The 5D Mark IV thread

DLD said:
At least, in their DSLR's.

IMO, people who should feel aggrieved are the Canon, mainly the 5DIII, owners.
Click to expand...

I think it's obvious Canon wants non stills people to buy their C series cameras which are also coincidentally hampered by lack of certain features that Sony seemed to be able to put in the FS7. I own two 5DMKIII and really all I wanted in a MKIV is footage with 10 bit color and at least 60P at FHD. As it is, I can get 4K resolution and 10 bits per channel with a ton of useful features in a GH4/Atomos recorder/speed booster, for the same amount a 5DMKIV costs. Do I miss the full frame sensor? Not nearly as much as I thought I would. If GH5 has low light capability, I'll probably be buying two right off the bat.
 
Canon really does show off the entitlement culture of people. It's a still camera. A great one. Always works and never breaks down.
 
dustylense said:
Canon really does show off the entitlement culture of people. It's a still camera. A great one. Always works and never breaks down.
Click to expand...
What? Canon itself has reps pimping the video side of this.

It's a bit weird IMHO, since I personally feel there is a convergence between stills and video (pun pardon) in motion. They started it..but don't seem much interested in it.
 

FWIW, when one scans the YouTube reviews (off the specs, so far), it seems heavily anti-Canon. Photographers seem to like it, the videographers and hybrid shooters do not.

Oh, and the Canon rep is spinning this big time.
 
From that video: "if you're looking to do high-end pro video, that's what our cinema line is for."
Too expensive. I'd rather go with another manufacturer, thanks.

Also, when he defends the crop saying "other companies have full frame 4K video but it comes with aliasing because there's pixel binning, we've decided to go this way instead", he's talking about the a7R II which, first, doesn't have much aliasing in FF 4k anyway, and, second, offers both line-skipping full frame and full HQ downsample APS-C.

I find the "this is for shooting stills" argument the only compelling one.
 
A) Sales

Samuel H said:
5D4 is no longer at the top of the amazon.com list of best seller interchangeable-lens cameras. It's fifth now. And the XT2 now apears too, at 25th. Link.
Click to expand...

I just checked:

1) #1 = 5D Mark IV, under the category of "DSLR camera"
2) #1 = 5D Mark IV, under the category of "Interchanageable Lens Camera"
3) #1 = 5D Mark IV, under the category of "Digital Cameras"

4) #3 = 5D Mark IV, under the category of "Camera & Photo"


5) Everything suggests: 5D Mark IV SHALL continue the legend of 5D and remain a most popular camera for pro and serious amateurs.



B) Realistic expectations

According to Wikipedia, 5D Mark II is the only 5D camera that was widely used in film making. By what I know, as late as 2011, 5D2 was still used in shooting major feature films - notably, Act of Valor (2012) was shot on 5D2's. In contrast, 5D Mark III is not that popular in film making at all. By Wikipedia, only 2 films were shot on it. However, 5D Mark III remains a great success, just like original 5D and 5D Mark II: even 4 years after its debut, 5D Mark III is still being manufactured, and for a total of FOUR years, its US market price has dropped by only $900, from initially $3499 to nowadays $2599. I bought my own Mark III in July 2012 for $3299 net with a $200 discount.


1) The market believes that 5D, 5D II, 5D III are all fantastic cameras (probably more popular than any other DSLR-like cameras on the planet).

2) The statistics shows 5D II is the only camera that serious film makers would consider using in film making.

3) As long as 5D IV continues to be a fantastic camera that happens to shoot beautiful video (8 or 10bit color, 1.7x crop or 1.0 readout, don't matter in the end), it will continue to be a great success. The pre-order sales records on Amazon.com suggest that the market is very eager to adopt 5D IV.

4) At the price range of only $3500 or so, 5D IV is already capable of shooting technically most amazing photos among all latest EOS line cameras (5DSR can surpass it in one category: resolution/details, and IDX II can surpass it in speed/FPS, but no other EOS camera is decisively superior to 5D IV) . It is unrealistic to expect that 5D IV could be used to replace ID C, IDX II, C300 I or II, etc. in shooting video. For those who demand best video in addition to best stills, at least go for the body of IDX II. For the time being, IDX II trumps pretty all still/video cameras under $4000.
 
henryqiu said:
... Everything suggests: 5D Mark IV SHALL continue the legend of 5D and remain a most popular camera for pro and serious amateurs...
Click to expand...
If you discount all the negative - and, by negative, I mean thumbs down, way, way down - comments by a bunch of folks with reputable and well regarded YouTube Channels, the type of folks that has been courted by Sony to the point of flying them to Miami in the middle of February for a special weekend with A6300. From my my very informal survey, they hate MKIV.

How do you think this will effect the potential buyers?
 
I am a filmmaker and earn my living from it. I differentiate my offerings. Similarly, when a corporate does it, who am I to say that is unethical? Why the hell do we expect a DSLR to shoot video as good as a C-Series camera? Still the 5DIV has got 4K video which the C300 Mark I or the C100 mark II doesn't have. And they are priced higher than the 5DIV. And the 5DIV is a damn good stills camera.

I have sold 20"x30" prints at 500 USD (when the US Dollar had value) from stills shot with Canon EOS 10D (6.3 MP camera). Today you can pull stills from the 4K video of the 5DIV and print bigger and better than what I did years ago.

People who visit these internet boards spew lot of hate against Canon. I just attended a Youtube gathering in Bangalore and people were asking about 5DIV. A lot of producers as well as corporates have the 5D III on top of their minds for small films (20K USD to 30K USD). Interestingly there are some low budget filmmakers who visit these boards and demand RED Epic and such for even 10K USD films. Go figure.

It all depends who your clients are and what you are doing. The 5D IV will be a good camera for stills as well as for some video applications. There is no camera which doesn't have weakness. If one understands the strengths and weaknesses of his/her equipment and then exploits the strengths to the maximum then he/she will earn a ton of money.

In these boards when most of us are using alias (ie assumed names) it is not easy for any person to know whom to trust. It leads to more confused buyers. When Youtube channels with lot of subscribers spew venom against Canon due to sponsorship from other brands, I feel some people can buy in to that anti-canon views.
 
indiawilds said:
... In these boards when most of us are using alias (ie assumed names) it is not easy for any person to know whom to trust. It leads to more confused buyers. When Youtube channels with lot of subscribers spew venom against Canon due to sponsorship from other brands, I feel some people can buy in to that anti-canon views.
Click to expand...

Which YouTube channels are sponsored by which anti-Canon sources?
 
dustylense said:
Canon really does show off the entitlement culture of people. It's a still camera. A great one. Always works and never breaks down.
Click to expand...

How is it anything like "entitlement" when Canon continues to underwhelm? Nobody is arguing that the 5D isn't a great tool, but when you can get a similar tool for less cost or with a lot more features, of course people are going to complain. The 5D is primarily a stills camera? Yeah, but so is the A7 and GH4 for less money and with more features. It's more about consumer culture than anything else.
 
So..how do still photogs feel about the lack of articulating screen for shooting low or high angle shots? I mean..I've seen photogs holding the cam above their heads essentially hose-camming the area..but seems a bit crude compared to actually seeing your framing. Oh I know..some will say positionable screens are fragile. But how many years have they been used on less than coddled ENG cams?

I see the Canon rep in clip DLD posted suggesting the codec choice (vs H265 et al) and resultant high bit rate was for stills extraction..then towards end suggesting it was for better video...maybe even "overdoing" the quality. We shall see.
 
Last edited:
around 27-28mm.

if you have any 3rd party crop lenses you can use those so an sigma 8-16mm will net around 14mm.

david
 
Liveview is not something most photographers enjoy using. A reflex camera with a mirror is much faster and easier to work with. There are situations where an articulating screen could come in handy for certain types of photographers but in general its not used or needed.

H.264 vs Mjpeg...as a still photographer yes mjpeg will be cleaner but I rarley plan on pulling still from video anyway (forget about resolution loss) not having raw is a big loss in still photography. Also, I shoot with some sort of flash/strobe for 90% of my work and pulling a still from video is only relevent under constant lighting Situations. I'm not much of a natural light photographer but many are.

As a video shooter i actually prefer mjpeg. I dont want the compression artifacts of h264 (especially in the shadows) but also mjpeg will be smoother to scrub through in post.
 
egproductions said:
I dont want the compression artifacts of h264 (especially in the shadows) but also mjpeg will be smoother to scrub through in post.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you associate mjpeg = intra frame = smoothness.

But… there will be no smoothness trying to scrub through the clips. For me, that's a non issue, since I much prefer mjpeg's high bitrate and that it's intra frame over Long GOP, and I convert the files to ProRes on import.

H.264 on the other hand, is hardware accelerated in today's computers and modern hardware plays them back fine.

Best case scenario would be Canon's new XF-AVC codecs. They are both intra frame AND efficient compression per frame. The XC-10/15 files in UHD resolution are around 305Mbps and the C300mkII's 4k DCI land at just over 400 Mbps.

In various forums I see a lot of complaining about mjpeg's size. They ARE large by then people compare them to Long GOP 50-100Mbps and think they are 5x to 10x the size. You need to compare their size to intra frame codecs and then you see they are 1.25x in size (for DCI comparison).
 
indiawilds said:
I am a filmmaker and earn my living from it. I differentiate my offerings. Similarly, when a corporate does it, who am I to say that is unethical? Why the hell do we expect a DSLR to shoot video as good as a C-Series camera? Still the 5DIV has got 4K video which the C300 Mark I or the C100 mark II doesn't have. And they are priced higher than the 5DIV. And the 5DIV is a damn good stills camera.

