# Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Talk [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 12, 2016)

```
You can file this one under the “heard it from a Canon rep”, which going by past experience, rarely turns out to be accurate. However, I <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5d4.html">and others</a> have been told that the upcoming Canon EOS 5D Mark IV would be “<span class="s1">32mp with 24mp mode”. What a “24mp mode” would be beyond an MRAW setting is unknown.</span></p>
<p>All we know for sure about the EOS 5D Mark IV at the moment is that it will be announced in August for Photkina and should be in your hands by October of this year.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## d (May 13, 2016)

I'd be happy with 32.


----------



## stochasticmotions (May 13, 2016)

Now that's a rumor that might make me hold off on the 5DS I was about to hit the buy button on...we'll see.


----------



## John daniel (May 13, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> You can file this one under the “heard it from a Canon rep”, which going by past experience, rarely turns out to be accurate. However, myself <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5d4.html">and others</a> have been told that the upcoming Canon EOS 5D Mark IV would be “<span class="s1">32mp with 24mp mode”. What a “24mp mode” would be beyond an MRAW setting is unknown.</span></p>
> <p>All we know for sure about the EOS 5D Mark IV at the moment is that it will be announced in August for Photkina and should be in your hands by October of this year.</p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>



That might be with a choice of a full frame 32mp and an APSH crop factor of 24mp. Would be very nice! The 5ds has a 1.5 crop factor choice.


----------



## tron (May 13, 2016)

I hope it is just 24Mp...


----------



## RickWagoner (May 13, 2016)

24 seems too low...Then again with 4k and decent fps maybe not.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 13, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> 24 seems too low...Then again with 4k and decent fps maybe not.



Way too low, the 6DII should be 24MP, the 5DIV needs to be 30-36MP, 7-8fps. Sick of these tiny 2MP increments Canon is addicted to.


----------



## tron (May 13, 2016)

John daniel said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > You can file this one under the “heard it from a Canon rep”, which going by past experience, rarely turns out to be accurate. However, myself <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5d4.html">and others</a> have been told that the upcoming Canon EOS 5D Mark IV would be “<span class="s1">32mp with 24mp mode”. What a “24mp mode” would be beyond an MRAW setting is unknown.</span></p>
> ...


APSH crop factor is 1.3x However pixel number computation from APSH to FF or vice versa uses the square of this value (1.3*1.3 = 1.69 ~ 1.7) So if it is 32MP at FF it will be about 19Mp at APSH.


----------



## tron (May 13, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> You can file this one under the “heard it from a Canon rep”, which going by past experience, rarely turns out to be accurate. However, myself <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5d4.html">and others</a> have been told that the upcoming Canon EOS 5D Mark IV would be “<span class="s1">32mp with 24mp mode”. What a “24mp mode” would be beyond an MRAW setting is unknown.</span></p>
> <p>All we know for sure about the EOS 5D Mark IV at the moment is that it will be announced in August for Photkina and should be in your hands by October of this year.</p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>


I hadn't noticed it was Northlight. Now I am relieved. The rumor is below CR0 ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 13, 2016)

Why even post it? If you KNOW it's not reliable, why post it? Northlight is never correct. Ever. I don't get it.


----------



## K (May 13, 2016)

Not happening. 5DS is Canon's answer and then some to the D810.


----------



## unfocused (May 13, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Why even post it? If you KNOW it's not reliable, why post it?



Because without traffic there is no profit for websites.


----------



## RGF (May 13, 2016)

32MP would be very nice.

Wonder if it is true?


----------



## Simon Young (May 13, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Why even post it? If you KNOW it's not reliable, why post it? Northlight is never correct. Ever. I don't get it.



I've heard the same rumour from my local Canon rep as well, but they suggested that it wouldn't be cropping but pixel binning. Personally I dont know why the photographers that the 5d4 will be aimed at would want more than 24mpx. Most D810 wedding shooters I know run theirs in 24mpx mode. I would imagine that for wedding/photojournalism an increase in dynamic range would be preferable to megapickles and as we saw with the 5ds/r, for Canon more mpx=less DR


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 13, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Why even post it? If you KNOW it's not reliable, why post it? Northlight is never correct. Ever. I don't get it.



It is appearing other places, including this forum and Northlight. It's rare that "canon rep" rumors turn out to be true, but it has happened.


----------



## Camerajah (May 13, 2016)

32 have my attention,if it turns out to be true it better be without AA filter


----------



## RGF (May 13, 2016)

Camerajah said:


> 32 have my attention,if it turns out to be true it better be without AA filter



Hope there is an option for no AA filter but I don't think so. With the 5D series used by wedding photographers, a moire pattern would hurt Canon. I think they will go safe here.


----------



## MaxFoto (May 13, 2016)

Make it 32mp, 8-FPS, 4K video, 1-stop better DR & ISO, same AF as the 1DX II (minus the additional processor), and price it at $3200-$3500. The camera will be a huge success with those specs at that price.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 13, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Why even post it? If you KNOW it's not reliable, why post it? Northlight is never correct. Ever. I don't get it.



Even after 32 million posts, you still miss the point of a RUMORS site? 

Cheers!


----------



## Chaitanya (May 13, 2016)

32MP 7-8 FPS with 4K, that would be the most impressive upgrade to this line. I wouldn't mind upgrading to FF just for that.


----------



## unfocused (May 13, 2016)

MaxFoto said:


> Make it 32mp, 8-FPS, 4K video, 1-stop better DR & ISO, same AF as the 1DX II (minus the additional processor), and price it at $3200-$3500. The camera will be a huge success with those specs at that price.



Of course it would. Would the unicorn come with it, or would that be extra? While they are at it, maybe they should just charge $2,000 for it, after all who cares about either physics or profit?


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2016)

Mr Majestyk said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > 24 seems too low...Then again with 4k and decent fps maybe not.
> ...



As many have already covered, the 5D line (not 5DS) has historically only gotten one chip, and 36 MP x 8 fps would require more than two at present throughput -- that would be moving more data than the 1DX II!

Tempering your best possible case just a bit, 30 X 8 is about in line with the 5DS's 50 x 5, but again, that would bring a second chip to a $3500 professional camera line that heretofore only gets one for no reason whatsoever. Why would Canon do something practical and useful like that? 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2016)

The real question is: presuming your throughput is capped at one DIGIC chip, and let's presume that throughput is half of the 1DX II, what would prospective 5D4 owners want more?

24 MP x 6 fps?
28 MP x 5 fps?
32 MP x 4.5 fps?

(Hint: none of those should get you super excited.)

Again, I think Canon is batsh-- crazy to put two chips in a 7D2 and 5DS -- two completely different rigs -- and then not do same for the 5D4. Put two chips in the 5D4 and make a compelling product -- 24 x 10 fps, 28 x 8 fps, etc.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (May 13, 2016)

IMO 32 MP is too much!

I could live with it, if there were an easily recognizable improvement in IQ over the whole ISO range and ISO 3200 looking like 1600 on the 5D3, hopefully even better. But if not, Canon, please stay below 28 MP.
If IQ is not improving enough, I'd 100% skip this generation. 



RGF said:


> Camerajah said:
> 
> 
> > 32 have my attention,if it turns out to be true it better be without AA filter
> ...


Hi Guys! 

You know that your high res camera without AA filter already exists? It's called 5 DS R!
If you're not pleased with it's IQ performance, it seems that you'll have to skip one generation, too. 
Or you'll have to jump boat.
And If you're not pleased with the FPS then be sure that with 32 MP it will be at max at the level of the 5D3. 
Everything always comes with a tradeoff as well.


----------



## photo212 (May 13, 2016)

Mr Majestyk said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > 24 seems too low...Then again with 4k and decent fps maybe not.
> ...


So stop whining and buy yourself a 5DS.
Most photographers will not need huge number of megapickles. Something in the mid-20s is sufficient for most photographers. It is all about the image quality, not the image quantity. The other side to ever growing megapickles is the need for faster computing power. Do you want to drop $3500 on a new camera body just to find out you need to drop as much on a new computer, or more?

I'd be happy with the MP count going down if the image quality goes up.


----------



## Maximilian (May 13, 2016)

photo212 said:


> ...
> I'd be happy with the MP count going down if the image quality goes up.


+1


----------



## mistaspeedy (May 13, 2016)

Simon Young said:


> ...I would imagine that for wedding/photojournalism an increase in dynamic range would be preferable to megapickles and as we saw with the 5ds/r, for Canon more mpx=less DR



Actually, the 5Ds and 5DsR have the best dynamic range of all Canon sensors ever produced besides the 2 brand new 80D and 1DX mark II with onboard ADCs.
If you filter the results to show only APS-C sensors, then again, the newest Canon 750D and 760D have the best dynamic range of all Canon APS-C sensors... pixel density seems to have zero influence on dynamic range... if anything, averaging down a large number of pixels to a smaller size increases dynamic range. The same goes for Nikon (Sony sensors)... their highest resolution body also has the highest dynamic range (Nikon D810) with 36 megapixels.

http://www.dxomark.com/best-canon-cameras-for-landscape
http://www.dxomark.com/best-nikon-cameras-for-landscape

The Canon G7X uses a Sony sensor.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2016)

It could be a slight crop to allow more fps and not waste quite as much space when shooting reach limited wildlife/sports?

24MP out of 32MP is a little odd, certainly not APS-H nor APS-C sized crop.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Why even post it? If you KNOW it's not reliable, why post it? Northlight is never correct. Ever. I don't get it.



Years ago, before CR, Northlight actually used to have a great track record. Often getting things well hinted at even years before release with their roadmap leaks.

Granted the times have changed.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> The real question is: presuming your throughput is capped at one DIGIC chip, and let's presume that throughput is half of the 1DX II, what would prospective 5D4 owners want more?
> 
> 24 MP x 6 fps?
> 28 MP x 5 fps?
> ...



the years old 5D3 already does 24MP at 6fps more or less, that would be kinda crazy specs after all these years, especially since the DR seems it won't be exmor level (even if better than 5D3 for sure), the sams 24MP and 6fps?


----------



## gmon750 (May 13, 2016)

The higher megapixel count means smaller individual pixels on the physical sensor, meaning less light gathered by that pixel, meaning less sensitivity to light.

If they can make a 32MP camera with exactly (if not better) light sensitivity at ISO100, then I'm on board. Otherwise, I will gladly take it as a 24MP camera.

I don't get the option of choosing different megapixel modes. That part sounds sketchy.

Looking forward to seeing what the official announcement is. I know Canon must feel like they're under the microscope with this camera.


----------



## JohanCruyff (May 13, 2016)

tron said:


> John daniel said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...


 
32 to 24 Mpx corresponds to a 1.154 crop factor


----------



## kaihp (May 13, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > The real question is: presuming your throughput is capped at one DIGIC chip, and let's presume that throughput is half of the 1DX II, what would prospective 5D4 owners want more?
> ...


Correct, those numbers are based on 140-145 Mpixels/sec. From the 1Dx2, we know that a single DIGIC6+ should be able to push around 175Mpixels/sec. So the MP/fps numbers should be:

24 MP x 7.3 fps
28 MP x 6.25 fps
32 MP x 5.5 fps


----------



## Fleetie (May 13, 2016)

JohanCruyff said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > John daniel said:
> ...



Yeah. It's hardly gonna provide much more reach, is it?


----------



## davidj (May 13, 2016)

kaihp said:


> Correct, those numbers are based on 140-145 Mpixels/sec. From the 1Dx2, we know that a single DIGIC6+ should be able to push around 175Mpixels/sec. So the MP/fps numbers should be:
> 
> 24 MP x 7.3 fps
> 28 MP x 6.25 fps
> 32 MP x 5.5 fps



Coincidentally, the best rumour we've got for the 5D IV so far is that it's going to be 24 MP and do 7 FPS.

I'd be happy with that, and happier with 8 FPS (software improvement?), but that's mostly because I think eight is a nicer number, not because 8 FPS would be dramatically better than 7 FPS.

I sometimes think that my ideal camera would be something like 80 MP with a 20 MP mode, where the 20 MP images were exactly what they'd be if it was a native 20 MP sensor. I'd use 20 MP most of the time, but every so often it's nice to have lots of pixels.


