Shot the first half of a men's NCAA basketball game tonight to get a bit more work with the 1DIV. This post is for those who are interested in this Canon body and NOT about the quality of my basketball shots. I know they're dime-a-dozen shots and that's pretty much what I'm good for with basketball . This is about the camera performed.
In a word, performance was stellar. Shot at ISO 3200 with a 70-200/2.8. I intended to shoot at 2.8, but somehow inadvertently changed that to f/3.5 for some of the shots.
Custom function settings were the same as I used for gymnastics last night (see details in this thread), with the single exception that I changed CFIII-2 from the default 0 (middle of scale) to the next slower point on the scale (I think it's -1). All with center point.
AF was fantastic. No other way to put it. Very fast to engage and lock onto my intended subject, accurate tracking, wasn't easily distracted. I had very few OOF shots. I don't shoot basketball very often, but I don't remember ever having this much success where AF is concerned.
At ISO 3200, these shots are very clean. What's posted here are the jpgs out of the camera with cropping, maybe a touch-up or two to a couple of shots but very little processing and absolutely no noise reduction in post. I shot L sized jpgs.
Finally, in an arena that typically is very challenging where white balance is concerned, I set a custom white balance using a translucent plastic lid. Damn near perfect.
Here are 8 shots. Not really looking for C&C here, just wanting to provide more data regarding the 1DIV.
Russ they look good to me. I know I am loving my 1DMKIV and am very impressed with the ISO performance and the AF. I'll have to check out your Gymnastic stuff, I always ooohh and aaahh to it.
Any chance you'd agree to forgo use of the MkIV for gymnastics? I am already working overtime trying to close the gap...
This camera continues to be a bright light for any Canon user who struggles to justify their explanation whenever someone asks "So why did you choose Canon instead of Nikon?"
Thank you for the post, Russ. Oddly enough, just 30 minutes after providing my CC info to the store for my *own* MkIV, I saw Rob Galbraith's take on the camera as well as the comments here and on SportsShooter. I was upset and didn't sleep well that night.
I've since gotten over his review and realized the same thing I did when I pulled the trigger on the MkIV - the people I trust and know in the field....the people like you out there shooting the things I shoot - all report nothing but incredible experiences with the camera. I have no doubt it'll do just what I need.
Russ thanks for posting these. I am drooling over the color and the overall image quality. I am a Canon shooter but I have always loved the color out of the D3 especially after reading all the af hoopla (no pun intended) with the III.
BTW that opening shot shows just how good the IV really does work. Thanks again for posting these with little post to allow us to see the jpegs out of the body.
Unreal images Russ!
There were so many positive reviews of the Mark IV from the Pros that some of negative stuff that came out later lead you to think that they were due to CF or user error issues. Like a true Pro you kept your cool and focused on the fact that it was your first trip out with this Camera. Your second trip was major improvement.
You adjusted your AF microadjustment to +2 for all lenses? Did you use any method of testing for microadjustment (Lesalign) or you just shooting and adjusting up or down to find the a sweet spot? You posted these images as large jpegs and they look great. Has the PP software caught up to the Mark IV yet? Or are we in a lull with aftermarket PP products?
Your help and willingness to share is greatly appreciated.
Michael
Thanks Matt. Glad to hear you're happy with your MKIV.
John: I'm certainly hoping this camera continues to be a bright spot though I can't say I've ever had that question about my choice.
j.brevard: Thanks. They don't seem hot on my calibrated monitor (plenty of detail in the white unis), but as you say, even if they are, that's on me and not the camera.
Thanks Darren!
Jim: Clearly it's not a decision to be taken lightly. I too put a lot of thought into it and at this point, there's no turning back (of course, if that were completely true I'd have sold my 1DsIII by now!).
James: You're welcome. And I know of that sinking feeling you speak of. I'd had my camera for a few days when the vibe surrounding it "out there" took a serious turn for the ugly. Since I hadn't yet shot an event with it, I was nervous. Now I've shot two events and I'm feeling very good about the camera. I think that feeling should continue to grow with more use. Certainly I hope that's the case. One thing's for sure: it's a complicated beast that appears to be capable of doing many different things in many different ways. Ultimately, I think that's a great thing, but it also ups the learning curve. Good luck with yours.
Thanks, Beau. Agreed: color and image quality are very nice.
Michael:Thanks. To answer your questions.... With regard to microadjustment, I used a method of shooting from a tripod at a tape measure at 45-degrees to the sensor plane. For most of my lenses, I ended up making very minor adjustments (+/1 5 or less in most instances as I recall). For my oldest lens (200/1.8) and my 70-200/2.8, the adjustments were much larger, and I was not at all confident in my procedure. When I shot my first event with each of these large-adjustment lenses, I decided to un-do the adjustments and just go with "0" and I think that (realizing my adjustments weren't likely to be accurate or necessary) was a good call because both lenses seemed to do very well at the zero micro-adjustment setting. As for jpg size, I was referring to the camera setting ("L") rather than the setting for what was posted. These were shot as L jpgs, then reduced to 700 pixels on the long side for posting. Mostly, I was pointing out that what I've posted was not converted from RAW but out-of-camera jpgs. I'm pretty sure that users of Photoshop CS4 have access to updates to ACR that allow for conversion of MKIV files. So PP software in most cases has caught up to this most recent Canon release. The photos I've posted were edited in PS CS3, but in most cases, very little PP aside from resizing. No post noise reduction.
These are fantastic JPG's. Can't imagine what Raw conversions would be. Ya don't need to excuse your basketball inability, these are what we all strive for.
Russ, have you turned off Auto Lighting Optimizer? I was wondering if that's why your original set of gymnastics pix were darker until processed by DPP. Presumably, DPP would take that into consideration, unlike third party raw conversion. I've also heard some people say ALO can have a "funky" effect on skin tones. (As if gym lighting weren't bad enough.) I've shot with it on (the default) and off, and have been happier with the results when it is turned off.
jjoejr: Thanks for the feedback from your calibrated monitor.
Hey Frank, go for it (unless of course you're of a mind to be practical and wait a bit longer to see how this all plays out ). And thanks.
Deborah: Great question. I just checked. I have had this set to 0: "standard" rather than 3: "disable". I have no idea what that custom function is about, so now I'm going to have to read up on it. Thank you for alerting me to this, as I'm sure that it, like every one of the many, many settings, has to potential to make a noticeable difference. The setting didn't change from gymnastics to basketball, though the light sure did, so to the extent the standard setting has an effect based on lighting, it would have been a differential effect across the two shoots. I'm kinda glad to hear that and will now see what I can learn about this setting. Thanks again!
. This is about the camera performed.
though I can't say I've ever had that question about my choice.
). And thanks.