Canon 5D Mark IV Long Term Review from Dustin

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Hi everyone. I've been using the 5D Mark IV since the beginning of September and have completed my final verdict on it.

You can find my text review here: http://bit.ly/2fRMkVW
My final video review is here: http://bit.ly/2eSVXBc
My whole video playlist on the 5D Mark IV (Video features, Dynamic Range, High ISO, Resolution, etc...): http://bit.ly/2dt7M4k
Image Gallery (with 4K Screen Grabs): http://bit.ly/2cwFmEX

I think you'll find that once the initial drama settles down (and perhaps the price drops a bit), that people will pretty much love using the 5D Mark IV.

 

[Maximilian]

Hello, Dustin!

Thank you very much again for the quality and in depth of your reviews.
I always enjoy reading them.

yours,
Maximilian

 

[JonAustin]

I think you'll find that once the initial drama settles down (and perhaps the price drops a bit), that people will pretty much love using the 5D Mark IV.

No doubt it's an excellent body, and I look forward to reading the review. Dustin writes some of the most comprehensive and pragmatic reviews to be found.

All the initial drama is inevitable, I suppose. Every potential buyer (along with all the rest of us gearheads) compares any new product's specs & feature list against his own individual wants, desires, hopes and expectations. That almost always leads to disappointment on one or more fronts.

 

[Besisika]

Dustin,
Thanks for posting yet another great review. I have been reading yours and I greatly appreciate the good work; you simply tell about it after using it which makes your opinion worthwhile to me. I agree or not doesn't matter, but real life experience of an experienced photographer I do value. It makes me revisit my opinion again.
I can't wait a review of the Laowa 12mm, in particular, for video on your 5D4.

 

[Big_Ant_TV_Media]

Hi everyone. I've been using the 5D Mark IV since the beginning of September and have completed my final verdict on it.

You can find my text review here: http://bit.ly/2fRMkVW
My final video review is here: http://bit.ly/2eSVXBc
My whole video playlist on the 5D Mark IV (Video features, Dynamic Range, High ISO, Resolution, etc...): http://bit.ly/2dt7M4k
Image Gallery (with 4K Screen Grabs): http://bit.ly/2cwFmEX

I think you'll find that once the initial drama settles down (and perhaps the price drops a bit), that people will pretty much love using the 5D Mark IV.

watching it now

 

[YuengLinger]

Dustin, I'm curious about the "second Digic 6 processor" dedicated to the AF. Very interesting.

How did you learn about this? Can you provide anymore info?

Thanks for the Long Term Review! Far more informative than the many quickie reviews.

 

[Click]

Thank you for this excellent review.

 

[Mikehit]

Dustin, I'm curious about the "second Digic 6 processor" dedicated to the AF. Very interesting.

How did you learn about this? Can you provide anymore info?

This seems to be a point of contention. In the BH video, Rudi Winston says it is dedicated to image processing but it may be more about the meaning of the word 'dedicated'.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, I'm curious about the "second Digic 6 processor" dedicated to the AF. Very interesting.

How did you learn about this? Can you provide anymore info?

Thanks for the Long Term Review! Far more informative than the many quickie reviews.

I think Bryan Carnathan mentioned it in his review, which caused me to do further research. I share a pic from Canon that shows the Digic 6 and the 6+ processer (main one)

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, I'm curious about the "second Digic 6 processor" dedicated to the AF. Very interesting.

How did you learn about this? Can you provide anymore info?

This seems to be a point of contention. In the BH video, Rudi Winston says it is dedicated to image processing but it may be more about the meaning of the word 'dedicated'.

That may be true. I went and looked at Bryan's article and he said this, "The 5D IV's 150k-pixel full RGB plus IR-sensitive metering sensor features EOS iTR AF (Intelligent Tracking and Recognition), working in conjunction with the AF system (and a dedicated processor) to recognize faces and also detect colors and shapes for improved AF point auto selection and greater AF precision. "

It was the "dedicated processor" quote that got my own wheels turning.

 

[Sporgon]

I agree Dustin's reviews are well written and helpful but I must take issue with the comment "5DIV has 52% more resolution than the 6D". This just isn't the case. True it has 52% more pixels, but its output image size is only 25% larger than the 6D's based on the length of the picture, and in terms of resolution as a persentage increase it is around 12% more.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I agree Dustin's reviews are well written and helpful but I must take issue with the comment "5DIV has 52% more resolution than the 6D". This just isn't the case. True it has 52% more pixels, but its output image size is only 25% larger than the 6D's based on the length of the picture, and in terms of resolution as a persentage increase it is around 12% more.

To be honest I really struggled with the math on that one. I initially was going with 37%, then looked up the calculation for delivering the percentage increase. I'm still confused by it all. How can you have that many more pixels and have only a moderately larger image size? I'm guessing the answer is pixel density.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I agree Dustin's reviews are well written and helpful but I must take issue with the comment "5DIV has 52% more resolution than the 6D". This just isn't the case. True it has 52% more pixels, but its output image size is only 25% larger than the 6D's based on the length of the picture, and in terms of resolution as a persentage increase it is around 12% more.

To be honest I really struggled with the math on that one. I initially was going with 37%, then looked up the calculation for delivering the percentage increase. I'm still confused by it all. How can you have that many more pixels and have only a moderately larger image size? I'm guessing the answer is pixel density.

