tabloid: No viewfinder….therefore (in my opinion) can only be used indoors.
Or you could just use viewfinder on a hotshoe. Be it EVF, OVF or that new dot sight from Olympus.
Jennyhappy2: Makes no sense why Canon won't offer this in the US since they recently said they want to dominate the mirrorless market by 2017.
It doesn't really do "much better" in Europe. It's quite similar to the US, only slightly better. Japan and Asia are where mirrorless sale best (small hands?) everywhere else sales are rather pathetic.
En Trance: 5D IV would be the equivalent of Canon running back home with its tail between its legs. No turning back now. UNLESS you think one 5D at 50MP and one 5D at 22MP is somehow REASONABLE and not INSANITY!
Cause it's Canon and bashing Canon is trendy these days.
Ed Gill: To much, to late. 50 MP (seriously?), $3800, really?
Which isn't all that difficult considering that till few years ago everyone shot with similar DR as there simply were no cameras with anything higher than that.
Coyote_Cody: I think a global/electronic shutter would be a great step forward! Max shutter speeds would almost not exist, no mirror or shutter slap. And nothing to wear out !! No curtains needed !! ;)
But global/elec. shutter requires immediate storage of 'taken' pixel voltage, a ref 'black/dark' pixel value to subtract out random noise, fast xfer of these values off sensor so sensor can be reset, downstream processing, etc.
This does require a fair amount of 're-work' from today's sensors, more transistors/complexity, an increase in processing power for stills, much more for video (downsize from full sensor to set video rez), but the benefit would help both stills and video.
This huge amt of processing is partly why pro cinema video cams use specific sensors - Super 35mm, etc (not the 1D C though).
Imagine a 50mp video frame and downsize to, well whatever size you want, 2kHD, 4kHD, 8kHD, etc, lots of processing - 4/8 Digic 6's? running on batteries? !!
Anyway just a thought to the future.
All those worn out mirrors... people have to swap them every month, cause they break so often!
Boris F: No other company came with such amount of innovation with one single camera.Cheers Oly!
So absolutely nothing innovative? Yea, I thought so.
Robert Garcia NYC: HUGE lens.
Get a proper telephoto lens one day. This one here isn't anywhere near of the huge lenses, yet alone HUGE lenses.
photogeek: Heavier than the Nikon? But Nikon is already as heavy as a brick. I used to own that Nikon, and it never left the house. This one would double as exercise equipment.
You either never held that Nikkor or never held a brick. Another clueless troll.
justgo99: Too inconvenient for me. I could see the working professional using this, but it's massive size and weight along with the supreme price tag makes it a burden to carry around.
Compared to my 16-35mm f/4, it has no IS, weighs nearly twice as much, costs 3 times as much, doesn't have screw on filter support (quite inconvenient for travelling) and lacks anything beyond 24mm which is a bit short. I do find myself sometimes using 26-30mm and I like not having to switch to a normal zoom for these instances. And the 16-35mm f/4 is already an extremely sharp lens. Certainly not for many people...
Jesus, these clueless people are clueless. It's an 11mm lens, making it f/2.8 would make it so huge that it wouldn't be feasable. And why the heck would you need filter thread on something like that? You even realize just how huge these filters would be? Of course you don't. This lens is using the only reasonable filters: gel, loaded on a back side of camera. You even heard about gel filters?
adhall: ok, I have Nikon gear and have been eyeing the 14-24 for a while. But how good is this?!? Serious Canon envy at the moment...
Still you loose resolution, quite a bit of it. It's maths, you can't avoid it
Bernard Carns: As a former Canon fanboy I can't believe how many complaints there are about the uninteresting specs and unrealistic prices of Canon's new offerings.
Canon just doesn't get it!
Thank God my Canon lenses can be adapted to other cameras!
No, most of people here are gearheads that can't even tell the difference between 14 and 11mm lens, heck: some of them don't even know the difference between this lens and a fisheye or APS-C lens.Go to some other forums and you'll see people being much more optimistic. Eg. On Petapixel this lens is viewed as a breakthrough.
Josh152: Wow. When the D810 and A7R successors with the new high res Sony sensor come out this is going to look even more overpriced and silly than it already does lol.
It most likely will be, Sony is recently undercutting everyone with prices, even if it means marginal profits on a bodies for them.
tabloid: Pity its not mirrorless.
lol, that way to cripple your camera. As if this one wouldn't be, in a way, crippled already much enough. We need Canon to be more innovative and move forward, not make a step down a level. This doesn't help anyone. Competitiveness is important. Getting into a clusterf*** of mirrorless with a body similar to this one would be laughable.
En Trance: Try:30MPONE NEW DESIGN PER RELEASEPUT THE DAMNED CREATURE FEATURES BACK ON THE BODYPUT YOUR BEST VIDEO FEATURES BACK IN (they are not that good!)16000 ISO! (no one needs more)DROP A SENSOR CROP OR TWO (unless they are perfect and cheap)EF LENS MOUNT PERIOD!STOP BEING ASININE AND GO TO TMT OR MIRRORLESSIMAGE STABILIZATION ON CAMERA ( not the lens or tri-pod )
What is that nonsese post? Are you working in the same office with munro harrap? Oh, and BTW: Your capslock is on. You might want to do something about that.
munro harrap: But it does do 16:9, only in the video mode you are limited to 30fps, or 24, or 25. No 50 or 60. It is rated shutterwise for 200,000 exposures.There is no AF spot linked spot-metering. It only does spot metering on the centre spot!There is no touch screen.The screen does not rotate or swivel like an APS-C canons do (BOOO!)
What has been excluded should allow 3 yearly incremental additions like these for decades.
Oh, and the AA filter is still there on the R version but switched out as on the D800E Nikon. which in this canon copy completely, and for the same reasons.
You're still here, trolling?
Jeez, take a break man. We all got your mantra 5 messages ago.
farzee: I was waiting to hear if Canon is going to give us the DR close to or on par with Sony / Nikon cameras. Unfortunately, now I know that the DR is the same as my 5D 3.
I have spent enough on Canon and the reason I did over the years was because of its technological innovations. Now that it has run out of it, I'll be exploring options like A7R or A7S. Will still use EF Lenses for now, but Zeiss ZE lenses will be my first preference, if they are available in that focal length. I just simply cannot keep taking 5 shots to make up for the short comings of Canon's sensor and spend hours merging them in Photoshop when that could be done with usually 2 or max 3 shots with Sony and Nikon!
Good point. That said though - no proper tests were made yet, and Canon is yet to release 5DmkIII successor. This body here is build just for one feature - high MPx count, which got it's uses regardless of dynamic range offered.
munro harrap: Looking at the sample Ken Rockwell got as is on the Canon website, the floral lady shot , made by a pro in a studio under controlled conditions has more noise than resolution.
I doubt somehow that its original was anything less than a RAW file. Tragic. Inexcusable. Its as though somebody grabbed an old 1Ds MkI sensor and uprezzed it to double the resolution. The 1Ds MkI has very high image quality at base ISO, absolutely no visible noise at all, and interestingly has a similar fine sharpening gizmo you load onto it as a default sharpening with the camera linked to a computer.
I'm sorry to have to say this, but an image has to CONVINCE. The online Canon samples dont at all. Tragic- all that investment, tragic, really sad.
Yea, his samples don't really look great. That said though - none of his pictures were made at base ISO, and... it's Ken, so... he can make shitty pictures with any camera.
Richard Franiec: Is nobody getting the hint that the main appeal of new 5D is an ultimate (unmatched yet) resolution of the sensor, improved color rendition, fantastic AF in one package?Bitching results in wasted time only. Trying to understand and taking an advantage of the development require some effort and most likely then not, this approach could be more rewarding.
Oh, apparently bitching about people bitching gives an upvotes too! Keep them coming! hahaha
Bill Claybrook: I have a Canon 7D Mark II and a 5D Mark III. One is 20 megapixel and one 22+ megapixel. I used the Mark III for landscape. I will not buy either of the two new Canons because you do not need the 50 megapixels for landscape. If you need larger images (pixel count) just spend $79 and buy OnOne's Perfect Resize. You can get the high resolution that you think that you need. I double and triple the resolution all the time and you can't tell that the images are resized --- the color is not disturbed at all. If I then want to crop, I do it.
"I double and triple the resolution all the time and you can't tell that the images are resized" - that's one of the most absurd comments I seen under this article. And that's saying something, cause the amount of absurd comments here is above anything I seen for quite a while on dPreview. I did use Perfect Resize, and few other similar apps, including one developed by some scientists for their own use, none of them ever gave anything similar to what you're talking about.
If you can't tell the difference - you'd probably be just as good with 10MPx camera as you are with your current bodies. And think how much money you'd save! hahaha
prossi: LOL Considering the sharp decline in the US sales vs EU, Canon has decided to punish US customers! Or they don't want to lose face going up against the a6000 and the upcoming a7000/9000. They will just keep flooding the US with expensive and substandard DLSRs since they have good customer base for those.
They don't punish anyone. Sales in US are so pathetically small, that moving these bodies to the warehouses across the country and promoting the camera is more expensive than any profits they might get, so they chose not to loose money on mirrorless.Sounds like a smart move. Perhaps if other companies would follow - some of them wouldn't bleed money so heavily.