass) in hopes that the 5D4 would be convincing enough for me to try out another Canon DSLR. Based on the preliminary info being released, I will not be trying it out. This also seems to be the consensus in the group. However, two of the pros may still be adding one to the kit as they are embedded in the ecosystem for their work.

Regardless of what is happening to Canon and the rest of the market, this is what has happened amongst the 12 of us. For reference, we all have closets that contain 20-40k (all of which used to be in Canon for most of us) in gear so I'd say we are all pretty serious about buying stuff and are members of an important segment for any camera to consider. 

I also have a buddy that runs a small rental shop who has mentioned to me on several occasions that the number of Canon body rentals he's been sending out has steadily shrunken compared to several years ago. The glass is still doing fine, but the bodies being rented have mostly been Sony. Not quite sure what this tells us, if anything, but still indicative some type of shift in the market.

Another thing to note, all of my buddies who are wedding shooters have noticed an increase in Sony gear when there is another shooter there for video or stills when they are doing the other.

Canon has been great over the years. But it just no longer makes the most sense for many of us. I am not opposed to buying back in since I am not generally a brand loyalist and have no qualms about switching when needed. But the truth is, I have to be truly compelled to do so. Right now, I (as well as my buddies) are not.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 17, 2016)

So let me get this straight- 

5d3- home run, pro mainstay, beast of a camera

5d4- upgrades ALL areas, most certainly will beast


Noise in the crowd= "we wont buy it!"



There is something truly wrong with this thread.


----------



## Lurker (Aug 17, 2016)

> > ...Requires comparing various scenarios and photos and pixel peeing them...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So this is the new feature never seen in a DSLR?
We no longer have to tune into CR to get P!$$ in our ear, the camera will do it for us. 
A wonderful innovation to get people out in the field using the camera rather than sitting behind a computer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Regardless of what is happening to Canon and the rest of the market, this is what has happened amongst the 12 of us. For reference, we all have closets that contain 20-40k (all of which used to be in Canon for most of us) in gear so I'd say we are all pretty serious about buying stuff and are members of an important segment for any camera [manufacturer] to consider.



Here's the thing...individuals with $20-40K of photo gear in their closets (and I am in that group) are likely a pretty *un*important segment for camera manufacturers to consider. Which segment is more important - 10,000 people who spend $30K, 100,000 people who spend $8K, or 3,000,000 people who spend $1K?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Not going to speak to what the fate of Canon will be as none of us really knows.
> 
> What I can speak to though, is what I see around me as well as my own situation. Amongst my group of photo buddies (about 12 of us), there used to be 10 Canon guys and 2 Nikon. All of the pros in the group still shoot Canon (several considering the transition away). However, they have also all since incorporated a Sony body into the bag whether it be for stills, video, or a combo of both. The bulk of the money in the group over the last 2-3 years has been spent on equipment from companies other than Canon. All of the hobbyists in the group have completely ditched DSLR and moved to Sony and Fuji (this includes me).



Great post, thx.

Not surprised. 'Groups of photo buddies', meetups, local photography clubs, etc. are perfect incubators to stoke interest in gear by trying/loaning/'here, give it a go, you try it', etc. They also have a more 'present' feeling of keeping up with the Joneses, becuase it's not a dude on the internet raving about his Fuji, it's _Dave_, your buddy, with a rig you can see / fool around with / get interested in, and you know and trust Dave. 

These sort of circles are exceptionally fertile ground for Sony and Fuji to do what they do, so your experience makes perfect sense. 

I am in a different bucket of enthusiast who wants to build up inside of one ecosystem and not migrate, not need to sell off gear or carry two brands, not need to juggle two different rigs with different menu systems and button layouts, etc. I like to keep it simple and focus on shooting*. In short, I don't lust for new/better gear, I lust for _demonstrably new/better gear in my chosen ecosystem_. Slow and steady, no brave leaps of faith or full conversions, no hoarding of 2-3 brands.

*One approach is not better than the other, of course. Others find remarkable inspiration / challenge / reward in trying lots of new stuff. Do what you do and you won't go wrong.

- A


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 17, 2016)

ashmadux said:


> So let me get this straight-
> 
> 5d3- home run, pro mainstay, beast of a camera
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone is doubting that it is going to be a beast of a camera.....for what it is. I personally am 100% certain that for those who absolutely need it for their work, it will be great.

Problem is, the market has now been exposed to other viable alternatives from companies that have a very different approach that offer different value for different types of shooters. Let's face it though, there is a significant chunk of the market that no longer needs slight incremental bumps of the reliable devices they're using.


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 17, 2016)

9VIII said:


> All Canon needs to do is update the sensor in the 5Ds and they'll have the best landscape/portrait body on the market (and arguably already do without updating).
> 
> The only point where I see weakness in that strategy is that, just maybe, Canon shouldn't have combined the 1D line. Given the longstanding popularity of the 1DsMkIII, if portrait photographers actually do want the 1D body design then maybe there really should be more than one 1D on the market.



Agreed. I remember seeing somewhere that after the 4 is out there'll be a very quick refresh and if they can iron out some of the niggles, such as the buffer size and unload times I'll hold fire for that instead as the 5DSr is phenomenal.


----------



## K (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > Canon went through the redesign of moving the name plate to make space because all the I/O is cramped.
> ...




That would be very underwhelming and disappointing. 


The way I look at it, Dual Pixel Raw hopefully is the big new feature.

After all, nothing big on AF. Nothing big on megapixels. Nothing on FPS. Nothing revolutionary on ergonomics or controls. Everything exists and is evolutionary, incremental.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Let's face it though, there is a significant chunk of the market that no longer needs slight incremental bumps of the reliable devices they're using.



Sure, if you assume the primary target market for the 5DIV is current 5DIII owners. But the 5DIV is a *significant* bump for owners of the 5DII, 6D, 7DII, and xxD cameras, and there are a lot more of them out there than 5DIII owners. Just food for thought...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

K said:


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



Since when did this rumored addition become a BIG new feature?

Check back...



Canon Rumors said:


> While we’re told that the feature *“isn’t major”*, it is something “a lot of shooters will be happy to have”.


----------



## NorbR (Aug 17, 2016)

I haven't followed all the updates that closely, so apologies if I missed anything, but ...



K said:


> The SD card. It should have been UHS-II compatible.



Do we know already that it isn't? Just because a feature is not in the current rumor list, doesn't mean it's not in the final spec list. 
Also, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that "Compact Flash Type II" is actually UHS-II that was lost in translation along the way? I mean, who cares about CF Type II anyway?


----------



## K (Aug 17, 2016)

unfocused said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > ...Requires comparing various scenarios and photos and *pixel peeing* them...
> ...




;D LOL

What a typo! Ya, bizarre to imagine for sure.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's the thing...individuals with $20-40K of photo gear in their closets (and I am in that group) are likely a pretty *un*important segment for camera manufacturers to consider. Which segment is more important - 10,000 people who spend $30K, 100,000 people who spend $8K, or 3,000,000 people who spend $1K?



Absolutely see your line of reasoning. However, it all starts somewhere. Canon relied on public perception for many years and continues to do so. Back in the day, everyone I knew for the most part shot Canon because our friends that were pros shot Canon. The rest of us hobbyists figured they had to know better than us, right? lol. What that translates into now though, is that there are more and more people walking around with something other than Canon (OTC) slung across their body from pros to hobbyists. Those of us that are already shooting something OTC are now no longer recommending Canon to any level of hobbyist that we know or meet. Outside of my core of photo buddies, I have recommended a Sony or Fuji to at least a dozen people who have asked me for advice in the last year. These are the people that fall into the $1k category.


----------



## mbj68 (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ........
> I am in a different bucket of enthusiast who wants to build up inside of one ecosystem and not migrate, not need to sell off gear or carry two brands, not need to juggle two different rigs with different menu systems and button layouts, etc. I like to keep it simple and focus on shooting*. In short, I don't lust for new/better gear, I lust for _demonstrably new/better gear in my chosen ecosystem_. Slow and steady, no brave leaps of faith or full conversions, no hoarding of 2-3 brands......
> - A



this exactly describes the way I feel about gear!


----------



## DrToast (Aug 17, 2016)

K said:


> applecider said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing,
> ...



This is not true. There's a couple of exceptions, but most of the Sony cameras are in the 13.5 range for DR.

That's where Canon is right now based on the 80D and 1DX II.

Even the "amazing" A7R II "only" has 13.9 stops of DR.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > Let's face it though, there is a significant chunk of the market that no longer needs slight incremental bumps of the reliable devices they're using.
> ...



Good point.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

wockawocka said:


> Agreed. I remember seeing somewhere that after the 4 is out there'll be a very quick refresh and if they can iron out some of the niggles, such as the buffer size and unload times I'll hold fire for that instead as the 5DSr is phenomenal.



Not so sure. For the next 3-6 months it will be all 5D4 all the time, and then the next 3-6 months will be all 6D2 all the time. I don't see a true 5DS sequel coming until 2018 at the earliest. 

- A


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

I woke up and saw the photos and solid specs...

..just sold my 5D3.

Cmon' 5D4 where are you !!!!


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 17, 2016)

ashmadux said:


> So let me get this straight-
> 
> 5d3- home run, pro mainstay, beast of a camera
> 
> ...



Word on the street is that the Prozac supply has dried up. It used to be on every corner.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Those of us that are already shooting something OTC are now no longer recommending Canon to any level of hobbyist that we know or meet. Outside of my core of photo buddies, I have recommended a Sony or Fuji to at least a dozen people who have asked me for advice in the last year. These are the people that fall into the $1k category.



Wow...see, I _knew_ there was a reason that Canon's market share has been declining for the past couple of years.

Oh, wait...it hasn't. In fact, it's been increasing.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of what is happening to Canon and the rest of the market, this is what has happened amongst the 12 of us. For reference, we all have closets that contain 20-40k (all of which used to be in Canon for most of us) in gear so I'd say we are all pretty serious about buying stuff and are members of an important segment for any camera [manufacturer] to consider.
> ...



Valid point as usual Neuro. 

Let me share my own anecdote. Six months ago I was covering an event for a client. A local photographer (professional portrait) was there as well, and he was showing me his new toy: A Sony. He was extolling the virtues of the Sony. How much he liked it's size and dynamic range. Fast forward to earlier this month, I was back in the same community covering another event. I saw the same photographer, but noticed he had a 5D.

I asked him where was his Sony. "I got rid of it," he said. We didn't get into a lot of detail, but basically, he indicated it wasn't convenient to use and he didn't feel the image quality was so much better as to make the downsides worthwhile.

That doesn't mean Sony is *******, any more than John Dizzo's story means Canon is *******. It just means that there will always be some churn as people try new things. Some will switch, some won't. But, as Neuro has often pointed out, all that matters are the aggregate numbers and the aggregate numbers show that Canon is doing something right.

Reminds me of the old newsroom saying, "News is whatever the editor is interested in." It's all too easy to extrapolate our own personal experience and assume it has meaning for others, but it often doesn't.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 17, 2016)

9VIII said:


> All Canon needs to do is update the sensor in the 5Ds and they'll have the best landscape/portrait body on the market (and arguably already do without updating).


+1.
I would love to see a DPAF & 8K (should be a minimum amount of crop) in the v2, but that's not something I can't live without now. And whatever minor DR improvement would be also welcome.
I'm still wondering about those 30 x 2 MPx in the 5dm4, will they give some extra sharpness or ISO or DR or something else? I guess will have a definitive answer within a few weeks!


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > testthewest said:
> ...


5D4 has wifi... use your phone and control the camera... then you can back it into a wall... mount it under a car, inside a sewer drain whatever you want and take photos with it now.

No need for flippy screen when you have MOBILE screen


----------



## K (Aug 17, 2016)

NorbR said:


> I haven't followed all the updates that closely, so apologies if I missed anything, but ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I hope you're right. UHS-II would be great!

But regular UHS-I and USB3 seem to go hand in hand with the generation. If Canon didn't include USB-C, why UHS-II? Seems they are just very slow to adopt.

That and it would be different to users to have the SD slot be faster than the CF. 

I'm a fan of SD. In my extensive use, I haven't found them to be any less reliable than CF. I've actually had more corrupted CF cards, but that's just my experience. As far as durability, what the hell are people doing with these cards? Chewing on them? Using them to pop open beer bottles? I think the durability argument holds no weight. And in non-sports cameras, such as anything other than a 1DX2, it isn't needed. UHS-II is fast enough to keep buffers emptying well.

Save money, save space.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 17, 2016)

Talley said:


> I woke up and saw the photos and solid specs...
> 
> ..just sold my 5D3.
> 
> Cmon' 5D4 where are you !!!!



What are you going to shoot till September or whenever the 5dm4 becomes available?  Unless you have a backup?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > Those of us that are already shooting something OTC are now no longer recommending Canon to any level of hobbyist that we know or meet. Outside of my core of photo buddies, I have recommended a Sony or Fuji to at least a dozen people who have asked me for advice in the last year. These are the people that fall into the $1k category.
> ...



LOL. I can't confirm or deny that so I will take your word for it. It doesn't negate the fact that other companies are getting their marketshare from somewhere and their products are showing up significantly more often than they used to.


----------



## tomri (Aug 17, 2016)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> All of the hobbyists in the group have completely ditched DSLR and moved to Sony and Fuji (this includes me).


I wonder what's your group's experience wrt AF in low light and mirrorless? I own a Nex-3n and my experience is that it can focus (albeit slowly) as long as I can handhold at up to iso 3200. Below that, it often cannot focus at all. Now there are studio situations with low ambient light (and flash) where this is not good enough.

I was contemplating an a6000 or a6300, but from what I read, low light AF has not improved.

So I am wondering, do you have any experience with situations like this? (apologies for going slightly o.t.)

tnx


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

Talley said:


> 5D4 has wifi... use your phone and control the camera... then you can back it into a wall... mount it under a car, inside a sewer drain whatever you want and take photos with it now.
> 
> No need for flippy screen when you have MOBILE screen



That's a lovely parlour trick and I'm sure it's fun, but a tilty screen works instantly and doesn't need to be paired, woken up, etc. And why can't you have both? I don't see WiFi eliminating the tilty-flippy so much as expanding what you can do with the camera. The two could 100% coexist.

In 2016 I've fully converted to the tilty-flippy camp after going from 'it will break' to 'fine, but I don't need it' to 'if it doesn't crank up price too much' to 'yeah... I could really use this'. I believe everyone will get there eventually unless we have a spate of tilty-flippies breaking off or failing in the field. I'm not seeing that happen.

- A


----------



## K (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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





You're right. That's some of us hyping it up. 

I still think it would fit. For a wide-audience of potential users, that is not a big new feature. But to those who can make use of it, it is a big feature.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 17, 2016)

DrToast said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > applecider said:
> ...



No, it only has 11.38 stops of PDR, and you have to start using Bill's charts now instead of DXO ones because the 1DX2 only has 10.3 on those, which is a bigger difference than the 13.9 vs 13.48 that DXO shows.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 17, 2016)

tomri said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > All of the hobbyists in the group have completely ditched DSLR and moved to Sony and Fuji (this includes me).
> ...



That's why I got a 5dsr because of my frustration with the a7r2 AF capabilities. When the light is not perfect - the AF-C is useless. The tiny OSPDAF receptors could be the reason - even Sony can't beat physics


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

K said:


> NorbR said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't followed all the updates that closely, so apologies if I missed anything, but ...
> ...



USB-C is the connector.. that can run up to 3.1 speeds.


----------



## fegari (Aug 17, 2016)

For one, I'm kind of disappointed. Started with a T3i, then moved to 7D+5D3, 7D2+5DSR and may be the first time I do not upgrade to the new Canon model. Contrary to most I was looking forward to the initial 8-9fps and resolution like the D810 so I could eventually phase out the 7D2. Seems I'll need to wait a bit more ;(


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

tr573 said:


> DrToast said:
> 
> 
> > K said:
> ...



PDR does not take into account the fact that all ISO's are not equal.

and also his CoC calculation as the basis of reference I don't really agree with.

but I find it amusing how DxO is ditched in a hurry when canon caught up to their measurements...


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



You know... I kind of more liked the other answer:


PureClassA said:


> You've never licked your viewfinder window before obviously...


    

I wonder how will I work now with the touchscreen and if it all works well I can't imagine counting on EVF and possibly will use less and less the OVF. 

But that I can tell at least after the first 5-6K shots.



tr573 said:


> No, it only has 11.38 stops of PDR, and *you have to start using Bill's charts* now instead of DXO ones because the 1DX2 only has 10.3 on those, which is a bigger difference than the 13.9 vs 13.48 that DXO shows.




Who is that Bill?


----------



## K (Aug 17, 2016)

I don't even know why Sony is compared to Canon in any professional context whatsoever???

I consider the 5D series as a professional camera. Yes, I know some say semi-pro because of the 1D, but it is a professional machine regardless of whether non-pros buy it.

I can understand making narrow comparisons on IQ alone for enthusiast or amateur use - as these users have a different set of what they consider valuable. But to compare on a pro level, is just the Sony fanboys trying to elevate their expensive amateur travel camera to the level of a pro work horse. 

Sony's ergonomics and controls downright stink. They are awful. They are basically almost throwbacks to decades past. The modern DSLR has the shape and design for a good reason. 

There is a lot more to professional, money making photography than 5% more DR, or any of the other praised specs of the Sony sensors or cameras. A lot of pro photography is in challenging environments that are fast paced. To get the shot, you need something you can adjust quickly and control easily. Something you can wield with ease. Sony is NOT that camera. 

And this isn't a Canon vs. Sony post, Nikon has superior ergos and controls over the Sony mirrorless. 

They just aren't machines for that kind of work. They are more tiring to hold. They are not as fast to control or make changes. Yeah, electronic view finder is cool and has capabilities optical will never have, but they are tiring to look through on an 8-10hr shoot. Then there's the pathetic battery life. And for being mirrorless, they are awfully bulky and heavy - saving almost nothing except the depth of the body.

Yeah, there's always the Sony user that trolls the forums showing some blog with some "pro" using a Sony to suggest it's perfectly viable solution. Locally, I have yet to see or interact with a single serious pro using a Sony. Zero. None.


OK, sorry for the tangent. Back on topic.


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 17, 2016)

What's the "dual pixel" note on the spec list? 



> ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file (bad translation)
> “The way Dual Pixel works, 30MP DP sensor means a 60MP dual pixel raw file with a new RRGGGGBB pattern (vs RGGB), so potentially better dynamic range, and maybe an improved debayering algorithm.”



Is that like Dual ISO in Magic Lantern??


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

Diko said:


> Who is that Bill?



This Bill.


----------



## nickvera (Aug 17, 2016)

It's cropped 4k video looks like 

http://www.eoshd.com/2016/08/depth-look-video-specs-canon-5d-mark-iv/


----------



## nickvera (Aug 17, 2016)

Not going to lie, unimpressed


----------



## K (Aug 17, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > NorbR said:
> ...




The rumor only said USB 3.0

I assume that to mean the old connector.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

nickvera said:


> It's cropped 4k video looks like
> 
> http://www.eoshd.com/2016/08/depth-look-video-specs-canon-5d-mark-iv/



that's right now based upon speculation you know.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > JohnDizzo15 said:
> ...



Sales for Sony's Imaging Products & Solutions segment (of which consumer photography is >50%) in dropped slightly from FY2014 to FY2015, and is forecast to drop sharply (-22%) in FY2016. That sharp drop is largely due to the Kumamoto quakes, but even disregarding that disaster Sony was forecasting a decrease for FY2016.

You're right about market share coming from somewhere, but in this case it's coming _to_ Canon, from Nikon, Sony and others.

It still baffles me that people look around them and think they're seeing a representative sample of the global market. Those products from others may be showing up significantly more often than they used to where _you're_ looking, but any individual's personal observations are, almost by definition, myopic.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Aug 17, 2016)

And as expected, half the posts on this thread are from insecure Sony fanboys ranting with their bagfull of spare batteries. "Why don't you all move to the Sony camp?!? This 5D4 is unimpressive, wait for the next Sony vaporware..."


----------



## ethermine (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of what is happening to Canon and the rest of the market, this is what has happened amongst the 12 of us. For reference, we all have closets that contain 20-40k (all of which used to be in Canon for most of us) in gear so I'd say we are all pretty serious about buying stuff and are members of an important segment for any camera [manufacturer] to consider.
> ...



I'd imagine they're all important segments in Canon's equations. How is Canon going to continue to convince those 3m people to invest $1k each? If the majority of Canon's bottom line exists due to the mass sales of products from their bottom rung of the gear pyramid, I imagine they would understand that this is partly, or mostly due to not only their excellent history of advertisement, but those that have been featured that use Canon gear. Advertisement that has come from those with $20-40K+ worth of photo gear, that is. All those professional photographers photographing epic subjects with expensive gear that you read about in magazines, social media, the manufactures website, etc. 

Canon understands that it shouldn't entirely piss off their client base that helps sell their products, so they throw them these "bones" that are just enough to satiate the critical needs of the majority of those 10k people, or the 100k $8k people. Enough to where the upper echelon that buys into the upper rung on the gear pyramid stays put, and doesn't start spreading the word that they're abandoning the Canon ship. Monkey see, monkey do; for better, or for worse. All the Canon naysayers are rather inconsequential in Canon's eyes at this point, as the impact they make on their ultimate bottom line is virtually non existent. The market share numbers prove that.

Anyway, just my unsolicited 2 cents. Good to be here. Looking forward to seeing what Canon ultimately delivers.


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

Jopa said:


> Talley said:
> 
> 
> > I woke up and saw the photos and solid specs...
> ...



80D I already own.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> And as expected, half the posts on this thread are from insecure Sony fanboys ranting with their bagfull of spare batteries. "Why don't you all move to the Sony camp?!? This 5D4 is unimpressive, wait for the next Sony vaporware..."



Hey! it's Sony.. what's their slogan.. MAKE BELIEVE™


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

ethermine said:


> Anyway, just my unsolicited 2 cents. Good to be here. Looking forward to seeing what Canon ultimately delivers.



Worth far more, great points. Welcome!


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

justsomedude said:


> What's the "dual pixel" note on the spec list?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We don't know, but it might be similar to that, yes. 

- A


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > What's the "dual pixel" note on the spec list?
> ...



gimmeh!


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> let's tip our cap to the D810 sensor in that it simultaneously topped out (or nearly topped out) in resolution / DR / high ISO. That's a freakishly good sensor.



OMG. When will ppl understand that DR, resolution and SNR (low noise) are not mutually exclusive? They all work together!


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Aug 17, 2016)

If the new button next to the "Q" is for audio annotation, I would be all over the upgrade.
There are times when note taking just isn't possible.

Dual ISO for stills- Take my money now!

Video- I could care less.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> If the new button next to the "Q" is for audio annotation, I would be all over the upgrade.
> There are times when note taking just isn't possible.
> 
> Dual ISO for stills- Take my money now!
> ...



Can any veteran ML users here speak to how effective dual ISO is for DR? 

Is it more of a parlour trick you can still see if you pixel peep? (Do you need to downsample shots to mask that?)

I recognize the implementation in ML was a bit of a hack method, but it might set a floor for how effective it might be in the 5D4. One might imagine Canon's best could do much better...

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> If the new button next to the "Q" is for audio annotation, I would be all over the upgrade.
> There are times when note taking just isn't possible.



If that were true, it would have a little microphone icon on it...like the button for a voice memo on the 1-series bodies.


----------



## midluk (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > What's the "dual pixel" note on the spec list?
> ...


If the "dual pixels" are the same as in "dual pixel AF", the quote in the original post sounds like BS.

It is most likely is not "like Dual ISO in Magic Lantern".
You have one half of bokeh balls in one of the dual pixels and the other half of bokeh balls in the other one. So bokeh will be absolutely awful if the saturation points of the pixel halfes are different.

You might draw depth information from the dual pixel information, but dynamic range will very likely not profit from it more than it would from just storing the sum of both pixel halfes with one additional bit.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > If the new button next to the "Q" is for audio annotation, I would be all over the upgrade.
> ...



I think that goes in the bucket of 'amazingly useful feature for a very small number of people, so Canon trapped it in the 1D platform only'.

Also in that bucket: _spot metering linked to the selected AF point_.  #brokenrecordemoji

- A


----------



## tr573 (Aug 17, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> If the new button next to the "Q" is for audio annotation, I would be all over the upgrade.
> There are times when note taking just isn't possible.
> 
> Dual ISO for stills- Take my money now!
> ...



It's an AF area selector. The 7D2 battery grip has the same thing on it (as opposed to the little lever around the joystick on the actual body)

http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II/Canon-BG-E16-Back.jpg


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

midluk said:


> If the "dual pixels" are the same as in "dual pixel AF", the quote in the original post sounds like BS.
> 
> It is most likely is not "like Dual ISO in Magic Lantern".
> You have one half of bokeh balls in one of the dual pixels and the other half of bokeh balls in the other one. So bokeh will be absolutely awful if the saturation points of the pixel halfes are different.
> ...



It looks like it's about DR and possibly some sharpening upside. Updated info from the original spec list posting:
_
"The way Dual Pixel works, 30MP DP sensor means a 60MP dual pixel raw file with a new RRGGGGBB pattern (vs RGGB), so potentially better dynamic range, and maybe an improved debayering algorithm"_

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > If the "dual pixels" are the same as in "dual pixel AF", the quote in the original post sounds like BS.
> ...



Updated with a blurb from someone who does not seem to understand dual pixel architecture.


----------



## midluk (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > If the "dual pixels" are the same as in "dual pixel AF", the quote in the original post sounds like BS.
> ...


This is exactly what I was talking about as "quote in the original post sounds like BS". It is just a random quote from a random guy that does not have any more clue than anybody else in here.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Aug 17, 2016)

^^^ That Twitter explanation has already been debunked, Craig should update the post and remove that quote from that Twitter user. Dual Pixel doesn't work that way. Both halves of the pixel are under the same color filter.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

midluk said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > midluk said:
> ...



Good gravy, my apologies! I thought this was translated and vetted by CR guy. My bad.

- A


----------



## neonlight (Aug 17, 2016)

Don't know if someone mentioned this - not read all 240 comments - but when I last worked on image sensors I came across a dual pixel device which had a small photodiode and a large photodiode making up one element. The small one would be used for bright lights and the large one for low lights so combining the two will give a dynamic range improvement over a single diode pixel. I guess both pixels are available in raw - hence RRGGGGBB - but this would really be a small RGGB and a large RGGB. For 30Mp the camera probably works out the best one to use.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Also in that bucket: _spot metering linked to the selected AF point_.  #brokenrecordemoji
> 
> - A



I think Canon are doing you a favour, when even those people who demand it fundamentally don't realize what using it entails you would miss more shots than you would ever get. To think you could just point it at your wife in changing lighting and get the right exposure without using EC for each shot is laughable.

It is the most predictable and precise metering mode but not effective when used with an auto exposure mode unless you are a wiz on the compensation dial. It's real strength is tonal control where deliberate choices are made about specific tonality in a scene and often well outside the +/-3 stops of compensation auto modes give us.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 17, 2016)

neonlight said:


> Don't know if someone mentioned this - not read all 240 comments - but when I last worked on image sensors I came across a dual pixel device which had a small photodiode and a large photodiode making up one element. The small one would be used for bright lights and the large one for low lights so combining the two will give a dynamic range improvement over a single diode pixel. I guess both pixels are available in raw - hence RRGGGGBB - but this would really be a small RGGB and a large RGGB. For 30Mp the camera probably works out the best one to use.



Wasn't this essentially what Fuji used to do in their F-Mount SLRs?


----------



## mmeerdam (Aug 17, 2016)

neonlight said:


> Don't know if someone mentioned this - not read all 240 comments - but when I last worked on image sensors I came across a dual pixel device which had a small photodiode and a large photodiode making up one element. The small one would be used for bright lights and the large one for low lights so combining the two will give a dynamic range improvement over a single diode pixel. I guess both pixels are available in raw - hence RRGGGGBB - but this would really be a small RGGB and a large RGGB. For 30Mp the camera probably works out the best one to use.



Realistically this would provide about one tot two stops extra DR to work with probably. Which means about 15 stops. Probably high iso will benefit some more. Probably only meant to be available in post. Jpegs could look really artificial and probably would be too complex to calculate at 7 fps. It's probably quite nice to have 2 intensity values per pixel to average and thus cancel out noise or selectively bring back detail. Maybe highlight roll off can be softer by combining the 2 subpixel values. It would make for a very filmic look.


----------



## Talley (Aug 17, 2016)

hmm... during research I've concluded and this is my guess.... was KEPT the CF slot on the 5D4 to prevent magic lantern from unlocking 1dx2 video capabilities. By not using CFAST then ML cannot hack 4k 60fps because the media can't write.... which means the V4 UHS-II spec that is rated 318MB/s could be the faster card to use... BUT I doubt they put the fastest SD slot in there. This is Canons way to "Protecting" the 1Dx2 features... by keeping slower just good enough I/O interface on the 5D4. Think about that.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

midluk said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > justsomedude said:
> ...



I would love to see these bokah balls that are 1/2 a pixel wide and resolved as a ball when demosiaced.

sounds like BS .. you do realize we're working on translations.. right?


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 17, 2016)

tr573 said:


> It's an AF area selector.



How confident are you about that? This was from the CR3 source that basically nailed everything else last week...

*"Other ergonomic changes, such as a new locking switch on the rear of the camera."*


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

neonlight said:


> Don't know if someone mentioned this - not read all 240 comments - but when I last worked on image sensors I came across a dual pixel device which had a small photodiode and a large photodiode making up one element. The small one would be used for bright lights and the large one for low lights so combining the two will give a dynamic range improvement over a single diode pixel. I guess both pixels are available in raw - hence RRGGGGBB - but this would really be a small RGGB and a large RGGB. For 30Mp the camera probably works out the best one to use.



I'm not sure that would work.

they have to be used computationally, not separately. there's parallax if you take them separate.

you can certainly use different ISO / levels though. especially if one side is clipping. so what canon may do is purposely underexpose one side. but when you tone map you take into account both sides of the exposure, and you never highlight clip. thus if one side clips hard, you have the actual value -1EV or -2EV on the otherside, and you can computationally put them back together.

think of it as an advanced ALO or HTP.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 17, 2016)

mclaren777 said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > It's an AF area selector.
> ...



It's in the same place as the AF area selector on the 7D2 battery grip, and looks pretty much the same except with some texture added to it. It would be weird if it was anything else - and what would it be locking? The rear control lock is already down below like it always is.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 17, 2016)

It was described to us as a "locking switch", but we have no real information as to what it does.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

mclaren777 said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > It's an AF area selector.
> ...



The new lock switch is already clearly in view at the bottom under the large thumb wheel. Are you saying the weird new button/switch/knob between the large thumb wheel and the AF joystick is _another_ locking switch?

My money would be on it doing something _other_ than locking. Perhaps a customizable button, an AF mode select button, an AF point selection tool, etc.

- A


----------



## lino (Aug 17, 2016)

Is the button next to the Q button EVF/OVF selector ???


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

Reminder: POLLS!

What do you hate? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30526.0

What do you love? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30527.0

DO IT.

Not shockingly, we're seeing a 2:1 ratio of complaints to fist pumps (so far).

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 17, 2016)

lino said:


> Is the button next to the Q button EVF/OVF selector ???



That would 100% have been on a spec list. An EVF/OVF would be a gamechanger of the highest order and would have certainly been listed as a key selling point. 

So I doubt that's what it is. (Would be awesome, though.)

- A


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> The new lock switch is already clearly in view at the bottom under the large thumb wheel. Are you saying the weird new button/switch/knob between the large thumb wheel and the AF joystick is _another_ locking switch?



I honestly have no idea, but I don't see why the source would specifically mention the marked locking switch, given that it doesn't seem new at all.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 17, 2016)

Why do people bother making things up and then coming on a forum posting as if they have any real knowledge about a working, non working, or theoretical technology?

Nobody knows what Dual Pixel RAW is, so please don't argue with someone's theory that MIGHT know a bit more about image sensors or the camera in question. ;-)


----------



## mkush (Aug 17, 2016)

I know this is picky but I'm surprised that the mode dial looks like the old 5D3 and not like the newer 5Ds/R and 7D2, which I think looks a lot classier. Did anyone else notice that? Is there any doubt about the reliability of these pictures?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> Why do people bother making things up and then coming on a forum posting as if they have any real knowledge about a working, non working, or theoretical technology?
> 
> Nobody knows what Dual Pixel RAW is, so please don't argue with someone's theory that MIGHT know a bit more about image sensors or the camera in question. ;-)



people are complaining about specs that haven't even been published yet (like the "person" that went off the deep end because he fantasized about a 1/100th sync speed)

Debating what dual pixel RAW is, is at least in the realm of conversation.


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 17, 2016)

mkush said:


> I know this is picky but I'm surprised that the mode dial looks like the old 5D3 and not like the newer 5Ds/R and 7D2, which I think looks a lot classier. Did anyone else notice that? Is there any doubt about the reliability of these pictures?



Can't say I did notice that. What difference are you even referring to? The pattern of the tiny gripping bumps around the side?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 17, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> Why do people bother making things up and then coming on a forum posting as if they have any real knowledge about a working, non working, or theoretical technology?
> 
> Nobody knows what Dual Pixel RAW is, so please don't argue with someone's theory that MIGHT know a bit more about image sensors or the camera in question. ;-)



These days...everyone's an expert...until you ask them to show you their photos....


----------



## unfocused (Aug 17, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> It was described to us as a "locking switch", but we have no real information as to what it does.



Well, since there have been a ton of magical unicorn dreams on this thread, I'll add one more. Perhaps it locks focus using face detect, so that the focus point follows the subject across the frame. Now, I'd be pretty ticked because the 1Dx doesn't have that and it's unlikely, but hey, why not dream?


----------



## mkush (Aug 17, 2016)

naylor83 said:


> mkush said:
> 
> 
> > I know this is picky but I'm surprised that the mode dial looks like the old 5D3 and not like the newer 5Ds/R and 7D2, which I think looks a lot classier. Did anyone else notice that? Is there any doubt about the reliability of these pictures?
> ...



Well actually yes, the bumps are different but that's not what I meant. Below is a link to a good shot of a 5Ds/R mode dial. The bumps are in a diagonal pattern instead of rectilinear. But what I really meant was the top of the dial. On both the 5Ds/R and the 7D2, the letters are raised and there is no visible silver ring. On the 5D3, and these pics of the 5D4, it just looks like a round piece of metal that they printed the stuff on. Does it matter? Of course not. Yes, I think the 5Ds and 7D2 look better. But my bigger point was that it made me question the 5D4 photos because I assumed that once Canon changed something like that they would stay with the change.

Here's a good shot of the 5Ds dial:
https://reviewed-production.s3.amazonaws.com/attachment/9f6406b25ed74ca8/canon-eos-5ds-review-design-mode-dial-2.jpg


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



DPAF is established, albeit I'd suggest it's fair to call it "new" relative to existing OSPDAF.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 17, 2016)

mkush said:


> naylor83 said:
> 
> 
> > mkush said:
> ...



huh.

that DOES look alot nicer.

Stupid canon.


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > Who is that Bill?
> ...


 I know that. Thanks. And why they call it Bill?


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> lino said:
> 
> 
> > Is the button next to the Q button EVF/OVF selector ???
> ...



Plus there would really be no need for a separate EVF/OVF switch apart from the control that switches to live view.


----------



## hajiaru (Aug 17, 2016)

Talley said:


> I woke up and saw the photos and solid specs...
> 
> ..just sold my 5D3.
> 
> Cmon' 5D4 where are you !!!!



i wait one year if everything is alright I will buy one for sure


----------



## Diko (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I think that goes in the bucket of 'amazingly useful feature for a very small number of people, so Canon trapped it in the 1D platform only'.


 Actually one of the main target groups of the 1Dx series are the photo journalists. And exactly there this little fella is needed and is created for. ;-)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2016)

Diko said:


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



I dunno, maybe the guy is a huge fan of the legislative process?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Reminder: POLLS!
> 
> What do you hate? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30526.0
> 
> ...



too really get a more realistic view, you need to allow the poll to allow for multi-selection, the whole pick THE one thing bit tends to given a very distorted impression


----------



## rushfan21122 (Aug 17, 2016)

*New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105*

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM

Filter diameter: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
Weight: 790g



EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: 83.5 x 118 mm
Weight: 795g


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Crazy guy named Bill must be a scientist who tests this stuff professionally... wonder if he posts on here.... : :


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105*



rushfan21122 said:


> EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM
> Filter diameter: 82mm
> Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
> Weight: 790g
> ...



Current 16-35mm
Approx. 3.48 x 4.39" (88.5 x 111.6 mm)
Weight	1.4 lb (635 g)

Current 24-105L

Approx. 3.3 x 4.2" (8.38 x 10.67 cm)
Weight	1.47 lb (670 g)


----------



## rushfan21122 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105*



rrcphoto said:


> rushfan21122 said:
> 
> 
> > EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM
> ...



Thanks! was just about to add the same info!!


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105*



rushfan21122 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > rushfan21122 said:
> ...



so both are a little longer, and certainly meatier.. which is good..both needed improvement.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105*

Where is this data and image set posted?



rrcphoto said:


> rushfan21122 said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...


----------



## douglaurent (Aug 18, 2016)

Many seem to forget that - if Canon keeps the product cycles - these specs will be the standard until the year 2020. 

But inn the year 2020, a lot of features not included in the 5D4 like in body stabilization, focus peaking, video log, 4k 60fps etc etc will be available in similar priced or cheaper cameras since up to 6 years by then!

It is obvious that Canon's marketing department thinks that the slowest possible speed of innovation is still the way to sell most products. They are wrong, because for many the improvements are not enough to upgrade.

At least Canon could offer more expensive versions of the 5D4 with swivel screen etc. No idea why that's not possible!!!


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Many seem to forget that - if Canon keeps the product cycles - these specs will be the standard until the year 2020.
> 
> But inn the year 2020, a lot of features not included in the 5D4 like in body stabilization, focus peaking, video log, 4k 60fps etc etc will be available in similar priced or cheaper cameras since up to 6 years by then!
> 
> ...



of course you make the assumption that most people buy the camera for video features.

you could be seriously wrong you know.

also .. canon's market user base is somewhere around 24-28 million in the last 4 or so years.

they have MORE than enough users that are qualified to upgrade to the 5D Mark III on pure photography reasons, over your whiney little video ones. As you say "Many seem to forget that.........."

Cheers and have a blessed day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> It is obvious that Canon's marketing department thinks that the slowest possible speed of innovation is still the way to sell most products. They are wrong, because for many the improvements are not enough to upgrade.



Many seem to forget that Canon has led the ILC market for 13+ years and they're currently _gaining_ market share. Many seem to think that they know better than Canon how to design, make and sell ILCs, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


----------



## rushfan21122 (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105*



PureClassA said:


> Where is this data and image set posted?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: New pics 0f 16-35 and 24-105*



rushfan21122 said:


> EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM
> 
> Filter diameter: 82mm
> Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
> ...



Thanks for posting the pics. 

Looks like the 16-35 f/2.8L III is internal zooming like its predecessor (expected) -- at least the front element looks like it will remain behind the filter threads I mean. No way to tell if it's BR or not from outer markings, so that will be a longer spec list / marketing announcement sort of tell.

Curious about the 24-105L II -- same 77mm filter thread but weight/length is hard to peg b/c the various sites are inconsistent with caps/hoods/etc. But it appears to have gotten a little longer and little heavier.

- A


----------



## Tangent (Aug 18, 2016)

*Zoom Lock?*

The 24-105 shows the focus switch and the top of the IS switch in positions corresponding to the older lens. But on the right -- another switch -- could that be a zoom lock? Really my number one desired feature on a 24-105 mkII.

http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-ef-24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-usm-images/

Lots of good info here: Thanks, CanonRumors guy!


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

Also, we don't have a reverse view on the 24-105L II, so we don't know if that rabbit-in-a-hat 0.7x macro mode from the 24-70 f/4L IS made it into this model as well.

There is a boss on the right of the barrel that (presumably) has the lock switch to prevent telescoping out when placed in your bag, but in the 24-70 f/4L IS that same boss has a reverse position to unlock that 0.7x macro mode. I suppose it's possible that this 24-105L II also gets the same treatment, but it's likely just a lock switch.

- A


----------



## myjtp (Aug 18, 2016)

These days...everyone's an expert...until you ask them to show you their photos....
[/quote]

You hit the NAIL on the head with this!!!!!


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Also, we don't have a reverse view on the 24-105L II, so we don't know if that rabbit-in-a-hat 0.7x macro mode from the 24-70 f/4L IS made it into this model as well.
> 
> There is a boss on the right of the barrel that (presumably) has the lock switch to prevent telescoping out when placed in your bag, but in the 24-70 f/4L IS that same boss has a reverse position to unlock that 0.7x macro mode. I suppose it's possible that this 24-105L II also gets the same treatment, but it's likely just a lock switch.
> 
> - A



it doesn't have a yellow line in the distance scale. not empirical proof but probably not likely it's a macro.


----------



## douglaurent (Aug 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Many seem to forget that - if Canon keeps the product cycles - these specs will be the standard until the year 2020.
> ...



The features i mention ARE ALL relevant photo features: in body stabilization. focus peaking for manual lenses. 4K 60fps so you have 60 frames of 9 megapixel photos. C-Log so you have these 60 jpgs in a more raw form. And the list goes on like that. It just probably takes until the year 2025 that most users do find out what they could do with a camera if it's not artifically limited through marketing and sales departments.


----------



## douglaurent (Aug 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > It is obvious that Canon's marketing department thinks that the slowest possible speed of innovation is still the way to sell most products. They are wrong, because for many the improvements are not enough to upgrade.
> ...



Probably you belong to the large group of people who simply have never worked with cameras that have all the many features the 5D4 will be missing. 

Most of the market share comes through cheap model consumers who don't even know what f-stop, shutter speed and ISO means. Of course they do not all ask for mirrorless and other features today, as they have no clue what they mean and how they would lead to much better results and a more pleasant workflow.


----------



## doog (Aug 18, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > except canon is readying it's 120MP 5Ds camera based upon new tech.
> ...



Canon delights me too!
By 'best rig, simplicity of choice'- are you thinking strictly of the latest _bodies_? I've had Canon dSLRs beginning with the _-game-changing!_- 20D. Followed by the _-paradigm-shifting!!-_ 5D. Tried the stuck-in-the-feature-mud 5D2, dumped it and waited for -finally!!!- the 5D3. (Foolishly plumped for the 1D3 too- sad sunk cost). When I scooped up the category-scorching 7D2 (I'd tried the 7D), my action photography took flight.
And through all these iterations, all these plodding (mind-boggling, actually) leaps, the heaps of Canon lenses continue to challenge my own skill (the distraction limit). 
Maybe I'm just a zealous apostate- In the sixties, I swanned around with a brace of Nikon F around my neck; still keep one as a spring-driven paperweight.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2016)

douglaurent said:


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



An erroneous assumption on your part. Many fail to appreciate that a camera is only one part of an imaging system.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



IBIS .. canon doesnt' have any patents.. the rest? photo options.. yeah okay.. keep dreaming on that one.


----------



## LukasS (Aug 18, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> The features i mention ARE ALL relevant photo features: in body stabilization. focus peaking for manual lenses. 4K 60fps so you have 60 frames of 9 megapixel photos. C-Log so you have these 60 jpgs in a more raw form. And the list goes on like that. It just probably takes until the year 2025 that most users do find out what they could do with a camera if it's not artifically limited through marketing and sales departments.



I've tried IBIS with OMD EM5 - worst choice in history of my purchases. It worked fine on a typical day, but during flight (gliders, when there was a lot of sun in the cabin) or during holidays - I GOT ONLY BLACK SCREEN. So no photos or movies there - it overheated because of these wonderful features.

The same goes for other mirrorless bodies like SONY - they overhead also. And this is main reason for Canon not to provide features that are NOT RELIABLE. I've got my 10D till this day (12 years), my 5D works for last 7 years without any problems.

If these specs are real - I'm in, finally body worthy an upgrade.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: Zoom Lock?*



Tangent said:


> The 24-105 shows the focus switch and the top of the IS switch in positions corresponding to the older lens. But on the right -- another switch -- could that be a zoom lock? Really my number one desired feature on a 24-105 mkII.
> 
> http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-ef-24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-usm-images/
> 
> Lots of good info here: Thanks, CanonRumors guy!



A zoom lock on the 24-105L II is a near certainty. Heck, the 24-_70_ f/4L IS got a zoom lock, so I'd imagine any new EF externally zooming lens of any discernible mass (i.e. that wasn't 18-55 kit plasticky) would get one.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

*hah! is this it??!*

I think I may have found it! 8)

Here's an HDR patent from canon.

http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20150181103&IDKey=97FBC1FAFFB9

Paragraph 006 is the interesting part:

_*However there has been no reference to generation of an HDR image using the configuration of the imaging apparatus discussed in Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No 2013-072906, ie: an image sensor including a plurality of pupil division pixels assigned to one microlens.
*_

So what exactly is Japan patent app 2013-072906?

it's just happens to be the Dual Pixel sensor patent.

https://www4.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/cgi-bin/tran_web_cgi_ejje?u=http://www4.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/eng/translation/201608181153128862162092636633203253D982F02C993A776B3D91CF331ADEE

now time to read that patent in detail..


----------



## tr573 (Aug 18, 2016)

Diko said:


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



Because it's his name


----------



## Wesley (Aug 18, 2016)

LukasS said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > The features i mention ARE ALL relevant photo features: in body stabilization. focus peaking for manual lenses. 4K 60fps so you have 60 frames of 9 megapixel photos. C-Log so you have these 60 jpgs in a more raw form. And the list goes on like that. It just probably takes until the year 2025 that most users do find out what they could do with a camera if it's not artifically limited through marketing and sales departments.
> ...


You're not suppose to use IBIS (or lens IS) with very fast shutter speed. 
I don't get how holiday shooting would affect IBIS ???

Sony a77 / a99 has IBIS and haven't read any overheating so it is reliable and there is no reason for Canon to not put it in a DSLR.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

Wesley said:


> LukasS said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



yeah except for a small minor quibbling thing called a patent portfolio.

and the fact that it's idiotic for a SLR to have IBIS over lens stabilization.

:


----------



## Talley (Aug 18, 2016)

Just packaged up the 5D3 and will be shipping it off tomorrow... I don't even feel sad! I'm just uber excited to get the 5D4 now 8)

Hope this 80D my wife has will tie me over till then.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > LukasS said:
> ...



Patent portfolio? How this relevant?

No one said one or the other. IBIS and IS in harmony for more stabilized axis.


----------



## afonsoclj (Aug 18, 2016)

I've tried Magic Lanterna Dual ISO on my 5D3, but gave up because of complicated workflow, but still loved the idea. The bigger problems in ML Dual ISO appear when the ISO settings have much different values (such as 100/1600), it's some kind of ISO-Moiré. I think that this issue would not happen with the dual pixel architecture. Maybe the workflow will be as easy as an HDR on Lr/Ps. I am really excited about it! Please pardon my english.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 18, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Many seem to forget that - if Canon keeps the product cycles - these specs will be the standard until the year 2020.
> 
> But inn the year 2020, a lot of features not included in the 5D4 like in body stabilization, focus peaking, video log, 4k 60fps etc etc will be available in similar priced or cheaper cameras since up to 6 years by then!
> 
> ...



Yeah I do wisht they would lead again for once! With their long cycles, and already starting to answer a year or many late, to only match. They are such followers. The old Canon is long gone .


----------



## hne (Aug 18, 2016)

midluk said:


> freejay said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure that this "Dual Pixel raw" thing will be a possibility to use the sensor's distance/sharpness data later in DPP (or if later implemented in Lightroom for example) to do corrections/effects only in unsharp or sharp, close or far away parts of the picture.
> ...



If this "Dual Pixel raw" thing really amounts to the storage in the raw file of the individual halves of the pixels, applying filters with distance masking is barely scratching the surface on what amazing features could be implemented. How about (in order of increasing mathematical complexity) 18 stops DR at base ISO (if one half of each pixel is run at ISO6400 and the other ISO100) constructing a full-color 3D model from just three pictures, correction of longitudinal chromatic aberration? correction of focal plane curvature, tweaking focus distance in post processing?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

Wesley said:


> Patent portfolio? How this relevant?
> 
> No one said one or the other. IBIS and IS in harmony for more stabilized axis.



you're joking right? how are patents relevant? if you don't have the patent and someone else does .. how do you expect to use the invention legally? do you think canon files all those patents yearly just for shi.. and giggles?

and you still missed the point. IBIS in a SLR is idiotic. if you stop and consider it for a moment you'd realize why. or should.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > Patent portfolio? How this relevant?
> ...


Olympus, Sony, Pentax...they use IBIS. So who's using the patent illegally?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

Wesley said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



Olympus and Pentax had their own patents, sony gained part of olympus's patent portfolio as part of the financial package they did with them years back. panasonic and olympus may share patents .. no idea.

usually each one of these patents finds "another way" of doing it as to not void the other campanies patents. 

Canon and Nikon in their portfolios have VR / IS patents. no IBIS, so they can't just magically take apart a sony A7RII and "make IBIS" because they feel like it.

every piece of significant tech in these cameras are covered by patents.. that you can be assured of.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...


Olympus/Sony and Pentax. Two separate entities using IBIS so bringing up patent portfolio was a moot point. I'm sure a company like Canon can developed their own IBIS. 

Pentax must be idiotic for putting IBIS in their DSLR.

Even third-party have lens stabilization, big whoop.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 18, 2016)

Wesley said:


> Olympus/Sony and Pentax. Two separate entities using IBIS so bringing up patent portfolio was a moot point. I'm sure a company like Canon can developed their own IBIS.
> 
> Pentax must be idiotic for putting IBIS in their DSLR.
> 
> Even third-party have lens stabilization, big whoop.



Canon have long acknowledged the usefulness of IBIS but they believe that for long lenses in-lens stabilisation is superior. And once you make that decision, then it makes sense to keep it in the lens for all other lenses. 

Simple, really.


----------



## Diko (Aug 18, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Canon have long acknowledged the usefulness of IBIS but they believe that for long lenses in-lens stabilisation is superior. And once you make that decision, then it makes sense to keep it in the lens for all other lenses.
> 
> Simple, really.



Where have you read that? 

It sounds like them for two reasons: quality standarts. 
And money factor: I presume that with prosumer bodies on average i owners have 2, 3 lenses.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 18, 2016)

How this is possible this camera shoots MJPEG while the ol' good 5dsr (probably a worst camera for video) shoots h.264?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

Wesley said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



You really have no idea what you are talking about.

And Pentax? Yeah the company with a nonexistent customer base?

Consider you have a stabilized sensor and a non stabilized af, ae, and viewfinder.. IBIS is idiotic for SLR.


----------



## M_S (Aug 18, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > Olympus/Sony and Pentax. Two separate entities using IBIS so bringing up patent portfolio was a moot point. I'm sure a company like Canon can developed their own IBIS.
> ...



Then just lets be innovative and offer both. If a lens has stabilisation built in, then switch of IBIS. Make it a menu function with options "always on" otherwise or "manual on". Best of both worlds. Why not this approach?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 18, 2016)

Diko said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Canon have long acknowledged the usefulness of IBIS but they believe that for long lenses in-lens stabilisation is superior. And once you make that decision, then it makes sense to keep it in the lens for all other lenses.
> ...



Discussion is easy enough to find.

https://photographylife.com/lens-stabilization-vs-in-camera-stabilization


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

Jopa said:


> How this is possible this camera shoots MJPEG while the ol' good 5dsr (probably a worst camera for video) shoots h.264?



Mjpeg is for 4k, h.264 will be for 1080


----------



## Wesley (Aug 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



It still proves my point; two separate entities. 
Even a "company with a nonexistent customer base" can do it. 

You still don't get it.
IBIS + IS can only get BETTER with stabilization. 

There is no reason Canon can't add it.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 18, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > Olympus/Sony and Pentax. Two separate entities using IBIS so bringing up patent portfolio was a moot point. I'm sure a company like Canon can developed their own IBIS.
> ...



On/off for IBIS, like there is for IS.

Now that's simple.


----------



## symmar22 (Aug 18, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > I was tempted by the 5DSR, but the outdated sensor technology (same as the 5D2 except for the pixel count) made me wait for the 5D4.
> ...



Agreed the images from the 5DS/R are cleaner, but it comes almost 8 years after the 5D2. One can expect that in 8 years, they have refined the tech to its best. The lower noise is due for a good part to the extra pixels that make it smaller, the banding has been reduced to the minimum, and the DR has been improved about a full stop, I don't deny the improvements over the 5D2/3, but it is basically the same sensor tech : no ADC, no DPAF and likely the 500 nm process (sorry if it's not the proper term, I'm not a native speaker).

The new sensor tech is what we are seeing in the 80D, 1DX2 and I assume in the 5D4. That's what I was waiting for.

The 5Ds/r is IMHO a 5D3 on steroids, the high res sensor being it's main feature, but the redesigned mirror mechanism is something I hope they have included in the 5D4.

My guess is that they'll have to bring the rest of the line to the new sensor tech standard, starting with the 7D2 that now looks a bit pale compared to the D500, and the 5Ds/r, before they generalize it to the xxxD/rebels.

As for video in the 5D4 (a feature I do not use), an idea would be to offer a specific grip à la Panasonic GH4 :

http://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/camera-and-camcorder-accessories/camera-accessories/camera-batteries-chargers-adapters/DMW-YAGH.html

that could provide specific electronics to make it a video monster as well, along with an additional specific firmware.


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 18, 2016)

*Re: Modified lever*



[email protected] said:


> I suspect that the modified lever on the picture may be modified in order so that people can advance AND go back with it. The one problem with the 7D2 is that the lever only allows you to advance forward.



If it is what it looks like, i.e. the lever on the 7d2 battery grip, it only goes forward


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 18, 2016)

Wesley said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



No simple, but let that slide and look at the implications.

Canon's reputation has been built on long lenses for action and wildlife. It is the high-profile part of their business and they believe they are giving those photographers the very best by having in-lens stabilisation. So if they are not gong to change their current in-lens stabilisation (ILS) for shorter lenses then the only reason for putting IBIS in is to help people use 3rd party lenses. Is that a good marketing decision? Sony doing it has not exactly set the camera world alight so the marketing data suggests little to no benefit for them.

If they install IBIS and start to make lenses without ILS because the lens is smaller, those lenses then have a major drawback in that they will only sell to people with a body that has IBIS. In marketing terms, this makes them effectively non-compatible with the entire back-catalog of Canon bodies. 

The third option is to build two production lines - one for ILS lenses and one for non-ILS lenses. Given that non-ILS lenses will only sell to bodies with IBIS initial sales will be low and overheads high. If you doubt that, look at the price comparison between the big MFT lenses and L lenses, or the price of Sony lenses compared to CaNikon.

So tell me, where is the 'simple' solution?


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> and you still missed the point. IBIS in a SLR is idiotic. if you stop and consider it for a moment you'd realize why. or should.


Really? Please explain. SONY does this - hardly supporting your wild claim.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 18, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > and you still missed the point. IBIS in a SLR is idiotic. if you stop and consider it for a moment you'd realize why. or should.
> ...



IIRC correctly, the IBIS bodies are not DSLRs. Full frame, yes. DSLR, no.


----------



## Otara (Aug 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> and you still missed the point. IBIS in a SLR is idiotic. if you stop and consider it for a moment you'd realize why. or should.



Seemed fine in my old Olympus E510 DSLR, found it great to have that as well as the option for the IS Panasonic lenses. Whats the problem?

If you say its because you dont get VF stabilisation, you dont with type 3 IS in the Canon 500mm IS II either, and I use that pretty much exclusively now.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 18, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



You're making this more complicated than it should. Two, independent switches. 

IBIS "AND" ILS = best stabilization
Not talking about giving up or stopping the production of ILS lenses for IBIS. It can be used together (e.g. Sony A7II, Pentax K-1)
Canon would never change a current ILS lens to non-ILS. It keeps the lens price higher. 

Video people will find IBIS as a benefit...and I know there's a lot of them in Canon land. 
Owners of non-ILS lenses can have some stabilization. Shorter lenses will have a lesser need for it proportionate to the focal length. 



Mikehit said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Sony, there is the a77 / a99
Pentax K-1

These are not mirrorless.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 18, 2016)

Wesley said:


> You're making this more complicated than it should. Two, independent switches.
> 
> IBIS "AND" ILS = best stabilization
> Not talking about giving up or stopping the production of ILS lenses for IBIS. It can be used together (e.g. Sony A7II, Pentax K-1)
> ...



The reason Sony and Pentax have switchable IBIS is because their stable of lenses is small and on the whole not as good as the CaNikon. So to broaden the camera's appeal they created effectively an open platform. Canon and Nikon don't need to do that. And when Canon has 50% of the market as it is, how large will their additional sales be to justify the expense of researching and installing IBIS?

As I mentioned, Sony (and, as you say, Pentax) have IBIS that enables them to work with other manufacturer lenses but where are the hordes of people switching to use those bodies with Canon lenses? They are not there. So Canon look at this and it does not make economic sense. 

As for video, I am not convinced. 
Looking at MFTs, Olympus has IBIS with video and Panasonic has only just introduced it. The reason being that the heat generation with IBIS while shooting continual video is a significant problem so with Panasonic being more video-centric they decided it was not worth installing. And even now I understand you do not get the maximum video resolution when using IBIS. 
FF DSLRs have a sensor 4 times bigger and the heat issue increases exponentially. SO they install IBIS for video and all the videographers start whining about how their video is no longer 64 gazillion resolution.

Simple? Not really.


----------



## rushfan21122 (Aug 18, 2016)

*UPDATE?*

Updated detail specs of Canon EOS 5D Mark IV:

Sensor: Effective pixels 30.4 million pixels, dual pixel CMOS
Image processor: DIGIC 6+
AF point: 61 points
Shutter speed: 1 / 8,000 to 30 seconds, valves, maximum flash synchro speed 1/200 sec
ISO Sensitivity: 100-32000 (extended sensitivity 50-102400)
Continuous shooting: 7 frames / sec.
Finder field of view: up and down / left and right both about 100% (at the time of the eye point about 21mm)
Rear LCD: 3.2 inches, Touch panel
Video: 4K at 30fps, FullHD, HD at 120fps
150,000-pixel RGB + IR photometry sensor
Anti-flicker
Built-in GPS, Wi-Fi · NFC connection
Media: SD / SDHC / SDXC, CompactFlash Type II
Battery Life (CIPA): 900
USB 3.0, HDMI
Size: 150.7 x 116.4 x 75.9mm
Weight: 890g
Kit lens: EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM


----------



## EScapture (Aug 18, 2016)

I think the new "Button" between the joystick and wheel is an two-way "Zoom Joystick" to check the images


----------



## CincyFlyer (Aug 18, 2016)

*Dual Pixel AF tricks?*

It seems to me that if you have "dual pixels" in any given spot, they could be used to increase dynamic range (which would work better if one was several stops more sensitive than the other.) We'll see what they do ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



The 120MP version they showed off at CP+ was 29.2X20.2, so slightly larger than APS-H and smaller than full frame. It's clear that in the past Canon had no qualms about putting multiple sensor formats within a camera line, but regardless, what they fabricated as a proof of concept isn't necessarily what they would package in a commercial product.


----------



## MacinScott (Aug 18, 2016)

Why include a USB 3.0 terminal instead of the newer USB-Type C that is the future?

http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/usb-type-c-everything-you-need-to-know


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Aug 18, 2016)

MacinScott said:


> Why include a USB 3.0 terminal instead of the newer USB-Type C that is the future?
> 
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/usb-type-c-everything-you-need-to-know



This is probably for one of two reasons, the camera may have been in development before USB C started to become a little more main stream. There's also a lot of bad cables for USB C that Google engineers pointed out, Canon may have been concerned about someone using third party cables that would damage the camera. Plus, USB 3 is pretty close to matching the current CF speed.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Aug 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



H.265 requires a lot of processing power, and creates a lot of heat as a result. The last thing Canon wants is a bunch videographers complaining about their cameras overheating after 3 minutes of shooting. Motion JPEG is old, and requires a lot of data to create an acceptable image, but it's easier on the processor side. Perhaps the 5D Mark V will use H.265 once the processors become more efficient.


----------



## E (Aug 18, 2016)

Jopa said:


> How this is possible this camera shoots MJPEG while the ol' good 5dsr (probably a worst camera for video) shoots h.264?



MJPEG seems more popular for post production, as it contains more information. Haven't tried it out myself, though, but it seems reasonable, so I'm happy they stick to it.

If I could dream, I would like ProRes 422 HQ or uncompressed 10 bit 4444. At least when you send the video stream directly to a computer.

Even the cheapest cameras can make 1080p video - but the codec and the overall quality of the video is what is most important - not the pixel count.

I fell in love with Canon when I watched the film "Rubber", which is made with an EOS 5D Mark II. Although it cheated a bit, by transferring the video to 35mm film, and then back to video again. That (of course) produces real film grain, instead of all those horrible fake film grain that people add in post production.

I don't like the picture that RED makes either, and it doesn't work well with compressors for DVD or Bluray.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



did you forget the actual development announcement?

http://www.canon.com/news/2015/sep08e2.html

_*Featuring a resolution of approximately 120 effective megapixels, the SLR camera now being developed will incorporate a Canon-developed high-pixel-density CMOS sensor within the current EOS-series platform*, which will realize compatibility with the Company’s diverse interchangeable EF lens lineup.3 The high-resolution images that the camera will be capable of producing will recreate the three-dimensional texture, feel and presence of subjects, making them appear as if they are really before one’s eyes. The camera will facilitate a level of resolution that is more than sufficient for enlarged poster-sized printout while also enabling images to be cropped and trimmed without sacrificing image resolution and clarity. _

it takes canon around 3 years to develop a camera.

so 2018.


----------



## kaihp (Aug 18, 2016)

crazyrunner33 said:


> MacinScott said:
> 
> 
> > Why include a USB 3.0 terminal instead of the newer USB-Type C that is the future?
> ...


I agree on the development timing point.
However, the issues around Type-C cables are only about charging power as far as I can tell. Devices that don't charge through the cable won't have a problem.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

Reminder: POLLS!

What do you hate? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30526.0

What do you love? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30527.0

DO IT.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

crazyrunner33 said:


> MacinScott said:
> 
> 
> > Why include a USB 3.0 terminal instead of the newer USB-Type C that is the future?
> ...



not to mention it remains to be seen or known if the processors and bridges have enough high speed lanes to run USB and CF/SD, video controllers,etc. that it all has to do .. AND support USB 3.1 / USB-C


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



What he was saying is that there is no explicit indication canon is working on a 120MP *full frame* sensor. I guess his assumptions were either that anything in a 5D must be full frame, or that nothing prototyped at APS-H-ish will be scaled for production.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



true. but canon's first "high resolution prototype" was a 50Mp APS-H sensor....


the prototypes and R&D are done on APS-H simply because that is the largest / cheapest sensor then can fabricate.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> the prototypes and R&D are done on APS-H simply because that is the largest / cheapest sensor then can fabricate.



Agreed. I don't subscribe to the notion that the sensor they have shown is the sensor they will produce


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> What he was saying is that there is no explicit indication canon is working on a 120MP *full frame* sensor. I guess his assumptions were either that anything in a 5D must be full frame, or that nothing prototyped at APS-H-ish will be scaled for production.



Dilbert doesn't seem to grasp actual, verifiable facts. To expect him to grasp _implied_ facts is probably not reasonable.


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 18, 2016)

mkush said:


> naylor83 said:
> 
> 
> > mkush said:
> ...



Ok, thanks for the explanation. You're right, the 7D2/5DS does look better.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



the picture also shows a 5D sized body.... 



I guess in some alternate universe canon could do it as an APS-H .. why on earth would they for landscape?


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 18, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Yeah I do wisht they would lead again for once! With their long cycles, and already starting to answer a year or many late, to only match. They are such followers. The old Canon is long gone .



While I understand how you feel (I would also have liked to see them keep up the innovation on the video features from the 5D II and forward), I think you're oversimplifying slightly.

While Canon do seem to keep many mainstream features out until the last minute, they have also introduced some pretty awesome features such as DPAF. Well, that's one anyway. 

What I don't understand is that DPAF and touch screen are a match made in heaven for video. Canon could so easily create a killer video DSLR by just adding a few simple software features such as focus peaking, C-log, etc.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

naylor83 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I do wisht they would lead again for once! With their long cycles, and already starting to answer a year or many late, to only match. They are such followers. The old Canon is long gone .
> ...



+1. No, they don't staple 87 technologies into one rig (see A7R II) and hope you'll buy it based on a droolworthy spec sheet -- that's how you sell a stereo receiver or kitchen toaster. Canon gives you the stuff _you didn't know you needed_ but now you can't live without, which is a different kind of innovation than 'more' / 'best' / 'first' / 'fastest':

Anti-flicker
Silent shutter
DPAF + touchscreen + video integration
Shutter lag options to reduce vibration on a high MP rig
The BR gunk on wide aperture primes

I actually look forward to what their 'we didn't see it coming' sort of innovations are than I do whether they can squeeze out 1/3 more of a stop in high ISO. I'm really excited at what this Dual Pixel RAW might do for us.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 18, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> naylor83 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Sony released a patch for the A7R II today.

to FIX STABILITY while taking PHOTOS.

in you know .. a camera that's been out a year?

there would be people with torches and pitchforks in front of Canon HQ .. if they had a camera body that was unstable taking freaking photos.

the EOS-m3 is a dogturd of a camera and at least it doesn't hang up on you while shooting pictures.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> At 120MP, there are more MP than I could see benefit in having.



Nonsense! With 120 MP, you could go birding with a 24mm tilt-shift and just crop in until you could see yourself in their eyeballs. ;D

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > naylor83 said:
> ...



Shrug, I haven't had any stability issues taking stills with the A7R2, and haven't updated firmware since they allowed uncompressed raw. I'm not sure what they're fixing but it hasn't affected me.


----------



## Diltiazem (Aug 19, 2016)

rushfan21122 said:


> *UPDATE?*
> 
> Updated detail specs of Canon EOS 5D Mark IV:
> 
> ...



What is the difference between Digic 6 and Digic 6+ ?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2016)

Diltiazem said:


> rushfan21122 said:
> 
> 
> > *UPDATE?*
> ...



Throughput (and likely power consumption). It's kinda like the difference between generations of CPUs.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> BR Gunk
> 
> - A



Damnit, say it right. It's "The Blue Goo"


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > BR Gunk
> ...


----------



## frankchn (Aug 19, 2016)

Some more information on the dual-pixel RAW format from Digicame-Info: http://digicame-info.com/2016/08/eos-5d-mark-iv-12.html



> Innovative image processing support the concept "dual pixel RAW". "Dual pixel RAW" is a special RAW file that contains two sets of information about dual-pixel CMOS (normal point of view and the disparity information) in one of the RAW file.
> 
> By treatment with dual pixel RAW optimizer of DPP, the following three functions are provided.
> 
> ...


----------



## frankchn (Aug 19, 2016)

The dual pixel RAW file now seems a lot more interesting, especially if it allows me to achieve critical focus by AF microadjusting the image after the fact!


----------



## rcarca (Aug 19, 2016)

Sounds better and better to me: http://www.cameraegg.org/updated-detail-specs-of-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/

This Dual Pixel malarkey sounds great even muffled through poor translation!


----------



## afonsoclj (Aug 19, 2016)

It's not even near to Dual Iso... :'(


----------



## tpatana (Aug 19, 2016)

rcarca said:


> Sounds better and better to me: http://www.cameraegg.org/updated-detail-specs-of-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/
> 
> This Dual Pixel malarkey sounds great even muffled through poor translation!



Hmm..

RAW: 6270 x 4480 about 36.8MB
DPRAW: 6270 x 4480 about 66.9MB

That's about 28Mpix.

Bokeh-shift sounds strange too.


----------



## frankchn (Aug 19, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Hmm..
> 
> RAW: 6270 x 4480 about 36.8MB
> DPRAW: 6270 x 4480 about 66.9MB
> ...



Numbers are probably wrong, that resolution is not a 3:2 ratio.


----------



## afonsoclj (Aug 19, 2016)

tpatana said:


> rcarca said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds better and better to me: http://www.cameraegg.org/updated-detail-specs-of-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/
> ...



That's really 28Mpix, and a aspect ratio of 1,4:1... Things are getting weird...


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

tpatana said:


> rcarca said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds better and better to me: http://www.cameraegg.org/updated-detail-specs-of-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/
> ...


Should be 6720x4480


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

frankchn said:


> The dual pixel RAW file now seems a lot more interesting, especially if it allows me to achieve critical focus by AF microadjusting the image after the fact!



Sounds crazy! 

More optical corrections and adjustments also sound fantastic.. at a cost though .. 66mb raws


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> frankchn said:
> 
> 
> > The dual pixel RAW file now seems a lot more interesting, especially if it allows me to achieve critical focus by AF microadjusting the image after the fact!
> ...



So Canon moves towards Lytro territory. Interesting.


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> frankchn said:
> 
> 
> > The dual pixel RAW file now seems a lot more interesting, especially if it allows me to achieve critical focus by AF microadjusting the image after the fact!
> ...



If this actually means adjusting critical focus after the fact, this is YYYUUUUUUGGE.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

Interesting that AFAIK almost nobody (including myself) guessed that the DP RAW feature would be about saving parallax info for doing focus tricks in post even though in retrospect that's, I guess, pretty obvious.

The selection of different corrections available either in-camera or in post is pretty impressive at this point

* Vignetting
* Distortion
* Aberrations
* Diffraction
* Low-pass filter
* Critical focus
* Ghosting
* Bokeh quality?


----------



## hne (Aug 19, 2016)

frankchn said:


> Some more information on the dual-pixel RAW format from Digicame-Info: http://digicame-info.com/2016/08/eos-5d-mark-iv-12.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ooooh! Real innovations in imaging, instead of just those last DR bits to allow me to lift shadows 5 instead of only 3 steps. Sort of what I was guessing (adjusting focus after the fact) too.


----------



## rcarca (Aug 19, 2016)

rcarca said:


> Sounds better and better to me: http://www.cameraegg.org/updated-detail-specs-of-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/
> 
> This Dual Pixel malarkey sounds great even muffled through poor translation!



Any thoughts on what this might mean: Camera in the DLO (Digital Lens Optimiser)? Is this in-camera AFMA??? (Excuse total ignorance on my part!)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 19, 2016)

Interesting that almost all I've been reading here for days is "stupid Canon". Canon doesn't lead the market because they are stupid. 

Canon serves me just fine. It's looking more and more like a 1D4 over the 1DX II for me but I won't hurry the decision. 

I have no problem with other brands. If you love another brand shoot great photos with it and show them off because what really matters is the results, not bragging about a camera.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 19, 2016)

rcarca said:


> rcarca said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds better and better to me: http://www.cameraegg.org/updated-detail-specs-of-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/
> ...



This is probably DPP's lens optimized sharpening but done in camera.

Jack


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Aug 19, 2016)

Canon shoots,-and scores!!! GOOOAAAAAALLL!

Wow. If this IS Lytro-style post processing abilities than this could be friggin cool! I guess it is tech that just has needed to be perfected and well I trust Canon to deliver a solidly designed, tested and implemented solution (Never had much faith in Lytro's total package -- was just a concept or a way to raise funding...).

Happy shooting y'alls


----------



## frankchn (Aug 19, 2016)

In Lytro founder Ren Ng's 2005 paper [1] (specifically Section 3), the hardware they describe is basically having a bunch of photosites behind of each microlens instead of one photosite per microlens like you have in a normal camera. The prototype they built had 144 photosites (12x12) behind each micro lens.

In DPAF, you now have two photosites behind each microlens. Hence I am guessing that you can actually recover a bit of detail using computational photography (nowhere near the extent of the Lytro of course). 

Finally, they also claim that under ideal conditions, if you have NxN photosites under a microlens, you can recover up to N stops of depth of field. Since we have only 2 in DPAF, probably 1/3rd to 1/2 a stop worth of adjustment at best.

[1]: https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/lfcamera-150dpi.pdf


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> rcarca said:
> 
> 
> > Any thoughts on what this might mean: Camera in the DLO (Digital Lens Optimiser)? Is this in-camera AFMA??? (Excuse total ignorance on my part!)
> ...



Yep, but it's more than just sharpening. It uses knowledge about the lens and low-pass filter OTF (optical transfer function) to smartly correct for various aberrations, diffraction, and the softening caused by the LPF.


----------



## rcarca (Aug 19, 2016)

rcarca said:


> Sounds better and better to me: http://www.cameraegg.org/updated-detail-specs-of-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/
> 
> This Dual Pixel malarkey sounds great even muffled through poor translation!



Also, I think this "AF 61 points. Corresponding to F8 in all of the distance measuring point. -3EV Corresponding (at the time of live view -4EV)" means that we get a LOT better f8 focussing than just the centre point. Having needed that only last night, that is big news to me, especially if combined with better, usable high ISO.


----------



## rcarca (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > rcarca said:
> ...



Your various explanations just make it sound better and better!


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 19, 2016)

AF module is the same as in the 5DS/R - great news.

61 point AF, 41 crosstype


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Aug 19, 2016)

Does this dual pixel DPRAW mean it's only available when shooting in LiveView???
I'd like tone able to correct focus error when shooting fast primes through the OVF...


----------



## xps (Aug 19, 2016)

Media: CF Card (UDMA 7 compatible), SD card (UHS-I Speed Class 3 support)

Is this speed enough for 4K? 
I am a lttle bit sad, that they did not made the SD-card faster....


Does that mean, you have 41 points at f8?


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 19, 2016)

THE pre-order moment:

"Dual Pixel RAW: record one normal RAW file as well as a Dual Pixel RAW file. You can then use Canon’s Digital Photo Professional and have access to three new post processing techniques listed below:

Image Micro-adjustment: by using the depth information, fine adjustment enables the position of the maximum sharpness and resolution
Bokeh Shift: to change the position of the previous blur (original: re-positions the viewpoint of foreground bokeh for a more pleasing result)
Ghosting Reduction: reduces the ghost and flare"


----------



## rs (Aug 19, 2016)

yoms said:


> Does this dual pixel DPRAW mean it's only available when shooting in LiveView???
> I'd like tone able to correct focus error when shooting fast primes through the OVF...


It's a dual pixel sensor. When using the OVF, the mirror flips up, shutter opens and light hits the sensor. It's just a question of recording the raw data from 30mp or the raw data with even less pre-processing from 60mp. What is recorded has nothing to do with which AF system was used to acquire focus.


----------



## midluk (Aug 19, 2016)

OMG. I should have put on my GAS mask before reading all this. Now I want it!!!!


----------



## noms78 (Aug 19, 2016)

I couldn't care less about this Dual pixel RAW mode. Seems alittle gimmicky. 

More interested in the sensor performance (dynamic range/ISO/detail) 4k video codec, and menus/customisation options.


----------



## VooDooZG (Aug 19, 2016)

So does it have low pass filter or not ?
Hope not


----------



## noms78 (Aug 19, 2016)

VooDooZG said:


> So does it have low pass filter or not ?
> Hope not



I would say it almost certainly has the LPF.


----------



## padam (Aug 19, 2016)

EU price leaked *3800€ (body only)*

US is probably more like 3500$

Let the complaining begin (or continue)


----------



## pedro (Aug 19, 2016)

Now, these specs might give a hint at how an upcoming 6DII could be like. If Canon are developping sensors for almost every new model, a 24 MP itiration seems quite likely. Time will tell


----------



## noms78 (Aug 19, 2016)

Pleasant surprises:

# LCD tone adjustment (warm / standard / cool1 / cool2) - hopefully this results in more realistic colours (closer to monitor colours)
# -3EV center point (-4EV in liveview) - better focusing in low light
# 150,000-pixel RGB + IR metering sensor (same metering sensor as 7D2) - more accurate metering
# Mirror vibration control system (MVCS) - nice, first seen in 5DS/R 
# Battery: LP-E6N / LP-E6 
# Weight: 800g (60g lighter than mkiii) 

#4k video 8bit 500mbps MJPEG 4:2:2 - does this mean 17 mins for 64gb card?! 
# FullHD video Full HD: ALL-I - hopefully much better than 5D3 footage


----------



## Diltiazem (Aug 19, 2016)

frankchn said:


> In Lytro founder Ren Ng's 2005 paper [1] (specifically Section 3), the hardware they describe is basically having a bunch of photosites behind of each microlens instead of one photosite per microlens like you have in a normal camera. The prototype they built had 144 photosites (12x12) behind each micro lens.
> 
> In DPAF, you now have two photosites behind each microlens. Hence I am guessing that you can actually recover a bit of detail using computational photography (nowhere near the extent of the Lytro of course).
> 
> ...



Canon actually has patent for 5x5 photosites for each microlens. They probably didn't use it for 5DIV.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2016)

I've long said that Light Field technology could revolutionize photography. If Canon has found a way to incorporate some of that into the 5D IV that's huge. It will be very interesting to learn the details.

One thing I wonder about - since this is a new software implementation of dual pixel sensors, would it not be possible for Canon to add this feature to any existing dual pixel body? Not saying they will, but it seems like they could.


----------



## Joakim (Aug 19, 2016)

rushfan21122 said:


> Specs:
> Media: SDXC / SDHC / SD,* CompactFlash Type II*



In the most recent batch of information it was "confirmed" that the 5d4 will have normal CF cards and there was a lot of discussion surrounding this. Many users wanted CF, while others wanted CF2.
Now the spec list suddenly states CF2 and i don't see this having been discussed in this thread?

Is "CompactFlash Type II" the new standard in CF, that the 1DX II is using, or am i misunderstanding something here? 

Personally i have sunk little money into CF (bought a few 32gb ones directly from the manufacturer in China so i got them cheap) and would prefer CF2, as that means that CF2 prices will start dropping and i also think it sends positive signals that camera manufacturers keep up with technology.

The community is still undecided on which modern CF standard to go for (Nikon's DS5 uses a different CF technology than 1DX II) so the first big manufacturer to release a "pro mainstream" camera, e.g. the 5D4, will probably win the debate.


----------



## smorgo (Aug 19, 2016)

Joakim said:


> In the most recent batch of information it was "confirmed" that the 5d4 will have normal CF cards and there was a lot of discussion surrounding this. Many users wanted CF, while others wanted CF2.
> Now the spec list suddenly states CF2 and i don't see this having been discussed in this thread?



Are you confusing CF2.0 with CFast? I believe CF2.0 to be a speed-related standard from 2003. If that's what we're referring to, I expect it relates to minimum speeds, with the original 1997 CF-spec being unsupported.


----------



## George D. (Aug 19, 2016)

rcarca said:


> rcarca said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds better and better to me: http://www.cameraegg.org/updated-detail-specs-of-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/
> ...



Furthermore: is this the "DSLR first" minor thing CR is talking about? Or what is it. Pls confirm.


----------



## Joakim (Aug 19, 2016)

smorgo said:


> Are you confusing CF2.0 with CFast? I believe CF2.0 to be a speed-related standard from 2003. If that's what we're referring to, I expect it relates to minimum speeds, with the original 1997 CF-spec being unsupported.



It looks like i am. Is the 5D3 using "CompactFlash Type II"?

I thought it was simlply CompactFlash, and that improvements in the standard came in the form of faster cards. I didn't realise it was already a second generation of it, in the 5D3


----------



## tron (Aug 19, 2016)

padam said:


> EU price leaked *3800€ (body only)*
> 
> US is probably more like 3500$
> 
> Let the complaining begin (or continue)


It has to: 3500 $ ~ 3100 euros to day!


----------



## tron (Aug 19, 2016)

I like the fact that it uses the same battery.


----------



## smorgo (Aug 19, 2016)

tron said:


> padam said:
> 
> 
> > EU price leaked *3800€ (body only)*
> ...



$3500 + sales tax
€3800 including VAT

Many things are measured differently in the US. Money being one of them.


----------



## E (Aug 19, 2016)

noms78 said:


> # FullHD video Full HD: ALL-I - hopefully much better than 5D3 footage



5D3 also had ALL-I, so that is not an improvement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2016)

Sorry for all who got their hopes up regarding 'dual pixel RAW' meaning increased DR via a dual ISO implementation. Don't say you weren't warned, by more than one doubting-Thomas.


----------



## midluk (Aug 19, 2016)

Joakim said:


> Is "CompactFlash Type II" the new standard in CF, that the 1DX II is using, or am i misunderstanding something here?



Type II cards are a bit thicker than Type I cards and are allowed to draw more current. This was originally introduced for HDD based cards (microdrive), but all current flash based cards are Type I. The actual data transfer interface is identical between both types, it is mainly a mechanical difference (Type I cards can be used in Type II slots).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactFlash#Type_I_and_Type_II


----------



## zim (Aug 19, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> THE pre-order moment:
> 
> "Dual Pixel RAW: record one normal RAW file as well as a Dual Pixel RAW file. You can then use Canon’s Digital Photo Professional and have access to three new post processing techniques listed below:
> 
> ...




Sounds absolutely fascinating, suddenly 7fps seems rather irrelevant! ( it was kinda annoying me that it wasn't a bit more)
The only question I would have is how long will it take for other Raw convertors take to advantage of this or will they be able to? If this can only be unlocked by DPP, that would be a pain for my workflow.


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry for all who got their hopes up regarding 'dual pixel RAW' meaning increased DR via a dual ISO implementation. Don't say you weren't warned, by more than one doubting-Thomas.



You're saying it's not increased DR via a dual ISO implementation. What is it then?


----------



## K (Aug 19, 2016)

This camera, based on the rumors of course - is looking to be a big win.

Here's my take on the new features/upgrades that are looking very good -


30.4mp - Very well placed do-all MP count, IF the ISO and DR performance holds up.

7fps - nice upgrade, fast camera for the FPS.

100% viewfinder - good. No 97-99% nonsense.

LCD tone adjustment (warm / standard / cool1 / cool2) - better to have and not need, than need and not have!

Dual Pixel RAW -- Not sure if this will help with DR, but adds creative possibilities. I don't suspect it will be gimmicky, but perhaps not revolutionary either.

New noise reduction algorithm - always welcome, assuming noise control will actually be better.

-3ev (-4ev in live view) -- to be expected, and much needed. -3.5 or -4ev would have been better, but this is good enough. The -2ev of the 5D3 was not cutting it at all. A few times I had to switch to my 6D because the 5D3 wouldn't lock focus in a dark reception hall leading to missed shots.

150,000-pixel RGB + IR metering sensor. 252 zone photometry -- Better metering always welcome.
EOS iSA system
EOS iTR system

Anti-flicker - A must have feature now.

ISO 100-102400 (extended sensitivity) - good. Based on photos, expecting 32000 top end, which suggests about a 1/3-1/2 stop improvement.

24/30fps @ 4K - all the video stuff is a step up, even though the video fanatics will bash it compared to other brands. It's a DSLR, not a movie camera. For the vast majority of users, these video features are pretty strong. If they aren't up to your needs, you are a serious power user that needs to step up to dedicated high-end video equipment. Or you can just keep your overheating Sony and troll webforums. Just my $0.02
60fps @ 1080
120fps @ 720
8.8mp still from 4K video

New Picture Style “Fine Detail” - nice to have when working in JPG.

Time-lapse movie - More creative options without having to buy additional equipment. Nice to have.
Built-in interval timer and valve timer - More creative options without having to buy additional equipment. Nice to have.

Mirror vibration control system (MVCS) - Very nice, this will improve sharpness. All the megapixels in the world doesn't help if you can't keep steady as possible. A perfectly still 20mp image trumps a vibrated 50mp image anyday.

GPS built-in - ok. 

Wi-Fi - very good. Hopefully a better implementation than in the past.

FTP · FTPS can be transferred wirelessly also only in the body -- if this is for image file transfer - BIG WIN. This would make the Eyefi cards obsolete. I'm hoping this is what this is referring to. 

NFC - ok

SD / SDHC / SDXC and CompactFlash TypeII -- this is a win because it isn't an "upgrade", no buying stupid, expensive proprietary cards and readers that offers no real world advantage for this camera.

USB 3.0, HDMI, microphone -- good. USB 3 is fast tethering. Wish it were USB-C.

Battery: LP-E6N / LP-E6 -- another win, no need to buy new set of batteries. At $50-$60 a pop, this adds up just like the memory cards. 


Looks like memory cards and batteries are left the same - that way, the upgrade choice is a lot easier as no one has to factor in the high costs of batteries and new cards. This is a smart move by Canon. For the base price, you can upgrade, not the price of the body + hundreds more for batteries and cards.


----------



## sigh (Aug 19, 2016)

I don't think anyone has mentioned the small but helpful change that Canon have made to the mic and headphone jacks - they're now under one flap! On the Mark III, the mic jack was under one flap and the headphone under the other. It was a rather annoying and poor design on Canon's part, nice to see they've corrected it.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry for all who got their hopes up regarding 'dual pixel RAW' meaning increased DR via a dual ISO implementation. Don't say you weren't warned, by more than one doubting-Thomas.



Yes, it seems "Thomas" was just another uninformed guy with a Twitter feed and an overblown ego. 

On the other hand, if the implementation that is now being suggested turns out to be correct, it is far more than the marketing hype that some of us thought it was. 

If it is indeed, a light-field type implementation, it will be quite an accomplishment, not so much for what it offers now, but for what it could be in the future.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 19, 2016)

zim said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > THE pre-order moment:
> ...


+1 But I expect I will only use it to optimize the focus - and would be happy to use DPP the few times its needed until Adobe picks it up (hopefully).


----------



## K (Aug 19, 2016)

NOW, on the other hand --

What will be the big letdown from Canon? They always, always have a let down of some kind. In the past, it has always been sensor performance. Except for the video guys, who complain about every Canon video spec.

This camera is really loaded. Will the sensor be a let down? 

Worst case scenario -- it will have DR between 12.5 - 13.0 stops. Not matching the 80D and 1DX2. Noise performance slightly better than the 5DS. 

Given that, it will be a let down compared to other brand's sensors - but still a very usable, decent upgrade. If the DR matches the 80D and 1DX2, then it will not be bashed much at all except by the Exmor extremist trolls that claim nothing short of 14.8 is acceptable.

If the DR performance is good, the bashing will all revolve around video. I'm happy with that. As this camera looks to be geared toward being an all-around high performance camera. Doesn't do anything perfect, but does everything well. For a long time, we've been needing a well-featured, well-speced stills camera for events, landscape and everything. 

Should we consider the video features as tokens? Maybe. From a practical sense, not at all. From an industry point of view, yes. This was enough to say they provided 4K. I long said, the absence of 4K would be disastrous. They offered it, even if not a top spec 4K. I don't care, the video people can go pound sand. Their insistence to push for video in DSLR's as a ways by which to create poor-man's pro rigs has been annoying to say the least. 

You video people either need to bust out the benjamins for real equipment, or settle and live with your overheating Sony. Bashing Canon for years for not bringing down their Cinema line into a $2,000 DSLR is futile and childish.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 19, 2016)

K said:


> Mirror vibration control system (MVCS) - Very nice, this will improve sharpness. All the megapixels in the world doesn't help if you can't keep steady as possible. A perfectly still 20mp image trumps a vibrated 50mp image any day.


Yes. But fortunately, the 5DS/R also has this *and *a reinforced base plate (not a given with the 5DIV with its weight although I hope so).


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

George D. said:


> rcarca said:
> 
> 
> > rcarca said:
> ...



No. The 1DX2 has in-camera DLO too. The DP RAW thing is the new thing.



aa_angus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry for all who got their hopes up regarding 'dual pixel RAW' meaning increased DR via a dual ISO implementation. Don't say you weren't warned, by more than one doubting-Thomas.
> ...



As has been discussed for a while now, it's saving parallax info for post-processing focus trickery.


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> George D. said:
> 
> 
> > rcarca said:
> ...



Hmm, I'd be betting that it allows for greater dynamic range rather than focus shifting after the fact. But that's just my guess.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > As has been discussed for a while now, it's saving parallax info for post-processing focus trickery.
> ...



It's just that your guess is out of date. See the updated CR post on the front page and the discussion in this thread.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 19, 2016)

K said:


> Worst case scenario -- it will have DR between 12.5 - 13.0 stops. Not matching the 80D and 1DX2. Noise performance slightly better than the 5DS.


It would be a leap of dimensions for Canon to go to 12.5 - 13.0 stops. And it would be fantastic news for those who need this (I'll gladly take it but its not key to me).

1DX2 is not even close to this level.

5DS/R has better overall DR than the 80D - except at 100 iso where the 80D is 0.5 stops better. Especially as iso goes up the D80 starts to fall behind with 2 - 2.5 stops.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

As for noise - which is important to me - I am still hoping for up to 2 stops better than the 5DIII at high iso settings.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 19, 2016)

Imagine if the DPRAW files allowed for enough focus adjustment in post that it could cover any imprecision of the AF system? That would be huge for a camera system like EOS. That would be far more useful for saving shots than 14+ EV of DR. 

Whatever it is, I await the creativity of the "Canon doesn't innovate" crowd to come up with something that predicts their doom to the Sony empire. ;D


----------



## noms78 (Aug 19, 2016)

Still no mention of Automated AFMA. I really hope it has it.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 19, 2016)

tron said:


> I like the fact that it uses the same battery.



I may not get this body this upgrade cycle with its limited video feature set, but I like the fact that it uses the same battery. That will keep this battery in circulation for a few more years as I have a ton of non-Canon equipment that uses LP-E6 these days.


----------



## PepeSilvia (Aug 19, 2016)

Is it not possible to set two different ISO values, for the dual pixels? This would allow greater dynamic range and maybe even some new noise reduction techniques. I would have expected dual ISO before focus adjustment in post. It does sound intriguing but Lytro image quality suffered greatly by using an array of photosites per microlens. Limiting that to two each is a big difference though, and presumably means just fine adjustments. I'll wait until I see real world results.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> As for noise - which is important to me - I am still hoping for up to 2 stops better than the 5DIII at high iso settings.



Unfortunately physics does not agree with you. Did you compare the DR curves of some of the recent high-ISO kings? The 1DX2, the D5, and the 7R Mk. II all fit pretty snugly on a narrow range about 2/3 EV above the 5D3. The modern sensors start to be so close to a theoretical perfect sensor that's fully photon shot noise limited there's simply no room for 2 stop improvement.


----------



## tron (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


2/3 EV above the 5D3 (in RAW of course) would be excellent news.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > As for noise - which is important to me - I am still hoping for up to 2 stops better than the 5DIII at high iso settings.
> ...


Maybe. But last time I checked there was a difference between DR and noise/banding etc. 

Also, last time I checked (frankly I don't "do" DR much - so i just checked) Nikon has some nice camera bodies with almost 3 stops better DR than the Canon 5DII. 

So - go Canon ! 2 stops better noise thank you very much.


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 19, 2016)

Well this camera sounds just amazing. I was always probably going to buy a IV, but this just confirms it. These changes (namely focus shifting after the fact) sound fresh and exciting, and not needing to buy new batteries/cards, or deal with a floppy screen are other major wins here. Somebody already said it before, you're going to save more photos (thus potentially increasing the quality of what may be deliverable to clients), than you will with all the dynamic range in the world. 

It seems as though digital photography has hit a limit to some extent. Manufacturers are looking to develop methods which rescue errors, rather than produce improved IQ. This is not a bad thing. I believe a well lit, exposed, and in-focus photo looks better using Canon (or Nikon) equipment than it does using Sony (or other Mirrorless brand). The ergonomics of the 5DIII are near perfect, while those tiny cameras just seem too small to be used, especially for extended periods. Let's not forget lenses like to 85mm 1.2L, 24-702.8II, 70-200 etc. In my mind I've just started justifying sticking with Canon, despite the very attractive and rapidly improving competition provided (mainly) by Sony. I think Canon may have really nailed a way to hold onto all those people like me, (who own many L lenses and Speedlites, but really are tempted by what else is in the market currently). Very clever.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 19, 2016)

Like thousands of others, I have been anxiously awaiting news on what it's going to offer. Mulling over the mix of features rumored or confirmed so far, this is looking like a fully worthy successor in the 5D line: which is to say a damn good jack-of-all-trades camera. There's very very few things that I was hoping for that are not in the camera now (like a tilt-swivel screen, but I knew that was highly unlikely).
I definitely see this camera in my future if the reviews line up as I expect they will (I don't like to pre-order, I prefer to see a few in-depth reviews to make sure there aren't any "gotchas," or manufacturing hiccups that Canon has to resolve in the first 6-8 months).
I think us Canon glass owners should rejoice at these rumors


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 19, 2016)

Etienne said:


> Like thousands of others, I have been anxiously awaiting news on what it's going to offer. Mulling over the mix of features rumored or confirmed so far, this is looking like a fully worthy successor in the 5D line: which is to say a damn good jack-of-all-trades camera. There's very very few things that I was hoping for that are not in the camera now (like a tilt-swivel screen, but I knew that was highly unlikely).
> I definitely see this camera in my future if the reviews line up as I expect they will (I don't like to pre-order, I prefer to see a few in-depth reviews to make sure there aren't any "gotchas," or manufacturing hiccups that Canon has to resolve in the first 6-8 months).
> I think us Canon glass owners should rejoice at these rumors



I agree with you, time to rejoice..almost! We still need to see evidence of much improved sensor performance to be completely happy for a while..


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Imagine if the DPRAW files allowed for enough focus adjustment in post that it could cover any imprecision of the AF system? That would be huge for a camera system like EOS.



You're right -- I could start using Sigma Art primes at apertures wider than f/2 again. ;D

#burn 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

jayphotoworks said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I like the fact that it uses the same battery.
> ...



That's a change to the spec list, right? I thought we heard originally that it was new batteries.

- A


----------



## tpatana (Aug 19, 2016)

I always thought Lytro was fake/scam since I never saw evidence that it worked _as they advertised_. I read about some gimmick smoke screens to go around that like taking multiple pictures at different settings.

Hopefully the dpraw is something real.


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 19, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> It is obvious that Canon's marketing department thinks that the slowest possible speed of innovation is still the way to sell most products. *They are wrong, because for many the improvements are not enough to upgrade.*



If I may rephrase your sentence for it to make sense: 
"I believe they are wrong, at least for me the improvements are not enough to upgrade". 
This is what you wanted to say, right?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > It is obvious that Canon's marketing department thinks that the slowest possible speed of innovation is still the way to sell most products. *They are wrong, because for many the improvements are not enough to upgrade.*
> ...



people also tend to forget just how larger canon's customer base is.

it's not a matter of dragging everyone that has a 5D Mark III to upgrade, it's to provide a solid upgrade for most of the user base that MAY be interested.

Canon's user base is easily estimated at well over 25 million users. Possibly well north of 40M.

Canon I believe looks at it .. have we improved most aspects of the camera from the prior release? yuppers. sounds good.

have they? Mp's.. DR.. fps.. video.. nifty features.. everything has been improved over the last.

of course there's a bunch of engineers in forums that dream up stuff in their mom's basement that canon should be able to easily do .. but that's another matter.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

tpatana said:


> I always thought Lytro was fake/scam since I never saw evidence that it worked _as they advertised_. I read about some gimmick smoke screens to go around that like taking multiple pictures at different settings.
> 
> Hopefully the dpraw is something real.



As others have said, this won't be Lytro. With a 5D4, you'd have a 'depth' of 2 data points per pixel. That won't be enough to dramatically shift a small DOF shot into an f/11 everyone-in-frame shot. People should keep their feet on the ground on this front.

As I recall, one of the reasons the two Lytro rigs were shaped as they were was because their image collection array (or whatever they called it) had a ton of front to back thickness to it to collect information on so many depths of field.

But this DP thing for the 5D4 could be huge on really small adjustments -- I'm hopeful we might be able to tweak focus in new ways.

- A


----------



## rcarca (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > I always thought Lytro was fake/scam since I never saw evidence that it worked _as they advertised_. I read about some gimmick smoke screens to go around that like taking multiple pictures at different settings.
> ...



Minor adjustments on marginally "soft" focus would be brilliant! That alone would be marvellous, but the rubric I posted a link to this morning suggested there was more than "just" that.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > I always thought Lytro was fake/scam since I never saw evidence that it worked _as they advertised_. I read about some gimmick smoke screens to go around that like taking multiple pictures at different settings.
> ...



sure but tweaking the focus on an eye for a portrait in post processing..


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

Being able to adjust the color temp on the LCD is pretty nice. The DPRAW info seems highly interesting. I imagine how much latitude you'll have in being able to shift focus will depend largely on what aperture you're shooting. But shooting at close range in 1.4 or 2.0 often can land slightly off the mark unless your subject and camera are perfectly dead still. Having even an inch worth of focal plane leverage in post in those situations would be pure gold.

I'd love to see that get firmware updated to the 1DX2. Seems perfectly plausible. Although I'd be very surprised if we ever saw that put into LR. I can't imagine Adobe investing all the time and research to have a special slate of faders added just for a one (or a couple) camera models, not to mention all the painstaking resources they would likely have to employ to figure out what Canon did. It's not like Canon just emails Adobe a copy of the design and says "here ya go!"


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > But this DP thing for the 5D4 could be huge on really small adjustments -- I'm hopeful we might be able to tweak focus in new ways.
> ...



Exactly what I am referring to. I'd like to use portrait glass wide open and not just _ever-so-barely_ miss.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> I'd love to see that get firmware updated to the 1DX2. Seems perfectly plausible. Although I'd be very surprised if we ever saw that put into LR. I can't imagine Adobe investing all the time and research to have a special slate of faders added just for a one (or a couple) camera models, not to mention all the painstaking resources they would likely have to employ to figure out what Canon did. It's not like Canon just emails Adobe a copy of the design and says "here ya go!"



If this DP feature is bonkers good, I expect a thunderous din from the passengers in first class that they'd like this as well. Otherwise, this could turn out to be a flagship feature that isn't on the flagship camera _and won't be for another four years_.

Call me crazy, if it's possible (if the 1DX2 hardware allows it) and it's a really good feature, I could see Canon finding a way to unlock it for that camp of priciest spenders.

- A


----------



## weixing (Aug 19, 2016)

Hi,
If it can adjust focus point even by a bit, you can do focus stacking using a single shot to increase the area of critical focus... ;D

Have a nice day.


----------



## applecider (Aug 19, 2016)

The camera egg specs that started getting talked about on p 29-30 of the thread also have a gem.

The shutter "Durability of the shutter 15 million times", there's the dslr first for ya.

Putting some salt on my eggs...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> If it can adjust focus point even by a bit, you can do focus stacking using a single shot to increase the area of critical focus... ;D
> 
> Have a nice day.



Clever! On that front, depending on the 'range' of these adjustments, perhaps focus stackers can get a stacking job done in less total shots now?

- A


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



2 stops better noise _at low ISO levels_ (specifically ISO 100-200). That's achievable because Canon sensors have been very much read noise limited at low ISOs until recently. No 35mm sensor in the world has 2 stops better noise at _high ISOs_ than the 5D3.

DR and noise are one and the same thing! Usually people talk about "DR" when they actually mean low-ISO DR (where photons are plentiful and read/ADC noise is a bottleneck) and "noise" when they mean high-ISO DR (where photons are scarce and the bottleneck is microlens structure, photoelectric conversion efficiency etc.).


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love to see that get firmware updated to the 1DX2. Seems perfectly plausible. Although I'd be very surprised if we ever saw that put into LR. I can't imagine Adobe investing all the time and research to have a special slate of faders added just for a one (or a couple) camera models, not to mention all the painstaking resources they would likely have to employ to figure out what Canon did. It's not like Canon just emails Adobe a copy of the design and says "here ya go!"
> ...



I'll go so far as to say that provided the hardware IS also in the 1DX2 to do this (again, I can't see what would be missing as both sensors are built on the same basic platform of DPAF + On Board ADC) that a firmware update is an absolute given and will happen almost immediately follow the 5D4 release. Only if there is some special piece of hardware or hardware configuration NOT on the DX2 would it not be updated...but again, I can't imagine what that would be. Both subpixels are being read out and then combined in processing. Seems like in this case that you can flip a switch on the menu and simply tell the camera NOT to combine before creating the RAW file, thus DP RAW. I'm sure there's a few other firmware tweaks required in any case.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> If it can adjust focus point even by a bit, you can do focus stacking using a single shot to increase the area of critical focus... ;D
> 
> Have a nice day.



I like this guy's thinking too. And I know there will be sighs and moans about having to add DPP into workflows, but it's a small and necessary price to pay for something that sounds like an amazingly versitile feature


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 19, 2016)

*-3ev (-4ev in live view)*

Boom! ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

mclaren777 said:


> *-3ev (-4ev in live view)*
> 
> Boom! ;D



+1


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

mclaren777 said:


> *-3ev (-4ev in live view)*
> 
> Boom! ;D



-3 EV was a certainty, was it not? The 6D has it, the 7D2 has it, etc. 

Glad to see it's 'leak-confirmed', though.

- A


----------



## tpatana (Aug 19, 2016)

So does it have dual-pixel under every micro-lens (as the dpraw is about double file size)?

Would that mean it has 30 million AF points when using DPAF?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



And how often should you need to go into DPP? Use DPP as a 'plug in' and you do it when necessary.


----------



## JoeDavid (Aug 19, 2016)

I like DPP but don't use it in my regular workflow. I'm a Photoshop guy. I'm wondering if Canon will be doing some funky encoding that will prevent (or at least greatly hamper) third party adoption of the DPAF RAW format. :'(


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > weixing said:
> ...



But if this becomes a killer feature, you'd have to do this every time you process your shots. I'm hopeful Canon will find some way to broker a deal with software companies to offer a specialized slider or panel into LR / ACR / (pick your tool) so that photographer's normal workflows aren't heavily re-routed to leverage this feature.

- A


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 19, 2016)

I think I will definitely get one for certain jobs and as a backup for my 1Dx II. 
The price is right. I like the LCD color adjustment. I wish my 1Dx had it.maybe a firmware update...
I also wished for a 24-105 2.8. I don't know why nobody can come up with one. Not even Sigma...


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 19, 2016)

Now I'm curious how long we will have to wait for third-party battery grips for the 5D4...


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 19, 2016)

From where will the built-in 3point 1200 watt lighting system pop out?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 19, 2016)

It'll be awesome if the 5D4 can use interchangeable screens again, like the fine focus screen that I have in my 5DII. 
It makes using a 85L a breeze wide open.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2016)

tpatana said:


> So does it have dual-pixel under every micro-lens (as the dpraw is about double file size)?
> 
> Would that mean it has 30 million AF points when using DPAF?



It probably doesn't use the pixels near the borders for phase detection, but even if it did: no, you can't focus using a single pixel. You still need a baseline.



mclaren777 said:


> Now I'm curious how long we will have to wait for third-party battery grips for the 5D4...



I don't imagine much if any longer than we will have to wait for the 1st party 5D4.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2016)

mclaren777 said:


> Now I'm curious how long we will have to wait for third-party battery grips for the 5D4...



Why? You'll spend >$3,000 on a camera and not $350 on a key accessory, seems like a daft way to 'save' a few dollars to me.........

If you are buying a secondhand 5D MkII or an older MkIII then I can understand the saving, but for a new release?


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > Now I'm curious how long we will have to wait for third-party battery grips for the 5D4...
> ...



I agree, it's always better is some regard to buy the genuine grip at the same time as you buy the body


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Why?



Because they're basically indistinguishable from the Canon version. I think people should buy first-party batteries, but it seems wasteful to buy first-party grips.

http://pietrzyk.us/canon-5d-mark-iii-battery-grip-study/

_"Look: Excellent. Note that the Vivitar PG-5DMIII looks exactly like the Canon BG-E11. The size and placement of buttons, switches and dials are exactly the same as the Canon BG-E11, so much so that the only way to tell the difference between the Vivitar PG-5DMIII and the Canon BG-E11 while mounted to the camera is the Vivitar brand on the bottom of the grip."_


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> I agree, it's always better is some regard to buy the genuine grip *at the same time as you buy the body*



Why?


----------



## Eersel (Aug 19, 2016)

K said:


> This camera, based on the rumors of course - is looking to be a big win.
> 
> Here's my take on the new features/upgrades that are looking very good -
> 
> ...



Ok is right. But I agree with what you've stated.

Dual pixel RAW is definitely a great opportunity.

Wonder what NFC would be used for mostly??


----------



## LoneRider (Aug 19, 2016)

tpatana said:


> I always thought Lytro was fake/scam since I never saw evidence that it worked _as they advertised_. I read about some gimmick smoke screens to go around that like taking multiple pictures at different settings.
> 
> Hopefully the dpraw is something real.



Lytro is alive and doing well

http://www.wired.com/2016/04/lytro-cinema-camera-light-field/

The really cool part is, fewer blue/green screens are necessary, all you have to do is set a region for interesting rays. Everything behind and forward of that region can be excluded.


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 19, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> aa_angus said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, it's always better is some regard to buy the genuine grip *at the same time as you buy the body*
> ...



Because then you have the use of the grip for the entire lifespan of the camera. No point spending nearly the same amount of money on a grip a year after you bought the camera, you may as well have had it the entire time. I personally try to avoid using the grip when I can, however I like having it in my bag for times when I feel like shooting with it (70-200 mainly).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2016)

LoneRider said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > I always thought Lytro was fake/scam since I never saw evidence that it worked _as they advertised_. I read about some gimmick smoke screens to go around that like taking multiple pictures at different settings.
> ...



The company is certainly alive. Doing well though? Have they sold any of their cinema stuff?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > aa_angus said:
> ...



Fair enough. Although you could make the same argument for buying lenses, speedlights, tripods, transmitters, etc. you may rarely use.

I'm more of a "buy it when I need or want it" kind of a consumer. I use grips probably less than 5% of the time. If I buy one with the 5D4, it will likely remain in the packaging for a considerable amount of time. 

If I used them consistently, sure, I'd buy one immediately (or more likely buy a full sized body).


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 19, 2016)

I'm in the same boat. I use a battery grip on my 5D3 roughly 10 days/year so I really don't see a lot of value in buying the five-times-as-expensive Canon version.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

mclaren777 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Why?
> ...



for a fact canon's grips for the 5D and 7D are made from mag alloy contruction.

I have never heard the same words with third party grips.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

JoeDavid said:


> I like DPP but don't use it in my regular workflow. I'm a Photoshop guy. I'm wondering if Canon will be doing some funky encoding that will prevent (or at least greatly hamper) third party adoption of the DPAF RAW format. :'(



DP RAW is itself a funky encoding that no other camera made has because DPAF is a proprietary patent by Canon. Every other DSLR and MILC on earth has a sensor with single pixels under a single micro lens. Even though the software and encoding may be slightly different, every other RAW is more or less the same process for third party software like LR and DxO. Once you have Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc... RAW figured out, it's not much tweaking to tune it to whatever new camera that same company makes next.... unless of course you create an entirely new split pixel sensor tech that can read out into a RAW file with split pixel data left uncombined.... Now LR and DxO programs have no idea what to do with it. Could they figure it out eventually? Perhaps. Is Canon going to give them the math? Not likely. They have never shared Canon RAW data with anyone else before. If I'm not mistaken, few other companies have either.

So if you still shoot in regular old RAW, you're fine! On the special occasion/shot when you really need/want that extra latitude, then you'll need to use DPP (at least for now). I doubt you'd want to shoot every shot in DP RAW anyway. That's almost 70MB per frame! That 5DSR territory.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > Now I'm curious how long we will have to wait for third-party battery grips for the 5D4...
> ...



It's like the guys who moan about having to buy new RRS style L plates for their new camera. It usually makes me chuckle.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

By the way, I'm assuming this DP RAW can only be shot with Live View? Anyone? Or will it still work with OVF and a delayed shutter/mirror lock up engaged? Just enough time for the DPAF to kick in once the sensor is exposed?


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> By the way, I'm assuming this DP RAW can only be shot with Live View? Anyone? Or will it still work with OVF and a delayed shutter/mirror lock up engaged? Just enough time for the DPAF to kick in once the sensor is exposed?



Surely there's no "kick in"? The dual photosites are always there, it's just a question of whether you just sum their values pairwise like when doing a regular exposure or also store a difference or however it's going to work.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > mclaren777 said:
> ...



Except this is a discussion about 1st vs 3rd party. There are no 1st party L plates. If there were, a discussion about whether using canon's is better than using RRS's would be worthwhile.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, I'm assuming this DP RAW can only be shot with Live View? Anyone? Or will it still work with OVF and a delayed shutter/mirror lock up engaged? Just enough time for the DPAF to kick in once the sensor is exposed?
> ...



They are always there, but when you're using the 61pt AF system via the OVF, you're NOT using the focusing function of the DPAF. Those pixels may all be gathering light, but it's not like live view where the camera switches over to the the sensor based AF system. Question is will they need to achieve their OWN focus in order to yield the focus/bokeh latitude you want in post with DP RAW. If so, that has to be done in some Live View manner


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > aa_angus said:
> ...



Sure, but that logic only works if you are paying full price for the grip at any time in your camera ownership, i.e. if you are going to pay $275 in year 3 of ownership, you might as well pay $275 on day one to maximize the value of that item.

But if you can score a half-price grip in year 2 of ownership, perhaps a gently used one, it might be worth it.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Except this is a discussion about 1st vs 3rd party. There are no 1st party L plates. If there were, a discussion about whether using canon's is better than using RRS's would be worthwhile.



RRS sure do charge money like they are first party... :

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



why would they?

the parallax can be measured regardless .. it is simply a matter of canon outputting the values from both halfs at the time of capture, versus simply adding them.


----------



## smorgo (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Is Canon going to give them the math? Not likely. They have never shared Canon RAW data with anyone else before. If I'm not mistaken, few other companies have either.



Are you sure?

From https://www.adobe.com/showcase/casestudies/canon/casestudy.pdf (which is talking about Acrobat, but the quote's relevant):



> Canon has a strong relationship with Adobe, including integration between
> Canon cameras and Adobe’s creative software solutions



I know Nikon were very secretive about their RAW format, but I didn't think the same was true of Canon. It wouldn't be wise, to be honest.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 19, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



No...that's your discussion. That ended...now it's moved on to a more general discussion about how mean photographers can be. They lay down piles of cash for a camera, then skimp on batteries, grips and plates. It's like the time I saw a photographer with a shiny new 1Dx and a 500mm f4...trying ot use a tripod he got free with a magazine....it didn't go well.


----------



## afonsoclj (Aug 19, 2016)

clicstudio said:


> I think I will definitely get one for certain jobs and as a backup for my 1Dx II.
> The price is right. I like the LCD color adjustment. I wish my 1Dx had it.maybe a firmware update...
> I also wished for a 24-105 2.8. I don't know why nobody can come up with one. Not even Sigma...



I would be happy with a 24-85 2.8...


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

smorgo said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> From https://www.adobe.com/showcase/casestudies/canon/casestudy.pdf (which is talking about Acrobat, but the quote's relevant):
> 
> I know Nikon were very secretive about their RAW format, but I didn't think the same was true of Canon. It wouldn't be wise, to be honest.



Eh, I believe that is regarding Adobe software integration into Canon's other major line of products. Their copiers and printers. Scan to Adobe PDF and so forth. I seem to recall reading that so far as RAW camera data goes, that's another division and issue altogether and they don't really share, although I could well be mistaken. Canon also doesn't share AF algorithms with third party glass makers like Sigma and Tamron either. Canon doesn't make PDF software and doesn't want to, so they work with Adobe where they need to


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

afonsoclj said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > I think I will definitely get one for certain jobs and as a backup for my 1Dx II.
> ...



Look how big the 24-70L 2.8 II is. Look how much bigger NIkon's new same lens is with Nikon VR. Extending the focal range to 105 and keeping the 2.8 would not only make a much bigger lens but it would be around $3000. Not to mention they probably don't want to carry two almost identical lenses when the 24-70L II is one of the most popular pieces of L glass they produce. They probably realize they wouldn't sell enough to warrant the R&D and determined that focal length at f4 with IS and a lower price point would be a much better seller. Plus, a 24-105L 2.8 also eats into the sacred range of the 70-200L 2.8 II. That's why we have 24-70 & 70-200. The bigger the zoom range to try to create, the harder and more expensive it becomes to make peak optical performance throughout the zoom range


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > Now I'm curious how long we will have to wait for third-party battery grips for the 5D4...
> ...


Exactly. Why have a great camera and a crappy chinese grip to save a few bucks. U can go cheap on batteries but not on essential hardware. IMO


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> afonsoclj said:
> 
> 
> > clicstudio said:
> ...



Guys, there are two camps to this. The practical camp and the impractical camp. Neither is right, neither is wrong.

Practical camp: A standard zoom attached to the body should fit in a reasonably small bag, not weigh a ton, and be comfortable to shoot all day.

Impractical camp: If I can carry a 70-200 f/2.8 all day for longer needs, why can I have a standard zoom that big and heavy that does more than the vanilla 24-70 f/2.8? Give me a 24-70 F/2 or a 24-120 f/2.8! I'm no wuss, I can carry that all day.

Right now, there are far far far more practical camper than impractical campers. That's why you don't have this lens. Sigma _might_ make one one day. 

- A


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> afonsoclj said:
> 
> 
> > clicstudio said:
> ...


----------



## tr573 (Aug 19, 2016)

clicstudio said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > mclaren777 said:
> ...



Not that I am anti chinese battery, because I am not. However, it seems a little silly to say people shouldn't skimp on a grip, but then say it's kosher to skimp on something that will literally catch fire and explode when it's made wrong.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 19, 2016)

Canon did develop a 24-100mm f2.8 L lens many years ago. They made a few prototypes and handed them to some press guys, who unanimously said that it was too big and heavy. It was as big and heavy as the 70-200 f2.8 lenses they were using. So it didn't make it to market. I think the 24-105 f4 LIS is a nice compromise. It's very versatile and bright enough for most uses.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> ...unless of course you create an entirely new split pixel sensor tech that can read out into a RAW file with split pixel data left uncombined.... Now LR and DxO programs have no idea what to do with it. Could they figure it out eventually? Perhaps. Is Canon going to give them the math? Not likely.



I'm not so sure about this. Canon knows the power of being the dominant player in the marketplace and they know Adobe is that dominant player when it comes to image processing. Canon gives away free software as a convenience, but they certainly cooperate and work with Adobe to be sure the company has what it needs to make its software work seamlessly with all of Canon's cameras. Having a new feature that doesn't play nice with Adobe would be a huge mistake.

The feature only works because of Canon's sensors. So, until competitors perfect DPAF sensors there is not that much risk in making the software available. 

At a minimum, I would expect Canon to at least offer a plug-in for Lightroom and Camera Raw to access the features.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 19, 2016)

What is iSA?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2016)

tr573 said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



+1.

That's why I never buy off-brand batteries or grips. I may be too cautious, but when I have something that powers my camera, such as a battery or a grip, I want some assurance that it isn't going to fry the electronics inside the camera. 

As far as when to buy the Canon grip: Grips tend to drop rapidly in price during the first year after release. Look at the Canon Price Watch charts for the 5DIII grip and you can see that it dropped a lot during the first year. And, while used grips aren't real common, if you watch the big dealers closely and are patient, you can pick up a used grip on occasion. I got one for my 5DIII about six months after getting the camera when Adorama happened to have a used one available. Came in the original box and was in perfect condition.

Now, when I bought the 1Dx II recently, I went ahead and got one with a grip.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

unfocused said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > ...unless of course you create an entirely new split pixel sensor tech that can read out into a RAW file with split pixel data left uncombined.... Now LR and DxO programs have no idea what to do with it. Could they figure it out eventually? Perhaps. Is Canon going to give them the math? Not likely.
> ...



You may well be correct, and I certainly hope you are. But that would be a whole new set of buttons and faders for LR to implement in the software to manipulate DPAF RAW in the manner the rumors suggest just for specific Canon Cameras. Would be excellent if they came to terms though


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2016)

"DIGIC 6+"

too bad since current DIGIC have produced waxy jpg and video, not sure it will match even the old a7R II quality for natural crisp video detail (look how hideous 5D3 video produced by DIGIC looks compared to the very good video you get from ML raw where you can get around DIGIC touching the image)

also probably means a 10bit firmware update might be impossible

also single digic robs it for chance for 60fps 4k etc.

and remember this camera has too look new 2 years from now and decent 4 years from now

hopefully it was just Canon purposely crippling 5D3 video and not all the old DIGIC chip's fault


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> What is iSA?



http://www.canon.com.hk/cpx/en/technical/pa_Overview_of_61-point_AF_System.html


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

unfocused said:


> As far as when to buy the Canon grip: Grips tend to drop rapidly in price during the first year after release. Look at the Canon Price Watch charts for the 5DIII grip and you can see that it dropped a lot during the first year. And, while used grips aren't real common, if you watch the big dealers closely and are patient, you can pick up a used grip on occasion. I got one for my 5DIII about six months after getting the camera when Adorama happened to have a used one available. Came in the original box and was in perfect condition.



+1 

KEH has used first-party grips. I just bought a gently used 5D3 grip two months ago. I was a holdout because the vertical shooting need is somewhat rare for me to justify $275, but I decided I wasn't going in on the 5D4 and at $160 it made sense to grab one.

Works perfectly and has next to no signs of use. I bet it sat in its prior owner's cabinet 90%+ of the time.

- A


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "DIGIC 6+"
> 
> too bad since current DIGIC have produced waxy jpg and video, not sure it will match even the old a7R II quality for natural crisp video detail (look how hideous 5D3 video produced by DIGIC looks compared to the very good video you get from ML raw where you can get around DIGIC touching the image)
> 
> ...



I've seen some 1DX2 Dual Digic 6+ HD and 4k video that looks excellent. Much nicer than what I've ever gotten on the 5D3


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2016)

"Dual Pixel RAW"

had hope it would be more to do with DR but, as I sort of guess, by the name they gave it, nope

I hope this camera performs great, but I'm suspicious the DR won't match Exmor and the video quality won't match Sony (much less that of any Nikon D820 or possible A7R III next year) so for those finicky about that stuff, we'll see....


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "DIGIC 6+"
> 
> too bad since current DIGIC have produced waxy jpg and video, not sure it will match even the old a7R II quality for natural crisp video detail (look how hideous 5D3 video produced by DIGIC looks compared to the very good video you get from ML raw where you can get around DIGIC touching the image)
> 
> ...



I still want an explanation why a 5DS and a 7D2 -- two _completely_ different cameras with completely different needs -- are worthy of two chips while the 5D# line consistently gets only one.

The 7D2 needs two chips for enough FPS to chase wildlife.
The 5DS needs two chips to move enough data to not have a laughably low FPS 
The jack of all trades / all-arounder 5D3 (and now 5D4) can get by with just one.

I fully admit I'm acting like a kid who didn't get as many toys as my siblings on Christmas. It's an emotional, irrational position to hold, but it feels like Canon (slightly) put profits over 5DS parity with this decision.

#5d3loyalist #butthurt

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > "DIGIC 6+"
> ...



I hope. To my eyes the old 1DC still looked a little soft/waxier than A7R II 4k video.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Aug 19, 2016)

rs said:


> yoms said:
> 
> 
> > Does this dual pixel DPRAW mean it's only available when shooting in LiveView???
> ...



Thanks for the clarification. It's true that when reading about dual pixel, I (wrongly) associated this to dual pixel AF, hence Live View...

Now let's see how it is implemented. I'd like DPP to still be able to produce an "AF-corrected" RAW file that I can later import back in Lightroom. And hopefully DPP will be able to "find" automatically what's the best correction to apply to have the highest sharpness possible based on where the focus point was. That would help the process be snappier


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2016)

clicstudio said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > mclaren777 said:
> ...



huh? cheap lithium batteries are one thing you want to avoid at all costs! they can catch fire, explode, etc.!

a bad grip doesn't work at worst (And the third party grip I had was better than the one from Canon in that it worked 100% fine AND had an extra trigger position and cost much less.)


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I still want an explanation why a 5DS and a 7D2 -- two _completely_ different cameras with completely different needs -- are worthy of two chips while the 5D# line consistently gets only one.
> 
> ...
> 
> #5d3loyalist #butthurt



Or putting this another way, when a 5DS Mark II comes out in 2 years or so with 7-8 fps, _why the hell would you still buy a 5D4_ other than to keep file size down?

I think Canon should have gone more like 8-10 fps with the 5D4 to cement its longer term value proposition.

- A


----------



## Ryananthony (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > As far as when to buy the Canon grip: Grips tend to drop rapidly in price during the first year after release. Look at the Canon Price Watch charts for the 5DIII grip and you can see that it dropped a lot during the first year. And, while used grips aren't real common, if you watch the big dealers closely and are patient, you can pick up a used grip on occasion. I got one for my 5DIII about six months after getting the camera when Adorama happened to have a used one available. Came in the original box and was in perfect condition.
> ...



I enjoy shooting wildlife most, and when it comes to a possible upgrade from my 5d3 I think I will prefer 50mp x 5fps over a 5d4 with 30mp and 7


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Being able to adjust the color temp on the LCD is pretty nice.



hmm if they gave a calibrated LCD that could be adjusted for color temp that would be very, very nice, for once it would be easy to dial in true colors in the field without needed to mess around with large external LCD bulk or trying to quickly wifi over to tablet and use custom software, etc.


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 19, 2016)

As someone who shoots in silent continuous with his 5D3 at least 99% of the time, I find this whole "7 fps isn't enough" argument rather bizarre. :-\


----------



## JoeDavid (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> So if you still shoot in regular old RAW, you're fine! On the special occasion/shot when you really need/want that extra latitude, then you'll need to use DPP (at least for now). I doubt you'd want to shoot every shot in DP RAW anyway. That's almost 70MB per frame! That 5DSR territory.



Definitely. I have a 5Ds that only gets used when the extra resolution would matter. Most of the time I use the 5Dm3. I do my photoshop work on a fast computer with 32 GB RAM and SSD disks. It still takes quite awhile to process the 5Ds files. And then there is the storage issue of RAW + photoshop file + final output...


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2016)

mclaren777 said:


> As someone who shoots in silent continuous with his 5D3 at least 99% of the time, I find this whole "7 fps isn't enough" argument rather bizarre. :-\



I think the people who want more than 7 fps want to shoot either sports or birds in flight. Even at 10 fps on the 7DII it can be hit or miss (balls tend to move very fast, especially the little ones and you really need the ball in the shot for most sports pictures)

But, that's why they make the sports/action oriented cameras like the 7D and 1Dx.

On the other hand, for events (weddings, plays, concerts, meetings, etc.) the silent shooting can be critical. Given the crazy loud "silent" mode of the 1DX II, and that the 5D is more popular with the event crowd, I can see why Canon would emphasize silence over speed with the 5D IV.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Being able to adjust the color temp on the LCD is pretty nice.
> ...



I will wish-list this one step further and hope you can calibrate it with an X1 monitor calibrator like I have at home :


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > Surely there's no "kick in"? The dual photosites are always there, it's just a question of whether you just sum their values pairwise like when doing a regular exposure or also store a difference or however it's going to work.
> ...



