Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon 1D MarkIV
- Thread starter Phrasikleia
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
EOS-1D Mark IV: First Look Videos
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/contro...rticleID=3108&productID=349&articleTypeID=125
What's New in the EOS-1D Mark IV: Advanced Autofocus System
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/contro...&articleID=3107&productID=349&articleTypeID=5
Vincent Laforet's blog has a video short where he used the the 1DMk4 to shoot a low-light 1080p video (get the 1080p version from smugmug):
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/
Specs:
Price: US$4999
Shipping: December 2009
BTW, everyone who guessed Canon would reuse the same 19-point AF as in the new 7D, guessed wrong.
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/contro...rticleID=3108&productID=349&articleTypeID=125
What's New in the EOS-1D Mark IV: Advanced Autofocus System
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/contro...&articleID=3107&productID=349&articleTypeID=5
Vincent Laforet's blog has a video short where he used the the 1DMk4 to shoot a low-light 1080p video (get the 1080p version from smugmug):
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/
Specs:
- 10 fps
- 16.1 MP
- APS-H (1.3 crop factor)
- 1080p: 29.97/25/23.976 fps
- 720p: 59.94/50 fps
- 45 Point AF – 39 cross
- 63 zone metering
- 100% Viewfinder
- 3″ LCD
- Native ISO: 100-12800 (expandable down to 50 or up to as high as 102400 )
Price: US$4999
Shipping: December 2009
BTW, everyone who guessed Canon would reuse the same 19-point AF as in the new 7D, guessed wrong.
Awesome! Now people can really compare the latest cameras from Canon and Nikon (not exactly, since the sensor sizes are different, but many will be glad to see 1080p video )
Ah, if only I had the 5K to spare...
)Ah, if only I had the 5K to spare...
I just don't see how this camera's highest ISO setting can match the D3s's, as the D3 has the advantage of a 35mm frame area, whereas the 1D Mark IV does not. When the 1Ds Mark IV comes along, then we'll see for real.
It probably can't, but we'll have to wait and see the actual reviews and sample images. To match the D3s, Canon will have to work miracles with the sensor.
If the base ISO range is 100-12,800 then I'm guessing ISO 6400 will be more than usable. Just think of the low light possibilities with fast glass!
yup, canon has to do miracles to get the high ISO as good or even better then the D3s, look at it. It has a freaking 16mp on a APS-H while Nikon played it safe while retaining 12mp and improved High ISO.
So far I give it 60% chance that the D3s will do better then the 1D M4.
But wasn't that much surprised when the D3s announced though (the D300s should get more updates such as improved high ISO and improved video - less jello for etc.) but must admit it does have some extra features that will make some D3 users to upgrade to the D3s (I guess the term "more then just an 'S' " fits better with the D3s then D300s). Hmm, since D3x starts out at 24mp, I wonder does this mean, the D4 will begin at 24mp? And perhaps the D400 starts at 16mp?
So far I give it 60% chance that the D3s will do better then the 1D M4.
But wasn't that much surprised when the D3s announced though (the D300s should get more updates such as improved high ISO and improved video - less jello for etc.) but must admit it does have some extra features that will make some D3 users to upgrade to the D3s (I guess the term "more then just an 'S' " fits better with the D3s then D300s). Hmm, since D3x starts out at 24mp, I wonder does this mean, the D4 will begin at 24mp? And perhaps the D400 starts at 16mp?
Intriguing. Croppablity should be a plus for sports shooters. I don't think anyone is really expecting it to beat the D3s in high ISO, but Canon did pull off some sensor miracles in the 7D (IMO) to improve high ISO performance and cram the sensor even more. They do claim it's better than the 1D Mark III though. We'll just have to wait and see.
No, the D4 is not going to be at 24 megapixels. The D3x exists almost outside the rest of Nikon's camera lineup. It is the only camera it has ever released than is more than some variation of 12 megapixels, and prior to the D3x, the D2x was the most at 12.4. It is more of a medium format competitor than a traditional 35mm DSLR (full frame or cropped).
The D4 is more likely to check in at around 15-16 megapixels, I'd say. Nikon has emphasized several times now that they are more in the high ISO race than the megapixel race. Yes, Canon says they can go up to 100,000 too, but I'd take the D3s against any Canon camera, based mainly on having fewer megapixels and more sensor space to mix together.
I'm wondering how useful these really high ISOs (6400+) actually are for someone who uses photograph to pay bills. low light often means low quality light, and it just gets worse as it gets dimmer...and who wants to buy an expensive print with awkward and unflattering colors and shadows.
I know what you're saying and it's valid. However, as has been pointed out on the D3S thread, if that's all you have it's better than no photo at all. For some applications you'd be mad to stretch the sensitivity. But for some, it's good to have just in case.
Ahhh, what good timing Canon. Seriously.
So, continuing on from the rather fun Nikon D3s thread, what have Canon done right and wrong? In my opinion, the inclusion of 1080p is a good move (especially as it has all the 24/25/30 etc modes) and is certainly a step up over Nikon's 720p. Nikon also have a nasty reputation for rolling shutter problems that they don't seem able to fix at the moment, so Canon really are ahead in the new area of vSLRs.
