Check Cnet they seems to get an early take on the 1D Mark IV and I must admit ISO 102 400 looks terrible, either Cnet made mistake or Canon ISO 102 400 is that terrible
What an understatement. I was expecting terrible, not THAT. WTF?
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
What an understatement. I was expecting terrible, not THAT. WTF?
Check Cnet they seems to get an early take on the 1D Mark IV and I must admit ISO 102 400 looks terrible, either Cnet made mistake or Canon ISO 102 400 is that terrible
Here it is in all its glory:
If that's an accurate representation of what one can expect from that sensitivity, I have to wonder why Canon bothered to include it.
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/digitalcameras/0,39001468,45095238p,00.htm
I think my point about high ISO was justified right there. That's...horrible. You couldn't even try the line "any image is better than nothing" with that kind of result. Why do they bother when the results are that bad?
keep in mind that many of the 1-series' advantages aren't listed in the spec sheet.
no it doesn't. first, it's an APS-H sensor, not 35mm. second, viewfinder size depends on coverage and magnification. Pentax came out with a 100% viewfinder in one of its new cameras, but at reduced magnification, so it's not that much bigger.
no camera will self-destruct without a "luxury class lens." it doesn't matter if it's 50MP or 5, a 10x enlargement is a 10x enlargement. a camera with a large enough sensor can make a good photo regardless of the 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.
35mm is not the pinnacle of digital camera formats. there is a place for smaller and larger formats. get used to it.
I still have hope for a discernible image with the D3s. I was expecting the 1D to be bad, but not something looking completely pointless.
Maybe it should be tried with low light.
Seriously, all the chest-beating over FF sensors is ridiculous, especially given that digital medium-format is yet another option.
Once somebody gets their hands on a D3s, and a Mark IV outside of a press briefing, we'll have a better indicator. On paper, the D3s stands a chance of having slightly better performance - but that's dependent upon how Canon's manipulation of microlenses has held up under strain. We could easily see the D3s outputting the same crap at 100k, and I wouldn't be suprised. As mentioned earlier, I'll try and get as much out of a Mark IV as I can next week, but I haven't been able to secure a D3s out of Nikon yet.
Dial either camera down to 10k and we may be talking. However, it all remains to be seen at this point in time.
Dial either camera down to 10k and we may be talking. However, it all remains to be seen at this point in time.
Nice camera for the PRO photog who does sports journalism, etc. I'll stick with the 7D and 5DII combo.
Glad the 5DII is getting a new 24fps firmware soon. Hopefully they also add a 720p 60fps mode as well, if the hardware is good enough to support it. Now all I have to do is grab two shoulder mounts for the cameras...
And why is everyone saying that the 5DII is getting 25fps added? It's already there...
Glad the 5DII is getting a new 24fps firmware soon. Hopefully they also add a 720p 60fps mode as well, if the hardware is good enough to support it. Now all I have to do is grab two shoulder mounts for the cameras...
And why is everyone saying that the 5DII is getting 25fps added? It's already there...
Well thanks Phrasikleia for posting the 1D Mark 4 ISO 102,400 photo. Well here is the Nikon D3s ISO 102,400. Not exactly a fair comparison but still in my opinion usable like what Nikon says, for placing it in the newspaper where the image posted is usually small (and for web viewing).
source: Nikon Japan
source: Nikon Japan
I'd like to see a 100% crop of that - scaled down for web it's still obviously noisy. The cnet was just a small area at 100%, so hard to do a comparison. Regardless, I wouldn't touch 100k on either camera.
Must admit, the 7D makes more sense these days.
Must admit, the 7D makes more sense these days.
I don't exactly expect c|net to know what the hell they are doing. I'll wait for, oh, you know, photography types to take some high ISO shots before I condemn anything.
Good point. We'd need a 100% crop of the D3s shot or else the entire photo of the Canon example (from which that grungy image is just a 100% crop).
Apparently there was some extra news in with the 1D mkIV announcement regarding the extra video options for the 5D mkII. C|Net has a posting up regarding this, most places probably spent too much time going gaga over the 1D to notice.
5D mk II firmware expected 1st half of 2010.
Good point. I see some "pros" using point & shoot cameras, too. Some pros also use cameras such as Nikon D90, D300, Canon 40D, 50D, etc.
Well thanks Phrasikleia for posting the 1D Mark 4 ISO 102,400 photo. Well here is the Nikon D3s ISO 102,400. Not exactly a fair comparison but still in my opinion usable like what Nikon says, for placing it in the newspaper where the image posted is usually small (and for web viewing).
source: Nikon Japan
I obviously don't know the lighting conditions, it may well be very impressive. However, while better than I would have expected from 102,400 ISO, I personally wouldn't consider that a useable photo.
Actually, it looks that Canon does not consider any camera to be pro by itself.
To qualify for Professional Services, you must own 2 "pro" Canon bodies and 3 "pro" Canon lenses.
Jeez, personally I wouldn't use anything above 6400 if I can help it. I wonder how the 1Ds Mark IV will fare with the high ISOs. I'll wait to see those.
"I obviously don't know the lighting conditions, it may well be very impressive. However, while better than I would have expected from 102,400 ISO, I personally wouldn't consider that a useable photo."
I would have to agree completely with Chas
These extended ISOs are a gimmick, IMO. Just as they are on my 5d2 (12,800/25,600). Not really usable, not even to get the shot....unless you're shooting ghosts and weird paranormal activity, I suppose.
Hopefully, though, as Laforet mentioned....the Extended settings may be for fun, but the 6400 & 12,800 are for real! That would be cool...lots of neat things can be done (and money saved on lenses) with these examples of ISO ability (1d, d3). Exciting times....
J
I would have to agree completely with Chas
These extended ISOs are a gimmick, IMO. Just as they are on my 5d2 (12,800/25,600). Not really usable, not even to get the shot....unless you're shooting ghosts and weird paranormal activity, I suppose.
Hopefully, though, as Laforet mentioned....the Extended settings may be for fun, but the 6400 & 12,800 are for real! That would be cool...lots of neat things can be done (and money saved on lenses) with these examples of ISO ability (1d, d3). Exciting times....
J
Well, I for one am glad that Canon did NOT go FF with this. For what I am interested in (Sports and some press work) the camera sounds perfect and I can't wait to get my hands on one.
However, what I am annoyed at is the inclusion of a video camera functionality. I mean if I wanted to take videos I would go and buy a video camera. To me at least it seems like a pointless inclusion of a feature to try and justify the high price tag. I would have much preferred to have a lower price point and no video.
Just my opinion.
However, what I am annoyed at is the inclusion of a video camera functionality. I mean if I wanted to take videos I would go and buy a video camera. To me at least it seems like a pointless inclusion of a feature to try and justify the high price tag. I would have much preferred to have a lower price point and no video.
Just my opinion.