schlotz wrote:
Bingo! Getting input from others shooting soccer is exactly what I'm looking for. I'll very interested in what you discover. And BTW: here's hoping you come back being impressed
Well, I'm sure they will be chock full of my own shortcomings as a photographer, but whatever I put up will be in the "hands on" thread. This thread became something other than understanding a new camera and helping one another be better shooters.
The application of Charmin did seem to help, though.
scowl wrote:
"When some memory cards were inserted in the camera, CHA was displayed in the top control panel and images could not be captured. This issue has been resolved."
Your Nikon camera couldn't take pictures with certain memory cards. Now it can! Being able to take pictures is one heck of a "feature enhancement" for a camera!
Nikon ships the cameras with lists of supported cards included in the camera manual. If they added support for additional cards that were not supported when the camera was initially released, then yes, it is an enhancement.
scowl wrote:
Saying it over and over does not make it true.
Canon offered the 24 fps "enhancement" for the 5D2. which, of course, invalidates your point.
scowl wrote:
You clearly do not work in software development.
Actually, I do work with software. Maybe I don't work in a company whose purpose is software development (I work for a law firm), but I am the network administrator here and I frequently add features or improve functionality.
scowl wrote:
they had to identify a situation where it repeatedly and consistently failed and prove that it does not fail in that situation with the new firmware.
scowl wrote:
Saying it over and over does not make it true. You clearly do not work in software development..
I have - I used to be a systems designer for one of the UK government's biggest Departments.
In addition to the routine scheduled development and upgrade cycle, we would often also introduce enhancements on an ad hoc basis as they were identified and as budgets/scheduled upgrades allowed.
scowl wrote:
Your Nikon camera couldn't take pictures with certain memory cards. Now it can! Being able to take pictures is one heck of a "feature enhancement" for a camera!
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?
Having developed software (including for embedded systems) for over 30 years, I can tell you that complicated software is very very rarely produced without some omissions or subtle interactions that are only discovered after being introduced into the field. That's why it takes years to develop, test, debug, and improve software for life-critical medical systems. The recent issues discovered in Toyota's drive control software are examples.
I cannot fault Canon for getting the 1.0.4 firmware out there, apparently 99.9% complete, and then finding some area that could be tweaked, and so releasing the 1.0.6 upgrade. Why do you think all of the camera manufacturers (and most software / electronics makers in general) have included the ability to upgrade their products.
At the most, the lesson Canon can learn is that perhaps their test routines don't completely represent all the in-the-field circumstances of use. That's what we in the business used to call "fool proofing" - in addition to professional testers, we also had the application or product tested by "fools" (untrained average users).
Canon, as an average, non-professional photographer, I volunteer to test all your new high-end cameras. Just send a copy of each one to me before it hits the market, and I'll happily test it and write up a report.
He was wrong about the 40D and the 7D, and it's pretty clear that he was using the wrong AF Custom Function for most of the test shots he took with the Mk IV - Main Focus Point priority is specifically designed to track any new high contrast object that crosses selected focus points, which is not what you want in the shots he's posted as examples of poor AF.
Canon's AF user guide is pretty specific about this.
I reserve the right to be skeptical about RG's "findings"...
Yakim Peled wrote:
Just a reminder: RG was right when he said the AF of the 1D3 has problems. How can anyone not even consider that he may actually be right again?
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Some people just need an opening and they keep on jabbing. I stated earlier how he had it wrong about the 7D (compared to the other review sites and forum users) and what's to say he doesn't have wrong. His review doesn't seem too objective. It reminds me of reading dpreview reviews.
Maybe it's more useful to debate substance rather than semantics? First RB is criticized for accepting Nikon ads then for soliciting donations. I sent him $10. If most everyone sent him $10 then he could turn down those Nikon ADs. Many (most?) have not fully read the articles they complain about.
Yes it appears that RB appears to think that the D3s is a more versatile camera than the Mk IV. I do also-although not necessarily, because of AF. To an extent it's not fair/useful ( because of feature segmentation) to compare the D3s and MkIV as equals.
I have dual inventoried both systems for some time to have the advantages of both. No one body/camera system has all the features of the other. That's why one might be better for different work. It's also likely that either body/system would be just fine for most people and a step up from an older system. YMWV!
SoundHound wrote:
Yes it appears that RB appears to think that the D3s is a more versatile camera than the Mk IV.
It's not that he "prefers" one over another: it's that he tells us the D3S is better, yet he skips over its failings while piling into the Mk IV - he specifically says that "It's official - Canon has lost its AF mojo" if the Mk IV's AF performance is anything to go by; and this without providing a single image - much less series of images - from the D3S to "prove" its superiority.
His say-so is enough, apparently?
Then there's the real likelihood that he's not even using the right Custom Functions for what he's shooting, without a single word to acknowledge that he might not have his head round the camera's nuances yet.
It's just a poor "review", poorly executed and poorly written, with little in the way of objectivity.
keithreeder wrote:
It's not that he "prefers" one over another: it's that he tells us the D3S is better, yet he skips over its failings while piling into the Mk IV - he specifically says that "It's official - Canon has lost its AF mojo" if the Mk IV's AF performance is anything to go by; and this without providing a single image - much less series of images - from the D3S to "prove" its superiority.
His say-so is enough, apparently?
Then there's the real likelihood that he's not even using the right Custom Functions for what he's shooting, without a single word to acknowledge that he might not have his head round the camera's nuances yet.
It's just a poor "review", poorly executed and poorly written, with little in the way of objectivity....Show more →
Depends what the purpose of the review was. Look at how he has stirred up the sleeping dogs on FM. Look at how many people ( you've gone to his site ), he has attracted to his site. Just when the initials RB had died on FM with regards to the MKIII, he has once again risen up from the ashes. Keep on debating and arguing about what is right and what is wrong...I am sure Rob is sitting back with a cold one having a good chuckle.
SoundHound wrote:
First RB is criticized for accepting Nikon ads...
I think someone who tests multiple brands of equipment should do their best to quell any possible thoughts of bias. RG allowing Nikon to advertise on his site isn't helping his cause. This, along with choice and seemingly skewed wording along with various converse conclusions via other photographers, is what causes speculation. And while his review seems thorough he neglects to point out exactly which Cfn's he used.
keithreeder wrote:
Why, because I sometimes choose to disagree with people who do nothing but bitch, whine and complain about every last thing that they take a personal dislike to and then do their damnedest to get us to feel the same way about?
On that basis, being called a fanboy (even though I'm not - I've changed brands before and would again if it was right for me to do so) is a compliment.
because you will go to the ends of the earth to deny or minimize anything and everything
for the record i've never touched a 1D4 and have no comment on the AF
not quite sure waht to make of RG's findings, they do seem to go against many early comments by others, we'll see I guess
keithreeder wrote:
He was wrong about the 40D and the 7D, and it's pretty clear that he was using the wrong AF Custom Function for most of the test shots he took with the Mk IV - Main Focus Point priority is specifically designed to track any new high contrast object that crosses selected focus points, which is not what you want in the shots he's posted as examples of poor AF.
Canon's AF user guide is pretty specific about this.
I reserve the right to be skeptical about RG's "findings"...
why was he wrong about the 40D? it definitely can have troubles at times with soccer
Nill Toulme wrote:
To take this fascinating and elevated discussion in a slightly different direction, does anybody know why Canon, after having jumped through so many hoops with RG on the Mark III meeting with him, flying in technicians and bodies for additional testing by and with him, etc. etc. etc. didn't involve him in the pre-release testing of the Mark IV?
Nill
The 64 million dollar question - what went down between Canon and RG after the MKIII testing?
Based on his "mojo" comment it probably wasn't good.
I got the impression back then that the mkIII issue RG first exposed went way past him and was a serious concern to the big houses as well and that's what Canon reacted to as much as anything.
rd4tile wrote:
The 64 million dollar question - what went down between Canon and RG after the MKIII testing?
Based on his "mojo" comment it probably wasn't good.
I got the impression back then that the mkIII issue RG first exposed went way past him and was a serious concern to the big houses as well and that's what Canon reacted to as much as anything.
RG may be on his own this time.
I would have to think that RG knows that any testing results/opinions he were to state about the 1D4 (or any other camera) would come under intense scrutiny. He has to be careful with what he presents as "facts". It is going to take some time to sort this out.
