Is the Canon EOS 1D MkIV half-baked?

Canon’s EOS 1 range of cameras were the professional standard against which others were judged. Put simply, they are the choice of squillions of working professional photographers, the guys and girls who make a living looking through pieces of glass, who require dependability and high performance in every respect.

Some would argue the range peaked with the EOS 1D MkIIN, at least in the digital realm. Since then the 1D MkIII was released and plagued by a reputation for poor autofocus. Various fixes were instigated by Canon, seemingly with some success, but the simple fact was Nikon had released its D3 and was stealing the march on Canon.

I own a MkIIN and have used the MkIII, and to be honest I thought the MkIII focussed faster, locked on better and was more consistent than my MkIIN. But with these cameras costing $6000 (in Australia) I wasn’t about the upgrade on a whim, especially considering I only shoot professionally for about one day a week – I’m a publisher and the photography is important, but it’s not the only thing I do.

From a specifications point of view the jump to the Mk III wasn’t that great either – 25% more pixels, 10 frames per second instead of 8.5, a better screen on the back, a lighter battery and tweaks to the user interface definitely made it a better camera, but not better enough.

Now we have the 1D Mk IV: 16MP, 10fps, revised autofocus and movie mode. Those specs sound pretty good: I’m always scratching around for a few more pixels, 10fps is enough without being that impressive these days and now I’m making vodcasts for Cycle Torque ( movie mode is basically essential. But looking a little deeper into the specifications makes me think Canon has dropped the ball a little on this one, for the Mk IV doesn’t show the forward-thinking and innovation I expected.

Firstly, it still has the 1.3x crop factor, something we’ve had to deal with since the 1-series went digital. When the first 1D was introduced the technology to mass produce a 24x36mm sensor at anything like an affordable price (if you call the close to $6500US launch price affordable at the time) didn’t exist, so the sensor was built a little smaller. Canon used an even smaller sensor, one with crop factor of 1.6x, in its range of consumer and ‘prosumer’ cameras, and does to this day. The smaller sensor, though, is supported by a range of lenses which are specifically designed and built for it and cannot be used on the full-frame cameras (5D, 5D mkII, 1Ds range). There’s nothing specific for the 1D range and its 1.3x sensor, you have to use the sensors for full-frame cameras – which would be fine, but it screws up the focal lengths of your lenses, especially your wide angles.

My widest zoom runs to 17mm. On any 1D (not 1Ds) it’s effectively 22mm, which isn’t ultra-wide. My 24-105mm f/4, on a 1D, becomes 31-136. Zooms of that range have been built in the past, but a little wide to not very long isn’t half a useful as wide to short telephoto. I’ve also owned three of the 1.6x crop factor Canons, and it was a joy to buy the 10-22mm zoom to once again have a genuine wide-angle lens again (the 10-22 is effectively 16-35 when the crop factor is taken into account).

Truth be told, those two lenses (the 17-35 and 24-105), in particular, feel better suited to the 5D MkII, with its full-frame sensor. On the 5D the 24-105 can often cover every focal length you need, but with the 1D I almost always need to carry two lenses. They never felt ‘right’ on the 1D. In the 1D’s defence, though, long lenses get longer, which is great when you’re photographing a small object (a motorcycle) travelling at high speed (they do over 300km/h at Phillip Island). So my 300 f/2.8 becomes 390mm – and as anyone who has used both will attest to, the 300 is a lot easier to use than the 400mm f/2.8, which weighs about 3 ton more.

So I was hoping the next generation of 1D would have a full-frame sensor, but it doesn’t. Maybe Canon thought it would look like they were copying the Nikon D3 with its 12MP full-frame sensor, but the result is the Mk IV looks like an upgrade of an ageing design rather than anything revolutionary.

An almost essential addition was HD video recording capability: while Canon’s delivered here, it seriously looks like it’s been added in as an afterthought or extra feature rather than a design which points to a merger of the two mediums (stills and video). There’s still no effective autofocusing, going to movie mode isn’t intuitive or quick and the new camera doesn’t even have the full manual control being offered to owners of the 5D MkII soon via a new firmware update. According to DP review shooting video with the MkIV isn’t as simple as on the much cheaper 7D. One very important update to the 5D’s firmware is the addition of audio meters, something the MkIV doesn’t have.

I was expecting so much more. Where’s the XLR audio input, or at least an optional extra to provide professional audio? Where’s the full full set of controls the cheaper 5D will have for audio in a couple of weeks? Where’s the full-frame sensor? Where are the lenses built for video to go with these cameras with their own autofocusing ability?

For the hard-core professional sports photographer, the Canon EOS 1D Mk IV will almost certainly be the best sports camera ever produced by Canon. Whether it will prove to be better than what Nikon is offering remains to be seen.

I’ll probably buy one anyway.

Published by Nigel Paterson

Writer, photographer, videographer, motorcyclist, parent...

4 thoughts on “Is the Canon EOS 1D MkIV half-baked?

  1. Great post.

    I believe too that Canon kind of punted with the 1D Mark IV. They seemed to have been so frazzled by the 1D3 fiasco that they focused STRICTLY on the AF system and let the entire rest of the camera remain mostly outdated.

    What I fully expected was for Canon to finally put to bed the whole 1.3x non-sense. It made sense in 2000, it doesn’t make any sense today. The 1D4 should have been a 10fps full frame camera with 18-20 megapixels. Hell, I would have taken 16mp, it still would have trumped the D3S.

    The 1Ds Mark IV should then be a 6-7 fps 30 megapixel body that caters to studio shooters and high-end portrait/wedding photogs. It works for Nikon with their D3/D3X bodies, why is Canon still lagging behind the times?

    I’m also put off by the fact the 7D has color metering yet their flagship model (1D) that released months after the 7D still doesn’t have it.

    I also think the lack of a dedicated movie button is a step backwards and screams “first generation”… the 5D2 forced you to fumble around and they fixed it in the 7D with a dedicated video button. Yet with their flagship model, yet again, they don’t have the dedicated button.

    I am pretty sure Canon told their designers “back to the drawing board” after the 1D3 AF debacle and that’s why we now have the “half baked” 1D4. They could have done so much more with it, but I think they’re a little gun shy after getting their nose bloodied over the 1D3.

    Too bad. I still bought one which gives me license to bitch about it. 🙂 I love you Canon, but you really need to pull your head out soon. I’ll give you one more generation of screwing up your 1D line before I consider moving on to more forward thinking and innovative competitors.

    It sucks because just 8 years ago Canon was the company to beat…

    1. Yep, I almost totally agree – except I don’t think Canon could build it FF and 18-20MP (with 10FPS) or the company would have. 14-16MP, 10FPS, FF is what I wanted, but Canon has not delivered.

  2. hi,
    i am a nikon user.
    seen pix from mark IV, read all the reviews…

    i think canon is on the right track, not saying that it is better or worse than nikon D3/S approach. they simple choose the concept to build a 1,3X sensor and use the crop advantage, and i think it is good for sport photographers to have a longer reach or same reach with lighter setup.
    i think the mark IV sensor produces similar noise levels up to 3200 iso like the nikon D3S, above of course the nikon takes the lead, but the avarage difference is not that big, and absolutely not that big to make the mark IV worse camera than the nikon…
    mark IV produces the noise levels of the D3/D700 with more pixels with more reach, i think it is an excellent performnce in 2010…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: