Canon EOS 5D Mark IV to Feature CFast & SD Card Slots [CR2]

[K]

Canon almost had no choice.

If they put CF in the 5D4, they would be using an old technology that is maxed out on speed which would be expected to compete with other cameras for the next 4 years. That's not going to work.

They have the option of either:

XQD
CFast
SD UHS-II


Any combination of the above. They don't want to use Sony's card, so that's out. That leaves very little choice.

Dual CFast, which would annoy many as they'd be forced to use these expensive cards. Not even the 1DX2 uses two of them. So that's out.

Dual SD UHS-II. This I would have preferred. Smaller cards. Just as reliable as CF if not more. Lower costs. Plenty fast for whatever this camera is going to put out. Backward compatible with older SD formats.

CFast + SD UHS-II which is what this rumor is about and the most likely combo. Canon feels it will have to provide at least one super high speed card. But I think it is more industry reaction. There's too many out there that attribute the physical size and characteristics of CF and CFast to reliability and robustness. Sure, I'll agree the C cards are tougher than SD which is smaller and flimsier. But c'mon already - who subjects their cards to physical abuse? Who has snapped an SD card? If you break an SD card due to physical abuse, you're probably not using any electronic device successfully. Bizarre concerns here.

The key here is that C cards are associated with "professional" quality/speed in the minds of pros and semi-pros and even some enthusiasts, so Canon is reacting to this in their semi-pro camera. They aren't basing this on technological fact but rather market perception in my opinion. Nikon doesn't mind using dual SD in the D750 which while might not be labeled pro or semi-pro, is in quality and features, at least a semi-pro to pro camera.


The C cards take up so much space in a camera body - I'd like to see one day a DSLR go to an SSD with an SD card as a backup/removable. 512gb or larger SSD. Either internal, or again, because the C slot take up so much space, a servicesabe one could be incorporated. It wouldn't be a card to be regularly removed, but removable for service if need be. (not soldered onto the mainboard).


Some hate this idea as they would have to then tether the camera via USB or whatever interface to dump the photos or video. I don't see why this is a problem. With CFast and UHS-II you need a new card reader(s) to take advantage of any of the speed. And these card readers all interface via USB-3 anyway. So you're stuck with extra cables anyhow as well as extra cost. Don't count on any laptop or PC having a CFast port on it anytime ever.

A camera with a USB-C port would be great. Smaller and more universal than USB-3. Or, a Thunderbolt port, which is compatible and the same as the modern DisplayPort. This is even faster, and can also carry video at data rates much faster than the lame HDMI standard. HDMI is finicky and unreliable - and can barely put out the top 4K qualities. DP easily does it. The physical port is smaller too and more robust.

I'd rather have a simple cable to connect my camera to PC, than have to buy another card reader. The transfer speed will be faster than having to involve a middleman card reader interface.


People will say built in SSD would be expensive. Compared to what? CFast is pricy. As is XQD. These are essentially mid-level SSD's in a easily removable form factor. Costs more to make them quick swappable. Card costs, card reader cost, then interface costs for manufacture. This cannot be cheaper than SSD.

One downside, and I see this as a very minimal downside are some event shooters that say they need to upload photos quick while continuing the shoot. Handing over cards to an associate who is publishing on site. This sounds like less of a card problem, and more of a need for a wireless transfer solution. Canon has an wireless transfer module that does just that.

 

[crazyrunner33]

Wahoo, I get to be the first to complain! Only sort of. I don't mind the CFast + SD. What I'm worried about is Canon using CFast as an excuse not to provide a reasonable bitrate for 4k. Storyboarded work won't suffer, but event (Weddings, conferences, live-talks, etc,) & documentary filmmakers don't want to have to be swapping cards all day long because we can only get 15 min. of footage on a 64gb card, as is the case with the 1dx MkII. And we certainly don't want to come home after a long day with a TERABYTE of footage. If Canon can't do this then it really isn't accessible 4k, and all those people will continue shooting 4k to the SD card slots in the GH4, A7r/s, A6300, etc.

There's a reason that Canon is sticking to high bit rates for 4k, reliability. Bringing up the Sony cameras is the perfect example, those cameras have heat and reliability issues when shooting 4K for extended periods of time. While large amounts of data may be storage intensive, it's much easier to process and produces less heat as a result.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

move to Cfast cards is a mixed "blessing". Canon need to up the right speed on the 1Dx, not sure if needed on the 5D M4, but this will create a uniform standard.

In a couple of years (perhaps less) I will wonder how to sell my old CF cards.

Keep them! They will be valuable antiques that will be in demand when those old cameras are still going strong, but the billion or so CF cards have all died or been tossed.

Actually, they can be included with your older cameras if / when you sell them. They may not bring much by themselves, but help sell a camera. CF cards are difficult to find in a local store, so offering them on Craigslist might connect you with a person who needs some quickly rather than ordering them online.

I keep a supply of my old cards just to check out any used or antique cameras that I might get when I buy used equipment.

