Reading mode: Light Dark

Suspicion torments my heart

Go to last post
Indeed, the sheer volume and easy manipulation has made all this information rather useless. Ironic how the Internet was going to open the door for enrichment, while we find ourselves wading through trash.

Personally I take everything with pinch of salt, establish my own opinion and then keep it to myself since, well it is just my opinion, valid for me.
 
I would think that a professional photographer prides himself for being able to make really good and comercially sound pictures and that his gear is just a tool that requires updating at times. Come update time he might be looking over that fence and decide to jump if the reasons are good enough and then move on back to your photography business.

I mean when you just bought a Ford, are going to be thinking "damn I should have bought a Toyota" every time you fill up?
 
Rich Dykmans said:
Rich Dykmans said:
There's no controversy, you won't find one MKIV owner here that doesn't love the camera. I owned a 50D and 7D along with the MKIII and now MKIV. You might want to take a look at the 7D as well if you're OK with the 1.6X crop, it's a fantastic cam and a real step up from the 50D in terms of AF, high ISO and file quality.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thanks Rich, in all honesty I want two camera bodies as I find constantly changing lens a hassel especially when driving around in the county.

That said I'll probably upgrade the 50d to the 7d or it's equivalent next year.

But I'd like the 5D but want the advantages for wildlife of the 1DmkIV, and the IQ.

Janal
 
verybiglebowski said:
Working in marketing area I can assure you that this is happening. It has its own terminology - "viral marketing". At which level it is coordinate by companies themselves it is a question, because we have also retailers, fun clubs, owners of frequently visited web pages etc. There are agencies who makes their specialization in this area. We have to live with it, either we like it or not.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have been a victim of this viral marketing as without any corroboration from reputable independent sources , you seem to have no problem accepting that the 1DmkIV is going to be wonderful as every post you have made is to either sing its praises or mock an alternate opinion. I am not saying it will not be a great camera , as it probably will , but unflinching loyalty is just as bad as relentless negativism , and just as effective at spreading misinformation.
Jim
 
MaxPhoton said:
I think you'll find a lot of the posts slamming the Canon 1d mk4 are actually from Canon users who have become disgruntled by the path Canon has chosen for it's pro-line cameras.

If you're a working pro and you look over the fence and see a camera (from a rival manufacture) delivering superior performance in the key areas you make your living, it's only natural you would feel cheated. This fact is then further compounded by Canon's big wigs, who, prior to release of the mk4, proudly acclaimed 'they had consulted with professionals to help them deliver the ultimate tool yadda yadda'... in fact, I suspect Canon consulted with no-one. They new Nikon had them beat, so in defiance they retreated from the front line, tail between their legs and attempted to foolishly trumpet weak aspects of the camera (Hi def video and 16mp) that pros simply don't want. Canon are deserving of the flak.
Click to expand...
I think you are tickling my suspicion bone , as you relentlessly attack the camera . Putting huge value on the features that the rival model seems to do better whilst negating anything that the 1DmkIV does better { extra mp, HD etc} . So alas I would be inclined to put you in the too biased to trust camp
Jim
 
I have never invested myself so heavily in these forums prior to putting myself on a waiting list for the 1d mk4. My expectations have swayed from excitement to disappointment as I looked through the initial tests from this camera... but in the end nothing has changed, I still love Nikon but am looking forward to the arrival of the mk4, no doubt it is more camera that I will likely need... I look forward to the learning curve.

I also feel that if a camera does have limitations, it simply creates a more creative operator.
--
tbuchan
 
js20D said:
I would think that a professional photographer prides himself for being able to make really good and comercially sound pictures and that his gear is just a tool that requires updating at times. Come update time he might be looking over that fence and decide to jump if the reasons are good enough and then move on back to your photography business.

I mean when you just bought a Ford, are going to be thinking "damn I should have bought a Toyota" every time you fill up?
Click to expand...
At one time Canon had an ethos. That ethos was to give the pro photographer the tools they needed to get the job done. This was exemplified long before the 1D series arrived on the scene. But, it was the arrival of the 1D that took the Canon ethos to a whole new level. A beautifully honed sculpture in the palms of the hands that could deliver dynamite pictures, helped by the best AF system on the planet. The pros loved it. The sports pros loved it even more. Some I'm sure even kissed and licked it. Nikon was nowhere... they weren't even bit players.

Then something changed. Nikon got better. Not a lot better, but a little with the arrival of the D2h. But Canon had nothing to fear. They were still top dog. The sports pros literally worshipped at the temple of Canon. Cheekily they re-coined the famous advertising line 'A Kodak moment' into an 'EOS moment' - implying the Canon EOS was the only camera on the planet that could capture sublime action images due to it's wonderful AF performance. They were probably right.

