1DIV and rational thinking

Started Feb 13, 2010 | Discussions thread
Vince Pea Regular Member • Posts: 165
Re: On the other hand...

Daniel Lee Taylor wrote:

Slideshow Bob wrote:

Sorry, but what a load of utter nonsense!

He never implied that the camera was "unusable for professional work". That's total BS that you've made up to try to discredit RG. Why lie about it? What's the point?

Have you read the article? Allow me to quote RG (emphasis mine):

"Add it all up and the conclusion is inescapable: the EOS-1D Mark IV has an AF system that is capable of greatness but is also so bewilderingly variable that there's no way to trust it, especially for outdoor sports. Indoors, EOS-1D Mark IV autofocus performance has been less variable, but our results from speedskating and basketball are simply not up to par. If this is the best the company could muster, after the autofocus debacle of the EOS-1D Mark III, then it's official: Canon has lost their autofocus mojo. "

He didn't say unusable for pro work. He simply said that it can't be trusted to behave consistently most especially for indoor sports. There is quite a gap between unusable and simply inconsistent.

As for his comment on Canon losing their autofocus "mojo," I suspect that this is in reference to the performance of the 1D models the preceded the 1DMk3. I didn't own those cameras, so I can only assume that they worked better than their more recent counterparts.

And what the hell is up with you an 100% viewing? Is it unreasonable to expect that a camera with 16mp actually produces 16mp worth of detail?

Hand held at high ISO shooting action? Yes. Images will simply not be pixel sharp with a sensor that dense. No one in the 35mm days would have expected high ISO color print film to withstand enlargement to 60". No one.

Again, he is not saying it's bad, he's actually doing the opposite here. he is telling people to get over it and accept that there is no way to get perfect pixel sharpness at hi-ISO shooting because it is simply not possible for any camera model, past of present.

A 16mp image prints at about 16" wide (at 300dpi).

RG said to view the files at 100%: "Be sure your viewing of the photos includes some time spent at a magnification level of 100% in your preferred photo browser."

On most modern monitors that's roughly equivalent to a 60" print.

My monitor is 23" wide. I zoomed in one step where needed to judge focus. Zooming in all the way to 100% on a high ISO shot is just a waste of time. I did do so with some of the low ISO daylight shots. They looked great.

Great that they look great! I am unsure what the problem is then...

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow