32067dlm wrote:
You can find problems in anything manufactured, if you try hard enough.
That's true, and it's good to try to sort out the different issues that come up and not get them all mixed up as one big issue.
I've rubbed elbows with guys shooting pro mx, which is a moderate challenge to af servo systems, since DLSR's became available. In that time, every 1D model since the first has had individual copies returned for QC issues. Some guys have never had issues.
Clearly the MkIII had some system wide hardware issues, at least early on, or Canon wouldn't have fixed the mirror box. That's a different issue from single copy QC.
And clearly there are going to be people who either don't use or set up their camera's as well as others. That's a different issue from design or QC.
I do think the set up variables became expontentially more complicated with the MkIII, and with that the opportunity to do mischief by setting it up wrong for a given situation. The IV has gone even further in this regard (e.g., selecting a single focus point with all 45 activated for tracking assist).
The guidance Les offered here in a couple threads a few days ago is a great place to start. Keep it simple, be patient, and tweak one at a time.
As far as whether RG is biased to Nikon or against Canon, I can't really be bothered with that because there's no way for me to know and I don't have the energy to chase that rabbit. That said, I don't think it's uncommon for people to have a different sort of unconscious bias ~ me, you, RG: the bias toward validating our own experiences and judgments. Makes it difficult to make sense of things sometimes when there are a lot of voices.
Absolutely hilarious. On a more somber note, if the Mark 4 falls short with AF tracking, that will be problematic. Apparently, it falls short of high ISO, low noise, relative to the D3s. Where does it trump the D3s, in video capability? If I want video I will buy a dedicated machine to do so. I am a Canon shooter, but this bodes badly for Canon if true.
Absolutely hilarious. On a more somber note, if the Mark 4 falls short with AF tracking, that will be problematic. Apparently, it falls short of high ISO, low noise, relative to the D3s. Where does it trump the D3s, in video capability? If I want video I will buy a dedicated machine to do so. I am a Canon shooter, but this bodes badly for Canon if true.
Jim
The 1D4 trumps the D3s if you are a focal length limited shooter. I.e. You've got the longest lens you can afford and your subject is still too far away to fill the frame. At most ISOs (my guesstimate would say up to ISO 12k) the 1D4 will resolve more detail and produce a superior print.
Obviously not everyone will care, which is why one should choose the best tool that satisfies their needs.
Actually, the review says it tracks awesome in some situations, and better than the Nikon. It seemed like what he reports is more a locking on issue in a few situations. Altogether, it seemed like the issues he found were the flip of the MkIII.
ftemoto wrote:
As far as whether RG is biased to Nikon or against Canon, I can't really be bothered with that because there's no way for me to know and I don't have the energy to chase that rabbit. That said, I don't think it's uncommon for people to have a different sort of unconscious bias ~ me, you, RG: the bias toward validating our own experiences and judgments. Makes it difficult to make sense of things sometimes when there are a lot of voices.
Ain't that the truth. Makes it difficult to go to a forum, only to have someone post nonsense about the "other side". Most times, it just reads like those who are trying to justify their choices and purchases.
How bout this test. Our great birdman Jody has used the MKIIN for quite some time. With glorious results. How bout someone loan him the IV and get his opinion. I would love to hear what he says after using it for birding only. Jody you there?
John
Mike Mohrmann wrote:
Ain't that the truth. Makes it difficult to go to a forum, only to have someone post nonsense about the "other side". Most times, it just reads like those who are trying to justofy their choices and purchases.
pjbuehner wrote:
Canon needs to change their tests then
There, we totally agree!
Canon got gigabytes and gigabytes of in and out of focus Mark III bursts from Rob and many other photographers. Surely there would be people (if not an organized team) at Canon who studied them, made theories about why the shots went out of focus, then set up experiments to test these theories to find solutions and improve their test bed to produce a better product. At least that's what we do here where I work and our customers appreciate it.
But there are companies that are arrogant about their products and who disregard their customers' opinions. A Canon representative said they had received "no complaints" about the original 5D's AF system so they had no reason to improve it. If that wasn't arrogance then it was severe ignorance of marketing -- you always say you're improving your products even if you're not.
ragebot wrote:
From what RG wrote at the end of page 2:
"Be sure your viewing of the photos includes some time spent at a magnification level of 100% in your preferred photo browser. If you look at the pictures exclusively at 50% magnification or less then you'll miss seeing the true softness of some of the out of focus files. "
The unequal magnification error again....
It would be fair to view the 1D4 photos at 100% and D3s photos at 115%.
Will the softness of the D3s file then be true or false?
I'm getting good action shots from my MKIII that netted three magazine covers last year. Yes, it had autofocus problems at first that were later fixed by Canon, but now it is better than my MKIIn. RG did us a favor by ferreting out the AF problems with the MKIII, but when the fix came from Canon he did not acknowledge it. Now he is bashing the MKIV that has been praised highly by respected photogs so I have lost respect for his opiinion. It seems he holds a grudge or something.
Haven't read it yet, but given others have reported essentially the opposite and claim the 1D IV AF is much improved over the 1D III, this is rather confusing.
mark fadely wrote:
RG did us a favor by ferreting out the AF problems with the MKIII, but when the fix came from Canon he did not acknowledge it.
Which of the many fixes are you talking about? The submirror? One of the firmware updates?
Now he is bashing the MKIV that has been praised highly by respected photogs so I have lost respect for his opiinion. It seems he holds a grudge or something.
Do you suspect he is doctoring the photos he's posting which support his opinions? Do you suspect he's purposely making the Mark IV take blurry shots for this "grudge"? Do highly respected photographers talk about how their new cameras are taking out of focus shots?
Yes I have gotten some fantastic action shots from my Mark III. I also got some fantastic action shots from my D30 ten years ago but I wouldn't credit its autofocus for them.
