Anyone using a Canon 5d Mark 4?

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

Wanting to move from a 7d mark 2 to a full frame sensor with better dynamic range and high ISO performance.  I'd love to stay with Canon,  if  the 5D4 will perform in these categories, as I'm familiar with and very fond of the system.  Would love to hear thoughts of current 5d4 users.

 

I have another thread going on this topic at:

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/10563-high-mp-sensors-lr-and-computing-speed/?tab=comments#comment-189176

Please join us there, rather than starting a somewhat duplicate thread here.

 

Thanks much,

Michael

 

 

[Martin Carlsson]

Been through all the 5D - MK I, MK II, MK III and is now a MK IV user. For me it is the perfect camera, absolutely brilliant - to me the original MK I and the current MK IV are the only two in the entire line that I really "fell in love with".

 

There are only two things I would change, they are by no means "big issues" - the 4K video crop and the 4K MJPEG encoding to something more efficient - the 500mbs bitrate is both a curse and a blessing. Apart from that - fantastic. Love to finally have wifi in it, had to use a CamRanger before.

[Webby]

Hi,

90% of my portfolio are taken with a 5D from Mk1 through to the Mk4 with the 24-105 f4 lens. My Mk 3 was used along side a 7D Mk 1, and I could tell which was which just looking on the monitor.  The 5D is so sharp and smooth. Mk4 took a bit of work before I was happy with it, just returned from 3 weeks in Cyprus with around 3500 shots to go through! They look pretty good at first scan. GPS is useful with travelling - street names come up in AIM. The wi-fi remote is excellent and easy to use. I don't do any video, so not bothered about any of that stuff. I love it....

 

Webby

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

On 10/25/2018 at 00:47, Martin Carlsson said:

Been through all the 5D - MK I, MK II, MK III and is now a MK IV user. For me it is the perfect camera, absolutely brilliant - to me the original MK I and the current MK IV are the only two in the entire line that I really "fell in love with".

 

There are only two things I would change, they are by no means "big issues" - the 4K video crop and the 4K MJPEG encoding to something more efficient - the 500mbs bitrate is both a curse and a blessing. Apart from that - fantastic. Love to finally have wifi in it, had to use a CamRanger before.

Hi Martin, thanks for the info.

My main desire in a new camera is the ability to pull up shadows--at least 3 stops.   Do you shoot much in low light, and are you happy with the results?   What would you consider the highest ISO setting for clean images?

 

Michael

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

5 hours ago, Webby said:

Hi,

90% of my portfolio are taken with a 5D from Mk1 through to the Mk4 with the 24-105 f4 lens. My Mk 3 was used along side a 7D Mk 1, and I could tell which was which just looking on the monitor.  The 5D is so sharp and smooth. Mk4 took a bit of work before I was happy with it, just returned from 3 weeks in Cyprus with around 3500 shots to go through! They look pretty good at first scan. GPS is useful with travelling - street names come up in AIM. The wi-fi remote is excellent and easy to use. I don't do any video, so not bothered about any of that stuff. I love it....

 

Webby

Thanks, Webby.  You know, I haven't thought much about GPS, which I have on my 7d2.  But since starting to shoot stock, I'm frequently having to take a pic of a street sign--to locate the shot(s) preceding it.   Will try out the GPS.

 

What "work" was needed to get you happy with the Mark 4?

 

thanks,

Michael

[Webby]

Just tweaking. Micro focus adjusting for the lens, turning off all the NR/lo light optimisation etc. I would say that I think you really need to use an L lens to get the best out of the sensor as well. Maybe its just me, but I found you need to keep on top of it as well. I use single, centre point focus point. In Av or Tv mode as required. Its pretty unforgiving if you then let the speed drop, you need to monitor whats happening in the eyepiece. The remote is great....took some shots of the painted ceiling in Madrid Cathedral. Just laid the camera on the floor, and checked the framing and shot with my iphone. 

 

Webby

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

2 minutes ago, Webby said:

Just tweaking. Micro focus adjusting for the lens, turning off all the NR/lo light optimisation etc. I would say that I think you really need to use an L lens to get the best out of the sensor as well. Maybe its just me, but I found you need to keep on top of it as well. I use single, centre point focus point. In Av or Tv mode as required. Its pretty unforgiving if you then let the speed drop, you need to monitor whats happening in the eyepiece. The remote is great....took some shots of the painted ceiling in Madrid Cathedral. Just laid the camera on the floor, and checked the framing and shot with my iphone. 

 

Webby

Are you using the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM?   If so, are you happy with it?

 

Thx

[Webby]

had the Mk1 for many, many years. Very happy with it. Great walkabout lens. Stays permanently on the Mk4. My Mk 3 has a 100-400f4 Mk1 permanently fitted.

 

[Graham]

I have had every iteration of the 5D, from the original to the Mark IV.  Each has (as one would expect) been an improvement on its predecessor.  I have no interest in video, only stills.

 

The things I like about the 5DIV are:

• resolution - 30MP or thereabouts is a pretty sweet spot compromise between file size and resolution.
• GPS - coupled with Lightroom, you can check exactly where you were when the photo was taken.  Even better would be if it also recorded your orientation - looking at distant mountains, it is not very helpful to know where you took the photo from if you do not know the direction the camera was pointing: maybe in the next version?  Not always very accurate: I spent half a day in a hide not moving more than 6 inches, yet GPS covered a radius of several hundred metres.
• Dust resistance: I am neurotic about sensor dust, and this is the best sensor I have had for resisting dust spots.
• High ISO performance: very good, but not up to the standards of my 1DX mark II.
• Dual pixel autofocus: very good, but again not quite up to the 1DX Mark II.

The things I like less are:

• not very fast frame rate.  Need the 1DX II for wildlife action.  Not an issue for everyday use.
• reliability.  I am on my third body (camera's, not my reincarnation!).  Once it failed while I was in India at the beginning of the trip - not great.  The current body has also had its entire guts replaced twice.  I must have been unlucky - none of the previous 3 iterations of the 5D had given me any problems at all.  Just coming up to the first anniversary of its last failure, so holding breath, crossing fingers etc.

As to lenses, my walkabout lens is generally the 24-105 f/4 L Mark I.  I am on my second copy, the first one having eventually failed, been repaired, then began to malfunction again.  Generally it is a pretty adequate lens, but a bit soft at the long end, and it is really shown up if I use the 16-35 f/4L as an alternative.

 

Someone asked about high ISO and shadow recovery.  It is definitely good for that.  I have (rarely!) even had images at around ISO 25,000 pass QC here, although they needed quite a lot of work on them first and I held my breath until the pass notification arrived!  With good technique, it is a very capable camera when it comes to lifting shadows.

 

Hope these comments help.

 

Graham

 

PS: the good ISO performance can induce complacence.  Last week I had my first QC failure in over 4 years.  It was for noise in shadow areas of a well lit subject, taken with the 5D IV at ISO 100!

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

23 minutes ago, Graham said:

I have had every iteration of the 5D, from the original to the Mark IV.  Each has (as one would expect) been an improvement on its predecessor.  I have no interest in video, only stills.

 

The things I like about the 5DIV are:

• resolution - 30MP or thereabouts is a pretty sweet spot compromise between file size and resolution.
• GPS - coupled with Lightroom, you can check exactly where you were when the photo was taken.  Even better would be if it also recorded your orientation - looking at distant mountains, it is not very helpful to know where you took the photo from if you do not know the direction the camera was pointing: maybe in the next version?  Not always very accurate: I spent half a day in a hide not moving more than 6 inches, yet GPS covered a radius of several hundred metres.
• Dust resistance: I am neurotic about sensor dust, and this is the best sensor I have had for resisting dust spots.
• High ISO performance: very good, but not up to the standards of my 1DX mark II.
• Dual pixel autofocus: very good, but again not quite up to the 1DX Mark II.

