Canon EOS 5D Mark IV added to studio scene comparison

moire artifacts of non-AA filter sensors

Sep 5, 2016permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=nikon_d7200&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=64&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.49604601006470167&y=-0.7483073485147437

I sometimes wonder if we are dancing on the head of a pin. Anyway, at base ISO the improvements are small. The D810 gets the nod, at least in the studio scene. An aps-c camera in the mix too, not to far behind.

Sep 3, 2016permalink

Wild Light

anyone who says the Canon 5D mIV is boring is missing the point.

Sep 2, 2016permalink

What is that point?

Sep 3, 2016permalink

@Samuel C
friday night happy hour philosphizing I see...

If canon made hammers there would be no pneumatic nailers.

Sep 4, 2016permalink

"18 hours ago was Friday night? "
whatever.
As far as the rest of your post I have no clue what you're are talking about. I can only venture to guess it is just an overly elaborate and pointless attempt at deflecting.

Sep 5, 2016permalink

Bjrn SWE

He-he, what kind of test its this? The EOS 5D4 pictures are not properly focused! I think you will have to this all over again...

Sep 1, 2016permalink

Cytokine

The canon 85mm f/1.2l mk2 is sharper than the 85mm f1.8 at all apertures so why not use it for the tests.

Aug 31, 2016permalink

f3000

I don't know if it's just my browser or not, but when I select 'COMP' or 'PRINT' in the comparison tool, the raw images from 1dx2 and 5d4 always seem to be over-sharpened, while in 'original' size they are generally softer.

Aug 31, 2016permalink

Old Cameras

It's exciting to see this new sensor topology from Canon perform so well, I hope it spreads to all their cameras. I look forward to a 7D3.

Aug 31, 2016permalink

After 4 years of stalling by canon, one would certainly hope so!
Canon definitely is a 'micro-innovator' isn't it? Their users are starved for attention and innovation from their favorite camera company. They are always some next camera model coming down the pipeline that 'hopefully' will have this or that.
Meanwhile every year the other manufacturers take the carrot 100 meters forward.

Aug 31, 2016permalink

@Photomedium, Nikon is how many years behind with DPAF? How are those DL mirrorless cameras going?

Sep 3, 2016permalink

We are talking about canon, and 5 years of them and their fanboys claming that DR was not important. That's why canon did not have high DR in their sensors (not because they did not want to spend the money in R&D).
Now is the turn of video. Video features and processing speed are not important (according to the canon and their aforementioned fanboys). They will have to wait another 5 years for those.

Sep 3, 2016permalink

jam005

I believe that testing either camera with less than optimal conditions leaves doubt to the validity of the results. Every component within a system has an associated modulation transfer function and, as a result, contributes to the overall MTF of the system. This includes the imaging lens and the camera sensor also. Each lens has a sweet spot where the best performance is obtained, therefore in testing the system (lens + sensors) and comparing its optimal performance to another requires that one pair the proper lens with the sensor. Without doing that, it's basically a crap shoot and not actually indicative of the true performance of either camera. Do the MTFs closely match?

Aug 31, 2016*permalink

Kabe Luna

Interestingly, the 5D Mark IV doesn't deliver much boost in resolving power compared to the 5D Mark III.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Nakean

This was my take away as well! Barely any difference with newer tech and 1/3 increase in resolution! Doesn't seem right.

Sep 1, 2016permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=sony_a7rii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=pentax_k1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=51200&attr16_3=51200&attr126_3=normal&attr171_1=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.5739661465356437&y=0.7922836921933774

Seems Canon is up on par again... in high ISO range it's way better than even the D810 or A7R2. Let's wait for the dynamic range test.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Everlast66

Way better? Come on, you can't be serious. D810, A7RII and even the Pentax K1 have way more detail.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=sony_a7rii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=pentax_k1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr126_3=normal&attr171_1=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.88061848256023&y=0.8314884601902539

It depends on the location on the chart (as some already noted). For example the 5DM4 gives less color artefact than the "mighty" D810, which is quite good.

At least I can't see the big differences from before where Canon always had a lot of banding and color noise where Nikon/Sony/Pentax still remained clear.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

ISO 25k, then ISO 50K ....anyone willing to put up an even more ridiculous ISO 100k comparo next? Anyone?
Bottom line the performance difference in the sensor, with these tests is insignificant. With DR at iso 64 the Nikon is probably going to win. The higher ISO may reveal something new.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

(unknown member)

Definitely hyperbole. The Canon and Nikon are about even at ISO6400. Nikon, due to higher resolution and absent AA filter, is better below, and the Canon, due to better noise handling, is better above. However, the Sony is best at all ISO levels up to 25K (I don't care about higher because they all suck at those levels) due to higher resolution and better noise handling. Now, if only Sony--or Nikon--could put that sensor into a decent camera body, I'd seriously be tempted.

Disclosure: my current landscape camera is the D810.

Aug 31, 2016*permalink

Wow grats it slightly beats a D810, a two year old camera with more pixels to deal with!

Aug 31, 2016permalink

@drivecancel. That's the way forums work. The Canon 5D Mark III was also massively critized againt new Sonysensors arriving the market. Now it's unfair? Come on...

Aug 31, 2016permalink

I didn't say it's unfair, I was just putting forth the opinion that it's stupid. It would be stupid to do it to the 5D III in that scenario too.

Trying to boast that the new IV is better than a camera two years its senior, that is optimised for lower ISO and has moee pixels to manage is stupid.

