Rob Galbraith's analysis on 1DMk4 AF performance
- Thread starter gremlin
- Start date
Zoom-Snap
Member
Check this out
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2380
I want to state that I am not pro-RG or anti-RG. I am just doing my homework before a purchase...I wish I had S$7k lying around the house
Here's Canon defending itself and kudos to RG for posting their comments for a more even handed review.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10048-10484-10514
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2380
I want to state that I am not pro-RG or anti-RG. I am just doing my homework before a purchase...I wish I had S$7k lying around the house
Here's Canon defending itself and kudos to RG for posting their comments for a more even handed review.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10048-10484-10514
The best test for controversy is time.
Someone said this in another forum:
"The ultimate decision as to whether Galbraith has credibility as being unbiased and accurate in his evaluation will come months from now with what we see on the internet with regard to the 1D Mark IV.
When Galbraith reviewed the 1D Mark III and continued to do his "updates", he was essentially riding on the wind created by 1D Mark III users. For 2 years+, every forum had multiple lengthy threads filled with discussion by 1D Mark III users about how their cameras were failing them, and Galbraith's updates seemed to confirm actual user experience. If there are similar user discussions about problems with the 1D Mark IV, Galbraith will be able to maintain continued credibility.
On the other hand, if the internet has an absence of complaints from users about the performance of the 1D Mark IV, those that argue that Galbraith is biased and inaccurate in his testing will have credibility, and Galbraith will have lost his.
I think it is interesting to observe the early returns on this matter. On this and other forums, the most vigorous discussions about the 1D Mark IV have not been about problems with the camera's performance. Instead, they have been about Galbraith, which is why I concluded about a week ago that, when the reviewer becomes the main subject of discussion and the camera itself is secondary in those discussions, that reviewer is no longer serving a useful purpose in evaluating the equipment or in identifying problems. Other than the discussions about Galbraith, almost all other internet discussion about the 1D Mark IV has been extremely positive. Not only have reviews been positive, but reports from both pro and amateur users have generally provided raves about the camera and, particularly, about its AF.
If this trend of positive user reports continues and if Galbraith thought that he could provide the periodic boosts to his web site's hit count be adding new damning "updates" about the camera's unsatisfactory performance every few months as he did with the 1D Mark III, he may well have overplayed his hand, and whatever credibility he may have had will be permanently damaged."
6 months from now and we'll know with certainty if Rob Galbraith has his lost his credibility altogether. There is a lot at stake on his end. Of course, some may ask how relevant this info is for non 1D4 owners. Well, RG also does previews for new cameras, and the outcome of this controversy will determine whether they are even worth a passing glance in future. (For example, I pay ZERO attention to Ken Rockwell... :bsmilie: )
Someone said this in another forum:
"The ultimate decision as to whether Galbraith has credibility as being unbiased and accurate in his evaluation will come months from now with what we see on the internet with regard to the 1D Mark IV.
When Galbraith reviewed the 1D Mark III and continued to do his "updates", he was essentially riding on the wind created by 1D Mark III users. For 2 years+, every forum had multiple lengthy threads filled with discussion by 1D Mark III users about how their cameras were failing them, and Galbraith's updates seemed to confirm actual user experience. If there are similar user discussions about problems with the 1D Mark IV, Galbraith will be able to maintain continued credibility.
On the other hand, if the internet has an absence of complaints from users about the performance of the 1D Mark IV, those that argue that Galbraith is biased and inaccurate in his testing will have credibility, and Galbraith will have lost his.
I think it is interesting to observe the early returns on this matter. On this and other forums, the most vigorous discussions about the 1D Mark IV have not been about problems with the camera's performance. Instead, they have been about Galbraith, which is why I concluded about a week ago that, when the reviewer becomes the main subject of discussion and the camera itself is secondary in those discussions, that reviewer is no longer serving a useful purpose in evaluating the equipment or in identifying problems. Other than the discussions about Galbraith, almost all other internet discussion about the 1D Mark IV has been extremely positive. Not only have reviews been positive, but reports from both pro and amateur users have generally provided raves about the camera and, particularly, about its AF.
If this trend of positive user reports continues and if Galbraith thought that he could provide the periodic boosts to his web site's hit count be adding new damning "updates" about the camera's unsatisfactory performance every few months as he did with the 1D Mark III, he may well have overplayed his hand, and whatever credibility he may have had will be permanently damaged."
6 months from now and we'll know with certainty if Rob Galbraith has his lost his credibility altogether. There is a lot at stake on his end. Of course, some may ask how relevant this info is for non 1D4 owners. Well, RG also does previews for new cameras, and the outcome of this controversy will determine whether they are even worth a passing glance in future. (For example, I pay ZERO attention to Ken Rockwell... :bsmilie: )
Last edited:
Similar threads
