Gosh! There is nothing wrong with the 1dMK4 AF. He says it is better than the 1dmk3. So, Canon has improved on its product. Just so happens, from his testing that it is not as predictable and consistent as Nikon's D3s. So what! One company can't be best all the time. Canon had the best AF for decades. We all know that Nikon really has good AF in the D3/s/D3x. It is possible that their AF is more predictable and consistent than Canon's at present. Doesn't mean that Canon's is broke! He says it performs brilliantly in some situations. Better than Nikon's sometimes. His report is not as bad as some of us interpret here.
PurplePix wrote:
His report is not as bad as some of us interpret here.
The very fact that it is written such that it can be interpreted so widely is a big part of the problem here - and "damning with faint praise" is a rather unprofessional way to write a supposedly objective review.
keithreeder wrote:
The very fact that it is written such that it can be interpreted so widely is a big part of the problem here ...
I think the real problem was that most folks were hoping the AF focus issues were a thing of the past, RG's review (like this thread) raises the spectre of history repeating itself.
You don't really need to read anything RG wrote or construct elaborate theories of why he's trying to put Canon out of business to understand what he's saying. Just look at the images he posted.
For example, in the basketball collection, look at images 11-15:
In image 11, the main focus point is on the high-contrast collar of the player's jersey. The shot is perfect because the photographer was able to get the focus point on a perfect AF target.
In image 12 the main focus point is still on that perfect high contrast collar yet the focus is lost. Why?
In image 13 the main focus point is still on that perfect high contrast target yet the focus is still lost. Why?
In image 14 the AF has finally caught up with the subject after two OOF shots. The focus point is still on the collar.
In image 15 the AF is still successfully tracking the subject. The main focus point has been on the high contrast collar the entire time but the AF failed 40% of the time for no apparent reason.
This was typical behavior of the Mark III focus tracking: focus point on an ideal high contrast target, first shot is great, the AF gets completely lost, then recovers a few shots later while main focus point has been on that ideal focus target the entire time. I've seen this hundreds times with my Mark III and I'm disappointed that I will continue to see the same AF behavior with my Mark IV.
Other failures do make sense. One example is 42-45. Clearly 43 is out of focus because the focus point momentarily landed on part of player's jersey with little contrast and 44 is out of focus because the player blocked the jersey with her hand, preventing the AF from seeing it. This will happen and I wouldn't expect the AF to lock on something like that at in EV5-6 light levels. By 45 the focus point is back on the high contrast lettering of the jersey and focus has locked back on.
keithreeder wrote:
The very fact that it is written such that it can be interpreted so widely is a big part of the problem here - "damning with faint praise".
Or maybe.... we are overly-passionate with the brand of cameras we own that we cannot accept that our brand is not perfect and not the best one out there in everything. So, we would rather shoot the guy who shares with us the results of his extensive testing.
PurplePix wrote:
Or maybe.... we are overly-passionate with the brand of cameras we own that we cannot accept that our brand is not perfect and not the best one out there in everything.
Not here - I've switched brand before (N to C) and have no unbreakable emotional connection to Canon that would stop me from going back if it was the right thing for me to do.
But re: the Mk IV, I'm already persuaded by all (note the emphasis) the other reports, reviews and forum posts I've read about the Mk IV that say - to put it bluntly - that RG has got it wrong here.
If in fact he's not being overly critical of the camera, he's got a funny way of saying so. Many of the reactions you're reading to RG's comments are not being made in an information vacuum...
Admittedly, RG is an influential voice (maybe disproportionately so), but time will tell whether he's right here or not. Once the camera lands in more hands, a clearer picture will undoubtedly emerge. I doubt many minds are going to be changed by the bickering on this thread ...
