Canon 1DmIV AF evaluated by Rob Galbraith

eoren1 · February 11, 2010

Posting this as I just read it and found it pretty interesting. He does do a very thorough job of running the AF module through its paces and compares it to the Nikon D3S as well.

Link: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10048-10484

kdog · February 11, 2010

How depressing. :cry I think there are some Canon engineers out there who should be falling on their swords.

Qarik · February 11, 2010

:lol4 :lol4 :lol4 :lol4 :lol4 :lol4 :lol4 :lol4

sorry canon guys.

Awais Yaqub · February 11, 2010

Great photographers use Manual Focusing, so Nikon's excellent Focus system (

) is worthless for great photographer

. When exposure control should not be on full auto why focusing?..

Moogle Pepper · February 11, 2010

Awais Yaqub wrote:

Great photographers use Manual Focusing, so Nikon's excellent Focus system () is worthless for great photographer . When exposure control should not be on full auto why focusing?..

Excellent point!

rwells · February 11, 2010

Qarik wrote:

:lol4 :lol4 :lol4 :lol4 :lol4 :lol4 :lol4 :lol4

sorry canon guys.

This tells all about your mindset

Where were all those smiling faces not that long ago when Nikon couldn't produce a decent ISO 800+ image?

Things change, back and forth.

I do find the article/testing to be a sad initial statement for the new 1DIV. Hopefully Canon will get it corrected.

I'm glad to see the Nikon D3s doing well. Stiff competition benefits us all...

Qarik · February 11, 2010

rwells wrote:

This tells all about your mindset

Where were all those smiling faces not that long ago when Nikon couldn't produce a decent ISO 800+ image?

Things change, back and forth.

I do find the article/testing to be a sad initial statement for the new 1DIV. Hopefully Canon will get it corrected.

I'm glad to see the Nikon D3s doing well. Stiff competition benefits us all...

randy I have to take my victories when I can get them.

kdog · February 11, 2010

rwells wrote:

I do find the article/testing to be a sad initial statement for the new 1DIV. Hopefully Canon will get it corrected.

What particularly troublesome is not that they may have a bug in their AF, but rather they evidently don't have the wherewithal to adequately test the AF system. There's no way they knowingly released a camera with faulty AF, so it's clear they didn't know it was faulty. And that means they don't know how to test it, which means they evidently don't understand the problems that a pro AF system is supposed to solve. How can they possibly design a decent product when they clearly don't understand the application? If they had half a brain, they would have hired Rob Galbraith (who of course blew the whistle on 1DMIII faulty AF system) as a consultant to test prototypes. But no, they were evidently too proud or too dumb to realize that they don't really understand what a pro sports camera is supposed to do. This is bad. REALLY bad. :splat

Cuong · February 11, 2010

kdog wrote:

What particularly troublesome is not that they may have a bug in their AF, but rather they evidently don't have the wherewithal to adequately test the AF system. There's no way they knowingly released a camera with faulty AF, so it's clear they didn't know it was faulty. And that means they don't know how to test it, which means they evidently don't understand the problems that a pro AF system is supposed to solve. How can they possibly design a decent product when they clearly don't understand the application? If they had half a brain, they would have hired Rob Galbraith (who of course blew the whistle on 1DMIII faulty AF system) as a consultant to test prototypes. But no, they were evidently too proud or too dumb to realize that they don't really understand what a pro sports camera is supposed to do. This is bad. REALLY bad. :splat

Seems like they used consultants from Toyota for this one.

Cuong

rwells · February 11, 2010

kdog wrote:

What particularly troublesome is not that they may have a bug in their AF, but rather they evidently don't have the wherewithal to adequately test the AF system. There's no way they knowingly released a camera with faulty AF, so it's clear they didn't know it was faulty. And that means they don't know how to test it, which means they evidently don't understand the problems that a pro AF system is supposed to solve. How can they possibly design a decent product when they clearly don't understand the application? If they had half a brain, they would have hired Rob Galbraith (who of course blew the whistle on 1DMIII faulty AF system) as a consultant to test prototypes. But no, they were evidently too proud or too dumb to realize that they don't really understand what a pro sports camera is supposed to do. This is bad. REALLY bad. :splat

I feel that something is amiss here...

