The 5D Mark IV is finally announced

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Oops - sorry, I forgot I'd been on this thread with all the site redesign chenanigans.<br />

<br />

Sorry if my post sounded condescending - that certainly wasn't my intent. I still have my old 300D, and some Canon film kit - though I'm mostly on the Nikon side now. I'd meant to complement Canon on improving some of the areas where their offering was less capable than the Nikon alternative; I in no way meant to imply that there aren't many areas where Canon have an advantage as well. We each choose our priorities - the 5D4 almost definitely has better AF accuracy than my D810, for example, it's certainly faster, and Canon have a number of optics that Nikon don't (though the reverse is also true) - the 12-24, 17mm T/S, f/1.2 AF lenses and the 200-400 spring to mind. For a long time I happily accepted that the 5D3 was a better general-purpose camera than the D800 (when I had one) - I just preferred the D800 for what I shot. If you want a condescending post, you should see what I had to say when Nikon launched the Df...<br />

<br />

As for switching, I was being hypothetical - I have too much expensive glass for a switch to be practical. I'm merely expressing interest in whether the new "consumer flagship" is likely to pull many new customers to the brand, filtered through my personal level of interest. I like cool camera kit irrespective of whether I'm tempted to buy it.<br />

<br />

Lannie: I think the pixel count vs low light argument has become less relevant. The D800 and D810 are pretty good at high ISO seen as whole sensor sizes (not so much per-pixel); the A7R2, with even more pixels, is almost up there with the D5. I kept my D700 when I got a D800 partly because I was expecting the D700 with its lower pixel count to be better at low light. It's not, by nearly a stop. (I traded both in for my D810.)<br />

<br />

And yes, as others said about the dynamic range. There is a class of lighting in which compensating for highlights and digitally attempting to recover shadows would cause much more shadow noise on a 5D3 than a D810 (or a 5D4). Just as there's a class of lighting in which a DSLR captures an acceptable image and a camera phone doesn't. All cameras can take a decent photo in perfect conditions; all modern cameras are pretty good and can handle pretty awkward conditions. This is a particular corner case which often affects me, one that I could probably solve in a studio or if I used fill flash a lot more than I do. I'm sure many 5D3 shooters simply avoid these conditions, accept loss of detail in shadows, use fill flash, or put up with the shadow noise - in the same way that I accepted that my D800 could only hit 4fps. That in no way makes the 5D3 a bad camera (and there's plenty it can do that even a D810, which is newer, can't), it's just a relative weakness that has been improved in the 5D4, and I'm glad (for Canon users, some of which are my friends) to see it.</p><div></div>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>You evidently have never had the misfortune of having to shoot in the midday sun, Robin. With a family of youngish children, it's a circumstance I find myself in all too frequently</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do it all the time, but do my utmost to avoid it, and it is not because the camera can't handle it, but because the pictures look lousy - you should try to shoot in the shade, or, if you can't, shoot contrejour with a powerful flash. If I do shoot a portrait in full sunlight then I can make the shoot acceptable by boosting the shadows sufficiently with the 6D (or 5DII), so that is just not a problem. If you somehow want to make a full sun portrait with "overcast shadow detail" then I hereby predict the picture will look even worse. There are uses for extreme dynamic range: for example, landscapes in shadow when highlighted areas occupy only a small part of the frame (but are important), and matching interiors with outside views (i.e. through windows) come to mind. I would solve these when they occur with HDR. This is a small part of my photography and I have to say most of the time I find the shadow boosting abilities available with the 6D quite acceptable. It is difficult to predict for sure, but I am pretty certain my 6D could have achieved the shadow boost shown in Andrew's pic. DR is something that can be measured so those obsessed with measurements can easily compare and contrast, but in my opinion with current sensors these differences make minimal differences in practical use. If my profession was architectural photography and thereby balancing exterior and interior illumination was in use everyday then I might be more interested in an extra stop or two of DR, but otherwise it is a non-issue for me.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Understood, Robin. <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html">Here's</a> the real-world test that sold me on a D800 (although I already had a D700), just to put it in a realistic context. The 6D has a slight dynamic range advantage over the 5D3, but the gap to a D810 is the best part of three stops at minimum ISO. (At higher ISO the difference completely goes away.) Of course, any of these cameras can recover several stops compared to the typical output image - at least until we all start using HDR monitors; the advantage I'm talking about is incremental, but it can make the difference between usable and not for some of the subjects I shoot. For other subjects and other photographers, I completely believe it's irrelevant.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, when I had a D700 I almost ignored ISO, because there was little difference between base and ISO 800 or so; with a D800 I shot almost exclusively at ISO 100 and with a D810 I'm usually at ISO 64 specifically because it allows me to recover detail just in case, unless I really need otherwise - and the highlight priority mode on the D810 helps somewhat (when it works). It means I can capture a sunny scene without blowing out clouds and reflections, and still pull back shadows when I want to. Having more flexibility here changed the way I shoot, even though I didn't know I was lacking this when I shot with a D700. I can't promise it'll have the same effect on anyone else, of course.<br />

<br />

Fill flash is just as effective, but is a pain, more intrusive, and introduces colour balance issues. HDR likewise is limited due to the need to hold the camera still and ensure the subject doesn't move. Of course, 5D3 users have MagicLantern available, and the dual-ISO trick with the different amplifiers pretty much compensates for the problem, at a possible loss of a bit of resolution. So workarounds exist for what is already an incremental improvement on a corner case. It's just nice to have the capability natively in the camera.<br />

