Canon Unveils EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR (canonrumors.com)

It's been a little more than 4 year since Canon unveiled the EOS 5D Mark III. Today, Canon took the wraps off its successor -- the EOS 5D Mark IV. The Mark IV features a 34-megapixel, full-frame CMOS sensor and Digic 6+ processor with support for capturing 4K video at 23.98, 24, 25 and 30 fps. In addition, it features a 61-point autofocus system, built-in digital lens optimizer, NFC, Wi-Fi and an ISO range of 100-32,000. The continuous shooting mode is set at 7 fps, compared to 6 fps on the 5D Mark III. It will also take both CompactFlash and SD cards, and there is GPS included in the body for geotagging images. Canon is selling the Mark IV in early September for $3,499 for the body only. They're also selling two new L-series EF lenses -- the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens and EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Standard Zoom Lens. President and COO, Canon U.S.A., Inc, Yichi Ishizuka said in a statement: "Canon's EOS 5D series of DSLR cameras has a history of being at the forefront of still and video innovation. And today, we add to this family of cameras the EOS 5D Mark IV -- the first in our 5D series to offer 4K video and built-in Wi-Fi and NFC connectivity. In developing this new DSLR camera, we listened to the requests of current EOS users to create for them a modern, versatile camera designed to help them create and share beautiful still and video imagery." Here's a blast from the past: Canon's EOS 1Ds Mark II. Slashdot reader LoudMusic submitted this story back in 2004, highlighting the camera's "802.11a/g and wired networking capabilities."

Comments

Pixels density

[hcs_$reboot]

Some say "there is no such thing as too many pixels". However there is. High pixels density means smaller photosites, and the amount of light they can receive per second is lower - thus needs increased accuracy and improved technology to handle low-light condition (it seems it's the case here). Also of course more pixels take longer to process, more space to store, more time to transfer... Fortunately for web pictures - usually not that big, i.e. don't need higher resolution - the 5D family has reduced raw resolution modes (eg the mark II has 21 / 10 / 5.2 MP).

Re:Pixels density

[Zocalo]

I think the camera manufacturers all realise that, especially at the high-end. Sure, they'll play the MP numbers game at the low-end where people don't know better and it translates into sales but all the prosumer and pro models generally offer a trade-off of MP vs. ISO suitable for the model at high; e.g. high-MP/low-ISO for the Canon 5DS, mid-MP/mid-ISO for the the Canon 5D and low-MP/high-ISO for the Canon 1DX. Assuming you are competent and understand what you need the camera(s) for and how you plan on using it, you'll choose accordingly.

Re:Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. In signal processing mathematics and technology, things are more subtle than that. Even if each individual pixel receives less light indeed, and thus proportionately more noise, the correlations between adjacent pixels makes it possible to better reduce noise overall. And thus, especially if the final resolution is slightly downsized, the resulting image can be better.
In other words: Canon engineers are not idiots.

Re:Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

the correlations between adjacent pixels makes it possible to better reduce noise overall. And thus, especially if the final resolution is slightly downsized, the resulting image can be better.

True but the image will always suffer from less thermal noise on an equivalent sensor with larger photosites. See Sony's video targeted A7S - BSI sensor with large photosites and usable high ISO without excessive noise. Similar with Sony's A6300, downscaling from a 6k bayer sensor for 4k output. Of course Sony's color science is putrid.

Re:Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of actual DSLRs of today, a higher pixel density means better colour separation despite the Bayer-pattern sensor. That's to say: the debayered colour triples will be less wrong than they used to be.

On the other hand, 36MP (where each pixel is a single colour channel) does eat up the gigahertz rather quickly. On the third hand, don't DSLRs today have absolutely sick buffers? Like 100 frames if shooting raw, as on Nikon's D500 for example.

All this being said, none of this beats true-blue black & white film. Neh!

Re:Pixels density

[houghi]

True if you want to just put the family photos on line or the food you ate today. You take 4 or 5 pictures and put the best one online. However if you want to go for a quality shot, you most likely will do at least some color correction in Lightroom or something similar. You will have made pictures in RAW, edit them and then reduce them to size.
The more information you have, the better the end will be after editing.

Re:Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thermal noise.

Re:Pixels density

[hcs_$reboot]

Color, WB... info in a raw file is per pixel, and the 5D's give raw files at lower resolutions. And you'll have the same HDR features from a low-res raw file compared to a top-res. So unless you need to print A1, you're fine.

Re:Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible to increase pixel count without increasing sensor size because there is space between the sensor sites, thus allowing for more efficient arrangement of sensor sites to increase pixel count.

Re:Pixels density

[PeeAitchPee]

Those who *really* need more pixels (e.g., those of us in high-end reprographic work, fashion photography, people shooting landscapes they want to print out wall-sized, etc.) generally get a bigger sensor. Today, that means something like Phase One's 100 megapixel medium format digital back. This lets us initially grab as many pixels as possible and then throw away the ones we don't want later.

Re:Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory Xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1014/

Re:Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd draw the line between full color glossy print and web.

You'll simply never see any imagined benefit for web photos, and if you let the camera handle lens and abbreviation correction, it will be far better tuned than Lightrooms profiles.

Even with print, you won't get the color to match your computer screen, and that error swamps any imagined camera benefit from RAW.

Re:Pixels density

[JeffOwl]

No, there really isn't. The is such a thing as too little sensitivity, too much noise, etc... But everything else being equal more pixels means better enlargements, better zoom after the fact, better post processing, and probably other things that I can't think of at the moment.

Re:Pixels density

[cayenne8]

Some say "there is no such thing as too many pixels". However there is. High pixels density means smaller photosites, and the amount of light they can receive per second is lower - thus needs increased accuracy and improved technology to handle low-light condition (it seems it's the case here). Also of course more pixels take longer to process, more space to store, more time to transfer... Fortunately for web pictures - usually not that big, i.e. don't need higher resolution - the 5D family has reduced raw resolution modes (eg the mark II has 21 / 10 / 5.2 MP).

Well, if you're buying in the class of a Canon 5D4 or higher, you're not primarily shooting for the web...

;)

And today, with storage being dirty cheap, there's generally few to no reasons not to be shooting in full blown RAW. You really do yourself a disservice not shooting in full RAW to allow yourself the full range of adjustments should you need it.

Yes, it is always best to try to get everything right in camera, but lets face it....some times you don't quite hit it right (in the midst of battle during a concert, it can be tough), and also, you pretty much NEVER see a picture without some adjustments, so, you should give yourself every capability as you can to develop the ultimate image, and you can only give yourself that leeway with full RAW.

Let's face it, if you can afford this level camera and lens system, you're not going to be balking at the cost of the storage required nor the computer level for efficient processing of images.

That's just the arguments for stills....you start shooting 4K stuff, or even RAW Video HD on the 5D3, and then you really start talking storage space and processing....

Re:Pixels density

[Bob the Super Hamste]

This isn't the little shit sensor that comes with the cheap point and shoots, or cellphones which are all diffraction limited now and have shit lenses. Still I am not impressed with the cannon as something like this exists which has an even larger sensor. For a reasonable comparison (not actual size) of the different sensor sizes you can check this out. Most of the consumer cameras in phones and point and shoots have the 1/2.5 or 1/1.7 sized sensor in them.The hasselblad sensor likely isn't the 60mm X 60mm that film frame was but it is bigger than the 35mm full frame. The full frame sensor like what is mentioned for this cannon is the same size as a standard 35mm film frame.

Then again I only find this interesting from a technological perspective as I still use a film camera (go go Pentax Spotmatic F that never seems to want to die). Personally I like film I know how film behaves on the extremes (also known as how it fails), and have a lot of good lenses and accessories for taking the pictures I want with my film camera. When I was in Israel with work and went on a tour of Jerusalem I took some great pictures with my camera that while being made fun of by my co-workers who just had their phones as I had the antique. I also have taken a liking to slow black and white film (ISO 50) if I really want clear crisp pictures and for color I usually just stick to ISO 100.

Re: Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the midst of a battle during a concert"... seriously, Bataclan doesn't happen every day.

Re:Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

the correlations between adjacent pixels makes it possible to better reduce noise overall

This is optical photography, not radio interferometry: there is no correlation between adjacent pixels. If some fraction of the CCD array surface is taken up by the boundaries between increasingly-tiny pixels, that reduces the number of photons it gathers, which increases the noise level (at a given resolution).

Re: Pixels density

[cayenne8]

"In the midst of a battle during a concert"... seriously, Bataclan doesn't happen every day.

Ouch...a bit of bad taste there.

But back more to subject. If you're shooting a concert and its one of those where you're relagated to the pit, and only have the first 3 songs to shoot and you're fighting with a bunch of other photographers to shoot the band from down there, with poor lighting....yeah, it is a bit of a battle and you have to shoot best you can under stress...and by shooting RAW, you can easily make up for blown white balance or exposure problems...

