1D Mark IV only for video ... overkill ?
 

Hi,
I'm about to buy another 7D.
But what do you think about the Mark IV instead ?
ok, the price difference is a lot, but if used only for video, does the price justify
the quality difference ?
I won't use it for photography while I have the Nikon D700 for that purpose.

Heh. If you get a 1D Mk. IV, it's possible that it will replace your D700 as your primary still photo camera -- it's just that good. But seriously, for video only, yes it is certainly overkill. If you're looking for another D-SLR just for video, I would recommend the 5D Mk. II instead, which complements the 7D nicely since it is full frame and therefore much more wide-angle friendly. And it's considerably less expensive than the 1D Mk. IV. Spend that difference on glass.

The only real advantage to the 1D Mk. IV in terms of video is its low-light performance, which is exceptional. If that's worth $5,000 to you, then go for it -- but it is first and foremost a still photography camera, and having handled one earlier this week, I would absolutely love to have it -- for taking pictures, not video. I have no idea why anyone would want to buy a 1D Mk. IV and *not* use it for still photos as well.

I fell in love with the 1D Mk. IV this week and I'm trying to rationalize my strong desire to buy one -- but to be honest with you, if used only for video, the price is definitely *not* justified. However it becomes justified the minute you start taking pictures with it.

Yeah, but altough I really love my D700, I'm a total Nikon guy for photography.
I have some quite expensive lenses and about 4 Nikon SB900 flashes.
If I swith to Canon for photography, I have to start all over. :(

So I think the best choice is now buying another 7D and maybe this lens :
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM

A good combination ?

I am also a D700 and Nikon guy for photography. I have a feeling that Nikon will soon have something to compete with the 7D etc. It's a matter of patience. I would not pay that kind of cash for low light at 24p unless I was working night only gigs that REQUIRED it. For photography, the D700 holds up very well at high ISO.

Hey if you can afford it then why not? another thing to consider is that you don't have to have as fast of a lens because it is superior in low light, for example, the Canon 70-200 F4 is consider to be sharper then the 2.8 version and so with the 1DM4 you can spend less on lens and have sharper picture.

The 1D4 has three advantages, IMHO:

1) The 1.3 crop factor is enough to eliminate vignetting on full frame lenses, yet still be "wide enough".

2) The lack of noise would be fantastic for night and natural light shooting.

3) In those situations where you have moderate light, you can still stop down. That means you're not fighting super slim DOF (except when desired), and f/2.8 zooms are all you really need. You don't really need f/1.2 primes when you can shoot comfortably at f/6400 - except when you want super-shallow DOF as an effect.

Aside from the price, it's the best of all worlds. But because of the price, I'm sticking with my 5D2 and primes...

It may be overkill for some circumstances, but if you need the low light performance and you can live with the trade offs (cost, aliasing, skew, etc.), then go for it! At high ISO (e.g. 6400), the 1D4 read noise is so much lower that it has a 2/3 stop advantage. Plus it has a 2/3 stop size advantage (when used at the same f-number), giving a total of about 1+1/3 stop advantage at high ISO over the 7D.

Personally, I don't see it that way. The only time it's true is when you put the exact same focal length and f-number on both cameras. But that's not a very good comparison because the full frame camera will be capable of much wider angles of view than the 1D can ever do, and the DOF will be much thinner as well. So it can be misleading to compare the 1D at something it could never do in the first place. Instead, I think one should compare them on equal ground: same angle of view and same DOF. When you do that, you'll find that the vignetting is very similar, if not the same. Take the popular 24-105 f/4 L IS For example:

• 24mm f/4 on 1D3: very little vignetting
• 31mm f/5.2 on 5D2: very little vignetting
• 24mm f/4 on 5D2: lots of vignetting -- but the 1D3 can't even get this angle of view or DOF anyway, so I don't think it's a good comparison.

See what I mean? Vignetting and corner sharpness issues on larger formats only seems to be a disadvantage when you use the same lens on both -- but that's not how photographers shoot in real life -- in real life we choose whatever lens that gives us the angle of view that we need.

Bart, If I were you, I would'nt even go near a 1DMKIV... your whole outlook on photography
will change...

If you get the 24-70 lens, make sure you buy from somebody reputable like B&H where it's easy to return things wihtout much hassle. It's a fantastic zoom lens, if you get one that's not defective. I bought one, it had a loose focus ring, sent it back, got another, same damn problem. Sent it back and gave up on it because I didn't have time to gamble on a third try. After that, I googled loose focus ring on 14-70 Canon and found that I sure wasn't alone. Some people more determined than I was send the lens back 3 or 4 times to get a good one. I will say it's the sharpest, best looking still camera zoom I've ever seen; it just seems that Canon has some manufacturing quality control problems with that lens.

If you already have a 7D and want a second camera, why not another 7D? It seems to me the MKIV is good if you're a photojournalist because it can shoot in the dark. Also, it is supposedly built like a tank and if you shot out in the rain with no protection, it probably wouldn't hurt it. So there are reasons to get that camera. If I were primarily a still photographer I'd go for the 5DMKII. For video I like the 7D...it does 24p and I like the chip size because it's big enough so you can control depth of field fairly easily but not so big, like the 5D, that following focus is difficult. The Tokina 11-16mm lens seems to be a favorite for a wide angle, which would give you a little wider than 18mm in full frame terms. I've never needed anything wider than a 24mm, so a 16-50 Tokina, or the 17-55 Canon, 17-50 Tamron are all suitable for me. Lots of people think that wider Tokina is fantastic, however.

Actually, that's a popular misconception.

you may want to check this out

side by side // the canon 1d MKIV, MKII, and 7d | stillmotion