Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Canon 1D Mark IV ... include Serial Number in postings
Andrew Katsampes, Photographer
Melrose | MA | USA | Posted: 1:04 AM on 02.15.10
->> It would be nice if posters would include the serial number on their Canon 1D Mark IV bodies. It will be easier to isolate whether there are groups of "good bodies" and groups of "bad bodies." Or is the production run consistently getting better, indicated by positive comments and later serial numbers. Also groups of serial numbers may be coming from different factories/assembly locations. Is there only one Canon 1D Mark IV factory?
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (3) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

William Purnell, Photographer
Wichita | Ks | | Posted: 1:17 AM on 02.15.10
->> Really already classifying into groups of "good" and "bad". Didn't this body just come out?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 2:21 AM on 02.15.10
->> Yes, it did just come out. Yes, it could show a clear pattern, just as it did with the Mark III's. I think we'd all like to know too...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Louis Lopez, Photographer
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 5:41 AM on 02.15.10
->> How "safe" is posting the serial number to your camera body? I am sure some criminal element reading these might make some foul use of it. After all you don't need to be a member to read the posts.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rick Osentoski, Photographer
Martin | OH | United States | Posted: 8:35 AM on 02.15.10
->> Give me a break, one review and this is where we are?

I've been using this camera to shoot nothing but basketball since it came out, my results are not what RG got. From what I saw of the custom setting used by RG I think he would have some out of focus images. Standard for tracking sensitivity is to much for most sports where you are tracking a player in traffic and Main focus point priority is not the best way to track a subject, if you don't have that point on the subject it will change the focus especially if with sensitivity at standard or higher.

Custom settings are the key to getting this camera to work best for each individual sport.

Personally I am happy with the camera and I made my purchasing decision after using it and reading that people like Brad Mangin and Peter Read Miller, real shooting pros, were please with it.
 This post is:  Informative (6) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (1) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jonathan Daniel, Photographer
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 9:39 AM on 02.15.10
->> For what it's worth: I've been shooting with this camera since early December and it's really a huge improvement from the troubled Mark III's I had. The Getty shooters all now have two Mark IV's and virtually everyone is pleased with the camera. You do need to play with the autofocus settings to find something you like. But the files are beautiful and the camera has worked well with all sports that I shoot. My only complaint is that I still see subject movement at high shutter speeds, but nothing as bad as with the Mark III's. I can only assume that the ASA's and shutter speeds in the digital format aren't "true" compaired to film cameras. (Yes, some of us still remember film cameras.)
I enjoyed reading Peter Miller's notes on the camera and I have played with some of his settings. And Rob's information and testing on cameras is always appreciated.
I suspect most of us hope any camera we use will be perfect, but that's never going to happen. The Mark IV is so much better than the Mark III, that I feel like I can actually shoot again.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (1) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Primoz Jeroncic, Photographer
Kranj | SI | Slovenia | Posted: 9:49 AM on 02.15.10
->> I agree with Rick. It was one single review (to be honest, I have feeling it's not really unbiased) and camera is already defect.
I have been shooting with mk4 now for good month and half, and for most of things (mainly alpine skiing World cup races) I would say it works better then mk2 (yes I agree mk3 was lemon). For some things (things like handball or basketball, which to be honest I didn't shoot all that much in this time) it's not a bit better then mk2 but a whole lot better then mk2.
But at least as I noticed, settings (even same or same named settings) are totally different as they were on mk2, so it takes a little bit to get them right. And with default (read: mostly wrong) settings, camera does behave a bit strange. But setting custom functions wrong way, doesn't qualify as faulty camera, or does it?
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (1) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:22 AM on 02.15.10
->> Personally, I wouldn't even consider putting the serial numbers of my equipment out on the internet for public consumption. A really bad idea.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:26 AM on 02.15.10
->> Primoz.....setting your settings the wrong way would fall under the OE (operator error) factor. And to be honest, I think there is a lot more of that involved nowadays than bad cameras....8)
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Tim Snow, Photographer
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 11:46 AM on 02.15.10
->> Chuck, I agree 100%. I have seen many photographers complaining about cameras that don't work, don't focus, under or over expose images...I have had people complain about MkII's, D3's, S2's...whatever. Fact is that today's cameras are so sophisticated and have so many ways to customize their feel that you really have to play with them before you will be completely comfortable with them. You can't jump from a Toyota to a Honda to a Chrysler all with different sized engines, some all wheel drive and some front wheel drive, a V8 and a 4 cylinder and not modify your driving style. Feel out the equipment, get to know it and its quirks, use it in every situation imaginable and then you'll know if you have a good copy or a bad one...
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (1) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

