Garylv wrote:
Yep, it's pretty bad. Rather unpredictable too. Some short sequences look ok, others look terrible. I have some sequences in soft sunlight that look good, where only a couple photos were off just slightly. Bright sun gives me the worst mixed results.
Over at the Naturescapes forum I saw this reply by Charles "Chas" Glatzer, who has been working with the new firmware also. And although he commented on how the MarkIII's AF is different than the MarkII, he also mentioned this:
"However, overall the AF remains well below the Mark IIN in back-lighting, and locking focus with moving subjects is most difficult and erratic at best, with some images sharp in a burst and others not. It is this that causes the most concern."
That's how mine performs also, and appears to be right in line with RG's article. RG mentioned the Mark IIn easily trumps the Mark III in those shooting conditions.
I sure hope Canon will get the Mark III's AF working at least as good as the Mark II. Otherwise it's turning out to be a pretty big disappointment. I'm a little gun-shy about buying a new camera as soon as it's released now. Rather expensive lesson.
...Show more →
hello , it is not turning out to a big disappointment , it ALREADY IS a big disappointment.
I don' have a MkIII although I'm interested in getting one sometime in the future or a MkIIN, so I've been following the auto focus issues with much interest.
It seems that the camera has changed its focus point to the girl's shoe on the left side of the frame. A focus at that point created the 'backfocus' look. Maybe the focus system is so sensitive that it changed focus point as the soccer player prepared his kick... Would that be a possibility?
Jeff wrote:
I'm 100% certain of that, this is the internet, after all. Rob pointed out that his e-mail was (all of a sudden) flooded after his initial (scathing) report. If that many people had been having problems subsequent to that point, he'd have received more initial reports before he publicized it.
My personal experience with that was that I was initially relieved for the first 10 days after his initial report, thinking I'd dodged a bullet. But it was not to be...
That also looks like camera movement to me. In the first example, you can clearly see the plane of focus on the chain link fence; in the second, you can see where it looks like it should be, but everything is soft. ...Show more →
What is fortunate about this situation is that is significantly effects all those white lens guys Canon is so proud of at sporting events. So I'm not overly concerned about making Canon take this seriously. Frankly, if full time big event sports shooters don't have a problem, there is no problem. (I doubt this is the case).
An OOF shot may be caused by faulty AF, but unless something is in focus it's not a good example.
Sending examples to Canon may relieve some frustration, but Canon's concern at this point is the guys shooting the world series in eight weeks. This is a good thing for us regular owners.
I think it's s software problem without significant sample variation. I think there is no quick fix. I think with dual digic, and a lot of additional process space, they wrote new algorithms and got lost. But I'm guessing. From my experience with design complexity this is more likely than some percent of cameras having bad hardware, Remember the first released firmware was 1.0.8. They went through seven release candidates before we got the camera.
The Japanese tend to suck at complex software that doesn't have clear and discreet success criteria. We may criticize Windows, but there are reasons we're not running Rindows. (I kid, but I love our Japanese friends )
All is not lost. Sports Illustrated will save us. All hail SI.
"The Japanese tend to suck at complex software that doesn't have clear and discreet success criteria. We may criticize Windows, but there are reasons we're not running Rindows. (I kid, but I love our Japanese friends )"
interesting comment. btw i have no problems with my III and my in focus pictures show up in SI on a regular basis....and I have worked with lots of very smart japanese engineers that can write some great software...so much for generalizations
Seems pretty clear now that the Nikon D300 and D3 have been announced that Canon rushed this model to market to beat the Nikon announcement. Surely that is the reason the focus issue even exists.
It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth as I was considering the 1DsIII but now may go with a Nikon D3 instead.
dcmiller wrote:
...I think it's s software problem without significant sample variation. I think there is no quick fix. I think with dual digic, and a lot of additional process space, they wrote new algorithms and got lost. But I'm guessing. From my experience with design complexity this is more likely than some percent of cameras having bad hardware, Remember the first released firmware was 1.0.8. They went through seven release candidates before we got the camera.
...
You may prove to be right. But I think it's difficult to reconcile that view with the sort of good to bad experience Jeff encountered, much less with one like this.
Nill Toulme wrote:
You may prove to be right. But I think it's difficult to reconcile that view with the sort of good to bad experience Jeff encountered, much less with one like this.
His post does make you want to request an exchange with the dealer, although I didn't buy mine from a local dealer I know, it was from B&H, and a long time ago now.
He did not go into details about the type of lenses he used or the conditions he tested in. Also, perhaps he really did have a camera with one or more defective parts, and his new one is now like the rest of ours, where the trouble is mostly noticeable in bright sunny conditions using faster telephoto lenses, tracking a moving subject in a somewhat narrow dof.
I did ask him to clarify further in another thread but he didn't respond yet.
Remember too this excerpt from RG:
"two EOS-1D Mark III bodies, as well as EF 300mm f/2.8L IS and EF 500mm f/4L IS lenses, were all checked and calibrated by Canon USA service technicians before they were shipped here, so that they could definitively rule out equipment miscalibration or some other malfunction as the cause of the autofocus problems we've been reporting"
Hey, if it's a defective part Canon should have been able to clarify that and get the service centers up to speed by now so we can take in our cameras for the repair. But they are still silent on this issue.
I'd even like to try another unit, but they're not easy to come by. Wish Canon would hurry up and give us something official on this.
Nill Toulme wrote:
Me too, so I could go ahead and buy one. ;-)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Don't do it, Nill. If you get a lemon I'll be forced to send you links to tutorials and Canon documentation describing how those incomprehensible custom functions work. You'll be forced to test your camera by shooting sports like soccer and moving trains.
And we all know that if Canon acknowledges it and fixes it, that everyone will be still going through the motions of testing to death.. Not that this is a bad thing.. but it is a certainty after the fiasco that is this AF "problem".
dcmiller wrote:
... but Canon's concern at this point is the guys shooting the world series in eight weeks. This is a good thing for us regular owners.
I don't put much weight in that. If their particular Mk III body doesn't cut it for them, then they use another body or backup. The point is, they'll still be using their big white lenses, if it's with a Mk III, MkIIn or whichever. There isn't the incentive to get it straight for that.
apdieb wrote:
And we all know that if Canon acknowledges it and fixes it, that everyone will be still going through the motions of testing to death.. Not that this is a bad thing.. but it is a certainty after the fiasco that is this AF "problem".
Not me. I haven't run the first test. I just go out and do it for real, and that's how I determine what's working and what isn't. I don't care how many in focus shots I get of some guy running through a parking lot. That's not my typical subject. I want the touchdown catch to be sharp.
ben_is_in wrote:
Not me. I haven't run the first test. I just go out and do it for real, and that's how I determine what's working and what isn't. I don't care how many in focus shots I get of some guy running through a parking lot. That's not my typical subject. I want the touchdown catch to be sharp.
Yep.. Me too.. I am quite happy with my Mark III. I probably should have said "A Lot of people"... Not "everyone".
apdieb wrote:
Yep.. Me too.. I am quite happy with my Mark III. I probably should have said "A Lot of people"... Not "everyone".
I do realize that lots of people get paranoid when they think their cameras might have a problem and testing often ensues. I happened to notice my problem before I knew anyone else was having problems.
I'll admit that after finding the problem I shot certain things at actual events I normally don't shoot...like 17 pictures of a kid running to first base. I guess that qualifies as a test. But get that kid out in the parking lot and my camera is going back in the bag.
