New firmware for Canon 5D Mk IV

StewartR

StewartR

Messages
11,513
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
Cynic that I am ;)

I surmise Canon see such video use with the highest levels of control as being the domain of the pro video maker. As such they are charging to add those pro grade features.

Does this also blur the lines between their Cinema range and a video usage of dSLR's???
 
Box Brownie said:
Cynic that I am ;)

I surmise Canon see such video use with the highest levels of control as being the domain of the pro video maker. As such they are charging to add those pro grade features.

Does this also blur the lines between their Cinema range and a video usage of dSLR's???
Click to expand...

They crippled the 4k so log won't make it pro video grade. Far cheaper cameras offer that for free. Imo they don't want to cannibalise their video offerings.
 
Last edited:
People cried when the 5D4 was announced with no C-Log, and many said they would prefer to pay a bit extra for this pro feature.
Canon offer them a pro feature for a small % of what the camera costs and they cry because its not free. Strange world eh?

I cant understand why someone would buy a camera for a feature that doesn't exist in the first place. People are complaining that other cameras have this and that feature and the 5D4 doesn't, but stil brought The 5D4 anyway.
 
dave_bass5 said:
People cried when the 5D4 was announced with no C-Log, and many said they would prefer to pay a bit extra for this pro feature.
Canon offer them a pro feature for a small % of what the camera costs and they cry because its not free. Strange world eh?

I cant understand why someone would buy a camera for a feature that doesn't exist in the first place. People are complaining that other cameras have this and that feature and the 5D4 doesn't, but stil brought The 5D4 anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is, maybe we should start paying for every feature a camera should have at launch. What they should've done is made it free. Doesn't the 4k use less sensor area than a m43 lol.... and the files are gigantic.
 
Last edited:
So based on your theory anyone with a 5D1/2/3 should get a free upgrade to a new version when it comes out because its got features on it that should have been there from the start?

Who is to say what should and shouldn't be on a camera, other those individuals who want something that isnt there?

I do aprectiate Canon dont know what they are doing, and obviously don't do any market research before launching their over priced tat ;-)
 
dave_bass5 said:
So based on your theory anyone with a 5D1/2/3 should get a free upgrade to a new version when it comes out because its got features on it that should have been there from the start?

Who is to say what should and shouldn't be on a camera, other those individuals who want something that isnt there?

I do aprectiate Canon dont know what they are doing, and obviously don't do any market research before launching their over priced tat ;-)
Click to expand...

No based on my theory a camera that a lot of people use/d (5D) for video should have the basics sorted at £3.5k. Canon know people have been using the 5D series for video for years, why scream that youre offering 4k unless youre targeting videographers. Do you shoot video?

Im glad you appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
No, i dont shoot video so its not sheathing i care about.

I still think £99 is not a lot to pay for a pro feature to be added to a camera for those that want it. If it were just a FW upgrade then i agree, it should be free, but its not just that so of course Canon have to charge something.

I saw a video a few weeks ago where a Canon engineer said, off the record, that the reason he thinks the crop is there is because passing the full sensor worth of data would create too much heat for the current design. He stated that the cost would have been higher because heat sinks would need to be added, and so the design of the camera would be different. Canon HAD to add 4k as everyone else is doing it. Some doing it better than others of course but as an overal package the 5D4 is still amongst the best at doing what its designed to do, IMO of course.
Of course this is not official, but to me this makes sense to me. Id rather not pay more for something i dont want.
 
dave_bass5 said:
No, i dont shoot video so its not sheathing i care about.

I still think £99 is not a lot to pay for a pro feature to be added to a camera for those that want it. If it were just a FW upgrade then i agree, it should be free, but its not just that so of course Canon have to charge something.

I saw a video a few weeks ago where a Canon engineer said, off the record, that the reason he thinks the crop is there is because passing the full sensor worth of data would create too much heat for the current design. He stated that the cost would have been higher because heat sinks would need to be added, and so the design of the camera would be different. Canon HAD to add 4k as everyone else is doing it. Some doing it better than others of course but as an overal package the 5D4 is still amongst the best at doing what its designed to do, IMO of course.
Of course this is not official, but to me this makes sense to me. Id rather not pay more for something i dont want.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Its a pro feature that shouldve already been there, not charged for. ~ A major firmware update for the EOS 5D Mark IV has been announced by Canon Europe this week...

But the camera wasnt just made for you. Other people were hoping for much better things on that side of things. It is a superb stills camera though.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
But the camera wasnt just made for you. Other people were hoping for much better things on that side of things. It is a superb stills camera though.
Click to expand...

Goes both way though doesn't it?

Also, if the Canon engineer was right im glad they left the 4K side along and kept the already high cost low.
 
dave_bass5 said:
Goes both way though doesn't it?

Also, if the Canon engineer was right im glad they left the 4K side along and kept the already high cost low.
Click to expand...

Sure, but canon crippled it on purpose because they want the video folk to invest in the 1dx2 and above, then charged for a basic fw addition. Nvm people will just buy something else and you'll be happy with your stills camera.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Sure, but canon crippled it on purpose because they want the video folk to invest in the 1dx2 and above, then charged for a basic fw addition. Nvm people will just buy something else and you'll be happy with your stills camera.
Click to expand...

You can hardly single out one company for not putting all the high end features in to the lower end products.

Can you link me to your info on this being a basic FW upgrade?
 
dave_bass5 said:
You can hardly single out one company for not putting all the high end features in to the lower end products.

Can you link me to your info on this being a basic FW upgrade?
Click to expand...

Log is high end? Really. Even an rx100 has log. I already quoted the canon statement. If you're interested do more research.
 
Last edited:
I asked where it said it was a basic FW upgrade. Canon say you need to send the camera in. How many FW upgrades have you done where this has been needed? Normally we download a FW file and do it ourselves. THAT is a simple FW upgrade.

