What does /p/ think about the Canon 5D MK IV? New 30.4MP

VERY tempted. Been hoping for a 6D Mark II to replace my aging 6D, but that won't happen for at least another year. The 5D Mark IV has all the features I want, though in a slight bigger and heavier body than I wanted (why I went with the 6D in the first place).

Price is a fair bit more I was wishing for though. If it was $3,500, wouldn't have hesitated buying it, but dang, it's about $1K too rich for me right now. Might wait for the inevitable price drops/sales/Hong Kong grey market.

>>2910416
not a mirrorless.... pointless release

>>2910416
Solid but 100% predictable specs.

>>2910422
No doubt it'll sell extremely well, but the SLR part is hardly progressing. Hell, if Canon gets over their crippling fear of mirrorless cameras and releases the exact same thing sans the mirror box, it would be a hit.

File: 78500944.jpg (19KB, 346x346px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 346x346px

>>2910422
deth urself 9 yr old trash

File: 1247660.jpg (29KB, 455x376px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 455x376px

>>2910428
>if canon gets over their crippling fear of mirrorless cameras

>>2910428
>but the SLR part is hardly progressing
SLR photo, Mirrorless video.

People will probably choose the A7 over this for video for sure, but people who want a solid workhorse will get the 5D.

File: Screen Shot 2016-08-25 at 15.46.10.png (15KB, 530x60px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 530x60px

>>2910421
> If it was $3,500, wouldn't have hesitated buying it

What are you waiting for?

Waiting on the Mark 5. What do you think the specs will be?

Will it have [*small feature not in the Mark IV*]???

>>2910469
Strayan dollarydoos :(

>>2910470
wat

Have fun waiting four or even five more years for an already outdated camera.

>2020
>Canon releasing their new 5D MKV
>finally 36mp ff
>finally 4K 60fps
>finally 13.6 EVs
>meanwhile, at the competition..
>80-100mp ff
>21-Bit output
>8K 60fps
>4K 240fps
>16-18 EVs

>>2910485
do you know what sarcasm looks like

I don't need 30,4 MP, Dual pixel AF, 4K Video, ISO above 6400, 7 fps, Wi-Fi, NFC or GPS

Other than that looks fine, might buy

>>2910485
This is why this board sucks. Well actually one of many reasons. But you being too stupid to have a simple joke land is certainly a huge part of it.

kys quickfast.

I don't know, that RGB+IR together with the 30.4MP is a temptation to portraits and landscapes... I-I don't know if I should migrate now

This will be popular with people who need a reliable camera that can stand to be taken out into the field and used. People who know that if there is a problem with it they can take it in and get it fixed. Quickly.

Despite it being already so horribly out of date some of it's owners to be will win prestigious awards that manufacturers of more modern, technically superior cameras can only fap about.

The reason for this is that so-called technically superior cameras are dogs to work with, fuck up when you take them out the basement and run out of battery before you can get the bastards in focus.

Can't wait to see what the ML guys can do with the Dual Pixel Raw feature.
And live feed of the RGB metering on the touch screen would be GOAT.

>>2910442
Well, Canon expects you to use a SLR for both photo and video if you don't have $4000 for a C100II. I'd be concerned about FE mount gaining ground so fast if I was them, especially as the latest FE cameras can now use EF lenses in an almost-native mode.

>>2910416
Great camera for the professionals or dentists but for me the K5 ii S is still worth it's salt. Canon's AF system is GOAT though

>>2910512
>taking the bait

kys too, anon.

Canon is playing the Too little too late game with Pentux.

The D800 came out in...2012 was it?

So yeah.

I thought this thread would summon ac!

I miss that fellow.

>>2910527

>in an almost-native mode.
LOL

People who shit on the 5D4, comparing it with "muh mirrorless" are clueless.

The 5D4 is a camera; the a7rii is a computer with a solid sensor. I'm sure Canon is aware that they can't compete in the video field with mirrorless, so instead of pleasing all the tinkerers and hybrid shooters, they focused on making a camera that delivers good stills, no matter the situation.

>>2910837
>focused on making a camera that delivers good stills

Most of the new features in 5D4 compared to 5D3 are video-related though.

>>2910428
>the SLR part is hardly progressing

What's there to progress?
SLR part was pretty much perfect already.

