Your move Canon

[anglefire]

The Nikon might be better, I've not seen any high ISO shots (Ie the expanded ones) to make any judgement on either camera. You know, I don't care either way. And JR, I guess you don't really, You aren't going to change to Canon any sooner than I will change to Nikon.

As for Nikon taking over from Canon in the sports arena, I can't say I've noticed any less beige around. But I don't really look that hard. Certainly this weekend at Mallory Park for the Rally Cross, there was a lot of Canon gear, a lot of Nikon gear, a few Sony's (I saw one) But all the big lenses were beige. No don't doubt there were some long Nikon lenses, but I didn't see them - and I went round almost the whole circuit.

But lets face it, the list price of the MkIV is so far out of reach of all except the well healed amatuer and some pro's. What the street price will be is anyones guess, but it will still be too rich for most.

And JR, can you drop the AF jibes? Yes it was a cock up. And Huge, but its over, done, dusted, life moves on. I'm bored of it!

[Jonathan]

And JR, can you drop the AF jibes? Yes it was a cock up. And Huge, but its over, done, dusted, life moves on. I'm bored of it!

Um, OK............

If I were a proper video producer then I'd be watching Reverie and going "hmm, tasty".  The tech is staggeringly good and the movies from the 1DIV look jaw dropping.  I might be pondering canceling my Red that I have on order.  But I'd also be sniggering at Laforet and wondering why Canon didn't hire a proper director.  Cos anybody from Sundance could make that camera sing.

If I were in the target market for the 1DIV I would want to know 2 things and 2 things only.

1. Is the high ISO up to it?  I don't care whether it's better than last year's model I need it to be state of the art, best available.  Because if I'm shooting Monday night football in the rain or hockey in a dimly lit ice arena or a basketball in a school gym I had better have kit that's at least as good as the guy next to me.  My job pretty much depends on it.  That's the whole reason why sports photographers deserted the D2HS in droves.  It wasn't the lenses, it wasn't the build, it wasn't brand loyalty - it was image quality.  Nikon was good.  Canon was better.

2. Does the autofocus actually work?  Because modern sports photography absolutely requires best of breed AF.  If you think this isn't in doubt then head over to SportsShooter and look at any thread that mentions this camera.  People who use 1DMkIIIs all day every day are all holding their breath to see if Canon got it right this time.  If I was on the Canon dev team I would have paid Rob Galbraith anything he wanted to be on the beta team so that day 1 he could say "guys, don't sweat, this works".  Because there's your story killed right there forever.

At the moment all we know to answer these questions are

1. ISO 3,200 looks pretty nice but on the limited shots I've seen (and there is nothing like a head to head to compare) not quite as nice as the Nikon.  Though that's a close call and with more comparable images it could go either way.  More importantly Canon are only releasing images up to 3,200.  Nikon have released some gorgeous 12K snaps.  (BTW is it just me or did Nikon hire better photographers than Canon this time round?).  Some people will assume that's because they are scared of direct comparison at stratospheric ISO.  Maybe it's just setting us all up for a huge "ta-dah!!" when they reveal the final answer.  I certainly hope so - it's bad for everyone when one manufacturer comprehensively beats the competition.

2. Rob Galbraith was not part of the beta test.  Maybe he didn't want to be.  Maybe they didn't consider him relevant.  Maybe he wanted to make capital out of the fact that he wasn't part of it.  Who knows?  Apart from Chuck Westfall and Rob Galbraith.  But he didn't test it yet.

It will be a couple of months before we know the answers to these questions.  My guess is that the 1DIV will feature the best AF system ever.  But that Nikon will still kill it for sports sales.

[anglefire]

If I were a proper video producer then I'd be watching Reverie and going "hmm, tasty".  The tech is staggeringly good and the movies from the 1DIV look jaw dropping.  I might be pondering canceling my Red that I have on order.  But I'd also be sniggering at Laforet and wondering why Canon didn't hire a proper director.  Cos anybody from Sundance could make that camera sing.

I've not seen the video - but I have seen lots of posts about Tv rights issues with the video. So I guess its pretty good!

If I were in the target market for the 1DIV I would want to know 2 things and 2 things only.

1. Is the high ISO up to it?  I don't care whether it's better than last year's model I need it to be state of the art, best available.  Because if I'm shooting Monday night football in the rain or hockey in a dimly lit ice arena or a basketball in a school gym I had better have kit that's at least as good as the guy next to me.  My job pretty much depends on it.  That's the whole reason why sports photographers deserted the D2HS in droves.  It wasn't the lenses, it wasn't the build, it wasn't brand loyalty - it was image quality.  Nikon was good.  Canon was better.

I'm have no experience of these types of events - but if the events we are talking about are in the legue of requiring that sort of press coverage - surely they would have reasonable lighting? 

2. Does the autofocus actually work?  Because modern sports photography absolutely requires best of breed AF.  If you think this isn't in doubt then head over to SportsShooter and look at any thread that mentions this camera.  People who use 1DMkIIIs all day every day are all holding their breath to see if Canon got it right this time.  If I was on the Canon dev team I would have paid Rob Galbraith anything he wanted to be on the beta team so that day 1 he could say "guys, don't sweat, this works".  Because there's your story killed right there forever.

Yeah, that's kind of a biggy. If it doesn't there will be lots of Japanese people falling on their swords!

At the moment all we know to answer these questions are

1. ISO 3,200 looks pretty nice but on the limited shots I've seen (and there is nothing like a head to head to compare) not quite as nice as the Nikon.  Though that's a close call and with more comparable images it could go either way.  More importantly Canon are only releasing images up to 3,200.  Nikon have released some gorgeous 12K snaps.  (BTW is it just me or did Nikon hire better photographers than Canon this time round?).  Some people will assume that's because they are scared of direct comparison at stratospheric ISO.  Maybe it's just setting us all up for a huge "ta-dah!!" when they reveal the final answer.  I certainly hope so - it's bad for everyone when one manufacturer comprehensively beats the competition.

I happened upon a thread on the Nikon area of FM this morning - and a lot of Nikon users were suggesting that the MkIV might be better than the D3s. Not many, but some. Suggests it is fairly close.

The Macro shot at ISO 3200 is nice enough - but is about 2EV brighter than the boxer Nikon produced.
And yesm the photographers Canon use generally don't do the cameras justice. Was the same with the MkIII.

I would like to see some really high ISO shots and not just exposed to the right, but proper SOOC shots.

2. Rob Galbraith was not part of the beta test.  Maybe he didn't want to be.  Maybe they didn't consider him relevant.  Maybe he wanted to make capital out of the fact that he wasn't part of it.  Who knows?  Apart from Chuck Westfall and Rob Galbraith.  But he didn't test it yet.

It will be a couple of months before we know the answers to these questions.  My guess is that the 1DIV will feature the best AF system ever.  But that Nikon will still kill it for sports sales.

Are that many moving over to Nikon? I've not seen any stats to bear this out. May be true, but as I said before anacdotally (Spelling!) I don't see it.

As an aside, I was more than satisfied with the AF performance with my MkIII at the weekend. But it wasn't overly stressed in the most part - though the head on shots into the sun with lots of dust about to muddy the contrast seem to be ok, but I've no had time to fully check yet!
(I know I said I was bored about the AF problems of the MkIII!)

[Jonathan]

I've not seen the video - but I have seen lots of posts about Tv rights issues with the video. So I guess its pretty good!

Technically yes.  As a film?  Not so much.

Vincent Laforet is an outstanding photographer.  As a video director well, he once gambled a lot of his own money on a Canon launch and it paid off.

I'm not saying it's not good.  It could be better.

I'm have no experience of these types of events - but if the events we are talking about are in the legue of requiring that sort of press coverage - surely they would have reasonable lighting? 

You'd think so wouldn't you?  I guess it comes down to money.  College basketball is notoriously hard to photograph.  Don't forget there's a world of difference between enough light for spectators, enough for TV and enough to stop an athlete dead which might take 1/1000s

I happened upon a thread on the Nikon area of FM this morning - and a lot of Nikon users were suggesting that the MkIV might be better than the D3s. Not many, but some. Suggests it is fairly close.

Hmm.  So a bunch of people who may or may not use a particular brand of camera (and may or may not be fibbing about which particular brand) are saying a camera they haven't tried and that hasn't been independently reviewed is better than another camera they haven't tried and that hasn't been independently reviewed.  Whatever next?

Re your AF working - doesn't surprise me.  It was never a total failure.  Just that in precise, replicatable circumstances that actually happen quite a lot in the real world it wouldn't perform as it should.  Some people believe the last firmware upgrade finally nailed it.  Others don't.  Some just won't forgive Canon for letting them down.

[anglefire]

Hmm.  So a bunch of people who may or may not use a particular brand of camera (and may or may not be fibbing about which particular brand) are saying a camera they haven't tried and that hasn't been independently reviewed is better than another camera they haven't tried and that hasn't been independently reviewed.  Whatever next?

Yep, that I'll be them! Actually the popular Canon Forum, Photography on the Net, has togs saying how good it is and togs how bad it is.

The only thing they seem to agree on is the price. Particularly in the UK, where its about 50% more than the US.

Re your AF working - doesn't surprise me.  It was never a total failure.  Just that in precise, replicatable circumstances that actually happen quite a lot in the real world it wouldn't perform as it should.  Some people believe the last firmware upgrade finally nailed it.  Others don't.  Some just won't forgive Canon for letting them down.

I sent mine back into Canon and it definitely came back improved, partly firmware and partly recalibrating the peripheral AF points. But who knows what they also did in the firmware that wasn't documented.

[ABERS]

As for Nikon taking over from Canon in the sports arena, I can't say I've noticed any less beige around. But I don't really look that hard. Certainly this weekend at Mallory Park for the Rally Cross, there was a lot of Canon gear, a lot of Nikon gear, a few Sony's (I saw one) But all the big lenses were beige. No don't doubt there were some long Nikon lenses, but I didn't see them - and I went round almost the whole circuit.