HOWEVER...if all else fails, as long as the image is in focus...you can just switch to Black and White...and salvage some shots.

I do this often if there is a lot of red light on the subject.....B&W has made some shit shots due to lighting turn out to be winners.

Re:Pixels density

[dgatwood]

True but the image will always suffer from less thermal noise on an equivalent sensor with larger photosites.

Realistically, thermal noise is almost irrelevant except for long-exposure photography (e.g. astrophotography). For normal photographic purposes, it's the shot noise that kills you in low light. When the difference between one and zero photons makes a visually noticeable difference in the resulting value, individual pixels are going to have noticeably different values than the pixels next to them even when they're getting approximately the same amount of light, because a pixel either gets the photon or it doesn't.

But that shot noise basically goes away when you downsample. If you double the number of pixels, a "pixel crop" (one pixel on the individual photo to one pixel on your screen) will give you more noise on the one with smaller sites, but it will also be looking at a much smaller area. If you crop them to cover the same area and average the signals, you'll find that the same number of photons hit both sensors and were detected, so the result is approximately the same, with the exception of the small amount of loss caused by the wiring around the pixels. And by the time that starts to become significant, you're roughly at cell phone pixel densities, and you're either doing back-side illumination, microlens arrays, or both to get rid of that problem.

Re:Pixels density

[dgatwood]

Except that it doesn't, because it doesn't. The 5D Mark IV sensor uses a gapless microlens array. There are no boundaries between the pixels, period. All light that hits the sensor's surface goes into the sensor except for any that gets reflected when it hits the surface.

Re:Pixels density

[Tough Love]

The 3D mk IV is still conservative compared to Nikon's four year old D800 at 36 mpix.

Re: Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

why wouldn't you use a mid-priced prosumer camera like the 5d mark iv primarily for web? there's professional photography done for web only, and you're right - something like an 1d or a phase one back on a medium format camera would probably be overkill.

Re:Pixels density

[by (1706743)]

It sounds like you're talking about shot noise. But there's also read noise, etc., which may not be (afaik...) spatially correlated.

Now, if Canon properly implements some sort of binning, they could get the best of both worlds: high resolution when read noise isn't a problem (i.e., bright scene) and good SNR in dim scenes, albeit at lower resolution.

Re:Pixels density

[thegarbz]

True but the image will always suffer from less thermal noise on an equivalent sensor with larger photosites.

We don't need to have this argument again. We had it a few years ago when Nikon released a 36mpxl camera. Canon people shouted from the hilltops that it will be noisy crap, they were wrong and Nikon's cameras ended up besting them by a large margin as a result.

You can do far more with noise distributed over an oversampled image than you can do with a perfectly sampled image that has less noise. Yes in raw physics the larger photosites win. But when applying image processing to get the results you want the higher resolution wins, especially since having the extra resolution allows you to do all sorts of fancy other things.

Re:Pixels density

[thegarbz]

However there is. High pixels density means smaller photosites, and the amount of light they can receive per second is lower - thus needs increased accuracy and improved technology to handle low-light condition (it seems it's the case here).

This is the same argument that was used when Nikon came out with their 36mpxl sensor. It turned out to be not relevant at all in the field, and turned out to also be quite wrong when you start processing photos for noise reduction. An oversampled photo can have more effective oversampling than an undersampled one. It turns out to be quite the net win in terms of final image quality.

Anyway this isn't news. 36mpxl isn't exciting. Nikon has had this for years. The Canon 5DSR is 50mpxl and Canon showed a prototype 120mxpl camera a while back too.

Re:Pixels density

[thegarbz]

Today, that means something like Phase One's 100 megapixel medium format digital back. This lets us initially grab as many pixels as possible and then throw away the ones we don't want later.

Pffft Is that all?

But really it's a lot of naval gazing and penis compensation. High-end reprographic work hasn't gotten any better in the past 5-10 years. The same arguments were made back when medium format backs were 30mpxl and DSLRs were 8mpxl. The same argument is being made now. Interestingly the pictures are still the same quality which really puts the whole "*really* need" thing into perspective.

Re: Pixels density

[cayenne8]

why wouldn't you use a mid-priced prosumer camera like the 5d mark iv primarily for web? there's professional photography done for web only, and you're right - something like an 1d or a phase one back on a medium format camera would probably be overkill.

If you're shooting ONLY for the web, which is mainly what I was referring to...then a DSLR like the 5Dx is overkill.

Now, I do realize that most any great image taken, for print, etc...will *also* likely end up on the web too, no problem.....always nice in the pro area to shoot for print and down-res as needed. But I took the "shoot FOR web" to be someone only shooting for their private website, etc....and in general, these DSLRs would be overkill for them.

And if you consider close to $4K a pop for body ONLY...to be mid priced...whew, you have more disposable income than I do.

Re:Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

Canon, like Nikon and the rest of the photographic world, realizes that cramming as many pixels in a similar sized sensor doesn't make for the greatest image quality. Especially in low light levels. Especially at full resolution ( eg, not downsized )

This is why their pro level cameras aren't sporting ridiculous pixel counts like their consumer counterparts do.

This is also why most photographers will have more than one body with them. If you need a quality image in low light, they'll use body X. If you need a high resolution image for a wall sized print, they'll use body Y.

In a full frame format, you typically have to choose which is more important to you. Resolution or Low Light Sensitivity. Nothing on the market excels at both as far as I'm aware.

Re:Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

Shot noise is the issue, since it follows Poisson statistics. If a signal of 10000 photoelectrons is obtained, there will be a sigma of 100 photoelectrons, or a s/n ratio of 100. The maximum for photoelectrons for a photosite is between 10 and 100 times that number, and you don't want to approach the maximum. Actually, one can get fewer (maybe fewer than 100, giving a s/n ratio of 10) photoelectrons from darker pixels. Rely on a correlation between adjacent pixels? It may give apparently good photos, but they have very poor scientific value, and an unquantifiable intrinsic value.

Read noise is generally just a few photoelectrons, but is largely independent of signal level. It affects regions of 100 photoelectrons as much as 1000000 photoelectrons.

Re:Pixels density

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it doesn't, because it doesn't. The 5D Mark IV sensor uses a gapless microlens array. There are no boundaries between the pixels, period. All light that hits the sensor's surface goes into the sensor except for any that gets reflected when it hits the surface.

So perhaps you'll tell us how the signal from a red pixel is adjacent to the signal from a blue one...

Re:Pixels density

[swalve]

And 8 bit, 8khz audio sounds just fine.

Re:Pixels density

[swalve]

I shoot in RAW so I can rescue bad shots. RAW, imho, isn't for making good shots better. It's to improve the % of salvageable photos.

Re:Pixels density

[hcs_$reboot]

Not the same thing at all. 8 bits / 8 kHz would be fine if you listen to the sound coming out of a buzzer.

Re:Pixels density

[graphius]

Wrong. Raw has greater colour depth than jpg. Even the least compression of jpg is not able to handle the same level of manipulation as raw. shadows will be more noisy, gradients less smooth.
I agree that if you are just posting images on Facebook, there may be no advantage to shooting raw. If, however, you are printing large prints for display in a gallery, there is a huge difference between starting with 8-bit jpg and starting with a 14-bit raw.
Not to mention other advantages such as more accurate colour balance etc.
And you do calibrate your wide gamut monitor don't you?

I'm an amateur photographer but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even I'm bothered by how this advertisement made it to the front page.

Re:I'm an amateur photographer but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is slashdot-related, provided that you can build a Beowulf cluster of them, it does run linux, or has something to do with Natalie Portman...

Re:I'm an amateur photographer but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm bothered by the 4k@30 maximum. Shooting fullHD@60 is feature found on cameras 1/20th the price... so it's really, really widespread.

Do they really expect one to simply ignore the advantages of higher framerate capture just because of the higher res? Isn't this supposed to be a high end camera?

Re:I'm an amateur photographer but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do they really expect one to simply ignore the advantages of higher framerate capture just because of the higher res? "

How many of these cameras photograph humming bird wings for National Geographic? 1? 2? 0?

How many of these cameras are waved about by wedding photographers, hoping to charge $2-5k a pop for the days shooting?
Look they're huge dinosaurs, its not about the capabilities of these full frame cameras, because they're terrible cameras, big unwieldy, slow frame rates, etc. It's about the pose.

Re:I'm an amateur photographer but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hot grits at 30 frames per second. -PCP

Captcha: scissor

Re:I'm an amateur photographer but...

[cayenne8]

Well, one thing that might REALLY make it Slashdot relevant, is to see how quickly Magic Lantern can get their software running on this thing....

I wonder if they can get 4K RAW Video working on this thing....?

Re:I'm an amateur photographer but...

[chispito]

Even I'm bothered by how this advertisement made it to the front page.

