Canon 5D Mark 4; still get?

[kevs]

I was on the 1 for few years, and on 2 for many years. Waiting for the 5. Look like 5 alas, will not get made. Not huge fan of Mirrorless, I like the feel as ease of DLSR. So may dive into, and get Mark 4 and shoot with that for years to come ( Portraits, fashion, Fine art..).  Any reason not to?  Anything I else should consider instead, before buying the 4? Thanks.  (Truthfully I'm not even displeased with he Mark 2, but think 4 might be better just for faster focus..)

[Rhossydd]

I was on the 1 for few years, and on 2 for many years.// but think 4 might be better just for faster focus..)

There's a lot of improvements in the 4 over the 2 in addition to the more sophisticated AF system.
I've found the following good reasons to be happy with the upgrade:
Built in GPS for geotagging
Quieter shooting (if you want it) or faster burst rates (great for hand held HDR).
More pixels of course.
Lower noise and better DR
Touch screen menu
SD cards are nicer to use than CFs, cheaper too.
Plus loads of other little tweaks and improvements compared to the 2.

The whole camera feels different, softer touch controls that initially felt rubbery, but once you've used it for a while going back to the 2 feels really 'clicky' and not so nice.

The only downside for me is the rather poor 4k video features, DCI not UHD and too much frame cropping. Frustratingly there was a strong rumour that this (and other improvements) would be changed in a firmware upgrade, but it's never happened :-(

Sadly I think you're correct in assuming that there'll never be a mk5, maybe the mk4 will be the pinnacle of true DSLRs.

[kevs]

Rhos ok thanks. Leaning now to 5DS, so staying with Slr..

[Chris_Brown]

Rhos ok thanks. Leaning now to 5DS, so staying with Slr..

I suggest renting a couple bodies and see how things suss out for you.

[Rhossydd]

Leaning now to 5DS, so staying with Slr.

A few more pixels, a little more noise.
Loosing GPS, WiFi* and having to wade through pages about AF settings ;-)

*Something I've used more than I expected.

Both fine cameras at the peak of DSLR development. Just a choice of spec really.

[Bob_B]

After more than a decade using my trusty 7D, and doing a lot of research and soul-searching about my needs, I bought a used 5D MkIV three months ago. It is one of the best photography purchases I have made. Absolutely no regrets. I love the camera. Of course, it does pale in comparison to the best mirrorless cameras, but I was able to use all my lenses and equipment, including batteries and chargers, saving me a pile of money. Just my experience. Good luck.

[Rhossydd]

Of course, it does pale in comparison to the best mirrorless cameras,

Not really. Cameras have evolved to a level that means newer models don't offer very significant better results for most users.

[kevs]

"it does pale "
I agree with Rhoss, what pale with?

I think Mirrorless hype is bit of BS...   but open to hearing....   really most stuff just would not use.. flip screen etc...

[Rhossydd]

I think Mirrorless hype is bit of BS...   but open to hearing...

There are some photographers that have found mirrorless transforming. I work alongside set photographers and having completely silent cameras has made working in theatre, film & TV studios so much easier for them.

Plus there's still the relentless pixel & DR chase going on for the few that need it.

[Chris_Brown]

"it does pale "
I agree with Rhoss, what pale with?

I think Mirrorless hype is bit of BS...   but open to hearing....   really most stuff just would not use.. flip screen etc...

Focus stacking can be done with the Canon R5 & R6. If you’re into that sort of look.

I migrated from the 1DsIII to the 5D4 and at first I hated the small batteries. I much prefer an integrated vertical grip and the larger battery. I still do for commercial work, but use my 5D4 without the grip when backpacking/street shooting.

The raw images off the sensor have a comparable look to the 1Ds series, with better dynamic range. It’s still a Canon-sensor look. Not as crispy as a Sony sensor. I feel the Canon files are more malleable, but I’ve not worked with Sony raw images for 20 years, only Canon.

The 5D4 feels more sprite than my previous 1DsIII bodies. The button layout takes getting used to.

The file size is nice and makes for splendid prints that, when matted & framed, aren’t excessively large.

[digitaldog]

There are some photographers that have found mirrorless transforming.

For me, the jury is still out as my only 'complaint' is the viewfinder (being a video). After 40+ years of 'seeing' what's actually out there in a viewfinder, this change in what I view through the camera is something I'm still grappling with.

[kevs]

Dog, can you expand on what saying about viewfinder? Confusing. Saying Mirrorless is harder in that respect?

