| 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
Canon 1DMK IV Firmware Update
James Broome, Photographer
 |
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 9:01 AM on 01.22.10 |
| ->> Sheesh. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:03 AM on 01.22.10 |
->> Canon was doing just fine at 8fps and Nikon seems to be doing well at 9fps, so I wonder if 10fps just too much to ask of existing AF sensors, software algorithms, and the motors in the lenses that move the glass elements into position.
Are the current Canon AF tracking problems the result of:
1. Design failure of the AF sensors?
2. AF sensors that work well, but are not getting enough
information at high frame rates due to mirror blackout?
3. Software algorithms failure to compensate adequately for
the perceived velocity relative to the perceived size of
a moving target (distance / size / motion parallax) or
some other flaw in the math (keep in mind that NASA
augered a 100 million dollar probe into Mars years ago
because half of the team used inches and the other half
used centimeters)?
4. AF sensors work well, software algorithms are good, but
the motors in the lenses are not quick enough to
physically keep pace with the unprecedented speed of
data that is fed to them?
5. A combination of elements of the previous four
possibilities or none of those but something that I did
not list as a possibility?
If Canon announced today that they were going to build a 1D Mark IIz which would keep the AF system, 8 megapixels, and 8 fps frame rate of the old Mark II but with the high ISO capabilities of their more recent sensors I would be very interested in buying one. Did I just unwittingly describe the Canon 7d? |
|
Dan Root, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 10:23 AM on 01.22.10 |
| ->> All I can say folks, that based on my own experience, is that once you get your Mark IV, and you should buy from your local shop, you should go out and test it immediately. If you are not happy with the results, return if for another one. If the camera has some of the same problems as the 1D Mark III, don't just hold onto it and keep sending it back to the repair facilities. Return it immediately for a new one. And keep doing this until you are 100% satisfied with the camera. I just got my new Mark IV, bought locally, and talked to the people at the store, and have an agreement with them that I can return the camera for another one if after testing it, I deem it not working as promised by Canon. If you do this, and there is a problem, Canon will get the picture very fast. I really do expect this version to be a keeper, but I have not tested it yet. Doing this next week. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 10:32 AM on 01.22.10 |
->> 3 people in this thread seem to be jumping to serious conclusions even though everyone that has shot the camera has been in awe of his tracking ability it seems.
I never knew a company was not allowed to fine tune it's product. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:38 AM on 01.22.10 |
->> Mine is not so much a conclusion but a question, or more accurately a series of questions.
There are practical limitations to what can be done when you merge a six day old camera with a six year old lens. Eventually, a point will be reached where increasing the camera's ability to process information quickly will be utterly meaningless if the lens lacks the ability to utilize this information quickly and accurately enough for the increased speed to be useful.
There have been many barriers in the evolution of the DSLR over the years. Engineers have had to overcome short battery life, buffer memory issues, digital noise, sensor size, sensor resolution, limitations in the size and speed of removable memory media, and many other problems in order for DSLR's to perform as well as they do today.
If this can be pared down to one question it would have we reached the point where the mechanical limitations of the precision and speed of lens motors is going to be the next great hurdle in this process of ever increasing camera capabilities?
I have had four different generations of DSLR's while using the exact same 17-35mm f2.8, 28-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, and 300mm f2.8 lenses. With the increased speed and other improvements of each successive camera I have owned I am left to think that at some point the next camera or perhaps its successor is going to be able to do things that the lenses can not. |
|
David Welker, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 11:50 AM on 01.22.10 |
| ->> I am going to agree with Matt here.. After owning this camera and putting it to some serious tests, I have been in total awe of the AF, and I know that other owners agree. I see no problem in letting Canon make it even better. |
|
Richard Heathcote, Photographer
|
London | . | UK | Posted: 2:45 PM on 01.22.10 |
->> I still have my pre-production camera, and have been testing 2 different firmware versions with it.... both have advantages and performance varies in different situations....
I think the 1.0.4 firmware that is on the production bodies is similar to one of these. It's a good chance that the 1.0.6 release is Canon reacting to some of the feedback they have been given over the last few months of test shooting (feedback that they are getting constantly and currently)
All I can say from my experience is the mk4 is a massive improvement over the mk3 in terms of AF performance, and some lenses I thought were poor, seem back to their best on the mk4 |
|
Derick Hingle, Photographer
|
Hammond | LA | USA | Posted: 11:43 AM on 01.23.10 |
| ->> I think some are jumping the gun a bit, canon is further improving the AF which from everyone I've talked to so far says the AF is incredible compared to the Mark III. It is spot on according to several shooters that I know already using the camera. |
|
Corbey Dorsey, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cozad | NE | USA | Posted: 2:04 AM on 01.25.10 |
| ->> Already a spectacular autofocusing system in the Mark IV...complete night and day difference, from the first week I have shot one...high iso photos still amaze me with the quality... |
|
William Purnell, Photographer
|
Wichita | Ks | | Posted: 3:52 PM on 01.26.10 |
->> I'm with Matt on this one. Fine tuning, updates and small issues just do not seem like a big deal to me on something so complex. Even with the "flaws", the modern camera's are still amazing pieces of equipment if you ask me.