The only 'SLR' feature I'm missing in 2016 is a hybrid viewfinder. (ie: ovf becomes evf in live view mode)

>>2910845
I dunno, do something to solve the remaining annoyances? Like a feature to automatically get rid of back/frontfocusing issues, nikon did that. Or make the AF system uniformly cover the frame. Or add interchangeable focus screens so I can finally see accurate DoF with fast lenses. Or improve the top LCD, it's cluttered with seven-segment indicators in 2016 for fuck's sake.

>>2910840
Most likely a minor bump in resolution while doing their best to catch up with the DR race. Wifi and GPS are definitely welcomed additions, particularly GPS with the ability to potentially keep multiple bodies time synced perfectly.

Besides, like >>2910845 said, DSLR designs are pretty much perfect. That's why the 5D3 adopted 7D's layout, and brought it along to the 5D4. When I look at the 5D4, I care more about what's good in the 5D3 and how they made it better in this iteration.

File: d800.jpg (126KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 500x375px

>>2910837
How about you just compare it to the D800 from 2012.

Canon had 4 fucking years and failed to make a better sensor than that.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2007:12:31 00:50:31
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	500
Image Height	375

>>2910874
We don't know anything about the performance of the sensor yet, memefag.

>>2910874
this >>2910875

Its a pretty fucking awesome camera by specs, 7fps on 30MP is great for dynamic subjects, and the 5D series is pretty well known for studio photography, lets hope the sensor technology has improved the noise and banding issues

just like every 5d series this seems to be an all around general use camera that tries to do everything but not being exceptional or ideal for any 1 specific thing,beware of cameras that try to win the spec sheet meme race

>>2910416
probably my next digshital camera if i can get the money, canons doesnt always have the best specs but their cameras always deliver (except for the 5ds and 5dsr gimmick line) obviously i wont get those awesome sony specs but ive been dealing with my 7d for some time and that camera still serves me well despite its age, im really only getting this over the sonys because i plan to use it as a workhorse and i know canon cameras can take a serious beating (seriously youd be surprised)

I'm usually on the other side of these arguments, but in this case I have to admit that I'm a little confused about who this camera is intended for.

It seems to me like the 5D's traditional market has been fractured pretty badly by other cameras. People who want an affordable or small and light FF body will buy a 6D now. Studio and landscape photogs, and probably wedding shooters, have the 5DS line. Cinematographers have Canon's cine line, or are using other brands' mirrorless bodies. Photojournalists are mostly using 1DXs. The only niche I can see for this thing is as a backup body for news photographers or a main body for the specific kind of PJ who needs to balance smaller size and weight with performance, and that seems like a pretty narrow market to me.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, though. Maybe all of those other options are too specialized and this will be the right body for the bulk of the serious market.

>>2911049
>Photojournalists are mostly using 1DXs
Incorrect photojournalists are mostly using 5D3 Only the sports, wildlife and other fast action guys use the 1DX.

What interests me most, as a 5D user, are the DPAF and the 4K frame grab. The 30mp will also give me a little more flexibility to crop and still have enough resolution left for a glossy magazine double page spread

>>2911049
You're making sense. The 5DII was a revelation and brought full frame to the masses - portrait guys, wedding shooters, landscape people, basic video shooters and even a lot of video pros, and general enthusiasts. Everyone but the sports and bird set. Everyone in the world should have had a 5D2.

The 5D3 was a modest improvement but started off enjoying the total dominance of the 5DII. That initial glut of cheaper used 5D2s may have brought a lot of people into the Canon full-frame fold as well.

Now, things are very different. Other systems do certain things better and have great appeal to customers Canon was able to take for granted in the past.

Upping the appeal to the sports and wildlife shooters was probably smart and keeping the "All Around Shooter with good lens stable and solid support" badge is what the 5D series is about.

>>2911049
People who skip generations? 5dM2 casual users looking to upgrade maybe.

>>2910416
>motion jpeg
cucked

>>2910874
>shit ergonomics
>shit lens selection

marginally better dynamic range doesn't matter if you're shooting in a studio

>>2911112

wew lad. a silver medal is still something to be proud of. ;)

>>2911049
>5dS
Is the real definition of a shitty one-niche camera, the exact opposite of a 5dIII or 5dIV.

File-sizes so big that the 50MP is mostly a computer-freezing work-preventing downside. Horrid video as well.

Also, shitty low-light performance by shrinking those extra pixels into the same area.
(4.14µm on 5ds versus 6.25µm on 5dIII or 6.4 on 5dII)
Guess where you don't want horrid small pixels? Wedding photography and churches.

The insane file size + poor FPS and video meant that 5dS was bad for sports/wildlife as well.

5d-IV out-images and out-features the 6D and 5d-II by a mile. Those two have descended into the realm of "budget cameras", poor AF and poor video and FPS and half a page of other features. They will still sell plenty but budget cameras are an entirely different user-group (poorfags) from semi-professional bodies, the group that is fine with being handicapped on performance.

In the flexible, quality fullframe images, quality video, semi-pro bodies, the only thing for 5d-IV to compete with from canon is the 5d-III... which it's a pure upgrade to. Easy to sell to semi-professionals.

It doesn't have to one-up some nikon or sony body, due to it already having the main user-base and the safety net of the huge expense for a user switching between companies (for every semi-professional who sells 10-20,000 of gear at great loss just to switch, you'll have 20 or 50 who stay Canon instead because a 5dIII or IV can get the job done and it's too expensive to sell and rebuy a lens collection)

Only spec-sheet fanboys even considered paying for a 5dS. And the semi-professional market cannot afford/turn-a-profit off the cost of cinema bodies + cinema lenses. So it should be pretty obvious why the 5d-III was such a success and why the 5d-IV will be (as it does the exact same thing, just a couple years improved)

File: 1472178318921.png (126KB, 619x757px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 619x757px

really want this for the wifi capability. lot of money to pay for wifi though. why the fuck does it have nfc tho? and ">improved weather sealing" this bitch should be water tight.

>>2911184
>and ">improved weather sealing" this bitch should be water tight.

I wish. I don't know if some of the seals on my 5D3 have simply just failed over the years or if it wasn't that well weather sealed to begin with, but even a little bit of rain will cause my 5D3 to go haywire.

Is it really that hard for 4k 60 fps? Will low light be anywhere near Asii?

>>2911202

it's crop who cares

>>2910416
Seems like a great camera, but Canon took its time far too long, this is what I would have wanted maybe two years ago. If I'll ever have the need for a small and fast camera though, this would be my pick, the 1DXII is a bit overkill, although very nice too.

>>2911101
Might not be very useful to you maybe but I suspect the eggheads at Canon were thinking more of journalists working in the field with rapidly evolving and unpredictable situations.

For them the 4K frame grab would be very useful indeed and even the video would be suitable for breaking news events.

>>2911099
>5dM2 casual users looking to upgrade maybe

hey that's me. Shame the 5d4 sensor will still probably have shit DR and band like fuck when over 1600 but time will tell.

>>2910875
>>2910898
Of course Canon will not be able to top the 14.4 EVs of the D800 but if the 1DX mkII managed to get 13.4EVs then the 5D will certainly find its place between 13.6 and 13.8EVs- which would be VERY good.

The new 1D is very promising in terms of sensor performance. The new 5D might be even better as the 1D and D5 tend to have less DR at low ISO than other cameras.

>>2911280
Got to dpreview and download some of the 1DX2 Raws. The performance is reaaally good and the banding is gone.

Is it worth upgrading to the new E-Class though?
My 1983 w123 does everything I need it to do

>>2911202
Well the mark 3 had the best low light in the world at the time it came out, I doubt the mark iv will be as good as the sonys but honestly nobody uses those "super mega ultra MLG 200,000 see in the dark" iso

The 4k is crop and uncompressed
Don't wait on this if you want an all-round video camera

>>2911049
Photojournalists strongly favour 5D3, from my personal experience with established photojournalists. They need the reliability of the build, but the extra FPS and vertical grip of the 1DX brings little benefits to their work.

I must stress that I mean photojournalists doing NatGeo assignments, not the stock photo/paparazzi work. Getting the right moment in a span of 10 minutes is more important than getting the right moment in a span of 2 seconds for them.

>>2911359
>all-round video camera
>a FF DSLR
uwot m8

>>2911365
every actual good photographer who consistently gets good results will use a 5d iii for obvious reasons. let them keep arguing until they finally realize

>>2911049
The way I see it, it's for people who were maybe in the market for a 5D III even though that one was out for so long. I was saving up for a D800E and then the D810 came out so I just got the new one because I liked the extra features. I think I would've been just as happy with a D800E though.

I see it as an advancement in the line, somewhat of an evolution, but not really an upgrade.

Honestly this "upgrade every time a new model comes out in the same product line" trend in photography is a little odd. It's like constantly trading in your Hyundai Sonata for the newest one even though the one you had was just fine.

File: 1453710055250.png (230KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 640x360px

>>2911388
>It's like constantly trading in your Hyundai Sonata for the newest one even though the one you had was just fine.

>it's another car analogy

>>2910416
It's fine; I've had my D810 about a year.

How much, if at all, will the Mark III drop in price? Considering buying one if that occurs

>>2911422
I forgot to mention what time frame could I expect for the price drop to happen

>>2911389
>implying there aren't endless parallels to be drawn between two things which are massively produced and owned pieces of tech

You could say the same about people who upgrade their phone every year of it makes you feel better.

>>2911425

A phone is actually a more apt comparison, as they do see massive hardware upgrades every single iteration.

A Hyundai Sonata is going to drive like a Hyundai Sonata no matter what year it's made. It'll have the same class engine, same powertrain, same transmission, same everything. The trim might improve, or it might not, but that's just fluff. If you owned a 2013 Hyundai Sonata and the 2014 came out with a 300hp 4.0L engine and AWD, but for the same price as your crappy 2013 model, it would totally make sense, especially if you could expect the same improvements year after year.

>>2911432

"it would totally make sense to upgrade" is what i meant to type.

>>2911432
Yeah but instead you get marginal upgrades. What you described is a product Hyundai offers but they put it in another class and call it the Genesis. You're not getting a Sonata like that because those features would price it out of the market it's supposed to compete in (economical 4 door sedan).

All I really meant to say is that I think people think this camera is necessarily aimed at current mark III owners. I think it's aimed at new buyers or people upgrading an even older camera. Sure it might have some stuff that people with the mark iii would want but for most that camera is already more than enough.

Man I was really hoping that this would be an awesome camera. turns out to be pretty mediocre.

Can anyone recommend me a great piece of equipment for stills? I used to think experimenting with video would be fun, though now I realize getting a piece of equipment to do both is a stupid idea.

Unfortunately I don't think I'll ever have the money to maintain both. I'd need to have a lot of free time to be a good videographer and photographer, or rather, work on being either of those.

>>2911459
you don't think the 5d mk4 will be good enough for you?

>>2911459
I mean, even with the outrageously terrible video codec, no doubt the 5D4 will get the job done for stills great, just like the 5D3.
Hell, even getting a used 5D3 as a metric shitload of people move up to the 5D4 would be a great idea.

>>2911459
The only real reason this camera series ever got video was for live-view, because having 10x magnification is a god send for setting critical focus. The fact that you could also record video was an afterthought, but one that turned an industry upside-down by pure chance.

It literally costs these companies nothing to implement video into their cameras, you'll still be getting very fast and accurate AF and magnification using live-view for stills work, while being able to ignore the video feature.

There aren't many better still-image cameras unless you jump straight to medium format, but thise are starting to get video features too now. It's an inescapable feature now, and for good reason.

>>2911459
what turned out to be mediocre is you.

>>2911114
That makes sense about the 5DS I guess. I'm not a Canon guy so I didn't realize how compromised it is.

>>2911365
Yeah, the NatGeo types were the ones I meant near the end of my paragraph. They're still a pretty small niche compared to sports and spot news shooters, though, and most of those guys are shooting 1D-series bodies.

>>2911099
Why upgrade when they are basically stuck in the 5d2 generation?

Use the upgrade money and buy lenses

>>2911611
there is a rather huge technical difference between 5d2 and 5d4, regardless of how stupid you choose to be.

I would start listing but the 5d2 is deficient in Every Single spec compared to the 5d3 and even more-so than the 5d4. So it'd just read the entire list of camera features.

>>2911691
You're confusing the sizzle and the steak

>>2910416

Can't wait to see this thread spammed over and over OP.

>1.75X crop in video.

HAHA.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

>>2910416
I bought a D800E the minute it was announced and I was one of the first people in the USA to get my camera in-hand (I got mine over 2 weeks before Ken Rockwell).

The fact that Canon is still struggling to even match the raw specs (forget performance) of the D800 is hilarious. Every Canon shooter I know tells me all the time how they wish they could have 36mp, but the 5DS is too much (one even rented a 5DS and hated the results).

