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...
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.
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.'"
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.
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.'"
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.
"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
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.
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*
How about you define the details of a good interface system. You're doing a whole lot of complaining and not providing any suggestions.
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.
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.
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!
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.
They produce a warmer sound too.