I have sold 20"x30" prints at 500 USD (when the US Dollar had value) from stills shot with Canon EOS 10D (6.3 MP camera). Today you can pull stills from the 4K video of the 5DIV and print bigger and better than what I did years ago.

People who visit these internet boards spew lot of hate against Canon. I just attended a Youtube gathering in Bangalore and people were asking about 5DIV. A lot of producers as well as corporates have the 5D III on top of their minds for small films (20K USD to 30K USD). Interestingly there are some low budget filmmakers who visit these boards and demand RED Epic and such for even 10K USD films. Go figure.

It all depends who your clients are and what you are doing. The 5D IV will be a good camera for stills as well as for some video applications. There is no camera which doesn't have weakness. If one understands the strengths and weaknesses of his/her equipment and then exploits the strengths to the maximum then he/she will earn a ton of money.

In these boards when most of us are using alias (ie assumed names) it is not easy for any person to know whom to trust. It leads to more confused buyers. When Youtube channels with lot of subscribers spew venom against Canon due to sponsorship from other brands, I feel some people can buy in to that anti-canon views.
Click to expand...

I concur.

Canon, like few other manufacturers, is producing stills cameras and movie cameras.
Like other manufacturers, they have a range of stills cameras models, presenting different features at different price ranges.
Like other manufacturers, they have a range of movie cameras models, presenting different features at different price ranges.
For each task, both in stills and in movies, there is a choice between various cameras from different makes.

On top of the unjustified hate towards Canon on the net we see lately, it looks like many people were expecting from the 5D MKIV a top stills camera combined with a top movie camera, including all the latest bells and whistles. It didn't happen and it isn't going to happen.

Those who love the looks of the Panasonic GH4 are welcomed to go on using it. What do you want from Canon?

Those who love the looks of the Sony a7R II or any other 'a' model are welcomed to go on using it. What do you want from Canon?

Those who love the looks of the Nikon cameras are welcomed to go on using it. What do you want from Canon?

Cinematographers who can afford a RED camera will definitely go on using it. What do you want from Canon?

Whoever wants a still camera at a modest and affordable price that will have video as good as a RED camera, or as the Canon C 700 - it isn't going to happen.
 
egproductions said:
On paper those might be great stills cameras but for the majority of professional use, mirrorless is not a suitable solution.
Click to expand...
Of course, Canon already has a high end DSLR camera without great video. It's called 5Ds/r. One pro-Canon 5DMKIV reviewer actually dared to say that 50 MPX (which is what 5Ds/r has) was too many pixels for him but 30 MPX of 5D MKIV was just perfect. And he pretended to be a fashion type shooter. And 5Ds/r is a very good piece for the controlled type of production. And 1D XII is among two best sports/action cameras around. And 7DMKII does fine for the outdoors/birds. So, where does 5D MKIV fit in?

And, to beat the horse a bit further, C700, almost but not quite, has the specs of Red Raven but for three times the price. And Red Raven compressed Raw looks a lot better to my eye. I think, at some point, it will dawn on a lot more people that, while Canon may still be the king, its shortcomings are getting dangerously close to being exposed.
 
DLD said:
Of course, Canon already has a high end DSLR camera without great video. It's called 5Ds/r. One pro-Canon 5DMKIV reviewer actually dared to say that 50 MPX (which is what 5Ds/r has) was too many pixels for him but 30 MPX of 5D MKIV was just perfect. And he pretended to be a fashion type shooter. And 5Ds/r is a very good piece for the controlled type of production. And 1D XII is among two best sports/action cameras around. And 7DMKII does fine for the outdoors/birds. So, where does 5D MKIV fit in?
Click to expand...

I actually agree with the 5DSR, too many pixels, opinion. It's great for wildlife, landscape work, however, I would not want to shoot a wedding with a 50MP camera. Processing takes twice as long. The 5DSR is decent in low light but not on the same level. The 7D doesn't compare because it's not full frame and the 1DX is also twice the price. The difference between 20 and 30MP for weddings or most commercial work is irrelevant to me. The 5D series is a good all around commercial, full frame camera with great low light capabilities at an afordable price. It's basically the best of all worlds which is why it's so popular.
 
egproductions said:
Liveview is not something most photographers enjoy using. A reflex camera with a mirror is much faster and easier to work with. There are situations where an articulating screen could come in handy for certain types of photographers but in general its not used or needed.
--
Hmm..just seems to me having to align your eyes with the back of the camera would slow things down (get a ladder, lay on the ground) or require shooting blind if not enough time to reposition your body to where camera needs to be. Shooting in a tiny room where your lens is barely wide enough if jammed against corner wall? Eh..shoot blind and check after. I guess not so much an issue if on the sidelines shooting sports etc.
Interesting then, you have Canon DSLRs like T3i through 6i with articulating screen.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top