-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Rob G is looking more and more isolated in his opinion of 1dmkiv
- Thread starter Brad Durack
- Start date
Yamil R. Sued50621
Veteran Member
Why do YOU care so much Bob??
It seems that the RG Review is a personal offense to you!!
The MKIII was garbage, I don't see the same thing from the review of others on the MKIV, why bring out the MKIII, every other Pro I know hates it too!! You quote Mangin, Brand hates it!!
I'm not talking about the MKIII in any of my posts, but find the Abuse against Rob to be excessive, due to his opinions and it's funny that when he found fault with the D3s, he is a genius and quoted for it, but God forbid he finds faults with the 1DMKIV!!
Why are you reminding me of a fact??
I know that, but some Fanboys only quote the parts of the reviews they like, not the Review as a whole, that most reviews I've read are very good indeed.
Why do you keep bringing up the MKIII?? That iis a thing of the past ancient history.
Find me a post where I say that!! Please, go ahead!!
Funny!
You might try that yourself!!
Scott Larson
Veteran Member
The problem is that Canon does not effectively explain what the complex custom functions do in the manual and in some cases the manual is contradictory. With the Mark III, Canon had to publish an additional guide because the custom functions were so confusing even professional photographers regularly argue over what they do. Furthermore, Canon added new functions that depend on other functions or even worse conflict with the purpose of other functions. It's not rocket science -- Canon's AF system is not any form of science.
The best example of this is C.Fn III-4: AI Servo tracking method. The manual starts off by saying that if the camera is tracking something and something else gets in the way, III-4 will determine what the camera will attempt to focus on. Canon tries to make it simple saying that setting it to '0' will always make it focus on the closest subject while setting it to '1' will always make it continue to track what it was tracking.
But wait! What about C.Fn III-2 AI Servo tracking sensitivity? Doesn't that have any effect? Well, Canon tried to explain this in the "How C.Fn Groups III-2, 4, and 8 are Related" section of the "Guide to AI Servo AF Custom Functions" publication which Canon didn't even bother to include with the camera. This section has a table of various functions, their settings, and a footnote because even the table wasn't complicated enough to explain them.
In this table is your scientific answer: "Sensitivity is emphasized less than AF point switching to the main point".
So tracking sensitivity is "emphasized less". What does this mean to the photographers whose cameras are having trouble tracking their subjects? It means they have to guess what it means because even Canon couldn't quantify it exactly. Hey, maybe changing the sensitivity will help. Maybe not. Even Canon doesn't know.
And just how dedicated is Canon in educating their customers about the "completely redesigned" AF system in the Mark IV to avoid a repeat of the Mark III confusion?
- Again, they did not include the "Guide to AI Servo AF Custom Functions" with the camera. Anyone who wants the Mark IV version of this publication (assuming they heard it exists) needs to Google the Internet to find it. I found it on someone's blog!
- Canon didn't change one damn confusing word in the AF Custom Functions in the manual they do include with the Mark IV, the very same terrible explanations that prompted the publication of the Mark III AF guide two years ago! In fact they didn't correct the C.Fn III-4 section's "Any closer subject appearing in the picture" phrase in the Continuous AF track priority" section. "Picture" should be "enabled focus points".
But, Bello said that not everything is perfect with the Mark IV.
"The disappointment of the Mark IV is the high ISO is still not as good as Nikon once you go past 3200 ISO," he said. "I have had experiences with the Mark IV that are just not as good as Nikon. With the Mark IV the noise shows up once you pass 3200, especially with wider lenses. Nikon ISO is superior past 3200."
Bello said that he has a need for a Canon-made full-frame professional sports camera. Because he shoots hockey and swimming, he needs a full-frame camera to put into a goal-cam in a hockey net and at the bottom of a pool for swimming races so he can get more of the lanes in the picture.
"This is a big deal for me," he said. "The lack of a Canon full-frame camera is forcing me to use a Nikon system for my goal cam and the underwater housing for my swimming remote. The Canon 5D Mark II (full-frame) is not a fast enough camera for what I need. I still do not know why they can’t do this for us. I want to use the Canon for this - but I can’t."
Bello is shooting in Vancouver with a team of over 50 people working for Getty Images.
Just a question on my part......would a 18mp FF big pixel high ISO, 8 FPS, 5D size body fit into Bello's request from Canon???? Is this a request for a 3D?? I would assume a small body would fit into an underwater housing better......and a small body would fit in goal better???
Amen!
Anastigmat
Forum Pro
Yes, but DP Review is qualifying its conclusion with the following caution:
"We're not in a position to give the camera's AF system a clean bill of health but we found little to criticize in our testing. The true picture won't become clear until more are in the hands of practicing pros."
