Canon Mark IV Announced

brianz wrote:Compared to my 5D2's LCD, the 1D3 LCD reminds me of my old Apple II+ screen display. I've never understood why we haven't gotten a firmware update to make the 1D3 LCD as neat and sharp as the 5D2.

It's the matter of pixel count, not firmware.
1D3-> Dots Approx. 230,000 pixels
5DII-> Dots Approx. 920,000 pixels

Firmware cannot add pixels, only a change in the hardware (lcd itself) would.

Alexandre Vaz wrote:

hullyjr wrote:I found very little to excite me about the Mark IV. Throw a few more pixels, make claims about improved noise, better focusing, the must-have video, and an improved LCD. Nothing innovative and no reason for me to upgrade from my working ID Mark III.

This statement is truly surprising to me.You admit this new camera has improvements in almost everything that really matters, yet you can't see reasons for the upgrade? You wished for something innovative, yet you apparently don't know exactly what.

Surprising ? Why would you say that. The 1D3 is a fantastic camera. Perhaps this individual has no need for the extra megapixels or video. If the camera is meeting one's needs after they spent close to $4,000 two years ago, what would be the justification to sell it at a huge loss, then drop another $5K on the new body. Will the pictures be any better ? and if they are, how much better ? Enough to justify the huge expense ?

Hi Alexandre,

To each his own, but let's do the maths as it applies to me. I have a used 1d Mark III, so on today's market that is worth perhaps $2500 (USA). Therefore I would need to spend another $2500 to get what? Video? I don't use video. More pixels? Nice but not for an extra $2500. Better noise & focusing? I don't have problem with either at the moment. Now if it turns out that it blows away every other make & model I would be very interested. And a better LCD? Sure but the 7D looks a better fit for me on all counts except noise. Please note this is my personal opinion, there is nothing about this model that is innovative nor gets me excited. What gets me excited? The 1D Mark III when it was announced, same with their T90, the 400mm DO, the Contax RTS III, their G2, Nikon's 200-400mm, and Panasonic's GF-1. I'm a camera junkie and have been since my first Praktica in the late 60s.

Jim

One thing I find interesting in this, is the 7D. At 18megs and 8fps, and at a much lower price point, it is pretty attractive in Canon's line up. Unless the mark4 really outshines the 7D in both the autofocus and noise control(which it should), the 7D may be the better choice for many.

c.w. moynihan wrote:

Alexandre Vaz wrote:

hullyjr wrote:I found very little to excite me about the Mark IV. Throw a few more pixels, make claims about improved noise, better focusing, the must-have video, and an improved LCD. Nothing innovative and no reason for me to upgrade from my working ID Mark III.

This statement is truly surprising to me.You admit this new camera has improvements in almost everything that really matters, yet you can't see reasons for the upgrade? You wished for something innovative, yet you apparently don't know exactly what.

Surprising ? Why would you say that. The 1D3 is a fantastic camera. Perhaps this individual has no need for the extra megapixels or video. If the camera is meeting one's needs after they spent close to $4,000 two years ago, what would be the justification to sell it at a huge loss, then drop another $5K on the new body. Will the pictures be any better ? and if they are, how much better ? Enough to justify the huge expense ?

I'm not surprised that many may think it's not worth the upgrade. I'm using an EOS30D so I'm certainly not an equipment addict who feels the need to have always the latest piece of equipment... What I find surprising is the line of thought to justify the idea that this camera is not much of an upgrade from the previous. Like E.J. said this camera has 60% more pixels, and the downside of increasing resolution (high ISO noise) apparently doesn't apply in this situation. What can be more important in a camera than image quality?

Alexandre Vaz wrote: What can be more important in a camera than image quality?

The person that owns it?

Earlier today, Arthur Morris posted several BIF images on BPN. They were taken with a pre-production body. They looked outstanding. Of course, Artie is only going to post outstanding images. But they were tack sharp. He was very impressed with the capabilities of the new AF system.

Interestingly, Canon asked him to take down those pre-production body images. They know he wants to post images and it is in their best interest to have images posted soon. Having spent many years in the medical diagnostic imaging business, I know how important it is to "put your best foot forward". You only want the best possible images out there. Soon, we will see production body images of BIF.

While Canon has just introduced two new bodies in the 7D and 1D4, each camera addresses very different markets and potential buyers. The big question is "How much do you want to spend?"

With announced delivery of the 1D4 in December, we will have much discussion while waiting for reviews and buyers' results. Hopefully buyers will learn how to optimize the 16 custom function AF choices before posting their results.

I have a suggestion to those who have ordered a 1D4, keep watching the Canon USA web site for a posting of the instruction manual as a PDF. Once it is there, you can download and study it carefully before your camera arrives. You will be up and running sooner if you do this.

Well, on paper this camera does sound great but like some of the other posters, i just don't see myself moving from the mkIII to the IV at least until the price drops significantly. Yes, 16 MP, Video, better LCD are all nice things to have but they not worth $2500 at least for me.

As for the comment about Arthur Morris comments, i will take it with a huge grain of salt since he is also the one who said time and time again that the mkIII has no problems with AF at all and the problem are with the users (hell, he even charged $20 for a document on how to customize your camera). Amazing photographer for sure but his objectivity is suspect at best in my opinion.

DonS wrote:With announced delivery of the 1D4 in December, we will have much discussion while waiting for reviews and buyers' results. Hopefully buyers will learn how to optimize the 16 custom function AF choices before posting their results.

I have a suggestion to those who have ordered a 1D4, keep watching the Canon USA web site for a posting of the instruction manual as a PDF. Once it is there, you can download and study it carefully before your camera arrives. You will be up and running sooner if you do this.

Well fortunately none of those custom functions is rocket science, and anyone who has had a MkIII knows how they should be set. I'm sure Canon's white paper will reveal any idiosynchracies, though to be honest the performance of the camera shouldn't rely on custom function settings, and my hope for the MkIV is that it does not. I would be shocked if the settings were any different really than the MkIII with respect to the tracking settings and sensitivity. From the press release it sounds like Canon spent some time trying to make sure that focus tracking was inherently improved in situations that are common for sports or wildlife shooters. I would hope that default custom function settings for the AF provided good results, and only minor tweaking for preference was required. Custom functions and most settings in the camera should be more about preference than performance. Performance should be tuned optimally in production, not by end-users with "custom functions".

Sir Gnolan wrote:As for the comment about Arthur Morris comments, i will take it with a huge grain of salt since he is also the one who said time and time again that the mkIII has no problems with AF at all and the problem are with the users (hell, he even charged $20 for a document on how to customize your camera). Amazing photographer for sure but his objectivity is suspect at best in my opinion.

Artie has always seemed to me to be about money. He was charging 20$ for settings (I still can't fathom this to be honest) which were already well known by people who had any clue about how to set up 1D cameras. Unfortunately i'm sure a lot of people bought into his marketing just based upon his name.

E.J. Peiker wrote:I don't understand how some can equate this to a 1D Mark IIIn. It has 60% more pixels! 16MP instead of 10. Certainly that's not an N, it's a new model. Add video and that seals it. Definitely not a minor upgrade based on those two alone. And those saying that this is what the 1D Mark III should have been - are you serious? Video in DSLRs was just a pipe dream then and the technology didn't yet exist to pipeline 16MP at 10FPS.

But it doesn't look like simple things like a MLU button as far as I can tell so they continue to snub the number one most requested feature in the canon line since EOS was invented.

For this audience it is all going to hinge on AF performance methinks!

Aw comon EJ read it right--I said:



"Other than the video and a few other things, this MarkIV looks to be the camera I was hoping the Mark III was going to be before it came out. Very dissapointed with the pixel count on that one, and the of course the AF system."

See the part about "other than video" and it is the camera I was "HOPING" the mark III would have been? Never said "should" have been.

Yes sir I'm serious.


Then you said:
"Even the origianl 1Ds at 11MP had more pixels than the 1D Mark III.... Two different camera series for two different audiences - or at least that's how Canon sees it. So should the 1D MarkIII be a 1DsN?"



Thats what I'm talking about EJ. Didn't you expect a greater pixel count on the Mark III before it was announced like maybe 12 MP at least? Weren't you maybe a little surprised and disappointed at only a 2MP increase over the MarkII? I really thought 14 was going to be it so they could pass up Nikon's offerings, and 16 was a dream but I thought maybe....

I need MP to blow pics up big. I have set the money aside for the Mark IV and am willing to go for the first one. I'll beta test for anyone that wants me to. If the camera does not live up--trust me it's going back right away. Heck--I stopped shooting the airshows this year cause of the III. But I want to get back to shooting as soon as I can.

Paul

I have to agree with Chris on his comments. It shouldn't take an in depth study to be able to get the camera to work. Sure there are situations where customization is necessary or helpful, but it need not be a necessity for routine shooting. I bought a D700 earlier this year to go with the Nikon 200-400. The camera worked right out of the box, and if it could be modified to work on all my Canon glass, it would take a lot to make me buy another camera body. My experience with the Canon mark 2's has been similar, they just work.

pleverington wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:I don't understand how some can equate this to a 1D Mark IIIn. It has 60% more pixels! 16MP instead of 10. Certainly that's not an N, it's a new model. Add video and that seals it. Definitely not a minor upgrade based on those two alone. And those saying that this is what the 1D Mark III should have been - are you serious? Video in DSLRs was just a pipe dream then and the technology didn't yet exist to pipeline 16MP at 10FPS.

But it doesn't look like simple things like a MLU button as far as I can tell so they continue to snub the number one most requested feature in the canon line since EOS was invented.

For this audience it is all going to hinge on AF performance methinks!