Aug 31, 2016permalink

Also everyone knows the D810 isn't very good past ISO 12800, nothing new there. If you're worrying about such extreme ISO ranges you shouldn't be buying a D810 or a 5D. The Nikon D5 is the camera for you.

Aug 31, 2016permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=sony_a7rii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=pentax_k1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr126_3=normal&attr171_1=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.8642933669599514&y=0.13347663858896414

No the D5 is way to big and expensive and Nikon is nothing for me, anyway. So, the current topmodel on Canon is the old 6D, now beaten by the 5D Mark IV. In high ISO.

Aug 31, 2016permalink

Everlast66

Best thing to do is the teeth test

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Rescale with the 'comp' button and find some interesting things. Like the canon doubles as a diagnstic device. Apparently the model has liver disease/jaundice spots on her face.
Sony gives the more 'lively' visage.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Didn't you mean to say the Sony gives a more lively jaundiced look?

Aug 31, 2016permalink

Everlast66

My idea was that that the human eye (brain) is specialised in reading faces so this would be the best place to judge image differences, since modern sensors are so close.

Aug 31, 2016permalink

Definitely the comparison seems to work in sony's favor, at least on my mac monitor. I am not seeing the overhyped canon 'colours' coming to light, so to speak.

Aug 31, 2016permalink

Dragonrider

Take a look at the DP Raw fine image over on the IR site. Dave uses the 70mm Sigma Macro (which is very sharp). I don't see any resolution issues at all there. Hard to tell what DPR used to process the raw images for the test scene, but if they used the LR beta converter, it would not necessarily be representative of what can be resolved by the camera. The big problem here is the rush to get something up for the world to see and in the rush, many details (pun intended) can get overlooked.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Carey Rose

Stated directly under the link to the studio scene:

"*Raw images have been processed with an early beta build of Adobe Camera Raw. Image quality may not represent the final version of the plugin, but is likely to be close."

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Hey DP guys, um..is something wrong here?

The softness exhibited by certain parts of the scene dont look right. Even (bottom) edges of the frame is sharper, and the 5d4 and 5d3 look almost exactly the same there.

What would be causing that softness mid frame, where lenses are normally sharper?

The other cameras (nikon & sony) images dont really look better, they just show more details from the resolution advantages.

Lastly, if the ef 85 1.8 was used for this test, then that would be a grand old's waste of time, would'nt it?

At worst, the 5d4 image is no better, but that is really tough to discern here due to the studio scene itself.

All this did was leave me scratching my head. :P

Aug 30, 2016permalink

zero sector

lame excuse. these lens used on canon 50 MP body's without any problem.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Nakean

Not sure why everyone is complaining about the 85 1.8! Just as sharp when stopped down as the mighty 1.2.

Sep 1, 2016permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=nikon_d7200&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.0014378145219265898&y=-0.0024529361435199045

I've only got a much cheaper and humble Nikon D7200 apc-s but I'm sort of impressed how it holds up against FF in jpeg

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Thematic

its fuji that is dominating APSC

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt2&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=nikon_d7200&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.0014378145219265898&y=-0.0024529361435199045

Aug 30, 2016permalink

I had a look at the round colour chart in the studio scene, it's very close, but on the orange segment the word 'Orange' is clearer on the D7200 in both raw and the standard jpeg. It may be the lens of course.

Sep 3, 2016permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt2&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=nikon_d7200&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.45578720345075496&y=-0.8729526674707636

Here

Sep 3, 2016permalink

HMF70

Dear DPreview

Why do you compare these cameras, using a:
$1000 lens from 2013 on Sony.
$1600 lens from 2010 on Nikon.
But only a cheep $370 lens from 1992 on Canon?

Why not use the same type of lens, to get a real comparison, e.g Tamron SP 85/1,8 Di VC USD??

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Rishi Sanyal

We can't arbitrarily switch lenses. We tried to do so last year w/ the Sigma 50mm Art, but noted different noise performance due to transmission differences (or variation in light transmission due to the apertures being stopped down differently across systems).

Hence, we've stuck to our rule of 'sharpest 85mm equivalent on-brand prime'. Were we to suddenly switch, it might affect noise performance, which is arguably what the scene is (should be) used for more than sharpness evaluation across the frame.

Central performance won't be markedly different w/ a different lens - the 85mm prime Canon is very good here. That central area is what you should be using for assessing sharpness differences btwn bodies.

The sharpness fall-off off-center does affect evaluation of other attributes - like JPEG detail retention in the green foliage, e.g., which may look worse if you start off w/ a worse Raw. We've been trying to vet new lenses, but it's tricky due to the noise issues mentioned above.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Abbas Rafey

This is not an excuse HMF70 you are right this is unfair comparison going on, on the net. I remember digital rev were comparing sony with 5ds but they were using 100$ lens which is 50 mm f1.8 on the canon and they were usinf the zeisse lens on Sony. These reviews should be called "who pay more sorry"

Aug 31, 2016permalink

Stepanfo

Sharpness in not measured with monetary value of the lens. When stopped down, lenses used in the studio shot comparison are equally sharp.

Lack of details is the problem of this camera. Live with it.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

naththo

Its the lens, not the camera's fault. More like human error.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

@stepanfo "When stopped down, lenses used in the studio shot comparison are equally sharp. "
Pls prove your statement.

A quick look into DXO (although I don't like DXO very much) shows the opposite. For even more emphasis on price I selected the Otus for as example:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF85mm-f-1.8-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-85mm-F1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Apo-Planar-T-Star-Otus-85mm-F14-ZE-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__241_1009_322_1009_1383_1009

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Stepanfo

Emfor: Click measurements, sharpness, field map, select aperture 5.6 - all are the same - excellent.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

@Step Well, the field map colors of DXO are not very accurate, are they?
Does this green mean 77% or 99% ? The scale ends at 80%.

I'm interested in a lens comparison at 50mp like photozone.de started. Unfortunately those lenses used by DPR have been testet by photozone in the past at 20mp (not all of them have been tested there). It is no surprise that they perform similar (but not equal) at 20mp.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Quite the authoritative post and I love the alpha male proclamation at the end! Flex for me! Now bare your teeth and say "GRRRRRRR!" *click* (reviews image) oooooohhh, intimidating! You MUST be right if you're that emphatic!

Aug 30, 2016permalink

AbrasiveReducer

DxO? What's wrong with Ken Rockwell or "Fro"? I

Aug 30, 2016permalink

tr573

Click on the profiles tab to see the acutance profiles and stop them all down to f/5.6 then. Much easier to see comparison vs the color field map.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

http://www.lenscore.org/ test all lens on a specially built device with a 200MB sensor.

Sep 3, 2016permalink

cloneimaging

5d Mark II. Still awesome. Sticking with it.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Gotta love the 5D mark II

Aug 30, 2016permalink

D135ima

Depending on the specifics of your work.
Autofocus is probably worse than in any modern amateur camera. RAWs falling apart, if only slightly touch the slider "Shadows". It still works, and works well - but there is nothing "awesome"

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.5545073661946883&y=0.18688727622472248

Still take it out for the occasional BIF shoot!! Not really.....

Still takes a good image

Aug 30, 2016permalink

vin 13

These look good to me, similar to the 6D but bigger. I'm also pleasantly surprised how well the old 5D stands up when using the comp setting. However the 5DIV price makes the 5Ds more appealing. I didn't look at the Nikon and Sony as I'm not going to switch system again, no matter how good they may be. Also I like the 85mm f1.8, it's a quality lens, the fact that it's old and inexpensive shouldn't matter. However the suggestion of a quality third party lens available in different mounts is a good idea.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

AbrasiveReducer

This is the heart of the situation. Canon users are not going to switch to Nikon and probably not Sony + adapters so these comparisons are interesting but that's all they are.

I'm sure this has occurred to Canon, but comparisons like this make it look like they are competing with themselves, with 30mp vs. 50mp so they will have to lower the price of the 5D4 or raise the price of the others.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

kadardr

There is little difference between the FF sensors, or in other words the differences are not practical enough to make a purchase decision based on them. I am Nikonite so I say you can buy a grey market D810 AND a D750 for the price of one 5DMIV.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

fmian

Well.. You can't put a Canon lens on a Nikon body, so 5Dmk3 + 6D sounds more attractive, and you'll have more assurance of warranty buying them grey market compared to Nikon.
But as long as you're happy and taking nice photos... :)

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Eleson

The differences are there for sure. If it's a reason to buy a camera is up to anyone.

OK, this needs to be corrected! :(
Swap in the Phase One in that mix and it will turn out that the lines that are seen is actually going in the wrong direction!
I'd say Canon is better as it is not false to the same extent.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

Valentin Stan

The test is flawed, I think the cameras were misaligned with the chart or the chart is problematic. The sensors could have a slight modification also. Some parts of the chart are correctly focused and some parts aren't.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Thematic

That has nothing to do with focus. Ask dpreview. They can explain it to you.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

I agree. The softness in the 5d4 images dont make much sense. No sensor should be putting that out, especially for a raw file.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

MasterWayne

Reading all the discussions on the AA Filter, I think a technical article (like the excellent ones on noise or equivalence) would be very interesting and helpful!
Personally, I'm not sure if I know and understand all the effects of such a filter.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

The red is too weak in the Canon iV !
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.8641265276779295&y=-0.18330198817839896

I have suggested to DXOMark that they introduce an objective test for moiré to provide more comprehensive insights into sensor performance.

No response.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

daMatrix

Aug 30, 2016permalink

You probably want to say "ACR beta" produced red is too weak?
Furthermore I'm not sure whether it makes sense to rate the (skin-)colors by taking a photo of a photo?
The color squares look diffent, in particular the OOC JPG shows a well saturated red for mark IV. This makes ACR *beta* even more suspicious. How does the studio scene look like when processing with Canons DPP software?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

photenth

Not just that but also this is most likely the default picture profile and not the dedicated portrait picture profile.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

naththo

Its a beta version of ACR unfortunately.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

henrikbengtsson

Adobe modified the Adobe Standard profile in order to make it more independent. For Canon, that means dramatically less saturation, starting with 80D I think.

'Camera Standard' profile should get you back to Canon land. You can try this with some 1DX Mark II files. See what happens with the reds when you go from Adobe Standard -> Camera Standard. "Booom" as Fro Knows says...

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

daMatrix

Ok I understand that the beta version of ACR is most likely the cause of the color fault. But then why does dpreview go through the trouble creating the studio preview?

