Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
BLACK FRIDAY DEAL: Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom--A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at $48 with coupon code "BFRIDAY20" ×
Businesses Graphics Media Networking The Internet Wireless Networking Entertainment Hardware News Technology

Canon Unveils EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR (canonrumors.com) 160

It's been a little more than 4 year since Canon unveiled the EOS 5D Mark III. Today, Canon took the wraps off its successor -- the EOS 5D Mark IV. The Mark IV features a 34-megapixel, full-frame CMOS sensor and Digic 6+ processor with support for capturing 4K video at 23.98, 24, 25 and 30 fps. In addition, it features a 61-point autofocus system, built-in digital lens optimizer, NFC, Wi-Fi and an ISO range of 100-32,000. The continuous shooting mode is set at 7 fps, compared to 6 fps on the 5D Mark III. It will also take both CompactFlash and SD cards, and there is GPS included in the body for geotagging images. Canon is selling the Mark IV in early September for $3,499 for the body only. They're also selling two new L-series EF lenses -- the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens and EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Standard Zoom Lens. President and COO, Canon U.S.A., Inc, Yichi Ishizuka said in a statement: "Canon's EOS 5D series of DSLR cameras has a history of being at the forefront of still and video innovation. And today, we add to this family of cameras the EOS 5D Mark IV -- the first in our 5D series to offer 4K video and built-in Wi-Fi and NFC connectivity. In developing this new DSLR camera, we listened to the requests of current EOS users to create for them a modern, versatile camera designed to help them create and share beautiful still and video imagery." Here's a blast from the past: Canon's EOS 1Ds Mark II. Slashdot reader LoudMusic submitted this story back in 2004, highlighting the camera's "802.11a/g and wired networking capabilities."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canon Unveils EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR

Comments Filter:
  • Pixels density (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @05:30AM (#52767619)
    Some say "there is no such thing as too many pixels". However there is. High pixels density means smaller photosites, and the amount of light they can receive per second is lower - thus needs increased accuracy and improved technology to handle low-light condition (it seems it's the case here). Also of course more pixels take longer to process, more space to store, more time to transfer... Fortunately for web pictures - usually not that big, i.e. don't need higher resolution - the 5D family has reduced raw resolution modes (eg the mark II has 21 / 10 / 5.2 MP).
    • Re:Pixels density (Score:4, Informative)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @05:46AM (#52767659) Homepage
      I think the camera manufacturers all realise that, especially at the high-end. Sure, they'll play the MP numbers game at the low-end where people don't know better and it translates into sales but all the prosumer and pro models generally offer a trade-off of MP vs. ISO suitable for the model at high; e.g. high-MP/low-ISO for the Canon 5DS, mid-MP/mid-ISO for the the Canon 5D and low-MP/high-ISO for the Canon 1DX. Assuming you are competent and understand what you need the camera(s) for and how you plan on using it, you'll choose accordingly.
    • Re:Pixels density (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25, 2016 @05:58AM (#52767689)

      Nah. In signal processing mathematics and technology, things are more subtle than that. Even if each individual pixel receives less light indeed, and thus proportionately more noise, the correlations between adjacent pixels makes it possible to better reduce noise overall. And thus, especially if the final resolution is slightly downsized, the resulting image can be better.
      In other words: Canon engineers are not idiots.

      • It sounds like you're talking about shot noise. But there's also read noise, etc., which may not be (afaik...) spatially correlated.

        Now, if Canon properly implements some sort of binning [andor.com], they could get the best of both worlds: high resolution when read noise isn't a problem (i.e., bright scene) and good SNR in dim scenes, albeit at lower resolution.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      In the case of actual DSLRs of today, a higher pixel density means better colour separation despite the Bayer-pattern sensor. That's to say: the debayered colour triples will be less wrong than they used to be.

      On the other hand, 36MP (where each pixel is a single colour channel) does eat up the gigahertz rather quickly. On the third hand, don't DSLRs today have absolutely sick buffers? Like 100 frames if shooting raw, as on Nikon's D500 for example.

      All this being said, none of this beats true-blue black

    • Re:Pixels density (Score:5, Informative)

      by houghi ( 78078 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @07:22AM (#52767959)

      True if you want to just put the family photos on line or the food you ate today. You take 4 or 5 pictures and put the best one online. However if you want to go for a quality shot, you most likely will do at least some color correction in Lightroom or something similar. You will have made pictures in RAW, edit them and then reduce them to size.
      The more information you have, the better the end will be after editing.

      • Color, WB... info in a raw file is per pixel, and the 5D's give raw files at lower resolutions. And you'll have the same HDR features from a low-res raw file compared to a top-res. So unless you need to print A1, you're fine.
    • Those who *really* need more pixels (e.g., those of us in high-end reprographic work, fashion photography, people shooting landscapes they want to print out wall-sized, etc.) generally get a bigger sensor. Today, that means something like Phase One's 100 megapixel medium format digital back [dpreview.com]. This lets us initially grab as many pixels as possible and then throw away the ones we don't want later.
      • Today, that means something like Phase One's 100 megapixel medium format digital back [dpreview.com]. This lets us initially grab as many pixels as possible and then throw away the ones we don't want later.

        Pffft Is that all? [pcworld.com]

        But really it's a lot of naval gazing and penis compensation. High-end reprographic work hasn't gotten any better in the past 5-10 years. The same arguments were made back when medium format backs were 30mpxl and DSLRs were 8mpxl. The same argument is being made now. Interestingly the pictures are still the same quality which really puts the whole "*really* need" thing into perspective.

    • No, there really isn't. The is such a thing as too little sensitivity, too much noise, etc... But everything else being equal more pixels means better enlargements, better zoom after the fact, better post processing, and probably other things that I can't think of at the moment.
    • Some say "there is no such thing as too many pixels". However there is. High pixels density means smaller photosites, and the amount of light they can receive per second is lower - thus needs increased accuracy and improved technology to handle low-light condition (it seems it's the case here). Also of course more pixels take longer to process, more space to store, more time to transfer... Fortunately for web pictures - usually not that big, i.e. don't need higher resolution - the 5D family has reduced raw

    • This isn't the little shit sensor that comes with the cheap point and shoots, or cellphones which are all diffraction limited [cambridgeincolour.com] now and have shit lenses. Still I am not impressed with the cannon as something like this exists [hasselblad.com] which has an even larger sensor. For a reasonable comparison (not actual size) of the different sensor sizes you can check this out [photoseek.com]. Most of the consumer cameras in phones and point and shoots have the 1/2.5 or 1/1.7 sized sensor in them.The hasselblad sensor likely isn't the 60mm X 60mm
    • The 3D mk IV is still conservative compared to Nikon's four year old D800 at 36 mpix.

    • However there is. High pixels density means smaller photosites, and the amount of light they can receive per second is lower - thus needs increased accuracy and improved technology to handle low-light condition (it seems it's the case here).

      This is the same argument that was used when Nikon came out with their 36mpxl sensor. It turned out to be not relevant at all in the field, and turned out to also be quite wrong when you start processing photos for noise reduction. An oversampled photo can have more effective oversampling than an undersampled one. It turns out to be quite the net win in terms of final image quality.

      Anyway this isn't news. 36mpxl isn't exciting. Nikon has had this for years. The Canon 5DSR is 50mpxl and Canon showed a protot

    • by swalve ( 1980968 )
      And 8 bit, 8khz audio sounds just fine.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25, 2016 @06:02AM (#52767701)

    Even I'm bothered by how this advertisement made it to the front page.

    • by chispito ( 1870390 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @10:19AM (#52768969)

      Even I'm bothered by how this advertisement made it to the front page.

      The 5D series is notable because the Mk II revolutionized video production. Everyone from teenagers to AAA Hollywood production units were using them. They weren't a replacement for cameras costing tens of thousands more, but they were close enough for most shots.

      • So? It's not the first camera with video. It's not the highest resolution camera, heck it's not the highest resolution in the 5D series. Everything else is borderline incremental.

        Just because they released a camera that revolutionised the industry with some weird feature that most photographers still can't figure out why they have, doesn't mean that they should suddenly get ever little incremental advance advertised here.

        This isn't news for nerds, and it's not stuff that matters. People interested in this p

    • Even I'm bothered by how this advertisement made it to the front page.

      This class of camera is stuff that matters to nerds like me. Heard it first here on Slashdot, thanks folks.

  • by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @06:06AM (#52767715)
    Funny when Canon brags "has a Digic 6+ processor", since Digic is Canon proprietary used exclusively by Canon, and we users have no idea what that really means. So, "has a Digic X processor" is only relevant after checking the FPS, and how long it takes to process the images currently in buffers.
    • by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @06:38AM (#52767801) Homepage

      "Digic X" vs "Digic Y" tells you which is newer, and whether Canon thinks the newer one is enough better to deserve a bump in the major version number. You do still need to get other stats to decide whether, for you, the cost delta is worth the performance delta.

    • by Shoten ( 260439 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @08:31AM (#52768283)

      Funny when Canon brags "has a Digic 6+ processor", since Digic is Canon proprietary used exclusively by Canon, and we users have no idea what that really means. So, "has a Digic X processor" is only relevant after checking the FPS, and how long it takes to process the images currently in buffers.

      The Digic processor is known for being very, very good. Yes, it's proprietary and unique to Canon. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant; it's presence is a feature, and not all Canon cameras have it.

  • by pahles ( 701275 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @06:37AM (#52767799)
    If you currently own a 5D Mark III, is it worth the upgrade? Canon (and Nikon too, for that matter) have the tendency to only do small incremental upgrades. "we listened to the requests of current EOS users" Is that true? Have they made changes to the 1980's menu system for example?
    • Have they made changes to the 1980's menu system for example?

      That would be shocking if someone actually fixed that problem. I have yet to run across a camera menu (Canon or otherwise) system that doesn't make my eyes bleed. While I'm not a pro photographer by any means I've handled enough cameras across enough brands to realize the menus are pretty much universally shit. Just horribly designed with terrible interfaces. Buried settings with little rhyme or reason to them, clumsy navigation, poor descriptors, idiotic menu choices, etc. I'm not looking for pretty -

      • by Anonymous Coward

        The menus are fine. If you know what you're doing you won't be using them much anyway. You only need the muscle memory to set speed, aperture, ISO settings and flash modes by dial/button combination and that frankly takes only a little practice. I only ever need the menu to clean the sensor and sometimes format the card but that's all. If you're using the menu too much you're doing it wrong.

        • Disagree. The UI is poorly organized for my needs (Rebel T5 owner)

          i.e. Some of the options I use more often then the others are buried across _multiple_ menus.

          Thankfully you can put the menu items under a custom "Favorites" menu to help with the poor design / layout.

          > If you're using the menu too much you're doing it wrong.

          _Your_ workflow _isn't_ the same as mine.

      • The menus on Canon cameras are actually one of the best features and one I tout when people ask me for camera suggestions. Every Canon digital camera I've owned since the late 90's, whether various models of point and shoot, or five different dSLR models (including the 5Dmk3) has a menu system consistent with the other models. There are more options in some cameras compared to others, especially the 5, but they all work the same. If you've used any Canon camera you can pick up another model and immediately

      • Buried settings with little rhyme or reason to them, clumsy navigation, poor descriptors, idiotic menu choices, etc.

        So no reason you can discern, doesn't mean there's no reason for them to be where they are. On my camera they make perfectly logical sense to me.
        Clumsy navigation? You mean like up down left right for all navigation from a tree that starts on the side, and only deviating to hitting ok if something is going to potentially effect stored data like a card format?
        Poor descriptors, WTF, how would you describe something if not by the name of the feature?
        Idiotic menu choices? Like putting all playback under playbac

    • What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the user ; Canon does a pretty good job at it on such a small screen, IMO.
      • Checklist marketing (Score:2, Interesting)

        by sjbe ( 173966 )

        What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the use

        There really isn't. Not on the camera itself anyway. 95% of the menu setting never get touched or get set once and never touched again so why do they need to be in a crappy interface at all? One could remove most of the menus on any given camera and nobody would even notice because they never get used. Those "features" exist on the camera because it provides a checklist for marketing purposes, not because it makes a better product.

        Canon does a pretty good job at it on such a small screen, IMO.

        Why do many of them need to be on the small screen in the first place? Y

        • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday August 25, 2016 @08:03AM (#52768153) Homepage Journal

          What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the use

          There really isn't. Not on the camera itself anyway. 95% of the menu setting never get touched or get set once and never touched again so why do they need to be in a crappy interface at all?

          Professional photographers change their settings regularly. So do advanced hobbyists. Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem. If you find DSLR settings confusing, you would almost certainly do just fine with a super zoom compact.

          You are going to interface the camera with a computer at some point so why not offload the menus for the rarely/never used settings to a PC or tablet?

          Because I need to be able to change the setting quickly, and also while holding the camera with both hands. I might be on a moving vehicle. I might be in a constricted space where I can't let the camera go and let it hang on its strap. I might need to change the setting faster than I can get my phone out of my pocket.

          • Professional photographers change their settings regularly. So do advanced hobbyists.

            There are hundreds of settings on an SLR camera that even a pro photographer isn't going to touch routinely if ever. And there are settings they do use with some regularity that are hard to get at and/or difficult to customize. The fact that they've learned to use a crap interface with the greatest possible efficiency doesn't change the fact that it's still crap.

            Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem.

            How does this excuse having a terrible interface? Even if only pros used it a better interface benefits them most of all. Furthermore what you

            • There are a lot of features you could not possibly change faster than the time it takes to pull out a cell phone that given that they are buried in a menu somewhere. I'm not suggesting everything be offloaded but I think it's pretty safe to take something like the filename formatting out of the camera menu. You're not going to change that in a hurry. And frankly the argument that every feature of a camera needs to be in a menu just doesn't match reality. NOBODY needs every possible feature of the camera on

            • There are hundreds of settings on an SLR camera that even a pro photographer isn't going to touch routinely if ever

              Nearly all of those are buried in a specific submenu.

              And there are settings they do use with some regularity that are hard to get at and/or difficult to customize

              Subjective. Each setting on my camera that isn't hotkeyed to the thumbwheel is equally easy to customise and no more than 2 clicks of the d pad in.

