Why did Canon bother releasing 5D mk4 if its such a steaming

>>2951884
source?

>>2951886
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n7Qvu1KMt8

>>2951888
Should have mentioned it's video. I would have suspected as much anyway, its been like that for most Canons vs other cameras for a while now.

>>2951891
Nonetheless, its rather pathetic for a 3500GBP camera with 500Mbit/s bitrate to produce video that's not insignificantly worse than competitors costing third of price its price.

>>2951899
The new Xiaomi micro four thirds does 4k too.

Why did you buy a Canon for video in the first place?

>>2951905
I didn't but I would be terribly disappointed if I did.

>>2951884
It's the codec, all canon DSLR's have this issue, and all canon DSLR's cease to have this issue if you shoot in raw.

>>2951912
then why the fuck do you care enough to make this thread you semen slurping waste of air

>>2951921
Canon user on suicide watch

>>2951916
Does 5D mk4 shot 4k in raw?

>>2951884
The GX85 and the 5Dmk4 are clearly the winner though. The Fuji and Sony didn't even capture the car, mirrorless fags btfo.

File: 1475422765725.jpg (8KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x238px

>muh video

>>2951884
it's better than the 5d3 and that is enough for canonfags.

>>2951901
>buy xiaomi to shoot all the videos
>buy eos m5 for the stills
perfect.

>imblying i'm getting a fooji

>>2951888
>gx85
i think that camera doesn't have flat profile and mic input.
cuck video camera.

ayo, hol' up.

Is this another gear thread brand war thread outside the gear thread?

>>2951916
>all canon DSLR's have this issue
You know what other issues all canon dslrs have?
Ubiquity, lense selection, good ergos, good colour, good lense stabilisation, good accessory support.
Keyboard warriors like you piss and moan about comparison videos on youtube; artists just grab their canon dslrs and go make movies.

>>2951884

Look at those excellent Fuji colors compared to that sonyshit next to it.

>muh dr
isoless sensor cunts

>>2952266
>Lens selection
Sony can use them too, plus all sony lenses
>Ergos
its just holding a fucking camera
>Good color
Do you shoot jpeg?
>Good lens stabilisation
Try ibis

Don't get butthurt, you can still make the switch and keep your canon glass

>>2952269
implying anyone would want to use sony lenses

lmao, blowing off ergonomics, classic sonyfag

unless sony can come out with a proper pro body, a good set of lenses, fix their shit battery life and autofocus canon will always be king in the pro field.

>>2952287
HA! Sony G Masters take a fat shit on canon glass. Which is saying a lot because I use canon glass and love it, but sony is making better glass.

I'm at least reasonable enough to agree that they need a pro emount body, and better battery life. That's easily fixable though. canon making shitty sensors is a bit harder to fix, unfortunately

>>2952305
>canon buys sensors from Sony
>adds a menu that doesn't have 21+ pages
What now?

>>2952268
> Look at those excellent Fuji colors compared to that sonyshit next to it.
It looks like the Sony is the only camera that graded the colors about how they were in reality?

On the Fuji, the trees are way too green, and the concrete / railing has a blue hue that probably is too strong.

>>2952324
>canon buys sensors from Sony

Why don't you read it straight from their website?

http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_slr/technologies_features/cmos_sensor.aspx

>Canon's purpose-built CMOS sensors are designed, developed and manufactured in-house. Precise control over every aspect of production allows Canon to achieve large sensor sizes, wide dynamic range and minimal noise – key characteristics of EOS image quality.


MUH MENU!

If you can't navigate a menu, you're retarded

>>2951928
Sony caught the bus though, where is your God now??

>>2951884
Because they're trying to get you to buy their Cinema EOS line.

But they are kinda right, since VDSLRs are a stopgap measure, the entire mirror mechanism is bypassed.

>>2951927
Maybe when ML guys get to it, but I wouldn't count on 4K since it requires 300+ MB/s (that's mega*bytes* per second) card throughput and 5DIV doesn't have that.

>>2952209
It's a $600 entry level mirrorless.

I think the point is that 5DIV is so bad that it's beaten even by stuff that's 5 times cheaper.

>>2952336
No retard.
They are saying *what if* they used the same *decent* sensors as sony/pentax/nikon instead.
And if their menus were simpler...
Then where is your god now?

Learn to reading comprehension

>>2952393
thank you

yes the 5d iv video isnt as good as the gimmick cameras that tv companies put out, but that's not what it's for

the 5d iv is a pro stills camera that can shoot vert acceptable video if needed.

why would you buy a $3000 dlsr for video? get a proper cinema camera for that price

>>2952268
>Fuji colors
The meme to end all memes.

