Official: Canon 1D Mk IV

bigrob wrote in post #9511505
Have just read the blog. Anyone who has a MK IV who shoots in low-light care to comment?

I would have been interested to know what lenses he was using.

jjmucker wrote in post #9511535
Yeah thats a very interesting read. The whole point of me wanting the Mark IV over a 5D MarkII was the better AF in low light.

Interesting....define "low light"

wedding receptions.
Bride walking down the Aisle in a dark Glasgow church ( almost every church in glasgow lol )
Any other part of a wedding that doesnt allow flash ( or dont want to use flash )

Seems that there were a couple other users that said the same thing about low light autofocus. Then there were just as many saying that theirs was better than any of their other bodies. I would like to know the lens as well. I have no rebutal, I own a 1DmkIV and have even taken a single shot with it yet.....

jjmucker wrote in post #9511736
wedding receptions.
Bride walking down the Aisle in a dark Glasgow church ( almost every church in glasgow lol )
Any other part of a wedding that doesnt allow flash ( or dont want to use flash )

Well, if "low light" is in a gym, mine had no issues yesterday.

I'll have to give that a try in the basement.....

Yes, "low light" needs to be defined somehow so it's possible to compare objectively, but also so it's possible to judge if a particular low light level is even relevant for your photography.

I haven't used a 5D II so I can't comment on that, but I do believe the Mark IV is better than my Mark III anyway, in any level of light I've tried so far - which is not super low light like for instance candle light but levels that are typical for what I usually shoot in. If low light for instance means "a room lit by a TV", which was the kind of level talked about in the Swedish test, then it makes no difference for me.

Im not denying its an amazing camera and its only one review.
Its just not good reading them when all you want to hear is the AF is amazing

mine had no AF issues last night in a dark club.

iso 6400.

jjmucker wrote in post #9511801
Im not denying its an amazing camera and its only one review.
Its just not good reading them when all you want to hear is the AF is amazing

I don't need to hear anything, I need to try for myself. It doesn't matter what other people find out from their camera, I need my copy to work for me, in my shooting situations.

FretNoMore wrote in post #9511815
I don't need to hear anything, I need to try for myself. It doesn't matter what other people find out from their camera, I need my copy to work for me, in my shooting situations.

Very true.

when you are contemplating shelling out 5000 dollars for a camera you want to hear the views of many people...i own both the markIII and the 5d mkII and I find the low light focus on both of them to be top notch...in fact i use my 5d mkii in jazz clubs with barely any light all the time with outstanding results....I for one would hate to think the abilities of the mk1v were not up to these standards

I agree with that statement also mate. I also do my homework before purchases, especially that amount of money. Good and bad reviews.

If im being honest when i read that review it did/has put me off the Mark IV slightly. I know thats only one review ( and his opinion ) but the fact i was also looking at the 5D Mark II then because i also have that option then im trying to decide between them.

Being mostly a wedding and portrait shooter the 5D Mark II may be what im looking for, at a fraction of the price.

It's cold out so what the heck. I went down by computer and shut all the lights off. The area is lit by an adjoining rooms light coming through an open area. It was pretty dark in here.

I grabbed my 85 f1.2 and cranked the ISO to 12800 on the MKIV.

It focused fine. The only thing it struggled with was in ROF. From time to time it seemed to find the lights on my NAS before the black camera bodies.....

But really....did I mention the lights were off?...as I was in the dark doing this at f1.2? If the AF was missing the DOF at f1.2 would show it....it was just fine for me.

To give you an idea of how dark it was, at ISO 400 & f4.0 which are pretty much the upper limits for wedding guys, these exposures would be 2 seconds long.

Focused on the Canon nameplate:

Well, your camera seems to work just fine.

As to using ROF in super low light; my personal opinion is that ROF has never worked especially well even in good light on any of my Mark II/III/IV in the first place, and that I'm not likely to try to use AF tracking on anything in such lighting conditions. It's a test that for me has no relevance in real life, but maybe others have a need for a camera that can do this.

GBRandy, wow.

Found a DPR thread by the reviewer above:

'The tests were done on the 35 f/1.4, 16-35 f/2.8 II and 135 F/2
Same results for all of them. With the zoom lens I was able to match equivalent focal lengths, and with the other two lenses (fixed focal lengths) the 1D Mark IV should actually have an advantange over the 5D Mark II because the details would be larger. But yet it STILL was worse.
Hard to believe'

http://forums.dpreview​.com …32&thread=34403​794&page=2

He does state it's his first review.