Canon 5D Mark IV -- Time to Discuss!

"Canon 5D Mark IV - The camera for people that like to underexpose everything by 5 stops"
Oh and I drive a 71 Super Beetle (hence my screen name) it has a battery AND it starts everytime, but also has a good alternator if I ever needed to take the battery out and push start it

Colorblinded wrote in post #18135674
I haven't seen a raw file to look at, but even though it would indeed have to be inherent in the file, the amount of difference in output between the programs is interesting.

When I talk about looking at a RAW file, I don't mean in a converter. I mean looking at the actual RAW data and statistics I can gather from it.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18135826
When I talk about looking at a RAW file, I don't mean in a converter. I mean looking at the actual RAW data and statistics I can gather from it.

I realize that. I've not done that myself in a long time (10ish years), but the principles haven't much changed.

Chet wrote in post #18135366
I had a buddy in hs that had a bum battery in his vw bug. The bug had a manual transmission and he would just push and pop the clutch to start it. He did that for almost 8 weeks before finally putting a new/old battery in that had just enough oomph to start it with the battery. Good times.

We all did that when we were kids. Parked on hills.

don1163 wrote in post #18135691
Why are people so intent on trying to create a banding problem that would never be present in real world shooting conditions?
If you expose properly you will never experience any banding problems with this camera..
Ok, so every now and again you will need to pull some shadows maybe a couple of stops but this sensor is more than capable of doing that....

Ahh, the "real world" card. The real world allows us to use things for purposes which they were not originally intended.

So, you're shooting something ambient and other people show up and start using flash. You look at your captures, and some of them are blown out. In fact, the best one is blown out. Now, if your camera performed well with an ISO 3200 exposure at "ISO 100", then you could shoot that way, intentionally looking for ISO 3200, but when someone else's flash gets in the frame, you still have all the tones, because that flash for ISO 200 doesn't create unrecoverable, blown highlights. Then, there's lightning.

Or, you could be shooting flash at ISO 100 with white wall and ceiling bounce, for a nice diffused effect, and just when you're snapping the best in the series, the flash isn't ready. So, you have an ISO 3200 exposure from "ISO 100", but it is still usable.

But of course, the "real world" doesn't allow you to protect yourself this way, does it?

And the smaller RAW files you get "under-exposing" aren't real, nor the faster burst rates you get with the smaller files.

Why are people so defensive about products that they themselves didn't design?

John Sheehy wrote in post #18135847
Ahh, the "real world" card. The real world allows us to use things for purposes which they were not originally intended.

So, you're shooting something ambient and other people show up and start using flash. You look at your captures, and some of them are blown out. In fact, the best one is blown out. Now, if your camera performed well with an ISO 3200 exposure at "ISO 100", then you could shoot that way, intentionally looking for ISO 3200, but when someone else's flash gets in the frame, you still have all the tones, because that flash for ISO 200 doesn't create unrecoverable, blown highlights. Then, there's lightning.

Or, you could be shooting flash at ISO 100 with white wall and ceiling bounce, for a nice diffused effect, and just when you're snapping the best in the series, the flash isn't ready. So, you have an ISO 3200 exposure from "ISO 100", but it is still usable.

But of course, the "real world" doesn't allow you to protect yourself this way, does it?

And the smaller RAW files you get "under-exposing" aren't real, nor the faster burst rates you get with the smaller files.

Why are people so defensive about products that they themselves didn't design?

My recap:

I took my camera out today and took a photo of something I wanted to capture and I liked it. The end.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18135847
Ahh, the "real world" card. The real world allows us to use things for purposes which they were not originally intended.

So, you're shooting something ambient and other people show up and start using flash. You look at your captures, and some of them are blown out. In fact, the best one is blown out. Now, if your camera performed well with an ISO 3200 exposure at "ISO 100", then you could shoot that way, intentionally looking for ISO 3200, but when someone else's flash gets in the frame, you still have all the tones, because that flash for ISO 200 doesn't create unrecoverable, blown highlights. Then, there's lightning.

