Here is a typical sample - from the middle of an OOF sequence. Try to forget the fact that it would be a crappy shot even if in focus. I should note that I had the Drive set to Low which I set to 5 FPS.
Nothing is really in focus in this shot, the rear end of the player perhaps being the closest to being in focus. Why is this a camera problem and not a lens problem, or even a movement of the hand so that everything is slightly out? Have you done any micro adjustment with this lens or with any lens? I ask this simply because I'd like to know if you've been using the micro adjust feature which is somewhat innovative and not really too tested in the field, not for any other reason Your shutter speed was 1/800th, was it on monopod or tripod? If handheld, 1/800 isn't a whole lot when hands are excited and moving about slightly.
That was my point, nothing is in focus - for a lot of frames at a time. Could it be the lens? Sure, but both shots are with the same lens taken within 10 minutes of each other. The lens is an IS lens so shake at 1/800 shouldn't be a problem and one of the other OOF sequences was taken when the sun popped out and those frames are between 1/2500 and 1/4000.
What I want to know is why I get 75 OOF frames and then everything becomes good only to return to crap and then get better again. Could it be me spazing out? I guess but I suspect that something else is more likely the cause.
I don't want to get flamed, but I would turn the IS off. I never use it for field sports, even with the new mode 2 designs. I have only had good luck with IS when the SS was very low or panning a "slow consistent" subject.
Hrow wrote:
That was my point, nothing is in focus - for a lot of frames at a time. Could it be the lens? Sure, but both shots are with the same lens taken within 10 minutes of each other. The lens is an IS lens so shake at 1/800 shouldn't be a problem and one of the other OOF sequences was taken when the sun popped out and those frames are between 1/2500 and 1/4000.
What I want to know is why I get 75 OOF frames and then everything becomes good only to return to crap and then get better again. Could it be me spazing out? I guess but I suspect that something else is more likely the cause. ...Show more →
If both shots are with the same lens then it eliminates the lens from the problem, which is good. However, I again suggest that 1/800th is not a fast shutter when it comes to quick movement. I shoot birds at no less than 1/1000th for larger flyers, but I also shoot sports and a combination of quick action and adrenalin of the photographer could well render 1/800 shutter speeds to less than efficient. If you used the same lens for both shots, then imo it was user error on the shot in question. You were shooting a sequence that had quick action and your own adrenalin in the heat of a potential good shot may well have caused the softness or blur. IS, imo, had nothing to do with it, I "always" have IS on, whether shooting at 1/60th or 1/2000th, and it has never caused a problem and has never really helped much at higher shutter speeds, mostly I use it for "psych" reasons. I've shot both with and without IS at higher shutter speeds, using selection "1" and differences are negligible.
The shot that I see above, in my opinion, is user error and has nothing to do with camera or lens. Did you shoot the second shot in "one shot" or Al Servo? If you shot the still shot in Al Servo mode and it's in focus, then that eliminates the potential for Al Servo to be the problem. Similarly with one shot mode. If you "manual focused" the second shot, that's different, but you probably didn't, so to me the first shot remains user error, and we all do that, more than often enough.
Again, the problem shot has "no" clear focus anywhere, which says something in and of itself.
I can buy the user error - I am more than capable of a lot of it. But 75 user errors in a row followed by 300 that are OK (with the expected number of user error problems) followed by another stream of user errors? I'm not so sure. Also, for the shots that had the same problem at 1/2500 I can see adrenlin killing a couple but not entire long sequences. Besides, this was all hoots and giggles shooting. Zero pressure.
PS. Both shots were in AI Servo, however, that does not automatically exclude a problem in Servo. In one case the subjects are moving and in the other he was pretty still.
Normcar I don't think SS has to much to do with it in those shots. Reason I say that is I shot a lot of soccer and can be 1/400th (with 400 on a mono) and still get good action, a real fast kick on the ball may show motion blur but general running and cutting is fine. The one OOF he posted no way looks like motion blur or even lens shake. A lot of my shots with my old M3 that were cr*p look just like those too. You could not figure out what the camera was looking at when it thought it was focused.
I have never seen a shot like the one posted above where there is absolutely no position of focus, either front or rear, where it is camera error. If everything is out of focus the the camera and lens are not at fault, because the camera "will" focus on something, whether it is to the front or rear, it will focus on something. That shot is blurred in all areas so it is, in my opinion, user error. I apologize if this is offensive, but that is my honest viewpoint. If it won't, then the camera is broken beyond repair, or the lens is broken beyond repair. In my years of using a DSLR I have never seen a shot that didn't have "some" focus somewhere. One exception...I had a lens that was broken and didn't focus on anything.
NOTE: Hrow, did you remove that shot that we have been discussing here? I cannot find it any longer. If you removed it, please explain why because if you did then nobody reading this string has a point of reference any longer to that out of focus shot that you previously posted.
In any event, I'm sure you had good reason to remove it but my only concern is that everything I've said about that shot is now looking a bit foolish because nobody can see the shot to check it out for themselves and make a determination.
Edited by Normcar21 on Sep 15, 2007 at 09:34 PM GMT
Jeff wrote:
I never had either until I got my MkIII...
The plane of focus would appear to be between the player in the foreground and the group, based upon the grass nearer the camera being more in focus. I can assure you that, based upon the AF points used, sometimes the MkIII does not, in fact, 'always focus on something'. It's easy to make blanket statements about things that work properly, but all bets are off until we know what is wrong with this thing. I agree Jeff. No offense taken Normcar, but I am with you in thinking something should be in focus. I didn't have that problem with my M2 and I sure did with my M3. I would look at the picture and try and figure what was in focus. Often there would be absolute zero in focus and then sometimes there was something "kinda" in focus. No I shot 3 games today and did not see any of those kinds of shots but it was a cool over cast day.
Edited by Wickedfn4u on Sep 15, 2007 at 08:39 PM GMT
Jeff, whatever you are doing is fine with me. It's your string. It's not important to me, my camera works fine so I think I should just let you guys keep on keepin on, and leave you be
The closest I've seen with the Mark III I have to this problem is when focus is set to all points rather than single point with expansion to #8 in Cfn3. I shot for a few hours with all points and got something similar buy even then "something" was in focus. I could only suspect that in the Hrow post if "something" was in focus, but "nothing" is in focus in that offering. When "nothing" is in focus, from my experience, it's user error.
I promise not to post in this string any more. Thank you for bearing with me thus far.
Jeff, sorry about the file size, didn't even look as the screen capture appeared to be a small size. I have resized it if you want to un-whatever it is that you did to it.
I keep my 1DIII because for 80-90% of what I photograph it works beautifully. Wonderful image quality, fast, reliable, etc. This camera body fits my needs perfectly. AND I expect Canon will ultimately get it right, whether the fix is hardware or firmware.
Hi Lars, I'm and many others I know are waiting for Canon to respond for return my camera, or fix the problem.
But still no reaction at all from Canon.
It looks like we are talking against the walls
So try it, if you have a bad copy, I wonder how long you have to wait for some kind of reaction, or even a replacement.
Sep 16, 2007 at 07:59 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I keep my 1DIII because for 80-90% of what I photograph it works beautifully. Wonderful image quality, fast, reliable, etc. This camera body fits my needs perfectly. AND I expect Canon will ultimately get it right, whether the fix is hardware or firmware.
But why not replace it when it's under warranty and maybe get one that is 100% good 80-90% isn't good enough for an expensive camera.
And I don't understand when you say "reliably" about a camera that needs a fix to work.
And if no fix is coming, will you still keep a camera that only works good 80-90% of the time
Your shutter speed was 1/800th, was it on monopod or tripod? If handheld, 1/800 isn't a whole lot when hands are excited and moving about slightly. 
