I can appreciate that but why did you criticize the articulating screen of the A99ii while praising the fixed screen of the Canon. Seems pretty inconsistent to me.

I think it's probably been stated throughout the (many) comments on the a99 II, but the Sony's screen isn't touch-enabled while Canon's touch interface is one of the most polished on the market, the Sony's screen is a magnet for fingerprints even without touch sensitivity, the protective coating degrades quickly and requires replacement for best visibility sooner than you might think, and a majority (though not all) of the staff finds the Sony's tilting mechanism to be fiddly in actual use, especially with the camera on a tripod.

But especially for the above quote you've selected, we find touch functionality to be generally as useful if not more so than tilting functionality. Having both, of course, would be ideal.

Then we'll have to disagree on this because I find an articulating non touch screen way, way a thousand times more useful than a fixed touch screen. You let too much of your personal prejudices and opinions influence you on this. I would have to say that at a minimum a flip screen is an absolute necessity on anything but a pocket camera these days making the 5D IV about an 80 rating in my book. A touch screen is just a nice feature and nothing more. I believe that most people agree with me on this as a recent DPR poll pointed out.

BTW, I have owned various Sony cameras since 2008 and have never had the coating disintegrate. I simply don't understand the idea that Sony's articulating screen is fiddly since I find it really easy to manipulate including for tripod use. I wish I lived in Seattle so I could show you how to use the darn thing.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, then unfortunately, but I do respect and understand your opinion. As for the screen coatings, that's interesting - about half of ours have that problem, as well as a fellow coworker who has an original a99, and they don't see much abuse (we try to be very careful with our loaner gear). That said, you can simply peel off the protective layer and apply another one, so it's not a deal breaker, really, just an observation.

tbcass - I think both are equally valuable.

The touch screen on the 5DMkiv (yes I finally bought one) is extremely good, far better than using the AF toggle to make selections in Quick view, and for reviewing pics, swiping and pinching is much better than using buttons and dials to chimp or rate pics. It really does make a big improvement to handling, compared to 5DMkiii and 5DS.

As Carey says, it would also be very nice to have a tilting screen, and I'd certainly find plenty of use for one. I'd prefer a tilting screen to a fully articulated one, simply because the latter would involve yet another unwanted rearrangement of back of camera buttons.

I'm a little puzzled by Carey's condemnation of the a99ii screen though, as surely it is too early yet to pass judgement on the longevity of the screen coating?

Yes, I realise that, the point I was making is that this hasn't been proven to be applicable to the a99ii model. It is quite possible that Sony have taken this issue on board, and fixed it on the a99ii. I'm sure potential purchasers would like to know whether Sony has sorted this potential problem.

I certainly agree that it is wise with ANY camera, to fit a screen protector. It's the very first thing I do when I buy a new camera, and doesn't affect touch-screen usability (at least, not with the 5DMkiv or 80D, I can't vouch for other touch screens).

@tbcass "A touch screen is just a nice feature and nothing more."

"PERIOD!" - Sean "Spicy" Spicer

I agree on the fully articulating screen...should have one on EVERY camera. I miss my g12 dearly, and while I'd love an 80d, going back to a almost full size crop body....errr....not exactly what i wanted to do....ah well.

@tbcass+EdwardArtiste
I don't like tilting screens at all... I'm really hating it, it needs more space to get build, is prone to get broken and is sometimes really badly protected against dust or water. I think the Tiltscreen-idea is outdated since the current bodies have WLAN and a smartphone is *WAY* more practical in every angle. There are nice solutions to clip it to the flashsocket if you want it tilted. It's even larger.

On which points do you disagree? I can show you broken TiltScreens, only broken because the Tripod felt. And I don't like to use them, that's a personal taste... and therefor nothing to discuss about. Like and Dislikes are of course personal taste, but I'm really glad that the Pro-bodies don't include those selfie-tools since years.

If you want tilt/flip LCD screen, that makes the camera non weather sealing Im afraid. It traps the moisture and dust/sand into it.

It's gotten to the point that fixed LCD screens are rare and the vast majority of users want one. Even the Pentax K-1 II, a camera known for ruggedness and weather sealing, has one. As video has become more important movable LCD screens have as well. As for Canon and Nikon (who are the others?) they don't include them in their high end cameras because the older conservative users who make up most of the high end customers are leary of flip screens, not because they "know something". Your reasons for not liking them are more seated in emotion than facts.

naththo - Canon's new R5 has a fully articulating screen. Nikon's rugged D780 and D850 have a tilting screen, as does the Z7. Pentax's K1ii has an articulated screen. The Olympus EM1Mkiii has a fully articulating screen. The Panasonic S1 series all have articulating screens. All of these are high end cameras used by professionals and semi-pros.

Such designs are clearly slightly more fragile and prone to wear and tear than battle-tanks like the Nikon D6 or Canon 1Dxiii, but few people need that level of extreme ruggedness.

It's no more difficult to weather-seal a tilting/articulated screen than it is to weather-seal a battery door or a card door.

My cameras both have fixed screens, but I don't think Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus or Panasonic would fit them to their high-end models unless they were fully satisfied that they were adequately sealed.

vscd
I say your opinion is based on emotion because there is no logical reason to be against and avoid cameras with a movable screen. If it's there you simply don't have to use it, simple as that.

There were a lot of logical reasons written, you only decline to understand them. Dirt between screen and body, broken screens, thicker bodies... on which point are oyu not able to understand it? I won't explain it to you on a 3,5 years old thread. If you didn't get it until now you probably won't ever. Have a nice day.

Those aren't logical because they won't happen unless you are very careless. I've had cameras with movable screens (and fixed as well) over a period of 17 1/2 years and never had one fail

@tbcass
Those things don't happen to retired people like you, correct. To people working with their gear it can happen very easily in a crowdy scene or a reportage.

vscd
The fact that I'm retired is irrelevant. I was using cameras at work before I retired and I use my cameras more now and in more varied conditions than when I was working because I have more time on my hands. When I am using my cameras in difficult conditions I leave the LCD against the camera with the screen turned toward the body where it's safer and more protected than a fixed screen would be. Try again. ;-)

I use my dslr with smartphone via WLAN, try harder. Apart from the fact that I never had this use case. Inventing is nice, eh?

Yr right and i decided to get 90D in time, probably this year. FF and mirrorless are overrated well at least in my book! Photographing animals and am not going to stare at an evf screen when i am out there. NO WAY

Oh. I see. You're looking at the comparison tool on the conclusion page. To that, I have to imagine it is incorrect, or only applies to the camera in its own time. So in comparison, the 5D Mark 2, during it's time, was more superior to its peers than the 5D Mark 4 is to its peers.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II___1106_483

This may help.

All the cons don't really matter, by autofocus does. Yes it takes time to refine AF, but 4 attempts and still not good? Look at the Nikon D750 review and there is no issue with AF. Nikon have got it right, but Canon seems to lack the commitment to get AF right in the 5D series. Remember the Canon CEO said at a tradeshoow that there is nothing wrong with the original 5D autofocus, so no need to improve the 5DMKII autofocus.

My limited experience with the 5DMkiv is that the AF is quite good at tracking moving subjects across the frame, about as efficient as the 7DMkii in that respect.

However, all the reviews that I've read, are clear that the Nikon D500 and D5 are much better in as much as the Nikon tracking system is more intelligent. The Canons need a lot of experimentation, but the Nikons apparently get it right "straight out of the box", and don't need the iTR feature (or to be more accurate, it's built in, but not listed as a selectable feature).

@bobfonte
check out any youtube review of the camera. Any review boils down to the the same considerations: the camera delivers what professionals need, however it is offers a dull performance, just enough to catch up with the competition offerings. Considering the slow refresh cycles of this model, to me this is disappointing and Canon is heavily relaying on the quality/ruggedness of a body backed up by a comprehensive system and their market momentum to make a far too conservative products.
I really believe that Canon must have innovative products in their pipeline. To me this step is only justified by an imminent new product and Canon rightfully wants to leave a sufficiently large market gap in place. The 5DIV will be outdated in under one year, never mind the full 4 years of its typical life cycle.

The cost of new camera equipment has become eye-watering of late and there may be various factors influencing this. It could be Canon just "being expensive" or it could be something to do with currency strengths/weaknesses, the cost of raw materials, who knows? I'm not sure lower prices would necessarily be a good thing, but it can be hard to make a living in an industry where the tools for the job are going up in price while the perceived value of the photographer's output is still quite depressed.

There's no easy answer to any of this. I keep trucking, I've managed to keep my rates up better than most, but £3,500 for a camera would not make great business sense to me. Of course there are plenty of amateurs out there who will buy the MK IV and enjoy using it on their holidays. It's a funny old world some times.

I can't be sure about the Mark II, but the original EOS 5D, and both the Mark III and IV were all launched for $3400, which means they've actually got cheaper in real terms, as time has gone on.

Carrmack - A piece of information that you may not be aware of. Canon regularly sends out on-line feedback forms to its existing customers - I've had several of these during the last 3 or 4 years. The forms include questions such as:
Do you want complete redesigns, or iterative changes?
What is more important to you - more megapixels or greater dynamic range?
How important is video to you?
Do you want built in flash?
Do you want an articulated screen?
Do you want an AA filter?
etc, etc.
My response was to ask for improved dynamic range and reduced noise at high ISO. I stated that 30MP was sufficient as they already have 50MP models. I said I preferred a fixed touch screen. I said I preferred iterative changes rather than revolutionary changes.
I got almost exactly what I asked for, so presumably most other respondents asked Canon for exactly the same things.

Carmack - I find it sad that Canon is losing ground. I've owned or used almost all of them at some stage and found them very pleasurable to use, and to provide fine images.

I chose my 5DS over the 5DSR because I don't want to risk the unslightly moire effects that sometimes affect cameras fitted with AA filters. I shoot wildlife with fine details like fur, feathers and butterfly wing scales, all of which can be affected by moire. 5DS images sharpen up extremely well, without introducing moire.

A fully articulated (80D-style) screen would be very handy, but might increase fragility. My cameras get bashed regularly and have to be tough. I've seen my 5DS go crashing down onto boulders twice, once having fallen out of a rucksack that I forgot to zip up properly when working in a hurry, the other time when I tripped. It survived these ordeals with little more than a couple of scuff marks.

why would anybody read review comments after they bought the product ? It reminds me of the people in the UK who Googled " what is the EU " after they voted for Brexit.

Why not Pentax K-1?
The review compares EOS 5D Mark IV to Sony A7RII and Nikon D810. Did the author forget that Pentax made an extraordinary FF camera, thanks to its IBIS/SR, Pixel Shift, Isovariance and sensor hardware process?

George Zip - That is completely illogical. If you purchased the camera and thought it was awesome, why were you then swayed by someone else's opinion? Either it suited you or it didn't. Yes, Canon have fallen behind in the race for ever-better specifications, but as a picture-making machine, the 5DMkiv is extremely well designed. I have criticisms of it of course, e.g. I would greatly prefer twin SD slots, many users would like an articulated screen, but it is still nevertheless an excellent machine for stills photography.

You are right, EOS 5DMark IV is a nice camera but so expensive compared to Pentax K-1 for example...

Yes, the 6D struck a good balance between price and performance and I know several people who love it, but I had 2 of them and found them unreliable in very hot/humid conditions, so switched to the 5DMkiii and later to the 5DS.

I've owned, or in some instances hired and extensively field-tested D610, D810, a7Rii and all are excellent cameras. I use Canon in preference to Sony or Nikon for 3 main reasons. Firstly, I love Canon glass and have several L primes. Secondly, because I find Sony cameras fiddly to operate with hot sweaty hands or in cold conditions with gloves. Hopefully the next generation of Sony cameras will be better ergonomically. Thirdly, never-to-be-repeated shots can easily be missed during the adaptation period after switching brands, so I would only switch if the "opposition" offered really substantial advantages for my own genres of photography.

I was only kidding. I was being sarcastic. I love my 5D4. It is an awesome camera

armandino - I agree that the 5DMkiv is a very "safe" upgrade for owners of 5DMkiii or earlier. I'd certainly be very happy to exchange my 5DMkiii for the 5DMkiv and run the latter alongside my 5DS.

The problem is that innovative companies like Sony (and in the M43 world, Olympus) are offering features that open up new areas of photography, whereas Canon are not (with the exception of dual pixel AF). And even the less innovative but highly regarded Nikon, produce cameras that are a couple of years ahead of Canon in specification and performance (e.g. AF subject tracking), and equally reliable, for a lower price.

I dig that there is better value for money, and there is more innovation. Me personally, I favour reliability, stellar lens availability and ergonomics. This camera ticks those requirements. But one thing that makes this camera really really good is the AF system. It is truly outstanding. Also the metering is excellent. At the end of the day, I want to take good photos and this camera helps me do that. Innovation is great, but innovation for the sake of it is not always a good thing IMO.

armandino - I totally agree that Sony are setting a blazing pace. Personally I find the a7Rii still a bit "fiddly" and prefer Canon ergonomics.

As we have both pointed out in previous threads, the a99ii could be a game-changer (hate that expression), combining extremely good DSLR-style ergonomics with the best tech that Sony can offer.

The next generation of Sony will probably blow Canon and Nikon out of the water, but at this current moment, I can do everything that I want to do (and it's quite an extensive list) with the 5DS.

'Inside the cabinet' is - strictly speaking - how we should express that phrase but I think that sounds even weirder.

For my kind of photography and new interests, high ISO was my paramount concern. So hell no I did not look at other differences because in the first place they won't matter to me.

Then this camera is not for you. Except the better dynamic range and the flexibility of the files at any iso there is no difference at high iso.

Indeed. And how do I find out it's not for me? By reading reviews and comments, right?

I have the 6D, the 5DMKIVs iso is superior to the 6D. Try bringing up an underexposed raw image by say, 5 stops on each. If you like banded, green noisy darks then the 6D is for you. Not me, on my 5DMKIV shooting at 6,400 I still have very usable images.

I'll take your word for it since you've seen it on both cameras. However, my 6D does not produce the banding you described. Further, I seldom take a shot so underexposed with an intent to pump up.

My niche is Mountain Real Estate which often requires shooting interiors of dark cabins and layering in a 10 stop swing from the dark areas of a room to the outside views often with reflective lake thru the windows. While other brands that might have a better Dynamic Range, the MKIV is blazing fast and very accurate with it's new AF system. I'm comfortable with its touch screen menu and color reproduction My 6D was the interim camera from my MKII. The 6D had better focus and lower noise at higher iso, for me, it filled the gap waiting for the MKIV and held its own against the MKIII. I'm just exploring the new features of the MKIV and for my use it's already a no brainer. Depending on what your needs are it might not be the right camera for you or someone else. Now with that said, it's not a leap forward like the previous iterations like from the 5D to the 5D II but it's a well rounded camera that will be an excellent upgrade for many still shooters.

Only two things that can be done to substantially improve high ISO performance

Back illuminate/improve microlenses, will buy less than a stop maximum, and at significant expense.
2. replace bayer matrix with 3 sensors, or "foveon" sensor. Not sure how well it could work with back illumination. maybe one stop improvement.

reducing readout noise won't get you very far:

ISO100 full well ~= 80000e
18% grey ~=14000e
simple shadows (-3ev from 18% grey) ~=1800e
shot noise in shadow = sqrt(1200e) ~= 42e

iso25600 full well ~= 312e
18% grey ~=56e
simple shadows (-3ev from 18% grey) ~=7e
shot noise in shadow = sqrt(5e) ~= 2.7e

readout noise on my 6D at ISO 25600 ~= 1.6e

Less readout noise is nice, but we are shot noise limited @ISO25600.

Low ISO is a different matter, there the 5DIV wins by a country mile.

Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAN3ElBtMyU

I'm still debating whether I should upgrade to the 5D IV from 6D, but their performance is almost identical in high ISO, and in fact the 5D IV showed more color banding compared to the 6D as seen in the video. From the value perspective, its $1K vs 3.5K...

Noogy - Try checking the file flexibilty and you might be converted. 5DMkiv is still not quite up to the standard of D810 or a7Rii but is way better than previous Canons. You can pull a 4 stops underexposed 5DMkiv image without noise or banding - that's a 2 stop gain over the 6D.

Wow, I have a Nikon D3s and is right up there with my son's 5D Mk III and IV, BUT, I rarely use it. Try ISO (used to be ASA) 800, love it! Great 11 x 14 prints w/good color saturation.

Guess I will never be a "Camera Whore".

EXX - My guess is that the Canon would have the better AF system, but the Sony would score higher on image quality and other aspects of specification. Sony is the market leader in terms of innovation and performance, but as KingofSong states "Canon has the far superior lens line up". That, and the fact that it is generally accepted that Canon has far superior ergonomics, far better battery life, and proven reliabilty and durability, are the reasons why Canon remains the market leader, despite having fewer "features" and slightly lower specification.