There's nothing the pixels "have to do" once the shutter opens, and there's nothing they _can_ do either. The focus is already wherever it is, there are no further focus commands sent to the lens. The photosites just record light like normal (that's all they can do!), but instead of the AF processor reading pairwise differences to adjust focus (like in DPAF) or the main imaging pipeline recording pairwise sums (like in normal exposure) the imaging processor saves the differences to the resulting DPRAW.


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 19, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "Dual Pixel RAW"
> 
> had hope it would be more to do with DR but, as I sort of guess, by the name they gave it, nope
> 
> I hope this camera performs great, but I'm suspicious the DR won't match Exmor and the video quality won't match Sony (much less that of any Nikon D820 or possible A7R III next year) so for those finicky about that stuff, we'll see....



I'm admittedly a bit of a sensor/shadow nit, and with the descriptions of "Dual Pixel RAW" coming out, I am now also concerned about low-light/shadow-recovery performance compared with Exmor.

*sigh*

I'm hoping for the best, and waiting for some good image samples before I pre-order.

C'mon Canon... you really gotta get this one right!


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I still want an explanation why a 5DS and a 7D2 -- two _completely_ different cameras with completely different needs -- are worthy of two chips while the 5D# line consistently gets only one.
> ...



And that is why a short term narrow outlook doesn't rule at Canon. If they did that they would just move the upgrade cycle one iteration skipping down the line, they have never shown any signs of wanting to do that. If they put 10fps in the 5D MkIV who would buy a 5D MkV?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> And that is why a short term narrow outlook doesn't rule at Canon. If they did that they would just move the upgrade cycle one iteration skipping down the line, they have never shown any signs of wanting to do that. If they put 10fps in the 5D MkIV who would buy a 5D MkV?



Must disagree. With every spec on a new rig, you can coast along or you can stuff bleeding edge performance in there. Few would argue that 7 fps isn't coasting on that spec -- one chip at 7 fps reeks of cost containment and prioritizing battery life over performance.

I think 10 fps is some lightning rod where some people shut down and argue that's too much / that's moving the bar too far, etc., I get that. But being only +2 fps over the 5DS certainly seems like the 5DS is sitting in first class while the 5D4 is in business class. I would have thought they'd offer more than that.

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I still want an explanation why a 5DS and a 7D2 -- two _completely_ different cameras with completely different needs -- are worthy of two chips while the 5D# line consistently gets only one.
> ...



yeah especially should the video not end up being as crisp as Sony and the DR not as good as everyone else (both remain to be seen though)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 19, 2016)

mclaren777 said:


> As someone who shoots in silent continuous with his 5D3 at least 99% of the time, I find this whole "7 fps isn't enough" argument rather bizarre. :-\



someone with McLaren in their username never heard of action photography?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I still want an explanation why a 5DS and a 7D2 -- two _completely_ different cameras with completely different needs -- are worthy of two chips while the 5D# line consistently gets only one.
> ...



why don't you dream up scenarios even more?

why would the 5Ds be 7-8fps in it's next rendition, when it's most likely going up to 120MP?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

justsomedude said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > "Dual Pixel RAW"
> ...



why? apparently the 1DX Mark II is perfectly fine in that regard.

and why on earth would DPAF sensors worry you.. 

some people.. :


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2016)

clicstudio said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > mclaren777 said:
> ...



I'd call the batteries more essential than the grip they're in.


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



This is not a 1DX2. And we still don't know what sensor the 5D4 is getting.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

justsomedude said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > justsomedude said:
> ...



sure if you want to wear a tin foil hat and assume that for some reason the 80D improvements and the 1DX Mark II improvements vanish with the 5D mark IV even though it uses the same styled of sensor.

so there's almost a great deal of likelihood that the improvements seen on the 1Dx MarK II will carry forward.

to think otherwise, is pretty weird.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2016)

justsomedude said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > justsomedude said:
> ...



But what about DPAF worries you about shadow recovery? Are they related in any way?


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> There's nothing the pixels "have to do" once the shutter opens,



Ok. Then how does any camera ever achieve focus in Live View? How does any MILC camera ever achieve focus? How then does the Dual Pixel Auto Focus manage to stay locked on target in Live View with moving subjects so you can video now in (what amount to) Servo AF?

Hint: The pixels DO have to do something in Live View before the exposure/shutter goes off.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > And that is why a short term narrow outlook doesn't rule at Canon. If they did that they would just move the upgrade cycle one iteration skipping down the line, they have never shown any signs of wanting to do that. If they put 10fps in the 5D MkIV who would buy a 5D MkV?
> ...



You might disagree but you can only say I am wrong if the sales figures point to it being a mistake for Canon.

All releases bring on a tidal wave of _'dead in the water' 'Canon are *******'_ posts, I am surprised at the relatively few number of those posts so far with this release of specs. I am certain the 5D MkIV will be a big success which will prove Canon are right.

Besides, after the release of the 5DS/R why did anybody buy a 5D MkIII? They have different priorities and price points. This will be true of the 5D MkIV and the 5DS?R MkII, they will have the same differentiation's, AA filter, video specs, price, blah blah blah.

Canon have said in interviews that they are very cost conscious, the 5D MkIV has to come in at a price point. The 5DS/R is a more niche product and as such isn't as cost constrained, people that feel they need one will pay the premium. The 5D is a popular but built to a budget cost constrained camera, it always has been. They might be more upmarket than the Rebels but they have the same kind of cost control. Meanwhile those modest Rebels make the bulk of the profits for Canon in DSLR sales, but only because of extreme attention to costs.


----------



## midluk (Aug 19, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> a bad grip doesn't work at worst (And the third party grip I had was better than the one from Canon in that it worked 100% fine AND had an extra trigger position and cost much less.)


You just have to hope that the "doesn't work" does not include the tripod mount or the joint to the camera, especially if you are using some carrying system like sunsniper or back rapid straps.


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 19, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



I'm not worried about DPAF as it relates to shadow recovery. That was RRCPHOTO misunderstanding the previous comments by LetTheRightLensIn and myself. We (and I'm sure others) had hoped that the DPAF was a dual-ISO type technology, just hardware based, as that is what some of the initial leaks interpreted.

However, we now know that DPAF has nothing to do with dynamic range at all, so all of our hopes for some dramatic DR improvement now rest solely on the sensor alone. As to whether or not the 5D4 can match the performance of the Exmor, is all we're getting at.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing the pixels "have to do" once the shutter opens,
> ...



Because the CPU(s) processes the data it receives from the photosites. All they are doing is turning light into electrons, whether the task is capturing an image, metering, or focusing. That's all they CAN do - the CPU(s) then has to manipulate that data to perform the required task. They don't do anything different depending on the task, they just do the one job they know how to do - turn light into electrons representing the light.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

justsomedude said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > justsomedude said:
> ...



technically Dual ISO would do nothing for a sensor that was at, or close to being ISO invariant.

so you're barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I still want an explanation why a 5DS and a 7D2 -- two _completely_ different cameras with completely different needs -- are worthy of two chips while the 5D# line consistently gets only one.
> ...



I doubt that will happen. Canon likes their niches. 5Ds series is about resolution. I am not sure how far they will go for the next generation, but moving all that data will limit fps and high ISO range. My guess is that the 5Ds xx will consistently be in the 5-6 fps range even in future generations.

For the 5DIV I was hoping for 8 fps. But, I am not that concerned over 7 fps. The 5DIII is already a great camera, and Canon has incrementally improved pretty much EVERYTHING. That becomes very significant. 

It actually gets a little nutty. I almost never feel limited by my 5DIII and yet now there will be a camera that is essentially better across the board. Focus points that are f/8 and lower EV. Touch screen, 30.4 MP, better low ISO DR (assumed improvement in noise floor), 7 fps, DPAF in Liveview, DP RAW processing, better video (almost never use, but, you know, cool), faster write speeds to the freakin' SD card, wifi, GPS, NFC, antiflicker, Magic Lantern stuff like timelapse movie, intervalometer, etc, etc.

If they've increased the buffer size this is really getting to be my perfect camera.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



True. Sony sensors are already limited mostly by shot noise and not readout noise. 

The only gain we could hope for is a true ISO 25 or 50 setting. The D810 is close to that and works well for added DR to the images.


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I'm just going off what was first reported by Canon Rumors about the new sensor tech. So, I'm not barking up anything... just repeating what was initially reported.

“The way Dual Pixel works, 30MP DP sensor means a 60MP dual pixel raw file with a new RRGGGGBB pattern (vs RGGB), so potentially better dynamic range, and maybe an improved debayering algorithm.”


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

tr573 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Sharlin said:
> ...



BEFORE the shutter. BEFORE the exposure is made. (remember...shutters are electronic now, it's NOT the curtain) Whether shooting stills or shooting video, in Live View mode, focus is achieved without the 61pt AF system. The mirror is up, the curtain is down, the sensor is fully visable. The sensor has its own second focusing system that is employed in lieu of using the 61 AF points we can see when using the OVF. Dual Pixel AF enhanced the reliability of this sensor based AF system by splitting pixels. YES, once the shutter "opened" and the exposure is underway, nothing further happens. But that sensor DOES focus assist when the 61pt AF is not used. Pre-DPAF, you could lock focus ONCE when you were in live view before the shot. Once video began, no more AF. DPAF now lets us continually focus in Live View. I think perhaps you are confusing shutter with curtain and mirror? Not sure. 

Back to the original point, once the mirror and curtain are up and the sensor is exposed, will the live view focusing system of the sensor have to engage in order to use this new feature? My bet is yes. So it will probably be Live View function ONLY if you want DP RAW stills


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Back to the original point, once the mirror and curtain are up and the sensor is exposed, will the live view focusing system of the sensor have to engage in order to use this new feature? My bet is yes. So it will probably be Live View function ONLY if you want DP RAW stills



you are making this more complicated than what it is.

during a normal exposure and AF both PD's are collecting light.

what is different is what the camera DOES with that. for normal imaging, the pair is summed and output as one value. For AF, the difference between the two is read to determine phase difference.

what canon is doing here is simply providing BOTH values at the same time, or now doing the summation off sensor.

it doesn't matter whether it's OVF,etc or not.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2016)

justsomedude said:


> I'm just going off what was first reported by Canon Rumors about the new sensor tech. So, I'm not barking up anything... just repeating what was initially reported.
> 
> “The way Dual Pixel works, 30MP DP sensor means a 60MP dual pixel raw file with a new RRGGGGBB pattern (vs RGGB), so potentially better dynamic range, and maybe an improved debayering algorithm.”



That wasn't "reported" it was a quote from a tweet by some random guy named "Thomas" on the Internet. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet and don't assume that anything on a site with "Rumors" in its name are 100% accurate.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

justsomedude said:


> I'm just going off what was first reported by Canon Rumors about the new sensor tech. So, I'm not barking up anything... just repeating what was initially reported.
> 
> “The way Dual Pixel works, 30MP DP sensor means a 60MP dual pixel raw file with a new RRGGGGBB pattern (vs RGGB), so potentially better dynamic range, and maybe an improved debayering algorithm.”



well, for starters that's not how dual pixel works. and you're not repeating facts, simply CR taking someone from twitter that had a theory.

and btw, dual pixel is in the 1DX Mark II, the 80D, the 70D and the 7D Mark II .. this isn't new tech. what canon is doing with the data. is.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> BEFORE the shutter. BEFORE the exposure is made. (remember...shutters are electronic now, it's NOT the curtain) Whether shooting stills or shooting video, in Live View mode, focus is achieved without the 61pt AF system. The mirror is up, the curtain is down, the sensor is fully visable. The sensor has its own second focusing system that is employed in lieu of using the 61 AF points we can see when using the OVF. Dual Pixel AF enhanced the reliability of this sensor based AF system by splitting pixels.



No, it does not. The sensor in this case, just like in all others, turns the light into electrons, and then the CPU decides what to do with that data. Sometimes the CPU uses that data to assemble an image, sometimes it uses it to determine phase difference for focusing, and sometimes it uses it to meter the scene. 



PureClassA said:


> Back to the original point, once the mirror and curtain are up and the sensor is exposed, will the live view focusing system of the sensor have to engage in order to use this new feature? My bet is yes. So it will probably be Live View function ONLY if you want DP RAW stills



You should not have to, because the image sensor is collecting the exact same data regardless of whether you are in live view or not, it's just what the CPU does with the data afterwards.


----------



## justsomedude (Aug 19, 2016)

unfocused said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just going off what was first reported by Canon Rumors about the new sensor tech. So, I'm not barking up anything... just repeating what was initially reported.
> ...



The actual quote from the original Canon Rumors blog post / spec list is as follows...

*ever possible to no post-processing of the adjustment dual pixel RAW file (bad translation)
“The way Dual Pixel works, 30MP DP sensor means a 60MP dual pixel raw file with a new RRGGGGBB pattern (vs RGGB), so potentially better dynamic range, and maybe an improved debayering algorithm.”
*
Many, including those on this forum, assumed it was some type of technology aimed at improving DR, and it sparked some interesting conversation.

That theory has since been proven incorrect as more information on the Dual Pixel RAW has come out.

I'm not really sure why that progression of information/discussion is getting your panties in twist.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

justsomedude said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > justsomedude said:
> ...



of course you skip the (thanks Thomas) which linked the twitter comment... 
:

and most people dismissed that right away because it would have made 3:1 images, and because of the CFA .. what he was suggesting was kind of impossible.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > "DIGIC 6+"
> ...



It's to do with the throughput of data that the chip /s can sustain. Each generation of Digic allows roughly 1.5x more data through put than the last generation of chip. A dual chip also allows roughly 1.5x more data than a single chip. So a single Digic 6 has similar data capabilities of a dual Digic 5. If the camera needs a lot of throughput and the single chip can't handle it then a dual chip is employed. 
Things get a little more complicated with each generation of chips as there a normal and + types. So there is a Digic 5, a 5+, a Dual 5 and a Dual 5+. A 5DIII has a single Digic 5+. a 5D4 is rumoured to have a single Digic 6+. In theory a single chip uses less power and generates less heat. But a dual chip arrangement allows roughly 1.5x the data. 
So lets crunch some cigarette packet numbers: 
1Dx has a dual Digic 5+, 18.1mp x 12fps = 217.2 mp/s.
5D3 has a sing;e Digic 5+, 22.3mp x 6fps = 133.8 mp/s. 
5D4 has a single Digic 6+, 30.4mp x 7fps = 212.8 mp/s...very simular figures to the 1Dx throughput. 
5DS has dual Digic 6 already...so we have to wait for a Dual Digic 7 to be available...or they go Dual Digic 6+.
In theory, a Dual Digic 6+ should be good for around 325mb/s. But so far the 1DxII has only utilised 282.8mp/s of that figure. So the most capped camera at the moment in terms of through put is the 1DxII at the moment. The processor is far more capable than the camera that Canon wrapped it in. 
The Dual Digic 6 in the 5Ds is only 253mp/s. In the 7DII, the same Dual Digic 6 is only utilising 202mp/s. 
So the chips are often under utilised, but shows the max these cameras could be capable of. 
It's possible using a fully clocked Dual 6+ to offer 325mp/s...or 50.6mp x 6.4fps. Or 65mp x 5 fps. It was possible for the 1DxII to clock 23mp x 14fps. So I wonder why they didn't go for it.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

justsomedude said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > justsomedude said:
> ...



the real quote:



> “The way Dual Pixel works, 30MP DP sensor means a 60MP dual pixel raw file with a new RRGGGGBB pattern (vs RGGB), so potentially better dynamic range, and maybe an improved debayering algorithm.” Thanks Thomas


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 19, 2016)

tr573 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > BEFORE the shutter. BEFORE the exposure is made. (remember...shutters are electronic now, it's NOT the curtain) Whether shooting stills or shooting video, in Live View mode, focus is achieved without the 61pt AF system. The mirror is up, the curtain is down, the sensor is fully visable. The sensor has its own second focusing system that is employed in lieu of using the 61 AF points we can see when using the OVF. Dual Pixel AF enhanced the reliability of this sensor based AF system by splitting pixels.
> ...



So then what exactly is telling my lens to focus while in live view when i press the AF button? I'm selecting a point in live view. The sensor is feeding live data to a processor but the sensor itself has now become a million different AF points. With Dual Pixel Auto Focus it has become even more accurate and also allows for active focusing during video. The Digic Chip may be making the decisions to move the lens and achieve focus, but the Pixels themselves are now being used as AF points. Same basic process as using 61pt AF. That data is fed to Digic as well. That's what I'm getting at. And if the sub-pixels are going to be read out separately, I can't see how you can do that without the DPAF pixels themselves being used as the AF points. I think maybe we are both largely in agreement and just perhaps saying in different ways.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Did you know that the word 'gullible' is not on dictionary.com?


----------



## tr573 (Aug 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



The pixels are always separated into two physically, so they always generate their own data independently of each other whether you are using live view focus or not. If the cpu is making an image from the data, it has to be combined. If it is using it to determine phase difference to focus, it does not. So it's all about what you've programmed the software to do - not whether you were using live view or not.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2016)

justsomedude said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > justsomedude said:
> ...



So would it be more correct to strike the "now" from your initial post, or replace it with "still?"

In other words, you were concerned with shadow recovery, and the random tweet and associated theories gave you temporary false hope?

Either way, I won't be pre-ordering. I'll probably buy one, and don't expect canon to have pipeline issues.


----------



## cpreston (Aug 19, 2016)

So, does this 30MP count for the sensor include the DPAF pixels. In other words, could this be more like a 20MP sensor with 10MP added through the DPAF sites?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2016)

cpreston said:


> So, does this 30MP count for the sensor include the DPAF pixels. In other words, could this be more like a 20MP sensor with 10MP added through the DPAF sites?



It is not legacy OSPDAF. There are no DPAF-exclusive sites. Each and every pixel has two diodes. 30.4MP, 60.4 million photodiodes.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

cpreston said:


> So, does this 30MP count for the sensor include the DPAF pixels. In other words, could this be more like a 20MP sensor with 10MP added through the DPAF sites?



No.Think of a 30MP DPAF sensor just as a regular 30MP imaging sensor but with the difference that some majority (in earlier DPAF sensors the center ~80%) of the pixels can also record phase information in addition to a luminosity value. This is internally implemented by actually having two independent photodiodes per pixel, but that's not really relevant. You can treat the pixels as black boxes. You just need to know that in addition to luminosity, they can sense phase difference that can be used to run the AF algorithm (and/or stored in the output file for later use in case of the 5D4).


----------



## cpreston (Aug 19, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> cpreston said:
> 
> 
> > So, does this 30MP count for the sensor include the DPAF pixels. In other words, could this be more like a 20MP sensor with 10MP added through the DPAF sites?
> ...



Ahh, I see that the the RAW file size in the specs indicates how the dual pixel RAW is being used.


----------



## yeahright (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> cpreston said:
> 
> 
> > So, does this 30MP count for the sensor include the DPAF pixels. In other words, could this be more like a 20MP sensor with 10MP added through the DPAF sites?
> ...


I think a single dual pixel does not record phase information at all, but just luminosity information independently in its two sub-pixels. The two photosites in a single pixel however gather light from different sides of the lens. So a single dual pixel cannot be used for autofocussing at all, because the only information available are two luminosity values. Autofocussing can then only be achieved by looking at a horizontal row of multiple pixels and by comparing (and for focussing aligning) the intensity values in a row of left and right pixels (just like in an ordinary PDAF sensor). Meaning that from my understanding, dual pixel autofocussing with horizontally separated dual-pixels will not work if there are only horizontal structures in the scene, but instead require horizontal changes in intensity. So DPAF is essentially as if there were a whole lot of line-type PDAF sensors.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 19, 2016)

If the DPRAW feature is for micro-adjusting focus in post processing, then that could be a very big deal (depending on how much latitude there is). What a brilliant application for the Dual Pixel technology. I like it better than dual ISO for my photography. 

Here's how I understand it:


There are two photo diodes per pixel.
Each photo diode serves one function: produce electrons/data that represent light.

That's it. That's all they do.

The question is, what can be done with that data?

Image Capture:


Combine the data of each diode pair into a value that represents one pixel.
Do whatever processing is done behind the Digic curtain.
Record image data.

Live View Auto-Focus:


Measure phase difference between diode pairs.
Adjust focus to bring the diodes under the focus square into phase alignment.*
Direction of focus adjustment is known from the phase difference, so no hunting is necessary.

* _As focus is adjusted, diode pairs outside the plane of focus will shift more and more out of phase (the bokeh).
_
The simplified process is this:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Focus the lens.
[*]Capture the data.
[*]Process the data into an image.
[/list]

The method of focus (Live View with DPAF versus View Finder with AF sensor) is relevant only to _how the lens is adjusted to affect focus_. *It does not change how data is captured by the sensor.* What this DPRAW feature seems to do is store the separate values of each diode pair in the RAW file rather than combining them and only storing the sum (hence the nearly double file size).

Here's an analogy with arithmetic that illustrates how information is lost:

We know that 6+2 = 8. Easy. But if we save only the 8, we lose what the inputs were. Was it 4+4, 5+3, 6+2, 7+1 or 8+0?

With current cameras, the RAW data used to produce each pixel is like the 8 in the analogy. Each diode pair's output was combined to make a pixel.

The DPRAW data used to produce each pixel is like 4+4. It can still be combined to produce a single pixel, but preserving the inputs could allow software to do something with that data long after the image is captured. From this rumor, it sounds like that could be micro-adjusting focus in post-processing.

COOL!

Of course, I'm just some guy on the internet and could be _totally _wrong.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 19, 2016)

Here's how Canon explains DPAF, by the way:

_"To perform phase detection on the image plane left and right photodiodes are read independently and the resulting parallax images are used to calculate the phase-difference."_

More info here: http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_slr/dual_pixel_cmos_af/


----------



## Act444 (Aug 19, 2016)

Sounds like that would also mean that DPRAW would only work in Live View mode. 

AFMA in PP (if I'm reading the description right...) would be nice indeed, but even more so if it worked in regular mode as well!


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

yeahright said:


> I think a single dual pixel does not record phase information at all, but just luminosity information independently in its two sub-pixels. The two photosites in a single pixel however gather light from different sides of the lens. So a single dual pixel cannot be used for autofocussing at all, because the only information available are two luminosity values. Autofocussing can then only be achieved by looking at a horizontal row of multiple pixels and by comparing (and for focussing aligning) the intensity values in a row of left and right pixels (just like in an ordinary PDAF sensor). Meaning that from my understanding, dual pixel autofocussing with horizontally separated dual-pixels will not work if there are only horizontal structures in the scene, but instead require horizontal changes in intensity. So DPAF is essentially as if there were a whole lot of line-type PDAF sensors.



Yeah, I concur. I was a bit imprecise. From a single DPAF pixel you just get two luminosity values. To get enough information to drive focus you do need a longer baseline than just a single DP pair, just like PDAF sensors are made of linear strips of photodiodes.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 19, 2016)

Act444 said:


> Sounds like that would also mean that DPRAW would only work in Live View mode.
> 
> AFMA in PP (if I'm reading the description right...) would be nice indeed, but even more so if it worked in regular mode as well!



No. This has been discussed for the last couple of pages. There's no reason to think that DPRAW would work in Live View only.


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 19, 2016)

I too hope Canon work together with Adobe to implement the dual pixel raw features in Lightroom and ACR. The conveniences of using Lightroom over DPP are so massive, it would feel like a huge nuisance to have to switch software just to make use of DP raw files.

And being a 7D2 owner, I can't help but dream about them implementing the feature in all previous DPAF cameras. At least the 1DX2 and the 7D2? Pretty please?


----------



## sigh (Aug 19, 2016)

tr573 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > tr573 said:
> ...



From what I've read of your conversation, you're both in agreement. 

My view is that DPRAW will work using the camera's normal off-sensor phase detect AF module to acquire focus but will record values using the dual pixel sensor for adjustment in post. The different between it and using dual pixel for AF is that, as tr573 says, the data from the pixels is used to calculate a phase difference and drive the lens AF before a picture is taken. This is compared with how I believe DPRAW will work, where the normal AF module will handle the focus, except that when the picture is taken, the dual pixel values are stored for later.


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 19, 2016)

BTW, what on earth is a "valve timer"? Sounds like something from a combustion engine?


----------



## Act444 (Aug 19, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like that would also mean that DPRAW would only work in Live View mode.
> ...



I'm certainly hoping this is the case...anyway, we'll find out soon enough.


----------



## LoneRider (Aug 19, 2016)

naylor83 said:


> And being a 7D2 owner, I can't help but dream about them implementing the feature in all previous DPAF cameras. At least the 1DX2 and the 7D2? Pretty please?



Well, there was the notion of a firmware upgrade for the 7D2 coming in the next few weeks. Would make sense to see this feature on all the newer DP devices? 

At the very least I could see the 80D and 1DXii getting it.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

LoneRider said:


> naylor83 said:
> 
> 
> > And being a 7D2 owner, I can't help but dream about them implementing the feature in all previous DPAF cameras. At least the 1DX2 and the 7D2? Pretty please?
> ...



depends if the sensor supports it. it may not.


----------



## LoneRider (Aug 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> LoneRider said:
> 
> 
> > naylor83 said:
> ...



I don't see how the sensor could not. The dual pixels ADC values have to enter the processor right? Once there, any processing, including a new RAW file format would be fair game, I would think. The only problem could then be throughput to storage, thus filling up the buffer faster.

If there is anything limiting the feature it would be the DIGIC processor and Canon's reluctance to pushing the feature to older cameras, no?

Just my guess.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 19, 2016)

LoneRider said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > LoneRider said:
> ...



for the 7D Mark II the ADC's were off sensor. it's anyone's guess if it's compatible or not

the 80D and 1Dx mark II were at least both ADC on sensor, but it entirely depends if before canon measured the phase difference as an analog or digital signal and where and when.

on the 5D Mark IV - both image values and parallax values have to be output at the same time from the sensor.

can the others do that? who knows..


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 20, 2016)

naylor83 said:


> BTW, what on earth is a "valve timer"? Sounds like something from a combustion engine?



Bulb timer. Bad translation.


----------



## Azathoth (Aug 20, 2016)

naylor83 said:


> I too hope Canon work together with Adobe to implement the dual pixel raw features in Lightroom and ACR. The conveniences of using Lightroom over DPP are so massive, it would feel like a huge nuisance to have to switch software just to make use of DP raw files.
> 
> And being a 7D2 owner, I can't help but dream about them implementing the feature in all previous DPAF cameras. At least the 1DX2 and the 7D2? Pretty please?



+ the 70d


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 20, 2016)

LoneRider said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > LoneRider said:
> ...



Discussed this somewhere on this thread or another yesterday. The 7D2 may NOT. The 1DX2 and 80D might. Here's why it COULD be the case. It all depends whether the newer sensor fabrication process of putting the ADC ON the sensor die matters here. If it does, the 80D and 1DX2 were both built around sensors fabricated with ADC modules ON the die. The 7D2, was NOT. They all have DPAF, but if the signal path generate this type of read out is dependent upon having the column parallel ADC on board with the optical sensor... The 7D2 may be SOL. Again, speculation. No idea one way or the other. We will know very soon though


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 20, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> LoneRider said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



this is confusing and potentially inaccurate.

the layout and sensor design has nothing to do with the fabrication process really.

ideally the fabrication process had to be done before ADC could potentially be implemented, however, there's enough "common sense evidence" that it probably happened way before ADC's.. ie: the 70D.


----------



## N2itiv (Aug 20, 2016)

The files generated should work decent w/my current system. I hope that focusing screen is removable. Preferred aspect ratio is 5/4 and I like to mark my screen accordingly to determine final print proportions in camera.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 20, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> cpreston said:
> 
> 
> > So, does this 30MP count for the sensor include the DPAF pixels. In other words, could this be more like a 20MP sensor with 10MP added through the DPAF sites?
> ...



60.8. The "Image Micro-adjustment" sounds friggin' cool nevertheless!!!


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 20, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> the layout and sensor design has nothing to do with the fabrication process really.



I said what I said because a year or two ago there was much discussion on here about Canon having to re-outfit their fabrication process to mass produce Sensors with the ADC on board as opposed to the older method of using an off die ADC that required a longer, more noise inducing signal path. This re-tolling happened post 7D2 release. So while it is not germane to the manufacture of the optical sensor portion by itself (made in big sheets then cut I believe) whether typical Bayer or DPAF flavor, the fabrication of the completed sensor die itself made ready to install in a body did require overhauling of production processes by Canon just as it did with Sony etc... If I left anything open for confusion, my apologies


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 20, 2016)

Jopa said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > cpreston said:
> ...



Lol
Yes


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 20, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > the layout and sensor design has nothing to do with the fabrication process really.
> ...



Actually it probably didn't.

The 18mp aps-c sensors were 500nm fab.

It's highly unlikely canon could have spilt the pixel in half added a switch per pair, and a boundary Between the two PD and dramatically increased the sensor QE without switching the design rules. Especially with sub 5um pixels.

The ADC had to wait for relevant patents to publish.

The few proponents did not want to see common sense staring then in the face, but the first dual pixel sensor realistically was new design rules.

Canon even stated that it was incredibly expensive to fabricate (new fab teething issues) and there was rumors that yields were causing issues. Etc..etc..


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 20, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Agred it could remove the need for AF Micro adjustments on some lenses. The ability to increase out of focus areas might be interesting as well.


----------



## digital paradise (Aug 20, 2016)

What does iSA stand for?


----------



## SereneSpeed (Aug 20, 2016)

I'm sure this has been addressed earlier in this thread or the other 40+ page thread (... but I can't keep up!).

Can somebody please confirm that having "150,000-pixel RGB + IR metering sensor. 252 zone photometry" would allow this iteration of the 5d to spot meter at the AF points?


----------



## Talley (Aug 20, 2016)

digital paradise said:


> What does iSA stand for?



First on the 1dxII here is the meaning per Canon:



> using the iSA (Intelligent Scene Analysis) system that quickens both exposure metering and autofocus performance


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 20, 2016)

SereneSpeed said:


> I'm sure this has been addressed earlier in this thread or the other 40+ page thread (... but I can't keep up!).
> 
> Can somebody please confirm that having "150,000-pixel RGB + IR metering sensor. 252 zone photometry" would allow this iteration of the 5d to spot meter at the AF points?



Any modern Canon metering sensor is capable of linking spot metering to AF point, it's purely a business decision not to do so.


----------



## Gino (Aug 20, 2016)

Can anyone confirm if the 5D MKIV will offer the same type of viewfinder as the 1DX MKII with the easy to see red autofocus points....when using the viewfinder, *AF points are highlighted in red for greater visibility in low-light conditions*

thanks!


----------



## BokehBalls (Aug 20, 2016)

Ok. How we order now?


----------



## Dave Del Real (Aug 20, 2016)

BokehBalls said:


> Ok. How we order now?



http://www.canonrumors.com/get-notified-when-preorders-go-live/


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> I wonder if this DPRAW will be Canon's equivalent of the Pentax Image Shift?
> 
> Sounds good in theory but in practice, doesn't really live up to expectations.



How are they anything alike? If rumors are correct, they serve entirely different purposes.

In any case, expectations built around rumors are prone to disappointments.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > How are they anything alike? If rumors are correct, they serve entirely different purposes.
> ...



Oh, I misunderstood; though you were meaning DPRAW (if such a thing exists) is canon's way of getting the same effect as pixel shift.

Incidentally, hasn't pixel shift been seen before Pentax from at least Hasselblad?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Err, the Hasselblad and Pentax are both DSLR's, don't let Neuro catch you saying they arent!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Lol, too late. Then there is the implication that somehow a _Pentax_ dSLR would have a broad market appeal/fan base. More facts from dilbertland.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2016)

I edited that to include the Pentax well before you posted, how do you do that? Time travel? Quantum states?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



The Hasselblad is a medium format DSLR, Pentax has both a FF and APS DSLR with pixel shifting. I don't care if you care about what others say, I do care when statements are factually incorrect, to say "neither of those were DSLR's" when they both are, is factually incorrect.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



I call bullshit. 

Even as you have rewritten it, the Hasselblad IS still a DSLR.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 20, 2016)

They should make tiny holes on the mirror, which align with the DPAF pixels. This way they could use PDAF for the actual AF, and meanwhile the DPAF pixels would make sure it's just right even if AFMA is not done.


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 20, 2016)

Could the multi raw output be utilised for super clean high iso images?


----------



## lloyd709 (Aug 20, 2016)

Assuming the duel pixel raw thing is mainly about micro adjusting the focusing it seems to me to not be very useful for the average professional. Large files cost in terms of space and time and for me I don't think I could justify shooting them just to have the option to micro adjust the odd image. On average I guess when I set up a shot I normally take 20 or 30 frames varying things slightly. On my MkIII probably 80% of them are spot on in terms of focus accuracy giving me more than enough to work with. I really think they should be using the space (in terms of file size) to improve dynamic range and colour depth.


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 20, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> naylor83 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, what on earth is a "valve timer"? Sounds like something from a combustion engine?
> ...



Oh, of course. Thanks =D


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 20, 2016)

tpatana said:


> They should make tiny holes on the mirror, which align with the DPAF pixels. This way they could use PDAF for the actual AF, and meanwhile the DPAF pixels would make sure it's just right even if AFMA is not done.



The DPAF pixels cover 80% of the sensor surface, so the mirror would just be one big hole ;D


----------



## mikekx102 (Aug 20, 2016)

So the updated specification says:

_Dual Pixel RAW: record one normal RAW file as well as a Dual Pixel RAW file. You can then use Canon’s Digital Photo Professional and have access to three new post processing techniques listed below:

Image Micro-adjustment: by using the depth information, fine adjustment enables the position of the maximum sharpness and resolution
Bokeh Shift: to change the position of the previous blur (original: re-positions the viewpoint of foreground bokeh for a more pleasing result)
Ghosting Reduction: reduces the ghost and flare._

People were saying that it could be used for a better version of Magic Lantern's Dual ISO mode, and some people appear disappointed that it is the above instead. But we should note that the camera will still output the Dual Pixel RAW files, and while Canon's DPP software may only be able to edit a bokeh shift, ghosting reduction and image micro-adjustment, Adobe or others may release software to perform dual ISO. Hopefully, anyway.


----------



## mikekx102 (Aug 20, 2016)

naylor83 said:


> The DPAF pixels cover 80% of the sensor surface, so the mirror would just be one big hole ;D



So a DPAF Raw file would only have dual pixels for the centre 80% of the picture? Would it be reasonable to expect that this camera could have 100% Dual Pixels on the sensor because it is used in post processing, instead of only auto-focus as in previous camera bodies.


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 20, 2016)

mikekx102 said:


> naylor83 said:
> 
> 
> > The DPAF pixels cover 80% of the sensor surface, so the mirror would just be one big hole ;D
> ...



I'm pretty sure all DPAF cameras have 100% dual pixels, but only the centre 80% are used (for AF).


----------



## Sator (Aug 20, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> IBIS is idiotic for SLR.



Much as I hate to drag the discussion back to IBIS, but a few points.

Firstly, since this is a discussion about the 5DIV, I don't really think that sensors of 50MP or less absolutely need IBIS. I manage fine without it on the 5DsR. Reduction of IQ sometimes from hand shake forces you to push up the ISO at touch, but this is not a major factor. IBIS on a m4/3 camera or even on the 24MP a7II is a touch of a gimmick. Not totally useless, but the a7II probably needs it only to control excessive shutter shock. The 5DIV will be fine without IBIS.

Canon will only really need to develop its own version of IBIS when we go up beyond 50MP. With a 120MP sensor, it will absolutely need IBIS, or else it will be a waste of resolution if it keeps getting degraded by handshake. The problem with IBIS is that the sensor has to move and this can increase corner shading, especially if the mount diameter is too small. Reduction of corner shading was the main reason Sony added BSI to the a7RII according to the design team. The EOS mount has a very generous diameter, and so it is an ideal mount to add IBIS to. Better than the FF mounts from Sony, Nikon, or Pentax. When the time is ripe, I suspect that Canon will add IBIS to the EOS mount. They just don't want to add it as a gimmick to bulk up the specs sheet and merely to keep up with the Jones next door. 

As for the idea that IBIS is a "mirrorless thing", that is simply incorrect. It was Minolta who first developed IBIS, and the a99 and a77II DSLRs ("DSLTs") still use Minolta's original 2-axis IBIS (SteadyShot). Sony/Minolta had 2-axis IBIS in a camera long before mirrorless cameras existed, but at the time sensor resolution was so low that eliminating hand shake was not that important, and so Minolta's innovation passed unnoticed under the radar. 

There are also differences in what IBIS vs ILIS can achieve. Last month's issue of CAPA (in Japanese) discussed how IBIS can correct for pitch, shift, and roll, whereas ILIS can only control pitch. Also ILIS degrades image quality, and adds to the size/bulk of a lens design. IS is something you should be forced to add to a system based on optical fundamentals, not merely as a marketing tool.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 20, 2016)

mikekx102 said:


> So the updated specification says:
> 
> _Dual Pixel RAW: record one normal RAW file as well as a Dual Pixel RAW file. You can then use Canon’s Digital Photo Professional and have access to three new post processing techniques listed below:
> 
> ...


I don't know. Would the higher ISO amplification need to be done before the A/D processing stage?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Yes, and in your head the 1D C isn't a dSLR, either. But we all know your head is a pretty F'd up place as far as facts are concerned. :


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 20, 2016)

Sator said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > IBIS is idiotic for SLR.
> ...



Because they implement first curtain electronic shutter the A7II and A7rII do not suffer shutter shock in the same way the A7r did. For the same reason you can shoot Canon cameras in live view with silent shutter mode II and reduce shutter shock and reduce camera shake for landscapes more than mirror lockup. The IBIS is more than a gimmick. That said it works best on shorter focal lengths and higher pixel pitches. But it has a very noticeable effect even with the A7II. Long telephoto lens will always be better served by ILIS.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Aug 20, 2016)

BeenThere said:


> I don't know. Would the higher ISO amplification need to be done before the A/D processing stage?



Yes... that's the main problem... I doubt that it will support dual ISO because each pixel in the dual-pixel pair would need to have a different hardware ISO amplification. Unless they specifically planned to do this and built hte hardware to support it, I doubt it will work the way many people would like it to work.

Only time will tell...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mar*



Sator said:


> There are also differences in what IBIS vs ILIS can achieve. Last month's issue of CAPA (in Japanese) discussed how IBIS can correct for pitch, shift, and roll, whereas ILIS can only control pitch. Also ILIS degrades image quality, and adds to the size/bulk of a lens design. IS is something you should be forced to add to a system based on optical fundamentals, not merely as a marketing tool.



Hmm, the writers of the article are obviously not familiar with the 2009 Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS, it is ILIS and corrects for shift.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2016)

*Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mar*



privatebydesign said:


> Sator said:
> 
> 
> > There are also differences in what IBIS vs ILIS can achieve. Last month's issue of CAPA (in Japanese) discussed how IBIS can correct for pitch, shift, and roll, whereas ILIS can only control pitch. Also ILIS degrades image quality, and adds to the size/bulk of a lens design. IS is something you should be forced to add to a system based on optical fundamentals, not merely as a marketing tool.
> ...



Yeah, even my inexpensive little EF-M 28mm macro has Hybrid IS. Although 2-axis correction of translational motion (shift) is useful at close-up distances (as is roll, which ILIS can't correct – pie are squared, but lenses are round), at non close-up distances, angular motions (pitch and yaw) are the primary cause of shake artifacts.


----------



## Sator (Aug 20, 2016)

I own the a7II, and the effect of IBIS is very subtly incremental and hardly anywhere near as night-and-day dramatic as deluded Sony fanboys claim...they merely play this feature up and _grossly_ exaggerate its importance just for the sake of having bragging rights to have one more bell or whistle that really isn't yet necessary in a game of petty oneupmanship on internet fora. BTW Sony did further improve on dampening the shutter for the a7RII, implying that such a development was necessary in the first place. Still it is nowhere near as well dampened as the 5DsR. 

BTW here is a Canon patent for IBIS (albeit for FF lenses used on an APS-C body):

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-03-07


----------



## pokerz (Aug 20, 2016)

Sator said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > IBIS is idiotic for SLR.
> ...



And you can choose from IBIS, OIS, both and off. 
Imagine how much a Canon IS len costs you :-[


----------



## K (Aug 20, 2016)

Bummer.

According to the rumor, the FTP feature only means it is compatible with Canon's outrageously priced wireless file transmitter???

That's lame by Canon. With built in Wifi, having file transfer option should be automatic and in-body. The hardware and tech is all there, this is just another business decision (bad one too), to try and sell overpriced devices.

That's not a good move in my opinion as we're very well into the wireless age with so many connectivity methods and devices. To hold back on that, in the DSLR realm where a lot of tech isn't there or is dreadfully slow to implement, is just not good.

I get Canon holding back on AF spot metering and some other bells and whistles to separate lines. But on Wifi in this day and age?

Doesn't make sense. Why even offer Wifi on any of these cameras? Someone who is going to spend that kind of money on their egregiously over priced file transmitter isn't going to own a 5D or lower series body. $579? That is laughable. Wifi to remotely control the camera? Wifi is gimmicky without all the capabilities.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 20, 2016)

K said:


> According to the rumor, the FTP feature only means it is compatible with Canon's outrageously priced wireless file transmitter???
> 
> That's lame by Canon. With built in Wifi, having file transfer option should be automatic and in-body. The hardware and tech is all there, this is just another business decision (bad one too), to try and sell overpriced devices.



We don't know enough yet -- all we have is "FTP · FTPS can be transferred wirelessly also only in the body" which is dubiously translated and we lack a 5D4 manual to see what it can/can't do. 

I'd be really surprised if they put in a half cooked WiFi in a $3k+ rig, especially with that redesigned top. It looks like Canon made some nontrivial body design changes to allow WiFi to work, so I expect the full-flavored version of it.

- A


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 20, 2016)

K said:


> Bummer.
> 
> According to the rumor, the FTP feature only means it is compatible with Canon's outrageously priced wireless file transmitter???
> 
> ...



If the camera itself doesn't handle FTP transfers you should be able to set up some app in your phone to upload any images it receives from the camera.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 20, 2016)

K said:


> Bummer.
> 
> According to the rumor, the FTP feature only means it is compatible with Canon's outrageously priced wireless file transmitter?



why would you think that? FTP is a generic protocol.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 20, 2016)

K said:


> Bummer.
> 
> According to the rumor, the FTP feature only means it is compatible with Canon's outrageously priced wireless file transmitter???
> 
> ...



If you can afford 5D4, you can easily afford the wifi dongle too.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 20, 2016)

K said:


> Bummer.
> 
> According to the rumor



machine translation.. 

when I translate it I get:
" EOS's first FTP / FTPS transfer function (wireless file transmitter is not required)"


people should refrain from going off the deep end and look at the original japanese text and translate with different translators before going all crazy - until we get the official press announcements.

just a thought.


----------



## WeekendWarrior (Aug 20, 2016)

Only 7 FPS though? That's only 1 faster than the mark 3 (which is pretty damn slow) - Everything else looks good but 8-9 FPS would of made a nice difference.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 20, 2016)

tpatana said:


> If you can afford 5D4, you can easily afford the wifi dongle too.



How do you figure? What if "you" have exactly the amount of money required to purchase a 5D4?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2016)

WeekendWarrior said:


> Only 7 FPS though? That's only 1 faster than the mark 3 (which is pretty damn slow) - Everything else looks good but 8-9 FPS would of made a nice difference.



#firstworldproblems


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > If you can afford 5D4, you can easily afford the wifi dongle too.
> ...



Then you'd be better off getting a 5D MkIII on closeout and getting some cards and batteries for it. Plus an L-plate if you are a tripod user, or a tripod if you aren't.


----------



## Talley (Aug 20, 2016)

WeekendWarrior said:


> Only 7 FPS though? That's only 1 faster than the mark 3 (which is pretty damn slow) - Everything else looks good but 8-9 FPS would of made a nice difference.



Go buy 1dx then or 7d2... canon has given you options.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 20, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



That may be true for some/most (a tripod for someone who won't use one is a silly purchase, as is an L-plate), but is predicated on a number of assumptions, including: 1) that the 5D4 doesn't have some unique capability you want/need, and 2) that you'll make use of the accessories (cards and batteries), 3) you don't already own a 5D3.

Regardless, that's a discussion of value and wisdom, not one of affordability. The notion that if you can afford one thing you can necessarily afford that thing and more is false.


----------



## daniela (Aug 20, 2016)

WeekendWarrior said:


> Only 7 FPS though? That's only 1 faster than the mark 3 (which is pretty damn slow) - Everything else looks good but 8-9 FPS would of made a nice difference.



I would be glad to get 7fps, where more than 80% are sharp! Nowadays my sharpnessrate is much lower. Better AF, more shar pictures will be better than just an higher fps-count


----------



## lino (Aug 20, 2016)

Any idea what was that 'first in DSlr rumour which we had earlier


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2016)

Talley said:


> WeekendWarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Only 7 FPS though? That's only 1 faster than the mark 3 (which is pretty damn slow) - Everything else looks good but 8-9 FPS would of made a nice difference.
> ...



I liked the suggestion that the 5DIII at 6 fps is "pretty damn slow". It's a helluva lot faster than a thumb...


----------



## Dantana (Aug 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Talley said:
> 
> 
> > WeekendWarrior said:
> ...



It depends on the thumb. I upgraded to the Mark VI and my fps went way up. I have trouble buying gloves now though. Trade-offs.


----------



## smorgo (Aug 20, 2016)

K said:


> According to the rumor, the FTP feature only means it is compatible with Canon's outrageously priced wireless file transmitter???



That makes no sense at all. FTP is merely a protocol, a set of rules, for transferring files over a TCP/IP. It would cause more trouble than it's worth to require an additional WiFi transmitter just to support FTP when the built-in WiFi will doubtless be running a TCP/IP stack.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2016)

Dantana said:


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



Careful – I heard Inigo Montoya was looking for you.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Talley said:
> 
> 
> > WeekendWarrior said:
> ...



Yeah, but with this (http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/shared/windera/index.htm) I could shoot a blazingly fast 2 fps and 720 frames on one set of batteries. And, yes, I owned one of these.


----------



## vscd (Aug 20, 2016)

Whatever the Specs will be... I will feel at home. All 5D, from the first to the last kept the ergonomics, keys and the way how they worked. That's nice to know before the cam even hits the market.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 20, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> sure if you want to wear a tin foil hat and assume that for some reason the 80D improvements and the 1DX Mark II improvements vanish with the 5D mark IV even though it uses the same styled of sensor.
> 
> so there's almost a great deal of likelihood that the improvements seen on the 1Dx MarK II will carry forward.
> 
> to think otherwise, is pretty weird.



it's precisely the 1DX2 and 80D that have us worried! they don't match Exmor even of a few years ago never mind currently or in the next year or two and more importantly, they just don't quite add enough to comfortably pull off lots of landscape stuff where you need more DR while the Exmor stuff now just manages enough


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 20, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



nothing, a few had just hope the talk about dual pixel RAW might mean something else (although using the term "dual pixel" did make it doubtful)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 20, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



show us an ISO invariant sensor from Canon, even with on chip ADC the 80D and 1DX2 still don't manage it


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 20, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Back to the original point, once the mirror and curtain are up and the sensor is exposed, will the live view focusing system of the sensor have to engage in order to use this new feature? My bet is yes. So it will probably be Live View function ONLY if you want DP RAW stills



Why? I highly doubt that. That doesn't make sense.


----------



## JohnUSA (Aug 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Talley said:
> 
> 
> > WeekendWarrior said:
> ...



Looks like the Nikon F3... one of my least favorite cameras as the film advance lever's travel was huge!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 20, 2016)

mikekx102 said:


> People were saying that it could be used for a better version of Magic Lantern's Dual ISO mode, and some people appear disappointed that it is the above instead. But we should note that the camera will still output the Dual Pixel RAW files, and while Canon's DPP software may only be able to edit a bokeh shift, ghosting reduction and image micro-adjustment, Adobe or others may release software to perform dual ISO. Hopefully, anyway.



the problem is you need to read each part with both ISOs if you want to get better DR and not have other major trade offs and unless the sensor has a special design it can't do that


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> WeekendWarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Only 7 FPS though? That's only 1 faster than the mark 3 (which is pretty damn slow) - Everything else looks good but 8-9 FPS would of made a nice difference.
> ...



dude, yawn

comment doesn't even make sense either, even 1fps vs 2fps would be a 1st world problem you do realize, no?


not that 7fps would be that bad, but since I bet it won't deliver DR of competitors, nor the video quality (of course it still remains to be seen) then 7fps does look a bit worse for the money


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2016)

unfocused said:


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



I still do. Bought it new in '79.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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



#sillystupidhyperbole


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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



yes, at least you have now put the proper hash-tag to your original comment


----------



## scyrene (Aug 20, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > sure if you want to wear a tin foil hat and assume that for some reason the 80D improvements and the 1DX Mark II improvements vanish with the 5D mark IV even though it uses the same styled of sensor.
> ...



The 1DxII has more DR at base ISO than the D5, and that is its only direct competitor. So other cameras have more - they aren't in the same category, so they aren't really relevant.

Given your comments here are relentlessly negative, why not just give up and accept the 5D4 isn't for you (whatever they do, it won't be enough), and buy a D810 or its successor?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 20, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


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



When that power winder came out I bought one and designed and built an adapter so it could drive my F1 (could barely afford just the camera) and fire the shutter using the adapter's solenoid. It was functional and only required the further addition of remote solenoid circuitry and then a house building project started, followed by kids, followed by a classic car hobby gone wild and there it sits in a drawer. A testament to what, I'm not sure other than beware life passes you by while you're living it! 

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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



Evidently you subscribe to the theories that manufacturers should not differentiate products based on their market research and that there's no cost to add features. 

#businessacumenofabowlingball


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 20, 2016)

I guess my wish would be not exactly tied to the performance of the 5D4 or Canon. My wish would be that the dodo birds would find some other forum where they would roost and chirp. At least there are only a few more days of this to endure! 

Jack


----------



## LoneRider (Aug 21, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dude, yawn
> 
> comment doesn't even make sense either, even 1fps vs 2fps would be a 1st world problem you do realize, no?
> 
> ...



Eck, some of these guys/gals are just trying to sandbag us, add some doubt in our minds, so they can sneak in an get their pre-order in before we can


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > justsomedude said:
> ...



At the risk of getting my hopes up over unconfirmed capabilities, if Canon T Engineer called me up as said "two options: 1. we increase the DR of your 5D by 2EV, or 2. we enable you to adjust the focus in post by up to approximately an eyelash's length, I'd jump at the second option. Jump. For my usage, that would save far more photos than would be made possible by the additional range.


----------



## gregory4000 (Aug 21, 2016)

Does anybody who supports Canon notice that why Canon neglected to state the DR of the camera,
On the C300 they boasted 15 stops. I sold my Sony A7rII to purchase a home and I'm waiting for something from Canon as a replacement that will have a Sony DR. With Canon's well established R&D I'm expecting by now 14 -15 stops of DR. That fact that its not mentioned concerns me that little improvement has been made. 
Hopefully in a couple of weeks I will be pleasantly surprised with good news in this spec.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2016)

gregory4000 said:


> Does anybody who supports Canon notice that why Canon neglected to state the DR of the camera,
> On the C300 they boasted 15 stops. I sold my Sony A7rII to purchase a home and I'm waiting for something from Canon as a replacement that will have a Sony DR. With Canon's well established R&D I'm expecting by now 14 -15 stops of DR. That fact that its not mentioned concerns me that little improvement has been made.
> Hopefully in a couple of weeks I will be pleasantly surprised with good news in this spec.



Outside that camera have they ever listed DR anywhere?


----------



## gregory4000 (Aug 21, 2016)

No, and probably for good reason. Admit it. it isn't Canon's strong point.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 21, 2016)

They don't have a habit of mentioning other sorts of quantitative measurements either in their marketing (and this is a rumor, not marketing, anyway). Qualitatively, they did mention "increased exposure latitude" in the 80D and 1DX2 marketing material.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 21, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



My eyelash or her eyelash?


----------



## gregory4000 (Aug 21, 2016)

Like I mentioned earlier, I'm hoping for a good improvement in this spec, I will be the reason for me to purchase the 5DIV. My hunch is that if the camera had 14 stops, Canon wouldn't miss the opportunity to monopolize on it knowing that many fans would be very pleased with this improvement. Maybe it has the extra DR and there waiting a week or two to tell us


----------



## tpatana (Aug 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Talley said:
> 
> 
> > WeekendWarrior said:
> ...



Ever heard of Left-Handed Mike?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2016)

tpatana said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Median human eyelash


----------



## K (Aug 21, 2016)

I'm expecting the dynamic range to be better than the 80D, but weaker than the 1DX2. 

It is very hard to imagine the 5D4's sensor besting the 1DX2 sensor on anything except for megapixels.

At ISO 100, they will all be close, but the fall off (curve) will be between 80D and 1DX2. That's my guess.


----------



## K (Aug 21, 2016)

gregory4000 said:


> Does anybody who supports Canon notice that why Canon neglected to state the DR of the camera,
> On the C300 they boasted 15 stops. I sold my Sony A7rII to purchase a home and I'm waiting for something from Canon as a replacement that will have a Sony DR. With Canon's well established R&D I'm expecting by now 14 -15 stops of DR. That fact that its not mentioned concerns me that little improvement has been made.
> Hopefully in a couple of weeks I will be pleasantly surprised with good news in this spec.




You're going to be disappointed. 5D4 will not break 14 stops. Does it stand to reason it will not surpass the 1DX2 which doesn't reach 14 stops? My guess is it won't beat the 1DX2 sensor on anything except for resolution.

Canon does have the tech. The Sony people who bash Canon as a company are wrong. Canon produces imaging products for military, aerospace, medical and high end commercial applications. They have some of the best sensor tech in the world, if not the best. 

The key is, Canon doesn't immediately trickle down their best tech to DSLR cameras. Sony offers up 14.8 stops on a consumer product. Canon has sensor tech above 15 stops, just not in a DSLR. Maybe Sony's ability to scale that technology at a consumer level is better? Who knows. But Canon puts out highly advanced imaging.


Back when the 1DX2 sensor was tested and RAW files hit the web - I told a lot of people, if you're not happy with the sensor performance of the 1DX2, don't expect anything better from the 5D4. Don't wait around for it. 

I hope I'm wrong. I will be very happy to be wrong. I think I will be right. 


Dynamic Range shoppers out to wait for the D820/D850/D900 whatever it will be called. It will have that 14.8 stops give or take, and should upgrade the D810 in areas that were keeping it back. Such as FPS. 


Heck, even if Nikon kept the same exact 36mp sensor, and just increases to 7 FPS, adds a few little bells and whistles - it will be a killer camera. Everyone knows the major downside to the D810 was the 5 fps. Beyond that, it was a nearly perfect DSLR, other than the typical Nikon annoyances of the Nikon ecosystem. If you're ok with Nikon, none of that is a bother. In other words, they don't hold performance back. Increase FPS, add in all the new wifi stuff and connectivity, anti-flicker...that shouldn't be too hard for Nikon, and they will still remain competitive against the 5D series....


The short of it is, if you want nearly 15 stops DR at ISO 64, Sony sensor is what you want. Literally for everything else, Canon is a superior choice.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2016)

K said:


> Sony offers up 14.8 stops on a consumer product.



Which product? The sensor PhaseOne uses for the XF?




K said:


> Heck, even if Nikon kept the same exact 36mp sensor, and just increases to 7 FPS, adds a few little bells and whistles - it will be a killer camera. Everyone knows the major downside to the D810 was the 5 fps. Beyond that, it was a nearly perfect DSLR, other than the typical Nikon annoyances of the Nikon ecosystem. If you're ok with Nikon, none of that is a bother. In other words, they don't hold performance back. Increase FPS, add in all the new wifi stuff and connectivity, anti-flicker...*that shouldn't be too hard for Nikon,* and they will still remain competitive against the 5D series....



Per sony, that sensor is only good for 4.8FPS (I assume Nikon rounded up for their specsheet). It can do more in crop mode, but at full readout, it's ... difficult to imagine Nikon getting it to work 45% faster.

http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/IS/sensor2/products/


----------



## mikekx102 (Aug 21, 2016)

I haven't invested in CF cards as I have a 6D, but I'm wondering which cards would provide the highest speed.

Can we expect the SD card slot to be full speed UHS-II? The 5D mark iii didn't support UHS-I and was limited to 133x (20MB/s), which is why it is so important to use CF cards. The 6D was released later and supported UHS-I, and card tests at the time showed many cards transferring at 35-36 MB/s. UHS-II has been released and the fastest SD card I can find is the Lexar Professional 2000x UHS-II SDXC which is 300MB/s. As opposed to available CF cards max speed of 160MB/s.

That same SD card in tests has shown extended write speeds of 250MB/s, could we expect to buy this card and get that speed in the 5D mark IV? For someone that has no CF cards already, this sounds like the best choice. And if Magic Lantern ever affords Raw 4K, then I would definitely like the fastest card available


----------



## unfocused (Aug 21, 2016)

mppix said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of getting my hopes up over unconfirmed capabilities, if Canon T Engineer called me up and said "two options: 1. we increase the DR of your 5D by 2EV, or 2. we enable you to adjust the focus in post by up to approximately an eyelash's length, I'd jump at the second option. Jump. For my usage, that would save far more photos than would be made possible by the additional range.
> ...



I'd even go so far as to say I'd gladly *pay* for a firmware upgrade that would add this capability to the 7DII and 1Dx II.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2016)

unfocused said:


> mppix said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Agreed. I suspect the 1Dx2 has compatible hardware (but like they did with the DPAF in the c100, they could sit on it for a while and see how it is received in a cheaper camera market). Being quite a bit older the 7D2 could very easily lack the hardware to write out data from the sibpixels, but you never know.

Assuming it is real, if it works well enough to salvage barely-missed focus, it could be a game changer for people photographers.


----------



## Dave Del Real (Aug 21, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I'd even go so far as to say I'd gladly *pay* for a firmware upgrade that would add this capability to the 7DII and 1Dx II.



I'd pay for a firmware update to the 7D2 to allow 4K video.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 21, 2016)

gregory4000 said:


> Does anybody who supports Canon notice that why Canon neglected to state the DR of the camera,
> On the C300 they boasted 15 stops. I sold my Sony A7rII to purchase a home and I'm waiting for something from Canon as a replacement that will have a Sony DR. With Canon's well established R&D I'm expecting by now 14 -15 stops of DR. That fact that its not mentioned concerns me that little improvement has been made.
> Hopefully in a couple of weeks I will be pleasantly surprised with good news in this spec.



The 1DX-II already has Sony DR and then some albeit lower MP and sharpness. I'm assuming it still has an AA filter.

You also have a lot bigger issue at hand financially if you had to sell a camera to buy a home...


----------



## Wesley (Aug 21, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> At the risk of getting my hopes up over unconfirmed capabilities, if Canon T Engineer called me up as said "two options: 1. we increase the DR of your 5D by 2EV, or 2. we enable you to adjust the focus in post by up to approximately an eyelash's length, I'd jump at the second option. Jump. For my usage, that would save far more photos than would be made possible by the additional range.



Do you have your AF calibrated? 
Saving photos by changing focus within eyelash length seems more like a back/front focus issue. 
I'd rather calibrate than shoot double the image size & use Canon DPP.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 21, 2016)

Wesley said:


> The 1DX-II already has Sony DR and then some albeit lower MP and sharpness.



You need to compare at the same scale and use the Print not Screen option, so no, compared fairly, it does not.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 21, 2016)

K said:


> I'm expecting the dynamic range to be better than the 80D, but weaker than the 1DX2.
> 
> It is very hard to imagine the 5D4's sensor besting the 1DX2 sensor on anything except for megapixels.
> 
> At ISO 100, they will all be close, but the fall off (curve) will be between 80D and 1DX2. That's my guess.



weaker than the 1DX2 sensor for DR? The landscape body you think should come in weaker than the 1DX2 which itself is still far from state of the art?


----------



## Wesley (Aug 21, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > The 1DX-II already has Sony DR and then some albeit lower MP and sharpness.
> ...



I was not aware that you can get more DR by downsizing the image...this is true? ???


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 21, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > The 1DX-II already has Sony DR and then some albeit lower MP and sharpness.
> ...



the difference is nelligable.

canon is within .5EV of the A7RII pixel per pixel.

it's certainly within diminishing returns and simply now data differences for the fangirls and measurbaters.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 21, 2016)

scyrene said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



I've already partly given up and gotten a Sony and haven't purchased anything of any sort from Canon in a while now. I may eventually just have to go all Nikon but it would be nice to be able to stick with my lenses (which are a little bit nicer from Canon plus swapping super-tele over, especially having got back when they didn't cost as much, is a pretty vicious hit the pocket) and the Canon UI, but I'm more and more thinking it's hopeless to think Canon will ever bother to really catch Sony for sensors or video again. Hopefully Nikon won't bungle up the video in the D820 and give it full A7R II or better video. An A7R II (or even some III tech by then) in a DSLR body, without any video/liveview bungling by Nikon, would be one heck of nice thing. Anyway at least Sony makes stuff that works with adapted Canon lenses for now. A pain in a few ways and a pain in that it can't do it all so still need the 5D3 for more action type stuff, but man the A7R II does deliver.

I still had a bit of hope for the 5D4 again, but have less hope now that neither 80D nor 1DX2 can deliver exmor and it sounds like the 5D4 video won't oversample (or have something new like 10bits to make up for other stuff) and probably won't have 100% focus box or any other basic usability features. Hope they pull it off, but they just seem to have turned into such a conservative company. I still recall the day they became followers and I knew it would be trouble for the future. Way back at the show in Europe where their rep was bragging about how Canon was the king of the hill and Canon didn't have to bother, we are years ahead of Nikon who can't even make FF, so why should we bother, we are kings of the hill, Nikon will never catch us, nobody can catch us, why do we need to improve FF body peformance, we are the kings, we ARE THE KINGS OF THE HILL AND WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING!!!!!!! if anyone does something we have so much time to react so we have no need to do anything! Why do we need to do anything! We are kings of the hill!!!! 

Yeah well infinitely far behind Nikon came out with FF less than a year later and Sony now wipes Canon for sensors every which way. And everyone wipes them for video. Ah whatever, just a shame, as I really do like Canon, but what can you do. They wanna sit and milk and be followers, as kings I guess they can, just have to move on, not the Canon I long knew though, oh well.

Anyway maybe somehow there will be a nice surprise. Not really counting on it anymore, but see what they produce.

And the reason I started going negative way back was so that we'd never end up in this position years later where Canon ended up totally blowing their dominance in sensors and video (don't forget how for the entire early period of DSLRs it was the sensors that brought people to Canon as their bodies often had worse features (if much nicer UI), but man they had those amazing sensors, the Canon crowd used to always go on about the sensors and then for a while it was the same for DSLR video (if you can deal with really annoying mega RAW files, 5D3 with ML RAW does deliver pretty fine 1080p video and is still tops and again, only thanks to ML, gets the critical basic usability features, so ML kinda saved the 5D3 regarding video, but RAW video is a real storage killer and eventually gets to be a bit of a drag, but you can get some very fine 1080p video out of it you go through the trouble, you can even do relatively unique things like produce wide gamut video; one wonders if 5D4 ever gets those capabilites, it could easily be and stay worse to use and much worse for 1080p if adding 4k which is of course awesome).


----------



## unfocused (Aug 21, 2016)

Dave Del Real said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I'd even go so far as to say I'd gladly *pay* for a firmware upgrade that would add this capability to the 7DII and 1Dx II.
> ...



As has been discussed quite thoroughly by people who know far more about it than I do, it seems that adding 4K video requires much more than a firmware update. There are hardware considerations as well. I don't know if hardware would be required for the focus adjustment, but it seems much more likely that any dual pixel camera _*might*_ be able to have this feature added through software.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 21, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Dave Del Real said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



heat management is a pretty big issue as well.

speaking of the 7D2 .. we haven't heard much of that patch lately.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 21, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Why torture yourself by moping around CR, just go out and buy the best and you'll be happy. If I felt like you do about Canon I'd have left long ago. Just my 2 cents worth.

Jack


----------



## Diltiazem (Aug 21, 2016)

Wesley said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



Not just more DR, more of everything except resolution. Normalization is a pseudo-science popularized by DXO among some photographers. The idea is that you can't compare apples with oranges, they are different, so you must first convert both to grapefruit and decide which one is tastier.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2016)

Wesley said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of getting my hopes up over unconfirmed capabilities, if Canon T Engineer called me up as said "two options: 1. we increase the DR of your 5D by 2EV, or 2. we enable you to adjust the focus in post by up to approximately an eyelash's length, I'd jump at the second option. Jump. For my usage, that would save far more photos than would be made possible by the additional range.
> ...



Yes, my lenses are calibrated on all my DSLR bodies, and my AF isn't infallible. Sometimes eyelashes are in front of pupils.


----------



## Talley (Aug 21, 2016)

K said:


> I'm expecting the dynamic range to be better than the 80D, but weaker than the 1DX2.
> 
> It is very hard to imagine the 5D4's sensor besting the 1DX2 sensor on anything except for megapixels.
> 
> At ISO 100, they will all be close, but the fall off (curve) will be between 80D and 1DX2. That's my guess.



Good Guess.

If it's just 1/3 stop better than the 6D I'll be perfectly OK with it.


----------



## Talley (Aug 21, 2016)

Wesley said:


> You also have a lot bigger issue at hand financially if you had to sell a camera to buy a home...



Thats exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2016)

Wesley said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



If one defines DR as a function of FWC/noise, since downsampling reduces noise (averaging), it increases DR.

You can play that game until all cameras are equal (two adjacent pixels, one white and one black), but if you choose a consistent output size somewhere in between (in the case of that chart: 8x10 at 300ppi, I believe), you get different numbers.

There are multiple ways to view the data. If you typically fill the frame, then "print" in DXOs lexicon is perhaps applicable. If you crop, screen is perhaps applicable. In the end it's just numbers which have very little impact on average photography. Scenes of course exist in which range exceeds that of the camera and there is no way to augment it, but I find that the extra range of my Sony (A7R2) is rarely enough to make a shot that my canons (5D3) aren't capable of. YMMV.


----------



## Dave Del Real (Aug 21, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Dave Del Real said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I only bring it up again because memory strings have already been found for 2K4K video recording by the ML crew a long time ago. It was suggested then that maybe a future firmware update might unlock this feature. It's not impossible that the hardware is already capable of dissipating heat, supplying a 4K readout, etc. Obviously if Canon were to unlock 4K it would seem that they had planned it all along. The CF slot is more than fast enough for 24p/30p 4K - albeit the lame 8 bit 4.2.0 h.264 codec though. Still, I wouldn't mind it. I think that takes care of the hardware considerations you speak of.

Also, since it seems that there probably won't be a 7D update until 2018, Canon has to do something to keep this thing relevant.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 21, 2016)

Diltiazem said:


> Not just more DR, more of everything except resolution. Normalization is a pseudo-science popularized by DXO among some photographers. The idea is that you can't compare apples with oranges, they are different, so you must first convert both to grapefruit and decide which one is tastier.



What does it have to with DxO?

Normalization has been used in science/math for ages. The fact that you refer to it as pseudo-science is pseudo-science.

You have to compare things at the same scale.

How about this.... let us say you have two square sheets of gold 1cm thick. You photograph both from the same distance, using the same lens set at the same focal point, using the same size sensor with two cameras, the only difference being one camera has 9MP and the other camera has 36MP. Now let us say gold 1cm thick costs $10 per pixel with that setup using the 9MP sensor. And let us say it measures 10pixels x 10 pixels on that camera. But now how about I instead present you a photo of the sheet of gold for sale taken with the 36MP camera and I show you that the gold sheet covers 20x20 pixels and say that I have a great discount and charge only $9 per pixel instead of $10 and offer it to you for 20x20x$9, do you take the deal?


----------



## K (Aug 21, 2016)

I was wrong. I was comparing two different data sources.

Using DXO's data (which is good to make a point, because of their anti-Canon bias) ...

The 1DX2 is only 1/2 stop under Sony's latest and greatest at ISO 100 & 200, then identical the rest of the way up.

Only the D810's sensor has a full stop advantage at ISO 64 and 100 only. Then it is even for a stop or two, then is a full stop weaker going up.


It will be very pleasant surprise if the 5D4's DR matches the 1DX2. It is said that DR is not tied to megapixels...


----------



## Wesley (Aug 21, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



You can type long posts about your mythical perfect camera all your life or buy a 1DX-II since you already have Canon lenses. 
The post right before yours from rccphoto shows less than half stop DR difference from 100-200 and negligible onward.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2016)

Wesley said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



The cost differential isn't negligible however.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 21, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I would recommend focusing where it says "caruncula lacrimalis". It is harder to focus on pupil especially darker iris and susceptible by the eyelashes. 

https://s10.postimg.org/ot2nmadjd/eye_A.jpg


----------



## Wesley (Aug 21, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Strictly by camera cost? Yes, but LetTheRightLensIn never originally complained about cost & owns super-teles. 
You won't find super-teles in FE mount and long range is currently the weakest link for the A7's mirrorless AF system.

For anyone else, jumping ship costs more money.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2016)

Wesley said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



Yes, strictly bodies. Someone who chases down the 1DxII for dynamic range is barking up the wrong tree. I'd rather have a 1DxII than any current Sony body every day of the week, but it's cost prohibitive. Granted, I spent more than the cost of a 1DxII buying Sony stuff (A7RII body + metabones adapter [my second, I owned an older model with the A7R] + two Zeiss lenses), but the purchases allow me to keep using much of my infrastructure, and with native FE lenses fave me a compelling capability for a major section of my shooting (EyeAF). That being said, for almost anyone, changing systems entirely is almost always going to be a financially losing battle.



Wesley said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



I'll give it a shot!

Either way, just like my AF system is not infallible, I am not infallible, and I'd gladly trade a little bit of post-processing focus adjustment for a little bit less noise in the shadows!




edit: oh, just to keep this on topic, I fully intend to buy a 5D4!


----------



## Wesley (Aug 21, 2016)

Well, the 1DX-II is the only Canon suitable for LetTheRightLensIn at this moment in time. I can't do anything about that.

EyeAF is also susceptible to eyelashes but I don't shoot portraits wide open like some people.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2016)

Yes it most certainly is. What I meant by compelling capability is that with EyeAF and a flip screen I can shoot portraits of moving models with the camera held significantly away from my face (arms outstretched), facilitating angles which would be significantly difficult otherwise.

Like my 5D stable, it EyeAF is not infallible and I often hit lashes, especially when shooting as described above. I'd love to be able to adjust them in post!


----------



## Wesley (Aug 21, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Yes it most certainly is. What I meant by compelling capability is that with EyeAF and a flip screen I can shoot portraits of moving models with the camera held significantly away from my face (arms outstretched), facilitating angles which would be significantly difficult otherwise.
> 
> Like my 5D stable, it EyeAF is not infallible and I often hit lashes, especially when shooting as described above. I'd love to be able to adjust them in post!



I see. Don't know how extreme your angles are so can't really imagine what type of portraits you're shooting. 
Are you further back more to give extra space around the frame because of moving portrait? If so, even a single AF point could be too big since it cover the whole eye area and that's when it gets the eyelash sometime.


----------



## Diko (Aug 21, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I call bullS___.
> 
> Even as you have rewritten it, the Hasselblad IS still a DSLR.



I beg your pardon.


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 21, 2016)

Is it wishful thinking to hope for a firmware update sometime after release to enable dual iso? Is the hardware capable of this?


----------



## rcarca (Aug 21, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> Is it wishful thinking to hope for a firmware update sometime after release to enable dual iso? Is the hardware capable of this?



Blimey - let's see the camera first before we start speculating on/wishing for firmware updates!!!


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 21, 2016)

rcarca said:


> aa_angus said:
> 
> 
> > Is it wishful thinking to hope for a firmware update sometime after release to enable dual iso? Is the hardware capable of this?
> ...



This whole website is based upon speculation of cameras that have not yet been released. Your comment is not relevant.


----------



## rcarca (Aug 21, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> rcarca said:
> 
> 
> > aa_angus said:
> ...



And you have missed the point - which was meant be humorous (remember that concept) - that while we are discussing a big new camera launch, discussing the updates to firmware is a little premature! 

I forgot to put in a smiley face - I tend to prefer using words on forums - but I forgot about the literalists on here. My bad.


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 21, 2016)

rcarca said:


> aa_angus said:
> 
> 
> > rcarca said:
> ...



I'm simply asking whether or not dual ISO will possible down the track. We already know the camera's specs, so what difference does waiting until the camera is released make with regards to asking the question? Fair enough you were trying to make a joke. It didn't seem like it, mainly because there was no humour involved. Anyway, if someone with more tech knowledge than I could answer the question, I would appreciate it.


----------



## rcarca (Aug 21, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> rcarca said:
> 
> 
> > aa_angus said:
> ...



Spot the use of the word "Blimey"...


----------



## rcarca (Aug 21, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> Using the word "blimey" automatically makes what you're about to say funny? Let's agree to disagree. Perhaps rather than clogging on these forums with your "humour", you could let those with the right knowledge answer the questions.



Doesn't necessarily make it funny, it flags the intent.

************END************


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And the reason I started going negative way back was so that we'd never end up in this position years later where Canon ended up totally blowing their dominance



Don't worry, Canon still totally dominates the ILC market.


----------



## Diko (Aug 21, 2016)

gregory4000 said:


> Like I mentioned earlier, I'm hoping for a good improvement in this spec, I will be the reason for me to purchase the 5DIV. My hunch is that if the camera had 14 stops...


 Bad hunch. *It is clear as a day that it will be 13.5*. That is the whole current generation CMOS DR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Yes, but it's a game. In fact, I totally disagree with LetTheRightLensIn that you should compare scaled values. Although those normalized 'Print' values are useful for engineers (and fangoils and measurebaters, too), it's the non-normalized 'Screen' values that should matter to photographers. For photographers, what matters is the difference between the brightest highlight detail and the darkest shadow detail that can be captured. 

If LTRLI is shooting a scene with 14.7 EV between shadow and highlight detail, his beloved Exmor sensor rated at 14.8 stops by DxO's normalized value will not be able to capture the full DR of the scene. Detail will be lost in the highlights, the shadows, or both (depending on the selected exposure). Downsampling the resulting image to 8 MP will increase the calculated DR of the image to 14.8, but it won't bring back the details lost _at capture_ that fell outside the actual 13.7 stops of true ('Screen') DR of the sensor.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 21, 2016)

Diltiazem said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Normalisation is a process that most photographs undergo. Few people post full size images online. And even if you do, most websites will resize them. Unless you're viewing a file at 100% resolution then you're normalising it. It's not some weird fad, it's a normal part of post processing and sharing photographs. And if you print, you likely print to the paper size, in which case again you're normalising the image.

Clearly, end users tend to view whole images, whether in print or on screen. Therefore comparing certain properties on an image level is a reasonable thing to do. Not that 1:1 viewing doesn't have its place. But to dismiss normalisation as some dark art or weird fad is... absurd.

Edit: I agree with Neuro that reviews should focus on what is useful and important on a practical level. But I think, given as I say comparing normalised* images is how most photographs are viewed most of the time, it's a reasonable thing to do. For instance, some people criticise the 5Ds's noise versus other cameras like the 5D3, but if you take a photo and view it at the same size, the 5Ds file can actually be less noisy; unless you are cropping (which is obviously a valid use case for this camera, but not the only one), you'd be misled to think a 5Ds file was noisier.

*unless I'm misusing this term... normalised as in viewed at the same size, right?


----------



## scyrene (Aug 21, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> rcarca said:
> 
> 
> > aa_angus said:
> ...



Lighten up, man.


----------



## rcarca (Aug 21, 2016)

A nice comparison of the specs of a 5Diii and 5Div side by side: http://www.cameraegg.org/canon-5d-mark-iv-vs-5d-mark-iii-comparison-basic-specs-image/


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 21, 2016)

*Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark*



Diko said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I call bullS___.
> ...



Seriously?

What about the Lunar and Stellar too? At least you can actually buy them today....... :


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2016)

Diko said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I call bullS___.
> ...



That's a hasselblad, it's not the hasselblad. The one which was being discussed predates the Pentax w/pixel shift, that one doesn't.


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 21, 2016)

Battery grip and SD Wifi adapter images

http://www.canonwatch.com/images-canon-w-e1-wifi-adapter-bg-e20-battery-grip-leaked-cw5/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2016)

scyrene said:


> But to dismiss normalisation as some dark art or weird fad is... absurd.



True – normalization is certainly useful and important in some cases. But it's important to understand what your doing, and why, or you risk looking like an idiot. 

Take, for example, this post on Digital Camera World that purports to explain, "_...what you need to know about capturing all the tones in a scene,_" where the author states that:

[quote author=Markus Hawkins on Digital Camera World]
For instance, the Nikon D610’s dynamic range has been measured at between 13 and 14.4 EV at ISO 100.
[/quote]

The D610's DR has been *measured* at 14.4 EV. Tossing out a statement like that, particularly in the context of 'capturing all the tones in a scene', shows a total lack of understanding regarding what was actually tested.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 21, 2016)

Diko said:


> gregory4000 said:
> 
> 
> > Like I mentioned earlier, I'm hoping for a good improvement in this spec, I will be the reason for me to purchase the 5DIV. My hunch is that if the camera had 14 stops...
> ...



It's as clear as day you are shooting information out of your posterior.

Current generation of CMOS dr?

Canon makes their sensors to suit the camera. 
However it should be under 14ev if it's still 14bit raw files.


----------



## JohnUSA (Aug 21, 2016)

Wesley said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of getting my hopes up over unconfirmed capabilities, if Canon T Engineer called me up as said "two options: 1. we increase the DR of your 5D by 2EV, or 2. we enable you to adjust the focus in post by up to approximately an eyelash's length, I'd jump at the second option. Jump. For my usage, that would save far more photos than would be made possible by the additional range.
> ...



Think of shooting a person hand-held wide open... subject is swaying a little and so is the photographer. Each probably move more than an eyelash length. I shoot weddings... I'd welcome the new option.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 21, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And the reason I started going negative way back was so that we'd never end up in this position years later where Canon ended up totally blowing their dominance



That's magical thinking, along the lines of "I ate a pepperoni pizza before the Super Bowl and my team lost, so I will never eat a pepperoni pizza before a Super Bowl game again."

You can tell yourself that, but really, Canon isn't making their development decisions based on whether or not you make negative comments on a geek forum.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 21, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> Is it wishful thinking to hope for a firmware update sometime after release to enable dual iso?



Yes.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 21, 2016)

unfocused said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And the reason I started going negative way back was so that we'd never end up in this position years later where Canon ended up totally blowing their dominance
> ...



What?! Canon didn't call an executive emergency meeting because a poster went full eeyore mode?


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 21, 2016)

Actually, a _*real *_question regarding the specs. 

7 fps - good or bad - will the 5DIV convincingly be able to press 66 MB Dual RAW files through its channels at that rate? Or will it be at a slower 3 fps - or will the buffer overflow after 5 shots - end of story until buffer clears?

Any thinking on this.


----------



## Dave Del Real (Aug 21, 2016)

Meatcurry said:


> Battery grip and SD Wifi adapter images
> 
> http://www.*********.com/images-canon-w-e1-wifi-adapter-bg-e20-battery-grip-leaked-cw5/



Uh....what happened? What's the link?

EDIT: Nevermind, found it.


----------



## Dave Del Real (Aug 21, 2016)

Wow, Nokishita has found some stuff. Hints of another XC version camcorder as well (XC15).


----------



## makistza (Aug 21, 2016)

Detailed specs of the EOS 5D Mark IV
From the direction of the reader, we have to provide more detailed information, including the details of the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV of "dual pixel RAW".
Feature specifications are as follows: the EOS 5D Mark IV. 

- New development of Canon 30.4MP CMOS sensor 
- dual pixel AF CMOS 
- image processing engine is Tasu DIGIC6 
- effectively adopt the new noise processing algorithm to reduce the noise 
- common sensitivity ISO100-32000 (extended sensitivity ISO50, ISO51200, ISO102400 ) 
- camera in the DLO (digital lens optimizer) 
- diffraction correction 
- shutter speed is 30 seconds -1/8000 seconds (synchro 1/200 sec) 
- Picture style to add fine detail 
- AF 61 points. Corresponding to F8 in all of the distance measuring point. -3EV Corresponding (at the time of live view -4EV) 
- seven, including a "large zone AF" of the AF area selection mode 
- finder is 100% field of view. Magnification 0.71 times. Eye point 21Mm 
- electronic level (2-axis) 
- LCD monitor 3.2 inches 1.62 million dots. Touch panel 
- 150,000-pixel RGB + IR metering sensor. 252 zone photometry 
- photometry range EV0-20 
- EOS ISA system 
- EOS iTR system 
- (at the time of OVF used) continuous shooting up to 7 frames / sec 
- servo AF live view sometimes continuous shooting 4.3 frames / sec. 
- Touch AF, touch shutter 
- mirror vibration control system (MVCS) 
- anti-flicker 
- Wi-Fi built-in (IEEE802.11 b / g / n) . NFC-enabled 
- EOS's first FTP / FTPS transfer function (wireless file transmitter is not required) 
- GPS built-in. GPS logger function 
- video 4K30fps (MJPEG). Full HD60fps (ALL-I, IPB) . HD120fps (ALL-I) 
- 4K30p in 4: 2: 2 Motion JPEG support 
- a JPEG image of 8.8MP from 4K video in the camera can be cut out 
- 0.25 times the HD120fps high frame rate movies for slow motion 
- CF (UDMA7 ) and a dual card slot of SD / SDHC / SDXC (UHS-I) 
- a built-in interval timer and valve timer 
- the durability of the shutter 15 million times 
- the body is magnesium alloy. Dust and water specifications 
- microphone terminal. Headphone jack. HDMI terminal 
- battery-E6N LP / LP-E6 
- Battery life is approximately 900 sheets (OVF when used, a temperature of 23 degrees) 
- the size of the X 116.4Mm X 150.7Mm 75.9Mm 
- weighs 890g (battery, memory card including). 800g (body only)
Innovative image processing concept "dual pixel RAW (Dual Pixel RAW)" support. "Dual pixel RAW" is one of the special RAW file that contains two pieces of information of a dual-pixel CMOS (normal perspective and parallax information) in the RAW file. 

