2 thoughts on “Canon EOS 1D Mark IV 16.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3-Inch LCD and 1080p HD Video (Body Only)”

1. 209 of 212 people found the following review helpful

   
   Mark III vs. Mark IV, January 7, 2010

   By 

   Mark Kitaoka (Pacifica, CA United States) –
   
     

   This review is from: Canon EOS 1D Mark IV 16.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3-Inch LCD and 1080p HD Video (Body Only) (Electronics)

   I had the Mark IV on order with Amazon since Canon’s product announcement on October 20th of 2009. Since my local camera shop received the unit on Monday January 4, 2010 and Amazon still listed it as “Not Yet Received” I purchased mine from the local retailer despite the additional $464 in sales tax.

   I have been a Mark III shooter since June of 2007. For my professional work, my primary subject matter is live theatrical performance which includes acting as well as dancing ranging from ballet to traditional Tango to the very fast paced ballroom, specifically shooting Burn the Floor, which is just completing their Broadway run this month. Live performance shooting has many of the same elements of sports photography, except the lighting is much lower and at times more severe due to stage lighting. My Mark III performed well in most instances although I did have occasions where the autofocus did not perform as well as I had hoped. But to be fair, I cannot say with 100% certainty that it was the fault of the gear or the user, me.

   For my non professional work I utilized the Mark III for extensive street shooting in the rain, high wind and many other adverse conditions. In all cases the camera performed well enough that I could only blame myself in those instances where I didn’t get the shot. This includes night shooting of high movement subject matter.

   I have never been concerned about the 10.1 MP size of the Mark III having had many of my images blown up to 6×8 feet posters used on the outside of theatres and large shots used in four color programs. I had several concerns with the Mark III which I had hoped would be addressed in its successor, the Mark IV:

   1. A higher ISO range with equal or less noise
   2. The ability for the focus point to switch when changing from landscape to portrait orientation. – Although the Custom Function allows one to change the rear wheel to adjust the focus point, I prefer to use that dial to adjust for exposure. Having to switch in a very fast paced situation caused me to miss some great shots.
   3. More selection of focus points for manual focus point adjustment

   Other than those three wishes, I was happy with my Mark III. In all three cases, the Mark IV met my wishes. I have done a comparison in low light, low contrast situations with both Marks at ISO 6400, which for the Mark III was considered H1. As such, adjusting the ISO from 3200 to 6400 was not possible in 1/3 stop increments. More on that later. In the comparison, the Mark IV handily beats the Mark III in terms of detail and noise at ISO 6400. Much more detail is visible which has something to do with a higher MP count, but at 100% crops, there is a marked difference. The noise on the Mark IV is less and of a different quality than the Mark III, more film like than digital.

   During performances I had only used ISO 6400 in conditions which made lower settings impossible. I have always thought that a noisy shot is much better than one that is blurred beyond usage. My clients agree. One of my favorite lenses to use while shooting on stage as well as from the house is the EF 24-105mm f4.0 IS L. The focal range on a 1.3 crop sensor is just PERFECT, but the slowness of the f4.0 kept me from utilizing that lens with the Mark III unless lighting was sufficient. This will all change with the Mark IV as ISO 6400 is just fine using a f4.0 lens in my conditions.

   Keep in mind that everyone needs to decide how a camera is to be used, under what conditions and it is naive to think that an investment in current glass won’t influence a decision to stay or leave any brand of camera. I am heavily invested in Canon glass and all of them are L series lenses. I find that the color and sharpness of L series lenses are worth the investment, especially since I purchase most of them on the used market. There are folks who love to go back and forth on brand, pixel snooping, stats, etc. in hopes of proving themselves ‘right.’ I am NOT one of those people. To me a mediocre/poor/boring image is the same whether you take it with film, a full frame DSLR or medium format camera. (BTW, I’m not sure why 35mm is considered FF anyway. I consider 2.25×2.25 my idea of full frame!) My personal opinion is those who often argue ad naseum about camera stats take the lousy or boring pictures anyway.

   I have NOT been able to use the camera in high movement, low light performance photography as I write this. My first opportunity for that comes this weekend. It will also be the first time I have the chance to shoot with two separate cameras with different lenses attached. That will give me a good, but not scientific comparison of the cameras, but more important for me is whether keeping both is worth the effort. I will decide if the Mark III gets a new home or not.

