zenpmd

Why does everyone say that Canon cannot make a good 5dmk4 as it will "cripple" their higher end camera yet the same doesnt apply to Sony?

Gorgeous. What lenses were you using?

Sony sensors are not that much better. I have an a7s and a 5dmk3. While the former can pull the shadows a lot better the noise isnt that different. Im consistently amazed how good the noise is on the 5dmk3 for stills. the issue is the banding chroma, but thats gone with the 7dmk2 apparently

My post wasn't meant to be entirely serious dude. Chillax

Canon and Nikon are both companies with a long experience in making cameras with good colour reproduction and excellent ergonomics. More than Sony they have the ability to produce superb lenses are reasonable prices. The fact that Canon can do everything in house is I think an advantage in these very competitive times which, coupled with their brand, will protect their margins. No matter what anyone says, nothing compares to FF for stills when you are shooting professionally (and larger formats above FF don't have decent AF etc), so FF mirrorless is a very good thing. The problem with the Sony's is that theyre just not mature systems, and have poor ergonomics and rely on either not great sony lenses or super expensive Zeiss.

http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-going-serious-mirrorless-2015-full-frame-milc-coming/

duplicate post

This whole High ISO thing is a bit of a gimmick though. Who needs candlelight anyway? I am sorry but we could shoot a hollywood film on practically any DSLR and its been done, especially documentaries. Also, its hilarious everyone is slagging off Canon but they havent actually disapointed us yet... we are coming to the end of the normal cycle on the 5d. The mk4 is the make or break. AND ITS GOING TO BE AMAZING. You heard it here first. People criticise 7dmk2 video, but given the 7d had to come out first, i dont think they want it to leapfrog the 5d. And given that there is no reason for that to be a camera of video given its high end sports and wildlife I dnot see why we would blame them for that....the 7d was an accidental dslr for video, there is no reason to continue that accident.

That's because Nikon are desperate and, I think, in the weakness position of all, whose margins will be much lower than Canon cos they're cheaper but also not all produced in house. The future of Photography and video is with Canon and Sony I believe.

Another thing to pick up on, which is terrible hyperbole. "The 7D Mark II is not the best APS-C with unheard of specs at all. It's an old 70D in an old 5D Mark III body slightly rejigged and the AF updated." The 7dmk2 has the best AF of any camera except the 1dx and d4s. For wildlife and sport, DR is not important. Anyone who cares about action is RAVING about that camera. Only the gimps on the internet have a problem with it. I just think people need to look at RESULTS rather than specs. And ive seen some incredible photos of wildlife with even the old 7d. I would rather shoot Canon than be a Nikon shooter still without a d300s replacement for years and years and years. And Canon have now beautifully made their pro-ish cameras all have the same controls, which is great

This site, like most on the internet now, is driven by GAS and that us why its full of hyperbole. I appreciate what Andrew does and I've learnt a lot, but its interesting when you read older materials how crazy it all starts to sound. Just a short while ago I was told 5d RAW is the best thing since sliced bread. Now the workflow is old and Canon suck...

St its heart, a DSLR is never intended to be only a video camera. When you consider this, the 5dmk3 is still the best hybrid camera yo can buy. The A7s AF is a long way away from Canon. And EVF lag, and EVF sensor slow you down if you are working fast (for stills). And for stills of course we have no fast zooms on the Sony, etc and still limited primes. I believe the future looks bright for Sony, but Canon and Nikon still have plenty of time. And I at least like the fact that Canon have sensible stratification of products, where Nikon make odd releases, like the very good but ergonomically consumery d750. The ONLY weakness of the Canon is the sensor. Everything else is perfect. THe sensor is important, yes, but its also the easiest thing to change. Its harder to have the best selection of lenses in the world or the most mature ergos and AF. They will never cripple video on the mk4. Sure, it may not be as good as some other company aiming squarely at the video market, but the 5d line will always be a hybrid, its important to their brand. I am positive it will be "good enough". I think Canon are just biding their time to get a jump in sensor tech

Great summary

The canon retains much more detail at high ISO, and has such good noise performance in general in my mind. And of course an XT1 cant do this, especially as ISO 12800 I reckon. I say this as a previous owner of X Pro 1, Xe2, xt1 and x100s...! http://postimg.org/image/95jhq1sa1/

What would it be?

I find focus peaking unreliable. The issue for me is that I want seriously good quality, but also ease of use. That's why ideally the 5dmk4 will have amazing follow focus. That would be my dream! MF is a faff for what I want it for (dog photography)

for video? Simple question. But it seems to me that there are better quality options, but also more practical options. Like with mirrorless cameras vs dslr, using a dslr as a video camera, while could be the best of borth worlds, may also be the worst of both?

I know I keep sounding like an utter Canon gimp, but except specific benefits of IBIS itself, we can still use stabilised canon glass and the 24-70 f4 from interview reviews seems to be superb (ignoring all sony codec benefits, etc). Equally the f2/2.8 primes are handy too. The unique thing though is going to be using something lke the upcoiming FE1.4 35 on it But this morning I was going crazy with excitement, now Ive calmed down and keep reminding myself that it, like most new releases and technology development isnt THAT big a deal, useful though it is.

Although for stils, no minimum shutter speed on ISO is annoying, as are the annoying fiddly little low quality buttons and idals. I am more interested and having to pay more for the rumoured "pro" a9 early next year. I would definately wait 6 months before buying a SOny. Thats why I am selling my a7s (but keeping the lenses)

Fury is my favourite film in the cinema at the moment. Intsteller? Quite bad. I was certainly slightly underwhelmed by it all. I thought the focus on Dad-Daughter relationship was misguided and took the edge of the thrills and also "sci-fi" aspects. If you're going to focus on human relationships in those sort of "strange" environments, much better to focus on the interactions between the crew (which is what makes Band of Brothers so good). Also, bringing "love" into the cod-science was slightly embarassing. If I were making the film I would have focused on the dystopian elements a lot more in the beginning (rather than the previously mentioned Dad-daughter trype) and, at the end, would also have abandoned all that tosh. Fundamentally, if you're going to pose "big questions" you either need to go b*t sh*t crazy in answering them (a la 2001: A Space Odyssey) or provide some big answers (although that is neigh on impossible to do - look at the second and third Matrix films). They could have come up with some crazy world beyond the wormhole, or simply implied it was up to Ann Hathaway to save the human race (and I would have bene happy to ignore the huge issues with that). It was also strangely predictable. As soon as they landed on the first planet I thought "that's a giant wave in the background", as soon as they found Mann and the robot was broken up I thought "he's gone crazy" but it wasn't done in a good enough way to ratchet up the tension, I sort of knew Matt Damon would try to kill Cooper. Also not annoucning Matt Damon in the cast etc is a big mistake. As soon as he woke up I spent 15 seconds going "is that Matt Damon"? If you're going to have a "star" uncredited, it pulls people out of the film. It only works when they are cast hugely against type and have a suitable entrance (think Once Upon a Time in the West although, of course, Henry Fonda was credited) or, perhaps, when it is revealed that Arnie is the good guy in Terminator 2 (perhaps lost on us who weren't exposed to the advertising and potentially "knew" about the T1000 anyway).

Ok so the Messiah will not come again.

Its hard to imagine what they can do to a mk4 though OTHER than a sensor upgrade, really.

I wonder whether Sony would be happy with Canon using their sensor and I suspect Nikon may have negotiated something with Sony to prevent it? Who knows. But it made sense to tie in with Nikon as Nikon needed (and always have) some sort of USP to make people buy their cameras rather than Canon (which is why they are always cheaper, sometimes substantially so), and its why they've also been quite innovative lately, I think. But for me the 5s really is a perfect camera, superb AF, wonderful ergonomics, just noisy shadows and DR issues are its only downside from a stills perspective.

I was of course referring to AF for stills! With the Canon I can handhold it and change everything I need to with my right hand. I suppose I was therefore making the point that as a stills AND video camera I think the 5d is better for me

I think Sony should just make sensors and stick them in Nikon/Canon