•Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues? - FM Forums

Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 … 26 27 28 … 42 43 end

1D MkIII Poll #3: Does yours have AF issues?
<#505xxx: YES, it has AF issues		27	2%
#505xxx - 509xxx: YES, it has AF issues		9	1%
#510xxx - 514xxx: YES, it has AF issues		20	1%
#515xxx - 519xxx: YES, it has AF issues		15	1%
#520xxx - 524xxx: YES, it has AF issues		22	2%
#525xxx - 529xxx: YES, it has AF issues		16	1%
>#530xxx: YES, it has AF issues -------------------------		10	1%
<#505xxx: NO, it works as advertised		20	1%
#505xxx - 509xxx: NO, it works as advertised		18	1%
#510xxx - 514xxx: NO, it works as advertised		23	2%
#515xxx - 519xxx: NO, it works as advertised		25	2%
#520xxx - 524xxx: NO, it works as advertised		34	2%
#525xxx - 529xxx: NO, it works as advertised		20	1%
>#530xxx: NO, it works as advertised		23	2%
[I don't plan on owning a MkIII; show me the results.]		1104	80%
Total Votes		1386	100%

Archive 2007 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Kier
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.27 #1 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Officially, the MkIIN did not change the AF system, but many people, myself included, have noticed a dramatic improvement in the AF from the original MkII to the MkIIN.

There were of course some other changes to the MkIIN that were not cosmetic - the introduction of Picture Styles (whoopdedo), bigger shooting buffer, larger LCD, improved memory card handling etc.

Sep 14, 2007 at 03:27 PM

Normcar21
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.27 #2 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Kier wrote:
Officially, the MkIIN did not change the AF system, but many people, myself included, have noticed a dramatic improvement in the AF from the original MkII to the MkIIN.

There were of course some other changes to the MkIIN that were not cosmetic - the introduction of Picture Styles (whoopdedo), bigger shooting buffer, larger LCD, improved memory card handling etc.

And here sits the trouble, as I myself have used both cameras and indeed the buffer is improved but I saw no visible difference in AF myself. Perhaps the psychology of the "N" factor played a part...perhaps Canon's "official" statement is a fabrication...difficult to answer for sure. Nevertheless, many professionals and amatuers have used the Mark II (non N) for years now and would swear by it. I just sold mine prior to purchasing the Mark III and almost cried when packing it up.

Thanks for the kind response

Sep 14, 2007 at 03:49 PM

Normcar21
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.27 #3 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Personally, I believe way more than half the cameras are affected by this issue.

Hi Gary, what seems somewhat incredible to me is that you bring up some excellent "technical" possibilities, including both lens types and camera error in different light and weather, but not once do you mention the person behind the camera. Your above statement seems to amplify this characteristic in that you say, "I believe way more than half the CAMERAS are affected by this issue."

I have no doubt that some cameras out there have issues, but I'm seeing so much CAMERA fault being the focus and USER "potential" being relegated to second place. I'm simply suggesting that all factors need to be given a place in the equation. I'm sure that you understand that clearly and simply found it unnecessary to include the "human" factor.

Cheers

Sep 14, 2007 at 04:11 PM

slau
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.27 #4 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Normcar21 wrote:

Please, a question, if you don't mind? What do you have your tracking sensitivity set to? Some claim to have better results with maximum speed. Mine is presently set to default as I really don't see a whole lot of difference even though there may well be in certain circumstances.

Thanks much

Norm, the tracking sensitivity of the Mk3 seems to be a LOT more 'effective' or 'snesitive' than the adjustment in my Mk2. I really seldom change the setting of my Mk2 during my three year of shooting with it. With the Mk3, I have been changing mine to between Slow and 'Normal' (for BIF shots with smaller birds and with contrast and busy background) and Fast (for bigger birds and clean background like cloudless blue sky). The relative subject size, speed and direction of the subject movement, as well as the relative contrast of the background are the key factors that may affact significantly how you should set your Mk3' tracking sensitivity. That is why it is so tough to compare notes since most of us shoot differently, and there is a reason (right or wrong) why Canon give the users a choice (or too many choices). That is why I am so skeptical about using Mr. so and so's guide, which according to some poeple that should be the bible for all Mk3 shooters. You just have to find out what works the best for YOU based on some kind of systematic approach. We kind of went through the same process with our Mk2 at one time

.

Edited by slau on Sep 14, 2007 at 09:34 AM GMT

Sep 14, 2007 at 04:26 PM

Nill Toulme
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.27 #5 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Kier wrote:
Officially, the MkIIN did not change the AF system, but many people, myself included, have noticed a dramatic improvement in the AF from the original MkII to the MkIIN.
...