Aug 31, 2016permalink

IamJF

Looks good. If there is a gap to other sensor manufactures it's getting small enough so it's not a real concern any more.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

misspiggy01

at least it´s not worse than 5D3 considering the bump in resolution. that´s something to be impressed by!

otherwise a very conservative upgrade. canon is just doing what they have to to stay competitive. no innovation in image quality though. that´s maybe a little disappointing. up to iso 3200 the 5D2 still looks competitive!

my guess is that they will come out with a FF mirrorless in 2 years and are keeping the goodies for that.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

The Squire

FF mirrorless? Dont hold your breath.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Clark666

I added the OMD EM-5ii instead of the 5d Mk iii This is the pixel shift mode of the Olympus. The difference is amazing. If only Olympus could find a way of allowing photos of moving objects

Aug 30, 2016permalink

naththo

Many Sony APS-C and FF mirrorless are all compressed RAW with exception of A7II and A7RII if you updated it to latest firmware. I rather stick to Canon or so who does uncompressed raw file.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Henrik Herranen

nathto: Not quite. Canon _only_ offers compressed RAW. But this is actually a good thing, because Canon RAW is compressed losslessly, which means that no data is lost in conversion and back.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

tr573

You can do pixel shift yourself with any camera if you want. Not as convenient of course, but handheld since you provide the 'shift' - Google super resolution tutorial

Aug 30, 2016permalink

George Fotiadis

Good, i do not have to upgrade and can keep my hard earned money, so far i can see, noise is a half stop better compared to my 5D Mark III (RAW) and almost similar to my 6D, yes there are more MP and that is a good thing, but for better high ISO concerned photographers, i do not see a reason to upgrade.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

Exactly. Let's wait for a new 6DmkII. It can be interesting offer if Canon will follow resolution improvement in that class. If not, my money will be saved too ;)

Aug 30, 2016permalink

TORN

Maybe they will even add one or two more focus points to the AF then. God beware if we would see an up to date AF system or dual pixel technology in a 6D or even a tilting screen? No?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

PEOPLE! Too many of you are making a big deal out of minor differences. Look... this is a comparison of camera sensors AND lenses as well as apertures. The comparison linked by DPR compares the following...
5D Mark IV with 85mm f/1.8 at f/5.6
5D Mark III with 85mm f/1.8 at f/7.1
Nikon D810 with 85mm f/1.8G at f/5.6
Sony A7RII with 55mm f/1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* at f/5.6

The Sony SHOULD be the sharpest of all of these. It has the highest resolution sensor, probably the sharpest lens (costing $1000), a lens that is literally decades newer than the one used on the Canon cameras (costing $370), and it's a wider angle lens meaning it's closer to the target.

Additionally, each sensor/lens combo is going to have areas of strengths and weaknesses. One combo may be better in one small area of the test scene while it's worse in others. THIS IS NORMAL and TO BE EXPECTED.

No need for chest thumping. Accept that there will be differences in performance AND interpretation.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

What the hell: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikkor-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f14G-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Canon-EF85mm-f-1.8-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__388_814_1252_917_241_1009

Looks like D810 is testen with 85 f/1.4G (not 1.8).
Nevertheless, thanks for putting this info together :)

So we compare:

Canon EF 85 f/1.8 $330 released 1992 [sic]
Nikkor 85 f/1.4G $1,600 released 2010?
Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8 ZA T* $1000 released 2014?

Maybe dpr staff can explain how such a "comparison" makes sense?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

photenth

Even on a 50MP sensor the canon is last in sharpness... At f/5.6 the canon is still last. It's really hard to make this comparison fair.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

tonkis

Lets mount the Otus line lens for Canon 5D MK iv and the results will be significantly different!

Current comparison is real eyewash. Honestly why dpreview stuff do such nonsense?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Jylppy

DPR staff, could please comment on this? Posting such a high-profile studio comparison shots taken with vastly different era / quality lenses does not seem that fair.

Is the reason that Canon lacks any better lens for suitable focal length (85mm)?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

@emfor - thanks for the correction. I had 1.8 on the brain after both Canon cameras used the Canon 1.8.

To me, using the Sigma 50mm Art would have made sense. It's available in both Canon and Nikon mount, and for Sony via adapter. At that point, we're comparing sensor resolution, AA (or not) filters, and CFA for each of the cameras, which is how it should be.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

JunzInc

@emfor - Perhaps since this is a not a Lens Test or a sharpness comparison. Or perhaps since by stopping down to F5.6 there is really not much difference in sharpness between these optics? The main area where the newer optics have improved is the wide open sharpness.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Stepanfo

Sharpness in not measured with monetary value of the lens. When stopped down, these lenses are equally sharp. Lack of details is the problem of this camera. Live with it.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

@stepanfo - check photozone's reviews of the Canon 85/1.8 and Nikon 85/1.4G, look at the mtf charts, and tell me there's no difference. Yes, they both perform at their max stopped down to f/5.6, but the performance is not equal. Surprisingly, the Sony/Zeiss lens is actually better at f/4 than it is at f/5.6. But, thanks to the additional pixels and lack of AA filter, it's still superior in terms of resolution.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Look at the acutance profiles at DXO. At f5.6 the difference is negligible across the sensor. So there is no argument in pointing to the price of the lenses, here. Nevertheless, using a Sigma makes sense, as we can have it for nearly all mounts or easily use adapters for mirrorless.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Eleson

The proposed lenses are all third party lenses ...
Why buy a body if the OEM lanses aren't up to the task?
Where did all that talk about 'investment in lenses' go?

Surely there must be a 50-100'ish mm macro lens that is up to the task.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

@Eleson - it's not about first party companies not having adequate lenses, it's about removing the lens as a variable so that the sensors can be more directly compared.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

This test is the meaning of bonkers.

Maybe they should have used a 24-70 or something. If you're goign to use an 85mm, you dont use the 85 1.2?

Nuts.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

aarif

i'm Impressed with high ISO performance

Aug 30, 2016permalink

ogl

Sony A7R II, Pentax K-1 and Nikon D810 are sharper and better in RAW than new 5D.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Valentin Stan

You should really go check your eyes.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

@ogl They have to be sharper in some aspects since they omit AA filter (sony and nikon, don't know pentax AA?). However they pay with pronounced moire: https://www.dpreview.com/news/9234421352/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-added-to-studio-scene-comparison?comment=4552972155

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

Certainly not better.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Valentin Stan

Yeah.. If you would check different parts of the test chart you would see that the result vary. That's because the test is done incorrectly, or the test chart had suffered some malformations in time.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

fmian

You mean.. Sigma Quattro is sharpest out of all cameras on the test...

Aug 30, 2016permalink

ogl

K-1 with PS is the 100% winner

Aug 31, 2016permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr171_1=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=print&widget=1&x=-0.6340928271795914&y=0.3767834528380055

What's with the random colour artefacts from the D810 and Sony at 6400 ISO RAW:

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Its the lack of AA filter, isn't it?
https://www.dpreview.com/news/9234421352/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-added-to-studio-scene-comparison?comment=4552972155

Aug 30, 2016permalink

aftab

That's the magic of going AA less. AA-less brigade will still claim AA filter is a bad idea.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

UGLY - blue and yellow banding.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Michiel953

This is why I have set a ceiling of 2500ISO on auto ISO on my D810.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Wow - 2500 ISO. Not all that useful

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Michiel953

Useful enough for me. It's all a trade-off. I could go to 3200, but that's really where image quality starts to deteriorate beyond what I feel is acceptable.

If I would do a lot of (very) low light photography, I wouldn't have chosen a D810 but a D750.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

Meant no disrespect. That number just seems low for a FF camera. Happy to use my 5D mk ii in that range but it does come down to taste.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Mikael Risedal

called moire

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Michiel953

@Yossarian1: I didn't see any disrespect.

Aug 31, 2016permalink

Nindy

I thought resolution was comparable between mk3 and mk4, I thought D810 showed far more resolution. All showed false colour in raw

Aug 30, 2016permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.6605551713129204&y=-0.738835438671962

The D810 was the weakest performer in terms of noise reduction at higher ISOs

and along with the Sony exhibited high levels of moiré distortion

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.647374238251729&y=0.3619349115108558

Aug 30, 2016permalink

@Yossarian: You are comparing at 100%, choose the same size. The D810 is very close (which is very likely due to the lacking AA filter. Do some NR to get the same level of detail and they will be identical in real life). The Sony is still the best package in my opinion due to the dual gain sensor tech. It has other drawbacks compared to the 5div, though.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

The D810 is barely worse than any of the comparable cameras at 12800 and below.

Plus if you aren't using the comp setting you are doing it wrong.

On top of that, the D810 has the cleanest files at low ISO than any other camera in these tests, excluding pixel shift from the Pentax K-1.

But never mind, let's complain that the D810 is a bit noisy at 12800, an ISO you probably use less than 10% of the time. :)

(Let's ignore that the D810 is also two years old)

By the way, moire hasn't been a problem with my D810 or 5DSR ever. I prefer the D810 because it has less clean up needed in post as the D810 is quite a lot better than the 5DSR at all ISOs.

Compared to the D810, A7R II and even the 5DSR the IV is lacking, it's an odd camera. Overpriced too, but the 5D III has been overpriced for a few years compared to the competition so this is not a surprise.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

It doesn't matter whatever setting you choose, the D810 is noisier and the moiré is poor. Its closer with the Sony but moiré is a big issue here too.

Do you guys like moiré artefacts in your photos?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

You can remove moire in post, but you can't re-generate filtered detail removed by the AA filter. The Sony is ahead in S/N ratio, imo. Very likely, that Dxo or Bill Claff will demonstrate this shortly.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

The two are close in S/N.

As for moiré, yes you can remove the majority of it if you have the time and inclination. But right now its an artefact of those sensors and if we are judging sensors, it is quite right to call out the moiré.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

It is a special case of aliasing and is something happening with discrete sampling of a pattern, using a finite sampling rate. This is not something specific to the D810 or 5dsr or A7rii alone and, under the right circumstances happens with sensors having AA filters, too (I sometimes get it even with the D750). Just google sampling theory. I get the impression that this will now be magnified by Canon fanboys to emphasize the 5div.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

I don't particularly see that making observations on poor moiré makes me a fanboy but that's your call.

I realise that it is not specific to these sensors. However, in the context of this discussion, it is relevant to comment on it. Or should we just ignore it. If so, perhaps we should ignore the gain in sharpening?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

There are always two sides to the medal. Loss in detail vs. prevention of some moire (not all moire). What is more important is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer more detail. Sharpening in post can't generate the filtered details removed by the AA filter.

Aug 31, 2016permalink

Basically there is nothing essentially improved in terms of image quality except resolution. MK4 is not worth of upgrade in my case.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Deorum

it is contradictory to say, there is nothing essentially improved... except image resolution.
so there is something essential improved, and that is image resolution.
Unless image resolution is not essential part of image quality.
Res, can be traded off anytime for less noise.

