1-0
2- -1 = one scale point to the left of center (moderately slow?)
3-0
4-1
5-0
6-4
7-2
8-2
9-1
10-1
11-1
12-0
13-0
14-1
15-0
16-0
17-0
18-Disable
19-Disable
A few more under more trying circumstances and a bit underexposed due to my own shortcomings:
There are a number of great shots in this thread - thanks, all! It's nice to see the 1D4 in action.
Shasoc - Shot #12 looks very good. ISO 800 looks very clean. This is of interest to me because the 7D, although very good at these ISO settings, doesn't seem to have quite as much latitude. When I rent a 1D4 a couple of months from now, this is one area where I will be looking very closely.
mwillems wrote:
As for battery: Just shot models all day; 786 shots, and 58% battery left. Meaning I get 1,500 shots per battery. Who's complaining!
I think the 1dMK3s spoiled us. 3000-4000 shots per charge are pretty common for a 3. But 1500 or so for a 4 is nice. Heck I only get 500 or so with a 5DMK2.
To me, these examples are worth much more than the quasi-experimental testing of RG. Keep them coming. I would love to see more shooting situations were the 1D4 is supposedly inconsistent such as in basketball, soccer and with reds. It would also be helpful if contributors indicate % OOF during a sequence if taken as well as their estimated keeper rate.
I'm tired of reading all the different theories on the RG thread. Here's a couple from my new 24L II & MKIV this weekend. Not really AF performance related but a combo I think I'll really be enjoying. MKIV files PP well, no real detriment coming from the MKIII IMHO.
I had very few oof shots, more often with expanded assist points at the end in a mongo scrimmage of like 20 players per side, which made for little continuity and big crowds. I gained enough info grasp what I could rely on from the camera and can focus on not making my own mistakes when it's game time. BTW, I rarely shoot bursts longer than 4-5 shots in a game other than set-pieces.
As far as front-lit red, I may try to get my son to don a red jersey and try and run me down with his bike tomorrow. Best I can do for the time being.
PierreB wrote:
I've only used my MkIV once and came away from the session very pleased with the jpeg results but I'm finding processing the RAW's through DPP a real trial. I've never used DPP before and I'm not really enjoying the experience. Can't wait for Lr 3.0 next month.
If ever there was a good reason to wait for the software to catch up before buying a camera this is it.
From what I've read, many users here suggest that DPP delivers the best results but I'm not a fan. I just cannot get the RAW's to produce a file as good as the jpeg output from Lr so for now I'm shooting RAW+large jpeg.
I processed real quickly a burst of images I took this weekend of some very fast flying bufflehead ducks. I feel is shows the out in the field performance of the mark4 with a 500 f4 lens. I will link to the gallery instead of embedding them in this thread since there are over 30 images I took in about 4 seconds. I have looked over all of them in 100% size and feel that 2 are OOF. I used the center point with expanded points around it. Hand held at f8 2000 shutter. Those setting I tend to use while shooting BIF shots so it's a good test for me instead of shooting lens wide open and getting less DOF. I often like to have a pair of ducks in focus if I can so that's why the f8.
kazman442 wrote:
I processed real quickly a burst of images I took this weekend of some very fast flying bufflehead ducks. I feel is shows the out in the field performance of the mark4 with a 500 f4 lens. I will link to the gallery instead of embedding them in this thread since there are over 30 images I took in about 4 seconds. I have looked over all of them in 100% size and feel that 2 are OOF. I used the center point with expanded points around it. Hand held at f8 2000 shutter. Those setting I tend to use while shooting BIF shots so it's a good test for me instead of shooting lens wide open and getting less DOF. I often like to have a pair of ducks in focus if I can so that's why the f8.
To me, at least, those BIF conditions seems like the best subject matter and conditions to use expanded assist points.
For what it's worth, my experience and opinion based on using them is sports with the MkIII and now MkIV (at least multi participant team sports where players are in close proximity to one another) is that using a single selected point works better, or at most expanding the left and right. A lot of busyness around the chosen subject gives the camera a chance to have a different opinion from you about what you want to shoot if you expand all the assist points in that setting.
You have to be prepared to use different settings on the fly, which makes registering different sets helpful. Anyway, that's what's working for me. With as many setting as are available, maybe it simplifies it to focus on what doesn't work in what settings. One or two tweaks can make a big difference.
PierreB wrote:
From what I've read, many users here suggest that DPP delivers the best results but I'm not a fan. I just cannot get the RAW's to produce a file as good as the jpeg output from Lr so for now I'm shooting RAW+large jpeg.
Hi Pierre,
I feel your pain. The biggest regret I have about my 1d4 is using DPP to deal with the RAW files.
On the upside the NR in DPP is very impressive, even if I have to use a different work flow.
I have had better luck with DPP on my low light hi ISO shots with my Sigma 300-800 wide open. They need massive NR and DPP does a better job than any other option I have found.
Are you doing lots of NR with LR or more general RAW conversion?
I just shot two days of women's lacrosse in Santa Barbara and the Mark IV coupled with the 300 2.8 did a fantastic job. Absent the usual operator error the focusing qualities and image quality was fantastic. I have not done any PP yet.
photomax wrote:
I just shot two days of women's lacrosse in Santa Barbara and the Mark IV coupled with the 300 2.8 did a fantastic job. Absent the usual operator error the focusing qualities and image quality was fantastic. I have not done any PP yet.
Please help this thread be as useful as possible by supplying the CF III settings used, along with any details of the shoot i.e. large bursts or small of 3-5, amount of sun & location, etc.... this way all those reading can gain the knowledge of what works for individuals under what conditions.
mrogers wrote:
Has anyone tried the Auto ISO function yet....
Yes. It seems to work well, but when in manual mode, with the camera setting the ISO, I'd like a way to also use exposure compensation to tweak what the camera thinks is correct exposure. Hoping Canon can add that via a firmware update, but there will need to be enough outcry first.