<br />

So yay to Canon for making an improvement available that would have given me more flexibility if I was currently shooting with a 5D3 and was contemplating the 5D4. Clearly the historical limitations mean that existing Canon 5D shooters haven't put the need for dynamic range at the top of their priority list, just as Nikon shooters wouldn't have bought a D700 over a 5D2 if they wanted resolution or a D800 over a 5D3 if they wanted speed - but improved camera capabilities can only be a good thing for a system. Canon and Nikon (and Sony, et al.) each have their different strengths and weaknesses (such as Nikon's propensity for putting the AF mode selector where you can't actually reach it, like Canon used to do with the DoF preview button...), and this reduces one of Canon's weaknesses. I was genuinely trying to be complimentary to Canon in my original post when I pointed this out!</p>

[zelph_young]

<p>Big question is whether Canon finally managed to match(at the very least) the dynamic range of Nikon and Sony - if not surpass it.<br>

Sure wish these guys would get ISO 25 and down to ISO3 as we used to use with Kodachrome and TechPan films.<br>

A solid mechanical mirror lock would be very good as well. Easy to use. Pre-focus and lock the mirror and wait for the subject to get into the correct position. Insects and small animals especially.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Zelph: There are some initial tests of the dynamic range on dpreview. They show a significant improvement over the previous generation and maybe a slight improvement over the 1Dx2 and 80D, both of which also improved dynamic range a lot. It still appears to be slightly behind the Sonikon sensors, but at least it's now in the same ball park. And yes - although doing so increased my spend on lenses so that I could work at larger apertures without aberrations being too intrusive (which means a good f/2-4, not that I'm shooting wide open all the time), I've found it's quite often possible to go below the conventional ISO100 digital floor, and ISO64 isn't a problem in general. I was always happy with Velvia (50), too. For dynamic range, I'd take another stop down if needed, although there comes a point where it'd get to be a problem!<br />

<br />

As sensors get more ISO-less, I'd like it if manufacturers would allow recording at base ISO (minimising highlight blow-out compared with boosting ISO in raw), but still converting the JPEG with a nominal ISO. At the moment, capturing a raw file that I can convert usefully to retain highlights typically gives me an almost useless JPEG - I'd rather have a JPEG with the highlights blown that would work as a preview until I can post-process. Of course, I should be telling Nikon this, not posting it here. :-)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>For that to work, the user would have to specify two ISOs, essentially one for jpg and one for raw. I am not sure how practical that would be; one or the other setting might often be at a different value than intended, simply because there are more parameters to play with. Also, in my opinion, no matter what the dynamic range is, it is rarely a good idea to capture just one exposure of a scene which has a large dynamic range. It is much better to capture 2 or more exposures and then blend them by painting a layer mask. If one has to pull shadows significantly (no matter what the camera is) there will be visible noise and it usually looks quite bad quite quickly. The simple fact is that the shadows need more light to avoid them appearing noisy in the final image, it is not sufficient to make read noise lower or go away entirely. It <em>is </em> nice to have a large dynamic range and it is a very useful feature but whenever one is doing significant adjustments it pays to capture multiple shots and do it properly. Of course, if the scene is alive and e.g. trees (or people, or water) are moving etc. then blending can be difficult. However, if you do a multi-stop shadow pull from a single exposure (even with a D810 at ISO 64) the results look a bit rough. I'm not at all suggesting high dynamic range is not a great feature to have, it gives beautiful, smooth images that are a pleasure to work with but in landscape (and e.g. architectural interior photography) there are many situations where you can get a vastly better result by still bracketing and blending exposures with due judgment and skill, than working within the limitations of a single exposure. I thus don't see the need for separate ISO for JPG and RAW as IMO the idea to only capture a single dark raw image with a tiny bit of highlights that are properly exposed is flawed and won't lead to good results or even par for the course.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Oops - sorry, Ilkka - I missed that you'd replied.<br />

<br />

I was assuming effectively a pair of automatic exposure settings, or possibly one being offset from the other. Nikon's highlight priority isn't a bad start for raw exposure, but it doesn't half give you a lot of mostly-black JPEGs, which seems pointless. My suggestion is really expose the raw with highlight priority, at whatever low(er) ISO that needs, and push the JPEG from that raw exposure as though it were normally matrix metered. If you can't recover the image by boosting the ISO anyway, there wasn't much point in using the highlight priority mode in the first place...<br />

<br />

Yes, it's never free to capture a wide dynamic range, but if you're shooting for an 8-bit JPEG output for conventional display, that's still up to six stops that you can push at minimum ISO before the noise starts getting visible. I suspect even most older cameras (from any manufacturer - I just read a DPReview review of the D700 which claims a huge dynamic range, amusingly) can push three stops without it being a problem. There are always limits. And yes, you can avoid (or reduce, if you're extending the exposure) this noise problem by blending multiple exposures, but HDR assumes that you have a static subject from which you can take multiple shots (unless, admittedly, you're doing the Magic Lantern thing).<br />

<br />

Anyway, it depends on the image and how far you're pushing things, and what you're prepared to put up with. I just maintain it would be a nice option, and I'd rather be able to spend more time capturing at minimum ISO but still have meaningful JPEGs. It's not like getting a brighter JPEG by shooting at higher ISO gains you anything significant on a D810 other than throwing away highlight detail (to a point), and I've knowingly traded that for the convenience of a usable JPEG in the past.<br />

<br />

In other news, I'm a little surprised not to see any talk on the Eos M5 - though I notice there's a brief discussion on the mirrorless forum. No interest here? (It's still relevant to your lens collections...) Nikon are awfully quiet this Photokina.</p>