Thanks Richard, from what I'm reading in the manual a whole lot of the custom functions in C.Fn III seem to be useful for unique and specific shooting situations so I appreciate your explanation of why you change the sensitivity from time to time in #2. Clearly these functions are available to be used with knowledge and discretion.
Much appreciated
yellowducky wrote:
I think since we have to ask the answer would be negative. If there was a fix via firmware or a hardware recall or whathaveyou it would be splashed all over the place. Having decided that the 1D is probably better for my needs than the 1Ds I am with you waiting to see that news break.
Yep thats were I am at too..
I was however planning to buy both the 1D and 1Ds this fall (well I would have bought the 1D in May but decided against it because of focus).. Its ok I bought this new Mac laptop instead and am real happy with that choice.
So I have been waiting sice May and always asumed the 1Ds would be out by the end of the year and I would get one before Thanksgiving.
I do not have any 1 series bodies right now as I am happy with the 5D but am at the point were I don't see any way to improve my images without going to a 1 D body.
I need faster , more accurate auto focus and better High ISO.
I know what I need and if Canon can't get it right soon I might have to search else where..
How does the 1ds Mll compare with the 5D in High ISO?
Anyone selling any 1d series Mll bodies at a reasonable price?
So my vote is I am ready to buy but will continue to wait for a fix.. I hope, along with hundreds of other, that this new firmware they are talking about does the trick.
Zeder wrote:
Kier,
What was the target for your focus point? Also what mode One shot or Servo mode, center focus point or ring of fire?
The lighting looks really dark in these shots. What type of liighting and what shutter speeds were you getting here.
Z
The target for the focus point was the rectangular starburst type thingy on the WhiBal card. It was focused using the center AF point in one-shot mode using a cable release and mirror lockup with a 2 second timer. The camera was mounted on a rock-solid Gitzo 3540LS tripd with a Really Right Stuff BH55 head.
Yes, the lighting was relatively dim, though far from what I would call dark. Standard household overhead lights plus an anglepoise lamp. I really wanted to show that it's not just bright sunlight that causes the AF inconsistencies. The shutter speeds with the 50mm f/1.4 shooting at f/1.4 in ISO 400 were 1/500s.
May be relevant for some of you, but according to a post published in this german forum, its possible to know where was manufactured your MkIII and when:
Kier,
Could you repeat the same shots with the C.Fn IV-1 enable to either 2 or 3? By doing so, I found very consistant shot to shot focussing in both one shot and Servo modes. In this situation, specially in one shot mode, once you the camera locks the focus it does not try to refocus everytime you press the shutter. This is not the solution but helps in most of the situations.
Please let me know what you find.
Thanks,
Ruhikant
Kier, I like your test set-up but I want to suggest an enhancement. That is - to give the AF just a single edge to focus on. e.g. focus on the boundary between the black and white rectangles on the whibal card rather than on the relatively complex star burst. The only gotcha is to be sure that the boundary is perpendicular to any linear AF sensor or it won't work well.
The way the camera focuses on the star burst pattern will vary according to the size of the pattern relative to the AF sensor pixel grids, and in the worst case the star burst will be reduced to an average grey rather than a distinct pattern of blacks and whites.
Making this change may not affect your results at all but at least it removes an element of doubt.
Jeff and Kier, when I suspected my 1D2 was having AF problems I played with the focus priority settings and it made absolutely no difference. However, once the camera and the 100-400 lens both had their AF problems fixed by Canon there was a definite effect from using the focus priority. The camera would shoot varying numbers of shots in burst mode (8 fps) before missing a beat when it lost focus. Usually 6 to 12 shots. With the faster-focusing 300mm f/2.8 IS lens it never missed a beat. My conclusion was that if the slower-focusing 100-400 could not keep up with the camera and AF was lost then the camera would pause to give the lens another go. Not for long - just enough for me to hear the gap.
This function needs something in focus to allow shooting to continue but does not care which of the allowed AF sensors achieves it, so if the focus jumps from subject to background then the camera will continue shooting. If the focus freezes with neither the subject nor the background in focus then the camera will not shoot.
When I get my 1Ds2 back from service I will test it too, but at a leisurely 4 fps for an 8fps AF system I don't expect any problems from any of my lenses.
Something that I would like some input on: if the camera really has serious issues wouldn't the poll show it a bit more? What I see is a very close almost 50/50 result, and have seen similar results with all of the polls. Wouldn't that indicate that the primary issue simply isn't the camera but other factors that may contribute to problems:
- yes, some faulty cameras, but not a large number, otherwise the poll would show that because the problems would be "obvious."
- users playing too much with new things like micro adjustments
- climate and location (which has been covered and may well be something that needs to be addressed seriously, although I've read comments from some in the middle east who own the camera and they have no issues, so it gets back down to the 50/50 idea
- poor choice of custom functions
etc.