The things I like less are:

• not very fast frame rate.  Need the 1DX II for wildlife action.  Not an issue for everyday use.
• reliability.  I am on my third body (camera's, not my reincarnation!).  Once it failed while I was in India at the beginning of the trip - not great.  The current body has also had its entire guts replaced twice.  I must have been unlucky - none of the previous 3 iterations of the 5D had given me any problems at all.  Just coming up to the first anniversary of its last failure, so holding breath, crossing fingers etc.

As to lenses, my walkabout lens is generally the 24-105 f/4 L Mark I.  I am on my second copy, the first one having eventually failed, been repaired, then began to malfunction again.  Generally it is a pretty adequate lens, but a bit soft at the long end, and it is really shown up if I use the 16-35 f/4L as an alternative.

 

Someone asked about high ISO and shadow recovery.  It is definitely good for that.  I have (rarely!) even had images at around ISO 25,000 pass QC here, although they needed quite a lot of work on them first and I held my breath until the pass notification arrived!  With good technique, it is a very capable camera when it comes to lifting shadows.

 

Hope these comments help.

 

Graham

 

PS: the good ISO performance can induce complacence.  Last week I had my first QC failure in over 4 years.  It was for noise in shadow areas of a well lit subject, taken with the 5D IV at ISO 100!

Thanks, Graham.  Yes, this helps a lot.    High ISO is something that's important to me, as I want to be able to shoot where there's a lot of contrast.   I'll take note of your recent misfortune, though. 

The frame rate doesn't bother me, as I have a 7D2, with 10fps, and a 70-200 f.28 II L lens.  7fps would actually be a good compromise for me in many situations. 

Thanks for your comments on the 24-105 f4.  I do have reservations about that, as several reviewers I respect are not so enthusiastic about it, and state that the version 2 is not greatly differernt.  There's a Sigma version that has gotten much better reviews for sharpness, though it's not weather-sealed. 

I also think the 30MP is a good compromise.  I worry about losing handheld shots with 45-50 MP, and I do mostly handheld.   Ergonomics is very important to me, as I have fairly big mitts and long fingers, and find the canons to be a much easier hold for me than others. 

 

Thanks again for your help.

 

Michael

 

[Martin Carlsson]

17 hours ago, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

Hi Martin, thanks for the info.

My main desire in a new camera is the ability to pull up shadows--at least 3 stops.   Do you shoot much in low light, and are you happy with the results?   What would you consider the highest ISO setting for clean images?

 

Michael

 

Why do you need to pull up the shadows (regularly) "at least 3 stops"? Wouldn't it be easier to just do multiple exposures and blend i.e. a gentle HDR - can be done handheld with a bit of practise and IS lenses. I do shoot a fair bit in low light, but usually that is long exposures on a tripod and ISO 100.

 

So I haven't evaluated the high ISO performance like that, but you can find tests done here https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=1074

 

What I can say is that you can crank up the shadows a whole lot more than the Mark III and there isn't the same banding issue, also the noise is a lot more pleasing looking, organic, less "digital". I'm not the one that cranks up the ISO too high to begin with, not because of camera limitations, but by choice to get as much quality out of the image as possible. Really I strive for ISO 100 - 400, when getting past 800 I start feeling a bit nauseous

 

However, I just recently had a huge moose appearing just outside our living room one evening, it was very dark, but ran out and got a grab shot at 200mm 1/80s (IS) at f/4 ISO 32000 - did reduce it's size a bit, but looks fine and have gone through to libraries without a problem.

[imageplotter]

I'm shooting on the 5D Mk IV, and MkIII, the MkII also occasionally comes along when there's a risk of horrid weather conditions etc (I will never use a nice new cam in a sand, snow and ash storm on an Icelandic beach again, if you catch me doing it, please kick me in the backside). The MkIII still does a great job (notably better than the MkII), but iso performance on the MkIV is just lovely (getting closer to Nikon now) and I find myself upping the iso far more readily and often than I used to, often at the expense of on/off camera flash for more candid images in low light. Regularly at iso 2500-4000 for sports and events/news (on F2.8 lenses) and it's a lot more pleasant looking than on the MkIII. 

