fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              23              25              35       36       end
  

Archive 2010 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance

  
 
Garylv
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #1 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


Browsing a thread at DPR I noticed this post from Eamon Hickey, who knows Rob personally, mentioning the Nikon advertising that people are screaming about. It's just a little more info to take in:


On the advertising issue: if Rob were tailoring his editorial content to derive advertising dollars, he would not criticize any equipment manufacturer, and ESPECIALLY NOT the company that spends by far the most on camera advertising in the world (that's Canon, whose ad budget has historically been 7-10X larger than Nikon's). I can't speak for Rob, but I'm pretty sure he would be delighted to have Canon spend some ad money on his site. Several years ago, he did frequently have Canon advertising on his site (and no Nikon advertising). He's just not willing to hide the truth in order to get ad dollars.

Rob is the most straightforward reviewer of photography equipment in publishing -- he's willing to say on his site that a product doesn't work, even if that product's manufacturer has a big ad budget (and, again, nobody's ad budget is even close to as large as Canon's). He's also willing to praise stuff that does work, and he has praised Canon equipment very highly many, many times in the past. He's also been bluntly critical of Nikon gear in the past (and praised it, too, when it worked well). Nikon's top cameras now work better than they used to, so, for the time being, he's not driving Nikon as crazy as he used to. Rob has a 15-year publishing record, and it's easy to verify everything I've just said, if you're interested in learning anything about the man whose integrity you've impugned.

Now, none of the above means Rob is infallible. His judgments aren't guaranteed to be right; he's a human being and therefore subject to error. But his integrity is totally sound, and anyone who bothers to give his track record even a cursory check knows that.

Others have questioned his qualifications. Again, it just takes 15 minutes of research to find out that Rob has been a professional photojournalist since the late 1980s. He is one of the first dozen or so photographers in the world to begin working with digital cameras on a daily basis (in 1994), when he was a staff photographer at the Calgary Herald. He wrote the first book ever written on professional digital photography, and he became without question the leading consultant on digital photography for newspapers, magazines, and institutions all over the world. (And as such, he has always owned and used all brands of equipment that he might be asked to train clients on. For the past decade, that has meant Canon and Nikon; in the 1990s it was Kodak. He's an expert on all three systems -- one of USA Today's best staff photographers told me a few years back that among most of the pro shooters he knew, the standard answer to any technical or performance question about pro DSLRs was "just ask Rob.")



Feb 15, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Garylv
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #2 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


M Vers wrote:
So what you're saying is it's OK for RG to use a camera incorrectly


Nope, I didn't say incorrectly. You're missing the point yet again.....





Feb 15, 2010 at 12:11 PM
M Vers
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #3 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


Garylv wrote:
Nope, I didn't say incorrectly. You're missing the point yet again.....


What you said was:
Garylv wrote:
I believe Rob reported his findings accurately based on how HE uses the camera.


Judging by his conclusions versus the conclusions of various others, I'd say he's most likely using the camera incorrectly. Whether or not he is doing so knowingly I don't know.



Edited on Feb 15, 2010 at 12:16 PM · View previous versions



Feb 15, 2010 at 12:15 PM
Emile Gregoire
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #4 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


Here I am, looking at RG's website, seeing only one small Nikon ad. Others are by Noise Ninja, which probably implies that the 1D has a terrible amount of noise, two are by Think Tank, probably because the 1D is too heavy to carry, and then there's one by The Camera Store that promotes the Panasonic GF1, because it assumedly outdoes the 1D, if I read everyone here correctly. Not too hard to see why Michael Moore's earning a lot of bucks with his grossly inflated conspiracy theories

In my opinion RG should have done three things:

1) report on the 1D Mk IV without comparing it to Nikon; results would have been the same but it would have saved Fred a lot of bandwidth in this thread;

2) do a different report comparing the 1D and the D3s. For all I care, the D3s could be the winner in a direct comparison - it won't make me switch and I'm fine if a competitor has the better product. After all, there's more to photography than a camera;

3) choose his words better as to not start a war over them: his choice of words detract from the message itself as has been clearly demonstrated over here. However, that still doesn't change the results he got.

As far as I'm concerned, advertising has nothing to do with it at all. He's got more sources of revenue, Nikon isn't the sole advertiser on his site, and Canon could have advertised there had they wanted to. But hey, truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Me? I trust RG, especially since the 1D III with which I've had a tough nut to crack myself. That doesn't mean that his choice of C.Fn's is the right one. With a lot more tweaking his results might have been different and that's what the debate should probably be all about. Not about a Nikon ad here or there...



Feb 15, 2010 at 12:16 PM
Sennaista
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #5 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


thw2 wrote:
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.


I think the 7D review is the best example. He basically bad-mouthed the camera to the extreme and backed it up by a load of images showing ridiculously bad processing work.

Now, don't get me wrong, 7D has it's issues (low ISO banding anyone?) but I don't see why people shouldn't be sceptical of this person. Did he intentionally use bad processing technique or does he not know how to process images at all?

It's very fair to ask the same questions about his AF test. Did he intentionally fuck up the settings or does he not know how to set the camera up?



Feb 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM
David Manning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #6 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


Emile Gregoire wrote:
Here I am, looking at RG's website, seeing only one small Nikon ad. Others are by Noise Ninja, which probably implies that the 1D has a terrible amount of noise, two are by Think Tank, probably because the 1D is too heavy to carry, and then there's one by The Camera Store that promotes the Panasonic GF1, because it assumedly outdoes the 1D, if I read everyone here correctly. Not too hard to see why Michael Moore's earning a lot of bucks with his grossly inflated conspiracy theories

In my opinion RG should have done three things:

1) report on
...Show more

He didn't!

2) do a different report comparing the 1D and the D3s. For all I care, the D3s could be the winner in a direct comparison - it won't make me switch and I'm fine if a competitor has the better product. After all, there's more to photography than a camera;

He didn't!

3) choose his words better as to not start a war over them: his choice of words detract from the message itself as has been clearly demonstrated over here. However, that still doesn't change the results he got.

He didn't, and the words he carefully chose indicate his bias.

As far as I'm concerned, advertising has nothing to do with it at all. He's got more sources of revenue, Nikon isn't the sole advertiser on his site, and Canon could have advertised there had they wanted to. But hey, truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Me? I trust RG, especially since the 1D III with which I've had a tough nut to crack myself. That doesn't mean that his choice of C.Fn's is the right one. With a lot more tweaking his results might have been different and that's what the debate should probably be all about. Not about
...Show more

If RG had taken your advice, maybe this thread wouldn't exist. He didn't, and he exposed himself in the article he DID right.



Feb 15, 2010 at 12:28 PM
kewlcanon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #7 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


Luckily I did my own test and I like my 7D.

Sennaista wrote:
I think the 7D review is the best example. He basically bad-mouthed the camera to the extreme and backed it up by a load of images showing ridiculously bad processing work.

Now, don't get me wrong, 7D has it's issues (low ISO banding anyone?) but I don't see why people shouldn't be sceptical of this person. Did he intentionally use bad processing technique or does he not know how to process images at all?

It's very fair to ask the same questions about his AF test. Did he intentionally fuck up the settings or does he not know how to set
...Show more



Feb 15, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Emile Gregoire
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #8 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


32067dlm wrote:
He didn't!

He didn't!

He didn't, and the words he carefully chose indicate his bias.

If RG had taken your advice, maybe this thread wouldn't exist. He didn't, and he exposed himself in the article he DID right.


I know he didn't. I know he didn't and I know he didn't. That's why I wrote what I think he should have done. But... That still doesn't alter the results he got!



Feb 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM
globalkiwi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #9 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


Yeah, could have probably replaced that post with a +1. Amazing how long this has gone on. If nothing else, RG must be gratified at the level of intensity (& hits!) his review has generated (at least here).


Feb 15, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Milan Hutera
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #10 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


Jeff wrote:
Since this thread has leveled accusations of 'impartial objectivity' at RG, how does the fact that Phil never even reviewed the 1D MkIII work into it? Can anyone think of a single DSLR that DPR didn't review?

I'm honestly not keeping track, so the question isn't necessarily rhetorical...


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022208canoneos1dmarkiii.asp

Askey's famous ego trip about 1dIII is written in green. That's why it wasn't reviewed.



Feb 15, 2010 at 01:05 PM
Garylv
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #11 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


Regarding Rob's possible effect on sales, do you think Canon feels it has an impact? Do YOU feel it has an impact?

We know their "official" word is to say "We don't monitor, follow or endorse any website blogs". At least that's what their customer service department will tell you if you call them.

But I think most of us feel at least some of the representatives will read or have read the latest report.

If they felt his testing/shooting methods were incorrect, they could have said so back when he tested the Mark III along WITH the Canon engineers in attendance. But would they? Wouldn't you think they have enough corporate muscle to make a little statement like that without concern?

Or, do you feel they don't really see any significant impact on sales to warrant any kind of a response at all?

Based on following the 1D AF issue since 2007, my impression is Canon does not see an issue with his testing methods.



Feb 15, 2010 at 01:06 PM
rd4tile
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #12 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


A couple of excerpts from one of the pros over at Sportshooters:

"For what it's worth: I've been shooting with this camera since early December and it's really a huge improvement from the troubled Mark III's I had. The Getty shooters all now have two Mark IV's and virtually everyone is pleased with the camera."

"I suspect most of us hope any camera we use will be perfect, but that's never going to happen. The Mark IV is so much better than the Mark III, that I feel like I can actually shoot again."

Seems like there's no end to the posts from disgruntled MKIII shooters praising the MKIV. The key word soon to threads like this will be "irrelevant". (Unless of course you're one of the people that's always looking for a reason not to buy a camera, then you can ride this tired old horse for a long time)




Feb 15, 2010 at 01:12 PM
globalkiwi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #13 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


Garylv wrote:
Regarding Rob's possible effect on sales, do you think Canon feels it has an impact? Do YOU feel it has an impact?


I can't speak for Canon - & my guess there isn't a single opinion there anyway (some will be concerned, others will think it doesn't have an impact). I think his reviews do have an impact whether we like it or not. Just look at the furor this one generated. Whether it has an impact on sales is much harder to predict. My guess is, judging from the responses here, is that people who want to like (& buy) the camera will find a reason to do so anyway - either dismissing RG or finding enough positive reviews elsewhere to make them comfortable. People who look for red flags (inspired by past experience perhaps) may be swayed by his review. The bottom line is though, it is hardly the definitive word. There are & will be many more reviews on this camera. (Even RG claims he's going to revisit the MkIV.) In due course the weight of user opinion & review consensus will be far more important in generating (or reducing) sales.



Feb 15, 2010 at 01:33 PM
ftemoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #14 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


Regarding Rob's possible effect on sales, do you think Canon feels it has an impact? Do YOU feel it has an impact?

We know their "official" word is to say "We don't monitor, follow or endorse any website blogs". At least that's what their customer service department will tell you if you call them.

But I think most of us feel at least some of the representatives will read or have read the latest report.

If they felt his testing/shooting methods were incorrect, they could have said so back when he tested the Mark III along WITH the Canon engineers in attendance. But would
...Show more

In fact, Canon referenced him positively and the input they received from him in one of the web newsletters they did updating the AF issues with the III. This was early to mid 08 if I recall correctly (I still have a download, but I don't thin k they archive them on their site) I think they acknowledged it because he became the public face of the issue by running a long series on the issue. They also eventually pulled back from the relationship as time went on and they continued upgrading firmware. It was a strange dynamic in which RG's ongoing evaluation of the MkIII somehow became publicly the center of gravity of whether camera shot well. I'm sure they needed to disengage from that for many reasons that make sense for a corporation; the quality of the on-going relationship may have been an issue, or not, that's sheer speculation beyond noting (as RG did) that they didn't give him a preproduction MkIV to evaluate. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the MkIII series eventually strained their relationship.

Whatever was going on with the articles then, you have to know that Canon was getting much more input privately from the legions of pros. However prominent RG's MkIII efforts may have seemed to the public, especially at the outset, it had to be a small part of the constructive feedback they were getting.

I'm sure RG felt pressure to get something out quickly, particularly in the new "all eyes on RG" world. That's probably neither fair to him or to Canon. Maybe the judgments were too much, too soon, and with too much conviction.

Bashing or calling him out for having Nikon ads on his site is going places one needn't go. It's speculation and innuendo. He says some things some people like, don't like, agree with, don't agree with. That's life. I haven't experienced the negatives he reported shooting the same situation with the same lens combo, but I use different settings. In the end, I only care about my results, and learning from people's successes and failures, and sharing that back to the extent it helps for someone else. I don't think there's any reason to think RG's any different.

Edited on Feb 15, 2010 at 01:46 PM · View previous versions



Feb 15, 2010 at 01:36 PM
thedigitalbean
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #15 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


RG seems like an ethical and experienced photographer and I don't buy the conspiracy theories.

My guess (and this is completely a guess) as to what happened is the following. Canon Inc. in Japan likely felt that RG publically humiliated them by airing the Mk3 AF issues he was experiencing in public. They probably felt he should have quietly informed them to allow them to save face. He didn't, he spoke and wrote his mind. This likely resulting in him being excluded in pre-release testing of future cameras and likely resulted in reduced advertising spending on his site from Canon.

I know that if I were in that situation, consciously or subconsciously, I wouldn't be particularly motivated to cast Canon in a glowing light. That I suspect is the reason for his lazy review of the 7D AF performance (and lazy, IMO is a charitable description of that review) and this latest 1D4 'review'. His 1D3 analysis were detailed, thorough and had plenty of evidence to back up his claims. In contrast both his 7D and 1D4 reviews have been considerably weaker.



Feb 15, 2010 at 01:43 PM
Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #16 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


Man RG should be happy how many people protecting his reputation, really iconic figure with millions behind. pope of photography no less than this!



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.

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
...Show more



Feb 15, 2010 at 01:46 PM
Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #17 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


thedigitalbean wrote:
RG seems like an ethical and experienced photographer and I don't buy the conspiracy theories.



Conspiracy is when something hidden but Nikon adds are very visible on his site ...

Edited on Feb 15, 2010 at 01:57 PM · View previous versions



Feb 15, 2010 at 01:47 PM
ftemoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #18 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


My guess (and this is completely a guess) as to what happened is the following. Canon Inc. in Japan likely felt that RG publically humiliated them by airing the Mk3 AF issues he was experiencing in public. They probably felt he should have quietly informed them to allow them to save face. He didn't, he spoke and wrote his mind. This likely resulting in him being excluded in pre-release testing of future cameras and likely resulted in reduced advertising spending on his site from Canon.

This is equally an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.




Feb 15, 2010 at 01:48 PM
Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #19 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


Page not found, oops


Ron Hole wrote:
A guy on Nikon's payroll would not post this on his Nikon site.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10046-1043




Feb 15, 2010 at 01:49 PM
Ron Hole
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #20 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance


thedigitalbean wrote:
RG seems like an ethical and experienced photographer and I don't buy the conspiracy theories.

My guess (and this is completely a guess) as to what happened is the following. Canon Inc. in Japan likely felt that RG publically humiliated them by airing the Mk3 AF issues he was experiencing in public. They probably felt he should have quietly informed them to allow them to save face. He didn't, he spoke and wrote his mind. This likely resulting in him being excluded in pre-release testing of future cameras and likely resulted in reduced advertising spending on his site from Canon.
...Show more

RG has this disclaimer regarding advertising and reviews.

Important notice


Unlike some other web sites and print publications geared towards digital photographers, you will never be asked to purchase an ad as a condition of having your product featured in the editorial content.

Similarly, having an ad on the site will not influence the editorial content, which will remain focused on providing fair and accurate information on all products from advertisers and non-advertisers alike.

This is the approach that serious and pro shooters demand from their information sources, and is in keeping with the philosophy established for the site since it first went live in 1998.




The correct link for my earlier post should be

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10046-10439



Feb 15, 2010 at 02:01 PM
1       2       3              23              25              35       36       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              23              25              35       36       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account