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."
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.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
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.
Even I'm bothered by how this advertisement made it to the front page.
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!
"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.
You're right. You're not a photographer. Thanks for your lack of insight.
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.
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.'"
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.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
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.
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.
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.