Just a thought, but could it be because of the difference in MP, 10 vs 8? So when looking at them at pixel level there will be more pixels on the girl with the MkIII image so it will appear bigger.
Could be wrong here, but at the moment it seems to make sense.
It would be had I looked at them at 100%. I was looking at them where the image filled the screen (vertically) . . . . so I was comparing how much of the frame the runner was taking up.
Well, I certainly agree that the images shown in that series favor the 1D-2. However, 14 of the images (almost 40%) from the 1D-3 don't even have a similar 1D-2 shot that's able to be compared. And it's ALWAYS been harder to get good AF on a subject that doesn't occupy nearly as much of the frame, IMO.
Also (see another post of mine in another thread), the 1D-3 shots seem to be (on average) a bit front-focused in that entire series. Makes me wonder how much better it would've been overall had some AF-microadjustment (a bit of back-focus, not front-focus like they tried) would've improved things.
Also, am I the ONLY person who would stop down to f/4 in those images to get a bit more DOF in the first place? The margin here is razor-thin. I only use f/2.8 (or wider) on shots like that when I *have* to (low light). And fortunately, the 1D3 seems to focus better than the 1D-2 does in low light (at least for me).
Normcar21 -- I think that is very well said, and I agree completely.
The mkIII is under such scrutiny, and everyone is trying so hard to find fault with it that it now just looks like a lemon, and will probably never recover. I'd be willing to bet that one could take ANY dslr on the market, scrutinize it to death, and find some kind of fault, some kind of situation that it handles less than stellar. Then all it takes is someone like RG (or any other recognized pro) to expose it, and all the internet photogs will start crying bloody murder to Canon when it would have never been a problem had that person never shed the spotlight on it.
I also agree that since I've owned my mkIII (a pair actually), I've seen some of the best images of my life come out of this little black box. Lemon or not, the images speak for themselves.
i couldn't agree more with the previous poster...the markIII is being picked apart like no other camera...things that are overlooked or chalked up to random error etc. with other cameras are dissected ad nauseam....i had the markII and when i would get OOF shots i didnt decide the camera was useless,i shot some more and worked harder to get better shots...i know,people will yell at me and suggest i am overlooking the problems...i am certainly not...i am simply keeping things in perspective
And another related thing. RobG is trying to compare (scientifically, as best he can) these two cameras. And, he's doing a pretty good job at it, really.
BUT, the comparison gets REALLY messed up with differences like what I've pointed out here.
Especially since the entire series with the 1D-3 seems to be front-focused (on average) to me. I would've at least tried setting the AF-adjustment to cause some back-focus to compensate, and see what that did. Especially since when he set the AF-adjustment to slightly FRONT-focus, the overall consistency got better. I don't understand why he then didn't try what I just suggested (a small BACK-FOCUS correction) instead of trying a larger amount of front-focus adjustment.
It's not that I don't appreciate what RobG has done (far from it).
The one thing that does concern me, though, is what Jeff pointed out in another thread he started. Some of the soft-shots almost look like there's some sort of weird "motion blur" (but not really, I think he called it "ghosting").
I do think something's still a bit wrong with the 1D-3 (though it's far better than it was), but I think it's being overblown by people because of the difficulties in getting precisely scientific comparisons between them.
jonbrach wrote:
..i had the markII and when i would get OOF shots i didnt decide the camera was useless,i shot some more and worked harder to get better shots..
I agree . . and I *never* had my 1D-2 perform as well as what RobG's cameras are showing. Then again, that might be the photographer.
Normcar21 wrote:
The Mark III is being scoped like no other camera and perhaps it's not fair comparison, because everyone wants to find trouble with the Mark III. I use the camera and it has given me the best shots I've ever before had, and I owned 2 Mark II cameras, so it's not like I'm upgrading from a 30D, even though I also had that camera for a couple of months while my Mark II was in for repair.
If I had to sell either my Mark II or My Mark III, I'd sell the Mark II immediately. That means one thing, the upgrade is definitely a valid one. I'll deal with the other issues as they arrive, such as firmware updates. I don't like the new firmware so I'll simply download the earlier one where I had better results. I'll send the camera in for the so-called "mirror" fix and if it's better, great, if not, then I'll deal with the issue as it comes. If I purchased a lemon camera, no problem, because I've gotten better photos with my lemon than I ever did with my Mark II versions, so I'll live with it.
I sometimes think that some of you people live to find faults with this or that. As one poster said, recently, go and take pictures, that's what the rig is for. And do the best with what you have.
Now, if only I could convince myself of that same thing after spending 5 thousand bucks on the camera
...Show more →
Sort of the same thing happened with the Leica M8. Scrutinized to death, a fault was found, Leica admitted it, cameras recalled, filters issued... blah blah blah. And still some people say its not fixed. I still want one, and thought "cool the price will drop!" Oddly enough at my local camera shop they have gone UP about $400 in the last few months. Go figure.
XsigmaSD wrote:
Sort of the same thing happened with the Leica M8. Scrutinized to death, a fault was found, Leica admitted it, cameras recalled, filters issued... blah blah blah. And still some people say its not fixed. I still want one, and thought "cool the price will drop!" Oddly enough at my local camera shop they have gone UP about $400 in the last few months. Go figure.
DavidP -- I thought the same thing regarding that entire sequence where the girl is just standing. Every single image is out of focus the same amount. I would almost guarantee that if the AF micro adjust was adjusted back to where it was supposed to be, where Canon calibrated it to no less, those images would be sharply in focus.
