I'm not sure what RG is experiencing, to be honest what he says doesn't pay my bills. I'm currently shooting with a 1DMKIV FW 1.0.6 and a 1DMKIII and both are paying my bills. I'm very happy shooting sports and other assignments for my editors, and he even asked me earlier this week what I had done to my camera because the shots looked sharper and clearer. The only thing I notice is that the higher ISO shots don't seem to have the same punch and vibrance, but my hit rate is much, much higher then with my 1DMKIII and it was pretty good to begin with. Granted I'm only 1500 shots into it, but editor already noticed a difference and since he pays me to work, I'll take his word over RG's any day.
DavidP wrote:
It's becoming clear, I think, that making a camera perform better in some areas can often lead to adverse effects in other areas.
You could be more right than you realize. Canon addressed the lock-on problem with subjects coming right at the camera, which seemed to be the last remaining problem in the Mark III. Apparently they put a lot of focus into that, and they succeeded very well in that aspect. Hmmmm........
hardlyboring wrote:
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
Thanks for the EOS Custom Guide. Because it recommends different settings for different sports and various lighting scenarios, it'll be interesting to read feedback from other M4 shooters as they test the many options.
Couple of quick notes:
1) It appears that for most of the key tracking settings, Rob Galbraith settled on the same C.Fns as Peter Read Miller. Peter stipulated that he chose his as best for football.
2) The EOS Custom Guide shows a sequence that combines three of Rob's biggest M4 bugaboos -- soccer, red shirt, strongly front-lit.
I'm not reading anything into either point. Just sayin' it's interesting. In the end, the facts will out. Or not.
Thanks for the EOS Custom Guide. Because it recommends different settings for different sports and various lighting scenarios, it'll be interesting to read feedback from other M4 shooters as they test the many options.
Couple of quick notes:
1) It appears that for most of the key tracking settings, Rob Galbraith settled on the same C.Fns as Peter Read Miller. Peter stipulated that he chose his as best for football.
2) The EOS Custom Guide shows a sequence that combines three of Rob's biggest M4 bugaboos -- soccer, red shirt, strongly front-lit.
I'm not reading anything into either point. Just sayin' it's interesting. In the end, the facts will out. Or not. ...Show more →
That's what I saying before, you can't just expect there to be a global set of CFns that will work perfectly for every type of shooting. Even on the much simpler 1D II this was the case. RG needs to pick a specific sport, then report on the effects of various CFn combos on the performance of the AF. Then move to another sport and repeat and so on.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
That's what I saying before, you can't just expect there to be a global set of CFns that will work perfectly for every type of shooting. Even on the much simpler 1D II this was the case. RG needs to pick a specific sport, then report on the effects of various CFn combos on the performance of the AF. Then move to another sport and repeat and so on.
The thing I don't understand is: If Galbraith is supposed to be some sort of 1D AF guru, why is it that his website seems to be about 80%-95% full of high school sports and lower-tier league sports? I'd expect something more...exciting...from an AF guru. Maybe the flaw isn't necessarily with his gear?
Breitling65 wrote:
Could anyone protecting "profit free" reviews and webpages made by RG explain following screen-shot? Is this in focus?
Don't forget the paypal link at the bottom of the page begging for a donation (or maybe people only make fun of KR for doing that...)
quote]kakomu wrote:
The thing I don't understand is: If Galbraith is supposed to be some sort of 1D AF guru, why is it that his website seems to be about 80%-95% full of high school sports and lower-tier league sports? I'd expect something more...exciting...from an AF guru. Maybe the flaw isn't necessarily with his gear?
Don't forget the paypal link at the bottom of the page begging for a donation (or maybe people only make fun of KR for doing that...)
globalkiwi wrote:
AFAIK, RG simply accepts advertizing from Nikon on his site, that's well short of being under contract to or sponsored by. My guess is that he is trying to be objective - I don't see how he could expect to have a future if he was found to be deliberately "fixing" reviews for one manufacturer. Whether you agree with his testing methodology is another matter ...
It is not only advertising. In the editorial text, there is a hypertext link from "D3s" to a Nikon site in this passage:
"To that end, much of what we've shot with the EOS-1D Mark IV, including the runner tests, speedskating, basketball and more, was also shot with the D3S. Mostly with Mike Sturk and I sitting side by side, capturing sequences of the same thing at the same time."
He does not link to any Canon site where the MkIV is hyperlinked, it then goes to pages on RG's own site.
Probably - in which case his reporting of what he's finding is skewed: if indeed he is finding (relatively) minor "quirks", he shouldn't be packaging his findings up as the major screw-up he implies it is.
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.
Having browse through the whoel thread and on Rob comments, I actually have some questions in mind, for example, by looking at the AF he used to take the basketball photos, the AF point is actually focusing on the subject's cloths, how can he expect the AF to be dead on focusing on the subject's face?....
I guess, the prob, is that he probably just use all if not, some AF points for auto focus...which we certainly don't expect the camera to be perfect on focusing.
I actually owe 1D3 and tested a 1D4 with the same set up i.e. 1.4x + 600f4 L IS for BIF. I can feel right immediately that the 1D4 being a bit more responsive, and the photos taken to be dead on with focus. Producing yet more in focus shots then with the 1D3.
cljtam wrote:
by looking at the AF he used to take the basketball photos, the AF point is actually focusing on the subject's clothes.
He did the same with his Mk III review, which generated a lot of chatter about there not being much in the way of contrast and features on a plain, dark shirt for the AF to grab onto...
Pixel Perfect wrote:
That's what I saying before, you can't just expect there to be a global set of CFns that will work perfectly for every type of shooting. Even on the much simpler 1D II this was the case. RG needs to pick a specific sport, then report on the effects of various CFn combos on the performance of the AF. Then move to another sport and repeat and so on.
Wouldn't it be cool if the 1D mark 5 had a way of saving all those different but necessary focussing settings and switching to them quickly? And switching back from them to where you were before. And adjusting them and resaving them. Ideally there would be an actual knob for this so that you wouldn't have to fiddle around switching from one memory card to another or make nine input gestures on 3 different input elements to get to your saved settings. That would be really cool. They could be called something like A-modes, or even B-modes. Maybe it would make the camera too expensive though. And maybe water would get in around the knob. Still, someone should suggest that to the 1 series interface developers. If they exist.
Rat Salad wrote:
Something that seems to be forgotten in all this is that AF stands for Autofocus. Autofocus should focus automatically, regardless of the situation or the subject matter. When the person using the camera has to set things manually, and has to use different manual settings for different situations and/or subject matter, it's not autofocus. When the user of the camera has to try to figure out and predict what the so-called predictive autofocus system in the camera is going to do, it's not an autofocus system. The whole idea of an autofocus system should be simplicity, not complexity.
Maybe Canon should call it an *autofocus assist system that might get it right some of the time if you can predict and set the correct manual settings for each and every situation and subject, and you're lucky*. ...Show more →
Well a F1 car is just a car too, and any body should be able to get in one a reel of quick lap times I guess.
Sorry we are talking about AI servo and getting it to perform as well as possible in a variety of sometimes demanding situations; it's not matter of simply pressing the * button, even though that would be nice. The camera has so many CFn's for a reason. Tuning the AF to be able to do everything is impossible, that's why we have various settings to aid the AF in vastly different shooting conditions.
By all means point me to the P&S you know can do all this without thinking.
brainiac wrote:
Wouldn't it be cool if the 1D mark 5 had a way of saving all those different but necessary focussing settings and switching to them quickly? And switching back from them to where you were before. And adjusting them and resaving them. Ideally there would be an actual knob for this so that you wouldn't have to fiddle around switching from one memory card to another or make nine input gestures on 3 different input elements to get to your saved settings. That would be really cool. They could be called something like A-modes, or even B-modes. Maybe it would make the camera too expensive though. And maybe water would get in around the knob. Still, someone should suggest that to the 1 series interface developers. If they exist....Show more →
I agree entirely.
Why the 1D IV doesn't have something like the C settings on the consumer models. Look at the size of the bloody body and they couldn't find a spot for a small dial with say 3-5 positions for recakking registered settings. Look at NIkon's which have small dial to quickly change AF settings.
