Reading mode: Light Dark

Video- Canon 1D Mark IV AF test, full res images

Go to last post
Hi guys.
Thank you all, Jimmy, Mathew and K Powers for the effort.

I think this is a nice test, and despite I for one am not thinking on upgrading my cam (I'm just an aficionado who bought his Mark III some 2 monts ago), I really like your stuff, find it interesting and think that it can come in useful to people thinking about buying this (great) new Mark IV.

Thanks again, nicely done.
--
Jaime

http://jaimsthesweetspot.wordpress.com/
 
Thanks Jimmy for taking the time to produce and post this valuable information. Were you shootng in .jpg or RAW? My assumptions from the variability in white balance was that you were shooting in AWB? One suggestion that I have is to shoot in CWB or in a specific WB mode and see if that affects the results.

I don't have poll data from fellow sports photographers, but I generally don't shoot in AWB mode. Thanks for posting.
 
Hi Jimmy,

Your work is certainly appreciated, as I am considering a Mark IV to add to my 5D Mark II. I have to say, however, after looking at the images posted on your site, at original resolution, that something must be off. I can honestly say that I didn't see a single frame that was adequate. While you mentioned, in the video, some of the settings used, I went back to look at the data for the images just to verify. Looks like most of the shots were in the 1/250 range. I'm not a sports shooter, so I can't say if that shutter speed is normally enough to freeze action, but the image quality, to my eyes, is just horrible! I know you were shooting on a monopod. Could the qualify be attributed to camera motion? I have seen a number of shots that people have posted of basketball in a gym, for example, that look as i would expect. Granted, the light level there was no doubt significantly greater than what you had to work with here, but the images you got were, well, simply not good. No offense AT ALL to you or your work!!! Please understand that. I'm just surprised by the quality.

Can anyone with experience shooting under these conditions chime in here are say if this is what one might expect? Please be aware that I'm typically a portrait shooter, using ideal lighting, so I'm looking at images out of my element. thanks for the work you put in!
--
Curt Basner
Las Vegas, NV
 
The shutter speeds are way too slow - if you want to test AF, you need to ensure you don't have motion blur or camera shake.

The first shot is 1/160th of a second - unless you're using flash, that's way too slow for a running subject! As should be expected under such circumstances, they're blurry.

The closer shots are actually sharper, because the shutter speed goes up to 1/400th, which is getting closer to the speed you need. The camera was in Av mode for the first batch, so the camera was skewed towards a longer exposure due to the black background in the distant shots, but as he got closer, his white shirt filled the frame, skewing towards underexposure (and thus a faster shutter speed).

In this sort of situation, if it's impractical to set up strobes or use a faster lens (and at 300mm, f/2.8 is as fast as it gets), you should kick the ISO up, maybe to 6400 or so. The extra noise will be preferable to the motion blur (unless you're going for motion blur - but this is an AF test, so motion blur is bad!

In the latter pages, there's ISO 6400, in Manual Mode with 1/800th, which is getting closer.

I like to get at least 1/1000th of a second to freeze action of moving horses, and it's not until 1/1500th that it really starts to look crisp - though that's with my FF 5D. With a Mark IV with its higher pixel density, even faster speeds might be needed.
cabasner said:
Hi Jimmy,

Your work is certainly appreciated, as I am considering a Mark IV to add to my 5D Mark II. I have to say, however, after looking at the images posted on your site, at original resolution, that something must be off. I can honestly say that I didn't see a single frame that was adequate. While you mentioned, in the video, some of the settings used, I went back to look at the data for the images just to verify. Looks like most of the shots were in the 1/250 range. I'm not a sports shooter, so I can't say if that shutter speed is normally enough to freeze action, but the image quality, to my eyes, is just horrible! I know you were shooting on a monopod. Could the qualify be attributed to camera motion? I have seen a number of shots that people have posted of basketball in a gym, for example, that look as i would expect. Granted, the light level there was no doubt significantly greater than what you had to work with here, but the images you got were, well, simply not good. No offense AT ALL to you or your work!!! Please understand that. I'm just surprised by the quality.

Can anyone with experience shooting under these conditions chime in here are say if this is what one might expect? Please be aware that I'm typically a portrait shooter, using ideal lighting, so I'm looking at images out of my element. thanks for the work you put in!
--
Curt Basner
Las Vegas, NV
Click to expand...
 
David,

Thanks for the clarification. By the way, to Jimmy, the OP, I realize in retrospect that what you were trying to accomplish was to demonstrate the autofocus capabilities of the Mark IV, not, perhaps, go for the ultimate in overall image quality.
--
Curt Basner
Las Vegas, NV
 
cabasner said:
David,

Thanks for the clarification. By the way, to Jimmy, the OP, I realize in retrospect that what you were trying to accomplish was to demonstrate the autofocus capabilities of the Mark IV, not, perhaps, go for the ultimate in overall image quality.
--
Curt Basner
Las Vegas, NV
Click to expand...
Yes, those who buy either the Canon Mk4 or Nikon D3s are less obsessed about ultimate IQ. They are more concerned about how these cameras perform in trying and difficult circumstances.

Despite the failure of the OP setting a high enough shutter speed and perhaps using too low an ISO on a lot of the shots, the test nonetheless is still valid. Experienced pros can draw on their experience of using the 1D Mk 3 and project those experiences onto the Mk4 and get a sense of what the camera will deliver in difficult conditions.
 
Yeah honestly I just wasn't using my head when I was out there. I was just checking the histogram and trying to get clean images according to that, didn't check for motion blur or anything like that in camera. My main concern was getting a variety of different tests in that could be used to show the cameras impressive AF speed, and I just didn't pay attention to the little things like that. I apologize for this IQ issue in the images...thanks for the comments guys.
 
Jimmy,

No worries...I was not being critical at all, and no apologies necessary or appropriate! I just wanted to be sure that we weren't suggesting that the images you got were illustrative of what the camera can do under different conditions. Again, I appreciate what were doing for the rest of us! I'm still very interested in getting one of the beasts!! LOL
--
Curt Basner
Las Vegas, NV
 
Ah sounds good. I still should have been more careful about the overall IQ of the images though, I'll be sure to make a note of that and not make the same mistake twice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top