High ISO? Blah. As I said in the D3s thread, these 100k numbers are ridiculous and unnecessary. Canon and Nikon seem to take great delight in pushing this meaningless number as high as they can go. Personally, they need to concentrate on the usable ISO performance (ie: 100-3,200 possibly 6,400) rather than these expansion areas.
Sticking with APS-H is also a contentious move. I have no doubt Canon could have gone full frame - they've proved that the technology can handle the data throughput (16mp at 10fps is a hell of a lot). So why stick with APS-H? Well, personally, I think it is because APS-H has some benefits that make it worthwhile - the sensors are big enough to allow for better noise handling than APS-C, and the 1.28x crop also gives some reach for those telephotos. Seeing as this is a sports/action camera, the most common lenses used will be a telephoto, and getting some free extension is always a bonus - hell, the APS-H sensor is almost the same as using a 1.4x TC without the stop loss of light.
I like APS-H. It doesn't kill the fisheye effect totally unlike APS-C cameras, and it provides a nice balance between ISO performance and free focal extension. Now, I would also comment that most pros would be using a two-camera system minimum, and they'll most likely have another FF body in the mix anyway.
New AF? Hm. On the fence on this one - sounds great, but the Mark III fiasco has made me skeptical. Canon better have done some quality testing this time round.
Other good bits? The new user profiles looks interesting, particularly for an agency environment with shared kit. Embedded copyight/metadata is a big bonus too, as it'll save doing it in PP. Nice high-res screen too.
As a Mark III owner, will I upgrade? Maybe. I'll be getting my hands on an IV next week for a short time, and then I'll get a loan from Canon. Only after that will I be able to say. However, stacked against it is the fact that my Mark III still takes great images, at a resolution high enough for print work, and the AF has been fixed. The Mark IV offers me more MP (but I have a 5D Mark II for that...) and video (and again, I have a 5D...).
As I'll be shooting a few shots next week, any requests if I can manage to stick my CF card in? I'll try and get a range of ISO images for a start, and a video clip
In other Canon news today?
http://www.canon.co.uk/About_Us/Press_Centre/Press_Releases/Industrial_Products_news/Canon_CX-1_to_improve_retinal_examination_speed_and_efficiency.asp
Awesome, thanks Canon. Mydriatic and non-mydriatic in one system, get in! I'll probably get one of these ordered for work.
http://www.canon.co.uk/About_Us/Press_Centre/Press_Releases/Consumer_News/Cameras_Accessories/EOS_5D_MarkII_Media_Alert.asp
Also great news. Glad to see Canon aren't abandoning the 5D Mark II's video modes and leaving it behind the curve.
[EDIT: Well, smoke me a kipper, the pricing in the UK is insane. Pre-order at £4499.99. Sorry, but a £1500 increase over the 1D Mark III increase is just insane - I was expected a £3,499 price tag. This £4500 is MORE than an EOS 1D Mark III. This also doesn't tally up with the US price either, by a long shot.
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos1dm4/ - SAMPLES]
So, continuing on from the rather fun Nikon D3s thread, what have Canon done right and wrong? In my opinion, the inclusion of 1080p is a good move (especially as it has all the 24/25/30 etc modes) and is certainly a step up over Nikon's 720p. Nikon also have a nasty reputation for rolling shutter problems that they don't seem able to fix at the moment, so Canon really are ahead in the new area of vSLRs.
High ISO? Blah. As I said in the D3s thread, these 100k numbers are ridiculous and unnecessary. Canon and Nikon seem to take great delight in pushing this meaningless number as high as they can go. Personally, they need to concentrate on the usable ISO performance (ie: 100-3,200 possibly 6,400) rather than these expansion areas.
Sticking with APS-H is also a contentious move. I have no doubt Canon could have gone full frame - they've proved that the technology can handle the data throughput (16mp at 10fps is a hell of a lot). So why stick with APS-H? Well, personally, I think it is because APS-H has some benefits that make it worthwhile - the sensors are big enough to allow for better noise handling than APS-C, and the 1.28x crop also gives some reach for those telephotos. Seeing as this is a sports/action camera, the most common lenses used will be a telephoto, and getting some free extension is always a bonus - hell, the APS-H sensor is almost the same as using a 1.4x TC without the stop loss of light.
I like APS-H. It doesn't kill the fisheye effect totally unlike APS-C cameras, and it provides a nice balance between ISO performance and free focal extension. Now, I would also comment that most pros would be using a two-camera system minimum, and they'll most likely have another FF body in the mix anyway.
New AF? Hm. On the fence on this one - sounds great, but the Mark III fiasco has made me skeptical. Canon better have done some quality testing this time round.
Other good bits? The new user profiles looks interesting, particularly for an agency environment with shared kit. Embedded copyight/metadata is a big bonus too, as it'll save doing it in PP. Nice high-res screen too.
As a Mark III owner, will I upgrade? Maybe. I'll be getting my hands on an IV next week for a short time, and then I'll get a loan from Canon. Only after that will I be able to say. However, stacked against it is the fact that my Mark III still takes great images, at a resolution high enough for print work, and the AF has been fixed. The Mark IV offers me more MP (but I have a 5D Mark II for that...) and video (and again, I have a 5D...).
As I'll be shooting a few shots next week, any requests if I can manage to stick my CF card in? I'll try and get a range of ISO images for a start, and a video clip
In other Canon news today?
http://www.canon.co.uk/About_Us/Press_Centre/Press_Releases/Industrial_Products_news/Canon_CX-1_to_improve_retinal_examination_speed_and_efficiency.asp
Awesome, thanks Canon. Mydriatic and non-mydriatic in one system, get in! I'll probably get one of these ordered for work.
http://www.canon.co.uk/About_Us/Press_Centre/Press_Releases/Consumer_News/Cameras_Accessories/EOS_5D_MarkII_Media_Alert.asp
Also great news. Glad to see Canon aren't abandoning the 5D Mark II's video modes and leaving it behind the curve.
[EDIT: Well, smoke me a kipper, the pricing in the UK is insane. Pre-order at £4499.99. Sorry, but a £1500 increase over the 1D Mark III increase is just insane - I was expected a £3,499 price tag. This £4500 is MORE than an EOS 1D Mark III. This also doesn't tally up with the US price either, by a long shot.
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos1dm4/ - SAMPLES]
The key word in that sentence is "could". My point was that technically Canon could have gone FF, but they chose not to, and for some valid reasons. Competing with the 1Ds is a partial one, but seeing as the Mark IV is *only* 16mp, there would still be room for two FF sensor cameras in the lineup (a la Nikon) with the 1Ds coming in at 30-odd MP.
Nothing like a bump in resolution, but with the same size photo sites.
That's the same technology they used in the 5D MkII I believe.
Yup, same as my thoughts on the matter. The Nikon D3s has an increase in it's rrp over the D3 too. All this R&D into 'stuff' obviously costs a lot of money. To think that back in the film days prices pretty much went up with inflation when a new body was launched.
In the eyes of the camera makers, photographers are obviously making far too much money in this recession
The cost just makes it a hard sell - I'm hoping that the street price plummets. For £1834 I can go and buy a 21.1mp 5D Mark II - and with that you'd have 1080p video (soon to get the 24fps goodness too), higher resolution and full frame - that's a whopping £2,665.99 cheaper than a 1D Mark IV - in fact, I could buy two 5D Mark IIs, and a lens.
Sure, with the 5D Mark II I lose speed, weather sealing and a bunch of other stuff...but it is £2,665.99 of stuff? Is it basically the cost of a 1D Mark III (£2614.99 currently) over a 5D Mark II? I'm thinking no right now.
I'm still floored that for the price of a Mark IV I could buy a 1D Mark III and a 5D Mark II, and still have a bit of change. In this current climate, I doubt freelancers could afford one of these, and they'll be waiting for those second hand Mark IIIs from those idiots who only care about specs and 400% crops.
Sure, with the 5D Mark II I lose speed, weather sealing and a bunch of other stuff...but it is £2,665.99 of stuff? Is it basically the cost of a 1D Mark III (£2614.99 currently) over a 5D Mark II? I'm thinking no right now.
I'm still floored that for the price of a Mark IV I could buy a 1D Mark III and a 5D Mark II, and still have a bit of change. In this current climate, I doubt freelancers could afford one of these, and they'll be waiting for those second hand Mark IIIs from those idiots who only care about specs and 400% crops.
Yup, same as my thoughts on the matter. The Nikon D3s has an increase in it's rrp over the D3 too. All this R&D into 'stuff' obviously costs a lot of money. To think that back in the film days prices pretty much went up with inflation when a new body was launched.
In the eyes of the camera makers, photographers are obviously making far too much money in this recession
The pound has plummeted in value relative to most major world currencies. So we will simply have to get used to imported goods costing quite a bit more. If only we were in the Euro...
Yes the GBP has weakened, but not that much. A direct conversion from 4999 USD is 3,046.05 GBP - add on VAT etc, and you still don't come anywhere in the region of £4499.99.
Maths:
£3046.05 + £456.91 (15% VAT) + 0% import duty (Cameras have a 0% from US to UK under the 8525800000 tariff code)
That gives £3,502.96. Throw on a bit extra for distribution or whatnot. Doesn't equal £4499.99.
What if you convert from JPY instead of USD (as Canon are a Japanese company)? I would not be surprise if they use the currency excuse to ramp up prices a bit though
4,599 EUR = 4,193.73 GBP (Getting stiffed, but not as bad as UK)
I can't find a Yen price at the moment However, if Canon can afford to sell at $4999 in the US...
I can't find a Yen price at the moment
However, if Canon can afford to sell at $4999 in the US...
That pentaprism must be HUGE to allow for 100% coverage. It's a real professionals camera, I'd be willing to bet it would self destruct if it was paired with anything other than a luxury class lens. My question to Canon is this: If you are going to charge $5,000 for a DSLR, WHY is there not a full-frame sensor?!! Seems kind of silly to me to allocate that much light sensitivity to a small sensor...and in such a huge body.