1DMK3 to 1DMK4 owners input

I was speaking with a photographer friend (He shoots mainly sports) who just recently traded in his 1D3 for the 1D4, he said that his keeper rate has improved quite a bit with the new camera and is convinced that the AF is MUCH more accurate than the 1D3.

Has anyone else here who's upgraded noticed that there is that much of an improvement with the AF of the 1D4?

Absolutely, the AF is much improved - but I did have a less than perfect 1D III, an early one that I never agreed with and Canon never managed to get quite right. I still use it, but as a manual focus remote camera, the image quality is still great.

No comparison!! The Mark IV is totally awesome!!

My keeper rate is much higher as well for sports shooting.

10megapixel wrote in post #10787824
Has anyone else here who's upgraded noticed that there is that much of an improvement with the AF of the 1D4?

I see no difference in AF performance.

I had a post AF problem mkiii and I now have a Mk iv. For subjects that are isolated (planes, people on a fairly solid background like a grass field) the keeper rate is the same. For busy backgrounds (Like a park) I find I have WAY more keepers than I had before. To me the AF system doesn't get "distracted" no matter what settings I use.

I'm wondering if he had a 1D3 with AF issues and that's why he has noticed such a drastic improvement. The thing is, I never heard him complain about the 1D3 as he used it along side his 1D2N until after he got his hands on the 1D4. Maybe he's just convinced himself that there is that much of an improvement to justify the price

I'll be able to tell you in about six days once I have one of each...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10793877
I'll be able to tell you in about six days once I have one of each...

Please do that

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10793877
I'll be able to tell you in about six days once I have one of each...

Keep us posted.

Will Do...

FWIW, my MkIII came right as rain from the factory and has never needed any work so it will make a solid benchmark against which I can peep the MkIV.

Topical discussion for me. I was thinking about making the jump myself and would value the opinion of those brave souls who've done it before me. Alas, if all I can get from you guys is "AF is much better" my skirt isn't getting blown up. I don't miss shots as it is.

Perhaps, Jay will have something to say that can get me to overspend on this hobby more than I should, or even consider.

Some of my time at Oshkosh was spent shooting with a gentleman from Texas named Jim Wilson who is one of the absolute best aviation photographers you will ever find.

His arsenal of equipment for the week consisted of four (4) 1DMkIVs sporting (from short to long):
- 70-200 f/2.8L IS MkII -or- 100-400
- 300mm f/2.8L IS
- 500mm f/4L IS
- 800 f/5.6L IS

He hasn't posted a barage of images yet but if you go to Fred Miranda under "City, Still Life and Abstract"and look for the thread called "Mustang Air To Air...The Sequal", somewhere around Page 1220 or so and forward from there, you can see some images that he has posted. They're all superbly sharp. And we're talking about shooting prop-driven aircraft at insanely slow shutter speeds for the given focal lengths being used.