Yakim Peled wrote:
I see that he favours the D3S but I do not see that he damns the MK IV. He points pros and cons of both cameras? Yes. He says that he thinks the D3S is better? Yes. Well, I see nothing wrong with that.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Some quotations characterizing the MK IV AF, they are taken out of context for simplicity. I encourage everybody who are concerned to read the full report, of course.
"there's no way to trust it"
"the AF system verged on total collapse"
"The EOS-1D Mark IV's Jekyll and Hyde autofocus performance at soccer has been so wacky that it's difficult to make a comparison to the D3S"
"and the results were as described: completely terrible."
Exaggerated words that aren't backed up by his test pictures IMO... to me it doesn't quite sound like words a fully objective reviewer would use, though to give the benefit of the doubt the choice of words can possibly be a cultural/language thing. Publishing a report when he knows it's an old firmware, using hearsay instead of matching tests to praise the competition, letting the report he himself states has to be re-done still sit online for people to read... sorry, but that just doesn't look unbiased to me.
I'm grateful for his Mark III test work, even if it didn't really help me, but this way of presenting the Mark IV isn't quite right.
I can guarantee that RG will say "1.0.6 firmware...no difference" ..
FretNoMore wrote:
Exaggerated words that aren't backed up by his test pictures IMO... to me it doesn't quite sound like words a fully objective reviewer would use, though to give the benefit of the doubt the choice of words can possibly be a cultural/language thing. Publishing a report when he knows it's an old firmware, using hearsay instead of matching tests to praise the competition, letting the report he himself states has to be re-done still sit online for people to read... sorry, but that just doesn't look unbiased to me.
I'm grateful for his Mark III test work, even if it didn't really help me, but this way of presenting the Mark IV isn't quite right....Show more →
He made his decision long ago before mk IV ... I just read that he use to have forums there and as moderator closed all threads talking against brands been advertised on his site. Clear RG picture, without any noise to me
kewlcanon wrote:
I can guarantee that RG will say "1.0.6 firmware...no difference" ..
kewlcanon wrote:
I can guarantee that RG will say "1.0.6 firmware...no difference" ..
Wow, your predictions are extremely accurate:
"We photographed basketball, speedskating, soccer, track and runner tests with both firmware v1.0.4 and v1.0.6 and could see no difference in AF tracking. Whatever the tweak is that Canon engineers made, it has been undetectable. All downloadable photos indicate on them what firmware was installed at the time, but it's safe to view the two firmware versions as effectively identical, at least for what we've shot."
Breitling65 wrote:
He made his decision long ago before mk IV ... I just read that he use to have forums there and as moderator closed all threads talking against brands been advertised on his site. Clear RG picture, without any noise to me
Your rather weak personal experience with Mr. Galbraith and the history of his site makes it apparent that you only heard part of the story. There was much more to it than is suggested by your statement above, but I'm guessing you'll believe what you want to believe.
Matt OHarver wrote:
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.
Matt
Apparently I opened that page and lingered while you posted your images, as they weren't there when I posted, otherwise I would have noted the fact.
But, I will point out that my MkIII's performed significantly worse at f/2.8 in bright light conditions (i.e. outdoor) than in indoor conditions, for whatever reason. The fact that many birders had no problem with the MkIII may have been directly related to someone's note above that they tend to shoot BIF at higher f/stops. Lot's of people early on thought they had working MkIII's, only to find later that the camera misbehaved shooting in different conditions or with different subjects than they typically shoot.
I don't have a kid in this MkIV game, but I personally don't know what all the fuss is about. I felt RG's review was much more positive than any of his MkIII reviews, and despite some language that perhaps could have been more objective ("darned', etc.), I certainly don't think he is trying to bash Canon. Based on his findings I'd actually have few worries buying a MkIV at this point. If the camera can successfully follow a runner coming at the camera, I have to presume that all the rest is indeed a result of not having settings tweaked properly for conditions/subjects, in addition to some inevitable future tweaks to firmware by Canon.
At this point, if I had a need for a 16MP sports camera I wouldn't hesitate to buy a MkIV (aside from the steep price), but I don't. Fortunately.
Jeff wrote:
Your rather weak personal experience with Mr. Galbraith and the history of his site makes it apparent that you only heard part of the story. There was much more to it than is suggested by your statement above, but I'm guessing you'll believe what you want to believe.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I agree entirely with this sentence. The difference between me and most other posters in this thread is that I refuse to declare he is "guilty" as long as this matter is not backed up by evidence. Call me naive if you want but I see myself simply as one who remembers the past.
I wonder what will you say if - in a few months time - Canon will issue a hardware fix to improve AF. The start of this saga is exactly like the start of the saga of the 1D3, and we all know how that ended. We only have to wait and see how this saga will progress.
Yakim Peled wrote:
That said, I do not share your view [my view being identical to Tom's] that just because he has Nikon ads in his site he must be prejudice against Canon.