Canon knew full well after the 1DIII issues that this body better be spot-on. One would suspect, and a Regional Canon Manager confirmed to me, that this was the most tested Canon camera ever released. Canon's produced some very fine bodies, and that wasn't on accident. I think they know full well how to test, if they are paying attention, which certainly they are with this body.

Doesn't add up ~ again ~ I feel that something is amiss...

kdog · February 11, 2010

You can test something till you're blue in the face. But if your tests are no good, then your product is no good.

ziggy53 · February 11, 2010

Just as an aside, RobG was involved with the Canon 1D MKIII AF remediations until he was seeing things that "no one" else could duplicate. The 1D MKIII is still a very popular camera amongst professional sports photographers.

Rob did wind up purchasing and using a Canon 1D MKIII for himself as well, and he used it for professional applications.

I am curious that Rob found "no" interaction or difference in adjusting the AI-Servo sensitivity. That does not make sense.

I will be curious to see how the sports/action/wildlife community at large feels about the AF once they've had some real time with the camera.

Finally, I agree that the Nikon D3/D3S are wonderful cameras, including the AF section. (They really are, no joking about that.)

puzzledpaul · February 11, 2010

<< Great photographers use Manual Focusing, so Nikon's excellent Focus system (<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/mwink.gif" border="0" alt="" >) is worthless for great photographer <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif" border="0" alt="" > . When exposure control should not be on full auto why focusing?.. >>

Wonder if Arthur Morris would agree?

<< When manual focus was the only option, I made about 3 sharp images of birds in flight in twelve years out of trying. I probably took more than 10,000 images of flying birds to get those three sharp ones. >>

From 'Birds as art Bulletin # 235'

http://www.birdsasart.com/bn235.htm

pp

rwells · February 11, 2010

ziggy53 wrote:

Just as an aside, RobG was involved with the Canon 1D MKIII AF remediations until he was seeing things that "no one" else could duplicate. The 1D MKIII is still a very popular camera amongst professional sports photographers.

Rob did wind up purchasing and using a Canon 1D MKIII for himself as well, and he used it for professional applications.

I am curious that Rob found "no" interaction or difference in adjusting the AI-Servo sensitivity. That does not make sense.

I will be curious to see how the sports/action/wildlife community at large feels about the AF once they've had some real time with the camera.

Finally, I agree that the Nikon D3/D3S are wonderful cameras, including the AF section. (They really are, no joking about that.)

I think RobG does a good job at testing/evaluating camera gear, but something just doesn't add up here. As Ziggy stated, RobG worked WITH Canon to remediate the 1DIII focus issues, Canon knows this full well. Canon supplied a 1DIV to RobG for his testing, they KNOW he's going to try and find issues with it.

I'm just sayin'...

I'm going to wait until others have used/tested/reported about the new 1DIV before I sell off all my Canon gear that is working as advertised, and jump off a cliff

BTW; I'm not a Canon fanboy. I've given serious contemplation well before this story broke about switching to Nikon. Nothing wrong with my Canon gear, it's just a better fit for me the direction Nikon took than Canon. Full-frame, great AF, LOWER sensor density and Mpix. The 5D2 images are stunning, but I don't need that big a file and it's killing me in workflow and storage, otherwise I'd get a 1DsMkIII.

Each to their own...

ziggy53 · February 11, 2010

Previously I posted the following, and I haven't found anything to contradict what I said (but Rob seems to contradict himself quite a bit):

Rob Galbraith was the original whistle-blower regarding the autofocus issues of the 1D MKIII, but the 1D MKIII is even the prefered sports camera for Rob Galbraith, if you know where to look:

(Compared to the Nikon D3) ... "On the other hand, EOS-1D Mark III files at any ISO - especially CR2s processed through Canon's Digital Photo Professional - are generally slightly crisper and more detailed."

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8745-9153

... and (Aug 2008)... "Quality and Cropability The EOS-1D Mark III produces the best overall file of any digital SLR we've ever used. A CR2 coming from this camera contains a level of detail, dynamic range, tonality and quality from each of its 10.01 million image pixels that is hard for any other camera to match on a per-pixel basis. The Nikon D3, for example, produces a better NEF at really high ISO settings (plus very good quality generally), but at lower ISOs it can't quite deliver the fineness of detail from each pixel that the EOS-1D Mark III does.

As a result, the EOS-1D Mark III delivers impressive printed enlargements for a sensor of this resolution, and great cropability too. Click on the thumbnail at right to see an example of how you can pull out a usable photo from this ISO 800 file. The enlarged view is only about 1/6 of the frame. Canon has made the most of every image pixel in this camera."

and ... "These cameras offer more than just great image quality: almost every component in the EOS-1D Mark III and EOS-1Ds Mark III - other than autofocus - is the best Canon has ever developed. But it's the quality of the photos that has kept me coming back."

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537

While Rob continues to insist that the autofocus is still flawed in the 1D MKIII, he and his cohorts continue to use it over the Nikon D3. I conclude that it must not be all that bad.

Qarik · February 11, 2010

rwells wrote:

I think RobG does a good job at testing/evaluating camera gear, but something just doesn't add up here. As Ziggy stated, RobG worked WITH Canon to remediate the 1DIII focus issues, Canon knows this full well. Canon supplied a 1DIV to RobG for his testing, they KNOW he's going to try and find issues with it.

I'm just sayin'...

I'm going to wait until others have used/tested/reported about the new 1DIV before I sell off all my Canon gear that is working as advertised, and jump off a cliff

BTW; I'm not a Canon fanboy. I've given serious contemplation well before this story broke about switching to Nikon. Nothing wrong with my Canon gear, it's just a better fit for me the direction Nikon took than Canon. Full-frame, great AF, LOWER sensor density and Mpix. The 5D2 images are stunning, but I don't need that big a file and it's killing me in workflow and storage, otherwise I'd get a 1DsMkIII.

Each to their own...

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the lower sensor density. My digs on nikon are:

1) no built in lens motors on lower end bodies..just inconvenient for begginers.
2) lack of "midrange" type lens..canon I think goes a bit overboard on this with their 70-200 2.8 or 4.0 with or with out IS, for example but Nikon sems to have cheapo consumer glass or very good pro glass and not much in between.

jonh68 · February 11, 2010

I have friend who shot a loaner canon at the superbowl and loved it. He said he wants 4 Mark IV for Christmas. He is now shooting the Olympics. I don't know if he was supplied a loaner for this, but I am curious about the AF too. I am a Nikon shooter, but I find it hard to believe Canon would screw this one up.

rookieshooter · February 12, 2010

I think RG is a trusted source and it sounds like he's calling it as he sees it. We'll have to wait to see if this grows into a more serious issue I believe.

Pindy · February 12, 2010

rookieshooter wrote:

I think RG is a trusted source and it sounds like he's calling it as he sees it. We'll have to wait to see if this grows into a more serious issue I believe.

Either that or he's high.

I tend to believe him, and I agree, Canon would have been wise to involve him in the mkIV testing process, but is this guy the equivalent of a golden-ear who says he can hear the difference in speaker cables where the electrons are only meant to travel in one direction? You have to wonder about the guy who complains the most about something. The photo examples may tell his story, but it's not us who took those pictures, is it? These evaluations are meaningless unless you get your own hands on one and put it through its paces for your needs. Sorry Rob, just had to bitch.

ziggy53 · February 12, 2010

My take on Rob Galbraith is that he is a technical perfectionist, but only relating to Canon cameras. He has had the Nikon D3S to test for longer than the Canon 1D MKIV and he talks about the supremacy of the Nikon AF, but I could not find any continuous shooting examples of the Nikon AF tested in similar circumstances to the Canon tests. I have to wonder why.

Maybe he simply doesn't want "us" to compare, only himself. We are expected to just believe him. (This is a common debate tactic BTW, showing only one side of a story while relating in words the other side. Lawyers use this technique a lot.)

Make no mistake, there were problems with "some" of the Canon 1D MKIII AF modules. (The affected serial numbers were made public by Canon as part of their recall.) A good many very respected sports photographers have now tested the 1D MKIII over a period of years and not found what Rob found as far as some of his observations.

Trust no single source of any information.

So far there is too little field testing of the Canon 1D MKIV to draw the conclusions that some have already drawn, good or bad.

