Official: Canon 1D Mk IV

BTW, im sure this has been posted here before but this thing really seems to work awesome:

http://www.nowinstock.​net/digitalcameras/can​on/1d/

nicksan wrote in post #9620680
The photos that I posted were taken hand held but I would imagine the same would apply whether using monopod or tripod. I think it's the tracking/panning against fast moving subjects that is the main point here.

( I put the wrong quote in. I was asking about whn yall are action shooting with the IS off.)
Have you all tried both IS modes? (panning) I'm curious if that makes a difference.

vpnd wrote in post #9629751
( I put the wrong quote in. I was asking about whn yall are action shooting with the IS off.)
Have you all tried both IS modes? (panning) I'm curious if that makes a difference.

I think it just depends on what you are shooting.
For higher shutter speeds (I was at 1/2500) I think I.S. is a moot point. I can see mode 2 being useful for panning shots like race cars, cycling etc.

I just seem to get more consistent results with IS off. With IS on, I still do OK, but at 100%, you can see it's not as sharp a lot of the times.

nicksan wrote in post #9630012
I think it just depends on what you are shooting.
For higher shutter speeds (I was at 1/2500) I think I.S. is a moot point. I can see mode 2 being useful for panning shots like race cars, cycling etc.

I just seem to get more consistent results with IS off. With IS on, I still do OK, but at 100%, you can see it's not as sharp a lot of the times.

I agree. Definately don't want to pan in mode 1 because it will be trying to correct your panning motion as well as up and down motion. Images will be a little soft. I have done this and the results are less than crisp.

drisley wrote in post #9629028
When using a zoom like that, what focal length do you use when you microadjust?

Well, that's the million dollar question. What I did was test the camera at the minimum focal length, at the maximum, and then about half-way in-between. I took the average of the three and it seems to have worked pretty well.

AliAyson wrote in post #9631223
Well, that's the million dollar question. What I did was test the camera at the minimum focal length, at the maximum, and then about half-way in-between. I took the average of the three and it seems to have worked pretty well.

Wow, that seems rather time consuming! Did you find your calibration changed much between min. vs. max. focal length?

dkubek wrote in post #9631331
Wow, that seems rather time consuming! Did you find your calibration changed much between min. vs. max. focal length?

No, it was surprisingly close at all focal lengths. Just about +2 difference between the minimum and maximum (ended up with a +9 correction). It didn't take long because I bought the LensAlign system which makes testing your lenses waaaaaaay easier. Once you've got the LensAlign system set up all you need to do is move your camera back and forth based on the focal length. The longer the focal length the farther back you need to move the camera. For 200mm I had to be 16.4 feet from the LensAlign (at www.lensalign.com they have a calculator to figure out how far away you need to be).

seanphoto wrote in post #9629713
BTW, im sure this has been posted here before but this thing really seems to work awesome:

http://www.nowinstock.​net/digitalcameras/can​on/1d/

I just used it and saw the Adorama currently has them in stock. Just bought one.

Is microadjustment in the lens or the body? I hadn't heard of it before this thread and I don't have any idea how it's done, or whether it's something I should have done before now.

peterbj7 wrote in post #9634543
Is microadjustment in the lens or the body?.

Body.

peterbj7 wrote in post #9634543
Is microadjustment in the lens or the body?

MA corrects for offset errors in either the lens or body (calibration data are stored in the body). As presently designed MA calibration is limited to only one object distance and if you are calibrating a zoom lens, only one focal length.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Why do lenses need calibrating all of a sudden, never ever needed to with a MKII so why with the newer breed, is it just canon passing the buck by saying they cant get AF right so force calibration on the end user.

gazcoyle wrote in post #9634921
Why do lenses need calibrating all of a sudden, never ever needed to with a MKII so why with the newer breed, is it just canon passing the buck by saying they cant get AF right so force calibration on the end user.

Because the MK II has almost no pixels, or rather the pixel density is quite low, and so small focusing errors are less obvious when pixel peeping. Prior to digital, people didn't blow their pictures up to a virtual image of 40" across and then pixel peep them from 12" away. Nowadays they do. That means it is not enough to get by on manufacturing tolerances alone. e.g. a 1D2 file viewed on a 100ppi monitor would yield a virtual image "only" 35" across. A 1D3 would yield an image 39" across. A 1D4 would yield an image 49" across. A 50D would make 47". A 7D would get to 52" and a 5D2 would make a 56" image. If you want pixel perfect sharpness you need pixel perfect focusing, and a few other things besides, like less camera shake and less motion blur. Perhaps in the heyday of the 1D2 people were more interested in making pictures than making pixels. Now it seems many people are more concerned about how their pixel look than their pictures.

I can't remember if I posted this link in this thread or the RG thread, but it is worth a read - http://www.lensrentals​.com …s-is-soft-and-other-myths.

gazcoyle wrote in post #9634921
Why do lenses need calibrating all of a sudden, never ever needed to with a MKII so why with the newer breed, is it just canon passing the buck by saying they cant get AF right so force calibration on the end user.

I agree with you, I had no problems with my lenses on my 1dmk2 or 1dsmk2, they were way out on my mk3.

gazcoyle wrote in post #9634921
Why do lenses need calibrating all of a sudden, never ever needed to with a MKII so why with the newer breed, is it just canon passing the buck by saying they cant get AF right so force calibration on the end user.

My 10D, 1D2 and 1D all have been to Canon (some more then once), accompanied by my lenses, to get the AF "good enough".

I'd rather not need to use MA, but I sure am glad I can.