jmikes955 wrote:
If you think a wedding photographer who does nothing but shoot weddings puts as much strain on a camera as a PJ, then you need much more experience before you comment on serious photography topics.
As a current wedding photographer and ex-photojournalist, I can tell you that one wedding puts a camera through more stressful testing than a whole month of PJ.
Most of my PJ work was done at f2.8 - 5.6; most of my wedding work is done at f1.2 - f1.8. You tell me which requires a more accurate AF system, both single-shot (candids) and servo (walking down the aisle, or dancing in a very dimly lit room, for example).
scowl wrote:
Didn't you hear that Canon just released version 1.0.6 of the Mark IV firmware solely to address newly discovered AF problems, weeks after the camera had been released? If you were aware of this, why didn't that break Canon's credibility for you? There can be no doubt that there were some things they forgot. They admitted it.
I thought the general consensus was that it was an enhancement. Was there an official announcement stating the firmware update was actually a fix, or at least some other type of proof? Because I didn't see it.
jmikes955 wrote:
And obviously not a photojournalist.
You seem to be great on assumptions, light on facts.
Folks who shoot wedding have as much pressure as anyone to get a shot and not f' it up. They have as much interest in a rig that works right as anyone. If you don't agree with that, fine. If the "strain" you're talking about with respect equipment to the test is environmental abuse, clearly a wedding presents less.
Is RG sponsored and or contracted by Nikon? If so why would anyone sponsored by Nikon give it's top competitor a good word? Other manufacturers may very well advertise on RG's site, but are any of them in direct correlation with Canon?
What amazes me is that all his test were on huge bodies that allow allot of forgiveness(area to focus on) for CP being nailed! Autos also. One poster in another thread though that a good test would be a car driving towards the camera going xx to 25mph(?). This sounds good. Would like to see it also.
Where are the BIF, nature, wildlife images that are harder to "lock onto", use more or less or the CFNs? Les Zigurski, uz2work, seems to be part of a minority who feel that more AI Servo on BIF should be done. The BIF posts I ahve seen here in N&W really look good. Mine are crap but I am beginning to believe it is me.
Chuck Westfall and Les have suggested some "how tos" to try the AI Servo in real time with BIF, any small target AF focus. As soon as our 4ft of snow diminishes, I will try.
From what I have viewed and seen here and other forums, the MKIV seems very hard to beat of large subjects but small BIF appears to be a problem, especially with fw 1.06.
Now I dont pretend to be anywhere close to having a good handle on the MKIV's AF/AI Servo "top flight" classificaton but it does amaze me that all reviews to date have been on large bodies subjects.
I am not trying to create a controversy here. I bought my MKIV mainly for BIF action encompassing the new "state of the art" AI Servo, dedicated microprocessor and AF lock.
I also dont assume to have read or reviewed each and all the posts here, on DPP, on Canon forum and elsewhere. Rod G's review was, IMHO, biased to large subjects. M Vers has a very valid point! But so does ftemoto.
I am yurning for more in depth N&W reviews by FM'ers and pros. As soon as the snow clears here in Maryland my MKIV will be off to Canon.
Appreviate my venting!
Dan
jmikes955 wrote:
If you think a wedding photographer who does nothing but shoot weddings puts as much strain on a camera as a PJ, then you need much more experience before you comment on serious photography topics.
Sounds like someone certainly is lacking in experience in a field, that's for sure.
M Vers wrote:
Is RG sponsored and or contracted by Nikon? If so why would anyone sponsored by Nikon give it's top competitor a good word? Other manufacturers may very well advertise on RG's site, but are any of them in direct correlation with Canon?
Exactly. What he says may be true, but it reeks of conflict of interest. It is impossible to be objective when you're flying the flag of the opposing team. We all come to our conclusions based on our perceptions and biases. One of his biases puts food on his table. It doesn't make him a bad person, just one with damaged credibility IMHO.
32067dlm wrote:
What he says may be true, but it reeks of conflict of interest.
Basically. What I got out of the review was: The 1DIV isn't great at all...but hey, have you guys seen Nikon's D3s--boy its the best DSLR I've ever used! *DING! goes the cash register*
I agree what he reports may indeed be true, but if it smells like a fish...
I'd like to believe in honesty and good faith, but I find it difficult without feeling slightly naive.
I agree most of what Dan(mdbassman) states. Here at West Point we received 3 bodies to use both here and at Vancouver. We have had them 3-4 weeks.
I have been extremely disappointed with the fw 1.06. The similiar shots taken here "on the cliffs" before and after show a vast dissimilarity if AF. The tracking with the 1.06 is not gud!! The eagle that reside nearby are disasters for "keeper rates". OOF when AF point "dead on!" 1.03 looked excellant.
Our test of our triatholon members in snow was alos not good BUT with 1.04 were 99% fine. Sgt Teela, our traithlon member, his tests with the MKIV 1.04 were great! 1.06 not so good!
Sgt Napier on the 4 man sled was better BUT still same identical shooting parameters, with 1.06 were IMO terrible!!
I have tried to contact Canon and Chuck Westfall but no response at all. So off to Vanocouver went our photo team with 3 MKIV's, 2 with 1.04 and 1 with 1.06, for some realtime results.
I firmly support Dan's comments about small BIF subjects versus the larget "targets". I have seen now N&W, outside the fine presentations here on FM, review and analyze the MMKIV tracking "enhancements"
So much for the bloviating!!
Hope to hear more on Dan's comments in a postive manner not speculative.
Angelo
'ed, but