Canon 1D MK IV Announced - Who needs FF?

I'd rather have the £4500
Matt

These new ultra-high ISO values are obviously the way the market is moving but for me (someone who rarely goes above 400) it's all completely meaningless.

So I'll take the £4500 too - I could add some really nice lenses to my collection for that and maybe have enough left over for a Leica X1

£4500 is I believe also the price range the 645D will probable in so yeah forget FF and get a FM

BTW looked around what the FM market does but they only have a ISO range of 50 to 400 and with some tricks they will go higher but with a lower resolution, a different world.

Apart from possibly Police surveillance I can't see any need for ultra-high ISO.

The Pentax 645D would be much more interesting at these sort of price levels.

Although the idea of mounting police style surveillance operations may become more appealing to me some time down the road, for now my main objective is to photograph my two young daughters around the house.

I find flash far too intrusive for that, and I would love to have the ability to use noise free ISO 3200 or 6400 so I could stop down to F/5.6 or even F/8 with faster shutter speeds and get a much higher percentage of shots in focus.

Put that into a small, lightweight package with video that autofocuses so I could give it to my dear old mother and get useable results and I am a buyer no matter what the brand.

. . . Although of course with the 1D MK IV you could evidently forget all about the autofocus and just bump the ISO up to 102,000 and shoot video at F22 all night long

Price of the canon? I.R. filters on your flash, and put the rest into a college fund?

If it had Pentax on the front then i`d be first in the queue!!!

Regards - Pete

Oh, nearly didn't notice, the 1D IV is actually 1.3x crop, not FF anyway
It's the 1Ds that's FF.

As the title suggests, "Who needs FF?"
Matt

Personally, I like these developments, as eventually they will all filter down to cheaper cameras, and give us more options.

To say that high ISOs are not necessary seems to be a very limited point of view, just because others may not ever use them, doesn't mean that they are not absolutely necessary to others.

My cousin had a shot published in the national press that he only managed to get because he could shoot at 3200ISO at F2.8, if he didn't have that option, he wouldn't have got the shot that paid the mortgage that month.

As it was nearing dusk at the time, had it have been 30 minutes later, it would have been too dark to get the shot, even at those settings, but if he had this camera instead of his mk3, he would have got it, and paid the mortgage.

So bring it on I say, the more the merrier as long as you can still maintain a decent enough level of image quality, for some examples, there are some official 12800 ISO shots on Nikons site here.

Next race - Dynamic Range please!!

I think better performance at high ISO is very welcome. I'm still on GX10 and it sucks badly in this regard, so I'm biased. And for Pentax it would be very welcome. The only downside to Pentax glass is speed and with good performance at at high ISO you make that less important. In fact I wonder if not some shooters will buy the cheaper lens.

I agree generally on the number races. But it's easy to make a point out numbers such 14 (mp) 12800 (ISO) 1.2 (f-stop) Of course we are too intelligent to fall for that

Stefan. I'm thinking the other way around. FF are already becoming really good - good enough too make pretty big prints. How many really need MF when it requires new lenses and all?

You beet me to it. I bought the 16-50 f/2.8 and have just bought the 50-135 f/2.8 purely for speed and extra low light shooting ability.
I already use a 70-200 f/2.8. The ability to keep shooting for 10 mins or so can matter.

Regards

Indoor sports is another one, most sports halls are abysmally poorly lit. You try getting fast enough shutter speeds for fast moving sports with the ISO's on the K10D sometime. I've been known to use my *istDL2 in preference to the K10D because it can go to 3200 (albeit not very well).

3200 ISO is no longer considered as unusual though. When I referred to "high ISO" I was really referring to the ridiculous 128,000 ISO sort of figures, which I do think are not necessary. You would lose the ability to control aperture by having to stop down too far, just as you would in daylight with ISO 1250 film. There's no scope for anyhting other than 1/2000 sec at f22 in bright light.

In practical use, I've never had a problem with 1600 ISO on digital - I use it as necessary. Sharp and grainy is always better than shaky and smooth.