Canon 5D Mark IV -- Time to Discuss!

Do you have questions for Canon about the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV? I may be able to do an on camera interview with Canon reps and am gathering questions. I am basing most of my questions on the **** that has gone on about how bad the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV is but was wondering if y’all have questions.

I’m compiling the questions here: https://www.evernote.c​om …VO4pzK0TksKBLhy​2NjI0Fmywk so you can see what I have already

sploo wrote in post #18136408
You don't need to take the SD card out (not even with the 5D3 BTW) you just need to tell the camera not to write to it. I did that a lot with the 5D3 - both RAW+JPEG to both cards for normal shooting, then switch to just RAW to the CF card only when I needed longer bursts.

....

Both slots are fast enough (with the right card) for all the camera's video modes, so it's really just down to potential pauses when spraying frequent bursts.

Did you have a custom menu setting to make the card write changes quickly? I find it's faster to pull the SD card when I find out I'll be shooting rapidly.

Also, it's too bad that video can't be recorded to both cards. Why do still photos need redundancy, but video does not?

Engineered_Reflex wrote in post #18136409
One thing I'm curious about is iso 50. I've not had a camera before with iso which is expanded downwards. I can see a use for it when taking shots of say helicopters in bright conditions when I would want to keep the shutter speed low without closing the aperture too much. Is there a downside to using iso 50?

ISO 50 could be handy for video as well. Kinda like using an ND filter. I wish the 7D Mk2 had ISO 50.

fotoi wrote in post #18136612
Just to be clear, shooting video will process faster on a fast CF card than on a fast SD card, is that correct?

Define “process faster”?

Write speed is write speed it seems to me. Unless there’s something in the camera that changes the output to SD to be slower than the CF?

Note SDXC cards (or any cards formatted as exFat) don’t get broken into 4gb chunks… so that may impact which cards you get.

sploo wrote in post #18136347
As others have noticed - the quality (spectrum) of light matters. As will of course your personal taste thresholds for what you consider acceptable.

For me, the original 7D was OK at ISO 1600, but by ISO 3200 it was struggling (though just about usable in the right light with a bit of overexposure to control noise).

The 5D3 definitely shifted that to the ISO 3200/6400 cross over point; though I have (small) prints at ISO 25600 that were just usable. In general I would try to not go above ISO 6400.

Empirical testing with the 5D4 so far would hint at a 1/2 stop improvement, but the better noise character and extra resolution means that ISO 6400 is now good, and ISO 12800 is just usable. I wouldn't worry too much about an ISO 25600 print on this body.

However... given that the 5D4 is a bit more ISO invariant than the 5D3 (i.e. there's less penalty for pushing in post), if you shoot raw you'd likely be better off shooting at, say, ISO 6400 but with the shutter speed/aperture you'd be using at ISO 25600, then pushing the image two stops in post. The noise will likely be no worse than taking it at 25600, but you'll have preserved two stops of highlights that would have been clipped in camera if you'd turned the ISO amplifier up to 11, err, I mean 25600. Obviously this matters for a dark scene with bright highlights (e.g. street lights). For a low DR dark scene, not so much.

Just a thought: would it be better to shoot in M plus Auto ISO? That way you can guarantee your aperture (DOF) and shutter speed (motion blur) and then just let auto ISO take care of the exposure. With the 5D4 you can use EC in manual, and you can even assign it to the new button by the joystick - so just press and roll the dial to adjust.

I've been able to eek out successful images with 5DIII at ISO 12800, but it took some work and compromise. Much easier with the 6D, just an FYI.

I'm interested as a music performance photographer to play around with underexposing to take advantage of that ISO invariance. If I can eek out a bit more shutter speed and aperture narrower than f/2.8 and not have blown highlights I'm golden. It's going to be necessary to shoot faster due to higher resolution, so it may even itself out. Certainly more work in post-processing, but I don't mind if the camera produces results.

I've played around with M and auto ISO, with exposure compensation it works out pretty well, and will probably be my default.

I have two concerts and a music festival next week, my first field trip with the 5DIV. I'm hoping for a few more keepers, Yippee!

Oh, you guys make trouble for the rest of us. I originally had no plans to get this, but 189 pages of thread can wear down a lot of cool judgment...

Just took my 5D3 in to the shop to sell. 96K clicks. Supposedly I can get a IV next week.
My justification is this: selling the 5D3 will cover 1/3 of the price, and in 4 more years I can sell the IV for 1/3 what I paid for it, so I am getting the camera for basically 1/3 of the list price, what a bargain!

sploo wrote in post #18136408
...

It's just a shame they couldn't have squeezed in a bit more internal buffer...

That said, I agree, more buffer space is the real bottleneck, and it would have been nice to see more buffer.

Jared5 wrote in post #18136611
The card slots were even more crippled on the 5D Mk3.

How so?

Mike wrote in post #18136337
I'd not heard about the FoCal software before...is it worth a purchase?

I like it, and yes I'd recommend it

sploo wrote in post #18136347
Just a thought: would it be better to shoot in M plus Auto ISO? That way you can guarantee your aperture (DOF) and shutter speed (motion blur) and then just let auto ISO take care of the exposure. With the 5D4 you can use EC in manual, and you can even assign it to the new button by the joystick - so just press and roll the dial to adjust.

I thought exactly that while reviewing my pics last night lol. I still don't understand why it overexposed everything after changing the iso though.

gossamer88 wrote in post #18136676
How so?

Not to reply for Jared5 but it is well documented that the SD slot was crippled on the 5D3 with a much slower BUS vs the CF. It was an important bottleneck in many scenarios.

fotoi wrote in post #18136612
Just to be clear, shooting video will process faster on a fast CF card than on a fast SD card, is that correct?

There is only two SD cards that work with 4K at the moment. See my signature for information.

nqjudo wrote in post #18136720
Not to reply for Jared5 but it is well documented that the SD slot was crippled on the 5D3 with a much slower BUS. It was an important bottleneck in many scenarios.

And now it seems there is not a bottle kneck with the memory bus. Just the buffer now.

Again see my signature for test data and other information.

Using the proper SD card (sandisk uhs-1 extreme pro) I am able to shoot RAW to BOTH cards without hesitation. Not once did I hit the buffer and I layed into the shutter for a few seconds.

4-5 seconds of buffer is what you end up with. Thats pretty substantial and way more than 99% need I would think.

nqjudo wrote in post #18136720
Not to reply for Jared5 but it is well documented that the SD slot was crippled on the 5D3 with a much slower BUS vs the CF. It was an important bottleneck in many scenarios.

Right. I did forget that! Good to know they (SD/CF) are on equal footing, except for the buffer...correct?

Talley wrote in post #18136722
And now it seems there is not a bottle kneck with the memory bus. Just the buffer now.

Again see my signature for test data and other information.

Yeah Talley. I have the 5D4 in hand but I haven't had much time to mess with it. Frankly I never saw the SD slot on the 5D3 as crippling. I used other bodies for fast action (not that the 5D3 was a slouch either) and I'm not a video guy. I suspect that I won't find issue with the 5D4. I should be able to stretch the 5D4s legs over the weekend.