| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Mark IV side by side with mark III
Peter Buehner, Photographer
 |
Orono | ME | USA | Posted: 6:51 PM on 01.10.10 |
->> I had a chance (thanks to the generosity of SS member Monty Rand) to shoot with a Mark IV along side my Mark III tonight. I didn't have much time but you can see a comparison shot I uploaded to my flickr account here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/killingbuddha/sets/72157623058551593/
Both images were taken at ISO 6400. I have a couple at 12,800 but haven't posted them yet. There are three versions 1. untouched-no NR and no sharpening 2. auto profile with Noise Ninja 3. Noise ninja and minimal sharpening 75 1.0 with smart sharpen
The Mark III was shot with a 85 1.8
The Mark IV image was with the 70-200 2.8
to see full size. click on an image that you want to look at and then above it will be an "all sizes" link.
My initial thoughts:
I think I am one of the lucky ones that finally has a working Mark III (after three trips to CPS including a mirror box assembly replacement etc etc)
My keepers were about the same with both cameras. The ISO performance at 6400 seems similar at least with this quick tryout (given 16mp v 10mp it is still impressive)
AI servo AF- While I was shooting I was convinced that the Mark IV was much better. It seemed calm and confident where the Mark III seems hyper if that makes sense. Kind of like a turbocharged 4 cyl vs a big bore V8. The mark IV felt smooth and predictable. That being said, when I got home I don't think that the keepers were significantly better than my mark III. Perhaps a bit better but not night and day. This is crappy lighting in this arena. I didn't just crank up the ISO in good light.
I also didn't notice any difference with the buttons. I read somewhere that they were supposed to be bigger and have a better feel?
At 12,800 the files don't seem to fall apart terribly, still usable for web, small prints etc but certainly not a clean file by any shot.
The bottom line for me is that I think I am holding off on getting the Mark IV. My mark III is working well and getting the job done. I wish I had more time since this was such a quick test. I loved the camera but since video isn't a priority for me I don' think it is worth the $5,000 for me. |
|
Mike Doran, Photographer
|
Petaluma | CA | U.S.A. | Posted: 7:28 PM on 01.10.10 |
| ->> Thank you Peter, this comparison helps me a lot in that I was all sett to buy a Mark IV and now I will just hang on to my Mark III and give it 6 more months before I buy a Mark IV. |
|
Peter Buehner, Photographer
|
Orono | ME | USA | Posted: 7:43 PM on 01.10.10 |
->> After studying these images more I would say that the mark IV is a bit better here.
Look at the dark jerseys and you can see chroma noise with the Mark III and basically none with the Mark IV. As for luminance noise I would say they are about equal.
50% increase in MP and an increase in High ISO performance is really impressive I think.
the other thing I should add is that I picked out a couple of the better images from this game. I could post others from the same time and with the same settings that would make everyone say "wow those cameras suck". I think that is the reality of shooting in marginal venues. Unless you nail the focus, exposure, whatever else the camera is doing under the hood...then the image will suffer. |
|
Paul Alesse, Photographer
|
Centereach | NY | USA | Posted: 9:29 PM on 01.11.10 |
| ->> Even though it's way early, based on what I'm hearing, it sounds like the biggest leap in the 1D series was from the 1D to 1D Mark II. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 9:52 PM on 01.11.10 |
->> Personally I think the 6400 images cleaned up wonderfully and look great.
It almost looks like ISO 3200 on the Mark III IMHO.
The other advantage to the Mark IV, 6 more megapixels of image. That can help with cropping or noise if you downsize the image like I would.
Worth the huge price, probably not lol |
|
William Purnell, Photographer
|
Wichita | Ks | | Posted: 10:05 PM on 01.11.10 |
->> Thanks a million Peter, this is the kind of feedback I've been looking for before making an order. I really don't run into many situations that a good 6400 wouldn't do the job.
I have had many published and usable shots with my MkIII's at ISO 6400 and I was hoping the IV would be at least 2 stops cleaner. |
|
Robert Benson, Photographer
|
San Diego | Ca | USA | Posted: 12:11 AM on 01.12.10 |
->> I bought a MK3 the other day, thought the focus was iffy, and found out that the serial (553xxx) was on the recall canon list... So I brought it to Irvine for the fix and get it back tomorrow.
When I dropped it off, the lady at Canon told me that the fixes they are doing now to the mk3 are much better then the fixes they were doing a year or two ago... Guess they have learned techniques or additional fixes that went further than what was previously done. She said people who have been getting the AF fixes done recently have been really happy... but that is canon talking:
Anyone with recent mk3 af work done happy with camera? |
|
Derick Hingle, Photographer
|
Hammond | LA | USA | Posted: 1:17 AM on 01.12.10 |
->> Robert,
Serial 553XX was on the recall list, mine is that range as well, I guess I will give Canon a call and see about having mine checked. I have had some focus issues with mine lately as well. Where did you find the recall list? Thanks for any help |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|