EOS-1D Mark IV Reviews

EOS-1D Mark IV Customer Reviews

Mark III vs. Mark IV

January 7, 2010
By  Mark Kitaoka

I had the Mark IV on order with Amazon since Canon's product announcement on October 20th of 2009. Since my local camera shop received the unit on Monday January 4, 2010 and Amazon still listed it as "Not Yet Received" I purchased mine from the local retailer despite the additional $464 in sales tax.

I have been a Mark III shooter since June of 2007. For my professional work, my primary subject matter is live theatrical performance which includes acting as well as dancing ranging from ballet to traditional Tango to the very fast paced ballroom, specifically shooting Burn the Floor, which is just completing their Broadway run this month. Live performance shooting has many of the same elements of sports photography, except the lighting is much lower and at times more severe due to stage lighting. My Mark III performed well in most instances although I did have occasions where the autofocus did not perform as well as I had hoped. But to be fair, I cannot say with 100% certainty that it was the fault of the gear or the user, me.

For my non professional work I utilized the Mark III for extensive street shooting in the rain, high wind and many other adverse conditions. In all cases the camera performed well enough that I could only blame myself in those instances where I didn't get the shot. This includes night shooting of high movement subject matter.

I have never been concerned about the 10.1 MP size of the Mark III having had many of my images blown up to 6x8 feet posters used on the outside of theatres and large shots used in four color programs. I had several concerns with the Mark III which I had hoped would be addressed in its successor, the Mark IV:

1. A higher ISO range with equal or less noise
2. The ability for the focus point to switch when changing from landscape to portrait orientation. - Although the Custom Function allows one to change the rear wheel to adjust the focus point, I prefer to use that dial to adjust for exposure. Having to switch in a very fast paced situation caused me to miss some great shots.
3. More selection of focus points for manual focus point adjustment

Other than those three wishes, I was happy with my Mark III. In all three cases, the Mark IV met my wishes. I have done a comparison in low light, low contrast situations with both Marks at ISO 6400, which for the Mark III was considered H1. As such, adjusting the ISO from 3200 to 6400 was not possible in 1/3 stop increments. More on that later. In the comparison, the Mark IV handily beats the Mark III in terms of detail and noise at ISO 6400. Much more detail is visible which has something to do with a higher MP count, but at 100% crops, there is a marked difference. The noise on the Mark IV is less and of a different quality than the Mark III, more film like than digital.

During performances I had only used ISO 6400 in conditions which made lower settings impossible. I have always thought that a noisy shot is much better than one that is blurred beyond usage. My clients agree. One of my favorite lenses to use while shooting on stage as well as from the house is the EF 24-105mm f4.0 IS L. The focal range on a 1.3 crop sensor is just PERFECT, but the slowness of the f4.0 kept me from utilizing that lens with the Mark III unless lighting was sufficient. This will all change with the Mark IV as ISO 6400 is just fine using a f4.0 lens in my conditions.

Keep in mind that everyone needs to decide how a camera is to be used, under what conditions and it is naive to think that an investment in current glass won't influence a decision to stay or leave any brand of camera. I am heavily invested in Canon glass and all of them are L series lenses. I find that the color and sharpness of L series lenses are worth the investment, especially since I purchase most of them on the used market. There are folks who love to go back and forth on brand, pixel snooping, stats, etc. in hopes of proving themselves 'right.' I am NOT one of those people. To me a mediocre/poor/boring image is the same whether you take it with film, a full frame DSLR or medium format camera. (BTW, I'm not sure why 35mm is considered FF anyway. I consider 2.25x2.25 my idea of full frame!) My personal opinion is those who often argue ad naseum about camera stats take the lousy or boring pictures anyway.

I have NOT been able to use the camera in high movement, low light performance photography as I write this. My first opportunity for that comes this weekend. It will also be the first time I have the chance to shoot with two separate cameras with different lenses attached. That will give me a good, but not scientific comparison of the cameras, but more important for me is whether keeping both is worth the effort. I will decide if the Mark III gets a new home or not.

My advice is to base your hard earned purchasing dollars on what is right for your situation. My Mark III has performed well in the past and I'm confident after some of my own testing that the Mark IV is even better. Time will tell and as I gain more experience shooting with this new tool, I may add my insights here in the future. Best of luck with your own shooting!

UPDATE January 9 2010
Today I had my first opportunity to shoot in low light with the Mark IV. Although it was NOT as high movement/low light as I am accustomed, it was a very good initial test. I shot a choral group with musicians, so movement was nice and slow, except for the conductor. It was also the first time I was able to use two camera bodies without switching lenses. On the Mark III, I used a EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS and on the Mark IV, I utilized the EF 24-105 f4.0 L IS. This focal range allowed me to cover all that was necessary. Obviously I used the f4.0 on the Mark IV because of its higher ISO range and noise performance.

I want to say that it will take some adjustments moving to the Mark IV. As I reviewed some images from other photographers using the Mark IV prior to receiving my own camera I had no idea what conditions the photographer's lighting conditions presented. I can say that because of the new sensor and ISO performance, it makes scenes appear MUCH more well lit than I experience with my human eye. In the past I have run -1/3 to -2/3 EV when using my Mark III to prevent blow out in highlights even using Highlight Tone Priority. Tonight I set both cameras on 0 EV to compare. The Mark IV presents a brighter image, about 1/3 stop brighter than the Mark III.

Because this was not a paid gig, I took more chances with the imagery than had it been for pay. I found that in camera Noise reduction of 1 Low suits my taste much better than -0 Standard in the Custom Settings function. There is a different quality to the noise produced at Standard over Low. I prefer Canon's Low setting, but your preference may differ. The highest I found it necessary to set the ISO tonight was at 10,000. Upon examining the images on my monitor, there is the most noise in the subtle shadow areas around the subject's chin and lower neck. This is normal in my experience along with noise in large solid color backgrounds. But the noise at 10,000 is easily much better than the Mark III at ISO 6400. In addition the detail that remains at 10,000 eclipses the detail, or lack of detail in the Mark III at 6400. I measure my detail in the hairline wrinkles around the eyes and in the forehead of my subjects. The Mark IV sustained those details where the Mark III at 2/3 stops lower ISO did not.

Also the noise produced by the Mark IV is more chroma than luminance. In my workflow, chroma noise is MUCH easier to reduce than luminance noise. The dynamic range of the Mark IV in terms of color is FAR superior to the Mark III, but I attribute this to a new sensor and new processors. Camera bodies are really just like computers, as soon as they come out they immediately begin to become obsolete. The color and white balance are MUCH better than my Mark III. It still takes some adjustment, but much less than the III.

The automatic focus point association between landscape and portrait is a God send! Also the Mark IV takes advantage of UDMA card speed. I purchased a 32gb Sandisk Extreme CF card for the Mark IV and it's rated at 60mb per second. In shooting RAW burst, the ability of the Mark IV to write to the card after the buffer is full is easily three times as fast as the Mark III, but to be fair the III doesn't have UDMA capability.

So far so good. I plan to keep my Mark III simply because shooting with two cameras with different focal length lenses is the only way to go for my work. At some point I will replace the Mark III with another IV, but that will take time and a few more clients. It will be interesting to see how the images look at high ISO in large format, which much of my work is used as with clients. I'm happy with my choice so far and anticipate that more work in my normal venues will continue to show favorable results.

My issue is now how to build up my neck to support two 1D bodies with a 70-200 on one and a 24-105 on the other! When I use my 28-70 in place of the 24-105 it's going to be a real pain!

FINAL UPDATE: January 17 2010
Tonight I had my first opportunity to shoot a theatrical performance with the IV. I can only say that Auto ISO along with AI Servo will change how I shoot theatre. The settings I used tonight were Highlight Priority On, AI Servo, single shot, Auto ISO, ISO range L to 12800. The lenses I used tonight were the EF 24-105 f4 L IS and the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS. Anticipation is such a major part of theatrical shooting, waiting for just the right expression, gesture and moment. I was able to capture images tonight with a clarity that I have not experienced with my Mark III. Auto ISO constrained within the parameters I wanted left me free to concentrate entirely on capturing the moment while retaining a speed proportionate to the focal length. By freeing me up from keeping an eye on the shutter speed, which was set by the Auto ISO, I was able to compose my shots more accurately. Using AI Servo for my focusing also allowed me to follow the subject and keep them in focus just before pressing the shutter. I watched and anticipated their expressions like never before.

The ISO varied between a low of 800 in very good stage lighting to a high of 12800 in those scenes where it was too dark for me to know the actor's expression. I ran an EV value between -.33 to -1.0 to compensate for harsh spot lighting, so common in stage work. In those cases where the shot was very dark, where the actor's face was shaded in a very dark manner, ISO 12800's noise is very visible, but not to the point where a noise processor will bring the image back to usefulness. In those cases where light is medium, I will NOT have to use noise reduction post processing for printed images in large format.

So with my last entry I will simply say that I am pleased to have made an investment in the new Mark IV. It surpasses my Mark III in a way that will now allow me to press the limits of my ability to capture even more compelling imagery. And in my work, an image that moves the viewer is one I'm proud to produce, regardless of the equipment. The Mark IV will certainly push my own skill limits in a way I'm happy to undertake. It's a tool that will help expand the level of my own creative process.

Best of luck to all of you in whatever you decide to purchase and shoot. It's time for me to get back to work.

EOS-1D Mark IV Customer Discussions

EOS-1D Mark IV Detailed Reviews

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Review February 2010, by Richard Butler at Digital Photography Review.

An analysis of Canon EOS-1D Mark IV autofocus performance by Rob Galbraith, who originally made an issue of autofocus problems on the EOS-1D Mark III.

Rob Galbraith says Canon 1D MKIV Auto-Focus still unreliable. Is is true? Canon EOS-1D Mark IV autofocus performance by Drew Strickland at ProPhotoHome.

Canon has published a whitepaper on the Canon EOS-1D Mark IV