I could try this same test (stationary, servo af) with my mkIII, and the same lens (300/2.8) wide open, and I'll kiss you ass if every single image is out of focus.
EMC 2 wrote:
DavidP -- I thought the same thing regarding that entire sequence where the girl is just standing. Every single image is out of focus the same amount. I would almost guarantee that if the AF micro adjust was adjusted back to where it was supposed to be, where Canon calibrated it to no less, those images would be sharply in focus.
I could try this same test (stationary, servo af) with my mkIII, and the same lens (300/2.8) wide open, and I'll kiss you ass if every single image is out of focus.
I agree, he kind of writes that whole concept off... like "oh yea, this lens, calibrated in Japan by the folks that made it, well ya gotta screw with it..." He never really says they tried it without.
DavidP wrote:
Welcome to the effects of the falling US dollar.
Yea, unfortunately you are right there David. But the camera also has held its value when more than a few people were calling it a doorstop and the Leica "Edsel" as has been tossed around about the MkIII
in the lead up to RG's report the new firmware was introduced and overwhelmingly the verdict seemed to be that things had improved dramatically....in fact i remember reading a thread where a person said that he was sure that RG was going to suggest all was fine because the results he and others were seeing were so good....so now RG suggests things have improved but aren't perfect...all of a sudden does that mean all of the people who were happy all of a sudden are no longer happy?....again, i must point out how far improved the markIII is relative to the cameras that came before in so many ways?..why is that not relative?...normally people read and take the words of several reviewers and come to a conclusion...why is it that RG seems to be the final arbiter?I think RG has performed a service and I appreciate his work but wouldn't it be ironic if at some time i nthe future somebody pointed out a flaw in his testing that undermined a lot of the findings?..wouldnt that be something?
Well said jonbrach. To me it has become a total joke how many armchair photogs literally hang on RG's every word concerning the mkIII when many other people are happy with their cameras.
I'm honestly not sure how many of you all own a MkIII, but I can assure you that the fact that this camera's raison d'etre is for shooting fast-paced sports is inherently related to the level of scrutiny directed at it. If any given camera design had a significant flaw that directly affected its primary intended purpose, it would be similarly scrutinized. I'm not making up excuses, and there certainly are a lot of armchair quarterbacks (this is the internet, after all), but if it were a 'typical' flaw it would be treated as such. It's all the speculating about 'what Rob will say next' that gets tiresome. I'm also a bit puzzled that RG didn't immediately see what I saw in those images, though maybe he did and simply didn't say anything.
Anyone around here would know that I'm a huge fan of this camera; the image quality is simply second-to-none (disregarding resolution) in the smaller format digital world. But, those images that Rob showed are not normal, and even viewing them at 50% it's easy for even a casual observer to see that the subject isn't sharp (and the MkIIn images are).
I agree with Jeff, the raison d'etre for this camera is for sports journalists. I myself bought the 1D II for it's AF performance more than any thing else, after all it's IQ and noise are basically the same as a 20D and I didn't reall need the tank like build, but I could live without it's AF abilities. The 1D III should surpass the 1D II no ifs or buts. The 1D II AF could be improved upon and I'd have much rather they got that right rather than offer 10fps capabilities. Other than it's low light performance the 1D III is in reality a huge let down AF wise. None of the other improvements mean squat to me if the camera can't perform at a level befitting it's price and it's intended market.
I was gob smacked when this camera first surfaced after reading the white paper twice, and thought I'd be buying one immediately. But then I kept saying to myself there's so much new tech in this camera I'll wait until I'm sure there are no issues and the firmware's mature. To see it go so horribly wrong is frustrating to say the least. Luckily the 1D II is still very good, but at 3.5 years old I was ready for an update. Worse still is that the camera is so good in all other areas (except the crappy LCD).
Whether or not the 1D III ever achieves it's potential it's permanently tainted IMO and although Canon may well be readying a 1D III N, it'll take a lot to get peoples confidence back. Unfortunately for them they picked just the moment Nikon got it's act together to pull off the biggest blunder they've made in a long time and with a flagship model. Already it seems the D300 AF is superb and the D3 should be at least as good. Now it appears the 1Ds III may well be in the same boat, as the 1D III, but it's aimed at a different market and AF won't be quite as critical, but then again if you pay $8K for a camera it better be bloody near faultless. Still a lot of wildlife shooters would consider a 1Ds III and would be more than happy with the 5fps. I wonder if they'll lose some sales there?
Other than that David has written I would have liked to have seen RG do a test of the 1D3 at the same frame rate as the 1D2N.
Also, with both bodies at the same frame rate I would have liked to see a centre AF point AI-Servo test with no expand, and then one with circle expand turned on, this to me, would really help on seeing whether the 1D3 results were better.
I'm still not getting this.
I do understand that there are people having problems with their 1DIII, but I find it hard to imagine all of those going hard on the camera actually have one.
I also find it hard to understand how one mans test, and shooting style should affect everyones view on the camera.
I have followed Robs reports, but for sure, it have never stopped me from enjoying my camera and taking lots of images. As long as my shots aren't affected, this IS a good camera for me, and should be so for a lot of others. Coming from a 1DII, there are so many improvements that I would never trade back. On the other hand I have never had any focus issues with my camera (other than the ones I caused myself) and do understand the frustrations of those who are affected.
Even so, I think those are the people who should complain, not everyone else.....
How can I say I don't like the new BMW M5, when I never have tried one?
I'd been enjoying a 1DIII in blissful ignorance, happily shooting away without a care in the world. Thank God for all the exposes and attention paid or I would have just kept on going without realizing how dissatisfied I should've been.
, Bent.