| 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 - Digital Photography Review's take
James Broome, Photographer
 |
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 11:08 AM on 02.22.10 |
->> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmarkIV/
"A lot has already been said about the 1D Mark IV, both by people who have tested it and those who have tried to weigh it up against the D3S and that kind of nit-picking makes it easy to overlook what an astonishing camera it is. And looked at from a neutral perspective, both it and the Nikon are unmistakably the best sports cameras that modern technology allows.
Its talents are slightly different to those of D3S but its strengths will be a great asset to many people - the smaller sensor that prevents it competing at the very highest ISOs delivers the kind of extra reach that many touchline shooters will appreciate. Frankly there's more to both cameras than just their high ISO performance and, while the Mark IV isn't the best high ISO camera on the market, it's still an exceptionally good one. From the point-of-view of the tasks it was built to tackle, there is nothing that can touch the detailed, high resolution images that it can deliver ten times a second." |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:21 AM on 02.22.10 |
| ->> I don't like even numbers...I'm waiting on the Mark V. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:41 AM on 02.22.10 |
->> Oh goodie! Now the Canon folk can go back to shooting Canon and the Nikon folk can buy used gear at prices closer to regular highway robbery minus the sodomy.
Seriously NO ONE wants to see Canon come out with a decent D3 competitor more than me. The flood of shooters coming to the dark side has made buying even small used items a PIA.
Parity is a good thing. |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 1:15 PM on 02.22.10 |
->> So let me make sure I understand this ... Canon comes out with a new camera that is not quite as good as the comparable competitor's model, but because it follows several Canon models that suck, that makes the new one great?
I need to work for Canon. Why put in so many hours trying to beat the competition when you can just lower expectations every other time and then shove whatever you've got out the door to loud cheers from your customers? "The high ISO's aren't great, and it still won't give you the same flash exposure three frames in a row, and the OEM lenses are soft -- but the AF works most of the time! Yay! Where can I get one?"
Are we sure Canon's leadership didn't come from an American automaker? |
|
John Todd, Photographer
|
Palo Alto | CA | usa | Posted: 1:18 PM on 02.22.10 |
->> Jeff,
You just made my day laughing so hard!
Well said! |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 1:22 PM on 02.22.10 |
->> So which Canon models suck again? The only one with issue that I can think of is the mark III, but even then some people enjoyed and have no issues with it.
The 7D is a wonderful camera with fantastic focusing ability.
1Ds Mark III was solid and still is.
Sounds like another thread where our Nikon friends will jump right in and say something ridiculous...
Should be fun |
|
John Todd, Photographer
|
Palo Alto | CA | usa | Posted: 1:57 PM on 02.22.10 |
->> Jeff's post was flat out funny, and accurate to boot.
To add to this, I have to say, I have two Mark 3's, and after the fixes, they work superb. I also have a 5d2, which has an incredible sensor, stuffed into a portrait, landscape camera.
The only hole in the Canon system is the lack of a fast full frame camera and Al Bello's review was spot on in asking why Canon won't make a full frame sports camera.
My problem with Canon right now is that I need to travel to soccer matches with 3 cameras and I have to have one full frame to make a wide angle shot of the stadium. With a 1.3 crop, I cannot get the whole stadium with a 16-35. I don't want to use a fisheye for this, and carrying and extra 14mm in my thinktank International is not an option due to size.
In addition, I need a remote camera sometimes as well. The 5d2 does not work for this since it's so slow, and it also is too slow for a second camera.
So, I really don't care about the ISO, the focus issues, I just want a full frame camera that will work in every situation, commercial, sports, news, etc......kinda of like a D3, but Canon.
Am I going to switch, probably not, but, I will joyfully continue to grumble about this for the next 3 years................. |
|
James Broome, Photographer
|
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 2:17 PM on 02.22.10 |
| ->> Agreed with John ^ . |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 2:24 PM on 02.22.10 |
->> Here is another evaluation on photographybay's web site
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/02/19/canon-1d-mark-iv-vs-nikon-d3s-eval.../
The point is up to 6400 iso because of the canons superior resolution the prints form a canon mk 1v are better then a nikon d3s. It is only after 6400 that nikons better low light sensor makes a difference. So in practical terms, the print, canon is better up to 6400. |
|
Todd Rosenberg, Photographer
|
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 2:44 PM on 02.22.10 |
->> I purchased a Mark IV because my Mark III was not delivering the quality I need or want. I cannot, nor will I compare this model to a Nikon camera because I left Nikon at the D1X.
I can say that when it comes to sharpness, this model, when the frame is in focus, is extremely sharp. As for focus tracking, I, again, can only compare it to previous models and it seems to be performing much better. My mark III never seemed to be that sharp, even on the prime lenses. But, I have yet to shoot with it on a 400 or 300. I have used prime lenses, from 85 down to 24.
I strongly suggest looking at Al Bello's comments from Brad Mangin's postings. I agree with what he said completely. And if you do not know Al, then realize he deserves to be a voice regarding quality of imagery.http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2380 Do I wish that every frame was tack sharp and I only had to choose which image to select from the moment, absolutely, but that isn't the case. It definitely has a lot more in focus than I ever got manually, but we have progressed far past that state of the business. I just want a camera that is going to respond. I am fully invested in Canon.
Low light performed well, but I never push the camera further than 1 stop BELOW what the company suggests the camera can handle. So again, it performs better than the previous model.
Is it worth $5000? Well, if you can sell your Mark III for $1500-2000 then it is, because you will probably have the camera for a year or longer and then you can write the purchase off over time and realize you are buying "film," just not over a year, but in one lump sum. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 6:13 AM on 02.24.10 |
->> Popular Photography just reviewed it as well...while they completely glossed over the Mk III's AF problems (not surprising since Canon is a huge advertiser), they say the Mk IV is SLOWER at AF than the Mk III and give it 4.5 stars in comparison to the 5 stars for both the D3s and D3x.
Their website is http://www.popphoto.com, although they don't appear to have posted the review there yet. It's in the latest print issue, though. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 7:50 AM on 02.24.10 |
->> OK, double correction...
The review can be found here: http://www.popphoto.com/camera-test-canon-eos-1d-mark-iv
Jack Howard's review of the 1D Mk III acknowledges "on line chatter" about AF problems but says they didn't encounter any. The 1D Mk IV review backtracks slightly, saying the Mk III "...suffered from AF problems in some units from its inception." |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|