File: iFLaczz.gif (273KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 500x375px

The only thing these constant Sonyfap threads prove is how insecure Sony users really are.

>>2952336
Hi retard. I see that you've replied to my post with some autistic dpreview.com or rumour site trash comment.
You think you can fit in using green text but you fail to notice that green text is not only used in the BB style of old.

It was a lighthearted comment giving a theoretical view of Canon using a sony sensor instead and not adding a 21 page menu.
If you can't comprehend this, you're retarded

(Didja notice I left out the full punctuation to ape your style in the last setence, neat eh?)

>>2952521
hey I just watched that episode

easily in my top 10

>>2952521

Sony users should be only focuses on recording. I don't they need to be getting in the photography shit, they even use Canon's lens with metabones because can't handle the price of his own lens!

>>2952404
The video on 5d4 would've been acceptable if not for the 1.7x crop for 4K.
It's goddamm 2016 and they still can't into scaling.

>>2952521
No, these threads couldn't exist without a big helping of insecurity from the Canikon (mostly Canon) crowd as well. Otherwise they wouldn't bother engaging the sonyfags.

>>2952529
>>2952402
>*what if* they used the same *decent* sensors

Yeah but they don't.

So you can keep your ergonomic grip, and I'll keep the better sensor.

And that menu is going to make you take some rad fucking photos, I'm really excited to see the ergonomics pay off too.

>>2952565
Indeed. It seems like Canon can't into engineering anymore

>>2952565
>>2952713

Neither can Sony which is why FF 4K overheats their cameras.

This is a problem that can only be solved with future chip sets.

>>2952606
>MUH BETTER SENSOR!

Canon's newest sensors have on chip ADCs for the same DR as Sony sensors. With the exception of a few Nikon FF bodies, pretty much all bodies now have DR in the 13ev range. (Not sure how Nikon is squeezing another stop out of their Sony sensors, but whatever.)

Even with older sensors the DR difference of 1-2 stops only matters with HDR scenes if you don't bracket/blend.

Otherwise if you can't produce high quality photographs with ANY modern sensor, m43 or larger, then you're a fag.

Ergonomics also is not a big deal with most cameras. But then most cameras don't make you search through 9,001 menus for the fucking thing you need every time you shoot. Only Sony does that.

>>2951884

I would want to see more comparisons to be sure the guy didn't fuck up, but...yeah...Canon has a codec issue.

Canon DSLRs are awesome for stills, but they failed to capitalize on the 5D2's head start into video. They should just hire the ML guys to fix the video portion of their firmware on all existing DSLRs.

Love Canon for stills, but would honestly recommend something else for video UNLESS you have the cash for the C line.

And that's painful to say because dual pixel AF is the shit for video. Every other video/mirrorless AF system is BTFO'd by DPAF.

File: 1477247260851.gif (2MB, 160x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 160x200px

>>2952266
I really like my 5DM2 for all those reasons. The codec is bad, that was all I'm saying. Jesus man, fly off the handle much?

>>2952776
I'll tell you what. Go compare the image quality of an a7r2 to a canon 5dsr. The canon simply isn't as good. Yeah, it's got a better grip and better battery life. But fuck, if it sucks at recovering shadows, why spend the extra money?

>>2951899
>its rather pathetic for a 3500GBP camera with 500Mbit/s bitrate to produce video that's not insignificantly worse than competitors costing third of price its price.

Nikon D4 also has far worse video than Nikon D3200.

>>2952771
>Neither can Sony which is why FF 4K overheats their cameras.

Sony also does line-skipping on their higher megapixel models.
So you don't get full performance out of your sensor.

>>2952336

For the 5Dinosaur Canon also made the lithography machines to make the sensors, which in tern used Canon lenses.
Which I think was kinda cool.


Fairly sure they use ASML which has Zeiss optics now, though.

>>2952574
Agree they shouldn't feed the trolls. But it takes a special kind of sad, pathetic twat to create the thread in the first place

>>2952771
Well, thats more of a QA issue than engineering.
Sony didn't notice that issue because of obviously not investing as much resources into testing products under more extreme conditions. Canon's crop decision was made to downright handicap the product so that it won't outperform their dedicated video cameras.
Two different things.

>>2953302
This proves Canon is ran by money-hungry marketing people and makes sense why they're not improving.

>>2952782
>I'll tell you what. Go compare the image quality of an a7r2 to a canon 5dsr.

I have. Repeatedly. The 5Dsr has a slight resolution advantage and much better color OOC. The A7r2 has a moderate DR and slight high ISO noise advantage.

