Official: Canon 1D Mk IV

GBRandy wrote in post #9536584
I would agree with that as well.... The focus lacks the "jitters" some of the MKIII's I tried displayed.

Perhaps it is just new ownership bias, but it seems the 85 f1.2 is faster to focus using the MKIV than the my MKIIn.

I wouldn't call it bias. It's actually a very good observation. The 85 1.2L EF II focuses faster on the 4 than it does with the 3, at least on acquisition and lock. I also use this lens for fast moving gymnastics at times, even though many say it's too "slow focusing" of a lens.

Mr. MDJAK himself.

ISO12800

My 85L required +3. First time I have ever had to micro adjust a lens with any body. The subject was sharp, but at the very rear of the focal plane. +3 and she rockin-and-rollin! Damn what a body!

How did you go about MA your 85L?

Thanks

Jonesy22 wrote in post #9539152
How did you go about MA your 85L?

Thanks

lensalign
http://www.vimeo.com/2​504650

Jonesy22 wrote in post #9539152
How did you go about MA your 85L?

Thanks

Very scientific. Used a stuffed mouse that belonged to the cat while it was laying on a very short carpet. So easy to see the plane of focus along the carpet or even grass if you are outdoors. 'Ol mouse was right at the back of it. 0 MA showed the very front edge of mouse sharp and about an inch in front of him. I error on the side of caution and plus 3 looks good. Looks good in subsequent mouse and cat shots too. LOL

nicksan wrote in post #9537113
Mr. MDJAK himself.

ISO12800

http://nicksan.zenfoli​o.com/img/v1/p85935831​3.jpg

MDJAK, jealous of my MKIV, had to test it for himself. Some random dude in the room...

ISO8000

http://nicksan.zenfoli​o.com/img/v4/p58255708​1.jpg

I don't recall signing a devastatingly handsome model release.

Yes, I must admit, the high ISO performance is amazing. Haven't read completely through here, but seems to me people are focusing a bit too much on chroma and luminance noise, or lack thereof, and not enough on any loss of dynamic range at high ISO. It seems the MKIV also is quite good in that area.

One thing that surprises me, however, is everyone else's surprise that the camera is so good. I mean, it's not rocket science to lower the noise threshold on electronics. Remember s/n ratios of compact disc players, etc, they continued to get better and better with every iteration.

Just seems to me that the extensive R&D departments at Canon and Nikon shouldn't have such a difficult time analyzing "noise" and eliminating it, which they've now done very well.

Oh, and obviously the pic I took is a better shot than the pic Nicky took, although I'm much better looking than that nerd.

That MDJAK guy is living in dream land. Devastatingly handsome model release? Who is he kidding?

Hey, great food though. I'll hand it to you. You know how to pick them places. Just not camera brands...

Oh...and I appreciate the fact that you have a built-in gray card on your head.

We had taken a Cliff Mautner workshop together at Adorama. I immediate knew Cliff was a hack when he agreed to something MDJAK said.

MDJAK wrote in post #9539415

Oh yeah...and that Pasta dish with beans in it...that was especially a nice touch given my Title.

Me and my co-workers thank you for that little piece of genius...

Does the Mk1V offer different in-camera NR settings (as opposed to just the "High Iso NR" setting of the MkIII?) If so, what are most of you using?

drisley wrote in post #9541688
Does the Mk1V offer different in-camera NR settings (as opposed to just the "High Iso NR" setting of the MkIII?) If so, what are most of you using?

Standard, Low, Strong, and Disable.

I have it disabled as I shoot in RAW and use ACR for conversion.

Thanks Nick!
So the 2 pics you posted above were with ACR right? That's very impressive! My old Mk2 and Mk2N showed more noise at ISO3200 than your pic of Mdjak agove at ISO12,800. And worse, the Mk2N at that level had really bad "white specs" which did more to ruin an image than the noise itself.
I would suppose, if previous cameras were any indication, that the Canon Raw software would/should give even slightly better results (that is the case I find with the MkIII and Zoombrowswer/RIT vs ACR).
Are you using default output in ACR?

drisley wrote in post #9541727
Thanks Nick!
So the 2 pics you posted above were with ACR right? That's very impressive!
I would suppose, if previous cameras were any indication, that the Canon Raw software would/should give even slightly better results (that is the case I find with the MkIII and Zoombrowswer/RIT vs ACR).

Yep, ACR->PS CS4->JPEG.
That's my workflow.
Never bothered with Canon software. Maybe I should try it...

Your results are very good now. I used ACR for years and dreaded changing my workflow. Things move much slower now than when I used Bridge/ACR, but I like the output better. The noise is generally lower/more pleasing, detail seems smoother (ie, fewer sharpening artifacts) and I just love the Canon colours, something that ACR still doesn't get quite right imho (at least with the older cameras, but your examples above look really nice). The new ACR profiles might actually be technically more accurate, but I really like Canon colours (even the slightly oversat reds).