21 of 23 people found the following review helpful
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've had the pleasure of using a pre-production 1D Mark IV for several weeks now, and I barely use my 5D Mark II anymore. As a photojournalist, this camera does everything I need it to -- most important for me:
- Low noise high ISO. I have no fear whatsoever going to ISO 12,800. Images are still sharp and have good color. No ugly lines at all. Perfect for shooting sports in stadium with crappy light (see link below).
- Better autofocus, especially in low light. With any camera I've used before, autofocus on low light was terrible. It's still not great, but it's a lot better.
- 10 FPS, with a large buffer. With a fast card (60 MB/s or higher), you can lay on the shutter for several seconds on highest quality before it starts to lag.
- Compared to the 5D Mark II, this thing is built like a beast. I've banged it around a lot and it still looks brand new.
Here are a couple galleries shot entirely with the Mark IV. I believe the ISO for the first one is 5,000 and the second is 4,000:
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-9 of 9 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 19, 2010 5:45:34 PM PST
Madhavi C. Jonnalagadda says:
The link to the photographs is missing
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 19, 2010 5:58:54 PM PST
Ugh, I think Amazon removed them. I'll try again:
If they don't show up here, then I'm not sure how to post them... sorry...
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 20, 2010 9:32:59 AM PST
R. Boyd says:
Shots look great Cliff. Mind telling me what lens(es) I'm looking at in these shots?
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2010 10:26:00 AM PST
Jorge Gonzalez Chau says:
tnx for the review... Are you posting your pics somewhere else where we can see the EXIF info? I would love to see ISO and Shutter Speed for these pics.
thanks in advance
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2010 1:13:29 PM PST
Well, I can't post them elsewhere, but here's an example...
This image (and most others in that gallery): http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pho
Exposure Time: 1/1250
F Number: 2.8
Focal Length: 400.0mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Auto
Glad to help...
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2010 2:02:15 PM PST
Jorge Gonzalez Chau says:
thank you Me,
wow !! amazing ISO performance....It won't make a huge difference to go all the way to 6400, I guess..... It's a dream for me have the ability to work at ISO 6400. I work mostly on wedding photography in Nicaragua, where I live. Weddings are a total challenge to me (I've been doing well so far, thanks god). In Nicaragua people get married at night (never at afternoon or in the mourning) and light conditions are far from good, generally hotel saloons or open fields at night. I use 2 50D for my work. A 70-200 2.8 IS USM on one and a 17-55 2.8 IS USM on the other and find my self shooting at ISO 800 at most but trying to keep it as low as ISO 400. The fastest shutter speed I can get away with is 1/100 but most of the time I'm at 1/50 and sometimes 1/20.... that's pretty nasty.... so many blurred photos.
So I'm starting to save to upgrade one of my 50D to either a 5DmkII or a 1DmkIV and also to prime faster lenses. But in your opinion and experience which camera will do better for wedding photography? Have you used a 5D mk II? How does it compare with the 1DmkIV in terms of ISO performance?
I guess the crop factor will do a difference to me also... I dream to go as wide as a 16-35 in a full frame... or at least a 24-70 (with my 17-55 I can go as wide as 28 equiv). So with the 1D I'll be giving up 1.3 range, I know...
I know the difference in price also... but ISO performance is so important for me that if it's worth it, I will sell my house and buy the mark IV, hehe... Then ... if I survive my wife's madness and angerness, I will be a wounded but happy Wedding photog...
Here in Nicaragua I don't have the chance to go to a store a try them... so I'll be glad if you give me some insights about how these two compare to each other
best regards and thanks in advance for your kind response.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2010 10:46:18 PM PST
Eric Strate Photography says:
FYI - my main camera was a 50D when I upgraded to the Mark IV. After having used a Mark II a lot as well, I am very, very glad I went with the Mark IV. While you lose full-frame, you gain a LOT over the Mark II - a MUCH better autofocus, 45 autofocus points as opposed to 9 gives you, in my opinion, a lot more options for composition, better AI servo tracking - the AF alone is worth it for weddings, when you are in that 'have to get the shot' mode and can't afford to miss - this thing tracks in low light beautifully. The Mark II is a wonderful camera - no doubt about it - but I'm very glad I went with the Mark IV for versatility - I can shoot sports, weddings, portraits, whatever with it.
Posted on Sep 30, 2010 3:17:06 PM PDT
The Producer says:
Looked at your link. Good work. Looking forward to the 1Ds. Keep up the great work.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›