See this rant.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Sep 14, 2007 at 04:33 PM

Normcar21
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.27 #6 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

That is why is so tough to compare notes since most of use shoot differently.

Thanks for the info, Slau. I agree with your above statement as well and this camera is somewhat like a new car with all of the bells and whistles and because of the many functions the potential for settings differences has skyrocketed. Surely the only way to adequately determine any similarities or differences is for all involved to retain the exact same settings and environment throughout any serious and valid investigation. And 5 or 10 people with the same camera settings wouldn't be near enough, they'd need to be in the same place at the same time with the same nervous systems and reaction times, same sized fingers, same clothing, same eyesight, and so on down the list when attempting to work out such dynamically quick response machinery. In my opinion

Sep 14, 2007 at 04:41 PM

Normcar21
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.27 #7 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Nill Toulme wrote:
Kier wrote:
Officially, the MkIIN did not change the AF system, but many people, myself included, have noticed a dramatic improvement in the AF from the original MkII to the MkIIN.
...

See this rant.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Great ranting technique

Sep 14, 2007 at 04:44 PM

Garylv
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.27 #8 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Normcar21 wrote:
I'm simply suggesting that all factors need to be given a place in the equation. I'm sure that you understand that clearly and simply found it unnecessary to include the "human" factor.
Cheers

Yes, I totally agree that user error must be given a very strong consideration when evaluating camera performance.

RG's 6 out of 6 cameras were tested by an experienced user (RG obviously) under controlled circumstances (as much as possible), with gear calibrated by Canon technicians, and the last testing session observed and documented by Canon USA representatives.

This is just an opinion of course, but I think RG's 6 out of 6 test results are a more accurate representation than all the various users in the poll with varying experience and uncalibrated equipment, and their (apparent) confusion over when the focus trouble mostly occurs.

There may be a few more than half in the poll who haven't seen the issue yet, but that really doesn't surprise me based on the nature of this particular issue, and some of the messages that have been posted.

Sep 14, 2007 at 05:23 PM

Wickedfn4u
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.27 #9 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

The RG 6 out of 6 is what makes me think the 50/50 pole is not spot on. I believe those that say theirs is ok just have not correctly tested their body. Not that they have to go and do a controlled test like RG did, but long glass wide open. Mine came right out using my 400 shot at 2.8 or 3.2, they were just not in focus. If you get 6 different bodies that the lens and body have been tuned up by canon and they are still OOF then my guess they all have this bug.

Now my first one has been replaced after Canon tried to repair it, and I have not had a chance to "field" test this one. My gut feeling is this will be the same....please please please let it not be so.

Sep 14, 2007 at 09:02 PM

apdieb
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.27 #10 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

I am one of those that have stated no problems.. However, the longest lens I used was a 70-200.

I just purchased a 300F2.8 IS yesterday and plan to give it a test tomorrow. Unfortunately, not at an outdoor sporting event yet. Perhaps next week.

I am keeping my fingers crossed. Playing around with it handheld outside on some static subjects, it performed well. But no Servo tests yet.

Sep 15, 2007 at 02:14 AM

Wickedfn4u
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.27 #11 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Yeah when I got mine I did the same thing, out on the deck put the 400 on and shot the neighbors bird house, just fine when I look at it. But real world on the pitch the shots just dont pop.

Sep 15, 2007 at 02:44 AM

Normcar21
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.27 #12 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Wickedfn4u wrote:
Yeah when I got mine I did the same thing, out on the deck put the 400 on and shot the neighbors bird house, just fine when I look at it. But real world on the pitch the shots just dont pop.

I just visited your website, nice shots. I look forward to seeing more great shots from you with your Mark III, your photos really "pop"

Sep 15, 2007 at 03:53 AM

Wickedfn4u
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.27 #13 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Thanks Normcar very kind. Today will be the big test on the new body, only down side is it is not suppose to be hot or that sunny.

Sep 15, 2007 at 02:32 PM

Hrow
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.27 #14 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

OK, this is just friggin' wierd. I just got back from shooting a rugby match and threw the first CF card into the reader. I almost barfed when I saw the results - almost nothing was in focus for the first 75 frames. I didn't count but the success rate was below 10%. The next 175 frames - nearly perfect. A mistake here and there but those were my bad.

Throw in the next CF card and the first 150 are quite acceptable. Not that the shooter did a good job but I can't blame the camera. Suddenly, boom. Everything goes to crap. Less than 10% in focus. I mean, I can't even figure out what the camera was trying to focus on. What it looks like to me is that the AF system simply stopped working for those periods and decided to kick back for some unkown reason. I am beginning to suspect that the in focus images are the mistake when the camera does that. All are AF servo with a 300 F4 L.

