Can the 5d IV Still Compete in Pro DSLR Market?

Hi all

After Nikon released its beast, the D850, and Sony released the A9, the question comes: is it worth it to think about the Canon 5d IV or no (as a person wanting a camera upgrade)?

I am an intermediate level photographer (not a blind beginner nor a pro) and i've been a Canon shooter for more than 5 years and I love their ergonomics. Now, when thinking to grab a new Full Frame body, I think of the 3 beasts: A9, D850, 5DIV. Lets keep the A9 aside since its lenses are not affordable to me $!.

I shoot events, sports and studio mostly, and landscapes and sometimes family pictures. I need the camera to have good ISO capabilities in low light.

Obviously, the D850 with a grip beats the IV with extra 2 fps (for action photography), but for studio work

i think there will be no noticeable difference. I won't need the extra megapixles in the D850 since i won't print my pictures larger than A3 (correct my if i am wrong and they will be useful in cropping pics). I have read a lot of reviews and comparisons and all said both cameras' focus is amazingly fast, but regarding the DR and ISO in low light, some went to the IV and some to the D850.

Now, am really in confusion what to get. I really love canon ergonomics and i am used to their system. Either i get the d850 and get all Nikon glass, or stick to canon and get the 5div with its glass and wait for a new camera for canon after 5 years that will hopefully beat Nikon and offer better pixel count and fps rate.

This purchase will be critical to me since i have just one full frame canon lens (50 1.4) and by this purchase i will get a 70-200 and something wide 24-105 or 24-70 so i should take a wise decision.

I own the 5D MkIV, the 5DS-R and the a9. The S-R is best for 72" prints, which I do, very occasionally. The 5D4 is a champ (not, THE champ)of an all around camera, with a really nice balance between AF performance, resolution and high-ISO performance. For sports and events, particularly when silent-shutter would be a plus, the a9 blows away everything else. With it's native G Master lenses, like the FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS, it'll grab focus and lock on, where ever the subject might go in the frame. With people, it'll face detect at 50+ yards and lock-on eye at any portrait distance. If I could have only one body, it'd be the a9. In fact, I'll probably buy a second a9 by the beginning of 2018.

The a9 is not a mere incremental move up from the Canon and Nikon DSLRs, it's a total disruptor. Advantages include astounding AF capacity. The EVF has no discernible latency, with incredible resolution. What you see in the EVF is what the sensor is seeing, at the exposure that the sensor sees, so WYSIWYG. There's no excuse for under or over-exposing. Silent shutter, with no blackout, at 20-fps is mind blowing and game changing. Did I mention 693 AF points, covering 93% of the viewfinder, with lock-on focus that'll follow the subject to the edge of the frame. Excellent high-ISO performance? Oh yeah, it's smaller and lighter and the G Master lenses are sharper than the equivalent Canon L-Series, as well as lighter. A 5D4, plus an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II will set you back $5,500, while the same all-Sony a9/100-400 setup will set you back $7000. If you can afford the difference, you won't regret it.

Don't buy high end Canon, Nikon or Sony and put Sigma and Tamron glass on any of them. I know at least a hand full of people that tried to save money with something like a Sigma 150-600mm instead of going with native, top-line lenses and all ended up switching to native lenses, as soon as they could afford it. With all of these bodies that you're considering, less than top quality lenses will make themselves known, in a negative way.

Oh, ergonomics of the a9 seem custom made for Canon shooters. I had no trouble at all with the transition and now prefer the Sony layout.

I can't imagine for my photography 20 fps being game changing, just a recipe for a lot more pics to be deleted, but my photographic needs are not yours. As to the OP, well I think you have already answered your question in your own post. Of course, the 5DIV will be great for you. I wouldn't even think about going to Nikon unless you want to spend even more money than you plan to already: the 5DIV is not cheap, but getting a Nikon system is going to cost you even more. For everyday use I know I would not notice the difference.

Understood, but clearly, you don't shoot a lot of birds-in-flight.

Out of over 80-shots, only this one had the wing touch the water:

Great Blue Heron On Landing Approach Near Sunset by David Stephens, on Flickr

Here's another, where 20-fps made a huge difference in selection of the very best shot:

Cooper's Hawk - In Flight by David Stephens, on Flickr

BTW, look at that focus. That's 693 AF points, simply pointing the camera at the bird.

With the excellent 5D MkIV (my second choice), I might have gotten those images, by chance, at 7-fps, but 20-fps is a huge advantage. In sports shooting, you're going to have similar instances, where 20-fps assures you the PEAK shot. 7-fps is just not in the same ball park. Also, the latency from shutter release to actual shutter actuation is 30-milliseconds. You're not going to miss the action.

Oh, also, with an electronic shutter, you don't have to worry about a mechanical shutter wearing out at 150,000 clicks. I'm trying to find the actual number of electronic actuations that might be expected out of an a9, but I'm betting it's well of 1 million.

What is the Nikon price to pay? - In % of Canon for the final entire kit? - I'm too lazy to scoop up 30+ prices write them into an Excel chart and spill out a ratio, right now, when I barely have the $$s, to ponder another lens. - To trigger a thought process: GM 70-200/2.8 2.699Euro and the Nikkor 30 Euro less, EF 720 Euro less + 200 Euro cashback at the same local dealer, no grey market, no best Internet price involved. Top that with watching Tony Northrup's "Why I'd like to switch to Nikon but can't" video on Youtube (which was about the previous incarnation of the Nikkor, that seems currently on sale out but still more expensive than the EF lens).

Look at the other focal lengths and maybe get different results. To me the inexpensive 200-500 Nikkor seems tempting and way more desirable than adding a 100-400 to 70-200. Nikon seem to offer the better 24-70/2.8. What about their new 105mm for portraits? But again those might be as steeply priced as great glass for Sony.

Back to the cameras: Dynamic range doesn't matter that(!) much. - Great pictures were taken before it hit the market. - High ISO performance: What are we talking about differences wise? DxO rate the Nikon 2660 and Canon 2995; is that a noticeable difference at all?

I haven't tried a Sony, but an AF locking on an eye and tracking it while the subject moves into & through our frame sounds really desirable.

What are the roles of each of the 3 cameras and what are people waiting for right now? The A9 seemed targeted at sports shooters and has a market in wedding receptions. The D850 replaced a high res studio / landscape camera and happens to sport a sports DSLR AF etc. - The 5D IV was just a great allrounder; the maybe slightly better D750. What will an A7 III or A9R be like?

Who is arguing how about the pro market? - Close to nobody buys entirely into it, starting from scratch. - Established folks upgrade a piece when it falls apart.

I've been reading "the future is mirrorless" for a while. Maybe the A9 is the milestone to mark it's beginning. - Even established professional Canikon shooters don't doubt those companies to offer professional grade mirrorless bodies someday. The wondering is more about why there aren't any interim constructions yet; like DSLRs coming with an additional (optional) EVF, to be shot in live view conveniently, with at least everything Sony offers AF wise.

Maybe there is no right move to make, since nobody offers a perfect package?

We tend to put to much emphasis on the camera body IMHO. I was also considering to jump ship a year ago or so, but then I looked at all the gear I had and decided it would not be worth it. I love my Canon lenses. And for me, who isn't a professional nor have the desire to be one; I'll improve much more if I focus more on my technique than on my gear. But as many other photographers I do like my stuff and I'm as guilty as the next one to that infamous "gear acquisition syndrome".

If you haven't checked out the "Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera Challenge" on the DigitalRev Youtube channel, I can highly recommend it. Albeit a bit silly, it is truly amazing what cool photos these photographers produce with toy cameras. A testament to true skill.

DCstep Your posts ignore what the OP said... "Lets keep the A9 aside since its lenses are not affordable to me $!." Especially after you've pointed out that using 3rd party lenses for high-speed AF tasks results in less than ideal results (in YOUR experience).

Exactly. He mentioned the a9, so he obviously thinks there's something to it. He seems to be at an important juncture of his photography life, so I didn't want him to save a few bucks now which could lead to a costly transition later. The cost differential isn't huge between Sony/Nikon/Canon's top series lenses.

I didn't say, "third-party lens", I said Tamron and Sigma. Nikon, Canon and Sony all make highest quality lenses, if you stick with their top series. I was meaning to say, "Don't invest in a D850 or 5D MkIV and then wed them to inferior lenses to save money." Same goes for Sony. My Canon lenses on my Sony yield great results.

'Third-party' lenses is a term which ALWAYS refer to lenses NOT made by the Camera manufacturer (whoever that is). Thought you were aware of that. my bad.

In some cases the output of Tamron/Sigma lenses outperforms (sometimes by a surprising amount) the top of the line lenses made by the camera body manufacturer - to deny that is absurd. Admittedly however, this is usually only the case in circumstances where optics are the limiter, and not usually AF function - something which is obviously critical with your shooting - though obv. not so much with other shooters who have different subjects...

It seemed obvious that he was NOT considering an a9 - because of the high cost of the lenses he thought he would need. That's how I interpreted the quoted statement.

'Third-party' lenses is a term which ALWAYS refer to lenses NOT made by the Camera manufacturer (whoever that is). Thought you were aware of that. my bad.

 

In some cases the output of Tamron/Sigma lenses outperforms (sometimes by a surprising amount) the top of the line lenses made by the camera body manufacturer - to deny that is absurd. Admittedly however, this is usually only the case in circumstances where optics are the limiter, and not usually AF function - something which is obviously critical with your shooting - though obv. not so much with other shooters who have different subjects...

 

It seemed obvious that he was NOT considering an a9 - because of the high cost of the lenses he thought he would need. That's how I interpreted the quoted statement.

The OP said he shoots sports, so both AF and fps will be important to him.

Yes, indeed, Sigma and Tamron do make some excellent lenses. Do your homework and you might find a true bargain, but buyer beware. DxOMark has some excellent comparison tools for those considering and comparing lenses from various makers.

If I'd meant to exclude all third-party lenses, I've had said, "third-party". I said "Tamron" and "Sigma" for a reason. You seem to have misread my statement.

Just was viewing pro photographer's website, Fabrice Balossini,, some of his shots were taken with Canon 400D

Looks like 400D can compete in pro market.:)

Yes, absolutely. Some people get hung up on the tech specs. Yes, the new Sony sensors have great low light high ISO noise, but that is really pixel peeping and splitting hairs. The 5D Mark IV is an amazing camera for a professional photographer. The 5D MK IV with professional lenses in the hands of a skilled photographer produces beautiful images. It is a great tool for a professional. I have no complaints. BTW this is the 5D MK IV with a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art lens. No complaints from me. Love the camera and the third party lens.

I shoot professionally with a 5Dmk3. About half the professionals I know and sometimes shoot with use either the 5DMk3 or Mk4.

I'm not sure it matters much though. When I was a sports shooter, I used a 1DMk3, like almost everyone else did at the time. At one shoot, I met a photographer whose work I had seen and admired. She was shooting with a 40D (well two of them). Big lesson there.

Thanks Robin.

Sports photographers are much like bird-in-flight photographers. It's not spray and pray, but shooting at the peak of action and then chosing the very best image. I watched a video of a sport photographer, using the a9, pointing the exact same advantage I see, with the wing-touch example up above. There's no worry about a mechanical shutter wearing out, so the shots are close to free. I don't edit any images other than keepers, so there's no wasted time, just improved result.

BIF always seem pretty 'spray and pray' to me. While my experience is much more limited than yours, from your description of how you acquired some of those awesome shots, it seems that's par for the course (1 of 80), and the a9's capabilities only seem to compound that. I mean, w/ the a9, couldn't you just record a 4k video of the bird going by and pick a 'perfect' frame out? @20FPS, which is obv great for BIF, there doesn't seem much difference.

When I shoot sports, while there are similarities, there is much more reliance on observing the action and waiting for the decisive moment. The subject matter is a whole lot more complicated than a BIF. IME, shooting sports and BIF are two different skill sets, and two very different goals... In fairness of course, the same technique of essentially filming the action in 4k and picking a perfect frame would work there too - assuming the video/photographer had the correct skillset (and equipment) in tracking the correct subject and incorporating the action into the frame while predicting the movement and action...

Marcus, I'd love to see the 4k result. Of course, you're giving up some resolution and you'll still likely need to crop for BIF, but it might work. I wonder if the focus stays as accureate as with 20-fps.

The only real sport that I've shot, is professional surfing, at the Bonzai Pipeline, earlier this year. It's easy as pie, because speeds are relatively slow and you can atticipate what's going to happen. I've not shot football or soccer, but I think that my knowledge of those games would allow be to antiipate action. Same for motorsports. Despite speeds being high, trajectories are very predicatable. I still think that 20-fps, taken in the half-seoncd around the peak will yield better images, as expersions on players' faces, body position, etc. change quickly and you can choose the very best. Having experienced it, I don't see a reason not to utilize it.

Thanks everyone for ur responses

But i have sum updates..

UPDATE TO OP

I had a talk with my university's photographers community. Lots of them own the a7rii and advised me to go for it. They added that the max fps with a fast memory reaches to 9fps, that is 4 frames greater than the theoretical value

I have read a lot reviews and comparison regarding the 4 beasts: 5div, d850, a9 and a7rii. Out of the 4, ofcourse the a9 is the best but will be too expensive when paired with Sony or Zeiss lenses.

