New Gear: Canon 1D Mark IV

If you have been waiting for Canon to unleash an update at the top of their DSLR line-up, you might want to get that credit card ready. As the name would suggest, this $4,999 body is a follow up to the 1D Mark III, to which it's almost physically identical. Inside, however, lives a completely new 16.1-megapixel APS-H CMOS sensor. The pixels are actually smaller than they were on the Mark III (5.7 microns down from 7.2), but Canon claims to have actually reduced noise levels. We're certainly glad to hear it, because the expanded ISO range goes from 50 all the way up to the 102,400 mark hit last week by Nikon's D3S.

The Mark IV has also received the full HD video capture treatment, sporting a list of video features similar to that of the 7D. It's capable of full 1080p HD at 30 fps and 24 fps, but can churn out 60 fps if you're willing to settle for 720p. The autofocus system has also been completely redesigned, boasting 45 selectable points. Dual Digic 4 processors help faster frame rates when shooting stills, maxing out at 10 fps for up to 28 frames in RAW mode. Shooting JPEG? You can get up to 121 before you run out of clicks.

On first look, this body sure looks like a real winner. Having seen some of the low-light video footage shot with it, we wouldn't be surprised to see these making their way into the bags of pro video shooters as well as pro photographers. Get the rest of the crucial details after the break.

--Redesigned autofocus system has 45 AF points including 39 high-precision cross-type focusing points for tracking moving objects
--10 fps in still image mode
--New AI Servo II AF predictive focusing algorithm improves responsiveness and stability
--Native ISO settings from 100 to 12,800. Expanded settings go down to 50 and up to 25,600, 51,200 and 102,400
--Full 1080p video capture with total manual exposure controls
--Full HD at 1920 x 1080 in selectable frame rates of 24p (23.976), 25p, or 30p (29.97); and 720p HD or SD video recording at either 50p or 60p (59.94)
--Three RAW modes: Full RAW (approx. 16 million pixels), M-RAW (approx. nine million pixels), and S-RAW (approx. four million pixels)
--Peripheral Illumination Correction corrects for light drop off around the edges of the frame that can happen at a lense's widest aperture
--3-inch Clear View II LCD screen with 920,000 dot resolution
--Completely weather resistant, made from magnesium-alloy
--Compatible with Canon's new WFT-E2 IIA Wireless File Transmitter for sending files directly to a computer. It also allows you to fire the shutter using the web
--Available in December. Body only, $4,999

Comments

[Ban]

Hi. I love this camera, but it can't even compete with the new D3s from nikon. It needs a full-frame sensor. The camera is fantastic, buy again the price. It may be $200 less than the De3 upgrade, but it is still too much money for many pros, especially full-time nature photographers who don't make that much (but then for the,=, they'll love the sensor crop for extra supertele reach).

[bluetooth freisprecheinrichtung]

Thanks for this review.The camera is looking perfect for the novice photographers as well as for the normal users.It has interesting specifications and advanced features for them.

[Tom]

I don't get why everyone thinks that pro camera's need to be full frame. Maybe the noise levels will be slightly more than that of the D3 but look at the Canon 7D. Everyone thought there would be terrible noise from that camera but so far it seems Canon did a great job at handling the higher megapixel count on a non-full frame sensor.

[Ryan]

As a Canon owner who shoots almost exclusively in low light conditions, I'm finding myself awfully envious of Nikon shooters these days. From what I've seen, the D3s is amazing at ISO 12800 while my 5D Mark II has digital noise at ISO 3200.

Hopefully, Canon steps up to the plate and competes with Nikon with future models that put a higher premium on actual image quality and less on megapixels and matching specs on paper only (Canon's ISO 102400 is an absolute joke, quality-wise).

Canon needs to stop adding pixels and work on making the ones they have take up more room on the sensor and eliminate the space between them.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Canon responds with the Digic V processor and the 5D Mark III.

Hopefully there is no resolution increase, but far greater (in practice, not on paper) low-light capabilities, real AF and at least 8 fps.

Otherwise, I'll be looking at selling some Canon stuff and investing in a Nikon.

[Joe Adair]

I like the specs of this camera. If the samples I saw from the 7D are any indicator, the reduced pixel count on an aps-h sensor should make for impressive results.

Noiseniks with short memories should recall that before the D3, Canon's lead in low-noise digital (and digital in general) was huge.

From a practical standpoint, I rarely shoot my landscapes at speeds above ISO 400 on my 5D Mk II, an wouldn't trade the 21mp print results for cleaner 12mp ISO 6400 shots --ever-- and neither would my clients...

[Cal]

How big are you printing your landscapes? 12MP is just fine for images as big as 4 feet by 6 feeet.

That said, yeah-- landscape photographers don't really have a need for low-light capable cameras.

Those of us in the photojournalism field, however, do. As for being a noisenik...it's what have you done for me lately? That's like saying "before the Apollo program, the Soviets lead in the space race was huge"...or..."before America entered the war, the Germans sure were doing swell."

The fact is the D3 and the D3s are a good generation and a half ahead of what Canon's putting out when it comes to the actual practical usability of their highest ISO settings.

Nikon ISO 102400:
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d3s/pic02.htm

Meanwhile Canon, like a film producer trying to prevent the blogs from killing their movie after a poor screening, called everyone who got the camera in a panic and begged them to take down their images-- promising the production version to be more...competent in low light, high ISO situations.

Not to mention the 5DmkII's autofocusing system is useless for photogs.

[justin]

I blame Nikon for no FF int1D4. 1080p is a huge step above 720p. which makes 1D4 much more competitive. There is a huge market for it, photojournalist and film/TV makers particularly. Canon never pushes itself if it's already ahead of its competition. Remember what it had been before D3. Now the only hope for the industry is a full HD FF Sony A950.

[John Merlino]

Wow a lot of chatter about this subject and much of it very well informed. I was looking at changing from the Canon 1d Mark III to the New 1D Mark IV but when I looked side by side at shots take on mine vs. the other I really did not see that much difference aside from the actual raw size of the image.

I can tell you this much however, I would never trade my team for another as many of you said. Canon is in my mind still the leader and I am sure that their are many pros vs the Nikons d3s. As I am sure you all agree one item can not be the solution for everyone.

Anyway all of your comments have helped me understand better the ups and downs of this subject and look forward to more input.

[Mike Pickles]

Seems like a big corp. game, megs. hd, iso, all outdated in a short time, meanwhile we fork out our bucks! Maybe canon/ nikon big wigs play a game of golf, winner gets to bring out their new version first.

[Travis]

I can hardly believe some of the Bashing comments from Nikon fans.

Seriously- who in their right mind would say "Not to mention the 5DmkII's autofocusing system is useless for photogs."?

I used to shoot Nikon, then switched to Canon because they had better (faster lenses) for what I use, and Nikon was saying they weren't planning on going "full frame".

They both offer great cameras, so let's celebrate progress in technology and be mature (if possible).

[Mike Dote]

I think this is a good camera, but I already have cameras that fits my needs relatively well. I'm using a much cheaper solution- I have a 5d and a 1dmkII. Both cameras are dated, but still continue to produce exceptional output. I'll consider upgrading when canon makes a full frame camera with the 7ds feature set. That's what Canon is going to need to battle the d4 when it comes out.

[wjlockard]

I'm a Canon man for life. Call it brand loyalty or whatever you'd like, but I've never been disappointed whether on a combat excursion or shooting nature shots in the rain. Canon has withstood the test of time for me and always will.

I am, however, disappointed that both Canon and Nikon have put so much emphasis on HD video instead of improving an already successful platform in the 5D. I'm a photographer. I'm not a videographer. I have no need for 1080p HD video even when I'm doing photojournalism. Magazines and papers don't buy video clips and i don't have time to go through thousands of stills to find what i want. I don't 'spray and pray'. Focus on improving what's right guys. Seperate the two if need be, but stop the cross-platform crap. the 1D series can be video and the 5D series stills. Nobody is going to sell an image shot at 12000ISO. Full frame works for me because I don't have time to factor. I like WYSISYG. I shoot combat. I shoot fashion. I shoot weddings and i shoot nature, None of that requires video and i don't want clipped frames and it sounds like most agree. Are you camera makers, or are you video makers? Decide and focus guys.

[Better Performance]

another disappointed product from canon again, canon should fire their chief DSLR , because canon has never improve since they made their prime during the EOS1N , current Canon DSLR equip with low quality white balance and metering system. Only credit that canon DSLR own, the simple and straight forward menu system.

[JIM MOREWOOD]

6 months ao I purchased a Canon 5DMII for my wedding and aerial photography. I shoot at ISO 100 from up to 5,000 ft above the ground. Sometimes only from about 500 feet above ground level. Nevertheless, many of these photos are cropped and then enlarged to 20 X 30 prints. They are tack sharp. I also use a Ken Pro KS-6 GYrostabilizer and my end results have improved considerably over the earlier versions of Canon I was using. To date, I haven't even tried to take a video, and actually don't even know how, or care. I am intersted only in GOOD QUALITY STILL PHOTOGRAPHY and find the full frame very helpful especially when cropping. And as far as LIVE VIEW is concerned, I don't know how that works either 'cause I have never tried it. But, I am very pleased with the camera, but also think Canon should leave the video to Sony. No one company can be everything to everybody. Never having shot a Nikon, But I do think there is too much packed into the camera and just wonder how much it will cost to repair the unit if ne of the features I never use, corrupts the rest of the software. I still like simplicity after 50 years in the picture business. I started with Canon and will stay there. But, the 5D is an impresssive still camera. For general photography, I never go beyond 10 megs. But for the aerials, 21 megs is just the ticket. It's almost better than medium format, which I used in the good old days of film. Keep up the good work Canon!!! You make me look good!!

[Aubrey Williams]

Sound's like an amazing addition to the Canon flagship line. Too bad it's a crop body.

The Nikon haters are funny. Comparing Nikon D3xs to Canon 5D MK IIIs just show's how good Canons truly are overall as the Nikon D3x's are much more expensive.

My opinion is an still is that Nikon has the edge on High ISO performance, but Canon dominates in overall image quality. Each Camera has applications where one attribute is more important than the other. You decide.

[gibbygoo]

wjlockard, jim morewood, et al:

Good for you.

If you want to shoot stills in single-shot mode, fine. Just be sure that you never, ever, hold the shutter button down in 10 fps rapid-fire mode cuz hey, that would be cheating. (Or will it only be cheating when the frame rate climbs to 24fps???)

It's OK that you have no interest or understanding of film-making or video work. What irritates many of us from multimedia, cinema and video circles is the pervasive argument from ignorance.

Have you even seen the comparative results of what these camera systems are doing? You make it sound like HD-DSLRS are not cutting it as professional video and b-roll motion-picture cameras. The reality is that they are a revolution in that marketplace. I've never encountered such a gross misconception of technology as what I'm hearing from still-photog purists. It's funny, actually.

"Magazines and papers don't buy video clips." No, wjlockard. You are wrong. I'm a magazine editor, and I buy HD video clips along with stills for web applications. Any magazine publisher dabbling in multimedia would tell you the same.

And 5-10 years from now, many magazines, like mine, will be PRIMARILY multimedia platforms involving portable media flex screens. But I'm sure you knew that, right?

The existence of the video feature on your camera does not hinder, impede or inconvenience still-shooting in any way. Good luck surviving in the evolving media marketplace.