William Purnell, Photographer
Wichita | Ks | | Posted: 11:48 AM on 02.15.10
->> " And to be honest, I think there is a lot more of that involved nowadays than bad cameras....8)"

This is exactly the point I've been making. These things are so hyper accurate and sensitive they take a level of skill to get good results that your average "consumer" camera doesnt require. And any "equipment" that is that hyper accurate and sensitive will require some tweaks and calibration from time to time.

I by no means am at the skill or talent level that many of you are for sure, but I feel my mark III's have been an invaluable tool in helping me achieve a higher level in my work. I've had them both in a couple times for the mirror fix, and "adjustments" (even though I felt they were working fine). So what, almost every camera I've ever owned I did. Even my IIn's went in for calibration. I also took my corvette in the other day for an alignment. I'm not claiming its a POS.

I could be totally wrong, but I just think much of the III, and now the IV stuff is just urban myth paranoia of people being hyper critical. Of course there is always room for improvement and if canon puts out a "fix" to make a camera perform even better, then great. But I dont automatically say it was a POS because they do.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (1) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Shelby Daniel, Photographer
Guntown | MS | USA | Posted: 12:36 PM on 02.15.10
->> Has even one single person on here had glaring problems with their MKIV in regards to AF?

I'm no Canon fanboy, I will switch gears in a heartbeat if my gear was letting me down. I'm not here to defend Canon. But honestly, I let my gear down through user error much more than it lets me down.

That said, My MKIV is absolutely wonderful so far. It is performing much better than my MKIII, which was good but not perfect by any means. It had a few quirks with the AF, but overall was a great body. It was better than my MK2.

I think this whole MKIV AF debacle is jumping the gun so to speak after one article by RG that said 'Canon has lost their AF mojo'. Whatever that means. I think RG could have worded that better to begin with. It might just be that RG has lost his AF mojo. Or maybe he is right, but I haven't seen it.

With all the people shooting the Winter Olympics right now with MKIV's, I guess we will soon find out whether RG was right or wrong on this one.

All the other reviews I've read on the camera mirror the positives of my hands on use.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (1) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Monty Rand, Photographer
Bangor | ME | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 02.15.10
->> Here's a great link to a Canon PDF file that has tones of useful and informative information to setting up your MKIV. MY camera and the ones my friends have gotten are awesome. None of us have had AF issues at all. One of my friends is very critical when it comes to his cameras he had about 6 MKIII's that he had used and sent back because they wouldn't focus. He is extremely happy with his MKIV.

To think that there's an issue with this camera and to assume the certain serial number batches are good, bad.....is laughable.......this camera works. Just because RG gave it a bad review.......I couldn't care less what he has to say whether he's "very well respected or not". My camera works and it works great and so far all the other people I know who have the MKIV have had no issues. The only time I've ever had any issue, it was because it was user error and my inability to set up the camera up correctly to shoot what I was shooting.

My guess is that these newer camera are offering us more options when it comes to AF. Instead of just saying the camera doesn't work, maybe we need to learn how the AF system works?? The PDF article in the link talks about how to set the camera up for shooting the breat stroke in swimming where the swimmer appears and disappears rather quickly. I shot swimming and had a problem with this situation. Using this article I was able to make a change to the af and the camera worked flawlessly the next time. Thank god I didn't go around saying the AF sucks, it can't even track a swimmer doing the breast stroke.....lmao

I'll step off my soapbox now.

https://content25.wuala.com/contents/jakob.bader/Documents/Canon%20D1%20Mar...
 This post is:  Informative (5) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (1) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Sauk, Photographer
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 7:47 PM on 02.15.10
->> what do you know, more people jumping to conclusions (probably nikon users) about a camera that has had ONE bad review.

