New Canon 5D mark IV

LEAKYSEALS951 · 02-07-2015, 02:49 AM

Canon has just announced it's new canon 5D mark IV slr camera.

Canon 5DS and 5DS R: The World's Highest Resolution Full Frame DSLRs

At 50 megapixels it's pretty powerful and will be putting wayne's "this picture is too large too upload" message into overtime.
I have a 5DIII which I bought for the autofocus which kills my older 5dII's autofocus.
Time will tell if I need to upgrade to the IV.

And what can you see with 50 megapixels?
I see dandruff.

crop:

LEAKYSEALS951 · 02-07-2015, 03:01 AM

Here are some more crops:

beepbeep · 02-07-2015, 03:01 AM

I would trade half of pixels for better dynamic range and less noise.
50Mp is seldom needed. What about video capabilities? I ditched Canon and went m43 couple of years ago...

LEAKYSEALS951 · 04:02 AM

I was kind of thinking the same thing. I'm doing fine with 21 megapixels, but I remember when people said "anything more than 3-5 megapixels is a waste."
Ten years from now smart phones will probably have 100.

Just with this one pic I'm spending a lot of time with cropping and processing. This picture is a model. My mortal friends (and myself) with crows feet, zits, and such will not stand for this microscopic level of detail! I guess it's just the next step in the camera wars. It does open up some possibilities though. I've thought about jumping ship but I've got so much L glass I'm committed at this point.

wdfifteen · wdfifteen's Garage

I can't see a lot of instances where I need that level of detail, but it's nice ti know you can get a camera with it if you need it. I'm sure it would be nice in wildlife photography where cropping can take the place of a 20 pound lens or creeping up to get close to a bull bison.

reddogmotrsprts · 02-07-2015, 07:24 AM

Greater resolution can always be traded for less noise; that's perhaps the biggest win. This is why the old "big pixels equals greater low-light performance" no longer applies in all but the most extreme shooting.

kanadary · 02-07-2015, 09:34 AM

I am holding out for the mk iv. Its suppose to have better low light than my current mk iii. The s and Sr is limited at iso 6400 use able

reddogmotrsprts · 02-07-2015, 10:33 AM

If you truly need great low-light performance -- maybe you're a video guy? -- you might want to rethink upgrading to 50MP. You'll have smaller pixel sites, which means more in-camera software-induced signal-processing noise and more loss of light due to interstitial gaps between photosites.

For my favorite description of the issues at play, take a look at this article on pixel sizes and resolution, and this comparison between your 5D and the A7r/A7s, normalized for output resolution.

You should find that your 22MP 5D already outperforms the 36MP A7r in very low light, despite having a third less resolution.

That said, the heuristics for noise reduction in typical post-processing software like Aperture or Lightroom are much more sophisticated than the simple downscaling used in the comparison above.

Basically, there is more to evaluating low-light performance than looking at the ISO number, just as there is more to evaluating resolution than looking at the mega-pixels number. I probably shouldn't have generalized quite so much in my previous comment.

Disclaimer: I'm a D700 and D800E shooter.

kanadary · 02-08-2015, 02:58 PM

agree there's other factors but in general, the more useable iso you have, the better performer it is in low light. i had an old 1d mkii it was good but not stellar in low light but then 1600 was a big improvement. i do like the nikon bodies, the new 750 sounds like a killer but have too much invested in L lens to switch over. i also would prefer to have the 14-24 over the new 11-24 at half the price. your 200-400f4 is a steal too..

reddogmotrsprts · 02-08-2015, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanadary

agree there's other factors but in general, the more useable iso you have, the better performer it is in low light. i had an old 1d mkii it was good but not stellar in low light but then 1600 was a big improvement. i do like the nikon bodies, the new 750 sounds like a killer but have too much invested in L lens to switch over. i also would prefer to have the 14-24 over the new 11-24 at half the price. your 200-400f4 is a steal too..

That's my point though -- you cannot generalize that way; the numbers don't have any bearing on the reality. Physics refuses to capitulate to the marketeers.

It does seem to me that Nikon has a couple top trumps right now, but Canon has a jump on the diffractive optics technology and I expect that they will take the crown in some of the longer focal lengths.

I do love the 14-24, but at a third of the cost you can have the 16-28 from Tokina, which I feel is very much an under-appreciated lens. Take a look; I'm sure they make a Canon flavor, and it's probably even cheaper. The Sigma 14mm is cheap fun, but the IQ is terrible, and the other competition has trouble with quality control.

What's really interesting me, though, is the new m43 stuff coming out. It sounds crazy, but the new E-M1/II could be a game changer with Olympus's 40-150mm, as might the Fuji 140-400mm f/4-5.6.

This seems like a step backward, I know, until you do a deep analysis of the sensors and lenses. If you're looking for cheap reach for shooting, say, auto racing, these setups might actually perform better (and at a fraction of the cost, size, and weight) than our full-frame cameras -- assuming we're using teleconverters in both cases. Plus, you get great IBIS should you need it. You could rent this super lightweight setup for only ~$250/week, which makes it a killer option for short-term travel work -- and it frees up the FF body for a shorter focal length.

slodave · slodave's Garage

50 MP's is great for making large prints and cropping. If you don't print large and don't do much cropping, it's a waste of money.

beepbeep · 02-09-2015, 03:16 AM

I'm a photograph, it's just that I shoot 24 photos a second

Magic Lantern with it's RAW 5Dmk3 hack is/was truly a great thing. 24 raw pics a sec...straight from CCD. But Canon has dropped a ball on video market lately. Now I have 800$ camera shooting 4K video with f2.8 optics (Panny FZ1000) , which resizes nicely into rather good 1080p video.

