Wow, he said his BB shots sucked and he used a 70-200 @ f6.3 - something is wrong with that for sure.
"Going Up: Canon EOS-1D Mark IV (firmware v1.0.6) + EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS at 80mm, ISO 200, 1/500, f/6.3, Dyna-Lite Arena strobes. Click photo to enlarge (Photo by Rob Galbraith/Little Guy Media"
Well at least this time around he is going to put the D3s through the ringer too.
I wish someone could come up with an objective battery of tests to assess AF (AI servo). That is the one thing always lacking in reviews and for these cameras also so crucial.
1. RG could find no difference between 1.04 and 1.06
2. RG said C.Fn III-8-2 (Surrounding AF Points) brought a noticeable improvement in both AF system feel and the number of in-focus pictures. This is what I found with my tests; and I agree with him that burst rate is not slowed much using this option.
I am still playing around with my CF settings; and trying to learn how to better use the camera. RG did say he really only tested 1.04 since 1.06 came out too late to do all the testing he wanted to do; and that he would have a later report.
Bottom line is when I got my 1d2 it took me at least a month to "get use to it" to the extent that I was comfortable using it.
I am going to make a dangerous prediction, 1.06 will not be the last firmware update.
- Why when review named "An analysis of EOS-1D Mark IV autofocus performance" he is writing "To sum up, our experience with the D3S' AF system is that it's trustworthy and dependable enough for us to be confident using it for peak action sports"
- He seems keep repeating this phrase many times: "As mentioned, EOS-1D Mark IV autofocus was at its very worst during soccer" is it Soccer World Cup related? Means - please don't forget about Nikon for World Cup?
Let the pixel peeping begin, as RG demands in his review
"Be sure your viewing of the photos includes some time spent at a magnification level of 100% in your preferred photo browser. If you look at the pictures exclusively at 50% magnification or less then you'll miss seeing the true softness of some of the out of focus files"
Reading through I didn't notice any mention of Cfn settings. I think it would be in RG's best interest to post what AF settings he used under the circumstances.
I have had the camera for about over a month and still don't feel confident in saying that I have it all figured out. I also find it odd that he would post this huge review while using what is now outdated firmware. It would seem to me that the responsible thing to do would be to redo the tests with v.1.06
M Vers wrote:
Reading through I didn't notice any mention of Cfn settings. I think it would be in RG's best interest to post what AF settings he used under the circumstances.
He did mention some of the settings he tested, saying 45 AF points was "for something else" and adjacent points was better and tracking priority did not slow down burst rate much.
M Vers wrote:
Reading through I didn't notice any mention of Cfn settings. I think it would be in RG's best interest to post what AF settings he used under the circumstances.
pjbuehner wrote:
I have had the camera for about over a month and still don't feel confident in saying that I have it all figured out. I also find it odd that he would post this huge review while using what is now outdated firmware. It would seem to me that the responsible thing to do would be to redo the tests with v.1.06
RG did say he had basically completed the test with 1.04 before 1.06 came out, and that he would be doing additional test with 1.06; and importantly to me he could find minimal if any differences between 1.04 and 1.06.
My question is what happens when 1.08 comes out in a few months or weeks.
Justified or not, I read Nikon bias in his writing. That's not to say any of what he said is untrue, just biased. It's interesting that he's waiting to reveal the Nikon tests while their ads remain very visible on his site.
pjbuehner wrote:
I wish someone could come up with an objective battery of tests to assess AF (AI servo). That is the one thing always lacking in reviews and for these cameras also so crucial.
These are an objective battery of tests -- give the cameras to experienced photographers in the real world and see how many keepers they walk away with. As long as there are humans behind the cameras, you have to keep the human element in camera tests otherwise the tests are meaningless for anything but remote cameras.
The only issue I have is his experience with the Mark III's C.Fn III-3 (AI Servo 1st/2nd Image Priority) set to focus priority. Rob said:
"With the EOS-1D Mark III set this way, it would continue to plow through at 10 fps almost regardless of scene or subject."
That is not my experience. When a basketball player is shooting a jumper right in front of me and I'm panning up to keep the ball in the shot, my Mark III will often pause for about a half second when it loses the subject. The same thing happens when a player runs along the baseline and I'm panning horizontally as fast as I can to keep them in the frame.
You can test this custom function by pointing the camera at something too close for the lens to focus on. The green light will blink and the camera will continue to shoot OOF shots, but more like two or three per second instead of ten.
After my experiences with the D3s and Mark IV, I'd have to pretty much agree with everything Rob said about both cameras.
I didn't photograph any speedskating with the Mark IV but my ice hockey and basketball shots were all over the place as to AF tracking....much like RG's results.
I did find the D3s to be almost perfect photographing basketball and ice hockey with the new 70-200 VR II...best combination I've ever used.
hmm, wow, I wasn't expecting to hear that at all....
i wonder how many will agree/disagree in the end
"By comparison, its autofocus fell off a cliff when the sun was out and the players in red jerseys were being photographed."
one thing I did seem to notice is that when the sun was out and bright and glaring, my 40D/50D would mysteriously suddenly focus much worse than my old 20D but as soon as a little cloud cover came in or the sun sunk to a lower late-afternoon angle it would start doing better than the 20D
and when I shot some surfing with a 5D2 last year, I started out shooting under bright, glaring sun and I had my share of misfocused pics, but once the sun angled lower and even later into deep evening the 5D2 suddenly could barely miss
i wonder if the low-light sensitivity of the AF systems don't need like a ND filter or glare polarizer to drop down in front of them or something tonot get blinded
