Canon 5D Mark IV -- Time to Discuss!

Done two short shoots and the touch screen actually has done some weird things. Like today, when I was shooting without taking my eye off the view finder and I adjusted the ISO. Apparently my nose poked the screen before the dial went away and made a second adjustment. I'm glad I noticed after a few frames.

Another weird thing is that I'm used to wiping the screen before showing an image to someone else and I end up swiping the image away by accident. I keep forgetting that it's a touch screen.

vk2gwk wrote in post #18147448
I just checked it out with a 70-200mm (Tamron) which is MFA'd for the centre point set at @ 70mm - F/2.8 and cannot see any difference in focus/sharpness when using the centre point or any of the peripheral points (both left and right). Are you sure it is not your lens? Did you try it with another similar lens?

Many thanks (and to the others who tried too).

I'm as certain as I can be that something is amiss, as, once each is MFA'd (on the centre point) I have three different lenses from three completely different sources that show the same problem, and, ultimately, if I walk around a room taking shots (focusing using the centre or left AF points) the shots using the left points are consistently front focused.

If I tweak the MFA value to whatever is right for the centre point on the lens + some moderately large amount of back focus (usually around +10 more, but it obviously depends on the lens) then the left sided points produce in focus shots. The centre points obviously then don't any more.

I'm away for a couple of days from this morning, but will be taking some gear with me. I've dug out my old Canon 50mm f/1.4 (again from a completely different source to the other lenses) so I'll see if I get time to give that a test.

rebop wrote in post #18147554
OK, must admit I have not read all of this thread. Quite a bit, but not all.

I was very unhappy with my 5D MK III. Yep. I was the one. I'm sure you knew there was one shooter who sold it a few weeks after it was released I legitimately felt the images from my 5D II were much superior and after I bought a feature poor but image high 6D to replace it. I am now considering a 5D IV.

Couple of questions:

How is the dynamic range? This was my number 1 complaint with the III. 1 DX much superior and even the 6D and 5D II in my opinion.

Is the exposure in evaluative still highly weighted toward the focus point? That was the second deal breaker. Can it be changed in the IV?

And last, will an L-Bracket from 5D III work on a 5 D IV? Seems it should. Anyone tried? Obviously not a deal breaker on this one.

Thanks.

~Bob

Question: what are you defining by dynamic range? The 5D3 had much better higher ISO noise than the 5D2, and the 1Dx had better again, but all three had similar low ISO DR. See here https://www.dxomark.co​m …-5D-Mark-II___795_753_483 and select Measurements, Dynamic Range.

The 5D4 annihilates the 5D3 and original 1Dx for low ISO DR, and gets fairly close at higher ISOs: https://www.dxomark.co​m …on-EOS-1Dx___1106_795_753

In fact, it's pretty competitive with the 1Dx2 across the board: https://www.dxomark.co​m …-Mark-III___1106_1071_795

rebop wrote in post #18147554
OK, must admit I have not read all of this thread. Quite a bit, but not all.

I was very unhappy with my 5D MK III. Yep. I was the one. I'm sure you knew there was one shooter who sold it a few weeks after it was released I legitimately felt the images from my 5D II were much superior and after I bought a feature poor but image high 6D to replace it. I am now considering a 5D IV.

Couple of questions:

How is the dynamic range? This was my number 1 complaint with the III. 1 DX much superior and even the 6D and 5D II in my opinion.

~Bob

If you think the 5DII had superior DR you were not pulling the shadows.... that was the single worst camera Canon ever created for shadow recovery. IMO. Even now when I go back and try to re-process I shake my head.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18147621
lol, I just turned my 7D2 off and on again three times because "the touch screen was frozen" !!

Happens to me all the with my original iPad mini that does not have the fingerprint sensor.

Does anyone know if there is the ability for disabling the touch screen function?

STIC wrote in post #18147856
Does anyone know if there is the ability for disabling the touch screen function?

Lock switch

nqjudo wrote in post #18147566
Interesting. People usually found the DR between the 5D2 and 5D3 a wash at lower ISO values.

I think the 5D2 has a lot more visible post-gain banding noise than the 5D3.

sploo wrote in post #18147769
Question: what are you defining by dynamic range?

I think a lot of people still think that DR and "headroom" are synonymous, and consider the lack of DR to be something like getting washed out clouds in their casually-metered photos.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18147894
I think a lot of people still think that DR and "headroom" are synonymous, and consider the lack of DR to be something like getting washed out clouds in their casually-metered photos.

Indeed. Though given the context I was wondering if the intended meaning was high iso noise.

Neilyb wrote in post #18147792
If you think the 5DII had superior DR you were not pulling the shadows.... that was the single worst camera Canon ever created for shadow recovery. IMO. Even now when I go back and try to re-process I shake my head.

The 10D was pretty bad, too; that was the camera that introduced me to banding. I took a series of shots of something in front of a white background, metered with a gray card for ISO 100, took a shot and then kept repeating it, halving the exposure time, for a total of about 6 shots, and then converted them, bringing up the shadows. By about the 4th shot, the banding was more visible than the subject matter. One of the best Canons from the old days, ironically, was the 400D or Rebel xTi, with pixel level read noise at the low end of Canon's off-sensor ADC range, and no obvious banding character.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18147913
The 10D was pretty bad, too; that was the camera that introduced me to banding. I took a series of shots of something in front of a white background, metered with a gray card for ISO 100, took a shot and then kept repeating it, halving the exposure time, for a total of about 6 shots, and then converted them, bringing up the shadows. By about the 4th shot, the banding was more visible than the subject matter. One of the best Canons from the old days, ironically, was the 400D or Rebel xTi, with pixel level read noise at the low end of Canon's off-sensor ADC range, and no obvious banding character.

Never had the 10D it start with the 350D for me and the 20D, man, had to think long and hard if I wanted to switch to ISO800 because I knew the shot would be so noisy I could never use it

sploo wrote in post #18147907
Indeed. Though given the context I was wondering if the intended meaning was high iso noise.

I don't even think of high ISOs when I think of a camera's "DR". We can speak of the DR of higher ISOs, but DR is not as important at high ISOs; read noise relative to signal is. Who cares if one camera has 1/10 stop more DR than another at ISO 6400, when the poorer performer gets a whole stop more for a 9/10 stop difference if you just under-expose by a stop at half the ISO? DxO's DR ratings at high ISOs are labelled as DR, which they are, but they are also normalized on the chart (left or right, mostly left) for highlight headroom, such that they are also exactly measuring the inverse of read noise. Since these hybrid inverse-read-noise/DR chart values do not change by much different than a stop per stop of ISO in the high-ISO range, they can veil the fact that you get more actual "DR" by not using that ISO, but a stop lower, with basically the same read noise relative to signal. If DxO charted HTP settings on Canons, the "measured ISOs" would be a stop more to the left than the normal ISO, with a stop more DR measured. In Bill Claff's PDR, 6400 with HTP would be on the same location on the ISO axis as straight 6400, with a full stop more DR, making anyone believing that they are looking at high-ISO performance on the DR axis think they have a stop less noise, when what they really have is a stop more highlight headroom.

STIC wrote in post #18147856
Does anyone know if there is the ability for disabling the touch screen function?

Menu > 2nd menu screen (Gold Wrench) > Touch Control > Disable

I found out (after 10mins) you cannot use HDR when "Digital Lens Optimizer" is on. I don't remember turning it on (don't use it).

Seen a bunch of reviews and so far I think TheCameraStoreTV has done the best one so far.