-=1D Mark IV Owners Thread! (it's time)

G3G4G5 wrote in post #18155271
A couple recents, thx for looking.

Hosted photo: posted by G3G4G5 in
./showthread.php?p=181​55271&i=i246374666
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by G3G4G5 in
./showthread.php?p=181​55271&i=i223505753
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Tack sharp on the bird on the thorn bush.

Real close to this Yellow-rumped yesterday.

Image hosted by forum (819056) © G3G4G5 THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

A couple from today, Sharp-shinned Hawk and a Northern Harrier

Angkor Wat, Siem Reap 2016

To the folk who think you need the latest and greatest cameras to take fantastic images need to take a look at this thread!

I've always loved the image quality from my 1D4 and this thread just reinforces my belief it's still one of the best sensors Canon has ever made.

Sir_Loin wrote in post #18160040
To the folk who think you need the latest and greatest cameras to take fantastic images need to take a look at this thread!

I've always loved the image quality from my 1D4 and this thread just reinforces my belief it's still one of the best sensors Canon has ever made.

Everyone will say something, so i really don't go with it, i am happy with my 1Ds3 then 1DX, i am happy with H4D, happier with Sony A7r than all of my Canon DSLRs but not against my MF, so, i take those kind of statements with salt or sand.

I remembered someone said 5Dc is one of the best cameras Canon has ever made, and someone else saying something similar about 1Ds2 too, and now you are talking about 1D4, so i feel it is more about feeling than it is as a fact.

I won't go quite that far in hyperbole, but i do agree that the image files clean up very well in post processing, especially sharpening. Comparatively speaking, they are better than 7D mark II files but not as good as the 5DIII/6D files IMO.

I use a 6D and a 1DIV. Considering only IQ, the 6D produces much better results. The 1DIV can do things the 6D is quite incapable of, which is why I own the 1DIV, also.

I completely disagree with the last three posts, though I'm not questioning your right to an opinion. I feel the files from my 1D4 are better than my 5D3. "Hyperbole" or whatever you want to call it, that's how I see it. I think I read some where Diglloyd is quite a fan as well. It's subjective I suppose.

(Can you remove likes??)

Sir_Loin wrote in post #18160143
I completely disagree with the last three posts, though I'm not questioning your right to an opinion. I feel the files from my 1D4 are better than my 5D3. "Hyperbole" or whatever you want to call it, that's how I see it. I think I read some where Diglloyd is quite a fan as well. It's subjective I suppose.

(Can you remove likes??)

Bassat wrote in post #18160114
I use a 6D and a 1DIV. Considering only IQ, the 6D produces much better results. The 1DIV can do things the 6D is quite incapable of, which is why I own the 1DIV, also.

I'm just curious how you can completely disagree with my post. I do own a 6D and a 1DIV. The 1DIV does some things the 6D cannot do. As Mr. Spock would say, "Your statement is illogical."

Bassat wrote in post #18160200
I'm just curious how you can completely disagree with my post. I do own a 6D and a 1DIV. The 1DIV does some things the 6D cannot do. As Mr. Spock would say, "Your statement is illogical."

Of course the 1D4 can do things the 6D can't do, but going on sensor only, what can the 6D do that the 1D4 can't?

Sir_Loin wrote in post #18160217
Of course the 1D4 can do things the 6D can't do, but going on sensor only, what can the 6D do that the 1D4 can't?

Cleaner, easier to work high-ISO shots. I can shoot the 6D JPG at 12,800 and 25,600. By 12,800 the 1DIV needs to be shot raw/ETTR and heavily processed. For the record, I don't spend much time at those levels. I use flash with the 6D when needed, and the 1DIV is mostly for daytime sports/athletics.

Bassat wrote in post #18160222
Cleaner, easier to work high-ISO shots. I can shoot the 6D JPG at 12,800 and 25,600. By 12,800 the 1DIV needs to be shot raw/ETTR and heavily processed. For the record, I don't spend much time at those levels. I use flash with the 6D when needed, and the 1DIV is mostly for daytime sports/athletics.

I work in RAW only so jpg quality has never been an issue for me. But with careful PP at those ISO levels the 1D4 is still capable of excellent image quality. I must point out my assessment and praise for the 1D4 sensor is generally, not specifically high ISO's etc. It's "look" if you like?

Sir_Loin wrote in post #18160217
Of course the 1D4 can do things the 6D can't do, but going on sensor only, what can the 6D do that the 1D4 can't?

The 1D4 is a great camera, but limiting one's attention to the sensor alone, then the 6D beats it. It does particularly better in low-light high iso situations, just like Tom said. Here are DxOMark's comparison scores:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18160242
The 1D4 is a great camera, but limiting one's attention to the sensor alone, then the 6D beats it. It does particularly better in low-light high iso situations, just like Tom said. Here are DxOMark's comparison scores:

Hosted photo: posted by Levina de Ruijter in
./showthread.php?p=181​60242&i=i177408373
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Look at my above post, I'm referring to its "look" not technical prowess. And personally speaking, I ignore any figures DxO throw our way, even experts are puzzled by some of their findings!