1DmkIV info

The problem relates to tracking focus of moving subjects, aiservo mode.

Okami said:

Most of these people jumping on the lack of information is right. If you are willing to post information this important then they have a right to ask you when, where, how, and why. I think everyone and their mom that would buy a Mark IV is already very well aware of all the troubles that the Mark III had and wary of what the Mark IV brings.

Putting out a post out there with this little background info on where they tested it. How the AF was bad, and what exact reason they sent it back for other than it being "bad" is a little irresponsible. It does not give any information of real relevance other than the AF is supposedly bad enough for this one photographer to send it back. There is obviously much more that can be said without revealing who the photographer is that you are speaking about.

While I commend you for trying to warn your fellow shooters this ends up little more than a tease for all of us eager to know any REAL info about the Mark IV and it's AF. Based on your info alone it could be any number of reasons why the AF was not accurate for this particular photographer that has nothing to do with the actual af system being bad.

Click to expand...

The 1D IV, on paper, looks like a great camera, and the early on-line published quick review that was referenced here recently made the camera sound really nice. That reviewer however, was carefull to not comment on the AF tracking and he went a little bit out of his way to suggest that his shooting style simply didn't rely of continous AF tracking. I assumed that he was deferring to the opinion of Rob Galbraith.

Galbraith became the "standard bearer" for the 1DIII AF issue, and when Canon said they had fixed it (several times) he was the one who was retesting and reaching his own conclusions. It seemed almost tough to hear his voice, above the din of the "my favorite camera manufacturer can do no wrong" fan club, but he was clearly proven right in the end.

Clearly, Canon knows that there is a lot of persistant concern over this in the photographer community. Another iteration of the the AF disaster would only further hurt the standing of the companies professional camera line. While an amateur who likes their cameras for other reasons (image quality etc) might forgive them for the AF tracking reliability issue, I suspect that many of those who make their living off of these machines simply cannot afford to be quite as tolerant.

I would have presumed that as a consequence of the 1DIII issue, the vast majority of serious users would hold back, wait for the 1DIV to be released and tried out by other pros before buying one themselves, but I am apparently wrong. My local camera shop tells me that the waiting list is long and getting longer. That means, I guess, that a lot of shooters are going to take the position that Canon simply wouldn't ket this happen twice, cross their fingers and take the plunge. I am suspecting that these are in large number, a bunch of folks who have been sticking with the 1DII for a lot longer than they would have liked to and really do feel that they have to make the move without delay.

For my part, I'm waiting for the 1DsIV. My 1DsIII has served me well, and the 1DsIV (for work that does not involve AF tracking) will hopefully continue to save me from the phase one / Hassy $$$ medium format world.

Now if only they could fix the strobe problem ....

John W Peterson said:

Now if only they could fix the strobe problem ....

Click to expand...

Strobe problem?

Suddenly, if anyone else does something better than Canon, it becomes a "problem." I saw the smiley face, though. Next thing you know, they'll be talking about the 1D Mark IV's "ISO Problem" if its ISO 12,800 is no better than the D3s' ISO 25,200. Just what will be all do if Canon isn't the absolute best at every possible feature?
--
Tacksharp

Purely my own anectdotal experience, and not the result of any formal testing that I know of: Canon's latest and greatest flash unit, which offers an assortement of virtues such as excellent ergonomics and even weather proofing, still, seems to lag behind it's competitor the SB-900 (IMHO) when it comes to the relaibility of auto-flash exposure (it's tendency to occasionally - not often but occasionally- blow out an image) and also comparing the multi-strobe options: Canon vs others. That having been said, I'll concede that this is a much much smaller issue and Canon has,with each succesive generation of strobe, clearly been moving in the right direction. Additionally this is just my own experience, and nothing like the concencus opinion that was eventually reached regarding the AF tracking issue.

I don't want to distract this thread from the topic at hand however. I put the strobe comment (with a smiley face) in at the end to "lighten up" my post.

I just looked at Rob Galbraith's site. He has a nice summary article on the 1D IV but he points out that he was not included as a beta tester for this camera which is something that I personally find to be worrisome.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10044-10310

Camera systems from different manufacturers are not clones of each other (thank goodness). One camera will be better at issue A, another will hold sway on issue B.

Additionally, in a competitive marketplace, cameras tend to leap-frog each other. The latest and greatest is often the latest and greatest right up until the competition comes out with their "response"

What matters at the end of the day is not wether one has the "technically most superior in all ways" machine in ones hand, but wether the abilities of that machine match the needs of the shooter at the time that they are making the image.

I don't need AF tracking at any level close to what the sports photo-journalists require. It's almost a non-issue for me. The 1DsIII serves me great for my work and I would probably spring for the 1Ds IV even if they dummed down the AF to the level of 5D ! (well, maybe not that low).

