Breitling65 wrote:
And Canon XS better value to 7D ... What the point of this logic, value of what and for what?
And a camera phone better value than the XS. Which is why I very clearly said it is a subjective thing and also why I very clearly said it was purely in my opinion.
ftemoto wrote:
IMO, using all surrounding with this subject and context (which I guess is his default given what he reports) contributes to this result.
Please explain why you believe expansion points caused this failure.
thedigitalbean wrote:
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. ...Show more →
The way I look at it is I'm completely satisfied with about $10K less equipment then you. Shouldn't be a hard concept for you to understand if you read between the lines.
jkurkjia wrote:
Expansion points are not used until the camera "thinks" the center AF point has lost tracking.
So you think that in 343 the AF thinks it's still locked onto something? If that's the case that would explain why the AF completely failed in 344 because it was certainly not locked onto the player under the focus point. If you look at the grass in 343 you can see that the focus has already moved in front of the players' feet and continues even further towards the camera in 344.
This is a typical error I see with the Mark III's motion prediction when it has lost focus with what it was tracking. The focus will continue to move in the same direction until it locks on something else, until I stop the AF, or until it hits the minimum focus distance of the camera. This happens regularly enough that I've made it a habit to stop the focus for a moment when a player stops moving towards the camera. I do this dozens of times during a basketball game and it has helped a lot.
ftemoto wrote:
That's true as far as it goes, but begs the question. There are situations where expanding assist points is counterproductive.
Yes but I don't think this is one of them. Point expansion is mainly a problem in backlit situations where the background has stronger contrast than your subjects, or where backgrounds have ideal AF targets that throw the focus off your subject. If your focus keeps getting stuck on things in the background, that's the time to switch expansion points off.
scowl wrote:
So you think that in 343 the AF thinks it's still locked onto something? If that's the case that would explain why the AF completely failed in 344 because it was certainly not locked onto the player under the focus point. If you look at the grass in 343 you can see that the focus has already moved in front of the players' feet and continues even further towards the camera in 344.
Don't forget that if you have C.Fn III-1 set to slow, your camera might see the lack of focus lock as though there were something interfering with your shot. In other words, if you were tracking and another runner passed between you and the intended subject, a setting of "slow" would allow the camera to predictively stay with the original subject presumably picking it back up when it comes into view again.
In this case, perhaps the camera is continuing to predict the movement of the hand on which it has lost focus momentarily. Since the last good shot of the hand was when it was moving forward ahead of the subject's body, the camera predicts that it will be farther forward and thus loses the subject until the time required by C Fn III-1 releases its predictive track and allows the camera to reacquire focus..
This is a typical error I see with the Mark III's motion prediction when it has lost focus with what it was tracking. The focus will continue to move in the same direction until it locks on something else, until I stop the AF, or until it hits the minimum focus distance of the camera. This happens regularly enough that I've made it a habit to stop the focus for a moment when a player stops moving towards the camera. I do this dozens of times during a basketball game and it has helped a lot.
Tom_W wrote:
Don't forget that if you have C.Fn III-1 set to slow, your camera might see the lack of focus lock as though there were something interfering with your shot. In other words, if you were tracking and another runner passed between you and the intended subject, a setting of "slow" would allow the camera to predictively stay with the original subject presumably picking it back up when it comes into view again.
I'm not convinced that III-1 determines how long expansion is delayed when focus fails with the selected point. I believe that if the AF discovers a new focusable target on that point that is significantly closer than the previous target, III-1 determines low long that new target must remain focusable before it attempts to focus on it. This is different from when there is no focusable target under the focus point.
My theory is that expansion happens as soon as it loses focus. This is based on my testing with III-8 set to 3, the new 45 point mode where you can see the AF switching focus points during tracking in the viewfinder. In this mode I've been moving the camera so the selected focus point is either on an easy focus target or on a completely blank area to see how the AF reacts. When the selected focus point is moved to the blank area, point switching (more like hunting in this mode!) happens immediately no matter what III-1 is set to. The only difference is that with III-1 set to slow, it takes longer for the AF to throw its hands up and turn on the green "AF failure" light if it doesn't find anything to focus on. You can see the AF tries very hard to find something to focus on during this period since points light up all over the viewfinder.
I don't know if the new 45 point mode (which is different from "ring of fire" AFPS mode) works differently from normal point expansion but I'm guessing they work the same.
thedigitalbean wrote:
And a camera phone better value than the XS. Which is why I very clearly said it is a subjective thing and also why I very clearly said it was purely in my opinion.
Well looking at your profile my personal opinion that D300s is better value to D3s. Again, very clearly it is my personal opinion...
32067dlm wrote:
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.
I have used Nikon in the past and don't suppose D3s praise is part of a conspiracy, I think it's a fine camera and have always said so. I'm a great admirer of what Nikon has done considering they couldn't produce a top tier camera for 7 or 8 years running. They've not only beaten Canon at the game, but they've done so convincingly with a few cameras. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with the 1D4 (though I certainly won't be in line to buy one anytime soon, even if I "found" $5k). I have hopes that RG will be proven wrong, the camera will bear no resemblance to the 1D3s I purchased, and the camera succeeds in the market place (though to be honest at a much lower price).
Even though much of what I wrote in a previous post was "tongue in cheek", I will state my unequivocal belief that DPR is a heavily biased site run by people I don't respect. Anything they either support or criticize means little to me. Taking their word for anything is like thinking Ken Rockwell knows how to find his backside...
Breitling65 wrote:
Well looking at your profile my personal opinion that D300s is better value to D3s. Again, very clearly it is my personal opinion...
I have actually used both bodies, though the D3s less extensively so than the D300s and yes at ~$1400 the D300s is better value than the D3s at $5200. Though I suspect you aren't really interested in a dialog in comparing those bodies and likely made your comment in a childish attempt to rile me up.
You could even actually use any camera body in the world, why should it cost anything here on Canon forum?
Though I suspect you aren't really interested in a dialog in comparing those
bodies and likely made your comment in a childish attempt to rile me up.
Wow, that is really aggressive now I would like to know "adult" explanation (without fps talks) why wouldn’t any of the famous Nikon paid reviewers ever compared IQ of D3 or S or non S to 1Ds mk III as FF camera to FF camera? Or just wait 2-3 month to get real competitor in place (1DsmkIV) and review after?
You could even actually use any camera body in the world, why should it cost anything here on Canon forum?
You're the one who brought up the value proposition of the D300s to the D3s, not me.
Wow, that is really aggressive now I would like to know "adult" explanation (without fps talks) why wouldn’t any of the famous Nikon paid reviewers ever compared IQ of D3 or S or non S to 1Ds mk III as FF camera to FF camera? Or just wait 2-3 month to get real competitor in place (1DsmkIV) and review after?
Well since I am not a paid reviewer, nor do I personally know any paid reviewers I can't claim to know their motivations.
I can tell you that I have compared the D3 directly to a 1Ds3 and to a 5D2 IQ wise and have not been shy in making my observations known (i.e. in term of per unit area noise the 5D2 and D3 are equivalent with the 5D2 having more detail easily up to ISO 1600). Now the fact that no one cares enough about my opinions to pay me as a reviewer, well thats their problem
As for comparing the D3s to the 1D4, yes they are optimized for different types of shooters (the D3s for the low light nut, the 1D4 for the focal length limited shooter), however, IMO Canon invites comparison when these two cameras are so closely priced to each other and released at virtually the same time.
I fully suspect the 1Ds4 will have a per unit area noise levels about 1 stop better than the 5D2 and will likely also come in at 32mp. It will also likely have a > $8k pricetag, thus inviting comparisons to the D3x (or its replacement) rather than the D3s.