Again, please tell me where it says its a basic FW upgrade. All my research has said otherwise, so either you are just throwing words out there to make it sound like Canon are asking for money for the sake of it, up, or you have inside information. Which is it?

EDIT: Actually, can you just explain to me why Canon are asking people to send the camera back. I don't understand this and cant find any infomation on it. What makes this update different to the normal FW updates?
 
Last edited:
dave_bass5 said:
I asked where it said it was a basic FW upgrade. Canon say you need to send the camera in. How many FW upgrades have you done where this has been needed? Normally we download a FW file and do it ourselves. THAT is a simple FW upgrade.

Again, please tell me where it says its a basic FW upgrade. All my research has said otherwise, so either you are just throwing words out there to make it sound like Canon are asking for money for the sake of it, up, or you have inside information. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Canon are asking for money for the sake of it. You should email them and ask them why exactly they they need your camera, see what they say, ask them the exact process and if they are changing hardware and exactly what they are changing, because if the aren't they don't need your camera. Perhaps there's a magic door they use to transfer video profiles.
 
Last edited:
Ah, right. Not a clue either than. Your posts seem to indicate you know the answer but it seems you don't know any more than the rest of us.

Why not just charge for the FW file if it was just to make money from owners? Why would Canon go through all the hassle of having to do this basic FW update and send all the cameras back out when all they are doing is what the user could do?

Doesn't make sense to me.
 
dave_bass5 said:
Ah, right. Not a clue either than. Your posts seem to indicate you know the answer but it seems you don't know any more than the rest of us.

Why not just charge for the FW file if it was just to make money from owners? Why would Canon go through all the hassle of having to do this basic FW update and send all the cameras back out when all they are doing is what the user could do?

Doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Youre saying it like log is some amazing thing when compacts have it. Why don't you email them and find out for everyone what hardware they are changing? Ta
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Canon are asking for money for the sake of it. You should email them and ask them why exactly they they need your camera, see what they say, ask them the exact process and if they are changing hardware and exactly what they are changing, because if the aren't they don't need your camera. Perhaps there's a magic door they use to transfer video profiles.
Click to expand...
It needs a new hardware fix as well.
 
jonneymendoza said:
I will sure.

So do I. Your the one that keeps hopping and changing gear lol.

All my gear gets used a lot.
Click to expand...

Really? I can't even remember when last I replaced my camera. You on the other hand buy whatever is supposedly the next best thing on YouTube. Not that I care, you can do what you like.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
Good news: 800 percent increase in dynamic range for video shooting.
Bad news: it'll cost you.

Details: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/eos_5d_mark_iv_receives_canon_log.do
Click to expand...
You are kidding me - Canon and Nikon firmware upgrades were mostly always nothing more than fixes with few features or worth added (part of the reason I left them behind when I saw what Olympus and Fuji were doing) and now they charge for them!!

So $99 (probably £99) plus postage unless you happen to live next door - unbelievable.
 
Last edited:
...ooo, I wonder what will happen when Magic Lantern do it for free :D
 
Finste said:
I seem to remember the Canon Rumours site saying that some 5d4's required an upgraded heat sink. That may be why you have to send it in.

Regards...
Click to expand...

So it's more like a recall and not an actual requirement. Then why charge everyone a 100 quid. Thanks for the info.
 
twist said:
So it's more like a recall and not an actual requirement. Then why charge everyone a 100 quid. Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

Its not a recall because the camera isn't defective. It works within its published specs. Adding new functionality might well stress the existing hardware beyond what it was designed for. I'm thinking here about the production of heat from the electronics which do the compression of the video stream. Motion JPeg is not very compressed. Others such as H264 are and would produce more heat as more computation is required. If there are any changes to the file format that requires more compression, it may require an upgraded heat sink.

Regards...
 
Finste said:
I seem to remember the Canon Rumours site saying that some 5d4's required an upgraded heat sink. That may be why you have to send it in.

Regards...
Click to expand...
Maybe to also get ready to release the ability to remove the crop from 4k at a later fw
 
jonneymendoza said:
Maybe to also get ready to release the ability to remove the crop from 4k at a later fw
Click to expand...
At the moment, the 5D4 takes a non-interpolated crop from the sensor which produces the 1.7 crop factor. To remove that and use a larger area of the sensor, (and a smaller crop), would require interpolation or down-rezzing to 4K. This would require more computation and produce more heat from the electronics hence the upgraded heat sink.

Just a thought.

Regards...
 
Last edited:
Finste said:
At the moment, the 5D4 takes a non-interpolated crop from the sensor which produces the 1.7 crop factor. To remove that and use a larger area of the sensor, (and a smaller crop), would require interpolation or down-rezzing to 4K. This would require more computation and produce more heat from the electronics hence the upgraded heat sink.

Just a thought.

Regards...
Click to expand...
Yea hence a valid reason to upgrade the heat sink
 
Finste said:
Its not a recall because the camera isn't defective. It works within its published specs. Adding new functionality might well stress the existing hardware beyond what it was designed for. I'm thinking here about the production of heat from the electronics which do the compression of the video stream. Motion JPeg is not very compressed. Others such as H264 are and would produce more heat as more computation is required. If there are any changes to the file format that requires more compression, it may require an upgraded heat sink.

Regards...
Click to expand...

But not all of the cameras were built with the old heatsink if the rumour is true. So why charge everyone 100 smackers.
 
twist said:
But not all of the cameras were built with the old heatsink if the rumour is true. So why charge everyone 100 smackers.
Click to expand...

Playing it safe maybe? Protection from future class action lawsuits maybe. Ensuring that every camera works in the same way. I honestly don't know. :)

Regards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top