No one on here to date that I have seen has complained one iota.

So that again leads me to believe something "ain't" right with that ONE review
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Troutman, Photographer
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 10:26 PM on 02.15.10
->> Quoting August Miller (http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=35406):
"We have more than 12 Mark III's at our newspaper and all of them have been sent to Canon multiple times for fixes, updates, etc. and we still continue to have problems with them. We have one Mark IV that we are testing thoroughly before we purchase any additional cameras. So far it has tested out good, but not great. it does have a few autofocus quirks that line up pretty closely to what Rob Galbraith has noted in his review. It is great in low light and quality of the image, but like I said. It still has some pre-focus issues and other odd autofocus quirks that need to be addressed by Canon."

Quoting Gregory Greene (
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=35430):
"I have to say that for me that set of parameters was pretty inconsistent. Granted I was shooting through the glass for hockey which had it's fair share of puck marks and smudges but I was hoping for a bit better out of Canons latest. The basketball court was even more problematic in my opinion. I would definitely not use expansion there again. The AF simply grabs other players too randomly. I'm going to try using the slow sensitivity at some point but I don't have much confidence in it. "

Quoting "Spider" (
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/862648/0):
"We had three Mark IV on the deck yesterday shooting Bald Eagles, all three with the same lens (EF500 f/4), and all with new firmware. Camera will not focus fast enough, in most cases won’t even lock on the subject and most of the shots with achieved focus are out of focus…something is seriously wrong. There is always a possibility that all this could have been due to an “user error” but having three identical setups operated by three different guys I really doubt it. Now I need to find somewhere the old firmware and put it back."

Quoting Tim Gangloff (
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/866541/0):
"But, this mk4 is not perfect either. Sometimes, I think I am tracking the player well and when I examine the photo, I'll see that the camera missed it. Sometimes I don't know why. Could another player crossed my path so quickly I did not even see them and that threw the focus off a smidgen? Maybe. From my experience, I've not found a camera that nails the shot every time and clearly, this camera will miss some that I think it should have nailed. However, I think it does do a better job than any I've used so far (1d, 1d2, 1d2n or 1d3)."

Quoting Brad Mangin (
http://manginphotography.net/2009/12/finally-canon-gets-it-right-with-mark-.../, comments section):
"Galbraith will eventually have the definitive test/review published of the Canon Mark IV. Rob’s review’s are always the best out there for working photographers as he uses the cameras for real photojournalistic assignments. It will take a while for Rob to put the camera through his extensive testing, but once he publishes his findings they will be must-reading for all of us."

Quoting Robert Hanashiro (
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=35406):
"You may not agree with Rob's final findings on the Canon Mark III or IV. But you cannot disparage Rob's integrity, motivation, sincerity, service to our profession, thoroughness and testing methods. Those of us that have known Rob professionally and personally for years would all say he is above reproach (as many have above)."
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Sauk, Photographer
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 11:00 PM on 02.15.10
->> I can find way more people with positive posts then negative.

I really have to wonder why you are so against Canon, any thread that questions the canon you seem eager to respond. Nothing against you man as it seems you are a Nikon shooter, but so far the positives are really far above the negatives.

I don't care what camera you shoot, people will always find a negative with a camera, even your golden D3s




Russ
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/867444/0

AF was fantastic. No other way to put it. Very fast to engage and lock onto my intended subject, accurate tracking, wasn't easily distracted. I had very few OOF shots. I don't shoot basketball very often, but I don't remember ever having this much success where AF is concerned.

Russ again:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/867162/0#8128524

The most pressing question in my mind is whether the AF system works. Every first-hand report I’d read prior to buying this camera was very positive where AF is concerned. Then, of course, Rob Galbraith posted his review and the shit hit the fan. Was I worried? A bit. Am I still? Not really. I was happy with AF performance. Not only did I think AF worked very well, but I’m confident it’ll get better as I continue to learn how to use this camera. Vault is by far my worst event when shooting gymnastics. The 1DIV was fast and relatively accurate and I feel I had more keepers than usual. Shooting bars I also was impressed by the responsiveness and accuracy of the AF system.

How about an entire thread that is close to 260 pages long

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=769494&page=256
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:08 PM on 02.15.10
->> Michael,

Why don't we wait for the REAL Shooters to get back from Vancouver, with REAL Data from doing REAL Work??

FWIW, POTN is a Canon Fanboy Heaven!!

Let's listen to our fellow Sports Shooters, they will bring the real Poop from Vancouver. And trust me, they will bring the truth, good or bad!!

If the camera Rocks, they will tell us and they will definitely tell us if it sucked too!!


Let's just be patient.

Y
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:13 PM on 02.15.10
->> BTW, I read Russ Posts, he has done some great shots with his MKIV, I didn't read the thread from POTN, but I joined there once, and it was a Fanboy Love Fest.

Russ's work shows that his MKIV is working OK.

Y
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Sauk, Photographer
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 11:21 PM on 02.15.10
->> Well Yamil it is a Canon website lol What did you expect?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Troutman, Photographer
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 11:22 PM on 02.15.10
->> Matthew, I'm not "against Canon" at all. Quoting myself from another thread that both of us posted in:

"The glowing reports about the Mark IV could be attributable to the fact that it is indeed *enormously* better than the Mark III. I'd expect full-time Canon shooters that pick up this camera will generally love it...it's a great camera. The image files look gorgeous...and sharp."

I just find it astonishing and frankly very disappointing the number of people impugning Rob Galbraith's integrity by claiming something "ain't right" with his review. I think this really hit the mark here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=34520593
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Sauk, Photographer
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 11:38 PM on 02.15.10
->> Also where are his same tests on the Nikon? I went there and could not find them. Does Nikon do better then Canon?

I would be interested to see that test to be honest.

These guys seemed to do just fine with it,

http://uniquephoto.blogspot.com/2010/01/unique-photo-shootout-featuring-dav...

But again I want Rob to do the same tests with the Nikon and report back on that, it is only fair.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Sauk, Photographer
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 11:39 PM on 02.15.10
->> By the way I will continue to question his review till I hear a majority of people having the same issues, which is not happening so far.

I don't know the guy, sorry
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 4:27 AM on 02.16.10
->> Everyone who owns two or more Mk IVs, whether you like them or not...please send me your social security numbers. I'm...uh...doing a comprehensive scientific test. Yeah.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (2) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Monty Rand, Photographer
Bangor | ME | USA | Posted: 6:25 AM on 02.16.10
->> 008-67-5309
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (4) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Joseph Zimmerman, Photographer
Howard | Pa | USA | Posted: 7:24 AM on 02.16.10
->> So the folks not at the Olympics shooting are imaginary shooters shooting imaginary work and produce imaginary data?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steve Violette, Photographer
Gulf Breeze | FL | USA | Posted: 9:05 AM on 02.16.10
->> I received my Mark IV about two weeks ago and have shot soccer under high school lights, daytime soccer, high school basketball, pelicans on the beach and a wedding. With the Mark IV Auto focus was responsive and image quality superior to my Mark III and Mark IIn and similar to the 1DsMark III for the situations I shot. In addition the high iso allowed me to capture images at higher iso with outstanding image quality, allowing for more of the so called "user error"

The auto focus adjustments need to be understood as the many options available can either fit or miss an individual shooter.

As I have said before on this board - much like the micro adjustments for lenses - the autofocus adjustments make a tremendous difference. Prior to the micro-adjustments for the lens you heard many times that people has "soft copies". This issues has seemed to disappear with the micro adjustments or you do not have to send your camera and lens to CPS to get them matched. I believe this is the same issue with the autofocus adjustments. People need to use the tools they have - These high end professional cameras will do much better if you hake the adjustments to suit your style and skill level than out of the box factory default settings. Think about the first time you opened photoshop.....

Learn to use the tools that are available on the camera to suit your needs.

Steve
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Patrick Murphy-Racey, Photographer
Powell | TN | USA | Posted: 10:29 AM on 02.16.10
->> mine is AWESOME!!!!! nuff said....
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Guy Rhodes, Photographer
East Chicago | IN | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 02.16.10
->> I recently upgraded to two Mark IV's from my previous Mark II bodies. I shot moguls skiers the other night in a foggy downpour and 95% of images in those sequences were tack sharp. When they weren't, it was probably due to operator error. The Mark IV is a HUGE improvement over the Mark II in the autofocus department. Also, the high ISO capability has opened up so many possibilities for photos in situations that previously could not be shot *at all* without supplemental light.

No regrets here.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

August Miller, Photo Editor
Farmington | UT | USA | Posted: 2:32 PM on 02.16.10
->> There seems to be a lot of emotion in some of these threads. Even a Chevy vs. Ford, Mac vs. PC vibe.

But for many of us who have been around long enough to have gone through using the Nikon D2h and the Canon Mark III. It is only natural for us to be skeptical of any new camera that any manufacturer makes.

Camera manufacturers are just like anyone else, they will have good and bad models that come out. Nikon has improved tremendously since they made the Nikon D2H and I am sure Canon will learn from all the problems of the Mark III.

That being said.

We have used two different Mark IV's one loaned to us by Canon and one that we have purchased. The purchase model seems to be better than the loaner in terms of autofocus. The camera has a lot of excellent qualities about it. The HD video is remarkable. The file sizes and quality of the image is remarkable, the quality of images in low light is amazing. The autofocus is much improved over the Mark III. Which is good news for many of us locked into lots of Canon long glass. But there still seems to be room for improvement in the autofocus.

We have been able to see some improvements by using a few different settings in the custom functions as mentioned by some in these threads. And it did seem to get better after we installed the newest firmware, but that is purely an observational thing.

Most of our shooting has been done indoors, in low light as it is that time our year in the Rocky Mountains. And all of our testing has been by staffers who are actually using the camera to shoot daily assignments for the newspaper including a two week stint in Haiti covering the aftermath of the earthquake there. (HD video shot with the Mark IV by one of our staffers Mike Terry of aid workers delivering food via helicopter to starving Haitians was used on CNN)

And by the way, having covered several Olympics and many, many other major sporting events myself. You don't have to be at an Olympics to see if the autofocus on a camera works.

Time will tell if Canon has worked out all the kinks from the Mark III or if it will take a few more cameras just like it did for Nikon after the D2h.

Meanwhile I hope we all don't let this become a Ford vs. Chevy debate.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 2:35 PM on 02.16.10
->> You guys are totally missing the point...

The idea was to figure out if there are patterns to which Mark IV's people are happy with and which have issues, even if they're minor.

If you're worried about hiding the secret identity of your cameras, leave off the last couple digits. It's not hard - you just use X's instead.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Pete Gawlik, Photographer
Brighton | East Sussex | United Kingdom | Posted: 5:53 PM on 02.16.10
->> Found this review which puts both the Nikon D3s and Canon Mk IV pretty much neck and neck and the guy finishes up with calling the AF on the Canon spot on.
http://www.digitalrev.com/en/nikon-d3s-vs-dot-canon-eos-1d-mark-iv---which-...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (1) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 11:00 PM on 02.16.10
->> I loved my D2H...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (4) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Russ Isabella, Photographer
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 11:29 PM on 02.16.10
->> Pete: That review is a real breath of fresh air where this subject is concerned. Clever and at times damn funny. Informative as well. Thanks for the link.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Troutman, Photographer
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 11:39 AM on 02.18.10
->> Here's a review from a source I haven't heard of before...a pro who (apparently) has five D3S bodies and four Mark IV bodies (with one on order): http://photofocus.com/2010/02/18/a-response-to-rob-galbraiths-canon-autofoc.../

From the article:

