Rob Galbraith Releases Mark IV AF Analysis

[Ken Watkins]

When I spend $4500 on a brand new body that is supposed to have the best AF ever and the thing is blind half of the time, and they tell you that it is operator error and 4 months later they do a big recalll, yes, I am likely to complain.
Wouldn't you?
If you did static photography, Mark III may have been good for you.
For BIF photography it was a joke.

I repeat I have had few problems with my MkIII, I am sorry that you could not get yours to work!

Many people have obtained wonderful BIF shots with this body so they must have had a good sense of hunour!:p

[arash_hazeghi]

This image above was taken with the best camera and lens in Canon's stable, it sets the gold standard for me regarding what my equipment is capable of producing under ideal conditions. Are other cameras and lens combinations capable of achieving similar results, and is it fair of me to judge my images against this one, maybe not as the variables are many. But, nonetheless sharp is sharp. As individuals we get to choose what we consider to be acceptably sharp according to our own set of standards. What one photog considers sharp, another may not, and all may be considered of “publishable quality”.

The image presented is a 100% crop of a RAW file w/o any in-camera or post sharpening applied, captured via SnagIt, converted to sRGB and jpeg compressed with BoxTop software in CS4. See image info for additional details.

I agree with Fabs, shutter speed has all to do with obtaining maximum image sharpness.

Best.

Chas

Chas,
Can you please verify this is a 100% crop? meaning it has not been re-sized?

It is very sharp but it appears to have either sharpening or some down sampling. A CMOS sensor has a low pass filter on top of it which smears high frequency detail and besides each pixel can capture only one color and the demosaic process that follows softens the image. A 1:1 or 100% output from a digital camera does not look so crisp at pixel level. So I think the above has some accidental sharpening or other process, many RAW converters do apply some standard sharpening by default, even if you turn it off. In addition your photo has no noise even in uniform areas, any RAW file will show some noise at pixel level. Can you post the full frame image?

Best,

[arash_hazeghi]

I repeat I have had few problems with my MkIII, I am sorry that you could not get yours to work!

Many people have obtained wonderful BIF shots with this body so they must have had a good sense of hunour!:p

Fabs is one of the best bird photographers on this site and one of the finest I have had the pleasure of knowing, I have rarely seen flight shots as fine as hers and I have a lot of respect for here opinion. The credibility of a photographer's word is determined by the quality of their work.

[Ken Watkins]

Fabs is one of the best bird photographers on this site and one of the finest I have had the pleasure of knowing, I have rarely seen flight shots as fine as hers and I have a lot of respect for here opinion. The credibility of a photographer's word is determined by the quality of their work.

I prefer to judge things based on my own experience rather than that of others, let's not get into an endless and rather pointless diatribe.
Both you and Fabs are entitled to your opininions, as am I.

[arash_hazeghi]

I prefer to judge things based on my own experience rather than that of others, let's not get into an endless and rather pointless diatribe.
Both you and Fabs are entitled to your opininions, as am I.

I repeat I have had few problems with my MkIII, I am sorry that you could not get yours to work!

Of course, but the above statement implies that Fabs was incapable of making the camera deliver sharp photos. If yours worked, good for you. But you cannot hammer the BPN publisher with so many years of experience and such fine images, just because they don't agree with you. My 2 cents.


Regards,

[Ken Watkins]

Of course, but the above statement implies that Fabs was incapable of making the camera deliver sharp photos. If yours worked, good for you. But you cannot hammer the BPN publisher with so many years of experience and such fine images, just because they don't agree with you. My 2 cents.


Regards,

You can imply what you want, but that is not what I meant. I think it must ce a case of two countries separated by a common language!

[Doug Brown]

Chas,
Can you please verify this is a 100% crop? meaning it has not been re-sized?

To be clear, here is my methodology for creating and posting a 100% crop. I export the entire unprocessed RAW file into Photoshop. Then I select the Rectangular Marquee tool and choose Fixed Size for the Style. I usually make the size 1024 pixels by 683 pixels. I place a rectangle on the image and move it to the area I want to capture. The next step is to copy the selection. After that I go to File->New and paste the selection into the new image. You should now have a 100% crop of your original image that measures precisely 1024x683 pixels. The last step is to Save for Web without resizing the image.

[Fabs Forns]

Controversies aside, Doug, I have a lot of respect for your work, and I think you can do great work hand holding the 500 mm as good as the ones that can do it will.
Now, I can't understand why you keep trying to hand hold the 600. I've never seen Jimmy Neiger using the 600 on a regular basis and if anyone can, that would be him.
Please, don't get me wrong, but I'm curious as to why you keep trying to do this.