The 5D series is notable because the Mk II revolutionized video production. Everyone from teenagers to AAA Hollywood production units were using them. They weren't a replacement for cameras costing tens of thousands more, but they were close enough for most shots.

Re:I'm an amateur photographer but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then go to a camera enthusiast site. I'm here because I want the opinion of libertarian neckbeards on various scientific matters.

Re:I'm an amateur photographer but...

[Anonymous Coward]

^^^

Re:I'm an amateur photographer but...

[Tough Love]

Even I'm bothered by how this advertisement made it to the front page.

This class of camera is stuff that matters to nerds like me. Heard it first here on Slashdot, thanks folks.

Re:I'm an amateur photographer but...

[thegarbz]

So? It's not the first camera with video. It's not the highest resolution camera, heck it's not the highest resolution in the 5D series. Everything else is borderline incremental.

Just because they released a camera that revolutionised the industry with some weird feature that most photographers still can't figure out why they have, doesn't mean that they should suddenly get ever little incremental advance advertised here.

This isn't news for nerds, and it's not stuff that matters. People interested in this probably have found out about it already.

Has a Digic 6+ processor

[hcs_$reboot]

Funny when Canon brags "has a Digic 6+ processor", since Digic is Canon proprietary used exclusively by Canon, and we users have no idea what that really means. So, "has a Digic X processor" is only relevant after checking the FPS, and how long it takes to process the images currently in buffers.

Re:Has a Digic 6+ processor

[Entrope]

"Digic X" vs "Digic Y" tells you which is newer, and whether Canon thinks the newer one is enough better to deserve a bump in the major version number. You do still need to get other stats to decide whether, for you, the cost delta is worth the performance delta.

Re:Has a Digic 6+ processor

[Shoten]

Funny when Canon brags "has a Digic 6+ processor", since Digic is Canon proprietary used exclusively by Canon, and we users have no idea what that really means. So, "has a Digic X processor" is only relevant after checking the FPS, and how long it takes to process the images currently in buffers.

The Digic processor is known for being very, very good. Yes, it's proprietary and unique to Canon. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant; it's presence is a feature, and not all Canon cameras have it.

Main useful feature

[Anonymous Coward]

For many users, myself included, the expanded AF coverage (now claimed to be 80% of the viewfinder) is ***the*** useful enhancement.
That might be the one feature that seriously slows down the inevitable demise of classical SLRs with mirrors and prisms.
And Nikon, if you're listening, this is the first time I'm considering ditching your hardware for Canon's, unless you quicky follow suit.

5 years old news ?

[denisbergeron]

Well, as a ex-Canon user, when you compare the "new" technologies of Canon to some other manufacturers of digital camera, you can ask your self how Canon manage to sell small megapixel non-stabilized sensors with low ISO today. Canon look like the Apple of the camera, full of marketing strategies to sell bad hardware to unknownledge buyers thinking how cool is it...

And even on Slashdot. .. what happens to this site is the biggest question !

Re:5 years old news ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. You're not a photographer. Thanks for your lack of insight.

Re:5 years old news ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I notice that you hate on Canon but don't tell us what you have now and why you think it's so great.... Typical Slashdork; filled with complaints and hate but offers up no solutions. Meh. Another useless opinion based on god-only-knows criteria.

Re:5 years old news ?

[dunkelfalke]

Not really like Apple, but more like Microsoft - Canon is the de-facto standard, unfortunately. Sigma even uses the Canon protocol in their line of DSLRs.

Re:5 years old news ?

[CastrTroy]

I'm not sure about the high end DSLRs, but at the low end point and shoots, they seem to be the best from what I've tried. They turn on very quickly, focus quickly, and take the picture when you press the button. That last camera I bought from another company was a Nikon point and shoot, and it was a very bad camera is those respects. I've bought 4 point and shoot Canon cameras (1 for each person in my family) and they have all held up very well. Long lasting even with the kids handling them, and they take great pictures without a lot of fuss. I find it interesting that you are quick to point out how bad Canon is without offering any information about who makes better cameras.

Re: 5 years old news ?

[denisbergeron]

I not here to make advertising, but if you ask I have now Sony A7 series cameras, and I can manual focus my old m42 lens faster that my canon 5D3 or 70d focus my Canon L (uxury) lens.

Re: 5 years old news ?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

So what pre K1000 camera are you using that still takes m42 lenses, and do you have a lens in the 400-500mm range or a 17 or 19mm that isn't trash you are willing to sell?

Re: 5 years old news ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not a photographer, yet you spent a couple thousand dollars on a camera you don't use much from a company you had already thought produced crappy products? Or are you just making irrelevant complaints like the gp said based on using a completely different class of products?

You don't need to be a chef to judge food, but you can't pretend to have eaten at a famous chef's restaurant after eating some crap in the grocery freezer aisle with their name on it.

Re: 5 years old news ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a Jamie Oliver sandwich once. It was overpriced and tasteless. Avoid.

Re:5 years old news ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you judge the food to be poor quality, do you blame the kitchen facilities or the chef? Same question with poor focus, off-color digital photographs: It is not necessarily (or likely) to be the camera's fault.

Re:5 years old news ?

[magarity]

how Canon manage to sell small megapixel non-stabilized sensors with low ISO today

Canon puts the stabilization in the lens instead of the sensor and that's a legit design trade off; I'm sure they're sad you don't agree. My Canon's ISO goes to 25600 in normal modes and 102400 in emergencies, how high do you want?

Re:5 years old news ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am, he's right. We all make fun of Canon using some ancient manufacturing process (was it 230nm litography?) whereas Nikon (Sony) was already on 65nm. Guess how great the quantum efficiency of Canon sensors was? Like Nikon D750 could produce almost noise-free image inside a cathedral at ISO 5000 whereas "comparable" Canon would have banding all over the place at ISO 400.

Canon has its place in model photography due to improving look of the skin by their proprietary algorithms straight out of the camera, which IMO look better than on Nikon. Yet they are still using Bayer sensors, meaning they are mushy at the pixel level and comparing to media format or Foveon are losing microcontrast, making details look dull. Also, Canon pretty much hit the jackpot with 5D II for amateur video-graphers. Maybe they can repeat it with 4k? Though they are up to BlackMagic there with the same lens mount.

Re:5 years old news ?

[dgatwood]

Canon puts the stabilization in the lens for a good reason. Sensor-based stabilization is only useful on point-and-shoot cameras or mirrorless cameras with electronic viewfinders. As soon as you have an optical path to your eye, sensor-based stabilization is worthless, because it won't help you frame the shot. By contrast, lens-based stabilization locks the image in place so that you can actually see what you're taking a picture of.

This makes a huge difference even at 300mm. By 600mm, you'd be hard pressed to ever get a shot of anything without lens-based optical stabilization.

Re:5 years old news ?

[dgatwood]

With that said, it might be worth clarifying that at high MP counts, a hybrid system might be preferable, using sensor-based stabilization for fine correction after your finger hits the button.

Re:5 years old news ?

[magarity]

Canon puts the stabilization in the lens for a good reason. Sensor-based stabilization is only useful on point-and-shoot cameras or mirrorless cameras with electronic viewfinders

Well, I think the folks at Sony, who make fine DSLR cameras with sensor based stabilization, would disagree with you on this point. I suspect the GP is a Sony fan. I prefer Canon myself but I also stand by my assertion that either way is a legit method with different trade offs

Re: 5 years old news ?

[denisbergeron]

I didn't that I have a camera that use m42, I have lenses that are m42 and m39, and older. I also have others MF lens (minolta mc, nikon, pentax). On the Canon side, my biggest lens is EOS 500 f4 mk-I, I also have other "fast" Canon lend.

Re:5 years old news ?

[swalve]

One of the whole points of a high end camera is that there is (practically) no "after you hit the button" except the shutter opening. Lag is for toys.

30.4 megapixels, not 34 megapixels

[Anonymous Coward]

Article which is linked says the sensor is 30.4 megapixels, not 34 megapixels as stated on Slashdot.

is it worth the upgrade?

[pahles]

If you currently own a 5D Mark III, is it worth the upgrade? Canon (and Nikon too, for that matter) have the tendency to only do small incremental upgrades. "we listened to the requests of current EOS users" Is that true? Have they made changes to the 1980's menu system for example?

Re:is it worth the upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

The menus basically have to be where they are now, because old photographers expect the MS-DOS menu experience. And, for reals, out in the field that paradigm is often the one that works best.

As for the colour scheme, I guess it's for readablity under adverse conditions (pouring rain).

Re:is it worth the upgrade?

[hcs_$reboot]

What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the user ; Canon does a pretty good job at it on such a small screen, IMO.

Re:is it worth the upgrade?

[hcs_$reboot]

Geolocation and wifi...

Re:is it worth the upgrade?

[squiggleslash]

No, because you have almost the same device, but it no longer comes with a headphone jack.

Re:is it worth the upgrade?

