1D Mark IV for Landscapes

I ran across an interesting review by Lloyd Chambers, and thought it might be worth sharing.


Bottom line

If I were buying a Canon DSLR today (Jan 27, 2010), the 1D Mark IV would be at the top of my list as the camera offering the highest image quality in the Canon line. The 5 megapixel deficit is more than made up for by pixel quality.
The high pixel quality appeals to me so much more than the 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III that I’d prefer the 1D Mark IV overall, even for landscape shooting.
At 16 megapixels and a 1.3X crop sensor, landscape shooters might easily look past the 1D Mark IV.
The 5-megapixel gap between the 1D Mark IV and its 21-megapixel siblings is less than one might think, especially when shooting lenses that might not perform so well outside that 1.3X crop area (eg the Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II or 24-105/4L).
Other advantages of the 1.3X crop sensor

Vignetting diminishes in importance on a 1.3X sensor, as does distortion (with some lenses).
Depth of field is also slightly enhanced due to the user of shorter focal lengths for the same field of view.
Lens selection

Sports/action shooters need autofocus, and so for those applications, lens choice is often predetermined by AF and autofocus and lighting conditions.
For more deliberative use with top-end quality, a three-lens kit consisting of the Zeiss ZE 21/2.8, 50/2 Makro-Planar and 100/2 Makro Planar would make an outstanding choice, filling in with other focal lengths as needed. See Guide to Zeiss ZF/ZE Lenses.
Some Canon zoom lenses such as the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II and the 24-105/4L are “corner challenged”. On the 1D Mark IV these problem areas are not seen by the sensor, which is a factor closing the megapixel gap with Canon’s 21 megapixel offerings.
Future derivations

The high pixel quality of the Canon 1D Mark IV images promises good things to come in a future 27-30MP Canon full-frame camera, though there is some risk that a full-frame sensor might not maintain the same per-pixel quality, even at the same pixel density, due to the way such chips are manufactured. But it bodes well for the future.

I am glad I am not the only one who thinks this way. Several of my friends think I am crazy by liking the 1.3 crop. They point out that there is really no "reach" advantage as with high MP FF you can crop to get the reach and it "ruins" wide angle use.

I have said that so many WA lenses have edge issues and the 1.3 crop eliminates them better than making a FF image only to crop the edge issues away.

Bottom line is that I am happy the MK4 is 1.3.

Charlie,

I know that when I bought a 1D Mark III, that became my prime camera for landscapes over the 5D which I sold.

I bought a 5D Mark II as that gave me a better IQ over the 1D Mark III for landscapes but I have been wondering if the Mark IV could replace my 5D Mark II.

I personally dislike the 1.3x crop mostly because I shoot with primes and find that a lot of my favourite focal lengths have angles of view which I don't like with APS-H (like the 24 f/1.4 & 85 f/1.2). I used a 1D3 for 15 months and during that time it was mostly with zooms so I didn't mind (and mostly with super teles as well).

The corner sharpness issue is a problem for landscape shooters. However if you have the coin the 24 TS-E II and/or the 17 TS-E (or the CZ 21) you get stellar corner performance. I am shooting these lenses (the TS-Es) and am delighted with the corner performance.

It depends on how wide you want to go, for some people wide is 24mm, for some 16mm or even 14mm. The two things I dislike about 1.3 crop is that it destroys the intended prime and zoom focal lengths, I use 24-105 a lot and on a 1.3X it becomes an awkward 32-136mm, not good for me. The other factor is relatively small finder compared to full frame finders. I will never trade my 5DMKII for any 1.3X crop camera for landscape and architecture work. There is a reason Canon also make the 1DS series.


The corner issue is a problem for Canon wide angle lenses, I agree they should fix it. These are imperfections of the lenses not an advantage of 1.3X crop.

The Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II performs very well on a full-frame offering. Using a 1D4 with a 16mm lense as you know will only give you a field of view of 21mm, perhaps that is wide enough for your needs. I am also not sure one can say the image quality of the 1D4 can be said to be better than that of the 1Ds3 or the 5D2. You can get a lightly used 1Ds3 for less than the 1D4 and have better higher iso performance due to the larger photosites of the full frame sensor when the resolutions are equalized between both camera's for noise comparisons(1Ds3-21mp vs 1D4-16 mp). Just food for thought.

For me, at the end of the day, do you shoot more landscapes or wildlife? Do you want reach or width? Do you want fast fps or significantly slower fps? When having both the 5D2/24-105 and the 7D/70-200 + 1.4x around my neck at the same time, depending upon which focal length I needed the 5D2 was a slug compared to the 7D burst speeds.

Horses for courses; I am keeping my 7D and selling my 5D2 which is being replaced by a 1D4 when I return to Australia. (anyone interested in my 5D2 for a prelisting sale price; also my 16-35; contact me - I can send it to the USA with my daughter in July - avoid custom issues).

Jay,

Good luck in finding a Mark IV. But maybe they will be available by the time you return.