Printable View
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmarkIV/
Brief summary: Putting the EOS-1D Mk3's demons behind it Canon has produced an upgrade that's not just better, but delivers an incredibly versatile tool that blurs the 'sports camera/studio camera' line more than ever before. The Nikon D3S might beat it in very low light, but if you want speed and resolution the EOS-1D Mark IV delivers convincingly.
As for RG's discovery read the conclusion below.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...kIV/page32.asp
Conclusion - Cons
- Movie mode (and live view to a lesser extent), feels tacked-on, rather than integrated
- Level of AF customization makes optimization challenging < RG spent less time with the 1D4 than the D3S. 1D4 started shipping in 2010 while D3S started shipping in late 2009
- Placement and interaction of AF customization options unhelpful < RG spent less time with the 1D4 than the D3S. 1D4 started shipping in 2010 while D3S started shipping in late 2009
- White balance isn't brilliant in artificial lighting (but few cameras shine in this respect)
- Like the D3S, the vertical AF-ON button can easily be pressed by accident
As an owner I observed that AI Servo II by default can falter under certain conditions. This can be resolved by tailoring the Custom Function's AF settings to a particular dynamic situation. I feel RG's another example of not RTFM.
But to be fair the 1D4 has only been out for less than 60 days while the D3S has shipped much much earlier than that.
In case some have not seen it, I have the sensor performance of the 1D4 compared with sensors in other cameras:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...mance.summary/
The 1D4 sets new standards. I need to do the Nikon D3s to see where it falls.
Roger
Hi Roger,
Are your charts/conclusions based on specifications of each camera or do you physically measure this information from these cameras?
Alan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pao Dolina
Aaah...but, just because D3s was shipped in late 2009 does not mean any particular individual has used it since late 2009. I mean, one would think so but, in all actuality, wouldn't it depend more on when that individual acquired the camera? :)
As RG is a practicing pro and he derives income from his website he should have gotten the D3S and 1D4 as soon as they were available. More time to practice improves one's skill so you can sell more shots and post a comparison before anyone else does. A lot of people are really eager to know whether Canon got AF right for the 1D4 and how it stacks up to the D3S AF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Desmond Chan
Like right now I handle my 1D4 as if it were a 40D/5D/5D2 because I haven't delved into the 63 Custom Functions as much as I should be. So I get a lot of throwaways. Not to mention this is my first 1-series body as I wanted to avoid the 1D3's bad rap.
Observations from a Getty Images Chief Photographer for N. America http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2380 between his D3S and 1D4.
I do admit having better ISO noise performance of 1.7 stops would be nice but I need the reach that a higher pixel density sensor delivers. Maybe Canon can work on this on the next firmware as this is a big selling point to get the D3S. If I moved to a D3S I would need to get a 1,384mm to match my 1D4+800mm's reach. I'm not willing to carry a 16kg lens for anything
Should have....ok :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pao Dolina
Thank you for the reply !
There are several of us who do the analysis of the sensor data, including Emil Martinec (a BPN member) and Christian Buil (an astronomer in France), and occasionally a few others. They are not derived in any way from specifications. There are original analyses on my site and the performance summary uses those results as well as results from others and from OEM data sheets, when available. This growing data set is now large enough to show trends that can also be modeled. That leads to predictions of performance when a new camera comes out before they actually hit the streets. But in my opinion, some people get caught up in the minute details which leads to some pretty strange arguments on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Stankevitz
Roger
:D Who wants to read old news? Being first often gets you the best traffic. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Desmond Chan
Would you read a review of the 10D's AF as compared to a D100?
Well, it seems to me that we all should be happy and consider ourselves fortunate to have such good cameras form either Nikon or Canon.
I am a Canon shooter and very pleased with both the 7D and 1D MK4. It is gratifying to see DPR and Sportshooter say good things about the cameras. However, let's give credit where credit is due. Both Canon and Nikon have produced outstanding instruments. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. They each have their individual approach to professional photography. They are each outstanding cameras in their class and produce top notch results anyone could be proud of.
Isn't it great to have any of these tools available? Let's get out and make some images!!! ;)
Roger, do you have a D3s to test with?
No, but I want to test one. I'm looking for volunteers with a camera who would take the data for me and I'll analyze it and add it to the web site. It is quite easily done and takes less than an hour including setup. I would also like to see a new Sony and Pentax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aravind Krishnaswamy
The method is described here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...otakedata.html
and
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-1d2/
(although for the data processing, I now use my own custom software.)
Roger
Roger, I will try and see if I can you test data in the next couple of days.
I agree with Ed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Cordes
Unfortunately, most of the people are too involved in either glorifying one or bashing the other. I think 99% of the time the IQ of these cameras are much better than the IQ an inch behind it.
These cameras are ensuring that people capture animal behaviour like never before. Lets be thankful and start focus on clicking.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
Hi Roger, how do what you do differ from what they do here:Quote:
Originally Posted by rnclark
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/%28appareil1%29/342|0/%28appareil2%29/341|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28brand2%29/Nikon
Desmond,Quote:
Originally Posted by Desmond Chan
The dxo web site is pretty good. Several of us started doing sensor analyses before dxo existed. But dxo is a little vague on some of their analyses, enough so that I don't think I could reproduce them. But DXO doesn't give physical units to some derived parameters (perhaps so they can have proprietary scales?). And others are in units not friendly to photographers (how many people understand dB? What parameters they do give you would have to compile and plot yourself to see trends. Contrast that to what Emil, Christian Buil, I, and others do is derive the actual photoelectrons detected. That allows absolute detections to be assessed as well as relative. This may be more important to astronomers, but the relative values indicate general performance differences for everyone looking for a new camera. The plots on my site show the trends both with pixel size and improvements in technology that dxo does not have. The sections on pixel density, apparent image quality and focal-length-limited photography are more relevant to bird photography. I added these because people were too focused on pixel size as a sole measure of performance, and that is still the effect on the dxo site. Other things I disagree with on the dxo site. For example, they recalibrate ISO saying one camera is low or high implying something is wrong. The ISO specification gives manufacturers leeway to choose the calibration they want. The ISO scale is relative anyway and one manufacturer may want to include more headroom than another. Neither is wrong in choosing a different way. Their use of focal length multiplier leads to continued confusion over crop factors and telephoto reach. Their use of ISO as sensitivity is wrong. But these are relatively small nits on an overall good site.
Roger