I'm reminded of a talk I attended given by a sports photographer just after the Beijing Olympics, whose name escapes me at the moment. He was one of nine photographers accredited to be in the arena on the closing ceremony.

When asked what equipment he used he said "Normally Canon, but Nikon offered all the accredited photographers a complete range of their gear for the whole Olympics, which everyone accepted. " He went on further to say, " I've no idea what the differences are between the two makes and I'm not interested, a camera is just a tool, it's what you do with it that counts".

In passing, what's beige got to do with it? 

[greypoint]

Having a beige lens draws admiring and envious glances from those with lesser lenses. I once posed the question 'if all Canon L series lenses were available in white/beige or black which would you choose?' and a large proportion answered beige. Can't think why you'd want to draw attention to the fact you're walking around with expensive gear myself

[picsfor]

In passing, what's beige got to do with it? 

Beige is the colour of Canon high end lenses. If you ever look at the news or a sports report where the togs are jossling for 'that picture' lookk at the colour of the lenses.
Beige and they will be using Canon. Black and they will be using mainly Nikon with some Sony and a few Oly's.

Canon have given a technical reason for painting their lenses beige, but most think it is a marketing thing. 

[ABERS]

Having a beige lens draws admiring and envious glances from those with lesser lenses. I once posed the question 'if all Canon L series lenses were available in white/beige or black which would you choose?' and a large proportion answered beige. Can't think why you'd want to draw attention to the fact you're walking around with expensive gear myself

Ah! I understand now. Must make a point of going out one day with the avowed intention of "beige spotting". Hope it doesn't distract me from image spotting.

[picsfor]

It didn't stop you at Speakers Corner when Martin and myself wandered around with 'beige' for most of the day!

[ABERS]

It didn't stop you at Speakers Corner when Martin and myself wandered around with 'beige' for most of the day!

Sorry Andrew, didn't see the beiges, perhaps that's why I do B+W?

[picsfor]

Nothing to apologise for Alan.

It's not your fault that Canon have forced us to have lenses marked 'quality lens worth loads a money - come and mug me for your next fix' written all over them.
As i said - marketing gimmick. All we wanted was to acquire some quality glass and instead we have to walk around with beige placards saying 'this lens is made by Canon and didn't come cheap'.
Glad i only have the one of them! Though i know there are a couple more i would like that also only come in beige!

Your Sony seems to do everything you want from a camera - and that at the end of the day is all that matters.
My kit may cost more than yours - but i know which of us is giving an exhibition of our work and which of us is organising a meet to come and see it.

I think that tells the real story!

[greypoint]

The Canon 200mm f2.8L is a wonderful lens - and it's black!

[Simple]

I am sure I have seen light coloured Nikon lenses. The assumption that every light coloured lens is a Canon 'L' is wrong.

[chris@seary.com]

Do they have it in blue?    

I remember reading Andy Rouse's article on the reason he gave up on Canon (it was the autofocus problem). Apparently he got lots of crappy emails from people because of it, and he became quite upset about it. Maybe they should get him to use the new Canon also?

The way he described it seemed identical to the issues I had with the lowly Canon 450D. The issue was erratic, so one never knew whether a picture was going to be sharp or not. Same with my 450D.

Problem was, Canon just sent my camera back it back saying it was fixed. Luckily Warehouse Express gave me a refund and took the matter up with Canon directly. I always mention this, as it was such excellent service on their part.

The reason I mention this is not to bitch about Canon, but simply to share a test I made up that demonstrated that the problem existed. It was difficult to replicate initially, as it seemed to occur randomly. It could be either forward or back focus. Sometimes, I just couldn't get the camera to focus at all.

If you have problems with Canon AF (and yes, I'm sure it's all better now), here is the test setup that I used to demonstrate it:
-create a test chart to photograph, with lots of lines/words on
-put the camera on a tripod
-turn on the autofocus 'beep' noise
-single shot AF
-centre AF point
-use a lens with a widish aperture (such as a 50mm prime)
-set full aperture
-use highish ISO, so that camera shake is not an issue
-use the self-timer or a remote release for each shot

Now,move the camera and tripod back and forth between shots. Go forwards, backwards, backwards, backwards, forwards, backwards, forwards etc. completely randomly. Each time, get the focusing spot exactly on an area of the chart with high contrast, and half depress the shutter, ensuring that you hear the 'beep'. Take three shots each at each distance.

I did this, alongside my old Nikon D50 at the same distances, as a control. Also tried it with two lenses on each (kit and 50 prime).

For every shot, the pictures should be in focus. There may be a lack of contrast due to full aperture, but not a lack of focus. They should all be sharp. At least, that's what the Nikon did.

If you're in any doubt about your Canon's AF, try this out. If you have a few out of focus shots (about 20% in my case with the Canon), then send it back to the retailer as soon as possible and get your money back, otherwise you'll be in a game of service shop tennis with Canon.