RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1 2 3 … 5

7 … 20 21 end

slau
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #1 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

DavidP wrote:

I say, send a few of them out with RobG and 500/4's to shoot birds in flight on a warm, sunny day, and let's see what happens.

It is for sure that RobG is not the only one shooting birds-in-flight with a 1DMk3 and a 500f4 on a warm sunny day

. May be others are too happy to keep on shooting away (like the SI T&F pros) and find no need to TEST the camera. In addition, to bring things back to perspective, RobG is not really famous for his photography outside this 'internet circle'. Canon must have a farm of professional shooters whom they used regularly to test the professional Canon gears.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 07, 2007 at 05:28 PM

graybeard
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #2 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

You don't need to be the most renoun photographer to see if you have issues with the AF AI Servo. Go shoot anything moving and then look at the results on the PC. Granted, you have to have shot something better than a P&S at a sporting event to set your expectation level. But if you have any ability to keep the subject in the center of the view finder and are not getting more than 50% keeper rate, then the camera is not any where near as advertised. Period. (was I too lenient to expect half of the images to be in focus where the pilot does not make a mistake?) The poll shows about a 50% "trouble" rate so far. This is ridiculous for THE top end camera Canon sells. I have owned only Canon since 1979 and it hurts me to say this but shame on Canon! I wish my 501xxx serial number MIII only wandered a bit when tracking a moving subject like RG's. Guys/Gals, if you are on the fense on this purchase, believe me, hold off and see what Canon does with this disaster. And they increased the initial price $1,000 for this headache? Go figure>>>

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 07, 2007 at 06:01 PM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.6 #3 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

And they increased the initial price $1,000 for this headache? Go figure>>>

what are you talking about?

if you are referring to the $4500 initial price that was the same for the 1D2 at its initial run. only after about a year did it drop.

if you paid more then $4500 thats your own fault. i paid a bit less.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 07, 2007 at 07:15 PM

EB-1
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #4 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

sjms wrote:
And they increased the initial price $1,000 for this headache? Go figure>>>

what are you talking about?

if you are referring to the $4500 initial price that was the same for the 1D2 at its initial run.

There was an error in the original white paper.

EB

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 07, 2007 at 08:22 PM

SoundHound
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.6 #5 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Thank you redman! So there'is at least one MkIII that doesn't have the Rob G, problem. So there maybe others! Maybe even mine (my experience is inside).

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 07, 2007 at 08:37 PM

Julius
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.6 #6 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

EB-1 wrote:

There was an error in the original white paper.

EB

There was no error in the white paper, this is what the white paper said about the price:
"The retail price of the EOS-1D Mark III at introduction will be $3,999, the same price at which the EOS-1D Mark IIN debuted."
They just changed their mind about the price.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 07, 2007 at 09:59 PM

Gateboy
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #7 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Chuck Westfall will address the autofocus issue in August.

http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9740461-1.html?tag=recentPosts

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 07, 2007 at 11:34 PM

xichlo
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.6 #8 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

After 3 weddings since I got the 1D Mark III, I can say that the focus outdoor is no complain for me, lighting fast. I tested the AI-Servo @ 10fps , when the bride turning around or walking fast toward me. The 1D MKIII nailed both cases.

However the biggest problem with 1D Mark III is focus in super low light , it's worse than my 5D. the focus is confirmed focus but the shot is out of focus.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 01:38 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #9 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Gateboy wrote:
Chuck Westfall will address the autofocus issue in August.

http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9740461-1.html?tag=recentPosts

Only question is, will he address the problems or just a give a few tips of how to customize the CF for best results.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 06:05 AM

Paolo Pena
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #10 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

i hope i dont get a bad copy. Judging from the poll it's 1 out of 2 bodies are bad.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 11:54 AM

lordcarl
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #11 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

2 weeks ago, I was on a motorsports assignment, using two EOS-1D Mark II Ns, accurate focus achieved was 5 out of 8 continuous shots I fired with either body, one equiped with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and the other with the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM.

Moments later, a photographer whom I came to get to know of just a few months earlier, came by and stood alongside me for the same angle. He was one of those got the new Mark III from the first shipment released on May 24th and I am still waiting for my own unit (shortage of stock is the reason, not because of the AF issue).

Anyway, his camera was mounted with the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM and after a while, he complained that his success rate was only 2 frames out of a one continouous burst (which can be as high as 20-30 shots per go).

