['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

1 2 3 … 6

8 … 56 57 end

Archive 2007 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

R Longenbach
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.7 #1 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

hahahah that's funny Jeff!

Dec 18, 2007 at 05:54 PM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #2 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

OK, here it is. I have more where this one came from...

Dec 19, 2007 at 02:57 AM

Wickedfn4u
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.7 #3 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Are you sure you set your custom functions right

Dec 19, 2007 at 03:17 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #4 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

And another example, they're pretty easy to find...

Edited by Jeff on Dec 18, 2007 at 09:09 PM GMT

Dec 19, 2007 at 03:53 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #5 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Normcar21 wrote:
The four scope thing appears a bit confusing to me. The right frame is on the right, and is clearly in focus, the remainder are a touch oof, so this means?

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, but clearly the right edge of these images is the 'most' in focus, and gets progressively more out of focus as you move toward the left edge of the frame. Regardless of (what should be the proper) focal plane.

It simply doesn't make any sense. And, if that's just a 'touch' out of focus, I can fully see why you didn't entertain the notion of your camera having any problems up until recently.

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:04 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #6 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Normcar21 wrote:
depth of focus explains it unless all of these points of interest were on the exact same focal plane. Am I missing something here? One point will be majorly in focus, the point that is grabbed by the camera. Everything else will be, well, not within the focal area. That's all that I see in the above shots, points either in or out, and only one plane is "in" focus

There is simply no way that where the orange line meets the left edge of the frame is the same distance to the camera as the point where it meets the right edge of the frame. No possible way.

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:10 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #7 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Have you ever in your life used a view camera? A tilt-shift lens? If the MkIII were a view camera, this would make perfect sense, but it isn't, and thus it doesn't.

Norm, how's about you just 'leave it'? I don't really have too much interest in discussing this with you, for obvious reasons.

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:14 AM

Wickedfn4u
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.7 #8 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

I think he is just trying to up his post count Jeff.

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:15 AM

python2000
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #9 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Jeff, based on your focusing and focal length what would you estimate the depth of field to be on your latter sage-brush shot? I also would like to see the loupes again but this time on bushes a bit closer to the camera.

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:27 AM

simonella_viru
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.7 #10 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:40 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #11 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

python2000 wrote:
Jeff, based on your focusing and focal length what would you estimate the depth of field to be on your latter sage-brush shot? I also would like to see the loupes again but this time on bushes a bit closer to the camera.

It is la 70-200/2.8L IS + 1.4x TC II at f/4.0, but however thin the DOF may be, it shouldn't cause it to not be parallel with the sensor.

Here's the loupes, as you requested:

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:42 AM

jkurkjia
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.7 #12 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Jeff wrote:
Have you ever in your life used a view camera? A tilt-shift lens? If the MkIII were a view camera, this would make perfect sense, but it isn't, and thus it doesn't.

Norm, how's about you just 'leave it'? I don't really have too much interest in discussing this with you, for obvious reasons.

Hi Jeff:

I'm getting a little confused with all the noise (forum noise that is). Seems (to me) that one possible explanation is the sensor is not perpendicular to the optical axis OR the optical axis is not perpendicular to the sensor; this sounds like a circular statement but it really isn't, please stay with me through to the end of my reply.

Mind if I ask a question? Does your problem occur with "all" of your lenses or just one lens (sorry to ask this question but I haven't read all the posts)? If the problem is common to all lenses then the problem is a sensor not seated properly and not perpendicular to the optical axis. On the other hand, if the problem exists with only one lens then the optical axis of "that lens" is not perpendicular to the flange mount (and therefore the sensor). Does my explanation make sense or am I all wet (go ahead, lay it on me, I don't bruise easily)? :-)

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:45 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #13 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

And here's yet another (without the 1.4x), no loupe needed. This time the effect is reversed, blurry on the right side of the rock, clear on the left, same distance to camera:

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:51 AM

Hersch
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #14 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

I kind of see what you mean by this. Assuming you are using the center focus point it looks like the image is in focus more from lower left to upper right diagonally rather than horizontally. Is this what you mean?

Grant

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:53 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #15 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

jkurkjia wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Have you ever in your life used a view camera? A tilt-shift lens? If the MkIII were a view camera, this would make perfect sense, but it isn't, and thus it doesn't.

Norm, how's about you just 'leave it'? I don't really have too much interest in discussing this with you, for obvious reasons.

Hi Jeff:

I'm getting a little confused with all the noise (forum noise that is). Seems (to me) that one possible explanation is the sensor is not perpendicular to the optical axis OR the optical axis is not perpendicular to the sensor; this sounds like a circular statement but it really isn't, please stay with me through to the end of my reply.

Mind if I ask a question? Does your problem occur with "all" of your lenses or just one lens (sorry to ask this question but I haven't read all the posts)? If the problem is common to all lenses then the problem is a sensor not seated properly and not perpendicular to the optical axis. On the other hand, if the problem exists with only one lens then the optical axis of "that lens" is not perpendicular to the flange mount (and therefore the sensor). Does my explanation make sense or am I all wet (go ahead, lay it on me, I don't bruise easily)? :-)

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Exactly. And ditto.

No, it makes perfect sense. I'm looking into that as we speak, but this never occurred with the 1Ds and 70-200. It very well could have something to do with IS, maybe, but I'll look at some other lenses and I'll get back...

