Len Scover wrote:
I have read mixed reviews about the mk 4 but only excellent reviews of the D3s. Being a happy infocus owner of the mk3 the jump to 16mp would be a worthy upgrade but i will have to hire one before i buy. Canon has had inconsistent quality issues with individual cameras for a while now and even a large proportion of people i know buying L glass have had to return them for calibration. I do think Canon need to kick some butt in the R&D and quality departments.
Mixed sounds to me unfair. 1 so and so, the remaining ones (AFAIK) pro!
Dawei Ye wrote:
Ok here's the problem I have - the stellar results posted are all clearly keepers, but any camera with a reasonably skilled operator is capable of at least some keepers. It isn't very difficult to find at least one in focus result from a sequence, and I'd imagine you'd be throwing the camera back in Canon's face if you couldn't get at least one in focus.
But have there been any complete sequences posted beyond a handful of photos that are contrary to RG's results?
ippikiokami wrote:
Quick question i might have posted here already..
What happens the day RG accepts Canon AF as good?
RG becomes irrelavent to the world.
Why would he want that?
If I were consumed day and night with what RG thought and wrote, I would want him to hang onto his current belief even if the overwhelming evidence indicates that a vast majority of 1D4 shooters do not experience his issues.
I am not sure what to think of his results. He has to know if he threw out a report that was bogus and it was proven, no one would care about what he said any more. Many are grateful for what he did in highlighting the issues with the 1D3. He doesn't seem to be getting support with his findings of the 1D4 like he did with the 1D3.