What will matter scads for me, are the lens options in the range of 17-100mm i.e. wide angle, mostly for landscapes, and short tele, mostly for studio / portraits. I want razor sharp glass to meet the needs of the ever more amazing sensors that Canon is able to put into it's cameras. I'd honestly rather have a 16-35 mk III (i.e. an improvement over the mark II) than anything else right now.

John W Peterson said:

I just looked at Rob Galbraith's site. He has a nice summary article on the 1D IV but he points out that he was not included as a beta tester for this camera which is something that I personally find to be worrisome.

Click to expand...

No, not exactly. I went back and looked at it, and it said they have not been involved in beta testing it. That's a far cry from the insinuation that he has been excluded by Canon from being a beta tester. Perhaps he didn't request to be a beta tester.

Also, his preview does some things that are irksome. He claims that Canon says it will produce usable files up to 102,400. He doesn't bother to mention that Canon says ISO 12,800 meets Canon's standards for low noise quality, but higher extended modes (H1, H2, and H3) are there for those he need the shot at noise levels above what Canon considers acceptable.

He also says "All other things being equal, larger pixels lead to better high ISO pictures than smaller pixels, so Canon's self-assigned mission to significantly boost image resolution and high ISO could well be viewed as an impossible one." I don't think this was meant to be flattering. It sounds like he doesn't believe there will be significant improvements in ISO.

So, on the one hand, he sets Canon up to fail when the ISO 102,400 shots aren't noise-free. On the other hand, he sets them up for success when the ISO performance does significantly improve despite the increased resolution.

--
Tacksharp

PJSHOOTER said:

Any pros (or anyone else) out there waiting for this camera should be aware that some on test have been sent back to canon to have the focusing looked at, re: problem tracking moving target. Best advice is to try before you buy when they become available I would say. If you have tried the mkIV and it had better luck focusing it would be good to hear from you. Hopefully this is either limited to a few test models or it will be sorted before they ship.

Click to expand...

You act like you don't even like the camera, you said in another post you wanted full frame, so why all the posting, other than you started this post. Sounds like you didn't get what you wanted and now you have taken to slammin the 1D Mark IV. Here is what you said on another thread:

PJ's, at least all the ones i know and myself included want full frame and the best low light performance possible, with high fps for fast moving events, a smaller sensor means more noise, and wide angles are less wide, so its not designed with PJ's in mind....

The 1.3 crop for sports...maybe, but you can crop a full frame camera to 1.3, a 16mp fullframe would give you a similar resolution to the 1dmk3 when cropped, and I dont remember sports shooters saying they needed more resolution, plus a 1.3 crop will give you less blurred backgrounds if you are using shorter lenses, i prefer to get the background out in my sports shots...

So its for people whose lenses aren't long enough? Maybe, but as said before you can acheive this with a FF camera. Or a 1.6 crop.../

Well that clears it up nicely!

thanks

PJSHOOTER said:

Okami said:

Most of these people jumping on the lack of information is right. If you are willing to post information this important then they have a right to ask you when, where, how, and why. I think everyone and their mom that would buy a Mark IV is already very well aware of all the troubles that the Mark III had and wary of what the Mark IV brings.

Putting out a post out there with this little background info on where they tested it. How the AF was bad, and what exact reason they sent it back for other than it being "bad" is a little irresponsible. It does not give any information of real relevance other than the AF is supposedly bad enough for this one photographer to send it back. There is obviously much more that can be said without revealing who the photographer is that you are speaking about.

While I commend you for trying to warn your fellow shooters this ends up little more than a tease for all of us eager to know any REAL info about the Mark IV and it's AF. Based on your info alone it could be any number of reasons why the AF was not accurate for this particular photographer that has nothing to do with the actual af system being bad.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

We don't know the circumstances that led to Rob Galbraith not being included as a Beta Tester this time around. His posts on the 1DIII, as that saga evolved over the last few years, did however lead me to believe that his relationship with them had suffered or declined as a consequence of his reporting the facts as he saw them. Based on that, I thought that it would hardly be surprising if he didn't make the "short list" of gushing enthusiasts who could be counting upon to deliver positive early previews of the new camera.

That's a sad thing though, when you think about it. A "Beta tester" is no longer truly a Beta tester, but rather an "early advocate" for a new product. Of course if they really really wanted to ring the bugs out of a new product then R.G. would be just the guy to go to (IMHO); and if they did satisfy someone like him that they had produced a great camera, than shooters like myself would take that as the most important endorsement possible.

Well, Nikon can manage a FF/crop with the D3/D3s/D3x - which is the best of both worlds. Why can't Canon manage this? Is the technology beyond them? (note that I'm being sarcastic). Most of us with commonsense know the real reason why Canon will not do a FF/crop camera - it's marketing and money making, rather than appeasing its customers wishes.

Dave

David Pastern said:

Well, Nikon can manage a FF/crop with the D3/D3s/D3x - which is the best of both worlds. Why can't Canon manage this? Is the technology beyond them? (note that I'm being sarcastic). Most of us with commonsense know the real reason why Canon will not do a FF/crop camera - it's marketing and money making, rather than appeasing its customers wishes.

Click to expand...

Actually, Canon has chosen the 1.3x crop here, because it allows for a more capable pro sports camera overall. It's fortunate for us that Canon chooses not to "manage" downgrading to a low-rez FF body. Canon has completely appeased my wishes with the 1D Mark IV. Those who disagree, I'm sure Nikon will be glad to sell you a camera. You will be missed.
--
Tacksharp

At the risk of repeating myself...

'For big slow birds, I need at least 1/500 or 1/800 sec. For small fast birds, I want at least 1/1000 sec. For people, I want at least 1/60 sec'...

sounds like you want pixels per duck, which is fine but not really relevant when commenting on whats best for a 'sports' camera.

Tacksharp said:

David Pastern said:

Well, Nikon can manage a FF/crop with the D3/D3s/D3x - which is the best of both worlds. Why can't Canon manage this? Is the technology beyond them? (note that I'm being sarcastic). Most of us with commonsense know the real reason why Canon will not do a FF/crop camera - it's marketing and money making, rather than appeasing its customers wishes.

Click to expand...

Actually, Canon has chosen the 1.3x crop here, because it allows for a more capable pro sports camera overall. It's fortunate for us that Canon chooses not to "manage" downgrading to a low-rez FF body. Canon has completely appeased my wishes with the 1D Mark IV. Those who disagree, I'm sure Nikon will be glad to sell you a camera. You will be missed.
--
Tacksharp

Click to expand...

Useable is not the same as noise free. If ISO 102,400 does not produce useable results then whats the point in it?

Tacksharp said:

Also, his preview does some things that are irksome. He claims that Canon says it will produce usable files up to 102,400. He doesn't bother to mention that Canon says ISO 12,800 meets Canon's standards for low noise quality, but higher extended modes (H1, H2, and H3) are there for those he need the shot at noise levels above what Canon considers acceptable.

Click to expand...

Tacksharp said:

So, on the one hand, he sets Canon up to fail when the ISO 102,400 shots aren't noise-free.
--
Tacksharp

Click to expand...

we need usable image quality time to stop the pixel race..... doubling the pixels only results in a 15% increase in actual resolution, also the more pixels in the same space, the smaller the pixel picth which means less area to capture light, we need no more than 16mps tops to produce a 40x50 and drop the 1ds line, the 5ds seem to make it useless and senseless, put a 16mp high quality ff sensor in the 1d mkiv, or v use the same nikon yechnology of using a smaller are say 1.3 crop to keep frame rates and please canon listen up we don't care about mps, we want image quality and higher really (i mean really) usable isos. send the extra mps to nikon fuji kodak. I post this in hopes canon is paying attention to these forums, we do care....

I totally agree, however, few on here will. Most on here have taken the more is better - hook, line & sinker.

Dave

We atleast own what we are commenting on without passing on hearsay ..! Incorrect rubbish is constantly being spread ..

Why do you use the royal "we" all of the time? or is it a reflection of your split personality

PJSHOOTER said:

At the risk of repeating myself...

'For big slow birds, I need at least 1/500 or 1/800 sec. For small fast birds, I want at least 1/1000 sec. For people, I want at least 1/60 sec'...

sounds like you want pixels per duck, which is fine but not really relevant when commenting on whats best for a 'sports' camera.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you repeated yourself again completely ignoring the fact that insufficient pixel count gives you an unusable picture of a duck after the crop. Not much is more relevent than the final IQ of a shot after you have cropped your shot (which is almost always necessary when using primes).
--
Tacksharp

Do you read what you quote? Let me restate. Canon is providing H1, H2, and H3 ISO modes so users can decide for themselves what is useable. Canon has decided that ISO 12,800 meets their high standards. But, they are not going to constrain the public to their own standards. Hence, ISO up to 102,400. I don't know many people who would actually choose the H3 setting unless Saskwatch was chasing them on a moonless night, though.

Do you propose to decide what is "useable" for everyone? Heck yeah, 102,400 is going to be noisy. So what?

PJSHOOTER said:

Useable is not the same as noise free. If ISO 102,400 does not produce useable results then whats the point in it?

PJSHOOTER said:

Also, his preview does some things that are irksome. He claims that Canon says it will produce usable files up to 102,400. He doesn't bother to mention that Canon says ISO 12,800 meets Canon's standards for low noise quality, but higher extended modes (H1, H2, and H3) are there for those he need the shot at noise levels above what Canon considers acceptable.

Click to expand...

PJSHOOTER said:

So, on the one hand, he sets Canon up to fail when the ISO 102,400 shots aren't noise-free.
--
Tacksharp

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Tacksharp