The AF setup of the 1D IV is complex, I'm wondering if this camera needs sport specific settings. I didn't see RG go into a discussion of if he tried various settings for thing like tracking sensitivity, focus release etc. The 7D is more complex than the 1D II in this regard, and more similar to the 1D IV. I think it'll be a long time before I've worked it all out.
It will be interesting if Canon organises experts in specific shooting types to put together a comprehensive AF guide. More than ever these cameras need more detailed guides for getting the best out of the AF.
uz2work wrote:
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.
uz2work wrote:
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.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The AF setup of the 1D IV is complex, I'm wondering if this camera needs sport specific settings. I didn't see RG go into a discussion of if he tried various settings for thing like tracking sensitivity, focus release etc. The 7D is more complex than the 1D II in this regard, and more similar to the 1D IV. I think it'll be a long time before I've worked it all out.
It will be interesting if Canon organises experts in specific shooting types to put together a comprehensive AF guide. More than ever these cameras need more detailed guides for getting the best out of the AF....Show more →
uz2work wrote:
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.
I agree. It's surprising (or maybe not ) how quickly this has degenerated into the same old arguments that we've heard hundreds of times about motives, advertising on Galbraith's site, etc, etc. I'm looking forward to the more substantive assessments of the types various people did here on MkIII testing procedures. Presumably, that will happen in the near future as people continue to get the camera and do their own tests (although we've already seen a lot of positive comments form various sports and nature folks) and maybe have a few brewskies.
I mean, give me a break. If the testing procedues are biased or flawed due to some extraneous "political" influence, it should be possible for the various experts here to identify what's what (or at least show that the Galbraith results tell only half the story.) Engaging in accusations about motives is sort of useless. As someone said earlier, I have neither the time nor the means nor the interest to figure that one out. And ultimately, who cares? If the testing is bogus or questionable, it shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate that. (As for me, I'd just like to read the review. The damn site just keeps crapping out every time I try to pull up the article. )
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The AF setup of the 1D IV is complex, I'm wondering if this camera needs sport specific settings. I didn't see RG go into a discussion of if he tried various settings for thing like tracking sensitivity, focus release etc. The 7D is more complex than the 1D II in this regard, and more similar to the 1D IV. I think it'll be a long time before I've worked it all out.
It will be interesting if Canon organises experts in specific shooting types to put together a comprehensive AF guide. More than ever these cameras need more detailed guides for getting the best out of the AF....Show more →
Good points.
Still I think there is a little more to it. My shooting style changes when I switch from my 70-200/2.8 to my 400/5.6; but not nearly as much as it changes when I switch to my 500/f4. Not to mention how things change when I put a lens on a gimbal head on a steady tripod. I am still trying to understand the panning horizontal thing; and now I have to figure out how many AF points to use and which direction the points should go.
So far I have registered one CF thing, and have two more to figure out.
I definitely want one of those more detailed guides you are talking about.
Thanks to ruimleal for posting this link over in the firmware thread.
Nill
Nill: I'm only to page 26 of that document, but it's chock-full of important and useful information about the custom functions related to AF. Not only are the various custom fuctions and their settings explained, but how multiple custom functions work together also is considered. Thanks much for the link. Now, back to reading...
Garylv wrote:
Breitling, I thought you were smarter than that. I'm surprised.
I am surprise you are so naive that you could protect something visible to anyone. RG said mk IV is bad and no one besides RG could change it. No meter how many excellent mk III shots been posted for 3 years, that is nothing in compare to RG mk III reviews!!! Did RG posted detailed reviews of D3 or any other body causing such explosion of RG fans? RG = Jesus of photography and we trust him!!!!
Brietling, one thing is for sure. People are free to post as many dumb insinuations as they want, but I'm just very surprised to see the people here at FM doing it. Especially you.
Anyone who thinks RG is only out to bash Canon is either VERY late to the party (it started three years ago) or they only skim the headlines without reading the details. Very disappointing.
RG reports results based on how HE uses the camera! Not you. And not me. Just because he reported those things, it does not mean your camera has stopped working.
Only go by your own evaluations, and don't jump to conclusions.
Very surprising to see some of the reactions here.
I am going to wait to see what other firmware revisions Canon will release in the very near future (if any) and then decide.
I have two Mark III's right now and five other Canon cameras. All my lenses & cameras are Canon. I prefer to stay with them.
Personally I don't trust to anyone besides my personal experience and shots results. I am surprised by RG fans saying "RG words is enough for us to jump down from building". I am skeptical of this review details and I know how sponsoring works in business.
I believe mk IV might possibly have issues BUT not in this context RG presented this right before Olympic games and soccer World Cup in 3 month.
Garylv wrote:
Anyone who thinks RG is only out to bash Canon is either VERY late to the party (it started three years ago) or they only skim the headlines without reading the details. Very disappointing.
Breitling65 wrote:
Personally I don't trust to anyone besides my personal experience and shots results. I am surprised by RG fans saying "RG words is enough for us to jump down from building".
I missed that. Who was saying that? Were they jumping ship to Nikon because of this latest report??
It's good you're only going by how your camera performs for YOU. That's exactly what you should do. Now you're making sense again.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect that different AF systems will perform differently in different situations. It may well be that Nikon has the better AF system for speed skating and soccer and Canon the better one for BIF and Formula One. The bottom line is that if it works for you then fine, if it doesn't then change.
Hrow wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to expect that different AF systems will perform differently in different situations. It may well be that Nikon has the better AF system for speed skating and soccer and Canon the better one for BIF and Formula One. The bottom line is that if it works for you then fine, if it doesn't then change.
Better yet, I think that people just have to learn to use whatever camera the've chosen in different situations.
It's becoming clear, I think, that making a camera perform better in some areas can often lead to adverse effects in other areas.
) how quickly this has degenerated into the same old arguments that we've heard hundreds of times about motives, advertising on Galbraith's site, etc, etc. I'm looking forward to the more substantive assessments of the types various people did here on MkIII testing procedures. Presumably, that will happen in the near future as people continue to get the camera and do their own tests (although we've already seen a lot of positive comments form various sports and nature folks) and maybe have a few brewskies.