From the link Nill Toulme sent I got to a review of the 1D MarkIV ( Check it out), there is an interesting and very important observation about the camera sensor and I cote:
"The high pixel density of the 1DmkIV has two negative implications - it puts great demands on lens quality and also the camera is more susceptible to camera shake/motion blur. I find that I have to raise my shutterspeed a little to ensure getting a sharp image on the mkIV. To give you an idea of this, I took some images with the three cameras (plus 500mm f4 on a tripod trained on a distant target) reducing the shutterspeed progressively until the results were no longer critically sharp when viewed at 100%. I found that I could get away with 1/30th sec on the 1DsmkII, 1/80th sec on the 1DmkIII and 1/125th on the 1DmkIV. This is quite significant and would necessitate increasing the ISO setting over the other cameras by up to 2 stops in low light conditions to compensate."
ruimleal wrote:
My conclusion is still the same, at the moment, the 1.0.4 is a more stable version if you shoot on low light and football, but hey! that is just me talking.
I'm very apprehensive about the double speed to freeze things up and to maintain sharp images as this result in a higher ISO and a not so good quality for the final image also not talking if you need to make a crop of that image with high ISO as it sometimes it's necessary on football games.
I believe Canon could have deliver a much better sensor and even moved into a full frame one but you know Canon, marketing above all.
Last words if you are shooting moving targets remember to always, at least, double your shutter speed to get those really crispy images and try to keep you ISO low as possible to maintain HQ files. If you are on Low Light then you are f... or you can always try to change to the Dark side. ...Show more →
Canon's recommendation to increase shutter speed is only logical considering the increased resolution of the camera and I don't see any other alternative other than to maybe use a lower resolution setting which could mitigate blur at the expense of resolution. But my feeling is you're better off to shoot at full resolution and let the end user crop to the appropriate size. If you're shooting for a newspaper or wire service, chances are you're already (down)sizing images prior to transmission anyway, which may lessen the problem, unless as you stated, intend to crop deeply into the image.
I'm not sure how Canon could have made the IV sensor much better than it is. It delivers about one stop better performance than the III's 10MP sensor yet is considerably higher resolution. I'm definitely seeing sharper images as a result, though naturally it doesn't match Nikon's D3S in terms of noise (but Nikon also applies more 'black magic' during in-camera image processing, which I'm not sure I would want).
A full frame sensor would have resulted in other compromises. Maybe it could have been made with even less noise, but at what resolution? If at 16MP it would have the same pixel density as the Mark III but a wider field of view. Considering that Canon claims the new sensor tech in the IV is a gain of two stops due to efficiencies gained by optimizing the micro lenses and software, a two stop gain over the III at the same pixel density would be considerable. But compared to a IV file, you'd have less resolution to work with if using the same lens in a fixed situation since the field of view on FF would be wider (assuming you can't move closer and are 'lens limited', typical of many sports events). It would be the same as comparing the ability to crop a Mark III against the IV based on pixel density. So you'd end up shooting longer lenses or cropping a 16MP FF lot more than with the IV. For the FF camera to have the same pixel reach, it would have to be about 27MP, but then it likely wouldn't have 10 fps and post event workload for photojournalists would be cumbersome due to the large file sizes.
Yeah, the IV's sensor is a compromise, which Canon admits. They claim the decision was made to allow the use of shorter, lighter lenses to allow more mobility yet also give more cropping 'reach' for the average photojournalist. But of course the trade off to higher resolution is that focus issues become more apparent, requiring tighter tolerances throughout the AF system but also better technique by photographers.
thank you for the thread it was very helpful concerning that I had to experiment all that when I bought the MarkIII.
At least now I know,scientifically, what causes the blur. And for many months I was thinking it was Superman
Let's hope Canon have a say on this, maybe some in camera stabilization. I'm expecting the 70-200 USM L IS II this week and let's see what the new stabilizer would bring.
luckyjon, just install it and one noticeable thing was how faster the start up of the camera is, now it's instantaneously available to shoot when switch on.
Will try to see how focus work later on has I have a good low light assignment and post my findings here. I will also try to downgrade it to 1.0.4 again to see if Canon is not fooling us out on the not so downgrade to 1.0.6 unless they have changed a lot of things with this firmware. Will try to check it out with Canon Germany.
Installed the software yesterday and what I noticed it's a much faster switch on and ready camera. It goes instantly ready. Also noticed that the flash sync speed is up to 1/300s maybe this has to do with the new flash coming out in August.
Try and downgrade to version 1.0.4 and reinstall 1.0.8 with no problem.
Currently on version 1.0.8 I will make some more tests today with a different environment to see how the lock focus issues are going but from what I tested yesterday with almost no light on the concert it looked much better on acquiring focus and stay in with the subject, but this is just a first quick analysis. Will have to make a better testing today.
I have also added the firmware and will see if I have any better captures on my birding trip tomorrow.
With I.0.6 it seemed much slowing locking on to a BIF than my 1Dmk 11 N
But my biggest problem so far is when using centre focus I get a lot of background noise.
I think the focus issues addresses all of us. BIF, Concerts, Fashion,Sports. What I believe is that Canon needs to make a change on the sensors cause that's what causing the "blurred" and not in complete focus of some of the photos.
WOW. A long video. Watched it all. The first 35 minutes are a timeline of the word "Pixel" Kinda boring.
But was very intrigued on how much these old timers know.
If you bumped into these guys on the street you'd think they would NOT have a clue about what a pixel was let alone bayer array etc.
And these guys are the ones who gave it to us!
The more you use these new gadgets etc, you get the feeling that technology has run off and left all the old guys behind and that every new I-phone or new camera or sensor was a brain child of some 24 yr old guy in college somewhere or a room full of young braniac 26 yr old fresh engineers.....
when in fact its still these old guys bringing us all the goodies.
It was absolutely refreshing to see this video. To see how smart these guys really are and how much the younger generation stands to learn from them.
I'll say this and I've always felt this way, but we(younger generation) need to become a spounge around these guys today....right now before they are all dead and gone.
See how many of those guys on his papers are now dead. Sure hope we have new upcomers that can "try" to fill the shoes.
Cause it sure seems they have all the answers.
Great link, thanks.
have you tryed lightroom3 ive managed to rescue images i had previously marked as trash
i am very impressed with the noise reduction not sure it fits with my workflow but thats an other story
