Nice camera. Just what we were expecting. Looks like it will have killer low-light performance, but I'm fine with my 5D2's ISO capabilities.
7D it is!
(My wallet would personally like to thank Canon for not releasing this:- 21.1 Megapixels
- Full Frame with 1.3 Crop Mode
- 8 FPS in Full Frame Mode
- 12 FPS in 1.3 Crop Mode
- Dual Digic IV Processors
- Native ISO 25,600
- Boost Mode ISO upto 102,400
- 45 AF Points - 39 Cross
- 63 Zone Metering
- 1080p @ 24-60 fps
- 720p @ 120 fps
- S-RAW Video
- HDMI HD video output
- 3" Fold & Tilt LCD Screen
- Self Cleaning Sensor)
mikethevilla wrote:
Nice camera. Just what we were expecting. Looks like it will have killer low-light performance, but I'm fine with my 5D2's ISO capabilities.
7D it is!
(My wallet would personally like to thank Canon for not releasing this
I would of bought that.
The fold/tilt LCD would of been annoying, but, I'd accept it.
Oh well, could of used the bonus points on the CC :/
I'm interested in seeing in what the professional sports leagues have to say about video in these cameras, given that they have very strict contracts with network tv.
Well it's nothing ground breaking. Usual MP increase and added video. I don't see the new lenses that were rumored. Oh well, Nikon D3s, 14-24, 24-70,70-200 and 200-400 are looking awfully tempting.
pahrens wrote:
Well it's nothing ground breaking. Usual MP increase and added video. I don't see the new lenses that were rumored. Oh well, Nikon D3s, 14-24, 24-70,70-200 and 200-400 are looking awfully tempting.
Well said, looks more like more evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Really surprised they omitted some stuff that was on the 7D.
Looks like late December before it actually hits the retailers here in the USA according to the Canon Press release. Also anybody know if it has Dual Card slots like the MarkIII or just single CF Slot
WmPat wrote:
Good decision. Mark 4 is a pro camera. Most of the people who fell for the 5D2 hysteria and the Full Frame hype would be over their heads with it.
Maybe I missed it, but I saw the "what's included" tab, and it seems like this doesn't come with a DC coupler like the other previous 1 series cameras. What gives?
sad thing now is that we will have 100 page threads bashing yet another seemingly great product..so far video is being bashed why? I would think PJs might like the idea of video on the spot...and gripes about FF well you know Canon is going to bring out a FF version why would they change the formula now..Canon put in features tailored to PJs and sports shooters THAT DONT NEED FULL FRAME.
Schlotkins wrote:
...Canon is stating that noise levels in Raw data from the Canon EOS-1D Mark IV should show a noticeable improvement over those of the previous model, at equivalent sensitivity....That is pretty bold. 60% resolution increase and better noise levels at the RAW level?
I know what you meant but to clarify your starement a bit...a 60% increase in pixels does NOT equate a 60% increase in resolution. Increases in pixels to resolution is non-linear. In any case, any improvement in noise levels is ALWAYS welcomed!
pahrens wrote:
Well it's nothing ground breaking. Usual MP increase and added video. I don't see the new lenses that were rumored. Oh well, Nikon D3s, 14-24, 24-70,70-200 and 200-400 are looking awfully tempting.
Yep... same basic shell, newer chips/firmware. I'm sure it's plenty wonderful, but for now I'm happy with my 1dm3 and 1dsm3 pair. I'll check back when they're up to around the 1dmIX or so.
omarlyn wrote:
I know what you meant but to clarify your starement a bit...a 60% increase in pixels does NOT equate a 60% increase in resolution. Increases in pixels to resolution is non-linear. In any case, any improvement in noise levels is ALWAYS welcomed!
Omar
well I dont think this entirely true..think about HD televisions you have 720p
1440x720 then you have 1080p 1920x1080 I dont know about you but I can tell the difference just like the monitor I am now looking at which is a 1080p upgraded from a 720p yeah there is a rez improvement since the sensor size is the same as the mark3s
btw hows more pixels not equate to more resolution?
The sample pictures on Canon Inc's site look disappointing...again. I don't understand why they can't just shoot a sharp image for once that isn't blurred from NR, or OOF or whatever
