Comments on: Canon 1D Mark IV Review

By: jhill

jhill — Sat, 14 May 2011 22:52:49 +0000

im a 5D owner. didnt upgrade to the m2 because it didnt seem like a drastic change.

i originally was hoping for iso performance. but what im dinding is i really like the images taken in iso 50. finding it quite ironic.

also got the mark iv because i was missing shots. downside is it is very easy to fill up endless cards and hard drives as a result.

i do like the camera a lot. overall im pleased. it is a really big change over my 5d and it has had a big effect on my style.

im still a bit confused by the ai servo and still learning

hope to run into someone who has a mark iv to compare notes someday

By: David Jewels

David Jewels — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:17:53 +0000

I have owned both cameras and sold them both because I needed to purchase something else, non camera related. But I’m once again getting back into photography and, even after your tremendous article, for the life of me, cannot decide which camera to buy, the 5d Mark II or the 1D mark IV. I used to shoot mostly video, and almost never used the 1D Mark IV because the clips from the 5D Mark II always seemed to look that much better with my EF85mm f12L II lens. There was always something different and magical about the photos even, when using the 5D Mark II with the same lens as opposed to the 1D mark IV.
I loved the build quality of the 1D Mark IV, and it was a better camera in terms of fast autofocus, that’s for sure.
Your photos are really amazing, by the way, especially that one at the top wit the glass raised. That one is a masterpiece !!!

By: Jamieson Dean

Jamieson Dean — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:02:47 +0000

Perfect write-up. This mirrors EVERYTHING that I feel about the 1DIV: the low-light AF, the iso usability vs the 5DII…even how I feel about the crop. I’m glad you took the time to write about it. Cheers.

By: Tom Batinich

Tom Batinich — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:07:32 +0000

Thanks for the real world review, this is what I needed to know.

By: Tim Cumberland

Tim Cumberland — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:44:28 +0000

Thanks for the practical and informative “hands-on” review. I shoot High School sports and have used quite a few Canon bodies, i.e., Rebels, 40D, 50D, and my previous body, the 7D.

I just received my Mark IV last week and can’t wait to try it at the upcoming football games. I shoot in three different stadiums, all at night. I’m really looking forward to the fast focusing in the Servo mode and high ISO settings.

I have always had to post process my Raw pics with noise reduction programs and it will be interesting to see what I need to do (or not do) with the Mark IV.

I’ll soon be having some real world sports photos taken with the Mark IV on my website at http://photoexperts.zenfolio.com/

In the meantime though, you can go there and see what I’ve done with the 7D.

By: Leo Doucet

Leo Doucet — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 01:47:52 +0000

I bought the iD MK IV in March (I’ve every EOS since the D60) and I am not that happy with the ISO above 500 in daylight but for low light levels and and night shots it’s excellent.

Basically however I am a Wildlife and Landscape Photographers and at the moment am on my way to the High Arctic, but just to make sure I’ll have my MK 11 with me

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 07 May 2010 16:37:19 +0000

I have two of these bodies and both are terrible in low light. In low light, if you try to focus on a dark subject in low light, it doesn’t lock the AF. 5DMKII, 7D, same conditions, same lens, etc., no problem.

By: Dave McLaughln

Dave McLaughln — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:29:11 +0000

Thanks for your detailed review. It just confirmed the main fear I had (poor focusing with the AF assist beam). My Mark II N is the same way and I hate it!

By: Eddie

Eddie — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:48:09 +0000

Jack Bentley,

I saw your comment and I just felt the need to let you know my experience with the 5d Mark II which I later sold to get the 1D Mark IV.

I bought the 5D Mark II on January upgrading from a 50D. I am a sports photographer and therefore was not sure about the 5D Mark II’s 3.9fps but was eager to try it because of the raving reviews and since I did not want to drop $5K on a body. I have taken about 6k shots with it from indoor basketball and gymnastics to track and field and baseball events. My only complaint thus far is the 3.9fps but only because I shoot sports. With the Canon 200mm L f/2.8 lens indoors I was able to catch amazing pictures at 3500 ISO, something I could have never done with the 50D but found myself missing “the shot” because the camera was too slow. Aside from the 3.9fps I was inlove with the camera but it wasn’t for me and had to sell it to get the 1D Mark IV.

After testing indoor shots with the 1D mark IV, I have to say the results are very similar when I comparing ISO shots and noise. The only thing I noticed was that the 1D mark IV focuses better but only when shooting moving subjects, which in my case are athletes running and jumping around.

If you asked me, I think you overpaid if you are not in need of 10fps. The 5D mark II is an amazing camera but lacked the fps I needed. I only wished the 5D Mark II’s grip would add an extra 3fps to the camera like Nikon does with its grip and the D700. If Canon ever adds that feature to its grip line, I would not hesitate to go back to the 5D mark II.

By: Ole

Ole — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:03:16 +0000

Great post. Very detailed. Awesome work.