1D4@RG

[yakim_peled1]

<p>http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10048-10484</p>

<p>It must be all these Nikon ads in his site, right? :-(</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

 

[yakim_peled1]

<p>But this is very interesting to read.</p>

<p>http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10046-10439</p>

<p>I am holding my breath for more reports. I just can't believe Canon messed up again. It's illogical.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Va8I</p>

[zml]

<p>I'm surprised that RG feels competent to pass a judgment that quickly: in my experience every camera needs at least a few months of "getting-to-know-you" before one can be absolutely certain where the camera ends and the pilot begins, but, apparently, the hell with sensibility...<br /><br />A note from an actual user me (and I don't feel that I can authoritatively talk about the AF performance of the Mk. IV only after only 2 weeks of actual use) about one of the most serious issues raised by RG:<br />Servo tracking of objects moving with inconsistent speed is an Achilles’ heel of every camera I have used (Nikon D3s included) so what's new... When the tracking is continuous (i.e. shutter button half-pressed) and the object stops abruptly, the focus plane moves for an instant to its "predicted" location (the prediction being based on the last speed of the object) so if one releases the shutter precisely when the object stops, the frame is liable to be out of focus. A millisecond later would most likely correct the focus plane (this is also one of the reasons for shooting in bursts of many, many frames.) Still, there is a little trick that sports photogs use often: switching from servo AF to one-shot using the AF stop buttons on superteles (that can be set via C.Fn. on most cameras.) This way one can focus more accurately on stationary objects and still have the servo available in an instant.<br />As for other issues (mostly this vs. that) Nikon has big issues with the initial AF acquisition, so big in fact that most users simply assume that the first 1-2 frames from a high-speed series will be crap and act accordingly. Canon, OTOH, acquires focus super quickly but seems to lose it every now and then thus forcing me not only to shoot in longer bursts that I’d do with Nikon but also to pay more attention to the actual tracking.</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>I wonder how many 1D4's will suddenly suck now after this review by RG.....after all the praise.<br>

I've read nothing but possitive reports and great images from this camera for 2 months now.<br>

As Yakim posted in another thread about a 1D4 review, many others are finding the exact same thing. I think RG has found a quirk no camera can handle and he's picking it apart. Why would he do these tests for us......theres something in it for him. I promise he isnt that concerned for our well-being to do this for us out of the kindness he holds deep in his Aorta.</p>

<p>This comes out and I just wonder how many, "Yeah mine sucks too" will fly.</p>

<p>Its obvious he's splitting hairs. The MarkIIn wasnt any better, so what more do you want. I dont run off 30 shots in a row anyway. I fire 5 -10 shots max in short bursts and even my 1D3 can do that most of the time.</p>

<p>The 1d4 from what I've seen is a rock star at it. Who cares, as said, the D3s isnt perfect, its pick your poison at the moment. If you want super clean ISO 6400 12800 images, D3s is the camera. If its important, but not open heart surgury critical, then the 1D4 will do a hell of a job too. AF in these two seem like one has its pros and cons, just like the other....but either will absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt give the best results money can buy.</p>

<p>That said, I have been reading on FM about the BIF guys with 1D4's having serious trouble with FW 1.0.6. But.......it was great with 1.0.4, soooooo this should be an easy fix for Canon. FW 1.0.7 AKA 1.0.4......cause we all know they wont go back.</p>

<p><strong>NOTICE:</strong> <em>For those of you that have a 1D4, and it now sucks and wont deliver usable results, I will be willing to trade a mint 1D3 and cash to take it off your hands. You shouldnt suffer, its inhumane.</em></p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>RG has an axe to grind with Canon for publicly dropping him. When he drew the MkIII "issue" to Canon's attention they sent techs from Japan to Canada to work with him to replicate the "problems", they could not do it reliably and Canon withdrew their personnel without conclusion or further collaboration. They then dropped him as a beta tester.</p>

<p>Anybody can set up any bit of equipment to fail, it is not difficult. Every other report has been glowing and they haven't just been from the Vincent Lafort Canon ambassador school. There are a few youtube videos up that are very compelling. But I am sure Yakim will get some more mileage out of this "issue" too.</p>

<p>Every tester I have seen has been hyper sensitive to the AF performance, every single one has been glowing about it except for RG.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Rule of thumb: if your results are not roughly as good as those of your peers, then you have a faulty piece of equipment, or the problem is you.</p>

<p>Darwin Wiggett disregarded this rule of thumb and posted a 7D review which now makes him look foolish.</p>

<p>Given that every other report on the 1D mkIV has glowed about AF performance, I'm thinking Rob Galbraith is now making the same mistake.</p>

<p>If you blog or post reviews, <strong>consider what your peers have to say and why your results might be different before making a fool of yourself.<br /> </strong></p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>'Rob Galbraith' is an anagram of 'Brag Liar Both' ..........I will leave you to make up your own minds about the veracity of anything he says..............</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Just a reminder: RG was right when he said the AF of the 1D3 has problems. Many people said it was a CF customization issue, or Nikon bias because of the ads etc. However, Canon Inc. admitted he is right not only by issuing firmware updates to tackle this (which is quite common in many cameras) but also two hardware updates (which is extremely rare). Now he says the AF of the 1D4 has problems. How can anyone not even consider that he may actually be right again?</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. I love the Canon products. I've been shooting with them for 19 years and have ~15K worth of Canon gear. However, I am not a fanboy and as Scott Ferris so eloquently phrased: "<em>Canon completely dropped the ball on this one [1D3]".</em> I hope they have not done it again.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p>

[derrickdehaan]

<p>I have not done "extensive testing", but I do can do some comparisons against/with my current gear. All static subjects I have shot have produced amazing files from the mkIV. I actually prefer the mkIV files to my 5DII files.....thus far. I have not totally figured out all the autofocus settings, but in my preliminary testing, I have not encountered any issues yet. So far I have shot with the following lenses with out issue....<br>

16-35mkII<br>

50 1.4<br>

85L mkII<br>

100 2.8 macro<br>

70-200 2.8 IS</p>

<p>The only lens I still have to try is my 600 F/4 IS. I have mounted it and tested it to see if it required any M/A. It appears not to need any. But the weather is horrendous and nothing is moving outside. First warm day, I will go look for some dynamic subjects. This is my first 1D series, but I have been shooting with 40D and 5DII for some time now.</p>

 

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>Just a reminder: RG was right when he said the AF of the 1D3 has problems.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes and no, and the debacle is well documented on the 'net...</p>

<p>As an aside: reviewing high end cameras taken to the limits in terms of AF and drive speed performance is a lot like reviewing high performance cars: one guys say that the Lamborghini is awesome at full blast, the other says that yeah, how come I crashed it at 140 mph when it has 200 mph on the clock, and the third guy complains that there are not enough cup holders and no room for a pony...</p>

<p>And then, of course, there is the pilot...</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>How can anyone not even consider that he may actually be right again?</em></p>

<p>I've reviewed 3 of his posted test series and they do not warrant the review received.</p>

<p>* The in focus success rate is between 80%-90%, which is pretty good considering that a) the focus settings are not optimal and b) he sometimes had trouble getting and keeping the focus points over areas of subject detail. (Who doesn't? But don't blame the camera for that.)</p>

<p>* His suggestion to study the images at 100% to see the "true softness" is ignorance on his part. Many of his shots are at very high ISOs, 6400, 8000, and 10,000. These are very soft ISOs on any camera. A shot at these ISOs will not survive scrutiny in a 60" print, which is what it's like to look at them at 100% in Photoshop. 60" is pushing it for a small format camera at ISO 100! His suggestion also leads me to believe that he is comparing 1D4 and D3s images side by side at 100%, which subjects the 1D4 image to greater magnification and scrutiny by comparison. (Pixel peeping rears its ugly head even among professionals who should know better.)</p>

<p>When I sat down to review the images in the three sets I downloaded, I told myself to be honest, mark OOF or Soft for each one I personally would not be happy with, and make notes about indications of user or setting errors. I also judged the images on a 23" monitor, not at 100%. And I was careful to judge whether or not the area under the focus point was in focus rather than, say, the face. (You can't blame the camera if you chose the wrong AF point or placed your chosen point over the wrong area when shooting wide open.) I expected much worse given the tone of his review. With the soccer series in particular I sat there wondering what he was whining about. He said the 1D4 was at its worst in bright, front lighting, yet I can find absolutely no indication of that. The soccer series was the best I reviewed (>90%).</p>

<p>It's important to note that he has not made the D3s files available for download for comparison. Nor did he include any images shot with settings other than the defaults (Main Focus point tracking / standard sensitivity). I would like to see the D3s files, along with comparable test series shot with continuous tracking / maximum sensitivity. I realize the 7D is a different body, but changing those two AF custom functions made a night and day difference for me in percentage of keepers under demanding situations. Further, I believe I can pick out specific examples of soft or completely OOF shots where his settings are the likely culprits.</p>

<p>I will also note that he complained about the 1D4 losing focus on skaters as they got close to him. It's pretty clear to me, from the skating series, that this only happened when he left the focus points dead center over solid areas of their shirts. IMHO, in general he had the wrong point selected for his framing. I would have selected a point 1 or 2 steps higher to keep the expanded cluster over the chest/head area for both landscape and portrait framing, where it would be more likely to pickup contrasting details (facial features, lettering on shirt, etc). His points were constantly on the waist and stomach whenever the subject was nearby in all the series I looked at, areas of solid color. (If the D3s can handle this then kudos to Nikon for figuring out an AF sensor that doesn't need contrast. But so far I have not handled a camera from anybody for which this is true, including other Nikons.) I'm not suggesting he try to change the point mid shoot. But the way he was consistently framing shots I would think it would be better to offset the point slightly.</p>

<p>I could be wrong on all my setting suggestions, but we don't know because he didn't try.</p>

<p>I suspect, but will never know unless he uploads them, that there's simply not a big difference in percentage of keepers between the 1D4 and D3s when judged realistically (i.e. NOT 100% in Photoshop). And that some minor changes in settings and technique would push the 1D4 into the >90% category. I'm sorry, but what I have seen just does not support his tone. I don't think he is over the 1D3 issue. I think he is biased.</p>

<p>I would invite anyone who is bothered by his review to actually view the tests. Tell me if you disagree with my assessment. But I urge realistic viewing conditions and careful discernment between high ISO softness and actual misfocus.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>Seems to make a lot of sense to me too. Two things did occur to me that you mention, first, the viewing at 100% is a joke, with this kind of MP camera, like you say, you are effectively putting your nose up close to a 5ft print, not very realistic, and two, the basketball shot he has on the second article page, when you click it to see the focus points, as almost always, he has the focus point on the area of least/fastest changing contrast, the shirt/waist area. This is not the best way to use the AF.</p>

<p>I haven't looked through his images yet, but probably will, but it seems to me camera AF abilities have passed his technique by. He is floundering and is blaming the tools. He does also show a lot of anti Canon bias and when you realise that, however genuine or not his conclusions, it is difficult to take him seriously.</p>

<p>So flawed technique, obvious bias and different conclusions to all other testers so far. Hmmm maybe not even any smoke coming out of this non fire so far.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Yakim:</p>

<p>It's quite possible Rob is right.</p>

<p>It's also possible that he's simply inexperienced with using the 1D4.</p>

<p>No way to tell for sure. My guess is the latter.</p>

<p>For anybody who is interested in Canon's take on settings for various situations, here's a good read:</p>

<p><a href="http://rapidshare.com/files/349352326/_EOS_Custom_guide_E_01.pdf">http://rapidshare.com/files/349352326/_EOS_Custom_guide_E_01.pdf</a></p>

<p>Canon specifically recommends changing the default settings for soccer and basketball. Those were the two sports Rob called out by name where he didn't get great results from the 1D4 using default settings. Go figure. :)</p>

<p>According to Rob, the 1D3 is still broken, but I've seen many, many results that show the contrary is true.</p>

<p>I would judge a tool by the results from competent users rather than those who struggle with figuring it out. I tend to discard opinions from people using a hammer to pound in screws who claim the hammer isn't a good tool. </p>

<p>Eric</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>So flawed technique, obvious bias</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know RG from Adam so have no idea what kind of photog he is and I also don't think that he's biased, but I do have a strong suspicion that he's easily impressed by the superficial, hence his love affair with a heavily discounted Nikon that doesn't acquire focus very well :-)<br>

Now, objective, well executed systematic testing may make sense for the masses as a "general guidance" but if you rely on your camera 100% for hobby or money, the only way to test it is to shoot with it your usual stuff, with a variety of configurations, for a few weeks to the tune of tens of thousands of frames. Then you can really say something about the limitations of the camera (and, often, the user...) That's precisely why I don't feel like passing a judgment on 1D4: my experience is limited to 3 weeks with a single body (I'm getting the second body next week so we'll see. It is easier to draw conclusions shooting with various lenses, different settings, etc., on more than one body.) But, on the level of anecdotal evidence, I'm already so impressed with the 1D4, both in terms of AF performance and IQ, that I'm thinking of shelling out $5K and getting one for my personal use.</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>I don't know you from Adam but, rightly or wrongly, I trust your opinions to a fair degree just from your previous comments and posts. RG's comments particularly about the MkIII AF do not make me have confidence in him having a level headed opinion in this area.</p>

<p>The bias he shows is in not having enough time to upload the comparable Nikon files and in using the AF settings in inappropriate configurations. The bad technique he shows is in favouring the center AF when it is not appropriate, trying to compare different sized and mp numbered sensors both at 100% thereby looking at two totally different magnifications and not using the suggested AF settings.</p>

<p>Interesting point about the Nikon not acquiring focus, have you <a href="http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-super-bowl/09000d5d812b779d/Capturing-Holmes-cat">seen this video?</a> It shows two photographers attempts to shoot the final touchdown at this years Superbowl. The one who got the shots, (the Canon user got run over!) was a Nikon user, in the video it shows his shot sequence, the first two or three frames are way oof, sure the framing isn't there etc but that is not the point, the AF did not acquire until at least the third frame.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Scott, that is actually last year's Superbowl but still a very interesting video.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>My bad :-( Guess you all know I am not American now then!</p>

<p>I couldn't figure it out but was too interested in the video itself to think about the teams.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Daniel, have you looked at the basketball pictures 11-15? 11 is fine, 12 and 13 are OOF, 14 and 15 are fine again. All have AF point in the exact same place. I think that represents the inconsistency RG is talking about. It seem to have lost AF lock without any reason.</p>

<p>Eric, I don't think he is inexperienced with the 1D4. The details he provide in the second page seem to refute this hypothesis.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[rhaytana__tim_adams_]

<p>First, to get a couple of qualifiers out of the way:</p>

<p>(A) What follows isn't intended as an indictment of any particular contributor to this forum. Although I do regard these forums as magnets for public relations shills, I also am mindful of the adage that "the best public relations disappears." Your particular post angrily questioning Rob Galbraith may emanate entirely from your soul and your head, and not from any desire to enrich your bank account.</p>

<p>(B) I don't own the 1D4 and am not an experienced sports shooter. I am strongly inclined to think of Rob Galbraith as honest and unbiased in his reviews, as are many -- but certainly not all! -- of the contributors to this thread on Sports Shooter: <a href="http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=35406">http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=35406</a> . But, I could be wrong. </p>

<p>With that out of the way:</p>

<p>Is there some sort of unwritten rule that prevents contributors here from noting that forums of this type must be magnets, absolute magnets, for public relations shills? I have read only one article on this matter: <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/15/business/fi-m8015">http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/15/business/fi-m8015</a> but a close relative worked in public relations, and it is simply unthinkable that things should be otherwise. These forums draw scads of page views and are major, major influencers of buying decisions. Establishing a shill account for shill messages costs nothing, and could do your client a world of good in terms of steering the public mind in the direction you want it go to.</p>

<p>As I am certain that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, I am certain that any major negative review of an important camera is going to be answered by a colossal public relations salvo from the other side. How high is the percentage of shill postings? 70%? Higher?</p>

<p>And yet it's never discussed, never mentioned. Believe me, I'm not pointing any kind of finger at Canon. I would expect as-exuberant shill posters to ooze out of the woodwork were a Rob Galbraith or a likely-to-be-credible-and-unbought reviewer to offer a bad review of the latest Nikon, or Sony, or Hasselblad, or most anything else. </p>

<p>There, I've vented. Genuinely indignant Canon shooters and dollar-hungry PR shills, I hereby turn the forum back over to you.</p>

[rhaytana__tim_adams_]

<p>Out of consideration for sincere photo.net members, please let me supplement the post above by emphasizing that I don't intend to criticize or impugn the integrity of any individual contributing here.</p>

<p>An example of what I mean by this may serve best:</p>

<p>I used to own a 5D. If a major reviewer had criticized the 5D in a manner I felt unfair, I might have posted my objections to a forum like this one, and my objections would have been absolutely sincere and heartfelt.</p>

<p>But, I would have expected to be backed up by a chorus of mercenary shills. That's PR.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Tim,</p>

<p>Interesting but so what? I can't know who is sponsored by whom so I look through it (unless I am one of them in which case stop reading this propaganda/shill). Do I know of the poster? Have I seen their posts before? Did they have similar inputs/views/opinions/experiences to me? Have they posted about things I know them to be wrong about? etc etc.</p>

<p>With regards my opinions of RG, I don't know him and have never met him, I have no reason to consider him honest or dishonest, the credibility I give him has come from his own words on his own site, I don't really care what others know or feel about him, I don't care if he is paid by Canon or Nikon and, I expect he is human.</p>

<p>I read all the information he had and every post and update he made about the MkIII at the time, I was very interested because I was in the market for one. After reading his entire works on the subject it was obvious, even to him, he was chasing his own tail and was no longer in a position to offer credible advice. A conclusion anybody reading the whole thing could not possibly disagree with. He has stated that Canon dropped him as a beta tester, he has stated that Canon Japan personnel abandoned testing with him after they failed to replicate the MkIII issues.</p>

<p>So to his latest test on the MkIV, he posts 900 images from the Canon, I have not finished downloading them yet, this was in a side by side comparative test with a Nikon, how many Nikon files did he post? He set his bodies up in a way that Canon specifically state is not the best way to do it. He is not using the focus points in a way that I do, or in a way that is more likely to get better results. He specifically advices to inspect the files at 100% for both bodies. Anybody who views files knows that that is a ridiculous comparison that is totally uneven.</p>

<p>Bearing all this in mind, and remember that the only opinions I have about the guy have come from his own words on his own website, I give RG all the credibility he warrants in my eyes.</p>

<p>Of course he might be right.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott</p>

<p>P.S. I bought the MkIII, couldn't be happier with it.</p>

[zml]

<p>Rhaytana: Yeah, yeah, dollar-hungry PR shills and mercenaries... Your life must be pretty screwed up if you write shit like this on a public forum.<br>

Scott: Whether or not RG is biased I have no idea, but I have fundamental problems with people who refer to themselves in <em>pluralis maiestatis</em> ("we") like RG does in his diatribe. And with people who abuse adjectives. </p>

[andrew_francino1]

<p>I'm a nature photographer and still shoot with my 1D mark II but have been looking to purchase the Mark IV.... And have tried to read all comments by people who actually have used this camera. RGs review may be flawed. When I use my 600mm or the 300 2.8 I am always aware of the very shallow depth of focus and if I am taking a shot of a bird's eye I may not get the front of its beak in focus. Although I may want to keep the lens wide open I am forced to step down to get the photo I want. You cannot expect to put the focus point on a players stomach or chest who is falling back after a rebound or shot and get their face in focus (at 100%). THe chest and face will be on different planes. To lighten things up a little, see the attached link of a comparison between the Ds3 and Mark IV; <a href="http://www.digitalrev.com/en/nikon-d3s---handson-review-video-4900-article.html">http://www.digitalrev.com/en/nikon-d3s---handson-review-video-4900-article.html</a>.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> <br>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"></p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<br>

 

<p dir="ltr">Of course, there are many other sport photographers which find the 1D4 a top notch machine.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<a href="http://uniquephoto.blogspot.com/2010/01/unique-photo-shootout-featuring-david.html">http://uniquephoto.blogspot.com/2010/01/unique-photo-shootout-featuring-david.html</a>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<a href="http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2371">http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2371</a>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<a href="http://manginphotography.net/2009/12/finally-canon-gets-it-right-with-mark-iv/">http://manginphotography.net/2009/12/finally-canon-gets-it-right-with-mark-iv/</a>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<p dir="ltr">

<p dir="ltr">And DPR as well, but look how careful they are not to step on RG toes. :-)<br /></p>

<br>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3s/page15.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3s/page15.asp</a>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>