For all practical purposes it's a wash in terms of IQ. The differences in resolution, DR, and high ISO noise are unlikely to make a difference in prints. And Sony's color can be fixed with a profile.

>But fuck, if it sucks at recovering shadows,

The 5Ds bodies only "suck" at recovering shadows if you turn off default NR in ACR, which some reviewers do. With default color NR and a bit of luminance NR the shadow recovery is decent.

The real, day to day difference between a 5Ds and A7r2 is that you need to be a bit more careful with your exposure and histogram on the 5Ds. It's more critical to ETTR on the 5Ds than it is on the A7r2.

>why spend the extra money?

* Lens selection, which is a massive plus in the Canon column. (inb4 muh adapters!!!)
* Better AF for sports/action/wildlife.
* OVF much better for sports/action/wildlife.
* Build quality and weather sealing.
* Ergonomics. (Sony really is shit here.)
* Battery life.
* Service and support. (Another place where Sony is shit.)

I know a couple guys who love the A7r2 but simply will not use or trust it for paid shoots because the weather sealing is non-existent, much like Sony's professional service.

Pros for the A7r2?
* EVF rocks for slower moving scenes with tricky lighting because you can see the correct exposure live.
* In some situations Sony's AF is better due to better subject tracking. iTR will track a baby's face, Sony's AF will track a baby's right eye at f/1.4.
* Adapters for just about every lens on the planet. If I'm being paid, Canon glass on native Canon mount. If I'm playing, using old glass is fun.
* I don't care about video. If I did, the A7r2 has much better video. It also has 4k. (For 4-5 minutes between 30m cool down periods.)

>>2953302
>Well, thats more of a QA issue than engineering.
>Sony didn't notice that issue because of obviously not investing as much resources into testing products under more extreme conditions. Canon's crop decision was made to downright handicap the product so that it won't outperform their dedicated video cameras.
>Two different things.

You're wrong on both points. It's a TDP issue. The only fix is Moore's Law: finer semiconductor lithography = less power use = less heat.

I can pretty much guarantee you that Sony knew about the overheating but went ahead any way because the camera will protect itself (shutdown) and they can claim FF 4k, even if it's only for a few minutes unless you're in the snow.

Canon cannot play those games with their pro customers. Period. And nothing in their lineup suggests they (or anyone else) can do 30 MP FF readout at 24/30 fps to 4k video without overheating. Their 4k video cameras have 8 MP dedicated sensors.

>>2951888
>that foilage in the video
>everything except Panasonic and Sony blends into a blue-greenish blob
>"wow, this footage seems really blurry"
>realize it's on 480p
>load 4k
>Sony and Pana clear up instantly
>Fooji and Cantnot say blurry and mashy
Jesus Christ, what the fuck?

>>2953380
I'm not saying that sonys beat canons on everything.

In this instance, in relation to the OP, that's unacceptable for the canon. It would probably look better if it was just upscaled 1080.

In my opinion

Canon pros:
Weather sealed bodies
better battery life
more native lenses

Canon cons:
Stagnant for nearly 8 years
not as good IQ as other cameras
worse video

Sony pros:
adapters for many lenses (I use my canon L series on my sony)
great AF with sony lenses
better low light
better IQ

Sony cons:
Battery life
Overheating issues with some cameras
Not enough native lenses

I can't really comment on AF because I haven't used my sony in a sports environment. The only sports shooting I've done is with a canon 1dmk3 and a 400 2.8, so obviously that kicks ass, but thats also over $16,000, so not a good comparison.

>>2952268
>Muh puke green trees
>Muh blue concrete
>Muh blue purple shadows
>Muh blownout red channel

fucking awful

>>2953445
>Canon cons:
>Stagnant for nearly 8 years

But that's simply not true. Just because they don't have some feature you think they should does not mean they are standing still.

DPAF kicks ass. Their lenses are being upgraded to support 50mp and higher sensors and 4 stop IS. They're rolling out touch screens and their touch UI is the best of the bunch. Their latest ultra wide angles kick ass. Their teles always have and yet they are improving those two.

The 5D mark IV is actually a really well rounded, kick ass FF DSLR. The big problem is the video. The rest is gold.

>not as good IQ as other cameras

Again, not true. This meme is due entirely to "muh duhnamic ranges!" which drive "muh D-X-O scores!" From the 1DX II on they have on sensor ADC and DR comparable to Sony.

IMHO the best 35mm sensor in good light is the 5Ds sensor. The best all around 35mm sensor is the A7rII sensor. But at the end of the day if you're not pushing shadows by >3 stops even the older, off-sensor ADC Canon sensors are damn good.

