Bryan, Why do you do this to me?

[bob williams]

The 1D IV is a worthy upgrade. Is it worth $3500 more than the 7D though? I think everyone's answer would vary depending on their situation. My answer was yes, but more peoples answer would be no.

I agree. Most of us here do not make a full time living with our cameras, so for most of us, this isn't a business decision, it's a "desire" decision. We desire the camera, we desire a chance to improve our keeper rate and we desire to have the best (depending on your genre) and....there is a little bit of "Hey Guys---Lookie what I got in the mail today" so, really it's just a matter of finances (unless your wealthy)---Is this camera worth what you will have to sacrifice in the future---for many of us, this answer is yes, for others--no----But ultimately, and for the purposes of many, the 1DIV is just an awesome piece of equipment. Second to only one otherSLR and that would be this:


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/24/1348.new_5F00_canon_5F00_camera_5F00_.jpg[/img]

[conropl]

But ultimately, and for the purposes of many, the 1DIV is just an awesome piece of equipment. Second to only one otherSLR and that would be this:
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

lol... I want your version of a camera. It comes with button for beer &amp; pizza, and then to top it off... it tells you when to take a pee break.

[neuroanatomist]

the 1D IV is awesome!

No doubt. I know the AF would be better than the 7D and 5DII, and the IQ is excellent.

You may not be looking at this the right way John....


The 1D IV will replace your 7D


The 1Ds IV will replace your 5D II

That's pretty much how I've been looking at it - but both a 1D IV and a 1Ds IV are a budgetary impossibility at this point, even considering sale of the 5DII, 7D, and 17-55mm. The problem I face with switching out the 7D for the 1DIV is that my 7D is used primarily with the 100-400mm, and I'm not quite willing to give up the 640mm equivalent for 520mm equivalent. If I already had a 500/4, it would be a different story. Of my shots with the 7D (since getting the 5DII),90% have been with the 100-400mm, and 80% of those have been at 400mm. So, that suggests that I need the length, and the 7D + 500/4 would be a good choice.


The 1Ds IV would definitely replace my 5DII. Honestly, I'm leaning toward the 1DsIV over the 500/4. Looking at my shots since getting the 5DII, ~90% of them have been with the 5DII, 10% with the 7D. So, overall, I'd probably derive the most benefit from a 1Ds IV. But the 500/4 would be a lot of fun...

[JJphoto]

The 1D IV is a worthy upgrade. Is it worth $3500 more than the 7D though? I think everyone's answer would vary depending on their situation. My answer was yes, but more peoples answer would be no.

I agree too. and my answer is probably no. Oh, isn't that DIGIC5 coming? that sounds a better excuse for getting a 1DV?

[HDNitehawk]

So, overall, I'd probably derive the most benefit from a 1Ds IV. But the 500/4 would be a lot of fun...

Like always John, you analyzed your possible decision very well:


Improve your Kit - vs-Lots of Fun


Here is somthing to keep in mind to, with the "Lots of Fun"option. Wimberly Head, New Gitzo 5541LSTripod Legs,Wimberlybrackets to hold your flash above the lens, Lens Coat, Dedicated Backpack for the 500mm, Canon's CP, Gitzo Monopod, Wimberly Plate, Quick Release for Mono-pod, Better Beamer and....I am sure I am forgetting something.


Personally I like the "Lot of Fun" option. But lets be honest,isn't it really "which one do I buy first?"

[Sheiky]

the 1D IV is awesome!

No doubt. I know the AF would be better than the 7D and 5DII, and the IQ is excellent.

If you were a full time pro sportsphotographer or something in that trend, the difference in AF would be noticeable. But is it really worth the money. I honestly doubt it. I still don't think the 5D2 holds me back when shooting sports.

Honestly, I'm leaning toward the 1DsIV over the 500/4

I just rented the 400mm f2.8L IS for the weekend and I can tell you this. A lens of this calibre will do more for you than a camerabody "upgrade". The image quality, AF and sharpness of the lens I rented are simply insane. They make the 100-400 feel like a nifty-fifty. It is quite a big thing to take on your bicycle though :O


I personally feel that the only reason for me to buy a super expensive 1D IV or 1Ds Iv would be if I had all the super tele's already

[neuroanatomist]

I just rented the 400mm f2.8L IS for the weekend and I can tell you this. A lens of this calibre will do more for you than a camerabody "upgrade". The image quality, AF and sharpness of the lens I rented are simply insane. They make the 100-400 feel like a nifty-fifty. It is quite a big thing to take on your bicycle though :O


I personally feel that the only reason for me to buy a super expensive 1D IV or 1Ds Iv would be if I had all the super tele's already

