• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

B I F with 1D MK4 (2 Viewers)

How much faster is the AF on the 1Dmkiv?
Is the 7D on a par with the 1Dmkiii?

imo the 7d is a better birding camera overall than the mk3, the mk3 does feel as though its working faster and it might be, but the 7d does not lag behind when it comes to getting the shot .
iv yet to say when using the 7d that i had wished id had the mk3 with me instead.
Rob.
 
I just want to thank Michael for posting the shots in both his threads. I've not had a close look at the images, but close enough to be able to say that, in the hands of an expert using a good lens, there is no huge difference between the final images one can get out of the two cameras.
 
I personally have not studied the images sufficiently well to make a judgement, and in any event there are too many potential variables to make that judgement completely sound - the light, the processing, the amount of cropping, how much caffeine Michael had consumed on the day, etc. etc.. So I'm not making judgements on the images at all. I'm only responding to what other people have said.

I don't doubt for a second that the 1D4 is a better camera than the 1D3 and 7D, and we all know the argument that if a Rebel can produce an image as good as a 50D then why do you need a 50D, and so on. My only real beef is what seems to me to be outrageous pricing for what appears to me to be incremental advances in spec over the 1D3 and 7D. As soon as I saw the specs, and before knowing the price, I was underwhelmed. When I saw the price I lost interest altogether. I mean, what does that additional £1400 buy you compared to the 1D3?.......

- Essentially the same physical body, build, FPS, battery, ergonomics, so no change there;
- A pixel increase that places pixel density on an equal footing with a 40D, and in terms of %age increase is not dissimilar to the increase between the 40D and 50D, which didn't really add much to the price of that change;
- A new AF system, even though a working 1D3 was no slouch and generally well regarded, and good enough for professional work for the previous three years. We got a new AF system when the 30D was replaced by the 40D. No price increase there;
- Higher ISO - well who isn't doing that?
- A new LCD screen - about fricking time!
- Video, the same as everybody else, even the Rebels.

All in all I don't see a major compelling upgrade there, not for a £1400 premium over a 1D3 or £3000 over a 7D. It's just the expected technological advance that makes it worth bothering to release a new camera. Where is the "Wow!"? For an extra £1400 I want to see "Wow!". If I don't see it in the specs then I'd at least like to see it in the images. And if I don't want video or to shoot at over 6400 ISO then where is the compelling upgrade?

I'd love to see the results of a proper head to head between a 1D3, 1D4 and 7D, say at up to 3200 ISO, and one that properly tests the AF performance too. I doubt we'll have that luxury. :(

I am in Mexico now, heading south to Central America. WiFi coverage is spotty where I am. The discussion here on the 7D, 1D MK3 and MK4 is very interesting. Just to put things in perspective, I paid over $1000 for my first Canon 1D camera in 1989 (Ouch! First time I ever paid a 4 digit price for any camera). The D30 cost me over $3000 in 2000 (An even bigger Ouch but it was a revolutionary camera). The 7D with grip cost me $2050, 1D MK3 was $4,300 (2 1/2 years ago) and I paid $5000 for the MK4. Value is a subjective measure and we all make personal decisions on everyday purchases we buy and cameras are no different. There is really nothing revolutionary about the latest crop of cameras. Nothing like the D30 when it was introduced but incremental improvements are welcome and Canon cameras are getting better. I sold my MK3 for $2,650 and it returned almost 62% of my original cost. I expect the MK4 to do the same or better when I buy the MK5.

Next discussion will be on the merits of the 7D, MK3 and MK4 (head to head field comparison) and how they perform from my perspective as a wildlife photographer out in the field. Gotta go for now.
 
Next discussion will be on the merits of the 7D, MK3 and MK4 (head to head field comparison) and how they perform from my perspective as a wildlife photographer out in the field. Gotta go for now.
That is something I would really like to see. Thanks for your contributions so far. :t:
 
Good website. Interesting review and comments.

I started rummaging around and found this article on judging IQ from web sized photos - http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/judging_image_quality_photos_web.htm. How true!

That's exactly why I had no intention of judging the results from the 1D4 in this thread against the results from the 7D in the other thread. Not only is the size rather small, but there simply isn't enough data to go on. One set may have looked better than the other, but there is no EXIF data, no way to know how accurate the original exposures were, how much light there was, how much cropping was involved, whether the active AF point was over the subject and for how long it had been allowed to track, whether there was any camera shake or pixel level subject blur in the original capture, whether the subject was centre frame or off towards an edge, and what sort of processing was applied. Certainly the sharpening looks quite zealous in some of the images.

Also, is a 400 DO lens plus teleconverter the fairest test of camera performance? Compared to a 500/4 at f/5.6 the IQ of the optics is possibly holding back the 7D, or at least rendering its detail advantage null. The centre image is not great and the edges and corners are really quite poor. Take a look at this comparison, with a camera of low pixel density (1Ds3)....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Making a comparison of a bare 400 DO against a bare 400/5.6L, both at f/5.6 it looks to me like the cheaper lens is significantly more contrasty....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

I suspect the 7D would highlight lens deficiencies even more acutely. To show what the cameras are really capable of I'd like to see results where the lens was less of a restriction on ultimate IQ. I've never used a 400 DO, but from everything I've read about that lens I'm not sure it is a good choice for testing camera performance. I think a 400/5.6 or 500/4 might both be a better choice.
 
Last edited:
Fantastic sets from the 1D MK4 and 7D. I am enjoying the discussion on the Canon DSLRs. Hurry up and keep posting your progress. :t:
 
Chris

Nice shot of the Barn Owl. I think there may be a little outward humour going on in this thread. Ignore it and please keep posting feedback on the new eos mk 4 . You have a lot of experience of bird photography and we do really want to see how it measures up.
What would you say are the advantages over the 1dmk 3? Could you be precise? How do you see it comparing with say a 40d (like I have and probably will upgrade from at some stage)? Is the a-f system literally miles/much better? What about spot metering? How accurate is that centre sensor?

I am tempted buy the 7D but a lot of the images published are 'grainy'. I don't mind grain and yes it can be dealt with in pp but I was wondering whether the effect is because people are getting every drop of exposure out of their camera's to be able to 'compete' under difficult/dull conditions and hence are cranking up iso or something? Or is it a function of sensor density? or a combination of the two? or something else. Is it me being spooked by talk of things like " why are Canon continuing to up megapixels' at the expense of cleaner images"?


Keep 'em coming and have a great briding weekend
PS Had a snipe in Holywells Park Ipswich yesterday. Too quick to capture image but a nice one. Also first two butterflies. Peacock then male Brimstone.

Julian
 
Some more flight shots taken with the Mk1v on 6/2/10,Barn Owl taken at ISO 2500 at dusk,even with the 1.4 on the 500f4 the Af was still working,i would have been using Mf with the Mk111
 

Attachments

  • AQ5C1312.jpg
    AQ5C1312.jpg
    50.4 KB · Views: 136
  • AQ5C1333.jpg
    AQ5C1333.jpg
    77.3 KB · Views: 152
  • AQ5C1594.jpg
    AQ5C1594.jpg
    50.8 KB · Views: 87
  • AQ5C1705.jpg
    AQ5C1705.jpg
    60.7 KB · Views: 132
  • AQ5C1797.jpg
    AQ5C1797.jpg
    96.5 KB · Views: 228
Nice to see your mk4 is working well as others are having problems over in FM .

Lost me there Chris the mk3 will af even at f8 .
Rob
 
Hi Guys. I am in Cabo San Lucas now. The tip of Baja California. Traveling really light, just my MK4, 16-35mm II, 70-200mm L IS, 400 DO, extenders and tubes. I want to see if the MK4 can do double duty for me as a travel camera as well. Going on a zodiac in about an hour to photograph whales in the Sea of Cortez.

I posted 3 sets of photos (2 with the MK4 and 1 with the 7D, click on them to enlarge). Can't really say one is better or worse than the other. They represented my best effort on that particular day with the particular equipment. I knew the first MK4 set was challenging, weather was awful and the birds were far away. I purposely chose the 400DO with 2X extender to 'push the envelope' on the MK4 to see how well it performs with the 'new' AI Servo and higher ISO. I rarely shoot RAW with wildlife. Don't always want to rely on the 'safety net' of RAW to save me. When I take bad photo, it's usually my own error and I learn from it. Shooting JPEG forces me to think on my feet and I become a 'better' photographer that way. Also rearely use the tripod with wildlife as well. Almost all my wildlife shots are handheld. I like to keep up with their movement and tripod is too cumbersome for me. The bird photography will start for me in a few days when I head back into the mainland and down south.
 
For heavens sake I just expressed my opinion on the BIF shots and you all jump on me as though I am reccommending the Mk4 over the 7D. Get a life I was just commenting on the photo set not which camera was best or it should be because it cost more.

Why can you not just accept a post in its plain language???:C
 
Not jumping on you at all, Robert, just using your post as a springboard to voice my disappointment (outrage) at the pricing of the 1D4. It's not the performance I question, just the "value".
 
'Tis true, but I wanted to explain my position to Robert. My remarks in earlier posts were not directed at him or his post specifically in any way. But a full explanation cannot be given without saying why I did post. Since I did quote what he wrote I thought my intentions needed clarifying. I tried to be as brief as I could. ;)
 
Last edited:
well im reading in other forums that the mk4 is at least as good as the mk3 although some are saying it is better .
Some are having real problems with the mk4 too and thats a bit worrying, moreso in that some have sent them back to be looked at and they still wont work .
Iv now crossed it of my list for now not just because of the problems but it is only a stop and a half better than the 7d.
imo it should be a stop more than that .
From what iv seen up to iso 800 / 1600 the 7d is close to the mk4 in noise and it would be very rare i would go above this.
Rob.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top