EOS 5D Mark IV Introduced

[Waddizzle]

My favorite, NYC based, online Canon retailer is holding an event today, introducing the 30MB 5D mark IV.  The specifications for the camera are online, and the camera is available for pre-order.  It is priced comparable to the 5Ds cameras.  It looks like a winner.

[ebiggs1]

"I had both of them and thought they weren't too bad at all.  I don't see an overwhelming need to upgrade."

Me too!  I could see the upgrade for the 24-405 because it was so old.  But the 16-35 was done not too long ago. There is still going to be white box 'pull outs'.  I assume, so there should be some good offerings available after it gets in full swing.

[diverhank]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I had both of them and thought they weren't too bad at all.  I don't see an overwhelming need to upgrade."

Me too!  I could see the upgrade for the 24-405 because it was so old.  But the 16-35 was done not too long ago. There is still going to be white box 'pull outs'.  I assume, so there should be some good offerings available after it gets in full swing.

---

Considering the pricing of the camera + kit lens being more expensive than buying them separately, I'm not sure if there will be much white box pull outs...Maybe that will change with time .

---

@Robert The Fat wrote:

"I don't know what the reasoning was on the 24-105, but with the 16-35 I think it was that the f/2.8 Mk II wasn't good enough to outclass the much cheaper (and very sharp) f/4 version. One difficulty is that WA lenses don't have to be as fast as walkers and telephotos, because the indoor applications that need a WA (real estate photography, for example) are usually done with tripods and artificial light.."

---

Yeah, sometimes I wonder about the utility of f/2.8 on a wide angle lens myself.  I have not yet used the f/2.8 on my 16-35mm lens except for testing.  Having said that I think the "milky way" star gazer crowd really need the f/2.8 because they don't have enough light and can't afford too long of a shutter speed (otherwise it would have become a star trail shot). 

[ebiggs1]

diverhank,

I do use f2.8 quite a lot so it means a lot to me.  If I have a choice fo two nearly identical lenses but one is faster, I will choose the faster lens every time.

"I'm not sure if there will be much white box pull outs"

Lenses are great objects of admiration to us but to Canon they are a commodity.  You are, however, correct as time will tell.  It always does.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

diverhank,

I do use f2.8 quite a lot so it means a lot to me.  If I have a choice fo two nearly identical lenses but one is faster, I will choose the faster lens every time.

"I'm not sure if there will be much white box pull outs"

Lenses are great objects of admiration to us but to Canon they are a commodity.  You are, however, correct as time will tell.  It always does.

---

I use f/2.8 on 16-35mm quite a lot, too.  It is great for shooting indoors without a flash.  In fact, I bought it just to take auto-focus pictures of my newborn grandaughter without a flash.  It is really great outdoors, too, for capturing the sights like a tourist.

[diverhank]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

diverhank,

I do use f2.8 quite a lot so it means a lot to me.  If I have a choice fo two nearly identical lenses but one is faster, I will choose the faster lens every time.

I use f/2.8 on 16-35mm quite a lot, too.  It is great for shooting indoors without a flash.  In fact, I bought it just to take auto-focus pictures of my newborn grandaughter without a flash.  It is really great outdoors, too, for capturing the sights like a tourist.

---

The reason I don't use f2.8 on this lens is because I only use it for landscape. For everything else, I use the 24-70mm f/2.8 II and I use 2.8 there often.

[Waddizzle]

---

@diverhank wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

diverhank,

I do use f2.8 quite a lot so it means a lot to me.  If I have a choice fo two nearly identical lenses but one is faster, I will choose the faster lens every time.

I use f/2.8 on 16-35mm quite a lot, too.  It is great for shooting indoors without a flash.  In fact, I bought it just to take auto-focus pictures of my newborn grandaughter without a flash.  It is really great outdoors, too, for capturing the sights like a tourist.

---

The reason I don't use f2.8 on this lens is because I only use it for landscape. For everything else, I use the 24-70mm f/2.8 II and I use 2.8 there often.

---

Just shot this today.  1D mark IV, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, 1/80, f/2.8, ISO 1600, no flash

New England Aircraft Museum, Bradley International Airport, near Hartford, Connecticut.

[EDIT]  This hanger, one out of three, was nowhere near as brightly lit as the multitude of ceiling lights, and the photo, might suggest.  These folks were trying to save money.  As near as I can tell, the Exposure Value, is somewhere close to 5.  Many areas of the hanger floors were lit up just a little better than dim.

[Waddizzle]

"The 8MB resolution increase, GPS, Wifi, touchscreen, 4K video etc. are icing on the cake...I think it's a worthy upgrade from the 5D Mark III...Not sure I'm excited about the $3500 price tag, though..."

The market demands that those features be included in at least one big ticket product.  If there is a weather resistant 6D mark II [like a repackaged and relabeled 5D3], then that might be the camera to have moving forward.

Both lenses are old designs that have been on the market for around for close to 10 years, or more.  But, I cannot complain about them.  If the new versions are more rectilinear, then that would be a significant upgrade.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

"The 8MB resolution increase, GPS, Wifi, touchscreen, 4K video etc. are icing on the cake...I think it's a worthy upgrade from the 5D Mark III...Not sure I'm excited about the $3500 price tag, though..."

The market demands that those features be included in at least one big ticket product.  If there is a weather resistant 6D mark II [like a repackaged and relabeled 5D3], then that might be the camera to have moving forward.

Both lenses are old designs that have been on the market for around for close to 10 years, or more.  But, I cannot complain about them.  If the new versions are more rectilinear, then that would be a significant upgrade.

---

I don't know what the reasoning was on the 24-105, but with the 16-35 I think it was that the f/2.8 Mk II wasn't good enough to outclass the much cheaper (and very sharp) f/4 version. One difficulty is that WA lenses don't have to be as fast as walkers and telephotos, because the indoor applications that need a WA (real estate photography, for example) are usually done with tripods and artificial light.

[ebiggs1]

B from B,

"...the f/2.8 Mk II wasn't good enough to outclass the much cheaper (and very sharp) f/4 version."

It is certainly sharper at f2.8, isn't it?  I personally use the f2.8 quite a lot and I am glad as it matches the other two lenses I carry everywhere.  Two things that are facts.  One you never have enough focal length. Two, there is no such thing as too fast for a lens.  No lens is so fast I can't stop it down!

For the time being your DPP is going to be the only software that supports dual-pixel raw. To take advantage of dual-pixel raw photographers will have to use Canon's raw-processing software, DPP.  I still have never known a working pro that uses DPP.  It is just too clumsy.  I do have one of my retired buds that does use it since PS has gone cloud. He dabbled with it occasionally anyway.

I have no doubt Adobe will figure it out but I will bet the farm it will not be released for the perpetual LR crowd.  Likely to be that last straw for completely going cloud.