PurplePix wrote:
Gosh! There is nothing wrong with the 1dMK4 AF. He says it is better than the 1dmk3. So, Canon has improved on its product. Just so happens, from his testing that it is not as predictable and consistent as Nikon's D3s. So what! One company can't be best all the time. Canon had the best AF for decades. We all know that Nikon really has good AF in the D3/s/D3x. It is possible that their AF is more predictable and consistent than Canon's at present. Doesn't mean that Canon's is broke! He says it performs brilliantly in some situations. Better than Nikon's sometimes. His report is not as bad as some of us interpret here....Show more →
One could interpret it that way until you get to this:
"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."
He's drew a line in the sand with that, if it turns out he doesn't know what he's doing he'll get banished from the sandbox.
kakomu wrote:
Just because one firmware is better than a previous version doesn't mean that the previous version was bad or broken. Firmware can be update for many reasons, including (but not limited to) increasing efficiency, adding features and improving features.
All right, now tell me why the "feature" or "improvement" of tracking slow subjects that 1.0.6 addresses had not been included in the original firmware weeks ago. Why do you think Canon decided that this "improvement" or "feature" needed to sent out to all Mark IV's? Do you think they decided that accurately tracking slow subjects would be a nice "bonus" to their customers? Don't you think that accurately tracking slow subjects is a rather important "feature" of a professional sports camera that should have been included in the original firmware?
scowl wrote:
For example, in the basketball collection, look at images 11-15:
In image 11, the main focus point is on the high-contrast collar of the player's jersey. The shot is perfect because the photographer was able to get the focus point on a perfect AF target.
In image 12 the main focus point is still on that perfect high contrast collar yet the focus is lost. Why?
In image 13 the main focus point is still on that perfect high contrast target yet the focus is still lost. Why?
In image 14 the AF has finally caught up with the subject after two OOF shots. The focus point is still on the collar.
In image 15 the AF is still successfully tracking the subject. The main focus point has been on the high contrast collar the entire time but the AF failed 40% of the time for no apparent reason.
The player could well have started moving or accelerating after the first frame.
With risk of embarrasing myself here: Is it expected that an AF system will track random motion between frames 100%?
Looking through all the basketball images, I found 13 of 169 "useless". If that is the worst situation and the worst results you can find, I need to redefine my standards.
scowl wrote:
All right, now tell me why the "feature" or "improvement" of tracking slow subjects that 1.0.6 addresses had not been included in the original firmware weeks ago. Why do you think Canon decided that this "improvement" or "feature" needed to sent out to all Mark IV's? Do you think they decided that accurately tracking slow subjects would be a nice "bonus" to their customers? Don't you think that accurately tracking slow subjects is a rather important "feature" of a professional sports camera that should have been included in the original firmware?
There are any number of reasons. I'm not a software or hardware engineer at Canon, so I can't tell you exactly what went on there. Maybe they utilized the source from previous camera generations in the tracking methods, but now that the camera has been released have been set to the task of improving or optimizing the tracking methods. Maybe in order to meet deadlines they produced a product that was "good enough" (i.e., better than the 1D3) and decided that they could update the software later on without a hitch.
scowl wrote:
You don't really need to read anything RG wrote or construct elaborate theories of why he's trying to put Canon out of business to understand what he's saying. Just look at the images he posted.
For example, in the basketball collection, look at images 11-15:
In image 11, the main focus point is on the high-contrast collar of the player's jersey. The shot is perfect because the photographer was able to get the focus point on a perfect AF target.
In image 12 the main focus point is still on that perfect high contrast collar yet the focus is lost. Why?
In image 13 the main focus point is still on that perfect high contrast target yet the focus is still lost. Why?
In image 14 the AF has finally caught up with the subject after two OOF shots. The focus point is still on the collar.
In image 15 the AF is still successfully tracking the subject. The main focus point has been on the high contrast collar the entire time but the AF failed 40% of the time for no apparent reason.
This was typical behavior of the Mark III focus tracking: focus point on an ideal high contrast target, first shot is great, the AF gets completely lost, then recovers a few shots later while main focus point has been on that ideal focus target the entire time. I've seen this hundreds times with my Mark III and I'm disappointed that I will continue to see the same AF behavior with my Mark IV.
Other failures do make sense. One example is 42-45. Clearly 43 is out of focus because the focus point momentarily landed on part of player's jersey with little contrast and 44 is out of focus because the player blocked the jersey with her hand, preventing the AF from seeing it. This will happen and I wouldn't expect the AF to lock on something like that at in EV5-6 light levels. By 45 the focus point is back on the high contrast lettering of the jersey and focus has locked back on....Show more →
Most logical post in quite a while here. Take all the emotion out of the post, point out the facts as they are presented and ask the question. By the way, who can explain why the Mark IV lost focus on shots 12 and 13?
kakomu wrote:
There are any number of reasons. I'm not a software or hardware engineer at Canon, so I can't tell you exactly what went on there. Maybe they utilized the source from previous camera generations in the tracking methods, but now that the camera has been released have been set to the task of improving or optimizing the tracking methods. Maybe in order to meet deadlines they produced a product that was "good enough" (i.e., better than the 1D3) and decided that they could update the software later on without a hitch.
It costs an organization a lot of money releasing a new version of firmware. Canon would not do this so close to the original release of the camera unless it was to fix an issue.
chez wrote:
Most logical post in quite a while here. Take all the emotion out of the post, point out the facts as they are presented and ask the question.
Nobody here can answer those questions though (meaning of course that user error/poor camera set-up/other can't be ruled out - just saying), which is why other things are being discussed.
keithreeder wrote:
Nobody here can answer those questions though (meaning of course that user error/poor camera set-up/other can't be ruled out - just saying), which is why other things are being discussed.
kakomu wrote:
There are any number of reasons. I'm not a software or hardware engineer at Canon, so I can't tell you exactly what went on there. Maybe they utilized the source from previous camera generations in the tracking methods, but now that the camera has been released have been set to the task of improving or optimizing the tracking methods.
If that is the case then that means the months and months of Canon's Mark IV testing failed since they were not able to find and solve all the tracking problems until weeks after the camera had been released, despite the horrific Mark III fiasco which began years ago.
Maybe in order to meet deadlines they produced a product that was "good enough" (i.e., better than the 1D3) and decided that they could update the software later on without a hitch.
I do believe that. I'm sure Canon thought the Mark IV was "good enough" then and is still "good enough" and will always be "good enough" even as they continue to get the AF working better than "good enough".
I am glad you posted this link. This posting was one of the major reasons I was convinced that the 1DMK3 could focus. The used 1DMK3 I bought was a blue dot unit and I have AF experienced performance similar to yours. Now, if I just can figure out how to hold the camera as steady as you do.
Jerry
You're welcome Jerry. It's so good to hear that all the time I spent posting during the MKIII debacle paid off by someone enjoying a real life benefit. You're a brave man to have bought a MKIII while the dark cloud of RG's bashing hung low over the forums. It just goes to show you that some smart photographers like yourself do the research to find out the truth and then get rewarded with a bargain on a fine camera. I'm really glad it worked out for you, and thanks again for posting a follow-up.
I always recommended people by second hand MKIIIs from a place with a return policy, just in case. On that same note, I wouldn't buy a brand new camera of any brand without a return policy either.
I don't post here very often but I follow the board daily. All I can say is yahooo! Well priced mk IV's will be hitting the b/s board shortly -- propelled by fear...some will still be BNIB for sale by folks that never even tested them for their shooting needs.
Great news!
I'll pick one up just like the "faulty" MkIII I grabbed that worked perfectly for my shooting and my lens system. The mk IV's I have shot with work great for the kind of shooting I do (wildlife/surfing/general studio) and that is something I won't be needing RG/ Rob G/ GB/ argh gee's help finding out.
But please sell your crappy MK IV today!!!! Its losing photographic value every nanosecond
