rob galbraith's review of 1d mark IV autofocus ......

[TaDa]

Originally Posted by Waldemar Sikorski

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/he.../03lancet.html

Sorry, but what do vaccines and cameras have in common?

[Waldemar Sikorski]

Originally Posted by TaDa

Sorry, but what do vaccines and cameras have in common?

I read and think.
"The retraction by The Lancet is part of a reassessment that has lasted for years of the scientific methods and financial conflicts of Dr. Andrew Wakefield,...".

[TaDa]

Originally Posted by HankScorpio

The problem with this is that for the majority of of users and the majority of bodies, the MkIII has no issues and never did but it was tainted by RG and people saw problems when none existed. There were a few dodgy ones as with everything but it was and is nowhere near the failure that it's claimed top be based on RG's review.

The problem with this current review is that the MkIV really is not as good as the D3 for AF tracking. It's sad but true. However that's like saying a Lamborghini isn't as good as a Ferrari because it's slightly slower to 200mph. Both cameras are more than capable of doing the job and if you can't get the shot you want with a hit rate above 80%, which even a 40D can manage then it really is user error.

Dude, I'm a big Canon fan. That being said, there is no way in hell that Canon would have spent the time, money and effort going through a recall and fix, if a problem did not genuinely exist. Until around mid-2007, Canon DOMINATED in sports. You go to an NFL game, all you saw was a field of white. Go to an NHL game, only white lenses poking through the holes. Then a few months after 1D3 ships, you see more and more Nikons. You also saw more folks going back to 1D2s. RG was NOT the only person to have AF issues. So many pros don't read reviews, they were swayed by their results.

[TaDa]

Originally Posted by Waldemar Sikorski

I read and think.
"The retraction by The Lancet is part of a reassessment that has lasted for years of the scientific methods and financial conflicts of Dr. Andrew Wakefield,...".

Yes, but the autism/vaccine issue was never supported by the majority of the medical community. Doctors were all telling their patients that vaccination is safe, and that there was more danger in not getting your child vaccinated than there was of the child developing autism.

Am I saying that RG is not biased? No. All I am saying is that Canon had some real issues with the 1D3. Many sports shooters agreed. Canon has since fixed them for that particular body, but they should also be aware that their AF is under a microscope right now. And right now, right before the Olympics, something like this just aint good press.

[Waldemar Sikorski]

Originally Posted by TaDa

Yes, but the autism/vaccine issue was never supported by the majority of the medical community. Doctors were all telling their patients that vaccination is safe, and that there was more danger in not getting your child vaccinated than there was of the child developing autism.

Am I saying that RG is not biased? No. All I am saying is that Canon had some real issues with the 1D3. Many sports shooters agreed. Canon has since fixed them for that particular body, but they should also be aware that their AF is under a microscope right now. And right now, right before the Olympics, something like this just aint good press.

"But the retraction may do little to tarnish Dr. Wakefield’s reputation among parents’ groups in the United States. Despite a wealth of scientific studies that have failed to find any link between vaccines and autism, the parents fervently believe that their children’s mental problems resulted from vaccinations."

[Palladium]

IMO - any review is worthless with knowing what CF's are used and how the camera is set up.

[bacchanal]

Originally Posted by Palladium

IMO - any review is worthless with knowing what CF's are used and how the camera is set up.

Good thing he explained all this then.

[sdipirro]

Interesting article, and it makes me want to go out and do a lot more AF testing with my relatively new Mark IV. My first test was of someone running towards me at full speed, and like RG, I had perfect results with every frame in focus, something my Mark III didn't do consistently. Most of my other tests have been rather static so far, and I'm still liking everything I see. I'll have to try some of the other AF tests now, but from what RG described, these sound to me like potential problems in the new algorithms used for predictive AF on moving targets, something that could potentially be fixed in firmware if they discover problems with the algorithms. Nothing he described sounded to me like it would need a hardware fix.

[nicksan]

Originally Posted by bacchanal

Good thing he explained all this then.

He did? I don't remember reading too much about how he set his CF's up.

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by TaDa

Honestly, I don't think you can write off RG as just a Nikon fanboy.

I don't think he's a Nikon fanboy, but questions have to be asked about impartiality and objectivity, given that Nikon advertises (and many well be the biggest advertiser) on his site...

[jwcdds]

Originally Posted by nicksan

He did? I don't remember reading too much about how he set his CF's up.

He has photo sets to download. Listed on this page, describing his CF.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...48-10484-10500

[HankScorpio]

Originally Posted by TaDa

Dude, I'm a big Canon fan. That being said, there is no way in hell that Canon would have spent the time, money and effort going through a recall and fix, if a problem did not genuinely exist.

I'm not a big Canon fan, I'm a big photography fan who happens to mostly use Canon equipment. What I know about business though is that it's better to fix an issue that doesn't exist at whatever cost than be seen to be ignoring your customers' problems, especially in Japan where saving face is more important than life itself.

I'm not saying the Mk III is flawless because, like everything that exists, it has some shortcomings and there were as always manufacturing problems. But the issues were in no way as bad as has been claimed and a lot of the Canon shooters who went Nikon (some of whom I call friends) did so based on never having seen a problem personally but not wanting to lose shots and therefore money if it did happen.

Bad hype hurt the Mk III more than shoddy assembly lines did. I just hope the MkIV doesn't suffer the same unwarranted fate (though partly I hope it does so I can get one cheap).

[Harleypugs]

"In our testing, enabling C.Fn III-8-1 (Left/Right AF point), made no discernible difference, C.Fn III-8-3 (All 45 Points Area) was impossible to use for sports because the AF point jumps around continually (in other words, this setting is meant for another purpose) while C.Fn III-8-2 (Surrounding AF Points) brought a noticeable improvement in both AF system feel and the number of in-focus pictures. While the frame rate still slows down a fair bit, it's not as big a drop and it doesn't drop as often as when this option is disabled (this behaviour is linked to the Custom Function discussed next).

All but a handful of the downloadable pictures were taken with C.Fn III-8-2 (Surrounding AF Points) turned on.

For all the photos, C.Fn III-3 (AI Servo 1st/2nd Image Priority) was on its default of C.Fn III-3-0 (AF Priority/Tracking Priority). Set this way, the AF system is to give priority to focus acquisition, rather than drive speed, when it's newly activated just before shooting a picture, and then between frames in a sequence. The result can be a slowdown of the shooting rate when the camera's AF system thinks it needs more time."

From page 2

[Palladium]

Originally Posted by Harleypugs

...

From page 2

didn't even see a page 2 - anyway he got my 1 page view from me, I won't give him any more

[tdodd]

Originally Posted by Palladium

IMO - any review is worthless with knowing what CF's are used and how the camera is set up.

Every sample image I've studied so far from RG's test results has Tracking Sensitivity set to the middle setting (default) and Tracking Method set to the main point (default). Now I don't shoot this sort of stuff, but those are not the settings I would have chosen for my 1D3. At the very least I would have the Tracking Method set to continuous and I might well have slowed the Sensitivity as well. I think it is a mistake to be aiming the focus point at the body/chest area, where pumping arms and hands can interfere with the focusing, and at times, when the clothing is stretched smooth, there is insufficient contrast for focusing to work, especially at 10 FPS.

In Canon's own document on customising the 1D3 AF, while they do use RG's settings for Tracking Method and Sensitivity, they show a single focus point in use, aimed at the face, which should retain plenty of contrast throughout. I'm sure RG knows a lot more than me about shooting such subjects, but why not even experiment with the ideal setup, or at least pay attention to Canon's (admittedly 1D3) advice? The following is from Canon's guidance for the 1D3....