There has been a lot of talk about the 5D Mark IV, 4k video crop factor of 1.73x , most of the talk negative.
It turns out that the Red cameras with the Red Mysterium-X imager are a crop APS-H but in video mode crop further to 1.73x of FF. This appears to be cameras from the Red One through the Red Epic.
(Trying to put things into perspective.)
It does appear that some of the Sigma and Tamron crop 1.5x/1.6x EF mount lenses should safely mount and cover the 5D Mark IV, 4k video crop factor of 1.73x.
Nikon D810 has slightly more than a stop more DR, not that I care.
And, again, the newer Nikon D5 has more than a stop less of DR at base ISO, not that you care. In fact, the D5 DR curve is remarkably closer to the DR curve of the rather old Canon 5D Mark III, not that "anyone" cares. (Just trying to bring a little levity back to the discussion of camera comparisons. )
The truth is that all of these cameras mentioned in this thread are great cameras in their own right, and comparing individual features is not nearly as meaningful as the total experience of each body, with relative strengths pertaining to particular photographic endeavors.
5D4 doesn't compete against the D5 for use cases, so I'm not sure how that's relevant, but ok. I just meant "not that I care" as in, 13.6 Ev of DR is enough for me.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I upgraded from the II>III last year, and am quite happy to stay there. I STILL haven't used all the features on the III (I never seem to have time to sit down and play with them as I'm too busy trying to get the job done!).
A new standard telephoto interests me however. Will be following that... Have yet to find a standard zoom for full frame that I love the way I do the 70-200 2.8 II; if they can come up with one (that doesn't require a second mortgage), they definitely have my attention!
(Btw, long time no see dgrin fam - been getting the kid off to college, took on a prestige new musical teaching job which is taking up a lot of time, and have continued to sustain photo studio and singing work as well. Mama's busy!!)
I upgraded from the II>III last year, and am quite happy to stay there. I STILL haven't used all the features on the III (I never seem to have time to sit down and play with them as I'm too busy trying to get the job done!).
Yeah, unless you are a DR junkie, the 5D4, however excellent, may not be quite enough to compel a 5D3 owner to upgrade.
A new standard telephoto interests me however. Will be following that... Have yet to find a standard zoom for full frame that I love the way I do the 70-200 2.8 II; if they can come up with one (that doesn't require a second mortgage), they definitely have my attention!
70-200/2.8II is quite expensive, so why wouldn't a similar-level 24-70/2.8II be similarly expensive? That's the lens you're looking for, unfortunately. If that's not in the cards, I highly recommend the 50/1.8 STM. I think it's as sharp as my 70-200/2.8II, the AF is finally reliable, and at $125 why the heck not?
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Yeah, unless you are a DR junkie, the 5D4, however excellent, may not be quite enough to compel a 5D3 owner to upgrade.
70-200/2.8II is quite expensive, so why wouldn't a similar-level 24-70/2.8II be similarly expensive? That's the lens you're looking for, unfortunately. If that's not in the cards, I highly recommend the 50/1.8 STM. I think it's as sharp as my 70-200/2.8II, the AF is finally reliable, and at $125 why the heck not?
The 24-70 ii gets mixed responses. Reviews are good, but I've spoken to users who say it's not that much better than the MK 1 (of which I had two copies, and both were soft in different ways). I have the Tamron which is OK, but still doesn't have the sharpness wow of the longer zoom. I have primes in that range,but would like a zoom; and the nifty fifty, while sharp, has nothing like fast, quiet, or accurate enough AF for the shallow depth of field work I do
For high-quality standard/normal zooms you have some choices:
The very expensive but worthy Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L II
The better in some ways and equal in others Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC
The somewhat smaller, slower constant aperture Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 USM L IS
The old, somewhat troubled, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L
The also-ran Sigma AF 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM
Of these, the Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC is probably the "value" leader if you really need the convenience and working speed of a fast-aperture standard/normal zoom. Just make sure to purchase from a retailer with good return privileges as I see some sample variation amongst reviewers.
Jack is correct in that primes are a great FF value considering image quality and cost. In addition to the mentioned Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM there is the Yongnuo 35mm f/2 MC, both of which manage very nice image quality and reasonable cost. (Neither lens will tolerate rough handling, however.)
Sorry, DivaMum, I see that you posted comments regarding your experiences with the zooms I mentioned. Maybe time for some better primes?
Yeah, no biggie! I tend to use the long zoom for most of my portrait work anyway (although I wonder if I had a standard zoom I loved if I might use it more...!). One of these years I'll get one I truly love the way I did my old Tam 17-50 on a crop sensor (that lens was FABULOUS!)
