I spent a good amount of time yesterday over at dPreview,and on another forum, trying to get a feel for how the 1D Mark IV was being received, and to read and think about some of the points of view being expressed by Canon users. Overall, the Mark IV's reception has been kind of like the reception a Boston Red Sox fan gets in Yankee Stadium...not a kind,warm, fuzzy in sight. A couple of rabid fan-boy defenses of the Mark IV, proclaiming it the "king" of d-slrs, but overall, a lot of disappointment.
It seems like a lot of Mark II and Mark IIn shooters, working photographers most of them, those who had avoided the Mark III (arg!) due to the autofocus issues, were upset that Canon had gone the higher megapixel route on 1.3x, instead of following Nikon's D3 lead of 2007, with a 12.2 Megapixel 9/11 fps camera that offered full-frame in the camera, with a moderate MP count, and truly superb high ISO. See, the 1D Mark III and the Nikon D3 came out within six months of one another back in 2007, and six months later, Nikon introduced the professional-D3-lite D700 at half the price, but still the same pro AF system, full frame body, great high ISO, and a 'relatively' fast frame rate. SO, the D3 and 1D MArk III are of the same generation; Nikon last week iterated the D3 to the D3s with basically 720p video and the ultra-high ISO-approximations up to 102,400, but with the huge pixels and full-frame sensor, plus 1.2x in-camera sensor crop at 8 megapixels and 1.5x crop in-camera at 11 frames per second and 5 megapixel capture, plus the 8x10 aspect ratio at just under 12MP size for those who want to shoot to 8x10 aspect ratio. This for many, renders the D3s a 3- or 4-format camera.
There seem to be two 'main' areas of disappointment. First is the lack of full frame sensor in a "fast" body with :"professional" features, like pro AF and weather sealing, at an affordable price. Canon has no "fast", affordable full-frame camera body, like Nikon's D700. No offense to the 5D Mark II, but its AF system and body, are kind of like the old EOS 3--decidedly middle-class performance in AF, mirror blackout, shutter lag time, etc.
The second major area seems to be among those who realized that MOST of the good features were left alone in the Mark IV--same fast shutter response same short mirror black out, same fast firing rate, same size body, but the very high MP count on 1.3x means that at least 'some' high ISO quality was sacrificed. These people were hoping Canon might have made, well, let's call it a D3s response--lower MP count and significant emphasis on superb high ISO count. To the core constituencies sports and PJ shooters, I think the real,unstated desire was for killer high-ISO, not more megapixels. The competition between Canon and Nikon is a game of leapfrog--Nikon's original,professionally capable D1 took a couple of years for Canon to even respond to,and they responded first with the 3MP D30 (not the 30D, but the D30) before making the 4.2MP CCD-sensored original 1D,which trumped the D1h in many ways. In 2002, Canon introduced the 1Ds, the 11 MP full-frame pro high-MP body. The 1D Mark II had 8.2MP; the 1D Mark II-n had a bigger screen and still 8.2 MP. The 1D Mark III had 10 MP and 10fps, but had the focusing issue that kept MANY Canon sports guys shooting the rock-solid,super-reliably II and II-n bodies. Well, it's now been about four years for the Mark II and II-n owners who are working at newspapers and shooting weddings and doing a lot of professional work all around the world. In 2007, the D3 siphoned off many of the disillusioned,and severely cost Canon a share of the pro market. Last week, I found the statistic that Nikon's D3 and D3x sales make up 63% of the cameras sold at over $4,000 in price
Hands-on: Nikon D3S review | News | TechRadar UK
I think the Mark IV has suffered a bit due to what happened with the new 7D in that MANY Canon users expected the 7D would be the Nikon D700 "equivalent" of a fast, professional AF equipped, robust half-height body,with a full frame sensor, but it was instead an ultra-high MP count 1.6x sensor. With Nikon having announced the D3s mid-term iteration last week at FF, 1.2x,and 1.5x plus 8x10 proportion, and with Nikon leading the flagship class with 24.5MP to Canon's 21 MP in its 1Ds III high-MP model, and Sony now pressing forward with a sub-$2,000 FF 850 this fall, I think a lot of the Canon faithful are feeling what one user described as "Nikon's D2h experience".
For those unaware of it, the D2h is the 4.2 MP camera Nikon announced in 2004, with Canon almost immediately trumping it with the 8.2 MP 1D Mark II with a 1.3x sensor that had better high ISO performance, which is *really* what sports shooters want. Nikon's D2h and the iteration D2Hs models were big failures for Nikon--excessive infrared response leading to purple-looking black uniforms (Leica M8 anyone?), the infamous dead meter syndrome, and only 4.2 MP when the Canon 1D Mk-II had 8.2 on a larger 1.3x sensor. Fast forward to 2007,2008,2009, and Nikon's D3 series has cost Canon such a huge segment of market share that, according to one web site source, Nikon D3 and D3x bodies now make up 63% of sales in the $4k and over category. Does the newly announced Mark IV miss the mark among the users of the earlier cameras in the series? Do those users truly want a full frame sensor and uber-ISO with huge pixels, and are they simply not interested in either video capture or a higher MP count?
Only time will tell, but frankly, I was surprised at the lukewarm response to the Mark IV among the many,many posts I read yesterday. The Cnet Asia 102,400 ISO samples were absolutely horrific, and Canon has insisted that all pre-production camera samples be pulled ,as well as asking for the removal of Vincent Laforette's 6,400 ISO shot short film Nocturne. I think Canon might have misread the true core market's desires a bit, but all is not lost. Remember, the 5D's original Canon samples looked absolutely craptastic, but that camera turned out to be a true benchmark that it took Nikon about two years to equal in IQ, with the original D3 in 2007! It seems that some professional Mark III shooters feel that the Mark IV only 'equals' or "almost equals" the Nikon D3s,and they were expecting a fourth generation model that would clearly,easily,and totally overcome Nikon's ultra-high ISO performance with moderate MP count. Royal flush every poker game? A home run every single time at bat? Uh, no, not likely.
Time will tell I suppose if the Mark IV turns into Nikon's D2h, or if it gains traction. Cameras are not in circulation yet, so I'm waiting to hear how the IV acquits itself in the real world before jumping on the bandwagon to diss it. But there sure seem to be plenty of Canon shooters damning the camera already,and honestly, I was shocked. Sorry for the long post, but I just think it's surprising to see how quickly so many Canon folks turn on the company when the products they expect (7D, Mark IV) arrive and are not what was expected. Canon pulling the pre-production samples worldwide was a huge mistake,and might add gasoline to an already hot fire.
