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 6x8 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 2.25x2.25 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 III has performed well in the past and I'm confident after some of my own testing that the Mark IV is even better. Time will tell and as I gain more experience shooting with this new tool, I may add my insights here in the future. Best of luck with your own shooting!
UPDATE January 9 2010
Today I had my first opportunity to shoot in low light with the Mark IV. Although it was NOT as high movement/low light as I am accustomed, it was a very good initial test. I shot a choral group with musicians, so movement was nice and slow, except for the conductor. It was also the first time I was able to use two camera bodies without switching lenses. On the Mark III, I used a EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS and on the Mark IV, I utilized the EF 24-105 f4.0 L IS. This focal range allowed me to cover all that was necessary. Obviously I used the f4.0 on the Mark IV because of its higher ISO range and noise performance.
I want to say that it will take some adjustments moving to the Mark IV. As I reviewed some images from other photographers using the Mark IV prior to receiving my own camera I had no idea what conditions the photographer's lighting conditions presented. I can say that because of the new sensor and ISO performance, it makes scenes appear MUCH more well lit than I experience with my human eye. In the past I have run -1/3 to -2/3 EV when using my Mark III to prevent blow out in highlights even using Highlight Tone Priority. Tonight I set both cameras on 0 EV to compare. The Mark IV presents a brighter image, about 1/3 stop brighter than the Mark III.
Because this was not a paid gig, I took more chances with the imagery than had it been for pay. I found that in camera Noise reduction of 1 Low suits my taste much better than -0 Standard in the Custom Settings function. There is a different quality to the noise produced at Standard over Low. I prefer Canon's Low setting, but your preference may differ. The highest I found it necessary to set the ISO tonight was at 10,000. Upon examining the images on my monitor, there is the most noise in the subtle shadow areas around the subject's chin and lower neck. This is normal in my experience along with noise in large solid color backgrounds. But the noise at 10,000 is easily much better than the Mark III at ISO 6400. In addition the detail that remains at 10,000 eclipses the detail, or lack of detail in the Mark III at 6400. I measure my detail in the hairline wrinkles around the eyes and in the forehead of my subjects. The Mark IV sustained those details where the Mark III at 2/3 stops lower ISO did not.
Also the noise produced by the Mark IV is more chroma than luminance. In my workflow, chroma noise is MUCH easier to reduce than luminance noise. The dynamic range of the Mark IV in terms of color is FAR superior to the Mark III, but I attribute this to a new sensor and new processors. Camera bodies are really just like computers, as soon as they come out they immediately begin to become obsolete. The color and white balance are MUCH better than my Mark III. It still takes some adjustment, but much less than the III.
The automatic focus point association between landscape and portrait is a God send! Also the Mark IV takes advantage of UDMA card speed. I purchased a 32gb Sandisk Extreme CF card for the Mark IV and it's rated at 60mb per second. In shooting RAW burst, the ability of the Mark IV to write to the card after the buffer is full is easily three times as fast as the Mark III, but to be fair the III doesn't have UDMA capability.
So far so good. I plan to keep my Mark III simply because shooting with two cameras with different focal length lenses is the only way to go for my work. At some point I will replace the Mark III with another IV, but that will take time and a few more clients. It will be interesting to see how the images look at high ISO in large format, which much of my work is used as with clients. I'm happy with my choice so far and anticipate that more work in my normal venues will continue to show favorable results.
My issue is now how to build up my neck to support two 1D bodies with a 70-200 on one and a 24-105 on the other! When I use my 28-70 in place of the 24-105 it's going to be a real pain!
FINAL UPDATE: January 17 2010
Tonight I had my first opportunity to shoot a theatrical performance with the IV. I can only say that Auto ISO along with AI Servo will change how I shoot theatre. The settings I used tonight were Highlight Priority On, AI Servo, single shot, Auto ISO, ISO range L to 12800. The lenses I used tonight were the EF 24-105 f4 L IS and the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS. Anticipation is such a major part of theatrical shooting, waiting for just the right expression, gesture and moment. I was able to capture images tonight with a clarity that I have not experienced with my Mark III. Auto ISO constrained within the parameters I wanted left me free to concentrate entirely on capturing the moment while retaining a speed proportionate to the focal length. By freeing me up from keeping an eye on the shutter speed, which was set by the Auto ISO, I was able to compose my shots more accurately. Using AI Servo for my focusing also allowed me to follow the subject and keep them in focus just before pressing the shutter. I watched and anticipated their expressions like never before.
The ISO varied between a low of 800 in very good stage lighting to a high of 12800 in those scenes where it was too dark for me to know the actor's expression. I ran an EV value between -.33 to -1.0 to compensate for harsh spot lighting, so common in stage work. In those cases where the shot was very dark, where the actor's face was shaded in a very dark manner, ISO 12800's noise is very visible, but not to the point where a noise processor will bring the image back to usefulness. In those cases where light is medium, I will NOT have to use noise reduction post processing for printed images in large format.
So with my last entry I will simply say that I am pleased to have made an investment in the new Mark IV. It surpasses my Mark III in a way that will now allow me to press the limits of my ability to capture even more compelling imagery. And in my work, an image that moves the viewer is one I'm proud to produce, regardless of the equipment. The Mark IV will certainly push my own skill limits in a way I'm happy to undertake. It's a tool that will help expand the level of my own creative process.
Best of luck to all of you in whatever you decide to purchase and shoot. It's time for me to get back to work.
UPDATE February 28 2010
I'm not sure how many of you who own the Mark IV have upgraded your firmware to 1.0.6, but if you haven't, I would recommend the update. Although Canon has not released specifics about the update I can tell you that from personal experience, it helps to track objects that pause for 1-2 seconds before moving. Prior to the update I noticed that when a performer paused, the AI Servo mode hunted a bit attempting to stay on the same trajectory as the subject's last known movement. With 1.0.6, that pause causes the camera to hunt much less than before. I have now had the chance to use the Mark IV in two live theatrical performances, one publicity shoot, low light street shooting and one wedding. (My gawd I hate it when I get coerced into shooting the occasional wedding, but when my regular clients 'ask' what is a guy to do?) and the image quality along with high ISO performance is remarkable. In real world applications ISO up to 10000 is very usable for print in large format.
In addition, having studied Canon's guide for AI Servo and High ISO usage is necessary in order to customize the camera for specific applications. I highly recommend reviewing the material. You can download the PDF from Canon Rumors at this link:
You'll have to scroll down a bit for the link to the PDF.
UPDATE May 4 2010 Noise performance with Adobe Photoshop CS5
Having used this rig for quite some time now in various low light/high movement situations I wanted to comment that I have avoided the use of the higher range of ISO, specifically H1, 2 and 3. In those cases where I wished to reduce the noise levels in post processing taken at ISO 12800 I had used Noise Ninja with good results. I recently purchased Adobe's new Photoshop CS5 and decided to process some images taken at H1 and H2 through their Camera RAW noise reduction scheme.
Obviously the quality of light has a large bearing on the amount of noise in any high ISO image. But I can say that using the new Camera RAW noise reduction in CS5 now allows me to use both H1 and H2 ISO on many more 'non emergency' situations. In the past Noise Ninja did not yield acceptable results at H1 or 2, blurring the detail beyond my acceptance level. CS5 removes that obstacle and I now find that shots taken at H1 (ISO 25600) are VERY useful both in print and on the web. H2 at 51200 are also useful when run through the noise reduction program. Yes, there is noise and if one is expecting a very low level of noise I would recommend you NOT venture into those ranges. But if like me you are sometimes REQUIRED to get a shot that captures the moment in more than acceptable fashion, I highly recommend the use of CS5's Camera RAW noise reduction with the Mark IV. It is a combination that has allowed me to capture and produce imagery like never before.
(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.
Buy Canon EOS 1D Mark IV 16.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3-Inch LCD and 1080p HD Video (Body Only) Now
I have been a Canon shooter for a while now but seriously considered jumping to Nikon with the release of the D3. I stuck it out with my 1D3 which, despite the negative reviews, performed exceptionally well for me.