[Doug Brown]

Now, I can't understand why you keep trying to hand hold the 600. I've never seen Jimmy Neiger using the 600 on a regular basis and if anyone can, that would be him.
Please, don't get me wrong, but I'm curious as to why you keep trying to do this.

When your girlfriend is using your 500, it's either the 400 f/5.6 or the 600. :) Not a difficult decision at the Bosque! I try to pick the right lens for the job. If the 500 will suffice, I'll use it in a heartbeat because the 600 isn't all that fun to hand hold. BTW Jim doesn't own a 600.

[Jim Neiger]

When your girlfriend is using your 500, it's either the 400 f/5.6 or the 600. :) Not a difficult decision at the Bosque! I try to pick the right lens for the job. If the 500 will suffice, I'll use it in a heartbeat because the 600 isn't all that fun to hand hold. BTW Jim doesn't own a 600.

Doug is correct, I don't own a 600mm. I have used 600mm lenses hand held on many occaisions, both Canon and Nikon 600mm. The issue with sharpness isn't the size of the lens. If your equipment is capable of making a sharp image, then there are only two factors that matter. 1. Shutter speed. You need enough shutter speed to freeze motion. 2. Plane of critical focus. So, if you have enough shutter speed and you focus in the right place, your image will be sharp. If your image isn't razor sharp, then one of the 2 factors was off. It really has nothing to do with the size of the lens except that for longer lenses you will need more shutter speed.

[Fabs Forns]

When your girlfriend is using your 500, it's either the 400 f/5.6 or the 600. :) Not a difficult decision at the Bosque! I try to pick the right lens for the job. If the 500 will suffice, I'll use it in a heartbeat because the 600 isn't all that fun to hand hold. BTW Jim doesn't own a 600.

Hahahahahahaha, now I get it :)
I can certainly understand that and as a woman, can appreciate your generosity.
Hat off!

[Ivan Garcia]

My 1D MKIV focuses better than any other Canon I've ever owned. The majority of 1D MKIV users I've encountered so far concur and so does this guy (who actually shoots professional sportsman in action).
Yet Mr Galbraith (who shoots mostly amateur sports and has a site full of Nikon adds) is not happy with the new Canon and (surprise surprise) finds the Nikon equivalent a much better camera. I wonder why?....
FWIW, I have owned nearly every canon 1 series cameras (film and digital). The 1D MKIV is, in my honest opinion, the best AF camera Canon has ever produced.

[Fabs Forns]

My 1D MKIV focuses better than any other Canon I've ever owned. The majority of 1D MKIV users I've encountered so far concur and so does this guy (who actually shoots professional sportsman in action).
Yet Mr Galbraith (who shoots mostly amateur sports and has a site full of Nikon adds) is not happy with the new Canon and (surprise surprise) finds the Nikon equivalent a much better camera. I wonder why?....
FWIW, I have owned nearly every canon 1 series cameras (film and digital). The 1D MKIV is, in my honest opinion, the best AF camera Canon has ever produced.

Ivan, have you ever tried any Nikon camera?

[Desmond Chan]

Yet Mr Galbraith (who shoots mostly amateur sports and has a site full of Nikon adds) is not happy with the new Canon and (surprise surprise) finds the Nikon equivalent a much better camera. I wonder why?....

Could it be because he actually shot those test photos side by side with a Nikon at the same time???

Or, he actually has photographed with both systems in the past ??

You know, you (or anybody for that matter) can do the same test, if you're inclined, and bring your results to him and prove him wrong :)

[Joseph Kurkjian]

Could it be because he actually shot those test photos side by side with a Nikon at the same time???

Or, he actually has photographed with both systems in the past ??

You know, you (or anybody for that matter) can do the same test, if you're inclined, and bring your results to him and prove him wrong :)

Real proof (one way or the other) with statistical significence is highly doubtful because there are not too many folks out there that can pull together five 1DmkIV bodies along with duplicate copies of expensive Canon glass AND sit next to another competant sports shooter with multiple Nikon bodies plus associated glass AND shoot multiple sporting events together prior to comparing cameras.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

[Sabyasachi Patra]

I agree with Joe. It is not easy to conduct statistically valid experiments. Having said that, he had already raised doubts about the camera's noise handling abilities even before he could lay his hands on it. I am not at all surprised by his assessment of the Mark IV.

I too have a Mark IV. I have also got out of focus shots on the first day of my shoot when the focus had locked on to the water. I have played around with the sensitivity and the custom functions to finetune the camera for my style rather than just blaming the camera.

May all the nay sayers of this world keep on attacking this camera. If that can result in improvements in firmware, we all would be happy.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Desmond Chan]

I agree with Joe. It is not easy to conduct statistically valid experiments.

