Canon EOS 1D Mark IV 16.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera

Canon EOS 1D Mark IV 16.1 MP CMOS 

Digital SLR Camera with 3-Inch LCD and 1080p HD Video

The 1D mk III was my first 1-chain body. Before that I had, in hitch order, a 5D, a 20D, and 300D. Each rung along the way was nicer and nicer. I couldn't dream a better camera than my 1D mk III, but now I have it.


Over time (typically through recital about the camera) I cultured that my mk III had deprived autofocus. I had an early account with the defect, but also because the mk III apparently did not live up to the autofocus of the 1D mk IIn. I had the defect permanent, and my vehicle focus was better, but still not as good, or so I had read, as the mk IIn autofocus. I can prove that I surely felt frustrated with the mk III autofocus on a recurrent origin.


I harbor't been to a sporting outcome yet, so I can't chat to that kind of focusing, but in good light with a stationary theme my gut hunch is that, yes, focusing is better in the mk IV than it was in the mk III. I can also testify that in near darkness conditions, such as, when I can't even see my topic (and a 1.2 lens), the autofocus is astounding. Astounding there is relative; in this basis I mean it often acquires focus, which is rather a feat in near entire darkness.


This camera is 16MP instead of 10MP, but so far I asylum't noticed much of a different in quality from the smaller photosites. Canon said the microlenses were an improvement, and I'm extremely ready to judge them.
My ReallyRightStuff L-bracket from my mk III hysterics rightly, which is a trivial bonus. It uses the same batteries as my mk III was well. The mk IV doesn't come with a block adapter like the mk III did, but I have a mk III so it wasn't a terrible harm for me.


The array life is supposedly down with the larger antenna. Canon claims something like 1200 shots I think, while the mk III supposedly got 1900. I know I commonly got 7000 per string if I drained a series over a few months, or about 12000 if I shot a foremost result in a lone day. While the string performance still seems good (I didn't establish with a green sequence, and I've been out in the cold a lot with it), it is definitely not as long-lived as in a mk III body. The string smart-reason only understand shutters, and doesn't keep pursue of sheet, so shooting movies will play havok with matching up a shot consider to the array life.


The aesthetics of the menu structure are much better. It is mainly the same menus as the mk III, but they feel more polished now.


The high iso is, well, high. I won't lie to you: at H3 you get something barely above rubbish out of the camera; but you get something! It's absolutely astounding to be able to injure in that much darkness. H2 is beautiful bad, and H1 is nearly all-right. And I port't found something that needed any of the H modes; 12800 has been more than adequate for singing around in. I'm pretty cheerful with the exended ISO, and blare at that turn is something I estimate. The camera could be pressed extend with H3 than I even pushed B&W video, and the outcome are very good for the circumstances.


When you shove to ISO 12800 or reduce the results are quite spectacular. My gut reaction was that 12800 is about as good as 3200 on the 1D mk III, but I hadn't specifically compared them to see. I've uploaded a comparison picture to Amazon viewing two shots that balance the ISO. The mk IV 12800 definitely seems to be better than the mk III H1 (6400).


I like the new rotation-selectable AF points. I like the new place brightening options.


The capture I've barely played with. Auto focused in record sucks, so you ought to physical focus. The need of a flat charge on audio-in is a staid deficiency. The record does look good still. I've barely played with it still, and I've never owned a videotape camera (I've only owned a film-based movie camera), so I'm not steady what I can say about it. I do know that it takes a long time to upload a minuscule of Full HD to YouTube.


I guess that is all I can think of at the moment.