I used my Mk III in low light and AI Servo at 10fps with a single point of AF. It worked fine (much, MUCH better than the 5D I was using) for 10s of 1000s of shots. Rob is reporting HIS results=that's up front. YMMV.
Rob is a very experienced sports shooter. He's adept at shooting under many circumstances and that must be why he can find more problems than others. Also, since his technique is perfected, his expectation are high(er).
Canon really tried their corporate best here. But that Rob found so many different problems seems to augur that others will also find-some. What is damming is the instances where there are inexplicable OOFs. This is deadly to a Pro who's living depends on the shot and, forewarned, can find a workaround.
scowl wrote:
During the Mark III fiasco Rob was in continuous contact with dozens of professional photographers who shared their experiences and recommendations with him. He also did testing with Canon engineers using their certified "good" cameras and lenses. He certainly does not do his testing in a void.
Thanks. While it appears that some argue that he has a bias against Canon, he doesn't seem to post his findings unless he is pretty certain of them.
Mike Mohrmann wrote:
While it appears that some argue that he has a bias against Canon, he doesn't seem to post his findings unless he is pretty certain of them.
I don't think he has a bias against Canon. I think he has a bias toward his sponsors.
scowl wrote: I think that's what Canon is doing and I think that's why their AF is failing in the hands of photographers. I'm sure their cameras score tremendously well in Canon's controlled objective scientific autofocusing tests. Rob's experiences with Canon showed their engineers were baffled when they saw their cameras failing out in the real world.
Canon needs to change their tests then
I don't think I am disagreeing with what you think the ultimate goal is...get a camera that works for the photographer holding it.
I just get sick of the back and forth between biased photographers. I own a mark III and mark IV and am happy with them but if I knew for a fact that with proper operation a D3s would give me a significantly higher percentage of keepers then I would be more likely to entertain a switch.
pjbuehner wrote:
...but if I knew for a fact that with proper operation a D3s would give me a significantly higher percentage of keepers then I would be more likely to entertain a switch.
all the best,
Peter
The guru has spoken. It must be so. All hail the D3s! All hail the D3s! All hail the D3s!
scowl wrote:
I think that's what Canon is doing and I think that's why their AF is failing in the hands of photographers. I'm sure their cameras score tremendously well in Canon's controlled objective scientific autofocusing tests. Rob's experiences with Canon showed their engineers were baffled when they saw their cameras failing out in the real world.
I don't buy that for a second.
The idea that - especially after the Mk III debacle - Canon won't have tested the arse off the Mk IV in every conceivable Real World situation they hope the camera will be used for, stretches credibility waaay beyond breaking point.
I also don't believe for a second that RG is somehow managing to come up with shooting situations to test cameras in that it doesn't occur to Canon's own testers (don't forget - Canon gets pros to test its cameras before release) to try...
fernsidekid wrote:
Do people shoot more extended bursts than I?
With the Mark III I do... it's the only way to increase the odds that it got a shot in focus. I'm afraid I'm only half joking.
Here's an example. When a softball player hits the ball and starts running to first base, I shoot continuously. Although it might seem like a waste, I feel there are several elements that make a good, uh, "running to first base" shot and they aren't there for every shot. Of course the player has to have their eyes open (I am amazed at how many players run with their eyes closed half the time!). It's best to get a shot with both feet off the ground. It's great to have them looking up or to their left to see where the ball is going. It's good to have their arms at their side so their jersey isn't blocked. A dust trail makes a good background. It's best to have an intense look on their faces which often relaxes when it's clear they're going to be safe.
There is always one shot that I feel is better than all the others. If I didn't shoot continuously, would I have gotten it? I don't know. Why take that chance? It's just battery and memory (and shutter life).
Different people have different shooting styles; and to some extend alter their shooting style depending on what they are shooting.
There have been several threads here containing images of birds reliving themselves; sometimes in flight and sometimes just perched on a stick. The basic technique here is to "spray and pray" you will catch the bird doing its business.
In fact lots of animal behavior pix are shot this way.
On the other hand I have seen posts that recommend you shoot in 3-4 shot bursts; and if I am shooting a bird eating a fish I tend to not just hold the shutter button down; but rather shoot in bursts based on what the bird is or is not doing.
I suspect one reason tests are done with these big 10 shot bursts is because this is a harder test for a camera to pass than a 3 shot burst.
keithreeder wrote:
The idea that - especially after the Mk III debacle - Canon won't have tested the arse off the Mk IV in every conceivable Real World situation they hope the camera will be used for, stretches credibility waaay beyond breaking point.
Didn't you hear that Canon just released version 1.0.6 of the Mark IV firmware solely to address newly discovered AF problems, weeks after the camera had been released? If you were aware of this, why didn't that break Canon's credibility for you? There can be no doubt that there were some things they forgot. They admitted it.
I'm sure Canon tries their best. I'm also sure they are limited in time and resources like any company. I'm also sure they're human and make mistakes and false assumptions.
I also don't believe for a second that RG is somehow managing to come up with shooting situations to test cameras in that it doesn't occur to Canon's own testers (don't forget - Canon gets pros to test its cameras before release) to try...
Canon released that firmware update to handle shooting situations that didn't occur to Canon's own testers. You should start believing it.
I think it's worth keeping it in perspective and deciding for yourself whether the rig does your subject well. I didn't shoot the MkIII with subjects that caused RG the issues he experienced, and rarely droned long bursts, and was pretty satisfied with the results.
So far, I've felt more comfortable sooner with the handling and results going from the III to the IV that I did going from the II to the III. That's no doubt because the jump from the II to III included a big interface change, but it's also because I had a hefty amount of paranoia and confirmation bias with all the internet hysteria over the III's performance. I'm a little more comfortable this time relying on my own experience without second guessing based on RG or folks on the boards if their reports are at odds with my experience.
So, since RG says soccer is the Waterloo for this new body, and I shoot a fair bit of it, we'll see how it goes this weekend.
I regularly read the SportsShooter member's forum. Funny that I saw no mention of what Galbraith is reporting on that site. And, keep in mind, he wasn't the only one to report 1D3 issues when it first came out - many shooters did, but most early adopters of the 1D4 report nothing like what he complains about.
I can't help noticing the Nikon ads on his site and that makes be wonder.
jmaio wrote:
I regularly read the SportsShooter member's forum. Funny that I saw no mention of what Galbraith is reporting on that site. And, keep in mind, he wasn't the only one to report 1D3 issues when it first came out - many shooters did, but most early adopters of the 1D4 report nothing like what he complains about.
I can't help noticing the Nikon ads on his site and that makes be wonder.
They'll come out in droves now that RG has spoken. Wait and see.
32067dlm wrote:
We look forward to hearing your feedback. Have a nice shoot.
Thanks, so far I've only burned through a few hundred frames with my loyal photo assistant, Buster the dog, galloping at me, tweaking a setting here and there as it goes. That went fine enough to get a handle on what does and doesn't work well shooting a dog running at you. Saturday will just be scrimmaging, but (hopefully) in sun and on turf, so it should be a good opportunity to focus on setting without having to worry a whole lot about getting "the shot."
I do not own the markIV but i have the markIII and 5D MKII....I have read numerous outstanding reviews of the markIV from people ranging from sports illustrated photographers to other well known professionals....I really think galbraith's reviews should be ignored.I do not suggest that he is right or wrong..only that he isnt more right or wrong than all the others and for whatever reason his reviews seem to determine to a lot of people whether or not the camera is good or bad....the same thing happened with the markIII and believe me I am not looking to start that debate once again....only to assert that i would hate to see the markIV essentially destroyed in the public mind due to galbraith again!....enough already...he doesnt like canon's AF systems's..fair enough,lets move on and leave him to his opinion as with everyone else!.....when i determine whether or not to see a movie i look at a cross section of reviewers...if the majority lke it i go,i do not say most liked it but since one reviewer didnt i will not go..same thing in this case,if the majority of reviewers like the camera and galbraith doesnt...who cares?make up your own mind for crying out loud!
jmaio wrote:
I regularly read the SportsShooter member's forum. Funny that I saw no mention of what Galbraith is reporting on that site. And, keep in mind, he wasn't the only one to report 1D3 issues when it first came out - many shooters did, but most early adopters of the 1D4 report nothing like what he complains about.
I can't help noticing the Nikon ads on his site and that makes be wonder.
Actually, AFAIK, the Sportshooter folks were not talking about the MKIII issues before Galbraith's writeup of the production model. The only discussion I recall was over on Naturescapes and that large thread began about a week before the Galbraith piece.