If you doubt the results from a test done with five cameras, then you should also accept that your conclusion about that particular camera based on your own experiences with one single copy of it also does not say anything of much value about the performance and quality of the camera.

I'm not saying the camera is not working for you though.

Having said that, he had already raised doubts about the camera's noise handling abilities even before he could lay his hands on it. I am not at all surprised by his assessment of the Mark IV.

I think that's a biased assessment. He's biased, and so are you. :)

I also think if Rob's conclusion were different, I have a feeling your assessment about his assessment would change.

But, comparative photos are out there (from different photogs) for anyone to see. Nothing to argue about as far as I'm concerned. Hey, if the D3s turns out to be worse, fine with me, too :) That's not going to get me running to buy a Canon dslr for sure. My pics will be just as bad even shot with a Canon :D

May all the nay sayers of this world keep on attacking this camera.

Your emotion is talking :p

[Sabyasachi Patra]

If you doubt the results from a test done with five cameras, then you should also accept that your conclusion about that particular camera based on your own experiences with one single copy of it also does not say anything of much value about the performance and quality of the camera.

I'm not saying the camera is not working for you though.

I think that's a biased assessment. He's biased, and so are you. :)

I also think if Rob's conclusion were different, I have a feeling your assessment about his assessment would change.

But, comparative photos are out there (from different photogs) for anyone to see. Nothing to argue about as far as I'm concerned. Hey, if the D3s turns out to be worse, fine with me, too :) That's not going to get me running to buy a Canon dslr for sure. My pics will be just as bad even shot with a Canon :D

Your emotion is talking :p

Desmond,
I suggest you read my comment again. I talked about statistically valid conclusions. Are the experiments repeatable? That has nothing to do with number of camera's used.

Rob's assessment and conclusion has no impact on me, as I am a Mark IV owner, unlike a lot of people. If my photography demands it, then I will go for another Mark IV instead of the current 1D Mark II. I am surprised that you think I would have agreed to his views even if the camera won't work for me.

Thanks for your opinions.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Ivan Garcia]

Ivan, have you ever tried any Nikon camera?

@ Fabs
Yes I have tried both systems and I find no significant difference in performance. Both, Canon and Nikon are superb cameras (in the right hands).
For me is a matter of ergonomics, the Canon camera just sits better in my hands.

Could it be because he actually shot those test photos side by side with a Nikon at the same time???

Or, he actually has photographed with both systems in the past ??

You know, you (or anybody for that matter) can do the same test, if you're inclined, and bring your results to him and prove him wrong :)

@ Desmon
Mr Galbraith may have been shooting both systems but, he earns a lot of money from his Nikon adds, therefore, His opinion is biased.

I take the opinions of unbiased professional sports photographers (and my own experience with this camera) a lot more seriously than that of Mr Galbraith..

I could very easily duplicate Mr Galbraith findings.... Introduce a little camera shake here and there, set my custom parameters for failure and hey presto!... The Canon 1DMKIV is a lemon and here is my proof....mean time, thanks for visiting my site and bump my traffic figures.

Bottom line my 1DMKIV (firmware 1.0.4) fulfils my requirements with room to spare. Moreover, My 1Ds MKIII also performs to my satisfaction.

[Fabs Forns]

Ivan, my only reason for asking is that I find your commenting style a little lets say abrasive (no offense meant) and more in the style of a very popular equipment review site where people take the Canon/Nikon preference very seriously. Just checking ;)

[Jay Gould]

Ivan Garcia:

I could very easily duplicate Mr Galbraith findings.... Introduce a little camera shake here and there, set my custom parameters for failure and hey presto!... The Canon 1DMKIV is a lemon and here is my proof....mean time, thanks for visiting my site and bump my traffic figures.

Fabs:

Ivan, my only reason for asking is that I find your commenting style a little lets say abrasive (no offense meant)

Mr. Garcia - frankly I would not use your first name under the circumstances.

I do not know who you are. Unlike most of us that provide information which appears in our profile under About Me - there is nothing About YOU.

Fabs says abrasive - I say much worse, and everyone here knows I call a spade a spade.

While I too believe that RG has a bit of a bias, you have now accused him of INTENTIONALLY causing the 1D4 to fail tests that were biased in their creation.

Perhaps you would like to expand on how RG "introduced a little camera shake here and there", and as long as you are shooting off your mouth perhaps you can explain how he set his custom parameters for failure.

I find you unsupported comments unacceptable to a site that attempts to maintain the highest levels of objectivity and provide educational assistance to photographers. Also, unlike Fabs whom I respect very much as a person, photographer, and teacher - offense meant.

Either put up or .................

[Axel Hildebrandt]

A friendly reminder, please keep guidelines #11 and #15 in mind: http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/guidelines.aspx