Sep 15, 2007 at 08:00 PM

Nill Toulme
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.27 #15 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

That sounds weirder than usual. Just for grins, check the EXIF on the OOF series and make sure it shows AF as turned on.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Sep 15, 2007 at 08:22 PM

SLD
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.27 #16 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Hrow wrote:
OK, this is just friggin' wierd. I just got back from shooting a rugby match and threw the first CF card into the reader. I almost barfed when I saw the results - almost nothing was in focus for the first 75 frames. I didn't count but the success rate was below 10%. The next 175 frames - nearly perfect. A mistake here and there but those were my bad.

Throw in the next CF card and the first 150 are quite acceptable. Not that the shooter did a good job but I can't blame the camera. Suddenly, boom. Everything goes to crap. Less than 10% in focus. I mean, I can't even figure out what the camera was trying to focus on. What it looks like to me is that the AF system simply stopped working for those periods and decided to kick back for some unkown reason. I am beginning to suspect that the in focus images are the mistake when the camera does that. All are AF servo with a 300 F4 L.

keep us informed about the situation............!

Sep 15, 2007 at 08:49 PM

omar
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.27 #17 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Kier wrote:
Officially, the MkIIN did not change the AF system, but many people, myself included, have noticed a dramatic improvement in the AF from the original MkII to the MkIIN.

There were of course some other changes to the MkIIN that were not cosmetic - the introduction of Picture Styles (whoopdedo), bigger shooting buffer, larger LCD, improved memory card handling etc.

Hi

When the MarkII came out it had a about a transfer at 3.5MB/s to card. Later firmware to MarkII increased the speed to about 7MB/s to card, so to take a another 20 RAW burst, users did not have to wait so long anymore, about half time. Later firmware also improved AL servo, specielly in lowlight situation. Wake up time was also reduced.

I did not notice any AF difference with my MarkII with later firmware compared to my MarkIIN.

I am really happy that I bought the MarkIII.

Best regards from Sweden

Omar Brännström

Sep 15, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Hrow
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.27 #18 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

lidesun wrote:
Hrow wrote:
OK, this is just friggin' wierd. I just got back from shooting a rugby match and threw the first CF card into the reader. I almost barfed when I saw the results - almost nothing was in focus for the first 75 frames. I didn't count but the success rate was below 10%. The next 175 frames - nearly perfect. A mistake here and there but those were my bad.

Throw in the next CF card and the first 150 are quite acceptable. Not that the shooter did a good job but I can't blame the camera. Suddenly, boom. Everything goes to crap. Less than 10% in focus. I mean, I can't even figure out what the camera was trying to focus on. What it looks like to me is that the AF system simply stopped working for those periods and decided to kick back for some unkown reason. I am beginning to suspect that the in focus images are the mistake when the camera does that. All are AF servo with a 300 F4 L.

keep us informed about the situation............!

23 in a row totally OOF. 3 close but probably the players just ran into the DOF. 12 OOF. 2 IN. 26 OOF. 4 In. 7 OOF. Then it kicked in. Went back out after approx. 300 frames. All shots with the 300mm. I'm wondering if I have a lens problem but I haven't seen it with non-servo shooting. IS was on.

Sep 15, 2007 at 10:10 PM

ashwinrao1
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.27 #19 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Just an FYI, but I just covered (as a medical provider) the UW-OSU game. I did a quick and dirty survey of the sideline photography crew. My rough estimate indicates that at least 70% of those shooting were using 1dMkIII's as there primary cameras, typically mounted on long telephoto lenses. This is in contrast to reports from other venues, but we are in cool, but sunny Washington. By the way, the few pros that I talked with all loved their Mark III's....No one was complaining. Like I said, just an FYI.

Sep 16, 2007 at 12:44 AM

slau
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.27 #20 · •Poll v3.1: MkIII have AF issues?

Can you look at those images that are COMPETELY OOF with a program like the ZoomBrowser that shows you if the AF was on or not, Al Servo or Single Shot AF, and where is the focus point? Could you see those images were OOF when you were shooting?

Hope it was just you accidentally put the AF/MF switch in MF while you took those shots. I have experienced similar (but not that many OOF images as you could see the images were out in the viewfinder) problem with my 300f2.8IS before due to the not so nicely designed AF/MF switch. I have the AF/MF & IS switchs taped on all my lenses since then. Finally Canon learned to build some good switches starting with the 24-105L & 70-200f4IS

.

Good luck, Henry.

Sep 16, 2007 at 12:49 AM

1 2 3 … 26 27 28 … 42 43 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 26 27 28 … 42 43 end