The 24-70 ii gets mixed responses. Reviews are good, but I've spoken to users who say it's not that much better than the MK 1 (of which I had two copies, and both were soft in different ways).
As an avid user of it, I can tell you that the 24-70II is spectacular. I've shot landscapes with it next to folks using the 24-105, and they've been shocked at the difference in the quality of the shots. In my event photography, I demand absolute sharpness edge to edge. I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II a long time ago because I was unhappy with it for events. The 24-70 II absolutely blows the 16-35 II in the entire 24-35mm range where they overlap (yes, even at 24mm). I replaced it with the 11-24, which is fantastic. My current trio for events is the 11-24, 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 II. I'll probably pick up the new 16-35 f/2.8 III, then I'll have to decide whether that will replace the 11-24 for me at events. And yes, I do often shoot wider than 16mm at events believe it or not, even 11mm shots which are really impressive at some venues.
The 24-70 ii gets mixed responses. Reviews are good, but I've spoken to users who say it's not that much better than the MK 1 (of which I had two copies, and both were soft in different ways). I have the Tamron which is OK, but still doesn't have the sharpness wow of the longer zoom. I have primes in that range,but would like a zoom; and the nifty fifty, while sharp, has nothing like fast, quiet, or accurate enough AF for the shallow depth of field work I do
I don't think you've tried the 50/1.8STM then. The AF is is quick and accurate and pretty quiet. No it's not quite on the level of the ring USM in the 70-200/2.8II, but it's 1000% better than the old POS 50/1.8II.
As for the 24-70/2.8II, you could rent it or just buy it and sell it when you're done with it. I recently sold my Mk I for $100 less than what I paid for it 6 years ago!!
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
As an avid user of it, I can tell you that the 24-70II is spectacular. I've shot landscapes with it next to folks using the 24-105, and they've been shocked at the difference in the quality of the shots. In my event photography, I demand absolute sharpness edge to edge. I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II a long time ago because I was unhappy with it for events. The 24-70 II absolutely blows the 16-35 II in the entire 24-35mm range where they overlap (yes, even at 24mm). I replaced it with the 11-24, which is fantastic. My current trio for events is the 11-24, 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 II. I'll probably pick up the new 16-35 f/2.8 III, then I'll have to decide whether that will replace the 11-24 for me at events. And yes, I do often shoot wider than 16mm at events believe it or not, even 11mm shots which are really impressive at some venues.
That's good to hear. I haven't been gear-shopping in ages (too busy USING it to lust after anything - I upgraded to the III about this time last year when I couldn't stand the II's AF any longer, and haven't "needed" anything since except some light modifiers), but every once in a while I do think about a standard zoom. Last time I checked it out, a lot of people were saying, "It's better, but not THAT many dollars better....", but looks like the price has come down rather a lot which no doubt has helped. I think it's probably time for me to rent one, since I'm always disappointed with the Tamron. It's ok, but only "ok".
And as for the 50mm prime - that's kind of a short length on FF for my portrait work anyway; I'm usually at the longer end, so it's just not something I worry about. I have the Sigma 35mm Art (which I LOVE), and a 135L (duh) as well as my 70-200, so I'm covered. The only prime I'd consider changing out is the Canon 85 1.8 for the new SIgma Art, but I don't "need" it with the zoom covering those lengths. The advantage, of course, is the lighter weight, but I"m pretty used to hauling the behemoth around and it not only gives me flexibility, but stupidly consistent IQ.
Anway, this moved way OT. Canon Mk IV buyers, enjoy!
Adobe Lightroom support is here now. I just upgraded to Adobe LR CC 2015.7 and can now see my 5D Mark IV files. It reads both the standard and dual-pixel files raws. However, I don't see any controls to take advantage of the dual-pixel raws for micro-focusing. They just process like any other raw.
should i upgrade my 5d mark iii to 5d mark IV ?
p.s : im a wedding photographer
How often do you get close to the right exposure but processing it properly gives you an unacceptable amount of noise? That's what I'd use as my benchmark. Based on what I've seen. The dual pixel raw also looks interesting though isn't supported by Lightroom yet.
Also what's your second body currently? If the mkIII would be moving into that role that's another "upgrade"to consider.
"Firmware Version 1.0.2 incorporates the following improvement.
Improves communication reliability when using EOS Utility to register/update new Digital Lens Optimizer."
