Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Is the 1D Mark IV better....

A

Adrian Miron

Banned
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
0
....than the 5d Mark II? It has a smaller sensor after all(APS-H vs. Full Frame).
 
Adrian Miron said:
....than the 5d Mark II? It has a smaller sensor after all(APS-H vs. Full Frame).
Click to expand...

Uh... confusing sensor size with camera quality is a bad thing.

The 1Dmk4 is far more light sensitive than the 5Dmk2.

Its better in almost every way than the 5Dmk2.

The only thing the 7D has over the 1Dmk4 is some buttons/ergonomics for video shooting- trivial stuff. Other than that they 1Dmk4 is better in every way.

The one place a 5Dmk2 would be of benefit is in locations where you must shoot wide in tight spaces, or if you want shallower DoF for a given FOV.

So for almost all applications the 1Dmk4 is a far superior camera.

For the moment I'd argue that the 7D is a better video camera than the 5D, at least until the 5D gets its firware upgrade that delivers 24p and real video rates. (i.e. 23.976 and 29.97 etc)

Both the 7D and the 1Dmk4 are better matches for a RED than a 5D because their sensor is closer in size to that of the RED.

So, it depends on your application.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
Uh... confusing sensor size with camera quality is a bad thing.

The 1Dmk4 is far more light sensitive than the 5Dmk2.

Its better in almost every way than the 5Dmk2.

The only thing the 7D has over the 1Dmk4 is some buttons/ergonomics for video shooting- trivial stuff. Other than that they 1Dmk4 is better in every way.

The one place a 5Dmk2 would be of benefit is in locations where you must shoot wide in tight spaces, or if you want shallower DoF for a given FOV.

So for almost all applications the 1Dmk4 is a far superior camera.

For the moment I'd argue that the 7D is a better video camera than the 5D, at least until the 5D gets its firware upgrade that delivers 24p and real video rates. (i.e. 23.976 and 29.97 etc)

Both the 7D and the 1Dmk4 are better matches for a RED than a 5D because their sensor is closer in size to that of the RED.

So, it depends on your application.
Click to expand...

Sensor size does matter. It was a very photographic life change going from a non full frame to the full frame 5D2. Granted having that for doing timelapse shooting in RAW mode was really helpful. But I guess if your going to be shooting mainly video with the 1D4 then I guess it doesn't matter that much. A 1.3x crop factor is better than a 1.6x that's on the 7D. But to having your lenses be 1:1 I think is a huge help. For the most part people are going to be using stills glass on these cameras. So it would be nice to have a 24mm act like a 24mm, not a 31mm. But of course it isn't that big of a difference.

All this talk about the 1D4 is making me want one now. I'm sure the 1Ds4 is still a ways away.
 
Andrew Walker said:
Sensor size does matter. It was a very photographic life change going from a non full frame to the full frame 5D2. Granted having that for doing timelapse shooting in RAW mode was really helpful. But I guess if your going to be shooting mainly video with the 1D4 then I guess it doesn't matter that much. A 1.3x crop factor is better than a 1.6x that's on the 7D. But to having your lenses be 1:1 I think is a huge help. For the most part people are going to be using stills glass on these cameras. So it would be nice to have a 24mm act like a 24mm, not a 31mm. But of course it isn't that big of a difference.

All this talk about the 1D4 is making me want one now. I'm sure the 1Ds4 is still a ways away.
Click to expand...

I didn't say sensor size doesn't matter. It can matter a lot.

One of the key areas where it matters is light gathering capacity. The 1Dmk4 outsrips the 5Dmk2 dramatically in light sensitivity. So if light gathering capacity is a decision factor then the 1Dmk4 is the better camera.

As for 24mm acting like a 24mm, it always does. You'll always get the optical characteristics of 24mm when using a properly functioning 24mm lens.

If FOV is a priority for your work or your way of thinking about lenses, then obviously the 5Dmk2 is the right choice. This is essentially a rephrasing of what I said before.

Except for situations where FOV is the deciding factor, the 1Dmk4 is a vastly superior camera to the 5Dmk2.

Even if FOV is an important factor, I'd still look hard at the 1Dmk4 and maybe a new wider lens.

As far as expectations of lens behavior go, I'd practice being more flexible in your thinking. I mean, how do you decide what lenses to call for on a set when shooting IMAX on one camera, Vistavision on two others, s35 three perf on another camera, and a final camera running 16mm? Flexibility in this regard is important to our profession.

Oh, and yeah all this jabber about the 1Dmk4 is making me want one too- but I just got a 7D, so I'm gonna ride that out for a bit. Unless someone wants to hand me a pile of cash, cause if its a big enough pile I can change my mind. Just saying.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't get a 1D... or a 5D...
Cause these are only VDSLRs!

I assume we are talking about motion here.

Do you really need insane FOV? Is x1.6 10mm f3.5 not enough for you? What about 11mm f/2.8? Really?

Unless you plan to make your living shooting timepalses, or in exclusively low-light situations, or need every last degree of FOV you can get, then why spend more than $1,700 for marginal better numbers?

So this is merely a law of diminishing returns post.

Can you get it rented enough? Great! I can't. I don't worn on projects other than mine, so for me the 7D is the camera that allowed me to film my nephews trick or treating, practice my craft, shoot small projects... so I think why care so much about this H.264 crap... err... crop of cameras, when RedCode 4.5k ISO800 is around the corner.

Matthew Bennett said:
reports as to the 1080p output through HDMI...
Click to expand...

You are just joking right? 1080p out of the HDMI would be a major, MAJOR deal... probably the only thing that could make me think twice.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
One of the key areas where it matters is light gathering capacity. The 1Dmk4 outsrips the 5Dmk2 dramatically in light sensitivity. So if light gathering capacity is a decision factor then the 1Dmk4 is the better camera
Click to expand...

Actually in the tests I've seen so far the 5D2 holds up pretty well in the low light. The larger cells on the larger chip really helps make up for the extra low light processing they stuffed in the M4. How much of it is native to the chip and how much of it is software? In other words how much noise removal do you want a camera to do for you in software?

Alexander Ibrahim said:
As for 24mm acting like a 24mm, it always does. You'll always get the optical characteristics of 24mm when using a properly functioning 24mm lens.
Click to expand...

This is not true at all. The optical characteristics of any lens change once you mount it on a film or digital "brain". (i.e the targeted light gathering device) that it was not designed for. When you start using different areas of the lens everything changes.

Alexander Ibrahim said:
Even if FOV is an important factor, I'd still look hard at the 1Dmk4 and maybe a new wider lens.
Click to expand...

Again, if you have to go extra wide then as you might know you often get way more lens artifacts. So you may end up having to use inferior quality glass or just can't get wide enough for the shot you want.

Alexander Ibrahim said:
Oh, and yeah all this jabber about the 1Dmk4 is making me want one too- but I just got a 7D, so I'm gonna ride that out for a bit. Unless someone wants to hand me a pile of cash, cause if its a big enough pile I can change my mind. Just saying.
Click to expand...

The M4 is a better camera for still photographers who need the 10fps and less DOF (sports for example) along with all the other characteristics (weather sealing) that comes from the M2, M3, M4 line of cameras,

For shooting HD I wouldn't say it's that far superior. If you want something that is closer to S35 then the M4 is a better choice than the 7D or 5D2. Although I love the FF chip on the 5D2 so I'm not one of those people. The M4 also offers the frame rates but the 5D2 will have them soon enough and the stuff I see people shooting on the 5D2 now can easily be done in 30p. In other words the 24P and clean 6400 ISO of the M4 is not a 5K difference.

If you are seriously looking at a camera for shooting HD and are ready to plop down 7K plus then I'd say wait for the Scarlet. That is a NO brainer. If you shoot a ton of still photos along with your HD then the M4 is a consideration at that price. For the 5D2 vs 7D I'm all about the 5D2.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
I didn't say sensor size doesn't matter. It can matter a lot.

One of the key areas where it matters is light gathering capacity. The 1Dmk4 outsrips the 5Dmk2 dramatically in light sensitivity. So if light gathering capacity is a decision factor then the 1Dmk4 is the better camera.
Click to expand...

This is why I want to get a 1D4. Its low light capabilities seem rather impressive. Before the 5D2 I wasn't able to get a lot of the shots I get now. So that's how I'm thinking about the 1D4.

Alexander Ibrahim said:
As for 24mm acting like a 24mm, it always does. You'll always get the optical characteristics of 24mm when using a properly functioning 24mm lens.
Click to expand...

Yes I realize this. I was here for the whole discussion about lens behavior on a smaller sensor. Sorry I didn't use the right wording to make what I was saying clearer.

Alexander Ibrahim said:
If FOV is a priority for your work or your way of thinking about lenses, then obviously the 5Dmk2 is the right choice. This is essentially a rephrasing of what I said before.

Except for situations where FOV is the deciding factor, the 1Dmk4 is a vastly superior camera to the 5Dmk2.

Even if FOV is an important factor, I'd still look hard at the 1Dmk4 and maybe a new wider lens.
Click to expand...

The Canon 24mm f1.4 is a really hard lens to beat. Especially for shooting star timelapse. So for those type of shots I need to have a fast wide lens.

Alexander Ibrahim said:
As far as expectations of lens behavior go, I'd practice being more flexible in your thinking. I mean, how do you decide what lenses to call for on a set when shooting IMAX on one camera, Vistavision on two others, s35 three perf on another camera, and a final camera running 16mm? Flexibility in this regard is important to our profession.
Click to expand...

I understand flexibility in shooting. But when I'm looking to do something very specific FOV is very important to me, as I believe it is for many others here.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
I wouldn't get a 1D... or a 5D...
Cause these are only VDSLRs!

I assume we are talking about motion here.

Do you really need insane FOV? Is x1.6 10mm f3.5 not enough for you? What about 11mm f/2.8? Really?

Unless you plan to make your living shooting timepalses, or in exclusively low-light situations, or need every last degree of FOV you can get, then why spend more than $1,700 for marginal better numbers?

So this is merely a law of diminishing returns post.
Click to expand...

I do make a living shooting timelapse so FOV is important. Most of the footage I sell comes from a DSLR that was shot in RAW stills mode. I also sell a lot of footage from my RED camera, timelapse, slow-mo and regular motion. But the shots I could get with more sensitivity would be worth the extra price.
 
I know you do, but my point was that you and Tom are the exception.

Though you might also be increasing the market's demand for low light time-lapse by taking advantage of this "new toy" in such great fashion... ;)
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
I know you do, but my point was that you and Tom are the exception.

Though you might also be increasing the market's demand for low light time-lapse by taking advantage of this "new toy" in such great fashion... ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah I thought you knew, that's why I was kind of surprised by the comment. But who knows if timelapse is brought into the equation when they are doing these cameras. Timelapse seems to me to be a very small market. Though a lot of people express interest in giving it a try. I do think that even if I use the 1D4 until the 1Ds4 comes out it might be worth it. The shots I could generate with that camera would pay for its self many times over.

Also I have seen to my surprise that Getty is taking HD video files shot on the 5D2, which I'm sure will encompass the 7D and the 1D4. Not sure what kind of prices they have set forth on these clips but I'm sure it depends on the content.
 
I think its not what you shoot on...its the point what can you use for the moment. I'm waiting like all here for the Scarlet or Epic...but until that day comes...most will buy & use 5D or 1D4 or the 7D or our R1...Epic & Scarlet was supposed to be released now but it seems it wouldn't be until the summer time. Fine. But I think people are frustrated to wait any longer and use what's available so be it...the Canon or Red. I know quite a few filmmakers are switching to Canon because they are sick of waiting. They will still use they R1 but the small factor form of Canon is very appealing. That's why you see Shane Hurlburt or Christoper Gallo shoot on Canon producing impressive images even for the big screen.

Changing times...looking forward what can Nikon offer to us in the next few months. Raw video???
 
side-by-side-the-canon-1d-mkiv-mkii-and-7d

side-by-side-the-canon-1d-mkiv-mkii-and-7d

SIDE BY SIDE: THE CANON 1D MKIV, MKII, AND 7D


"the MKIV certainly triumphed in low light, and it is crazy what these cameras are able to do,
but in comparison to the others it wasn’t as striking of a difference as i was expecting from reading
vincent laforet’s blog. at higher iso settings the MKIV certainly looks cleaner,
but the MKII and 7d both perform so well that it is tough to be significantly better than that."

LINK>>>
 
Andrew Walker said:
For the most part people are going to be using stills glass on these cameras. So it would be nice to have a 24mm act like a 24mm, not a 31mm. But of course it isn't that big of a difference
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about.
For the last 20 years I have earned a living using 35 and S35mm motion, standard16, Super16, super8 and all the video formats including the recent 35mm converters. On the side there has allways been the 36x24mm stills format.
A 24mm lens is a 24mm lens. Period.
A lens covers a circular area(lets say a VERY large 70mm circle), but in 8mm you only use a small central part of that area, as opposed to a 70x60mm negative where you use allmost all of the usable area.
A 24mm lens is still a 24mm lens.
Sometimes it just feels like a 25,6mm lens, but its still a 24mm lens;-)
 
"is the MKIV twice as good as the MKII? currently, with no 24P on the MKII my answer would be absolutely yes. if and when the 24P firmware update happens, we would need to see if the rolling shutter was corrected (or potentially even worsened with a slower frame rate).
is the MKIV over three times as good as a 7d? for me, the answer would again be yes, but for many it may not be so straightforward. the form factor, the crop factor, as well as the weather resistance would all lead this to be my main camera (not to mention all of the awesome photo features)."

same review as above
 
The rolling shutter has been greatly improved on the 1D based on that video. High ISO isn't as good as I thought but still better. All Canon has to do is fix the moire and they'll be all good
 
Jens Jakob Thorsen said:
What the hell are you talking about.
For the last 20 years I have earned a living using 35 and S35mm motion, standard16, Super16, super8 and all the video formats including the recent 35mm converters. On the side there has allways been the 36x24mm stills format.
A 24mm lens is a 24mm lens. Period.
A lens covers a circular area(lets say a VERY large 70mm circle), but in 8mm you only use a small central part of that area, as opposed to a 70x60mm negative where you use allmost all of the usable area.
A 24mm lens is still a 24mm lens.
Sometimes it just feels like a 25,6mm lens, but its still a 24mm lens;-)
Click to expand...

I know exactly what Andrew is talking about. When I put my EF 24mm 1.4 on a crop-sensor body, it behaves as a longer-focal-length lens than it does on my FF35mm 5D2 body. It's very simple. That's what he's saying. You get a narrower FOV on the crop-sensor bodies using the grade-A, L-series FF35mm glass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top