EOS-1D Mark IV

[Daniel Browning]

To go from the MK3 to MK4 feels like to go from 2009 Porsche Turbo to 2010 Porsche Turbo - it's a newer, better engineered car, but overall it's exactly the same as the old one that share the same frog like exterior. So not a revolution at all.

I wouldn't call it a revolution either, but it's actually more than I thought it would be. (Hm, that makes it sound like I don't have very high expectations from Canon.)

On the other hand, to jump from Nikon D2H to D3, D2x to D3x is like to jump from Jaguar X-Type to XF, from old XJ to the all new XJ - it is a revolution in every measurable way.

Nikon has a slower schedule though. Their D2H -> D3 took four years! It certainly should be revolutionary for the amount of time people waited for it. Nikon did a nice little update with the D3s (apparently even improving read noise on the sensor), but the real upgrade (D4) will probably be another two years. I think Canon follows a more rapid schedule.

Can't believe in two and half years Canon didn't even change a thing on ergonomics given that the ergonomics on the MK3 is not exactly perfect, and it look exactly the same too. I remember Canon has once been know by its innovative steps, but with the MK4 it's different.

Human interface design experts agree that the ergonomics are suboptimal, but that's an area that would be impossible for Canon to please everyone all the time, so I think the criticism is more validly aimed at areas where Canon could have made more obvious improvements but didn't.

Finally, an 1.3x sensor is found once again.

Personally, I think that's a huge advantage for the majority of the target demographic. It would be nice if Canon also offered a speedy $5K 1.0x, but it shouldn't come at the cost of people who need the pixel density of 1.3x, IMHO. I understand your disappointment though.

I have a new purpose in life, and it is to own a new 1D.

All I have to do is sell my truck.

You own a vehicle!? All true photographers get around on bicycle and live in a cardboard box so that all their money can go into lenses. (Anyone who says they can't afford an 800mm f/5.6 and yet still lives in an apartment is lying. [])

I checked the Nikon page and it says 9 fps for FX, 11 fps for DX, like the D3.

Thanks for the correction. This seemed like such an obvious improvement for Nikon to make in the D3s, I can't believe they didn't. In two whole years they couldn't find enough CPU power to increase FPS by 2 even with the same number of pixels? Canon increased the frame rate even as they increased the number of pixels by 60%!

Although the noise performance is yet to be revealed, just imagine what you can do with ISO 102400 at f/1.2...

You don't have to imagine. Just set the ISO to 1600 and underexpose by 6 stops, then push 6 stops in post. That is the same as setting the ISO to 102,400. The real question is how much better the noise will be. For example, it was always possible to shoot ISO 25,600 with the 5D classic just by underexposing ISO 1600. The 5D2 came out and improved the noise a lot, but not as much as the difference in ISO settings indicate.

That top end ISO figure still impresses me.

I could caution you to not be impressed. According to the top end ISO figure, the 21 MP 5D2 is 4 stops better than the 21 MP 1Ds Mark III. In fact it is not nearly that much better (I think closer to 1 stop). The 1D Mark III top end is 6400, and the 1D Mark IV is 102,400. It will certainly not be four stops better! I hope it will be one stop better, though.

Many modern pocket sized cameras don't use shutters where its all electronic. Think about it, possibly higher sync numbers, no mechanism to wear out, more cost efecient to make, no noise if you want it, and no shutter vibration.

I would love that! The trick will be to completely replace the optical viewfinder with an EVF. Then we can dedicated the entire mirror just to phase detect autofocus, or not use PDAF at all. Plus there are possibilities for new and better lens designs... the future will be interesting.

I know some people were anxious to see some high-ISO images from the camera, so I found some here.
From the looks of it, ISO 102,400 is a joke--I don't think they should
allow sucha camera to output images that look like they were captured
by an ATM security camera. But, alas, something's better than nothing
I suppose.

That's expected. It seems Nikon and Canon are only now realizing that consumers can be fooled into thinking the ISO setting corresponds to actual performance. In reality the two are often divorced.