http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10048-10484
Interesting....indeed.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10048-10484
Interesting....indeed.
You'd think with all the mkIII focusing debacle, they wouldn't have let this one out if it weren't perfect. I guess it was the press of the Olympics.
Let's hope it's fixable in firmware, apparently unlike the 1D Mark III. Otherwise, the 1D Mark IV is a drool-worthy camera body, for me at least.
I've read all of Rob's articles on the 1DMKIII and now the 1DMKIV. I'm sure he works to exacting standards, but I'd like to see comments from other sports shooters to confirm the performance.
I had the opportunity to talk to a photographer from SI last year and he didn't share Rob's complete assessment of the 1DMKIII AF system.
Bryan doesn't seem to, either, but Bryan's reviews seem mostly to be less action-focused and more broadly oriented. I think that is entirely appropriate. RG is more intent on the performance as it relates to a professional action photographer. I definitely take both of their articles into account, but personally put more weight into Bryan's comments since I don't make money as a professional sports shooter. If I did, I might give more credence and weight to RG's writing.
When RG says things like "<span class="data"]The EOS-1D Mark IV isn't in the same league as the D3S for this sport (basketball)" or "<span class="data"]Down the straightaway towards the finish line and beyond, however, the D3S is superior (speedskating)" and "<span class="data"]All we can say is that the Nikon AF system has been
far more consistent and predictable than the EOS-1D Mark IV when
photographing soccer," shouldn't it give pause when deciding on how a pro sport photographer might spend the money for the new camera?
The Nikon isn't perfect, either, but when firmware updates didn't fix the Mk III's performance, it also appears that the Mk IV hasn't yet fixed the Mk III's performance entirely, either.
Lots of money to shell out for the slight improvement, in my opinion.
From what I've heard so far from canonrumors' review (which is actually done by some other guy), and from Bryan's review, the Mk IV's focusing performance has improved a lot over the Mk III.
Honestly speaking, as Canon guys we don't have much choice and kinda have to buy the pro-bodies Canon puts out. There's a lot of money invested in lenses that many can't justify selling (with losses) for the Nikon switch. So it's kinda "take it" or "leave it and switch to Nikon" (not feasible) from Canon. *sigh* I do realize that the Nikon D3 made many take the plunge after the AF debacle of the MkIII...
Maybe if I'd travel 1 year back in time, I might have bought a D700 instead of a 5DII, as the AF is significantly better. But that center AF spot on the 5DII is oh-so-sweet. So here's hoping to a 5DIII with a nice AF. But with some baby-action, the 5DII's AF just can't keep up. What do I need 21MP for, if they're out of focus?
Originally Posted by ThomasJ
Well that just about says it all right there. When it gets down to the nut cuttin', focus is the most important thing a camera does, isn't it? If an image isn't in focus, nothing else a camera can do matters.
Here's the things that I find strange about Rob's testing. It's clear that he is shooting with aperture wide open in many of the tests. In daylight, I'm almost always stopped down a bit to give a tad more depth of field. When I see the aperture wide open in a daylight shooting a runner coming straight at the lens, I'm just thinking that's not something I would ever ask my camera to do.
I'm also perplexed by the use of the AF system. When I shoot sports with the EF400mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens, I always select the center focus point. I do this on my 1DMKII, 50D or 5DMKII. I've always found that having all the points active with the big lens results in too many errors becuase of peripheral players moving in and out of frame. In Rob's testing, he seems intent onusing all the points regardless of what works best.
I'll be happy to say for the record thatRob is an excellent sports photographer. I justget the feeling that the testing is designed to find problems that many photographers wouldn't ever experience.
You might want to read his discussion of AF points again, since he does explain this. He definitely does not use all AF points.
Snip from RG Review
"We figured out early on that to get the camera to track as best it can, the EOS-1D Mark IV <span style="font-style: italic;"]must be configured to use multiple AF points. This is a departure from any previous Canon 1-series SLR we've used. For example, if the camera is set to use a single AF point alone, the number of in-focus frames can be considerably lower than we've described in this article (for lower light tracking in particular it can be a wipeout). In addition, the frequency with which the camera will frontfocus increases and the camera's 10 fps frame rate will constantly slow, and slow dramatically, as the AF system struggles to detect subject distance.
In our testing, enabling C.Fn III-8-1 (Left/Right AF point), made no discernible difference, C.Fn III-8-3 (All 45 Points Area) was impossible to use for sports because the AF point jumps around continually (in other words, this setting is meant for another purpose) while C.Fn III-8-2 (Surrounding AF Points) brought a noticeable improvement in both AF system feel and the number of in-focus pictures. While the frame rate still slows down a fair bit, it's not as big a drop and it doesn't drop as often as when this option is disabled (this behaviour is linked to the Custom Function discussed next).
All but a handful of the downloadable pictures were taken with C.Fn III-8-2 (Surrounding AF Points) turned on."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote