Canon 5D Mark IV -- Time to Discuss!

mike_d wrote in post #18110767
I just did a test and the rate at which you can keep shoot after the buffer fills depends on the image. I just grabbed the camera and aimed it at the wall and held down the shutter. It was in M mode and resulted in a barely exposed image. It never bogged down. When I set a decent exposure, requiring ISO 12,800, it slowed down the 3-4 fps after the buffer filled.

I know raw files are compressed so maybe its processor limited as much as absolute write speed limited. I found something similar when I thought that writing raw to the CF and jpg to the SD would help get around the slow SD write speeds. Nope. The jpg compression slowed it down more than just writing raw to SD did.

No, don't test on a blank wall. No detail means the smallest image and the easiest test. Use a closeup of something with corner-to-corner-edge-to-edge crisp detail like a carpet or coarse upholstery fabric.

From what I know, blacks and blues show the most noise so 6400 on the 5D4 in a normal scene would look amazing, It's a clear improvement over the 5D3!

I'm interested to see if it has much shadow noise at low ISO's, although judging by the 1DX2/80D and what we've seen of this I'm sure it will impress us. It seems what the 5D4 is lacking in features (focus peaking in LV, auto AFMA), it's making up for in beautiful IQ.

I'm just so uber excited. The 6D I could use 25,600 with some NR in post... I was OK with it but when I went to the 5D3 the 25,600 was not usable in my eyes at all. This is clearly indicated here:https://www.dpreview.c​om …431&y=-1.0924233058071764

Now the 5D4 is slightly better than the 6D = usable 25,600! I barely use that high... but it's very nice to know I can get some additional shutter when needed during dance recitals.

Talley wrote in post #18110791
Now the 5D4 is slightly better than the 6D = usable 25,600! I barely use that high... but it's very nice to know I can get some additional shutter when needed during dance recitals.

You may know the answer to this for me. Is it true that the higher the max ISO of a camera, the better it will perform at lower ISO's (such as 6400)?

I remember reading people saying that since the D5 can go up till 3 million ISO, it helps at normal high ISO ranges like 3200-25600. If that is the case, Canon have done well to give such good ISO performance for a much shorter ISO range than competitors cameras.

Dlee13 wrote in post #18110798
You may know the answer to this for me. Is it true that the higher the max ISO of a camera, the better it will perform at lower ISO's (such as 6400)?

I remember reading people saying that since the D5 can go up till 3 million ISO, it helps at normal high ISO ranges like 3200-25600. If that is the case, Canon have done well to give such good ISO performance for a much shorter ISO range than competitors cameras.

doubt it, the 5Dsr has a fairly low native ISO yet performs at the top in the tests (previous pages).

I need to change my sig to 5D4, I'm broke.

If you're extremely concerned about the buffer filling up, try shooting in Mraw. I do it on my 7D (original) and the buffer is essentially unlimited. Sure you'll lose some resolution, but I would prefer to have a low resolution version of a photo I wanted, than missing the photo all together.

Scottboarding wrote in post #18110814
If you're extremely concerned about the buffer filling up, try shooting in Mraw. I do it on my 7D (original) and the buffer is essentially unlimited. Sure you'll lose some resolution, but I would prefer to have a low resolution version of a photo I wanted, than missing the photo all together.

Good point and the Mraw on the 5D4 is still 17MP.

Charlie wrote in post #18110742
dpreview offers comparable sizes and the 5Dsr is the best performing among the 5D family.

As I have said, there have been many 100% exact comparisons side by side made. But let's take a look at the comparometer from Imaging Resource.

First one is 100% 5DS on the left, 5D3 on the right, ISO 12800.
Second one is 100% 5DS on the left, 7D2 on the right, ditto.

Now if you resize the 5DS down to a 22Mpx image size, then the 5D3 can be beat simply due to the resize.

And for fun, the 5DS (left) vs the 5D4 (right) at 12800. Then the 5D4 (left) compared to the Sony A7RII (right), at 12800.

12800 looks really good to me. I would not hesitate to use it.

I hate the image resource samples... SOOC jpegs are just not for me period. I use raw converters to jpg comparisons.

Those comparisons have been done too. Raw 100% shows the same basic thing. The redemption in the 5DS is simply the amount of resolution available, and capture of more detail. Once you clean up the noise, and/or resize the image, your results are very good indeed.

Wow! The 5D4 holds up pretty well sharpness well despite the 5Ds having 20MP on it. Call me crazy, but it also looks like it has less noise than both the A7RII and 5DS!

I wish I could afford a 5DIV now

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18110900
As I have said, there have been many 100% exact comparisons side by side made. But let's take a look at the comparometer from Imaging Resource.

First one is 100% 5DS on the left, 5D3 on the right, ISO 12800.
Second one is 100% 5DS on the left, 7D2 on the right, ditto.

Now if you resize the 5DS down to a 22Mpx image size, then the 5D3 can be beat simply due to the resize.

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=181​10900&i=i120566806
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=181​10900&i=i156968929
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

well to compare apples to apples, you compare at comparable sizes. If the resize ends up with less noise, then it's got less noise!