droopy1592 wrote:
When there are only Nikon ads on his site I'm sure one can only takes what he says with a grain of salt. All of this change of heart happened when Canon stopped advertising tons on his site, not the other way around.
How stupid. It depends when you're visiting. I've been there some days and seen NO Nikon ads anywhere. I've also seen lots & lots of ThinkTank ads there. So does that mean he's "on the take" with them too? What if he's unhappy with one of the LowePro bags. Are you going to claim he's on ThinkTank's payroll?
Garylv wrote:
How stupid. It depends when you're visiting. I've been there some days and seen NO Nikon ads anywhere. I've also seen lots & lots of ThinkTank ads there. So does that mean he's "on the take" with them too? What if he's unhappy with one of the LowePro bags. Are you going to claim he's on ThinkTank's payroll?
How stupid.
Yes let's call names! Maybe you haven't been there enough or maybe he toned it down because people were drawing attention to it. For about a 3 month period that's ALL anyone saw on his site... obviously I wasn't the only one to notice, but it's stupid. Move on then. You're not going to win me over.
Garylv wrote:
How stupid. It depends when you're visiting. I've been there some days and seen NO Nikon ads anywhere. I've also seen lots & lots of ThinkTank ads there. So does that mean he's "on the take" with them too? What if he's unhappy with one of the LowePro bags. Are you going to claim he's on ThinkTank's payroll?
Garylv wrote:
How stupid. It depends when you're visiting. I've been there some days and seen NO Nikon ads anywhere. I've also seen lots & lots of ThinkTank ads there. So does that mean he's "on the take" with them too? What if he's unhappy with one of the LowePro bags. Are you going to claim he's on ThinkTank's payroll?
droopy1592 wrote:
Yes let's call names! Maybe you haven't been there enough or maybe he toned it down because people were drawing attention to it. For about a 3 month period that's ALL anyone saw on his site... obviously I wasn't the only one to notice, but it's stupid. Move on then. You're not going to win me over.
I've been going there for years. Sounds like you're the new one.
And stupid doesn't mean you, it's the point of the post. I would have thought that was clear. Wow.
No AF system is perfect. If 1Dmk4 AF is more reliable than 1Dmk2 & 1Dmk3, Canon has done its part by improving on its product.
There are times when another manufacturers product is better in some respects. Canon & Nikons AF, for example, have always been more advanced (for action) than the ones you find with Olympus or Sony. In fact, Canons AF, for a long time, was better than Nikon's. It was only 3 years ago, with the D3, that this has changed. Surely, this will change again in the future. That's just how it works. One can't be best all the time.
All this talk about toyotas stuck gas pedal and now canons stuck AF on certain objects has really got me depressed. I feel like this guy in the video gettin yanked around.
seriously people any camera you use will occasionally give you OOF shots. no camera is perfect because no user is perfect. RG spends to much time with his treasured NIkons to be able to correctly hone his skills on Canon equipment! but seriously the 1d4 is more camera than most people can handle. he is nit picking in his review.
doug
M Vers wrote:
The firmware update was to enhance AF when a subject was receding as well. Either way I didn't hear any complaints prior to firmware 1.0.6.
If no one was complaining then why did Canon release this firmware exclusively for this fix weeks and weeks after the camera had been released, after months and months of relentless testing with countless professional photographers? Could it be that Canon discovered they had made a mistake?
And by fix, I mean "enhancement" of course, since tracking a slow moving object is a new feature in the Mark IV.
scowl wrote:
If no one was complaining then why did Canon release this firmware exclusively for this fix weeks and weeks after the camera had been released, after months and months of relentless testing with countless professional photographers? Could it be that Canon discovered they had made a mistake?
And by fix, I mean "enhancement" of course, since tracking a slow moving object is a new feature in the Mark IV.
Again, show me the proof--who was complaining? Where are all the mass complaints? A firmware update does not always represent there was a problem.
Lets all go back to just using manual focus and worry about the content of the images and not autofocus and image noise. Has anyone gone back and made a print or scanned in a negative they shot at 1600 ASA on film? Nothing is perfect, but I must agree with RG that something has happened to Canon in the past few years and their autofocus, it's just nearly as good as it had been prior to the Mark III and I am including their film bodies on this statement. The autofocus on the EOS film series was the main reason that all most every sports shooter left Nikon and went to Canon. I would just think that Canon would have made sure that the Mark IV was the real deal before releasing it and trying to ask 5000 bucks for it.
jprisching wrote:
...but I must agree with RG that something has happened to Canon in the past few years and their autofocus, it's just nearly as good as it had been prior to the Mark III and I am including their film bodies on this statement.
Many people regard the 1DIII as the best AFing Canon camera ever produced, some of those people now regard the 1DIV as the best AFing Canon camera ever produced. What you are seeing is not a decrease in Canon's ability to design good AF systems, rather Nikon's recent climb of the very same ladder.
Robs site is clearly a Nikon site. Nikon everywhere. Dont know how anybody can take his reviews seriously when it comes to Canon. I think every Canon review he has done is negative.
jprisching wrote:
Lets all go back to just using manual focus and worry about the content of the images and not autofocus and image noise. Has anyone gone back and made a print or scanned in a negative they shot at 1600 ASA on film? Nothing is perfect, but I must agree with RG that something has happened to Canon in the past few years and their autofocus, it's just nearly as good as it had been prior to the Mark III and I am including their film bodies on this statement. The autofocus on the EOS film series was the main reason that all most every sports shooter left Nikon and went to Canon. I would just think that Canon would have made sure that the Mark IV was the real deal before releasing it and trying to ask 5000 bucks for it. ...Show more →
Perhaps they felt pressure to get these out in time for the Olympics....could have rushed it for that reason? Who knows.
I wrote to Canon to get their response to Galbraith's report. This was the response:
Canon USA does not monitor, confirm, endorse, or attest to the accuracy
any information posted on third party websites. It seems many customers
are overwhelmed by the barrage of information (or misinformation) being
posted on unregulated, non-Canon websites. We are able only to confirm
the performance of the camera based on our own testing. The Mark IV
performs very well.
Anyone who followed the 1D Mark III saga for almost 3 years should be able to recognize a couple of realities. First, there is a large group of people who think of Galbraith as being almost god-like in his testing and contributions to the world of photography, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will alter that opinion. On the other hand, there is an equally large group of people who think of Galbraith as being a biased charlatan who has discovered a sure-fire way both to grind the axe he has with Canon and to guarantee an increase in revenue to his website with a new "update" every time his hit count needs a boost, and no amount of evidence is going to change that view either.
Regardless of which of those views is correct, when the "tester" becomes the subject of more controversy than the camera that he is testing, his value with regard to producing an accurate evaluation of the camera and in helping to identify any problems, either real or imagined, becomes non-existent. At this point, the most significant impact that anything he does is likely to be to cause people on the internet to start being rude and nasty to each other. For my part, as long as my camera is doing what it is supposed to do in my "real world" shooting, I'll be pleased. If it isn't performing for me, I'll deal with it, and I'll not allow what Galbraith says or doesn't say to either make me overjoyed or to upset me.
Many people regard the 1DIII as the best AFing Canon camera ever produced, some of those people now regard the 1DIV as the best AFing Canon camera ever produced. What you are seeing is not a decrease in Canon's ability to design good AF systems, rather Nikon's recent climb of the very same ladder.