[dcstep]

I'm mainly a wildlife photographer, shooting fast moving birds and mammals in all kinds of light and shooting mammals, like deer and coyote, 30-minutes before sunrise and 30-minutes after. I need a body that has autofocus ("AF") that locks on quickly to the subject and tracks accurately as the subject moves up, down and sideways relative to the camera. I need a lot of focal length, particularly for birds and my base rig includes an EF 500mm f/4L IS II, often combined with my 1.4x and 2.0x TC-III.

My Canon bodies have included the 5D2, 5D3, 5DS-R, 7D and 7D2. My 7D MkII has been my go-to body since it was first released. It's AF was incrementally better than the 5D MkIII and its high pixel-density allowed for cropping focal-length limited shots and still retaining high detail, often without a TC attached. The sacrifice, caused my the high pixel-density, was high noise levels above ISO 1600. While the AF was good, compared to predecessors, it was a constant struggle with the bare lens and the 1.4x TC-III and unusable with the 2.0x TC-III. (If you lost AF on a moving target, it would typcially take around a second to reacquire focus). Any series of bird-in-flight shots would have a couple OOF.

So, when I borrowed a 5D4 from Canon Professional Services, I was interested to see how well it performed in high-ISO situation and how its AF compared to the 7D2.

The first evening that I had the body, I came upon a handsome white-tail buck, about 20-minutes after sundown. Two experienced shooters that I know were at the same location, shooting 7D2s with 100-400mm II combos. I had the 5D4 with the 500/1.4x combo, shooting 700mm, hand held, at ISO 3200. Here's my favorite shot from a number of nice images:

Big Buck After Sundown by David Stephens, on Flickr
This demonstrates two things. First, I was able to focus in low light, when my experienced friends didn't get ANY usable shots. Second, the image quality at ISO 3200 is very nice. I think there's a whole stop of additional dynamic range over my 7D2. That's my gut feel. You can look at DxOMark.com and other sources for quantitative measures.

The next day, I wanted to try the 5D4 with the 2.0x TC-III attached, shooting hand held. I planned to shoot bird-in-flight in good lighting conditions. The 7D2 was hard to use in this situation, because if you lost focus with the 2.0x TC, the AF system would hunt around for a full second before reacquiring focus. That was next to impossible to use. The light was exceptionally good, but to my pleasant surprise, a pod of American white pelicans were fishing in front of me and were joined by a great blue heron, all going after shad fingerlings. Here's my favorite shot from that outing, where I had many shots to chose from:

Goodbye Cruel World!!! by David Stephens, on Flickr

Yesterday, I went back out with the 500/2.0x TC-III combo, determined to really stress the AF system. I was rewarded with truly crappy, overcast light and very few subjects. The good news is that the few subjects that I got, were easy to pop into focus. If I lost focus, the AF system grabbed back on quickly. This performance blows away the 7D2. It's no contest. I'm selling the 7D2. ($900 if anyone is interested). Below, is a sample from yesterday:

Gull Series - Shot 3 by David Stephens, on Flickr

To summarize, the 5D MkIV is a major step forward for Canon's pro-sumer level bodies. I've used the 1DX and the 1DX MkII in similar circumstances and their AF is only incrementally better than the 5D MkIV. The MkIV has closed the huge gap that previously separated the 1D series from its little brothers and sisters. Now, a serious photographer can mount Canon's very best super-telephoto lenses on the 5D MkIV and hold their own.

The high-ISO performance and file quality is also a major step forward. A 30mp sensor give substantially more resolution than the 1DX MkII. For those of that often shoot focal length limited, higher resolution is important. The 1DX2 is designed for pro photographers shooting professional sports events in all kinds of light. It's NOT a wildlife and bird-optimized design. Shooting JPG at 14-fps, tethered to an editor blasting out images on the internet, it can't be beat. Start cropping the Raw image and you lose detail, due to the low pixel count.

I didn't have a 1DX2 to compare back-to-back, but my memory tells me that the 5D4's AF system is very close in performance, even with the latest Canon TC's attached. (I've read that the firmware/processors in the Series II lenses and Series III TCs are optimized for the latest bodies. Older Canon TCs and other brands may not give the performance that I describe here).

I believe that the 5D MkIV is a major step forward by Canon, for the wildlife photographer. I will order my own, very soon.

BTW, if you want to see the images in this review in higher resolution, click on the image and it'll take you to Flickr, where you can view an image full-screen. Also, I have some series images over there. For instance, the gull shot is one of a series of four, all in sharp focus.

[apexlocator]

Thanks for the great review on the AF system of the 5d4. I'm on the fence between the new mark 4 and a used 1DX (about the same price point). I use to shoot a 5d2 (still have it), but switched to the Sony A7r2 to lighten my gear for outings. I kept all of my L glasses though and have been itching to get back with Canon. For me AF is #1 priority, and the Sony is just not up to par with their mirrored rivals, especially with any form of fast action.

