5d mkiv first impressions

[Kayaker72]

So, I was able to borrow the 5DIV. I didn't get to shoot it as much as I would like (too busy with work), but I did get to try it in a couple of different situations comparing it to the 5DIII. As for first impressions:

• The Low Light AF is significantly enhanced. I thought AF sensitivity down to EV -3 on the 5DIV vs EV -2 on the 5DIII would not be that big of a deal. But it is. I was able to AF is much lower light than 1 stop comparing the two side by side with the same lens. I have sharp pictures taken in the near dark. Not that I want to take many pictures in the near dark, there are a couple of rooms of different family members dimly lit enough where AF with the 5DIII has been a problem. But I have several shots with the 5DIV where the 5DIII never locked AF.
• White balance. This is subtle, yet I am finding it to be a bit profound. I would not have said I had an issue with the 5DIII auto WB, but in comparing side by side shots with the 5DIV, I like the 5DIV's better. Felt more accurate and more real. I just finished processing a shot and it took me 5 tries to get the 5DIII's image to where I think it matches the 5DIV's.
• Weight. I was surprised by how much you could feel the 150g weight difference.
• Resolution. As expected, more resolution allows for better cropping. Perhaps a bit more perceived sharpness.
• AF speed. This is the one I was most excited about. I wanted to set up a formal test but ran out of time. But generally the 5DIV might be a little faster, but not much. I was hoping to catch my pug running around, but at least in low light, the 5DIV was not keeping up.
• Shutter/mirror noise. The 5DIV is much quieter, also it sounds much more like the machine the new mirror mechanism is compared to the slap of the older spring. But I enjoyed the sound.
• I've heard about battery life issues, but I didn't see it. I had run ~700 pictures (lots of the pug running around) and, I forget the exactly where it was, but I remember not thinking the battery drain wasn't that big of an issue. Maybe 40-50% remaining after 700 pics as well as a good amount of time looking at the LCD and a few videos.
• Overall IQ (afterall, that is the point, right). I need to compare the images a bit more, but I very much like the IQ from my 5DIII and very much like the IQ from the 5DIV. So far, the more accurate WB is the IQ aspect where I have seen a couple of instances of the 5DIV bettering the 5DIII. But the 5DIII is no slouch in that department.

I did run some noise tests and will be looking at those in more detail. And I will finish processing my side by side images.

[conropl]

... I was hoping to catch my pug running around, but at least in low light, the 5DIV was not keeping up.

This made me laugh. But it is also a pretty revealing comment that the A/F could not keep up with a Pug.

Pat

[DavidEccleston]

This made me laugh. But it is also a pretty revealing comment that the A/F could not keep up with a Pug.

AF tracking depends on a lot of variables. Focus tracking at short distances is hard. Hopefully Brant can fill in some extra details on what sort distance and lens combo was failing. A pug is on the smaller side, so may require an even longer focal length to fill a reasonable portion of the frame without being "too close to track" for the same zoom lens.

From my 7D, 7DII, and 1DsII experiences, tracking a dog running towards the camera, in good light:
with a 50mm lens... missed AF is expected.
with a 85mm lens... AF is hit and miss.
with a 200mm lens... missed AF is unexpected.

From my experience with a Rebel T1i, tracking a dog running towards the camera, in good light:
with a 50mm or 85mm lens... missed AF is expected.
with a 200mm lens... AF lags. Expect blurred heads and sharp tails.

[conropl]

AF tracking depends on a lot of variables. Focus tracking at short distances is hard. Hopefully Brant can fill in some extra details on what sort distance and lens combo was failing. A pug is on the smaller side, so may require an even longer focal length to fill a reasonable portion of the frame without being "too close to track" for the same zoom lens.

From my 7D, 7DII, and 1DsII experiences, tracking a dog running towards the camera, in good light:
with a 50mm lens... missed AF is expected.
with a 85mm lens... AF is hit and miss.
with a 200mm lens... missed AF is unexpected.

From my experience with a Rebel T1i, tracking a dog running towards the camera, in good light:
with a 50mm or 85mm lens... missed AF is expected.
with a 200mm lens... AF lags. Expect blurred heads and sharp tails.

Actually, it was you and your dogs that I was thinking of. As I was reading that, I was picturing the Pug running with you dogs on their agility coarse. I know that is letting the imagination get the best of me, but that is what made it seem all the more funny.

Regarding the statement from Brant, I also assumed there was some expectation that the AF should perform in the conditions he threw at it (although he did say it was low light), or he would not have made the statement. But I was reading into it and making an assumption.

My daughter has her dogs at my house, and one of them is crazy fast. It took me a few burst on the 1Dx to somewhat get the hang of it, and was eventually able to get a couple of decent shots (70-200mm at f/2.8). Having said that, I must admit I did not get near the kind of shots you get and probably not the keeper rate. But a pug? Cute... debatably yes; but athletically fast... I don't think so. I guess I agree, in that I would be curious as to what lens was used, but the 5D IV should have better focus than any of the cameras you listed.

By the way, the ability to move focus points around and have the metering follow your focus point would really be great for you when shooting your dogs. The 1Dx does that. If you are interested in a low shot count 1Dx, I have one I could be talked into parting with. I think your dogs could even stress the abilities of the 1Dx.

Pat