Day 12: July 21, 2007
Say What?
Referring to the 1D MKIII autofocus system, Rob Galbraith had the following things to say recently.
"...
unusably poor and
no match for the camera's predecessor, the EOS-1D Mark II N."
"bright, warm conditions"
(trip up the autofocus system.) Italics added for clarity. At this point there really is no debate:
I love a good debate as much as the next guy. But, there is zero truly empirical evidence in his story yet to support either of these claims. So, at this point there really is nothing new to analyze regarding his data.
An analysis of the one pseudo empirical trial:
The one example on his site approaching a controlled trial is the running test he originally posted showing results of the MKIII vs. MKII. He chose to highlight this condition as the one clearly illustrating the problems he was having with the camera. Regarding this specific test, the original entry stated " the EOS-1D Mark III under warm, bright conditions struggles to get more than a handful of frames properly focused." We were then shown a few (23 total frames and 1 test trial) of non-full resolution files for review. By the way, we were not shown the exact same trial results under cloudy, cold skies.
Almost every one of our almost 10,000 experimentally controlled frames of running test trials were shot in 90 plus degree heat. We had many under cloudy conditions that showed no significant difference in regards to the performance of the af system.
We just saw
here that during the four uploaded test trials (we have many more in the can) the
MKIII got an average of 93% of all frames in focus in both high heat and full sun. One of the test trials with 76 total frames got 99% of all images in very clear, perfect focus. Not sure what kind of performance he is looking for out of his camera. But, it is going to be tough to get much better than those numbers.
I'm also not sure why they chose to use only the center focus point. Our test trials using the center point show that this test condition definitely produces poorer results. As well as does using IS. He doesn't state whether IS was on or off.
The "good" results from his "
running test trial" of the MKII N on his site shows 5 out of 23 out of focus. This yields an Out of Focus percentage of 21.7%. This is very consistent with the percentage we got
here with the MKII (24.3%).
The MKII we tested, and his own numbers, show that his MKII N performed worse than what we got using the MKIII in the same test conditions (full sun/ high heat).
Hopefully, this next batch of uploads will include some controlled trials that meet a minimal standard of experimental design. Then we might be able to get somewhere in determining what it is he is seeing that is so perturbing.
The Unconscious vs. the Scientific Method:
Given all of the above, let's step back for a moment and make one thing clear.
I do tend to believe his report that there is something legitimate that is bothering him about the performance of this new af system. Rob and Mike are very experienced sports photographers. It is entirely possible that they can pick up the MKIII, shoot just a few rounds with it, then turn around and pick up a MKII and shoot a few rounds and tell a difference. It also means that if I shoot work similar to what they shoot then their opinion bears some consideration.
Malcolm Gladwell celebrates this ability in his book entitled "
blink (the power of thinking without thinking)." He refers to this unconscious process as "thin slicing." We all have this ability in different arenas of life. While this ability may be useful for sensing in just a few moments whether something feels or looks right, it has one big strength, and many weaknesses. The big strength is that it can often tell us in an instant if something is right or wrong. But, when using thin slicing we are often powerless to pinpoint what it is that bothers us about the thing, or the situation, because it is largely an unconscious process. In other words, give me the new camera and I can tell you if it is fixed or not (at least to my satisfaction). But, I can tell you very little about what it is that you need to troubleshoot. Pretty difficult information for another experienced photographer to run with, much less a Canon engineer or marketing person.
As observers, we all know the power of this thin slicing ability. This is what we see going on all over the net regarding this issue right now. There are a lot of people saying, yes there is something amiss. We dismiss, or accept, their testimony based on our assessment of their overall experience and abilities. If so and so, in xyz forum says there is something wrong, then it must be true. If so and so, says there is nothing wrong, then they must be right. We know that both Rob and Mike are very respectable voices in the pro community and they both have lots of experience. They have used the MKII to the point that they don't even have to think about it. It fits in their hand like an extension of their arm, rather than a separate tool that has to be managed or manipulated. We thus, lend some credibility to their claims.
With all that said. Let's have another look at our experience of how the af system actually works. Rather than how we would like it to work.
To navigate this review use the arrows at the bottom of each page and/or the content box at the top right of this article. 
The difference between us and the masses is that we ARE expected to come back with 'the' shot EVERY time. I can hear it now..... Lets just go into the church's basement for your portraits, it's too hot and bright out here. MY batting average HAS to be better than .500, it darn well be better than .750 or I can trade all my gear in for a mini van and start shuttling kids off to soccer practice.
Linear Mode
