There's quite a premium to get the review out before many others hit - hence the questionable decision to go with the previous firmware, rather than update & repeat. Beyond that, I don't think there was any conspiracy ...
jamesf99 wrote:
** A large group of Toyota dealers in the South eastern US pulled their advertising from ABC affiliates because according to the group, ABC was focusing too much on the negative aspects of the Toyota recalls. While incredibly dumb, this shows exactly what advertisers (that lack credibility) will do when criticized. Are Nikon and Canon really above such tactics? Did Canon end their advertising relationship or did RG kick them out? I don't know, but one rightly should wonder when ever money is at stake...
A more accurate analogy would be how Dodge (Chrysler?) wouldn't lend Top Gear their car for the American trip because TG had always been critical in their reviews.
globalkiwi wrote:
There's quite a premium to get the review out before many others hit - hence the questionable decision to go with the previous firmware, rather than update & repeat. Beyond that, I don't think there was any conspiracy ...
Oh I'm not so sure about that. Once you establish your reputation as a fair and thorough reviewer and people trust you, I think they would wait for your review before committing to a product.
globalkiwi wrote:
There's quite a premium to get the review out before many others hit
But RG's wasn't even close to being the first "review" out of the gate - and it can't have taken that long to write, given how little of substance it contains..!
n0b0 wrote:
Oh I'm not so sure about that. Once you establish your reputation as a fair and thorough reviewer and people trust you, I think they would wait for your review before committing to a product.
I don't agree. His review needs to be out in timely interval or he risks the possibility that it will be so late as to be irrelevant. I can't imagine someone seriously considering a 1DIV delaying their purchase (for very long) waiting for RG's seal of approval. RG clearly doesn't either as he chose to get the review out rather than take the more thorough option of conducting it with the latest firmware.
keithreeder wrote:
But RG's wasn't even close to being the first "review" out of the gate - and it can't have taken that long to write, given how little of substance it contains..!
I wasn't suggesting he was striving to be first, but to cement his (ostensible) position as an "opinion maker" he has to get it out before consensus has coalesced. The longer he waits the less influential it may be. Arguably, of course, a little less haste might have helped ...
I am so sick of RG being the 'source' his tests of the 1d3 were garbage, he bases his accusations on hunches and feels and to me is nothing more than a really dirty nikon viral ad.
Admittedly, I only went through the last page (page 6) of the '1D MkIV Hands-on' thread, but only *ONE* of the 30 or so images posted were shot at f/2.8. Other than the soccer images which have no EXIF, all the rest were taken at f/5.6 or above.
Shooting AI Servo at f/5.6 using the 1D MkIII proved little, and I'm not surprised the MkIV images look good here on the web.
& RG's D3s hands~on link. Enjoyable read & maybe worth comparing how he talks about Nikon versus Canon equiptment? Fun reading for me as I own both Canon & Nikon gear.
Jeff wrote:
Admittedly, I only went through the last page (page 6) of the '1D MkIV Hands-on' thread, but only *ONE* of the 30 or so images posted were shot at f/2.8. Other than the soccer images which have no EXIF, all the rest were taken at f/5.6 or above.
Shooting AI Servo at f/5.6 using the 1D MkIII proved little, and I'm not surprised the MkIV images look good here on the web.
Nathan Hobbs wrote:
I am so sick of RG being the 'source' his tests of the 1d3 were garbage, he bases his accusations on hunches and feels and to me is nothing more than a really dirty nikon viral ad.
Nathan, you still don't feel there was ever a problem with the 1D3? Canon issued a recall to fix some kind of mirror box assembly, issued numerous releases, added blue dots, pink dots or whatever colour of dots to cameras that were deemed to be fixed...all without there ever being a problem.
SoundHound wrote:
There's a familiar ring to all this. Haven't we done this for the Mk III already? Wasn't RG one of the first to expose AF problems in the Mk III when others were clueless? Wasn't the criticism very similar? RB couldn't be finding real problems because he had Nikon ads.
Is it possible that many people can't duplicate RG's results because they don't test or shoot as he does? He never said the Mk IV was no good he reported his test results (and before that was one of the first to post laudatory Mk IV results from others).
I would say that this all has a slighly familiar ring. I'm not so sure about the presense of Nikon ads on his site back then, though. There were definitely lots of allegations about Nikon advertising but I was never really able to see many Nikon ads at all when I visited the site so that was a bit of a puzzle. My sense is that lack of Nikon advertising wouldn't really have mattered anyway (then or now) because there is the other argument by unhappy readers who don't like the message: RG runs a website and he's trying to drive traffic to his site (I clearly recall being chastised for "not understanding" the economics of web site administration by someone who was trying to make this argument.) I suspect that if RG currently had no Nikon advertising, and even stated that his site would not accept advertising as a way of maintaining objectivity, people who didn't like his reviews would theorize that he was obviously about to change that practice and was attempting to curry favor with some manufacturer. (So, just a caution to anyone out there who runs a website selling photos, advice, lessons, trips, etc. You can't say anything remotely critical about a product because by definition you're only doing it to boost revenue! )
One of the funny things about all this (funny in the weird/strange/sad/ironic sense) is that a major, enduring, critique of the RG MkIII review was that he didn't compare it the Nikon flagship. I was always kind of non-plussed by this argument, partly because I'm not really interested in Nikon. But also because it seemed like people were saying "Yes, I'll admit there are probably some issues with the MkIII's AF but I could stomach the criticism if it were compared to the Nikon pro body" (obviously assuming that Canon would carry the day in such a matchup.) Well, everyone got their wish and Galbraith did a comparison but it didn't come out the way people thought. I'm not totally sold on Galbraith's conclusions (I'd like to see more input from others, a more detailed examination similar to the length of his MkIII review, and his shooting subjects are not the ones I shoot so it's not clear to me how valid his results are for me.) However, now that he's provided a head-to-head Canon/Nikon assessment, I think "competing" treatments will also have to do the same. It's fine for other professional reviews (I'm referring to full-blown, published, studies) to do a MkIV-only assessment but people are probably going to want a head-to-head matchup to bounce off of the Galbraith stuff. In a strange way, everyone who insisted on a Canon-Nikon shootout have made the Galbraith reviews stronger.
(BTW, just so I don't flamed too badly, I shoot Canon, have no intention of switching, and plan on buying a MkIV at some point after prices drop a bit (or even if they don't.) I'm certain that the body is an improvement over the MkIII and that any AF abnormalities that exist will be minimized or eliminated in the near-to-medium term. But I'm not foolish enough to think that Canon will always have the best AF system for every possible scenario, or that Nikon will either. The history of business competition is that relative positions change repeatedly over time. That's life (and technology) and it's a good thing for everyone because it forces companies to stay on their toes.
keithreeder wrote:
But RG's wasn't even close to being the first "review" out of the gate - and it can't have taken that long to write, given how little of substance it contains..!
all winks aside doing testing of AF takes a fair amount of effort
Jeff wrote:
Admittedly, I only went through the last page (page 6) of the '1D MkIV Hands-on' thread, but only *ONE* of the 30 or so images posted were shot at f/2.8. Other than the soccer images which have no EXIF, all the rest were taken at f/5.6 or above.
Shooting AI Servo at f/5.6 using the 1D MkIII proved little, and I'm not surprised the MkIV images look good here on the web.
Page 6 has not 1 but 5 of my photos all at F2.8(wide open) in Alservo. Russ posted some as well, even as wide open as F2.
I've had my 1D MK IV for a month and shot several assignments with it. I'm generally happy with the camera's performance and still coming to terms with the new functionality and custom functions, particularly as they apply to AF. The most recent Canon white paper (which goes into great detail about AF customization) was enlightening.
I'm dismayed at the irrational criticism being leveled at RG. His opinion is another valuable data point regarding the camera, and those that seek to discredit him (often it seems without reading his report) are way off the mark. The claims of Nikon bias are rubbish. I come away with the distinct impression Rob wanted the camera to excel but his review lets the chips fall where they may.
The way some people attack him you'd think he was the second gunman on the grassy knoll. Through his previous contributions Canon was pushed to address deficiencies in the MK3, and that in turn led to the AF rethinking we see in the MK4.
Again I think the new camera, and my particular MK4 are on the right track, but I'm not inclined to discount or ignore reasoned tests (which may amount to criticism) because I shoot Canon or have made a huge investment in the company's products.
Rob's efforts are just as likely to result in continued firmware updates that will improve the camera... not to mention the MK5 two years down the road. I'm appreciative of his efforts. I wish his critics were as systematic in their methodology. Turn around and take a look, most of the barbs and arrows you've launched at him are firmly lodged in your own behinds.
Nathan Hobbs wrote:
I am so sick of RG being the 'source' his tests of the 1d3 were garbage, he bases his accusations on hunches and feels and to me is nothing more than a really dirty nikon viral ad.
"In the blue singlet runner tests the EOS-1D Mark IV is consistently better. The D3S does really well too, flubbing only a few frames in extended sequences, but the EOS-1D Mark IV is capable of getting every frame in focus. "
"The D3S is the best camera we've used to shoot speedskating, though there's also room for improvement."
"The D3S is a very good soccer autofocus camera. It misses here and there when it ought not to, and we've run up against a problem in which the camera will at times frontfocus slightly in bright light. Because of these things we're stopping short of calling the D3S great at autofocusing this sport. "
"The D3S is a fine sports autofocus camera, though it's not without its quirks and, as mentioned, there may well be something not quite right about how it tracks with a long lens in bright light."
"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."
Anyone writing a "really dirty nikon viral ad" would probably not choose these phrases in thier ad copy.
Jeff wrote:
Admittedly, I only went through the last page (page 6) of the '1D MkIV Hands-on' thread, but only *ONE* of the 30 or so images posted were shot at f/2.8. Other than the soccer images which have no EXIF, all the rest were taken at f/5.6 or above.
Shooting AI Servo at f/5.6 using the 1D MkIII proved little, and I'm not surprised the MkIV images look good here on the web.
A couple observation before (hopefully) leaving this thread for good.
* The hope for the other thread was that it not be about people fighting back at RG's evaluation, but to share their actual experiences, some in settings to which RG put the body to the test, others in settings very different.
* There's going to be some apples and oranges comparisons by there being different subjects. Also different equipment. I'm shooting soccer, but with a 300, not the 400 RG used. I'm also using different settings. Personally, I think using all the assist points in soccer is asking for trouble. Better shooters than me probably go both ways. The BIF guys, many if not most of them, are shooting 500's or TC combos that don't allow shooting a 2.8. And maybe they rarely or never would given their experience in that area. To that extent, their experience is not relevant to RG's beyond RG's observation that the MkIV can rip a long burst without losing focus. They also may be happy to use all assist points, at least against a relatively uniform sky, or not if the background is wooded. Beats me; don't think I'll be shooting that subject much.
* Not sure what the observation implies noting that my shots don't have exif data (they are screen shots in order to show the focus point overlay on the images in DPP). I did relay the key info, but if there's something else material that's missing I'd be happy to dig it out or post direct files with the info embedded.
* My previous posts acknowledged that my primary concern with RG's observations related to soccer, because that was the primary crossover to what I do. I am delighted with how it handles soccer, although I haven't had to muscle up against any red kits yet. I know what a sharp file is and what's going to work for genuine end product, whether print or web. That's just my opinion based on very early shooting. Just my experience. I'm absolutely confident it's going to handle MX very well. Those judgments and a dime will get you ~ well, maybe a coffee cup in these times. In the end what matters is not a crappy internet thread like this one, or even a constructive thread with people sharing their actual experiences, but how well you feel about your results with whatever body you shoot with.
I'm not so sure about the presense of Nikon ads on his site back then, though. There were definitely lots of allegations about Nikon advertising but I was never really able to see many Nikon ads at all when I visited the site so that was a bit of a puzzle. My sense is that lack of Nikon advertising wouldn't really have mattered anyway (then or now) because there is the other argument by unhappy readers who don't like the message: RG runs a website and he's trying to drive traffic to his site (I clearly recall being chastised for "not understanding" the economics of web site administration by someone who was trying to make this argument.) I suspect that if RG currently had no Nikon advertising, and even stated that his site would not accept advertising as a way of maintaining objectivity, people who didn't like his reviews would theorize that he was obviously about to change that practice and was attempting to curry favor with some manufacturer. (So, just a caution to anyone out there who runs a website selling photos, advice, lessons, trips, etc. You can't say anything remotely critical about a product because by definition you're only doing it to boost revenue!