scowl wrote: pjbuehner wrote: I wish someone could come up with an objective battery of tests to assess AF (AI servo). That is the one thing always lacking in reviews and for these cameras also so crucial. These are an objective battery of tests -- give the cameras to experienced photographers in the real world and see how many keepers they walk away with. As long as there are humans behind the cameras, you have to keep the human element in camera tests otherwise the tests are meaningless for anything but remote cameras.
I am sorry but that isn\'t objective. I also disagree that an objective test would be meaningless. If you put a camera\'s AF point on a target and you can objectively prove to me that it missed focus 7 of 10 times then I find that very meaningful. I don\'t mean to discount the value of the human interface but if a test could first eliminate the human variable, then we could see what does or does not work in a given AF system.
An objective test would silence those that say that it was user error and could also help decide what the best C Fn to be used are.
Just as an example, there were a lot of \"experienced photographers\" who landed on both sides of the fence with the mark III issue and there are also many pros out there who have praised the mark IV...how does one make sense of that? Quality control and copy variance? Again a solid objective test could illuminate that.
scowl wrote: pjbuehner wrote:
I wish someone could come up with an objective battery of tests to assess AF (AI servo). That is the one thing always lacking in reviews and for these cameras also so crucial.
These are an objective battery of tests -- give the cameras to experienced photographers in the real world and see how many keepers they walk away with. As long as there are humans behind the cameras, you have to keep the human element in camera tests otherwise the tests are meaningless for anything but remote cameras.
I am sorry but that isn\'t objective. I also disagree that an objective test would be meaningless. If you put a camera\'s AF point on a target and you can objectively prove to me that it missed focus 7 of 10 times then I find that very meaningful. I don\'t mean to discount the value of the human interface but if a test could first eliminate the human variable, then we could see what does or does not work in a given AF system.
An objective test would silence those that say that it was user error and could also help decide what the best C Fn to be used are.
Just as an example, there were a lot of \"experienced photographers\" who landed on both sides of the fence with the mark III issue and there are also many pros out there who have praised the mark IV...how does one make sense of that? Quality control and copy variance? Again a solid objective test could illuminate that.
scowl wrote: pjbuehner wrote: I wish someone could come up with an objective battery of tests to assess AF (AI servo). That is the one thing always lacking in reviews and for these cameras also so crucial. These are an objective battery of tests -- give the cameras to experienced photographers in the real world and see how many keepers they walk away with. As long as there are humans behind the cameras, you have to keep the human element in camera tests otherwise the tests are meaningless for anything but remote cameras.
scowl wrote: pjbuehner wrote:
I wish someone could come up with an objective battery of tests to assess AF (AI servo). That is the one thing always lacking in reviews and for these cameras also so crucial.
These are an objective battery of tests -- give the cameras to experienced photographers in the real world and see how many keepers they walk away with. As long as there are humans behind the cameras, you have to keep the human element in camera tests otherwise the tests are meaningless for anything but remote cameras.
I am sorry but that isn\'t objective. I also disagree that an objective test would be meaningless. If you put a camera\'s AF point on a target and you can objectively prove to me that it missed focus 7 of 10 times then I find that very meaningful. I don\'t mean to discount the value of the human interface but if a test could first eliminate the human variable, then we could see what does or does not work in a given AF system.
An objective test would silence those that say that it was user error and could also help decide what the best C Fn to be used are.
Just as an example, there were a lot of \"experienced photographers\" who landed on both sides of the fence with the mark III issue and there are also many pros out there who have praised the mark IV...how does one make sense of that? Quality control and copy variance? Again a solid objective test could illuminate that.
Feb 11, 2010 at 02:38 PM
Previous versions of pjbuehner's message #8120615 « RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance »
