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.
Me neither. I thus think RG has higher standards than most of us.
jhom wrote:
Earlier in this thread, I asked a question as to whether RG MA'd any of his lenses to the various bodies he used. After re-reading the article, it appears that he did not. Rather, he states that several of the lenses were "focused calibrated" by Canon. I am wondering how much of an effect misaligned lenses may have had on the accuracy of the AF performances during RG's testing? Will it cause the noted inconsistencies? Just because Canon has calibrated a lens doesn't mean that it will automatically focus accurately with a given body. This I know from experience when I had lenses recalibrated by Canon....Show more →
Particularly when the service center is based in Mississauga, Canada.
If it had been the Montreal branch, I would have more confidence in their calibration. Unfortunately, the Montreal branch had been shut down.
A pity 'cos the Mississauga service center is just plain AWFUL.
Oh well. This is all noise and old news now; that last bastion of impartial, credible, unbiased, and even handed reviews, aka DPR, has just announced that "the Nikon D3S is an absolutely outstanding camera"; it even got a "Gold award", what ever that is. I can only assume that all the employees were given cameras and lenses, as in, they got the gold. .
Since DPR has shown absolutely no Nikon bias (well, at least up until Canon pissed Phil off a few years ago), Canon should just quit and go home. There does seem to be a common thread here though with Canon pissing people off, doesn't there?
While the D3s review lacks the charm of the good old days when the DPR reviewer said of the then new D300 "My biggest problem writing this conclusion has been picking out the D300's weak points." I guess he never actually used the camera because that would make the faults blatantly obvious, but I digress. In this case, for the D3s, they just trotted out the same old nostrums such as capture NX not being included and it was only 12MP to give the semblance of fairness. Gee, I guess they had to dig extremely deep to come up with those "criticisms". Makes me wonder if they got Nikon's approval to list those...
Seriously, the D3s is a fine camera for 2007/2008, and maybe even into the beginning of 2009. I'd expect a little more for the price and the length of time that has passed, but it is what it is. In my mind, the jury is out on the 1D4, but if Canon can't produce a camera that is beyond reproach -even by boneheaded sites like DPR, then they have no one to blame but themselves.
It's time for Canon produce a "no excuses" camera. They have yet to do so, and I don't see it happening anytime soon, but things are within their control. Quality first, mindless MPs second....
jamesf99 wrote:
There does seem to be a common thread here though with Canon pissing people off, doesn't there?
It all happened during the release of the D3. Canon Europe pissed off Chasseur d'Images by providing them false info about 1D3 AF issues. Canon UK pissed off Phil Askey by refusing to provide him an advance copy of the 1D3 for early previews. Canon Japan pissed off Rob Galbraith and many other 1D3 owners by giving them a professional sports camera that cannot focus.
Yakim Peled wrote:
But what I really believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
And I support your views. I'd rather let a guilty man go free than imprison/punish an innocent man.
I'm a RG supporter, but the problem here is that we're not talking about circumstantial evidence open to interpretation. We're long past any 'preponderance of doubt" regarding his intentions and we're firmly into the "RG did a bad thing" territory, with proof for any but the most biased to see (and yes, some can't see it yet..).
As a cub reporter, he can make a mistake or two. As someone that has been down the AF road for years now, the mistakes are untenable, regardless of outcome. For the sake of his credibility, I think he better be right. Otherwise, his goose is cooked...
Download and examine the sample files. I don't see anything in there that contradicts the specific criticisms he levies against the 1D4 (like suddenly losing focus when the subject slows down for a celebratory embrace) but also don't see anything like the mess that some sports photos were posting examples of with the 1D3.
That said, the tone of his review is certainly negative and reads like he is annoyed, for whatever reason. One could read his review and from the tone of his writing conclude that the 1D4 is a turd, which if you look at the images it clearly isn't.
At this point, IMO, the worst one could accuse RG of is sloppy journalism. For those who are seriously interested in the performance of this camera, you are doing yourself a disservice if you rely purely on what he has written and don't download the files and see for yourself.
jamesf99 wrote:
It's time for Canon produce a "no excuses" camera.
Does anyone do that?
I've read today on POTN (quoting reports on Nikon forums) that some D3/D3S users are having such a tough time getting the AF to acquire in low light that they're having to resort to MF...
Oh - and while the D3S got a score of 89% on DPR, the 7D got 91.6%...
I've read today on POTN (quoting reports on Nikon forums) that some D3/D3S users are having such a tough time getting the AF to acquire in low light that they're having to resort to MF...
Oh - and while the D3S got a score of 89% on DPR, the 7D got 91.6%...
I don't think anyone produces a perfect camera, but it seems that Nikon comes a lot close than Canon. I couldn't care less about video, I'm a lot more interested in what "still" features the body offers. Nikon also can't control sensor development the way Canon can, but Nikon does take the time to issue body updates - that's a plus.
I like the D3 series, but only a noob would think it's a perfect camera. From everything I've read, I'd be willing to bet that it misses focus as much as the Canon 1D4, but since I don't own either camera I'm just guessing.
I also saw DRP's 89% but it's the words that matter; read it and it's pretty hard not to see that any "minuses" are nullified and they can't praise it enough. That aside, what's a "Gold award"? I've never seen one of those before.
I've read today on POTN (quoting reports on Nikon forums) that some D3/D3S users are having such a tough time getting the AF to acquire in low light that they're having to resort to MF...
Oh - and while the D3S got a score of 89% on DPR, the 7D got 91.6%...
Ah, the D3s got dinged pretty hard for value (well, duh) and JPEGs (a Nikon weakness). But the conclusion was as follows:
In terms of versatility, the Nikon D3S is the best DSLR we've ever tested, and the image quality in ultra low light is a major selling point. If you don't need to take advantage of the D3S's high ISO settings though, the D700/D300S offer better value.
jamesf99 wrote:
Oh well. This is all noise and old news now; that last bastion of impartial, credible, unbiased, and even handed reviews, aka DPR, has just announced that "the Nikon D3S is an absolutely outstanding camera"; it even got a "Gold award", what ever that is. I can only assume that all the employees were given cameras and lenses, as in, they got the gold. .
Okay, this thread is about RG's review. This is not a general Canon vs. Nikon thread. There is indeed more data to support the D3s as the superior camera. Let's be careful not to generalize any support or praise for the D3s as bias or conspiracy.
I know I've been pretty hard on RG the last few days, and my issue all along has been his biased language (and income sources) in his last few Canon reviews, not Nikon. I know little about RG's methodology or his skill as a photographer or tester. He has certainly given seemingly credible reviews of Canon gear in the past, but this seems to have turned during the 1DIII testing, testing that would challenge any relationship with a manufacturer.
I actually own a 1DIV, and my assesment is that it:
Has excellent focus
Has superior image quality (compared to cameras I've used or owned, incl. the 5DII)
Has very good high ISO noise, but not at all what I expected.
I have never shot nor have I used a Nikon camera outside of a camera store.
Mike Mohrmann wrote:
Ah, the D3s got dinged pretty hard for value (well, duh) and JPEGs (a Nikon weakness). But the conclusion was as follows:
In terms of versatility, the Nikon D3S is the best DSLR we've ever tested, and the image quality in ultra low light is a major selling point. If you don't need to take advantage of the D3S's high ISO settings though, the D700/D300S offer better value.
As a D3s owner who also shoots with a 1Ds3 and 7D and has owned multiple 5D2s in the past and had a D700 for 6 months last year, I can confidently say that no part of that conclusion is false. The D3s is probably one of the finest DSLRs I've ever shot with, but yes its value proposition is weak when compared to the D700. However, IMO opinion the value proposition of the 1D4 and 1Ds3 are also weak when compared to the 7D and 5D2. Flame on
thedigitalbean wrote:
As a D3s owner who also shoots with a 1Ds3 and 7D and has owned multiple 5D2s in the past and had a D700 for 6 months last year, I can confidently say that no part of that conclusion is false. The D3s is probably one of the finest DSLRs I've ever shot with, but yes its value proposition is weak when compared to the D700. However, IMO opinion the value proposition of the 1D4 and 1Ds3 are also weak when compared to the 7D and 5D2. Flame on
I'm happy with one MKIV body and you're telling me that's worse value then owning a 3Ds, 1Ds3 and 7D? The MKIV sounds like a bargain, $5K vs over $15K AFAIC.
thedigitalbean wrote:
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.
I see this all the time with the Mark III. What usually causes this is that the AF is tracking the subject correctly for the first few frames then loses the subject, but it continues to track it as if the object is continuing to move the same speed and direction.
Note that in 341 the focus point is solidly on the player's elbow with a shadow behind it providing it with great contrast. Naturally that shot is a good focus.
In 342 it's seeing that elbow move towards the camera and is tracking its forward motion.
In 343 the elbow has moved off the focus point which now sees the player's forearm mostly in shadow with poor contrast. The AF is probably lost at this point but is continuing to extrapolate the motion of the elbow it saw.
By 344 it still hasn't been able to lock on anything so it continues with the predicted forward motion. You can see at the very bottom of the frame that the grass in front of the players is in focus. After a certain amount of time the 1D will fire a shot even if nothing is in focus which is probably what happened when it took 344.
The mystery is why the AF didn't see anything in the expansion points.
rd4tile wrote:
I'm happy with one MKIV body and you're telling me that's worse value then owning a 3Ds, 1Ds3 and 7D? The MKIV sounds like a bargain, $5K vs over $15K AFAIC.
Hmmm... maybe I wasn't clear. Nope, I re-read what I wrote, I was pretty clear, maybe should have added the word 'respectively' at the end there. The 1Ds3 is poor value when compared to the 5D2, the 1D4 when compared to the 7D and the D3s when compared to the D700. Nowhere did I say that the 1D4 was worse value than the D3s, 1Ds3 and 7D combined and re-reading I can't fathom how one could believe that was what I implying in what I wrote.
I should add that value is a very subjective thing and hence tends to be sore subject for some, especially those who just spent many thousands of dollars on the latest and greatest.
. 
