John V wrote: Obvious defects?
By all accounts from beta testing from my readings, there weren't any obvious defects.
RG noticed focus issues with his pre-production model of the MKIII which he reported to Canon. That seems like an obvious defect which triggered further more intensive testing of the fully released version.
chez wrote:
reported to Canon RG noticed focus issues with his pre-production model of the MKIII which he . That seems like an obvious defect which triggered further more intensive testing of the fully released version.
John V wrote:
We're talking about the Mark IV here, not the III
No, he was talking about why there were no detailed focusing tests on the D3 and the reply was that there were no focus issues with the D3 when in normal use. There were focus issues with the MKIII and the MKIV was to fix them...so to verify the focus issues were actually fixed, you need to perform extensive focus testing on the MKIV.
chez wrote:
No, he was talking about why there were no detailed focusing tests on the D3 and the reply was that there were no focus issues with the D3 when in normal use. There were focus issues with the MKIII and the MKIV was to fix them...so to verify the focus issues were actually fixed, you need to perform extensive focus testing on the MKIV.
Don't people read before posting anymore? He was talking about the D3s, and RG has promised a coverage of that one, in another story, as mentioned many times before.
Methodical wrote:
Uhhhh...why would he not do an AF test of a new camera? I thought he tested different camera bodies as they hit the market. Is that not what he does?
When the 1D Mark II came out, Galbraith did a simple shoot out with a D2h with another photographer (they shot next to each other at football games). The conclusion of the article was that the Mark II had much cleaner images but Galbraith found nothing about the Mark II autofocus that was worth mentioning other than it worked great.
The idea of autofocus having major problems was unthinkable back then. When the specs of the Mark III were released, everyone saw that cross-point sensors were going to be all over the frame and just assumed the AF performance was going to be astonishing.
gman1339 wrote:
It wasn't a review of the camera. It was an analysis of the autofocus performance. Read what he wrote...
"An analysis of EOS-1D Mark IV autofocus performance".
Does that critically alter the basis of my question? Either way, be it a 'review' or 'analysis', they are both evaluations. Or is this yet another attempt to troll?
M Vers wrote:
So in order for RG to publish a review the camera must have "obvious defects"? That is your logic?
Please look at what I wrote. I said "AF test review", not just "a review." Please don't wander off topic.
And yes, there have to be "obvious defects" with a camera's AF for Rob to investigate a camera's autofocus system. If you had read Rob's articles about the 1D Mark II, you would have read over and over that the 1D Mark II's had the best autofocus system of any camera in history. No one felt his claim demanded proof, I guess because no one disagreed with him.
This thread is a veritable "Mobius Loop" it just goes on and on bumping over the same territory. It's not even as good as a snake eating its tail since, at least, there's an end there.
This thread says so much more about the posters than the review or the camera. I have friends that also have Canon's and they're nice people. They don't get mad at the messenger. They know there are problems. They don't panic or get angry. We have written letters to the Canon reps. None of us have heard back. Yet.
M Vers wrote:
Does that critically alter the basis of my question? Either way, be it a 'review' or 'analysis', they are both evaluations. Or is this yet another attempt to troll?
I just thought I would point out that there is a difference. I've worked for a company for the last 15 years that creates analysis software. We have never created "review" software to my knowledge.
You know how we get a lot of new customers? They build something, it breaks, then they want to run an "analysis" on what they built to see why and how it failed.
Analysis is typically backed up by objective evidence and results from testing.
Reviews are typically subjective conclusions. That's why they are called book "reviews" and not book "analysis".
scowl wrote:
Probably the same reason we never saw an AF test review of the 1D Mark II -- there were no obvious defects with it. Do you hear anyone complaining about the D3s AF? I sure don't.
I didn't hear anybody complaining about the 1D-IV AF, either . . . until RobG, that is.
