|
|
haringo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Jul 22, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Finally Canon built a Camera which can focus fast, Good ISO
|
|
Cons:
|
not full frame, price, with a 70-200 it is very heavy for the whole day
|
|
Last weekend I rented one for an Indian wedding. I don't regret it. Without this I would have missed a lot of action. You can see some of the pictures here: http://www.haringphotography.com/blog/
Pros:
- Excellent colors at high ISO, better than 5D Mark II
- It has the best AF I have ever experienced similar to 7D
- you don't need to buy expensive fast prime lenses to shoo in low light so you SAVE a lot of money! At the end, you may be better off buying this one and a 24-70mm.
Cons:
- Not a full frame if you are into the "full frame look"
- it can be heavy to hold for a day long wedding
- The new 1ds Mark IV will be announced soon so you may wait a little bit...  :):)
- it can be hard to take candid picture of people. It is hard to be unnoticed with this tank. The worse is when you put the 70-200 on it. The canon 5d with a small lens is better for that purpose.
- I HAVE to buy one 
|
|
 Jul 22, 2010
|
|
fusionphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 16, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, IQ, focusing, speed, durability,
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, its heavy
|
|
I have read with interest many reviews on this camera, positive and negative, but I have nothing negative to say about it. It is a superb professional machine that produces results. I have used it in good and bad light and have found absolutely no problem with the AF, it snaps on and sticks. I take many pictures in dark night clubs of bands and performer where the light can be extremely difficult and have had absolutely no problems with AF as others have described. The IQ up to 12500 ASA is usable with a little PP. Battery performance is excellent.
I have used, and still use, 1Ds and 1D Mk1 & 2 and see this camera as an improvement. The images I get from it need less PP than the 1Ds or the Mk1 & 2. Simply fantastic, maybe I am from the second group and in denial, I think not..and neither do my publishers.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2010
|
|
Christopher.S
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Feb 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2047
|
|
Review Date: Jun 9, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,600.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
This copy focuses great.Built like a tank
|
|
Cons:
|
Its not worth $3000.00 more than a 7d
|
|
This is my second copy the first one just would not focus so I returned it. I currently own both a 7D and this camera and when I think about the $3000.00 price difference it makes me just shake my head. Yes the ISO is a better its built like a tank and 2 more frames a second but $3000.00 more.If you have the $$$$ to burn like I guess I do (I really don’t) then go for it. Would I recommend this to a friend probably after I explain the difference between it and the 7D.Bottom line I feel this should be priced around $3200.00-$3500.00.
Hope this helps someone.
|
|
|
Jun 9, 2010
|
|
D.K. Owens
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: May 6, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2010
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
I must add an addendum: After shooting outdoor events of all varieties, I'm convinced that this camera is a 10!
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
Here's a nice sample:
http://gallery.me.com/evilgenius44/100389
|
|
|
May 20, 2010
|
|
Jerry Mitchell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2010
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
This is a note of interest concerning my review of the Mark IV. I submitted the same review to B&H, and after it was posted for about a day, B&H deleted my review. Apperantely, they did not like my low rating. Maybe Canon Corp. has something to do with that, but I'm not sure.
That act, by B&H, further qualifies my low rating of this model. And it sends a message, to all, that all these positive reviews out there are cherry picked. So for every rating of a "9" or a "10", there is no telling how many low rating there is out there for this body.
|
|
|
May 20, 2010
|
|
adamo99
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 21, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 262
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $5,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Plenty of customization options, fantastic JPEG engine, fast & accurate AF, separate auto AF points for landscape and portrait shooting, much improved LCD (finally!), plenty of pixels, and great high ISO performance. sRAW and mRAW file sizes.
|
|
Cons:
|
HD video feels tacked on, and is a bit cumbersome to use.
|
|
The 1DmkIV does everything that I need it to do. It's fast, accurate, performs well at high-ISO. Offers plenty of pixels for cropping flexibility.
I don't shoot sports professionally, but I do shoot some hockey and soccer, and the AF has always been spot-on. Downloading and reading the mkIV white-paper end to end, and tweaking settings helped quite a bit.
I don't use the HD video capture, so am not qualified to comment on the quality/output, but it is a bit cumbersome to use.
