-= 5D Mark IV owners unite! Post photos and discuss.

AnnieMacD wrote in post #18216841
Julian, have you joined the club?

*sheepish grin*

I have joined the club.

Today's sunset with the 5D IV.

Taken w/ the 85 Art and using a single flashpoint zoom li-on in a 36" RB-90 cheetah ricebowl. This is my bare bone travel kit and my family wanted some photos at their party. I'm having some "transitioning" to from the canon speedlights to the godox stuff. They definately are different and I also should of gelled this, I'm not sure why I didn't everything in this house sits around 2800k.

Photo from Talley's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (829925)

Seems silly now thinking I risked limb and equipment on black ice on my driveway yesterday morning for this.

I already broke my wrist on ice in the woods a few years ago.

What are you guys doing with flash and maintaining a sufficient shutter speed for the sensor? I've noticed my flash images aren't as sharp as they normally are (no client could ever tell) when shooting base ISOs around 1/160 at 200. Flash is stopping the motion but I'm seeing some camera shake.

huntersdad wrote in post #18217136
What are you guys doing with flash and maintaining a sufficient shutter speed for the sensor? I've noticed my flash images aren't as sharp as they normally are (no client could ever tell) when shooting base ISOs around 1/160 at 200. Flash is stopping the motion but I'm seeing some camera shake.

I noticed that too which I found odd. I suspect it's the pixel density and to me it does make a difference but clients wouldn't ever know agreed.

huntersdad wrote in post #18217136
What are you guys doing with flash and maintaining a sufficient shutter speed for the sensor? I've noticed my flash images aren't as sharp as they normally are (no client could ever tell) when shooting base ISOs around 1/160 at 200. Flash is stopping the motion but I'm seeing some camera shake.

Have you tried using mirror lockup ?

Haven't tried MLU. Doesn't seem practical when shooting families to have to wait for that extra bit of time.

huntersdad wrote in post #18217180
Haven't tried MLU. Doesn't seem practical when shooting families to have to wait for that extra bit of time.

It's just to rule out camera shake due to the mirror being more noticeable now because of the increase in resolution. Test with someone else and not a client

You may still decide to not do anything about it but at least your curiosity would be satisfied.

huntersdad wrote in post #18217136
What are you guys doing with flash and maintaining a sufficient shutter speed for the sensor? I've noticed my flash images aren't as sharp as they normally are (no client could ever tell) when shooting base ISOs around 1/160 at 200. Flash is stopping the motion but I'm seeing some camera shake.

Flash photography is all about the Inverse Square Law or fall off. Based on settings and the environment you only get so distance where the flash will freeze your primary subject/s. Here I prefocused on the t-shirt and then swept the camera while I took the shot. The t-shirt was about 6 ft away and the xmas tree about 12. Unless you have enough ambient light and shutter speed to freeze what the flash can't then you will get some blur.

your example has more to do with there being ambient light than using flash. You got the blur because of the slow shutter speed 'burned-in' the ambient. Whether or not you used flash, you were going to get motion blur BECAUSE the shutter was so slow. Not because of inverse square law. IF you sped it up and eliminated everything that wasn't lit by the flash (and only got the shirt) there'd be no blur, because the blur is coming from the slow shutter, not the flash. The 'sharp' shirt is not blurry because your flash duration is quick, not because it's closer. I think you're confusing inverse square law(which has to do with light power in correlation to distance) with the flash duration(speed at which flash lights and dims to nothing). The slower the flash duration, the more the motion blur.

I don't think your example explains their issue

First time in a studio with the Mark IV. A couple of holiday photos of the wife and daughter:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Qbgh​vn

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Qbge​ET

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Qbgi​5P

ma11rats wrote in post #18217251
your example has more to do with there being ambient light than using flash. You got the blur because of the slow shutter speed 'burned-in' the ambient. Whether or not you used flash, you were going to get motion blur BECAUSE the shutter was so slow. Not because of inverse square law. IF you sped it up and eliminated everything that wasn't lit by the flash (and only got the shirt) there'd be no blur, because the blur is coming from the slow shutter, not the flash. The 'sharp' shirt is not blurry because your flash duration is quick, not because it's closer. I think you're confusing inverse square law(which has to do with light power in correlation to distance) with the flash duration(speed at which flash lights and dims to nothing). The slower the flash duration, the more the motion blur.

I don't think your example explains their issue

I must of misread it. I did do that shot on purpose. Perhaps fall off was not the best example. I was trying to illustrate how quickly you lose flash power and the fine line between between it freezing and not freezing a subject.

Maureen Souza wrote in post #18215387
Well I have been drooling over all the photos here & decided to jump in with my story. I got my 5D4 on September 12 but was really not thrilled with it. I took it on vacation in October & was really disappointed with the color, clarity & quality of my photos. I finally decided to send it off to Canon service 2 weeks ago & to my surprise & delight, they found the whole circuit board was malfunctioning! Even the auto focus was out of kilter so they replaced the whole circuit board. It came back to me today so I am itching to get out this weekend and give it a whirl.

Crazy! Not sure if you read pages back that the circuit board on mine was bad too and had to be replaced The power supply wasn't functioning so it didn't power on at all.

I'm editing a wedding now that was just prior to that and am noticing significant variance in AF. Especially the night shots... Yea, I know it's definitely tougher then but I usually still nail them much closer than what I'm seeing.

I'm starting to like this camera