When the D3S released it was all I could do to resist hitting the "buy" button. I wanted to see what the 1D4 specs looked like before I made my mind up to either stay with Canon or do like many other Canon pro body shooters and make the switch to Nikon.
The 1D4 released and I liked the specs, so I bought the camera. I was one of the first in the US to get my hands on a 1D4, I received mine at the end of January when the first few bodies landed. I've been shooting with it for a month now and I can say, it's an amazing body.
AF:
The autofocus system is noticeably superior to the 1D3's, which was outstanding to begin with. My 1D3 didn't have the sub-mirror problem that plagued other users, so in that respect I was lucky. My 1D3 had its quirks, like losing focus on subjects rapidly approaching or not really doing so well in very low light. The 1D4 not only remedies these quirks of the 1D3, it goes even further and takes an already great body and makes it exceptional. I've shot basketball games in dimly lit stadiums, I've shot outdoor (albeit winter) sports, I've shot birds, I've shot in studio and each and every time I'm impressed with the 1D4's performance.
ISO:
The high ISO is good, but not what I had hoped. I mean, with a little noise reduction in post processing I can easily get beautiful images at ISO 12800. Anything past 12800 and the images are for the most part unusable. There is some chroma noise at ISO 6400 and above, but the luminance noise is more noticeable. Despite having some grain to the 6400+ images there is amazing detail in the high ISO images. They clean up very nicely and produce print quality work. It is about 1 stop better performance than my 1D3, which is good. It's about even with my 5D2 with the slight advantage going to the 5D2. But the fact that it's close is amazing.
Controls:
I really like the new features like being able to register two different AF points based on camera orientation. I also like being able to have two AF points registered for each orientation. I can select two points in the horizontal position for example and while shooting hit the AE Lock button and toggle between them instantly. This is very helpful when shooting sports and other events. The ability to use the joystick to quickly select a new AF point is also a nice touch, one that I use often. The lack of a video button seems a bit odd (such as the one found on the 7D) but I don't really use the video function on DSLR's, so this is a moot point for me. Aside from a few under the hood changes, the controls are quite similar to the 1D3 cosmetically, something that's kind of comforting to long time 1D shooters.
Auto ISO:
This feature finally made it to the 1 series and I LOVE IT. I've never worried about Auto ISO in the past, mostly because Canon never really offered a solid implementation. I've been using it on my 1D4 and all I can say is "nice job!" It's very useful.
Overall:
I would say that the 1D4 is more of a 1D3n release. True, it does have a totally new 39 point cross-type sensor AF system and a vastly improved LCD screen along with some other tweaks, but nothing really all that different from the 1D3 that it replaces. I am very happy with the upgrade from the 1D3 to the 1D4 and would make the purchase again. It's a very solid system.
Read Best Reviews of Canon EOS 1D Mark IV 16.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3-Inch LCD and 1080p HD Video (Body Only) Here
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:
Want Canon EOS 1D Mark IV 16.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3-Inch LCD and 1080p HD Video (Body Only) Discount?
Mark Kitaoka pretty much nailed it with his detailed review, but I figured I'd add some of my own experiences and opinions as well.
I've shot with a 5D Mark II and a 50D but this is my first foray into OWNING a 1D series camera (I've shot with them before, but I was always borrowing them and never really got to really know one inside and out). The first thing that owners of anything but the 1D series will notice is the build quality. As solid as the 7D and 5D and even 50D series might feel, the 1D cameras are just in another league. Button layout is very intuitive I found myself easily able to adjust everything I need while looking through the viewfinder, and quickly at that. Switching to video is also seamless you can set it to switch to recording with a single button push instantly not only switching to video mode, but starting recording at the same time. Video quality is astounding.
What most impressed me, though, was being able to shoot a basketball game with shutter speeds up to 1/4000th of a second with ambient gym lighting and get good results. Being able to shoot at ISO's of 10,000 and above with good results gives you incredible freedom to crank the shutter speed up and capture every aspect of the action freezing action as never before with indoor sports.
The following shot was taken at ISO 12800:
.
Noise is visible in dark areas, but I'll take an image with that noise level all day for the ability to shoot at the shutter speeds that shot was taken at.
Here's an example of ISO 5000:
.
The lack of noise in that image is, in my opinion, phenomenal for that ISO.
To the person who thinks this camera is completely unwarranted for your current 'level' of photography, I'd encourage you to reconsider if price isn't the issue. The blazing fast AF, improved AI servo performance, video, and high ISO performance will open up completely new areas of photography to you. I know people who can afford this camera and have chosen not to get it simply because they felt it was just beyond what they needed. That may be the case, but if you feel like spoiling yourself, this is one purchase you won't regret. I love this camera and cannot wait to shoot a wedding with it.
The seller here was fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!! Went out of his way to keep me happy, sending a remote that went with the projector, more than the 2 that were in with it, that did not have the focus feature. the product needs feet,and I did not know that till last weekend, so be sure to check to see if there are feet with your projector, they are hard to find, we had to just use screws, but they will be fine.
I'd recently purchased a Canon T2i digital SLR with the almost sole purpose of shooting video, but I also use it as my primary camera for still photography. When shooting HD video with this batch of Canon DSLRs the viewfinder is blocked and the only option for seeing what you're shooting is the LCD screen, which is hardly ideal for manual focus. I'd read all the reviews of the three top contenders: the Zacuto Z-finders, this LCDVF, and the Hoodman Hoodloupe 3.0. Zacuto was way out of my price range for what's essentially a good magnifying glass in a nice holder. Hoodman would've been a real option if they had a useable way to mount it to an T2i, which has an LCD screen offset to the left-bottom corner of the camera, not centered as on other models that the Hoodman was designed for. So in the end, I decided to go with the LCDVF and I'm very glad I did.
This camera was exactly what I was looking for. I have a bigger Fuji camera that I have been very happy with, but wanted a "pocket" camera that I could have with me all the time. This is perfect. I can take it to the restaurant when I have dinner with friends, or to little league practice, and it doesn't take up too much space, or too much of my time worrying about it. It takes great photos, and I am completely satisfied, and will purchase Fuji products again.
I was very pleased with the fast shipping and with everything included in the kit! Of course the camera was exactly as I expected but the kit was better than I expected. The tri-pod is a good quality full sized tri-pod. I would definitely recommend this product if you are looking for something at a great price and quality!
I got this unit from my brother for Christmas and I just love it'
I've only had this for about a week, but so far I am very impressed. This is the first major purchase for me without reading a review. I waited several weeks but couldn't find one review, so I bought based on its features and on the consistently high Sony camcorder reviews. I'm actually not a fan of Sony, but they seem to make the best camcorder in this price rage. As you can see by the specs, this camera has just about every feature you could want and more so I won't go into the feature set. Yes, I wish it had a viewfinder but those are pretty rare these days. The touch screen isn't very responsive but it gets the job done. The video quality is outstanding. Initially I was disappointed until I realized the default factory setting was LP mode. Once you set is at the highest resolution you will be amazed. The stated recording time of 11 hours is based on the LP mode; the highest resolution recording time with the internal memory is about 2:45.
Was looking at this unit and the newer D5200. After reading other reviews and awaiting the US release of the D5200 I ended up going with the D5100. Part was the higher cost of the D5200 (just could not justify the 24MP for the money based on some reviews of the D5100 vs D5200. This bundle was a better value for the dollar vs a D5200 and one lens.)
This is a great camera for the price. It is convenient, and the quality is good. The guy who claims his iPhone 5 takes better video is crazy. I have taken video with my iPhone 5 and it isn't even close... Anyway, it has great features and is easy to use with excellent video quality at a great price. There are better, but you will have to pay quite a bit more.
I did not personally use this projector. It was purchased as a replacement for one our recreation department was using. Same brand and they loved it.
I love this camera. My guess is you'll love it too, at least if your needs are similar to mine:
This tripod is likely the absolute most inexpensive tripod you can buy that is a real fluid head tripod. This is big, it's not light, it works well for video, it is well made. It has a quick disconnect plate.