Overall, the best camera I've owned to date.
|
|
|
May 19, 2010
|
|
Jerry Mitchell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $4,999.00
|
|
Pros:
|
All positive aspects are useless since this camera cannot produce a properly focused image on a consistent basis
|
|
Cons:
|
Very poor auto focus system. Poor image quality. High ISO rating, above 12800, are useless. No where near Nikon's D3S, yet the camera costs only $200 less. Not worth it.
|
|
As of now, there are three groups of reviewers for the Canon 1D Mark IV camera.
The first group are the ones who have upgraded from consumer/prosumer bodies, i.e. 40D, 50D, 5DMII. Most of these reviewers gave the Mark IV high marks. Well, that’s understandable since moving up to the 1D series is, indeed, a worthwhile upgrade. And the Mark IV does outperform all of consumer/prosumer bodies in many categories, even the auto focus, up to a certain point.
The second group are the one who are in denial. They are the ones who upgraded from the Mark II, Mark IIN , or the Mark III. They see the Mark IV’s shortcoming, and poor performance, but cannot bring themselves to the realization that after spending $5000.00, their new camera is not much better than the Mark III, and certainly, and without a doubt, not as good as the Mark IIN. For whatever reason it may be, they are trying desperately to convince themselves that their purchase is a good one. They are the ones who, after realizing what a poor performer the Mark IV is in areas that really count the most, go on boasting about the camera’s other features (high megapixel count, high frame rate, 1080P video), in hopes of making themselves feel better about their purchase. With all due respect to those reviewers, let me just say this: no matter what feature a camera has, or how many gigapixels a camera has, or any other feature it might have that separates it from the rest of its competition, that said camera is worthless if it cannot produce focused images. What good is a large image if it’s out of focus? No amount of pixels is going to help it. What are you going to tell your client, “hey, I have a great sequence of the winning goal/shot/peak moment, and you can have prints the size of the Empire State Building, too, just overlook the simple fact that the image/images are out of focus”.?
The third group are the ones who are realistic, and objective in their review. What I mean by that is they have come to the conclusion that the Mark IV is a great disappointment when it comes to the focus/autofocus department. And not to mention falling short when competing against Nikon’s D3S, in just about most categories, except the megapixel count and the 1080P video.
I belong in the third group. I have shot about 2000 frames with the Mark IV, in varying conditions, and the camera’s AF performed pretty much exactly as Rob Galbraith stated in his review of this body. POORLY. I do not have the Mark III (I opted to skip that party) to compare the Mark IV with, but I do have a Mark IIN, and I’m here to say that if Canon would simply take the Mark IIN’s AF system, as is, and put it in the Mark IV body, along with the 39 cross type AF selection points, that they may have a winner on their hands, or at least they won’t have as big a disappointment as the Mark III, and the Mark IV.
During a soccer game, on a cloudless, sunny sky, the camera’s AF had a difficult time. Whether using the single shot mode, or AI Servo mode, the AF system was consistently inconsistent. In single shot mode, on static subjects, the camera would confirm focus acquisition when in fact the subject is out of focus, which would be confirmed later after zooming in to verify focus. This problem happened on a regular basis, with different lenses. And different a body
In AI servo mode, the camera sometimes refuses to focus, and can be clearly seen in the viewfinder that the subject is out of focus, yet the focus points light up indicating focus and the camera is firing away as though the camera has acquired focus. I do not recall ever experiencing such behavior with the Mark IIN.
Another problem with the AF system is the low light focusing ability (inability?). There were many occasions where the light was dim, and the Mark IV would just hunt and hunt trying to acquire focus. Same situation, same lens, the Mark IIN would instantly acquire focus. The Mark IV was finally able to acquire focus, in the same dimly lit conditions, with the help of a speedlite’s IR beam. But then again, the Mark IIN did not need that kind of help.
I will not link Rob Galbraith’s site from here, but if you have not read his review, google his name, and read what he has to say.
Update: I had another Mark IV delivered to me to try out, and it had the same problems. The serial numbers of the two bodies were clearly from a different batch. When I contacted Canon C.P.S. to ask about these problems, they said, and I quote, “having used both the 1D Mark III and the 1D Mark IV, I can tell you that
the focus capability of the 1D Mark IV is a nice improvement over the 1D
Mark III, assuming of course that the camera is working as it should and
used correctly”.
A nice improvement? When I read that, my first impression was that of mild shock, but also an “aha” moment. When the Mark IV was introduced, it was supposed to have all the Mark III’s problems fixed. But now Canon says that the AF is a “nice improvement” over the Mark III. Well that confirmed to me that Canon never really overhauled the flawed system. I guess you can say that they just put lipstick on a pig, and called the Mark IV.
Another thing that C.P.S. told me is that the problems that I’m experiencing could be due an alignment problem with the camera. So, that’s two different cameras, from two entirely different batches, and they both have the same problems. According to Canon, this is an isolated problem. HA!
So as to those positive reviews out there, I am going to have to disagree with them. I don’t care what Canon says, or what other reviewers are saying, I know what I have experienced with this new model, and it ain’t pretty.
|
|
|
May 19, 2010
|
|
allanbaden
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 5, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 20, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Low ISO noise, Top AF system, Build like a tank, Fast, Good Auto White Balance for my use.
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far...
|
|
Hi
I am a pro sports photographer and have been for about 7 years and have been using the 1D Mark I - Mark II - Mark III and also the 5D Mark II. My main lens that i use for sports is the 70-200 2.8 Mark II and the 400mm 2.8 Mark II. I still use the 1D Mark II and the Mark III also.
The new Mark IV from Canon is simply amazing so far. In my series i get more tack sharp images than ever before compared to Mark I, II and III. I have always been very satisfied with the 1D series so i find i quite amazing with all the improvement that Canon have mad in the Mark IV.
There is a lot of new nice things like the new LCD and so on but the big and best things for me is the new AF Servo II witch is very very good. Its quick and when it locks on it just don't let go. Its amazing how nice it is. Also the ISO capabilities is out of this world. I would guess the ISO 6400 is like the ISO 1600 on the Mark III. Really impressive.
Overall the perfect camera for me...
Regards, Allan
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2010
|
|
webman06
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2004
Location: France
Posts: 47
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent handling, exposition, color rendition, very fast !!!
|
|
Cons:
|
none so far
|
|
I've had it for one month so far and i'm very satisfied with this very dependable camera.
I've used it for :
- landscape with EF 17-40L, 24-105L, 15 fisheye
- wildlife with EF 300L 2.8 IS, 70-200L 2.8 IS, sigma 50-500 DG
- street with EF 50L, 135L, 85 1.8
The color rendition is very very good. No problem with AF tracking, all my shots are tack sharp. A lot less postprod that previous cameras.
I rate it a good 10 !!!
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2010
|
|
genefixer
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 22, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3070
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,999.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
AF, increased pixels, HD movie capability, lower high ISO noise, improved LCD resolution.
|
|
Cons:
|
none other than the obvious
|
|
I shoot mainly wild-life with some landscape shots thrown in for good measure. I had the Mk III for about 18 mo and was reasonably happy with all respects except mainly the AF servo performance mostly with low contrast subjects. I find the Mk IV for tracking birds in flight to be superior without a doubt. I find the higher pixel sensor to be useful when needed to crop and enlarge an image. The LCD on this baby is a beauty making evaluation of sharpness and exposure of a recent image much more reliable. I have tinkered with the HD movie mode and find it intuitive and of high quality. When shooting wild-life there are times when getting a movie is just so right!! This baby is not cheap for sure but after you overcome that initial shock, the all-around performance makes the price insignificant! If you have a Mk III and want to upgrade you will not be disappointed. The camera also operates much like the Mk III making the conversion nice and easy.
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2010
|
|
AFC168
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 114
|
|
Review Date: Mar 6, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,999.99
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fantastic auto-focus with the needed/helpful extra megapixels versus the III.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost
|
|
What I hoped the III would be ...
|
|
|
Mar 6, 2010
|
|
Faithrico
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 7, 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 102
|
|
Review Date: Feb 27, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The actual best sport camera if you need to use long lens, noise is very low (no real difference with d3s till 25k iso, if you work on file with the 2 camera you reach more detail and equal noise on 1d4).
A real upgrade of 1d3, if you shot mjpeg (nr low) the files are absolutely better than previous in noise and very very similar to ds3 (this one is a step forward but it's 200iso native..it's normal).
Finally.
|
|
Cons:
|
No possiblity to set spot af on camera button.
No track light on af point in auto mode (full auto 45point), in nikon is possible.
The ability to put iso range only on the "stop" and not in fraction like 8000 or 10000.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2010
|
|
|
