Official: Canon 1D Mk IV

Wow Nick, very impressive...12800 looks very nice....Cat's cute too.

Here's one from a freshman basketball game tonight. Straight out of the camera, no processing except resize to 800x1200.

ISO 5000

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Hey there... Just got my 1D Mk4, and was trying to find the Codec plug-in so I could view my RAW thumbnails... The latest RAW codec I could find is:
rc160upd-7l.exe

But it doesn't indicate support for the mk4... I downloaded and installed it to no avail...

BTW- I'm using a PC, Vista 32-Bit.

Thanks!

daytonphotog wrote in post #9527150
Just shot my frist big job with the Mark IV.. It did pretty well. But the bad part is the guy I hired to shoot with me shot a Nikon D3 and his image quality is better the my Mark IV. We both shot jpeg @ ISO 6400 1\500 F4. both with Pro level 24-70 2.8s. I know some of it might me setting that I have not played with yet. But I was not to happy with the images when looking side by side.

I'm most concerned to know what the answer to this turns out to be. I know people with D3's who consistently produce remarkable results, and I'm not about to spend a fortune on something that is in any way inferior.

Was the D3 being used a straight D3 or a D3S?

I wouldn't say the d3 has better image quality. Maybe similar, but its definitely not a big jump either way. Yes, the D3s has about 1.5 stops on it, but you get more megapixels and a crop on top of that. So it depends on your needs I guess

On a different note: the AA filter on the Mark IV seems to be a good chunk stronger than that of the 5D Mark II (which has been noted to be pretty lax). I am wondering if there is any way of putting in an "aftermarket" AA filter into a camera - any camera. I don't think I'd want to completely remove it (aliasing is never a good thing, and I do run into it every now and then with the 5D Mark II), but a little weaker one might give it even that extra little boost.

But then again the boost could be so small that it definitely isn't work play around with on a $5500 toy.

More of a hypothetical question than anything ...

http://uniquephoto.blo​gspot.com …tout-featuring-david.html

They say nothing but positives about both cameras. The D3s has the best high ISO noise available and the 1D4 has the best AF and movie mode, plus the extra MP's.

Hey Nicksan,

I ran your ISO12800 shot thru FlexNR, and while it's obviously not optimized for the 1D4, it does really quite well. Imagine when/if Pix profiles that camera properly.

1D4, ISO12,800 (courtesy of Nicksan).

drisley wrote in post #9529808
Hey Nicksan,

I ran your ISO12800 shot thru FlexNR, and while it's obviously not optimized for the 1D4, it does really quite well. Imagine when/if Pix profiles that camera properly.

1D4, ISO12,800 (courtesy of Nicksan).

That looks damn good Drisley.

drisley wrote in post #9529808
Hey Nicksan,

I ran your ISO12800 shot thru FlexNR, and while it's obviously not optimized for the 1D4, it does really quite well. Imagine when/if Pix profiles that camera properly.

1D4, ISO12,800 (courtesy of Nicksan).

Holy crap that looks amazing. You ran it without tweaking or changing anything correct?

Some more high ISO testing...

Links are to the full resolution version this time...

ISO3200

nicksan wrote in post #9529908
Holy crap that looks amazing. You ran it without tweaking or changing anything correct?

Yup, just pressed the button that says EOS 1D Mark III (ISO12800ec-ZB)

drisley wrote in post #9529990
Yup, just pressed the button that says EOS 1D Mark III (ISO12800ec-ZB)

What version of Neat Image Pro do you have?

Here's a link to a full res file SOOC. RAW->JPEG. All I did was set the color noise NR value to 25 in ACR. Everything else zeroed out.

Can you run it through and link to a full res file? (The previous link you posted for a resized version)

http://nicksan.zenfoli​o.com/img/v8/p38191284​2.jpg

1D4, ISO12,800

Just for giggles I ran your above images thru FlexNR too. Again the results are not nearly what you would get with an optimized version/profile, but still very decent. Your results straight out of camera are already amazing.

Nicksan, I'm running Neat Image Pro+ 6.0 and FlexNR v2.2

.

that is insane for 12800, i want mine for start of the afl season, under shocking lights will be a huge test for me.

drisley wrote in post #9530022
1D4, ISO12,800

Just for giggles I ran your above images thru FlexNR too. Again the results are not nearly what you would get with an optimized version/profile, but still very decent. Your results straight out of camera are already amazing.

Nicksan, I'm running Neat Image Pro+ 6.0 and FlexNR v2.2

.

Can you do me a favor and run the link that I provided you with. Then give me a link to the full size version. While the results are getting are pretty amazing, they are also resized so I want to see it in all its glory.

I've got Neat Image 5.9 Pro+ so all I need is the plugin from Pix.