I will report here when more professional reviews become available and I encourage everyone else to do the same. Likewise for "professional" users of the camera. If Rob has more testing of the camera I'd like to see that too, good or bad. We need to explore every resource and draw a consensus to make sense of the attributes of the 1D MKIV.

If the Canon 1D MKIV does have serious AF problems we will see it posted from numerous professional sources, not just Rob.

Rhuarc · February 12, 2010

Even given the "problems" with the AF that was seen on the III and now possibly on the IV, is it safe to say that it is still better for sports than the AF system on the xxD series?

Just curious if a problem here or there is enough to point people to the lower series camera?

kdog · February 12, 2010

Rhuarc wrote:

Even given the "problems" with the AF that was seen on the III and now possibly on the IV, is it safe to say that it is still better for sports than the AF system on the xxD series?

Oh hell, yes. The xxD series focusing system is a joke compared to any of the pro bodies, this one included. The IV did some some amazing stuff for Galbraith as he mentioned in his review. Given the best case scenario of the runner coming directly toward you, it locked on and evidently produced a 100% keeper rate. With an xxD body, you'd be looking at only some fraction of the shots being keepers. It was only in more complicated real world situations where the IV evidently falls apart. That's why I harped on the testing thing previously. It's really easy to test the servo on an object coming right at you. However the examples like acquiring and locking on to skaters coming around a corner obviously would take a lot more thought to reproduce in the lab. It sounds to me like they focused on the easy to test cases and made them work very well, and may have missed some more difficult to test real-world situations. I sincerely hope not, but that's what I'm getting from Galbraith's review.

Rhuarc · February 12, 2010

kdog wrote:

Oh hell, yes. The xxD series focusing system is a joke compared to any of the pro bodies, this one included. The IV did some some amazing stuff for Galbraith as he mentioned in his review. Given the best case scenario of the runner coming directly toward you, it locked on and evidently produced a 100% keeper rate. With an xxD body, you'd be looking at only some fraction of the shots being keepers.

Thanks! Not that I can afford the upgrade, but it is nice to know that even at it's worst the AF on the 1-series is still heads and shoulders better than that on the xxD series.

Makes me wish I could win the lottery!

ziggy53 · February 12, 2010

Rhuarc wrote:

Even given the "problems" with the AF that was seen on the III and now possibly on the IV, is it safe to say that it is still better for sports than the AF system on the xxD series?

Just curious if a problem here or there is enough to point people to the lower series camera?

It's honestly too soon to tell if the 1D MKIV has serious AF problems and under what conditions.

The original RobG reported problems with the 1D MKIII were:

"Under certain conditions, the EOS-1D Mark III has difficulty acquiring focus initially. In a multi-frame burst, the camera will sometimes shoot three to five frames before a moving subject comes into focus, and occasionally a moving subject will not actually snap into focus before the burst is completed.

Under certain conditions, the camera is unable to properly track a moving subject. We've shot numerous sequences of 20+ frames where no more than five or six frames are in focus, even when the AF point has been on the subject throughout.

Focus can shift slightly but constantly at times when the subject isn't moving. Under certain conditions, the subject may not actually come into focus through a sequence of frames, even though the point of focus can be seen to be shifting throughout the sequence. This is true whether the camera is set to AI Servo and focus is active throughout the sequence, or when it's set to One Shot and focus is activated between each frame.

When tracking a subject that's moving somewhat erratically, the camera is far too quick to shift focus elsewhere - to the background or, with a field sport like soccer, to a player passing through in the foreground. With the first three problems, autofocus settings changes don't make things better or worse. With this problem, Custom Function III-2, AI Servo Tracking Sensitivity, does have an impact. But regardless of how this Custom Function is set, it's not possible to make the camera's tracking sensitivity be right. There's more on this ahead in the article."

(Source: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068)

Of these most professional sports/action only reported that they saw portions of problems, except for the cameras with serial numbers between "501001 and 546561". Those cameras did have a problem with their mirror mechanism and were recalled and repaired or, in some instances, replaced by Canon.

(Source: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=14999&keycode=2112&id=39707 as well as various other sources)

Prior and subsequent firmware also affected some of the issues and many, if not most, professional users are happy with the resulting 1D MKIII AF performance. Amongst the top tier sports/action photographers I have some difficulty finding truly dissatisfied 1D MKIII users, but there are still plenty among the amateur photographers complaining.

pathfinder · February 12, 2010

Well, this is a barrel of pickles, isn't it?

I have been holding off to hear the initial accounts of the 1DMK4, as I have been considering it for my second body, after my FF 5DMk II. My interest for the 1DMk4 was for birds and wildlife, more than high speed sports. I have not been invited to the Olympics this year. I'm sure there must be some mistake.

I will follow this with interest. It does seem that Canon would know that this camera's AF has to be spot on, or that they will suffer in the market place.

I confess, I have never had any love for AI Servo mode - I aways figured it was just me. I tend to use One Shot AF all the time, but am not a sports shooter, but I do shoot birds and wildlife.

Shooting Olympic speed skaters at speed, up close, through a 400mm lens wide open, is an extremely challenging optical problem. If Nikon can do reliably, I am very impressed.

Did R Galbraith say anything about the 1D Mk4's One Shot focus, or were his comments only about AI Servo mode?

ziggy53 · February 12, 2010

pathfinder wrote:

... Did R Galbraith say anything about the 1D Mk4's One Shot focus, or were his comments only about AI Servo mode?

The article linked in the first post of this thread is all about the AI-Servo focus and his observed focus inconsistencies.

aktse · February 12, 2010

Just thinking out loud... wondering if default settings were used or if R Galbraith used custom settings.

Peter Miller (SI photog) shared his custom settings.

Also, Brad Mangin (SI photog) shared his thoughts .He even calls the 1dMIII the biggest lemon.

I think a difference in opinion is a good thing, but in the end, it depends on each individual photographer and their shooting needs.

Qarik · February 12, 2010

pathfinder wrote:

Well, this is a barrel of pickles, isn't it?

I have been holding off to hear the initial accounts of the 1DMK4, as I have been considering it for my second body, after my FF 5DMk II. My interest for the 1DMk4 was for birds and wildlife, more than high speed sports. I have not been invited to the Olympics this year. I'm sure there must be some mistake.

I will follow this with interest. It does seem that Canon would know that this camera's AF has to be spot on, or that they will suffer in the market place.

I confess, I have never had any love for AI Servo mode - I aways figured it was just me. I tend to use One Shot AF all the time, but am not a sports shooter, but I do shoot birds and wildlife.

Shooting Olympic speed skaters at speed, up close, through a 400mm lens wide open, is an extremely challenging optical problem. If Nikon can do reliably, I am very impressed.

Did R Galbraith say anything about the 1D Mk4's One Shot focus, or were his comments only about AI Servo mode?

from the post:

We figured out early on that to get the camera to track as best it can, the EOS-1D Mark IV 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.

Qarik · February 12, 2010

aktse wrote:

Just thinking out loud... wondering if default settings were used or if R Galbraith used custom settings.

Peter Miller (SI photog) shared his custom settings.

Also, Brad Mangin (SI photog) shared his thoughts .He even calls the 1dMIII the biggest lemon.

I think a difference in opinion is a good thing, but in the end, it depends on each individual photographer and their shooting needs.

huh..these guys are raving about it. did RG get a bum copy?

Moogle Pepper · February 12, 2010

aktse wrote:

Just thinking out loud... wondering if default settings were used or if R Galbraith used custom settings.

Peter Miller (SI photog) shared his custom settings.

Also, Brad Mangin (SI photog) shared his thoughts .He even calls the 1dMIII the biggest lemon.

I think a difference in opinion is a good thing, but in the end, it depends on each individual photographer and their shooting needs.

Those were some good reads.

ziggy53 · February 12, 2010

Qarik wrote:

huh..these guys are raving about it. did RG get a bum copy?

It's just too early to know for sure.

I suspect that as time goes on and different conditions, techniques and firmware factor in we shall see the true nature of the 1D MKIV AF emerge from a consensus of opinion. In the meantime, if you must get one now (not that you can get one "right now"), purchase from a reputable firm with good return policies.

Canon 1DmIV AF evaluated by Rob Galbraith

Comments