"In short, there's nothing in the over 4000 frames we've shot leading up to this article update to suggest that the revised AF calibration or v1.2.5 firmware have improved the camera's principal remaining autofocus weakness. If you shoot sports, or something equivalent to it, and therefore require strong autofocus tracking, the EOS-1D Mark III will continue to disappoint. It can capture some in-focus tracking sports pictures at wide open apertures, but it continues to flub the focus on more frames than it should for this level of camera. And it's still outclassed by its predecessor, the EOS-1D Mark II N (and the EOS-1D Mark II before that)."
Thank you Rob, that is all I've needed to hear in order to continue with my resolve not to bother with the 1DMkIII's.
Well, in the 2000 or so frames I've shot since the recall fix, and I do shoot sports, there is no doubt that the AF of the 1D Mark III is now vastly improved and better than any camera out there right now when it comes to AF tracking. So, in my world, RG is just plain wrong. And about a dozen Mark III owners that I know personally that shoot sports agree with me.
Emile Gregoire wrote:
Listen, I'm in the "totally happy with my new 1D3" camp. It's better than my previous one in so many ways, I could write a book about it. But that doesn't mean I can now all of a sudden discount what RG says. He has images to download that prove what he says, so what's there to debate about? Doesn't mean my camera isn't great for what I do with it...
See this doesn't make sense. People give online reviewers way to much credit, when the answer they want is right before them. You admit you are happy with the huge improvement with the 1D Mark III after the fix. You've seen it with your own eyes. Then you have this guy who, from what I've heard, is not very good at what he does, telling you that there was NO improvement with this last fix. So who are you going to believe? Him or yourself? Because that's what RG is saying.. not that there is a vast improvement, but still some problems. He's saying there is NO improvement with this last recall fix, and you and I both know that's completely wrong. RG's initials SHOULD be BS as far as I'm concerned.
Too bad if RG's cam didn't get fixed right, but my MKIII is my #1 sports go-to cam with my mkIIn & mkII as secondary. I shot some kids soccer last week with a 90% focus accuracy rate so for me the mkIII does not "continue to dissapoint".
musclepics wrote:
I've used both the D3 and D700 and can say for certain that my 1D Mark III is FAR more accurate than either of them, especially in low light. In daylight it's pretty close, but still the Mark III gets the nod. I get about 95% perfect focus with the Mark III and about 80% with the D3 with a similar lens. The D700 is slightly lower.
And similar to what the large German Photo Mag reported as well in a similar test, with the 1D Mark III coming out on top.
If your Mark III is getting 50% keepers, either you are to blame (which I doubt), or your camera is still one of the minority with problems....Show more →
This is all well and good but I've found the D3 and D700 do focus better than the Mark III....especially in low-light situations. We'll just have to disagree on that point.
As much as I'd like to believe that the Mark III is the greatest sports camera on the planet, I couldn't make that statement with a clear conscience.
Even though I just got rid of a small fortune in Canon pro bodies and lenses, I have no brand loyalty and use what works best for me and the Mark III is just too unreliable as to AF...even on static objects.
There is an obvious problem with a Mark III that I own and it's going back to Canon for the fix and then will be sold.
From my observations, I'd have to say Rob Gailbraith was right.
I swear if I read RG's name again my head is gonna explode. I'm sure he's a great guy and all and have nothing against him but over these last 2 years or so I got so fed up of people just dying and drooling waiting for him to write a few lines like he's the God almighty or something!
Another vote for the MKIII over the MKIIn or MKII. I have had them all. Not only is my MKIII focus better, I can also micro-adjust its focus to make it spot on. Try that with the MKII's.
Also, my friend has the Nikon D300 and D3 and is continually missing images that I get. Am I that much better than him? I don't think so. He has said that that latest Nikon firmware has improved his focus accuracy, but still not to the level of what I am getting with the MKIII. These are side by shooting comparisons, but granted there is a difference in shooters.
At this point, I really think there are a few bad bodies around, but I just looked at a two page NBA photo spread in SI magazine and at least 7 or 8 bodies out of about 10 were Canon. If Nikons were clearly better, I would not expect to see that ratio.
musclepics wrote:
from what I've heard, is not very good at what he does, .
Interesting saying...
Put what RG's finding aside, at least RG is Canon's TESTER, Canon values his test results..
I have both latest Af fixed 1D Mark III and 1Ds Mark III, they do perform better for what I shoot with the outer loop AF points, but it doesn't mean RG will get the better result for what he is shooting. and he has the test shooting pictures to back his words.
So who knows ! but i am happy with my cameras now, and I have no reasons to judge RG is poor for what he's doing as a photographer or Canon tester.
Canon has spend time going through recalls, firmware updates etc. These series of events should qualify for most as an admission of the fact there was something wrong with the MkIII. At this stage we have some reporting, in their experience going through the fix process, a valued improvement, others not. We've all read the comments from those with strong conviction regarding the topic and yet we are still presented with dissenting opinions as to the current operating state of this model. This does not come as a surprise as nothing new has happened here. There have always been reports citing different experiences with almost every body each major camera company has produced. What most are hoping for out of this unfortunate situation is a definitive solution to their personal experience with its AF issues.
Given the multitude of reports with varying degrees of operator acceptability it becomes an interesting dilemma for one who has been sitting on the fence fervently hoping the MkIII will emerge as a body that is operating 100% as spec'd. At the end of the day, for those with the MkIII, each has to decide if they are satisfied and if not, what next steps are they going to take. And for those of us who haven't taken the jump, we will have decide whether its time to buy or wait.
musclepics wrote:
I've used both the D3 and D700 and can say for certain that my 1D Mark III is FAR more accurate than either of them, especially in low light. In daylight it's pretty close, but still the Mark III gets the nod. I get about 95% perfect focus with the Mark III and about 80% with the D3 with a similar lens. The D700 is slightly lower.
And similar to what the large German Photo Mag reported as well in a similar test, with the 1D Mark III coming out on top.
If your Mark III is getting 50% keepers, either you are to blame (which I doubt), or your camera is still one of the minority with problems....Show more →
You're not doing much to establish any credibility of your own with posts like these... perhaps your personal dislike of RG is clouding your judgment?
musclepics wrote:
Have a look again at the poll on here about what people are seeing after the latest fix. Again, the vast majority (60% +) saw a huge improvement, while another large chunk never had a problem before the fix. I think those numbers were up in the 80% range of people saying the 1D Mark III's AF is fantastic.
You can't be serious. When you follow forums like this regularly it's easy to see half the people didn't even understand what the main complaints were in the first place. Especially the newer owners.
I really believe this: A lot of people heard and saw the headlines: "1D Mark III Has Focus Issues", but they didn't bother to read the exhaustive details, stepped out into their back yards for a few test shots and said "Mine works fine, I don't see any trouble". And you could tell they didn't know the details because of the examples they posted. Many people don't even have the lenses to adequately test what RG demonstrated.
The polls are worthless.
RG is not claiming that everyone should be seeing the same trouble he is demonstrating. There are a number of contributing factors that don't always apply in everyone's situation. But he demonstrates clearly the trouble is still there
Pay particular attention to this:
"While we continue to find fault in that design, if for what you shoot, how you shoot, the lenses you shoot with and so on, the camera's getting the job done, there's no downside to that."
Just because a number of people don't SEE the trouble themselves, that doesn't mean it's not there for the rest of us. It's there and it's been demonstrated well.
molson wrote:
You're not doing much to establish any credibility of your own with posts like these... perhaps your personal dislike of RG is clouding your judgment?
Don't see why he has to "establish his credibility" here - he has before now backed his opinion up with images (ie proof) and so - in any logical sense - his opinion is already every bit as valid as RG's.
