Nill Toulme wrote:
It's better to change your settings one or two at a time, so you understand what each one is doing and why.
Nill
Boy is that the truth!!! Embarrissingly, I changed a setting then a few days later noticed that all my ISO readings appeared in lower case characters and some were missing or halved, like the digit "8"=o. Dah!!!!!! I changed a setting(yes there is a CFn that will cause the ISO in the top LCD to do this!) that causes this!!
Now I try 1 thing at a time..Good advice Nill!
Dan
mdbassman wrote:
Boy is that the truth!!! Embarrissingly, I changed a setting then a few days later noticed that all my ISO readings appeared in lower case characters and some were missing or halved, like the digit "8"=o. Dah!!!!!! I changed a setting(yes there is a CFn that will cause the ISO in the top LCD to do this!) that causes this!!
Now I try 1 thing at a time..Good advice Nill!
Dan
When you enabled HTP, the ISO display will do that..
The camera seems to work fine in your hands, Lide. The horizontal BIF shots like yours are always very effective, and the sepia tint works well on the image. The gull positioning in the frame is perfect, on the N&W forum you will not find better. The gull shadow is a bonus.
PetKal wrote:
The camera seems to work fine in your hands, Lide. The horizontal BIF shots like yours are always very effective, and the sepia tint works well on the image. The gull positioning in the frame is perfect, on the N&W forum you will not find better. The gull shadow is a bonus.
Thanks, Peter!
I should get a 400/5.6L later for shooting this kind of stuff..
I didn't know where to put the reference to this thread or review on the Mark IV so I thought that rather than starting an altogether new one, I would post it here. It's a nicely put together piece of work and offers some useful comparisons. Again, the need to keep shutter speeds up due to the higher pixel density of the Mark IV is emphasized. Some good insights for the wildlife shooter as well.
I had a chance to test out the 1D Mark IV in less than ideal light. I found a large group of eagles moving through the area. It was especially gloomy, and I'd rather not shoot in those conditions, but this is about the end of the eagles moving through. So, I thought I'd give it a try. Most of these were shot at ISO 1250. I probably should have gone higher because that ISO was only giving me shutter speeds in the range of 1/800 to 1/1000, and I'd really like to have a lot faster than that. I got a nice variety of types of shots, including some with busy backgrounds. All shots were in servo using the center point expanded to surrounding points. Other focus settings were as explained in the guide on my site. These were shot with the 500/4 and 1.4x. Most were wide open at f5.6 so that I could squeeze out as much shutter speed as I could. For the shots of multiple birds, I stopped down a bit to try to get some increased depth of field.
Or at least can you compare it with your previous bodies?
Thanks in advance.
Getting some 100% crops up on my server is kind of a pain. So, I'd rather not do that, but, if you send me a PM with an email address, I'll send you a couple.
With regard to comparing, the 1D Mark IV is, without question, the best body I've used. I loved my 1D Mark III, which was a significant step up from the Mark II in every way, including AF. The Mark IV is just that much better. While I liked the AF on the 1D Mark III, the 1D Mark IV is just a bit steadier. It locks on in servo, and it doesn't want to let go. Today, I took about 300 shots. I don't think I trashed more than 3 or 4 for being out of focus, and those were user error. I'd say that higher ISO performance is marginally better than the 1D Mark III, which was already excellent, but the difference isn't as much as Canon might lead you to believe. For me, a big difference is the 16 mp sensor. It just gives me significantly more latitude to crop (or print larger). Of the shots that I posted (here and on my site), there is a wide range from slight crops to moderate crops to severe crops. I know that the small web-sized files that I've posted don't show off the detail as much as I'd like, but I'm finding that I'm getting quality pictures in situations where, with an 8 or 10 mp camera, I probably wouldn't have bothered to take the shot. Other than that, I'll probably never use the video, and, while things like the higher resolution screen are nice, they are not critical to me. So, for me, the bottom line is that the 1D Mark IV builds on and improves the things I really liked about the 1D Mark III.
uz2work wrote:
Getting some 100% crops up on my server is kind of a pain. So, I'd rather not do that, but, if you send me a PM with an email address, I'll send you a couple.
With regard to comparing, the 1D Mark IV is, without question, the best body I've used. I loved my 1D Mark III, which was a significant step up from the Mark II in every way, including AF. The Mark IV is just that much better. While I liked the AF on the 1D Mark III, the 1D Mark IV is just a bit steadier. It locks on in servo, and it doesn't want to let go. Today, I took about 300 shots. I don't think I trashed more than 3 or 4 for being out of focus, and those were user error. I'd say that higher ISO performance is marginally better than the 1D Mark III, which was already excellent, but the difference isn't as much as Canon might lead you to believe. For me, a big difference is the 16 mp sensor. It just gives me significantly more latitude to crop (or print larger). Of the shots that I posted (here and on my site), there is a wide range from slight crops to moderate crops to severe crops. I know that the small web-sized files that I've posted don't show off the detail as much as I'd like, but I'm finding that I'm getting quality pictures in situations where, with an 8 or 10 mp camera, I probably wouldn't have bothered to take the shot. Other than that, I'll probably never use the video, and, while things like the higher resolution screen are nice, they are not critical to me. So, for me, the bottom line is that the 1D Mark IV builds on and improves the things I really liked about the 1D Mark III.
Diffraction issues are separable into two type with digital sensors:
Type one is the effect on the final print (similar to depth of field blur and circle of confusion). This is pretty much subjectively based upon a standard print size and viewing distance -- for a full frame sensor you will want to stay at or below f16 and most probably at about f8 for most lenses. For a 1.3 factor sensor you will probably want to stay at or below f11 with the sweet spot at f8 for most lenses. For a 1.6 factor sensor you will probably want to stay at or below f9 with a sweet spot at f8 for most lenses.... Get the idea?
I apologize for more 1D Mark IV eagles, but I'm having so much fun with the camera. Most of the morning, the skies were dismal (again), and I had to kick up the ISO, but the sun did come out for a while. All of these were shot with the 500/4 and 1.4x in servo mode and wide open at f5.6. I was using the center point expanded to surrounding points via CF III 8. Other settings are as in the guide on my site. More shots from today can be found on the "what's new" page of my site.
The gull shadow is a bonus. 