[Geez, I've never in the 5+ years I've been here gotten a "You can't post a message to this thread because flood control has been enabled" warning...

This is getting ridiculous!]

Edited by Jeff on Dec 18, 2007 at 10:00 PM GMT

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:53 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #16 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Hersch wrote:
I kind of see what you mean by this. Assuming you are using the center focus point it looks like the image is in focus more from lower left to upper right diagonally rather than horizontally. Is this what you mean?

Grant

Exactly. Has nothing to do with AF points, submirror, etc.

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:57 AM

Wickedfn4u
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.7 #17 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Norm did you take your meds tonight?

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:59 AM

jianghai_ho
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.7 #18 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Geez Normcar, if you have nothing to say why are you trolling around these parts? If you have nothing constructive to say please go get a life. Let's stay on topic here on these images.

I haven't had the exact problem that jeff has, but largely I get pictures that seem to be in focus but there's some sort of blurring going on. I'll have a look again at my library (I usually delete these - no point keeping them) to see if I can find any of that sort.

Dec 19, 2007 at 04:59 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #19 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

What the heck is this thread about again? Lot's of white noise here!

Dec 19, 2007 at 05:22 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #20 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

jkurkjia wrote:
Does your problem occur with "all" of your lenses or just one lens (sorry to ask this question but I haven't read all the posts)? If the problem is common to all lenses then the problem is a sensor not seated properly and not perpendicular to the optical axis. On the other hand, if the problem exists with only one lens then the optical axis of "that lens" is not perpendicular to the flange mount (and therefore the sensor).

Well Joe, it certainly doesn't seem to happen with the 24-70/2.8L, so perhaps the MkIII doesn't like IS on all this long glass that people are having issues with? I'm going to go back to some older 1Ds +70-200/2.8L and see if it's there. Could just be my lens got banged up somehow...

Here's one from the 24-70, and you could cut your finger on any one of those reeds all the way across the frame. This is one of my finest images from San Diego, I'm really proud of it...

Dec 19, 2007 at 05:29 AM

Ernie King
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.7 #21 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Wow. Sounds like someone needs a little grass

Dec 19, 2007 at 05:35 AM

python2000
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #22 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

That ticking you hear is the time left on someone's posting privileges.

Jeff, I'm not trying to recommend a brick wall test, but...

That whole slanted angle of focus makes me think that if you could find a place with lots of seating that spreads out left to right, and back to front, like church pews or a stadium, you could get to the bottom of the focal plane stuff fairly quickly.

Other than EXIF data, does the camera care that a lens has IS on/off?

Dec 19, 2007 at 05:45 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #23 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

I'm going to have to quote your post, just in case 'someone' is still up, so it doesn't look like I'm talking to myself, too...

python2000 wrote:
That ticking you hear is the time left on someone's posting privileges.

Jeff, I'm not trying to recommend a brick wall test, but...

That whole slanted angle of focus makes me think that if you could find a place with lots of seating that spreads out left to right, and back to front, like church pews or a stadium, you could get to the bottom of the focal plane stuff fairly quickly.

Other than EXIF data, does the camera care that a lens has IS on/off?

IS was on, and it didn't happen with this same lens on the 1Ds... ever. So, either my 70-200/2.8L IS broke as soon as I got the MkIII, or there is some kind of weird incompatibility between the MkIII and (perhaps) IS lenses? That's about the only thing I can come up with at the moment, as all the 24-70 pics look fine. Incidentally, the 70-200 pics with the 1.4x are worse than without it, but it's present in both. I wish I had another IS lens to test, but I'm becoming fairly certain that IS is related somehow.

Unfortunately my camera is in Virginia, so I can't shoot any test shots. I personally don't need to see any more (my eyes hurt for various reasons

), after poring over about 15000 images looking for the right kind of 'test' image from two different camera and lens combinations (thank god for LR!).

Thanks,

Jeff

Dec 19, 2007 at 06:01 AM

arashm
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.7 #24 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Jeff...
I have looked very carefully at the images you posted, I'm not sure what to think, but I think this could be probably more of a lens issue than a camera issue. Maybe one of the groupings or elements is slightly out of place and only really visible at wide apertures? would stopping down "cover up" a very slight lens alignment?
again just putting some thoughts out there...
Also your thoughts on the camera price hike is very very interesting, the more I think about it the more it almost seems possible... after all RG stated in his very first article that the there was an AF issue present in the pre production body and that canon KNOW about it.
My body is now tucked away in the back of my gear cabinet and has been there for a while waiting for the fix. It's taken so long that I'm almost numb to this whole issue, but let me tell you I'm going to think very long and hard before I spend another dime on ANY canon products.
Thank you again for all the hard work.
am

Dec 19, 2007 at 07:08 AM

jkurkjia
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.7 #25 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Jeff wrote:
I'm going to have to quote your post, just in case 'someone' is still up, so it doesn't look like I'm talking to myself, too...

), after poring over about 15000 images looking for the right kind of 'test' image from two different camera and lens combinations (thank god for LR!).

Thanks,

Jeff

Sounds like we won't know anything for sure until you get the body back and test a few more lenses, including other bodies, to confirm exactly what is going on. I'll assume you will report back with your findings in this thread rather than start a new one; this will help to give us all an opportunity to help out (assuming we can do it in a positive manner).

In the meantime let's all hope the forum noise goes to sleep (fingers crossed). :-)

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Dec 19, 2007 at 07:16 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 … 56 57 end