Then something terrible happened. Did the world spontaneously implode? No, something far worse occured. It was called the Canon EOS 1d mk3. A shambles of a camera that Canon is still trying hard to recover from.

Has, or will the 1D mk4 cement Canons recovery? It's questionable. Features alone don't make great cameras. Opening intelligent dialogue with guys in the front line who plan to use your cameras and simply asking them 'what do you want... what will help you to become the best you can be?' still won't make for a great camera, but it makes for great tools to enable the tool users to realise their vision and ambitions.

Canon have lost their way. Just what is the 1D mk4? Is it a tool? Is it a camera? Is it a video cam? Is it a hybrid device? For some, this is wonderful... but for others, this 'jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none' approach doesn't work.
 
jim stirling said:
I think you are tickling my suspicion bone , as you relentlessly attack the camera . Putting huge value on the features that the rival model seems to do better whilst negating anything that the 1DmkIV does better { extra mp, HD etc} . So alas I would be inclined to put you in the too biased to trust camp
Jim
Click to expand...
I put huge value on just two features : Low light performance and AF performance. But those features alone may still not be enough, because it's the relationship between them that is critical. Having one perform at a level that far surpasses the other has no benefit. Currently, the D3s is the victor in the low light stakes. Can it marry exemplary low light performance with critically accurate AF performance? The early signs are that it can. The early signs are that the 1d mk4 can as well... it's just the Nikon D3s will probably do it better. As for all the other stuff... the features... the what not... etc, I simply don't care. Therefore I will discard a camera (The EOS 1D mk 4) or any camera for that matter, if the two most critical areas of performance that I demand and the way they interact, are not up to scratch.
 
In general I have to agree with you, and I am not defending myself from trying to incriminate flames and blames that are falling on Canon 1D Mark IV mostly from Nikon users. But I didn't say in any of my threads that Nikon D3s is worst camera or that it is "trashed" by Canon. I don't have Nikon D3s, therefore I can't comment on it. On top of that, I am not posting on Nikon forums and try to blame any of Nikon cameras.

I just don't want to sit and let many of those irrelevant comments to pass by, without appropriate answer, while there is still not comprehensive review or comparison made.

I have Canon 1D Mark IV and 5D Mark 2 and 7D and I did some tests on high ISO (12800) and posted here. According to my tests (but I noted that they are not scientific), Canon 1D Mark IV performs very well. And from many posts that are trying to compromise it, once again it seems that Canon makes crap cameras. This is just not truth and therefore I will keep posting sarcastic comments as long as stupid attacks will continue to penetrate Canon forums.

Saying that, I am not also telling that Canon 1D Mark IV is the best camera ever, but right now in comparison to other Canon cameras it is outstanding one. Same as 5D mark II was and still is. (7D is a bit of disappointment for me, but it is still great tool for its price).

I was today at my local store where Nikon has promotion and I managed to take couple of shots with D3s on high ISO. I was asked not to post them, because as I was told, the firmware is not final one in that sample. I will test it now and make my own conclusion, and will not comment on it, because it won't be fair or relevant. But I am happy to have opportunity to see it myself.
 
MaxPhoton said:
MaxPhoton said:
Jim
Click to expand...
I think you'll find a lot of the posts slamming the Canon 1d mk4 are actually from Canon users who have become disgruntled by the path Canon has chosen for it's pro-line cameras.

If you're a working pro and you look over the fence and see a camera (from a rival manufacture) delivering superior performance in the key areas you make your living, it's only natural you would feel cheated. This fact is then further compounded by Canon's big wigs, who, prior to release of the mk4, proudly acclaimed 'they had consulted with professionals to help them deliver the ultimate tool yadda yadda'... in fact, I suspect Canon consulted with no-one. They new Nikon had them beat, so in defiance they retreated from the front line, tail between their legs and attempted to foolishly trumpet weak aspects of the camera (Hi def video and 16mp) that pros simply don't want. Canon are deserving of the flak.
Click to expand...
I assure you they DID consult! When did Canon announce they were going to make a camera that is better in ALL depts than the competition? They are giving sport and pj PROS what they asked for - amazing AF, 1.3 crop at high pixel density in a fully pro body; high ISO is more than adequate in the working range. No one else offers that.

Their is a fundamental philosophical difference between C and N pro lines nowadays - C offers a real pro crop factor cam aimed at the sports, pj and wildlife market. N offers high ISO, Low density FF with good high iso in that market segment - their are pros and cons to either approach; no one cam will do everything for you - pros will choose which ones fits their needs best. No amount of whinging by you or anyone else on this forum will change that.

I agree with the OP, this forum has become an awful place of late - Lots of people who criticizes and flames on the 1div even though they have not (and never WILL) own one (or the d3 for that matter) but only needs their brand to be the best at everything for some weird bragging rights.
 
MaxPhoton said:
jim stirling said:
I think you are tickling my suspicion bone , as you relentlessly attack the camera . Putting huge value on the features that the rival model seems to do better whilst negating anything that the 1DmkIV does better { extra mp, HD etc} . So alas I would be inclined to put you in the too biased to trust camp
Jim
Click to expand...
I put huge value on just two features : Low light performance and AF performance. But those features alone may still not be enough, because it's the relationship between them that is critical. Having one perform at a level that far surpasses the other has no benefit. Currently, the D3s is the victor in the low light stakes. Can it marry exemplary low light performance with critically accurate AF performance? The early signs are that it can. The early signs are that the 1d mk4 can as well... it's just the Nikon D3s will probably do it better. As for all the other stuff... the features... the what not... etc, I simply don't care. Therefore I will discard a camera (The EOS 1D mk 4) or any camera for that matter, if the two most critical areas of performance that I demand and the way they interact, are not up to scratch.
Click to expand...
I use the D3/D3x for work and will in all likelihood get a D3s before my wedding season starts. I have no problem accepting how good the D3s the difference is that I also use Canon gear ,not so much now as I originally invested in Canon for the better high iso performance { I was using the D2x at the time}. Whilst for a good number of people there was an issue with the AF of the IDmkIII , the image quality was excellent and I am inclined to think that Canon will have made every effort to make the 1DmkIV AF as good as it can be. And whilst for some myself included the extra mp , crop factor and HD are of little significance, for some these could be major advantages for their style of photography . Whilst we all have our favourite combination of features that make a certain model ideal for us this does not necessarily make it so for someone who may have other needs
Jim
 
I dont think the OP had the intention of another Canon vs Nikon thread.

The thread was about manipulating public concencus of a product, by lurking in the forums. This is not Canon vs Nikon, but a general and big discussion point.

Of course there will be bad products/good products and dissapointed users or dissapointed potential buyers that never bought the product because it didnt appeal to them.

The thing is what can we do, in order to filter honest opinions and experiences, and not scam/trolling/propaganda users? It is a very serious matter, dont get it wasted in Canon vs Nikon. Nobody disagrees that high iso is better in D3s. Period. Get over with it.
 
Vivid1 said:
I assure you they DID consult! When did Canon announce they were going to make a camera that is better in ALL depts than the competition? They are giving sport and pj PROS what they asked for - amazing AF, 1.3 crop at high pixel density in a fully pro body; high ISO is more than adequate in the working range. No one else offers that.

Their is a fundamental philosophical difference between C and N pro lines nowadays - C offers a real pro crop factor cam aimed at the sports, pj and wildlife market. N offers high ISO, Low density FF with good high iso in that market segment - their are pros and cons to either approach; no one cam will do everything for you - pros will choose which ones fits their needs best. No amount of whinging by you or anyone else on this forum will change that.
Click to expand...
1. Define amazing AF. You claim Canon are giving pro users amazing AF. Currently there is no proof. However, there would appear to be some proof the AF in the mk4 is better than the mk3. But does better constitute 'amazing'?

2. 1.3 crop. If reach is your want, then for sports pros the 1.3 crop is invaluable. But Canon are not giving anything new here... they are merely consolidating a feature that has been present on all 1D series cameras which sports guys find useful.

3. High mega pixel density? Oh please. This is where it turns ugly. Lets name names shall we? Getty, Reuters, PA, AP, AFP, Presse Sportive, L'Equipe etc etc... and all the other sports picture agencies throughout the world don't want more pixels. You think they do, because your opinion is partially formed by prejudice and a belief that you know what people want. Outside of the sports arena you may well be right, but for the sports pros, you comfortably do not know what you are talking about and never will know.

4. A full pro body? Well, this part is not rocket science... it's a given fact that you will get a full pro body and all that entails.

5. High ISO that is more than adequate? Thorny issue this one. Had the Nikon D3s not been released then the high ISO of the Canon EOS 1D mk4 probably would have been viewed as more than adequate. But 'more than adequate' seems a somewhat... inadequate description now. Lets just say it's barely passable.
 
MaxPhoton said:
1. Define amazing AF. You claim Canon are giving pro users amazing AF. Currently there is no proof. However, there would appear to be some proof the AF in the mk4 is better than the mk3. But does better constitute 'amazing'?

2. 1.3 crop. If reach is your want, then for sports pros the 1.3 crop is invaluable. But Canon are not giving anything new here... they are merely consolidating a feature that has been present on all 1D series cameras which sports guys find useful.

3. High mega pixel density? Oh please. This is where it turns ugly. Lets name names shall we? Getty, Reuters, PA, AP, AFP, Presse Sportive, L'Equipe etc etc... and all the other sports picture agencies throughout the world don't want more pixels. You think they do, because your opinion is partially formed by prejudice and a belief that you know what people want. Outside of the sports arena you may well be right, but for the sports pros, you comfortably do not know what you are talking about and never will know.

4. A full pro body? Well, this part is not rocket science... it's a given fact that you will get a full pro body and all that entails.

5. High ISO that is more than adequate? Thorny issue this one. Had the Nikon D3s not been released then the high ISO of the Canon EOS 1D mk4 probably would have been viewed as more than adequate. But 'more than adequate' seems a somewhat... inadequate description now. Lets just say it's barely passable.
Click to expand...
Ok, fine, you don’t like the 1D Mark IV. Understood; point taken.

Do you own one? Do you need to keep on bashing in all threads you participate?

This thread, as created by OP is about new/fake posters; bashing/praising without bases.

--
Jorge

Topaz Group
http://www.flickr.com/groups/topaz/

atncentral
http://www.atncentral.com/
 
furano said:
Ok, fine, you don’t like the 1D Mark IV. Understood; point taken.

Do you own one? Do you need to keep on bashing in all threads you participate?

This thread, as created by OP is about new/fake posters; bashing/praising without bases.

--
Jorge

Topaz Group
http://www.flickr.com/groups/topaz/

atncentral
http://www.atncentral.com/
Click to expand...
There is no Canon bashing here. It's called playing devils advocate. I have already formulated an idea in my mind. I then test my idea on the forum guinea pigs for it's strengths and weaknesses. Opinions, comments and criticisms either bolster the idea or break it down. Ultimately, I collect data, information and ideas which I then use to make an informed decision. But the forum is not the sole arbiter in this process, it has plenty of limitations.

In fact, I've known for quite some time which camera I will purchase next. It will be the Canon 1D mk4. In fact, I may even buy three. hehehe.
 
Dan,

In my case, for what I want more (high ISO) the 3Ds made more sense. But if I were to get it, I could only afford one “so-so” lens and then work overtime and save to get glass… while my fine Canon glass would be laughing at me from the closet.

I have a 40D, a 5D2 and now the 1D4 and I’m a happy camper. I think my “everyday camera” is the later. I love the 5D2 for portrait and landscape those files, detail.. everything! is a joy to work with in post if you expose correctly; it’s a nightmare if you want to push shadows. My grief was low light, the AF not being fast or accurate. I even used the 5D2 for some sports without a problem (sunny day time).

The 1D4 AF is another league, it nail every time when the 5 is hunting. And the files for the former are easy to manage; the noise is not blotchy and overall is very good.

In the future I may start a double system, but I’ll do it as I did with Canon, prioritizing glass then bodies. So maybe when the successor of the D700 is released, I’ll get the 700 and start building nice glass first, then get the latest pro-body when time/economy is good.

I truly think that Canon’s trio is of great value. My 40D is my chosen camera when I travel to places I don’t know, not getting attention. The 5D2 (yes, get one, price is dropping) is a very good balanced camera and the 1D4 is really good. Yes, not on par of the clean files delivered by Nikon, but again, I think not that far away either for your use.

I got an exceptional sharp 1D4, unfortunately it got Err 20. Being that sharp, I took the route of sending it to Canon so I hope to receive it back soon and post more examples.

Oh, and regarding noise, with the correct tool, do not fear the 1D4, I use Topaz Denoise with awesome results from all my cameras.

--
Jorge

Topaz Group
http://www.flickr.com/groups/topaz/

atncentral
http://www.atncentral.com/
 
MaxPhoton said:
There is no Canon bashing here. It's called playing devils advocate. I have already formulated an idea in my mind. I then test my idea on the forum guinea pigs for it's strengths and weaknesses. Opinions, comments and criticisms either bolster the idea or break it down. Ultimately, I collect data, information and ideas which I then use to make an informed decision. But the forum is not the sole arbiter in this process, it has plenty of limitations.

In fact, I've known for quite some time which camera I will purchase next. It will be the Canon 1D mk4. In fact, I may even buy three. hehehe.
Click to expand...
I will give you the benefit of doubt here; but I can only say that to my eyes, and some other members around, your devil’s advocate game was played in the borders of pompousness, condescending and insulting ways.

Not being here for so long and not knowing which members submit reliable information and back it up only creates drama.

If you’re really interested and in doubt. Start downloading the many RAW or jpg (depending on your use) files around the threads and play with them as you normally do.

Better yet, instead of reading, go ahead and rent one and test it with your settings and liking. D3s and 1D4 are both great and in the right hands both can shine or be the worst tool. I want to have both systems, but simply couldn’t afford to take the route of D3s now, even being the best camera for MY personal purposes. I’m still very happy with the 1D4 and I can manage to work with my gear as is.

--
Jorge

Topaz Group
http://www.flickr.com/groups/topaz/

atncentral
http://www.atncentral.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top