This RAW file by treatment with dual pixel RAW optimizer of DPP, the following three functions are provided. 

1) Image Microadjustment (Image Micro-adjustment): resolving power from the depth information of the dual pixel RAW file to fine-tune the position so as to maximize the (micro-adjustable). 

2) Bokeshifuto (Bokeh Shift): to change the point of view of the blur in order to obtain a better blur. 

3) ghost reduction (Ghosting Reduction): to suppress the occurrence of ghost and flare.


It is going to be a "dual pixel RAW" is something amazing feature of the EOS 5D Mark IV. Only text is the image is hard to spring, but this feature is like a system that allows a wide variety of post-processing using the distance information of the dual pixel. Whether this feature will bring actually what effect, it is a place very interesting. 
---------------------------------------------- 
Provides information and Thank you who was who.

August 19, 2016


----------



## weixing (Aug 21, 2016)

Hi,


makistza said:


> - the durability of the shutter 15 million times


 Shutter 15 millions times??  Or is it 0.15 millions times?? :

Have a nice day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2016)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> makistza said:
> ...



Obviously it's 15 million. Canon has had the technology to build mirror/shutter assemblies out of osmandium and unobtainium for years, and it seems they've finally decided to stop holding out on us.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 21, 2016)

Well, I'm disappointed, if they tried harder they could have made it 150 million!

Jack


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 21, 2016)

I wonder why Canon chose UHS-I over UHS-II.

As to image micro-adjustment, bokeh shift, and ghost reduction - I have my doubts. If it was impressive, Canon would be drum those features before release, rather than after.


----------



## rcarca (Aug 21, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> As to image micro-adjustment, bokeh shift, and ghost reduction - I have my doubts. If it was impressive, Canon would be drum those features before release, rather than after.



Don't think that is their style is it?


----------



## scyrene (Aug 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > But to dismiss normalisation as some dark art or weird fad is... absurd.
> ...



True that. I try, though freely admit there's a lot I don't know and am happy to be educated 

I guess ultimately cameras can't be objectively compared in a perfect way. And the more I learn (mostly here), the muddier even the most seemingly clear cut topics become. I suppose that's how the world is :-\


----------



## K (Aug 21, 2016)

With the release of this camera, the only thing Nikon will have over Canon, is doing 5 stop exposure lifts at ISO 64.

I'll take that trade off. 

If Canon wants to really take a chunk out of Nikon's entry level FF market, offer dual SD cards on the 6D2, and it is game over.

Specs are looking good overall. Not sure anyone can really complain, except for the video guys who want $15,000 equipment and features in a $3,000 DSLR.


----------



## finngrace (Aug 21, 2016)

Maybe its just me but I am not blown away by the specs. However, I thought that about the mark 2 to the mark 3 and I was blown away by the mark 3 when I got two of them. Not sure if I will swap the two I have out for a while. The Mark 3's are more than capable at the moment. Maybe the video guys will be more impressed. 

Sean Gannon
www.finngrace.co.uk


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 21, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> I wonder why Canon chose UHS-I over UHS-II.
> 
> As to image micro-adjustment, bokeh shift, and ghost reduction - I have my doubts. If it was impressive, Canon would be drum those features before release, rather than after.



But... but... Canon's doing exactly that? Presenting the camera and having a couple of weeks to promote before it hits the shops.

Worked well for the 5DS/R.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 21, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why Canon chose UHS-I over UHS-II.
> ...



Canon is present*ing* the camera? Or a prototype / tech demonstration, as in "look at this 120-megapixel DSLR we might release one day"?

My point exactly.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, but it's a game. In fact, I totally disagree with LetTheRightLensIn that you should compare scaled values. Although those normalized 'Print' values are useful for engineers (and fangoils and measurebaters, too), it's the non-normalized 'Screen' values that should matter to photographers. For photographers, what matters is the difference between the brightest highlight detail and the darkest shadow detail that can be captured.



So wanna take me up on my gold sheet offer then? Yeah, didn't think so.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> True – normalization is certainly useful and important in some cases. But it's important to understand what your doing, and why, or you risk looking like an idiot.



And it's also important to not decide to use it when it makes Canon look good and decide to not use it when it makes Canon look bad, it's important to always use it. hint hint.

It's important to not use that knowledge to mislead others just to pump up your most favored brand and to be fair and honest about things. hint hint.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 21, 2016)

unfocused said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And the reason I started going negative way back was so that we'd never end up in this position years later where Canon ended up totally blowing their dominance
> ...



If enough people scream, sometimes companies react. Canon has not all that much but they did at least finally start moving to on chip ADC, as a beginning (and note they said they didn't do it earlier for any reason other than it costs them a touch more per sensor to do it better). And when tons of people went nuts for months, including the biggest names in film, over lack of manual exposure control for 5D2 video, they finally added it in.

Always worth a shot, if even if the chance is small, doesn't take much effort.

Other companies have been more reactive. Canon is very slow and not all that reactive, so you have to start going not years early and lots of people go nuts to have a hope they wake up a react a little. (and it's not like they are not completely not worried since they kept sending me these surveys that included questions along the line of "how trapped in the Canon system do you feel by your lens collection" etc. and you could jsut see they were trying to calculate what is the absolute most they could possible hold back from delivering on without fianlly completely driving tons of people away, if they can play that game, why the heck she we the paying customer not have the right to try to push them forward? it's not like we are handing them monopoly money or they are our charity. they seek to deliver as little as they can for as much as they can, not like they are some angels, so why can't the customer push back?)


----------



## ISO64 (Aug 21, 2016)

A different point of view:

DPAF cannot, with its post proc, make the image sharper than it was when the shutter closed. You do not create information if it was not there to start with.

You can use double-size RAW to increase blur in parts of the image out of the focus, much alike to comparing two photos taken at f2.8 and f5.6. But, instead of depth map being fixed, as it would be the case for a single-size RAW, you can push blurred pixels respecting all optics laws and taking into account how far are they from the focus plane, and not just blindly softening the whole image. Beautiful, 2.8 L-series bokeh for masses. 

Further, a 2:1 anamorphic lens can use DP RAW file to achieve full horizontal resolution, just convert each DP into 2x1 (two horizontal, one vertical), improve on your debayer, and 8:3 will be right there as you are starting from an apparent 9:3 image. Old film anamorphic technology had, in theory, different vertical and horizontal resolution as the grain did could not care less.

Gone with the Wind, anyone?


----------



## Wesley (Aug 21, 2016)

JohnUSA said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...


_
"Think of shooting a person hand-held wide open... subject is swaying a little and so is the photographer."_

If your focus is ruined enough by swaying a little than you shouldn't be shooting wide open. 
Stop down and/or raise ISO. 
_
"Each probably move more than an eyelash length."_

Here's to hoping dual pixels can shift focus on a massive level.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 21, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but it's a game. In fact, I totally disagree with LetTheRightLensIn that you should compare scaled values. Although those normalized 'Print' values are useful for engineers (and fangoils and measurebaters, too), it's the non-normalized 'Screen' values that should matter to photographers. For photographers, what matters is the difference between the brightest highlight detail and the darkest shadow detail that can be captured.
> ...



My IQ went down when I read your gold sheet analogy. Something about selling photos of gold sheets? 

I don't think anyone understood wtf you were trying to say. 
_
"How about this.... let us say you have two square sheets of gold 1cm thick. You photograph both from the same distance, using the same lens set at the same focal point, using the same size sensor with two cameras, the only difference being one camera has 9MP and the other camera has 36MP. Now let us say gold 1cm thick costs $10 per pixel with that setup using the 9MP sensor. And let us say it measures 10pixels x 10 pixels on that camera. But now how about I instead present you a photo of the sheet of gold for sale taken with the 36MP camera and I show you that the gold sheet covers 20x20 pixels and say that I have a great discount and charge only $9 per pixel instead of $10 and offer it to you for 20x20x$9, do you take the deal?"_


----------



## Diko (Aug 21, 2016)

finngrace said:


> Maybe its just me but I am not blown away by the specs. However, I thought that about the mark 2 to the mark 3 and I was blown away by the mark 3 when I got two of them. Not sure if I will swap the two I have out for a while. The Mark 3's are more than capable at the moment. Maybe the video guys will be more impressed.
> 
> Sean Gannon
> www.finngrace.co.uk


 Sean, what did you liked so much about the mk3? 
Here I am trying to build parallel to the mk4. Since I am the opposite. mk2 was great. mk3 was a fail. Now mk4 is again lovely.


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 21, 2016)

ISO64 said:


> A different point of view:
> 
> DPAF cannot, with its post proc, make the image sharper than it was when the shutter closed. You do not create information if it was not there to start with.
> 
> ...



With only light intensity information you would be correct but with light phase information you can sharpen the image. If the DPAF collects both intensity and phase information. Depending on resolution of the phase information you could compensate for slight out of focus because the info is there in the phase information. I wonder at what point they would run into existing light field camera patents.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but it's a game. In fact, I totally disagree with LetTheRightLensIn that you should compare scaled values. Although those normalized 'Print' values are useful for engineers (and fangoils and measurebaters, too), it's the non-normalized 'Screen' values that should matter to photographers. For photographers, what matters is the difference between the brightest highlight detail and the darkest shadow detail that can be captured.
> ...



Huh? ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > True – normalization is certainly useful and important in some cases. But it's important to understand what your doing, and why, or you risk looking like an idiot.
> ...



Oh, yeah...that totally explains why I bashed DxO's Scores before, but now that Canon is matching SoNikon at low ISO DR, I am posting all over the place how DxO's Scores are so great and useful. 

Except, I'm not. hint hint. :


----------



## smorgo (Aug 21, 2016)

ISO64 said:


> A different point of view:
> 
> DPAF cannot, with its post proc, make the image sharper than it was when the shutter closed. You do not create information if it was not there to start with.
> 
> ...



While it's literally true that you can't create information that wasn't there, you are dismissing the fact that the sensor is now capturing an additional dimension of information. Lytro proved how that can be used to reconstruct an image that couldn't be captured in two dimensions. The DP sensor isn't capturing the same amount of information as the Lytro Light Ray sensor, but that additional dimension is still there.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 21, 2016)

K said:


> With the release of this camera, the only thing Nikon will have over Canon, is doing 5 stop exposure lifts at ISO 64.
> 
> I'll take that trade off.
> 
> ...



it's funny .. but at the EXTREME shadow boosting (ie: dpreview) there is banding on the D810, very similar to the bands at the top and bottom of the D5 (the D5 is has horrendous banding)

of course no one mentions those.

as far as the video specs .. those are amusing how people expect the same as the 1Dx Mark II in a 1/2 smaller volome camera sans heatpipe and sink, 30WH battery and 3 DIGIC processors.

everyone basically declared the 5D Mark III probably one of the most well rounded cameras made (I'd say the D700 was that for Nikon) .. canon stepped it up in every area.. and added some interesting "tricks" as well, and damn me, if everyone's not complaining about how it's not exciting.. 

maybe I don't get it .. it's camera ..not a porn mag..


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 21, 2016)

ISO64 said:


> A different point of view:
> 
> DPAF cannot, with its post proc, make the image sharper than it was when the shutter closed. You do not create information if it was not there to start with.



but it is there spatially.

computational photography can do alot of tricks.. this really is probably just the start for canon.. I think some of their newer patents deal with what they can do with hexapixels versus dual pixels. 

if you miss focus by 10 feet, it's certainly not going to be able to correct it.. but with parallax information you have the ability to perhaps microadjust it, because you have the image data at slightly different perspectives and thus.. focus distances.

assuming the rumor is true.. then canon tends to err on the conservative side .. this isn't sony and make believe here.


----------



## zim (Aug 21, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Well, I'm disappointed, if they tried harder they could have made it 150 million!
> 
> Jack


----------



## tron (Aug 21, 2016)

Diko said:


> finngrace said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe its just me but I am not blown away by the specs. However, I thought that about the mark 2 to the mark 3 and I was blown away by the mark 3 when I got two of them. Not sure if I will swap the two I have out for a while. The Mark 3's are more than capable at the moment. Maybe the video guys will be more impressed.
> ...


Yes it was such a fail that I sold my 5DII to get a second 5DIII. It was such a fail that it was a superset of 5DII. Faster fps, 2 cards, top AF system. A superset of a great camera cannot be a fail. But logic is a rare thing on CR forum...


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 21, 2016)

tron said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > finngrace said:
> ...



hard to be a fail when it's continually been one of the top selling full frame cameras since it's inception.

even now in NA, at least according to amazon, it outsells out all sony A7 series cameras.. even the ultra cheap A7 that they can't even give away for free.

a 4+ year old camera that can sustain that kind of sales over it's lifecycle is nothing but a fantastic success.


----------



## tron (Aug 21, 2016)

Diko said:


> finngrace said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe its just me but I am not blown away by the specs. However, I thought that about the mark 2 to the mark 3 and I was blown away by the mark 3 when I got two of them. Not sure if I will swap the two I have out for a while. The Mark 3's are more than capable at the moment. Maybe the video guys will be more impressed.
> ...


Yes it was such a fail that I sold my 5DII to get a second 5DIII. It was such a fail that it was a superset of 5DII. Faster fps, 2 cards, top AF system. A superset of a great camera cannot be a fail. But logic is a rare thing on CR forum...


----------



## Wesley (Aug 22, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Diko said:
> ...



How can you know it outsell all A7's? It looks like Amazon separates DSLR & mirrorless sales and only shows ranking.

If Amazon is a good source for camera sales than I'm impressed a FF camera is in top 3.


----------



## K (Aug 22, 2016)

The leap from the 5D2 to the 5D3 was significant. Perhaps not in sensor or IQ, but it was in every single other way a huge advance.

The advancement from the 5D3 to the 5D4 is not as significant, but is still a decent upgrade. This time around, it is likely to be in the sensor. I'm not a fan of the 5D3 sensor, only in regards to the exposure latitude. Heinous banding and noise without doing much adjustment. 6D is far better in this regard, and wasn't that much newer of a camera. 5D3 was not forgiving on exposure at all.

The 5D3's features in many regards hit a sort of ceiling. It is for that reason that it is unlikely for Canon to offer a 6D2 with the same AF and speed and all that. In other words, in the 6D2 rumor threads, the 6D2 just cannot become a rebadged 5D3 the same way the 6D was basically a 5D2 with a newer sensor. The specs of the 5D3 are too good, and such a camera would be too close to the 5D4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> How can you know it outsell all A7's? It looks like Amazon separates DSLR & mirrorless sales and only shows ranking.



Because you can look a level higher, where in Amazon's ranking for Camera & Photo the 5DIII is #526, and the a7RII (for example) is #3618.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> JohnUSA said:
> 
> 
> > Think of shooting a person hand-held wide open... subject is swaying a little and so is the photographer. Each probably move more than an eyelash length. I shoot weddings... I'd welcome the new option.
> ...



Sheesh. I don't do tonnes of portraiture, but I've done enough - and used very wide aperture lenses with and without IS - to know that it's not as simple as you make out. First, wide aperture gives a look that many like, and cannot be replicated by other means. Second, with ambient lighting, it's quite easy to hit the practical upper ISO limit AND the minimum handholdable shutter speed EVEN shooting wide open. Any technological help with every aspect of photography is to be welcomed - the same attitude was used to dismiss IS, AF, automatic metering, and a host of other advances. They each have their place - for some of us, at least. Telling people they're wrong to desire a little extra leeway is pretty narrowminded.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > JohnUSA said:
> ...



Narrowminded? Nonsense – Wesley is clearly onto something. We should all just switch to P&S cameras so thin DoF is never a problem.


----------



## IglooEater (Aug 22, 2016)

tron said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > finngrace said:
> ...


Newsflash- different folks have different needs.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 22, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > JohnUSA said:
> ...



If you're hitting the upper ISO limit and minimum handhold SS even shooting wide open than you really can't complain about ruined focus. You should know it was coming. At this point, I would be more worried about motion blur and the AF system retaining accuracy in that low light...

Use a monopod/tripod or HSS flash. More stable platform. Modeling light or speedlight infrared aid AF system.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 22, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



Instant film P&S at that. 
According to the Amazon list, that's the top


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



LOL okay so you *are* narrowminded. Or just lack imagination... or both. We're not complaining about *ruined* focus. The OP said he'd like the feature to readjust critical focus by a few millimetres, that's all. If they include that feature, it will help with wide open handheld portraiture. Telling him - or me, or anyone else - that our technique is bad is missing the point. Sometimes people shoot wide open, handheld, not totally still subjects (or even if they are), and readjusting the focus by a tiny bit could help make some borderline shots spot on. Not to mention that the AF point selection isn't as find as it might be, and can easily mistake an eyelash for a pupil, or whatever (my experience with the 85L at f/1.2 was that many shots had the focus just a touch out - and this was not a case of AFMA, but rather that selecting the AF point over the eye was not fine enough of a distinction).

Additionally, newsflash: in lots of situations a monopod, let alone flash or other lighting, is not appropriate or allowed. This comes up whenever people talk about IS in wide angle and wide aperture lenses. I shouldn't have to give examples, but as I said above, you seem to lack imagination, so here are a couple: a party, where flash would be intrusive/alter the look of the shot (washing out ambient lighting), and where a tripod or monopod would be impractical due to space/crowdedness; or a venue in which flash and/or tripod/monopod is not allowed (say candid portraits in a cathedral).

Why do so many people think that photographers can control every aspect of the situation? Or indeed, why they'd want to? Sometimes you can't, and sometimes it's nice to blend into the background but still get good shots.

I'm sure you'll reply with something along the lines of, it's our handholding technique at fault next... (Let me guess, you don't use IS either?) :


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> How can you know it outsell all A7's? It looks like Amazon separates DSLR & mirrorless sales and only shows ranking.
> 
> If Amazon is a good source for camera sales than I'm impressed a FF camera is in top 3.



the fact that it went on sale recently has alot to with that.. 

however I assume you aren't trolling .. but I'm really starting to wonder about some in here.

that is neither here nor there to the point though now was it?


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 22, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Narrowminded? Nonsense – Wesley is clearly onto something. We should all just switch to P&S cameras so thin DoF is never a problem.



When you hit 20k posts, is Craig throwing a big party? We can play Pin the Tail on the Dilbert


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 22, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Narrowminded? Nonsense – Wesley is clearly onto something. We should all just switch to P&S cameras so thin DoF is never a problem.
> ...



I thought we were all going to sit around watching our flippy mirrors..


----------



## Wesley (Aug 22, 2016)

scyrene:
"_LOL okay so you *are* narrowminded. Or just lack imagination... or both. We're not complaining about *ruined* focus. The OP said he'd like the feature to readjust critical focus by a few millimetres, that's all. If they include that feature, it will help with wide open handheld portraiture. Telling him - or me, or anyone else - that our technique is bad is missing the point. Sometimes people shoot wide open, handheld, not totally still subjects (or even if they are), and readjusting the focus by a tiny bit could help make some borderline shots spot on. Not to mention that the AF point selection isn't as find as it might be, and can easily mistake an eyelash for a pupil, or whatever (my experience with the 85L at f/1.2 was that many shots had the focus just a touch out - and this was not a case of AFMA, but rather that selecting the AF point over the eye was not fine enough of a distinction)._"
*
The focus is ruined if you need to readjust, plain & simple. Even more so on a thin DoF portrait. 
Does Canon not have the ability to fine tune the focus with the focus ring after autofocus did its thing? 

Or maybe you're using single shot AF on moving subjects...*

"_Additionally, newsflash: in lots of situations a monopod, let alone flash or other lighting, is not appropriate or allowed. This comes up whenever people talk about IS in wide angle and wide aperture lenses. I shouldn't have to give examples, but as I said above, you seem to lack imagination, so here are a couple: a party, where flash would be intrusive/alter the look of the shot (washing out ambient lighting), and where a tripod or monopod would be impractical due to space/crowdedness; or a venue in which flash and/or tripod/monopod is not allowed (say candid portraits in a cathedral)._

*Party shots doesn't need pin point accuracy. 
Are you really shooting portraits of someone in a cramped space that can't fit a monopod or tripod?
Candid portraits imply distance. You'll have enough DoF to not worry about adjusting focus by a few mm. *


----------



## Wesley (Aug 22, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > How can you know it outsell all A7's? It looks like Amazon separates DSLR & mirrorless sales and only shows ranking.
> ...



Went on sale recently? Seems you follow Nikon more than the Nikon owner 

I don't use Amazon much. The T5 had the price slashed thing also so thought it was just a common retail sales tactic.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> scyrene:
> "_LOL okay so you *are* narrowminded. Or just lack imagination... or both. We're not complaining about *ruined* focus. The OP said he'd like the feature to readjust critical focus by a few millimetres, that's all. If they include that feature, it will help with wide open handheld portraiture. Telling him - or me, or anyone else - that our technique is bad is missing the point. Sometimes people shoot wide open, handheld, not totally still subjects (or even if they are), and readjusting the focus by a tiny bit could help make some borderline shots spot on. Not to mention that the AF point selection isn't as find as it might be, and can easily mistake an eyelash for a pupil, or whatever (my experience with the 85L at f/1.2 was that many shots had the focus just a touch out - and this was not a case of AFMA, but rather that selecting the AF point over the eye was not fine enough of a distinction)._"
> *
> The focus is ruined if you need to readjust, plain & simple. Even more so on a thin DoF portrait.
> ...



I guess those shots I deleted where focus was on lashes rather than eyes were my imagination.

Yes, canon has manual focus override, but if you want accurate DOF in the viewfinder, you need to use a focusing screen which is less than ideal for general use.

At the end of the day, I am not infallible. I have missed focus by enough that I didn't want to use the pictures. Slight adjustment after the fact would have saved them. Guess what? I also like that exposure and color balance aren't locked down permanently too. I've actually adjusted them! And cropped! Silly me.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> scyrene:
> "_LOL okay so you *are* narrowminded. Or just lack imagination... or both. We're not complaining about *ruined* focus. The OP said he'd like the feature to readjust critical focus by a few millimetres, that's all. If they include that feature, it will help with wide open handheld portraiture. Telling him - or me, or anyone else - that our technique is bad is missing the point. Sometimes people shoot wide open, handheld, not totally still subjects (or even if they are), and readjusting the focus by a tiny bit could help make some borderline shots spot on. Not to mention that the AF point selection isn't as find as it might be, and can easily mistake an eyelash for a pupil, or whatever (my experience with the 85L at f/1.2 was that many shots had the focus just a touch out - and this was not a case of AFMA, but rather that selecting the AF point over the eye was not fine enough of a distinction)._"
> *
> The focus is ruined if you need to readjust, plain & simple. Even more so on a thin DoF portrait.
> ...



Wow! I wish I was better than everyone else and always got perfect focus when taking portraits. 

I will readily admit that I often miss perfect focus on an eye. And, in many cases, I get one eye in focus, but another one not quite perfect, as my subjects seldom stare directly at me, but I often have then turn their heads slightly, so their eyes aren't always on the same plane. 

And, to further show my own incompetence, that less than complete focus often comes when I've stopped down to f5.6 or so. 

In fact, even when I stop down, if I am using a longer lens (70-200 mm f2.8 ) the depth of field I have to work with is very, very narrow. Another problem that I have, is that I am usually taking pictures of real people and I don't use a neck brace to hold them in position, like I used to do when I first starting taking pictures and all we had were daguerreotypes. 

I like to get my subjects smiling or, even better, laughing. Not many people seem to be able to laugh and hold their heads in exactly the same position, they just seem to move. 

So, while superior beings like Wesley may not find any need to ever try to sharpen an eye in post production, I need to do it A LOT! I use every tool I can in Photoshop and Camera Raw and OnOne, but I'd still be anxious to have Canon come up with something that can add another option.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 22, 2016)

unfocused, what are your portrait autofocus settings?

3kramd5: There are tools and features invented that's readily available now to aid and increase keepers but I'm seeing only excuses from others.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> unfocused, what are your portrait autofocus settings?
> 
> 3kramd5: There are tools and features invented that's readily available now to aid and increase keepers but I'm seeing only excuses from others.



Why are those tools and features okay but a little leeway in post is useless?

Excuses? How about "I effed up"? Whether it's me or the camera or the model or a friggin cosmic ray, it makes no difference. 

The tools and techniques suggested involve either gear which may be impractical or prohibited, or changing the look of the photo. Many clients like the very narrow DOF look in portraiture. Why else do world class portrait artists use moderately long focal lengths and wide apertures on large formats?

Shooting with wider DOF may increase the rate at which eyes are acceptably in focus, but decrease keeper rate because DOF is too wide thus the photo doesn't meet the aesthetic intent.

In any case, I'm not looking to increase keeper rate, I'm merely excited for the prospect of saving photos which are excellent in all aspects except focus is slightly off. I also shoot digital raw rather than instax. YMMV.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 22, 2016)

One thing that I hope is included which hasn't been mentioned I believe is exposure compensation in Manual mode when using auto ISO. The 1DX2 has it so I assume all bodies would from now on. 

The 5D4 certainly looks tempting for me but considering the price and my needs, I'll probably still wait for the 6D2.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 22, 2016)

dlee13 said:


> One thing that I hope is included which hasn't been mentioned I believe is exposure compensation in Manual mode when using auto ISO. The 1DX2 has it so I assume all bodies would from now on.



That's not a guarantee for trickle-down-featurenomics. That feature as well as spot metering at the linked AF point have been deliberately withheld to the 1D line to date. For some reason, they deem that a flagship-only sort of feature.

- A


----------



## Wesley (Aug 22, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused, what are your portrait autofocus settings?
> ...



Because they are readily available _now_ and not based on a guessing game hunch about a rumor. 
Can you tell me exactly what dual pixels does right now?


----------



## Wesley (Aug 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that I hope is included which hasn't been mentioned I believe is exposure compensation in Manual mode when using auto ISO. The 1DX2 has it so I assume all bodies would from now on.
> ...



You can't be serious lol...
How about changing minimum shutter speed when using auto ISO?


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that I hope is included which hasn't been mentioned I believe is exposure compensation in Manual mode when using auto ISO. The 1DX2 has it so I assume all bodies would from now on.
> ...



I'm not sure why you think that but the 7D2, 80D, and 5Ds/5DsR can all apply exposure compensation in M mode.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that I hope is included which hasn't been mentioned I believe is exposure compensation in Manual mode when using auto ISO. The 1DX2 has it so I assume all bodies would from now on.
> ...



From what I've read the 80D has exposure compensation in M so wouldn't that mean 5D4 would qualify?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > dlee13 said:
> ...



I'm not kidding. Spot metering at the linked AF point is a 1-series only feature (unless your AF point just happens to be at dead center). 

Auto ISO shutter speed _*is*_ tune-able on just about all Canon SLRs, but only the 1-series lets you use Exposure comp and Auto-ISO in Manual mode simultaneously if I remember correctly. I am not a first-hand person asking for this in the 5D4 -- I never try to use all three of those simultaneously -- but apparently DLee13 (and some others on this forum) would want that in a 5D4.

(Someone please straighten me out if I've got that wrong. I only auto-ISO in aperture-priority in specific circumstances.)

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Auto ISO shutter speed _*is*_ tune-able on just about all Canon SLRs, but only the 1-series lets you use Exposure comp and Auto-ISO in Manual mode simultaneously if I remember correctly. I am not a first-hand person asking for this in the 5D4 -- I never try to use all three of those simultaneously -- but apparently DLee13 (and some others on this forum) would want that in a 5D4.
> 
> (Someone please straighten me out if I've got that wrong. I only auto-ISO in aperture-priority in specific circumstances.)



Correct, it's a feature that was added to the 1D X via firmware and I use it frequently.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2016)

raptor3x said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > dlee13 said:
> ...



yeah i'm sure the 5D4 wil have it, it was absurd they took from 10D to I think 70D or maybeeven 80D to finally be able to do a proper AutoISO (the whole code it like just a few lines long!) why they decided that was some uber high end feature that needed 20 years to dribble out.... anyway, that's past history now, sure the 5D4 will have it working all fine


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


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



If you can't understand that, then don't start going on about pseudo-science and lecturing people on how normalization is some voodoo nonsense....


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 22, 2016)

dlee13 said:


> From what I've read the 80D has exposure compensation in M so wouldn't that mean 5D4 would qualify?



You've only listed two of the three things that I did. I don't know if you can do those two things _with Auto ISO enabled_ on the 80D. If you can, one would assume Canon is pushing this functionality downmarket and it won't be limited to the 1-series any longer. In that case, the 5D4 should get it as well.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 22, 2016)

raptor3x said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > dlee13 said:
> ...



_...with Auto ISO enabled?_ If so, that's great news, and we'd expect the 5D4 to get the same. But I always thought the triumvirate of Auto-ISO, M Mode and Exposure comp only played well together on the 1-series.

Understand that I'm just asking -- I'm not trying to correct you. Again, I don't use those three together (or never tried). I only use auto ISO on Av in run and gun shooting conditions.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Easy to find.

Page 197 of the 80D manual.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 22, 2016)

Thanks, PBD, I'm multitasking tonight and didn't have the time to look it up. 

That's that. The 5D4 is highly likely to get this functionality as well. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of why it wouldn't now the 80D has it.

- A


----------



## Wesley (Aug 22, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



You should get your eyes checked because I didn't say any of that. Go back and tell me who did.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 22, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



It seems to me the analogy is closer to this, the 18k gold originally photographed by the higher density camera becomes 24k gold when you normalise it.

As Neuro repeatedly points out, the expectation of the normalised numbers as presented implies the camera could record a scene with x amount of dynamic range in front of it, but it can't.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 22, 2016)

makistza said:


> - video 4K30fps (MJPEG). Full HD60fps (ALL-I, IPB) . HD120fps (ALL-I)



So does this mean 1080p/720p will be more compressed? Or with better compression? How should I interpret this line?


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 22, 2016)

tpatana said:


> So does this mean 1080p/720p will be more compressed? Or with better compression? How should I interpret this line?



All-I is lower compression, thus, higher quality.


----------



## traveller (Aug 22, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



A somewhat awkward procedure to carry out what I can do with a simple dial turn on my X-T1. On the plus side, my 5D3 can't do it at all. With digital cameras, as opposed to film (large format excepted), we now have three exposure parameters that we choose for each shot. Would it not therefore make sense to have three dials on the higher end cameras?


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 22, 2016)

The 645z did it right. T/AV mode.

I'm surprised this hasn't been adopted already as it's a wonderful weay to do it. Rather than press the set button and flip the dial and not be able to see what's dialled in.

Pretty silly if you ask me as safety shift can't be trusted and manual mode allows proper creative intent.


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 22, 2016)

traveller said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Not necessary at all, as it's already so incredibly easy to change the ISO on Canon bodies. I'd rather they left it exactly as it. We do not need buttons and dials for every variable. Do you also want another knob for FEC? Where do we draw the line?


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 22, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> Not necessary at all, as it's already so incredibly easy to change the ISO on Canon bodies. I'd rather they left it exactly as it. We do not need buttons and dials for every variable. Do you also want another knob for FEC? Where do we draw the line?



Agreed, it is easy to change the ISO, although I'd prefer to focus on shooting rather than pressing buttons. Canon gave us a solution to EC with Auto ISO, but it's just pretty poor in it's execution. There's a couple of useless buttons on the 5D, they 'could' allow us the option to add it as a custom control, but don't.


----------



## finngrace (Aug 22, 2016)

Diko said:


> finngrace said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe its just me but I am not blown away by the specs. However, I thought that about the mark 2 to the mark 3 and I was blown away by the mark 3 when I got two of them. Not sure if I will swap the two I have out for a while. The Mark 3's are more than capable at the moment. Maybe the video guys will be more impressed.
> ...


----------



## Otara (Aug 22, 2016)

traveller said:


> A somewhat awkward procedure to carry out what I can do with a simple dial turn on my X-T1. On the plus side, my 5D3 can't do it at all. With digital cameras, as opposed to film (large format excepted), we now have three exposure parameters that we choose for each shot. Would it not therefore make sense to have three dials on the higher end cameras?



Im usually pressing a button and a dial for ISO when Im not doing auto-iso, so its no more awkward in practise, just a different parameter.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 22, 2016)

wockawocka said:


> The 645z did it right. T/AV mode.
> 
> I'm surprised this hasn't been adopted already as it's a wonderful weay to do it. Rather than press the set button and flip the dial and not be able to see what's dialled in.
> 
> Pretty silly if you ask me as safety shift can't be trusted and manual mode allows proper creative intent.



and inherited in the K1. At first seemed like a useless gimmick mode, since I never had it in Canon bodies, but now that I use it, I'd rather have it than not. Simplifies the WF. I also love the special selector on top, its much quicker to change settings on the go. I would actually prefer fixed dials for SS/Aperture/iso/EC. We already have 3 dials on the 5d, just add one more. With higher DR on the newer sensors, I find using the EC much more than before (usually setting it to -2EV to protect highlights, recover the rest in post). point is, I didn't think I needed these before, but forced learning the K1 layout gave me some perspective.


----------



## traveller (Aug 22, 2016)

wockawocka said:


> aa_angus said:
> 
> 
> > Not necessary at all, as it's already so incredibly easy to change the ISO on Canon bodies. I'd rather they left it exactly as it. We do not need buttons and dials for every variable. Do you also want another knob for FEC? Where do we draw the line?
> ...



I suggest that it would be easier still with a dedicated dial (perhaps on the front of the camera, where Nikon have one of theirs), it's just a case of adjusting your muscle memory. I wouldn't worry though, as I doubt Canon would do this: the EOS dial interface is modal, with a "main dial" and a "quick control dial" that change function depending on the position of the mode dial. This could easily become confusing with three dials. 

I agree on the useless buttons. Why can't we assign any function in the menus to a button? I would also like to have more customisable buttons, providing they are placed where they can easily be distinguished by touch.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



Yes, the serve the autofocus system.

So your complaint is that I'm hoping a rumor manifests rather than potentially altering the appearance of my photos? Odd - this is a rumor site after all. Would you also suggest that the people who like the 30MP rumor should shoot with longer lenses and stich panoramas (tools and technique to increase resolution)?


----------



## lloyd709 (Aug 22, 2016)

RickSpringfield said:


> With all of the discussion around the 5D Mark IV, I keep thinking ... 'What are the comparable cameras from other manufacturers?'. Because we can't really just compare the 5D Mark III against the 5D Mark IV and declare a victory right?



'declare a victory' - love it!! That's what is's all about - owning the 'best' camera!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or are you on the wind up - if so, very good!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 22, 2016)

RickSpringfield said:


> With all of the discussion around the 5D Mark IV, I keep thinking ... 'What are the comparable cameras from other manufacturers?'. Because we can't really just compare the 5D Mark III against the 5D Mark IV and declare a victory right? We know the IV will be better ... of course ... because its a IV not a III. But once you look at the offerings from the other major brands its not as easy. Pre-5DS I think this would have been an easy question to answer ... but now trying to make a baseline comparison seems a bit harder. And who really is the intended audience for this camera?
> 
> Trying to understand what is it the 5D IV is intended to do best other than natively accept Canon glass. Is it Video, Events, Weddings? And if so ... what feature or features make this a more compelling option than say a 5DS, or Sony blah, or Nikon blah. Its seems like a 5DS and that new WiFi Adapter could get you most of the way there. Which in my mind makes the 5DS/R Mark II the Canon camera to watch.


The 5DS/r are different cameras they are not really suitable for action and fast paced photography. They excel for landscape and studio / interior portraits and having used my 5DS on safari in South Africa this year, great for wildlife that's not moving fast or close to sunrise / sunset (I did get a few leopard shots when it was almost dark but they were very noisy). 
I'm hoping the 5D MKIV will have better DR particularly low light its clear already that it will have the same AF system (as indeed the MKIII had), metering system & mirror vibration system, anti-flicker etc. as well as wi-fi, GPS, NFC that the 5DS doesn't have. 
Its moot what the competition does if your heavily invested in Canon glass because changing everything out would be a significant cost (I'm a non believer of adaptors), and newer lenses like the EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM, EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II are class leading anyway.


----------



## tron (Aug 22, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Auto ISO shutter speed _*is*_ tune-able on just about all Canon SLRs, but only the 1-series lets you use Exposure comp and Auto-ISO in Manual mode simultaneously if I remember correctly. I am not a first-hand person asking for this in the 5D4 -- I never try to use all three of those simultaneously -- but apparently DLee13 (and some others on this forum) would want that in a 5D4.
> ...


I like this feature very much. I do not have it on my 5D3 but my 7D2 has it


----------



## wab72 (Aug 22, 2016)

Did you noticed the cover of the pentaprism-box? It's not an unique piece with the upper cover like in 5D III and 5DS/R and 6D and so on ... I don't think about a built-in flash but ... :
Something to deal with Wi-Fi or GPS antennas ?
An EVF can be installed instead of the pentaprism box ??? 

Let's see ...

Bye - Andrea


----------



## wab72 (Aug 22, 2016)

Sorry, hello to anyone from Italy!!!


----------



## Go Wild (Aug 22, 2016)

RickSpringfield said:


> With all of the discussion around the 5D Mark IV, I keep thinking ... 'What are the comparable cameras from other manufacturers?'. Because we can't really just compare the 5D Mark III against the 5D Mark IV and declare a victory right? We know the IV will be better ... of course ... because its a IV not a III. But once you look at the offerings from the other major brands its not as easy. Pre-5DS I think this would have been an easy question to answer ... but now trying to make a baseline comparison seems a bit harder. And who really is the intended audience for this camera?
> 
> Trying to understand what is it the 5D IV is intended to do best other than natively accept Canon glass. Is it Video, Events, Weddings? And if so ... what feature or features make this a more compelling option than say a 5DS, or Sony blah, or Nikon blah. Its seems like a 5DS and that new WiFi Adapter could get you most of the way there. Which in my mind makes the 5DS/R Mark II the Canon camera to watch.



Well, you do got a point and from what i read, it´s been dismissed the camera uses....It looks like everybody want a A7 SII, a 1Dx II, a 5dS R, and a Alexa in one single body! And of course, one body that costs only 3k! And worse than that, the comparisons that are made between cameras are just unrealistic! It´s nonsense to compare a 1Dx II with Sony bodys, it´s just nonsese! Like it´s nonsense that someone that just makes video and need a really high end camera for huge video assignments, to want to buy a 1Dx II or a 5D markIV just for video purposes and want everything in those cameras. C-log´s (wich i would also love, i confess, but i understand why it´s not there). 1Dx II is a workhorse! it´s a terrific camera for stills and deliver you huge possibilitys for video! Not perfect for video? Well, it´s not ment to be! It´s just like the 5D markIV! 
According to the rumours, we are going to have a really beautiful camera there! Improved ISO noise (witch i don´t complain in 5DIII, but if it comes better, just great!!), among other great features can make a really good camera to work! 
It´s just amazing the huge talk about what camera could bring or not to bring...and it´s understandable, we all need something else more! However, most of the talk disperses a lot. First of all, we do need to understand cameras and what they can deliver. If some cameras are good in somethings, others are good in other things. 

I´ll give you an example: 

If you are a professional wildlife and nature photographer and videographer, wich camera do you choose? A Sony A7RII and give a priviledge to video but just loose the still captures because af of Sony is pretty bad for wildlife? Or a 1Dx II that gives you the top of the market in stills, and also provides excelent video resolution? Well, the perfect thing should be to have the both! But even then....what lenses do you have for Sony to film wildlife? And if you have a 500mm from canon wich is really expensive, do you want to buy another tele from sony to the other camera? One tele to film, another to still? You put adaptors and loose AF? How can you film those crazy little birds that are so fast with a lens and camera that don´t get thems in focus?

So, what if you are a comercial videographer? Do you really need a 1Dx II to film? Or the Sony A7 SII is the way to go? 
It´s just too personal choice!!!!

So guys, How can you tell that this Canon 5DmkIV is a bad camera, or that Canon is disappointing?? What are you asking? Everything? Its not realistic! 

What i would love to see in 5DmkIV in improvements and don´t have (at least not konwn): 

- 1080HD 120fps (althoug of course i understand why doesn´t have) 
- bufffer improvement (one of the bad things of my 5DIII is buffer, just hope a good improvement in this one) 
- retro-iluminated buttons - It´s just terrible to shoot in the dark and try to hit the right button.
- Improvement in autofocus - The AF in 5DIII isn´t bad, but it´s not also very good. 
- improvement in DR (yes its quite discussed this point, and for me this is what canon should improve more. It´s not bad, but can be better. 

Finally, if canon makes a camera that can put toghether every stuff from 1DxII, 5DmkIV, A7 RII, A7 SII, 5DS R, i will buy it!!! For sure!!! 
Errgghh.....wait, wait, but only if it costs less than 3,5k!  

Just to finalize....If you have a 5DIII, a 1dx, 1dxII, 5ds r and you can´t get the best of the results....well, it´s time to consider that the fault it is not in the equipment....


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 22, 2016)

wab72 said:


> Did you noticed the cover of the pentaprism-box? It's not an unique piece with the upper cover like in 5D III and 5DS/R and 6D and so on ... I don't think about a built-in flash but ... :
> Something to deal with Wi-Fi or GPS antennas ?
> An EVF can be installed instead of the pentaprism box ???



The viewfinder housing is almost certainly plastic ("polycarbonate composite" or "engineering plastic" to make it sound less cheap ) in order not to obstruct the Wi-Fi and GPS antenna signal. The whole top of the 6D body is plastic so it does not need seams around the viewfinder; the 7D2 and the 1DX2 only have GPS, no Wi-Fi, so a smaller plastic hump next to the flash hot shoe suffices.


----------



## PhotoCat (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> JohnUSA said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...




If this dual pixel 5Dmkiv can do half what a "light field camera" can do, on the "focusing after the shoot" part, it would be a breakthrough for Canon! Theoretically speaking dual pixel cameras just might be able to do it, since one pixel can carry the magnitude info and the other phase of the captured image. 

more info on "light field camera"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEMP3XEgnws


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> Here's to hoping dual pixels can shift focus on a massive level.



it's being called "micro adjustment" .. it's not going to change it that much.


----------



## Gadger (Aug 22, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> RickSpringfield said:
> 
> 
> > With all of the discussion around the 5D Mark IV, I keep thinking ... 'What are the comparable cameras from other manufacturers?'. Because we can't really just compare the 5D Mark III against the 5D Mark IV and declare a victory right? We know the IV will be better ... of course ... because its a IV not a III. But once you look at the offerings from the other major brands its not as easy. Pre-5DS I think this would have been an easy question to answer ... but now trying to make a baseline comparison seems a bit harder. And who really is the intended audience for this camera?
> ...




Thanks for making me smile too


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 22, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> *
> - Improvement in autofocus - The AF in 5DIII isn´t bad, but it´s not also very good. *



    : :-\

wth?

CRAZIEST statement Ive read in 50+ pages of posts.

Even my 5d3 is on the table giggling at that one. 8)


----------



## JohnUSA (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



Shoot a wedding or two and you'll see tweaking the focus after the fact might save a few images. Even if a quarter inch it would be helpful. I'm using continuous focus via the back button and when necessary with the speedlight's infrared grid pattern. Shooting with 5D3 and 6D.


----------



## JohnUSA (Aug 22, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> ...
> - Improvement in autofocus - The AF in 5DIII isn´t bad, but it´s not also very good.
> ...



I would say the AF is very, very good... But I agree the 5D3's AF could definitely use an improvement.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 22, 2016)

ashmadux said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


Poor low light AF was a key reason I gave up on the 5DIII (together with very marginal IQ improvement) and stuck with my 5DII's. -2ev is no laughing matter when you are shooting at dusk.


----------



## cbreton (Aug 22, 2016)

What is this feature: Built-in interval timer and valve timer, valve timer thing. Is it an intervalometer or some other type of timer.

Regards,


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 22, 2016)

JohnUSA said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That's the same 1DX AF system that's been on every sports sideline the last four years. All those white lenses you see on sidelines are not there solely because the lenses themselves are great -- they would not be there in such overwhelming numbers if the AF was not top drawer. Yes, some systems have a wider spread, but I'm not aware of any that track better. 

The 5D3 AF does need improvement but only in specific areas: they need to bring back red servo AF points and expanded f/8 use for the teleconverter crowd. And move to -3 EV for dark rooms / places. Other than that, if you are hung up on the number of points or how much those points fill the frame, go get a mirrorless rig and see what chasing that will do for you. 

I understand that everything on the 5D3 could improve -- I do -- but the AF is absolutely one the strongest legs it stands on. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I understand that everything on the 5D3 could improve -- I do -- but the AF is absolutely one the strongest legs it stands on.



Dude, get some perspective...go read DPreview.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 22, 2016)

My idea of a useful thread would be this. Here are shots that represent the type of photography I do, here are the reasons I think they could be better, and here is how the camera features I'm proposing would give me this capability, etc.

Many posters are in essence already providing this kind of useful information but a significant number are wasting valuable time of their own and mine as I try to sift through the comments. 

Talk is cheap. I am a relative beginner and I have been posting on CR for almost 3 years now. There are a pretty significant number of photos under my name. I can have a valid opinion about those things that I'm familiar with but when I don't really know something I try to keep my mouth shut rather than expose my ignorance by talking nonsense. 

I believe I'm improving and quality CR posts and PM's are to a large extent responsible for this. There are many super knowledgeable folk contributing positively, agreeing, disagreeing, encouraging Canon (assuming Canon folk ever view such threads, which seems a stretch), offering work-arounds, posting links to useful data, etc. etc.

So how are you contributing? If you were not anonymous, would you be proud to have the world know that is your post? Or, are you a childish phony? Come on, some of you can do better. 

Jack


----------



## hayden (Aug 22, 2016)

If you were to start fresh with $10,000, which would you choose at this point?

1) Canon: 2x Mark IV bodies + 85mm + 24-70mm

2) Sony: 2x A7r2 bodies + 85mm gmaster + 24-70mm gmaster

3) Canon: 1x 1DX2 body + 85mm + 24-70mm


I am a lowly street fashion and runway photographer if anyone cares.


----------



## Go Wild (Aug 22, 2016)

ashmadux said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



And again, it´s all very personal.... Put a 7d markII and a 5D markIII. The 7D markII is a better AF than the 5d markIII for wildlife! 

I struggle a little with 5D markIII to focus in poor light and also in BIF´s. Again...why is it stupid or crazy just because it is not your opinion? Read what i said, it is not bad, but could be better. For most of the purposes, the af is just great! For events, or weddings, never fail me. But for wildlife, is not perfect. Just that! If Canon improve it a bit, is it bad?? 

By the way, i am not sure on that, but the Af sistem is not the same from 1Dx. It is very similar but not the same. And you notice that with long lenses and telecoverters. 

Maybe i dont use the best words. What i was meaning is that (for me) the 5d3 miss a little point in AF witch could be improved. But that´s only my feeling from use in real life in wildlife concerns. However, i don´t want to be unfair, the af is great and i love my camera!!


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 22, 2016)

hayden said:


> If you were to start fresh with $10,000, which would you choose at this point?
> 
> 1) Canon: 2x Mark IV bodies + 85mm + 24-70mm
> 
> ...



considering the lack of support with the A7R2's.. 1 or 3.

at least you're not dealing with precision camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 22, 2016)

hayden said:


> If you were to start fresh with $10,000, which would you choose at this point?
> 
> 1) Canon: 2x Mark IV bodies + 85mm + 24-70mm
> 
> ...



$10,000, start again....

5DSr $3,299.
11-24 $2,599
35 f2 IS $535
100 f2.8 L Macro $799
Profoto B1 + Controller and mods $2,600
RRS L-Plate $180

Sorry that was $10,012


----------



## Lurker (Aug 22, 2016)

> Just to finalize....If you have a 5DIII, a 1dx, 1dxII, 5ds r and you can´t get the best of the results....well, it´s time to consider that the fault it is not in the equipment....



Kind of a tired cliché. If, as suggested, hardware doesn't matter then why aren't we still shooting film with manual film advance or glass plates. Why are so many people upset over the lack of or over abundance of pixels? Why isn't 7 fps fast enough? Why should Canon use CFast? I think it's because pretty much everyone knows that equipment does matter. 

Maybe someone doesn't get good results because they're pushing themselves beyond their limits. Maybe it's because they're pushing the equipment beyond its limits. Wanting to do that which can't be done is pretty much the basis for all technological advancement don't you think?

I get what you're trying to say. A good photographer can make great images with any equipment but they do have to limit the subject matter to the capability of the equipment. I doubt the best photographer alive can consistently grab great photos of a Peregrine dive with an iphone. I'm absolutely certain that in many situations "they" could make better photos with their iphone than I could with my DSLR. I'm also absolutely certain I can take better photos with better equipment. The equipment helps me overcome my limitations.

Some of my limitations I could over come with practice. This is a hobby and I choose to put my resources into other parts of my life. Some of my limitations are the ravages of age, injury, and illness that I can't (or choose not spend the time, energy and $ to) overcome. 

Equipment does matter. If it doesn't matter to you it simply means you and technology have advanced far enough to allow you to accomplish what you want. The fact that this has happened for you does not imply that it has, or should have, happened for anyone else.

Peace brothers and sisters.
Respect each other regardless of status, ability, equipment, goals or media choice.
Remember we all do basically the same thing, capture light for the purpose of conveying a message or feeling.


----------



## Go Wild (Aug 22, 2016)

Lurker said:


> > Just to finalize....If you have a 5DIII, a 1dx, 1dxII, 5ds r and you can´t get the best of the results....well, it´s time to consider that the fault it is not in the equipment....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes totally agree! That was not my point, of course equipment matters! And a lot!! But sometimes , me included, we do intend to blaim Canon or other manufacturer, not to do the best equipment.... I am only saying this because the critics to the new camera sounds a bit unfair to canon side, in my point of view.  The technology has reach a great point now, and we do have in the market great stuff to work! What is the best seems to be the talking...for me is what is the best for my needs. 

And yes, The new Canon 5dIV will make huge photos just like Nikon or Sony´s... It´s not going to be so bad and Canon is not sooo bad company. Did someone notice the eisa awards? 1DxII and 80D.


----------



## George D. (Aug 22, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> Lurker said:
> 
> 
> > > Just to finalize....If you have a 5DIII, a 1dx, 1dxII, 5ds r and you can´t get the best of the results....well, it´s time to consider that the fault it is not in the equipment....
> ...



Noticed, noticed: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30550.msg615418#msg615418

Hey, we're all enthusiasts here right up to pro. We demand the impossible from Canon. And that's good for them and us.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 22, 2016)

Digic 6? As predicted.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2016)

Tugela said:


> Digic 6? As predicted.



Does that mean no 4K?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 22, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Go Wild said:
> ...



I would refer to Jack's comment above - instead of just saying 'AF needs improvement' it really helps the discussion to explain shy you think it needs improvement. No one is denying your opinion but it adding some details helps separate the genuine discussion from the trolls. And you are more likely to get a meaningful reply.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 22, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Go Wild said:
> ...



Just don't take responses too seriously. There is nothing wrong with what you say and of course everyone has an opinion. If someone else's opinion differs, that's fine. It's a big pot of opinions that we all consider and use in making wiser purchase decisions.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 22, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> hayden said:
> 
> 
> > If you were to start fresh with $10,000, which would you choose at this point?
> ...



Now that's interesting. Can you put a little context to what you would be focusing on with that acquisition. What would you be able or not able to do without any nagging regrets. That 100 macro I don't have but have really thought I should get it. There are pretty good deals used. I'm a little surprised you've included the 11-24, which I love but find challenging at the wide end.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> There are pretty good deals used.



CPW.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 22, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



_"Yes, the serve the autofocus system."_

???

Were you thinking dual pixel _AF_ would let you adjust focus in post? /facepalm
The quotes and the word rumor refers to dual pixel _RAW_. 

You were also vague.
Can I use it on m-raw / s-raw? Is it only for stationary objects? What's the range I can adjust the focus / bokeh?


----------



## Wesley (Aug 22, 2016)

K-amps said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > The 645z did it right. T/AV mode.
> ...



Sorry guys but you're only going to get the cold shoulder here when you talk about Pentax. 
I was told they're not relevant because of small market share when I brought them up :


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Go Wild said:
> ...



The 7D2 came out two and a half years later, I should hope it is better! It's also a crop camera, so it's easier for the AF points to extend further out from the centre of the frame.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 22, 2016)

hayden said:


> If you were to start fresh with $10,000, which would you choose at this point?
> 
> 1) Canon: 2x Mark IV bodies + 85mm + 24-70mm
> 
> ...



I would get the smaller bodies (5D or A7) for discrete street fashion and 85mm. Canon 85 1.8 or 85 Batis. 

But 70-200 instead of 24-70 for runway.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2016)

Lurker said:


> > Just to finalize....If you have a 5DIII, a 1dx, 1dxII, 5ds r and you can´t get the best of the results....well, it´s time to consider that the fault it is not in the equipment....
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of a tired cliché. If, as suggested, hardware doesn't matter then why aren't we still shooting film with manual film advance or glass plates. Why are so many people upset over the lack of or over abundance of pixels? Why isn't 7 fps fast enough? Why should Canon use CFast? I think it's because pretty much everyone knows that equipment does matter.



You're right that it's a cliché, and I do generally object to the 'it's not the equipment that matters' mantra - we don't shoot small birds far away with ultrawide-angle lenses for example!

However, *some* people complaining about 7fps or 30MP or whatever are doing so for less noble reasons than that they have reached the limits of current technology. There is a strong drive in some people (perhaps many people) to complain regardless of what's on offer, or what improvements have been made. Or they look at bare numbers - camera X has 42MP so 30MP isn't enough! - without contextualising them, or realising that individual specifications in isolation aren't giving the whole picture. Greener grass, etc.

But it is also true to say that most of us do not exceed most of the capabilities of the better modern cameras in most situations. Of course, sometimes we do and we hope those areas will improve in future releases - in the meantime, there are often workarounds in terms of technique or processing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 22, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > hayden said:
> ...



Hi Jack,

It is a very broad reaching general kit that I took traveling with me last time I did a trip (thought the 5DSr was a 1Ds MkIII). I wanted for nothing and missed nothing.

The 11-24 gives me angles and perspectives no other camera system can. It works well as a general walk around lens in tight spots and is a great landscape and environmental lens. Sure the 11 end takes some work to arrive at compelling compositions, but the 16-24 area is very well covered. It would be the first of the three I dropped.

The 35 f2 IS is the greatest walk around general purpose lens I have ever used. Great for environmental portraits, killer for stitched panos when used in portrait orientation, not too big and heavy or intrusive but fast enough and the IS is a godsend. With the pixel rich 5DSr it gives a very good rendering of a 50mm perspective, which although it has gone out of favour to a large extent still makes compelling images, just stand back and crop. If I could only have one lens it would be the 35 f2 IS.

The 100 L Macro is just as flexible, nice short tele, fast enough to give subject separation but small and light enough to be inclined to take. Great lens for detail shots as well as the occasional macro. Superb portrait lens, especially if you are bored by the single eyelash in focus nonsense.

The 5DSr because the only thing I miss about my early digital captures is resolution. I can work quite happily with the DR, colour, etc etc, but 4MP was too little and if we can capture 50MP, if I was buying new, it would need to be a very compelling reason not to.

Profoto B1 because light is all there is to make a picture and the B1 gives the the power and functionality in a quality package to make images not possible until comparatively recently.

I don't know what I couldn't shoot with that package apart from long tele work, which I rarely do anyway.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> scyrene:
> "_LOL okay so you *are* narrowminded. Or just lack imagination... or both. We're not complaining about *ruined* focus. The OP said he'd like the feature to readjust critical focus by a few millimetres, that's all. If they include that feature, it will help with wide open handheld portraiture. Telling him - or me, or anyone else - that our technique is bad is missing the point. Sometimes people shoot wide open, handheld, not totally still subjects (or even if they are), and readjusting the focus by a tiny bit could help make some borderline shots spot on. Not to mention that the AF point selection isn't as find as it might be, and can easily mistake an eyelash for a pupil, or whatever (my experience with the 85L at f/1.2 was that many shots had the focus just a touch out - and this was not a case of AFMA, but rather that selecting the AF point over the eye was not fine enough of a distinction)._"
> *
> The focus is ruined if you need to readjust, plain & simple. Even more so on a thin DoF portrait.
> ...



Yeah, you're basically ignoring what I said so... my original brusque assessment was justified. If you can't think of places and occasions where someone blundering round with a tripod would be unwelcome, or using a flash would be rude or obtrusive, then you can't get out much.

PS describing real world limitations as 'excuses' is the height of dismissiveness. Nobody is perfect, even if you believe yourself to be; I'm just giving examples where this possible new feature might be useful. Also, it's funny how you're happy to accept previous technological advances like autofocus, but reject out of hand any novel post-shot focus adjustment.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what this new feature amounts to. It's certainly generated a lot of interesting speculation.

(If I used 'candid' incorrectly, I apologise for confusion: I don't mean 'shooting strangers from a distance', I mean intimate, unposed portraits taken from within the social context, e.g. being at a party and photographing people you're with).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 22, 2016)

K-amps has some great photo posts Wesley. I'm more inclined to listen to his opinions until I see some of your work. How about posting some photos, maybe start a new thread.

Jack


----------



## Go Wild (Aug 22, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > ashmadux said:
> ...





Jack Douglas said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > ashmadux said:
> ...



Yes ok, thank you for your comments. 

I will try to explain. For the most of the situations, af in 5D3 is just great, i don´t use a lot the modes and i usually stick with the 1 mode, the more general, and the mode 2 if i am getting some obstacles between me and the animals. 

My dificulties with the 5d3 are: 

- in low light, althoug it makes a good service, sometimes the camera struggle to focus in a way that the 7d markII don´t, if we want to make a comparison. 
- In BIF, if you use all the points of focus the camera easily loses focus to the blue sky. With the 7DII that doesn´t happen so frequently. But of course, could be my problem. 
- If i use a teleconverter in the telephoto lens it is a pain to be able to track small fast animals, again, i feel more confortable getting the AF with 7dII than the 5d3. 
- In 7dII i get a wider coverage area than in the 5d3
- And finally, ITR wich is just great for video and i think the new 5d4 will have. 

ohh....and last, i do Hate that round bowl in the focus points!! The 7dII is cleaner and i do like most. 


Finishing, my point is not to say that the 5d3 has a bad AF, on the contraire!!! I do LOVE my 5D3! I do LOVE the AF!! But when i put togheter, the 5d3 and the 7d2, for me it seems that the af is 7d2 is more responsive and works better with teleconverters in the 500mm F4. 

So the point here, and regarding of what i said, i just want that the new 5d4 has some improvements in AF, that i see in the 7d2! Just that!

I don´t want to shock anybody!!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 22, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



What a breath of fresh air in this thread. Now, I just have to take some time to reflect on what you say. I take it that the 30 MPs of the 5D4 is a positive in your estimation? Thanks for this.

Jack


----------



## mnclayshooter (Aug 22, 2016)

Canon store is down for site upgrades... FYI

http://shop.usa.canon.com/maintenance.html?WT.mc_id=C126149


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 22, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> What a breath of fresh air in this thread. Now, I just have to take some time to reflect on what you say. I take it that the 30 MPs of the 5D4 is a positive in your estimation? Thanks for this.
> 
> Jack


I take the 5D mkIV to be a very compelling general purpose camera, resolution included. As Canon so often do they upgrade everything a bit, which makes gear heads go crazy about specs left out that they believe will bring about the eminent demise of Canon. 

Then the photographers get a hold of the actual cameras and are very impressed with the consummate capabilities the seemingly modest spec sheet belie. Canon make fantastic cameras.

At this point I think 30MP is a great 'middle ground', sounds like Goldie Locks but not too few to annoy the pixel peepers too much, not too high to annoy the 'my computer can't do that' crowd. 30MP will make fantastic high resolution decent sized prints or allow realistic cropping. It will also keep noise manageable for those that refuse to normalise in comparisons (most on line testers and reviewers).

Personally I rarely shoot at high iso and think if you are shooting 30MP you might as well shoot 50MP, I am not worried about the noise or the file sizes, so, for me, a 5DSr makes more sense (and I print big). For most people I can't imagine how a 5D MkV is going to be interesting enough to upgrade from a MkIV for.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 22, 2016)

All I am going to say is after shooting with the 1DX Mk2 those who choose to buy into the 5D4 will be pleased I am 100% sure! I have no doubt that my 5D3 will end up sold and replaced for a Mk4. If the AF and other improvements are as significant as the 1DX2 proved to be in my case those who upgrade are in for a treat. Those who buy into the 5 series camera at Mk4 for the first time will be blown away! My Mk3 has been such a great camera the extra MP, DR and ISO etc can only add to a great system that lets the photographer capture great images. Bring it on Mr Canon and lets get shooting 

In the end, once you grab some great pics with the new camera the price will soon be forgotten. 8) (just avoid checking your bank statement for a while)  :-X


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 22, 2016)

arthurbikemad said:


> All I am going to say is after shooting with the 1DX Mk2 those who choose to buy into the 5D4 will be pleased I am 100% sure! I have no doubt that my 5D3 will end up sold and replaced for a Mk4. If the AF and other improvements are as significant as the 1DX2 proved to be in my case those who upgrade are in for a treat. Those who buy into the 5 series camera at Mk4 for the first time will be blown away! My Mk3 has been such a great camera the extra MP, DR and ISO etc can only add to a great system that lets the photographer capture great images. Bring it on Mr Canon and lets get shooting
> 
> In the end, once you grab some great pics with the new camera the price will soon be forgotten. 8) (just avoid checking your bank statement for a while)  :-X



A lot of help that is in choosing between a 1DX II and 5D4!  This is better than Christmas 60 years ago. Good advice not to look into the finances too much, though.

Jack


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 22, 2016)

;D Yeah I see your point re the choice haha

Sorry about that, if you can't choose between them. . . . . . .


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 22, 2016)

Wesley said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



No, I was answering your post the only way I can. You asked what exactly I can tell you about them, and the only thing I know for certain is that they serve autofocus. Anything regarding DPRAW would be total speculation, and thus not meet your criterion ("exactly").

*Speculation warning:*



Wesley said:


> The quotes and the word rumor refers to dual pixel _RAW_.
> Can I use it on m-raw / s-raw?



Don't know.



Wesley said:


> Is it only for stationary objects?



It's hard to imagine how the camera or post-processing software would know if the objects are moving. Do you mean is it not for servo? Don't know.



Wesley said:


> What's the range I can adjust the focus / bokeh?



Don't know, but given small amount of data to work with (as opposed to say what's in the Lytro cameras), I'd guess "not very wide." Not that it is characterized as "micro adjustment." 

*End of Speculation*

*Wish warning:*

I hope that "micro" is enough to safe photos where the intended focus is missed by about 3mm.

*End of Wish*


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 22, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> The 35 f2 IS is the greatest walk around general purpose lens I have ever used. Great for environmental portraits, killer for stitched panos when used in portrait orientation, not too big and heavy or intrusive but fast enough and the IS is a godsend. With the pixel rich 5DSr it gives a very good rendering of a 50mm perspective, which although it has gone out of favour to a large extent still makes compelling images, just stand back and crop. If I could only have one lens it would be the 35 f2 IS.



That's it. You've sold it to me, my 40 pancake is no more. Also I've found I need the IS if I'm to move on to even higher mp cameras


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The 35 f2 IS is the greatest walk around general purpose lens I have ever used. Great for environmental portraits, killer for stitched panos when used in portrait orientation, not too big and heavy or intrusive but fast enough and the IS is a godsend. With the pixel rich 5DSr it gives a very good rendering of a 50mm perspective, which although it has gone out of favour to a large extent still makes compelling images, just stand back and crop. If I could only have one lens it would be the 35 f2 IS.
> ...



The 35 f/2 IS is a great lens, and about as good as it gets for handheld low light work. It's a fair bit bigger than a pancake lens, mind (but not big and heavy like an L).


----------



## scyrene (Aug 22, 2016)

RickSpringfield said:


> The piece I have yet to hear any of the CanonRumors Forum aristocracy chime in on is ... "What do we compare the 5D Mark IV against from other manufacturers?" ... and ... "Who is the intended audience for this camera?". I'd like a solid comparable to understand if Canon is 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place with this offering or is it in a class by itself?
> 
> All things considered (Price, Specs, Glass, whatever) its difficult to say what exactly the 5D IV is answering or competing against.



"Aristocracy" :

I dunno... The 5D1-3 have been generally understood and discussed as aimed at people shooting diverse subjects who don't want the bulk or cost of a 1-series, and especially wedding photographers.

I'm not expert enough in other brands to know which models it competes with (it's not as easy as 1DxII-D5), but each brand seems to have slightly different subdivisions, so it's always going to be imprecise.


----------



## gunship01 (Aug 22, 2016)

Let's get it to 1,000 posts!


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 22, 2016)

RickSpringfield said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > RickSpringfield said:
> ...



I think Canon's entire DSLR portfolio is still primarily designed for stills work over video work. The 5D2 really polarized the industry and defined an entirely new growth segment where people started creating video content using traditional stills digital cameras. It was not soon afterwards that Canon created their EOS Cinema line and clearly delineated the feature sets and r&d that would be offered in each business unit. 

Because of Canon's dominance in the market, compounded by the small segment of video/stills hybrid shooters, they've decided that there is no incentive to invest any further in r&d to blur the lines with their Cinema line, and they've decided to play it safe and stay the course. 

I would assume that their strategy is that it probably won't be until there is a large enough exodus to other hybrid camps that they will offer a revolutionary product to reel back in the masses. Especially those with an existing assortment of EF glass. Even with a 4 year release cycle, they probably have enough goodwill and market share to wait it out.

I started with Canon years ago and built out an entire Canon DSLR outfit, but as the years went by, veered more into video production work, so it is users like myself that find Canon's newest offerings no longer fit ideally into how I use these products. If I consider stills only, the 5d4 is a large upgrade and will probably be among the best in class amongst its peers. If I consider video only, the 5d4 would probably be a non-starter and if I consider it as a hybrid, it would probably be a relatively poor choice for a new product launch at the tail-end of 2016.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 22, 2016)

jayphotoworks, can't criticize your comments. Every company is constantly making decisions on the direction they should take, as wisely as they can. Sometimes their decisions lead the product away from what we are hoping for so then we have to decide if a switch is desirable. Fortunately we are free to choose whomever we prefer.

Jack


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 23, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> JohnUSA said:
> 
> 
> > Go Wild said:
> ...



I find the so called criticisms of the 5d3 Af borderline ridiculous. Not all that way because at least there was some thought behind it, no matter how off the "mark" it is.

See what i did there 

PS- technically speaking, im no fan of any af module that has points smashed into the center- but that's hardly unique to the 5d3. for what it is, it works spectacular. If you want to shoot in ultra darkness, use a lighting assist or model light, eh?


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 23, 2016)

*--> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



jayphotoworks said:


> RickSpringfield said:
> 
> 
> > Go Wild said:
> ...



As a 5DII and 5DIII lover with lots of EF glass, I've said it many times here and I'll say it again- Canon needs to provide more value to its video customers and not just lead them on by trickling down the latest video features- such as 4K- to prosumers years after they've reached competitors' products. Yes, Canon maintains steady profits by doing so, but there are other ways to make profit, namely, by cannibalizing yourself and your own products to find what consumers want and selling on volume. Follow the lead of companies like Apple (under Jobs), who were fearless in coming out with new and better products that cannibalized existing lines because those products were the future. Canon needs fearless leadership to do this, and it won't happen overnight, but when you're ahead, as Canon still is, you have to be a bit risky and we've just not seen that so far from their video integration with the 5D line, since the 5DII. 

If the dynamic range is right, this camera will be everything I want in a stills camera, but sorely lacking if the 4K video is hobbled in some way. Canon also could have implemented 120fps in 1080p mode for us video shooters, but hobbled it to up-sell to the Cinema EOS line and higher end models. This has got to stop if they want to maintain brand loyalty and goodwill among their customers. Come on, Canon- you can do so much better. Don't think about marketing and protecting existing models, think about making the all around BEST products. 

And just so everyone knows, this is constructive criticism, because I want them to provide the best possible Canon products to me for my use as a hybrid stills / video shooter. Right now, I'm really on the fence between this and a Sony, and I'd really rather go with Canon. So here's to hoping the 5DIV announcement will surprise me and prove this wrong. 

Rant = over.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 23, 2016)

ashmadux said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > JohnUSA said:
> ...



I went from 7D to 5D3, and holy smoke the AF for awesome better. Few times I tried 7D at dim lights, and 5D3 was getting much more keepers.

Then later I went 1DX, I felt 1DX was even better. Which is strange as they are supposed to have same/similar AF. Could be that my brain just tried to justify the extra price, but for sure it felt better. Placebo maybe.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 23, 2016)

tpatana said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



The 1dx has three processors, one for af, ae and camera control.


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



> As a 5DII and 5DIII lover with lots of EF glass, I've said it many times here and I'll say it again- Canon needs to provide more value to its video customers and not just lead them on by trickling down the latest video features- such as 4K- to prosumers years after they've reached competitors' products. Yes, Canon maintains steady profits by doing so, but there are other ways to make profit, namely, by cannibalizing yourself and your own products to find what consumers want and selling on volume. Follow the lead of companies like Apple (under Jobs), who were fearless in coming out with new and better products that cannibalized existing lines because those products were the future. Canon needs fearless leadership to do this, and it won't happen overnight, but when you're ahead, as Canon still is, you have to be a bit risky and we've just not seen that so far from their video integration with the 5D line, since the 5DII.
> 
> If the dynamic range is right, this camera will be everything I want in a stills camera, but sorely lacking if the 4K video is hobbled in some way. Canon also could have implemented 120fps in 1080p mode for us video shooters, but hobbled it to up-sell to the Cinema EOS line and higher end models. This has got to stop if they want to maintain brand loyalty and goodwill among their customers. Come on, Canon- you can do so much better. Don't think about marketing and protecting existing models, think about making the all around BEST products.
> 
> ...



You video folk are so pesky! Buy a video camera. They shoot video.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



transpo1 said:


> As a 5DII and 5DIII lover with lots of EF glass, I've said it many times here and I'll say it again- Canon needs to provide more value to its video customers and not just lead them on by trickling down the latest video features- such as 4K- to prosumers years after they've reached competitors' products.



'Needs to'?
Why. They have clearly chosen the 5D to be a mainly stills camera and created the DC range for videographers. 



transpo1 said:


> Yes, Canon maintains steady profits by doing so, but there are other ways to make profit, namely, by cannibalizing yourself and your own products to find what consumers want and selling on volume. Follow the lead of companies like Apple (under Jobs), who were fearless in coming out with new and better products that cannibalized existing lines because those products were the future. Canon needs fearless leadership to do this, and it won't happen overnight, but when you're ahead, as Canon still is, you have to be a bit risky and we've just not seen that so far from their video integration with the 5D line, since the 5DII.


Is this this the same Apple company who for the last couple of iterations have been accused of stagnating? 
Breaking new ground in a mobile phone was easy meat once you had the idea - merely putting cameras and the like in phones was itself a big step forward. Photography on the other hand is relatively mature and you only need took at the problems phone manufacturers now have in creating something new to see how difficult it has been for camera manufacturers to do the same for quite a while now.
There has been precious little developments on sensor technology for several years so are you suggesting that all camera manufacturers are running some sort of technological cartel and agreeing not to release anything truly innovative ?



transpo1 said:


> If the dynamic range is right, this camera will be everything I want in a stills camera, but sorely lacking if the 4K video is hobbled in some way. Canon also could have implemented 120fps in 1080p mode for us video shooters, but hobbled it to up-sell to the Cinema EOS line and higher end models. This has got to stop if they want to maintain brand loyalty and goodwill among their customers. Come on, Canon- you can do so much better. Don't think about marketing and protecting existing models, think about making the all around BEST products.


As has been repeated several times to the video crowd, there are massive technological problems with things like heat generation and processing power when getting a camera to be both a stills and video. And if you are willing to pay the price why not buy a video camera if your required specifications are that high? 
Why do you think the 1DC is great at video but falls down on stills? 




transpo1 said:


> And just so everyone knows, this is constructive criticism, because I want them to provide the best possible Canon products to me for my use as a hybrid stills / video shooter.



Fair enough. But when you are going to criticise a company at least make sure your criticisms are valid.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 23, 2016)

Without reading 100 pages, I wonder at 30MP and "old" card tech what will the buffer be RAW? Given an extra 1FPS you have to wonder if this "pixel beast" will grind to a halt after 6 or seven frames... :-\


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 23, 2016)

Assuming a write speed of 30mb/s, one raw file a second then a buffer of 1gb will hold around 30 frames. Memory is cheap and Canon, if you are listening, I would happily of paid an extra 500 bucks extra per GB of buffer.

Anything less than a 20 shot buffer and I'll be most unimpressed.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2016)

arthurbikemad said:


> Without reading 100 pages, I wonder at 30MP and "old" card tech what will the buffer be RAW? Given an extra 1FPS you have to wonder if this "pixel beast" will grind to a halt after 6 or seven frames... :-\



The 5D3 buffer was 30-odd frames if I recall correctly so I see no reason the 5D4 would be as low as '6 or 7'.
How big a buffer do you need?


----------



## tron (Aug 23, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> arthurbikemad said:
> 
> 
> > Without reading 100 pages, I wonder at 30MP and "old" card tech what will the buffer be RAW? Given an extra 1FPS you have to wonder if this "pixel beast" will grind to a halt after 6 or seven frames... :-\
> ...


If they could make it a little more than 30 it would be nice. But 150MB/sec UDMA 7 cards are not so bad. Also a Seagate CFAST 64GB is just 50% faster (2xxMB/sec) . The difference is not huge.


----------



## hne (Aug 23, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > What's the range I can adjust the focus / bokeh?
> ...



If it is anything like the Lytro tech, you're gonna be limited to getting in focus no more than what you could have gained by stopping down one stop. At best. Still, one full stop when you've got critical focus on the eye lashes could theoretically allow you to move it somewhere between 5mm and 1/4" which might well be enough to save the shot.


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



Mikehit said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > As a 5DII and 5DIII lover with lots of EF glass, I've said it many times here and I'll say it again- Canon needs to provide more value to its video customers and not just lead them on by trickling down the latest video features- such as 4K- to prosumers years after they've reached competitors' products.
> ...



How does the 1DC fall down on stills, it's same as the 1DX save for firmware, heat sink and headphone jack?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



transpo1 said:


> Yes, Canon maintains steady profits by doing so, but there are other ways to make profit, namely, by cannibalizing yourself and your own products to find what consumers want and selling on volume. Follow the lead of companies like Apple (under Jobs), who were fearless in coming out with new and better products that cannibalized existing lines because those products were the future.



Comments like this are always funny. 

How exactly did Apple 'cannibalize' itself? 

Well, lets see: They had a failing home computer business with rapidly shrinking marketshare. So, they jumped into the personal music device market and in typical Apple fashion they used a proprietary format so they could control the entire chain, trying to lock customers into buying music only through them.

Then, they decided to add their music players to cell phones. They stumbled into a successful model only because a camera was added as an afterthought. Something they never foresaw. But, what they did do was tightly control access and pricing and retain their closed eco-system.

Then they made a giant version of their non-phone device (iPad)

Along the way, their original core business (home computers) has become a niche product for them, selling only high-end, overpriced and under-powered products that account for about 7.4% of the total market.

So, the obvious conclusion is that those who want Canon to 'cannibalize' itself would like to see a company that all but abandons the consumer market, offers only stylish, high-end cameras that cost significantly more than their competitors but uses an entirely closed eco-system, requiring buyers to only use Canon memory cards, batteries, lenses, bags, tripods, lights, etc., all the while under-performing the competition. 

It might be great for Canon as a business (and they certainly are diversifying) but it wouldn't be so great for consumers interested in cameras.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 23, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Then later I went 1DX, I felt 1DX was even better. Which is strange as they are supposed to have same/similar AF. Could be that my brain just tried to justify the extra price, but for sure it felt better. Placebo maybe.



Not just placebo - the 1Dx has the same AF module as the 5D3 but other bits and pieces that make AF better overall (a better metering sensor, more processors, higher bettery voltage; I'm sure there are many experts here who can be more specific!).


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



aa_angus said:


> > As a 5DII and 5DIII lover with lots of EF glass, I've said it many times here and I'll say it again- Canon needs to provide more value to its video customers and not just lead them on by trickling down the latest video features- such as 4K- to prosumers years after they've reached competitors' products. Yes, Canon maintains steady profits by doing so, but there are other ways to make profit, namely, by cannibalizing yourself and your own products to find what consumers want and selling on volume. Follow the lead of companies like Apple (under Jobs), who were fearless in coming out with new and better products that cannibalized existing lines because those products were the future. Canon needs fearless leadership to do this, and it won't happen overnight, but when you're ahead, as Canon still is, you have to be a bit risky and we've just not seen that so far from their video integration with the 5D line, since the 5DII.
> >
> > If the dynamic range is right, this camera will be everything I want in a stills camera, but sorely lacking if the 4K video is hobbled in some way. Canon also could have implemented 120fps in 1080p mode for us video shooters, but hobbled it to up-sell to the Cinema EOS line and higher end models. This has got to stop if they want to maintain brand loyalty and goodwill among their customers. Come on, Canon- you can do so much better. Don't think about marketing and protecting existing models, think about making the all around BEST products.
> >
> ...



I used to really be on the other side of the fence. I would come in and say, why the heck do they need to offer so many video features on a ILC.. Just get a camcorder or something. That was 3-4 years ago. Nowadays, that is exactly what I have been doing myself. Blackmagic and Panasonic are my go to systems for video production work and Canon just for stills work. Between EF and M43 formats, they represent a widely accepted mature format that won't suddenly be abandonware tomorrow.

Part of me is selfish, in wanting an OEM solution for that EF glass that can double duty as a great hybrid body, but like others have said, it isn't Canon's "style" and they will not cross pollinate their Cinema line DNA into their DSLR line anytime soon. 

What is interesting is that the 5D2 is what got me into this transition in the first place. Canon steered me into a completely new direction, enough that I actually went to into specific products. Some people starting off may not be in the same boat, and some might start off into Sony camp because they are indeed looking for an all-in-one hybrid system to start off with that can offer great stills and video simultaneously that doesn't have a "gimped" feature set.

I consider myself fortunate with the path I took mainly because I bought into Canon's ecosystem from the stills days and these days I have so many options I can take to develop the video side of things. If I had a bag of FE glass or (shudder) A-mount glass, I would be in for some serious damage to switch.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 23, 2016)

scyrene said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Then later I went 1DX, I felt 1DX was even better. Which is strange as they are supposed to have same/similar AF. Could be that my brain just tried to justify the extra price, but for sure it felt better. Placebo maybe.
> ...



Generally, there is little between the 5D3 and 1Dx AF system. But there are two distinct differences, firstly the 1Dx batteries run at a higher voltage. This gives a little more oomph when driving big white super-tele lenses. Secondly, the 1Dx has a dedicated AF processor and face / colour recognition firmware. In normal shooting modes this doesn't make much difference, except when you engage all 61 AF points in AI servo and then it's quite apparent. The 1Dx tracks and maintains it's focus point better than the 5D3. That said, the 5D3 isn't far behind. I think the 1Dx needs a superior AF system to track reliably at 12fps. I think the 5D3 is comparible in it's accuracy and tracking for a 6fps camera. I think they are comparable, but bare in mind the requirements of a much faster fps camera has to keep all 12 shots tracked and in focus.


----------



## E (Aug 23, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> What i would love to see in 5DmkIV in improvements and don´t have (at least not konwn):
> 
> - 1080HD 120fps (althoug of course i understand why doesn´t have)



Yes. Why no 1080p 120fps? Mjpeg would be OK. It is definitely not too much to ask for, 2016.



Mikehit said:


> 'Needs to'?
> Why. They have clearly chosen the 5D to be a mainly stills camera and created the DC range for videographers.



Then where is the new DC camera? The 1DC arrived together with the 1DX. 1DC is hopelessly outdated - no slow motion.


General question: Is it correct that Magic lantern increased the speed of the 5D Mark III, from normal speed to double speed? (50fps/60fps)?


----------



## Mr. Milo (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



> You video folk are so pesky! Buy a video camera. They shoot video.



I've said in previous posts to not post stuff like this dismissing Videographers. The 5D Mark II, Mark III, and Mark IV are DIGITAL FILM CAMERAS, too. Not just stills. They can film. They shoot video.

We already invested in the Canon lens. When Videographers come in the forum and want to piss and moan about the Mark IV's video capabilities, that's fine.

It's just like Photographers pissing and moaning about dynamic range and pixel peeping. It's no big deal. That's what this forum is about.

Anyways, the Mark IV will be a great DSLR. If a Videographer wants to buy it to shoot video, that's fine. It's more than capable to do good work. It's not as great as a Canon C100 Mark II, but it can still do the job. Then again, the Mark IV and Canon C100 will have trade offs so it's up to the Videographer want they want to prioritize.

Videographers cannot afford The Canon C300 Mark II and above. That's why we barely mention it.


----------



## Go Wild (Aug 23, 2016)

E said:


> Go Wild said:
> 
> 
> > What i would love to see in 5DmkIV in improvements and don´t have (at least not konwn):
> ...




Well, from my point of view, Canon want´s a difference in products and don´t want to canibalize cameras. 1080HD 120fps and 4k60fps are in the 1DxII and if you want this, you need to buy the 1DxII. We may not like it, or wish that 5dIV also had this, but it´s just the way it is. According to video features this is the difference between cameras and canon don´t want to every camera has everything. For me, it makes sense, even if i would want like everybody else to see that in 5D4. Let me put you in this way....If i were to purchase a camera to shoot video, and i have the same specs in 1DxII and 5D4, wich camera i would buy? And i mean just for video. The answer is obvious, the 5d4. But instead, i have a difference....if i want 4k 50 or 60fps and 1080HD120fps i only have one choice....to buy the 1dxII. If i can live with 720hd120fps and 4k30fps then i would get the 5d4. This can make us upset, or not very happy because we need to spend more to get the best things, but....isn´t that a normal market issue? 

I think we will see a new 1Dc real soon! 

I only use ML for a short period of time in my 5d3 and it was long 2 years ago so i really dont remember if it increases fps, can´t help on that. 



Mr. Milo said:


> > You video folk are so pesky! Buy a video camera. They shoot video.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well it´s all about this!  Agree with your words, but however....DSLRs were primarily and mainly for stills...video as come after, so it is normal co consider a DSLR a still camera in first hand....But you are right.


----------



## E (Aug 23, 2016)

Go Wild said:


> Well, from my point of view, Canon want´s a difference in products and don´t want to canibalize cameras. 1080HD 120fps and 4k60fps are in the 1DxII and if you want this, you need to buy the 1DxII. We may not like it, or wish that 5dIV also had this, but it´s just the way it is. According to video features this is the difference between cameras and canon don´t want to every camera has everything. For me, it makes sense, even if i would want like everybody else to see that in 5D4. Let me put you in this way....If i were to purchase a camera to shoot video, and i have the same specs in 1DxII and 5D4, wich camera i would buy? And i mean just for video. The answer is obvious, the 5d4. But instead, i have a difference....if i want 4k 50 or 60fps and 1080HD120fps i only have one choice....to buy the 1dxII. If i can live with 720hd120fps and 4k30fps then i would get the 5d4. This can make us upset, or not very happy because we need to spend more to get the best things, but....isn´t that a normal market issue?
> 
> I think we will see a new 1Dc real soon!
> 
> I only use ML for a short period of time in my 5d3 and it was long 2 years ago so i really dont remember if it increases fps, can´t help on that.



Yes, I know that 1D X Mark II exists, but it has many disadvantages. It is heavier to carry around and to fly with. It is way more expensive, and therefore scary to carry around alone, as you might be robbed.

And there is this rumor, from a test site, that the 1080p isn't as sharp as in the 1 DC. That Canon has put all their energy into the 4K, and then I would be stuck again with a camera that hasn't got 100/120fps in a usable format.

(And no, all who feel compelled to tell me, I don't want to buy a designated video camera. But I'm not complaining about the specs for stills. Canon already has all I want for taking stills.)

It's such a little thing, and it was in the rumors some months ago - that we would get 100/120fps in the Mark IV. Regarding Magic lantern I was dreaming that they could fix that, but perhaps the Mark IV would risk overheating at that speed.

5D Mark IV looks excellent in every other aspect. But I've been waiting for so many years for this one single feature: 100/120fps. I don't want to wait for another 5 years, to see if it will be there in Mark V.

Are you just hoping for a 1 DC Mark II, or have you heard something? The Canon guy in the demonstration video for 1D X Mark II seemed to think that that camera replaced the whole line in a satisfactory way.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 23, 2016)

E said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 'Needs to'?
> ...



I think he meant the EOS Cinema range (C100, C300, C500, etc).


----------



## scyrene (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



Mr. Milo said:


> > You video folk are so pesky! Buy a video camera. They shoot video.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, it's more like photographers criticising the stills capability of the Canon cinema cameras.

As for not being able to afford it, sure - but that's not really Canon's fault, is it? If your budget is tight, or you're a hobbyist, you have to make serious compromises. And from what I gather, videography is not something you can do on as low a budget as stills photography.

Edit: they could put all the features you want into a budget model, but I'm guessing that wouldn't be a very good business decision.


----------



## naylor83 (Aug 23, 2016)

One thing I hope they improve compared to the 7D2: Startup time from sleep mode.

The 7D2 is (compared to all other Canon's I've owned: 30D, 50D, 7D) slow as a sleuth booting up from sleep mode when half pressing the shutter. For some reason it is much faster when starting up from full OFF using the power switch on the mode dial.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 24, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



scyrene said:


> Mr. Milo said:
> 
> 
> > > You video folk are so pesky! Buy a video camera. They shoot video.
> ...



You can definitely shoot video on a lower budget. Actually, many people start this way for a lot of wedding related work. For some jobs, you want a great hybrid system that comes out with great color science on a smallish h.264 codec that doesn't need grading ready for a nice highlight reel deliverable. You come in with a backpack, a fluid head monopod and a few lenses and you are set. Add a second shooter/assistant and a laptop and you can add a quick same day edit in there during the reception. Those people considering this use case may not gravitate towards the 5d line because there are other options with easier workflow that can also do double duty for stills work. Right off the top, these shooters that want to shoot in 4K probably don't want to offload 64GB cards every 15mins and have to transcode to Prores on site just to be able to work on the same day edit.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 24, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



jayphotoworks said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Milo said:
> ...



Oh okay. I think of people *making films*, but wedding photography/filming is another matter. I'm not sure brides and grooms really care about the minutiae of critical quality that some people discuss here, but I defer to those with greater knowledge.

Although it's still cheaper (and a lot easier) to get 'good' stills.


----------



## davidhfe (Aug 24, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



unfocused said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Canon maintains steady profits by doing so, but there are other ways to make profit, namely, by cannibalizing yourself and your own products to find what consumers want and selling on volume. Follow the lead of companies like Apple (under Jobs), who were fearless in coming out with new and better products that cannibalized existing lines because those products were the future.
> ...



Apple's product lines absolutely compete against each other and cannibalize each other. It's probably most obvious with the iPod and MacBook lines. The HDD based iPod was very successful, but Apple relatively quickly started offering competing flash-based products, even though flash memory was still expensive and those products were on balance less profitable than the old design. The mini, then the nano, etc. Some (like the shuffle) were misses but overall the iPod maintained dominance in part by Apple not protecting the old HDD player.

This strategy doesn't preclude individual products and lines having good lifetime profit margins, as is the case with most of Apple's products. But they absolutely take a hit when tooling up new lines and if you listen to the finance calls they give guidance as such. And Apple does certainly protect certain products (Mac Pro, I'm looking at you)

Bringing it back to the camera world, an analogue might be Canon releasing a mirrorless camera that directly competed with the 5 series (which, for the record, I think they will do as soon as they're happy enough with DPAF)


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 24, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The 35 f2 IS is the greatest walk around general purpose lens I have ever used. Great for environmental portraits, killer for stitched panos when used in portrait orientation, not too big and heavy or intrusive but fast enough and the IS is a godsend. With the pixel rich 5DSr it gives a very good rendering of a 50mm perspective, which although it has gone out of favour to a large extent still makes compelling images, just stand back and crop. If I could only have one lens it would be the 35 f2 IS.
> ...



Oh no, is it my fault if you don't like it? 

One thing I really like at f2, which I know you won't use much, is the vignetting. Of course it is easily removed in post, indeed my import setting remove it by default, but I often end up putting it back on to the best of the keepers.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 24, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



unfocused said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Canon maintains steady profits by doing so, but there are other ways to make profit, namely, by cannibalizing yourself and your own products to find what consumers want and selling on volume. Follow the lead of companies like Apple (under Jobs), who were fearless in coming out with new and better products that cannibalized existing lines because those products were the future.
> ...



There is zero doubt that Apple deliberately cannibalized themselves, Jobs himself said in the iPhone keynote _"the best iPod Apple ever made was an iPhone" _.

That was no accident, they had made a very strong business with the iPod and completely ate it with the iPhone.


----------



## fraxs (Aug 24, 2016)

Anybody thinks that it will be possible to link active AF-Point to metering like the 1dx!?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 24, 2016)

fraxs said:


> Anybody thinks that it will be possible to link active AF-Point to metering like the 1dx!?


Not a chance....that seems to be a forgotten feature that's not trickling down from the 1D series / ahem...Eos-1.


----------



## Deleted member 378221 (Aug 24, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> fraxs said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody thinks that it will be possible to link active AF-Point to metering like the 1dx!?
> ...


I'm really hoping you are wrong on this one (not saying you are). I know it's not directly related, but even the RGB metering sensor trickled down from the 1D series to the 5D4. I still hope they put in the AF-point spot metering by accident by forgetting to remove it from the common firmware tree. ;D
However this is not something you usually see in specs, I'm waiting for the manual...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 24, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> fraxs said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody thinks that it will be possible to link active AF-Point to metering like the 1dx!?
> ...



+1, but if that feature is on a Nikon D5500, a guy can dream.

- A


----------



## tron (Aug 24, 2016)

I hope that the AF system of 5DIV is exactly the same with 1DxII (AF at f/8 for all points). But I am not sure it will be...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 24, 2016)

tron said:


> I hope that the AF system of 5DIV is exactly the same with 1DxII (AF at f/8 for all points). But I am not sure it will be...



I need a compelling reason why it _*won't*_ be the same. They've already nerfed the FPS to just +2 above a 5DS -- at least they could give us the proper AF setup!

- A


----------



## Deleted member 378221 (Aug 24, 2016)

The thing is that features once reserved für the very high-end models will end up in prosumer models sooner or later, then entry models much later. It is the way how you get people to buy the next generation. However Metering-at-AF-point ist not really that marketable as it's a solution to a complicated problem that not everyone has.
So in a conservative development scenario, if noone asks loudly enough for the feature, we might actually not get it for another few years.
Then again, the competition has it in their semi-pro models already. So as GMCPhotographics said one can hope.


----------



## tron (Aug 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I hope that the AF system of 5DIV is exactly the same with 1DxII (AF at f/8 for all points). But I am not sure it will be...
> ...


I truly agree and hope so. We will know in a couple of days I guess...


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 24, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



yeah they cannibalized themselves by undercutting a cheaper product with a more expensive product... 
:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



rrcphoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



#slappedbyhistory


----------



## davidhfe (Aug 24, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



rrcphoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Sorry if I'm misreading the eye roll emoji, but this is exactly what Apple did. Folks are confusing the concept of company profit with the concept of product line cannibalization.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 24, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



davidhfe said:


> Sorry if I'm misreading the eye roll emoji, but this is exactly what Apple did. Folks are confusing the concept of company profit with the concept of product line cannibalization.



By the literal definion of cannibalization, you are correct. One product stealing units from another -- regardless of price -- is cannibalization.

But trading units of Product A at Profit X for the same number of units of Product B at Profit 2X, that's mix-shift, or _cannibalization a company can 100% get behind_. 

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 24, 2016)

*Re: --> 4K Video Limitations --> Re: More Specifications & Images of EOS 5D Mark IV*



ahsanford said:


> davidhfe said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if I'm misreading the eye roll emoji, but this is exactly what Apple did. Folks are confusing the concept of company profit with the concept of product line cannibalization.
> ...



it is .. however the more traditional aspect is that you destroy a product with another one at the same price point or lower to maintain market presense.

to create a new product that superseded another .. isn't the classic usage. people act as if Apple made some giant leap of faith and courageous gamble... well no. if the iPhone bombed, they'd still have the ipod sales (obviously). if the iPhone superseded and supplanted the iPod, they were laughing to the bank.

there was no way apple was going to lose that really.

btw.. where the heck is the leaked announcement already?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 24, 2016)

Isn't the announcement date also just a rumor?  Wouldn't that just rattle everyone.

Jack


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 24, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Isn't the announcement date also just a rumor?  Wouldn't that just rattle everyone.
> 
> Jack



I wonder why canon didn't do it on 22 August, that would have been the 11 year anniversary of the 5D original.

in my little world, that would have made alot of sense!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 24, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the announcement date also just a rumor?  Wouldn't that just rattle everyone.
> ...



I should never have started reading these threads two weeks ago! 

Jack


----------



## John2016 (Aug 24, 2016)

*Finally media is waking up:* (as I posted days ago....)

*"Oops: Canon 5D Mark IV Spec Leak Might Mark Disappointment for Filmmakers"*
http://nofilmschool.com/2016/08/canon-5d-mark-iv-specs-leak-wide
*
"MJPEG continues to be the codec of choice for 4K on Canon cameras… Give me a break. The file sizes are unmanageable and it always needs transcoding. This is the codec Panasonic used as their lower-quality 720p option 7 years ago on the GH1 and subsequently dumped!

So if it is really a 2x crop EF mount camera in 4K… Oh dear…with no 4K HDMI or LOG profile, not even an EVF or articulated screen, nor a mount that can accept a Speed Booster to mitigate the crop factor, is there really any point in paying $3200 for it?

I can’t see being a more compelling buy for 4K compared to a used 1D C.

It’s a shame because Canon could quite easily have put the glorious 305Mbit/s XF codec from the XC10 in the camera along with the superb set of pictures profiles and Canon LOG. As it is the 5D Mark IV just doesn’t move things on for video based on the specs that have already come out. The only reason I’d get it is for stills and Dual Pixel AF."*

http://www.eoshd.com/2016/08/photokina-2016-preview-summary-year-video-far/

*"It turns out that with the Canon 1D C in 2012, the company was laying the groundwork for future 2016 cameras in terms of the codec. It’s just a shame the codec in question is a 1990’s one."*

*"The Samsung NX1’s 28 megapixel sensor gives us the closest idea of what the likely frame width is for 30 megapixel. In 16:9 aspect ratio it measures approximately 6500 pixels horizontally (6.5K in video terms) and 3600 pixels vertically. The Samsung sensor reads the whole 6.5K frame out to the image processor, which then down-samples to 4K in-camera. It’s extremely unlikely the full frame Canon sensor will be able to do the same thing as there’s simply no precedent for it in the range. Canon’s flagship 1D X Mark II can’t even read out a 20MP full frame image for video."*

http://www.eoshd.com/2016/08/depth-look-video-specs-canon-5d-mark-iv/



BRAVO CANON FOR THIS AMAZING 3 YEARS IN DEVELOPMENT CAMERA ;D ;D ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2016)

John2016 said:


> *Finally media is waking up:* (as I posted days ago....)
> 
> *"Oops: Canon 5D Mark IV Spec Leak Might Mark Disappointment for Filmmakers"*
> http://nofilmschool.com/2016/08/canon-5d-mark-iv-specs-leak-wide
> ...



Yawn. The new Canon camera sucks for video. The new Canon camera sucks for stills. Nikon is better. Samsung is better. Sony was better 12 years ago. The new Canon camera sucks as a paperweight. Yawn. 

Meanwhile, in the real world (as opposed to the Internet), the new Canon camera will be bought by far more people than any competitors' offerings, the whiner keyboard jockeys will be vastly outnumbered by satisfied and productive photographers and videographers, and life will go on.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> John2016 said:
> 
> 
> > BRAVO CANON FOR THIS AMAZING 3 YEARS IN DEVELOPMENT CAMERA ;D ;D ;D
> ...



I would agree that based on the rumored specs thus far, the video capabilities seem rather disappointing. But then, perhaps Canon made an active decision not to pursue a videography friendly feature set. So be it. I wish it wasn't the case, but this is first and foremost a stills camera for professional use and what looks to be a darn good one at that. 

Sony apparently doesn't do very well whatsoever with the dedicated daily use professional market like sports shooters and journalists. Anyone complaining about that? No, because that is clearly NOT what they were meant to be used for. These cameras are built well for their primary intended audience and they are going to be very happy with them.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2016)

John2016 said:


> *Finally media is waking up:* (as I posted days ago....)
> 
> *"Oops: Canon 5D Mark IV Spec Leak Might Mark Disappointment for Filmmakers"*
> http://nofilmschool.com/2016/08/canon-5d-mark-iv-specs-leak-wide
> ...



13 posts and all of them about how bad the (as yet untried) new Canon camera is at video.
Do you need a stills camera at all?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2016)

John2016]
You are wrong: "The Truth Hurts".
[/quote]
About what? I could have been talking about the 5DIII said:


> John2016 said:
> 
> 
> > BRAVO CANON FOR THIS AMAZING 3 YEARS IN DEVELOPMENT CAMERA ;D ;D ;D
> ...



Yeah, it's almost as if the guy has Truly, Really, Obviously Lost Love for Canon. Or something. (oops, thanks ahsanford!)

Seems like Canon did – or didn't – do something he wanted, and he felt slighted. Well, as they say, hell hath no fury like a...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, it's almost as if the guy has Truly, Obviously, Really Lost Love for Canon. Or something.



What's a TORLL? They sound bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rle4ivrTMfw
(Big Mike from _Chuck_ at the end!)

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2016)

John2016 said:


> CAMERA



this is the only thing you said that was true. and you don't even really know what that word is.

comments like "it would have been easy to put in.. " shows a complete lack of understanding that Canon's Video DiGiCs and Canon's Camera DiGiCs are entirely separate entities.

If it was so easy to put in the XC10's codec they would have done it with the 1Dx Mark II,that had a far greater ability to shunt heat.

They did not.

comments like "really any point in paying $3200 for it?"

show a complete lack of reality from the author of that .. and even you should comprehend that.

So expecting something different (and better) in a smaller chassis .. is just more continual whining about something really that is completely immaterial to this camera.

it was never meant to be a full fledged video camera. get over yourself that you are actually more important over photographers that actually would use this in the real world.

Go back to your Sony and horrible to grade S-LOG and consumer Codecs and good riddance.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 25, 2016)

Looks like it isn't going to be announced/released? until the 8th according to Nokishi ta

Edit: smartphone issues. ;(


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2016)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Looks like it isn't going to be announced until the 8th according to NikiS___a. Maybe a juke by Canon to fish out any moles.



link?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2016)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Looks like it isn't going to be announced until the 8th according to NikiS___a. Maybe a juke by Canon to fish out any moles.
> 
> http://www.*********.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-release-date-in-japan-is-september-8th-new-lenses-follwoing-in-october/



Announced...released. Same thing, right? :

(In case you missed the sarcasm, it seems rather unlikely – oops, more sarcasm – that they'd announce the new camera in September then the announcement of the new kit lens for it would follow in October.)


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like it isn't going to be announced until the 8th according to NikiS___a. Maybe a juke by Canon to fish out any moles.
> ...



totally. I get that


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 25, 2016)

My bad. Useful info still though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2016)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Edit: smartphone issues. ;(



Not so sure it's anything you've done – the site you linked has been guilty of some egregious past behavior, seems that the mods set up a 'bleep' for links to it. Likewise, embedded in the name of the Japanese source is an English 'four-letter word' which some type as sh!t to get around the forum software auto-replace, and it seems that forum edit killed your google translate link.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 25, 2016)

I removed the previous post as I don't like outing sites who botch the clock. Thank-you very much for contributing.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 25, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> I removed the previous post as I don't like outing sites who botch the clock. Thank-you very much for contributing.



Understood


----------



## eoren1 (Aug 25, 2016)

Man, I've been all over the place over the past few weeks and throughout the 65 pages of this thread...

Coming from a 5DmkIII (a 50D before that) and using it for landscape shots (which I sell) and portraits of kids (now getting into sports), I thought the move to the IV would be a no-brainer. I saved up more than enough over the past 4 years of using the mkIII to pay for the new body and the 24-105 lens without having to think too much about it but now that the specs and price are finalized, I don't know, it just feels like 'not enough'.

Personally, I only moved from the 50D to the 5DmkIII when I had hit the limits of that crop camera and could see my files falling apart with any push in post. The 5D has been great and I've printed at 40x60 on a few occasions using Perfect Resize with the final prints being very well received. I manually enter GPS data on all landscape shots which is a bit of a PITA but part of my workflow now. I've shot exactly 5 minutes of video in the past 4 years and over 100,000 actuations.

For the final price of $4,599 of the 5DmkIV and new 24-105 lens [source - earlier post with link since removed], I really expected something more than what is written on the final spec list. The bump up to 30MP is nice but not big enough as some have pointed out. We'll see about the final real-world dynamic range but I have very rarely found scenes where I needed to pull up shadows by 3 EV in any shot that would be worth sharing/printing. 

For all the excitement about dual pixel RAW, it ends up just being a better DLO for in-camera JPEG? Really?!?!?

I can't help but wonder if there really is a $4,000 difference between the mkIV and what I would get for selling the mkIII plus 24-105. I'm really not seeing it in the specs as I said and am not sure I've really hit the limit of what my current setup can manage. Hope this doesn't come across as anything but honest wonder from a long time Canon user (bought myself a 350D four months before my now almost 11 year old kid was born). 

E


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2016)

eoren1 said:


> For all the excitement about dual pixel RAW, it ends up just being a better DLO for in-camera JPEG? Really?!?!?



Might try re-reading that line, paying particular attention to the commas.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> John2016 said:
> 
> 
> > *Finally media is waking up:* (as I posted days ago....)
> ...



Some of these new posters are being facetious, but to be honest, as i read and re-read the leaked press release, the more I find the 5Div's video specs underwhelming. The commentary from those linked sites criticizing the video specs are not completely out of line. 

You guys out here that are dyed-in-the-wool stills shooters should go easy on us video guys for a change. I find a common stereotype when we criticize Canon is that someone will tell us to go to Sony and get lost with their "confusing menus," "consumer codecs," etc..

Not all of us want or shoot on Sony, myself being one of them.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> eoren1 said:
> 
> 
> > For all the excitement about dual pixel RAW, it ends up just being a better DLO for in-camera JPEG? Really?!?!?
> ...



Truth.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 25, 2016)

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/dslr/eos-5d-mark-iv


----------



## Wesley (Aug 25, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> No, I was answering your post the only way I can. You asked what exactly I can tell you about them, and the only thing I know for certain is that they serve autofocus. Anything regarding DPRAW would be total speculation, and thus not meet your criterion ("exactly").



That was my point.
You guys are putting all your faith in a feature (DPRAW) that you don't exactly know about. 
The sole crutch. All eggs in one basket :


----------



## John2016 (Aug 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> John2016]
> You are wrong: "The Truth Hurts".
> [/quote]
> About what? I could have been talking about the 5DIII said:
> ...


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 25, 2016)

Since the 5DIV takes the same batteries as the III, does this mean that the new camera will use the same battery grip?


----------



## smorgo (Aug 25, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> Since the 5DIV takes the same batteries as the III, does this mean that the new camera will use the same battery grip?



No. The III uses the BG-E11. The IV uses the BG-E20. The shape of the camera and the controls have more influence over grip compatibility than the batteries.


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 25, 2016)

smorgo said:


> aa_angus said:
> 
> 
> > Since the 5DIV takes the same batteries as the III, does this mean that the new camera will use the same battery grip?
> ...



Thanks for clearing that up for me. Looks like I'm selling my grip too then.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 25, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > Go Wild said:
> ...


And Canon agrees: "Canon tells us the chief requests of 5D owners were more dynamic range and resolution, as well as better AF accuracy and speed."


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 25, 2016)

I don't kkow how anyone could bash the AF of the 5DIII, it was and still is just superb. Literally second to none. Some people really have no idea what they are talking about.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 25, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> I don't kkow how anyone could bash the AF of the 5DIII, it was and still is just superb. Literally second to none. Some people really have no idea what they are talking about.


Yeah - please do remember to write to Canon so they get this right the next time they develop a new camera.  :


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 25, 2016)

I really don't want to join another 5D4 thread, so I'll post here:

1) I'm not a video person, forgive me, but how does one shoot at an UWA focal length on the EF mount in 4k with a 1.74x crop? Are sales of the Canon 11-24L / Sigma 12-24 / Tamron 15-30 VC about to skyrocket for that very reason?

2) Can we play around with the dual pixel functionality on our own with some sample files to see what it can do?

3) Any confirmation of illuminated buttons or automated AFMA? I thought that might sneak in as a second-tier sort of feature we might hear about on announcement day from first hands-on folks.

(Thanks for sparing me another 65 page thread. )

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> 2) Can we play around with the dual pixel functionality on our own with some sample files to see what it can do?



In addition to the sample RAW files, you'll need a new (not yet available) version of DPP.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Can we play around with the dual pixel functionality on our own with some sample files to see what it can do?
> ...



#shucks

- A


----------



## Deleted member 378221 (Aug 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> 1) I'm not a video person, forgive me, but how does one shoot at an UWA focal length on the EF mount in 4k with a 1.74x crop? Are sales of the Canon 11-24L / Sigma 12-24 / Tamron 15-30 VC about to skyrocket for that very reason?


There are a handful wide-angle third-party EF-S lenses that do not protrude into the body and thus can be mounted on a full frame camera. Since the 4K crop factor is greater than 1.6 those should in theory be able to cover the full "4K image circle".

Don't try mounting EF-S lenses on Fullframe unless you know exactly what I mean or it could wreck your camera.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 25, 2016)

Also -- again: ignorant with video -- I understand the kick in the butt/pride/hopes some of the video specs are, but those are wishes / keeping up with the joneses sort of things.

But this 1.74x crop for 4K seems a bit of a death sentence, doesn't it? Are documentarians and field reporters going to bounce to Sony for this?

Someone please explain to me (use small words, I'm a dolt with this) how 1.74x crop will work for videographers. Do you just slap an 11-24L on there and just tape it down at 11mm? (You can only back your feet up so much, right?) 

#vidiot #acknowledgmentofignorance #pleaseeducateme

- A


----------



## tron (Aug 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Also -- again: ignorant with video -- I understand the kick in the butt/pride/hopes some of the video specs are, but those are wishes / keeping up with the joneses sort of things.
> 
> But this 1.74x crop for 4K seems a bit of a death sentence, doesn't it? Are documentarians and field reporters going to bounce to Sony for this?
> 
> ...


I am probably the last person to talk about video since although I have 2 5D3s and a 7D2 I have only shot one video only. That was a 5 min video using my 7D2 and 500mm. I believe I could benefit in a similar situation but this is obviously the minority of cases. It would be better if the user could chose between a full frame and a one-to-one pixel mapping.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 25, 2016)

tron said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Also -- again: ignorant with video -- I understand the kick in the butt/pride/hopes some of the video specs are, but those are wishes / keeping up with the joneses sort of things.
> ...



Right, so unlike a 1:1 rig where you could swap from stills to video with the lens you have on there, wouldn't a large crop factor mean that folks who need video/stills at the same event would need to simply have a second body with a much wider lens on it just for video? (Or is that what they already do today?)

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Also -- again: ignorant with video -- I understand the kick in the butt/pride/hopes some of the video specs are, but those are wishes / keeping up with the joneses sort of things.
> 
> But this 1.74x crop for 4K seems a bit of a death sentence, doesn't it? Are documentarians and field reporters going to bounce to Sony for this?
> 
> ...



Yes, I was just thinking how nicely the 11-24 will fit my minimal video shooting needs and generally when shooting 300 X2 I need more reach so I think this is just fine for me.

Jack


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Also -- again: ignorant with video -- I understand the kick in the butt/pride/hopes some of the video specs are, but those are wishes / keeping up with the joneses sort of things.
> 
> But this 1.74x crop for 4K seems a bit of a death sentence, doesn't it? Are documentarians and field reporters going to bounce to Sony for this?
> 
> Someone please explain to me (use small words, I'm a dolt with this) how 1.74x crop will work for videographers. Do you just slap an 11-24L on there and just tape it down at 11mm? (You can only back your feet up so much, right?)



It's certainly unorthodox but you can use any third-party manufacturer's crop EF lenses to shoot 4K with the 5D4  Canon's EF-S glass intentionally does not fit but all other crop lenses are actually EF, not EF-S.


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 26, 2016)

Is the SD card slot in the 5DIV UHS-II?


----------



## tron (Aug 26, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> Is the SD card slot in the 5DIV UHS-II?


No it is not.


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 26, 2016)

tron said:


> aa_angus said:
> 
> 
> > Is the SD card slot in the 5DIV UHS-II?
> ...



Is it the same SD slot as found in the 5DIII?


----------



## tron (Aug 26, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > aa_angus said:
> ...


At least I hope it is the same found on 7DII. Much faster than that of 5DIII...


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Also -- again: ignorant with video -- I understand the kick in the butt/pride/hopes some of the video specs are, but those are wishes / keeping up with the joneses sort of things.
> 
> But this 1.74x crop for 4K seems a bit of a death sentence, doesn't it? Are documentarians and field reporters going to bounce to Sony for this?
> 
> ...


Tony Northtrop shows the difference at the end of his (excellent) preview. Looks massive to me (not into video myself but seems there are good reasons for the video crowd's disappointment).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quwAvqcbLRw


----------



## tama (Aug 26, 2016)

Well, after 42 years: bye bye Canon.

Disappointed! No flip screen, no C-log, no zebra/focus peaking, ... 
Could be simply possible; Canon, ask help from innovative customer-oriented people like Magic Lantern, 
and don't put sluggish old fashioned cardslots (why not SCSI?) in this camera. I'm a customer and 
photo/video-grapher and don't care for your C-range. So refuse to take this crippled dslr and pay a 
futuristic price for some about the date tech and specs, less or barely on par with competitors. 
Canon could easily make this the top-of-the-bill ff dslr photo/video camera (you have DP raw!) like the 5D MKII.
Only positive for me is DPAF and more pixels than needed (24MP).

Hello metabones and ...

(P.s. Our photo/video club started with 18 members, 72% Canon. Now 34 members, 38% Canon and declining...)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2016)

tama said:


> Well, after 42 years: bye bye Canon.
> 
> Disappointed! No flip screen, no C-log, no zebra/focus peaking, ...
> Could be simply possible; Canon, ask help from innovative customer-oriented people like Magic Lantern,
> ...



Wow, I guess Canon is *******. Bummer. 

(P.s. H&G : )


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 26, 2016)

Loibisch said:


> Don't try mounting EF-S lenses on Fullframe unless you know exactly what I mean or it could wreck your camera.


Did this once with my 5DII. Mirror knocked out of position. Very easy to fix (of course not recommended, but no actual disaster or damage). Don't know if it would be the same for the motor-mirror of the 5DS/R and 5DIV however.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tama said:
> 
> 
> > Well, after 42 years: bye bye Canon.
> ...



First post talking about a crippled camera? 
Sounds familiar....


----------



## tama (Aug 26, 2016)

No, Canon is not *******. Just on the wrong track for some.

First post indeed after many years of reading this and other sites. Never feel the need to respond. 
Just now (once) because it hurts after all those years, with some sidesteps. 
Had a lot fun with Canon cameras. Still good cameras for stills, but not up front others anymore. 
And this update becoming way too expensive. 
Its Canons good right to protect the C-line but there are people out there that want stills+video. 
Something Canon happily started, but now probably leaves. If they only had given Magic Lantern 
a chance with decent slots!
Suppose BMW put no ABS and radio in there 5-series to protect the 7-series...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2016)

tama said:


> Suppose BMW put no ABS and radio in there 5-series to protect the 7-series...



Well, no one really listens to the radio anymore, and if you just learn good driving technique you don't really need ABS. I jest...


----------



## d (Aug 26, 2016)

tama said:


> Well, after 42 years: bye bye Canon.
> 
> ...



Cya!


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 26, 2016)

tama said:


> No, Canon is not *******. Just on the wrong track for some.
> 
> First post indeed after many years of reading this and other sites. Never feel the need to respond.
> Just now (once) because it hurts after all those years, with some sidesteps.
> ...



An alternative reading is that canon has produced a stills camera with video functionality that a vast majority of videographers will love and will find meets their needs. 
But there is a small number who see any videography that does not meet their needs as being a deliberately crippled camera. What a sad, self-centred, egotistical way of looking at it. 

Your ABS analogy is totally screwed up:
the bottom of the range BMW has ABS but the higher end of the range has better ABS. It is not either/or. 
If you want better ABS then buy a different car.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Also -- again: ignorant with video -- I understand the kick in the butt/pride/hopes some of the video specs are, but those are wishes / keeping up with the joneses sort of things.
> 
> But this 1.74x crop for 4K seems a bit of a death sentence, doesn't it? Are documentarians and field reporters going to bounce to Sony for this?
> 
> ...



I would say the crop is not ideal for an all in one hybrid camera, but probably workable. A 16-35 2.8 would be 28mm-ish which would be wide enough for most applications. You have more flexibility to re-frame than to find 2x the amount of light in certain venues with the F4 lens.

1.7ish crop is pretty standard for the market segment of cameras I've either purchased or are considering in the next 2-3 months. The Ursa Mini 4K I've shot on is around that crop factor with EF lenses. Shooting 120fps high speed on that camera is 3.4x crop (windowed). The Red Raven is 1.76 or so with EF lenses. But these cameras can't shoot stills and I wouldn't take them with me to any run'n'gun, wedding or eng assignment.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 26, 2016)

jayphotoworks said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Also -- again: ignorant with video -- I understand the kick in the butt/pride/hopes some of the video specs are, but those are wishes / keeping up with the joneses sort of things.
> ...



Super helpful, thanks.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2016)

tama said:


> Well, after 42 years: bye bye Canon.



So because the 4th generation of a camera which line has only existed for a quarter of the time you have used and presumably owned Canon equipment doesn't have a few features, you're going to buy new cameras from a different vendor? 

I mean, okay, more power to you. I have a metabones and sony camera in addition to my canon stuff, but FWIW, the grass isn't greener, it's just a different shade.


----------



## Deleted member 378221 (Aug 26, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> but FWIW, the grass isn't greener, it's just a different shade.


Yeah, and people say Canon has the nicest colors, so why even switch. ;D

Edit: just realised, 1000th post in this thread ;D


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tama said:
> 
> 
> > Well, after 42 years: bye bye Canon.
> ...



Any psychiatrists on the thread that would like to fully explain why people are compelled to sign up to a forum to broadcast their Canon doom and gloom pronouncements? And then, there is what goes on that compels us to respond?  Maybe we could have mental health improvement classes on CR so we don't go nuts while managing this disease. 

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 26, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> And then, there is what goes on that compels us to respond?
> 
> Jack



Yup


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 26, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Any psychiatrists on the thread that would like to fully explain why people are compelled to sign up to a forum to broadcast their Canon doom and gloom pronouncements? And then, there is what goes on that compels us to respond?  Maybe we could have mental health improvement classes on CR so we don't go nuts while managing this disease.
> 
> Jack



I'm no psychiatrist, but I have to believe it's similar to folks who put up too much money on an investment that does not mature (thank goodness I don't have the try-to-get-rich-quick-on-the-market sickness -- I hear the forums on that subject are radioactively vicious). 

Besides any surface-level trolls you can skate right past, the deeply emotional 'after X years I'm leaving Canon' folks (I'm just speculating) represent folks with considerable money sunk into Canon gear that cannot be migrated to another platform. It represents trapped money and invested patience that is never fulfilled -- waiting endlessly for the perfect product that will validate their continued financial support of Canon becomes heavier and heavier the longer they wait to bail out. Eventually (for some) the levee breaks and people cut and run. Most who do this (or threaten to do so) give an epic rant before they bounce.

I could totally be wrong, of course.

- A


----------



## PhotoCat (Aug 26, 2016)

As a still shooter, after watching the live panel discussion, I find the following new features interesting:

1) focusing points more spread out vertically and horizontally than any previously released Canon, making rule of third focusing possible. (No need to focus and recompose)
2) extracts shadow details better than any Canon we have seen (other than 1DXmk2) i.e. better dynamic range
(yes, DXOmark's number for 1DXmk2 means something  )
3) looks like dual pixel raw can give "subtle" image improvements, either in focusing or in bokeh shifting.
4) touch screen focusing in video recording is nice but it is not new.
5) better and faster noise reduction engine
6) face-detection seems to help set exposure but it is not new
7) focusing seems super accurate and sensitive on mk4... (-4EV) sounds better than the excellent mk3
8) AI-level accuracy seems to have improved too.
9) the frame rate button and the "focus area/ISO" button
10) frame-grab from 4k video in camera - real nice... talking about capturing the moment!
11) wifi, love it but not new.
12) HDR video... idea from ML??

For me, just #2 alone is a good enough reason to upgrade! (Tired of Nikon and Sony shooters who
have been able to do this for years lol!)


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 26, 2016)

PhotoCat said:


> As a still shooter, after watching the live panel discussion, I find the following new features interesting:
> 
> 1) focusing points more spread out vertically and horizontally than any previously released Canon, making rule of third focusing possible. (No need to focus and recompose)
> 2) extracts shadow details better than any Canon we have seen (other than 1DXmk2) i.e. better dynamic range
> ...




I missed that in the announcement. Canon's usually pretty sharp on not giving too much new hotness to the 5D that the 1DX line doesn't get, so I am surprised to hear this. Do we have any superimposed AF point spreads of the 5D4 vs. the 1DX2? 

Only in LiveView is it -4 EV. For regular (OVF) use it will be -3 EV, which is the same as just about all recent SLRs since the 6D, I believe. But the LiveView -4 EV is new to my knowledge, which one might crack out at concerts or events where you can't use a flash. My 5D3's AF almost never lets me down, but concerts can be frustrating with it.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> PhotoCat said:
> 
> 
> > 1) focusing points more spread out vertically and horizontally than any previously released Canon, making rule of third focusing possible. (No need to focus and recompose)
> ...



I'm pretty sure it's the same AF module as the 1D X II, so the statement as written is incorrect. FWIW, the 1D X II AF point coverage was expanded in both dimensions relative to the 1D X/5DIII/5Ds.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 26, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > And then, there is what goes on that compels us to respond?
> ...



Now I must exercise more will power to simply not respond or better still when tired just un-check "notify". Since I'm not pre-ordering I think I'll un-check and get some sleep!! 

In case it doesn't show I am also frustrated that my own needs are not being met but I feel no urge to make bashing type statements. Of course I hope that Canon listens (but only to those who agree with _my_ needs).

Jack


----------



## hne (Aug 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Also -- again: ignorant with video -- I understand the kick in the butt/pride/hopes some of the video specs are, but those are wishes / keeping up with the joneses sort of things.
> 
> But this 1.74x crop for 4K seems a bit of a death sentence, doesn't it? Are documentarians and field reporters going to bounce to Sony for this?
> 
> ...




The 1.74x crop is by measuring the difference of the diagonals. The 256:135 aspect ratio of DCI 4K in a 3:2 frame contributes a 1.06x crop on its own, so the horisontal size of the 4K mode corresponds to what you'd get with a 1.63x crop factor. That's very close to the 40D crop factor of 1.62x. So, what you've got is a mode where your EF-S lenses would be nice if they'd not be designed to be hit by the mirror. But if you go for lenses like the Sigma 18-35/1.8 or the 10-20/3.5 for example, they actually follow the EF mount physical specs but only cover the APS-C sensor size. Perfect for movies on the 5DmkIV I'd say.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 26, 2016)

hne said:


> But if you go for lenses like the Sigma 18-35/1.8 or the 10-20/3.5 for example, they actually follow the EF mount physical specs but only cover the APS-C sensor size. Perfect for movies on the 5DmkIV I'd say.



Fascinating, so those two deliver EF-S image circles but from the mount end resemble EF lenses. Does the AF still work when you do that?

- A


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> hne said:
> 
> 
> > But if you go for lenses like the Sigma 18-35/1.8 or the 10-20/3.5 for example, they actually follow the EF mount physical specs but only cover the APS-C sensor size. Perfect for movies on the 5DmkIV I'd say.
> ...



I mentioned this before in this thread but you might have missed it. There are no EF-S mount lenses except those by Canon. All third-party lenses for Canon crop bodies have EF mounts and work 100% on FF bodies, modulo some amount of vignetting. And in this case vignetting is not a problem. There are quite a few crop lenses that people find more or less usable on FF even when the full sensor is used.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> But the LiveView -4 EV is new to my knowledge, which one might crack out at concerts or events where you can't use a flash. My 5D3's AF almost never lets me down, but concerts can be frustrating with it.



And presumably the LiveView AF works down to -4EV over a larger sensor area than just the center  The 80D DPAF (and presumably the 1DX2 too) also keeps working in lower light than the main AF sensor, but AFAIK this is the first time Canon has given a specific EV figure for DPAF.


----------



## pokerz (Aug 27, 2016)

jayphotoworks said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Also -- again: ignorant with video -- I understand the kick in the butt/pride/hopes some of the video specs are, but those are wishes / keeping up with the joneses sort of things.
> ...


Pro often uses external recorder like Atomos Ninja for 4k, does 5d4 support this basic function?


----------



## John2016 (Aug 27, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> John2016 said:
> 
> 
> > CAMERA
> ...



"CAMERA" - Looks like more and more people have no clue: :-* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quwAvqcbLRw


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 28, 2016)

dilbert said:


> I've yet to see any serious "videographer" say that the 5D4 delivers for them and I think the crop'd 4K mode is going to be a very hard sell.
> 
> Back when the 5D2 was announced, Canon was on the leading edge of video in DSLRs. Now Canon would appear to not care and be doing the least amount possible. Why would Canon do that? So that they don't eat their own lunch.
> 
> Rather than "hold back" their DSLRs (such as the 5D4), Canon should be doing more with the EOS Cinema line to differentiate them and make them desirable to have and use for video rather than the 5D4.



And it is the definition of the word 'serious'.
'Serious' videographers are buy definition in the minority. How many 'serious' videographers' would use a stills-priority DSLR of any description as their main camera?
Even then how many times do 'serious' videographers 'need' the full functionality of what they are offering. 

As an example I am probably not alone in saying that for 90% of what I shoot the gear I have is overkill, I have it for those 10% of times I need the functionality. Even 'serious' videographers will probably be well catered for with the 5D4 a significatn amount of the time (ie when they are shooting video 'seriously').


----------

