pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 5d mk4  (Read 6446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 28, 2016, 01:12 »
0
How come nobody is talking about the new 5d ? normally everybody is drooling to get new camera to solve their issue of falling sales. Looks good to me though very expensive, obviously overkill for microstock.

What's on your wish list ?
Mine is New 5d , Water housing or Drone.


« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2016, 01:46 »
+12
Think DSLR may have reached the stage where any gains are only marginal in the real world...besides no one can afford one based on Mstock sales.

« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2016, 06:20 »
+1
Well, I think it was a big disappointment in the video world with ancient MPEG codecs, crop 4k, still no darn fold-out screen (WHYYY?) etc...

I have the mk III and it's an amazing stills camera but to upgrade to mk IV they would've had to do better on the video side, unfortunately...

Sony and Panasonic will take over more and more. People now expect close to professional level video quality from any camera. If the GH5 does 10-bit ProRes internally that would seal the deal...

Tror

« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2016, 07:22 »
+2
<cynism>I was not aware of the fact that Canon is still on the market  ::)  :P  ;D </cynism>

« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2016, 07:37 »
+1
Canon has their c series video cams for pros
Their 1 dx m2 does 4k
They have to differentiate options you get with their various lines
Everyone wants a camera to do everything top notch, for $2800,  sure keep dreaming

While 4k is definitly the wave of yhings to come, it is not really mainstream now.

« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2016, 07:49 »
+1
Canon has their c series video cams for pros
Their 1 dx m2 does 4k
They have to differentiate options you get with their various lines
Everyone wants a camera to do everything top notch, for $2800,  sure keep dreaming

While 4k is definitly the wave of yhings to come, it is not really mainstream now.

The 5D mk IV has 4k, same as the 1DX mk II. It's not about having everything top notch, it's about being on par with or better than the $1,200 competition.

The 5D mk II started the whole DSLR video thing, it's insane that they don't listen to the community. You can only imagine how much more money they made from the 5D mk II that EVERYBODY bought compared to the C100.

Portrait and wedding photographers will buy the 5D mk IV, but everyone else looking for better video capabilities (AND a good stills camera) will look elsewhere, and don't think for a second they will buy the C100.

Come to think of it, maybe the wedding photographers will switch too since video is such an important thing. Now you will have to switch lenses when you want to film in 4k and it's simply not possible to go wide with the 1.76 crop factor. Your 16 mm is now 28 mm as soon as you want to shoot some video.

The business will simply go to Panasonic and Sony and Canon will lose unfortunately.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2016, 07:55 by increasingdifficulty »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2016, 08:55 »
+7
Looks pretty nice but it's overkill for me just for microstock. My revenue has dropped to a point where it would probably take a year or two just break even on something like this so can't justify it. A few years ago I could have easily justified it. I started submitting to micro again but only opportunistic snapshots using my iPhone.

« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2016, 09:31 »
0
Kind of underwhelming TBH.

It is way out of my price range so I'll just continue with my current cameras for the tiny amount of micro work I actually do.

For a personal camera to use for travel/everyday use I'll get another Fuji.

« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2016, 11:37 »
+2
I'm going to get one, because my two Dslrs are both 8 years old.  I'd like to use an ISO higher than 640, lol.  And I want to shoot 4K.  I'll deal with the crop.

« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2016, 11:46 »
0
Quote
Canon has their c series video cams for pros
Their 1 dx m2 does 4k
They have to differentiate options you get with their various lines
Everyone wants a camera to do everything top notch, for $2800,  sure keep dreaming

While 4k is definitly the wave of yhings to come, it is not really mainstream now.


What is the $1200 alternative you comparing to?
The 5D mk IV has 4k, same as the 1DX mk II. It's not about having everything top notch
Quote
],
Quote
it's about being on par with or better than the $1,200 competition.
Quote

The 5D mk II started the whole DSLR video thing, it's insane that they don't listen to the community. You can only imagine how much more money they made from the 5D mk II that EVERYBODY bought compared to the C100.

Portrait and wedding photographers will buy the 5D mk IV, but everyone else looking for better video capabilities (AND a good stills camera) will look elsewhere, and don't think for a second they will buy the C100.

Come to think of it, maybe the wedding photographers will switch too since video is such an important thing. Now you will have to switch lenses when you want to film in 4k and it's simply not possible to go wide with the 1.76 crop factor. Your 16 mm is now 28 mm as soon as you want to shoot some video.

The business will simply go to Panasonic and Sony and Canon will lose unfortunately.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2016, 13:02 by noodle »

« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2016, 13:00 »
0
I'm going to get one, because my two Dslrs are both 8 years old.  I'd like to use an ISO higher than 640, lol.  And I want to shoot 4K.  I'll deal with the crop.
Makes perfect sense as opposed to "upgrading" every other year for incremental improvement.

« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2016, 13:05 »
0
What is the $1200 alternative you comparing to?

« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2016, 13:32 »
+3
What is the $1200 alternative you comparing to?

One is the GH4 (soon to be GH5 taking it even further), and obviously just comparing the 4k and filming capabilities. I know the 5D is a superior stills camera (which is why I now carry BOTH the 5D mk III + GH4) but the mk IV still lacks in the video department which means getting a GH5 + the old trusty 5D mk III is the wiser choice.

My photography life means walking in the jungle for hours carrying everything I need on my back. Sliders, stabilizers, tripods... Would've LOVED to have just one camera that could handle it all.

Too many drawbacks makes the 5D a hassle for video compared to the GH4:

Inefficient codec (4-5 times the file size with no improvement in quality)
Crop factor of 1.76 but you can still only put full-frame lenses on it = no good use for my 16-35... Can't put a 10 mm APS-C lens on it...
No svivel screen... This is a major drawback, why, just why?
No electronic view finder - makes things really hard out in the sun, especially in combination with the fixed screen...
Still the old memory cards = no chance of Magic Lantern making 4k RAW work.
No zebras, no focus peaking, etc. etc. the list is too long unfortunately.

The obvious advantage of the 5D mk II and III is the full-frame glory when filming, and now it's gone with the 4k...

I know it's a stills camera but it could have been the ULTIMATE camera. I would've thrown out the GH4 in a heartbeat if the 5D mk IV had shown it could replace it for video. But now this means not buying the mark IV and I know I'm not the only one skipping it for these reasons...
« Last Edit: August 28, 2016, 13:53 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2016, 13:57 »
+2
Seems a bit overpriced at this point.

I'm more excited for the Fuji XT2, which is my next likely purchase. Good image quality, 4K, fast AF and most importantly, affordable.

« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2016, 14:14 »
+2
What is the $1200 alternative you comparing to?

One is the GH4 (soon to be GH5 taking it even further), and obviously just comparing the 4k and filming capabilities. I know the 5D is a superior stills camera (which is why I now carry BOTH the 5D mk III + GH4) but the mk IV still lacks in the video department which means getting a GH5 + the old trusty 5D mk III is the wiser choice.

My photography life means walking in the jungle for hours carrying everything I need on my back. Sliders, stabilizers, tripods... Would've LOVED to have just one camera that could handle it all.

Too many drawbacks makes the 5D a hassle for video compared to the GH4:

Inefficient codec (4-5 times the file size with no improvement in quality)
Crop factor of 1.76 but you can still only put full-frame lenses on it = no good use for my 16-35... Can't put a 10 mm APS-C lens on it...
No svivel screen... This is a major drawback, why, just why?
No electronic view finder - makes things really hard out in the sun, especially in combination with the fixed screen...
Still the old memory cards = no chance of Magic Lantern making 4k RAW work.
No zebras, no focus peaking, etc. etc. the list is too long unfortunately.

The obvious advantage of the 5D mk II and III is the full-frame glory when filming, and now it's gone with the 4k...

I know it's a stills camera but it could have been the ULTIMATE camera. I would've thrown out the GH4 in a heartbeat if the 5D mk IV had shown it could replace it for video. But now this means not buying the mark IV and I know I'm not the only one skipping it for these reasons...
Couldn't agree more. I think I would have been sold with 4K full frame and focus peeking.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2016, 14:19 by cdwheatley »

« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2016, 14:19 »
0

The 5D mk IV has 4k, same as the 1DX mk II. It's not about having everything top notch, it's about being on par with or better than the $1,200 competition.


Well, there you go for $1200 you get 4k video and lacking in the stills

Every manufacturer will maximize their profits by stretching out their offerings for their product lines

Hell, many would no doubt buy a ' do it all ' dslr, but not everyone
manufacturers sell a helluva lot more cameras spliting up options and price points in their different lines of cameras




« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2016, 14:40 »
+1
Hell, many would no doubt buy a ' do it all ' dslr, but not everyone
manufacturers sell a helluva lot more cameras spliting up options and price points in their different lines of cameras

Maybe they do, but then again, maybe they don't... A little company like Apple seems to be quite successful having very few products.

Anyway, the reason behind the 5D mk II revolution was just that - it DID perform so well in all areas. It kicked ass with the stills and at the time, the video was comparable to the best of expensive film cameras, especially when filming RAW using Magic Lantern. This could've been the same thing, but now the competition has had many years to catch up and more.

I think that many film making owners of the mk III will feel that there's not enough to warrant the (incredibly) high price tag for this model.

Of course, if you're a studio portrait photographer and shooting stills is all you do, that's a different story.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2016, 14:43 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2016, 14:45 »
+1
Well, if you're a stills only guy shooting Canon, why not 5DS R?

« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2016, 14:48 »
0
Well, if you're a stills only guy shooting Canon, why not 5DS R?

Yes, even more confusion in the product line-up.

« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2016, 15:51 »
0
Already ordered mine. I will be selling 2 5d2's and 2 5d3's once I am sure I like the camera. Then I will get the underwater housing for it and will sell the housing that goes with the 5d2's...Waited for this a long time!

« Reply #20 on: August 28, 2016, 15:57 »
0
Well, if you're a stills only guy shooting Canon, why not 5DS R?

Yes, even more confusion in the product line-up.
Was told by Canon there is much more noise in the 5DS R then the 5d1V

« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2016, 17:08 »
+1
Well, if you're a stills only guy shooting Canon, why not 5DS R?

Yes, even more confusion in the product line-up.
Was told by Canon there is much more noise in the 5DS R then the 5d1V
That may be true, but the 5dsr is 50mp with no filter over the sensor, so I'm guessing better detail? You would have to selectively control noise manually if it is an issue. It's a tradeoff. If I was shooting landscapes for print I would take this camera over the new one.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2016, 17:15 by cdwheatley »

dbvirago

« Reply #22 on: August 28, 2016, 17:45 »
+2
I'll be shooting my MKIII for years I hope. The GPS and WIFI would be nice, but not worth buying a new camera for

« Reply #23 on: August 28, 2016, 18:46 »
+1
I have a Canon 5Dsr for stills and Canon C100 MII for video. So this camera is still playing catch up.

I gave up trying to make a DSLR into a real video camera for documentary films -- just too many add-ons and limitations.

And I use my Sony A6300 for 4K but I really don't like the way 4k looks. Maybe for nature stuff but just too clean for me.

The cinematic dynamic range of the C100 MII is what works for me. And the 5Dsr is freaky beautiful at 100 iso, 8622 x 5692 res on my iMac 5K monitor.

« Reply #24 on: August 28, 2016, 19:24 »
+1
Seems a bit overpriced at this point.

I'm more excited for the Fuji XT2, which is my next likely purchase. Good image quality, 4K, fast AF and most importantly, affordable.

Yes I'm also considering the XT2.  Currently I'm using the Canon 5dii with a selection of top lenses, but I'm finding the weight and size too much.  I'm looking for something smaller and lighter, and the new XT2 seems to fit the bill nicely.  Of course I'd prefer full frame, but that option isn't available for reduced size and weight.

I'll probably keep all my Canon stuff for use in the studio, and buy the XT2 for travel and outside work.


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors