Canon Mark IV officially announced

[Kaido]

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bi....asp?cid=7-10044-10310

* $4,999 MSRP
* 1.3x crop sensor (27.9mm x 18.6mm)
* Top ISO of 102,400
* 16mp (4912 x 3270)
* 45-point Autofocus
* 1080p 24P video
* 3" 920k-dot LCD
* External stereo mic jack
* Shipping late December 2009

 

[Deadtrees]

Two WOW factors:

100 - 12,800 native ISO range.
39 cross sensors out of 45.

EDIT: one more...

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
39 cross sensors out of 45.

Note that these 39 points work as cross-type points only during manual AF point selection. During automatic AF point selection, the same 19 AF points as on the EOS-1D Mark III will work as cross-type points.

That's because not all 39 are actually full cross sensors. There is a switchable vertical line-type sensor that can be moved during manual AF point selection to the sensor you want.

 

[Deadtrees]

Deleted.

 

[alfa147x]

http://www.engadget.com/2009/1...ixels-45-point-autofo/

Awesomeness!

 

[angry hampster]

Orientation-linked AF = super cool.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Two WOW factors:

100 - 12,800 native ISO range.
39 cross sensors out of 45.

EDIT: one more...

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/

Yeah, that's a pretty amazing video - the camera can see better than the human eye in darkness, oye! You "only" get 6400 ISO in video, but holy cow...no extra lighting in that video, just ambient light from the sky, cars, streetlamps, etc. That's insane! :shocked:

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: Kaido the camera can see better than the human eye in darkness, oye!

I think that you will find that plenty of existing cameras do that already.
Still, if ISO ability has improved without increasing noise no one will complain.

 

[Eug]

This bodes well for a full frame 32.1 MP 1Ds Mark IV, at 5 fps, with ISO 204800 for bragging rights.

This is assuming the 1Ds Mark IV still uses dual DIGIC 4. If Canon releases DIGIC 5, then anything is possible, including 1080p60 video.

BTW, this release indirectly reinforces my belief that Nikon's resolution choices have more to do with CPU limitations rather noise issues. I suspect Nikon can't or won't use dual EXPEED CPUs, and therefore is limited to about 122.5 MP/s, which translates to 24.5 MP x 5 fps (or for their high fps camera, 12.1 MP x 9 fps = 109 MP/s).

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: Eug
This bodes well for a full frame 32.1 MP 1Ds Mark IV, at 5 fps, with ISO 204800 for bragging rights.

This is assuming the 1Ds Mark IV still uses dual DIGIC 4. If Canon releases DIGIC 5, then anything is possible, including 1080p60 video.

BTW, this release indirectly reinforces my belief that Nikon's resolution choices have more to do with CPU limitations rather noise issues. I suspect Nikon can't or won't use dual EXPEED CPUs, and therefore is limited to about 122.5 MP/s, which translates to 24.5 MP x 5 fps (or for their high fps camera, 12.1 MP x 9 fps = 109 MP/s).

My heart just skipped a beat when I read "1080p60 video"

 

[ElFenix]

50th anniversary of the first canon SLR

 

[rivan]

Lovely. Another killer camera I can't afford

 

[jpeyton]

Ummm...

Nikon D3s ISO 102,400 Sample: http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn.../digital/d3s/pic02.htm

Canon 1D Mark IV 102,400 Sample: http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/d...01468,45095238p,00.htm

It's a bit strange; Nikon is happily providing ISO 6400/12800/102400 samples for the D3s on their official site, and Canon hasn't shown anything above ISO 3200 officially. Time for a new marketing department.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Ummm...

Nikon D3s ISO 102,400 Sample: http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn.../digital/d3s/pic02.htm

Canon 1D Mark IV 102,400 Sample: http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/d...01468,45095238p,00.htm

It's a bit strange; Nikon is happily providing ISO 6400/12800/102400 samples for the D3s on their official site, and Canon hasn't shown anything above ISO 3200 officially. Time for a new marketing department.

While I agree that seeing some high ISO examples would be nice they will come in time However, your post is ridiculous. You are comparing a full frame camera with 12MP to a 1.3 crop with 16. Then you post a link to a 100% crop of the Canon's image compared to a downscaled image from the Nikon.

Does it look good in either case? No. Does the Nikon look better? Yes, but again this comparison is worthless.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Ummm...

Nikon D3s ISO 102,400 Sample: http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn.../digital/d3s/pic02.htm

Canon 1D Mark IV 102,400 Sample: http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/d...01468,45095238p,00.htm

It's a bit strange; Nikon is happily providing ISO 6400/12800/102400 samples for the D3s on their official site, and Canon hasn't shown anything above ISO 3200 officially. Time for a new marketing department.

While I agree that seeing some high ISO examples would be nice they will come in time However, your post is ridiculous. You are comparing a full frame camera with 12MP to a 1.3 crop with 16. Then you post a link to a 100% crop of the Canon's image compared to a downscaled image from the Nikon.

Does it look good in either case? No. Does the Nikon look better? Yes, but again this comparison is worthless.

Comparisons on D3s and 1D mk should be made regardless of the FF vs. crop factor or MP counts because those two cameras belong to exact same market segment.

Beside that, I agree with everything you pointed out. One just can't compare a resized sample image released by the company to cropped images provided by a review site. Even worse there's not even EXIF data avaiable for 1d mk IV images.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Ummm...

Nikon D3s ISO 102,400 Sample: http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn.../digital/d3s/pic02.htm

Canon 1D Mark IV 102,400 Sample: http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/d...01468,45095238p,00.htm

It's a bit strange; Nikon is happily providing ISO 6400/12800/102400 samples for the D3s on their official site, and Canon hasn't shown anything above ISO 3200 officially. Time for a new marketing department.

While I agree that seeing some high ISO examples would be nice they will come in time However, your post is ridiculous. You are comparing a full frame camera with 12MP to a 1.3 crop with 16. Then you post a link to a 100% crop of the Canon's image compared to a downscaled image from the Nikon.

Does it look good in either case? No. Does the Nikon look better? Yes, but again this comparison is worthless.

Comparisons on D3s and 1D mk should be made regardless of the FF vs. crop factor or MP counts because those two cameras belong to exact same market segment.

Beside that, I agree with everything you pointed out. One just can't compare a resized sample image released by the company to cropped images provided by a review site. Even worse there's not even EXIF data avaiable for 1d mk IV images.

I disagree, comparisons should be made between the future 1ds Mark IV and the D3s. Those are direct competitors. Yes, the 1D and the D3s are both in the professional market segment but they are aimed at two different customers and that's why they have very different sensors.

 

[jpeyton]

I would make a better comparison, but Canon doesn't want to show off anything above ISO 3200 right now. For a camera with a huge selling point being its expanded ISO range, this baffles me. So for now, CNET Asia's water-color painting crop will have to do.

Even once we do get comparable studio scenes from both cameras at the same ISO range, there is little chance of the 1D4 beating the D3s at high ISO. The photosites on the D3s are a lot bigger.

As for comparing the 1D4 and the D3s, of course they should be compared. They are direct competitors. Almost the exact same price point, both tout the same ISO range, and both are built for speed over absolute resolution.

comparisons should be made between the future 1ds Mark IV and the D3x. Those are direct competitors.

Fixed.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I would make a better comparison, but Canon doesn't want to show off anything above ISO 3200 right now. For a camera with a huge selling point being its expanded ISO range, this baffles me. So for now, CNET Asia's water-color painting crop will have to do.

Even once we do get comparable studio scenes from both cameras at the same ISO range, there is little chance of the 1D4 beating the D3s at high ISO. The photosites on the D3s are a lot bigger.

As for comparing the 1D4 and the D3s, of course they should be compared. They are direct competitors. Almost the exact same price point, both tout the same ISO range, and both are built for speed over absolute resolution.

comparisons should be made between the future 1ds Mark IV and the D3x. Those are direct competitors.

Fixed.

My mistake on the nikon model numbers.

But yes, as I said in my original post, the Nikon should have better high ISO due to the resolution difference. How much better we'll have to see once we get our hands on some better comparisons.

 

[Eug]

I expect the Nikon D3s will have better high ISO performance. However, I agree, that comparison above is completely useless.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Ummm...

Nikon D3s ISO 102,400 Sample: http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn.../digital/d3s/pic02.htm

Canon 1D Mark IV 102,400 Sample: http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/d...01468,45095238p,00.htm

It's a bit strange; Nikon is happily providing ISO 6400/12800/102400 samples for the D3s on their official site, and Canon hasn't shown anything above ISO 3200 officially. Time for a new marketing department.

While I agree that seeing some high ISO examples would be nice they will come in time However, your post is ridiculous. You are comparing a full frame camera with 12MP to a 1.3 crop with 16. Then you post a link to a 100% crop of the Canon's image compared to a downscaled image from the Nikon.

Does it look good in either case? No. Does the Nikon look better? Yes, but again this comparison is worthless.

Comparisons on D3s and 1D mk should be made regardless of the FF vs. crop factor or MP counts because those two cameras belong to exact same market segment.

Beside that, I agree with everything you pointed out. One just can't compare a resized sample image released by the company to cropped images provided by a review site. Even worse there's not even EXIF data avaiable for 1d mk IV images.

I disagree, comparisons should be made between the future 1ds Mark IV and the D3s. Those are direct competitors. Yes, the 1D and the D3s are both in the professional market segment but they are aimed at two different customers and that's why they have very different sensors.

No. 1ds mk iv is for d3x.

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I would make a better comparison, but Canon doesn't want to show off anything above ISO 3200 right now. For a camera with a huge selling point being its expanded ISO range, this baffles me. So for now, CNET Asia's water-color painting crop will have to do.

Even once we do get comparable studio scenes from both cameras at the same ISO range, there is little chance of the 1D4 beating the D3s at high ISO. The photosites on the D3s are a lot bigger.

As for comparing the 1D4 and the D3s, of course they should be compared. They are direct competitors. Almost the exact same price point, both tout the same ISO range, and both are built for speed over absolute resolution.

comparisons should be made between the future 1ds Mark IV and the D3x. Those are direct competitors.

Fixed.

Even so, lack of information doesn't mean you're free of making nonsense comparisons. If you lack good samples, you wait unless you have an agenda.

 

[ElFenix]

Editors' note:
The images taken with the pre-production unit of the EOS 1D Mark IV have been removed at Canon's request, as we will be getting the actual review unit. Watch out for the sample shots to come.

 

[soydios]

I'm waiting until we get actual reviews of the autofocus system and actual samples at high ISOs, instead of arguing over baseless assumptions.

I do find it curious, however, that Canon saw fit to not outfit the buffer beyond just under 3 seconds in RAW resolution at maximum continuous drive mode (10fps), whereas the D3s is slightly more than 5 seconds. Accounting for the resolution difference, it should've been closer to 4 seconds for the 1D mkIV.

 

[Eug]

If I had a 1D I'd probably never use 102400.

51200 maybe, but it seems to take a big turn for the worse at 102400.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Editors' note:
The images taken with the pre-production unit of the EOS 1D Mark IV have been removed at Canon's request, as we will be getting the actual review unit. Watch out for the sample shots to come.

No wonder. As seen in this thread alone, some people are willing to draw conclusions based upon a few samples pictures that doesn't even have EXIF data. Even worse, it was a pre-production unit. :disgust: It gets even worse when that person compares such images to sample images carefully selected by other brand's.

 

[Eug]

The pictures I linked have EXIF data. Yes, it's pre-production, but the images are usually quite representative of the final shipping unit. Granted the pictures are just snapshots of course, but nonetheless they can be useful. I do agree though that comparing a huge downscaled image to a 100% crop is useless though.