Just Posted
DPR has just posted their review of the 1D Mark IV.
The Final Word (From DPR)
A lot has already been said about the 1D Mark IV, both by people who have tested it and those who have tried to weigh it up against the D3S and that kind of nit-picking makes it easy to overlook what an astonishing camera it is. And looked at from a neutral perspective, both it and the Nikon are unmistakably the best sports cameras that modern technology allows.
Its talents are slightly different to those of D3S but its strengths will be a great asset to many people – the smaller sensor that prevents it competing at the very highest ISOs delivers the kind of extra reach that many touchline shooters will appreciate. Frankly there's more to both cameras than just their high ISO performance and, while the Mark IV isn't the best high ISO camera on the market, it's still an exceptionally good one. From the point-of-view of the tasks it was built to tackle, there is nothing that can touch the detailed, high resolution images that it can deliver ten times a second.
Read More: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmarkIV/
cr
56 Comments
Well said.
1. People complain about ISOs they’ll probably never use.
2. People don’t try to learn how to use a camera before they start making conclusions about the AF, etc. There’s no standard for the way AF should work or be used and all cameras behave differently (I’ve used D3s, D3, D700, 1D3, 1Ds3 and 5D2 with fast pro tele primes).
And we have jokers like Rob Galbraith thinking that they can evaluate something as complex as AF without even saying anything about all the CFn options for AF in each camera.
I’m not denying any issues the 1D3 had, but you just can’t shoot different scenes and expect to make general conclusions. Every camera’s handling needs to be learnt, especially high-end ones from different manufacturers.
sorry, SoD, but that rocks my boat just fine
Doesn’t make a difference because their reviews aren’t good for anything other than checking menu system or the spec sheet.
Granted, but you don’t get the full gamut, then.
Well said. The scores are arbitrary and make artificial distinctions that aren’t even remotely relevant in real-world shooting conditions. I doubt they could even explain what a 1% difference (for example) in final score really means.