 

My walk-around lenses are the 24-70 f.2.8 ii and the 70-200 f.2.8 ii on one cam each, if both are in use, plus occasional 16-35 f.2.8, and an 85mm for portraiture (but mostly use that one indoors with studio lights). I also quite like  using the 100-400 Mk ii for outdoor use as it's lighter than the prime 400mm lenses and considerably cheaper, although too slow for proper sports. I still have a 24-105 F 4 as backup but hardly ever use it as I find the 24-70 F2.8  is sharper, with less fall of, fringing and nicer bokeh. If I had to give away all lenses but one, I'd keep the 24-70 F2.8, they'd have to wrangle that from me, and since my current one is quite knackered again already, I'm eagerly awaiting the rumoured mk III of that one.

 

There are probably lots of things that could be improved on the MkIV, but to be honest, after a few years on the 5D incarnations, the big advantage is that everything is intuitive when shooting, no trying to figure out where what is located, just a bit of updating on the changes between versions. I'm sure those who shoot on 1D cameras will say similar. I found the change from the first 7D I had to the 5D MkII more tricky, it's been smooth since then. I often dreamily look at whatever current version of the 1D is around, but can't quite justify the expense as my cameras get knocked around a lot in all weather travelling abroad and in London, plus photography rates, whether corporate, portraiture or news photography, aren't exactly going up.

 

I've grudgingly put two of the cameras in custom black silicone skins now, ugly but very effective protection and no negative effect on functionality.

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

5 hours ago, Martin Carlsson said:

 

Why do you need to pull up the shadows (regularly) "at least 3 stops"? Wouldn't it be easier to just do multiple exposures and blend i.e. a gentle HDR - can be done handheld with a bit of practise and IS lenses. I do shoot a fair bit in low light, but usually that is long exposures on a tripod and ISO 100.

 

So I haven't evaluated the high ISO performance like that, but you can find tests done here https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=1074

 

What I can say is that you can crank up the shadows a whole lot more than the Mark III and there isn't the same banding issue, also the noise is a lot more pleasing looking, organic, less "digital". I'm not the one that cranks up the ISO too high to begin with, not because of camera limitations, but by choice to get as much quality out of the image as possible. Really I strive for ISO 100 - 400, when getting past 800 I start feeling a bit nauseous

 

However, I just recently had a huge moose appearing just outside our living room one evening, it was very dark, but ran out and got a grab shot at 200mm 1/80s (IS) at f/4 ISO 32000 - did reduce it's size a bit, but looks fine and have gone through to libraries without a problem.

Hi Martin.  Thanks for the reply.

My first reason for wanting to be able to pull up the shadows "at least three stops" is because the competition's cameras (D850 and Sony a7r3) can do that, according to whom I consider reliable reviewers, and I want something approaching the best technology available.  But some of my interest in photography is taking what some call "street photography"--with scenes that are appropriate for stock.  And in evening hours, or in areas of really high contrast (bright, close to blown-out sky, with shadows under awnings, in doorways, etc., I believe it would be very useful.   With my 7dM2, I often will push the shadow slider all the way up (and at the same time sometimes push highlights down) . 

Mostly, I just want the camera to be as magical as possible in its capabilities!

 

Shooting handheld, fast moving scenes just doesn't allow (at least at my skill level) for blending shots. 

Glad you got your moose shot.  That makes me optimistic that I'll be happy with the camera.  With my current setup, a 7d2 and a Sigma 17-50 f2.8, even at 800 ISO, noise can be problematic.   Don't know if it's the camera or the lens.  In normal daylight conditions, it's wonderful, but not the ideal setup for high contrast or low light.

 

Thanks again for your helpful posts.

 

Michael

 

PS:  Here's a shot where I was successful in getting what I consider a good shot with moderate contrast, though I had to shoot at 1/20 sec, f3.2 to maintain ISO 100.  Luckily, I managed to avoid noticeable camera shake.  (Don't know how to insert the' larger' view from Alamy website, but can see it at MNMRFM.) 