Galbraith is a practicing pro, just the sort of people DP Review is deferring to. Further, his review is not all negative. He says the Mark IV is a Jekyll and Hyde. When it is good, it is better than the D3S, but sometimes it does act up and it is therefore not dependable. Would you rather have a camera that is not perfect but predictable, or one that is great most of the time but down right awful when it acts up? It is an important consideration for the practicing pro, whose livelihood depends on the camera.
It appears that both may be right, as both of them appear to say similar things. Neither says the camera is bad, but neither can wholeheartedly endorse it and give it a "clean bill of health" either. For this reason, it is doubtful there will be many photographers or news organizations who would switch from Nikon to Canon in order to use the 1DMKIV. For those who are fed up with the MKIII, they have little choice but to upgrade to the MKIV. For those who have no problem with the MKIII, they may just wait before upgrading.
Yamil R. Sued50621
Veteran Member
I must have read only the good parts then.
THanks for pointing this out, it is there and I didn't pay much attention to this part I guess!!
The man has an opinion and he is entitled to it, as so do you.
I guess your personal Experiences with the MKIV are different than Robs under the same circumstances....
Y
THanks for pointing this out, it is there and I didn't pay much attention to this part I guess!!
The man has an opinion and he is entitled to it, as so do you.
I guess your personal Experiences with the MKIV are different than Robs under the same circumstances....
Y
Basically Rob was right.
AFAIK the EOS is a pice of overhyped,mediocre camera.
All examples I saw are a step backwards, and do not look sufficient.
IQ from the "old" 5D MK I (2005 fanboys!) looked much better.
Crop factor is hell, FF a consequence.
No editorial pro let alone commercial photogs will use his except some sports and wedding semis.
The guys with the big CANON straps.
C´mon guys....
AFAIK the EOS is a pice of overhyped,mediocre camera.
All examples I saw are a step backwards, and do not look sufficient.
IQ from the "old" 5D MK I (2005 fanboys!) looked much better.
Crop factor is hell, FF a consequence.
No editorial pro let alone commercial photogs will use his except some sports and wedding semis.
The guys with the big CANON straps.
C´mon guys....
...I'm just wondering if one can do with less...or at least differently. Is RG's output the equivalent of 12 monkeys hammering away until they get Shakespeare? Of course that's an exaggeration, but I'm simply wondering if his shooting style makes "deficiencies" more intolerable.
nothsafoto
Forum Enthusiast
into flooding the thread with their indignation that someone is questioning the Great Ones claims.
Using the fact that He has provided several sequences of images to support His findings is naive at best. If I want to give a bad review of a camera or lens, I can create images that support my stance quite easily. Now, I'm not saying that there is this level of deliberate misleading going on here but that it is very possible to do.
What strikes me is the point blank denial by His followers that he may have it wrong or that every other reviewer or pro shooter out there saying differently is a moron who can not be right.....ROTFLMAO.
Robbie
--
Canon Can...Can you??
Using the fact that He has provided several sequences of images to support His findings is naive at best. If I want to give a bad review of a camera or lens, I can create images that support my stance quite easily. Now, I'm not saying that there is this level of deliberate misleading going on here but that it is very possible to do.
What strikes me is the point blank denial by His followers that he may have it wrong or that every other reviewer or pro shooter out there saying differently is a moron who can not be right.....ROTFLMAO.
Robbie
--
Canon Can...Can you??
nothsafoto
Forum Enthusiast
You dare question the Great One!!!!
Back on your knees and prostrate yourself in repentance.
Robbie
--
Canon Can...Can you??
Back on your knees and prostrate yourself in repentance.
Robbie
--
Canon Can...Can you??
sturmgewehre
Well-known member
I don't get it, so the guy is honest and says he doesn't like some aspects of the 1D4. So? He doesn't like some aspects of the D3S too, and that means what exactly? How does this detract from his findings regarding the AF of the 1D4?
So he prefers a FF body, ok... that has what to do with this comments about the AF system?
I swear, you guys can't be even remotely objective.
--
http://www.kwanonians.com
So he prefers a FF body, ok... that has what to do with this comments about the AF system?
I swear, you guys can't be even remotely objective.
--
http://www.kwanonians.com
John200973
Senior Member
The camera is a very good camera---particularly when compared to the Mark III. For a majority of the pros uses it should be an excellent tool. I've owned one now for weeks and it is clearly superior to the D3s in resolution and also is pretty darn good at the higher ISO settings, even surpassing the D3s (surprisingly) in some higher ISOs where you would think the D3s would rule. The major flaw (and I've now tried 4 copies in the same situation) with the camera is it can not focus in dim light. I also tried my old 1D Mark IIn and it focused fine in the same dim light that the Mark IV could not focus in. It is not lens or speed of lens depended either. It has problems with all my 2.8 lenses (let alone anything smaller) and larger aperture lens. So the problem becomes while Canon did a very good job with the high ISOs as far as noise in a 18 meg 1.3 crop sensor, it isn't usable in light where these ISOs would be appropriate. Each camera has some flaw. The D3s continues to stick with that absolutely anemic 12 megapixel FF sensor. That virtually eliminates any ability to do cropping. Small cropping and you are sitting looking at a 5-6 meg file. So you must stay away from dim light situations with the Mark IV. With the D3s you must have the correct lens and not do any amount of cropping to use it. So knowing that you adjust accordingly.
An example of dim light would be a living room setting with 1 100 watt table lamp on. It would not focus in darker (plenty of contrast) areas of the room. Pretty sad.
An example of dim light would be a living room setting with 1 100 watt table lamp on. It would not focus in darker (plenty of contrast) areas of the room. Pretty sad.
PhotoKhan
Forum Pro
Excellent points.
PK
--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
relax, get off your high horse, come on down out of the heat, and sit here under this shade tree and have a beer.........
I was was referring to his desire to have a FF sports camera for wide angle shots......and that he would prefer Canon to make the camera.......now I'm not Canon, but if I read that one of the top Getty sports photographers was looking to ditch Nikon if I (Canon ) would only make a high ISO FF sports body (8 FPS or above my thinking) then I would be putting on my thinking cap and design him a new camera body.
Now we all know the 1D4 is Canon's top sports body in a 1.3 crop, so wouldn't it make sense for Canon to make a 16mp to 18mp (lower MP to get big pixels to get great high ISO shots just like Nikon), and pro AF (straight out of the 1D4) and 8 FPS (we all know what the 7D can do with 18MP) full frame (for the wide lenses) small body to fit in underwater cases, camera body.
Doesn't that description sound like the mythical Canon 3D to you, I know it does to me.......the fun part I would also like the above described camera and I'm a generalists, I photography a little of everything.
)
"I have learned what to do and what not to do with the camera," he said. "I sat down with the guys at Canon and took their suggestions for how to use the focusing points and tested them at a football game. They wanted to sell me on the 45 point focusing system. For sports photography I do not think this is the best way to shoot - it is not fast enough. What I have done is use single dot focusing point with no helpers and no side-by-side assist, etc. I fluctuate between 19 points and outer 9. The autofocus has been very strong. I can’t say 10 out of 10 in a sequence will be sharp, but when a picture is sharp it is razor sharp. This has been the biggest joy, surprise and relief for me with this camera."
What I thought was interesting in the above quote is that he was not interested in following Canon Tech's suggestions on the 45 point focusing. It must be frustrating for Canon Tech to explain how to use the AF system and then have the photog just blow-them-off.
But he goes on to say th AF system has been very strong.
By the way sturmewehre.....did you even read the linked interview with Bello? Just a question....after reading your response above.)
I was was referring to his desire to have a FF sports camera for wide angle shots......and that he would prefer Canon to make the camera.......now I'm not Canon, but if I read that one of the top Getty sports photographers was looking to ditch Nikon if I (Canon ) would only make a high ISO FF sports body (8 FPS or above my thinking) then I would be putting on my thinking cap and design him a new camera body.
Now we all know the 1D4 is Canon's top sports body in a 1.3 crop, so wouldn't it make sense for Canon to make a 16mp to 18mp (lower MP to get big pixels to get great high ISO shots just like Nikon), and pro AF (straight out of the 1D4) and 8 FPS (we all know what the 7D can do with 18MP) full frame (for the wide lenses) small body to fit in underwater cases, camera body.
Doesn't that description sound like the mythical Canon 3D to you, I know it does to me.......the fun part I would also like the above described camera and I'm a generalists, I photography a little of everything.
)Actually if you want to get into what Bello said about the 1D4...he said....
"I have learned what to do and what not to do with the camera," he said. "I sat down with the guys at Canon and took their suggestions for how to use the focusing points and tested them at a football game. They wanted to sell me on the 45 point focusing system. For sports photography I do not think this is the best way to shoot - it is not fast enough. What I have done is use single dot focusing point with no helpers and no side-by-side assist, etc. I fluctuate between 19 points and outer 9. The autofocus has been very strong. I can’t say 10 out of 10 in a sequence will be sharp, but when a picture is sharp it is razor sharp. This has been the biggest joy, surprise and relief for me with this camera."