Aw comon EJ read it right--I said:



"Other than the video and a few other things, this MarkIV looks to be the camera I was hoping the Mark III was going to be before it came out. Very dissapointed with the pixel count on that one, and the of course the AF system."

See the part about "other than video" and it is the camera I was "HOPING" the mark III would have been? Never said "should" have been.

Yes sir I'm serious.


Then you said:
"Even the origianl 1Ds at 11MP had more pixels than the 1D Mark III.... Two different camera series for two different audiences - or at least that's how Canon sees it. So should the 1D MarkIII be a 1DsN?"



Thats what I'm talking about EJ. Didn't you expect a greater pixel count on the Mark III before it was announced like maybe 12 MP at least? Weren't you maybe a little surprised and disappointed at only a 2MP increase over the MarkII? I really thought 14 was going to be it so they could pass up Nikon's offerings, and 16 was a dream but I thought maybe....

I need MP to blow pics up big. I have set the money aside for the Mark IV and am willing to go for the first one. I'll beta test for anyone that wants me to. If the camera does not live up--trust me it's going back right away. Heck--I stopped shooting the airshows this year cause of the III. But I want to get back to shooting as soon as I can.

Paul

You pieced different things from different responses to different comments together out of context and not even including the entire point I was making Not sure I get that or what the point is of doing it but OK! This one seems to be well speced and speced way beyond a 1D Mark III in several areas so I simply don't understand how this can be a perceived as 1D mark IIIn (especially since Canon used that designation only once and there was no megapixel increase associated with it). If this one actually does what is claimed, it's going to be a huge success.

Yes I thought the 1D Mark III would have come in at 12 not 10MP but it didn't. Remember at the time of the 1D3 intro, there was no 1Ds3, that came about 6 months later so the 1D3 would have had the same pixel count as the 1Ds2 if it had come out at 16MP which would have killed sales of the high priced camera in their lineup. Plus, as I wrote earlier, the technology just wasn't there then to do 16MP in a cropped sensor and pipeline all of the data at 10FPS with low noise.

Seeing what little changes were made between the mkII and the mkIIn and the more substantial changes made between the III and the IV, I can't understand why someone would consider the IV an "n" upgrade so to speak.

Alexandre Vaz wrote:What happened to that feeling were people would be delighted every time a new camera was released? Today there are apparently more people enjoying bashing every new camera than those who get excited with all the possibilities that this fast technological evolution brings us. Personally, whenever a new camera hits the market I tend to get all excited, even if it's not the same brand as mine...

People bash cameras simply because of significant disappointment in their past, no other reason to my mind.

The MkIV is no "great leap" for cameras in my HUMBLE opinion. Scott F makes sense, a 7D or even two may be a wiser and better deal. If only the lack of contrast in the whites was confirmed as being non troublesome.

E.J. Peiker wrote:
Yes I thought the 1D Mark III would have come in at 12 not 10MP but it didn't. Remember at the time of the 1D3 intro, there was no 1Ds3, that came about 6 months later so the 1D3 would have had the same pixel count as the 1Ds2 if it had come out at 16MP which would have killed sales of the high priced camera in their lineup. Plus, as I wrote earlier, the technology just wasn't there then to do 16MP in a cropped sensor and pipeline all of the data at 10FPS with low noise.

[/quote][/quote]

Makes sense about 16 MP, but I didn't think too much at the time that would happen really. Still I wonder why not at least twelve. Oh well all history now EJ. I'm with you on this one for it to be a winner.

I thought I stayed in context pretty good on that last one.. Hee-hee. oh well.

What about the histogram box--did anybody see anything concerning canon putting a frame around it?

Paul

pleverington wrote: What about the histogram box--did anybody see anything concerning canon putting a frame around it?

Paul

I looked for it but couldn't find anything on that specifically.

From Canon NZ website:
"Connect your EOS 1D Mark IV to a PIXMA PRO Printer and print stunning professional quality photos at home, the office or in the studio..."

Wow, cool, I bet you'll all want to do that!

exactly, that's the feauture I am most excited about.....

Would rather like to have a free selectable button.

I don't understand why so many people complain now. A few weeks back I read in many threads exactly those specs as wanted the Makr IV has now...

coming from a Ds III and a IIn I see the Mark IV as a huge step forward. Like said before, the crumbled 19 point AF made shooting birds for me really hard. Now you have a very fast wildlife camera with a decent file size (my agencies request even bigger files) and again a 45 point AF.
Of course no one can tell whether it works now or not, but I am sure it will. I know Arthur Morris is not an idependent source, but I think he would not lie to us regarding AF performance. And he said it is far superior against all kinds of BGs.

That being said I am willing to be an early adopter Hope Canon keeps its promises

Here is a link to some sample images.
http://dpinterface.com/review-galleries ... w-gallery/

pleverington wrote: What about the histogram box--did anybody see anything concerning canon putting a frame around it?

Paul

There is no box around the histogram, again, and there is no full screen histogram, again.