Canon 5D Mark IV -- Time to Discuss!

They used the same sensor tech @ 6MP for about 8 years and got drummed out of the DSRL business?

I recall a number of avid Fuji shooters at F.M. forums, but at that time we never saw them here (Canon only)

Fuji's last DSLR was in 2007.

Maybe it also was them losing money by paying so much to be Nikon compatible. They do make some nice mirrorless systems now.

It's a shame. Their business model for mirror less cameras now is fantastic

umphotography wrote in post #18118870
Well completely disagree with that statement

The problem is

1- every credible editing program on the market is designed for Raw file use

2- Color,Color and Color. Digital sensors still do whacky things with color, no matter how close you get it in camera

Noise control at Higher ISO's.... you know more than anyone ow important a raw file is for these needs

Raw is going no where and rightly so. But I agree Jpeg has come a long long way. For sports, little need for a raw file

I am very well versed in post processing, and have watched Canon's files get better and better with each model release. NR, color, sharpness, etc are all software tools, and Canon has been updating their software libraries for their firmware, and it shows in the end result. It is increasingly more difficult to process a raw file in order to produce a result that is visibly better than a good set of parameters in-camera for the JPG, especially in situations that aren't too terribly challenging, including NR for high ISO settings.

I have processed 5D2, 6D, 7D, 7D3, 1D3, 1D4, and 5D3 images from raw compared to the JPGs (thousands at this point), and the 7D2 and 6D are very difficult to really improve on with raw vs in-camera with the proper white balance settings and picture styles and NR settings. The other bodies are very easy to get better results from raw vs the in-camera JPGs and they are just not good metrics for my argument. Newer bodies are MUCH improved, due to Canon finally working out their software changes for the firmware, something they let go for years. Canon simply needs to change their NR menu options from Disable, Low, High, etc to something with sliders to control the different parameters of NR. That is the last holdout that I see in regards to in-camera NR producing spectacular results over post processing of raws.

So raw files for correcting white balance issues, getting the most DR, or correcting exposure/shadows/highl​ights, but in other cases, jpg might be good enough.

So I guess some of you are getting shipping notices tomorrow? Can't wait to see some imagery.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18119482
I am very well versed in post processing, and have watched Canon's files get better and better with each model release. NR, color, sharpness, etc are all software tools, and Canon has been updating their software libraries for their firmware, and it shows in the end result. It is increasingly more difficult to process a raw file in order to produce a result that is visibly better than a good set of parameters in-camera for the JPG, especially in situations that aren't too terribly challenging, including NR for high ISO settings.....

I'd also point out that you are getting better and better at getting the shots with each event. Some of that may be Canon, most of it is you

It's out. Attach this to the 5D4.

https://www.dpreview.c​om …-f2-4-manual-focus-lenses

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18119491
I'd also point out that you are getting better and better and getting the shots all the time. Some of that may be Canon, most of it is you

Perhaps, but last NBA season and a couple of portrait sessions, I was able to set up the picture styles and NR settings in the camera such that the final JPGs were quite good, and I have given up processing the raws, because the end results weren't visibly different in print sizes. At 100%, you could see the differences, but they were slight enough that they don't show in posters. The only time I went back to raws were times I didn't have the correct WB temp, or I needed to push/pull highlights/shadows because the JPG wasn't good enough. That is where the raws are very valuable for me now.

I will say something I have said before, I think shooting a camera at high ISO values thousand+ times seems to make the end results better as the body gets more usage. I cannot explain it, but I have taken nearly identically exposed shots when I first got a camera, and then a couple of years later, find a similiar exposure high ISO, and they look cleaner. It may be nothing, but is my perception at this point. This may explain why my 7D bodies and even my 7D2 and 5D3 performed better than what others were getting from theirs?

The 5D4, with the new NR that Canon calls out, and the other advances, should produce spectacular JPG results.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18119497
Perhaps, but last NBA season and a couple of portrait sessions, I was able to set up the picture styles and NR settings in the camera such that the final JPGs were quite good, and I have given up processing the raws, because the end results weren't visibly different in print sizes. At 100%, you could see the differences, but they were slight enough that they don't show in posters. The only time I went back to raws were times I didn't have the correct WB temp, or I needed to push/pull highlights/shadows because the JPG wasn't good enough. That is where the raws are very valuable for me now.

I will say something I have said before, I think shooting a camera at high ISO values thousand+ times seems to make the end results better as the body gets more usage. I cannot explain it, but I have taken nearly identically exposed shots when I first got a camera, and then a couple of years later, find a similiar exposure high ISO, and they look cleaner. It may be nothing, but is my perception at this point. This may explain why my 7D bodies and even my 7D2 and 5D3 performed better than what others were getting from theirs?

The 5D4, with the new NR that Canon calls out, and the other advances, should produce spectacular JPG results.

I agree with that. Also... you shooting more Jpeg means your buffer is not an issue. Isn't this why the pro's shoot JPG mostly because of the buffer issue.

Talley wrote in post #18119507
I agree with that. Also... you shooting more Jpeg means your buffer is not an issue. Isn't this why the pro's shoot JPG mostly because of the buffer issue.

I shoot Raw+JPG just to make sure I have an emergency cushion, so I still hit buffer issues from time to time. However I am timing when I mash the shutter so that I often only need about 1-2 seconds of shots. That is purely just experience on my part, having had several years now of shooting. If I miss a season, I would probably have to start all over in figuring all this out again.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18119521
I shoot Raw+JPG just to make sure I have an emergency cushion, so I still hit buffer issues from time to time. However I am timing when I mash the shutter so that I often only need about 1-2 seconds of shots. That is purely just experience on my part, having had several years now of shooting. If I miss a season, I would probably have to start all over in figuring all this out again.

Once you have one kid... you know how to have two

But having the first kid came naturally, lol, photography, not so much.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18119482
I am very well versed in post processing, and have watched Canon's files get better and better with each model release. NR, color, sharpness, etc are all software tools, and Canon has been updating their software libraries for their firmware, and it shows in the end result. It is increasingly more difficult to process a raw file in order to produce a result that is visibly better than a good set of parameters in-camera for the JPG, especially in situations that aren't too terribly challenging, including NR for high ISO settings.

I have processed 5D2, 6D, 7D, 7D3, 1D3, 1D4, and 5D3 images from raw compared to the JPGs (thousands at this point), and the 7D2 and 6D are very difficult to really improve on with raw vs in-camera with the proper white balance settings and picture styles and NR settings. The other bodies are very easy to get better results from raw vs the in-camera JPGs and they are just not good metrics for my argument. Newer bodies are MUCH improved, due to Canon finally working out their software changes for the firmware, something they let go for years. Canon simply needs to change their NR menu options from Disable, Low, High, etc to something with sliders to control the different parameters of NR. That is the last holdout that I see in regards to in-camera NR producing spectacular results over post processing of raws.

Interesting, I am too nervous to shoot JPEG, as I always seem to mess up WB. Maybe I should practice more.

Those that have ordered through B&H Before . .

I pre-ordered through B & H. If I get the first wave, do you think I would get a shipment notification early Thursday, late Thursday?

The reason I ask is that I have found a Mk IV locally unspoken for. If I got the first wave from B&H I am more than happy to wait a day to save $315. But, if I don't get one of the first shipments I can pick one up locally at 10am on Thursday.

Ughhh first world problems,

I can understand paying the early adopter tax of full release price over waiting 6 months for prices to drop, but paying nearly an extra 10% for the sake of a few days or maybe a couple of weeks is not something I'd be willing to stomach