This gym wasn't nearly as bad as last weeks but still not one of the best lit I usually set up lights when I cover this team but wanted to see how the Mark IV did with the existing light. Although I have only covered two different sports so far it is starting to look like canon has gotten the focusing issues that many experienced in the Mark III resolved in the Mark IV. I particularly like being able to manually select a focusing point with focus point expansion enabled and using up to 18 surrounding points to track focusing C.Fn III -8 3 and since I was shooting basketball I set the tracking sensitivity one mark slower than standard.
Thanks for posting these. It validates (hopefully) setting aside the money for the Mark IV. I have been using my 5D MK2 in low light caves for volleyball ( no flash allowed ) but the 5D focus drives me nuts for sports. These are the ISO's I normally shot at and these look wonderful. Again , Thanks.
I would say these look as good as I have seen at this ISO from Canon or Nikon. But I can't help feeling that it's too good to be true. Did you do any noise reduction during post processing?
rbianco, Your audience looking at these images are trying to gauge the ISO performance of the MK IV. You know this or you wouldn't have posted the ISO next to each image. Using a 3rd party application to remove noise and failing to mentioning it in the original post seems a bit deceptive. Although I appreciate your posts they have lost some creditability in my mind. My hope is we will start seeing more high ISO images from this camera shot in JPG without any noise reduction in post processing.
Hey Luke, certainly not trying to be deceptive, I have limited time when it comes to posting and only the one 12,800 image was denoised so to speak (the layup shot). All anyone has to do is ask I am not trying to sell the Mark IV for canon and I am hoping I am not your typical canon fanboy. I am actually hapier with the focus capabilities than I am with the High ISO capabilities most of the people I shoot for request that I flash my basketball whenever possible. I shot in a true dungeon last week and I e-mailed Paul some of the full size images too.
Here is a link to one of the full size images it has had curves run on it and other than that hasnt been touched.
First off - dang...I want me a Mark IV. Any thoughts on whether the folks that require you to shoot with flash will accept what you're getting without it?
Second - I think #1 is hilarious. I'm not sure which guy looks goofier. Almost like they were having a contest to see who could look the goofiest.
Third - rest of the shots look great. Good facial expressions. Nice tight shots. Exposure looks good too.
Which were taken with the 400 if you don't mind my asking? I finally took the plunge and bought a 400 (non-IS) primarily for football. My assumption was that it would be too long for hoops. What's been your experience?
On second thought I suppose I could have figured it out just by noticing where each shot occurred on the floor (duh, the only two shots with the 400 are clearly not under the near basket).
I'll give it a go on Sunday and see what I get. Thanks for the inspiration.
Hate to say it, but ....... To me these don't even come close to the quality of the D3 files. Nikon nailed it with that thing and Canon is STILL catching up.
Good shots.
[edit] The raw file looks good. Not sure if it's your processing or what, but I think the posted shots look worse than the raw file. [/edit]
The Mark III jpeg files at ISO6400 look a lot cleaner than the Mark IV files at ISO6400. I was looking ay my mark III ISO6400 shots. The only thing the Mark IV has better is there is no hint of banding at ISO6400.
Let's all just reserve judgment on the noise factor for now. More evidence is necessary. Cycling lights vary from venue to venue and they can ruin a photo at any ISO. Really, the best judge will be with outside shots.
crfrey71 wrote:
The Mark III jpeg files at ISO6400 look a lot cleaner than the Mark IV files at ISO6400. I was looking ay my mark III ISO6400 shots. The only thing the Mark IV has better is there is no hint of banding at ISO6400.
. You can't be serious with this comment. My Mk IV blows my Mk III into the weeds starting around ISO 1600. It's just not even close.
I got my 1DM4 on Thursday and used it at two games Friday night and really noticed a difference in the auto focus compared to my 1DM3. I used TV mode at 1/500, f2.8-3.2 and set the camera to Auto ISO. For auto focus I used AI Servo center focus point and left tracking speed at standard setting. Also used the Auto Lighting Optimizer setting and large jpeg. I was very impressed with the write speed using new SanDisk Extreme Pro 16gb card, never had to wait for files to be written. I have three albums dated 01-08-10 on my website, www.jprimages.com , taken with the 1DM4. Here are a couple of shots which were all processed in Lightroom with LR noise reduction applied.
Man, the MKIV looks like the ticket
Its a shame I have to "suffer" with a value priced MKIII till the V comes out and makes the IV affordable for us other common folk...
Still, Awesome shots!
. You can't be serious with this comment. My Mk IV blows my Mk III into the weeds starting around ISO 1600. It's just not even close.