5d mark 4 on the way (Page 2): Congratulations, Bill. This will be an outstanding camera. I agree with it's high rating.

Regis Loc: Coeur d' Alene, Idaho

billnourse wrote:

Ordered a 5d mark 4 from Ritz yesterday. Will be here Thursday. Did a lot of soul searching and review reading, but the dxomark review put it over the top. They gave this camera the highest marks of any canon to date and compared it very favorably to the Nikon 810 and Sony.

Bill

Congratulations, Bill. This will be an outstanding camera. I agree with it's high rating.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Tracy B. wrote:

I'm getting one also with the new 24-105 lens. It will arrive in late October. I hope they either update Photoshop Elements 14, or release 15 soon.

Congratulations!

You may not even need an upgrade to PS Elements. Adobe has updated Camera Raw and DNG converter to support the 5D mk IV, also Lightroom. However, these do not support the dual pixel functionality. You will need Canon DPP v 4.5 for that, which can be downloaded from Canon's site. You could check these things out even before the camera arrives if you want to.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

CaptainC wrote:

A NEW Canon should be better than the 2-year old D810. Instead, they compare it favorably because it is "almost" as good.
Up until 2007, Canon had a decent lead on Nikon - particularly for noise above around 800 or so. Then Nikon came out with the D3 and D700 - blew right past Canon and Canon has been playing catch-up for the last 8+ years. Yes, the new MkIV is a great camera, but it SHOULD be better. This opinion is from what Canon users have told me, not me.

I am not a Canon fan, but Canon are very good cameras with sub-par sensors. Nikon blew past Canon (by your standard) and maintains its lead over Canon in IQ because it uses Sony sensors. But I know what you mean and I pretty much agree with your assessment with these two caveats.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Carl D wrote:

Ah yes! Chasing the illusive $Electronic Wizard$ again. I do want to wish you good photographing with your new camera.
All this new gear coming out makes me glad that I've gone back to film, there is no new gear to drool over and drain your bank account.

He upgraded from crop to full frame. Kinda makes your comment look foolish, doesn't it?

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

Excellent question. There were three reasons. First, the shooting model dial on the II could be hit and changed by accident, which happened a number of times. On the III, this is a locking dial. Second, I did not like the on-off switch on the II, although I had the same on the 1DSII, and the III has the on-off in a much more convenient location. Third, at the time, I was shooting a lot where I felt I should take advantage of the III's better low light capabilities. None of the reasons had to do with the image quality and, in fact, I am looking to get another II body. If I had the cash, I would go for the IV.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Desert Gecko wrote:

I am not a Canon fan, but Canon are very good cameras with sub-par sensors. Nikon blew past Canon (by your standard) and maintains its lead over Canon in IQ because it uses Sony sensors. But I know what you mean and I pretty much agree with your assessment with these two caveats.

On the other hand, Canon has made some significant advances in its sensors, and it can take years with this kind of technology to see the results. We are now beginning to see them. As you suggest, the sensor is a very important element, but it is the complete camera system that is important in this segment of the market. Canon leads in some areas, not in others. We'll just have to watch, and for now buy whatever we want, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Fuji, or whatever fits the bill.

Carl D Loc: Albemarle, NC.

Desert Gecko wrote:

He upgraded from crop to full frame. Kinda makes your comment look foolish, doesn't it?

Nope! Still electronic wizardry and more $$$.

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

Carl D wrote:

Nope! Still electronic wizardry and more $$$.

Why the need to try and make yourself look better than someone else? The OP has made a choice, obviously you would make a different choice. It is all good. The OP is happy with his choice and you are happy with yours. No need to try and make your choice look better than another. No need to be a downer for someones choice.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Japakomom wrote:

Why the need to try and make yourself look better than someone else? The OP has made a choice, obviously you would make a different choice. It is all good. The OP is happy with his choice and you are happy with yours. No need to try and make your choice look better than another. No need to be a downer for someones choice.

He is a photo snob who thinks he, and only he, knows what is best.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

papakatz45 wrote:

He is a photo snob who thinks he, and only he, knows what is best.

That was generous and polite of you!

Carl D Loc: Albemarle, NC.

As a parting post I would like apologize for my condescending and snobbish attitude if that's how you viewed it, not how it was meant though. I will no longer make any posts to any subjects, since all of you consider me some sort of idiot.
Good luck making posts to various subjects.
Carl D.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Carl D wrote:

As a parting post I would like apologize for my condescending and snobbish attitude if that's how you viewed it, not how it was meant though. I will no longer make any posts to any subjects, since all of you consider me some sort of idiot.
Good luck making posts to various subjects.
Carl D.

Why not just rethink your method, and stick around. I expect you have much to offer, if presented differently. Please think about it.

Photocraig

And an entirely new very high resolution "sensor" with Monochrome variability and different "palettes" is all available in 24 and 36 frame increments. Exposed properly it gives you gorgeous creamy continuous tone prints.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Peterff wrote:

Why not just rethink your method, and stick around. I expect you have much to offer, if presented differently. Please think about it.

WE GOT US A JUMPER!!!
HEY EVERYONE, WANNA SEE A SPLAT?!?!?!?! 🙀😈👹💀💀💀💀💀

SS

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

SharpShooter wrote:

WE GOT US A JUMPER!!!
HEY EVERYONE, WANNA SEE A SPLAT?!?!?!?! 🙀😈👹💀💀💀💀💀

SS

Ledge psychology? Haven't heard that in years!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTKP2fEBSGM