I volunteered to test his camera with the same lens on my own CF card. He agreed. What I got within that 5 minutes of loan werea 9 out of 10 shots in focus (1st burst), 12 out 14 (2nd burst), 19 of 20 (3rd), 17-18 (4th), 20 of 22 (5th), 24 of 24 (6th) and 26 of 26 (7th). He stopped blaming the camera thereafter.

I admit I am not an expert in shooting athletics, volleyball, American football or soccer like Rob Galbraith is but I reckoned the speed of a motorsport vehicle is anytime faster than those sports he tested the Mark III with.

This reminds me of the time when I had an opportunity to test the EOS 300D not long after its introduction - the camera automatically switches to AI Servo AF when it detects movement on the subject. No such luck with morning joggers and pizza delivery boys on small bikes. But when the subject was the local Superbike racing series, the camera had no problem in tracking the bikes and the riders.

I have the utmost respects for Galbraith and enjoy reading his articles all the time but even an expert like him would eventually come across some technical problems which he may not be accustomed to - even me at certain times. I guess he came across one such limitation with his tests on the 1D Mark III. I last had such a limitation with the 1D Mark II (from the first shipment) and spent the next few weeks trying out various combinations to get the camera to give me the color rendition that I was so used to with the original EOS-1D. The N version replaced that unneccessary hassle for many motorsports shooters.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 01:49 PM

jhom
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.6 #12 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

lordcarl...the question is: what did you do that your colleague didn't to get the better percentage of in focus shots? Or, what was he doing that you didn't do?

Jim

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 02:04 PM

72chevelle454
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #13 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

In my experience its keeping that center point dead nuts on the subject, if it drifts off for a moment, so will your focus. I know, I know.. you can speed up or slow done the sensitivity.

jhom wrote:
lordcarl...the question is: what did you do that your colleague didn't to get the better percentage of in focus shots? Or, what was he doing that you didn't do?

Jim

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 02:36 PM

Dauv McNeely
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #14 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

lordcarl wrote: I have the utmost respects for Galbraith and enjoy reading his articles all the time but even an expert like him would eventually come across some technical problems which he may not be accustomed to - even me at certain times.I guess he came across one such limitation with his tests on the 1D Mark III . I last had such a limitation with the 1D Mark II (from the first shipment) and spent the next few weeks trying out various combinations to get the camera to give me the color rendition that I was so used to with the original EOS-1D. The N version replaced that unneccessary hassle for many motorsports shooters.

The problem I still have with this is that it is NOT just one camera he had problems with, it is THREE different bodies, and I can tell you that after he posted his first report, it is almost a certainty that Canon tried to send him a cream of the crop body for the 3rd go round which still had the same issues.
I am befuddled that so many people try to discount this issue instead of embracing it and coming to terms with it, there IS in fact an issue if so many people experience the same problem around the world, hell people in France are reporting the same issue, let alone 1 out of 2 responders here on FM for crying out loud.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 05:07 PM

Julius
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.6 #15 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Dauv McNeely wrote:

The problem I still have with this is that it is NOT just one camera he had problems with, it is THREE different bodies, and I can tell you that after he posted his first report, it is almost a certainty that Canon tried to send him a cream of the crop body for the 3rd go round which still had the same issues.
I am befuddled that so many people try to discount this issue instead of embracing it and coming to terms with it, there IS in fact an issue if so many people experience the same problem around the world, hell people in France are reporting the same issue, let alone 1 out of 2 responders here on FM for crying out loud.

I agree with you completely, way too many people have the AF problem to ignore it. I do not doubt that there are good cameras out there as the poll shows about 50% do not have any problem (I wish I had one of those cameras) which in turn indicates that there could be some marginal hardware issue involved with it in combination with the lack of proper Quality Control.
Canon should have already come out with a public acknowledgement of the problem indicating that they are working on it. Leica did it with the M8 even if it is still not completely resolved but at least they admit the problem and indicate that they are working on it.
Canon is building up a bad reputation starting with the last rebate fiasco and now the major AF issue with the MK III. Problems can happen with new camera releases but keeping quiet about it is not a popular thing to do.

Edited by Julius on Jul 08, 2007 at 01:04 PM GMT

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 06:07 PM

XsigmaSD
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #16 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Dauv McNeely wrote:

The problem I still have with this is that it is NOT just one camera he had problems with, it is THREE different bodies, and I can tell you that after he posted his first report, it is almost a certainty that Canon tried to send him a cream of the crop body for the 3rd go round which still had the same issues.
I am befuddled that so many people try to discount this issue instead of embracing it and coming to terms with it, there IS in fact an issue if so many people experience the same problem around the world, hell people in France are reporting the same issue, let alone 1 out of 2 responders here on FM for crying out loud.

Rant: On

The problem I still have with this whole situation is the vast number of people that don't even own the camera, pontificating about how I'm supposedly having problems with it. What doesn't get counted is the thousands and thousands of owners out there, like myself, who have had no problems, so don't choose to speak up. You are befuddled that I don't cry about a camera that actually WORKS? What exactly am I supposed to "embrace?" Mine works, the three other working pros I know who have it, work. Thats my experience with the III, all of the REAL cameras I have held and worked with, WORK as advertised. I'm getting every pennies' worth of my investment out of it.

That said, I have total sympathy for anyone who bought one, and is geneuinely having problems with it. I'm sure Canon will make it right, they have absolutely NO track record of screwing people in situations where their products are at fault.

I have no idea how many IIIs are out in the marketplace. 50 people in an internet forum poll report problems and now the other hundreds of thousands of people that dont have problems with them are somehow lying to you? Get one, work with it for real, have problems with it, post them here, then whine.

Rant: off

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 06:07 PM

DavidP
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #17 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

You know, if 50% of the copies don't work in bright sun in the heat with long focal length (basic summary of RobG's issues), yet 50% of the copies DO work in the same conditions, doesn't that indicate that it is NOT a firmware issue?

In fact, it doesn't sound like a DESIGN issue, either . . more like a QC issue.

Perhaps there's some component of the AF system that's having a huge failure rate when it gets heated up.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 09:41 PM

Nill Toulme
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.6 #18 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Maybe, but with regard to the likely bona fides of the 50/50 ratio, this post is perhaps the most telling I've seen recently.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 09:48 PM

ben_is_in
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #19 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Nill Toulme wrote:
Maybe, but with regard to the likely bona fides of the 50/50 ratio, this post is perhaps the most telling I've seen recently.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Sure, Nill. Blame the user while you haven't shot with the camera. I'm sure you and lordcarl would have a lovely time with my camera while I shrug my shoulders. I noticed you didn't comment on my DPR post. What do you think? Did I screw it up somehow?

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 11:23 PM

jkurkjia
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #20 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Components that die are almost always either a hardware design or mechanical thermal management issue.

These days, a design that varies significantly with temperature is almost always a hardware/mechanical design issue OR a purchased component not meeting a specification.

With sensors, who knows, it could be something as simple as the adhesive sometimes used to hold electro-optical components in place that is applying a physical stress to said electro-optical component. Note, I'm not discussing the CMOS image sensor here.

All of this is a lot of guesswork that doesn't really matter unless anybody seriously thinks there is a firmware problem. A change to the firmware may minimize the impact of the root cause of whatever is going on but it won't solve a hardware design problem.

Besides firmware, we can eliminate dust in the viewfinder as the root cause of the AF failures.

My gut feel, something was overlooked in the electronic design. Second gut feel, a few engineers will lose their jobs "after" the witch-hunt at Canon is completed.

As somebody who is very interested in purchasing an m3, I truly wish "dust in the viewfinder" was the cuplrit. :-)

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 08, 2007 at 11:32 PM

phrog
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #21 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

I rember reading in the Whitev Paper, (i think) that when using live view for an extended period of time that the camera might shut down or become erratic due to sensor heating.
Might this be a logical path to follow in determining ?

Bill

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 09, 2007 at 12:03 AM

impressnow
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #22 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Have had a M3 for about 1 week now and have gone back to my Mark 2n till Canon fixes the focusing issues..

I shoot an average of 6,000 baseball shots per week and I am very satisfied with my M2n. The M3, on the other hand, has a serious problem.

With the M3, I can shoot a batter waiting to swing and can see the focus going in & out - ever so slightly. (I shoot almost exclusively with a Canon 300 2.8 IS)

The first game I shot with the M3 required the deletion of over 50% of the shots.

I went back in and checked my settings and went out and shot another game with the same dissapointing results.

When shooting a burst of a kid running to 1st base, one image would be in focus and the next few OOF, one more in focus, then a couple more out of focus.

Even a large percentage of candid shots of kids standing around in the dugout were OOF.

I went in and grabbed the M2n and shot another game. This time I had less than 1% OOF.

I have ZERO confidence in shooting sports with the M3.

One kudo I'd like to give the M3 is, at 6400 iso, with light from only 1 table lamp, the M3 made incredibly clear photos.

Shooting sports, however, is another issue. Canon needs to get this issue resolved immediately or the Nikonians will have a field day with it and Canon will have a long-lasting black eye!

Mike

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 09, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Nill Toulme
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.6 #23 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

ben_is_in wrote:
Sure, Nill. Blame the user while you haven't shot with the camera. I'm sure you and lordcarl would have a lovely time with my camera while I shrug my shoulders. I noticed you didn't comment on my DPR post. What do you think? Did I screw it up somehow?

I have no idea. I doubt it, but the fellow in lordcarl's post probably thought he knew what he was doing too, I don't know. You may have seen my earlier posts though expressing the wish that some of the folks with "bad" cameras could get together with some with "good" ones and swap and compare. lordcarl's post is one of the few reports I've seen of that sort of "experiment," which is why I considered it "telling."

My point was not that all 50 of the survey cameras that are reported to be "broken" are in fact just fine, but rather that it is at least likely that some of them are. I've seen enough examples where people posted "broken" shots where there was obviously no focus point on the subject that I can't help but discount a lot of the "bad" user reports.

Was I talking about your experience? Of course not — how could I? I hadn't seen it yet.

Do I think there's something wrong with some of the cameras out there? Yes, of course. Surely *everybody* who's experiencing problems can't be imagining them. Your experience, and Mike's post above describing his side-by-side experience with his III and II are obvious examples of real problems. But, OTOH, instances like lordcarl's demonstrate that at least *some* of the users are imagining or exaggerating problems, no doubt fueled by all the internet talk of problems.

It's why I've never liked hearing about diseases — I immediately start feeling symptoms. ;-)

Hope your camera gets straightened out soon. I've seen several mentions of a firmware update being no more than days away.

BTW, did you shoot any at all with AF point expansion turned off? I never liked expansion on my II's (SI's recommendation notwithstanding), and I really don't understand why so many people are apparently automatically turning it on for the III.

Good luck,

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

p.s. I've now glanced at your DPR thread. Way too much noise in that thread for me to try to respond to you there. I do see you tried with expansion off as well as on. Have you tried sensitivity set faster though? I know you say you can't do that because of players moving in front of your subject, etc., but have you actually tried it? LesZ has reported finding that the sensitivity settings in the Mark III seem to be calibrated much differently than in previous 1-series, with the III's default apparently equivalent to a much slower setting on the earlier cameras, and that he got better results with the faster settings.

Edited by Nill Toulme on Jul 08, 2007 at 10:37 PM GMT

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 09, 2007 at 01:47 AM

Paul B
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #24 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Nill Toulme wrote:
Maybe, but with regard to the likely bona fides of the 50/50 ratio, this post is perhaps the most telling I've seen recently.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

At this point I could believe pretty much anything about the MKIII AF issues (and I'm not an owner although hope to be in the future.) I guess what puzzles me about the statements in the post you cited regarding Galbraith's "limitations" in understanding new technology is that he's reportedly been in what he calls "almost constant" contact with Canon about this issue. Surely if it were simply a question of him (and others) not understanding the camera and how to best use it Canon would have educated him and the "problem" would have been solved instantly. But at last report he's continued having problems, even with one or more new cameras Canon has sent him. Arrgghh. It's a shame no one has put together an effort like the one you suggested of several people getting together with "good" and "bad" bodies. By the way, I assume Canon "seeds" new bodies to sports photogs before introduction. Does anyone know whether they do something similar with nature (and bird) photogs?

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 09, 2007 at 02:36 AM

Nill Toulme
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.6 #25 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Well I guess I should clarify that the part of the post I found "telling" was the actual user experience reported therein — i.e., a new Mark III owner thinking he had a "broken" camera handing it to someone else who promptly got excellent results with it. I have no opinion on the comments regarding RG's experience.

As for whether nature photogs get pre-release cameras — FWIW, in his recent Mark III hands-on user report, Canon "Explorer of Light" Art Morris mentions that he still hasn't received either of the two cameras he ordered from Canon; he got the one he's using from a local dealer.

Mind you, I'm still in heavy cognitive dissonance mode over this whole flap. I want the camera to be OK — not just OK of course, but great, wonderful, the photographic holy grail — because I've sold both my Mark II's and await the arrival of my own III next week. Will it be broken? Will I? Stay tuned. ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Jul 09, 2007 at 02:56 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 20 21 end