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
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Great to see that!!
and First!
How trustworthy is this review?? Might he have setted the camera wrong? or is he just amplifying the problem?
Expect to see a lot more firmware updates in the future to tweak the 1D MkIV af. Still looks like a nice slr though.
If the AF can track well in fast moving subject in forward/backward, I think it is very good, no AF accuracy problem. So 1D4 AF is better then D3s.
As for irregular movements, 1D4 10 fps allows very little time for tracking (getting data) and calculation (prediction). If the shooter cannot keep the AF point on the subject or trying to search the subject, that may also input wrong information to the camera. If D3s fps is slower, then it has the advantage to get more tracking data and better prediction.
I attended a seminar from a sport photojournalist, usually he did not burst off any how, he tracked the subject and anticipated to release the shuttle at the right moment. Another very importance feature for the a good AF is when there is any sudden situation it able to lock and release fast. I know Canon is good in this area, Nikon D300 is slow, D3s wise I am not sure.
from what I’ve heard, most photographers respect Mr. Galbraith’s opinions as he is, as CR guy noted, a “super technical” photographer.
that being said, Rob Galbraith is probably more demanding of his equipment and his photography than 90% (at least) of the population, including other people who are buying Mark IVs.
Rob Galbraith is a guy even Fake Chuck Westfall admires. Nuff said right? :D
Am I totally confused, or are the descriptions of Main/Continuous tracking reversed in the TOC of the Canon PDF?
He is a very experienced photographer, and was one of Canon’s Makers of Light, a award given to only the very best Canon photographers in the world. When he went public with the problems he had with the 1D MK III, Canon dropped him from the program, but he continued to use Canon Cameras. Eventually, added Nikon cameras to his photography business as well as Canon.
He is about the closest thing to a unbiased expert on 1D Series cameras, and is extremely careful and particular in running his tests. You may think he is over critical, but there is little doubt about his knowledge and the care he takes in testing.
Most users will never see the issues he discusses, because he is putting the cameras to the limit of their capability.
I was going to comment, but you summed it up very well.
just download roll example from 1d4 on 2nd page of the review. you’ll see the result. it was …uhmmm ? 1D4 ?
Your commnet look like canon fan boy ?
I’m canon user but trust in nikon’s AF.
Fake Chuck Westfall is neither as intelligent nor funny as he thinks he is. maybe when it first started, but lately he sounds like a broken record, without much substance backing it up.
thanks for the link
sounds to me that if you do sports you’re better off with a Nikon.
Of course, the 3 Nikon ad banners displayed on the top, left, and right side of his website has 0 impact on his objectivity. Having said that, the Canon 1D4 and 1D3 AF has been subjected to so much testing on his site, but until now, we’re still waiting for the equally-rigorous testing results with the D3. Sure, he compares them side-by-side in his article, but he doesn’t make the sample pics for the D3 available, I’ve been waiting for it since the 1D3 tests. In short, his testing is just one example, using his own shooting style. Sport shooters and PJs would have reported more negative reviews if the 1D4 AF was bad or worse. The 1D4 just has the misfortune of getting more-than-normal attention due to its predecessor. I’m sure the D3 would get the same result if subjected to that rigorous and repeated testing. Phase-detect AF *is not* laser rangefinding, and most of AI Servo consists of predicting movement, and needless to say you can never have a 100% correct guess of irregular and unpredictable movements.
This is where the slower FPS and FPS slowdown when in continuous AF of the D3 gives it an advantage, since the AF sensor and CPU would have more time to detect and process subject movement.
In the article the tests done by Rob Galbraith were using both firmware and the difference was undetectable.
“We photographed basketball, speedskating, soccer, track and runner tests with both firmware v1.0.4 and v1.0.6 and could see no difference in AF tracking. Whatever the tweak is that Canon engineers made, it has been undetectable.”
I guess it is back to the drawing board for Canon (again).
Couldn’t agree more. Funny when it started off but now just comes across as self-promoting and nasty for the sake of it.
Gailbraith’s test was so poorly designed, It’s hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously. Clearly he had spent no time learning the new custom functions and thier interction with one another, they are not the same as with the Mark III. At the very least, one shooter, familiar with both bodies, should have shot 1/2 a game with each body and compared results. If he wanted to be taken seriously he should have declined the Nikon advertising as well. It’s incredibly niave to think he was unbiased.
Jim
I haven’t played with the new 1d4 but on my 7d there is a custom function to either give priority to the speed of the drive (8fps) or give priority to the focus tracking. Would think the 1d4 would have the same thing?
Since the link is only to the AF/CFn whitepaper, here’s a link where you can get all of the Canon whitepapers for cameras, including the 1Dmk4:
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=1787
You say Galbraith’s test was poorly designed,and it’s hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously. Well Canon took his tests seriously enough to investigate and eventually fix many 1d MK IIIs.
Go to http://www.sportsshooter.com, there are plenty of reports of similar performance.
Yeah, just discount his findings if it gives you the “warm and fuzzys”. Just like the lunatic fringe did at first when he reported problems with the 1D3.
well Kingfisher,
the reason you havent seen D3 tested on his site along with the MK3 was that he is (or was ) a canon shooter, his main gear used to be canon until he figured out he couldnt rely on Canon AF anymore , so he simply added nikons to his bag and now he´s shooting both , and specially the nikons when he needs a camera which could be trusted fully (as per his demands).
your saying “I’m sure the D3 would get the same result if subjected to that rigorous and repeated testing” sums it all, a typical fanboy comment. or can you please tell us how are you so SURE , have you even held either of these cams in your hand?, well,i believe i can say i am SURE !! you havent :-).
and his testing is not just any other “one example”. he´s one of the best out there at what he does (one of the best canon sport shooters according to Canon itself),and please show me how many of those other PJ´s and SS´s you know have done a one month long shooting with 5 different bodies in so many different locations like RG did ,and that too for the purpose of a review. please show us a link.
sure you´ll find enough reports from shooters who´s done a 2 hour shooting and wrote their findings,which will please you fanboys but show me one single review like RG´s.
James MacDonald is the absolute authority on Canon´s new AF system , who the hell is RG, oh, that insane guy who had a fit and told us that the holy MK3´s devine AF system was having tea breaks every now and then while shooting?
oh dont take him seriously, he´s got no idea how to use a canon, he should be a pro like James MacDonald to even deserve a Canon . how come a silly amateur like RG got hold of a canon?? let alone do a test ??.
guess what dumbelldonald,he´s one of the best out there at what he does (one of the best canon sport shooters according to Canon itself).
one of the very few pros who knows the canon system inside out (a comparable guy in nikon land will be Thom Hogan)that´s why when these guys says something it gives a kick to those guys in Japan who makes these stuff.(remember the BLUE DOT fiasco? for you to know the depth of that reaction from canon ,you should know something about the Jap culture and pride and all)
couple of the cameras were loaners from your holy Canon gods itself, that says volumes of his knowhow ,dosent it?
if you know the canon AF system better then why not ask canon to send you a couple of cams and test yourself,instead of womitting junk out here about RG´s authority and trustworthiness.
Who is James MacDonald? I’ve never heard of him? I have heard of Rob Galbraith and Tom Hogan. Incidentally, Hogan’s background is in marketing, not engineering and he mostly shoots landscapes, which aren’t hard on focusing systems, so how is he an authority on the Nikon focusing system?
You’re just a RG fanboy.
and you are just a canon faulty AF fanboy.:-)
Really looks like that the predictive AF algorithms need to be tailored towards the sport it is shooting :). “future” movements are different in soccer or football (more random?) than shooting speedskating or track running (movement on a trajectory). Lot of folks are really happy with the Mark IV for BIF,…
I would love to see different options, that would be customizable…
RG really should remove the NIKON ads, he is biased no matter what people say. How can you say otherwise????
Tim
Here we go again…blllaaaahhhh
The biggest original problem RG found in the Mark 3 was that the autofocus misbehaved when in high contrast situations in full sun. These problems existed in all tests, especially a controlled test where the subject was running straight at the camera, a test which should yield some predictable and repeatable results with a normally functioning AI Servo. What was revealed was a hardware problem with the submirror.
The new “near perfect” results with the Mark 4 with a runner running straight at the camera (where its easy to keep the AF point on the subject) suggests that the camera is very good at tracking as long as the camera operator is good at keeping the AF point on target. Most of what is seen in the image sets I’ve seen is that while the AF point drifts away from the subject, the focus goes toward that point, or starts to hunt. (There’s even an example of someone complainign that, while the AF point is on the jersey of a basketball player, while bent over and dribbling, the face is out of focus, at f 2.8!)
James MacDonald is the great person who told “Gailbraith’s test was so poorly designed” .you can find his wise words 25cms above this line ——————————- :-)
Thom Hogan is one of those very few guys who knows the Nikon system inside out,no single person has managed to shell out as many articles and reference books on Nikon cams as he has todate.
sure he dosent do AF reviews for the reason you mentioned.
Tim Says:
” Lot of folks are really happy with the Mark IV for BIF”…
is there a better way to waste a 5000$ cam with a cutting edge AF built for sports photography? .and those silly bird & squirrel shooter´s words mean much to a fanboy like you than a thorough 4 week tests done with 5 different bodies?
or are you sour simply cos RG gave a few points to the D3s which took away your bragging rights?
well guess what dumbell.it was good enough for canon to see those AD and still send him the cameras for testing,dosent that say anything to you about his authority and capability ?
unless you sell all your can stuff and move to nik or son or pen or oly,you are a canon fanboy Tim. how can you say otherwise???
if you do anything but video…you’re better off with a Nikon.
I have followed the RG focus saga for a couple of years now.
1. RG noted during his first round of testing he is being exceptionally picky and the focus issues he notes are often difficult to reproduce.
2. The “fixes” Canon introduced in the IV are exactly designed to address the issues RG raised for the III. That is, a runner coming directly at the camera.
3. RG’s web site takes advertisment. That is, no random ads on his site like most who sell space to Google.
4. Most of the ads are from Nikon and have been for quite some time. I have not noted Canon ads for about as long.
5. RG is Canadian (like me) so he doesn’t have to follow recent US laws concerning disclosure.
Just observations….
It’s crazy not to like Galbraith just because he doesn’t kneel down at the Canon alter. He is a legitimate camera reviewer who does a great job, in my opinion. I have a ton of Canon stuff, I don’t want to hear that something I spent thousands of dollars on doesn’t work well, but if that’s the way it is then I’m glad somebody found out about it so it can be fixed.
Agree .
Having been a long time 1D & 1DmkII sports photographer who “upgraded” to a 1DmkIII shortly after it came out all I can say is that I wished I waited. When I first shot with the MK III I was amazed at how quickly it could grab the initial focus but when I reviewed my images after the shoot I found the percentage of keepers was much lower than normal. After firmware and hardware upgrades and many settings changes, still the same story.
The mk III produces beautiful images but the auto focus can’t come close to the reliable auto focus we get from the mk II.
Rob Galbraith was consistently critical of the auto focus on the 1D Mk III while others gave the camera (and it’s autofocus) glowing reviews. It must have been a big surprise to them when Canon came out with a number of firmware fixes (4-5, I think), the hardware fix Michael mentioned and finally a hardware re-calibration. With each firmware and hardware fix the focus improved. Now the MK III is much better (IMO) but still not in the same league as the MK II. I fully agree with RG’s assessment of the MK III.
So when RG says that the MK IV isn’t reliable enough I believe him. Maybe Canon will sort this out with another few firmware updates. I’ll keep my fingers crossed because switching to Nikon would be expensive for us at this point.
I haven’t used a Nikon since I owned an F3 so maybe I’d be just as unhappy with the D3 or D3S. That 1D MK II of mine has pretty incredible focusing abilities.
Hi to all. I have decided to sell my Canon 1D Mark IV.
Good copy – new Firmware and only 1625 actuations.
Anyone want one – just send me an email.
[email protected]
Just not the right camera for me. I will wait for the 1DS Mark IV.
Its Absolute MINT – not a mark on it. Absolutely PERFECT.
What exactly are you saying. If you’re trying to make accusations about RG’s site having Nikon ads, so what. There was a legitimate problem with at least the Mk III, if not why would Canon fix the camera. Do you think Nikon paid RG to make up the problem and then what? Did he sneak into peoples houses and mess their cameras up to prove his statements where true?
Noinkly trolled sir. Hats off to you.
Nicely trolled sir. Caps off to you.
Well trolled sir. Hats off to you.
Uh, no. I’d say 95% of the reviews there gave a very good review for the 1D4 AF performance. Read up more sir.
Very well trolled sir. Headgears off to you.
Wonderfully trolled sir. Helmets off to you.
you know, it looks like you’re the one that trolls here….cause if you’re saying more than 2 times that someone trolls – you troll
Does anyone remember seeing great sports photography in newspapers and magazines back before the words Eos or Dynax or whatever became embedded in our minds? I do.
All you autofocus whingers should just learn to do your jobs, learn how to use a camera
and stop moaning how spending thousands of your whatevers just isn’t making your pictures any better. I’ll be surprised if any of you are on staff at a decent paper or magazine. I don’t think editors would care if you couldn’t get a decent picture because your tools weren’t good enough. They would probably just think you were useless. Try switching the AF button to the off position once in a while and learn how to take in focus pictures again. You wouldn’t dare…
Flat out, that’s only 2 minutes 42.5 seconds of use. What does that work out at in dollars per hour?
Excuse me, but this is an absolutely worthless, rude response. 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?
Autofocus cameras are NOT THE SAME as film cameras from the old days. They have much greater capabilities, especially in the hands of talented photographers. Those capabilities have become the standard. If the Canon body does not perform as it is supposed to, by necessity working photographers will use other, better, tools. Precisely because they don’t want editors thinking they are useless!
