Official: Canon 1D Mk IV

voka_gsw wrote in post #8888449
Thanks, Scoobie.

You dont happen to have some RAW files perhaps?

I do! BUT no current raw file software will open the (at least properly)
I took those thursday, but couldnt convert them so i went back and did JPGs

You can't really go by exchange rates. If you could, compared to the US price, the UK should be getting it for 3000 pounds. But, it costs them 4000 pounds, which is equivalent to $6500 US.

SlvrScoobie wrote in post #8888842
I do! BUT no current raw file software will open the (at least properly)
I took those thursday, but couldnt convert them so i went back and did JPGs

I wonder when Adobe will release a DNG converter for the 1D Mark IV's CR2 files?

SlvrScoobie wrote in post #8888420
BTW: here are some samples I got at PhotoPlus where it was on demo
http://www.flickr.com …e/sets/72157622​649772276/

Is it me or is ISO 6400 on the mkIV the best thing ever?
That looks like iso 800 on my 40D!
And look at the black area! GAH!

And ISO 25600 is like 1600 on my 40D
INSANITY!

Exactly!

radiohead wrote in post #8863926
It's NR, nothing more, nothing less.

...You have just defined what the D3 is precisely about. Heavy, massive Noise-Reduction... You deal with that while... we deal with the opposite: fresh, almost untouched OOC files that, ultimately, end up being SHARPER and CLEANER (because you have to sharpness LESS).



PIX

SlvrScoobie wrote in post #8888420
BTW: here are some samples I got at PhotoPlus where it was on demo
http://www.flickr.com …e/sets/72157622​649772276/

Was in-camera NR turned on in those shots? I assume it was.

Looks like ISO 3200 is noise-free, and noise appears to be easily manageable through 12,800 (if not higher). But, I don't know if NR has already been applied in-camera. Also, we'll probably see some differences when the 1D4's RAW becomes post-processable.

Want!

that's my constructive contribution to the discussion.

Here's a cool video on YouTube. Be patient, he will get to the 1D Mark IV in the second half of the video: http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=pGVXqba4BJg

This is not accurate:

would think that if you can afford to plonk down $5k on a camera body, you are probably in another financial bracket altogether and have the ability to afford $7k lenses and probably even $8k camera bodies.

Below is accurate:

krepta wrote in post #8883341
Not necessarily. What if you have been saving for two or three years to accumulate that $5k? I planned and saved ahead for several months and even a few years in some cases for most of the gear I currently own.

Fidelity wrote in post #8891162
Here's a cool video on YouTube. Be patient, he will get to the 1D Mark IV in the second half of the video: http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=pGVXqba4BJg

Very informative video. He clearly explains Canon's perspective on the purpose of the 1D Mk IV; a few important points were the reason behind the increase in MP's and why some of the cool, new features on the 7D did not make it to the 1D Mk IV. Thank you for sharing, Fidelity.

ogre1231 wrote in post #8891068
Want!

+ 1

form wrote in post #8869551
To me, the significant point is NOT that the 16mp 1.3x crop camera is "doing well for what it is," but rather that the 12mp full frame camera is, quite frankly, "doing a better job because it is a more feasible combination of resolution and sensor size, plus superior chroma noise handling by Nikon." The D3s may not be putting out perfect clarity at ISO102400, but it is in fact usable for a small press photo, especially something in newspaper.

I find any justification about the 1D IV's noise control to be a way to deny the truth that Nikon has taken the lead in high ISO noise performance, whether by better design decisions of lower MP and bigger sensors (not the case of the D3X), by better circuitry/other methods that do a better job of controlling noise (probably the case of the D3X), or both.

Amen.

I'm glad someone besides me can see the situation in that light.

PIXmantra wrote in post #8891024
...You have just defined what the D3 is precisely about. Heavy, massive Noise-Reduction... You deal with that while... we deal with the opposite: fresh, almost untouched OOC files that, ultimately, end up being SHARPER and CLEANER (because you have to sharpness LESS).



PIX

Lets see...

I can shoot JPG with Nikon, go home, resize the images, and call it a day..

or..

I can shoot raw with Canon, go home, open them up in Zoom Browser, open those up in Canon RIT, convert to a 16bit TIFF, open it up in Photoshop, run Neat Image, resize, and call it a day..

Gee. Thats a real tough decision

The latest round of cameras are ALL about noise reduction, including the 5D II, 50D, 7D, 1D IV, and Nikon D300/D700/D3/D3s/D3x. What we consider acceptable has changed: The noise in a RAW file at ISO6400 is quite strong from most of the new cameras, well above what we would have tolerated from a dSLR a few years before. It's all about how we and the cameras themselves are processing the images, and the boost up to 12+ megapixels helps retain detail by giving leeway for NR.