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

4 hours ago, imageplotter said:

I'm shooting on the 5D Mk IV, and MkIII, the MkII also occasionally comes along when there's a risk of horrid weather conditions etc (I will never use a nice new cam in a sand, snow and ash storm on an Icelandic beach again, if you catch me doing it, please kick me in the backside). The MkIII still does a great job (notably better than the MkII), but iso performance on the MkIV is just lovely (getting closer to Nikon now) and I find myself upping the iso far more readily and often than I used to, often at the expense of on/off camera flash for more candid images in low light. Regularly at iso 2500-4000 for sports and events/news (on F2.8 lenses) and it's a lot more pleasant looking than on the MkIII. 

 

My walk-around lenses are the 24-70 f.2.8 ii and the 70-200 f.2.8 ii on one cam each, if both are in use, plus occasional 16-35 f.2.8, and an 85mm for portraiture (but mostly use that one indoors with studio lights). I also quite like  using the 100-400 Mk ii for outdoor use as it's lighter than the prime 400mm lenses and considerably cheaper, although too slow for proper sports. I still have a 24-105 F 4 as backup but hardly ever use it as I find the 24-70 F2.8  is sharper, with less fall of, fringing and nicer bokeh. If I had to give away all lenses but one, I'd keep the 24-70 F2.8, they'd have to wrangle that from me, and since my current one is quite knackered again already, I'm eagerly awaiting the rumoured mk III of that one.

 

There are probably lots of things that could be improved on the MkIV, but to be honest, after a few years on the 5D incarnations, the big advantage is that everything is intuitive when shooting, no trying to figure out where what is located, just a bit of updating on the changes between versions. I'm sure those who shoot on 1D cameras will say similar. I found the change from the first 7D I had to the 5D MkII more tricky, it's been smooth since then. I often dreamily look at whatever current version of the 1D is around, but can't quite justify the expense as my cameras get knocked around a lot in all weather travelling abroad and in London, plus photography rates, whether corporate, portraiture or news photography, aren't exactly going up.

 

I've grudgingly put two of the cameras in custom black silicone skins now, ugly but very effective protection and no negative effect on functionality.

Imageplotter ,thanks for the reply.  I commend you for carrying two cameras around--including the 70-200.  I have that lens, and its no lightweight.  And in the smaller cities I wander in, I'm afraid I'd look like a crazy old man--and certainly attract more attention than I currently do, at 6'2".  

I know the 24-70 f2.8 is much sharper than the 24-105, but with no IS, I worry about that negatively affecting my successful shot rate, as well as the loss of range.  Perhaps on the rumoured (and I hadn't heard) ver III, they'll manage to make IS work with it. 

 

I may try the Sigma, 24-105 f4--which is reputed to be much sharper than the canon, though it's not weather-sealed. 

So many choices, none perfect. 

 

Michael

[Martin Carlsson]

14 hours ago, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

Hi Martin.  Thanks for the reply.

My first reason for wanting to be able to pull up the shadows "at least three stops" is because the competition's cameras (D850 and Sony a7r3) can do that, according to whom I consider reliable reviewers, and I want something approaching the best technology available.  But some of my interest in photography is taking what some call "street photography"--with scenes that are appropriate for stock.  And in evening hours, or in areas of really high contrast (bright, close to blown-out sky, with shadows under awnings, in doorways, etc., I believe it would be very useful.   With my 7dM2, I often will push the shadow slider all the way up (and at the same time sometimes push highlights down) . 

Mostly, I just want the camera to be as magical as possible in its capabilities!

 

Shooting handheld, fast moving scenes just doesn't allow (at least at my skill level) for blending shots. 

Glad you got your moose shot.  That makes me optimistic that I'll be happy with the camera.  With my current setup, a 7d2 and a Sigma 17-50 f2.8, even at 800 ISO, noise can be problematic.   Don't know if it's the camera or the lens.  In normal daylight conditions, it's wonderful, but not the ideal setup for high contrast or low light.

