Canon EOS5DMkIV

[basketballfreak6]

I've hardly used it at the moment. Been concentrating on setting the comms up as I'll be using it on a job next week where the images I take will go straight to a server in real time for the clients to view as I shoot. There's a bit of pressure right there...LOL.

I have noticed though that it has the same issues with recording to two cards simultaneously as the Mk III did. It's just not fast enough in the SD slot. I have no empirical data on it though. It may be marginally quicker, but at the price, UHS-II, or two CF slots would have been the go I think. Did you notice that Canon flipped the positioning of the USB and HDMI slots on the side of the camera? The little plastic fitting only allows the cables to fit in the correct slot. It means that the fittings are not interchangeable between the two models ie the 7D Mk II fitting won't fit the 5D Mk IV model. Gawd, it's like Sony all over again. You couldn't use the same battery in different cameras when I had a Sony, nor use the same charger.

I'll be giving it a bit of a shake-down tomorrow at the MX Race Day, so I'll know for sure how it performs for the use it is likely to get from me by then.

- - - Updated - - -

I meant to ask, have you tried the dual-pixel adjustment yet in DPP Ver 4? I had a quick look at it and couldn't figure out how to get it to work. I'll need to do some more reading. In the meantime, I'm getting 60MB RAW files with it switched on. That's only 600 images to a 32GB card, according to the camera's LCD display. The modest 7fps might be a good thing....lol.

so how did your shoot go? i haven't got around trying DP raw yet lol

[Warbler]

Yes, I gave it a test, albeit under bright natural light. These are just my observations.

The AF system seems to be an improvement on the MK III and the 7D Mk II. It is much faster to acquire focus. It still doesn't hold focus as well as I'd like, at least not on the settings I was using. I'll experiment with those a bit, but I'm focussed on the job I start on Thursday. I shot with DPR on with RAW to the CF card and large fine JPG to the SD card. Set the camera to fast burst. I also had the Highlight Priority on as I planned to use the JPEG images while I'm waiting for Adobe to get it's act together. This slowed the burst rate a bit and affected the buffer too. RAW files were up to 69mb each and JPEGs were between 7 and 10mb each. That choked the buffer.

I am impressed with the image quality and particularly with the JPEGs, given I can't see the RAW files yet. I might eventually go all JPG for some jobs.

Spend an hour screwing around with the Wi-Fi, but when I finally got it working how I wanted it, I flattened a battery downloading. You don't know if you don't try it out. I do work for some newspapers and they expect me to be able to send images from out in the stix where there is no power. Getting them straight onto my phone and sent is the way to go, so figuring out the speed and endurance of the wi-fi link is worth the effort. Don't let it time out though because it won't automatically reconnect.

The real test comes from Thursday. ISO6400, 1/400th, f2.8..... It should outperform the Mk III easily on noise. Once I've finished that job, I'll be able to give you better feedback on it.

[Warbler]

Here's something else that is a bit odd about the 5D Mk IV. Adobe hasn't yet included it in the RAW converter, but I've attached a screen grab of Bridge CS6 which shows that it will actually preview the RAW file. I'm guessing that it is not much different to all the other Canon RAW files, and this is just part of Adobe's marketing strategy that you can't open them in old version of Photoshop. They don't open, but they do preview as you can see for yourself. The JPEGs are edited and cropped.

[ameerat42]

An embedded jpeg of the CR2, maybe, rather than the raw file itself?

[basketballfreak6]

great stuff Warbler, it's such a good camera ain't it? and yea adobe are d!cks

[Warbler]

An embedded jpeg of the CR2, maybe, rather than the raw file itself?

Yes, but Bridge is set to create 100% previews on my setup. The thumb should also reflect any edits I've done which the JPEG does, so I think that might mean it can't be using the extracted thumb because it wouldn't reflect any changes I made. Photo Mechanic might have something to do with it, because it previewed the RAW files in full size when I was associating the RAW with the JPEG and renaming them. Notice that the RAW shows the date/time I renamed them rather than the date/time I took them as the JPEG does. Anyway, I just thought it was odd.