----------



## mistaspeedy (May 13, 2016)

If the chip is the limiting factor, then I think the numbers should be slightly higher.
Those numbers are based on 14fps.... but don't forget that the 1DX mark II is capable of 16fps in mirror lockup mode (the mirror being the limiting factor for 14fps mode).

So if we do the math, we can have the following with a single chip (obviously they will round down to a full or half FPS):
24 MP x 6.733 FPS
28 MP x 5.77 FPS
32 MP x 5.05 FPS

It is possible that the 1DX mark II isn't hitting the limits of dual digic chips, and that there is slightly more bandwidth that could be squeezed out of it. So... I think at least 7fps at 24 MP and 6 FPS at 28 MP should be possible.

However, even with the above numbers, were are forgetting something very important. (if we wish to speculate about chip power).

The Canon 80D can do 7 FPS @ 24.2 MP = 169.4 MP per second.
The Canon 80D does this with an ordinary 'Digic 6' chip, whilst the chip in the 1DX mark II is a 'Digic 6+', which should be even better.

Don't forget about video processing too...
4096 x 2160 at 60fps = 530 MP/s for the 1DX mark II so the bandwidth available is even higher.

My guess of what is possible with a single Digic 6+ chip is as follows (I'm not saying Canon will decide to implement this though):

24 MP at 11 FPS
28 MP at 9 FPS
32 MP at 8 FPS
50 MP at 5 FPS

If these numbers seem unrealistic to you, I would like to point out that the Sony a6300 does 11 FPS at 24.2 megapixels.
It seems logical that Canon's top chip should be able to perform similarly.


----------



## kaihp (May 13, 2016)

mistaspeedy said:


> If the chip is the limiting factor, then I think the numbers should be slightly higher.
> Those numbers are based on 14fps.... but don't forget that the 1DX mark II is capable of 16fps in mirror lockup mode (the mirror being the limiting factor for 14fps mode).



I already accounted for the 16fps 

The 1Dx2 pushes 20.2 MP x 16 fps in mirror lockup mode with two DIGIC6+. That's 323.2 MP/sec, or just under 162Mpix/sec per processor. So the ~175Mpix/sec is above that number, but is close to what the ratio of Mpix/sec between the 1Dx and 5D3 (253.4Mpix/sec : 133Mpix/sec = 1.90:1) indicates it should be (170Mpix/sec).
The argument for upping the single-processor number slightly is the speculation that it is the 4K capability that is really the pace-setter, not the stills performance.


----------



## davidj (May 13, 2016)

Which side of the processor is the buffer?

If it's between the sensor and processor, then the speed of the processor doesn't directly limit FPS, it just determines how quickly the buffer is read.

If it's between the processor and storage, then it's only needed when cards aren't fast enough, which should never be the case when using today's fastest cards, so I'm guessing this isn't where the buffer is.


----------



## mistaspeedy (May 13, 2016)

I totally agree that the video processing is what takes most of the power, and that stills performance is not really a factor anymore... it is how much the chip can send and how fast the mirror can flip (and can the autofocus keep up with this)... it's up to Canon to set the framerate, but today, the 'bottleneck' isnt going to be the processor for stills performance - in my opinion.


----------



## keithcooper (May 13, 2016)

tron said:


> I hadn't noticed it was Northlight. Now I am relieved. The rumor is below CR0 ;D


If you'd read the quoted link you'd see I also put it in a similar context. As ever, I take most suggestions from people unwilling to use their name, with a general large pinch of salt ;-)

I don't have a problem with 32MP, it helps differentiate from a 6D2, doesn't quite reach the 5Ds and makes a 100+MP 5Ds2 look more of a jump...


----------



## keithcooper (May 13, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Why even post it? If you KNOW it's not reliable, why post it? Northlight is never correct. Ever. I don't get it.
> ...



They have indeed - the quality of rumours in general just isn't what it used to be. It's very rare that anything turns up more than a few months out that's much more than a guess.

The people who used to send the useful stuff just stopped hearing it. Canon in particular clamped down on information distribution internally.

Perhaps I should put the intro to the main Canon page in bigger type ;-)



> Please do use your common sense when reading these pages, and remember that they are here for entertainment as much as anything else. Remember that rumour accuracy plummets once you are more than a few months from any 'announcement'.


----------



## davidj (May 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 24MP is a APS-H (1.26x) crop of 38MP. i.e. the same field of view as the 1D series had.
> 
> However...
> 
> If Canon are lining up a "32" MP camera, maybe Canon is trying to develop something that can do in-cameara 8k?



8K might be ~32 MP, but that's not with a 3:2 aspect ratio. From another thread:



100 said:


> 8k = 8192 pixels wide
> With a 3:2 format sensor it will be 8192 by 5462 pixels, so you need a 44.7mp sensor for 8k
> Even if it’s not true 8k but only 8k UHD it will be 7680 by 5120 and that is 39.3mp


----------



## davidj (May 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> davidj said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Except a still camera will have a 3:2 sensor, not a 16:9 one.


----------



## mistaspeedy (May 13, 2016)

Just to clarify the video sizes... there are two main standards and the terms and often incorrectly used or wrongly interchanged.

"4K" can have two different meanings, which is why, by itself, is not enough information.

"4K UHD" is the consumer format... this is the resolution of consumer TVs and the new consumer '4K' bluray standard.

"4K DCI" is the "Digital Cinema Initiatives" professional standard for cinema.


So we have the consumer standards in a 16:9 aspect ratio:

Full HD (FHD) = 1920 x 1080
4K Ultra HD (UHD) = 3840 x 2160
8K UHD = 7680 x 4320

Then we have the professional DCI "Digital Cinema Initiatives" standards, which are usually defined in the slightly wider 1.89:1 (17:9) aspect ratio:

2K DCI = 2048×1080
4K DCI = 4096 × 2160
8K DCI = 8192 x 4320


----------



## Maiaibing (May 13, 2016)

davidj said:


> Coincidentally, the best rumour we've got for the 5D IV so far is that it's going to be 24 MP and do 7 FPS.



Please share your rumor-evaluator model! 

So far I've seen nothing that qualifies beyond speculative guessing extrapolated from existing Canon models. 

I'd take a bet on >24 MPIX. 32 MPIX actually sounds likely to me. Still hoping for 36 MPIX. 

I base this on two facts: 1) Canon's disclosure that their market research shows they underestimated customer's wish to have higher MPIX bodies. 2) Canon's statement that they want to make fewer models with larger jumps in specifications. 

While I'm extremely pleased with my own 5DSR there is ample room in the market for a mainstream 32-36 MPIX 5DIV as long as it comes with other "goodies" such as much improved high iso, better video options, better DR, higher fps, flip-screen, gps/wifi - and what else people seem to be missing from the 5DS/R.


----------



## Maximilian (May 13, 2016)

Hi dilbert! 

Maybe you're right, maybe wrong. Time will tell. And I see it like that:



dilbert said:


> But in all seriousness, how well does anyone think a 24MP 5DIV would be received by reviewers?


I suppose Canon is more interested in how this camera body is received by the people it is aimed for. 
I haven't seen a wedding photographer or photo journalist complaining over to few pixels yet.



> Canon would look like d**ks if they brought out a 24MP 5DIV and tried to sell it for $3500.


And the reviewers will look like [whateveryoulike] if they call that body crap and it still sells like hot cakes.
Time will tell...


----------



## Luds34 (May 13, 2016)

tron said:


> I hope it is just 24Mp...



+1

Of course since the 6D is more my speed hopefully this means the 6D will come in at 24mp.


----------



## digital paradise (May 13, 2016)

I have had two bodies for about 7 years now and I don't really need a 2nd one anymore. I'm tired of carrying two when I travel. I sold my 5D3 and still have my 7D2 which I really like and I can shoot with for a long time. The idea was to get a 1DX II then sell the 7D2. They don't give those away and I have never been a big fan of grips but I'll adjust if I have to. 

Since I'm not in a hurry I will wait for the official 5D4 announcement. Typically the AF systems between the 5D and 1D are pretty similar. There were many Canon blogs included both the 1DX and 5D3. Not that the 5D3 AF was bad. It was very good but I expect the 5D4 to be better. People are reporting the 1DX II has improved AF. Add anti flicker that my 7D2 has is a very good improvement.

The kicker will be megapixels and FPS. 24 probably a given which will be OK but I'll take 28 or 32. I don't need 14 FPS. The 5D4 is rumoured at 7. Only 1 more than the 5D3 so 8 would be better. We will see.


----------



## pierlux (May 13, 2016)

tron said:


> I hadn't noticed it was Northlight. Now I am relieved. The rumor is below CR0 ;D





LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Why even post it? If you KNOW it's not reliable, why post it? Northlight is never correct. Ever. I don't get it.
> ...



Hey, stop throwing mud at Northlight. It's a nice and respectable site, regarding rumors it's neither less nor more correct than any other rumor site as long as Canon stuff is concerned. Sony's, Nikon's, Fujifilm's and others' marketing stategies are usually less bulletproof and more predictable than Canon's. Life is easier at nikon-, 43-, s o n y a l p h a-, fuji- etc.- Rumors. ;D

On a side note, the rumors section is only part of what Northlight offers. Great articles, tutorials and reviews. Plus, they're based in Leicester, so this year they are WINNERS! Should the magic atmosphere expand from sport to photography-related stuff, I'd suggest Keith to invent some incredible rumor on the 5D Mark IV (28 MP @ 9 fps, dual Digic 7, 16 stop DR from ISO 100 to 102,400 and 8K video) and it may even come true, this year everything is possible in Leicester! 8)



Seriously, 32 MP is very highly unlikely. Do you really see the burst speed of the single Digic, all-rounder 5D IV drop to 4 fps? And what about the fishy “32mp with 24mp mode” statement? This rumor is BS, IMO.


----------



## unfocused (May 13, 2016)

pierlux said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Years ago, before CR, Northlight actually used to have a great track record. Often getting things well hinted at even years before release with their roadmap leaks.
> ...



The quality of rumors at all sites, including this one, has dropped significantly in the time I have been a reader. I think several things are going on:

1) Canon (and possibly other manufacturers) have tightened security;

2) The digital camera market has matured, meaning new developments are less frequent and more incremental, leaving less to write about;

3) The popularity and proliferation of rumors sites has generated more "sources" who like to see their made-up "tips" in print;

4) The authors at many of these sites have no real interest in undertaking the kind of investigative journalism needed to truly uncover insider information, but instead just sit back and let "sources" feed them garbage, which they print because it generates web traffic and revenues. In turn, other sites repeat the same misinformation because they also need to "feed the beast" and don't want to forgo traffic to their sites. (Note: I am not critical of Northlight. In Keith Cooper's case the "rumor" portion of his site is actually a very small sideline to his regular site and photography business.)

In my experience, PhotoRumors seems to be the best site for actually getting reliable information and in fact often scoops this site.





pierlux said:


> Seriously, 32 MP is very highly unlikely. Do you really see the burst speed of the single Digic, all-rounder 5D IV drop to 4 fps? And what about the fishy “32mp with 24mp mode” statement? This rumor is BS, IMO.



Agreed. I believe 24 mp is still the most likely number.


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2016)

pierlux said:


> On a side note, the rumors section is only part of what Northlight offers. Great articles, tutorials and reviews. Plus, they're based in Leicester, so this year they are WINNERS! Should the magic atmosphere expand from sport to photography-related stuff, I'd suggest Keith to invent some incredible rumor on the 5D Mark IV (28 MP @ 9 fps, dual Digic 7, 16 stop DR from ISO 100 to 102,400 and 8K video) and it may even come true, this year everything is possible in Leicester! 8)



Jamie Vardy approves this post. I hear he also prefers fewer, more sensitive pixels.

- A


----------



## keithcooper (May 13, 2016)

unfocused said:


> The quality of rumors at all sites, including this one, has dropped significantly in the time I have been a reader. I think several things are going on:
> 
> 1) Canon (and possibly other manufacturers) have tightened security;
> 
> ...



1, 2 and 3 most definitely - several times I've thought of gently retiring the rumours, but they will still be there when I finally get the re-written version of the site live. I try and include stuff I find interesting, like patents as well as the patently unlikely...

As to 'investigation' (4) I did originally think of looking further but realised it was a huge task.

There is also the fact that I work with various companies (usually under NDA) so I can't really start enquiring and publishing too much. I had a call this morning from Canon UK who are going to be sending me a pre-release PRO-2000 printer to test in a few weeks - I hope to have the PRO-1000 review finished this weekend...

Thanks to all those who commented on what the site is -really- about 

Here's one from before the crowds arrived (it's a short walk from where I live).

There's no rumour I've published where I'd give as long odds to it being true as to LCFC winning the league last summer


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2016)

But I have to reiterate my original question: *Why does a 5DS or a 7D2 get two DIGIC chips and 5D3/5D4 only gets one?*

I'm not whining nearly so much as being curious. Just spitballing some reasons:

[list type=decimal]
[*]The (presumed) higher quality video that the 5D line records requires dedicated hardware that would make a second DIGIC chip problematic to fit in the housing, supply power to, etc.


[*]The 5D4's market identity will change relative to the 5D3 -- perhaps it will be a 'video first / stills second' sort of rig where stills fps are deprioritized and a second chip isn't needed.


[*]In the 5D4 design tradeoff of being (a) sexier than the 5D3 'enough' to get people to upgrade, yet (b) not sexy enough to steal 1D sales, Canon believes it can squeeze enough performance out of one chip at something like (as a hypothetical) 24 MP X 7 fps. The fear being that a (who knows?) 28 MP x 10 fps throughput that a second chip might enable will drive shutter/mirror costs too high or will steal some 1D sales.


[*]Battery life takes a hit with two chips, right? (But surely most folks would gladly take +3-4 fps for a 20% battery hit...) This can't be the main reason, can it?

[/list]

Candidly, #2 is nuts and #4 seems a reach (as a primary reason), so I'm looking for some technical read to back up #1 or perhaps we should call this what it is -- Canon will nerf the 5D4 because they feel like it, they can get away with it, etc.

- A


----------



## unfocused (May 13, 2016)

keithcooper said:


> As to 'investigation' (4) I did originally think of looking further but realised it was a huge task.
> 
> There is also the fact that I work with various companies (usually under NDA) so I can't really start enquiring and publishing too much.



Keith,

I hope you didn't think I was critical of you for not being more "investigative." 

As I said, that's not your primary business or even the primary purpose of your site. I completely understand that. 

My criticism is aimed at the proliferation of sites that have sprung up over the past few years, which are basically just "fan" sites disguised as "insider information" sites meant to attract readers by printing anything they come across without using any sort of discretion or doing any real work.

True journalism takes time and resources. I wish that someone would actually take it seriously and do genuine and serious reporting of the photography industry. But, this is true with most business reporting, and not just photography. 

I actually hadn't thought about the conflict with NDAs that you mention, but I can certainly see how that would create a problem. 

I appreciate your candor and your willingness to engage.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 13, 2016)

Keith the whole of Britain regardless of what team they support like the Leicester City story this season it certainly turned the big four on their heads.


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> Keith the whole of Britain regardless of what team they support like the Leicester City story this season it certainly turned the big four on their heads.



How can you not? Movies will be made about this season. It's that simple. A team worth one fifth of the best teams won the league going away. Greatest sports story in my lifetime by a large, large margin. 

Closest analogy for Americans would be the 1980 Miracle on Ice carried out over an entire professional season, a 14th/15th/16th seed in the NCAA tourney winning it all, or a minor league baseball team (somehow) winning the World Series. It simply does not happen.

So, in that way, anyone who follows soccer/football is a Foxes fan this year.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 13, 2016)

Any publicity is good publicity if it means your clients are passionate about your brand and want it to succeed. Canon want like any well run company to maximise their impact when they launch a product and drip feeding information dilutes that impact its no different at say Apple who have their special launch events and always try to pull rabbits out of the hat. 
Equally the speculation generated on sites like this can be aggregated to see what are the common points people want to see and how do they fit with the project / product planning after all their is no point building something no one will buy or upgrade to. 
I dont see Canon narrowing the product mix as niche products if based off common components can drive incremental revenues which is why we saw the 5DS / 5DS r which are 5D MKIII camera clones. If Canon move up the 6D then they could still have room under it for a further FF camera this would add not deminish the product line and Im sure Canon ponder all the variables.


----------



## pierlux (May 13, 2016)

keithcooper said:


> ...
> Thanks to all those who commented on what the site is -really- about
> ...



You're welcome! 

Odd to say this on Canon Rumors, but... thanks are due to you, Northlight Images is a great resource. I'm sure the majority of CR readers already know, but for those who don't I'd recommend taking a few minutes and have a peek, you won't regret.


----------



## Maximilian (May 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Hi dilbert!
> ...


I've heard from some that complained about their workflow becoming to slow.




> Batman vs Superman was caned by the critics and made "only" $862 million because lots of people went and saw it.
> 
> Just because it made a lot of money does not make it a good movie - just something popular. Donald Trump is the most popular Republican candidate. Olive Garden is the most popular restaurant. The F-150 is the most popular car (or truck.)
> 
> Don't equate popularity (and therefore sales) with quality.


Really good analogy! Thank you for that. 
Because Canon does not want to just make the "best" camera in the world - whatever that means, 
but the best selling (!!!) camera in the world, with the best profit.

Hollywood doesn't care about the "Palme d'or de Cannes" (right now!). They care about making money whatever trash or good movie it takes. And if they get an "Oscar" in the end nobody complains.

So what do you expect Canon to deliver? A Woody Allen or Michael Haneke movie?


----------



## GuyF (May 13, 2016)

Has anyone mentioned the built-in ND filter the 5D4 will have for video (not for stills)?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2016)

gmon750 said:


> The higher megapixel count means smaller individual pixels on the physical sensor, meaning less light gathered by that pixel, meaning less sensitivity to light.



although with gapless micro-lenses and if they put circuitry on the back or make it smaller it doesn't make all that much difference at a 32MP vs 24MP level (maybe a trace but I don't you could see the difference very easily, if even at all, maybe 50MP vs 12MP you could start to see a little), now 300MP vs 24MP, especially if not using BSI and such, could make a difference though

If they can make a 32MP camera with exactly (if not better) light sensitivity at ISO100, then I'm on board. Otherwise, I will gladly take it as a 24MP camera.
[/quote]





> I don't get the option of choosing different megapixel modes. That part sounds sketchy.



It makes all the sense in the world, if done properly (i.e. like on Nikon and NOT like on 5Ds (which, absurdly, only makes it work for JPGs and not RAWs, which means it essentially accomplishes nothing, no chance to get better fps, no improved buffer performance, no savings in space on cards or HD, etc.). Why waste tons of storage space, card space, clog up camera buffer, get fps held back by processing bottle necks if you are shooting some distance limited wildlife or sports and the whole outer edge area is just waste?

Granted the 32MP vs 24MP is sort of a weird ratio for such things, maybe that doesn't make sense.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> But I have to reiterate my original question: *Why does a 5DS or a 7D2 get two DIGIC chips and 5D3/5D4 only gets one?*
> 
> I'm not whining nearly so much as being curious. Just spitballing some reasons:
> 
> ...



whatever it is, it is not #1
they used to claim space, but the 5Ds kinda proved that wrong
it's probably just internal market segmenting and trying to maximize per body profit to the nth degree


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Keith the whole of Britain regardless of what team they support like the Leicester City story this season it certainly turned the big four on their heads.
> ...



it was pretty incredible (although I'm sure the impact doesn't quite sink in the way it would to someone from the UK), it was exciting to watch them pull it off


----------



## j-nord (May 13, 2016)

30+mpix is what I was expecting for the 5DIV. Glad to see it still might be the case. I'm back to wondering if ill be going 5DSR or 5DIV or possibly even 6DII (who knows maybe the 6DII will hit 30+mpix if the 5DIV does).


----------



## pierlux (May 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> But I have to reiterate my original question: *Why does a 5DS or a 7D2 get two DIGIC chips and 5D3/5D4 only gets one?*



Hehehe!  Be careful, or this forum will coin, in addition to the EF 50mm f/1.4 L IS USM "ahsanford edition", also the EOS 5D Mark IV "Dual-Digic ahsanford Limited Edition". 

Deep Purple live in Japan, Tokyo, 17th August 1972, Ian Gillan @ engineers at the sound console, just before playing "The Mule":
"...everything up here... please... and a bit more monitor if you got it... "

sound engineer @ Ian Gillan:
"... can I have everything louder than everything else?"

Ian Gillan @ sound engineer:
"Yeah, can I have everything louder than everything else? All right..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K12-eUX8UFg



ahsanford said:


> I'm not whining nearly so much as being curious. Just spitballing some reasons:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]The (presumed) higher quality video that the 5D line records requires dedicated hardware that would make a second DIGIC chip problematic to fit in the housing, supply power to, etc.
> ...



I recall we already had this conversation. I think probably the main real reason is cost, but not the only. The 7D series got 2 because, as a mini-1Dx, requires speed. The 5Ds/sr got 2 since 2.5 fps on a single Digic would indeed be too miserable of a speed even for a studio/landscape camera, and because fps is probably only a part of the story having to deal with 50 MP of data and AF algorithms at the same time.

In a past thread it was mentioned the drop in fps occurring when the battery charge of the 5D III is below 50% or thereabouts, imagine what would happen driving the shutter + mirror + AF + more data @ 9-10 fps on a LP-E6n or whatever the battery will be called in the Mark IV... has anybody mentioned doom yet?


----------



## pvalpha (May 13, 2016)

Well... If we're daydreaming - I'm hoping for something in the 32-36mp range with 8-10fps. 

With CFast its definitely more than possible to drive 36mp (filesize would be roughly 38-42MB raw) to the card at 8fps and your buffer would still seem nearly limitless. Of course, that depends on Canon's implementation of the CFast SATA bus... 

If they were to get wacky - BSI could improve DR (further reduces the distance between the ADCs and the sensor information clusters, reducing transmission noise and power), reduce sensor noise, and actually increase the dot-pitch surface area. I do believe increasing the collection surface area might make a minor boost to light gathering ability... less photons falling on non-pool areas and more photons falling on the microlenses for the sensor pools.

Another thing would be a hybrid optical-electronic viewfinder. This would be a plus if they could get the optical transmission to a healthy percentage and build a way to project a EVF without light leaking back through the pentaprism to fubar the AF. 

USB 3.1 Type-C please. (not so much a daydream as a requirement for a lot of things.) 

And if you can put a GPS into the top - you can put wifi and bluetooth there too. *shrug* Oh, and an internal RT for the RT speedlights. 

Actually, why not put GPS in the speedlights, and sell a radio transmitter with an AF assist system. Let them triangulate position of the transmitters and the camera... It would allow you to coordinate the light sources and take that info to use in side of 3d rendering applications. With the right electronics in the flashes and the transmitter you could create a point cloud of the target using IR focus assist beams... combined with the luminance and directional information, you could create super high resolution 3-d mapped models with a couple shots. Combine with photogrammetry...  

And for the universe's sake - an articulated touch screen. Should be able to dust and weather seal it. 

Can we please chuck the AA filter? Code a software AA filter (or put some raytracing logic in the digic)... but make it something we can turn off. Even mobile phones can do this in real time for raytraced mobile games (this is not a truly valid gripe, cause its not quite that simple... but still - Daydreams!). Every optical component between sensor and the end of your lens hood can potentially degrade the IQ. Yes, this includes the microlenses on the sensor pools - but necessary evils... 

Oh, go to a smaller chip processes and cut the power requirements by 2/3rds.  Like I said, if we're daydreaming... lets daydream. 

If you want something that would be worth $3000-$3500 USD... do it right. Cake! And eat it too!


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2016)

pierlux said:


> I recall we already had this conversation. I think probably the main real reason is cost, but not the only. The 7D series got 2 because, as a mini-1Dx, requires speed. The 5Ds/sr got 2 since 2.5 fps on a single Digic would indeed be too miserable of a speed even for a studio/landscape camera, and because fps is probably only a part of the story having to deal with 50 MP of data and AF algorithms at the same time.



The 7D2 needs more throughput to be speedy for wildlife. Agree.

The 5DS needs more throughput to not have a medium-format low fps rate due to massive files. Agree.

_...and the 5D4 needs more throughput to differentiate itself from less expensive cameras._ Better AF and video alone will not justify a 5D4 at $3500 over 6D2 at $2000.

The argument that a *crop wildlife rig* warrants extra processing horsepower and a *FF landscape/studio rig* warrants extra processing power implies a professional all-arounder like the 5D4 might warrant it as well. The implied corollary to your argument -- the 5D4 is middle of the road in resolution and framerate and therefore doesn't need that throughput -- is entirely a construct of Canon's. One more chip, and pow, plus 3-4 fps and folks might be getting really excited about it.

- A


----------



## kaihp (May 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Keith the whole of Britain regardless of what team they support like the Leicester City story this season it certainly turned the big four on their heads.
> ...



Denmark winning the 1992 European Football Cup, after loosing out the spot in the Cup to Yugoslavia in the preliminaries, and then called in from vacation when Yugoslavia gets a ban due to the civil war.

Interestingly, both the Leicester and Denmark 1992 Cup story involves a Schmeichel as a top goalie 
Those were the days, and they ain't coming back again! (They did a movie about the Miracle of 1992).



ahsanford said:


> One more chip, and pow, plus 3-4 fps and folks might be getting really excited about it.


I would be lining up to cheer if the 5D4 got a better AF system and 8-10FPS over a 24MP/7fps incremental bump, but I must have gotten old, grumpy and pessimistic, because I just don't see it coming.
Why? Because Canon.


----------



## unfocused (May 13, 2016)

Sorry to be mean, but many of the comments here are laughable. 

Fact: The 5D IV will be better than the 5D III.

Fact: The 5D IV will not be as good as the 1D X II.

There isn't that much space between the two, so if people are realistic it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what is likely and what isn't.

Fact: Canon has done extensive market research and knows what features they need to include.

Fact: If it doesn't have the features you want, no amount of whining on the Internet will change the fact that your desires do not reflect what a majority of buyers consider important.

Fact: Arguing over processors is pointless. Canon will use whatever processor is needed to provide the feature set they have already determined is needed for the camera to sell. In other words, the features drive the processor. The processor does not drive the feature set.

So, for those of you dreaming of unicorns, you might as well start composing your rants now.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 13, 2016)

With the recent price rises in Canada and June increases in Europe of 10% Canon will struggle to get the sales volumes they have had for the 5D MKIII. UK inflation is around 2% that's reflected in pay settlements so there will be a disconnect and given the various promotions they have had prior to this increase it will get tougher if they want them to stick.


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> [Responding in line below]



Fact: The 5D IV will be better than the 5D III. --> this is guaranteed.

Fact: The 5D IV will not be as good as the 1D X II. --> largely but not categorically true. The 5D4 will have a higher resolution sensor than the 1DX II (which may not be important to you, but it matters to some). It also will be considerably smaller and lighter. Also, 5D4 folks may get an exclusive new feature like the silent shutter, anti-flicker, etc. that we've seen in the past. :

Fact: Canon has done extensive market research and knows what features they need to include. --> undoubtedly true.

Fact: Arguing over processors is pointless. Canon will use whatever processor is needed to provide the feature set they have already determined is needed for the camera to sell. In other words, the features drive the processor. The processor does not drive the feature set. --> then Canon believes the 5D3 crowd doesn't need much on the throughput end to move users to the 5D4. Burst rate and MP count will not climb tremendously with the 5D4, so _ it had better offer a hell of a sensor._ And it's not whining or complaining at all. I rarely shoot at 6fps on my 5D3 today. I'm simply asking why a $3500 camera is worthy of less throughput than a camera currently priced at $1499. 'Because Canon doesn't need to give it any more horsepower to get us to buy it' may 100% be true, but it's still a pretty flat answer.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



Dilbert -- respectfully, I'm not buying it. The 5DS has two chips in the same damn housing for (what we will assume) will be a similar 5D4 asking price. The only cost-confounding element to putting another chip in the 5D4 is if it forces a costlier/sturdier shutter/mirror design due to the increased fps, which makes sense.

It may turn out that Canon absolutely _could_ put a second chip in, but the added throughput would simply put the fps up above a threshhold Canon marketing believes it might jeopardize 1DX II sales. That's still my #1 reason why we'll likely only see one chip -- to cap fps at a nice but not stellar value. 7-8 fps makes sense as a 'better than the 5D3 but not 1DX II threat-worthy', as has been discussed elsewhere here at CR.

- A


----------



## Cheweyhead (May 14, 2016)

Any ideas of whether the 5d4 body will be similar to the 5d3? Trying to decide whether to purchase (preferred) or rent an underwater housing. Kinda of need it sooner than later.


----------



## NaturaLight (May 14, 2016)

I NEED FPS, NOT MPs!!!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 14, 2016)

NaturaLight said:


> I NEED FPS, NOT MPs!!!



Get a 1DX, they will be cheaper than a 5D MkIV anyway.


----------



## pierlux (May 14, 2016)

Premise: should the 5D mark IV be priced US $ 3,500 and sport dual Digic, 28-32 MP @ 9-10 fps I will be so happy, enthusiastic and incredibly surprised about it that I will violate my solemn vow of not being an early adopter this time instead of waiting for the 6D Mark II announcement before deciding where to put my money, and preorder it at day one zero. Better, I'll obtain it a few days before the official release in Italy by way of my "fast tracks" I already took advantage from for both the 5D II and 7D II.

BUT... Canon are a business firm. They stay (healthy) in the market. Someone says about them they're greedy marketers. I say it couldn't be otherwise. Therefore,



ahsanford said:


> ...
> One more chip, and pow, plus 3-4 fps and folks might be getting really excited about it.
> 
> - A



At which cost? Would such a camera be offered for less than US $ 4,000-4,500? Excitement would immediately turn to disappointment.

Ahsanford, I love talking with you and, as once neuro said to me, I admire your optimism. But I respectfully think you're overoptimistic. And it isn't a matter for Canon of cannibalizing sales of other cameras, I may be wrong, but I think Canon don't care a rat's a$$ where their income comes from, be it from a rebel or from their flagship. They simply can't offer a camera which, when ungripped (thus powered on a single LP-E6n (or LP-E20 or whatever)), sees its burst speed drop to 5 or less fps as soon as the battery charge drops. That's Nikon's style, not Canon's. I will publicly apologize if this happens, but, really, I don't see Canon releasing a camera which enables higher frame rate only when gripped + 2 batteries, or sporting a "crop mode" to allow more fps. It simply isn't Canon's style. I'm a Canon shooter by chance, but I feel lucky I am. 13 years ago, coming from film (Olympus), I was unaware of what the future of digital imaging was going to set aside for us. I went Canon because they offered a 6 MP DSLR for 1,000 Euros, that's it. Now I feel proud and privileged to be a Canon shooter because I don't have to deal with tightrope walker specs, oil-sputtered sensors, exploding batteries, heartache service, 1-2 years lifespan products and so on, not to mention the "ecosystem" (lenses, free software and so on).

I (optimistically) expect more than an incremental upgrade in MP, fps and features such as GPS and WiFi: auto AFMA for one, feel free to add your plausible guess for the sake of plausible talkabout. But, 32-36 MP, dual Digic and 9-10 fps for US $ 3,500 or thereabouts (also given the expected forthcoming rise in price for us western buyers) is way too much optimism even for an optimistic guy as I am.



unfocused said:


> Sorry to be mean, but many of the comments here are laughable.
> 
> Fact: The 5D IV will be better than the 5D III.
> 
> ...



I think this sums up well what to expect with respect to the the 5D Mark III replacement.


----------



## mb66energy (May 14, 2016)

Just an idea to explain the coexistence of 32- and 24 MPix modes in a camera:

*R G* is the Bayer pattern for a quadruplet of photosite filters.
*G B*

Perhaps they have found an algorithm to fold that information into a RGB format omitting the 4th pixels data storage needs in the raw file. Smaller raw files with a slight loss of quality - if this happens on the sensor bus and cpu load will be reduced. Perhaps they use a 16bit ADC so the data can be folded more efficiently from 4 photosites to 3 ADC values ...?


----------



## Curmudgeon (May 14, 2016)

I'll go with Simon Young and a lot of others here who are wondering why, given current technology, anyone would actually want 32 MP on an all-around camera such as the 5D. I get it that depending on their type of photography, people frequently are blind to how deficits in certain features can be limitling for the types of photography they don't do. As primarily a landscaper, I've experienced the real-world challenges presented by the DR of Canon's sensors. I also know that if you bring the subject up on this forum there are plenty of folks eager to brand you a dilettante, a troll who should just go out and take pictures and learn to overcome the limits of the equipment.

I don't want to duplicate that kind of ignorance, but I'm genuinely curious about the value of 32-36 MP on an all-purpose camera. I can certainly think of the drawbacks. People with more technical expertise than me have disagreed on this thread about how much of a penalty high MP extracts in relation to fps, DR, file size, price, high ISO performance, etc. It may be more or less depending on the feature, but however small, it's always an inverse ratio in relation to MP. I remember when Nikon's 36 MP D3 came out. Reviewers and National Geographic photographers marveled at its stunning, almost medium-format resolution in a compact package you could lug up mountain passes into the world's scenic wonders. But universally, they also cautioned that to actually see the benefit of all that resolving power, you needed to shoot under almost clinical conditions: a heavy tripod, mirror lockup, remote or timed release, etc. The optical physics of 36 MP haven't changed. Who among the target market for a general-purpose full-frame camera shoots predominately under those conditions? Photojournalists, wedding photographers, studio portraitists, general assignment freelancers, street shooters, passionate amateurs? I doubt it.

O.K., say the magna-megapixelers, but as a landscaper, surely you can appreciate the value of 32-36 MP? Not really. To start: I know from experience how I lose the most shots, and if 32 MP means the 5D4 doesn't finally come into the 20-teens in DR, I'll stay with my 5D2. Or sadly, reluctantly, expensively, make the switch to Sony. Call me a troll. And there's this: take an expertly shot 24 MP exposure. Print it at 300 dpi across the centerfold of the glossiest of art magazines. Now do the same with a 32 MP shot. If you say you can tell the difference I'm pretty sure you're lying.

If you make your living traveling the arts and crafts fair circuit selling 4' prints, I can see where 32-36 MP would be of value. But that's what? Point 01% of the 5D market? And if raw resolution is the _sine qua non_, wouldn't you be better off with the 5Ds/r? And what are the real determinants of IQ? Why don't 1Dx(x) shooters complain about the fact that their cameras have fewer MP than the same-generation 5D, not to mention some cell phones? I don't mean to be tendentious. But it seems as if megapixelers want all the 5D's quick-focusing, high-ISO advantages lacking in their high resolution 5Ds/rs. And they want it without a price surcharge.

But I'm willing to have my mind changed. Explain to me why I should want the next 5D to have 30+ MP.


----------



## C-A430 (May 14, 2016)

We keep hearing (well, reading) that 5D4 must not jeopardize 1DX2, as if 1D was a consumer product.

Nikon caught up with Canon 10 years ago, allover lineup except 1D series. Actually, I think D5 is the first time they matched Canon 1D. Sony doesn't even try to compete in this category. 
5D can not jeopardize 1D. Those paying $5,999.00 will not just say: "5D will do the job".

Canon HQ, boardroom, dusk
[dramatic music playing]

Executive #1:
"5D should have 4K and a new battery"

Executive #2:
"We should add flagship autofocusing as well."

Executive #3:
"That will drive the price up. I say then we must add 1D weather sealing!"

Executive #1:
"Sounds familiar! Don't we have that same camera already?"

Executive #4:
[extreme close-up]
"But 5D gives you 19% megapixels more !"


----------



## symmar22 (May 14, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> NaturaLight said:
> 
> 
> > I NEED FPS, NOT MPs!!!
> ...



+1000

To all those who want FPS not MPs, the 1Dx or 1Dx2 is custom made for you, it's not an all round camera contrary to the 5D series. It's a camera for serious sport, real action, police duties and so on. Plus it's got only 18 or 20 MPs. The camera for action is already here, it's called 1Dx(2), if you are so in need for 8 , 9 or more FPs, then you need the 1Dx(2) because it's designed for it, from the battery output to the mirror frame. 8 FPs is already a specialized use for a camera. 

It seems lots of people rave for super high FPS at low cost, well the option is a mirrorless camera or a pellicle mirror like in the old EOS 1N RS, simply because you eliminate all the complexity of developing and adjusting a mirror that can flap 10 times per second with no harm done. The bigger the mirror the more difficult and expensive to make.


----------



## nvsravank (May 14, 2016)

So that Magic Latern can work and give functionality that canon 'doesn't' want to give. 


ahsanford said:


> But I have to reiterate my original question: *Why does a 5DS or a 7D2 get two DIGIC chips and 5D3/5D4 only gets one?*
> 
> I'm not whining nearly so much as being curious. Just spitballing some reasons:
> 
> ...


----------



## Maiaibing (May 14, 2016)

NaturaLight said:


> I NEED FPS, NOT MPs!!!



Its called EOS 7DII. Available for sale any given day. Enjoy.


----------



## dak723 (May 14, 2016)

Curmudgeon said:


> I'll go with Simon Young and a lot of others here who are wondering why, given current technology, anyone would actually want 32 MP on an all-around camera such as the 5D. I get it that depending on their type of photography, people frequently are blind to how deficits in certain features can be limitling for the types of photography they don't do. As primarily a landscaper, I've experienced the real-world challenges presented by the DR of Canon's sensors. I also know that if you bring the subject up on this forum there are plenty of folks eager to brand you a dilettante, a troll who should just go out and take pictures and learn to overcome the limits of the equipment.
> 
> I don't want to duplicate that kind of ignorance, but I'm genuinely curious about the value of 32-36 MP on an all-purpose camera. I can certainly think of the drawbacks. People with more technical expertise than me have disagreed on this thread about how much of a penalty high MP extracts in relation to fps, DR, file size, price, high ISO performance, etc. It may be more or less depending on the feature, but however small, it's always an inverse ratio in relation to MP. I remember when Nikon's 36 MP D3 came out. Reviewers and National Geographic photographers marveled at its stunning, almost medium-format resolution in a compact package you could lug up mountain passes into the world's scenic wonders. But universally, they also cautioned that to actually see the benefit of all that resolving power, you needed to shoot under almost clinical conditions: a heavy tripod, mirror lockup, remote or timed release, etc. The optical physics of 36 MP haven't changed. Who among the target market for a general-purpose full-frame camera shoots predominately under those conditions? Photojournalists, wedding photographers, studio portraitists, general assignment freelancers, street shooters, passionate amateurs? I doubt it.
> 
> ...



You have given all the good reasons why it should not. Yes some folks want the additional MPs to be able to crop more. But you have explained very well why, unless they use a tripod and use other shake resistant techniques, they won't see much better resolution than their old 18 to 24 MP camera. And folks don't get the physics of higher MPs = higher noise and lower DR. So, just hope that Canon gets it and can resist the pressure from the gear heads who think higher numbers equal better.


----------



## Maiaibing (May 14, 2016)

Curmudgeon said:


> I remember when Nikon's 36 MP D3 came out. Reviewers and National Geographic photographers marveled at its stunning, almost medium-format resolution in a compact package you could lug up mountain passes into the world's scenic wonders. But universally, they also cautioned that to actually see the benefit of all that resolving power, you needed to shoot under almost clinical conditions: a heavy tripod, mirror lockup, remote or timed release, etc.



What to say other than they were universally wrong (if indeed they said this nonsense). _There is nothing you need to change_ when going from 8 to 12 to 14 to 36 to 50 to 100 MPIX. You can get some added advantage through careful technique, but there's no optical downside on the contrary every lens you own will perform better as MPIX goes up.

There are of course other considerations: need for an updated PC, the current technical limits of MPIX vs. noise levels, internal processing power etc. But optical drawbacks: No.



Curmudgeon said:


> The optical physics of 36 MP haven't changed. Who among the target market for a general-purpose full-frame camera shoots predominately under those conditions? Photojournalists, wedding photographers, studio portraitists, general assignment freelancers, street shooters, passionate amateurs? I doubt it.



I enjoy my 50 MPIX every day. That covers: photojournalist, general assignment freelancer, street shooter & passionate amateur. 8)



Curmudgeon said:


> And there's this: take an expertly shot 24 MP exposure. Print it at 300 dpi across the centerfold of the glossiest of art magazines. Now do the same with a 32 MP shot. If you say you can tell the difference I'm pretty sure you're lying.



Every time I sell to a magazine the always ask for one thing: The very largest file size available. And this is a specific request. Always. Magazines know what they prefer - and their conclusion is clear and unanimous: bigger is always better.



Curmudgeon said:


> But I'm willing to have my mind changed. Explain to me why I should want the next 5D to have 30+ MP.



Why should you change your mind? Use the tool that gives you the results you need. Just remember that the needed tool may look very different for others.


----------



## Etienne (May 14, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> NaturaLight said:
> 
> 
> > I NEED FPS, NOT MPs!!!
> ...



Exactly! The 5D series is not designed to be a sports monster.
Buy the right tool, don't use a screw driver to hammer in a nail.


----------



## hendrik-sg (May 14, 2016)

*32MP = 8k*

32 MP would allow for 8k, maybe we will see this on a 1dx Mark IV anytime next decade ;D


----------



## Etienne (May 14, 2016)

I am cautiously optimistic about the 5DIV. I am hoping that Canon will deliver a game changer, something that thrills like the 5DII did when it was first released.

I really want a camera that can do great photos AND great video at the flip of a switch, with great ergonomics. It's a tall task but I believe that Canon is best positioned to pull that off, and the 5DIV might just get there. If not, I'll probably stay with my 5DIII / Sony PXW-X70 combo and wait and see what the C100 mk III offers. 

The kit I really want is:

C100 Mk III with full sensor DPAF that works with all Canon lenses
5D Mk IV with full sensor DPAF, [swivel] touch screen
EOS-M4 with full sensor DPAF, swivel touch screen

All of the above with a 4K option. This is a kit I could fly with, manage alone or with 1-2 assistants, deliver great quality, multi-camera shoots, in almost any circumstance, at an affordable price.

I really think Canon is in the best position to do this kind of kit. Hopefully soon.


----------



## kaihp (May 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The price also has a lot to do with how many processors are on board. Cameras are engineered to achieve a (profitable) price point as well as a feature set - nothing comes for free. Want another processor? Sure. How much more is everyone willing to pay for that camera? Yeah....
> ...



I'ts been a decade since I last worked on large digital IC designs, but I would say that the pure _manufacturing cost_ of a DIGIC 6+ processor is in the order of USD10, maybe USD15. This is based on a number of assumptions on die size and testing cost, but if it would grow a lot bigger (= more expensive), it would also be likely to consumer more power.

Now, the pure die cost is just a part of the total cost of adding a second processor. There's die testing cost, soldering, incremental (decremental?) manufacturing yield loss and board test cost. I would assume that Canon can reuse the dual-processor firmware from the existing products (1Dx, 5Ds, 7D2), so I don't see a cost increase from there.


----------



## Ph0t0 (May 14, 2016)

*Re: 32MP = 8k*



hendrik-sg said:


> 32 MP would allow for 8k, maybe we will see this on a 1dx Mark IV anytime next decade ;D



How does 32MP equal 8k?


----------



## d (May 14, 2016)

*Re: 32MP = 8k*



Ph0t0 said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > 32 MP would allow for 8k, maybe we will see this on a 1dx Mark IV anytime next decade ;D
> ...



It doesn't. On a 3:2 sensor, you need a bit over 39MP to achieve native 8k UHD resolution (7680×4320) - people are forgetting about the differing aspect ratios of a full-frame stills sensor vs. the 16:9 ratio for UHDTV.

d.


----------



## AdamBotond (May 15, 2016)

Etienne said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > NaturaLight said:
> ...


It is most certainly not. But you can go for 5Ds if you want high MP and then you can crop however you want. You are not happy with the DR and low light capabilities of the 5Ds? Then you will have to make a compromise with the 5D IV with lower MP, but better DR, high iso, and faster fps (even if some of you dont care about it). Because this is what 5D IV is going to be. A good compromise between a sports camera and a high MP beast.


----------



## jrista (May 15, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



Dilbert, why do you persist? I don't think a single person on these forums has any respect for your arguments. I myself find them...bewildering most of the time to say the least, and often just...ignorant. You really gain NOTHING by sticking around these forums and continuing your crusade... It certainly isn't going to gain you any respect, and only raises the ire of Neuro most of the time. You should seriously cut your losses and find an environment of like minded individuals...or just move on to better things in life. It isn't worth wasting away your life being the one ultra-contrary voice on a forum full of Canon fans.


----------



## tron (May 15, 2016)

What I fail to understand is why some people ignore the fact that even Nikon has 2 24Mp FF cameras. Why Canon can't? Canon does not have a 36Mp camera but there are 2 flavors of 50Mp FF cameras.Also 810's successor will have the 42Mp excellent Sony sensor so it is (will be) 5Ds(R) competitor. So we are left with the lower Mp range: D610,D750 - 6D, 5D3 (or their successors). Both vendors have many models available to choose from. I understand about the need for more cropping capabilities but there is 5Ds(R) for that.

And by the way if Canon instead of increasing the megapixels in their 5Ds(R) models use the new 
technology they will make them shine...


----------



## Don Haines (May 15, 2016)

jrista said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


Jon, Thomas Payne may have said it best.....
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead"


----------



## tron (May 15, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> NaturaLight said:
> 
> 
> > I NEED FPS, NOT MPs!!!
> ...


And a high megapixel EOS is called 5Ds(R). I believe you have one. There is no need for another called 5DIV


----------



## jrista (May 15, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Heh. Don't think I could have put it better...


----------



## unfocused (May 15, 2016)

jrista said:


> Dilbert, why do you persist? I don't think a single person on these forums has any respect for your arguments. I myself find them...bewildering most of the time to say the least, and often just...ignorant. You really gain NOTHING by sticking around these forums and continuing your crusade... It certainly isn't going to gain you any respect, and only raises the ire of Neuro most of the time. You should seriously cut your losses and find an environment of like minded individuals...or just move on to better things in life. It isn't worth wasting away your life being the one ultra-contrary voice on a forum full of Canon fans.



Hey, Dilbert has made a lot of progress in the past year. Of course, he started from a very low bar, but I detect an effort on his part to at least try to be slightly less uninformed and irrational. Yes, at times it seems like he takes two steps backward after taking one step forward, but that's not always the case. (although in this case, he is certainly dead wrong. To digress briefly, the entire debate over processors has been silly and back*sswords. To repeat, the processors do not determine the feature set. The desired feature set is determined first and that decides the processing power needed.)

If you need an example of Dilbert's progress, review some of the recent silliness over DPReview. He's been much more rational and fair during the DPReview Witch Trials than the ubersensitive individuals who cannot seem to comprehend the whole concept of what a "review" actually means.

I'm not comfortable trying to drive anyone off of this site. I've seen too many talented, professional photographers give up in frustration because a handful of ultra-prolific commenters want to be self-appointed experts on everything.


----------



## Ozarker (May 15, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Sorry to be mean, but many of the comments here are laughable.
> 
> Fact: The 5D IV will be better than the 5D III.
> 
> ...



Some ARE already ranting.


----------



## timcz (May 15, 2016)

Never fear everyone - I decided not to wait and purchased my 5dsR the other day, so judging by my previous luck, they'll announce full specs within the week, then everyone can start arguing again with a bit more certainty.


----------



## nvsravank (May 15, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ...
> 
> I'm not trying to argue that processors have anything to do with features (in this thread), rather that they don't come for free. A Canon 5DIII with multiple DIGIC chips is going to be more expensive than a Canon 5DIII with a single DIGIC
> 
> ...


Dilbert, you tend to take it to extremes. While it is true that adding any functionality / hardware has additional cost, we here in the forums don't know the actual costs for Canon. We can only speculate. 

While there is additional cost, what we can only do is to look at possibilities. Now look at it this way:
Canon has delivered higher throughput in a 5D enclosure in the 5Ds. They have done it at a price similar to the 5D range. 

Are the costs going to be the same as 5Ds to include a second processor in the 5D IV? No. They would need to change firmware to handle DPAF, and on chip ADC that are expected (hoped for). 

But we can see rationally that if Canon deems it is necessary to have that functionality, they can do it in the price envelope. 

So we ask for it hoping that canon will hear us. 

What is wrong with it?


----------



## romanr74 (May 15, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



How is life at Shutter Island?

Just asking.


----------



## slclick (May 15, 2016)

Wow, the sheer power of the CR1 has certainly raised some hackles with the 'Canon ala carte personal specification sensor and feature program' participants.


----------



## pierlux (May 15, 2016)

Everyone here appears to be focused on cost, as concerns the possibility for the 5D IV to have dual Digic to allow more fps.

I've already mentioned at least a couple of times in this thread that I *suspect* cost is not the main determiner for the choice of limiting the speed in a 5D body, but battery power it is. It seems nobody is interested in discussing this possibility which I suggest might be the main reason for limiting speed. Let's use unfocused's way to analyze the facts.

fact: the 5D series is an ungripped body. Its specs are defined around the power which a single battery can deliver.

fact: the 5D III suffers from a fall in speed as soon as the battery charge falls below a certain percentage.

fact: the 7D II reaches 10 fps, but it's APS-C. The energy required to move its tiny mirror and re-cock the smaller shutter probably amounts to less than 1/3 of that required to achieve the same task in a full frame equivalent system (yet, but this may be a mere coincidence, a new, slightly more powerful battery was introduced along with it, the LP-E6n).

fact: there are cameras which need to be gripped, and with 2 batteries inserted, to achieve full speed.

We had a CR2 rumor claiming a new battery grip (BG-E20) is coming, then another CR1 rumor, reporting some specs, indicating 7 fps and a new battery (LP-E20). It is entirely possible that Canon had to develop a more powerful battery just to allow that single fps improvement in the 5D IV.

Any speculation based only on cost, disregarding the REAL limitations engineers must confront with when deciding which compromises to make in designing a camera, is flawed.


----------



## nvsravank (May 15, 2016)

Isn't 7d ii a dual chip machine? In a similar size enclosure? With the same battery? With 20mp to 28 mp adding some difference but nothing to worry about.
Maybe that is why nobody is taking on that train of thought. 



pierlux said:


> Everyone here appears to be focused on cost, as concerns the possibility for the 5D IV to have dual Digic to allow more fps.
> 
> I've already mentioned at least a couple of times in this thread that I *suspect* cost is not the main determiner for the choice of limiting the speed in a 5D body, but battery power it is. It seems nobody is interested in discussing this possibility which I suggest might be the main reason for limiting speed. Let's use unfocused's way to analyze the facts.
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2016)

nvsravank said:


> Isn't 7d ii a dual chip machine? In a similar size enclosure? With the same battery? With 20mp to 28 mp adding some difference but nothing to worry about.
> Maybe that is why nobody is taking on that train of thought.
> 
> 
> ...



Seems _your_ train has left the thought station without you on it. Might want to re-read his post, I highlighted a rather important but that you left out.


----------



## pierlux (May 15, 2016)

nvsravank said:


> Isn't 7d ii a dual chip machine? In a similar size enclosure? With the same battery? With 20mp to 28 mp adding some difference but nothing to worry about.
> Maybe that is why nobody is taking on that train of thought.



It is. In fact, we already extensively covered that matter. 20 [email protected] fps and advanced AF algorithms require the processing power of dual Digic. In the 7DII, a single battery is enough to power all that stuff. In a full frame equivalent of the 7DII, that wouldn't be enough, even disregarding the higher PM count.

What I'm saying is we must consider things it their entirety. The picture is not complete when focusing on single aspects, i.e. the cost of introducing a second chip in the 5D IV. I don't believe in conspiracy theories and I don't believe in "intentional crippling" of a product to "protect" sales of other products. And, actually, I don't think an "evil mind" at Canon decides not to allow 9-10 fps in the 5D IV because a second chip would rise the cost of it. It would, but I think not much. A few $ at worst.

The 5D IV will most probably run on a single Digic. And, on a side note, all the Magic Lantern users will rejoyce.


----------



## Don Haines (May 15, 2016)

pierlux said:


> nvsravank said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't 7d ii a dual chip machine? In a similar size enclosure? With the same battery? With 20mp to 28 mp adding some difference but nothing to worry about.
> ...


and to further confuse the issue, there is the possibility of a Digic 7, which would presumably have more computing power than the dual processors of the 7D2.....

The thing is, we don't know the code of the AF algorithm and if it works better on a dedicated processor, or if it can share a faster processor, or what the bandwidth limitations are of a new processor with A/D on chip, or what buffer sizes they will use, or a host of other questions. All we can do is speculate without firm data to back up our opinions and the result is a never ending argument....

Perhaps it has a digic6 for AF and a Digic 7 for data


----------



## Don Haines (May 15, 2016)

pierlux said:


> Everyone here appears to be focused on cost, as concerns the possibility for the 5D IV to have dual Digic to allow more fps.
> 
> I've already mentioned at least a couple of times in this thread that I *suspect* cost is not the main determiner for the choice of limiting the speed in a 5D body, but battery power it is. It seems nobody is interested in discussing this possibility which I suggest might be the main reason for limiting speed. Let's use unfocused's way to analyze the facts.
> 
> ...


Quite correct, power is a limitation that either requires drastically improved battery technology to overcome, bigger/more batteries, or much more efficient electronics.

Power also brings its friend heat into the equation....yet another variable that keeps cameras from running flat-out, particularly for those who like video and live-view.... When you run down the battery you can pop in a fresh one, but heat is a lot harder to deal with...

Heat and power are why the 1DX2 is such a large heavy beast.... Unless Canon wants to make the 5D4 similarly large, they can't go very far down that path, and as a result, power and heat are one of the main design hurdles.


----------



## mb66energy (May 15, 2016)

I see only roughly 500mW average power for each the shutter and the mirror at 10 fps for a FF system (@10% efficiency). Resulting in 10 images per Joule electrical energy per second (1W). LP-E6 keeps 45 000 Joules energy (equivalent of 1.5 ml of gasoline).

CPU power should be in the region of 10 Watts (or 10 Joules per second).

A better argument is maybe the force on the mirror components which urges the switch from "simple materials" (some carbon fiber reinforced plastics) to very special materials (carbon fibre hand woven in moonlight) between ~ 6 fps and 8 fps.

The price of the cpu is IMO negligible and in the region of some dollars - maybe Canon selects them by operating voltage/max frequency and sells the slower ones in Powershots etc. so nothing is wasted.


----------



## pierlux (May 15, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ... All we can do is speculate without firm data to back up our opinions and the result is a never ending argument....



That's the fun of it! Speculating, guessing, being corrected by others - there's always someone who knows something more - it's a way to get educated, I've learned a lot of things on CR, thanks to all of you! 



Don Haines said:


> Perhaps it has a digic6 for AF and a Digic 7 for data



Similarly to the 1DX, which has a dedicated Digic 4 for AF? Doubt it, but, if there is, Digic 6 would be overkill. BTW, does anyone know if the 1DX II has a dedicated Digic for AF, too? I'm too lazy to go and check now...


----------



## pierlux (May 15, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Power also brings its friend heat into the equation....yet another variable that keeps cameras from running flat-out, particularly for those who like video and live-view.... When you run down the battery you can pop in a fresh one, but heat is a lot harder to deal with...



Good point. Actually, engineers have to deal with so many constraints and variables the vast majority of which we common mortals have absolutely no idea they even exist. This awareness further reinforces my convinction that no intentional crippling, no conspiracy exists. Of course, the marketing department has always the last word, but a Company which wants to stay healthy in the market just can't overlook profit.


----------



## kaihp (May 15, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> I see only roughly 500mW average power for each the shutter and the mirror at 10 fps for a FF system (@10% efficiency). Resulting in 10 images per Joule electrical energy per second (1W). LP-E6 keeps 45 000 Joules energy (equivalent of 1.5 ml of gasoline).
> 
> CPU power should be in the region of 10 Watts (or 10 Joules per second).



Be careful not to compare average and peak current capacities.

A good analogy for a battery is a barrel of water with a tap (or hole) at the bottom. The *barrel size* is equivalent to the battery capacity (mAh). The *tap size* is equivalent to the battery's peak current delivery.

You cannot get more water out of the barrel on a sustained basis than what is set by the size of the tap. If you need more water (current) than what the tap can deliver, but only at intervals, you can 'stage' the water into a smaller bucket, which has a larger tap (which can be turned on/off). Close the tap of the staging bucket, fill it up, open the staging tap, get a big splash. Repeat.


Even though the driver for the mirror is active for a fraction of the time*, maybe 5-8 of the time at max FPS, the current needed while it's driving the mirror that can be crucial in terms of the battery ability to deliver that current.
Let's for a moment assume that your 500mW average is correct, and that the SlomoGuys video is reliable (I measured a 15msec mirror-up time). At 7.4V and an on-time of 15msec and off-time of 110ms (the 7D does 8fps), that would be 500mW/7.4*(125ms/15ms) = 563mA. Yikes!

A CPU power consumption of 10Watts is way out of line for two reasons. First, the camera wouldn't be able to get dissipate that without getting _very_ hot, _very_ quickly. My guess would be less than 500mW. Secondly, the battery won't be able to sustain such current draw.

To get a bound for the power consumption, I looked at a day when I took 2500 shots with a 5D3, with relatively little chimping. The battery was full in the morning, and had ~27% power left at the end. That's 1800mAh*(1-27%)/2500 shutters = 0.53mAh/shutter actuation, or 0.146mAs. If everything is consumed by the shutter in 15msec/167msec** that's a peak of 5.85mA. Power for all the electronics, the memory card, screen, lens AF and IS needs to be deducted from this.

Now, the actual numbers can definitely be debated, as the are plenty of ass-u-me's in here. If we had real data for the power used by the various modules it would be much easier to say something more precise, but I do believe that the above values should be in the right ballpark.

*) The mirror-up time is 15msec for a 7D, if the video from The Slo Mo Guys is reliable and I measured it correctly.

**) 6fps for the 5D3.


----------



## jrista (May 15, 2016)

unfocused said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Dilbert, why do you persist? I don't think a single person on these forums has any respect for your arguments. I myself find them...bewildering most of the time to say the least, and often just...ignorant. You really gain NOTHING by sticking around these forums and continuing your crusade... It certainly isn't going to gain you any respect, and only raises the ire of Neuro most of the time. You should seriously cut your losses and find an environment of like minded individuals...or just move on to better things in life. It isn't worth wasting away your life being the one ultra-contrary voice on a forum full of Canon fans.
> ...



Not trying to "drive" him off the site. Just trying to free him from an endeavor that will never gain him anything. It isn't worth it. He could be enjoying the time he usually spends here doing something else, rather than always having everyone look down on him, even if it is usually for good reason. 

There is more to life than...this forum. Than always fighting a losing battle.


----------



## jrista (May 15, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



*SMH* Wow. He came to your defense, man.


----------



## Don Haines (May 15, 2016)

dilbert said:


> <snip>
> I'm not trying to argue that processors have anything to do with features (in this thread), rather that they don't come for free. A Canon 5DIII with multiple DIGIC chips is going to be more expensive than a Canon 5DIII with a single DIGIC
> <snip>



Why is anyone arguing this? Of course it costs more to put in extra circuitry...... Is there anyone out there who thinks that it doesn't?


----------



## pierlux (May 15, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> I see only roughly 500mW average power for each the shutter and the mirror at 10 fps for a FF system (@10% efficiency). Resulting in 10 images per Joule electrical energy per second (1W).



I respectfully think you underestimate this aspect, even if not by much. This is not a case of constant, linear motion. The inertial mass is low, but its movement implies sudden, extremely fast repeated and frequent acceleration.

I'm not sure what you mean by @10% efficiency: do you mean that 90% energy is wasted as heat? Or rather you estimate a 90% efficiency for the motor? If the latter, though true that the latest electrical engines reach such efficiency, again it's not true for small motors and linear EM actuators, especially when engaged with gearwheel connected mechanisms which dissipate energy, and undergoing repeated frequent cycles of opening/closing of an electrical circuit. Anyway, I agree the power required is in the order of a few W units. But, lacking any evidence, this is pure guessing, we may both be wrong.



mb66energy said:


> CPU power should be in the region of 10 Watts (or 10 Joules per second).



Based on the images of the CPU and the fact it doesn't require the presence of a heatsink, I'd say less than 10 W, more approx 2-4 W.



mb66energy said:


> The price of the cpu is IMO negligible and in the region of some dollars - maybe Canon selects them by operating voltage/max frequency and sells the slower ones in Powershots etc. so nothing is wasted.



Totally agree. I'm sure they do exactly this, like Intel do. Nothing is wasted.



mb66energy said:


> A better argument is maybe the force on the mirror components which urges the switch from "simple materials" (some carbon fiber reinforced plastics) to very special materials (carbon fibre hand woven in moonlight) between ~ 6 fps and 8 fps.



Concerning both the effect on overall cost and the possibility of fps limitation, that's another valid point.
_ _ _ 

And, at the end, there's the significant power required by the attached lens for focusing and IS which has to be taken into account.


----------



## davidhfe (May 15, 2016)

We can (and no doubt will!) discuss battery capacity and cpu throughput until August, but the reality is a 24mp, 6.5FPS FF camera already exists at the $2000 price point. While there are no doubt challenges bumping that up to a round 7fps that doesn’t drop when a battery is at 50%, it'd be legitimate to question a $1500 premium for it.

For the extra money, it seems reasonable that the 5D4 would need to exceed expectations in at least one of the "core" feature areas (MP, AF+Meter system, FPS, sensor quality). Thankfully, I'm not the one at Canon who gets to figure out what that is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > <snip>
> ...



Well, you know dilbert. He likes to argue, even if only with himself. 

While no one with any sense would argue that an additional chip would be 'free' to Canon, it likely would not add to the cost to consumers. Maybe in dilbertland Canon would charge $3301.27 for a camera, but in the real world it wouldn't lead to a $100 increase, but rather a slight decrease in Canon's per-unit profit...which is ample reason not to include anything that's not deemed necessary.


----------



## PFerrara (May 16, 2016)

I have a 70D. I upgraded to it after 5 years with a T1i. I love it for the 7fps I get when shooting my son's swim meets & soccer games. Video is good too, but I rarely use it. But it is my camera for everything and when used at indoor family events with poor lighting it struggles. 

I would rather have clean images than more megapixels and the ability to crop. 

I want to upgrade to a FF for the better low light performance, but want the decent fps so I can still use it for the kids sports. 

So here's hoping for 7+ fps, some good low light performance and built in GPS would be nice for all the national park trips we like to take.

Reading through these comments, many seem to think that for Canon, this is a zero sum game. That is, one camera's sales will/may take away from another. I'm choosing to believe that the $$ guys at Canon are going to launch this camera with an eye toward taking market share from the Nikon and Sony camps. If they do, then I think we are all going to be very happy.


----------



## pvalpha (May 16, 2016)

It took me until just five seconds ago to realize something: a plethora of people who speculate here don't actually have fun - they speak every word as though its truth or falsehood might be some slight against the purest core of their existence. Either that, or they just don't use enough emoticons.  

Most of a processor's cost is in its development. And even then, that cost is likely minimal in a Digic - if only because its a lightweight processor - on a par with an ARM driven package. If they've designed it correctly and are using an appropriate process, the cost per chip is negligible. Each package equates to about $100-$200 of the consumer price, assuming a top of the line brand new design. Thus a dual CPU package is about $200-$400. Which is piddily compared to the other components in a camera in the X series. 

Power - again, arguments can be made, but the draw is probably somewhere in the 1500-3000 milliwatt range at max draw. So double would be 3w to a maximum of 6w - and that's a peak number. For most processes, the device is going to sip power at somewhere in the 300-700 mW range per package. Its probably the fourth most power hungry system in the camera, following the sensor, lens, and shutter/mirror assembly. 

So if the device required it, I see no reason why canon would not use a dual processor system if it gave them the ability to give the 5DmIV an edge over its direct competitors and to make it attractive to those who own its predecessor. 

As for Megapixels - this is the one thing Canon is more likely to focus on in this camera. Its been their end game for the last few generations with it and its the one thing they are okay with the 5 series outperforming their 1 series cameras on. And they don't really have to do much to achieve a decent jump from iteration to iteration. Moores law dictates that computational capacity doubles roughly every 18-24 months. The Digics, unlike most high end CPUs are likely nowhere near that threshold and have probably another decade before their designs start pushing the limits of physics. Assuming a spherical cow... You're probably going to see a practical gain of 20%-30%. So taking a 22.4 megapixel sensor and taking it up to 29.12 megapixels or thereabouts should be easily done without any drastic changes in design or capabilities while imparting the same image performance. Canon could also achieve a similar gain by switching to back side illumination on the sensor without changing the performance of the processor. Or they could put in two processors for another 20%-30%. 

The latest Digics support C-Fast. You could pump 32 megapixel raws to the c-fast card at 10fps. So if you have a moderate buffer (4gb), you could easily sustain a 10fps burst for 12 seconds before experiencing a mild falloff to about 9.6 fps (due to the transfer delay from file to file) until the card was filled. For UHS-II, the maximum fps rate to card would be about 7fps at 32mp, and about 8fps at 29.12mp but there is no sign the digic system supports UHS-II SpeedClass 3. ISO 100-400. More noise = more megabytes after lossless compression so... *shrug* 

Canon is unlikely to put 10fps on the 5DmIV. 8fps might happen, but odds are we will see 7fps so that either CFast or UHS-II cards can offer near "limitless" buffer given a fast enough card and keeping the high speed buffer storage down to a minimum. Its this that will take $$$ out of the cost of the electronics as memory is the most expensive component in the system due to how fast it must be in order to transfer data from sensor through to the processor(s), then back to the card. 7fps will require a small push to the AF system, but they can just take what the 7DmII already has and adapt it. They would likely also need to dampen the shutter a bit better. 

If they wanted to make a sensor capable of being used for 8k DCI video, they'd need something in the 42-50mp range. Which would be limited to about 3-6fps at buffer exhaustion depending on storage types. They'd also need an 8gb buffer to store a significant amount of raws. And if they wanted to improve noise performance, they'd need to switch to BSI, as there's a law of diminishing processor returns once you start taking the pixel density to where the 7DmII and 5DS/r are unless you have appropriately increased processing capacity. I'd say that's a 2020 or so thing. 

Again, that's assuming that canon isn't in its usual conservative "Thou shall not cannabilze thy sales" mode. But I really have a hard time not seeing canon bump to 29-32 mp, as it would cost them little to do so. And because of the 4k video (assuming its there and uses mjpeg) they really have nothing to lose. You're going to need CFast media for that so you're already going to have to make the investment in the cards. They wouldn't lose sales or performance with the megapixel bump. If they forego the 4k video... or use a highly compressed format... then UHS-II and CF would work just as well... and you'd only need a 24mp sensor. Although I think such a iterative upgrade would lose more new customers than bumping up would lose existing customers, and would make them even farther behind the field when it comes to video capability. 

My two cents... for what its worth.


----------



## scyrene (May 16, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Perhaps, just perhaps, because I'm not a "fan boi", I don't behave irrationally when it comes to reviews. And maybe, just maybe, not being a "fan boi" means that in general, I'm less irrational in general regarding Canon but because *everyone else here* is caught up in emotional ways with Canon, the irrational appears rational and the rational appears irrational.
> 
> Just saying.



I think believing *everyone* else is of one view and your contrary one is somehow superior is called megalomania.


----------



## mb66energy (May 16, 2016)

kaihp said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > I see only roughly 500mW average power for each the shutter and the mirror at 10 fps for a FF system (@10% efficiency). Resulting in 10 images per Joule electrical energy per second (1W). LP-E6 keeps 45 000 Joules energy (equivalent of 1.5 ml of gasoline).
> ...



Limitations of current flow in batteries are well known to me. Cameras use two mechanisms to overcome the problem of needed peak loads: Capacitors which are charged permanently and discharged in fractions of Milliseconds to supply vast currents. Spring mechanisms can also be charged mechanically and release their energy in Milliseconds. I am shure Canon uses both energy storage mechanisms.

I designed a power supply for a small hifi power amp with much higher voltage stability compared to a 12 Ah lead battery -- just by using a 7812 voltage regulator and 2 x 10000 uF (16V and 12V side). The capacitors are low ESL types for spontanous power delivery.



kaihp said:


> A CPU power consumption of 10Watts is way out of line for two reasons. First, the camera wouldn't be able to get dissipate that without getting _very_ hot, _very_ quickly. My guess would be less than 500mW. Secondly, the battery won't be able to sustain such current draw.



I am shure that you cannot operate a camera (edit CPU during high speed image aquisition at 500mW -- I meant the power consumption during a 10 fps period (should have stated that more pronounced). During idle phases I am with you that it goes down to some 100 mW.

10 W for 2 secondes is 20 Joules. You can "heat" up 5 ml water by one degree or 5 grams of magnesium by 4 degree C.

Or think about video: My EOS M handles ~ 30 min video with a 6Wh battery - resulting in 12 Watts continuous power dissipation. Maybe one reason to equip that camera with a metal shell to avoid hot spots.



kaihp said:


> To get a bound for the power consumption, I looked at a day when I took 2500 shots with a 5D3, with relatively little chimping. The battery was full in the morning, and had ~27% power left at the end. That's 1800mAh*(1-27%)/2500 shutters = 0.53mAh/shutter actuation, or 0.146mAs. If everything is consumed by the shutter in 15msec/167msec** that's a peak of 5.85mA. Power for all the electronics, the memory card, screen, lens AF and IS needs to be deducted from this.
> 
> [...]



I agree with your first step (marked red). 0.53mAh * 7 V = 0.00053Ah * 3600 s/h * 7 V = 13 J
So you need 13 Joules per shot or 80 Joules per second (6 fps) - this is 80 Watts or a stronger incandescent lamp. Under real conditions it is "only" 20 or 30 Watts because processing and storing the data is done for several seconds after the initial data acquisition.

Obviously cameras can handle the power dissipation of several tens of Watts easily if used under normal conditions.


----------



## symmar22 (May 16, 2016)

pvalpha said:


> It took me until just five seconds ago to realize something: a plethora of people who speculate here don't actually have fun - they speak every word as though its truth or falsehood might be some slight against the purest core of their existence. Either that, or they just don't use enough emoticons.
> 
> Most of a processor's cost is in its development. And even then, that cost is likely minimal in a Digic - if only because its a lightweight processor - on a par with an ARM driven package. If they've designed it correctly and are using an appropriate process, the cost per chip is negligible. Each package equates to about $100-$200 of the consumer price, assuming a top of the line brand new design. Thus a dual CPU package is about $200-$400. Which is piddily compared to the other components in a camera in the X series.
> 
> ...



Thanks for reminding us a bout the fun factor, it's sometimes lacking here, especially with that anti-Dilbert campaign running these days. :

Thanks as well the detailed post, with interesting speculations and reminding us about ARM processors.

Though IMO, your 100$ price per unit seems quite high to me, I would have thought about anything between 10-30$ per ARM CPU, I thought the point of ARM was to be (relatively) simple, energy efficient, low cost CPUs. For 100$ you have an entry level Core i3.

As for 8K video, I think we are far from it, it took already some time that we could talk about 4K.

BSI sensors seems for now out of reach for Canon, or IMO the technology would have been included in the 1Dx2.


----------



## mb66energy (May 16, 2016)

pierlux said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > I see only roughly 500mW average power for each the shutter and the mirror at 10 fps for a FF system (@10% efficiency). Resulting in 10 images per Joule electrical energy per second (1W).
> ...



After answering kaihp's words I think I have underestimated the fraction of power consumption for the mirror and shutter mechanisms.

With 10% I meant that only 10% of the electrical energy go to the mechanical energy of the mirror motion. I calculated the energy of a rotating box of the size of the mirror at the typical rotational speeds and multiplied it by 10 to incorporate the losses for the driving mechanisms.

But I now see a reason for a large power consumption: Perhaps the components are accelerated AND decelerated with electrical power to gain better control over vibrations and add some speed for the overall process.

You mentioned the lens: You are right. Moving 100 grams in 10 msec for 2 cm needs some energy!
EDIT: Backing it up with a simple calculation: One move "costs" 0.2 Joule mechanical energy and with 20% conversion efficiency 1 Joule electrical energy. And this is ONE move - not a situation of tracking over larger distance variations.
The 13 Joule per shot which are derived from kaihp's use case are more and more understandable ...


----------



## romanr74 (May 16, 2016)

pierlux said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ... All we can do is speculate without firm data to back up our opinions and the result is a never ending argument....