Other options remain the mark iv, d850 and the a7rii. I still can't decide between them, because I cant know which company will be superior in the next years..

Next day after the talk, Sony announced their a7riii with 42 mp - 10fps - and various awesome features.

So i think the debte will be now "A7riii vs D850 vs 5DIV"

What do u all say?

I own the 5D MkIV, the 5DS-R and the a9. The S-R is best for 72" prints, which I do, very occasionally. The 5D4 is a champ (not, THE champ)of an all around camera, with a really nice balance between AF performance, resolution and high-ISO performance. For sports and events, particularly when silent-shutter would be a plus, the a9 blows away everything else. With it's native G Master lenses, like the FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS, it'll grab focus and lock on, where ever the subject might go in the frame. With people, it'll face detect at 50+ yards and lock-on eye at any portrait distance. If I could have only one body, it'd be the a9. In fact, I'll probably buy a second a9 by the beginning of 2018.

 

The a9 is not a mere incremental move up from the Canon and Nikon DSLRs, it's a total disruptor. Advantages include astounding AF capacity. The EVF has no discernible latency, with incredible resolution. What you see in the EVF is what the sensor is seeing, at the exposure that the sensor sees, so WYSIWYG. There's no excuse for under or over-exposing. Silent shutter, with no blackout, at 20-fps is mind blowing and game changing. Did I mention 693 AF points, covering 93% of the viewfinder, with lock-on focus that'll follow the subject to the edge of the frame. Excellent high-ISO performance? Oh yeah, it's smaller and lighter and the G Master lenses are sharper than the equivalent Canon L-Series, as well as lighter. A 5D4, plus an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II will set you back $5,500, while the same all-Sony a9/100-400 setup will set you back $7000. If you can afford the difference, you won't regret it.

 

Don't buy high end Canon, Nikon or Sony and put Sigma and Tamron glass on any of them. I know at least a hand full of people that tried to save money with something like a Sigma 150-600mm instead of going with native, top-line lenses and all ended up switching to native lenses, as soon as they could afford it. With all of these bodies that you're considering, less than top quality lenses will make themselves known, in a negative way.

 

Oh, ergonomics of the a9 seem custom made for Canon shooters. I had no trouble at all with the transition and now prefer the Sony layout.

Thanks for ur helpful reply

When comparing a9's focus with the mark 4, are there noticable differences for sports or BIF?

Exactly. He mentioned the a9, so he obviously thinks there's something to it. He seems to be at an important juncture of his photography life, so I didn't want him to save a few bucks now which could lead to a costly transition later..

Really Appreciated

If you're worried about tomorrow, then the only choice is Sony, since their technology is advancing far faster than the other two.

You keep worrying about the prices of lenses. What lenses do you plan to use?

If you're going high-end, full-frame, then you'll need excellent lenses. The FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM OSS is a "lifetime purchase" lens of stunning quality. The Canon L-series isn't that much less expensive. I'd guess that the comparable Nikon isn't much different. When going into high resolution, full-frame bodies, you're wasting your money if you don't get top quality lenses. Five-years from now, you could be on your third body, but still using a top-line lens, that's got hundreds of thousands of shots on it.

This morning, I took street shots with my a9, a Metabones EF-to-E T-adapter MkV and my EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II. I peaked at the results and they look great. If you want to save money on lenses, buy used, top-line lenses.

Thanks for ur helpful reply

When comparing a9's focus with the mark 4, are there noticable differences for sports or BIF?

BIF is much more difficult because birds move much faster (often 30 to 50-mph) and are way less predictable. So, shooting surfing, soccer, American football, the targets are large and relatively slow, even at a pro level. Motorsports are easy as pie, even when a car or motorcycle is going 120-mph, because you know where it's supposed to go. So, in sports, the targets tend to be large in the viewfinder and somewhat predictable in their movement. BIF are often small in the VF and can be very erratic in their movements. Lock-on AF, as offered on the a9 is useful in both, but much more needed for BIF.

You keep worrying about the prices of lenses. What lenses do you plan to use?

I plan to begin with a 70-200 2.8, that will be useful for events, studio and will help in sports but not that much. 70-200 will be bought with the camera body.

After 6 months or so, i plan to get something either wide (24-70 or 24-105) or a super telephoto (100-400)