EOS-1D Mark IV ?

[aam1234]

Link

[swampler]

Wow! Looks amazing!

[aam1234]

"The Next Chapter of EOS.
Offering a comprehensive combination of speed, accuracy and image quality, the EOS-1D Mark IV is the perfect choice for professional photographers and subjects on the move. With a completely redesigned 45-point AF system including 39 cross-type points, a new AI Servo II AF focus tracking system with improved algorithm combined with 10 fps continuous shooting, the EOS-1D Mark IV can handle even high-speed situations with ease. An APS-H sized 16.1 Megapixel CMOS Sensor, Dual DIGIC 4 Image Processors, a spectacular ISO range of 100 - 12800 (up to 102400 in H3 mode) with an advanced noise reduction system helps ensure sharp, low-noise images even in low-light situations. Add advanced Live View shooting, Full HD movie recording with selectable frame rates and manual exposure control plus a host of new features that enhance every facet of the shooting process. The EOS-1D Mark IV is the choice of professionals looking for the ultimate in SLR performance."

[aam1234]

EOS-1D Mark IV: First Look Videos

[watermill]

Why does it have 1.3x crop ? Why it isn't a full frame camera ?

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by watermill

Why does it have 1.3x crop ? Why it isn't a full frame camera ?

Why should it be ?

The 1D series has always had the 1.3x crop sensor. It is the professional 'sports-line' of Canon, with high FPS, ultrafast AF and large throughput (deep buffer).

The 1Ds line is the FF professional 'studio-line', with FF and high pixelcount, hence lower FPS, the same fast AF but adapted for the lower FPS, and an equal large throughput (deep buffer), that is filled earlier because of the much larger filesizes.

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[aam1234]

Max, any guess as to when 1DsIV will come out.

[Max@Home]

... now let's see: 1DsIII was August 2007, 3 year life cycle ...

... August 2010 ?? ...

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[EOS_JD]

Originally Posted by watermill

Why does it have 1.3x crop ? Why it isn't a full frame camera ?

Would hit sales of the 1Ds. This is for sports. Speed is required FF would probably mean bigger images!

I for one am underwhelmed by it and shocked at the grossly exagerated price they are asking for it!

[swampler]

Originally Posted by watermill

Why does it have 1.3x crop ? Why it isn't a full frame camera ?

Originally Posted by Max@Home

Why should it be ?

Well, it shouldn't be 1.3x because there is no wide angle for it. The 16-35 behaves as a 21 - 45 and the 10-22 can't be used because EF-S won't fit on it. Before you say that a sports camera doesn't need wide angle, I always see pro photogs with a wide angle lens holding their cameras over their head trying to get shots after the game.

[EOS_JD]

Originally Posted by swampler

Well, it shouldn't be 1.3x because there is no wide angle for it. The 16-35 behaves as a 21 - 45 and the 10-22 can't be used because EF-S won't fit on it. Before you say that a sports camera doesn't need wide angle, I always see pro photogs with a wide angle lens holding their cameras over their head trying to get shots after the game.

There is the 14mm prime

I think most pro's like the extra "reach" and speed over the 1Ds but I may be wrong. Usually they hold the cameras up to get over the heads and cameras of the other pros in the way of their shots

[swampler]

Originally Posted by EOS_JD

Usually they hold the cameras up to get over the heads and cameras of the other pros in the way of their shots

Of course that's why, but they do it with wide angle lenses.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by swampler

Well, it shouldn't be 1.3x because there is no wide angle for it. The 16-35 behaves as a 21 - 45 and the 10-22 can't be used because EF-S won't fit on it. Before you say that a sports camera doesn't need wide angle, I always see pro photogs with a wide angle lens holding their cameras over their head trying to get shots after the game.

Originally Posted by swampler

Of course that's why, but they do it with wide angle lenses.

...with a FoV of 21-45 the Pro (sports) photographer doesn't have to worry too much about distorted body limps so he/she can just rattle away w/ 10FPS

...and because it's a WA, it has enough DoF so that the subject is sharp, even when shot 'over-head'...

...& most Pro's that *I* know have a 1Ds/5D/5D2 as 2nd/3rd camera for if they need the (extra) resolution or the (extra) wide(r) angle...

...horses for courses...

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[MikeV99]

Originally Posted by EOS_JD

I for one am underwhelmed by it and shocked at the grossly exagerated price they are asking for it!

I agree about the price. I am curious what negatives you believe exist with it though?

[EOS_JD]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there are any particular negatives (other than the price). It looks like a cracking camera BUT it's not enough of a difference beyond the existing MkIII to make me think I'd spend the money for the MkIV over the MkIII.