[gander666]

I'll admit that I like the geolocation with the built in GPS, could care less about wifi. Yet I probably won't upgrade my 5D mark I (ancient), but I might buy that luscious 16-30 EF f/2.8L. That looks scrumptious.

Re:is it worth the upgrade?

[dgatwood]

As a 6D user, in my experience, the Wi-Fi is really nice if you're part of a group trip. You can have your cell phone out, and once in a while when there's a pause, you can snag a photo off your real camera and upload it to Facebook so that the folks back home can see what you're all doing. It's much easier than trying to take photos with two devices at once, because the extra time spent fiddling with your phone is while you're on a bus riding somewhere or whatever instead of while you're out sightseeing on a schedule.

It is also occasionally useful if you don't have (or forgot to bring) a remote controlled trigger release. You can use it to see what the camera sees (in live view/EVF mode) and tell it to take photos, albeit with a lot of shutter lag. With the dual-pixel AF in the 5D Mark IV, it should be even better because you'll have actual phase-detection autofocus with continuous focusing in live view mode instead of contrast-detection AF.

Menus on cameras are terrible

[sjbe]

Have they made changes to the 1980's menu system for example?

That would be shocking if someone actually fixed that problem. I have yet to run across a camera menu (Canon or otherwise) system that doesn't make my eyes bleed. While I'm not a pro photographer by any means I've handled enough cameras across enough brands to realize the menus are pretty much universally shit. Just horribly designed with terrible interfaces. Buried settings with little rhyme or reason to them, clumsy navigation, poor descriptors, idiotic menu choices, etc. I'm not looking for pretty - just efficient and functional. Haven't found one I like yet. The cameras I've tried haven't nailed the collaboration with smartphones, tablets or PCs either. You can get them to talk but it's super clumsy and annoying. That should be basic by now but they haven't figured it out.

Re: Menus on cameras are terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

The menus are fine. If you know what you're doing you won't be using them much anyway. You only need the muscle memory to set speed, aperture, ISO settings and flash modes by dial/button combination and that frankly takes only a little practice. I only ever need the menu to clean the sensor and sometimes format the card but that's all. If you're using the menu too much you're doing it wrong.

Re:Menus on cameras are terrible

[MichaelJ]

The menus on Canon cameras are actually one of the best features and one I tout when people ask me for camera suggestions. Every Canon digital camera I've owned since the late 90's, whether various models of point and shoot, or five different dSLR models (including the 5Dmk3) has a menu system consistent with the other models. There are more options in some cameras compared to others, especially the 5, but they all work the same. If you've used any Canon camera you can pick up another model and immediately know how to navigate the menus and set things up. That kind of consistent experience is a real win.

Re:Menus on cameras are terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be an App developer always trying to solve a problem that isn't there.

Re: Menus on cameras are terrible

[UnknownSoldier]

Disagree. The UI is poorly organized for my needs (Rebel T5 owner)

i.e. Some of the options I use more often then the others are buried across _multiple_ menus.

Thankfully you can put the menu items under a custom "Favorites" menu to help with the poor design / layout.

> If you're using the menu too much you're doing it wrong.

_Your_ workflow _isn't_ the same as mine.

Re: Menus on cameras are terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

okay, so don't buy a canon. clearly canon works for millions of people. they aren't going to change to suit your wants.

Re:Menus on cameras are terrible

[thegarbz]

Buried settings with little rhyme or reason to them, clumsy navigation, poor descriptors, idiotic menu choices, etc.

So no reason you can discern, doesn't mean there's no reason for them to be where they are. On my camera they make perfectly logical sense to me.
Clumsy navigation? You mean like up down left right for all navigation from a tree that starts on the side, and only deviating to hitting ok if something is going to potentially effect stored data like a card format?
Poor descriptors, WTF, how would you describe something if not by the name of the feature?
Idiotic menu choices? Like putting all playback under playback, all recording choices under recording, all camera functionality under custom settings, and all hardware settings together under the spanner symbol?

Yeah maybe the problem isn't with camera menus.

wrong m pixel count

[Anonymous Coward]

30.4 not 34

Summary misses big new tech - Dual Pixel RAW

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a new technology in this camera - Dual Pixel RAW (not to be confused with Dual pixel AF). If you switch this on, you can do a number of interesting things during RAW processing, including adjusting the focus and/or the bokeh. This is the first camera to support Dual Pixel RAW - it will be interesting to see how it works in reality. This is something no other manufacturer has offered, and the summary managed to miss it!

As for there being too many pixels, I have the 5Ds, which is 50 megapixels, as opposed to the 5D IV's 30 megapixels. The files are not too big to store or process, and the extra resolution is useful.

I've noticed a correlation between the people who complain about too many pixels and the people who can't afford such a camera - guess those grapes must be sour :-)

Re: Summary misses big new tech - Dual Pixel RAW

[Anonymous Coward]

What did you expect? Nerds! (Rolls eyes)

Re:Summary misses big new tech - Dual Pixel RAW

[hcs_$reboot]

I've noticed a correlation between the people who complain about too many pixels and the people who can't afford such a camera

Well (post above), not complaining... Just that to post pics to a web site, i don't need 30 MP. And btw I own a 5D mk II... Re. 50 MP, does your lens catch up with the MP resolution? Really? Besides, interesting post.

Re:Summary misses big new tech - Dual Pixel RAW

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you don't need 30 MP to post pictures to some web site.

Duh.

Re:Summary misses big new tech - Dual Pixel RAW

[ChrisMaple]

More pixels allows sharpening algorithms to be more effective. There's an inherent sinc function for the data coming from the sensors, and more pixels means a narrower sinc function. Practically, that means less noise for a given amount of sharpening.

Re:Summary misses big new tech - Dual Pixel RAW

[hcs_$reboot]

This is why the mask to be applied may be adjusted to your needs. We're talking about (for the mk 2) 21 vs 10 MP, to post a pic to the internet (say 1920x1080) and there is a lot of margin from the 10 MP - raw data - to reach the same result compared to 21 MP, which is overkill in this case. As for sharpening, this is usually the last step, after resizing...

Re:Summary misses big new tech - Dual Pixel RAW

[Anonymous Coward]

More pixels also allows more cropping; if you have a great shot but accidentally have something just in frame that you don't want you can crop the image without sacrificing noticeable quality.

Re:Fantastic!

[Anonymous Coward]

The EOS 5D is too light for this: use a sledgehammer, and aim carefully to the head of the pokemon.

"That's the way we've always done it" is idiotic

[sjbe]

The menus basically have to be where they are now, because old photographers expect the MS-DOS menu experience

"Have to be"? Baloney. They don't have to be anything. Who gives a shit what the old timers expect. Give them something better than what they expect. The camera manufacturers have just been lazy and can't be bothered to invest the money into designing a decent interface because they know theirs is as "good" as anyone else's and they have people locked to their platform via hardware.

That argument is the "that's the way we've always done it" argument which drives me absolutely bananas. If they had tried a bunch of stuff and that proved to be what worked best then fine but they haven't done that. NOBODY has done that. They just do a minor iteration on an interface from the 1990s that wasn't good then and still isn't good.

And, for reals, out in the field that paradigm is often the one that works best.

How would you know? Nobody has tried anything different. It works but that doesn't make it good, efficient, or pleasant to use. Camera companies trap photographers to their line of hardware and so they don't need to care that the software interface is shit since they know they aren't going to change platforms.

As for the colour scheme, I guess it's for readablity under adverse conditions (pouring rain).

Beyond whatever is necessary for function I couldn't give a tinker's damn about the color scheme.

Re:"That's the way we've always done it" is idioti

[Anonymous Coward]

The camera manufacturer will typically give at least two shits about what professional and semi-pro photographers think. Otherwise we'd have flippy-floppy touch screens everywhere, mandatory live view, and no distinct shutter release button -- because the prevailing UI paradigm is a goddamn cell phone.

These aren't your niece we're talking about here.

Re:"That's the way we've always done it" is idioti

[Pikoro]

Then set up the MyMenu section and add what you want. Or, fire up MagicLantern and be done with it. My question is, will this finally drive some of the MK II prices down?

Maybe I will finally upgrade

[drinkypoo]

To some other ancient camera body... still rocking the 300D here. Still works. Still takes more than adequate photos, since I'm not doing print.

Re:Maybe I will finally upgrade

[thegarbz]

Still takes more than adequate photos, since I'm not doing print.

Ironically enough, printing photos is far more forgiving than letting someone see them on the computer.

Features you don't need

[sjbe]

The menus are fine. If you know what you're doing you won't be using them much anyway.

The menus are NOT fine. They are terrible. If they aren't any use then they should be removed. If they are of use then they should be efficient and functional and easy to understand. Now I understand that many people need different features, which is fine but that doesn't excuse having a shitty interface for them. If it is used incredibly rarely then offload it to a tablet or a PC or (heaven forbid) a phone. Let people load the menus they actually need and want on to the phone and put an interface on the camera that doesn't suck.

Just because you have trained yourself to utilize a bad interface doesn't magically turn it into a good interface. You're just making the best of a bad design.

If you're using the menu too much you're doing it wrong.

Wrong. If the menu isn't useful then it was designed wrong. A feature that isn't efficient is a bad feature.

Re:Features you don't need

[drinkypoo]

If it is used incredibly rarely then offload it to a tablet or a PC or (heaven forbid) a phone.

No. NO NO NO. Photographers already have to deal with their gear being fiddly. They don't want to have to have their phone out so that they can get the full interface to their camera. That would be beyond idiotic.

It's very easy to fix this kind of problem, make people drill down further for the more advanced features. There's no need to take anything out.

Re:Features you don't need

[chmod a x mojo]

If it is used incredibly rarely then offload it to a tablet or a PC or (heaven forbid) a phone. Let people load the menus they actually need and want on to the phone and put an interface on the camera that doesn't suck

Yeah, make it so another piece of equipment is REQUIRED to change settings, that sounds like a menu that I want..... NOT.

Wrong. If the menu isn't useful then it was designed wrong. A feature that isn't efficient is a bad feature.

The menu on Canon hardware is just fine. As stated before, all commonly needed adjustments are available on the outside of the camera body. If you don't want the options to control the little details to set up the camera to YOUR personal photography style ( that you generally change major components of very few times in the camera life ) then go buy a point and shoot instead of a mid / high end DSLR.

I have quite literally worn out two Canon DSLRs and shot well over a million captures, and never once has the menu gotten in my way of getting the capture I wanted. Especially now, with the tilting / touch screens available, you very rarely have to go into the menus unless you are changing some very deep level stuff in the camera. These are the things that are pretty much pro level, and get changed only several times over the life of the camera. It would be stupid to take the control away from users since these items are generally changed at setup time to personalize the camera to the buyers style.

Likewise, having two differing menu styles for entry level / high end DSLR cameras is stupid. Not only is it more work, but it would be a barrier to people progressing up your product line if they had to not only learn the lower end product, but then re-learn everything once they decide to try a higher end product. As it is right now I can grab the bottom of the barrel entry level Rebel DSLR or the top of the line 1DS that is out right now and use either one without having to really think about the menus or how to set them up... and that is how it should be.

Re:Features you don't need

[davros74]

I have a EOS 6D and think the menus are just fine. The menus are grouped by function and color coded, and customization options are all at the end on three pages (microfocus adjustment, button assignments, etc.). And if that's too much, there is one user customizable menu page where you can assign any function you want to that page and re-order them as you please. Most settings are done from the buttons on the body (ISO, drive mode, AF points, etc). When I do use the menu, I use my custom menu the most, which includes things such as turning on/off the WiFi and GPS, mirror lock, and create new SD folder.

Re:Features you don't need

[0100010001010011]

I started buying Canon gear specifically because of the UI. I had a cheap P&S and liked the menu (It was a massive improvement over Olympus). The UI has been consistent and in the same format on every Canon P&S and DSLR I've owned since then.

Good design is better than workarounds

[sjbe]

Then set up the MyMenu section and add what you want.

How about the designers of the camera doing a decent interface to begin with instead. You are suggesting a workaround to a stupid system. I prefer that the system not be stupid in the first place.

My question is, will this finally drive some of the MK II prices down?

Unlikely but a good interface probably would capture some amount of market share for the first company to get it right. Since camera buyers tend to be sticky to a particular platform it seems like it would be a worthwhile way to grab market share

Re:Good design is better than workarounds

[ChrisMaple]

How about you define the details of a good interface system. You're doing a whole lot of complaining and not providing any suggestions.

Re:Good design is better than workarounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you just try not being such a whiny bitch?

Of everyone that is commenting on this forum, you're the only one that really seems to have an issue with the menu system. Everyone else mostly seem to be alright with it, even if it is ugly. I can say from experience that the menus on Canon DSLRs is vastly superior to the travesty of a menu system I've encountered on any point and shoot or touch-screeny camera I've come across. If you've RTFM and actually understand how to use your camera it's really not an issue. A simple scroll through menu with all of the more important options/settings available on the camera body.

CHDK - Will Not Work

[Anonymous Coward]

CHDK (Canon Hack Development Kit) can turn some Canon cameras into versatile laboratory instruments.

The Mark IV would be a welcome addition to our lab if it supported CHDK.

We bought several older Canon cameras from eBay in order to get versions that are CHDK compatible.

Without CHDK, Sony is a better choice for us.

Checklist marketing

[sjbe]

What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the use

There really isn't. Not on the camera itself anyway. 95% of the menu setting never get touched or get set once and never touched again so why do they need to be in a crappy interface at all? One could remove most of the menus on any given camera and nobody would even notice because they never get used. Those "features" exist on the camera because it provides a checklist for marketing purposes, not because it makes a better product.

Canon does a pretty good job at it on such a small screen, IMO.

Why do many of them need to be on the small screen in the first place? You are going to interface the camera with a computer at some point so why not offload the menus for the rarely/never used settings to a PC or tablet? For the interface itself take some design cues from touch interfaces like on smartphones for crying out loud. They don't give it a moment's thought. Make it seamlessly work with PCs and tablets with zero headaches. Right now it doesn't. I just bought a camera a few months ago and the software to talk with my smartphone sucks and getting it to work with my PC was needlessly painful and still doesn't work great. I disagree that Canon or anyone else does a "pretty good job" of it on the camera screen and even the bits they do well could be better. I think they put in the minimum amount of effort and the results show it.

Re:Checklist marketing

[drinkypoo]

What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the use

There really isn't. Not on the camera itself anyway. 95% of the menu setting never get touched or get set once and never touched again so why do they need to be in a crappy interface at all?

Professional photographers change their settings regularly. So do advanced hobbyists. Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem. If you find DSLR settings confusing, you would almost certainly do just fine with a super zoom compact.

You are going to interface the camera with a computer at some point so why not offload the menus for the rarely/never used settings to a PC or tablet?

Because I need to be able to change the setting quickly, and also while holding the camera with both hands. I might be on a moving vehicle. I might be in a constricted space where I can't let the camera go and let it hang on its strap. I might need to change the setting faster than I can get my phone out of my pocket.

Re:Checklist marketing

[theMAGE]

What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the use

There really isn't. Not on the camera itself anyway. 95% of the menu setting never get touched or get set once and never touched again so why do they need to be in a crappy interface at all? One could remove most of the menus on any given camera and nobody would even notice because they never get used. Those "features" exist on the camera because it provides a checklist for marketing purposes, not because it makes a better product.

I think we found the Gnome 3 user!

Re:Checklist marketing

[aardvarkjoe]

Why do many of them need to be on the small screen in the first place? You are going to interface the camera with a computer at some point so why not offload the menus for the rarely/never used settings to a PC or tablet?

While not having used this camera, I'm not going to comment on the merits of its interface, I don't really see why you think that the mere existence of an interface on the camera to change these settings harms you. If these settings really don't need to be changed often (/ever), then bury them in some sort of "advanced settings" menu that you can then ignore. Yours is the same mentality that we see from a lot of UI "experts" -- they proclaim that the way they want to use a product is the right way, and prevent anyone else from doing something different. Witness the whole GNOME interface disaster.

If the menu options get in the way of changing commonly-used selections, then the solution is to adjust the menus so fix that, not to remove everything that sjbe doesn't use.

Re:Checklist marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same problem that MS Word has. There are 1000 features, of which most users never touch more than 10%. So why can't you just cut out the 900 features nobody uses and leave the 100 that everybody cares about?

Because every user has a different 100-feature subset of that 1000. I use mail merge all the time, you use style sheets in every document, and my mother just wants curved text on her fliers. There's no 100-feature subset that covers even close to a majority of users. At one time I think MS had a "simple menus" feature, but it turns out to be pointless because everybody eventually needs an "advanced" feature and has to leave "simple" mode, never to return.

The same is true with cameras: a studio photographer, a sports photographer, a cinematographer, and a snapshooter will all use different subsets of features on a camera. Hence, all features need to be available on the camera.

dom

Re: Checklist marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

Au contraire, I think we have either found a wild Firefox or Google "ux" "designer". I'm sure his top suggestion should he share it be a "hamburger button" and impossible to decipher icons, instead of the clear, concise and universally understood traditional menu.

A faster horse

[sjbe]

The camera manufacturer will typically give at least two shits about what professional and semi-pro photographers think.

If anything they care a little too much. They're afraid to try anything wildly new. That's the problem. It's like the old Henry Ford line "if I asked my customers what they wanted they would say 'a faster horse'". Companies need to listen to their customers but even more so they need to figure out what customers actually need rather than what they say they need. Most people are actually rather bad at designing work flows that are different than what they are accustomed to. Sometimes that is fine but to really progress it is necessary to take some risks and try some new things that might or might not work.

full frame -- smaller depth of field

[Anonymous Coward]

Full frame (35 mm format) cameras give you a smaller depth of field at the same aperture, because the focal length of the lenses is longer than it would be with a smaller sensor. And, you can get a larger depth of field without diffraction at higher apertures -- f/16, f/22 than you can with a smaller sensor. Better yet, look at a medium format camera -- like a digital sensor equipped Hasselblad, and you will see that larger sensors have advantages.

Re:full frame -- smaller depth of field

[Anonymous Coward]

Step back zoom in, even a 1 inch sensor will give you a great depth of field for a portrait without going to m4/3 and certainly I wouldn't even go to full frame given the constraints of the hulking great lens.

Consistently bad

[sjbe]

The menus on Canon cameras are actually one of the best features and one I tout when people ask me for camera suggestions. Every Canon digital camera I've owned since the late 90's, whether various models of point and shoot, or five different dSLR models (including the 5Dmk3) has a menu system consistent with the other models.

Consistently bad interfaces are still bad interfaces. I own a Canon camera (among others) and the interface is not meaningfully better than the one on my Sony or my Nikon. They all have some strengths and lots of weaknesses. The fact that they are consistent across their platform is what I consider a basic requirement. It's kind of like getting excited because all of Apple's products share a consistent interface? They'd be idiots if they didn't do that. But that's not my point. My point is that their interface is just bad. It's awkward, inefficient, unintuitive, and ugly. I could live with ugly if it was efficient but it isn't. Consistency is nice but there is a lot more ground to cover to make the interface good.

Re:Consistently bad

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really want to see a goofy interface, pick up a pentax DSLR.

Re:Consistently bad

[PixetaledPikachu]

If you really want to see a goofy interface, pick up a pentax DSLR.

Pantax? Goofy interface? Pentax users navigate between captured images with a d-pad, and zoom in and out using the rear scroll, unlike the unfortunate canon and nikon users that have to contort their thumbs to reach to tiny zoom in and out buttons at the edge of their camera bodies.

Advertisement

[Anonymous Coward]

Good targeting - intelligent (sort-of), possible customers with expendable funds, and the latest tech.

LOL not 34 MP!

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped reading at 34 MP, it is 30.4 MP!

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

My mother was a SAINT! Get out!

Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[stereoroid]

I'd rather get a Pentax K-1 for half the price. Full frame, 36MP, image quality way up there, superior in some cases (particularly for static scenes using Pixel Shift), in-body stabilisation (doesn't need new lenses). Video facilities not as good, though: the K-1 doesn't do 4K but does do Full HD @ 60fps.

It doesn't do everything, but what it does, it does very well. Besides, why get what everyone else gets? Canon and Nikon are the Toyota and Nissan of camera companies. Boring. ;-)

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[Anonymous Coward]

The K1 is a fine camera, the lens lineup sucks though compared to canon and nikon. As someone who used to make money with a camera, I have a lot more invested in lens kit than bodies. Maybe that isn't the norm any more since the high iso bodies don't need the more expensive low aperature lens for low light.

Anybody on here a wedding photog? What do you use in churches these days? Do you just keep a 24-105 f4 on at all times and let the iso do the work?

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[garyoa1]

Actually been shooting with Pentax since the early 70's. For me, runs rings around canon and nikon. K20 rocks. K3... actually not as well as the k20 for me. And their new full frame is supposed to be amazing. And of course, they're all built like tanks. The problem, I feel, with Pentax is... they rarely advertise. So most folks think they're a low end piece since they never heard of them.

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I have a lot more invested in lens kit than bodies

So do I but then I am still using an old film SLR and what I have is so old that to change at this point would require changing everything. Also an f4 that is awful I think the worst lens I have is a f2.8 and that is my 200mm (it has been a while since I used that one), but then I did say I have spent a lot on lenses over the years.

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[walshy007]

Occasional second shooter here

They seem to pretty much all use 24-70 f/2.8 95% of the time with an 85 f/1.2 for soft portrait shots.

Even with the high iso capabilities of modern dslr's, I've still found situations (not at weddings) where the f/1.4 on my 50mm and 85mm lenses hasn't quite done the job to my liking.

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[werepants]

My wife is a photographer and I'm her second shooter for weddings - we've got Pentax K-5 bodies (APS-C) and yep, a 17-70mm/4.0 is my workhorse, which translates about the same. She tends to use the 16-50mm/2.8, which is decent but honestly her and I both prefer to have a backup body with a prime. The humble 50mm/1.4 actually does really well, I also really love the FA Limited 31mm/1.8 and the 35mm/2.0 (the best $300 we ever spent on photo gear).

I honestly never feel like there's something I want to do in the context of wedding photography that I don't have a lens for... except maybe that Nikon 200mm/2.0. If I had unlimited cash, that one might convince me to switch brands. But even then, a lot of those exotic lenses end up being gimmicky for wedding work - you use it for a shot or two, but it's too specialized for most situations. After getting the basic fast primes and fast-ish zooms, we really just rent specialty lenses here and there but haven't found any worth owning.

Since we actually try to make some money on this endeavor, we are pretty practical about gear choices. Better to have multiple last-gen camera bodies that can take a beating and provide redundancy than the latest whiz-bang camera that will depreciate like crazy. So I imagine we'll make the jump to the K-1 in a year or two, but at that point there will be an investment in longer lenses as well to account for the changeover from cropped sensor. Digital camera bodies became "good enough" for 99% of wedding situations about 3 years ago, so at this point the extra expenditure for upgrades is hard to justify.

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[werepants]

Even with the high iso capabilities of modern dslr's, I've still found situations (not at weddings) where the f/1.4 on my 50mm and 85mm lenses hasn't quite done the job to my liking.

Really? I have a tough time imagining that situation. If you need f/1.4 and ISO 12800 (any modern DSLR should be able to do this passably) things can be so dark that it becomes difficult to compose a shot because you simply can't see. At that point the camera system is rivaling or exceeding the capability of human night vision. That becomes "good enough" in my book, because even if I could get noiseless, focused images with f/1.2 and ISO 52800, I'd just be pointing and clicking in random directions in a pitch black room.

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually been shooting with Pentax since the early 70's. For me, runs rings around canon and nikon. K20 rocks. K3... actually not as well as the k20 for me. And their new full frame is supposed to be amazing. And of course, they're all built like tanks. The problem, I feel, with Pentax is... they rarely advertise. So most folks think they're a low end piece since they never heard of them.

And I have a lot more spent on Pentax lenses than bodies. Pentax does not advertise much, but they give bang for the buck.

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[mlts]

The ironic thing is that Canon used to offer a 50mm, EOS f1.0 lens. It is a monstrosity, but for getting shots in low light, it was unbeatable. I wish they still made such a thing, but I guess it probably didn't sell well. It would be nice though.

Similar with Nikon's 2000mm telephoto lens that was sold for a bit and then discontinued.

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[walshy007]

A reasonably dark church that has been set up for swing dancing is a prime example.

There is a night and day ;) difference between trying to shoot static things in the dark vs things that still have significant motion blur on a tripod at 1/100

My camera is capable of over iso 100,000, but I would never use above 6400 generally and 3200 in situations where I want to underexpose a little. If I were going for a little overexposure I'd go 12,800 perhaps because the amount of light collected would still be half reasonable. High ISO with low EV's looks horrible.

I can still see just fine.

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[werepants]

Well, if you're trying to keep shutter speed high, I can see the need for that. I've shot plenty of wedding receptions that are painfully dark though - and the majority of the time, the best answer is just off-camera flash, or bounce flash if the situation is right. I'm mainly saying that because a lot of times the camera is physically capable of focusing and I could, in-principle, crank up the ISO and shoot without extra lighting, but in situations like that your colors are so muted and there's so little dynamic range in the lighting environment that the pictures that come out are flat and drab, or schizophrenic and nonsensical depending on the DJ's lighting setup.

Much better to have an off-camera flash or two, slow that shutter down enough to get a hint of motion blur and ambient lighting, but rely on the flash to keep the subject nice and sharp. Some of those scenarios really have been so dark though that I can't actually see well enough to compose a shot very well (I can tell that people are dancing, but can't see expressions, etc) so it really is a "shot in the dark". Thankfully, I still often manage to get some fun expressions and positions. ;)

Everybody has their own style, but for myself I find that all my favorite dark reception hall shots are made with a setup along those lines - and honestly, the wide aperture is more of a hazard than a benefit so I find myself at 4.0 as often as not, because things are moving so fast that getting a razor-thin DOF dialed in exactly where you want it is next to impossible. The off-camera lighting provides the drama and subject isolation that you usually rely on bokeh for.

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[walshy007]

and the majority of the time, the best answer is just off-camera flash, or bounce flash if the situation is right.

I find that kills the natural lighting of the place, and makes everywhere look "samey" not to mention drawing attention to yourself and distracting the people from what they're engaged in. Flash is an enemy of candid natural photography imho. Most people can't pose well, so I try to blend in and just always be around with my camera doing things. Making bright flashes every now and then can be kind of distracting and not appreciated in a lot of places.

Everybody has their own style, but for myself I find that all my favorite dark reception hall shots are made with a setup along those lines - and honestly, the wide aperture is more of a hazard than a benefit so I find myself at 4.0 as often as not, because things are moving so fast that getting a razor-thin DOF dialed in exactly where you want it is next to impossible. The off-camera lighting provides the drama and subject isolation that you usually rely on bokeh for.

Before I was using the 85mm f/1.4 I was using an 85mm f/1.2 canon. Why did I switch? focus speed. Manual focus on the 1.2 was slow as molasses because it still used the autofocus motor to do it which is notoriously slow. Whereas the 1.4 has real manual focus and a great deal faster autofocus.

That being said, even with super slow focusing f/1.2 with extremely fast moving targets a solid focus is achievable. Prefocusing to a specific plane and waiting for the subjects to come in line with that plane while being in an interesting position.

A tad difficult, but I find almost all of the worthwhile shots are, otherwise they'd be common as mud.

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[werepants]

I think you must work a dance hall very differently than I would, based on your focal length. I'm generally at 35mm or wider (on APS-C) so I'm pretty close and mixed in among the action. In that context, if I have a need for flash (which means the house lights are way down and the DJ has some effects going) then it inherently blends into the existing atmosphere of pulsing music and strobing lights. Ceremonies I shoot almost exclusively with ambient lighting because that's a quiet, subdued event where I don't want to attract attention, but at a reception I'm one dude in the mix of a bunch of dancers, adding a little bit of light to the situation isn't likely to be a problem.

In that context, flash is about as far from "samey" as you can get, IMO. For some examples, ambient lighting at receptions often gets you results like this: http://stevewatkinsphotography...
or this: http://static.photo.net/attach...
While flash gets you images more along the lines of this: http://www.melissajill.com/ima...
or this: http://static.jasminestar.com/...

Flash gets you brighter colors, sharper details, and most importantly, control over the situation - if you MUST get a shot at a precise moment, and don't know what the lighting is or how cooperative your subject is going to be (think cutting cake, bouquet toss, etc) then I find you don't have the privilege of setting up your focus point in advance and waiting for the subject to cooperate - eyes might be closed, subject might move in the opposite direction than you predict, or whatever. You can also line up an off camera flash for a cool effect, change your setup throughout the evening for variety, etc... So you proactively move focus and lighting to where the action is and where you need to be.

So, honestly, I would bet that a portrait lens with ambient lighting is the last thing most photographers would want for a dance or reception, except for a couple niche cases like the slow dances (father/daughter, etc) and maybe toasts - everything with action in it will probably come out better with a wider lens and flash. Of course, some of the most creative shots can come from breaking the standard rules, but to get back to the original point I think a 50/1.4 or 35/2.0 is going to be plenty fast to shoot a reception competently with a modern DSLR that can do decent ISO. If that setup can't get you your shot, your photography will be improved more by $1000 worth of flash gear than the >>$1000 you'll be spending to get a lens that only offers another fraction of a stop in speed.

Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment

[walshy007]

Well for starters I'm always on full-frame, so your 35 is basically my 50 and your 50 is basically my 85

It does depend greatly on the lighting setup of the venue, but while a poor lighting setup can be made better with external lights anything where it's workable it will kill it.

I do consider the two examples you gave as fairly samey.

Here's an example I took on the weekend on a dance floor, I cannot think how a flash would have improved this situation. The lens was full open at iso 6400. While it isn't an action shot it is an example of the kind of lighting I get sans flash. Using a flash would have killed the orange-blue contrast on either side of her shirt at the very least.

as for wedding receptions, I was at one as a guest recently when the official photographers bailed before the cake cutting/first dance recently. With only a prime in my hands I took this. I still fail to see how flash would have improved that image.

A very different style sure, and you are absolutely right that using a flash allows you to stop the lens down for greater depth of field/clarity. But they all feel the same and overdone, because it's too easy.

Re: "That's the way we've always done it" is idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a shit what the old timers think? The market for this camera is well to do uncles with too much money and not enough sense, and more importantly, pro photographers who can run through the Canon menu system (which hasn't changed in like 20 years) with one hand tied behind their back while blindfolded. You do not alienate your core demographic because some numpty on the interbutts can't learn a simple menu, for all of its weakness, real or perceived.

Even pros don't tinker with every possible menu

[sjbe]

Professional photographers change their settings regularly. So do advanced hobbyists.

There are hundreds of settings on an SLR camera that even a pro photographer isn't going to touch routinely if ever. And there are settings they do use with some regularity that are hard to get at and/or difficult to customize. The fact that they've learned to use a crap interface with the greatest possible efficiency doesn't change the fact that it's still crap.

Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem.

How does this excuse having a terrible interface? Even if only pros used it a better interface benefits them most of all. Furthermore what you think non-pros "need" is irrelevant and arrogant. A well designed interface will work well for pros and hobbyists alike.

Because I need to be able to change the setting quickly, and also while holding the camera with both hands.

So make the settings that need to be changed fast easy to change fast. They've done some of this but they refuse to finish the job. Sometimes you do need to change things quickly, that is true. That doesn't describe a very substantial proportion of the menu options. Probably >80% rarely if ever get touched even by the pros.

I might need to change the setting faster than I can get my phone out of my pocket.

There are a lot of features you could not possibly change faster than the time it takes to pull out a cell phone that given that they are buried in a menu somewhere. I'm not suggesting everything be offloaded but I think it's pretty safe to take something like the filename formatting out of the camera menu. You're not going to change that in a hurry. And frankly the argument that every feature of a camera needs to be in a menu just doesn't match reality. NOBODY needs every possible feature of the camera on the little screen. NOBODY is going to change a lot of those settings "quickly while holding the camera with both hands". Some they will. Most they will not.

Re:Even pros don't tinker with every possible menu

[davros74]

There are a lot of features you could not possibly change faster than the time it takes to pull out a cell phone that given that they are buried in a menu somewhere. I'm not suggesting everything be offloaded but I think it's pretty safe to take something like the filename formatting out of the camera menu. You're not going to change that in a hurry. And frankly the argument that every feature of a camera needs to be in a menu just doesn't match reality. NOBODY needs every possible feature of the camera on the little screen. NOBODY is going to change a lot of those settings "quickly while holding the camera with both hands". Some they will. Most they will not.

You are joking right? From hitting the menu button, I can usually find what I want to change and change it in about 2-3 seconds. WiFi to cellphone? First I have to go into the menu to enable WiFi (I don't leave it on due to battery drain). Then you have to download the app onto your smartphone. Then you have to find the camera's WiFi on your phone and connect to it. Once you do that, you can start the app, which will search for the camera. Once it finds it, then you have access to your camera. I have found that this takes about 10-15 seconds, if it was previously setup. For a first time setup, try several minutes, since you'll have to create and enter a password, pair the devices, etc.

If I am going to use my smartphone to take pictures of family (use it as a remote trigger since they are expensive), I make sure to get my camera and phone setup ahead of time so people don't get upset that it's taking too long to take the pictures. But the menu? Mere second or two. The smartphone access is a nice feature, but it is NOT a replacement for on-camera features. I mostly use the WiFi feature for sending photos from camera to phone to online (facebook or photo share), rather than having to use the old school approach of connecting to computer, or even removing SD card and using SD card readers.

Re:Even pros don't tinker with every possible menu

[thegarbz]

There are hundreds of settings on an SLR camera that even a pro photographer isn't going to touch routinely if ever

Nearly all of those are buried in a specific submenu.

And there are settings they do use with some regularity that are hard to get at and/or difficult to customize

Subjective. Each setting on my camera that isn't hotkeyed to the thumbwheel is equally easy to customise and no more than 2 clicks of the d pad in.

The fact that they've learned to use a crap interface with the greatest possible efficiency doesn't change the fact that it's still crap.

The fact that you think an interface that exposes all options of a camera to the user in the field is crap doesn't change the fact that many people think it's perfectly good.

Even if only pros used it a better interface benefits them most of all.

Better in who's opinion? The wedding photographer who has two different bodies on his shoulder which now has menu settings that are different? Changing the menu structure would instantly see a revolt in professional circles. The fact that I picked up my new camera and straight away knew how to access every setting except for the video settings which I had never seen before is more of an indication of a "good interface" than any change you could come up with.

Probably >80% rarely if ever get touched even by the pros.

Which pro? Do you speak for all of them? There are settings I use that very few people would, such as adjusting the shutter delay mode. There are settings I've never touched but I know people who change them on a shot by shot basis.

There are a lot of features you could not possibly change faster than the time it takes to pull out a cell phone

You're assuming that I can get to my cell phone. Am carrying a cell phone, want to drag along a cell phone, am even able to access my cell phone (does it work at a underwaterdepth of 40m? My camera does?)

I'm not suggesting everything be offloaded but I think it's pretty safe to take something like the filename formatting out of the camera menu.

I'm glad you brought that up as an example. Nikon made that feature easier to access when they added more colour space modes to the D2H at the request of photographers. They also added quick shortcuts (hold down ? while turning on the camera) to quick advance the folder naming scheme because people were upset at how long it was taking to traverse through a menu to change the recording structure in the field.

And frankly the argument that every feature of a camera needs to be in a menu just doesn't match reality. NOBODY needs every possible feature of the camera on the little screen. NOBODY is going to change a lot of those settings "quickly while holding the camera with both hands". Some they will. Most they will not.

Thankyou for speaking for everyone. Not. And screw you for suggesting I need to carry something around with me and tether it to my camera to change a setting that you think I don't find important. Oh man I wish I was so ignorant to know everything better.

Re:Even pros don't tinker with every possible menu

[nehumanuscrede]

"So make the settings that need to be changed fast easy to change fast. They've done some of this but they refuse to finish the job. Sometimes you do need to change things quickly, that is true. That doesn't describe a very substantial proportion of the menu options. Probably >80% rarely if ever get touched even by the pros."

The settings you might want to change will vary depending on what / how you're shooting. Landscape, wildlife, portrait, sports, etc. etc. etc. Someone who shoots in a studio might not have much need to quickly modify their ISO settings, but someone who is shooting outdoors near dusk / dawn most certainly will.

Since the camera folks don't quite know what type of photographer you are, they have to keep ALL of the goofy settings available to you via the menu. Though all of the bodies I own will allow you to create a custom menu to put all the stuff I use within easy reach pretty quickly.

Some things should just be a dedicated switch or button on the body instead of digging through menus.

Re:Even pros don't tinker with every possible menu

[drinkypoo]

Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem.

How does this excuse having a terrible interface?

You only think it's terrible because you don't need what it does. If you did, then you would think it's a great interface, because it does what you need. This is how I can tell you don't need a DSLR. You need a simplified, Fisher-Price camera. Sometimes those are great, and I have one. When I am just taking snapshots, that's what I use, because it is simple and good and small and light. I don't use the DSLR at all unless I need something it's got that the super zoom doesn't, like RAW. It doesn't have any more lens.

Because I need to be able to change the setting quickly, and also while holding the camera with both hands.

So make the settings that need to be changed fast easy to change fast.

Yes, that's what they have done. You're just seeing settings you don't need to change and thinking about how inconvenient all those settings are for you, because you think the universe revolves around your balls.

There are a lot of features you could not possibly change faster than the time it takes to pull out a cell phone that given that they are buried in a menu somewhere.

You are completely incorrect. No camera has more than three or four levels of menus and I can navigate a menu structure like that much faster than I can get my phone out of my pocket. I may not have a spare hand at all, so the phone might not be an option at all. I can work my phone menus with one hand. I cannot work the phone and the camera at the same time with one hand.

Your solutions are dumb because they make the situation more complicated. All cameras will eventually have fancy-pants multitouch displays and then there will be absolutely no benefit whatsoever to phone interfaces. In the interim, that kind of functionality is of use only to a subset of users. If a brand did what you describe then the professionals would go elsewhere and the company would rapidly gain a reputation for making toys and then go away.

Shut up and take my money

[RogueWarrior65]

Anyone want to buy a 5D Mk II body?

Wait Amazon bought Slash?

[future assassin]

and turned it into DP review?

I use an Olympus E5

[future assassin]

and used my E-1 for 8 years before I got the E5 second hand. Although camera have improved vastly since the E5 there's not much in that tech that would have improved my photo skills. I debated about the EM-1 for my 4/3 legacy lenses but not FAS screen no sale.

Pentax users have been...

[Anonymous Coward]

asking for a full frame DSLR with a k-mount for over 10 years. Still nothing but shady rumors. I guess it's time to ditch 40 years worth of collecting Pentax lenses and switch sides.

Re:Pentax users have been...

[Khyber]

You *DO* know they make A-to-K mount rings, right?

Re:Pentax users have been...

[PixetaledPikachu]

asking for a full frame DSLR with a k-mount for over 10 years. Still nothing but shady rumors. I guess it's time to ditch 40 years worth of collecting Pentax lenses and switch sides.

Do you mean this?

Re:They ARE stablized

[steve90]

I'm guessing you don't shoot many stills, you seem to be a videographer. If you think anyone shoots with a full frame DSLR for posing purposes you must be insane. They are fantastic tools for taking still images for the following reasons: 1) You have a large clear optical viewfinder. I'm sure electronic viewfinders will catch up eventually but at present there is still some lag and the resolution is lower. 2) Great battery life if you don't use the rear screen too much. I regularly go on holiday for a week, shooting a reasonable amount every day and still have charge left when I get home. 3) Not that huge if you are happy to use prime lenses. Some faster professional zooms are pretty big but for amateurs you can just use a couple of primes and zoom with your feet. Unless you are shooting something a bit weird like birds or macro stuff about 90% of shots could be taken with a 24mm and 85mm prime. 4) You don't unpack a DSLR you leave it slung round your neck and switched on - you can take a shot almost instantly. 5) Larger sensors are more sensitive to light combined with fast telephoto prime lenses you get great depth of field control for portraits. This is where they really shine over iPhones. The iPhone has a slightly wide angled lens (I think around 28-35mm equivalent) and a small sensor which is a lousy combination for people photos. Sure an iPhone is easier to carry but you are giving up a lot of functionality and the end results are nothing like as good.

Still a shitty camera

[Khyber]

My Minolta X-700 SLR from the 70s takes better pictures than most DSLRs today. Fluorite lenses FTW.

Re:Still a shitty camera

[110010001000]

They produce a warmer sound too.

Re:Still a shitty camera

[Anonymous Coward]

But how many times have you had to have _that_ capacitor replaced? The one that blows and causes the shutter curtains to derail?

I _loved_ my X-700 with a passion, but the first time that problem happened I got it fixed, and then someone told me that the fix is only temporary. If it happens on a given body once, it'll happen again.

Switched to a Nikon F80, have as a result been Nikon ever since (including a Fuji S2).

Re:Still a shitty camera

[Anonymous Coward]

Get some Sigma SD1M while you still can. The closest to film camera in digital you can find.

Re:They ARE stablized

[Anonymous Coward]

A far far smaller sensor makes far more sense these days. Sensors are far more sensitive than they were in the last millenium[sic], and simply don't need to be full frame.

So, a sensor a few microns across makes much more sense?

Wait to hear from the field

[nehumanuscrede]

Nothing matters about camera announcements until we hear hands on experience from folks in the field.
They'll tell you all you need to know about the camera and if it's worth buying or not. This will also allow for all the defects
to come out in the open. I personally wait at least six months before picking up a new camera body for this very reason.

In my experience, the higher density pixel packed sensors are great for things that have plenty of light to play with.
Not so much when low light becomes a variable.

Assuming you want / need a full frame sensor and using my own bodies for testing, I came to the following conclusions:
( I'm heavily invested in Nikon lenses, thus my bodies are also Nikon. Though I'm certain Canon will be similar )

All the math and theory is great but real world testing has shown me the reality of things.

The 810 and its 36Mp sensor is my go to body when you have lots of light, a need for large print sizes or the ability to crop in
on your target when you just can't get close enough. Keep it in the bag once it gets dark because anything beyond ISO 3200
is pushing it. Lightroom is good, but it has limits.

The D4s ( and its successor the D5 ) is my go to body when the lights go down or you need fast frame rates.
Pair it with a fast lens and you get the " Machine Gun that shoots in the dark " description.

A single photo at ISO 6400 between the two bodies and a noise comparison will tell you all you need to know in this regard.
The 810 and D4s share much of the same tech inside. So unless Nikon intentionally crippled the 810 for low light to prevent
competing with their flagship bodies ( a possibility ), the only thing that differs is the sensor pixel density.

In the full frame category, I am unaware of any offering by any manufacturer that is extremely high resolution and a low light
champion as well. I either have to pick which is more important to me, or buy two bodies to cover whatever needs may arise.

Nikon P&S, no

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was general knowledge that Nikon low end cameras are poor.

Re:Nikon P&S, no

[swalve]

My experience is the same- Nikon point and shoots are not great, but the DSLRs are. The opposite is true of Canon.

Re:They ARE stablized

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100% with you fellow ac, too bad you were modded as troll. There is a reason smaller sensor mirrorless cameras are catching up so fast you know... I sold my Canon DSLR/lenses and I am a full time Fuji X shooter.