What I thought was interesting in the above quote is that he was not interested in following Canon Tech's suggestions on the 45 point focusing. It must be frustrating for Canon Tech to explain how to use the AF system and then have the photog just blow-them-off.
But he goes on to say th AF system has been very strong.
By the way sturmewehre.....did you even read the linked interview with Bello? Just a question....after reading your response above.
)sturmgewehre
Well-known member
I'm glad you admit you looked past the comments I quoted, at least we're not going to have to debate semantics. Thanks.
I'm curious though, you accused me of not having read the article and said you had... and claimed quite profusely that the comments I was addressing by RG "weren't there!!!!"
Why did you cop such a hostile and accusatory tone when it was you who hadn't read the article? You acted as though I was either illiterate or lying and backed up your assertion with copious amounts of explanation points... only to discover now I was right and it was you who hadn't read the article as thoroughly as you once thought.
Is that how you debate your position on the boards? You make uninformed accusations, attempt to shout the other guy down and to what end? Do you think it makes your point for you, whatever that point may be?
--
http://www.kwanonians.com
Thanks.I'm curious though, you accused me of not having read the article and said you had... and claimed quite profusely that the comments I was addressing by RG "weren't there!!!!"
Why did you cop such a hostile and accusatory tone when it was you who hadn't read the article? You acted as though I was either illiterate or lying and backed up your assertion with copious amounts of explanation points... only to discover now I was right and it was you who hadn't read the article as thoroughly as you once thought.
Is that how you debate your position on the boards? You make uninformed accusations, attempt to shout the other guy down and to what end? Do you think it makes your point for you, whatever that point may be?
--
http://www.kwanonians.com
The difference between 16 mp and a 12 mp is small. Especially as the FF demands a little less sharpness than a 1.3x.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
ed rader
Veteran Member
i own the 1d mark III as well as the 1ds mark III. i have absolutely no desire for a 12 mp FF camera sports camera. i've owned the 5d for a year.
what i'd like to see is canon make a 12-24L f2.8. if canon made that lens i'd ditch my 16-35L II, both of my bodies and i would get the 1d mark IV. for me, 1.3 crop is the sweetspot for both IQ and ISO, and i appreciate having a larger target to track.
but i absolutely love my 1d mark III too -- best all-around camera that i've used -- tho i would like a little more resolution.
ed rader
--
my galleries:
http://erader.zenfolio.com/
what i'd like to see is canon make a 12-24L f2.8. if canon made that lens i'd ditch my 16-35L II, both of my bodies and i would get the 1d mark IV. for me, 1.3 crop is the sweetspot for both IQ and ISO, and i appreciate having a larger target to track.
but i absolutely love my 1d mark III too -- best all-around camera that i've used -- tho i would like a little more resolution.
ed rader
--
my galleries:
http://erader.zenfolio.com/
Rob G has a strong case!
He has got his hands on the camera for a relatively long time
He tested the 1d4 in more variable conditions than anybody else
With more expensive lenses than most testers
He has got GBs of evidence jpgs
He was right the last time about the 1d3
He is an outstanding credible photographer
He has got the D3s to compare the 1d4 to
He did work with Canon about the 1d3
My conlusion:
The 1d4 is outstanding, Rob G has just pinpointed the pros and cons. This time though, the 1d4 is an outstanding camera. Ready for the market but also ready for marginal improvements.
But which camera is not
Regards
Michael
Owned or owns: 1d, 1d2n, 1ds2, 5d2 and 1d3.
He has got his hands on the camera for a relatively long time
He tested the 1d4 in more variable conditions than anybody else
With more expensive lenses than most testers
He has got GBs of evidence jpgs
He was right the last time about the 1d3
He is an outstanding credible photographer
He has got the D3s to compare the 1d4 to
He did work with Canon about the 1d3
My conlusion:
The 1d4 is outstanding, Rob G has just pinpointed the pros and cons. This time though, the 1d4 is an outstanding camera. Ready for the market but also ready for marginal improvements.
But which camera is not
Regards
Michael
Owned or owns: 1d, 1d2n, 1ds2, 5d2 and 1d3.
ed rader
Veteran Member
say what? what about target size? and most guys who insist on cropped sensors often crop heavily.
hey i've owned every top end camera canon had made in the last few years and a 12mp FF camera has absolutely no interest for me.
ed rader
--
my galleries:
http://erader.zenfolio.com/
hey i've owned every top end camera canon had made in the last few years and a 12mp FF camera has absolutely no interest for me.
ed rader
--
my galleries:
http://erader.zenfolio.com/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum