Rob Galbraith's Thoughts
Rob has completed some initial thoughts on the autofocus performance of the 1D Mark IV. He notes these tests were done with firmware 1.0.4. He's going to be reshooting with 1.0.6.
His feelings on the performance are mixed.
I've never been in contact with Mr. Galbraith and his findings have sparked controversy in the past. What I will say however is that he's super technical and a very good sports photographer. I won't be disputing anything he finds. I will say that NFL photographers have been super happy with the performance of the camera. I will be putting it through the paces at some hockey games this weekend and add some observations to the 1D4 review here at CR.
1D Mark IV Custom Guide & ISO Setting Guide
A reader of ours sent us the following PDF file they found on the CPS Germany web site. This is a good guide for current and future 1D Mark IV owners. There's even a few things I learned skimming over it.
It still shocks me how much is going on inside these cameras.
I found the information about tracking settings to be quite useful. I will also be using AF point expansion in the future and at different settings for different situations. The settings for avoiding background focus shift and foreground focus shift are also excellent.
Happy reading.
Download Here (PDF 5mb)
thanks Steve
cr
71 Comments
“Do you think Sports Illustrated switched from Canon to Nikon because their staff photographers lost all their talent and skill after the Canon 1D Mark III came out? Or maybe, just maybe, the camera had something to do with it?”
Perhaps Nikon paid SI a lot of money to make the switch. I doubt SI paid full MSRP for the gear. (I also doubt they would switch to an inferior system.) You cannot draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the gear based on which large publication did or did not make the switch. Effectiveness probably wasn’t the only factor in their decision.
Put the systems head-to-head and compare them. That’s what RG has done. He concludes that Canon’s 1D4 is generally better than its predecessor, but that Nikon’s D3S is generally better for most (but not all) sports shooting scenarios.
Ok, now perhaps someone can put me in the picture, first a declaration: I am not a professional, let alone a sports photographer and I do not own a Canon 1D series or a Nikon D3. I am simply raising some questions that I have out of interest, not stating an opinion.
Lets assume that the criticisms of the AF system performance on the 1D Mk 3 & 4 are real (just humour me for a minute). What has changed from the 1D Mk2n, which everyone seemed to love?
1. The framerate of the latest two 1D cameras is 10fps, compared to 8.5 fps on the 1d mk2n.
2. The type and layout of the af points: the latest two having more cross-type sensors which are spread out in a wider pattern, compared to the 1D mk2n which has them all clustered in the middle of the frame.
Could either of these factors have a significant impact on the af system performance, or is this a ‘software’ issue. I don’t know if it is a coincidence, but the fps & af point layout of the D3 are much more similar to the 1D mk2n than the two later 1D models… Have Canon sacrificed reliability for speed?
I am selling for $ 4900 USD.
Hey, I remember film days. I was there. I’ve still got film cameras in my closet. They produced many published photos – some of which would be considered technically unacceptable today, because digital permits us to photograph in lower light way better than film did. Equipment gets better, standards get raised.
But you have missed my point. Every time there’s a discussion thread on a photography forum related to the technical capability of some camera or another, someone (in this case, you!) pops up to tell the participants that they’re all basically a bunch of no-talent slackers who need to learn to photograph. This is like someone asking if you prefer red or green, and your answer is “three.” That’s nice, but save it for when someone asks you a question for which it’s a relevant answer.
I’ve had to send a 1D Mark III back to Canon twice because it was missing focus in relatively easy situations that did not challenge a 40D. So I want to know if the 1D Mark IV autofocus is properly sorted, and if the high-iso output is really a step forward over previous Canon cameras. For the sums involved, I want to know how this and other current Canon cameras stack up to their Nikon competition. Rob Galbraith did very important work testing the 1D Mark III. His opinion – backed up by his experience and extensive testing – counts in this matter. All of us here, and on the other photography sites, are looking for the best tools for our money.
Logical.