[arthurking83]

Yes, but Bridge is set to create 100% previews on my setup. The thumb should also reflect any edits I've done which the JPEG does, so I think that might mean it can't be using the extracted thumb because it wouldn't reflect any changes I made. ....

I'd reckon it's the embedded jpg too.
Nikon's software does this too with files it can't technically open.
Their older software can't open their newer raw files, but if set to view the quick file(ie in jpg mode) the older software will render the newer raw file no problems .. even at 100% view.
Raw files usually contain 3 or 4 embedded jpg files, and one of those is the full monty from pixel 1,1 all the way to the final pixel in the diagonally opposing corner.
Others are used for quick thumb generating and some of them are totally useless to the user and only used internally by the camera.

And if you make changes to the raw file, there is no guarantee that it will be reflected in the jpg files if you use a program that creates edits via external XML type data.

Because I don't use Adobe software I can't check the settings myself and can't be bothered installing it all again just for this purpose .. but the analogy in Nikon software again:
If I use VNX2(old unsupported software) and make an edit to a raw file, the edits are stored in the raw file .. CNX-D(current software) can see the edited file as it's edited.
But! .. CNX-D makes it edits via an external XML type file system .. I make the same edit in CNX-D, but of course no other software(other than the one's that Nikon have linked up!) can see that edit either.
Whereas, keeping the edit in the raw file(as VNX2 does it) .. all other software update the embedded jpg file to reflect the status of the raw file.

So if you make an edit to the raw file using DPP, does the image rendered in Bridge change to reflect the edit in DPP too?
if not, then it's not using the embedded jpg file(s) in any way.
if it does, the 99.9% certain that it's using at least one(maybe multiple) embedded jpg files.
That's really the only way to explain the situation with any certainty.
AFAIK: the current build of Photo Mechanic was released about 4 weeks prior to the MkIV's release .. to their fully fledged raw support for the MkIV files will be limited too.

And remember, just because you're previewing the raw file in full size .. doesn't mean that the file you are seeing isn't the embedded jpg!

[Warbler]

I am aware that each RAW file contains more than one embedded jpeg. The guy who wrote the Breezebrowser program wrote a very good explanation of it some years ago. Bridge may have a fall back written into it that simply searches the file for an embedded jpeg, but generally it generates its own file which it writes to the cache. Often you have to force it to refresh for it to update the appearance of this generated jpeg once you've made changes. The generated jpegs do display edits you do to the RAW file using ACR ie in its own generated jpeg, not the associated jpeg file which you may think I meant from what you said above. There is also a setting where Bridge applies an auto tone adjustment when it displays. You don't really want to have that set to on because your conversions won't look anything like what Bridge is displaying. Very confusing. I just found it odd that Bridge displayed anything other than a placeholder. Photo Mechanic displayed a full sized jpeg, but that program does display and extracted jpeg from the RAW file, always. It does this to render a preview in the quickest way possible as it is designed for photographers who work to a strict timetable like sports photographers who file images during a game, or where they have to tag images as they download them.

I'm sure the whole issue will be a non-issue in a matter of weeks when Adobe update CC.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't seem to find the exact article that Chris Breeze wrote, but google "Chris Breeze embedded jpeg files" and you'll find numerous references.

[Hamster]

Adobe have updated camera raw for the mk IV, I believe.

[Warbler]

Adobe have updated camera raw for the mk IV, I believe.

Indeed they have. Just downloaded CC.

- - - Updated - - -

Now I need to reinstall all of my filters like Noise Ninja. There'll be some noise in the sky that my edits have put there.

[arthurking83]

Also, for the Canon folks that know this:

I have an older version of DPP, and can't remember how to get it updated to the newer version
(remember I'm not a Canon user tho).

I downloaded one of the MkIV files from DPR, and (my old version) DPP displays only a small thumbnail sized preview of the MkIV file .. ie. in the thumbnail preview strip
So it's obviously set to display raw images only as raw files.

While this may make sense to some, it's not unreasonable to expect other options being available either.
Nikon's old ViewNX2 allows you to set the manner with which you want to display the raw file .. either as a (faster) jpg, or the full raw file(ie. slower and higher quality).
So while VNX2 can't display the raw file of say a D500 in raw mode, it can still display the image when set to jpg mode.
If VNX2 is set to display the raw file, it doesn't render the D500 images and only displays a message that the file type is unsupported.