I have stuff going back to the old pcmia hard drives, CF Type I and II smart media, xD, memory sticks, lots of SD cards, but no mmc cards that I can recall. The lower capacity cards are sometimes required for old equipment that will not read the high capacity cards. Even some older Canon Point and shoot cameras are limited to 2GB CF cards if I remember right.

 

[Don Haines]

move to Cfast cards is a mixed "blessing". Canon need to up the right speed on the 1Dx, not sure if needed on the 5D M4, but this will create a uniform standard.

In a couple of years (perhaps less) I will wonder how to sell my old CF cards.

Keep them! They will be valuable antiques that will be in demand when those old cameras are still going strong, but the billion or so CF cards have all died or been tossed.

Actually, they can be included with your older cameras if / when you sell them. They may not bring much by themselves, but help sell a camera. CF cards are difficult to find in a local store, so offering them on Craigslist might connect you with a person who needs some quickly rather than ordering them online.

I keep a supply of my old cards just to check out any used or antique cameras that I might get when I buy used equipment.

I have stuff going back to the old pcmia hard drives, CF Type I and II smart media, xD, memory sticks, lots of SD cards, but no mmc cards that I can recall. The lower capacity cards are sometimes required for old equipment that will not read the high capacity cards. Even some older Canon Point and shoot cameras are limited to 2GB CF cards if I remember right.

Fortunately, I still have my 4Mbyte and 16Mbyte cards

 

[Mr. Milo]

Wahoo, I get to be the first to complain! Only sort of. I don't mind the CFast + SD. What I'm worried about is Canon using CFast as an excuse not to provide a reasonable bitrate for 4k. Storyboarded work won't suffer, but event (Weddings, conferences, live-talks, etc,) & documentary filmmakers don't want to have to be swapping cards all day long because we can only get 15 min. of footage on a 64gb card, as is the case with the 1dx MkII. And we certainly don't want to come home after a long day with a TERABYTE of footage.

Then get a video camera with CODEC's better suited to your needs.

I have to agree. Strangely you'd think it would be the cinema camera that would offer the highest bitrate. But aside from CLog it's really not a cinema camera, more like a modern Canon XL1. A pro video camera some people use for cinema stuff. It has the lower bitrates and the long record time/battery time making it great for events. It shoots HD rather than 2K even though it's called a cinema camera. Whereas the higher bitrate and higher resolution of the 1D X mkII seems more cinema-like even though it lacks CLog and the ergonomics desire for cinema use. Things are all over the place.

No, you don't have to get a video camera with CODECs better suited to your needs. Those camera are more than $5000 US and beyond. Way too expensive and filmmakers are cheap.

I'd say you have to work with what you have. I definitely wouldn't film documentaries in 4K. I don't see a need for it. 1080p is fine. Film festivals and TV broadcast do not care. 4K does not make your film project any better. As long as your sound, lighting, and camera work are good then your piece should be fine.

The most important is your story and editing. That is where it truly matters. 4K resolution doesn't even enter my mind. I film docs and conferences. The people watching my stuff do not even have 4K monitors and will not get any within the next 3 years.

 

[Proscribo]

Shaping up to be a nice upgrade:

24mp sensor;

Nope Nope Nope Nope ... 30+

Get a 5Ds or its successor.

 

[slclick]

I am very happy my Mark 3 is more camera than I want or need. The thought of purchasing new cards on top of the body would be a tough selling point for me as I have owned mine since it's launch and have not once used the video function. Hell, I'd be happy with CSlow cards.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

On a side note, it would be a terrible waste of processing power and not have at least 10 fps.

 

[j-nord]

Shaping up to be a nice upgrade:

24mp sensor;

Nope Nope Nope Nope ... 30+

Get a 5Ds or its successor.

it seems most likely to be under 30 mpix. My bet is 24 or 28. Most recent rumors have been 24. Theres going to be a new line of FF bodies so that'll probably be the m-pix monster many people want (replacement for the 5Ds/r).

 

[j-nord]

On a side note, it would be a terrible waste of processing power and not have at least 10 fps.

7-8 fps seems more probable. Seems like more people interested in a quieter shutter than 10 fps on this 'all rounder' body.

 

[RGF]

I don't want a junior 1Dx. If I want a high FPS FF camera, that this is the 1Dx.

To me, the 5D is a general walk around camera. compromised in many areas but great workhorse

30ish MP
6-8 FPS (possibly higher if MP is lower)
Good low light performance but not up to the 1Dx M2.

I would like to see Canon offer 3 versions of the 5D

5DS - high MP
5DL - low MP, high ISO version (L stands for Low Light)
5D(m4) - med MP, compromised in many aspects but a great walk around camera.

6D would be scaled down version of the 5D (M4) for those who can live with less and will pay less.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Storyboarded work won't suffer, but event (Weddings, conferences, live-talks, etc,) & documentary filmmakers don't want to have to be swapping cards all day long because we can only get 15 min. of footage on a 64gb card, as is the case with the 1dx MkII. And we certainly don't want to come home after a long day with a TERABYTE of footage.