 

Thanks again for your helpful posts.

 

Michael

 

PS:  Here's a shot where I was successful in getting what I consider a good shot with moderate contrast, though I had to shoot at 1/20 sec, f3.2 to maintain ISO 100.  Luckily, I managed to avoid noticeable camera shake.  (Don't know how to insert the' larger' view from Alamy website, but can see it at MNMRFM.) 

 

 

• For "normal" shots, let's say ISO 100-1600 pulling the shadows up 100 in LR is no problem. LR is so good now anyways and you can even "paint in" noise removal for extra tough spots if you know what I mean. Noise is just not a big issue anymore (for me).
• Had the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 for a while coupled with an 80D (back-up camera), not that you can use it with the Mark IV, but I'm sorry to say I didn't care for it much. AF was noisy (the micro adjustments "ka-ka-ka-ka" and a bit slow, sometimes a bit hit and miss. Had a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG for many years that worked flawlessly and it really is an underrated lens, regardless what tests/others say, but it finally got the boot in my "line-up" switcharoo - see below.
• Have been an f/2.8 or faster lens guy my entire career, often Sigmas, but after some "analysis" as to how I actually shoot at I've landed at the following lens line-up. I might add a fast wide-angle prime 14mm for astro/night, but not really missing anything at the moment.
  • Canon 16-35 f/4L IS - absolutely fantastic.Had the 16-35 f/2.8 II before - loved it, but corner sharpness was abysmal.
  • Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - also fantastic and has an actual useful macro mode as a bonus. If you are considering the kit lens (24-105mm) - don't, this one is miles ahead. That 24-105mm kit lens is not a "proper" L lens IMHO.
  • Canon 70-200 f/4L IS - legendary. Have had the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS, but rarely used f/2.8 and even less often happy with the results, so found myself rarely going below f/4, sometimes f/3.5
• All three of these are corner to corner sharp, fast and quiet (important for video), have beautiful contrast and have IS (stabilisation).
• The Mark IV has lots more settings when it comes to auto ISO which makes it a whole lot more useful, so depending if you are Mr Stable Hands or Mrs Shaky Hands (even with IS) you can tune it to YOU.

[imageplotter]

18 hours ago, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

Imageplotter ,thanks for the reply.  I commend you for carrying two cameras around--including the 70-200.  I have that lens, and its no lightweight.  And in the smaller cities I wander in, I'm afraid I'd look like a crazy old man--and certainly attract more attention than I currently do, at 6'2".  

I know the 24-70 f2.8 is much sharper than the 24-105, but with no IS, I worry about that negatively affecting my successful shot rate, as well as the loss of range.  Perhaps on the rumoured (and I hadn't heard) ver III, they'll manage to make IS work with it. 

 

I may try the Sigma, 24-105 f4--which is reputed to be much sharper than the canon, though it's not weather-sealed. 

So many choices, none perfect. 

 

Michael

Hi Michael,

I've never missed IS on that lens. At f 2.8 and with the much improved iso performance of the 5d mkIV, you can happily afford to up the shutter speed and avoid camera shake. I wouldn't want to compromise on the aperture in favour of IS with this one. If they add it on the MkIII, great, but it will probably come with a hefty add on price tag.

 

The two camera bodies are often needed for news photography, my back hates the weight, too, if moving to mirrorless was an option I'd do it in an instant, but it would mean investing in a complete new set of 4+ lenses, too (I see no point in using adaptors and still having the heavy lenses dangling, just from a slightly smaller body) and I don't have upwards of £15k sitting around to do that at the moment. (plus change of all the batteries, cards, etc)

 

PS. No shame in looking like a crazy old man, just take a look around any of the press pits in London. 

 

 

 

[MDM]

2 hours ago, imageplotter said:

Hi Michael,

I've never missed IS on that lens. At f 2.8 and with the much improved iso performance of the 5d mkIV, you can happily afford to up the shutter speed and avoid camera shake. I wouldn't want to compromise on the aperture in favour of IS with this one. If they add it on the MkIII, great, but it will probably come with a hefty add on price tag.

 

The two camera bodies are often needed for news photography, my back hates the weight, too, if moving to mirrorless was an option I'd do it in an instant, but it would mean investing in a complete new set of 4+ lenses, too (I see no point in using adaptors and still having the heavy lenses dangling, just from a slightly smaller body) and I don't have upwards of £15k sitting around to do that at the moment. (plus change of all the batteries, cards, etc)

 

PS. No shame in looking like a crazy old man, just take a look around any of the press pits in London. 

 

 

 

 

Nikon invader here but I have to say IS or VR in Nikon speak is pretty invaluable when shooting handheld in low light. I invested in the f2.8 VR 28-70 Nikkor a while back. It’s a monster but the image stabilisation is amazing and the extra stop is important for AF in very low light. It was surprising that Canon did not have IS on their new version. I use mine on a 45MP D850 at 1/30s no problem with static subjects - remember it is a monster and with VR I would be thinking 1/200s min. 

 

I agree with your sentiments about mirrorless. I won’t be going mirrorless either for the foreseeable future. The tiny saving in body weight is not a factor for me. 

 

 

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

I want to thank everyone who's contributing to this thread.  It's really helpful to me, and hopefully to others. 

 

I drove to a camera store in a nearby city yesterday, mostly to look at Nikons.  They didn't have a D850, but did have a D810 that was very interesting to me.

However, they also had a slightly used, quite pristine, Canon 5D Mark 4, and I bought it for $2250, US$--which seems to me to be a very good price.   Current market price in US for a new one is $3099 and a refurb from canon is $2700..  This one comes with a 2 month full warranty from the store (they would send it back to Canon and pay for any repairs during the two month period).

 

Also bought a Sigma 24-105 f4, with image stabilization.  This lens has been reviewed by a couple of youtubers I respect--Tony and Chelsea Northrup, and PhotoRec TV, and the consensus is that it is sharper than the comparable Canon, though with no weather sealing.  Cost me $899, so I came out for $3150 (+ 7% tax)--only $50 more than the new camera body alone. 

 

The advantages for me over a Nikon were 1)cost and, 2) familiarity.  I spent about an hour last night setting it up to match my 7D2, and I think I'm ready to go.   Initial test shots give me the impression that with the Sigma lens, it's easier to lower the SS---took a few handheld shots at 1/20 sec. and found they would pass QC at 2:1.

 

Other quick impressions are:  The Sigma lens is heavy, about 1/2 lb. heavier than the comparable Canon--but that's not really an issue for me.  It's quite solid, smooth operation, and AF is fast enough for me.  Has full-time manual focus, though the focus ring is pretty narrow, and initially not easy to find--just behind the zoom ring.  I don't usually do manual focusing-except sometimes on a tripod. 

 

Also, the 5DM2 shutter is noisier (at least this one is) than my 7d2, with a more metallic sound. 

It does seem to be eating batteries, though all of mine are old and in need of replacing.  I've bought some off-brand batteries in the past 4 years, and they haven't held up--not a surprise.

 

As are others, I'll be watching for a 3rd iteration of the canon 24-70 f2.8--hopefully with IS.   But if the Sigma performs the way I'm hoping, perhaps I won't feel the need for it.

 

Thanks,

Michael

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Martin Carlsson]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

Nikon invader here but I have to say IS or VR in Nikon speak is pretty invaluable when shooting handheld in low light. I invested in the f2.8 VR 28-70 Nikkor a while back. It’s a monster but the image stabilisation is amazing and the extra stop is important for AF in very low light. It was surprising that Canon did not have IS on their new version. I use mine on a 45MP D850 at 1/30s no problem with static subjects - remember it is a monster and with VR I would be thinking 1/200s min. 

 

I agree with your sentiments about mirrorless. I won’t be going mirrorless either for the foreseeable future. The tiny saving in body weight is not a factor for me. 

 

 

 

or if/when shooting handheld video - certainly worth the premium in my book.

[imageplotter]

On 28/10/2018 at 12:27, Martin Carlsson said:

 

or if/when shooting handheld video - certainly worth the premium in my book.

premium....well the f2.8 without IS s the more expensive one out of the lot, if that's what you mean. But it comes down to preference.

[Martin Carlsson]

13 hours ago, imageplotter said:

premium....well the f2.8 without IS s the more expensive one out of the lot, if that's what you mean. But it comes down to preference.

 

In most cases IS version are dearer than their non-IS counterparts i.e. 70-200 f/2.8L vs 70-200 f/2.8L IS, same with 70-200 f/4 vs 70-200 f/4L IS etc. In all those cases IS/VR is worth the premium

 

I understand that you'r an adamant f/2.8 user, so was I, but personally so little was actually shot at f/2.8 and IS is really useful, even more so if you're also doing video. So I did a complete lens line-up overhaul/clear-out about the same time that I got the MK IV - so now it is 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm all L, f/4 and IS - not missed anything YET and not regretted it YET

 

  

[Colin Woods]

Same here. I found I was leaving my 80-200 f2.8 behind often as it was so heavy. I sold my f2.8 zooms and got the f4 VR versions (24-120 and 70-200). Love them, almost 1kg each lighter and the 70-200 is really sharp. I bought the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 but I use it mostly for astro photos. One day I'll get the 20mm f1.8 for a walkabout wide angle. The only time I miss a large aperture is for taking portraits of the kids, and then I put on my nifty fifty. 

[KevinS]

Really like my 5D Mk1, but moved to the 6D for better IQ. Rather than go mirrorless to lose weight, I replaced my 70-200L & 300L with the recent 70-300 Nano consumer zoom. IQ is great and specs say 4 stops IS. 16-35 f/4L and 50 compact macro round out my small kit. If the consumer zoom wears out prematurely, replacement cost is minimal. 

[Rudix]

Firstly the 5D mk4 is a great camera, and the sensor is one of the best if not the best that we have seen from Canon. I have used, and still own, all the 5 series bodies from the original to the mk4 and the 5Ds R, they have never failed me even in real harsh conditions.

 

If you are used to a 7D2 the image quality of the 5D4 will be a real revelation to you!

 

As far as lenses goes, I shot with a 24-105 mk 1 for many years, it was only when I started shooting with higher MP bodies that I started finding it lacking. I have tried the 27-70L mk2 and it is great but I have found a lens that is sharper and out resolves it on my 5DsR and Sony A7R3 bodies and that is the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 with stabilizer! That lens now lives permanently on the Ds R and I just procured a mk2 for the Sony A7R3 (using a metabones V adapter, feels like a native lens, fast and sharp)

 

 

[MDM]

On 05/11/2018 at 15:15, Rudix said:

 

 but I have found a lens that is sharper and out resolves it on my 5DsR and Sony A7R3 bodies and that is the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 with stabilizer! That lens now lives permanently on the Ds R and I just procured a mk2 for the Sony A7R3 (using a metabones V adapter, feels like a native lens, fast and sharp)

 

 

 

I wonder about the quality control on these Tamron zoom lenses. I had one the same as you mention (mark 1 with stabilisation) on my D800-D810 (36MP Nikon) and it was super sharp in the centre but had quite serious fall off in sharpness towards the edges. It was better on the 24MP D750 but even then imperfect in terms of edge sharpness. I used to have to downsize significantly if edge sharpness was important.

 

However, the DxO review and other magazine reviews gave it a really high rating for sharpness across the field which was why I bought it in the first place and it makes me wonder about consistency between different copies of the lens. Maybe you got a good one. In any case, I couldn't rely on it and went for the equivalent Nikkor with VR at more than twice the price. I know Tamron brought out a new version but I had already got the Nikkor which is astoundingly sharp across most of the field even on the 45MP D850 (distortion control at the edges at the wide end could be better but otherwise amazing). I have always been a fan of Tamron and have the 90mm macro which is a real beaut but I was disappointed in the 24-70.