              The fact that they've learned to use a crap interface with the greatest possible efficiency doesn't change the fact that it's still crap.

              The fact that you think an interface that exposes all options of a camera to the user in the field is crap doesn't change the fact that many people think it's perfectly good.

              Even if only pros used it a better interface benefits them most of all.

              Better in who's opinion? The wedding photographer who has two different bodies on his shoulder which now has menu settings that are differ

            • "So make the settings that need to be changed fast easy to change fast. They've done some of this but they refuse to finish the job. Sometimes you do need to change things quickly, that is true. That doesn't describe a very substantial proportion of the menu options. Probably >80% rarely if ever get touched even by the pros."

              The settings you might want to change will vary depending on what / how you're shooting. Landscape, wildlife, portrait, sports, etc. etc. etc. Someone who shoots in a studio might

            • Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem.

              How does this excuse having a terrible interface?

              You only think it's terrible because you don't need what it does. If you did, then you would think it's a great interface, because it does what you need. This is how I can tell you don't need a DSLR. You need a simplified, Fisher-Price camera. Sometimes those are great, and I have one. When I am just taking snapshots, that's what I use, because it is simple and good and small and light. I don't use the DSLR at all unless I need something it's got that the super zoom doesn't, like RAW. It doesn't have any mo

        • by theMAGE ( 51991 )

          What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the use

          There really isn't. Not on the camera itself anyway. 95% of the menu setting never get touched or get set once and never touched again so why do they need to be in a crappy interface at all? One could remove most of the menus on any given camera and nobody would even notice because they never get used. Those "features" exist on the camera because it provides a checklist for marketing purposes, not because it makes a better product.

          I think we found the Gnome 3 user!

        • Why do many of them need to be on the small screen in the first place? You are going to interface the camera with a computer at some point so why not offload the menus for the rarely/never used settings to a PC or tablet?

          While not having used this camera, I'm not going to comment on the merits of its interface, I don't really see why you think that the mere existence of an interface on the camera to change these settings harms you. If these settings really don't need to be changed often (/ever), then bury them in some sort of "advanced settings" menu that you can then ignore. Yours is the same mentality that we see from a lot of UI "experts" -- they proclaim that the way they want to use a product is the right way, and pr

    • Geolocation and wifi...
      • I'll admit that I like the geolocation with the built in GPS, could care less about wifi. Yet I probably won't upgrade my 5D mark I (ancient), but I might buy that luscious 16-30 EF f/2.8L. That looks scrumptious.
        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          As a 6D user, in my experience, the Wi-Fi is really nice if you're part of a group trip. You can have your cell phone out, and once in a while when there's a pause, you can snag a photo off your real camera and upload it to Facebook so that the folks back home can see what you're all doing. It's much easier than trying to take photos with two devices at once, because the extra time spent fiddling with your phone is while you're on a bus riding somewhere or whatever instead of while you're out sightseeing

    • No, because you have almost the same device, but it no longer comes with a headphone jack.
  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday August 25, 2016 @07:26AM (#52767969) Homepage Journal

    To some other ancient camera body... still rocking the 300D here. Still works. Still takes more than adequate photos, since I'm not doing print.

    • and used my E-1 for 8 years before I got the E5 second hand. Although camera have improved vastly since the E5 there's not much in that tech that would have improved my photo skills. I debated about the EM-1 for my 4/3 legacy lenses but not FAS screen no sale.

    • Still takes more than adequate photos, since I'm not doing print.

      Ironically enough, printing photos is far more forgiving than letting someone see them on the computer.

  • by stereoroid ( 234317 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @08:03AM (#52768157) Homepage Journal

    I'd rather get a Pentax K-1 [dpreview.com] for half the price. Full frame, 36MP, image quality way up there, superior in some cases (particularly for static scenes using Pixel Shift [petapixel.com]), in-body stabilisation (doesn't need new lenses). Video facilities not as good, though: the K-1 doesn't do 4K but does do Full HD @ 60fps.

    It doesn't do everything, but what it does, it does very well. Besides, why get what everyone else gets? Canon and Nikon are the Toyota and Nissan of camera companies. Boring. ;-)

  • Anyone want to buy a 5D Mk II body?

  • by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Thursday August 25, 2016 @09:09AM (#52768475) Homepage

    and turned it into DP review?

  • My Minolta X-700 SLR from the 70s takes better pictures than most DSLRs today. Fluorite lenses FTW.

  • Nothing matters about camera announcements until we hear hands on experience from folks in the field.
    They'll tell you all you need to know about the camera and if it's worth buying or not. This will also allow for all the defects
    to come out in the open. I personally wait at least six months before picking up a new camera body for this very reason.

    In my experience, the higher density pixel packed sensors are great for things that have plenty of light to play with.
    Not so much when low light becomes a variab

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde

Working...