Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 12, 2010, 4:51 PM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Peripatetic you missed the part about reliable focus. Sure they'd love to have 18mp and reliable focus. But given the choice, they'd rather have reliable focus. There were a lot of full time pros that had issues with the mkIII. There are a number of respected pros with very good results that switched to Nikon. And others that held out using mkIINs. Rob wasn't the only one harping on the mkIII. Now, plenty of us didn't have issues with the MkIII but plenty did. But you don't have ANYWHERE near the harping on the D3. Pros harped on the D2H when it dropped the ball and switched to Canon. I think a lot of fence sitters are going to wait and see how the world cup and olympics go. If pros from those venues come out for the mkIV all will be well. If there are shooters who echo Rob's sentiments then Canon is going to have a real issue.

And, I think you might be working under a misconception quite a few non sports shooters work under - the misconception that the best photographers are shooting pro events. That's a difficult lifestyle. Some of the best photographers I see are shooting youth sports because they can set their own schedules and can stay local. Paul Aleese is one of them - all youth sports (official photographer of little league world series) - but there are others. He's also one of the photogs that jumped to nikon after being a loyal canon shooter and having issues with the mkIII. Just like long time nikon guys left nikon because of the d2h.

Again I think olympics and world cup will be the proving ground. We'll have our answer within the next 6 months.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2010, 7:51 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 2,053
Default

As usual John G you've hit the nail on the head now you ned to talk to Cannon and tell them what you told us........ they could do a lot of good listening to people like you

dave
Photo 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2010, 6:37 AM   #13
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
And, I think you might be working under a misconception quite a few non sports shooters work under - the misconception that the best photographers are shooting pro events.
LOL, yes I was laboring under that misapprehension. And even if you are substantively correct (which fankly I doubt very much) then the North American market is very different from the European and Asian markets where the pros can go just about anywhere in the country they want to and get back home the same day.

Quote:
a lot of full time pros that had issues with the mkIII. There are a number of respected pros with very good results that switched to Nikon. And others that held out using mkIINs. Rob wasn't the only one harping on the mkIII. Now, plenty of us didn't have issues with the MkIII but plenty did.
Unfortunately this isn't data. It's just anecdotes. And the plural of "anecdote" even spread across the 4 or 5 main internet forums is still just "anecdotes" not data. Canon and Nikon know the real numbers but they aren't saying.

And you miss the point - it's not JUST for sports, or just for the conditions RG encounters. And also when the MkIII came out its competition was the D2, not the D3, and it was still better than the D2 even though RG thought (for his purposes) it wasn't as good as the MkII.

RG harps on and on about "it can't focus in bright sunlight". That may be true, and it's also completely irrelevant for professional wildlife and high-end sports photographers; they almost never shoot in bright sunlight and if a trade-off has to be made between bright sunlight and low light AF then Canon did exactly the right thing in prioritising low/artificial light AF performance. Because those are the conditions under which their target market operates.

Anyway, when looking at the gigs they work, and more importantly their photographs, I'd pay a lot more attention to this sort of review than RG's.

http://manginphotography.net/2009/12...-with-mark-iv/

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2371
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2010, 3:35 PM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

one of the other pros weighing in:
Quote:
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.
I realize he may not be up to Peripatetic's standards as a sports fan, but it's another point of view. His site on sportsshooter:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=5834

Robert Hanashiro's opinion of Rob:
Quote:
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).
Obviously there are working photographers out there that are satisfied with their Canon cameras and don't necessarily agree with Rob's results. That's fine.
I grew up a Giants fan. Others grew up Dodger fans. That's fine too...
'Nuff Said.
Mahalo!
Again, I'm guessing him shooting the biggest sporting events around the world (including the olympics right now) probably doesn't meet Paripatetic's standards for sports shooting integrity but not sure who does.

For myself if I had to rely on an opinion of RGs credentials I think I'll side with Robert's opinion over Peripatetics. But then Robert shoots Nikon so he's probably biased
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2010, 4:12 PM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post

RG harps on and on about "it can't focus in bright sunlight". That may be true, and it's also completely irrelevant for professional wildlife and high-end sports photographers; they almost never shoot in bright sunlight
I'm guessing you don't shoot sports do you? I already know the answer to that. Maybe England has no sunlight but the rest of the world does. Does summer olympics have sunlight? Sure. In the USA, the VAST majority of sports photography is HS and college - do they have daytime events? Sure do. And sun actually shines. OF the two of us I actually shoot sports. And guess what? SOme of those take place in the sunlight. The notion that sports photography never or rarely takes place in bright sunlight just isn't realistic. Lots of the places in the world have bright sunny days. Doesn't have to be warm to be bright.

Again, a FAR, FAR more number of professional shooters are covering local sports and they happen in bright sunlight too. They happen in poor light too - indoors, outdoors, all sorts of conditions. Now, your sports shooting experience may be different than mine and others but just because you don't shoot sports in bright light, don't assume the rest of sports shooters don't.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2010, 5:04 PM   #16
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I have never shot sports in my life. Probably never will. :-)

I have also never made a film, and have opinions about whether one is good or not. I have never been a politician and yet have opinions on political matters. I have never been an astronaut, and yet have opinions on whether we should be building a moon base or not. I'm just chock-full of opinions about things I've never actually done myself.

But I can tell a good photographer from an average one. RG is an average one.

Apparently though because you shoot HS sports in the USA you know what the world-wide demographic and operating conditions for 1D users is? Perhaps it's something that Canon tell you when you buy the camera. *shrug*

And the first was a very interesting link to yet another HS sports photographer who doesn't like the 1DMkIII or IV.

As for Robert Hanashiro - sure he's probably up there with a few thousand other top pro photographers. Many of them have switched from Canon to Nikon. Not too long ago Canon had almost 100% of the market, but the D3 is excellent - probably better than the 1D3 and maybe even the 1D4. So now Canon only has 50%? 60%? 70%?

Maybe RG really is all that. To me though he looks like a very low-end sports photographer with a major chip on his shoulder.

Maybe you're right - maybe a very large percentage of high-end sports photography happens in bright daylight.

Let's think about the biggest sports:
Most Frequently Cited Ranked Lists

1) Football: 3.3-3.5 billion fans (Europe, Africa, Asia, Americas, etc.)
2) Cricket: 2-3 billion fans (India, UK, Pakistan, Asia, Australia, etc.)
3) Field hockey: 2-2.2 billion fans (Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia)
4) Tennis: Around 1 billion fans (Europe, Americas, Asia)
5) Volleyball: Around 900 million fans (Asia, Europe, Americas, Australia)
6) Table tennis: Around 900 million fans (Asia, Europe, Africa, Americas)
7) Baseball: Around 500 million fans (US, Japan, Cuba, Dominican Republic)
8) Golf: Around 400 million fans (US, Canada, Europe)
9) Gridiron (American football): 390-410 million fans (US mainly)
10) Basketball: Not more than 400 million fans (US, Canada mainly)

You tell me what percentage of those games are played at a professional level in two categories:
A) under lights plus outdoors in daylight in dull and normal conditions
B) under bright sunlight

The only one of those sports that is always played in daylight is Golf, and Test Cricket of course, but most Cricket is not Test matches and almost all of the IPL and 20/20 stuff is played under lights.

I shouldn't really be allowed to have an opinion because I'm not a sports photographer and therefore not allowed to talk about sports photography. But as a non-sports photographer it sure does seem to me that if Canon HAD to choose where to compromise, it might be on performance in bright sunlight.

Of course it is entirely possible that 90% of the market worldwide for sports and wildlife cameras is exactly to people who shoot HS and college sports in the USA and my parochial little world view has blinded me to this obvious truth.

As a sports shooter John - what percentage of your pictures are taken in bright sunlight?
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog

Last edited by peripatetic; Feb 13, 2010 at 5:13 PM.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2010, 5:15 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

Interesting discussion. I don't shoot sports or use Canon...I'm mainly a Pentax photographer....and I'm strictly in the , as Bert Keppler would classify, advanced amateur category now.

Forty years ago I worked in the publishing industry for a company that published a number of business magazines.

I was an editorial assistant, but also a publishing company photographer and back then we used Nikon and Pentax SLR's, Mamiya (Press cameras), Leica Rangefinder, even had a Linhof medium format in the equipment pool.

We didn't use, in fact few used Canon, at the time. Canon, back in the '50's made a nice little rangefinder that was used by some (excellent camera and lenses), but in the '60's...they weren't doing much pro wise, until in '71 or so they introduced the F1 and started their pro SLR system. Very good stuff.

Canon certainly over the years has developed an excellent pro system for pro photographers....but just reading the stuff in this thread, certainly makes one realize that in doing so and in serving the pro photographer so well...they also have opened a bit of a Pandora's box of responsibility to pro photographers.

The Olympic games are a tremendous pressure...you only get one shot of say, previous multi gold medal winner Cindy Klassen establishing another world record in women's speedskating as she flies through past the finish at tremendous speeds in a horribly reflective and indoor to boot, surface (ice) .

The hope that you can get a clear pix of top level athletes at the foremost athletic competition in the world, really will tax Canon's (and Nikon's) equipment to the fullest.

So far I haven't been overly impressed with the clarity of some of the pictures I see coming out...especially in the high speed competitions like speed skating, hockey, luge, etc.

But the photographic conditions aren't great and pressures are enormous to produce...you can't have equipment that can't cut it.

If there are big , pattern problems ...well I don't want to think about it. I'm sure neither do Canon or Nikon pro departments.

Last edited by lesmore49; Feb 13, 2010 at 5:21 PM.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2010, 5:25 PM   #18
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Okay, here's the thing.

RG might be 100% right, hey a stopped clock is right twice a day.

But I don't find him credible, and I would not put any stock in the things he says for that reason. Since the start of his crusade against Canon he has consistently struck me as not terribly competent in his testing, and not terribly impressive as a photographer. Actually he strikes me as someone who wants a really really really good P&S that does all the work for him because he's a bit rubbish. His writing has the same tone as the novice SLR user who has just upgraded from a P&S and thinks his kit lens isn't sharp enough and his camera can't focus.

RG's is just one opinion from a very narrow view on a large area of concerns that the camera is meant to satisfy. But suddenly he's become the poster boy for Canon bashing.

And because RG is unimpressed does not mean "the sky is falling again".
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog

Last edited by peripatetic; Feb 13, 2010 at 5:27 PM.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2010, 9:29 PM   #19
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Again Craig - people can choose to listen to photographers who actually shoot sports for a living or you. You blast RGs credibility but in sports he has more credibility than you do. Sorry if you don't believe pro photographers had issues with the Mk iii - i'm sure they'd be glad to hear that you believe they don't know how to use their cameras as in there couldn't possibly have been an actual problem. And while I'm not a huge galbraith fan of the two of you he shoots sports you don't. Just like the guy who takes photos for a living at the newspaper - but again you're a more knowledgable sports and photojournalist than someone who does it for a living.

Like all of us you are entitled to your opinion of whose work you like. But as far as what shooting conditions sports shooters operate in, or whether they are competant enough to judge when equipment isn't working properly sadly I don't see any basis for your opinion to have credibility. Again, we can listen to a person who works with the cameras day in day out for his job (the newspaper photog I linked to) or someone who doesn't shoot sports and has never used the camera. WHo has more credibility. Oh I forget your never shooting sports trumps the fact the newspaper guy (like almost every other newspaper photog) shoots sports. We'll let people decide for themselves
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2010, 10:00 PM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

By the way Craig - it's not about what professional sports are most popular. It's about what the professional photographers are photographing. For example, how many professional photographers do you think are taking table tennis photos in a month. I have 2 major newspapers in my town - there are HS sports photos on a daily basis from 5 different photographers. Each working with Canon or Nikon pro gear - i.e. the users or potential users of the 1d. Now imagine all the towns across the United States where the same thing happens on a daily basis. Now, how many photographers are out there taking table tennis photos. Let's talk about Cricket. Millions and millions watch it but how many pros photograph it compared to all those newspaper photographers taking photos of local school activity because that's what communities are interested in.

But I'm sure you can set me strait Craig - let's have some links to newspapers around the world that are shooting/publishing table tennis photos.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:39 PM.