The fact that RG has Nikon ad's posted all over his website with not even a whiff of another DSLR manufacturer is a major reason behind the possibility RG may have been bought out. Yes, appearances can be deceiving but the fact of the matter remains--The Nikon ad space allocation on RG's site AND the piles of evidence that refute RG's claims all point to one thing. Again, if it looks like a fish and if it smells like a fish...
dolina wrote:
With RG's report would you switch to the D3S or buy the 1D4?
Yes, Yoda has spoken. I must sell my 1D4 for it is but garbage. I must follow the crowd. Or in this case, lead the crowd, because most of the Olympic shooters haven't gotten the message.
Obviously this is a "fair & balanced" 1D Mark IV review
alundeb wrote:
Some quotations characterizing the MK IV AF, they are taken out of context for simplicity. I encourage everybody who are concerned to read the full report, of course.
"there's no way to trust it"
"the AF system verged on total collapse"
"The EOS-1D Mark IV's Jekyll and Hyde autofocus performance at soccer has been so wacky that it's difficult to make a comparison to the D3S"
"and the results were as described: completely terrible."
Sennaista wrote:
Let me say that I have no interest in this camera and usually don't do any focus tracking. I do read RG's pieces on different cameras though and what comes to mind is that he always previews/reviews Canon gear with a negative tone, punctuated with little nice things here and there while he's always infatuated by Nikon gear and dismisses their shortcomings as something small and irrelevant.
That's my personal feeling. Why he does it this way, I neither know nor care.
That is most certainly true. I do not know why this was not mentioned more often.
He was so negative about the 7D in his early preview... however there are currently many sites that provide direct evidence to refute his garbage. Unfortunately, it's slightly more complex when it comes to AF tracking, so it won't be easy to discredit his statements.
Do you all really believe this is a huge conspiracy between Nikon and RG? Seriously believe that?
Are you saying that a guy that as a business, is an educator and a reporter, would publish false results in order to maintain ad revenue on his website? Man, I'd love to hear your thoughts on 911.
I would tend to think the quote below has more to do with his findings than the few bucks a month he gets from Nikon ever will.
"We figured out early on that to get the camera to track as best it can, the EOS-1D Mark IV must be configured to use multiple AF points."
Put down the Grisham novels and hide the Moore videos for a few days and get out and take some pictures. Even with a MIV.
Do you all really believe this is a huge conspiracy between Nikon and RG? Seriously believe that?
Are you saying that a guy that as a business, is an educator and a reporter, would publish false results in order to maintain ad revenue on his website? Man, I'd love to hear your thoughts on 911.
I would tend to think the quote below has more to do with his findings than the few bucks a month he gets from Nikon ever will.
"We figured out early on that to get the camera to track as best it can, the EOS-1D Mark IV must be configured to use multiple AF points."
Put down the Grisham novels and hide the Moore videos for a few days and get out and take some pictures. Even with a MIV. ...Show more →
I don't think anyone here thinks he's lying, but he clearly has a bias for Nikon. It doesn't change my opinion of Canon products, and I think I'll keep my 1D4.
Ron Hole wrote:
Man. Do you all really believe this is a huge conspiracy between Nikon and RG? Seriously believe that?
Amazing, isn't it? You can tell some of the people here really do believe that. You walk away shaking your head and laughing at the same time. Hard to believe, but there it is. Posted right online here.
Garylv wrote:
Amazing, isn't it? You can tell some of the people here really do believe that. You walk away shaking your head and laughing at the same time. Hard to believe, but there it is. Posted right online here.
Amazing...people actually choose to question something questionable. The nerve.
argghhh...sorry I didn't read anything RG wrote, writes, will write .
alundeb wrote:
Wow, your predictions are extremely accurate:
"We photographed basketball, speedskating, soccer, track and runner tests with both firmware v1.0.4 and v1.0.6 and could see no difference in AF tracking. Whatever the tweak is that Canon engineers made, it has been undetectable. All downloadable photos indicate on them what firmware was installed at the time, but it's safe to view the two firmware versions as effectively identical, at least for what we've shot."
M Vers wrote:
Amazing...people actually choose to question something questionable. The nerve.
Questionable is one thing, but wildly outlandish accusations of a big conspiracy to trash Canon is something all together different. Certainly good for a laugh, but nothing else.
Jeff wrote:
Odd. If anything, I'd say that historically he's had a bias toward Canon.
Historically, Joe Lieberman was a Democrat
Historically, the United States took an isolationist view.
Historically, we were the 13 British colonies.
Historically, Canon has been the low noise leader.
I currently have a bias for the company who issues my paycheck every week. I suspect RG does too.
..
I just read that he use to have forums there and as moderator closed all threads talking against brands been advertised on his site. Clear RG picture, without any noise to me 
What do you really believe?