Slashdot Mirror
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."
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).
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Even I'm bothered by how this advertisement made it to the front page.
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.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Article which is linked says the sensor is 30.4 megapixels, not 34 megapixels as stated on Slashdot.
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?
Sig?
You're right. You're not a photographer. Thanks for your lack of insight.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
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?
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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.
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 (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.
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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. ;-)
(this is not a
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.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
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.
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.
Anyone want to buy a 5D Mk II body?
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.
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
and turned it into DP review?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
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.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
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.
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?
Time to offend someone
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
You *DO* know they make A-to-K mount rings, right?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
My Minolta X-700 SLR from the 70s takes better pictures than most DSLRs today. Fluorite lenses FTW.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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...
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
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
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.
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
My experience is the same- Nikon point and shoots are not great, but the DSLRs are. The opposite is true of Canon.
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.