Canon 1DIII v 1DIV comparison

Yep - It's looking pretty good with my first pass through my 500-odd shots. Definitely more "keepers" than the 1DIII. It does seem much more able to hold focus when you drift well off the centre focus point - less pinging to the background.

Also, really importantly, cropability is excellent. Whereas on the 1DIII you'd be cropping in and starting to lose detail & resolution, I've been cropping twice as heavily as on the 1DIII and still getting cracking crisp pics at ISO2500.

I did some ISO5000 shots as well just to try it out. More in a bit.
 
Cheers Andy, i dont know if i can hold out till the end of the season to buy now :bonk:
 
Funny thing is I was a bit grumpy with it after my first try out on Thursday night, but now having actually set up my lenses and learnt a bit about how to expose properly for this ice hockey stuff (still way off being competent though) I'm well impressed. Just looking at an ISO5000 shot now that would murder the 1DIII (though of course I'm sure the Nikon D3x is far better LOL).

Happy camper #1.
 
Some quick samples after a rapid 1st pass through the pics...(click for bigger)

ISO5000 great big crop on this


ISO2500 with a huge crop into about 1/4 or less of the original image


Oh, and Guildford thrashed them. Woohoo. More tomorrow
 
Tobers said:
Funny thing is I was a bit grumpy with it after my first try out on Thursday night, but now having actually set up my lenses and learnt a bit about how to expose properly for this ice hockey stuff (still way off being competent though) I'm well impressed. Just looking at an ISO5000 shot now that would murder the 1DIII (though of course I'm sure the Nikon D3x is far better LOL).

Happy camper #1.
Click to expand...

To be honest i was the same :( i couldn't see any real difference with the first lot

The 2nd lot look Awesome:cool:
 
Hi Gary - I cant post the original pic as it's 12.6mb but Smugmug only lets me put up 12mb max. However, here it is as a straight export out of Lightroom with no tweaks other than to make it jpeg quality 90% and 290dpi so it'll fit in. Should be OK for what you need I hope.

You can see from here what degree of cropping was done on the shot.

Click to see the big version.
 
Tobers said:
Hi Gary - I cant post the original pic as it's 12.6mb but Smugmug only lets me put up 12mb max. However, here it is as a straight export out of Lightroom with no tweaks other than to make it jpeg quality 90% and 290dpi so it'll fit in. Should be OK for what you need I hope.

You can see from here what degree of cropping was done on the shot.
Click to expand...

That looks quite impressive for 5000 ISO, seems to handle the noise in the shadows very well, now if you can just get to a Rugby game under poor lights and produce the same i might just switch back to Canon.
 
That was from a jpeg out of the camera by the way. I didn't bother with RAWs this time.

I've got a bit of a rugby gap due to some nicely paying corporate stuff for the next couple of weekends I'm afraid. I think my next rugby game is England Saxons v Ireland A on the 31st and then its England v Wales as the 6-Nations starts up so you'll have to wait a bit. From what I've seen so far though with the ice hockey I think the results will be just as good for rugby.

I cant imagine you'd switch though - expensive business and your Nikons always produce fab shots.
 
Tobers said:
I cant imagine you'd switch though - expensive business and your Nikons always produce fab shots.
Click to expand...

I would switch back to Canon in a heartbeat, i seriously miss the lens line up and the 1.3x crop factor, i left because of the 1D3 screw up and their inability to fix my 400mm f/2.8
 
Calumet are hiring 1DIVs if you want to give one a go.
 
Hey guys,
Need some advise ref - Af microadjustments.
My MKIV was out of focus, out of the box so to speak.
First time I have ever had to think about a micro adjustment.
Is this normal?

The adjustment is +/- 20. What is 'normal'

I have dialled in -10 on my 135mm F2 lens and it seems fab.
Now put my 70-200 F2.8 on and thats off!! ( Oh using the -10 )
I stupily used a global setting thinking it would be off the same for all lenses?
I'll get to work on adjusting them and see how it does!?

If you have any pearls of wisdom, then please share!?

Thanks

Martin

P.S Don't get the alarm bells ringing too soon, probably just my inexperience with this adjustment!?
 
You can set the Micro adjustment for each lens ;) so when you change lens on the body it recongises it and automatically adjsuts to your saved settings
 
I had to do all my lenses on both my mkIII and all needed calibrating and different for both cameras.. there is no normal :)
 
Did you all use the Canon trial and error method (set up a target, take pics with various degrees of adjustment and pick the best) or is there a better way (I'm on a 5DmkII in case this matters)?
 
There are a few guides on the forum using focus charts at a particular angle with a very shallow DOF. You just keep auto focusing on the centre of the target and adjusting the micro adjustments until the area in focus is the same place as the autofocus point.
 
ianmarsh said:
Did you all use the Canon trial and error method (set up a target, take pics with various degrees of adjustment and pick the best) or is there a better way (I'm on a 5DmkII in case this matters)?
Click to expand...

I do the following:

- camera on a tripod USB'd to a laptop to see the pics full res straight away and using Canon remote shooting software
- target (e.g. newspaper) on a wall a suitable distance away
- use mirror lockup and a remote release
- start the microfocus adjustment at -20
- manually move the focus ring around before you take the shot, so when you focus with the button it forces the camera to activate the focus motor properly
- hit the focus button & watch for the light to confirm correct focus achieved
- take the shot using the remote release (or click the button on the Canon software)
- repeat with microfocus adjustment at -15, then -10, -5, 0, +5, +10, +15, +20
- view all the pics at 200%
- narrow down the range which looks sharpest - lets say +5 to +10
- repeat with microfocus adjustment at +3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
- pick the best one
- micro-focus adjustment done

Takes me about 15 mins per lens now I know what I'm doing.
 
Tobers said:
I do the following:

- camera on a tripod USB'd to a laptop to see the pics full res straight away and using Canon remote shooting software
- target (e.g. newspaper) on a wall a suitable distance away
- use mirror lockup and a remote release
- start the microfocus adjustment at -20
- manually move the focus ring around before you take the shot, so when you focus with the button it forces the camera to activate the focus motor properly
- hit the focus button & watch for the light to confirm correct focus achieved
- take the shot using the remote release (or click the button on the Canon software)
- repeat with microfocus adjustment at -15, then -10, -5, 0, +5, +10, +15, +20
- view all the pics at 200%
- narrow down the range which looks sharpest - lets say +5 to +10
- repeat with microfocus adjustment at +3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
- pick the best one
- micro-focus adjustment done

Takes me about 15 mins per lens now I know what I'm doing.
Click to expand...

Cheers Andy, will give it a try when i get home :D
 
dunganick said:
There are a few guides on the forum using focus charts at a particular angle with a very shallow DOF. You just keep auto focusing on the centre of the target and adjusting the micro adjustments until the area in focus is the same place as the autofocus point.
Click to expand...

I tried that yesterday but according to this approach almost all my lenses were way out, especially a 50/1.4 which ten minutes earlier had given me some spot on shots wide open. Shooting a static subject down the garden this afternoon with the 300/2.8 was more reliable (all lenses look very close to spot on) so a proper go with the Canon/Tobers method outlined above (cheers Tobers) seems to be the next step for me.
 
It may be to do with the focus sheet your using. It might be grabbing focus off somewhere other than the middle. Were you using one shot or servo?

I have always found i got much better results after doing this test. Albeit its one of those adjustments that once you change it you will always doubt its set correctly and be messing around with it forever.
 
To be honest, this is one of the reasons I originally moved away from Canon - not one lens, new or used, was acceptable 'out of the box' on my 1D3. I simply got utterly fed up with the need to micro adjust. It does work though, and is clearly a valuable tool, so I'm pleased to see that there is provision on the latest incarnation. I just wished it was unnecessary. If it didn't exist, I probably would have been more satisfied (except for my 85 L, which was on -18 compared to the rest which needed only minor adjustment, but adjustment nonetheless). If I'd known then that my D700 would also require me to micro adjust every flippin lens to get optimal results (although not to the same extent it must be said) I would probably be cradling a 1D4 right now! Can't be escaped it seems. I wonder if such things are necessary on an M9, for example, or one of the higher end Alpha series.
 
dunganick said:
It may be to do with the focus sheet your using. It might be grabbing focus off somewhere other than the middle. Were you using one shot or servo?

I have always found i got much better results after doing this test. Albeit its one of those adjustments that once you change it you will always doubt its set correctly and be messing around with it forever.
Click to expand...

Don't remember the exact test sheet I used but it came in several versions with explicit instructions on how to avoid just this problem. So I don't think it was that. I suspect the target was just too small to be reliably detected.
 
Well on the 1DIV there are two other micro adjustment options for you to play with: AE micro adjustment and FE micro adjustment.

I really cant be bothered to read the manual on those!
 
Hi Gary - I dont really think of it in that way. I usually have an ISO level at which I'm "comfortable" to shoot at which I know will turn in good results. Previously I would be happy going up to ISO2000 on the 1DIII, with occasional forays into ISO3200. "H" ISO was a bit of a no-no.

With the 1DIV from my experiences at the ice hockey and other static test shots, I'd be very comfortable shooting at ISO5000 and occasionally up to ISO6400. I haven't gone higher than that yet but it's nice to know it's there.

Also, the higher pixel count means that the noise is less noticable anyway at a given frame edge length when exporting out for editorial use.

Plus now I can shoot my 300 with a 1.4x on it to get a 420mm f/4 which previously would have driven my ISO too high, but now means I'm a happy camper and have saved my predicted £1800 :D

Quick caveat though - I haven't shot rugby yet so a direct side-by-side isn't possible with a subject matter I know really well. However, I'd be a happy camper at ISO5000 which should bring my usual shutter speed up from 1/640th or 1/800th to over 1/1000th.
 
Tobers said:
I do the following:

- camera on a tripod USB'd to a laptop to see the pics full res straight away and using Canon remote shooting software
- target (e.g. newspaper) on a wall a suitable distance away
- use mirror lockup and a remote release
- start the microfocus adjustment at -20
- manually move the focus ring around before you take the shot, so when you focus with the button it forces the camera to activate the focus motor properly
- hit the focus button & watch for the light to confirm correct focus achieved
- take the shot using the remote release (or click the button on the Canon software)
- repeat with microfocus adjustment at -15, then -10, -5, 0, +5, +10, +15, +20
- view all the pics at 200%
- narrow down the range which looks sharpest - lets say +5 to +10
- repeat with microfocus adjustment at +3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
- pick the best one
- micro-focus adjustment done

Takes me about 15 mins per lens now I know what I'm doing.
Click to expand...

Canon recommends a minimum 50x focal length distance for setting up focus adjust. If you set it for an unrealistically close distance, chances are it will be out at normal range, as Ian Marsh discovered above. They also warn to check zooms at different focal lengths as again it's not always possible to get everything perfect at all focal lengths and all focusing distances.

Edit: here's a link to the original set of instructions published by Canon's Chuck Westfall, second question down http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html
 
for micro adjustment everyone says use a tripod.. i havent got one... what next? :)
 
KIPAX said:
for micro adjustment everyone says use a tripod.. i havent got one... what next? :)
Click to expand...

Just hold the camera and take the picture. Tripod only neccessary to make comparison easier. I've done micro-adjustment numerous times without a tripod. Your honed sports shooting skills should enable you to point the thing at the same target each time with no problem :D
 
Tobers, where do you live?
I just want to work out the logistics for when i come and rob your 1DmkIV off you ;) :lol:
 
HoppyUK said:
Canon recommends a minimum 50x focal length distance for setting up focus adjust. If you set it for an unrealistically close distance, chances are it will be out at normal range, as Ian Marsh discovered above.
Click to expand...

Actually, I thought the 50x focal length minimum is what caused my problems. With a decent length lens this makes the target tiny in the viewfinder and makes me doubt the ability of AF to reliably detect it. It seems obvious that you should calibrate to the most often used distance. That means close to MFD for my 50mm and half a rugby pitch for my 300.
 
ianmarsh said:
Actually, I thought the 50x focal length minimum is what caused my problems. With a decent length lens this makes the target tiny in the viewfinder and makes me doubt the ability of AF to reliably detect it. It seems obvious that you should calibrate to the most often used distance. That means close to MFD for my 50mm and half a rugby pitch for my 300.
Click to expand...

Sorry Ian, I misunderstood your previous post.

I think you have a good point. To be honest, I think the 50x focal length is just to warn people off using very close distances, such as you get when using those A4 printed sheets downloaded from the web.

As I'm sure you know, when lenses focus close they need a great deal of focusing movement for a relatively small shift in distance and I think this is what then throws the calibration out at normal range.

To calibrate for 'normal' distance, whatever that may be, seems like a good plan :thumbs:
 
Just a quick update, and to bring the thread back from micro-focus adjustment to the 1DIV v 1DIII comparison...

All yesterday afternoon & evening I was shooting school hockey on astroturf under floodlights. I passed up London Irish v Leinster at Twickenham for this, but the pay was lots better :D. Lighting conditions were fairly poor, patchy, and on the secondary pitch downright dull. I was using a 300 2.8 (sometimes with 1.4x extender) and a 70-200 2.8 on the 1DIII and 1DIV. Things got darker as the evening wore on.

Unfortunately I cant post the files as it's school stuff, but my conclusions are as follows:

- The 1DIII was super up to ISO2500. I ended up with it at 3200 to get 1/500th shutter speed, and the colour noise is pretty marked. 6400 was getting pretty cruddy.

- The 1DIV was cruising at ISO4000 and ISO5000. Near zero colour noise, just some gentle fine grained luminance noise. At ISO800-2500 the files are really lovely - smooth. Just whizzing through all the shots in Lightroom you could immediately tell the 1DIII files from the 1DIV ones for that reason.

- The 1DIV files are much smoother. They withstand much more "pushing" of exposure and fill light in Lightroom with minimal ill effects.

- Croppability of the 1DIV files is much better as you'd expect with more pixels. As with the ice hockey from the other week, I could crop in really closely and still get nice detail.

- At the end of the tournament when the light was at its worst, I had the 1DIII at ISO3200 to get 1/500th at 2.8, and the 1DIV at ISO5000th and 1/800th, and could have gone further if required, and the resulting 1DIV files at those settings still look much better than the 1DIII ones.

- Focus-wise, I'd say that the 1DIV is marginally better. It holds and tracks the subject really well and the "keeper rate" is better than the 1DIII which I've never really had problems with.

So, overall another win for the 1DIV, but then you'd expect so for £4200 :D.
 
Excellent read thanks Tobers.. thats exactly the sort of thing I want to read.. not how iso works shooting a plant pot in a front room... real usage and next to a mkIII

I wasnt wavering but if a little voice was about to speak.. you shut it up... why oh why cant i get my hands on one.. money sat here waiting.. just need a shop thats selling them for <4k as they list.. just no stock :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top