Funny to note that Nikon did not use Sony for the D5 and DR is complete shit. Canon moved ADCs on chip for the 1DX II and it kicks the D5's ass on DR while giving up almost nothing at high ISO.

>worse video

Yeah, I'll give you that. It's painful that the company with the best video AF has the shittiest video IQ. Damn it Canon, fix your codec, add C-log, and add peaking for fuck's sake.

>>2953445
Sony just fucked their af with latest firmware update.

>mfw

>>2953523
>The big problem is the video.
That's because it's a stills camera that happens to do video. If you want to do serious video you buy a video camera.

>>2953523
>if you're not pushing shadows by >3 stops
If you are pushing shadows by three stops it's your technique that is crap

>>2953523
>Just because they don't have some feature you think they should does not mean they are standing still.

But they are. And I'm trying to be as objective as possible. I was a canon guy, I stuck with canon for 6 years hoping they would come out with something great, and I got tired of waiting. Just look at their 5dmk2 and their 5dmk3, there is nothing you could tell me to convince me to spend $3k to upgrade. Meanwhile sony has gone from 0 FF e mounts to 6+ in 3 years. If you think Canon has been innovative in the last 8 years, that's simply not true, and you know it. They won't do 4k because they want to sell their video cameras. They have more capabilities, just look at magic lantern. But they won't do it because they'd be shooting themselves in the foot

>>2953593
>That's because it's a stills camera that happens to do video

No, they market these cameras as doing video, that's one of their huge selling points, and most of the high quality content you see on youtube, is done with DSLRs.

You don't need to drop 15 grand to be able to make good videos

>>2953597
>If you are pushing shadows by three stops it's your technique that is crap

So you've never shot a scene with a luminance range >12ev?

Sucks to be you.

>>2954131

If anything, it's great to be him. Photography must not offer many technical challenges.

>>2953706
>Just look at their 5dmk2 and their 5dmk3, there is nothing you could tell me to convince me to spend $3k to upgrade.

Are you trolling me?

The 5D mark II was the highest resolution / highest IQ 35mm body for some time. It also started the DSLR video revolution.

The 5D mark III brought professional AF and build/sealing to the 5D line. And don't come back with "the 5D mark II should have had this" because NONE of Sony's cameras are sealed worth a shit and their AF...mirrorless AF in general...is only now starting to work worth a shit. The 5D2 already had better AF than most mirrorless cameras that have existed so far.

>Meanwhile sony has gone from 0 FF e mounts to 6+ in 3 years.

Do you want to talk about build quality? Off sensor flare? Shutter shock? Battery life? AF?

Problem is Sony starts from 0 and gets to 50 and you say how innovative they are. Canon was already at 80 and hits 100 and "hurr durr they're standing still."

I probably sound like I hate Sony. I don't. I think the A7r2 is a very compelling camera. I also like the a6000 series. But the "Canon doesn't innovate" meme is shit just like the "Canon sensors are bad" meme.

>If you think Canon has been innovative in the last 8 years, that's simply not true, and you know it.

50mp sensors. All of their new lenses with IQ for sensors >50mp and 4 stop IS. DPAF. Continual ergonomic improvements. The 7D series. The 1DX series. Radio flash system. On and on.

>They won't do 4k because they want to sell their video cameras.

Except that they are doing 4k. And before you "hurr durr muh crops!" nobody, including Sony, can do FF to 4k without thermal issues. Canon CPS customers will NOT accept overheating bodies. Period. Canon cannot ship that tongue-in-cheek like Sony can.

The one thing I'll give you is that Canon is being stupid about some of the lesser video features that could be done right now with firmware updates. Better codecs for better quality. C-log. Focusing aids, etc.

>>2954141
Im not talking shit about the 5dmk2. It was a fantastic camera. That was the last camera they made that was worth the upgrade. If you had the 5dmk2, and the 5dmk3 came out, you'd either have to be stupid or really desperate to shell out 3 grand to buy it with minimal upgrades. OR those few upgrades would have to be absolutely needed for whatever kind of photography you do.

Also, the 5dmk2 came out 8 fucking years ago. 8!!! Canon has been leaning on the 5dmk2 and mk3 for 8 years. ALSO, that was not the higest resolution camera. The 1dsmk3 came out a year prior, and also had the same sensor in it.

>Canon doesn't innovate" meme is shit

THEY DON'T! That's why people are dropping canon at absurd rates. Their answer to the a7r2 was the 5dsr, which performed much poorer in IQ and costs nearly $4000.

I get it, as I have said many times before on this thread. Sony has obvious issues, but at least theyre fucking trying. Canon will never put focus peaking or c-log on their cameras, because then their entire cinema line would be useless.

Fuck, at least sony is pushing the envelope with their cameras. And in the mean time. I've got a 36mp camera with canon lenses, and I can shoot 4k or 120fpsHD with my other sony. Both bodies combined cost me less than $2800

>>2954162
>Im not talking shit about the 5dmk2. It was a fantastic camera.

My mistake, thought you were listing it as a camera 'not worth the upgrade.' Didn't realize you meant the jump from 5D2 to 5D3.

>That was the last camera they made that was worth the upgrade.

Really? 7D2. 70D then 80D. 1DX and 1DX2. The freaking MF resolution 5Ds bodies. Now the 5D4. None of these were/are worth the sales price?

I think maybe you would be in the minority with that opinion.

>ALSO, that was not the higest resolution camera. The 1dsmk3 came out a year prior, and also had the same sensor in it.

Did anyone else have a higher resolution sensor at the time?

>>Canon doesn't innovate" meme is shit
>THEY DON'T!

Screaming and stomping your feet doesn't erase all the shit I've listed.

>That's why people are dropping canon at absurd rates.

Except that they're not.

>Their answer to the a7r2 was the 5dsr, which performed much poorer in IQ

What are you basing that on, meme DxO scores? The 5Dsr has better IQ in good light. The A7r2 has better IQ in poor light. Either way the advantage is slight. You wouldn't choose between them based on tiny IQ differences. You might, however, choose based on build, sealing, and professional service.

>I get it, as I have said many times before on this thread. Sony has obvious issues, but at least theyre fucking trying. Canon will never put focus peaking or c-log on their cameras, because then their entire cinema line would be useless.

Those features wouldn't touch C line sales. I'm not sure if some egghead with an MBA believes otherwise or if Canon is just being stubborn like they were with the "Direct Print" button, or lack of a mirror lockup button, for years.

But that one area does not negate all the things they are doing.

>Fuck, at least sony is pushing the envelope with their cameras.

Who has 50mp? Who has DPAF? Who has a 14fps FF sports monster?

Should I start listing lenses?

>>2954249
>7D2. 70D then 80D. 1DX and 1DX2. The freaking MF resolution 5Ds bodies. Now the 5D4. None of these were/are worth the sales price?

No. If you already have the 5dmk2, there's no reason to drop $3k on one of those. Maybe the 7D2, or the 80D, just because they're realtively inexpensive

>Did anyone else have a higher resolution sensor at the time?
No, but Im not talking shit about the 5D2, Im talking shit about the 5D3, that was a retarded camera.

>Except that they're not.
Except they are. Canon is now on their way to being the largest 3rd party lens manufacture.

>Those features wouldn't touch C line sales.

Canon obviously believes it. Even with a fucking T2i, you can get focus peaking, clipping warnings, audio monitors, with magic lantern. Theres a reason they aren't including that in their DSLRs. They're handicapping their cameras on purpose.

>Who has 50mp?

Like I said, canon isn't pure shit, they're just stagnant. Don't pretend like they aren't. You can do more with less using other cameras. Canon needs to put out another ground breaking camera like the 5D2 or the T2i to stop hemmoraging customers.

>Should I start listing lenses?
I love their lenses. I have a few L series lenses. Ive got a 400mm, a 24-70, 50, and 85

>>2954162
Well it's true, i'm still shooting the 5D mark II since it does everything i want nicely.

Canon has innovated in touch screen interfaces, AF, Metering and video AF. All things that really make no difference in the end result quality. Sure now the last 3 cameras (80D, 1Dx mark II, 5DIV) have greatly improved sensors (still worse than nikon/sony).

But yeah don't buy a canon if you want a camera that can do photo and video at professional quality. Then again that is quite a subjective measure, If you're doing youtube video stuff you can't go wrong with a 70D or 80D really seeing as they have best in class video AF. But you're stuck with slightly blurry 1080p without a proper log profile, so whatever you shoot it's never not going to look like video. But if that doesn't matter to what you do (and really unless you're shooting movies i don't see how they hold you down).

I'd pick a canon 80D or 1Dx mark II for a wedding video/photo shoot over anything else really. Decent image quality, not top of the line. Great AF both stills and video. Good flash system, best native lens availability really for any photo system (canon, sigma, tamron, zeiss, samyang, tokina) got it all really. Can also mount nikon lenses in the few instances where their offer is superior. (used to be 14-24/2.8 but it's not really the only option anymore, Tamron 15-35/2.8 VC is great, 11-24/4, sigma 12-24/4, cheap sammy 14/2.8)

It's a great system really that has got everything you really need, unless you want to shoot a feature film on a budget, then you should buy an a6300 and a speedbooster.

guys guys

I'm looking for a new cam with 4k!

