What does Canon need to put on the 5D4?

dexter75 wrote in post #17732870
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.

You can use a reflector to add fill to a model, you can't use reflectors to fill the entire foreground of a landscape however, nor can you use reflectors to light the entire facade of a building.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17732867
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?

While that is true, a new 5DIV would be what, $4k? The 645Z being about $5~8k depending on used/new, etc. Both are often paired with a fairly expensive lens, a good medium format zoom for landscape being a little more. Sure it's more expensive, but it's not like a $2k system vs an $80k system, more like $5k (5dIV & 16-35?) vs $13k (645z & 28-45). So yea, it's more costly, but in the context of what was being looked at, price isn't out of this world.

While the Sony may have similar DR and resolution to an entry medium format like 645z, the quality of hard pushed/lifted shadows is not the same. There is an advantage to having a larger sensor.

But I agree with what you're getting at. There are always compromises in a system. I'm just referring to someone dedicated to high quality landscapes without the monster budget, medium format fits in there too.

***************

On topic of the 5dIV or whatever it will be, what Canon needs to put in it is probably whatever it takes to keep competing in that category of professional level full frame with those features. The 1D series is for other features. And for dedicated landscape and such, there are other Canon options that really are fine depending on the final media presentation. What we want in the 5dIV is likely a little different compared to what Canon actually needs to do. I think the 5D3 is already a very competent camera and very well rounded. Taking it slightly higher to slightly more resolution, slightly more ISO capability and performance, even if it kept the same AF system even, are likely--but probably not exciting.

Very best,

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17732873
You can use a reflector to add fill to a model, you can't use reflectors to fill the entire foreground of a landscape however, nor can you use reflectors to light the entire facade of a building.

True, but I don't use reflectors, ever. Likewise, you can also use flashes and strobes to help with landscapes in low natural light like the shot that was posted. The results are quite stunning when done properly.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17732874
While that is true, a new 5DIV would be what, $4k? The 645Z being about $5~8k depending on used/new, etc. Both are often paired with a fairly expensive lens, a good medium format zoom for landscape being a little more. Sure it's more expensive, but it's not like a $2k system vs an $80k system, more like $5k (5dIV & 16-35?) vs $13k (645z & 28-45). So yea, it's more costly, but in the context of what was being looked at, price isn't out of this world.

While the Sony may have similar DR and resolution to an entry medium format like 645z, the quality of hard pushed/lifted shadows is not the same. There is an advantage to having a larger sensor.

But I agree with what you're getting at. There are always compromises in a system. I'm just referring to someone dedicated to high quality landscapes without the monster budget, medium format fits in there too.

Very best,

Actually if you look at side by side tests of the Sony and the Pentax (LuLa did one recently) you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in all but the most extreme situations. Beyond that, I'd recommend pricing out a full MF system, not just the body and one lens (who has just one lens?). A high end 35mm lens might set you back $2500 new (excluding the Otis) meanwhile a MF lens will easily be twice that. It adds up really fast. Then you start pricing filters for the larger MF lenses and it just keeps going. I've personally been looking at MF backs (for studio not landscape) and the only thing that stopped me from throwing down for a used Phase One P45 back was the release of the A7RII. The sensor is just that good.

dexter75 wrote in post #17732879
True, but I don't use reflectors, ever. Likewise, you can also use flashes and strobes to help with landscapes in low natural light like the shot that was posted. The results are quite stunning when done properly.

or, instead of lugging around flashes and strobes, you can expose for the highlights and pull shadow detail. Plenty of the top landscape photographers in the world are singing the praises of the Sony sensors that Nikon (and sony mirrorless systems obviously) are using for that very reason.

jsecordphoto wrote in post #17732906
or, instead of lugging around flashes and strobes, you can expose for the highlights and pull shadow detail. Plenty of the top landscape photographers in the world are singing the praises of the Sony sensors that Nikon (and sony mirrorless systems obviously) are using for that very reason.

There are entire speedlight and strobe systems that easily fit into a small bag and weigh next to nothing. The only people who would think they are heavy are the people too dainty to carry around a "heavy" 2 pound DSLR Its pretty much a non issue anyways. I have seen a ton of beautiful landscapes shot with Canon DSLRs over the years. Again, DR is dramatically overrated by the internet forum crowd.

You never use reflectors? That's unfortunate. They are cheap for what you can get out of them. Easily one of the best things I've ever purchased.

dexter75 wrote in post #17732996
There are entire speedlight and strobe systems that easily fit into a small bag and weigh next to nothing. The only people who would think they are heavy are the people too dainty to carry around a "heavy" 3 pound DSLR

The kind of lights you'd need for what you're prescribing would take up an entire bag on their own. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to be carrying around two packs while hiking through the mountains. Beyond that, it's a moot point when you're shooting something that you just can't get lights too. Honestly, it's almost cute to see the convoluted arguments you come up with to try and convince people that there's no need for what Canon can't provide, but it gets old after a while.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17732998
You never use reflectors? That's unfortunate. They are cheap for what you can get out of them. Easily one of the best things I've ever purchased.

Ive used them in the past of course, but I don't like them and I haven't used one in a long time. The light always looks unnatural to me and they make models squint. If I don't have enough natural light for what Im doing, I'll use a strobe.

Yes, but this changes the way you shoot.......like I said, you just need to expose for the highlights with most scenes and everything is in one RAW file. I shoot totally different now than I did with Canon

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,

Simply because I can barely afford this DSLR yet alone medium format. I buy almost everything used

Literally not worth arguing with this guy. He's saying we should bring out studio lighting to shoot landscapes...does that sound like somebody who has any idea what they're talking about? What a joke

dexter75 wrote in post #17732879
True, but I don't use reflectors, ever. Likewise, you can also use flashes and strobes to help with landscapes in low natural light like the shot that was posted. The results are quite stunning when done properly.

The point of all of this is that we hope that Canon can finally release a sensor on par with the Sony/Nikon sensor........if they do that, I would consider switching back for the Canon ergonomics although now that I'm getting used to Nikon's, it's not that bad. I can say, there is most definitely a large difference in image quality(like 2.4 stops more information in your files difference). Kind of like using an iPhone forever and then trying to use a droid........

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17733117
The point of all of this is that we hope that Canon can finally release a sensor on par with the Sony/Nikon sensor........if they do that, I would consider switching back for the Canon ergonomics although now that I'm getting used to Nikon's, it's not that bad. I can say, there is most definitely a large difference in image quality(like 2.4 stops more information in your files difference). Kind of like using an iPhone forever and then trying to use a droid........

But its not a real problem, Canon sensors are great. As I said, the DR "problem" is massively overrated by sub par photographers who don't know how to properly expose a photo and internet trolls who do nothing but study DxO like its the Bible and obsess over camera specs. Pro sports, wildlife, wedding, landscape and studio photographers have been taking amazing photos for years with Canon DSLRs, and they have gotten by just fine with the DR in the current bodies. These "Canon needs at least 14 stop of DR and at least a 90 rating from DxO in its next camera or it will be worthless and Im selling all my gear and switching to Sony!!" threads are ridiculous but quite comical.

meh, I could care less about DXO, but I can tell you I've shot both and having the DR is a MAJOR advantage for landscape. Not that I hate Canon by any means, they're just behind in sensor performance and that's the only reason I switched. It's really not even an argument IMO. Wanting more DR does not make anyone subpar by any means either.......A canon sensor simply can't handle the same scenes my Nikon can which is why everyone is talking about it. Look a how much DR the human eye can see and what your camera can see. Obviously the closer we can get to that, the better right?