I was leaning towards the 1DX, but it's big form factor may be an issue.

[Dackelone]

Nice review. I enjoyed that.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by apexlocator

Thanks for the great review on the AF system of the 5d4. I'm on the fence between the new mark 4 and a used 1DX (about the same price point). I use to shoot a 5d2 (still have it), but switched to the Sony A7r2 to lighten my gear for outings. I kept all of my L glasses though and have been itching to get back with Canon. For me AF is #1 priority, and the Sony is just not up to par with their mirrored rivals, especially with any form of fast action.

I was leaning towards the 1DX, but it's big form factor may be an issue.

I probably didn't say enough about the files from the 5D4. The resolution is stunning. The 1DX is champ if your ISO routinely goes above 6400, but, up to that point, the resolution of the 5D4 takes the day. Also, the quality of the noise with the 5D4 is relatively benign.

The reason to get the 1DX is if you're shooting sports in low light and routinely need more than ISO 6400 and you need the higher fps. I really like 10-fps and higher, but I'm willing to settle for the 5D4's 7-fps, even for birds in flight.

Also, I did more shooting with the EF 2.0x TC-III last night. I had feeding gulls so close that I had trouble keeping them in the frame at 1000mm. This was in good light and the AF locked on quickly and tracked well. Still, for fast moving targets, you can expect around 30% to 40% OOF. I think that with the 1DX, that'll drop to 10% to 20%. Realize that's an extreme stress case, with a super-telephoto and a TC on a 1000mm. ONLY the 5D4 and the !D-series will pass this test.

Let us know what you do.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Dackelone

Nice review. I enjoyed that.

Thanks.

[apexlocator]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I probably didn't say enough about the files from the 5D4. The resolution is stunning. The 1DX is champ if your ISO routinely goes above 6400, but, up to that point, the resolution of the 5D4 takes the day. Also, the quality of the noise with the 5D4 is relatively benign.

The reason to get the 1DX is if you're shooting sports in low light and routinely need more than ISO 6400 and you need the higher fps. I really like 10-fps and higher, but I'm willing to settle for the 5D4's 7-fps, even for birds in flight.

Also, I did more shooting with the EF 2.0x TC-III last night. I had feeding gulls so close that I had trouble keeping them in the frame at 1000mm. This was in good light and the AF locked on quickly and tracked well. Still, for fast moving targets, you can expect around 30% to 40% OOF. I think that with the 1DX, that'll drop to 10% to 20%. Realize that's an extreme stress case, with a super-telephoto and a TC on a 1000mm. ONLY the 5D4 and the !D-series will pass this test.

Let us know what you do.

I shoot youth sports (my kids mostly, so nothing mission critical), and the times that we are in the gym, I am just disappointed with how the sony high ISO performs. Compared to canon, the lack of fast FE lens choices resulted in the purchase of metabones adapters to use my faster L lenses. But people may not know that with adapters, you lose some of the tracking AF features of the Sony body only available to Sony native lenses.

I am leaning towards the 1DX because, even though the indoor gym events are less frequent, I just hate dealing with the post-processing and too many OOF shots. However, I use to shoot with a 1Ds3 many years ago, but sold it due to lack of use because of its heft.

Maybe I should just flip a coin....


Thanks again dcstep

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by apexlocator

I shoot youth sports (my kids mostly, so nothing mission critical), and the times that we are in the gym, I am just disappointed with how the sony high ISO performs. Compared to canon, the lack of fast FE lens choices resulted in the purchase of metabones adapters to use my faster L lenses. But people may not know that with adapters, you lose some of the tracking AF features of the Sony body only available to Sony native lenses.

I am leaning towards the 1DX because, even though the indoor gym events are less frequent, I just hate dealing with the post-processing and too many OOF shots. However, I use to shoot with a 1Ds3 many years ago, but sold it due to lack of use because of its heft.

Maybe I should just flip a coin....


Thanks again dcstep

Well, I guarantee that you will not have AF problems with either body in the situation that you describe. The 5D4 is a better all 'round body. It'll be stunning for portraits, travel and kids.

I think it comes down to, how often do you shoot above ISO 6400? If it's a lot and images that you value a lot, then go with the 1D-X; otherwise, the 5D4 is the better choice. They both will produce excellent files.

[Itsed65]

One thing to note as well is that the 5D4 has the anti-flickr mode for shooting in gyms. It was introduced on the 7D2 and is not a feature of the original 1DX.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

One thing to note as well is that the 5D4 has the anti-flickr mode for shooting in gyms. It was introduced on the 7D2 and is not a feature of the original 1DX.

Ed, you're shooting the 5D4 now, aren't you? Is you experience similar to mine, vs. the 7D2?

I'm in love with the file quality, on top of the AF improvements.

