Shooting soccer and football I have noticed an interesting phenomenon...
When using center point only, my 1D3 is not as consistent as when I use the the single FP that is just outside the center circle to the right (I almost always shoot vertically). Why this is I am not sure.
It could be that the head and torso is an easier target for AF, the arm motion doesn't "confuse" the AF or the lower precision sensor (other than center) is more reliable or I am more consistently framing for some reason with this FP. I always am shooting with either a 300/2.8L plain for with a 1.4x or 2x attached.
I vary the tracking sensitivity speed to either faster or slower based on how and where I'm shooting (ie. lots of intervening players or few) and how well I'm framing on a particular day. I don't know about you but for me some days I am just more on than other days.
If you've observed the same with regard to focus point selection I'd like to know. If you haven't give it a try.
Personally I don't see how it's anything but a guess. I have a B.S.E.E. and I don't see how you could from a simple test like this whether it's hardware or software or both. Also I didn't see anything at all about making a judgement from photos. It's sounds like a pure guess based on the "sounds" the camera make in AI-Servo mode.
bcaslis wrote:
Personally I don't see how it's anything but a guess. I have a B.S.E.E. and I don't see how you could from a simple test like this whether it's hardware or software or both. Also I didn't see anything at all about making a judgement from photos. It's sounds like a pure guess based on the "sounds" the camera make in AI-Servo mode.
Didn't you know EJ has magical hearing?
If you don't believe me ask him I'm sure he could tell you how he is more imminently qualified to make that determination than anyone else.
bcaslis wrote:
Personally I don't see how it's anything but a guess. I have a B.S.E.E. and I don't see how you could from a simple test like this whether it's hardware or software or both. Also I didn't see anything at all about making a judgement from photos. It's sounds like a pure guess based on the "sounds" the camera make in AI-Servo mode.
Obviously, a first quick test can't be conclusive but calling it a "guess" may be a bit harsh. Perhaps the fact that he's spent almost 25 years at Intel working on similar issues has something to do with what he's saying?
I'd have to agree with Paul on this one.. EJ is a little more qualified then most people.. I for one am not pleased with his findings but it does offer hope that it can be fixed with a new part once the problem circuit is located...
Reguardless Canon is not comeing tru with a fix nor are they even saying they know what the problem is.. So that scares me still.. The other issue that has miffed is why are alll these people going to buy another camera, that they really don't want, while they are waiting for this one to be ready.?? I bet Canon sure is scared now knowing so many are going to buy a 40D or a 5D thats they were not going to buy before the problem and still buy the MIII later after the problem is fixed..
I honestly hope that the firmware update will solve the problem that many seem to have had with the earlier models of the Mark III. I have no intention of implementing the firmware because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is where I'm at, "but" my Mark III was purchased only a few weeks ago so I'm not saying that this is an across the board issue. I really truly hope that the new firmware will solve the problem for you earlier purchasers of the camera, if you have run into AF problems, because it is an amazing piece of equipment and I hope everyone who took the plunge will reap the benefits. Good luck to all on the new firmware!
Hello Whayne. In essence, in his opinion, the 1.1.1 firmware has made the cameras AF equal to the 1D2n. But he feels an upgraded version will probably be released to the public whenever that happens. regards Gary
I can't tell by looking at selected photos from someone else...only going to be able to tell when I'm using it in a real life game situation where AF is critical and used over time.
Seriously, I've used a Mark II for 4 years, and unless the Mark II is really subservient to the Mark II N in AF, then my credibility is at least equivalent to others who have used the Mark II or N. The Mark III far excels the Mark II in AF if the camera is working as it was designed to be used. I have gotten shots with the Mark III that I have tried to get with the Mark II for 4 years, and in one evening I got shots that I only dreamed about, head on "in focus" shots of quick flying songbirds. This may seem slightly meaningless to you, but I have been trying to get such shots for 4 years, and I got 3 of them tonight with the Mark III. That, to me, is meaningful.
And, you cannot bake an out of focus flying bird into an effective, with detail, in focus flying bird, especially when it comes to the quick ones, the songbirds, the ones who fly past you so fast that it's like a wink, and then they are gone.
I think it is pretty well clear that some cameras do not have an AF issue and some do...mine does and I've been shooting 1D bodies of various sorts for a long time. But really, this has been hashed over so many times in so many threads, some VERY long, on the site that hopefully this won't turn into another.
Jeff wrote:
Ditto, Shane. Plus, an oversharpened 640-pixel web reduction just ain't gonna do it for critically evaluating sharpness nor AF performance.
Yes, and it took a lot of shooting for to draw any conclusion so I don't expect to know instantly...although we can hope.
nathan, that makes no sense. A firmware update comes about for one reason or other, perhaps it won't change "your" experience but it may well change another persons experience radically, depending on factors that neither you nor I can comment on, since it's a bit technical.
apparently some people here seem to be very technically proficient and know all about this and that. A good pat on the back will solve anything, and technical details can be relegated to the back of the bus.
"You would not expect" is your point. What is your credential to either expect or not expect? Do you have expertise in the area or matter? Are you a camera technician? Do you work for Canon? I'm not jumping on you at all, I'm simply working out your comment and attempting to figure out exactly why you say what you say. Is it because of reality, or imagination? Perhaps you might be able to comment further in order to clarify, thanks.
Edited by Normcar21 on Sep 20, 2007 at 09:27 PM GMT
Shane, what are your credentials with respect to this firmware offering? Have you spent time with the technicians who have developed it, and are you on the team of researchers who are working on the upgrade, or are you simply stating a viewpoint like most of us? If you are "in the mold" of the upgrade, and have some inside info, please elaborate. That would be very cool, and many of us would love to hear from you if that is the case.
Personally, I see no problem with the tracking in AF of this camera, I beg to disagree on that specific point, either in Al Servo or other. I have no problem with focus on the Mark III, I have no problem with "anything" on the Mark III, and am continuously amazed at people who post problems with the camera. I wonder why, and am not really heavily concerned, because it doesn't apply to me. But I still wonder about the ruckus. Surely it was the early models. Now it's solved, so purchase with confidence
Normcar21 - give it a rest with the credentials thing. I interpret Nathan's comment to mean one can't tell the difference between an in focus firmware 1.1.1 image vs. an in focus version 1.1.0 image. Unless I totally missed a link on that site to comparison images of old firmware vs. 1.1.1, there are only in focus web sized sports images to be seen in galleries that are supposed to look good.