I hear you, Jan. On both ends - while I don't really want all the supertele's, a couple would sure be nice. You mentioned the weight of the 400/2.8, and that's an issue with the 500/4 as well. My shooting with the 100-400mm usually involves quite a bit of hiking - parking the car, walking a few steps, setting up a tripod/gimbal head and waiting for the birds to come just isn't my style. I have some concerns about hanging the 11.5 lbs / 5.2 kg of gripped 7D + 500/4 from a BlackRapid strap on my shoulder, and walking for a few miles. The 10 lbs / 4.5 kg of the body + 500/4 II is slightly better (helped by the loss of $3500 in 'weight' from my wallet), but a far cry from the 6 lbs / 2.7 kg of the body + 100-400mm. Thus the lens dilemma. The other part of that dilemma is that the current 500/4 is a fine lens, and while I expect some modest improvement with the MkII (perhaps more with TCs), the real difference is probably the weight Is that worth $3500? It's a tough decision, especially if the situation with the 300/400 II's repeats (i.e. close to the availability of the MkII's, the MkI's are no longer available anywhere - means you need to make a decision before the MkII is actually available). That's combined with the fact that I do most of my shooting with the 5DII, and while the AF is ok, having used the 7D I know how much difference a better AF makes, and the 1-series AF is a substantial improvement on the 7D. So...the debate continues. I've got time, as I won't be making a decision until the 1DsIV is actually announced, and at that point, we'll see how 'full' my proverbial wallet has become...

[Richard Lane]

I would also recommend having one or two super-telephotos before taking the plunge on a 1D MKIV or the next generation 1D body.


Personally, I think the 7D is very, very good. The 7D focuses and tracks more than fast enough and the images out of it are spectacular and I don't think anyone would complain about the extra reach. Sure the MKIV is a step up, but it's not a huge step up in my opinion. The images out of the MKIV may be slightly creamier overall, but nothing that some PP can't take care of. I think the difference is minimal. I would say that if a cloud came out and went in front of the Sun, then that would have a bigger impact on the overall quality of the image, then if someone were shooting with a 7D or a MKIV.


Of course the weather sealing of the MKIV is a major improvement over the 7D if you tend to shoot in inclement weather. I also think that the MKIV is better in shooting in lower light with less noise if someone needs that capability, but with the excellent noise reduction software out there, this result can be duplicated on the computer.


If I had to pick one reason to get a MKIV it would be to capture "peak action" which is what action photography is all about.


For example if you are trying to get a shot of a volleyball player spiking the ball, then you will have a better chance of getting the peak action image with the MKIV. Lets say that you want the player to be as high as possible over the net with his or her arm fully extended with the ball in the frame with just the right expression on their face as they're generating all of this power right before the spike, then the MKIV will be better for that because it shoots a faster frame rate. Lets say that the 7D may get 3 great shots of the spike and the MKIV may get 4 great shots of the spike. The MKIV will capture the "in between shots" that the 7D may miss and if that extra shot that the MKIV captures is the best one, then that's where it's value lies.


Other examples may be of a soccer player kicking the ball over their head with a bicycle kick, or a football kicker kicking a field goal and you're trying to get the ball in the frame coming off of his leg. If you're looking for the "peak moment" then the MKIV will capture an extra frame or two. For surfing, I find the MKIV better at capturing the surfer at the apex of the wave or at the height of a jump, or it could be as simple as their eyes looking into the lens.


That doesn't mean that the 7D can't capture these peak action shots, because it certainly can, however the MKIV just gives you that little bit of an edge in capturing that absolute peak moment.


Rich

[bob williams]

WWhew----I checked the B&amp;H Website today for the 1DIV and this is what I found: <span class="red"]<span style="color: #b80505;"]Temporarily unavailable


Imanaged to hold off for four days, Problem solved....... for the moment.


Bob

[HDNitehawk]

I would also recommend having one or two super-telephotos before taking the plunge on a 1D MKIV or the next generation 1D body.

Jan and RIch, I think this advice is dead on. After I bought the 500mm my concept of the camera body changed, to me the camera body is an accessory to the lens. Rather than the lens being an accessory to the camera.

Sure the MKIV is a step up, but it's not a huge step up in my opinion.

Everything you said is dead on with your comparison.


What is hard is to quantifythe "Step Up". What may be a small step up for one person may be a large for another. I did allot of test comparing the 1D IV to the 7D and 5D II AF system when I first got it. I set it up on LensAlign, and did real world comparisons. What I found is that the 1D IV system is superior to both, overall I gained 2 pictures in 10 both static and moving that were keepers. Of course it was easier to compare static with the LensAlign than with moving subjects, the moving subjects were much more subjective. Overall I would say about a 20% improvement with the AF system.


Is it a small step or a huge step? To me it is somewhere in between because if I am out in the woods and miss a defining shotduring the day I have lost nothing but my time. However if I made a living with the camera and I missed the defining shot, the the step up is a "huge" deal.


Nowto do a little bit of layman'smath, if I used the 20% formula and say that the number of pics that are exceptional increased 20%. On average when I take the 500mm out I come back with several hundred pics, of those several hundred because of un-coopartive animals and my inadequacies I end up with 10 or so on average that are good enough to keep. Maybe only a few that I would show someone. So...based on 10 pics and lets say I go out once every weekend. That would be 520 keepers a year. Lets say the life span of the camera is 3 years (which it should be more) 3 x 520=1560 keepers. 1560 X 20% =312 additional keepers. Now take the additional money the 1D IV costs, $3,500 / 312 =$11.22 per additional keeper.


$11.22 per additional keeper....makes the 7D look pretty good.


But then there is this formula( (500mm + 1D IV) x play time) = "Lots of Fun".


I went the"Lot's ofFun" route. Maybe I will get better and I can improve on the $11.22 per additional keeper price.


Rick