Now I'm kinda torn between taking the gx85 and use my external recorder for sound or heavily investing for a fuji xt2.

I really like fuji and it's usability (had the xpro2 in my hands).

On the other hand I save myself like a thousand bucks I got sink into glas when getting a gx85. I'm also intrigued by the 4k image stabilization.

Kinda stuck with the feeling I will be frustrated soon with the lag of vlog on the gx85.

Help please

>>2954412
Suck a dick.

>>2954394
Im honestly not even saying that canon can't do a good job and have professional level quality for photo and video. I'm just saying that since they came out with the 5D2, they haven't really done much, except for their dual pixel AF. I owned Canons ever since the original rebel came out. My last canon camera was a T3i, which was a great camera, and still use it every once in a while

I personally like shooting landscapes, so AF isn't even a thing I care about. And I like doing focus pulling shooting video.

I have the sony a6300, and I love it, but the overheating issue is frustrating. It can be fixed if you pull the back screen out so the camera has proper cooling.

>>2954412
It depends on what kind of video you're doing, and what cameras you already have.

what are you trying to do, and what cameras do you have already?

>>2951928
GX85 is Mirrorless tho

>>2954412
Dont take GX85. Take G85/81/80. it has better IBIS, weather sealing and a mic Input.

MFT can also adapt lenses you already have via adapters.
The GH4 is destined to go down in price and has VLOG

>>2954429

I'm more of a film guy so I usually shoot with camcorders. For photo I mostly use an AE1.

I had a 700d but sold it to a friend. Since I'm a film student I was able to use my schools inventory or borrow one from the production company I'm working at.

Now I have some money on the side and thinking about getting a new camera. Manly for shooting stills and having something handy on the side with great video. The options right now are great but kinda overwhelming.

Now I can't decide to make this an long term investment and go with the xt2 which I got the feeling will serve me a while and just have a real nice camera. I really like the joystick for focusing fuji has and the generell feel of the camera.

But I also really like what I can have with the gx85. It's outstanding what you can get for 500€ in a camera this small. I just have the feeling I could get unsatisfied quickly.

It'll be more of an hobby tool, but I kinda like to invest in something nice. I can use a camera but the xt2 will probably way above my level and the gx85 will do just fine.

I'm honestly just asking for opinions on spending some more money just to have something nice to shoot with.

>>2954419
Is probably the right answer.

>>2954386
>>7D2. 70D then 80D. 1DX and 1DX2. The freaking MF resolution 5Ds bodies. Now the 5D4. None of these were/are worth the sales price?
>No. If you already have the 5dmk2, there's no reason to drop $3k on one of those.

21mp vs. 50mp "not worth it." Now I know you're trolling.

>Except they are. Canon is now on their way to being the largest 3rd party lens manufacture.

t. Doesn't Read Sales Stats

>>Those features wouldn't touch C line sales.
>Canon obviously believes it.
>They're handicapping their cameras on purpose.

Doubt it. They have a history of being stubborn on certain UI stuff. No one knows why. Possibly some cranky old Japanese guy: "You...you no need focus peaking!!!"

And believe me, the C line is at no risk from focus peaking or C-log.

>>Who has 50mp?
>Like I said, canon isn't pure shit, they're just stagnant. Don't pretend like they aren't.
>22mp to 50mp
>"stagnant"

Whatever.

I can't wait until the novelty of mirrorless wears off so some people stop treating it like the second coming of Christ.

>>2954394
> Sure now the last 3 cameras (80D, 1Dx mark II, 5DIV) have greatly improved sensors (still worse than nikon/sony).

Do you even own a camera? Honest question. Because your opinion is based on memes.

>But yeah don't buy a canon if you want a camera that can do photo and video at professional quality.

Nope, guess you don't own a camera.

>>2954598
>he doesn't pirate his cameras

>>2954425
>canon doesn't do anything
>i like shooting landscapes
>i have an a6300

What the actual fuck???

Do you not realize that a 5Ds with Canon's new UWAs can take an a6300 and curb stomp it on landscape IQ?

>but canon doesn't do nothing!

>>2954602

Would you pirate a bear?

>wait years for a canon upgrade
>it's shit

>wait years for a macbook pro update
>also shit

fuck 2016 and everything about it.

>>2954610
>not just buying a Nikon
>not just buying a Thinkpad

>>2954603
I've got other sony's too. A7r

I have the a6300 for video only, or sports because it has great autofocus and 11fps.

>>2954621
>wait years for nikon upgrade
>still waiting

Maybe 2016 does suck.

>>2954623
>evf
>"sports"

>>2954707
Yeah, there's really no difference. What advantage does a ovf have in terms of sports?