Also (not seen here, but is 99% sure) there will be big improvements in terms of DR etc.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

@duxx High iso noise improved: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.27606038820992096&y=-0.7289629100408049

Aug 30, 2016permalink

aftab

5DIV has much less noise in high ISO, especially chroma noise. 5DIV noise is much finer. Actually 5DIV seems to be better than 6D in ISO 12800 and above.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Doesn't have the moiré artefacts of the D810 or the Sony. And looks like better noise reduction at higher resolution.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

George Fotiadis

DuxX Totaly agree.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Sorry guys, but I don't see any difference in samples above. I hope that DR tests will show some clear, physically evident improvements or ... I'll wait for a new 6dmkII if for nothing else then for higher resolution.

I must admit that I am quite disappointed with the progress in the image quality. 8/

Aug 30, 2016permalink

@Duxx

Looks like Canon have added 8mps and reduced the noise. That is impressive.

Sensor looks better than D810 at higher ISOs and looks at least on par with sony at these higher settings. Does not suffer the moiré issues that both these sensors clearly have.

Will be looking at other factors such as DR and ISO invariance when these come out.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

SkySpades

Downsample the 30 MP MKIV image to 22 MP size of the MKIII, and I bet you'll see a significant improvement in high ISO noise. The MKIV also has significantly better DR.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

poutchiou

Hello DPR, there is a serious focus problem with last canon DSLR. I don't understand why recent 5Dmk4, 1DXmk2, 5DS, 5DSR, 7Dmk2, 80D RAWs are so blur at 100 ISO comparate to 5Dmk3 ? Does it come from Canon or DPR lab process ?
See by yourself: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=canon_eos1dxii&attr13_3=canon_eos80d&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.3294478258774305&y=0.7958367228467129

Aug 30, 2016permalink

(https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.5693745506829619&y=0.1931219905502753)

The Canon bodies have an AA filter. Sony A7RII and Nikon D810 haven't.
Look at the historical scene and you will detect much more details with the non AA bodies dearly payed with very pronounced moire and false color artifacts (e.g the back of the picture frame on the easel). The moire is visible with the RAW files, only. But the "rainbows" are also visible in the JPGs.
So this comparison basically opposes the technology of AA filtered sensors with non AA filtered sensors. Or in other words, does it make sense to compare the resolution of a camera body with AA filter to a body w/o it?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Regarding ISO noise the 5DIV looks much better (e.g. 6400, 12800) than its competitors, doesn't it? (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.27606038820992096&y=-0.7289629100408049)

Aug 30, 2016permalink

PhilouG

Compare it to the A6000 with has a AA filter (in addition to be an APS-C sensor with less resolution), it still resolve more details at 100 ISO. :p
http://i.imgur.com/rSrGtIo.png
It looks like a focus problem. :p

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

ogl

K-1 with PS is the winner

Aug 30, 2016permalink

@Philou Strange enough, in your example I can still see some color artifacts for a6000 (with AA) in the lower left corner (left of the child's face) and on the right side (the jacket). Is it an ACR bug?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Saying the 5D IV looks much better than the D810 and A7R II is crazy to me. They are very close and considering the A7R II and D810 have substantially more resolution, you can add more noise reduction to make up for any perceived improvement on the 5D IV files noise wise.

That said, the 5D IV is barely better than the D810 until you push past ISO 6400. This is just another dated sensor from Canon.

I would much rather have a 5DSR than the 5D IV so that I have a huge megapixel count to clean up with NR or just switch to a D810 or wait for D810's successor.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

@drive So it *is* better if you push past ISO 6400? But it is dated?
Nice ὀξύμωρος

Aug 30, 2016permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=canon_eos1dxii&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&attr171_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.13803019410496048&y=-0.9675443178860494

@bildsee: You are comparing at pixel level. If you compare at the same size, the Sony is clearly ahead in my opinion. Additionally, you have the option to add NR in post due to the lack of AA filter until the same level of detail is reached. For _practical shooting_ however, the about 1/3rd of a sop difference is not that important in my opinion.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Imagine

The 5DSR seems to be handling Moire better than the D810, and so is the A7RII.
The higher the pixel density, the less important the AA filter will become, but it is evidently important for 30-36MP FF sensors.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

dieubussy

This comparison only goes to show that Nikon D810 is the superior camera from the four in what concerns image sharpness and detail, as well as chromatic range. Of course, added sharpness makes higher ISO noise a little more noticeable - entirely repairable in post - something which Canon sensors will soften their way out of, but always at the cost of delivering considerably less detail. Sony's JPEGs take the prize, but who'd shoot JPEG with this type of gear?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

AronQZ

Only care about and comparing RAW between 5DIV vs 5DIII vs 1DXII vs 1DX there appears very little difference at all in regards to noise for real world use. The one thing I keep seeing in the samples posted anywhere so far is the 5DIV looks softer at full resolution compared with the 3 others (down sampled closer to the 20mp range and they all seem very similar again). So good news is no worse than last gen and hopefully DR shows an improvement. I think the bump in resolution is a nice marketing headline and perhaps useful for larger prints but also probably pushing the sweet spot of the 1DX II with full resolution sharpness the trade off... Once downsized its all mute.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

aftab

AronQZ, at high ISO 5DIV is better than both 1DX II and 5DIII when size reduced to 5DIII/1DX II size. 5DIV probably is Canon's best sensor, as good as the best out there.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

AronQZ

I see what you mean at the higher ISO's and downsized... only looked up to ISO 3200 as try to never shoot over that unless its for capturing a thief in the night :)

Aug 30, 2016permalink

grimlock361

Better high ISO performance than D810 or A7RII. This will certainly cause some to need therapy. Yes I know....I am blind. Just keep telling yourself that. I hope mystery mark...I mean DXO mark don't sore it high as it might cause a riot and looting. I was just getting used to all the canon bashing. Still not as good as the D750. . . . .which is a good thing. We wouldn't want the world to stop turning.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

D810 is two years old. A7R II is one. They are both higher megapixel counts and the differences are minor.

The 810 was never a high ISO champ but it holds up very well against the 5D IV.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.6178278566250529&y=0.3980383649422197

The D810 doesn't appear to hold up very well in this comparison and suffers from moiré artefacts.

By the way, the crisscross patterns in the D810 and Sony photos is not additional detail..... Yet alone the colours

Aug 30, 2016permalink

There is clearly more detail in the D810 and Sony. Remove the moire in post, compare at the same resolution and base ISO (not ISO 3200). The AA filter seems to be quite strong in the 5div.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Damián B

What can possibly justify an upgrade at this price from the MK3? Even the 6D has the same image quality. They charge an arm an leg for a not usable 4K with a big crop factor. The sensor after so many years doesnt seem to have changed that much. I have tons of Canon L lenses, which are great, but Canon's sensor technology and features in general are not ok. No IBIS, no articulated screen, capped 4k, still the tracking lags behind Nikon, still the sensor lags behind Sony, THE PRICE. I appreciate that Canon bodies don't depreciate that much compared to Sony, but after so many years coming up with this MK4... come on Canon. Let's wait for final reviews to come out.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Basically there is nothing essentially improved in terms of image quality except resolution. MK4 is not worth of upgrade in my case.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Imagine

People fail to recognize the possibility than the majority of professionals might actually prefer a body with exactly the same handling / ergonomics, with few upgrades here and there over a "beta" body that tries to re-invent the wheel and having the end-user trying to debug its shortfalls.

Yes, the new 5D is expensive, but so was the Mk III, which kept out-selling the competition regardless of the lack of features in the minds of enthusiasts.

The reason the - very potent - competition is cheaper than the Canon, is not because of altruism & honest pricing, it is mainly because of demand: the introductory price of the D810 was $3,300, lower but pretty close to that of the 5D3...there would be no reason to lower it if it was selling like hot-cakes, would there? The A7R II is stuck @ $3,200.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

D135ima

It is very difficult for something to say, but clearly visible two things:
1) Jpegs on high ISO have a shift towards detail in balanse detail/noise reduction.
2) Ultra high ISO - It's definitely not the specialization of this sensor. It is worse than sensor of the 1dxII. Is possible gently suggest that this sensor better at low ISO - but that we will know soon when we see dynamic range test.
And also some of the more subjective things that I saw:
Chek "Low light" setting (lamp button) and look on the dark side. Do not you think that shade lighter than for example on D750 or 5dIII ? (on RAW). In "Low light" setting faces (Especially European man) has a very good color and contrast. There are no some dangerous shades, shadows is very smooth. But in "daylight simulation" - It is not so clear, and maybe ... too green ? In any case the base color and contrast - is unusual, may even "bold". (If this is not some things of pre-series firmware or ACR beta profile).

Aug 30, 2016permalink

photogeek

Sony a7r2 still runs circles around it. Unbelievable. Pity Sony's lens lineup is so bad.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Not a very well thought-out evaluation. I'm sure you're happy with it though...

Aug 30, 2016permalink

hippo84

@ photogeek

Is it really so bad? http://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Mike99999

If you are into wide angle, or the 50mm focal length, then the Sony FE lens line up is the best in the industry.

If you are into telephoto it is the worst in the industry by far.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

ozturert

A7R2 runs circles, while MarkIV takes real photos...

Aug 30, 2016permalink

photogeek

And R2 takes unreal photos then? :-)

Aug 31, 2016permalink

Gabebalazs

The issue is that real working photographers can't afford to "run circles" when they focus on a specific task. I'd like to see my A7RII run circles around my 5D3 in the fast paced, stressful world of wedding photography. Yes, I do own both. Using the 5D3 for weddings/events, where slow operation, messed up menu, ergonomics challenges, no direct AF selection, slow image review, 250 shots/battery, etc. are a no go. One SD card slot is just borderline OK, better have 2 card slots for weddings. My camera also gets bumped around a lot, gets wet. Again, A7RII no go.
Do I still love my A7RII? Heck, yes! Excellent IQ which I can use for the real estate side of my business. Great DR, articulated screen (no more need to kneel down for interior shots), good on-screen level, tons of resolution, etc. At the same time, no rush, less stress, I can tolerate slower speed, have time to mess with the menu etc.
Right tool for the job in both cases.
That's all I have to say about running circles :)

Sep 3, 2016permalink

tonkis

Actually what lens were used for canon 5D MIV and for Sony a7rII???

If for canon 5D MIV - was used best canon lens, and for sony - the best Zeiss Otus or Milvus lens, when comparison is unfair for canon side!!

Aug 30, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Lol the canon 85mm 1.8 was used.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

igorvil

True, test lens for Canon is 85 mm f/1.8 dating back to 1992 while lens mounted on Sony in this test is 2013 (2,5x street price of Canon's), a factor to consider in pixel peeping activity ;-)

Aug 30, 2016permalink

JunzInc

What do you think DPR is comparing here with the Studio scene?

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

What is up with that lens selection?