> ...



Why don't you have your wife look that up for you... It sounds like she must be used to doing thing for you...


----------



## pierlux (May 16, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



She can't... she doesn't exist. I got married, then separated, finally divorced (1993-1999). Had another important story but never married again, we had 2 children. Again separated, we still have an excellent relationship, we support each other, daughter & son never suffered from separation. Never had others do anything for me, but the opposite is the rule. I'm happily single, that's why I can cultivate a lot of hobbies and stay for so long on CR .

As for the dedicated Digic, yesterday I checked. There is one Digic 6 for RGB metering, so Don was not wrong to hypothesize the 6, but I was, twice :-[. First because I assigned it to AF and second because I said I thought the 6 was overkill.


----------



## nvsravank (May 16, 2016)

pierlux said:


> <snip>
> 
> As for the dedicated Digic, yesterday I checked. There is one Digic 6 for RGB metering, so Don was not wrong to hypothesize the 6, but I was, twice :-[. First because I assigned it to AF and second because I said I thought the 6 was overkill.
> <snip>



Doesnt the metering grid also help in facial recognition and object tracking for the AF to perform? While the chip is said to be for metering in marketing literature I always also thought it is necessary to help with the faster AF also even if the direct AF calculations are done in the other chips.


----------



## pierlux (May 16, 2016)

nvsravank said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > <snip>
> ...



I don't know, really. But, as concerns the 1DX, the brochure reports:

" An all-new, 61-Point High-Density Reticular AF and 100,000-pixel RGB Metering Sensor that uses a dedicated DIGIC 4 Image Processor"

so I'd say "uses" refers only to the RGB metering sensor. Can't say why I thought the extra DIGIC processes the AF routines, my memory tricked me. Same story in the case of the 1DXII, except for the 360,000 pixel RGB+IR sensor and dedicated DIGIC 6.

I might have read something in the past mentioning AF, but also I may have simply been wrong yesterday. I don't remember.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2016)

pierlux said:


> nvsravank said:
> 
> 
> > pierlux said:
> ...



The metering system is necessary for iTR-driven AF, so in that sense the additional (older) Digic processor for metering is supporting AF.


----------



## pierlux (May 16, 2016)

Oh, and thanks mb66energy, kaihp, pvalpha and the others for taking the time to talk about batteries & power. I've been looking for some information about the power requirements of cameras' subsystems since yesterday, but didn't find numbers. Patents also report diagrams and drawings, but no numbers. We can only guess.

The only certain and indisputable fact is that the sensor is the most power hungry component. We all know that when filming or in live view, it drains the battery very fast. But we often forget that when shooting a burst, it is however so much avid that it by far outclasses in hunger all the other subsystems put together.

So, during a burst, the battery has to feed a lot of players: lens' AF and IS and relative logic, mirror and shutter, AF module, metering sensor, camera chipset, memory cards and, most of all, an avid sensor. No wonder the power supply of new camera models require constant upgrades. The old BP-511 of the EOS 10D was 7.4V x 1100mAh, today's LP-E6n is 7.2V x 1865mAh, will the next (LP-E20?) top 2000mAh?

<sarcasm> Want more than 7fps? Start an online petition asking Canon to do like Nikon did. Ask for a 5D IV featuring 7fps ungripped, 9-10 gripped with 2 batteries. A hack will soon be available which enables the "unlock" of the "feature". Now you'll be able to shoot 10fps ungripped (with a full battery). Shoot until the battery explodes. Bash Canon on the internet. Ask for a replacement under warranty. Repeat. </sarcasm>


----------



## pierlux (May 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The metering system is necessary for iTR-driven AF, so in that sense the additional (older) Digic processor for metering is supporting AF.



Thanks neuro!


----------



## davemody (May 17, 2016)

Doesn't it seem obvious that the lower resolution would be used to reduce image noise? By combining pixels in a 36 Mpixel sensor, you could effectively have a large low pixel count sensor that is good for low light, and when you have great light you shoot at the higher pixel count. 

-Dave


----------



## mb66energy (May 17, 2016)

davemody said:


> Doesn't it seem obvious that the lower resolution would be used to reduce image noise? By combining pixels in a 36 Mpixel sensor, you could effectively have a large low pixel count sensor that is good for low light, and when you have great light you shoot at the higher pixel count.
> 
> -Dave



That was the reason I have been interested in the 5Ds(R) cameras: Combine 4 (RGBG) sensor photosites into one RGB pixel for imaging. But I decided to try FF as a "format" and bought a 5D classic.
I have observed that the sensor resolution of the 5D classic is sufficient for 60x90cm prints (24x36inch) if I have done everything right. Resolution of my lenses matches the sensor so I have a "100% efficiency from lens to sensor", images are fine on the pixel level. The 12 bit ADC and low resolution make RAW preview and manipulation a breeze on a 3 yr old core i7 PC, much faster than RAWs of EOS M or 600D ... which have 18MPix but are not great down to the pixel level (noise, lens errors).

But scaling down from 32 to 24 MPix cannot reduce noise dramatically -- there must be another reason to do that. My idea is that they fold the information of the red, blue and two green pixels efficiently into a format that has red, single green and blue values to produce smaller filesize of the RAWs without to much loss of quality ... and while writing this: What about the idea to use the DPAF subpixels as subpixel triplets to get full color information for each final image pixel? So we are at (32 * 2 subpixels) / 3 = 21.3 MPix ... you need some processing to convert these triples into the matrix of an image but you would have FULL COLOR INFORMATION for each image pixel ...

Bold italic: Subgroup of 3 pixels
[R_*R*_] [_*G*_G]
[GG] [_*B*_B]


----------



## Ozarker (May 17, 2016)

I've got to say that I really do not understand the demand for GPS. Nothing against it. I just don't understand it.

With GPS one does give up some privacy, just like with a cell phone or your car's navigation system.

If I go to the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Devil's Tower etc... I know where I took the photos. Is this for social media? I just cannot imagine why people looking at the photos would need the GPS coordinates.

Everyone likes the features they like. Maybe some pro photographers need GPS, yet photographers made it without it for many years. I don't know. Maybe some publications require it. I just know that I don't need to pinpoint where I saw a bison roaming the range.

For me, personally, I couldn't care less about it.

I know others do. That's fine with me.

Same with Wifi: As far as weddings go, I suppose that brides want stuff to go straight to social media via wifi. I just don't get why. Maybe people are getting very self obsessed and I think it is a bad thing and bad form.

Or, I'm just too old (52). 

The wife and I have started turning the cell phone off when we leave the house. If somebody needs to get hold of us they can leave a message... just like the good old days. I can go about my business and do what I want to do without somebody calling me up during the grocery shopping, a conversation with a friend, or a meal out. I don't use it for email or social media either.

As far as social media goes... nobody has 100 friends and relatives they need to keep tabs on. Nope. My life nor theirs is that interesting. People with hundreds or thousands of friends? Never happens. Nobody can maintain that many relationships. "My Aunt Millie had a stroke today!" 75 people click "Like". They aren't even thinking when they click. Does anyone need a selfie everyday (arm extended, same pose, different background).

Okay, done with my venting.   

I have nothing against these technologies. They just aren't for me.  If somebody else likes them... have at it. ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Diko (May 17, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> As many have already covered, the 5D line (not 5DS) has historically only gotten one chip, and 36 MP x 8 fps would require more than two at present throughput -- that would be moving more data than the 1DX II!


 While a valid argument still forget not that there must be a difference between *DIGIC 6+* and *DIGIC 7*. ;-) It is viable for the new gen. image processors to be able handle half the frames rate for about 50% additional MPs. And it will be the new gen. I bet on that.


----------



## kaihp (May 17, 2016)

Diko said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > As many have already covered, the 5D line (not 5DS) has historically only gotten one chip, and 36 MP x 8 fps would require more than two at present throughput -- that would be moving more data than the 1DX II!
> ...



I just saw ahsanfords comment above and wanted to point out that the 1Dx2 pushes 20.2MP x 16fps = 323MP/sec, which is more than the 36MP x 8fps = 288MP/sec he suggests, so that would still be within the performance envelope of two DIGIC 6+ processors.
The DIGIC 7 is already introduced in the G7 X Mk II (20.1MP, up to 8fps).


----------



## symmar22 (May 17, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I've got to say that I really do not understand the demand for GPS. Nothing against it. I just don't understand it.
> 
> With GPS one does give up some privacy, just like with a cell phone or your car's navigation system.
> 
> ...



I am with you here, I wouldn't like to have a GPS tracker in my camera either, plus these things always leak energy somehow. As for the WiFi, can live without it, but if it's included I'll take it.

Note : I leave my mobile off as much as I can as well


----------



## Don Haines (May 17, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I've got to say that I really do not understand the demand for GPS. Nothing against it. I just don't understand it.
> 
> With GPS one does give up some privacy, just like with a cell phone or your car's navigation system.
> <snip>


Any file that I put on the web has had the metadata removed from it, so I have no worries about people data-mining my pictures.....

Besides, On the Day I got my 7D2 I turned the GPS off....... I suppose that some day I should turn it on to test that it works..... maybe in 2018.... or 2019....

For me, GPS is a feature that has no appeal.... but I am not self centered enough to demand that nobody gets it. After all, Canon would not have put the feature in if there was not a significant demand for it and probably figures it will increase sales.


----------



## Etienne (May 17, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I've got to say that I really do not understand the demand for GPS. Nothing against it. I just don't understand it.
> ...



GPS and wifi can both be turned off. Touch screen too. So these should be non-issues.
I leave my phone Location service (GPS) off 98% of the time, but every once in a while it is extremely useful.
One of my friends uses his 6D GPS when hiking, because it tracks his route, which he likes to use later.

I would probably leave GPS and Wifi off most of the time on my 5DIV when/if I get it, but I'll be glad to have the option.


----------



## unfocused (May 17, 2016)

I wouldn't mind having GPS on vacations. Then my wife wouldn't have to correct my captions all the time.


----------



## pierlux (May 18, 2016)

I wish I had GPS also in the film era. I have a ton of pictures I don't remember where I shot them. Some others I know the country, but not the location. GPS is a great feature which, as already noted, can be disabled.



CanonFanBoy said:


> ...The wife and I have started turning the cell phone off when we leave the house. If somebody needs to get hold of us they can leave a message... just like the good old days. I can go about my business and do what I want to do without somebody calling me up during the grocery shopping, a conversation with a friend, or a meal out. I don't use it for email or social media either.
> 
> As far as social media goes... nobody has 100 friends and relatives they need to keep tabs on. Nope. My life nor theirs is that interesting. People with hundreds or thousands of friends? Never happens. Nobody can maintain that many relationships. "My Aunt Millie had a stroke today!" 75 people click "Like". They aren't even thinking when they click. Does anyone need a selfie everyday (arm extended, same pose, different background).



Ha! Where do I click "like"? Oh well, never mind... +1!

Never had a Facebook account (or it's said profile?), nor have I ever thought of opening one. No Linkedin. No Twitter, either. I don't use social media. To me, there's nothing more antisocial than social media. I mean, c'mon, buzz me and have a beer together! Figure out, there's no comparison! 



CanonFanBoy said:


> ...I have nothing against these technologies. They just aren't for me.



Like! ...Ehm, same here


----------



## Ozarker (May 18, 2016)

pierlux said:


> I wish I had GPS also in the film era. I have a ton of pictures I don't remember where I shot them. Some others I know the country, but not the location. GPS is a great feature which, as already noted, can be disabled.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yup!


----------



## Diko (May 19, 2016)

kaihp said:


> The DIGIC 7 is already introduced in the G7 X Mk II (20.1MP, up to 8fps).



Don't forget that actually it refers to marketing brand name. Technically they are different processors implementing same (new functions) plus bonus better speeds. Perhaps same internal logic as well. 

However AFAIK they are different mainly due to energy consumption and heat limitations. Each body model comes with a custom optimized version of the chip. ;-) Additionally I think bigger bodies have more features on their processors.


----------



## Ozarker (May 19, 2016)

Etienne said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



They aren't "issues" with me either (GPS / wifi). Just don't care about them nor do I care for them.

If it is on the camera it is on the camera. If it ain't, I am fine with that too.

Love touch screens.


----------