>>2954733
>flip book
>see where the subject was a split second ago
>"no difference"

>>2954790
>What is turn off image review?

You can change it so that the evf doesn't show your images. It's literally no different than an ovf. It's the same flickering that a normal shutter would show on a mirrored camera

>>2954707
just spray away at a wider angle and crop.
still better image quality than a canun.

File: Canon-EOS-M5-1024x576-e05e45eef1487edb.jpg (97KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1024x576px

>>2954610
you forgot about something tho

>>2954621
Nikon didn't even make anything notable in 2016 besides D500.
What about DL series? What about non-shit mirrorless? And D3400 is WORSE than its predecessor, what the fuck Nikon?

>>2954959
M5 may no longer be a crap camera, but EF-M still has less lenses than PS3 had games at launch.

>>2954972
All the EF lenses are at your disposal though.
I can see many Canon DSLR users buy one as a backup/travel camera.
Also the M5 seems to be the first EOS M that actually shows how fast the M lenses can be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7RwVwtzaL4

>>2954985
>All the EF lenses are at your disposal though

Yeah, with an adapter. If I wanted a 3" thick body and pigfat DSLR lenses, I'd just buy a DSLR. Or a meme sony, since that can use EF lenses too, plus has five times more native ones.

>>2955002
>If I wanted a 3" thick body and pigfat DSLR lenses
Well, that's you. I will be perfectly fine with using my EF lenses on the M5.
>Or a meme sony, since that can use EF lenses too
Without reliable and good AF though.

>>2955017
>Without reliable and good AF

On the newest Sonys it's very fast and reliable.

>>2955019

They've been saying that exact same fucking sentence for like four generations now. it's still not true.

>>2955022

They're getting better, but still not 100%. Even if adapted EF glass was as good as native Sony, Sony's MILC AF system is not as good for sports/action as Canon's.

Now if Canon would just tweak iTR to give it more precise subject recognition/tracking.

>>2954972
>Nikon didn't even make anything notable in 2016 besides D500.

Don't know.
My D800 is still much better than anything Canon makes today.

I do have a 2016 Thinkpad though.

>>2955035

That should have said "...as Canon's DSLR AF."

>>2955036
>My D800 is still much better than anything Canon makes today.

Not better than the 5Ds twins.

>inb4 but muh duh-nam-ick-ranges!

The D800/810 is still competitive with the 5D4 on stills, though the 5D4 has better features (fps; DPAF). I have to admit the D800 was a home run for Nikon and one of the legendary DSLR releases.

File: 741344907580b103fb7078.jpg (528KB, 1200x727px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1200x727px

>>2955038
The AF is what I love about my 7DII, combined with a EF 70-300 it's nearly perfect for action/wildlife shooting.
That being said, I can't wait for the M5 to come out.
That DPAF looks really impressive so far.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	andoWKS15
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1920
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:22 15:41:04
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	727

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-28 at 1.20.08 PM.png (468KB, 2376x922px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 2376x922px

>>2955042
>Not better than the 5Ds twins
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAAHA!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!

The D800, D800E, and D810 are waayyy fucking better than the 5Ds or 5DSR!

You're fucking crazy if you think that 5DSR even close! In terms of IQ, it's on par with the 5Dmk3, just higher res.

inb4 "B-but thats just a ch-chart! It's not r-real"

They don't just throw random numbers out. Fucking cry about it

>>2955053
>MUH D-X-OH SCOREZ!!!

* DxO ignores resolution. Let that sink in. DxO completely fucking ignores the single most important metric in terms of image IQ and maximum print size. This is where the 5Ds bodies decisively beat the D800 bodies.

* DxO's "sports" score is based on an analysis of...one pixel. One. Fucking. Pixel. Sure the smaller pixels of the 5Ds have more noise, but there are more of them. When you view a 5Ds file...ALL of the pixels...at the same print size as a D800 file, the 5Ds looks better at high ISO. I see it. Reviewers see it. You don't see it because you've never shot one (or either) of them.

* DxO's portrait score is meaningless. Unless you're a tetrachromat you can't tell the difference between 24.7 bits and 25.6 bits.

* DxO's DR test is decent, and the D800 really does have about 2ev more shadow latitude. A 5Ds file can take a 3ev shadow push, 4ev at smaller print sizes and with some NR. The D800 can do 5/6ev under same conditions. But that only comes into play some of the time, and you can always AEB for HDR.

What does this mean practically? According to someone who has, you know, actually compared them and not just shit up a thread with DxO?

* Without question the 5Ds has higher IQ, but it's only going to matter for people shooting demanding subjects (i.e. landscapes) and printing large.

* You need to be more careful with exposure on the 5Ds than the D800. Sometimes you need to bracket/blend two exposures where you might have gotten away with one on the D800.

>>2955064
> This is where the 5Ds bodies decisively beat the D800 bodies
In an ideal case, only taking sensor resolution into account, that's a mere 20% increase in print dimensions. It's even less in terms of actual sharpness since no lens is ideal.

>DxO's "sports" score is based on an analysis of...one pixel
False. Otherwise Nikon's own 16MP pro FF cameras with their much bigger pixels would've had WAY higher "sports" scores than D800.

>>2955064
Resolution is highly overrated. I've yet to see a single 5Ds/5DsR in the wild while I've seen tons of people with D800s and even more with regular 5DIIIs.

File: In Fine Detail Canon EOS 5DS 5DS R In Depth Review Digital Photography Review.jpg (800KB, 1176x1131px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 1176x1131px

>>2955064
The 5Ds definitely looks better

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:28 15:13:09
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1176
Image Height	1131

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-28 at 3.31.44 PM.png (423KB, 699x361px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 699x361px

>>2955066
>In an ideal case,

In any case. See below.

>It's even less in terms of actual sharpness since no lens is ideal.

Confirmed for not knowing how optics work. The resolution of a system never reaches the resolution of the weakest component. But improving ANY component brings it closer to that resolution. You don't have to have Zeiss Otus lenses to benefit from a 5Dsr. Even merely "good" lenses benefit.

But if you do have the Zeiss the 5Dsr will actually be sharper than a 645z with Pentax glass. Not true with the D810.

>>DxO's "sports" score is based on an analysis of...one pixel
>False. Otherwise Nikon's own 16MP pro FF cameras with their much bigger pixels would've had WAY higher "sports" scores than D800.

I'm not even sure how to respond to that because if DxO ranks the D4 or D5 lower in high ISO performance than the D810 then it would undermine my claim about their sports test. But it would also prove that DxO is full of fucking idiots and destroy any credibility that they have.

Either way I win.

Any way, pic related. Tell me again which has better high ISO.

>>2955067
>Resolution is highly overrated.

No, DR is highly overrated. It's all anyone ever talks about, yet it's relevant in maybe 5% of shots. More if you're a landscape guy, but then you're bracketing and doing HDR any time the sun is in the frame any way.

The resolution of either camera is beyond what most need or will use. But if you happen to be one of the people who needs it, the 5Dsr is clearly ahead.

>>2955106
>pulls crop from a massive shadow push

Point is conceded that the D810 has higher DR. And you're an idiot.

>>2955119
>Tell me again which has better high ISO.
Nikon because it doesn't lose as much saturation.

>>2955125
>do double take
>check photos
>nikon has terrible noise
>nikon has less detail
>nikon is softer
>saturation the same
>HURR DURR THE NIKON IS BETTER

wew lad...

You know, instead of being an unbearable "muh brand must win!" faggot, you could have just taken some pride in the fact that the D800 was a fucking awesome DSLR release that is still competitive with everything out there.

But nooo...you have to shit post because "i hate canun muh dickXO muh dr muh edge."

>>2955129
Probably time to take a break from 4chan

File: 1477698800592.png (358KB, 552x543px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 552x543px

Why are videocucks even on a photography board?

File: 1477185062190.png (136KB, 471x411px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 471x411px

>he is cucked into shooting at 5 or less frames per second

File: Consider the following 2.gif (1009KB, 390x219px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 390x219px

>>2955177
why are photophags even on an anime imageboard?

File: 1470647563109.png (89KB, 1272x1152px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1272x1152px

>>2955185
>he's a delusional animeNEET living a decade in the past

>he thinsk he's on a sekrit club for gigalosers

>_literally_ reeing at normies on a photography board

>>2955185
Have you ever been to dpreview?

>>2955186
>the irony of this response

>>2955129
>>saturation the same
no it's not measure it faggot

Can anyone here provide me a link
where i can dl an example of an Infrared Photography ( digital RAW )
i want to mess with it a bit and maybe order a ir filter tx !

>>2955045
if m5 had 4k it would kill the sony and fuji.
it's like they don't exist.

>ctrl + f touch screen

>>2953523
>>2954394
>Canon has innovated in touch screen interfaces
I'm glad there has been a change in the tune.

Just a couple of years ago, the DLSR crowd would the the ones who where the most vehement against the idea of enhancing their camera with touch capable screen.
But now that Canon is finally doing it, everybody loves the idea.

>>2952269
>its just holding a fucking camera

obviously doesn't do this shit as a career or has never shot an event/wedding.