Not even a 35mm IS? 50 1.8? Or god forbid, a 20-70/70-200.

Whomever chose that lens should explain why they used such a old weaker optic.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

CaMeRa QuEsT

The Nikon D610/D750 RAW files still look a tiny bit cleaner and sharper up to their maximum native ISO, not bad for a 4 years old chip!

Aug 30, 2016permalink

tungchihyu

not really when you look at RAW & normalized picture size... ?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

bmwzimmer

Can i have some of what you're smoking?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

D135ima

Yes. On "low light" setting difference is noticeable. But surprisingly - If look at the "daylight simulation" - you can do the opposite conclusion.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Thuravi Kumaaran

For color photography Canon wins, black & white Sony wins.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

steelhead3

You like pinky!

Aug 30, 2016permalink

dansclic

Actually, the Sony gives more detail and has more accuracy. The Canon has more vivid Colors . Canon for colors, Sony for black and white ?? I thought a camera should be good at both...
Anyway not that much difference but again like somebody else asked for, why not'mentioning the lenses being used for the test ? Sharpness also dépends on the lens, doesn't it ?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

How's that?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

tungchihyu

Looks like the best out of the bunch to me.

great colors (look more mature than the 5DIII), great depth, deeper and cleaner black at any ISO levels.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

I like the 5DS-R the best.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Jacko54

Just an enthusiast, love my wildlife shoots, don't care about 4K video, how does this stack up against the Nikon D500

Aug 30, 2016permalink

sneakyracer

I see very clean shadows and good color. Looks promising.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

ozcreations

Yer, I concur the images are soft compared to other models, I think the AA filter is to strong. ironically even models like the D750 seem to be sharper (with AA filter), and even with the upscaling would perform similar. It's going to be interesting to see how it performs for long exposure noise. It looks pretty good noise wise in the studio scene, but the shutter times would be relatively short.

Aug 29, 2016permalink

Timbukto

I like the stronger AA filter. Oh and I'd bet the moment you upscale aliasing and moire it looks like garbage.

Some people think moire looks like garbage - https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4007053

And it is amazing how lazy many DPReview readers are in extolling the pain of sliding up USM sharpening up 5-10 points but blissfully work with moire and aliasing.

I actually find it quite shocking how people don't get bothered by moire and are painfully bothered by a +10 point adjustment in USM sharpening, but I suppose shooting sharp lenses of people in clothing is just not an important use case in photography.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

Daniel L

Yea, compare to 5Ds / DsR . It's rather puking when it comes to detail. What a shame.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

MyReality

@Timbukto - Likewise, I have nothing against the AA filter. Viewing sharpness and noise are very subjective. This can be verified by reading the various posts on these two subjects. The fact that people adjust sharpening by points is further proof. Other photo content such as color and drama will trump these two every time.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Timbukto

Viewing sharpness is asking for an audiophiles review of a stereo system. A simpler task is to rate the legibility of fine text, in which case the MP is the overwhelming factor beyond AA filter.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Are you all looking at the RAW test image, or the jpeg?

RAW is very different (superior)...

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Try not upscaling :P

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Wow, it's so funny to hear all the detailed opinions of the quality of the images by folks that are obviously using uncalibrated, sRGB lower-res monitors.

Gotta' love the consumer market...

Aug 29, 2016permalink

Lawn Lends

I dont see the problem here in regards to judging resolution and detail. If you are viewing all the images through the same monitor, all are affected equally by a crappy display, and you can zoom in if your resolution is too low.

Colorwise, yeah, the images would look best on the medium they are tweaked for. So if one camera produced colors which look better on a crappy display, everybody with that kind of crappy display would prefer those images, while a competing camera's images might look better on a pro adobe gamut display calibrated for high quality printing.

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

Mike99999

.... aaaaand another case of the emperors new clothes.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Jon555

Calibrated monitors are great for print work, but if doing anything that's going to appear on the internet they tend to be a less good idea, as all the people looking at the image will be seeing it with a lot more "pop" than you are, so if you adjusted it for a lot of pop it may not go well...
(That would be one of the main lessons I took away after I started using a calibrated monitor... Oh and I'll agree in this case calibrated is generally a good thing.)

Aug 30, 2016*permalink

kewlguy

Looks good, despite what people said about Canon being late or whatever, the high ISO looks nice, even iso25K is good. Pixel sharpness isn't the highest due to AA filter but not bad either. I think this camera strikes a nice balance in features, performance and price.

Aug 29, 2016permalink

bmwzimmer

Yup, mount that thing with a newer lens than that 2+ decade old lens like the rest of the competition and it will look better

Aug 29, 2016permalink

kewlguy

I would love to mount my Sigma 24-35 Art and 100-400 II on this new bad boy!

Aug 30, 2016permalink

dansclic

Price ? Are you kidding ? More than 4000 euros in Europe, that's a shame !

Aug 30, 2016permalink

kewlguy

Dansclic, everything is expensive in Europe. What do you expect?

Aug 30, 2016permalink

bmwzimmer

It can last you 10 years. In 10 years, if you can't take great photos with this thing something is wrong with you. And if you decide to sell this camera after 4 years, you'll get about $1800-$2200 for it. Not bad when you look at resell value.

Aug 30, 2016permalink

Offside

I always use the green fuzzy thing when I compare images. Comparing the Mark III with the Mark IV, the Mark III has a lot more detail at ISO 1600. Same goes for the feather object at ISO 1600.

Aug 29, 2016permalink