So get your head out of your butt, and face up to the fact that photographers in this era (NOT the era “back before the words Eos or Dynax or whatever became embedded in our minds”) need to be concerned with the capability and reliability of the focusing mechanisms on our cameras. If the photographer next to you is nailing 80% of her images in focus during an event, and your camera – despite the readouts in the camera saying the image is in focus – falls down at a much higher rate, then you have a problem. One you better rectify sooner rather than later.
And in case you hadn’t noticed, it’s a hell of a lot harder to manual focus using today’s AF cameras and lenses. The viewfinders are designed for brightness, not contrast, so images don’t “snap” in and out of focus like they did back in the old days. The focus rings on the lenses don’t have the same long, fine throw as on the manual focus lenses. This sucks, but it’s a fact. Nevertheless, AF makes it possible to produce many more sharp photos than way back when. IF the autofocus system on the camera isn’t screwing up in ways that have nothing to do with the photographer, that is.
This discussion about the AF system in the 1D MarkIV is a totally valid endeavor on the part of Canon users who want to make sure their $5000 is going to be well spent. If you don’t have anything to contribute on that specific issue, take your snarky comments someplace else.
My dear Jim.
You seem very touchy on this subject. You shoot yourself in the foot I’ afraid. Film cameras had AF in the “old days”as well, I think you’ll recall. But back then photographers had to deal with something called, wait for it…… film. And because of this we had to make sure we knew how to use the AF, or not use it and still get good results on a roll of 36. Not anymore. Massive memory cards mean you can keep on mashing that shutter button and hope you eventually get something half way decent. It’s very sad that you’re all so fixated on the technology and how it seems to always let you down. And if sitting on the touchline of some sporting event for hours and hours isn’t enough time to get a few decent pictures in focus then there are a lot of whingers out there who need to go back to camera school.
OOOO, you hate this don’t you! Go on, a few more American expletives please.
I suggest you go back to Jim’s reply and read it few more times. He brings up several valid points. In the end, based on your own presentation, you seem to be much more of a whinger than he is.
I did. Because I couldn’t believe how bad it was the first time.
thankyou thankyou thankyou my dear fanBOY !!!
thankyou thankyou thankyou my dear fanBOY !!!
by the way i am atleast using a single ID :-)))
thankyou thankyou thankyou my dear fanBOY !
very well said !!!
thankyou thankyou thankyou my dear fanBOYYYYYYY. ho ho ho
“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.
I doubt it’s worse than that of the EOS-1D Mark II N. I’m guessing people were hoping for greater improvement. Probably the aforementioned model was an “ooh-ah” improvement over the EOS-1D Mark II than the EOS-1D Mark III was over the EOS-1D Mark II N.
The individual pixels of the EOS 5D Mark II are 1.265392 times the size of those found in the EOS-1D Mark IV.
Those of the EOS-1D Mark IV are 1.770719 times the size of those in the 18-megapixel EOS 7D.
(Which means that the EOS 5D Mark II has pixels 2.240654 times the size of the EOS 7D‘s pixels…)
I have just replaced my MkIIIs with MkIVs.
I’m shooting wildlife and motorsport, mostly with a 300 f2.8 & 500 f4.
The MkIV AF is clearly better – Much more stable & predictable – I’m getting many more keepers and my MkIIIs were never “problematic”.
Was with a Nikon shooter at Spa Francorchamps the other day. Shooting with two D3s’. He had marginally more keepers (though it was close). I prefer my Canon files, but that’s personal choice. Both are superb sports/wildlife cameras, although the Nikons pull away when the light drops. Would I swap systems? Probably, but the differences simply do not justify the financial implications if you are buying your own gear. I’m not convinced my answer would be different if I was selling images.
For what it’s worth, I think RG’s probably got it about right, although I’ve never experience the MkIV going “loopy” for more than a frame or two. A lot has to do with focus accuracy and speed of AF acquisition. Seems as if the Canon is faster to get there and consequently, faster to find another target…
Just my opinion.
Canon’s do focus faster than the Nikon’s, however the 1D III/IV can display the focus is locked, you shoot as series, then when edited you can get some nasty surprises. The Nikon’s have more trouble locking on IMO, however when it’s displayed it is focused then 99.9% it is ACTUALLY focused, whereas the Canon are alot more spasmodic.
RG looks like more of a money maker to me. Why did he compromised the impartiality of his articles by displaying banner ads of a particular nikon brand? its like lebron james complaining about his nike© jersey while sticking a adidas© decal on his head.
Is Mr. RG with oblivious nikon ads have the final say among the best PJ’s and SS’s around the world?
Trolled??????????