24Mp of Mk3 was already good enough for "non landscape" photography. (If I needed 50Mpixel, I would rent a Hasselblad).

LEAKYSEALS951 · 02-09-2015, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beepbeep

Magic Lantern with it's RAW 5Dmk3 hack is/was truly a great thing. 24 raw pics a sec...straight from CCD.(If I needed 50Mpixel, I would rent a Hasselblad).

ohhh...please do tell me more about this magical hack. I had never heard of such a thing. My first google search produced a free download for the firmware. Scary... does this work, and by 24 raw pics a second do you actually mean 24 raw pics instead of the 5-6 or so ( I can't remember right off hand)that I think it does now?

The upgrade sounds scary, but intriguing, kind of like when the astronauts upgraded the hubble space telescope. Please advise.

beepbeep · 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LEAKYSEALS951

ohhh...please do tell me more about this magical hack. I had never heard of such a thing. My first google search produced a free download for the firmware. Scary... does this work, and by 24 raw pics a second do you actually mean 24 raw pics instead of the 5-6 or so ( I can't remember right off hand)that I think it does now?

The upgrade sounds scary, but intriguing, kind of like when the astronauts upgraded the hubble space telescope. Please advise.

The RAW-bit is mostly tuned for video. It will deliver 1920 x 1280 14-bit RAW frames to a file at varying frame rates (depending on resolution and camera model. 5Dmk3 is good for 24fps at full-HD).It will NOT deliver 24 full 24Mp frames (that would be gigabytes of data per second).
It's basically a firmware hack on the top of existing Canon firmware. It also works for some other Canon models but resolutions are lower due to less CPU in cheaper cameras. The hack is reversible and you cannot brick the camera. There are tons of other thingies in Magic Lantern though you might find useful for ordinary photography though...intervalometer, focus stackning etc.

You can download it from here: Magic Lantern | Home

How it works:
RAW pics are scaled (not cropped) from full-frame sensor down to 1920 x 1080 and saved as 12-bit RAW files. This bypasses everything incuding de-bayering and dead-pixel removal (which means you'll need to do this externally, on computer).
Quality is excellent and there is a ton of headroom for grading but it consumes 90 MB / sec and you'll need to de-bayer the fotage, so it's not justified for "wedding photographers". But theoretically, you get a pro-grade movie camera for 3000 bucks. Something that would cost 5000$ a day to rent ten years ago. But trick is that there are even cheaper/easier solutions available now. Technology is not a issue any more...you can have 2004-Spielberg-grade camera for no money so it's all up to talent now

kanadary · 02-09-2015, 11:13 AM

agree on the sigma QC, had a 120-300, love the focal length but what a pos lens while others rave about it. i ended up get a 300 f2.8 is.. but miss the functionality of having the zoom. i have heard great things about the tokina but given the experience with the sigma i'm not sure i wanta go there but we'll see. right now i have a 17-40f4 which is ok, i've heard the 16-35f4 is is suppose to be a very nice piece of glass so when i take that dive, i will check out the tokina.

reddogmotrsprts · 02-09-2015, 11:39 AM

I just posted a photo of red dog in the dogs thread; it was shot with the 14mm Sigma. It's a decent demonstration of why I like a SWA lens. Probably shot from a distance of only 6-8 inches.

I don't think you can really compare two different lenses by the same manufacturer; these things are designed and built at different times (markets) to different price points and specifications. Anyway, the Tokina is an f/2.8, so it's faster than the 16-35. Take a look at dxomark to compare it to the Nikkor. As I said, the image quality is miles better than the Sigma, and it's, what, half as expensive as the Nikon?

Let me know what you think.

Jay Auskin · 02-12-2015, 09:33 AM

I just wouldn't want to deal with that file size. Recently sold all Canon gear, and went Sony A7S. 107400 ISO. Darn thing can see in the dark. Even extremely usable up to ~40K ISO.

That said, I do miss my 50mm f/1.2L. It practically lived on my camera.

pcardude · 02-12-2015, 10:05 AM

Now you canon boys get to have the same pains those of us that went for the 36 megapixel D800 did. Full hard drives. Motion blur, very slow camera. Congrats!

I will never buy another high resolution dslr ever again. If I ever need it I'll rent medium format.

pcardude · 02-12-2015, 10:08 AM

Raw files from the D800 average at ~75 mb the 5Ds has to be what? 150 or so?

reddogmotrsprts · 02-12-2015, 10:27 AM

RAW from the D800 averages closer to 45-50MB, but if you want to talk about motion blur and large output files, let's bring sensor shift into the discussion with a comparison of output from the new E-M5 II with 64MP sensor shift or if that still seems tame, the Hasselblad H3D 50 II with 200MP sensor shift.