I'm pleased you like the Mk IV so much, Ragebot, and I would sure hope it'd be the best of the two cameras - but I still maintain that there's a similarity in the look of Mk IV and 7D images.
It's pretty likely that there's some shared sensor technology in the two, so it's not surprising to me that I can a certain common "look" to the files.
I've had the 7D for a few months when I sold the MKIII to hold me over until the MKIV and I can say that while it is indeed a nice camera, the MKIV is simply that much better.
The MKIV is cleaner at all ISO levels and retains details much better.
I do agree that the 7D offers great bang for the buck. Absolutely. The 19 point AF system is great. Certainly beats anything else in the xxD and 5D line by a long shot.
One time I had two 7Ds and I really liked them so much. Having said that if you are pushing the shots in extreme crop, 7D images are not as good as that of 1D4.
I am sure, 7D should have produced great image but not to the same quality to that of 1D4 when you look at the original image level. And since 1D4 can take 1.4TC with F5.6 lenes, I do not miss the reach of 7D.
OK... I'm obviously not articulating my point eloquently or concisely enough..!
What I'm saying is not that the 7D matches/beats the Mk IV in any way, but simply that the noise characteristics of both cameras appear similar: noise from each camera is fine-grained, unobtrusive and easy to process.
Have a look at the noise in the 1000 ISO pelican on the previous page then see these two (cropped) 1600 ISO shots from my 7D.
The nature of the noise is similar, I think.
Note that I've significantly "under processed" these to leave some noise in, so that there's something to compare with the Mk IV shot.
Nill Toulme wrote:
I'd like to start a unique and hopefully useful Mark IV thread. Please post here your own actual, hands-on experience with the Mark IV. Nill
This isn't quite hands on (yet) but I've been following all the Mark IV threads closely as I've waited for my Mark IV to come in. Chris from Canoga Camera emailed me Monday that he would be getting in a couple by Wednesday and I was at the top of the list.
Confirmation came today. Shipping tonight so I should have my paws on it sometime Friday if UPS doesn't make me chase them for 3 days for the signature.
I'm stoked and excited to shoot some BIF's. I've got my Mark III batteries (3) charged and ready to go. I placed my order in the middle of October and have been waiting patiently ever since with fingers crossed on the performance of the AF. From what I've read and seen it looks like a winner. Now if it doesn't rain Saturday I'll be out in the field.
Thanks for all the great posts to this and the other Mark IV threads everyone. After the Mark III problems (one of mine went DOA in the field after the first sub-mirror fix) I was really sitting on the fence. Hope I fell off on the right side..
FWIW (maybe not much) PopPhoto posted their MkIV review yesterday. I searched and the conclusions (available only in print edition at that point) were referenced a couple weeks back but that was in a thread relating to "another author" and it might be a good idea not to resurrect that thread.
I just came back from a week of fashion week shooting. After having a 1d3 that was sent back for all calibrations and IMHO a pretty good copy I can say my 1d4 is a very noticable step above it in AF accuracy. I shot 20k photos with my 1d4 over the week almost all of the person walking toward you (sometimes white clothes and white background or black clothes on black background) and there is a MUCH higher hit rate along with a ton of just plain amazing sharp pictures. Because of the work I do I was highly considering switching over to Nikon during the next gen (d4) but the 1d4 has renewed my faith in Canon being able to compete with Nikon in AF technology.
There were a few other 1d4 uses at the shows and I can say everyone was more than pleased with their results with the camrea.
keithreeder wrote: OK... I'm obviously not articulating my point eloquently or concisely enough..!
What I'm saying is not that the 7D matches/beats the Mk IV in any way, but simply that the noise characteristics of both cameras appear similar: noise from each camera is fine-grained, unobtrusive and easy to process.
Have a look at the noise in the 1000 ISO pelican on the previous page then see these two (cropped) 1600 ISO shots from my 7D.
Note that I've significantly "under processed" these to leave some noise in, so that there's something to compare with the Mk IV shot....Show more →
Please be gentle with me if I get this post wrong, I have had the mk4 for a few weeks, prior to that was the mk3, the weather has been poor for that time. However I saw your image of a robin and thought I could show a similar picture from the mk4 for comparison.
Had first soccer outing with the Mark IV last night. Haven't really studied the results yet but initial impression is that the AF worked at least as well as my MkIIn.
But wow, do I love the way it handles. Old news to you MkIII users, but coming from the MkII the improvements in the controls are a revelation. The screen is fantastic, and so is shooting at ISO 8000 and getting what on quick first glance looks at least as good as 1600 on the MkII.
OTOH, I was startled when my 8GB card beeped full with only about 350 RAW files on it. Yikes! I have a 32GB Gmonster on the way, but still... yikes! Data storage is going to be a real issue. (And so may be throughput, but that remains to be seen when I sit down to process these shoots...)
And did I ever feel stupid when I couldn't figure out how to tell it to switch cards. Time to pull out the manual. The old yank-the-full-card-and-close-the-door trick worked as a stopgap though, and at halftime I at least figured out how to tell it to automatically switch cards when the first one is full.
It seems quieter than the MkII also... makes it seem calmer somehow. ;-)
Surprisingly, one of the coolest little things about it is that I can pretty reliably fire only one shot in HS burst mode... something I was always hard-pressed to accomplish with my previous 1-series bodies (well not the pokey old 1Ds2...)
SNIP
And did I ever feel stupid when I couldn't figure out how to tell it to switch cards. Time to pull out the manual. The old yank-the-full-card-and-close-the-door trick worked as a stopgap though, and at halftime I at least figured out how to tell it to automatically switch cards when the first one is full.
SNIP
Nill
Hi Nill,
I should have mentioned that in one of my earlier posts; I did the same thing. There are some very good deals on 16gb cards at both BH and Adorama; I got 4 of them.
Just wait till you start doing video; you can really use up cards in a hurry.
Awesome, Nill! I'm looking forward to seeing some images. Maybe over on the Sports forum? And, BTW, I downloaded the Capture One 5.1 trial. We don't have soccer going yet here in Denver but I am definitely psyched! Mark IV, 300 2.8 IS, Capture One.
Nill Toulme wrote:
Had first soccer outing with the Mark IV last night. Haven't really studied the results yet but initial impression is that the AF worked at least as well as my MkIIn.
But wow, do I love the way it handles. Old news to you MkIII users, but coming from the MkII the improvements in the controls are a revelation. The screen is fantastic, and so is shooting at ISO 8000 and getting what on quick first glance looks at least as good as 1600 on the MkII.
OTOH, I was startled when my 8GB card beeped full with only about 350 RAW files on it. Yikes! I have a 32GB Gmonster on the way, but still... yikes! Data storage is going to be a real issue. (And so may be throughput, but that remains to be seen when I sit down to process these shoots...)
And did I ever feel stupid when I couldn't figure out how to tell it to switch cards. Time to pull out the manual. The old yank-the-full-card-and-close-the-door trick worked as a stopgap though, and at halftime I at least figured out how to tell it to automatically switch cards when the first one is full.
It seems quieter than the MkII also... makes it seem calmer somehow. ;-)
Surprisingly, one of the coolest little things about it is that I can pretty reliably fire only one shot in HS burst mode... something I was always hard-pressed to accomplish with my previous 1-series bodies (well not the pokey old 1Ds2...)
Regarding file sizes: Well, coming from the II series, you're getting a double whammy. The change to 14 bit RAW as of the III nearly doubles file size, then going from 8MP in the II to 16 in the IV will add to it as well. IIRC, II RAW files were often in the 7-8MB range, whereas I'm typically seeing around 22MB from the IV.
I don't know what computer you use now, but if it's nearly five years old like my current tower, have fun! It's definitely one of the next things on my list of upgrades.
You might notice more subject motion blur than you're used to from the II due to the IV's higher resolution.
Oh, and in the IV thread about the Popular Photography Mark IV review, there has been some discussion about the IV's relatively lackluster low light AF performance. I think it was discussed here a number of pages back in reference to the review posted at canonrumors.com.
I posted this in the Popular Photography review thread:
I did a side by side test between my IV and one of my Mark IIIs in ambient light around ISO 3200 1/100 f/1.2 - both cameras AFed similarly in One Shot. Both had no trouble locking focus on subjects with reasonable contrast. But AF in both wasn’t very fast. Typically the AF would move relatively fast until it got near the correct distance, then took about half a second to finally decide and light the AF confirm light. AF assist points were disabled for both. Non-center AF points behaved similarly on both cameras.
Maybe it was still too bright, so I tried it at ISO 3200 1/30 f/1.2 light level and both had similar difficulty locking on lower contrast subjects. This time the center point on both did a bit better. While both behaved similarly, AF was slow and in the darker test conditions sometimes hunted, but generally locked onto subjects with good contrast.
In this respect I’m not sure there is much difference between the III and IV at this level of ambient light.
Based on the IV review at canonrumors, the reviewer felt the IV was inferior to the 5DII in very dark ‘candle light’ conditions of ISO 12,800 1/30 f/1.4….
So I adjusted the ambient room light to this brightness and yes, the IV displayed more AF indecision than the III. Two times out of three the III would lock AF, though it by no means was a very fast process. In contrast the IV hunted more, AF drive speed seemed slower and AF lock was less often than the III with the same, relatively high contrast subject. And it helped greatly if the lens was already prefocused close to the correct distance. Both cameras couldn’t lock onto medium and low contrast subjects at this light level.
An interesting twist: Live view contrast detect AF in the IV at ‘candle light’ level worked great! Medium to low contrast subjects the IV’s phase detect AF couldn’t lock on were not a problem for live view AF.
BTW, ISO 12,800 1/30 f/1.4 is an EV of -1, which is right at what Canon states is the IV’s threshold for AF operation.
If you need to buy new and bigger CF cards for sports then consider getting the very fastest 90 MB/s cards such as the Sandisk Pro. It seems that they effectively increase the shooting buffer size substantially by clearing the data from camera to CF very quickly. StanJ reported 40+ shots in a burst of raw and then only 7 seconds to clear the buffer. I got less than 30 shots per burst with my 60 MB/s card and about 15 seconds to clear the buffer. My next card will be one of the 90MB/s cards because being able to shoot for at full frame rate for at least an extra second can be very handy.
The 1D4 raw files are bigger than the 1D2 cards because of twice the pixel count and further because of 14-bits per colour per pixel instead of 12. The use of oh-so-tempting high ISO bumps it up again.
- Alan
[correction] I've since been told by Ron (in this thread) that Stan later reported that the IV he was using (it wasn't his) was set to 7 fps. At 10 fps you'll likely not get 40+ before hitting the buffer. From what others have reported you'll probably get 2-3 extra frames. But the buffer will clear very quickly. - Alan
Just curious, can someone give me an example of a scenario where you actually need to shoot bursts long enough or frequently enough to fill the buffer on a 1D Mark III/IV?
The only time I've come across it myself was when trying motorsports and panning with a 1Ds Mark III, but that camera has a small buffer.
The 90MB/s cards are nice but I think the price is too high still.
Well soccer (football) for one. I've filled the buffer a few times this week. But I went for the $149 533x 32GB Photofast Gmonster instead of the $249 533x Plus, and it seems "fast enough" to me, expecially as I think I'm going to have to buy a second one.
Nill Toulme wrote:
Well soccer (football) for one. I've filled the buffer a few times this week. But I went for the $149 533x 32GB Photofast Gmonster instead of the $249 533x Plus, and it seems "fast enough" to me, expecially as I think I'm going to have to buy a second one.
Nill
Nill, have you filled the 32gb card in a single outing? If so, how many shots did you get on it?