Not so for me and many others. After years of crappy h264 I would take a higher bitrate codec any day. I hate h264 so much I regularly shoot Magic Lantern RAW on the 5D3 for weddings, which results in 700-1000GB per job before transcode. As long as the codec looks good I don't care how big it is, and Cfast and SD media are cheaper than the 1066x CF cards I use currently.

It's not the h264 that ruins the 5D3 video quality, it's either the DIGIC or the settings they use since if you use clean HDMI out to a Ninja the quality still looks every bit as crappy (well, fast pans where the entire frame changes every single frame are better, but that is about it). Using ML RAW which skips all the internal processing shows the basic HW is actually producing pretty fantastic, true 1080P as opposed to sub-1080P, mushy, waxy yuck.

So the real concern is whether Canon doesn't ruin the quality through processing (either by using cheap consumer settings somehow thinking people prefer wax and mush, by purposely messing the settings up to protect higher end gear or by creating a processor that is only capable of very mediocre results in DIGIC perhaps) and less the codec.

EVen the 1DC I feel looks a touch weird in some ways compared to natural detail of A7R II.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Then get a video camera with CODEC's better suited to your needs.

That's the point. I will. But Canon & the 5d line are obviously catering to the needs of those who do video. I pointed out a potential shortcoming if they're trying to be successful in the video dslr market. Do you understand?

Of course I understand, Canon pay many many people in lots of markets to do market research. These are not arbitrary decisions made by some guy with the intention of winding us up, they are carefully considered decisions taken at the highest level with the intention of making the Canon Corp stronger.

naive to the extreme

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Shaping up to be a nice upgrade:

24mp sensor;

Nope Nope Nope Nope ... 30+

Get a 5Ds or its successor.

Nope nope nope nope
ultra poor buffer
poor fps (even in crop modes since the crop modes don't make sense and only crop jpg!?!)
poor dynamic range
poor video quality
no magic lantern

other than for more MP and a slightly better overall sensor it's worse than a 5D3 pretty much, better to add an A7R II to a 5D3 then replace a 5D3 with a 5Ds.

5Ds does the stuff a 5D3 does better than the A7R II worse than the 5D3 and for the other stuff it does it all worse than the A7R II other than for max reach/detail

 

[Don Haines]

You shouldn't hold the camera technology back just because some people want to use their old memory cards. Imagine where we'd be if all digital cameras today still had to use the same memory cards that came out when digital cameras first started taking off.

+1

There is a name for those cards. Compact Flash

 

[infared]

I would like to see better blacks and less noise in them along with more dynamic range....after that, I don't care.
I definitely would wait a year or so until the price comes down...I will not be an early adopter....I have to say..I am very happy with my 5DIII. Its a great camera.
The MP count can stay the same or go a little higher. I don't really care. I do not want to or need to process monster files... I have made 5ft prints from my 5DIII and they look fantastic.

 

[AvTvM]

5D IV to feature new card slots and a brandnew mirror slapping madly inside.
OH WOW! How innovative, Canon! Where can I pre-order?

 

[gsealy]

Once we found out that the 5DIV would support 4K, then CFast had to be part of the picture. Very likely Canon will use the same architecture as in the 1DxII. The 1DxII supports 4K, but it is lousy video. It is 8 bit Motion JPG, which is a series of JPG files. We all know the comparison of what can be done with a JPG file versus a raw file for a still photo. Same thing with video.

I am hoping to see the 5DIV support external 4K recording with a better CODEC. This is what the 5DIII can do with HD. It is not as good as the Magic Lantern solution, but it is a level better than using the internal storage files. Plus an external recording device, such as the Ninja 2 for the 5DIII, offers additional functionality such as peaking. Just so you know, I love the Magic Lantern solution too, and I use it extensively for special kinds of projects when I need only 1 camera, I can re-shoot something, and I spend more time. It gets to be a little work flow intensive and troublesome in a multi camera shoot, so I prefer external recording for those situations.

We will see what Canon actually delivers. I am not going to buy any old 4K, just to say I shoot 4K.

 

[Mr Bean]

That's a pity about the SD card. I would have preferred a setup similar to the 1DX2 (CFast/CF). While I have an SD card in my 5D3, I mainly write to the CF card and use the SD as overflow (if the CF card fills up).

 

[awinphoto]

I am very happy my Mark 3 is more camera than I want or need. The thought of purchasing new cards on top of the body would be a tough selling point for me as I have owned mine since it's launch and have not once used the video function. Hell, I'd be happy with CSlow cards.

Guess i'm in the same boat... Not thrilled that i couldn't use my CF cards and would need a new system of memory cards. Also, my 5d is providing consistent imagery and by spending what, another $3500-4000 wont make me a dime more professionally unless i wanted to make a living selling 4k videos.