Looks like this firmware only affects and improves in-camera DLO operation. This should only affect in-camera JPGs using DLO. I don't find any mention of user problems with the previous firmware, so the statement, "Improves communication reliability ..." is probably just that, an incremental improvement over previous functionality.
The " Sticky: Camera Firmware Update Discussion Links" has been updated. Thanks, "kdog"!
Canon continues to publish materiel relating to the 5D Mark IV. Pretty sure these have been on the Canon USA site for some time, but sometimes YouTube is more compatible for delivery to some devices.
After a week with the 5D4, here is one person's take on it.
For me the noticeable difference is the low light performance between it and the 5D3. I shoot a lot of available light candids using the 135mm f/2.0L. I own a 5D2 and have rented the 5D3. With the 5D4, I can shoot at 6400 ISO and if I have to 12800 ISO to get the shots (hand held) in whatever light I have to work with. I need the ISO to get shutter speeds (1/250 when I can get it) that stop camera shake and freeze human subjects. The sharpness of the 135mm is wasted otherwise. This has me shooting at f/2.0 or 2.2, which means the autofocus has to nail it, but in the mark 3 and mark 4 that is no problem. Done right, the area in focus is sharp enough to count hairs and is brutal at exposing flaws in makeup. But none of that matters if you can't get a usable shutter speed, and it takes ISO to do that.
The extra pixels are nice, and I've made use of "pixels are my zoom lens" on the 5D4, but I wasn't screaming for them.
The level display is a joy to have onboard. I turned it on and kept it on. I don't always sense in the viewfinder when I don't have the camera perfectly level, but this keeps me out of trouble. It's very good at helping me go from "a little off" to "spot on."
In better light with say the 24-70 mark II, everything generally just works flawlessly, but this was true of the 5D3 in the same situations.
Summary:
In good light, unless you need pixels, don't upgrade your 5D3.
If you've been sitting on a 5D2 for too long, this **is **the camera you have been waiting for.
If you shoot high ISO, rent this to see if your problems are solved.
Now I have to go to the FedEx store and send this baby back to LensRentals in TN. I will truly miss it.
Yes, the Canon 5D Mark IV is my very next body purchase. With the 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III already in my stable it's not an absolutely urgent purchase, but the incremental improvements of the 5D Mark IV in terms of AF and Exposure, plus the High-ISO fine-grain noise signature and greater overall Dynamic Range, all lead to a significant improvement in overall user experience.
My main motivator for adding the 5DMKIV to my stable is one that hasn't been mentioned here, the ability to capture video and stills at the same time. Well, not quite. You record in 4K video, and then frame-grab 8 MP stills from that. For me, this is a real game changer and I'm already incorporating it into my event business when I'm called upon to deliver both stills and video and so far it's working very well. In some cases it saves hiring another person.
I can see all sorts of uses for it too in both sports and wildlife photography, not to mention studio work in conjunction with flow posing. You may scoff at 8MP stills, but it wasn't so long ago, that's all we had.
Here are a couple of images I shot a recent gymnastics meet in which my daughter competed. In the past I was using a Canon 7D MKII, with a burst rate of about 10 fps, and my daughter would complain that I'd never nail her vertical pike perfectly, for example. Well, those days are over.
Daughter's pike, nailed perfectly.
Teamate's split jump on the beam, caught exactly at the apex.
Not only do you nail the stills, but then you also have a super-duper 4K resolution video of the routine. Fantastic! Of course storage is a killer with motion JPEG that Canon uses for this, namely 4GB per minute! Time to invest in disk drive stocks.
Thanks very much for the kind words, Ziggy. This was my first time shooting hockey and OMIGOSH, what a fast and difficult sport to shoot, and throw in bad light just to make it interesting. I dare say the MKIV handled it like a champ. Me, not so much.
Comments
It turns out that the Red cameras with the Red Mysterium-X imager are a crop APS-H but in video mode crop further to 1.73x of FF. This appears to be cameras from the Red One through the Red Epic.
(Trying to put things into perspective.)
It does appear that some of the Sigma and Tamron crop 1.5x/1.6x EF mount lenses should safely mount and cover the 5D Mark IV, 4k video crop factor of 1.73x.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
And, again, the newer Nikon D5 has more than a stop less of DR at base ISO, not that you care. In fact, the D5 DR curve is remarkably closer to the DR curve of the rather old Canon 5D Mark III, not that "anyone" cares. (Just trying to bring a little levity back to the discussion of camera comparisons.
The truth is that all of these cameras mentioned in this thread are great cameras in their own right, and comparing individual features is not nearly as meaningful as the total experience of each body, with relative strengths pertaining to particular photographic endeavors.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
A new standard telephoto interests me however. Will be following that... Have yet to find a standard zoom for full frame that I love the way I do the 70-200 2.8 II; if they can come up with one (that doesn't require a second mortgage), they definitely have my attention!
(Btw, long time no see dgrin fam
Yeah, unless you are a DR junkie, the 5D4, however excellent, may not be quite enough to compel a 5D3 owner to upgrade.
70-200/2.8II is quite expensive, so why wouldn't a similar-level 24-70/2.8II be similarly expensive? That's the lens you're looking for, unfortunately. If that's not in the cards, I highly recommend the 50/1.8 STM. I think it's as sharp as my 70-200/2.8II, the AF is finally reliable, and at $125 why the heck not?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
The very expensive but worthy Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L II
The better in some ways and equal in others Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC
The somewhat smaller, slower constant aperture Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 USM L IS
The old, somewhat troubled, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L
The also-ran Sigma AF 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM
Of these, the Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC is probably the "value" leader if you really need the convenience and working speed of a fast-aperture standard/normal zoom. Just make sure to purchase from a retailer with good return privileges as I see some sample variation amongst reviewers.
Jack is correct in that primes are a great FF value considering image quality and cost. In addition to the mentioned Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM there is the Yongnuo 35mm f/2 MC, both of which manage very nice image quality and reasonable cost. (Neither lens will tolerate rough handling, however.)
Sorry, DivaMum, I see that you posted comments regarding your experiences with the zooms I mentioned. Maybe time for some better primes?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Link to my Smugmug site
I don't think you've tried the 50/1.8STM then. The AF is is quick and accurate and pretty quiet. No it's not quite on the level of the ring USM in the 70-200/2.8II, but it's 1000% better than the old POS 50/1.8II.
https://photos.smugmug.com/Portraits/Christian/i-k2DJVjZ/1/X3/5D3_9510-X3.jpg
As for the 24-70/2.8II, you could rent it or just buy it and sell it when you're done with it. I recently sold my Mk I for $100 less than what I paid for it 6 years ago!!
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
p.s : im a wedding photographer
Link to my Smugmug site
That's good to hear. I haven't been gear-shopping in ages (too busy USING it to lust after anything - I upgraded to the III about this time last year when I couldn't stand the II's AF any longer, and haven't "needed" anything since except some light modifiers), but every once in a while I do think about a standard zoom. Last time I checked it out, a lot of people were saying, "It's better, but not THAT many dollars better....", but looks like the price has come down rather a lot which no doubt has helped. I think it's probably time for me to rent one, since I'm always disappointed with the Tamron. It's ok, but only "ok".
And as for the 50mm prime - that's kind of a short length on FF for my portrait work anyway; I'm usually at the longer end, so it's just not something I worry about. I have the Sigma 35mm Art (which I LOVE), and a 135L (duh) as well as my 70-200, so I'm covered. The only prime I'd consider changing out is the Canon 85 1.8 for the new SIgma Art, but I don't "need" it with the zoom covering those lengths. The advantage, of course, is the lighter weight, but I"m pretty used to hauling the behemoth around and it not only gives me flexibility, but stupidly consistent IQ.
Anway, this moved way OT. Canon Mk IV buyers, enjoy!
Link to my Smugmug site
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
How often do you get close to the right exposure but processing it properly gives you an unacceptable amount of noise? That's what I'd use as my benchmark. Based on what I've seen. The dual pixel raw also looks interesting though isn't supported by Lightroom yet.
Also what's your second body currently? If the mkIII would be moving into that role that's another "upgrade"to consider.
I would say "glass before bodies" but if you're making lots of money why not upgrade
Link to my Smugmug site
"Firmware Version 1.0.2 incorporates the following improvement.
Improves communication reliability when using EOS Utility to register/update new Digital Lens Optimizer."
Looks like this firmware only affects and improves in-camera DLO operation. This should only affect in-camera JPGs using DLO. I don't find any mention of user problems with the previous firmware, so the statement, "Improves communication reliability ..." is probably just that, an incremental improvement over previous functionality.
The " Sticky: Camera Firmware Update Discussion Links" has been updated. Thanks, "kdog"!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Canon continues to publish materiel relating to the 5D Mark IV. Pretty sure these have been on the Canon USA site for some time, but sometimes YouTube is more compatible for delivery to some devices.
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV:Basics of 4K Video
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV: New AWB Options
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV: AF Area Options
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV: Live View AF
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV: AF with EOS iTR
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV: Lens Aberration Correction
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV: Video AF Operation and Features
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV: Adding and Using IPTC Information
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV: Custom Quick Control Menu
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV: AF Area Select Button
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV: Built-In GPS
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
After a week with the 5D4, here is one person's take on it.
For me the noticeable difference is the low light performance between it and the 5D3. I shoot a lot of available light candids using the 135mm f/2.0L. I own a 5D2 and have rented the 5D3. With the 5D4, I can shoot at 6400 ISO and if I have to 12800 ISO to get the shots (hand held) in whatever light I have to work with. I need the ISO to get shutter speeds (1/250 when I can get it) that stop camera shake and freeze human subjects. The sharpness of the 135mm is wasted otherwise. This has me shooting at f/2.0 or 2.2, which means the autofocus has to nail it, but in the mark 3 and mark 4 that is no problem. Done right, the area in focus is sharp enough to count hairs and is brutal at exposing flaws in makeup. But none of that matters if you can't get a usable shutter speed, and it takes ISO to do that.
The extra pixels are nice, and I've made use of "pixels are my zoom lens" on the 5D4, but I wasn't screaming for them.
The level display is a joy to have onboard. I turned it on and kept it on. I don't always sense in the viewfinder when I don't have the camera perfectly level, but this keeps me out of trouble. It's very good at helping me go from "a little off" to "spot on."
In better light with say the 24-70 mark II, everything generally just works flawlessly, but this was true of the 5D3 in the same situations.
Summary:
In good light, unless you need pixels, don't upgrade your 5D3.
If you've been sitting on a 5D2 for too long, this **is **the camera you have been waiting for.
If you shoot high ISO, rent this to see if your problems are solved.
Now I have to go to the FedEx store and send this baby back to LensRentals in TN. I will truly miss it.
Thanks, nak, for that mini user review.
Yes, the Canon 5D Mark IV is my very next body purchase. With the 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III already in my stable it's not an absolutely urgent purchase, but the incremental improvements of the 5D Mark IV in terms of AF and Exposure, plus the High-ISO fine-grain noise signature and greater overall Dynamic Range, all lead to a significant improvement in overall user experience.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I have a lightly used one I'll sell you for cheap!
Link to my Smugmug site
Ummm, yikes!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Joel, what happened? Did I miss the story?
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
My main motivator for adding the 5DMKIV to my stable is one that hasn't been mentioned here, the ability to capture video and stills at the same time. Well, not quite. You record in 4K video, and then frame-grab 8 MP stills from that. For me, this is a real game changer and I'm already incorporating it into my event business when I'm called upon to deliver both stills and video and so far it's working very well. In some cases it saves hiring another person.
I can see all sorts of uses for it too in both sports and wildlife photography, not to mention studio work in conjunction with flow posing. You may scoff at 8MP stills, but it wasn't so long ago, that's all we had.
Here are a couple of images I shot a recent gymnastics meet in which my daughter competed. In the past I was using a Canon 7D MKII, with a burst rate of about 10 fps, and my daughter would complain that I'd never nail her vertical pike perfectly, for example. Well, those days are over.
Daughter's pike, nailed perfectly.
Teamate's split jump on the beam, caught exactly at the apex.
Not only do you nail the stills, but then you also have a super-duper 4K resolution video of the routine. Fantastic! Of course storage is a killer with motion JPEG that Canon uses for this, namely 4GB per minute! Time to invest in disk drive stocks.
Link to my Smugmug site
"Looks like Lightroom will be supporting the dual pixel RAW files though they haven't announced when that'll come._"
and maybe "dual pixel" technology is a "game changer" (at least for mirrorless cameras)
https://provideocoalition.com/dual-pixel-af-is-it-a-game-changer-for-autofocus/
flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
I shot some youth hockey with the 5DMKIV today for a friend who own a sports photography company. Really enjoyed it. Here's a sample pic.
ISO 8000, f/4, 1/500. 70-200 f/2.8 II @ 185mm. Shot in JPG and no added noise reduction.
Not too shabby for ISO 8000, eh?
One more, same settings, except 200mm focal length.
Link to my Smugmug site
I see a very well-formed histogram with slight clipping in the reds, just as one would want. Excellent exposure!
Good composition and timing, showing peak action with a vantage of as many faces and activities as possible.
Extremely well executed, Joel!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks very much for the kind words, Ziggy. This was my first time shooting hockey and OMIGOSH, what a fast and difficult sport to shoot, and throw in bad light just to make it interesting. I dare say the MKIV handled it like a champ. Me, not so much.
Link to my Smugmug site