I have and beat the heck out of two mark III's.. Have they been in to be "fine tuned"., yes. Have they had their little problems?,. yes. Am I thrilled with them and how they perform and hold up?,. YES.
Seems to me these things are so sensitive (which is a good thing) thus making them much more challenging to achieve perfect results that people often blame the equipment too soon. Maybe someday we'll have a camera that just has a pure "auto" mode and every image will come out perfectly exposed, perfectly focused with no skill or input needed from the photographer. Until then, I'm really happy with how my "modern" equipment performs.
Just my 2c. |
|
Jared Wickerham, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Pittsburgh | PA | U.S.A. | Posted: 7:02 PM on 01.26.10 |
| ->> I don't see this update on the USA site so maybe it was just the European models? |
|
Richard Heathcote, Photographer
|
London | . | UK | Posted: 3:57 AM on 01.27.10 |
->> One of the key things with the mk4 is sorting out the AF micro adjustment...
yes there is a whole school of thought the the camera should work perfectly out of the box with any lens, no adjustment needed, but I spent an hour adjusting my bodies to my lenses and the results are great... AF wise the results are very impressive, i'd even say I'm getting a 90% hit rate in all situations and the production bodies so far seem to be better than the pre-production camera I've had for 3 months. |
|
David Welker, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 1:12 PM on 01.27.10 |
->> Richard,
I did the same thing also. However along the lines of Micro-Adjustment, It might be interesting to see if Canon decides to set it up so that you are able to MA at certain focal lengths. I think that might be one of the best updates for MA.
I found that my zooms, as expected, needed different MA values at different lengths. So it might be cool to see if Canon picks up on that.
Just a thought. |
|
Richard Heathcote, Photographer
|
Primoz Jeroncic, Photographer
|
Kranj | SI | Slovenia | Posted: 10:00 AM on 02.01.10 |
->> I'm one of those who try to stick with "Don't fix it, if it ain't broken" rule as much as possible. Since I'm not 100% sure new firmware will really behave better then current one (I'm shooting with mk4 for a bit over month and never had problems), I would like to have a way out in case if I wouldn't like 1.0.6.
So does anyone know if downgrade to current firmware would be possible once I would upgrade to 1.0.6? And if it is, where could I even download 1.0.4? |
|
Shelby Daniel, Photographer
|
Guntown | MS | USA | Posted: 7:27 PM on 02.01.10 |
->> There seem to be some people who think 1.0.6 screwed up the AIservo tracking ability for birds in flight shooting. It looks like it may be some sort of issue with the 500 f4 lens, but who knows. Here's a link:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/862648
Mine worked great at a wedding after upgrading the firmware, but I haven't tried sports yet. Has anyone else had any issues after upgrading? |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 8:32 PM on 02.01.10 |
->> Mine arrived with 1.0.6.
Primoz: I think that's the dilemma with original firmware - there typically isn't a download for it from Canon - only for updates. It used to be that if you figured out Canon's URL naming scheme that you could find older no longer posted firmware updates, but they changed that a while ago and you're basically stuck with access to only the current release. So it's not a bad idea to download updates as they are released, even if you don't plan to use them immediately, in case you ever do update to a future version that's not working for you and want to fall back to an older one.
I've only had the chance to test the IV on recreational skiers over the weekend and so far I'm not seeing anything that excites me over what I sometimes struggled to get with the III. But I also need to look more closely at micro focus adjustment as there does seem to be a consistent slight front focus tendency with the 600, which becomes very apparent with distant subjects, and also more noticeable in light of the camera's higher resolution.
I really was hoping it would be 'knock your socks off' straight out of the box... maybe I bought into the prerelease hype a bit too much (again). |
|
Kevin Krows, Photographer
 |
Forsyth | IL | USA | Posted: 9:39 AM on 02.10.10 |
| ->> Any feedback from those that upgraded their firmware on the Mark IV? |
|
Monty Rand, Photographer
|
Bangor | ME | USA | Posted: 12:28 PM on 02.10.10 |
| ->> I haven't noticed anything different with it. Camera is just flat out awesome. |
|
Alan Herzberg, Photographer
|
Elm Grove | WI | USA | Posted: 1:18 PM on 02.10.10 |
| ->> Where the heck is everyone getting this camera? I put my name on a waiting list in mid-October and haven't heard a thing yet. Sigh. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|