Canon 1D MarkIV

NIKON WHORES ... Ah ye know the rest by now ...

[rant]

Anyways, I think its a step in the wrong direction for the 1D range. It might be just me but I've always envisioned the 1D as the tough, fast, no nonsense Canon camera. It's previous brethren were not only sports cameras but used in war time situations around the globe. They needed to be fast with reasonable file sizes for passing onto agencies. Now they have full HD video, Picture styles, HDMI inputs and Pictbridge ?

It doesn't need 16MP, 11MP was more than enough for the situations it was designed for. An 11MP image can be printed at 300DPI at A1 no problems ! Why do we need more ? (I'm aware of the irony of this coming from the guy who just bought a 21MP 5D2 but I have my reasons) Anything including and above ISO 12,800 is ridiculous anyways, its completely unusable.

It feels like Canon have diluted the bloodline of the 1D by adding features that are only ever going to be used by rich amateurs with too much money and not enough sense.

I can't see the likes of James Nachtwey stopping in the middle of a firefight, to change his picture stlye to a low saturation, high contrast look.

Then shooting some video to post on YouTube.

Before connecting it directly to a printer and offering the prints to those people knocking seven shades of shit out of each other.

[/rant]
 
Damn, you photo-dudes are such a whiny bunch...
Can?t you just be happy that they improved other things other than adding a video mode and a ridiculously high ISO?
It?s not like you need to use all of this features.

[Ken Rockwell]
I miss my old Scheiternblassder. The fumes from the chemicals, the rolls of film. Spending the entire afternoon for a single exposure and realizing I had the wrong lens and going back the next day to try again. Aaaaaah, those were the days!
[/Ken Rockwell]
 
Last edited:
Redliner said:
[Ken Rockwell]
I miss my old Scheiternblassder. The fumes from the chemicals, the rolls of film. Spending the entire afternoon for a single exposure and realizing I had the wrong lens and going back the next day to try again. Aaaaaah, those were the days!
[/Ken Rockwell]
Click to expand...

Man, sometimes those are my days. :lol:
 
^:lol:
 
Ready for the LEAST SCIENTIFIC ISO STUPIDHUNDRED comparison?

I came across ISO 102,400 shots from both cameras, and did up some 100% crops for them. The 1DmkIV shot was resized to match the D3s, which should give it a bit of an advantage due to the higher MP count showing a bit more detail. Theoretically, anyway.

Keep in mind that the shots were taken under VERY different conditions and really are a terrible comparison. This is for interest's sake only, as this is a sensitivity level that will almost NEVER be used. These are both preproduction cameras, AFAIK..

Full photos for the Canon: http://dpinterface.com/review-galleries/canon-eos-1d-mark-iv-preview-gallery/

Full photos for the Nikon: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/D3SA7.HTM


1DMkIV:
8956c738.jpg



D3s:
45307705.jpg
 
Last edited:
Looks like Canon is running around and asking every website to pull their 102k samples. Up to you guys too decide if it's a legitimate recall on "pre-production" grounds. I call BS.

I would be so utterly excited to have a camera that can shoot a clean 1600. Anything beyond that is just a plus.
 
epp_b said:
^ You see now, nomix? :p
Click to expand...

Nah. I see the point. One of my PJ friends just responded "I don't have the time to shop 22mp files" when he heard of the 5D2.

But don't get me wrong. It'll sell like hot cakes. Absolute hot cakes.
 
Documentary.
 
No, what you need is high ISO.

You can always use a fast prime, but that means very little DOF, and that gets boring on itself after a while..
 
If you're comparing cameras to each other, I agree. If you're talking about real conditions, you don't have controlled light, controled object or proper calibration when you use high ISO, at least in most conditions you use high ISO.
 
Well yeah, this was mostly a rebuttal to the ISO performance comparison.
 
Yeah, I get that. But with those kinds of lighting conditions, it's easy getting small amounts of noise. For instance, this is my E-3 at 1600 ISO, properly exposed, all is well. But if it's more shadows, highlights and stuff, it'll get worse.

:)
 
To be honest, people have done without the option of such a high ISO for years and have coped. I believe the only reason they have such a high ISO available is that it looks good on paper. I think that the genuinely useful ISOs range from 50 to 6400, it's nice to have 25600 too of course but even that in my view has a limited use. If people want to do documentary photography in the dark, they can always use flash, relying on ambient light when it's dark seems like a contradiction in terms to me.

All the night photography I've done was at ISO 100 anyway :p.
 
Using a flash contradicts documentary photography, as it makes you as obvious as an elephant in the room. You want to be a fly on the wall, not a guy with your hair on fire..

:)
 
yous guys know that you don't have to shoot at the highest available resolution, right? Instead of whining about the resolution being too high and the files too large, hit a couple buttons and change the resolution. It's not rocket surgery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top