(I have not bought a Mirrorless yet)... but my guess is I'd agree with you, but don't understand that post.. (and video?)

[digitaldog]

Dog, can you expand on what saying about viewfinder? Confusing. Saying Mirrorless is harder in that respect?

With a film or DSLR, what you see thorugh the viewfinder looks like what you see with your own eyes. With my mirrorless, I'm viewing a video screen. I can't yet get used to that. There are said to be advantages to this however; you're kind of viewing what's coming off the sensor, ceratinly if you shot JPEG (which I don't), it should be WYSIWYG. For raw shooting, not so much but there may be other systems that can alter the video much like one can do with exposure compensation.
Anyway, the two technologies look a lot different in the viewfinder, I'm hoping to get used to this new method.

[kevs]

Dog I hear you, I'm used to DLSR and SLR, but isn't there a  viewfinder at top you can look through that is like SLR?

Again, never owned Mirrorless, but is that not the case?

I actually shoot lot of jpeg for people: Fast, and they don't need Raw....  and to me it's WYSIWYG get on Canon full frame... then look at preview.

I just bought today the 1ds4,  50 megapixel... great for fine art.  Yes shoot also Large jpegs for consumer shoot, ie actors/ modesl etc.  .I could shoot with these for decades and not care about Mirrorless.  I don't care about video. ANd for comfort, some have said DLSR feel better, ie the lense are more proportionate.

Only thing I've heard is distinctly better is the eye focus feature for shooting people.  Never tried it, but curious... But need Mirrorless? No.

[degrub]

The viewfinder for mirrorless is another LCD screen like the back panel LCD screen on many cameras. Until recently, most were  low resolution and have had contrast issues and in most cases refresh issues ( try shooting a rapid sequence and see when it goes dark - fun for tracking subjects) .

Traditional viewfinders have been  direct optical using the mirror and prism. No black outs and full resolution. WYSIWYG.

[kevs]

Degrub, BH guys saying Mirrorless you have option of traditional viewfinder
You cannot look through square viewfinder like do SLR? right below hotshoe?

https://imgur.com/a/XF5YR5V



If not, I agree, if forced to look for full shoot at side LCD rectangle that swings out to the left;  then would be lot getting used too...

[degrub]

it just takes that lcd and squishes it into the smaller format through the spot of the traditional viewfinder.
It is another lcd, just smaller.
Do you have a camera shop or club nearby you could visit and try an example on ?

[kevs]

Thanks D, I can go so camera shops but you really gotta live with these...

So saying that with Mirrorless, when look through the viewfinder  (on a Mirrorless) below the hot shoe, we've all done for years on SLR, you are not getting the quality of vision you would get if that same camera was indeed an SLR, it's just a simulation/ approximation?   

If that is so I'd have to agree with Dog, man, tough to adjust to looking at side panel for a couple of hours... if I understand...

Are there people who use mirrorless who do multi hour shoots and use the top viewfinder ?

[digitaldog]

If that is so I'd have to agree with Dog, man, tough to adjust to looking at side panel for a couple of hours... if I understand...

That's not my complaint. My camera also has a so-called "side panel" but I'm referring to a viewfinder that looks just like a DSLR. But it's a tiny LCD that I'm viewing, not the same as what I'd see if I looked through a DSLR or SLR if both were set up side by side with the same lens.
One analogy could be someone who's only viewed prints all their life, then someone shows them the same image on a display. They don't appear the same.
Also, at least with my camera, as I move the camera, the viewfinder LCD updates and often changes color/brightness which wouldn't be the same degree of change on an SLR. It's not a deal-breaker, it's something I'm not used to even though I've used this Sony mirrorless for about 3-4 years. And apparently, this technology is improving. But I doubt it will ever mimic the same preview I'm used to from a traditional SLR viewfinder.
So, when considering upgrading my camera, I'm still not sure if I'll go Sony A7C (or really go hog wild with a A7 IV) or go back to Canon or similar that isn't a mirrorless. But I'm probably going to go with a newer Sony.

[kevs]

Thanks Dog, I did not know that.  But do most photographer look through that viewfinder while shooting or do they usually look at that larger flip out panel.. I can't imagine looking through flip out panel, but who knows..

I've owned one Sony for travel , not a fan of controls and dials, not friendly like Canon.  I vote for Canon (or Nikon). Those were camera companies for years, I think they have it down better.

The mirrorless Canons I assume  the viewfinder, though , not better than Sony? (who knows)

I decided to stay DLSR... and  and maybe will for for long long time.  I think those final products they made could last quite long while...