Rob Galbraith's comments on 40D

[roger_smith4]

"Could just be me, but I don't have the impression that the author took much time to learn the camera."

 

Did you read his extensive reviews of AF with the IDMKIII? Based on that he knows how Canon AF works (or doesn't) and doesn't need to relearn how each body implements it.

 

Reading his critique I'm amazed the body works as well as it does, but I really have no use for the type of AF a pro sports shooter does so I'm not the target audience for this.

[richard_noyb]

His testing proves it, you only need look at the test and the samples. What you get out of his test is up to you.

First, the MK2 performs better than the MK3 and that is disappointing.

The MK3 has a problem with high temps, the 40d does not.

The 40d is not a sports camera. I can attest that it is not, if you bought on thinking it would be a sports camera, that is a problem with your thinking, Canon never marketed it for that. Do you think a cameral under 2k is going to outperform a 5k dollar model? Sorry.

 

The test Rob does is for how many keepers do you get in continuous shot session. It appears that the mk3 falls on its face when comparied to the MKII. Thats too bad, maybe Canon will get it right next time.

 

The 40d never was a sports camera. Can you use it as such? Sure but the number of keepers go way down because it front focuses or backfocuses under heavy use of continuous image capture until the buffer runs out. And would you expect otherwise from a non pro inexpensive camera? If you do, your expectations need to be reset. Can you use it for sports, sure but expect a number of non keepers. Thats all.

 

Rob is disappointed that he has a bunch of Canon glass and cannot buy the newest latest canon camera which should be better than its predicessor. And in this case it is not. His words are for working pros that need a high number of infocus keepers to help them compete in this world of highly competitive photographers. I have taken sports with a rebel xt, but there sure were a number of oof shot. I just put up with it because I bought mine cheap. But if I layed down 5k dollars for the Canon, I would expect it to work as Rob expects it to and better than the MKII and better than the latest Nikon, that is not an unreasonable request, it is a professioanal requirement

[Andrew Garrard]

Not that I'm the target market for the 1D series either, but I have a lot of sympathy for Rob.

 

He's not complaining that the 1DIII isn't perfect - he's complaining that it's less good than the 1DIIN - that Canon seem to have taken a backwards step. He tests shooting sports on a camera designed for, well, shooting sports. If the 1DsIII was terrible at shooting football it wouldn't matter so much, because its competitors (mostly medium format cameras at this point) probably aren't much cop at it either; there was more of a problem before the fix when focus on static objects was also dodgy. Maybe there are scenarios where the 1DIII is better at autofocus than the 1DIIN, but if he's having problems with what he shoots then it's useful information - both for those who are considering this camera for similar purposes, and as an independent real-world test bed for Canon. For those who shoot landscapes it's irrelevant whingeing - but who buys a 1DIII for landscapes?

 

A lot of people are perfectly happy with their 1DIII, I'm sure. That doesn't mean it's not useful to know its limits, especially since his usage scenario would seem a common one for this camera; caveat emptor. If Canon's autofocus technology filters down through the range, this is worth keeping an eye on - it interested me in case it became relevant for the 5D replacement. Honestly, it gives the impression that Canon tried something clever, and it didn't quite work - and can't be made to be backward-compatible. Here's hoping a 1DIV solves it.

[tasmania photoart]

Well for what I do I don't have such a problem. As has been said this might be use specific. My 40D is almost as good as my G9 - ha. [signature snipped]

[richard_martin10]

I shot 600 pictures with the 40D a couple of weeks ago at the Mid Ohio combined Indy Car and American Le Mans

series auto race weekend. Not that I care what a guy I've never heard of thinks but out of curiosity I looked through

the unedited batch earlier today. Seems like I had about 40 pictures slightly out of focus. If my math is correct

thats less then 10%. A very impressive number to a hack like myself. I don't quite understand the staunch defense

of Galbraith, and I don't understand blanket statements such as "The 40D is not a sports camera" made by another

forum member. It is only his opinion, he is not the end all judge of the subject, that would fall into the hands of 40D

users who seem to be able to take sports pictures with it.<div></div>

[Spearhead]

<i>Based on that he knows how Canon AF works (or doesn't) and doesn't need to relearn how each body implements it. </i><P>It doesn't sound like you have any experience with the cameras. The CF settings for the Mk3 are very different than its predecessors. If he didn't bother to relearn, he would certainly have trouble with it. I happen to have used both and know that it takes a fair amount of time to set it up. I'm not saying he didn't, but he's also not omipotent.

[michael_bradtke]

Richard

 

Did you shoot any where the car is coming at you? You should be able to nail a shot like you posted with out AF.

 

If you read what RG says its the heading right at you shots that are a problem.

 

BTW I have no dog in this fight I shoot the dark side.

[ronhartman]

Suhas,

 

The 40D AF may not have the top of the line auto focus. But the 350D does have a reputation for not having very reliable auto focus. So I would expect you to see an improvement in this area if you switched to the 40D.

[richard_martin10]

Michael....Head on shots were not a problem. The AF servo mode worked well no matter where I pointed the camera. The shot below starts out with the car headed right at you, as it turns to the left thats when I snap the shot. I only use the center focal point.<div></div>

[richard_martin10]

Here is another where the cars are going away from me, they are probably doing about 70 mph through here.<div></div>

[roger_smith4]

"It doesn't sound like you have any experience with the cameras. The CF settings for the Mk3 are very different than its predecessors. If he didn't bother to relearn, he would certainly have trouble with it."

 

Really? My comment in response to the previous post by Victor was that if you've handled both a 1DMKII and 1DMKIII (as he has extensively) you wouldn't have a whole lot of trouble figuring out the settings on a 40D. The converse may not be true. I have a 20D and it really doesn't have many autofocus settings at all.

 

This early page goes into detail about the various IDMKIII modes:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068

"First, it's important to understand that most of the EOS-1D Mark III's autofocus options are personal preference settings. They provide ways to configure the camera to your liking rather than fundamentally change the way the system determines subject distance or commands the lens to move to a certain point of focus. In other words, serious autofocus problems aren't likely to be fixed by adjusting a few Custom Functions."

[Spearhead]

Most documents since then point out how easy it is to screw up with the settings. What is your experience with the Mk3?

[roger_smith4]

Again, please reread my post in the context of the previous one- my post was in response to the 40D's focus system not the IDMkIII. What I said was that I didn't think Rob would have much trouble figuring out the 40D after coming from the 1D MKII and III. Heck, I didn't have much trouble figuring out the 20D coming from a manual focus system.

 

I don't have any experience with the MKIII but didn't comment about it, so what does it matter? I said I'm amazed the AF works as well as it does on any of these cameras.

 

It doesn't sound like you read through Rob's posts. Do us a favor and read it before commenting on his conclusions. If you'd like to share your own experience that would be welcome. This is the beginning of the update: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9357

 

The post I referenced was the first- there are 22 pages over the last year between that one and the most recent tests. It's simply not credible that a professional sports shooter can't figure out his camera's settings in 25,000 exposures over a year. Bob Atkins' explanation above is more believable- it's a torture test that no camera can really pass.

[santa1]

From my personal experience the difference between the two is huge. I like the lightness of the 40D but in terms of keepers during fast action there is no comparison. I would never consider using the 40D for professional sports. Not only is it much faster and more accurate, the smaller number of focusing points on the 40D is a real limitation. Either you set the AF point to the center or the person you focus on is too far to the side for good composition. The 40D (I think...) has no way to set the AI tracking sensitivity. Often i want a low sensitivity to allow another player to run in front of my object in focus. The 40D just gets confused. There are a plethora of issues with regard to the 40D including the limitations of the vertical grip. I can't speak to the 1DMKIII because I thankfully passed on that iteration. I have never tested or tried to quantify the difference between the two cameras, but I would generally agree with Rob's evaluation, as least as it pertains to my experience with the MKII vs 40D.

[bigsquashbuggy]

I sold both my 40d's a while back and got a Mark II instead. For AI Servo, the Mark II far exceeds the 40D in my experience. So I have no regrets. As usual, YMMV.

[tsc_tempest]

Ummm, did anyone countering RG's comments on the 40D actually take a full burst series of pics un similar conditions? It would certainly add weight to the argument, one way or the other, if you could post the burst sequence, rather than singles. It would be nice if we can see how the camera( 40D vs MK II/III etc.) lead or trail the action as the buffer fills up.

 

:-)

[peter_facey]

Slightly off topic, but one thing that really surprised me as a 5D owner is where Rob said this: "During a full day of

shooting at a local conference centre, in mostly lousy light, the camera struggled or failed to focus perhaps a dozen

times. To make it through the event, it became necessary to swap the EOS-1D Mark III for an EOS 5D". I think he's

talking here about focussing on static subjects but still using AI servo mode. It's my experience that the 5D is not at

all good at AF in low light, and yet Rob is saying that the 1DIII is worse.

 

Bob Atkins: "What about shots of something moving at constant or smoothly changing speed, like F1 race cars" - I

did something like that to compare my 5D against the Nikon D3 and convinced myself that the D3 is much better

(here http://www.brisk.org.uk/photog/d35dfocus.html ) Has anyone done this for the 1DIII?

 

On Rob's research in general, I find him fairly convincing. It's worth noting that he's happy with the 1DIIN so, at the

very least, he's identified a marked change in Canon's AF algorithm that happens to suit him worse. Also, he finds

focus jumping on static subjects with the 1DIII.

[danielleetaylor]

Castleman tested AF performance on vehicles approaching on a freeway in his 40D review. The 40D did very well compared against a 1D mkII.

 

Make of this what you will.

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/40D/index.htm

[alexander_c1]

Sorry, but no issues here with the autofocus on my 40D

[nyphotopro]

I, too, have a 40D and a 1D-Mark III and I'm beginning to think that Rob G is "out-to-lunch" on the auto-focus issue. He's a

bit too much of a perfectionist and hypercritical. I don't have a problem with auto-focus with moving or high or low contrast

subjects in bright or dim light on either camera. I couldn't happier.

[photo_dark]

perfectionists demand perfection. The 40D is as close to being the perfect budget pro camera as we could get at this point I think. I find the AF just fine. In fact, I had to turn off the beam assist on my flash because i was having issues... turns out the focus at 2.8 is much better without it in low light.

[ralph_jensen]

This is a baffling thread.

 

A professional sports shooter, Rob Galbraith, says that under really demanding conditions - an athlete running toward the camera - the hit rate of the 40D does not equal the hit rate of the best-focusing AF camera he's ever used (the MkIIn)...

 

...and everyone who has ever used a 40D to shoot something moving takes offense.

 

Does the 40D track as well as any camera in its price range? Undoubtedly, as many respondents here can attest.

 

But would a Sports Illustrated photographer reach first for the 40D if he was shooting from the finish line the men's 100-meter dash in Beijing? Probably not, and that was Galbraith's point.

[steve_eichorn]

A "pro" camera is supposed to be better than a "semi pro" camera, if it is not, then I got even a better

deal ($899.00) when I bought my 40D

 

I don't understand all the controversy here. If one body is better that the other, then buy the other

one.

 

THE END

[richard_martin10]

Ralph, you are missing the point of some of the 40D guys that are arguing. When blanket statements are made that the 40D is not a sports camera when in fact I am using it sucessfully for just that purpose, it tends to get you riled up! Perhaps it doesn't work to everyones satisfaction, but for my use at auto racing events it is a fantastic tool that produces very reliable results......that makes it a sports camera in my opinion.

[ellis_vener_photography]

What I don't see is any of you people who are criticizing Rob's very through reporting using the same set up (EOS

40D + 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4) under the same conditions he tested in and and finding something contrary to his

findings.