"In conclusion, I don’t think Canon has completely caught up to the D3/D3s autofocus, but I do think that it’s close enough that technique and lens choice can make the margin negligible. I also think there’s no reason to assume you can’t trust the Canon 1D MK IV autofocus – based on my own extensive use of the camera in the last three weeks I’m convinced it focuses just fine."
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Vanacore, Photographer
North Haven | CT | | Posted: 12:21 PM on 02.18.10
->> And , if anyone needs one, or some, Adorama has them in stock as i write this. I got mine coming tomorrow...woohoo
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mike Huffstatler, Photographer, Assistant
Rancho Cucamonga | Ca | United States | Posted: 1:46 PM on 02.18.10
->> Thanks for that video link. Decent comparison for what was covered. The one thing that I noticed was the difference in picture quality. I'm a Canon shooter now, but it seemed to me, at least on initial impression, that the Nikon produced much more pleasing tones and much more accurate exposures. The Canon images felt a bit cool and highlights blown. I especially noticed on areas like her arm.

Does anyone else notice this? Is this an accurate comparison? I think based on the straight-from-camera (if they are) images, I would move towards Nikon.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Pete Gawlik, Photographer
Brighton | East Sussex | United Kingdom | Posted: 3:30 PM on 02.18.10
->> Thanks Russ and Mike. I too liked the light hearted review of the two cameras. For me the Nikon just edges it, but I also think you can't really go wrong with either camera.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jon Longo, Photographer
Independence | KY | USA | Posted: 5:35 PM on 02.18.10
->> John V,
Guess I snoozed too long. Adorama is out of stock on thr Mark IV's. I am on several waiting lists. I feel like the Maytag repair guy : any minute now...any minute"
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bryan Hulse, Photographer
Nashville | Tn | USA | Posted: 5:51 PM on 02.18.10
->> I can't believe some are taking the opportunity to make this a Nikon vs Canon argument. I thought reasonable people were about 2 or 3 years past that silliness?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Vanacore, Photographer
North Haven | CT | | Posted: 6:12 PM on 02.18.10
->> Jon,

Don't feel bad. After about an hour after i placed what i thought was a successful order,(i did rtecieve an order confirmation confirming stock) i received the dreaded back order email from Adorama. I can't understand how this can happen. I'm working with Helen Oster on this very issue. Needless to say, I'm not real happy with Adorama right now.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Moffett, Photographer
Overland Park | KS | USA | Posted: 6:44 PM on 02.18.10
->> Ditto, John V. I placed what I thought was a successful order shortly after I saw your post. Order was confirmed...I even got a call from Adorama confirming my shipping address, and then at 5:10pm eastern, I got the same dreaded backorder email.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Vanacore, Photographer
North Haven | CT | | Posted: 7:13 PM on 02.18.10
->> Not to hijack the thread here, but the stink of it all is i i got my alert from nowinstock.net about Adorama having them at about 12:10 est today, and by 12:12 had my order placed....couple hours later, poof...back order. I'm not happy...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Monty Rand, Photographer
Bangor | ME | USA | Posted: 8:08 AM on 02.19.10
->> I think most of these places say they have them in stock to get new orders. Once they get new orders they tell them, we don't have it and hope they stay on their list. I've seen this happen many, many times.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Shelby Daniel, Photographer
Guntown | MS | USA | Posted: 11:40 AM on 02.19.10
->> Yet another MKIV review, this time from well respected wedding photographer Tony Hoffer: http://hofferphotography.com/2010/02/18/canon-1d-mark-iv-review/
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Fischer, Photographer
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 9:49 AM on 02.20.10
->> I have no interest in the Canon vs Nikon argument this time. I hope the Mark IV works well. What I do have a problem with is the bashing of Rob. Had it not been for Rob, Canon would have gotten off scott free. The fact he didn't gush all over the MIV doesn't mean he's a Nikon guy, it means he has concerns.

The industry needs someone who is independent that tells it like it is in his opinion. Rob's tests are designed to measure in a statistically valid way - it's more than a opinion. Everyone is an adult, use or don't use the information, but calling Rob's evaluations and credibility into question isn't right.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (4) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Thomas Campbell, Photographer
Houston/San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 10:29 AM on 02.20.10
->> Had it not been for Rob, Canon would have gotten off scott free.


The industry needs someone who is independent that tells it like it is in his opinion.

=-------------=

That's just it. He isn't independent. He is on the Nikon payroll.

Canon would have gotten off scott free? Are they trying to steal money and rob photographers? That makes no sense. What is Canon getting away with that Rob so valiantly stopped them from?


And from looking at his site, I could not find where he was compliant with the new FTC guidelines that he must disclose all endorsements, payments and freebies given. The rules went into effect on December 1st.
 This post is:  Informative (4) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 10:51 AM on 02.20.10
->> michael- i respectfully disagree with your point that the industry "needs" a rob g. to keep the manufacturers on their toes. canon lost a ton of customers because of the mark3, not because of rob. for those they didn't lose, they offered no credit or refund. so if you look those of us who stayed, they DID get away scot-free.

i still don't understand why some many pro shooters need someone to tell them whether a camera works or not. when buying anything, people search for the reviews they "need" to feel good about the purchase. if you really want the mark4, find a reviewer that likes it! if you can't really afford one, but would like one and are feeling bad about financing one, read rob's review to convince yourselves that you're not missing anything. seems simple.

rob is not all that necessary in my opinion. i am more interested to hear from journalists that use it to shoot news and sports. i won't ever put mine through a battery of tests. i will use it snap shots of news and sports.

further, you can't really accept ad money from a camera manufacturer and then review cameras. sorry, this just doesn't fly. doesn't mean he is biased. just means that it "looks" like he could be biased. that's all that matters to some.
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rick Osentoski, Photographer
Martin | OH | United States | Posted: 7:01 PM on 02.20.10
->> RG could have just did himself a favor an not advertised Nikon all over the page of the review, he should advertise any camera on a page he reviews a camera. Just bad editorial judgement, regardless of the review good or bad.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Sauk, Photographer
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 8:53 PM on 02.20.10
->> I can't imagine expecting people to accept a review of a camera or anything for that matter when you are sponsored by the opposition. Right or wrong, good guy or bad guy that will cause issues with a lot of people.

He might be right, but in the end having Nikon adverts spammed all over the site is not helping his cred.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:02 AM on 02.21.10
->> Accusing anyone ab being a spokesman because of advertising is plain silly!!

I'm glad I'm not in this review business!! There's all sorts of Fanboys out there and even in here, which surprises the hell out of me, I expected this behavior out of DPR, but not here!! We are supposed to be adults and professionals!! Lets act like it!!


If Rob or anyone writes a negative review of the camera you like or purchased, how is that review going to affect the way you work and how your camera works??? Not going to!! Not at all!! Your camera will still work the same way it did the day you got it!!

Y
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 12:09 AM on 02.21.10
->> questioning rob's reviews and his sources of revenue are justified. it's not nice, or relevant to judge the man's character or credibility. those are different things. but some here speak with a tone that suggests that the dean of equipment reviews should never be questioned. just the idea of challenging this man's findings have offended some. to which i'd have to say: you've gotta be kidding me. of course you have to ask questions. this review is pretty unique in that it finds flaws in an auto-focus system that canon has spent 2 years developing, and that most other users have found to perform very well. This guy is dropping the hammer on canon in concluding that the company has somehow forgotten how to make a camera focus. that's totally fine. but many folks will demand that he explain and defend the testing methods. that's all. not a big deal, really. what is a big deal is the camera you carry to do your job. besides knowing exactly how to work the device, you want the device to be rugged, weather-proof, and fast with a reliable auto focus system. the canon 1d mark4 is advertised as all of those. this camera is certainly a nominee for the world's best 'press' camera. calling out THIS PARTICULAR focus system is certainly going to raise an eyebrow or two. after the mark3, if this camera was going to do only one thing well, i would think it would be focus.

as for the ads...as media folks, how is the conflict NOT embarrassingly obvious?
 This post is:  Informative (5) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]



Return to --> Message Board Main Index
Where do SportsShooter.com members go when in NYC? HERE! ::..