DPReview: Canon 1D Mark IV

[inTempus]

Removed.

 

[Overread20]

I want it!!!!!

with a dedicated video button

but I still want it!

edit but I do wish they'd stop blabbling on about that Nikon full frame camera body - of course its going to beat a crop (even 1.3 crop) for noise - its got a bigger sensor..... Still the fact that its only one step below that "godlike" camera is very good for a crop sensor camera to achive

 

[gsgary]

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Review: 15. Autofocus: Digital Photography Review

Performance

Whatever our thoughts about the way the system is configured, it's hard not to be impressed with its performance. We're not professional sports shooters and wouldn't claim to have tested the system to its limits (many of the Mark III's problems only came to light once the camera had been used extensively in very specific circumstances), but during our testing we shot a selection of sports in lighting ranging from stark winter sunshine to low-intensity minor-league floodlighting and found the Mark IV's ability to acquire and maintain focus was very good. Having set up the camera with advice from Canon, the (low) failure-rate in our photography was almost always down to a lack of experience of anticipating action in the events, rather than any lack of capability on the camera's part.


Following the issues surrounding the 1D Mark III there have, almost inevitably, been reports that the 1D Mark IV is also troubled. We didn't have any significant problems when shooting in really poor light, but the AF does lose a little of its 'snap' and immediacy, and seemed more prone to hunting than the 1D Mark III we tried it against (the Mark III's low-light focus being regarded as amongst the very best). Without knowing the precise details of how they were shot and how long the photographers had taken to get to know the new camera, it's hard to draw firm conclusions from these reports. We're not in a position to make a definitive statement but, having used the 1D Mark IV repeatedly alongside the Nikon D3S, we certainly wouldn't report any obvious problems and would be surprised if, with the correct setup, it doesn't prove itself to be as capable as the state of the art allows.

DPReview didn't have any problems with their 1D4 and shooting sports.

That's because that is what it is made for

 

[bigtwinky]

and they also dont have any real sport shooters to test it with.

 

[Overread20]

True on both counts - though I would say that for a proper assessment of AF performance one needs to use the 1DMIV for a decent while to get familiar with it and to also configure its (complex sounding) af options to ensure the best performance level.

 

[Moe]

I'm gonna go ahead and start eating my popcorn while it's hot

 

[gsgary]

and they also dont have any real sport shooters to test it with.

Probably because most of them are too busy shooting and don't have time to write pointless reports, go to any event and Canon will always out number Nikon shooters

 

[Derrel]

and they also dont have any real sport shooters to test it with.

Here's a report from a "real sports shooter", Scott Larson, on how his new IV performed at a basketball game. He ended up switching back to his Mark III after consecutive focusing failures on the part of his Mark IV. Scott has thousands of his sports photos online at http://www.wballphotos.com/ He shoots primarily NCAA women's basketball and is a "nightly shooter" during the season. Not a one-game-a month guy, but a very experienced B-ball shooter. Below are some of his comments about some Mark IV real-world behaviors.

Re: 1D Mark III vs. 1D Mark IV in first basketball game: Canon EOS-1D / 1Ds / 5D Forum: Digital Photography Review

Scott's comments from a recent basketball game using the Mark IV include: "several cases where the Mark IV simply would not lock on slowly moving subjects and fairly static subjects. It was exactly like what's in in Galbraith's basketball galleries."

followed by ,"The AF lost track of subjects for no apparent reason. I followed an exciting running layup to the basket from a 45 degree angle and it got only one of eight shots (the first one) in focus. DPP confirmed that I had the focus point on the number of her jersey the whole way"

and "Motion was often front-focused much like the Mark III, although not as often. It still falls far short of the Mark IIn's solid predictive focus and this is a disappointment to me. It causes a very recognizable hit/miss/hit/miss pattern so I still must expect the camera to lose a good percentage of the shots in these situations."

"A surprising number of initial shots with the Mark IV were out of focus with the second or third shot finally in focus."

Those are comments from a "real sports shooter." A guy who has owned and shot the Mark IIn, Mark III, and now the Mark IV. Many Canon shooters are still using the Mark II and Mark II-n bodies, because in those bodies, Canon had an almost fool-proof AF system.

Some who are very experienced Canon shooters have stated that Canon went overboard in adding too many cross-type sensors and that there are "too many cooks in the kitchen", meaning that the Mark IV's AF system assigns too much weight or emphasis to off-center AF points when the camera's processing system is making AF evaluation decisions. These people argue that having 39 of 45 AF points as cross-type gives far too much weight to far,far too many points, and not enough "authority" to make the right decisions.

Nikon went with 15 out of 51 being cross-type points in the D300 and D3 series cameras and has had good success with a system where less than one out of three AF point is cross-type and thus hyper-sensitive to detail in both horizontal and vertical orientations. Perhaps it's true that 39 of 45 points ought not be cross-type, and that there is just simply too much weight given to too many AF points. The last really well-loved and widely acclaimed Canon AF system was that in the Mark II body, with 19 out of 45 AF systems being cross-sensor type.

I'm not sure if it is possible for Canon to write a firmware update that would "demote" 20 of the Mark IV"s 39 cross-type sensors to single-axis, but the last time Canon was at the top of the AF heap was with the Mark II-n body with only 19 cross-type sensors,and an overall AF performance that was widely heralded as being superb. Sometimes too much data is simply "too much data", and bad data goes in and is given weight with good data,and if the processing system cannot evaluate it well, the results are sub-optimal.

 

[schumionbike]

I liked the 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.

You know, I could've come up with that without reading the article

 

[gsgary]

Another thing that has not been mentioned is that when the D3 came out most could not use the 70-200 because bad vignete and had to go back to the old 80-200

 

[Montana]

So basically Rob just needed to RTFM? LOL

 

[gsgary]

So basically Rob just needed to RTFM? LOL

I think he only knows how to use a Nikon

 

[Montana]

So basically Rob just needed to RTFM? LOL

Or RTFWP (white paper).

I have had mine out many times now, but I cannot find any moving wildlife. LOL We have no waterfowl in the area now, and the hawks haven't been easily found lately. Only a bunch of Great Horned Owls in the alley. And they just sit in the tree and stare at you.

Looks like the 600 f/4 IS could use a touch of M/A to me....

 

[schumionbike]

That's a nice shot Montana, that bokeh and lighting is amazing. By M/A you mean the manual focus override? I The focus look pretty good to me, I guess if you nit pick, the eyes are softer than the nose and mouth area. Anyway, I click on the picture to see the full res version and that POS is disgusting on the full screen! Man, I hate owles from now on.

 

[Montana]

Yep, micro adjustment. That was shot at f/5 if I recall. But I was also right near minimum focusing distance. It looks like focus could go back a notch or two.