[Itsed65]

Yeah, super impressed with the AF, and love the image quality and extra size over the mk III. I'm not ready to ditch my 7D2 yet though. I actually like taking both out with different lenses on them. Heck, I still have my 40D, 7D, 5D2, 5D3 and 1DIV!

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

Yeah, super impressed with the AF, and love the image quality and extra size over the mk III. I'm not ready to ditch my 7D2 yet though. I actually like taking both out with different lenses on them. Heck, I still have my 40D, 7D, 5D2, 5D3 and 1DIV!

I'm a two-body shooter also. I was thinking that my 5DS-R would be my second body. I'm certain that my 7D2 has over 100,000-clicks, so I'll only get about $800 out of it, if that. On second thought, maybe I will keep the 7D2 as my second "wildlife" body and use the 5DS-R for travel, landscape and family.

Dave

[Mik3ymomo]

I'm still shooting with an old D800. While I wouldn't mind upgrading my camera I am still improving with my current one.
Shots look good. Camera gear is a disease.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Mik3ymomo

I'm still shooting with an old D800. While I wouldn't mind upgrading my camera I am still improving with my current one.
Shots look good. Camera gear is a disease.

From what I see, the D800 is still a great body. Are all your lenses top drawer and serving your needs. The EF500mm f/4L IS II gets as much credit as the Mark IV in all the shots above.

[GoHokiesGo]

Nicely written review, enjoyed reading it. Pretty impressive that you were able to handhold at 700mm and ISO3200, yet still get an image that sharp and clear!

While the 5D4 is definitely out of my practical reach as a hobby photographer, I still enjoy reading about the advantages in the new bodies. I'll have to wait a few years till I'm ready to upgrade, but enjoyed the review and images.

[P1]

Thanks for posting the review. In no way did I doubt this camera would have disappointed. It's nice to read a real photographers opinion versus the social media crowd who's quick to say how crap the specs are.

[BMW F22]

What would you guys recommend for a travel camera - 6d, 5d3, 5d3r, or 5d4? Thinking about getting back into photography (mainly landscape, traveling, and family and friends portraits).

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by BMW F22

What would you guys recommend for a travel camera - 6d, 5d3, 5d3r, or 5d4? Thinking about getting back into photography (mainly landscape, traveling, and family and friends portraits).

The 5D4 has the best dynamic range and the 5DS-R has the best resolution. After I buy my own 5D4 I plan to keep my 5DS-R, due to its incredible resolution; however, if I could only own one body, it'd be the 5D4.

Confused? Don't worry, any of the ones listed will do a great job, the 5D4 just gives your more margin for error when DR is challenging.

Dave

[lowside67]

I took 20,000 photos on my 6D while backpacking for 6 months and in my mind it was the perfect camera for travel if you are willing to haul an SLR. There were no situations I encountered where the drawbacks of the 6D (slower FPS, simpler autofocus, less weather sealing, no dual cards) were of any consequence. However, the whole time I appreciated the smaller size, lighter weight, and cheaper price.

I think a 5D4 is overkill for all but the absolutely most serious photographer on a trip oriented virtually exclusively for photography.

Mark

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by lowside67

I took 20,000 photos on my 6D while backpacking for 6 months and in my mind it was the perfect camera for travel if you are willing to haul an SLR. There were no situations I encountered where the drawbacks of the 6D (slower FPS, simpler autofocus, less weather sealing, no dual cards) were of any consequence. However, the whole time I appreciated the smaller size, lighter weight, and cheaper price.

I think a 5D4 is overkill for all but the absolutely most serious photographer on a trip oriented virtually exclusively for photography.

Mark

Well, lots of us are serious around here. However, if you don't need the AF functionality of the 5D4, then you might wait for the 6D MkII to get the latest generation of sensor. It's about time to replace the long in tooth 6D.

I think that the 6D and 5D have always gone after slightly different crowds.

[qspring]

Great review. I've played around with the 5D IV looking to replace my 6D, and had the same impressions as you. It ended up being too big for me to carry around. I traded in my 6D for a Sony A7RII as I was looking for something more compact to take with me on flights and trips.

I will say that canon is still more sturdy and rugged of a platform, esp. for outdoors. The weather sealing, battery life, and canon glass are all tried and true. I kept all my canon L lenses just in case I want to go back.

[cmplaya]

i've been using my 5d4 for over 2 months and i agree files are clean and crisp, AF is much improved from my 6D.
lots of disappointed sounding reviews around release time, everyone basically ripping on canon but i'm happy

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by cmplaya

i've been using my 5d4 for over 2 months and i agree files are clean and crisp, AF is much improved from my 6D.
lots of disappointed sounding reviews around release time, everyone basically ripping on canon but i'm happy

I can understand the disappointment of the video crowd, but it has no impact on me.

I guess I prefer reviews by people that actually shoot under tough conditions and can report what they experience. Taking pictures of test patterns and static subjects is only a tiny part of what makes a camera useful, but that all that most reviews cover.