Or, you could be shooting flash at ISO 100 with white wall and ceiling bounce, for a nice diffused effect, and just when you're snapping the best in the series, the flash isn't ready. So, you have an ISO 3200 exposure from "ISO 100", but it is still usable.

But of course, the "real world" doesn't allow you to protect yourself this way, does it?

And the smaller RAW files you get "under-exposing" aren't real, nor the faster burst rates you get with the smaller files.

Why are people so defensive about products that they themselves didn't design?

Im not being defensive at all....I am merely wondering why some people are shocked that they get issues with images that they create using an unrealistic scenario that they have created in order to get the worst results possible from the camera....
Personally I would not expect to be able to get a usable image if i under exposed by 10 stops, but obviously the minority among us believe we should be able to...
Shame on you Canon for releasing a camera that is no use to any normal photographer

Talley wrote in post #18135863
My recap:

I took my camera out today and took a photo of something I wanted to capture and I liked it. The end.

Its no good taking photos you are happy with Talley.......You must take photos beyond the capability of your camera and then come on here and moan about how poor the results are ....otherwise its no fun

don1163 wrote in post #18135877
Its no good taking photos you are happy with Talley.......You must take photos beyond the capability of your camera and then come on here and moan about how poor the results are ....otherwise its no fun

Yeah. What happened to the good old days when Canon spent the first few months after a release shipping out bodies that couldn't focus? Now those were all real problems.

Talley wrote in post #18135863
My recap:

I took my camera out today and took a photo of something I wanted to capture and I liked it. The end.

don1163 wrote in post #18135870
Im not being defensive at all....I am merely wondering why some people are shocked that they get issues with images that they create using an unrealistic scenario that they have created in order to get the worst results possible from the camera....
Personally I would not expect to be able to get a usable image if i under exposed by 10 stops, but obviously the minority among us believe we should be able to...
Shame on you Canon for releasing a camera that is no use to any normal photographer

don1163 wrote in post #18135877
Its no good taking photos you are happy with Talley.......You must take photos beyond the capability of your camera and then come on here and moan about how poor the results are ....otherwise its no fun

I think you guys might have misunderstood John's post... take another read and think about the implications (or rather, benefits) of what he's suggesting.

I went to B&Hs event of the 5D Mark IV. Rudy Winston was the guest speaker. Afterwards you can test the camera yourself.

I took out my CF card and took some shots with the 5D4. I gotta say, I may buy this before I thought I would! I especially like the Auto (White priority) setting.

Here's a before and after. Normal and AWB W applied.

gossamer88 wrote in post #18135898
I went to B&Hs event of the 5D Mark IV. Rudy Winston was the guest speaker. Afterwards you can test the camera yourself.

I took out my CF card and took some shots with the 5D4. I gotta say, I may buy this before I thought I would! I especially like the Auto (White priority) setting.

Here's a before and after. Normal and AWB W applied.

Is that a new option on the white balance presets on the camera? Have Canon finally figured out how to properly WB under 3000k?

gossamer88 wrote in post #18135898
I went to B&Hs event of the 5D Mark IV. Rudy Winston was the guest speaker. Afterwards you can test the camera yourself.

I took out my CF card and took some shots with the 5D4. I gotta say, I may buy this before I thought I would! I especially like the Auto (White priority) setting.

Here's a before and after. Normal and AWB W applied.

Hosted photo: posted by gossamer88 in
./showthread.php?p=181​35898&i=i121421394
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

This was big feature that I never new until I tried it. As it turns out it was available on the 80D as well. I think Canon will have this on all future cameras and YES it performs much better!

mike_d wrote in post #18135901
Is that a new option on the white balance presets on the camera? Have Canon finally figured out how to properly WB under 3000k?

Yes... Not sure the first release but it IS available on 5D4 and 80D. You goto the AWB option and hit info and you have the option to selected ambience or white priorities now.

Another screenshot of my very technical DR tests. Again, probably a little over processed and not a huge push and pull, but the files feel like putty (it's probably just in my head).