   My advice is to base your hard earned purchasing dollars on what is right for your situation. My Mark…

   Read more

   Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

   Was this review helpful to you? 
   

   
   |

    Comments (18)

   Reply ↓
2. 47 of 52 people found the following review helpful

   
   A huge step up from the mk III, January 6, 2010

   By 

   William D. Colburn “buys things on amazon far… (Socorro, NM USA) –
   
     
   
     

   This review is from: Canon EOS 1D Mark IV 16.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3-Inch LCD and 1080p HD Video (Body Only) (Electronics)

   (Edited to fix my poor grammar and reword a few things to be more clear)

   The 1D mk III was my first 1-series body. Before that I had, in reverse order, a 5D, a 20D, and 300D. Each step along the way was nicer and nicer. I couldn’t imagine a better camera than my 1D mk III, but now I have it.

   Over time (mostly through reading about the camera) I learned that my mk III had poor autofocus. I had an early version with the defect, but also because the mk III apparently did not live up to the autofocus of the 1D mk IIn. I had the defect fixed, and my auto focus was better, but still not as good, or so I had read, as the mk IIn autofocus. I can attest that I certainly felt frustrated with the mk III autofocus on a regular basis.

   I haven’t been to a sporting event yet, so I can’t speak to that kind of focusing, but in good light with a stationary subject my gut feeling is that, yes, focusing is better in the mk IV than it was in the mk III. I can also attest that in near darkness conditions, such as when I can’t even see my subject (and a 1.2 lens), the autofocus is astounding. Astounding there is relative; in this case I mean it often acquires focus, which is quite a feat in near total darkness.

   This camera is 16MP instead of 10MP, but so far I haven’t noticed much of a different in quality from the smaller photosites. Canon said the microlenses were an improvement, and I’m quite willing to believe them.

   My ReallyRightStuff L-bracket from my mk III fits perfectly, which is a nice bonus. It uses the same batteries as my mk III was well. The mk IV doesn’t come with a wall adapter like the mk III did, but I have a mk III so it wasn’t a terrible loss for me.

   The battery life is supposedly down with the larger sensor. Canon claims something like 1200 shots I think, while the mk III supposedly got 1900. I know I usually got 7000 per battery if I drained a battery over a few months, or about 12000 if I shot a major event in a single day. While the battery performance still seems good (I didn’t start with a fresh battery, and I’ve been out in the cold a lot with it), it is definitely not as long-lived as in a mk III body. The battery smart-logic only understand shutters, and doesn’t keep track of video, so shooting movies will play havok with matching up a shot count to the battery life.

   The aesthetics of the menu system are much improved. It is basically the same menus as the mk III, but they feel more polished now.

   The high iso is, well, high. I won’t lie to you: at H3 you get something barely above garbage out of the camera; but you get something! It’s absolutely astounding to be able to shoot in that much darkness. H2 is pretty bad, and H1 is kind of all-right. And I haven’t found anything that needed any of the H modes; 12800 has been more than adequate for playing around in. I’m quite happy with the exended ISO, and noise at that level is something I expect. The camera can be pushed further with H3 than I even pushed B&W film, and the results are quite good for the circumstances.

   When you stick to ISO 12800 or lower the results are quite spectacular. My gut feeling was that 12800 is about as good as 3200 on the 1D mk III, but I hadn’t specifically compared them to see. I’ve uploaded a comparison picture to Amazon showing two shots that compare the ISO. The mk IV 12800 definitely seems to be better than the mk III H1 (6400).

   I like the new rotation-selectable AF points. I like the new corner brightening options.

   The video I’ve barely played with. Auto focus in video sucks, so you need to manual focus. The lack of a level control on audio-in is a serious deficiency. The video does look good though. I’ve barely played with it though, and I’ve never owned a video camera (I’ve only owned a film-based movie camera), so I’m not sure what I can say about it. I do know that it takes a long time to upload a minute of Full HD to YouTube.

   I guess that is all I can think of at the moment.

   I like my new camera.

   0

   Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

   Was this review helpful to you? 
   

   
   |

    Comment

   Reply ↓