But fortunately for Canon they have the fucking casuals duped. Save for a few die-hard Canon system users, everyone is switching to Nikon out of the pros I know. On the low-end of the scale, Canon's marketing and amateur fanbase keeps the cameras selling.

So yeah, just another shitty attempt from Canon. Great job guys.

>>2911845
Your confused as to what Canon's target market is.

>>2910470

I come from the future and can happily say that there will be, in fact, an incrementally higher MP sensor on the MK4, at the cost of low-light performance.

>>2911961
Yeah... That works for mirrorless cameras where you can adapt any lens but on a full frame DSLR?
Well, you can use a sigma 10-20 to get a 17mm equiv fov in video, that's not horrid but it's ridiculous to have to do that on a 5D
>I just want to use the L uwa I bought the 5D for

>>2910428
>but the SLR part is hardly progressing.

I'm so sick of the "progressive mirrorless" meme.

EVF is fantastic for some subjects, and absolute shit for others. "Absolute shit" is not progress.

On chip AF sensors are great for tracking some subjects, and absolute shit for tracking others. "Absolute shit" is not progress.

Where MILCs do better than SLRs, they do so by a little bit. You can still get the shot with an SLR. Where SLRs do better, MILCs fall flat on their ass.

Mirrorless will some day overcome the gaps. But not now. (The Samsung NX1 put a lot of engineering effort into solving both problems, and failed miserably.)

The other problem with mirrorless is that no one out there can touch:
* The Canon or Nikon lens libraries.
* Canon or Nikon pro build and weather sealing.
* Canon professional support services. (Not sure what Nikon's is like, but probably still better than any mirrorless company.)
* DSLR battery life.
* DSLR refinement.

Except for battery life, these have nothing to do with the underlying tech, but with the age/maturity of the companies involved. Never the less, you're not going to shoot the Olympics or a million dollar wedding with Metabones and a guarantee from Sony that if your camera fails, they'll get it repaired and back to you in 60 days.

>>2910898
>lets hope the sensor technology has improved the noise and banding issues

Canon is using on-sensor ADCs now. The 1DX2, 80D, and now 5D4 have it. They're still not quite as good as Sony, but expect 13.5ev or more with no banding.

>>2911049
>>2911066
>>2911099
>>2911365
>>2911388

WEDDINGS

You know...the thing that the vast majority of employed photographers do for work.

While this is also a very good PJ and serious hobbyist camera, it's an ideal wedding photographer's camera.

* Perfect mix of resolution and high ISO.
* Fast and responsive.
* Great video. (Meme spec'ers seem to ignore DPAF which is HUGE to working photogs.)
* That battery life.
* That Canon build, reliability, and service.
* Oh look, my bag is already full of Canon lenses and flashes.

>>2911114
>File-sizes so big that the 50MP is mostly a computer-freezing work-preventing downside.

The files are beautiful. MF in their detail, sharpness, and clarity. The 50 MP is the reason you buy that camera. And if you can buy that camera, you're not a poor fag with a shit computer.

And even though it's one of the last off-chip ADC sensors from Canon (along with the 7D II), it even has decent DR. You can reliably push shadows 3ev without much effort.

>Horrid video as well.

No one buys that camera for video. No one buying that camera cares. It's like pissing on the video of a MFDB.

>Also, shitty low-light performance by shrinking those extra pixels into the same area.

Nope. I've compared files to the 1DX II and 5D3. When you just scale down to their file dimensions (or equalize view size) 5Ds files have a little more noise but also more detail. If you NR the 5Ds files and then scale down, you can typically make them just as smooth while retaining better sharpness / fine detail.

"5Ds is bad at high ISO" is a meme by people too dumb to do anything but zoom files to 100% in PS. These seem people would think that a 5D3 has "shitty low light performance" compared to a 10D...right up until they printed something.

That said, I understand why Canon capped the ISO at 12800. Speaking in terms of tonality, you can't push the 5Ds RAW files very hard at high ISO. Beyond 12800 color and tonality probably get wonky, while the 1DX II is still good here.

>The insane file size + poor FPS and video meant that 5dS was bad for sports/wildlife as well.

5 fps is serviceable for sports/wildlife, and the AF is literally lifted from the 1DX II.

All of that said...the 5Ds is a landscape/studio camera. The 1DX II and 7D II are wildlife/sports cameras. The 5D4 is a very good all-around body, ideal for a wedding photog or PJ.

>>2911969
>MUH SIX MEGAPICKLES

$0.05 has been deposited. Thank you for helping NikonTheRecord!

>>2912151
>5 years later
>still 6mp less
>still less DR
>still has shadow banding probably
>MUH CANON

>>2912338
>still 6mp less

The 5D4 is not Canon's landscape/studio camera (though it would do fine there). It's their wedding/pj camera. Their landscape/studio camera has 14mp more than the D810.

30 v 36mp doesn't matter much. I'm sure the 5D4 market would rather have faster fps and better high ISO than "moar pixels."

>still less DR
>still has shadow banding probably

Canon moved to on-sensor ADC with the 1DX II. The DR will probably still be less, but much closer and no banding.

Also: be careful how much you brag about "Nikon sensors" because they are actually Sony sensors. And Sony suspiciously didn't supply the Nikon D5 sensor. Which is why the D5 has DR, shadow noise, and banding that is WORSE than a Canon 6D, and considerably worse than a Canon APS-C 80D (which has on-chip ADC).

Nikon doesn't have the patents or tech to do on chip ADC themselves. I doubt they have the tech go to 50 or even 36 MP themselves. That may change, but so far they've been living on borrowed Sony tech. If Sony is kicking them to the curb in an attempt to make the Sony line stand out better then they are fucked in the short run. Because Canon, not Nikon, is the company with the engineering and manufacturing to threaten Sony tech. At the moment Canon is close on DR, ahead on resolution, and has something no one else has (DPAF).

Absent Sony Nikon has...a sensor architecture from the late 2000's.

>MUH CANON

High bit rate 4K. DPAF. WiFi. NFC. GPS. Focus micro adjust in RAW.

Face it, this camera kicks ass for its intended market. I just wish it was a bit cheaper.

>>2912360
>Absent Sony Nikon has...a sensor architecture from the late 2000's.

So does Canon.

>I just wish it was a bit cheaper.

The 5D has literally always been $3500.

They should charge less for it. But fuck its a great camera for all sorts of shooting. 7fps at 30mp ffs

angry photographer was complaining about the UHS I cards but jesus its so much nicer they kept that for backwards compatibility and negligible "improvements" with transfers speeds. Seems like Canon is the only brand that isnt into the numbers game meme.

Still holds lpe6 batteries so thats nice. Dual pixel shit may be a gimmick but no one knows until you get first hand experience, just like DR and banding, they fixed that in 80D.

What I can't figure out is why people are bitching about the UHS I vs UHS II. Literally like Androidfags bitching about 2gb ram vs 4gb ram on phones. Learn how shit works.

>>2912365
>>Absent Sony Nikon has...a sensor architecture from the late 2000's.
>So does Canon.

I'm so sorry about your coma. When were you out? From just before the 1DX II release?

>>2912369

>500nm

>>2911249
>breaking news
>just have to wait for this 100GB file to upload

>>2912389
>tfw still with eos m and 500nm

>>2912389
>still in a coma

>>2912400

List of cameras with a smaller than 500nm process?

That 120mp aps-h vaporware sensor doesn't count.

>>2912366
You forgot the AF system is the same as the one in 1DXm2. Which is a lot more accurate and spread out across the sensor, as opposed to any other ff

>>2912404
every camera with a sony sensor.
samsung.

>>2912411

I meant canon, but you still make a valid point. :)

>>2911249
Who the fuck even needs 4K for breaking news events

If you're a photographer and you happen to be where breaking news is happening, you better stick to your job instead of fucking around with mediocre, shaky footage with shitty on-camera audio

>>2912421
>doesn't have a mic at all time
>no IS lens
haha

>>2912404

Chipworks hasn't analyzed Canon's new sensors. Not even the 7D2 or 5Ds, which aren't that new and were the last off-chip ADC sensor designs. Rumors were flying that Canon was moving to a 180nm process in 2014. It's a pretty good guess that they have.

But guess what? It wouldn't matter even if they were still using a 500nm process for sensors. Results matter. The 1DX II has a 13.5ev DR with no banding. That's still a bit below Sony, but Sony isn't putting two photodiodes behind each pixel either.

But go ahead and shill some more.

>>2912394
The video codec on this camera is such a pile of feces.
I guess Canon is desperate to protect their high end camcorder market, but on the other hand they are also desperate to not fall behind the competitors.

But in the end they fail at both.