Strickland denounces Galbraith - Daguerrotypes at eleven

Daniel Deng, the Anglican archbishop of Sudan, has called for the resignation of V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, the first openly-homosexual bishop in the Anglican Communion.

Ooops, that's another religious controversy. I get so confused these days.

Back to what I meant to talk about.

Drew Strickland has published in the Pro Photo Home forums "Pro Photo Reviews and Articles" section a long diatribe ("Testing, schmesting") in which he denounces the recent report by Rob Galbraith on the issue of the autofocus performance of the EOS 1D Mark III as flying in the face of the results of Strickland's scientific tests of his matter.

(Well, I bet you never thought you would see the day in which I would say "Drew Strickland" and "scientific tests" in the same sentence!)

The article was in a forum section that does not admit replies.

Strickland's premise is that Galbraith was so enamored of his EOS 1D Mark II (evidently his first true passion) that he cannot bear the thought that the 1D Mark III, when "fixed", could be capable of better AF performance than the Mark II.

Strickland's article doe not actually summarize or characterize the Galbraith conclusion that it denounces.

Strickland summarizes his opinion of the situation by citing the official Canon announcement regarding their resolution of the iD Mark II AF issue, which announcement he says he endorses.

So Drew, what do you think about Bishop Robinson?

The Strickland piece can be found here:

http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/p...a-canon-mkiii-camera-auto-focus-findings.html

Galbraith's report can be found here:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9357

Doug

and Ken Rockwell running candidate for the next pope's elections? ;-)

I supported Drew when he first took over the RG forums several years ago. I even took out a "lifetime" subscription. But his subsequent poor behavior (such as Doug's story), and the (perhaps inevitable) tectonic shift of the whole site to become home of the amateur/amateur pro wedding photographer (yawn) sent me to the exit once and for all over a year ago. "Pro Photo" does not exist as far as I'm concerned.

Doug, I've been waiting for this post and it made me chuckle!

I read RGs update twice, the first time a skim through, the second in detail and from my experience I have to agree with his findings.

On the other hand, Drew's controversial rebuttal will no doubt help his Google ratings by way of owner empathy.

I felt RG was a bit harsh on the 40D and I now see there's a few unhappy owner's equally drawing swords on various blogs and fora.

Perhaps RG should have separated the 40D stuff, but given his dedication to the MkIII cause which has no doubt played a big part in getting us blue dot, yellow dot and firmware updates, I think he's earned the right to free speech!

I had intended to include in my message at the head of this thread a link to Drew's report of his testing and evaluation on the EOS 1D Mark II autofocus issue.

I think that this thread is intended to give the major coverage of his methodology, tests, results, and conclusions, interleaved with observations from other forum members (74 messages as of this writing):

http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/p...kiii-camera-autofocus-interactive-review.html

Best regards,

Doug


Maintenant donc ces trois choses demeurent: la foi, l'espérance, la charité; mais la plus grande de ces choses, c'est la charité.

. . . . . 1 Corintihiens 13:13, Traduction "Louis Segond"

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

. . . . .1 Corinthians 13:13, King James Version

Neither of these are the translation Drew prefers (and cites at the end of his messages), which is:

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

. . . . .1 Corinthians 13:133, New International Version

I too have been flummoxed by this dismissive "review" of Rob Galbraith's testing if the 1DIII. After all, I do know personally that Drew takes to heart the idea of Christian Charity.

However, for some reason we can segregate our approaches to different spheres of our activities. So Drew's poking fun at Rob's work does stand out.

Here is how I see things.

1. Canon makes good cameras we love to use and so we have invested heavily in Canon glass which further cements our preference for new Canon bodies.

2. We expect that new cameras will be able to autofocus and track focus better than previous models.

3. Canon, however, rations to us it's advanced technology, only including it when there is competition especially from Nikon.

4. Canon concentrated on megapixels and consequently issues like handling massive files as fast as possible rather than advancing the focus mechanism which they felt was "good enough"!

5. Product and wedding photographers do not work at the edge of the envelope which harshly tests AF and tracking performance. The most challenging is following a bride and groom walking slowly towards us before or after the vows!

6. Product and Wedding don't need to race against time and other competing shooters at that event to earn their living.

7. By contrast, sports (fashion and news photographer's to some degree or other) often must compete against scores of other perfectly competent photographers at the top of their game. The unique shot has to be captured and delivered or else the photographer is not worth much more than an enthusiast. Someone else will get that picture and it might well be used in preference to something OOF or simply not the peak moment or composition.

8. I know that many times, even at a wedding with little challenges of movement, my 1DII and 70-200 2.8L IS fails to grab focus. Worse, the 50 1.2L can simply not recognize anything and I switch off the camera and switch it on again and maybe it will now work. When it does, the pictures are so amazing that we put up with this. In a fast-paced competitive sports photographer's work pressure, AF and tracking just have to work! They cannot be resorting to fiddles like turning on and off the camera or removing the battery, re-seating the lens and the like! Often there is hardly time to even check that the picture was good or not, that's how fast things can go.

9. Canon has been lame on it's response to shortcomings on their products. Focus is an especially closed area. So for Canon to respond we do need voices that will be heard.

10. most reviews of Cameras and lenses, lighting and other gear, are merely little more than reworked products of the engineering "specifications" and the marketing department's hype sales talk.

11. So we need voices with authority and power as well as influence.

12. The authority of RG is that he's a working photographer proficient in sports shooting. The power and influence comes from his hard-won status, respect and stature as the initiator of his forum which came to be relied on for rational informed discussion on serious photography.

13. We do need "edge-threatening" challenges to the impression of perfection we seem to tolerate. That's what RG is good at. If not, we'll be left with "razmatazz" adoration for the latest gimmicks that drive the market.

Now if someone carefully evaluates Rob's tests and find's areas that need more work, go for it. However lets not throw out the baby with the bath-water!

Asher

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

I too have been flummoxed by this dismissive "review" of Rob Galbraith's testing if the 1DIII. After all, I do know personally that Drew takes to heart the idea of Christian Charity.

Click to expand...

Well, perhaps love more than charity (note my comment on his choice of a scriptural translation in my post script, above). These are, I'm afraid, not synonyms. Often a claim of love is intended to misdirect from a lack of charity.

Your essay was well said.

Best regards,

Doug

Now if someone carefully evaluates Rob's tests and find's areas that need more work, go for it. However lets not throw out the baby with the bath-water!

Click to expand...

Hi guys,

We have, repeatedly. You can find a lot of it in these 26 pages that span almost a year.

Part of love and charity is speaking truth. There is such a thing as "tough love." Doug and many others have provided this sort of love to me over the last few years. Seriously, it is sometimes needed.

But you might say, whose truth. I say, Exactly!

I chose to use a more traditional scientific model to research these issues. That became our truth for this issue. Rob chose to use his gut/ intuition backed up by some case studies. Rob's results do not square with our scientifically based testing. His results cannot be readily replicated. I challenged Rob (lovingly ) many times in the above linked pages to change his methodologies and approach. He did not. Which is fine.

I did not attack the man (at least not this time, my continued apologies for an earlier outburst), just his methodologies and conclusions. As far as I know him, I'm certain he feels that he is reporting accurate results. I think it is great he reports his findings. He should report his findings and we should report ours.

This most recent commentary is meant to provide a counter-balance, if nothing else, to his unscientific testing. People who don't know the long sordid history of this story wil think that if they hear only one voice (Rob's), that it must be correct.

It is primarily published as a "for the record" kind of piece. This story is long dead and over. Or should have been. I don't believe there is much "google juice" left in a piece like this, and I don't expect it will impact our hits in any substantial way.

And finally, Doug, as for the scripture quote. Why in the world do you think I ever felt led to put that quote up there? Could it possibly be that this quote is primarily for me, not for anyone else. Because I know that this is something I need to work on personally. I'm not trying to preach to anyone. I am putting it up there to try and hold myself up to this standard, not because I think I have achieved it.

Peace, love and charity to you all.

A warning to all of us. The good is to discuss scientific method and the detailed facts of each approach used. The bad would be to direct any more attention to motivations and character. Res ipsa loquitor. Let's just look for the good.

Take Drew's assertions at face value and look at what has been said. Do the same with Rob's work. I must say, I'd go with Rob as a good hunch since this, after all is his field of work. However, Drew claims science on his side. Well, being a rational fellow, or at least aiming in that direction for decisions that should depend on logic, I cannot ignore challenges based on good science.

So now it's a matter of looking at the "science". Look at Drew's 1 years independent scientific research on the problem. See how the tests were set up, what assumptions were made, what could the test distinguish, were variables controlled for the given questions. Was the study performed well? Then how did the result appear? Are the conclusions supported by the evidence?

That would be the way to approach this. I'm not sure whether Drew, you have included sufficient of your research to allow one to evaluate your extensive study on your written work alone. However, that's where we must start.

Asher

Hi Drew,

I commend your feedback and have taken the opportunity to review your work.

My problem (and why I agree with RG) is based on 5 MkIII bodies used over a period of a year and with different manufacture dates.

Two of the earlier bodies were absolutely off the page when focusing, I mean we are talking static subjects where my 5D bodies outperformed the MkIII period. OK manufacturing defect accepted. But the amount at which the MkIII has improved in later variants is still underwhelming.

As I manged to get my hands on newer bodies, I put them through less scientific tests but more application based use.

I mainly shoot birds in flight and having spent literally eons with the MkIIn and various MKIII, I just could not get a blue, yellow dot or various firmware derivatives to perform at the level I would expect.

Bird in flight photography is immensly difficult to replicate when compared with sport photography, especially in the context of track and field.

Cross frame tracking on the MkIII has improved in later firmwares and I also agree with RGs statment that intial focus aquisition has slowed. However tracking erratic forward flight birds has been a real problem with the MkIII.

Ok, some would suggest that its a bit hit and miss anyway, but another well respected UK wildlife photographer has been frustrated to the point of openly moving over to the another brand.

I have persevered with the MkIII, adapted my technique and methodically changed CFns to try and get this thing to perform at level one would expect from flagship product, alas IMO it still falls short when compared with the MkIIN for my type of shooting.

I do not for one moment underestimate the effort that has spent on this from all parties and apologise for my google comment. However, reading your work there are underlying similarities between your findings and RGs.

I see no real issue with using the MkII as a benchmark, in the word of business one looks at best practice and equally uses it as a yard stick. Afterall doesn't the MkIII replace the MkII?

Surprisingly, as MkIII firmware revisions hit the streets, I have also noticed a marked change in the way the camera performed, a few colleagues and I were quite surprised to note that 1.1.3's AF seemed to jump around quite differently, while contrast and brightness levels seemed to affect the camera differently than earlier revisions.

Its funny, my colleagues and I had in joke about Canon pandering to the needs of Sports photographers at the expense of wildlife. Anyhow I digress.

So to wrap up my thoughts, Its good to see both sides of the debate and I applaud all who take personal time to explore these avenues, but I still believe that the MkIII has AF issues akin to RGs findings.

Hi, Drew,

Drew Strickland said:

And finally, Doug, as for the scripture quote. Why in the world do you think I ever felt led to put that quote up there? Could it possibly be that this quote is primarily for me, not for anyone else. Because I know that this is something I need to work on personally.

Click to expand...

Please note, Drew, that my comment on your Scripture quote was wholly to call attention to the implications of the different translations of the "same" original passage that are used in our culture. I thought that would have been clear from the context in which I mentioned it.

Best regards,

Doug

Truth, Science and Conspiracy

When those words comes from an extreme religious person (those with religious links from their home pages), I would take them with a grain of salt.

I mean when the truth is written, it just can't be wrong - because it is written (circular logic).

It is all grey matter of different shades, depending on where you are standing and where you are going.

Where DS came from with the prophotohome.com forums, was that he actually bought the excellent Rob Galbraith forums a few years ago, renamed them to prophotohome.com and destroyed them.

The RG forums were up there in popularity with dpreview.com and fredmiranda.com - for pro photographers they were number one. Chuck Westfall frequented them often and offered support.

Today, prophotohome.com forums is nothing, looking at how infrequent posts are made and commented on.

DS' failures compared to RG's success probably hurt pretty bad, so DS probably have it in for RG.

Hi, Kim,

Kim Bentsen said:

Chuck Westfall frequented them often and offered support.

Click to expand...

Actually, Chuck appears fairly often on PPH.

Best regards,

Doug

Kim Bentsen said:

DS' failures compared to RG's success probably hurt pretty bad, so DS probably have it in for RG.

Click to expand...

Good observation on your part Kim ... nail hit squarely.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

where's the Daguerreotypes? It's passed 12 :-(

Hi, Daniel,

Daniel Buck said:

where's the Daguerreotypes? It's passed 12 :-(

Click to expand...

Past.

Sorry, Our news department went to bed early!

Best regards,

Doug

Kim Bentsen said:

When those words comes from an extreme religious person (those with religious links from their home pages), I would take them with a grain of salt.[/Quote)

Fundamentalism, from whichever believe, deservers crutentalism

I mean when the truth is written, it just can't be wrong - because it is written (circular logic).

It is all grey matter of different shades, depending on where you are standing and where you are going.

Where DS came from with the prophotohome.com forums, was that he actually bought the excellent Rob Galbraith forums a few years ago, renamed them to prophotohome.com and destroyed them.

The RG forums were up there in popularity with dpreview.com and fredmiranda.com - for pro photographers they were number one. Chuck Westfall frequented them often and offered support.

Today, prophotohome.com forums is nothing, looking at how infrequent posts are made and commented on.

DS' failures compared to RG's success probably hurt pretty bad, so DS probably have it in for RG.

Click to expand...

Wow, not realy.
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Wow, not realy.
Bart

Click to expand...

Bart

I am not clear which portion you don't agree with... may be the whole post?

No opinions on the RG/DS fued, I have never been on the PPH forums and have not yet read the DS rebuttal if you would to RGs findings.

That said, the latest FW rev, though not perfect, is acceptable to me at the moment.

-- V

Hi, Vivek,

Vivek Khanzode said:

That said, the latest FW rev, though not perfect, is acceptable to me at the moment.

Click to expand...

FW?

Best regards,

Doug

FW = Firmware; Sorry EE parlance..

-- V

Hi, Vivek,

Vivek Khanzode said:

FW = Firmware; Sorry EE parlance.

Click to expand...

Well, of course. I rarely use that abbreviation (I usually use f/w), and for some reason it just didn't strike me. (Im an EE, but an old one!)

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug_Kerr said:

Hi, Vivek,



Well, of course. I rarely use that abbreviation (I usually use f/w), and for some reason it just didn't strike me. (Im an EE, but an old one!)

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Another EE here. My first thought was "firewire" but I got the firmware part eventually. It is a bit like software and hardware. Originally, we used to write s/w & h/w but people use more and more SW and HW nowadays.

Cheers,