Reading mode: Light Dark

Your experience ... is the 1DmkIV a yea, nay, or maybe?

Go to last post
J

J A K

Forum Pro
Messages
15,833
Reaction score
10
Location
US
If you don't mind please indicate what photographic genre and type of lenses are the basis of your conclusion, thanks for your input.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia

--



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
 
J A K said:
If you don't mind please indicate what photographic genre and type of lenses are the basis of your conclusion, thanks for your input.
Click to expand...
used with a canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 200 f2.8 markII
i have two canon 1D mark 3, both of which have been calibrated
my mark 4 has also been back to canon for calibration

As an aside, I would not trust one of my 1D mark 3 and one of my 70-200 f/2.8 at f/2.8 (I have two 70-200 lenses). This pair went back to canon for calibration. WOW! The improvement was amazing. Bang on at f/2.8

running photos ... an example is here
http://gallery.sussexsportphotography.com/a.tlx?k=4v0zff8&pictureid=11896616

Is the AF of the mark 4 better than that of the mark 3?
• Yes

Is the mark 4 AF a lot better than the mark 3 AF?
• No

Overall, is the mark 4 better than the mark 3?
• Yes

As a mark 3 owner is the mark 4 a worthwhile upgrade?
• If you're happy with your AF then probably not?

So why did I upgrade?

• The improved AF (as I said the mark 4 AF is better, just not a huge amount; every little helps)
• The improved LCD screen (that screen is fantastic)
• The improved CF card interface

Please explain the CF card interface reason

• When photographing hundreds of runners coming past very quickly the mark 3 spends much time up-against-the-buffer, this is not a problem with the mark 4

You haven't mentioned the increased resolution as a reason to upgrade?

• Nah, the type of photography I do doesn't require full res. M2 is fine. Running M2 helps with the buffer

Battery life of the Mark 4 VS Mark 3
• The mark 3 is better. Just carry a spare battery

Would you buy the mark 4 again?
• Not sure, though the mark 4 is a tax deductible expense. :)
J A K said:
--



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
Click to expand...
--
We do three kinds of work:
(1) fast
(2) cheap
(3) high quality
Choose any two.
 
My 1DIII was good (after the first H/W fix) and my 1DIV is better (mostly) It has at least an extra stop of ISO in my informal tests and of course a lot more pixels for no downside IQ wise. The A/F is better for birds against a "busy" background and seems to be more tolerant of the subject straying from the centre focus point (if only one is used). About the only reservation I have is it's ability to selectively focus on a small subject at fairly close range - such as a dragonfly on a reed, at least with my 100-400. I have a feeling that the mkIII may have been superior in this scenario. FWIW the 7D I tried for a week struggled even more in this situation, but I didn't try the "small focus point" option. I guess I'll have to buy one of the super-teles with an A/F stop button to enable this function on my mkIV ;-) I certainly haven't regretted the upgrade.
--

Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '
 
YES!!! I am shooting birds the most, great results. Lenses mostly used with mk IV: 500L/300L F2.8L IS. I use to own great mk III, could say for sure that mk IV is better. Great resolution, AF, noise resistant.
 
Yea.

BIF, sports and family. 100-400L - 24-70L - 85/1.8 - 50/1.8

100% crop, one of 15 in a series all in perfect focus.

p225908559-3.jpg
'] http://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p225908559-3.jpg[/img] [/URL]

p816873021-5.jpg
'] http://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/v11/p816873021-5.jpg[/img] [/URL]
 
I usually photograph BIF and other wildlife in combination with 400 F/2,8 IS L USM + 1.4 and 2X extenders and 100-400 L IS USM used as a walk a round lens.

Mark III was good but I updated for Mark IV to get more Mega Pixel ( Sometimes I crop more than 50%) and better ISO...

Ralf
 
I principally take horse photos indoors and out. I usually use 70-200 F2.8L but have the 16-35 F2.8L and 24-70 F2.8L.

I upgraded from the mkIII.

I am very satisfied with the mkIV. I can get dimly lit arena shots I simply could not get before because of the higher ISO. The AF is better. I really like auto ISO feature. The extra resolution improves the ability to crop the shots.

m mode 1/800 @ f2.8 ISO 5000 (auto) 70-200 @ 135mm noise ninja in post



I like the video feature. I will use the video to complement my Sony EX1 (1080p) video cam. The mkIV will not replace the standard video cam but can add the quality shots that the larger sensor and lenses bring to the party.
--
****
http://www.toskhara.com
 
I shoot mostly nature, and of that mostly birds. The first week that I had my Mark IV I took it out to a Great Blue Heron Rookery that I have visited with every camera since my 30D. It's a great place to shoot, but there's lots of branches around and while my 1D3 did a much better job ignoring them than my 30D/40D, the 1D4 just grabs a hold of the bird and won't let go. I didn't have one situation where the focus shifted to the background and I didn't have my sensitivity set any slower than default. I've also noticed that feather detail is amazing in comparison -- much better with my 500 f4 L and 1.4x combo.

One word of warning, it seems that you have to keep your shutter speeds a little higher to avoid motion blur. I read this was the case due to the higher pixel density. I'm not sure if that's the case, but my first shoot was on a super cloudy day and I got some kinda soft images. When I went back and made sure I boosted my shutter speed a bit everything sharpened up like crazy. The nice thing is that you pick up at least 1 stop noise wise from the 1D3 so you have some extra ISO to play with.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bernarrking
http://www.bkingphoto.com
 
primary lenses are 100-400 and now the 70-200 Mk II
main use - candid portrait photography at renaissance festivals.
I have upgraded from EOS 3 to 1D to 1D MK II, 1D MK III, and now 1D MK IV.

For my style of shooting, no noticeable changes in AF accuracy - However, there are some very desirable updates in AF features, such as seperate default AF points for landscape / portrait.

16 Mpiixel very much appreciated. I focus on the eyes and crop in the computer, so 99.9% are cropped.

lower battery life noted - but not yet a big issue.

Exposure seems to be better, AWB never has worked.

High ISO performance much improved. It took a little editing, but I have an ISO 8,000 13' x 19" print that looks great. On my MK III, ISO 3,200 was the absolute top limit and that took a lot of work.

Auto ISO is nice - when I'm not using fill flash. However, I use fill flash 95% of the time. Otherwise, I use ISO safety shift, which gives me approximately the same thing.

--
Photography on the Run
http://www.pbase.com/paul42/renaissance_fairs
more than eight million hits!
 
+1 what Asposium said

My experience thus far is somewhat limited, however my initial opinions are that the Mark IV is an "okay" camera, but not an "awesome" camera when compared to the Mark III. Part of this is because the Mark III was actually a very nice camera, aside from the AI servo issues. If you don't need AI servo, a used Mark III would be a great choice considering the prices these days. The Mark IV certainly isn't that much better than the Mark III to warrant the extra cost IMO.

The real question on my mind was how does the IQ of the IV compare to the III. My honest answer thus far is that it is a wash. To be fair, the III had the best IQ of any camera Canon ever made as far as I'm concerned. The IV is neither better nor worse, just different. Yes, you get more pixels, so from one perspective, that is an improvement (equivalent IQ with more pixels). On the other hand, I think that the IQ of the IV is beginning to show that somewhat "plasticky" feel that Nikon had previously been accused of. Then again, I haven't beat on DPP hard enough to say that I have my raw conversion process fully optimized, so it could be that.

As I recall, you shied away from the III, which was a wise move if AI servo matters to you. OTOH, if you don't need that, I'm not sure that the IV buys you a whole lot. Is the IV "better"? Yea. Is it $3K better? No. But if you want a high-end crop-frame body, I doubt you'll be disappointed by the IV. Then again, why not grab a used III and a new 70-200/2.8 II for the same money?
 
I do sports and I've used my Mark IV with an 85mm f1.8, a 135mm f2.0, a 300mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8.

I'm beginning to think that my Mark IV is defective. I've shot six basketball games and have had a surprisingly low keeper rate. I shot the NCAA women's subregional in Seattle last weekend. Even under the brilliant EV8 light at Hec Ed, the Mark IV had a terrible time locking onto players. When it was able to lock on them it tracked them pretty well but it was often three or four blurry shots before it managed to do this. When it did, it worked great:



For the second half I switched to the Mark III and it worked fine. I did not regret putting the Mark IV away for the rest of the night.

I shot my first softball game on Tuesday under slightly overcast skies and again, the Mark IV could not lock onto things that the Mark III snapped onto instantly. This was a huge disappointment. Clearly light levels have nothing to do with the problem.

I plan to tinker around with it some more to qualify the problem for Canon as well as I can so there will be at least a chance that Canon will do something.
 
With my MKIII I settled on a set of 3 primes for the majority of my shooting to keep ISO at or below 1600 (24/1.4, 50/1/4 & 135/2). I also occasionally rent glass such as the 200/1.8-2, 300/2.8, 400/4, and/or the 90/2.8 T/S for specialized situations. In the 2 years I have owned the III (May 07) it has been a great camera and never let me down, however, the ISO limitations were starting to become an issue for me.

The MKIV has allowed me the option of using 2.8 zooms and/or other slower prime lenses by permitting me to go to 6400 without worry - this means much less swapping of lenses during a time limited shoot which equals more shooting opportunities. The movie mode, while neat, is not applicable/permissible re: 90% of what I do as it involves clearance/rights issues that do not arise with respect to regular photography due to the incorporation of the audio track (sync licenses, master recording licenses, etc.).

My one negative for me is that the MKIV AF does not seem to be as good in very low light situations as the III, unless "spot focusing" is used (only works with BWL's that have an AF stop/preset button - limited to the 200/1.8 and f2, 300/2.8, 400/4, 500/4, 600/4, and the 800/5.6). Would say that it is better at locking on in all other situations, including low contrast... it's just the really low light shots where it has difficulty (ie. all house lights down EV 1ish). It would also be nice to have a simple dial based EV correction available for the Auto ISO mode while in M mode as stage and/or LED lighting/WB really messes with metering (button press + dial turn would be acceptable).

That said, the extra 6mp, overall AF operation, IQ, and ISO range have made the jump worthwhile for me, but others may not feel the same coming from a III which is in good operating condition.

Shooting the 70-200 @ f3.2 makes a world of difference and it's nice to be able to stop down and/or use slower lenses.

not trolling, ranting, or trying to be obtuse... just working out my private issues in a public forum
 
Jim Gilley said:
As I recall, you shied away from the III, which was a wise move if AI servo matters to you. OTOH, if you don't need that, I'm not sure that the IV buys you a whole lot. Is the IV "better"? Yea. Is it $3K better? No. But if you want a high-end crop-frame body, I doubt you'll be disappointed by the IV. Then again, why not grab a used III and a new 70-200/2.8 II for the same money?
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input and BTW, your recollection is correct ... I did shy away from the 1DmkIII because of the reported AF issues. Regarding AI Servo AF, it means everything to me and what I'd really like to know is whether or not the 1DmkIV's AF performance is "significantly" better than that of the 1DmkIII.

FWIW I would use the the 1DmkIV exactly like my 1DmkII (landscapes, wildlife, and sports). Normally your "used III plus new lens" suggestion would be a good one but I've got all the necessary lenses and I'm not looking to save money or improve on the 1DmkIII's outstanding IQ ... what I'm looking for is great AF performance.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia

--



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
 
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