There are two ways to calculate resolution, linear and area.

The 5D MK IV sensor is 6720 x 4480 versus 5760 x 3840 for the 5D mk III.

Taking the long dimension, the linear resolution increase is (6720-5760)/5760 or 16.7% This is the standard way to measure image resolution, however, some also measure the increase in the number of pixels (30.4-22.3)/22.3 + 36.3% area.

However, all resolution measurements done by test sites use the linear dimension method.

I'd stick with 16.7%, but either answer is correct as long as you define the method used.

 

[meywd]

I agree Dustin's reviews are well written and helpful but I must take issue with the comment "5DIV has 52% more resolution than the 6D". This just isn't the case. True it has 52% more pixels, but its output image size is only 25% larger than the 6D's based on the length of the picture, and in terms of resolution as a persentage increase it is around 12% more.

To be honest I really struggled with the math on that one. I initially was going with 37%, then looked up the calculation for delivering the percentage increase. I'm still confused by it all. How can you have that many more pixels and have only a moderately larger image size? I'm guessing the answer is pixel density.

There are two ways to calculate resolution, linear and area.

The 5D MK IV sensor is 6720 x 4480 versus 5760 x 3840 for the 5D mk III.

Taking the long dimension, the linear resolution increase is (6720-5760)/5760 or 16.7% This is the standard way to measure image resolution, however, some also measure the increase in the number of pixels (30.4-22.3)/22.3 + 36.3% area.

However, all resolution measurements done by test sites use the linear dimension method.

I'd stick with 16.7%, but either answer is correct as long as you define the method used.

I think the area method is clearer, however still, what is the 12% that Sporgon calculated?

 

[Mikehit]

The key question is, what does 'a 16% increase in resolution' even mean?
In the practical world I would hope it means I can shoot from 16% further away and get the same resolution.

 

[Stu_bert]

I agree Dustin's reviews are well written and helpful but I must take issue with the comment "5DIV has 52% more resolution than the 6D". This just isn't the case. True it has 52% more pixels, but its output image size is only 25% larger than the 6D's based on the length of the picture, and in terms of resolution as a persentage increase it is around 12% more.

To be honest I really struggled with the math on that one. I initially was going with 37%, then looked up the calculation for delivering the percentage increase. I'm still confused by it all. How can you have that many more pixels and have only a moderately larger image size? I'm guessing the answer is pixel density.

There are two ways to calculate resolution, linear and area.

The 5D MK IV sensor is 6720 x 4480 versus 5760 x 3840 for the 5D mk III.

Taking the long dimension, the linear resolution increase is (6720-5760)/5760 or 16.7% This is the standard way to measure image resolution, however, some also measure the increase in the number of pixels (30.4-22.3)/22.3 + 36.3% area.

However, all resolution measurements done by test sites use the linear dimension method.

I'd stick with 16.7%, but either answer is correct as long as you define the method used.

I'm being really picky, sorry, but it is 36.1% not 36.3% if you use the resolution ((6720*4480)-(4480*3840))/(4480*3840)

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The key question is, what does 'a 16% increase in resolution' even mean?
In the practical world I would hope it means I can shoot from 16% further away and get the same resolution.

To me the biggest advantage is that you can crop an image 16% before you've even lost a pixel of resolution as compared to the 5D Mark III. It gives you more flexibility to crop for wildlife, portraits, etc...

 

[Maiaibing]

I agree Dustin's reviews are well written and helpful but I must take issue with the comment "5DIV has 52% more resolution than the 6D". This just isn't the case. True it has 52% more pixels, but its output image size is only 25% larger than the 6D's based on the length of the picture, and in terms of resolution as a persentage increase it is around 12% more.

To be honest I really struggled with the math on that one. I initially was going with 37%, then looked up the calculation for delivering the percentage increase. I'm still confused by it all. How can you have that many more pixels and have only a moderately larger image size? I'm guessing the answer is pixel density.

There are two ways to calculate resolution, linear and area.

The 5D MK IV sensor is 6720 x 4480 versus 5760 x 3840 for the 5D mk III.

Taking the long dimension, the linear resolution increase is (6720-5760)/5760 or 16.7% This is the standard way to measure image resolution, however, some also measure the increase in the number of pixels (30.4-22.3)/22.3 + 36.3% area.

However, all resolution measurements done by test sites use the linear dimension method.

I'd stick with 16.7%, but either answer is correct as long as you define the method used.

Agree. Gives the best impression of the difference.

 

[Sporgon]

From a practical point of view it seems to me that you have to factor in the Bayer array effect as well. If we ignore output size and don't misinterpret larger size for more resolution I've found that for a given sensor size you basically have to quadruple the pixel count to make a real noticeable difference in real resolution. So for instance the 5Ds resolves noticeably more detail than the 5D. The 5DII / 6D not so much.

 

[Sporgon]

The key question is, what does 'a 16% increase in resolution' even mean?
In the practical world I would hope it means I can shoot from 16% further away and get the same resolution.

To me the biggest advantage is that you can crop an image 16% before you've even lost a pixel of resolution as compared to the 5D Mark III. It gives you more flexibility to crop for wildlife, portraits, etc...

I agree that the ability to crop into a well executed higher mp frame is an advantage. It's just that I think I'm going to take some convincing that that isn't the only advantage.