About 1550 RAW only. That's perfect for a really good fast physical match, where I'll typically shoot 1200-1500 frames. Average match would be about 1000 frames.
Nill
p.s. Actually for the moment I think I need to go buy some more external hard drives! I have another 40GB in 8GB CFs and SDs. That will easily suffice for now for the typical JV or girls' match (no offense ladies, but it just doesn't move quite as fast), and I can switch to the Gmonster for the varsity boys' match. I really do hate switching cards on the field though, particularly those pesky little SD buggers.
My typical match is closer to 700 but, with the IV coming that might go up a bit. Asked for a similar reason, I don't like changing cards in the middle of a match either.
I'm in the process of rethinking my work flow in that I currently store most captures throughout the season which consumss a very large amount of space. I then have to delete those not used at the end of the season. One thing I've done is to invest in a 2 open drive e-sata "toaster dock" which helps dealing with multiple drives. The other (for longer term storage), is a drobo-s, which I currently have populated with 4 - 1.5Tb drives. It actually can hold a fifth drive. The "-S" version is e-sata. Nice thing about this device is you can slam any mixture of e-sata drives you have in it regardless of size or manufacturer.
Alan321 wrote:
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.
Please keep in mind that later Stan 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.
FretNoMore wrote:
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.
Football scenario where I've had buffer issues: Player such as a running back breaks through the line, making for some nice shots, then has a longer than expected run for a TD, which results in nice isolated action shots as well as the actual TD, then celebrates the TD with teammates. Very easy to hit the buffer shooting RAW in such a situation. In other words, any extended play sequence longer than 2.5 seconds.
Nill Toulme wrote:
I'm going to have to look into something like that. This stack of external 1TB firewire drives is getting to be a problem.
And I only keep my keepers, which is about 150-250 per game. And those I only keep in the original CR2 form. Even so, I need more storage...
Nill
You're better of with either a multibay SATA enclosure with HD trays, such as this one from Firmtek (assuming your computer has or can be installed with external SATA ports: http://www.firmtek.com/seritek/seritek-5pm/
1D Mark IV combined with my 300 2.8L IS captured the Jonas Brothers on set in Malibu, CA. Very pleased with the autofocus, responsiveness, resolution, and file quality. CF III 2 set to fastest setting on far right, CF III 3 set to 0, CF III 4 set to 0, CF III 8 set to 0 (in busy and cluttered backgrounds) or 1 (when subject was isolated). http://photo.wenn.com/index.php?action=quicksearch&ppid=108816&version=int
Some shots from the Olympics taken with the 70-200 f/4. As much as I love the MKIV, it's forcing me to think about spending a small fortune in faster glass
joel_c wrote:
Some shots from the Olympics taken with the 70-200 f/4. As much as I love the MKIV, it's forcing me to think about spending a small fortune in faster glass
Good shots, thanks! I wish they will allow bringing SLR cameras to the hockey games here in US
Nill Toulme wrote:
Dang Matt that shot is like being there. Makes me miss my 300 f/2.8... :-(
Nill
Thanks Nill, I'm really loving the 1DMKIV. The lighting in that place was horrible, it only had lighting around the outside of the pool, had a couple of windows at one end that only resulted in mixed lighting at one end. And the lights that were there cycled something awful. I took the 135F2, 70-200, 300 and the 1DMKIII and 1DMKIV. The 300 seemed like my best option. Never seen any swimming meets before in my life and the ages and abilities were all over the place from beginners to somewhat advanced and made it quit the challenge. I ended up with 28 really good shots out of 150 and my editor was happy and I was glad it was over with!
Breitling65 wrote:
Good shots, thanks! I wish they will allow bringing SLR cameras to the hockey games here in US
Thanks for the compliment. Good point about the NHL vs. Olympics. Despite the extra security to get into the venues, they were much more accommodating to photographers than the NHL. I would have no chance getting into an NHL game in Vancouver with this camera.
I had a chance to give the 1D Mark IV what I thought was a pretty good test of its ability to maintain focus in servo mode. I was watching roosting eagles from the inside of the vehicle and waiting (patiently) for chances to get shots of them taking off. The sequence of shots below is, I think, a good test for the AF system because, not only did the camera have to track the action, but it had to be able to sort the bird out from an especially busy background. Also, my ability to track a rapidly moving subject from the inside of a vehicle is not especially good because of the limited range through which I can rotate my body. Yet, the camera performed superbly in both this sequence of shots and several other similar sequences. Even with the busy background, the camera maintained focus using the center point expanded to surrounding points via CF III 8. Other AF settings are as explained in the guide on my site.
Below is a shot of the eagle before it took off and 5 shots of the 6 shot sequence as it moved into flight. The missing shot of the 6 shot sequence is one that I trashed because I clipped the bird's wings.
Les, i realize it's speculative to say so (you're not shooting both side by side), but given your experience with the Mk III, I'll ask anyway. Do you feel the Mk IV gives you a dramatic improvement in holding focus versus the Mk III in this kind of "busy" background? Or is it more incremental?
Mike Tuomey wrote:
Les, i realize it's speculative to say so (you're not shooting both side by side), but given your experience with the Mk III, I'll ask anyway. Do you feel the Mk IV gives you a dramatic improvement in holding focus versus the Mk III in this kind of "busy" background? Or is it more incremental?
Thanks in advance.
Mike,
For me, I'd say it is more incremental. I never had much trouble with the 1D Mark III, but, in the same situation with a busy background, I probably would have switched to just using the center point without any expansion. So, being able to use expansion points in that situation with the 1D Mark IV is a nice advantage, and it does seem to work better with expansion points and a busy background than the 1D Mark III.
I hope the Mark III is working well for you. Until I got the Mark IV, I was really missing the Mark III.
I've been an early adopter starting with the EOS3 then with the 1V, 1D, 1dII, all with essentially the same family of focus mechanism, 1dIII, and now with the 1dIV. No big deal but you get used to expecting something different. Between the EOS3 and the MkII it was better and faster each time. The MkIII was faster, better IQ, and better low light focus, wonderful improvement in battery life and introduced the self cleaning sensor. However, Focus tracking and locking, imho, worse than the II series. Now the IV is g-r-e-a-t in many ways. I always wished my III was 16mp and had tracking as good as the II. Bingo! After two months shooting, I believe the IV does that very well. Low light focusing, well, that's another story, so far without an ending. I believe the III did low light focus lock better. Haven't tried all the custom functions that might help yet though. Overall I loved my III and now the IV even more!
Asked for a similar reason, I don't like changing cards in the middle of a match either. 