All of the above has been discuss ad infinitum in many places and at many times, I know, but my point addresses the 50/50 results of these polls. Shouldn't the fact that there is no serious imbalance say something about the credibility of the complaints? If 50 say yes and 50 say no, who wins the vote? And what does that say about the inherent character of the vote itself?
I don't know, I just know that I have done stone stock and tried some suggestions and my results were the same. A high number of soft or OOF shots. Then I take the same lens second half of the game put the M2 body on the same lens and the keepers go right back up. I just don't know but that is canons problem really I just showed them the results. Trust me if they could say just do this or that and all would be good I would.
ruhikant wrote:
Kier,
Could you repeat the same shots with the C.Fn IV-1 enable to either 2 or 3 ...[snip]... once the camera locks the focus it does not try to refocus everytime you press the shutter.
How would that help if the initial focus lock was not good though?
I understand, but your suggestion to set C.Fn IV-1 to 2 or 3 defeats the purpose of my test, which was to show that unlike any previous EOS camera, the MkIII places the focal distance at a wildly different point between shots where AF has been repeated, despite no conditions changing.
You can see from my tests with the 20D and 1D2N that they do not have the same problem, and consistently place the focal distance at the same point.
I see your point. My method maynot help if your are using cable release since you have to focus the camera using the back botton everytime before heating the shutter that may create more eratic movenent.
Ruhikant
Normcar21 wrote:
Shouldn't the fact that there is no serious imbalance say something about the credibility of the complaints?
It would, if the problem was very consistent and occurred in all conditions, with all lenses.
But that's not the case.
What if half the users who voted "no problem" just haven't encountered the conditions to experience the trouble? Plenty of users only have shorter, slower lenses to work with, and in most cases those lenses do not reveal as much trouble as the longer f2.8 telephotos. That has been my experience, and also explained by Rob Galbraith and Bryan Carnathan
My Mark III works fine in most conditions, but poorly in very bright sunshine. And there really does seem to be a difference in varying brightness levels.
I've mentioned this before but I'll say it again. I have seen more than one person post a message saying he received his Mark III, tested the focus in "very difficult, low light conditions" and saw no sign of the focus trouble. How many of those people voted in the poll?
I've also seen people post examples at under 200mm, stopped down to f8 and happily post their new Mark III "works fine!". How many of those people voted in the poll?
Personally, I believe way more than half the cameras are affected by this issue. The only reason I hesitate to say "all" is because I've seen a few people post examples under the noted conditions that seem to look ok. But we don't really know what their keeper rate is (critically sharp). Some people find somewhat soft photos perfectly acceptable. I've seen their samples and several people tried to convince them they were indeed soft.
So I'm not sure you can take any meaningful results from the polls. And obviously Canon wouldn't. Users are all over the place as far as their testing methods and evaluations go.
RG tested 6 cameras, varying serial numbers, all were bad. And I see the exact same trouble when I use my Mark III/300 f2.8 combo in bright sun with Servo focus. As far as I'm concerned, most if not all the cameras suffer from this same issue. And Canon really needs to get this corrected.
I do not have a Mark III, but I do own 2 Mark II cameras. I do a good bit of outdoor shooting of soccer using my 400 f2.8.
On really bright days...the ones I call "nuclear sunshine", where there is a lot of glare and it's between noon and say 3:00, I typically don't even shoot. There is a "look" to those pictures that I do not like (temperature notwithstanding). Perhaps it is the high contrast, but I also tend to notice those shots are not as sharp as shots taken in more favorable conditions.
I wonder if this issue has been exaggerated by a more sensitive AF system in the Mark 3 cameras?
And just to repeat myself, if Canon is listening, I certainly plan to purchase a Mark 3, but I am waiting for Canon to solve this issue. Once the masses are satisfied, I will be ordering.
As I recall many professionals had the same sort of issue with Mark II softness and decided to keep their 1D "until the issue was resolved."
A few years down the line the above camera appeared to be the choice of the working professional who used Canon (either Mark II or IIN). They seemed to learn to become satisfied with the Mark II and remain so even today.
From what I read -- correct me if I'm in error -- the Mark IIN improvements were cosmetic and the inner workings of the camera were left unchanged. Apparently people simply learned how to use the camera effectively for their own specific purposes.
I'm simply seeing some parallels in this matter. I recall that pros were keeping their trusty 1D "until the softness problem is solved" way back then. Nothing in the essential picture making technology changed with the camera -- correct me if I'm wrong -- but it appears that most pros decided for the Mark II anyway. I guess they simply decided not to wait any longer. And they learned to appreciate the beast for what it was and dressed in that less than perfect skin, without changes.
Of course time will tell if this indeed is the case. I sincerely hope that for those who are experiencing problems there will soon be a firmware fix. If I ever begin to experience problems myself then I will be looking forward to the same.
