fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 10

12 … 35 36 end

Archive 2010 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

Lezloid
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #1 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

Before I comment on this thread I would just like to state I don't own a 1Dx series and in all likelihood I never will, for me this is a fun hobby and not a serious way to get bread on the table.

But I have to agree with uz2work here, it is now irrelevant what Galbraith says because of the PERCEIVED nature of his reviews now.

So far most of this thread has been comments discussing the validity of RG's opinions and testing methods, this alone suggests that, regardless of the accuracy of his data, his reliability in testing a camera is shot.

Only time will tell as to whether there is a problem or not, if there is maybe he has done the right thing in alerting people before the Winter Olympics (just) and the World Cup because Canon may now sit down and look at the camera AGAIN and perhaps bring out more firmware.

Equally if you fall on the side of his Nikon bias then perhaps he has done a bad thing in highlighting these flaws in Canon's flagship camera right /before/ two of the biggest sporting competitions in the global calendar.

At the end of the day it does come down to the photographer, their custom settings and even luck (w.r.t. QC/random mishaps). Go out and shoot and see what happens

I apologise if I have done nothing but feeding trolls/antagonising people.

Feb 12, 2010 at 08:47 AM

vpexp
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #2 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

RG sure has a bunch of people worked up about what he says for someone who has out lived his usefulness. Kind of reminds me of all the people that spend their time pointing out how unimportant and dumb Sarah Palin is. If his opinion does not matter why spend time talking about it?
I would like to see some more people spend time behind the camera and post results. I would like to buy one if it is as advertised.

Feb 12, 2010 at 08:51 AM

thw2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #3 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

Fat Dave wrote:
Is it so impossible to believe that perhaps another camera has a better performing autofocus system for sports photography as tested?

I can accept there is another better camera out there.

However, you have NOT been consistent in your own standpoint. You should go over your own posts...

First you said this:

"Fixating on one quote doesn't help understanding the entire picture. What if one focuses on these quotes:

"In just over a month with the new model we've seen that the EOS-1D Mark IV's AF system behaves almost nothing like that of the EOS-1D Mark III. The changes that Canon's autofocus engineers have made are both broad and deep."

"The EOS-1D Mark IV's AF system shows signs of brilliance."

"We'll get right to the point. The EOS-1D Mark IV's AF system shows signs of brilliance. For example, while testing the camera's ability to track an athlete running straight towards the camera, the EOS-1D Mark IV locked onto the subject and would not let go, producing sequence after sequence of mostly in-focus pictures. In several rounds, 25 or more frames in a row were either perfectly focused or just slightly out.

On the same track and under effectively identical test conditions to those that tripped up the EOS-1D Mark III's AI Servo AF every time, the EOS-1D Mark IV nailed it."

Am I better off to fixate on any of these (or similar) quotes?

One needs to look at the ENTIRETY of the data presented to be able to accurately receive it's message."

Clearly, you are implying Rob Galbraith is presenting the 1D4 as a decent tool for sports photographers with a few shortcomings. But that is clearly NOT the case, as pointed out by alundeb. As a matter of fact, RG is saying the 1D4 is a POOR tool for sports photographers with just a few instances of brilliance.

Fat Dave wrote:
Why don't you pose your question to Rob?

The question here is YOUR interpretation of Rob's assessment; it has nothing to do with RG himself.

Feb 12, 2010 at 08:57 AM

mark fadely
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #4 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

scowl wrote:
Which of the many fixes are you talking about? The submirror? One of the firmware updates?

Do you suspect he is doctoring the photos he's posting which support his opinions? Do you suspect he's purposely making the Mark IV take blurry shots for this "grudge"? Do highly respected photographers talk about how their new cameras are taking out of focus shots?

Yes I have gotten some fantastic action shots from my Mark III. I also got some fantastic action shots from my D30 ten years ago but I wouldn't credit its autofocus for them.

I was talking about the latest autofocus fix from spring of '09. Like I said, my MKIII was not performing well in servo AF before that fix. Then after the fix it was like a new camera with an autofocus that outperformed my MKIIn in difficult action shooting situations like BIF. I agreed initially with RG's reports about the MKIII AF issues. My disagreement began when he reported no change to his two different MKIII bodies after the '09 fix and new firmware.

I can only speak from my own experience in that my MKIII was completely "fixed" but reportedly neither of RG's two MKIII bodies had any improvement what-so-ever. Here's an excerpt from his site.

From RG's site"Q. Does the revised AF calibration or firmware v1.2.5 bring an improvement in tracking autofocus?No. The EOS-1D Mark III with these changes does not capture a greater proportion of properly focused or nearly focused frames when continuously tracking a moving subject. As before, the camera has a tendency to spontaneously focus in front of where it should - though it will at times shift the focus behind for several frames too, especially when Assist AF points are enabled - and it happens often enough to produce an unacceptable number of missed peak action moments."

He went on to say:
"With a quick-focusing lens like the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS, the EOS-1D Mark III remains able to rapidly acquire focus when a subject is moving and the AF system is first engaged. If the picture is taken immediately after focus is acquired, focus is often accurate too: the EOS-1D Mark III remains a killer strobed volleyball camera for this reason. Tracking, however, is still the camera's Achilles heel. This is true regardless of the tested AF point configuration, and regardless of whether single frames, short bursts or long bursts are captured."

I shoot mostly small fast flyiing things and my most used lens is the 300 2.8 wide open. So I decided to perform a long-burst tracking test that would prove my point on how well my MKIII was doing after the latest fix. Here is a link to a 16 shot burst of a jet model traveling at around 100mph towards the camera.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/781567/0

I know quite a few BIF shooters that also had a good experience with the MKIII AF fix from '09 as well. I realize there are some others out there that have MKIII's that still don't perform well. I'm sorry if yours is one of those. I have been active here on FM over the last several years trying to help others that have been working through the MKIII issues. For me, thankfully they are resolved.

For a respected photographer like RG not dig a bit deeper into the solution that came for the MKIII has done a disservice to many potential buyers. I doubt that both of his "fixed" MKIII copies were bad, but I suppose it's possible. With all the positive reports that came after the last fix I would have expected him not to dismiss the good news so easily. Now once again he is reporting a lot of negative information about a camera that a lot of other pros are pleased with. Is it true what he says about the MKIV autofocus? I don't really know, but I don't trust him to tell the full story.

Feb 12, 2010 at 09:10 AM

Lezloid
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #5 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

It's also worth point out in an addendum to some of the posts here that EVERYONE shows a bias of some sort.

RG would not be human if he did not show some bias regardless of how hard he is trying to be neutral on the subject.

So it's probably true that he wanted this camera to be good, but if you look hard enough you can find a flaw in anything.

Feb 12, 2010 at 09:15 AM

Steve Beck
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #6 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

I can tell for what its worth from my experience. I had three 1dMKIII's and 2 1dsmkIII's in the past. I actually had the first two 1dmkIII's before anyone on POTN. I shot many many photos with them and had an average of 3 out of 10 "good" photos. I was in denial which was stupid on my part and accounted the OOF on my part and stood by the MKIII's for a long time. I went back through old photos I keep them all good or bad (guess thats why i have 6TB's of photos) and compared shots taken with all my 1XMKIII's to shots taken with my switch over to Nikon with my D3 and D3X's. There was CLEARLY issues with the Canon equipment and not my shooting ability.

That being said. Recent personal problems forced me to sell all my photo equipment. I was fortunate enough to be able to get back in to it although not as heavy this time. I know I could not afford Nikons lens's anymore and hard to pass up Canon;s lens choices for cheaper options like f4 zooms. I picked up a MKIV. I have been playing with it some with a 100-400 and 70-200, so far and I EXTREMELY impressed with the results compared to my previous experience. Now racing season has not started for me yet but in a another month it will. I can say the subjects I am shooting right now are actually quicker and harder to track and I am having ZERO issues tracking them and am getting what I feel are a majority keeper rate and the ones that are OOF so far i think is my fault.

I look forward to testing it more with indoor sports and racing soon.

Feb 12, 2010 at 09:20 AM

Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #7 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

I would like to strive for some balance in interpreting RG's report. First, let's focus on what he says the 1D IV does well. I think it is fair to say that he says it is excellent for tracking even fast moving objects that move in a predictable pattern. I think, although he is less clear on this point, that he also gives the camera credit for acquiring focus very quickly. Now let's focus on what he says it does poorly. It seems to me that his chief complaint is that the camera misses focus when subjects make unpredictable moves (i.e., when a speed skater slows and raises her hands after winning a race). His other chief complaint seems to be that he finds the camera unpredictable.

It seems to me that when one focusses at this level of detail, the review is hardly damning. Rather it may well be a camera that is used differently. Specifically when subjects are moving in predictable fashion, then you can trust the tracking, but when there is stops and starts, speeding up and slowing down (as in basketball and soccer two sports he had trouble shooting with this camera), then it seems you would need to often reacquire focus. Fortunately, this camera seems to acquire focus very well. So it would seem that this camera may have to be used a bit differently and this may take a learning curve for one to get the hang of it, but it could be an excellent sports camera. It may even be that after such a learning curve the camera won't seem unpredictable even to RG. This style of shooting--using tracking for predictable movements and reacquiring focus for unpredictable movements also seems to me to be an excellent approach to getting great sports shots.

Other shooters, however, might prefer that tracking would operate across a wider range of movements and thus reacquiring focus would be less necessary. RG's comments about the D3s seem to suggest it is this sort of camera. His report is that the D3s in comparison to the 1D IV takes a little longer to acquire focus, but when it tracks it holds at least reasonably good focus across a wider range of situations. Reading RG's comments for a few years now I think he really prefers this style of shooting. He seems to like autofocus that holds tracking at least close and keeps focus reacquisition to a minimum. This is what the 1D IIn does, in my view as well.

There is merit to both approaches and individual preferences could easily go either way. I would say, however, that as the camera business moves to higher resolution sensors that the approach of keeping autofocus tight when predictable with greater needed reacquisition of focus (but making this reacquisition quick as in the 1D IV) might make more sense.

So to be charitable RGs overall conclusions can easily be seen to reflect his style and not some rampant anti-Canon bias. Given his preferences he probably wishes Canon were moving a different direction. Still, one might complain that RG is not taking other's styles and the potential benefits of the 1D IV's approach enough into consideration when making his global evaluations. Personally, I think a lot of sports shooters will like the 1D IV, but others like RG will find it doesn't fit their style.

Feb 12, 2010 at 09:31 AM

keithreeder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #8 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

Steve Spencer wrote:
I would like to strive for some balance in interpreting RG's report. First, let's focus on what he says the 1D IV does well. I think it is fair to say that he says it is excellent for tracking even fast moving objects that move in a predictable pattern. I think, although he is less clear on this point, that he also gives the camera credit for acquiring focus very quickly.

He also says, half way down the first page:

If this is the best the company could muster, after the autofocus debacle of the EOS-1D Mark III, then it's official: Canon has lost their autofocus mojo.

Nothing much "balanced" in that sweeping statement, Steve.

(Help me, Richard! I can't stop!!)

Feb 12, 2010 at 09:38 AM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #9 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

alundeb wrote:
Throughout the review, every weakness of the D3s is excused and put up as "improvements are still posssible", but every weakness of the 1DmkIV is hammered in as major faults.

It's called bias.

Feb 12, 2010 at 09:39 AM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #10 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

chesapeake wrote:
For starters, we can ask the question, "is Mike Sturk a better all around photographer than Rob Galbraith"?

I'd say the evidence speaks for itself.

Feb 12, 2010 at 09:41 AM

Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #11 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

keithreeder wrote:
He also says, half way down the first page:

Nothing much "balanced" in that sweeping statement, Steve.

(Help me, Richard! I can't stop!!)

Hi Keith,

I am not saying that RG was balanced, but rather I would like to strive for balance. I think we can learn from the specifics he has noted, even if we don't agree with the sweeping statements. Further I think he makes the sweeping statements because of the style by which he likes to shoot. Others who shoot with a different style and are fine reacquiring focus more often to get optimal focus given his review might like the camera a lot more than he does. I think he could have done better in recognizing that not everyone is likely to share his preferences. So I don't think the review is totally a waste, but neither do I think the general conclusions are completely fair. Rather I think the specifics of the reviews can be helpful and the general conclusions are heavily influences by RGs preferences.

Feb 12, 2010 at 09:48 AM

jprisching
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #12 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

M Vers wrote:

Many people regard the 1DIII as the best AFing Canon camera ever produced, some of those people now regard the 1DIV as the best AFing Canon camera ever produced. What you are seeing is not a decrease in Canon's ability to design good AF systems, rather Nikon's recent climb of the very same ladder.

I have owned Canon cameras for years and the Mark III was not their best autofocusing camera, but a disaster and a well documented disaster. I only knew of a hand full of people that had any luck with them, in fact this is the camera that caused an exodus back to Nikon for many in the newspaper and magazine industry. Canon knew they had a serious problem with the Mark III's autofocus and instead of fixing the problem, first its a sub mirror box fix, then firmware and back to hardware and back and forth, they came out with the Mark IV and hoped they solved the problem. Maybe they have and maybe they haven't, only time will tell when these cameras get into the hands of more photographers to use. The main problem canon is going to have is that their largest clients Newspapers and Magazine photographer are in such bad shape they don't have the funds to purchase equipment every two years, and many that have left to Nikon will not come back.

Feb 12, 2010 at 09:49 AM

alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #13 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

Steve Spencer wrote:
I am not saying that RG was balanced, but rather I would like to strive for balance. I think we can learn from the specifics he has noted, even if we don't agree with the sweeping statements. Further I think he makes the sweeping statements because of the style by which he likes to shoot. Others who shoot with a different style and are fine reacquiring focus more often to get optimal focus given his review might like the camera a lot more than he does. I think he could have done better in recognizing that not everyone is...Show more →

Well put.

Also, I hope we never come to a point where it is inappropriate to criticize a review.

Feb 12, 2010 at 09:55 AM

keithreeder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #14 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

Oh yeah, I understand your motivation Steve - a good thing it is too - but I'm of the view that not only is the review not written in a balanced way, but that it will only be seen by most in terms of black and white - or be blunt, "Nikon D3S good, Canon Mk IV bad".

Any ambitions we might have for people to read between the lines, will likely be unfulfilled.

Anyway, another interesting observation about RG's methodology and use/set-up of the camera: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=9595071&postcount=90

Canon's own AF Custom Functions user guide would seem to agree...

Feb 12, 2010 at 10:07 AM

Garylv
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #15 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

Canon representatives saw Rob's testing methods first-hand, on at least two occasions, specifically scheduled for that purpose.

If they felt his methods were completely misguided, would they say so in public to dismiss all the chatter? I can't imagine they'd be worried about any legal ramifications, not with the corporate muscle they have.

Instead, they seemed to agree with him, and scrambled behind closed doors to correct the issues in the Mark III. Recalls and firmware. It will be interesting to see what they do with the Mark IV now.

Feb 12, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Tom_W
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #16 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

Feb 12, 2010 at 10:29 AM

jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #17 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

Wow... and here we go again...

I don't care what the result is, I have to say that this is unprofessional and irresponsible of RG. No one, at least if they're hoping to present a hint of fairness, should publish a report for results that are known to be out of date, post a negative conclusion, and then leave it hanging for the fora to spin up.

I think reporting - some call it bashing - on Canon's product/performance/actions over the last few years is great, but this is too biased for anyone to take seriously. RG should have held the review until it could be done fairly (i.e., current firmware), it should have side-by-side D3s comparison images, and only then should he report his findings..

Feb 12, 2010 at 10:34 AM

chesapeake
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #18 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

jamesf99 wrote:
Wow... and here we go again...

I don't care what the result is, I have to say that this is unprofessional and irresponsible of RG. No one, at least if they're hoping to present a hint of fairness, should publish a report for results that are known to be out of date, post a negative conclusion, and then leave it hanging for the fora to spin up.

I think reporting - some call it bashing - on Canon's product/performance/actions over the last few years is great, but this is too biased for anyone to take seriously. RG should have held the...Show more →

James +1 you are absolutely correct. Also very well stated.
Chuck

Feb 12, 2010 at 10:40 AM

rd4tile
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #19 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

thw2 wrote:
Ahhhh... see you have now decided to bring your noise from DPReview to this FM forum. Have fun with your bashing. How much were you paid for this?

You took the words right out of my mouth!

Maybe time to hit the old "ignore" button for the first time!

Feb 12, 2010 at 10:59 AM

garyvot
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #20 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

Fat Dave wrote:
Many people seem to think because Rob finds the camera not focusing perfectly in some situations that he is implying it is incapable of taking good pictures.

Obviously he is not. In fact he clearly points out that in some circumstances, the camera takes a tight grip on critical focus and maintains it throughout the sequence, superior to how any other body performs. It's obviously quite capable in many circumstances, and he makes that point repeatedly.

Others seem to think that because Rob finds the camera not focusing perfectly in some situations, that this is some sort of insult to them...Show more →

Well said Mr. Dave. I too have met Rob personally and I respect both his technical skills and his personal integrity. As a long-time Canon shooter I may not be happy with some of Rob's findings but I don't perceive a bias in his reporting, no matter how many fanboys say it's so.

But hey, I trust the AI-Servo focusing on my 5D Mark IIs implicitly, so what do I know? So many people on this board say it can't focus that *my* in-focus results must be due to improper camera settings, right?

Feb 12, 2010 at 11:01 AM

1 2 3 … 10 11 12 … 35 36 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 10 11 12 … 35 36 end