[Warbler]

I have an older version of DPP, and can't remember how to get it updated to the newer version
(remember I'm not a Canon user tho).

If you have the camera, you have the software. It's on the disc you get with the camera. If you don't have the disc or a CD reader, then you go to Canon's website and download a copy, but you need a serial number from your camera to do so. I'm pretty sure it doesn't have to a serial number from that model either, but I'll stand corrected if it is. I used DPP to process the RAWs until I got CC2015. It does a good job and has some nice features like its HDR processing. It is also the program you'll need to use to avail of the PDR at the moment.

[arthurking83]

If you have the camera, you have the software. It's on the disc you get with the camera. If you don't have the disc or a CD reader, then you go to Canon's website and download a copy, but you need a serial number from your camera to do so. .....

Cant' remember where I got the serial number to get my copy of DPP going(it was a couple of years ago now, and my memory is pretty terrible with stuff like this).
But there's no option to just update, or go to a site to update or whatever

[Tannin]

Just in case it isn't clear from posts above, to install DPP (and all the other Canon software) without the CD, simply download the programs you want from Canon.

Install the first one. It will ask you for your camera serial number (this is written on the bottom of the camera). If you have multiple cameras, just use any one of them, it doesn't matter which one. Enter the number.

Now install as many other Canon programs as you want. Only the first one asks for a serial number.

To upgrade, just install the upgrade. Never any need for the serial number again unless you buy a new computer.

[Hamster]

PM me if you need a serial number @arthurking83

[boggo]

I picked up my mark iv yesterday. Was a hard choice as there have been a wide variety of opinions on the camera and if it is worth it or not. I also upgraded my 70-200 2.8 from version 1 to 2. After 20 shots today of the kids, all I can say is I am glad I upgraded. I do think the sharpness, noise, resolution etc is noticeably better than what i had before - too my eyes anyway. Have ordered some faster compact flash cards so I can record 4k... now that will be fun!

[Warbler]

Well, I've now put over 20,000 clicks on Mk IV, admittedly under not a wide variety of conditions, but I must say it is an improvement over both its predecessor and the 7D Mk II. I didn't get any colour pattern noise at high ISO that I got from the Mk III, and it is even better to focus in low light than the 7D Mk II is. I got many less throwaways than the 7D Mk II gets. Once I've finished satisfying customers by getting their images on-line, I'll post some here. Shot an event in a theatre with limited lighting - better than last time, but still not good. Shot manual, mostly at ISO 6400 to ISO8000, 1/640th to 1/800th, f2.8 to f4. Still underexposed by nearly a stop to nearly three stops, but got some nice images. Shot both RAW and JPEG, so I'll post some JPEG straight from the camera. Ended up having to buy two additional 64gb CF cards as I couldn't get more than 500 images to each 32gb CF card, usually less than 450. Average size of the RAW files was 64mb, even the pure black ones I occasionally got trying to photograph the LCD displays. Burst rate was a bit slow and buffer limited, but still better than the Mk III. The main thing is that it did the job that I bought it to do, and I'm happy with that. Twelve 14 hour days of 1 to 2 thousand images a day, gave it (and me) a real test.

[Warbler]

As promised:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...17#post1381917

[basketballfreak6]

sorry been away for a while, but experienced a weird issue with my 5D4 and had to send it away, gone for a whole month, basically with more shooting i noticed the outer af points consistently front focuses compared to centre point with all my L's (24-70II, 70-200II, 100L and 16-35f4L IS)

Canon ended up having to test every single AF point individually including the vertical, horizontal and cross arrays individually on all my lenses at different focal lengths to make adjustments

just got it back today did some quick tests and seems fixed now

shot from today. (well yesterday now lol), 9 image shot vertically at 16mm stitched, exposed for sky foreground pushed ~3 stops in post

Brisbane Skyline Pano by Tony, on Flickr

[Warbler]

Hmm... Not a problem I've noticed, but I'm rarely using the outside AF points anyway. I'll have to give it a try and see if mine has the same issue.