What does Canon need to put on the 5D4?

dexter75 wrote in post #17731919
............... Having said that, the 5Dx (iv is a bad luck number in Japanese culture, so it wont be called the mark iv) ...............

They made a 1DIV, so why not a 5DIV?

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17731922
They made a 1DIV, so why not a 5DIV?

Why no 1Ds mark IV? They went with the 1Dx as the follow up.

The 1Dx is most certainly NOT the 1Ds4.

If anything it was the 1DV.

It is a full speed action oriented shooter like the 1D - 1D4.

The ONLY thing it has more in common wit the 1Ds series vs. the 1D series is full frame. It stops there. Even the MP count is more along the lines of the 1D,.ie; just a trifling 2 MP more than the previous 1D body. The 1Ds always had larger jumps in MP.

Each of Canon's 1Ds bodies have been introduced with a new sensor having the highest resolution available at the time they were contemporary.

They were always the highest res of anything Canon had to offer, often by orders of magnitude. The 1Dx on the other hand has no more resolution than the rebel series of it's era, and has less res than many other bodies.

This is where the 1Dx fits in;

1Ds 11MP __3FPS
1Ds2 16MP _4FPS
1Ds3 22MP _5FPS

1D 4.5MP____ 8FPS
1D2 8.5MP ___8FPS
1D3 10.5MP _10FPS
1D4 16MP ___10FPS
1Dx 18MP ___14FPS

Lastly, there is no evidence that Canon will not use "4"
1D4, 40D, T4 and T4i, 430 EX, G4, G4x, S4, S40, S45, S400, S410, SD400, elph 4, elph 490, etc.

Google Canon 5Dx. I guess we will find out sometime next year...

dexter75 wrote in post #17731919
There is nothing more overrated in the internet forum world of photography than DR, except maybe megapixel count. Its like Apple and Samsung geeks arguing about processor speeds in their phones and what phone can do something a nano second faster than another. How have pro photographers been taking such amazing, award winning sports, wildlife, portraits, landscape and journalistic photos for all these years with Canons and their low DR cameras?! So ridiculous. Having said that, the 5Dx (iv is a bad luck number in Japanese culture, so it wont be called the mark iv) should have around 30-36mp, and various improvements as Canon has a lot riding on this camera.

I picked up a D810 and I can say without a doubt the DR is a major factor and the RAW files are on a completely different level. I mainly shoot landscape though so it's most noticeable in that area of photography

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17732469
I picked up a D810 and I can say without a doubt the DR is a major factor and the RAW files are on a completely different level. I mainly shoot landscape though so it's most noticeable in that area of photography

Thats really the only type of photography you will notice any kind of difference. If I shot landscapes, I might pay more attention to DR I suppose.

dexter75 wrote in post #17732638
Thats really the only type of photography you will notice any kind of difference. If I shot landscapes, I might pay more attention to DR I suppose.

Here's an example of a test shot I did with the d810. Basically, you just expose for the highlights, all the rest is there and so clean. The image quality has a much different feel to it. I do prefer Canon's layout and its much simpler to me, but this performace is everything I ever wanted from my camera sensor. I previously owned the 6D and 5D2 before that.......this image is just not possible with those bodies without blending exposures or using GND's

I have never really been a video guy considering DSLR's but since my introduction to 4k video with my Panasonic fz1000 I can not see why they wouldn't add that feature to the new models in any level.

I have the FZ1000 too. This is why Canon is losing their market share to Sony,Panasonic and everyone else.

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17732747
Here's an example of a test shot I did with the d810. Basically, you just expose for the highlights, all the rest is there and so clean. The image quality has a much different feel to it. I do prefer Canon's layout and its much simpler to me, but this performace is everything I ever wanted from my camera sensor. I previously owned the 6D and 5D2 before that.......this image is just not possible with those bodies without blending exposures or using GND's

Hosted photo: posted by Canon_Shoe in
./showthread.php?p=177​32747&i=i213355985
forum: Photography Industry News

Impressive, and I know you did this on purpose to test the camera, but a skilled photographer should know how to properly expose a photo before its even taken. If their shots look like your before example, they need to spend a lot more time learning basic photography and lighting instead of researching DR specs and Photoshop/Lightroom tricks.

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17732747
Here's an example of a test shot I did with the d810. Basically, you just expose for the highlights, all the rest is there and so clean. The image quality has a much different feel to it. I do prefer Canon's layout and its much simpler to me, but this performace is everything I ever wanted from my camera sensor. I previously owned the 6D and 5D2 before that.......this image is just not possible with those bodies without blending exposures or using GND's

Heya,

This is why 35mm format is more of an action centered system at it's highest end (noting that the biggest and best are action or distance centric, such as the speed and ISO performance of the latest offerings and the big F2.8 lenses that are available), or an "affordable" format (entry dslr stuff that is general purpose).

If you really cared about that kind of photography (one exposure for highlights, use DR and lift shadows and retain tons of color & detail without it being mud), and dedicated landscape in general, I'm curious why you'd use 35mm at all. A simple Pentax 645Z would be more to your liking probably, or other digital back medium format system.

Very best,

dexter75 wrote in post #17732850
Impressive, and I know you did this on purpose to test the camera, but a skilled photographer should know how to properly expose a photo before its even taken. If their shots look like your before example, they need to spend a lot more time learning basic photography and lighting instead of researching DR specs and Photoshop/Lightroom tricks.

I know you mentioned that you are not a landscape shooter, but after saying that perhaps you should reconsider weighing in on techniques for photographing them. Scenes like that have huge ranges of dynamic range, where you either need to bracket and blend exposures, or expose for the highlights and push your exposure/shadows for the foreground. Good luck doing that with any canon body available on the market today. I switched from the canon 6d to the d750 and trust me- having this amount of dynamic range isn't overrated. With the 6d, trying to do that would look horrible.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17732853
Heya,

This is why 35mm format is more of an action centered system at it's highest end (noting that the biggest and best are action or distance centric, such as the speed and ISO performance of the latest offerings and the big F2.8 lenses that are available), or an "affordable" format (entry dslr stuff that is general purpose).

If you really cared about that kind of photography (one exposure for highlights, use DR and lift shadows and retain tons of color & detail without it being mud), and dedicated landscape in general, I'm curious why you'd use 35mm at all. A simple Pentax 645Z would be more to your liking probably, or other digital back medium format system.

Very best,

Likely because medium format is damned expensive. Not only that, but right now the Sony sensor has just as much resolution and DR as the Pentax, so why not go with a sensor with almost identical performance, without giving up the other performance features inherent in the Nikon camera?

jsecordphoto wrote in post #17732865
I know you mentioned that you are not a landscape shooter, but after saying that perhaps you should reconsider weighing in on techniques for photographing them. Scenes like that have huge ranges of dynamic range, where you either need to bracket and blend exposures, or expose for the highlights and push your exposure/shadows for the foreground. Good luck doing that with any canon body available on the market today. I switched from the canon 6d to the d750 and trust me- having this amount of dynamic range isn't overrated. With the 6d, trying to do that would look horrible.

Im sorry but I do have experience with shots like this. Ever try shooting natural light with a model at sunset on the beach with enough light to see her perfectly but also get the colors in the sky, the water and the sunset? Its about the same as the shot I commented on if not more challenging. Ive done it with plenty of Canon bodies thanks

dexter75 wrote in post #17732850
Impressive, and I know you did this on purpose to test the camera, but a skilled photographer should know how to properly expose a photo before its even taken. If their shots look like your before example, they need to spend a lot more time learning basic photography and lighting instead of researching DR specs and Photoshop/Lightroom tricks.

Not necessarily. Knowing what your tools will allow you to do will allow you to get shots you otherwise wouldn't be able too. HDR isn't always an option. Filters likewise aren't always an option. Higher DR can be quite helpful for landscapes with complicated horizons; architecture, real estate, outdoor sports and events, and even natural light portraiture.