ftemoto wrote:
This is equally an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
So what? You believe to RG tests and I don't, why would you continue arguing and trying and convince me in something I would never believe? Should we stop this and just stay with what we believe? We are not in court to collect evidence and whiteness words and facts … Current fact is - mk IV is amazing camera without any even small flaw unless factory defects which might happen in any brand and product!
ftemoto wrote:
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.
Absolutely, I'm sure they were talking to many others. And they will be again. If other prominent users begin to notice problems as well, that information will reach the Canon representatives.
And before anybody jumps on it ---- No, I don't feel Rob's report will have an effect on any significant portion of professional photographers in such a way that they're now "imagining" problems. I'm sure they're more than capable of testing it adequately for themselves.
Breitling65 wrote:
Conspiracy is when something hidden but Nikon adds are very visible on his site ...
If the goal was to trash Canon in order to keep and get more Nikon advertising, wouldn't it make more sense to pursue advertising from both DSLR giants?
Rob could simply say, "Everything looks good. Canon has fully addressed all past AF issues and this new Mark IV is right on the money."
He could say those good things about both companies and thus receive advertising revenue from both. Wouldn't that make more sense? Or do you feel he's just a ding-dong?
How many folks here have downloaded and closely examined his files? Now I don't know squat about sports photography but in looking at those files (speed skating and basketball) I see a lot of examples of AF brilliance and a couple of instances of "huh WTF is the camera doing?". IMO, the former is much more common than the latter. I personally wouldn't be disappointed with those results.
Garylv wrote:
If the goal was to trash Canon in order to keep and get more Nikon advertising, wouldn't it make more sense to pursue advertising from both DSLR giants?
Of course it would make sense but if RG has contractual agreements with Nikon, be it written or verbal, it could prevent it from happening. Not only that, who knows what kind of relationship RG has with Canon.
M Vers wrote:
Of course it would make sense but if RG has contractual agreements with Nikon, be it written or verbal, it could prevent it from happening. Not only that, who knows what kind of relationship RG has with Canon.
Apparently, not as estranged as one would think. They gave him one camera body to test.
jhom wrote:
Apparently, not as estranged as one would think. They gave him one camera body to test.
Yet he was not one of the preliminary testers. Lending a test body out doesn't represent anything IMO. OTOH if they hadn't it would look as if they were attempting to hide something.
thedigitalbean wrote:
How many folks here have downloaded and closely examined his files? Now I don't know squat about sports photography but in looking at those files (speed skating and basketball) I see a lot of examples of AF brilliance and a couple of instances of "huh WTF is the camera doing?". IMO, the former is much more common than the latter. I personally wouldn't be disappointed with those results.
Exactly. I haven't had the time or inclination to spend hours downloading the files. However, after re-reading the RG article I've noticed a lack of definition in his statements of inconsistencies. No specific numbers are quoted nor are his definitions of consistent. Just how many shots in a sequence have to be OOF to warrant a poor AF performance?
Hello everyone,
I'd like to throw my 2 cents into the mix as a new member here, but as a long time photographer, and Nikon user, who just recently(This past November) switched over to Canon.
One of the things i see over and over again here about the RG testing is that he is perceived to be biased. While i don't know this person from boo, and not knowing all the facts from the Mark III issues early on, one of the things that strikes me strange is the fact that according to the report, he used 5 different camera bodies from 5 different sources. Some borrowed by local people, some obtained elsewhere. Regardless.
One of the things i haven't heard yet is that he used the same settings on all 5 cameras(if i read the report correctly). To me, this points to user error. If i have 5 cameras all set on the same settings in front of me, shooting a "woman sprinter?" and testing them one after another, why wouldn't it be anything other than user error? I mean, if these settings were not the correct setting FOR HIS USE, then yes, user error it is.
Anyone care to shed some light on this theory?
Breitling65 wrote:
So what? You believe to RG tests and I don't, why would you continue arguing and trying and convince me in something I would never believe? Should we stop this and just stay with what we believe? We are not in court to collect evidence and whiteness words and facts … Current fact is - mk IV is amazing camera without any even small flaw unless factory defects which might happen in any brand and product!
Umm, I have no idea if you're responding to me, and if you are, why. If you followed my posts here and in the other thread, I think the body is fantastic. The competing conspiracy theories ~ that RG is a Nikon shill or, what I responded to in your quote, that Canon is punishing RG for humiliating them ~ are IMO stupid and counterproductive, beside the point, and at odds with reasonable discussion.
If it's of interest, Canon described its relationship with RG and his contributions in this 2008 distribution. Starts at page 4.
www.ftemoto.com/mkiii.pdf
As I mentioned before, RG becoming the touchstone of all wisdom and knowledge regarding Canon AF is probably something neither he nor Canon anticipated at the front end of all this when the MkIII came out. The net browsing public put that mantle on him, and all the utility at the beginning has been drowned out by the noise, which this thread has become an example of.
In fairness to Canon, no small or large business can let a figurehead get out ahead of its brand. I expect that if Canon ~ or perhaps RG himself ~ backed off the same sort of relationship at the outset of the MkIII issues, it's because the whole thing has taken on a life of itself way beyond the intentions of one or both of the parties.
RG has a role to play, but not as John the Baptist, let alone Jesus. It's the same role played by all shooters engaged in constructive discussions. The fact that RG has a platform with great impact doesn't mean his conclusions are intrinsically right. It doesn't mean he's compromised either, beyond there being undue expectation placed on him. Most of the time it's not angels and demons at play, just folks doing their best sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but learning in the process ~ at least if the discussion proceeds more on point than the sort of ad hominem nonsense flying back and forth on the net.
alundeb wrote:
In soccer and BB, it is typical that 2 images after each other in a sequence are really OOF when it happens.
In bright sunlit soccer, red target, where it "Fell off a cliff", there were 10 images slightly OOF in a sequence of 13, this was the worst one I could find from that sequence, 100% crop:
I've been looking at the other image sets as well. Take a look at Track 137-139. No bright reds, a guy with his kids walking and the middle frame is totally out to lunch...
thedigitalbean wrote:
How many folks here have downloaded and closely examined his files? Now I don't know squat about sports photography but in looking at those files (speed skating and basketball) I see a lot of examples of AF brilliance and a couple of instances of "huh WTF is the camera doing?". IMO, the former is much more common than the latter. I personally wouldn't be disappointed with those results.
+1. Thanks for the dose of sanity.
And, as an avid amateur sports (primarily basketball) photographer, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed in his work. You can't blame the camera for everything....
thedigitalbean wrote:
I see a lot of examples of AF brilliance and a couple of instances of "huh WTF is the camera doing?". IMO, the former is much more common than the latter. I personally wouldn't be disappointed with those results.
This goes directly to a point I've tried to make a few times now: he has made far more of the Mk IV's "problem" AF than is appropriate, while glossing over (in a very "positive spin" sort of way) any hiccups from the D3S.
Then - even though it would appear that the Mk IV has actually acquitted itself pretty damn' well all told - he talks about it as if it was game over for Canon.
It's really no wonder people are questioning his motives here.
This thread is getting repetitive, with the same points getting made over & over. Any minute now someone's going to bring up the Nikon advertising on his site ...
Part of the problem though is that Rob was, for better or worse and whether he asked for it or not, set up for this from the get-go. Take for example Brad Mangin's widely-cited very favorable blog entry Finally, Canon gets it right with Mark IV, in which, after mentioning that he'd found the Mark III a "complete disaster," he raves about how great the Mark IV is (and, notably, includes a 16-image bright-sunlight red-jersey-running-right-at-him series).
And then later, in the comments, he says: "Good news! Rob Galbraith has announced that the Mark IV is finally being shipped in Canada and the United States: ... This means that Galbraith will eventually have the definitive test/review published of the Canon Mark IV. Rob’s review’s are always the best out there for working photographers as he uses the cameras for real photojournalistic assignments. It will take a while for Rob to put the camera through his extensive testing, but once he publishes his findings they will be must-reading for all of us."
Hell I say it...If your an RG fan then use your Nikon. I personally don't hold much creed in RG's asessment. With the Mark three or the four....you need to know your equipment how to adjust it for your needs and don't jump to conclusions the 1st time out.... As it was said already, I think the Olympics will tell the tale.....hope we can see some side by side camparisons and see if RG and the Nikon's are all that...as far as I've seen alot of folks are showing the Mark 4 as excellent in performance when set up properly and RG is full of self serving sh*t
keithreeder wrote:
This goes directly to a point I've tried to make a few times now: he has made far more of the Mk IV's "problem" AF than is appropriate, while glossing over (in a very "positive spin" sort of way) any hiccups from the D3S.
Then - even though it would appear that the Mk IV has actually acquitted itself pretty damn' well all told - he talks about it as if it was game over for Canon.
It's really no wonder people are questioning his motives here.
Exactly. It's great that he took so many pictures and posted them for independent review. The bias that I speak of is in the text. It's as if he couldn't leave without a parting shot. Couple this with his inadequate dealings with the D3 or D3s, the Nikon ads, and his not-so-impartial review of the 7D, and his credibility IMHO, is suspect. It reeks of disgust, which probably has more to do with Canon the company than the camera itself.
thedigitalbean wrote:
I've been looking at the other image sets as well. Take a look at Track 137-139. No bright reds, a guy with his kids walking and the middle frame is totally out to lunch...
Not a difficult situation in any way. I see no reason why the camera should miss here. User error definitely ruled out.
OTOH, this was shot with FW 1.0.4 and is exactly one of the situations 1.0.6 was supposed to improve on (frontfocus on slowly approaching target) .......
alundeb wrote:
Not a difficult situation in any way. I see no reason why the camera should miss here. User error definitely ruled out.
OTOH, this was shot with FW 1.0.4 and is exactly one of the situations 1.0.6 was supposed to improve on (frontfocus on slowly approaching target) .......
Yea, a lot of the OOF images I am seeing are front focus on slowly moving targets (usually for a frame or two). I have gone through his soccer images as well and overall for fast action I think its impressive. I do see what he's talking about in his review. Look at the series ending in Soccer 344. The subject while running fast is tracked perfectly but once she hugs in celebration and comes to a stop it loses focus. That is quirky.
Should we stop this and just stay with what we believe? We are not in court to collect evidence and whiteness words and facts … Current fact is - mk IV is amazing camera without any even small flaw unless factory defects which might happen in any brand and product! 