I'm looking at the 7D at the moment however the MkII looks like an interesting purchase for me given the second hand prices.... Maybe if the MkIII falls a little more I'd consider that instead though. Undecided

[MikeV99]

I have been using a 50D and have had a lot of fun with it. However, I would really like to have something that has a little smaller Pixel Density which would reduce the noise at higher ISOs (which I would like to have for low light action shots needed high shutter speeds). The 50D, 5DII, and 1D4 have the following.

4.5 MP/cm²,2.4 MP/cm²,3.1 MP/cm²

All three of the cameras have the larger and higher resolution LCDs which is a must for me.

So, it looks like the 5DII is the solution. However, it is relatively slow compared to the other 2 (50D, 5DII, 1D4 Continuous Drive speeds)

6.3 fps or 3 fps; 3.9 fps max 78 JPEG, 13 RAW; 10 fps max 121 JPEG or 28 RAW

Also, the 5DII is FF and as a nature photographer I hate to give up the Focal length multiplier (1.6, 1, 1.3) advantage although I guess I can live with it. The 1D4 gives back some multiplier and is much faster. The trade off is I lose some pixel density (potential higher ISO). Also, the 1D4 is much more expensive, larger, and heavier. I could probably keep my 100mm f2.8 macro with the 1D4, but it would need to be replaced if I went with the 5DII). So I sit and scratch my head and keep the status quo. Maybe the dual processors of the 1D4 offset the 2.4 to 3.1 pixel density advantage?

I sometimes do BIF, which would seem to negate the 5DII?

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by MikeV99

Maybe the dual processors of the 1D4 offset the 2.4 to 3.1 pixel density advantage?

bingo

I sometimes do BIF, which would seem to negate the 5DII?

5D2 : 3.9 fps max 78 JPEG, 13 RAW

350D : 3.0 fps max 14 JPEG, 4 RAW

shot RAW: 350D w/EF300F4.0L IS USM + EF 1.4xII Extender, 1/400sec, F5.6, ISO100, heavy crop:





...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[MikeV99]

I would like to see the bird be much sharper.

My thinking would be to use something like 1/1000, f8, iso 800 maybe with 70-200 + 1.4xII TC or 2.0xII TC (adjusted for lighting conditions) at high continuous (RAW only). Certainly the 1D4 would be fast enough and have little noise?? under these conditions. The 1.3 focal length would give a little more reach. The 5DII has a lower pixel density but would have half the continuous speed.

What would that bird have looked like if you had used your 5DII instead of the 350D?

Maybe this suggests the 1D4 (argg -- the cost)!

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by MikeV99

I would like to see the bird be much sharper.

me too

My thinking would be to use something like 1/1000, f8, iso 800 maybe with 70-200 + 1.4xII TC or 2.0xII TC (adjusted for lighting conditions) at high continuous (RAW only). Certainly the 1D4 would be fast enough and have little noise?? under these conditions.

Under these conditions a 1D3 would do better than 350D too, but IMO a 5D2 can nail the shot too , you need fast AF, not fast frame rate per sé, and 5D2's AF is pretty fast, at least a lot faster than 350D's

...*my* advise would be against the 70-200F2.8L IS + EF2x(II) extender: you would need a higher aperture (more F11) to get the best IQ out of that combo, and AF is rather slow, not BIF - fast, IMO, a (*my*) 100-400L IS @ F8 or a 400mmF5.6L @ F5.6/F6.3 is sharper and focuses (much) faster

The 1.3 focal length would give a little more reach. The 5DII has a lower pixel density but would have half the continuous speed.

...yep on the 'reach', but again, IMO you do not need fast FPS, but fast AF

What would that bird have looked like if you had used your 5DII instead of the 350D?

Maybe this suggests the 1D4 (argg -- the cost)!

...better, as it would have been a less tight crop (more MP to play with), and AF of 5D2 is certainly better (more precise) and faster than 350D's

...5D2 = $2700, 1D4 = $4999, save the $$$ on the body ad buy a (two) nice lens(es) for the difference ?

100-400L IS = $1.650, 400F5.6L = $1.300

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[jeff martin]

"Don't get me wrong, I don't think there are any particular negatives (other than the price). It looks like a cracking camera BUT it's not enough of a difference beyond the existing MkIII to make me think I'd spend the money for the MkIV over the MkIII."

I have heard to many horror stories about the af on the mk3 to consider buying one. Especially used. I would also love it for the mk4 to be cheaper and without video capability. Still have my mk2n and that was well worth the $2500 over the 40d.