And indeed, more compelling in my view, because while it's not hard to make a good camera produce bad results (a la RG) it's all but impossible to make a bad camera routinely produce good results: conclusion, it may not be the camera that's the problem where RG is concerned.
And - please - no "RG is a pro, he knows what he's talking about": I see "pro" images every day (often on here) that make me wonder how the hell anyone producing such crappy images can be making money from photography...
Garylv wrote:
Just because a number of people don't SEE the trouble themselves, that doesn't mean it's not there for the rest of us. It's there and it's been demonstrated well.
The exact opposite works too: Just because RG has a problem, doesn't mean that it isn't down to him rather than the camera - I for one have long doubted his testing regimen...
keithreeder wrote:
I for one have long doubted his testing regimen...
But what really matters to the rest of us, is that Canon does not. They gave him more equipment again to test this time. Remember, they've been on-site with him in the past.
he just learned not to expand center poing AF assist. Ugh. remember he never micro-AF adjusts either and swaps lenses around like a hot potato.
I mean he might have a good eye for certain photo types but he is DENSE to say the least.
Emile Gregoire wrote:
So you're basically suggesting that Galbraith is a mediocre photographer who hasn't learned to handle his camera? He probably knows more about the 1D3 than all of us combined. Musclepics, RG has different findings than you have, so he must be wrong. Please tell me why. Because you can't be? And mass hysteria? Like in Canon giving me a new 1D3 because even they considered my old one to be a piece of trash? Don't make me laugh. Or cry.
In year 2007, and Fm forum post:
"https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/585555/0#5126463"
- And finally on RG site:
"Q. I've heard of photographers whose EOS-1D Mark III focused much better after being sent in for the revised AF calibration routine. Why are they getting better autofocus and you aren't?
We've heard the same ....... explanation probably lies in the following:
* First, a different mechanical starting point. Several of the photographers who've been in touch, and included a description of the service work done, said that Canon replaced one or more bits of hardware inside the mirror box at the same time as the revised AF calibration was performed. One indicated that the entire mirror box itself was removed and a new one put in.This suggests that these photographers' EOS-1D Mark III bodies had mechanical problems instead of, or in addition to, an AF miscalibration, problems that would likely contribute to worse autofocus performance than we were seeing previously."
keithreeder wrote:
....I see "pro" images every day (often on here) that make me wonder how the hell anyone producing such crappy images can be making money from photography...
Now that's funny.
Actually, you can buy labels that stick to your shirt. Write "Pro" on them, stick them on, and behold, you're now (a) Pro!
I do agree with you though. I've seen many images here (and on my own monitor) that make me wince! all I can say is that when it happens to me I'm smart enough not to post that crap.
Garylv wrote:
Count me in there ... I don't shoot sports, people running at me, on hot humid days, etc. BUT I figured I'd better test my MkIII when I got it to make sure it worked OK. I DID read the conditions RG used. Seemed pretty straight forward ...
What I discovered is I don't know how to shoot fast action sports, people running fast towards me, dogs running around chasing balls, etc. Sure, I had a lot of OOF shots, but on careful review, it was pretty clear why. So I worked at it and guess what .... fewer OOF shots. Seemed better after the latest fix, BUT I have also been working at it.
Digital and computers and 100% crops have made us all better "testers", and given us way more to look at vs the "old days" of film. Opened up a whole new world. Look at me: I tried to test a pro grade cam shooting conditions that were alien to me ... because I could and felt I should.
I'm not saying RG is an anyway wrong in his conclusions, or anyone else for that matter. Clearly there was and may still be an issue under certain conditions with this cam. But I suspect, as you do, that many opinions on this cam's AF performance, reflected in polls and forum posts, are conclusions from tests where user error or inexperience played the biggest role in the results.
All I can say for sure is that for indoor low light, dance and stage, my MkIII is far more consistent than the 5D I had, or the 50D I use sometimes ... especially the outer AF points.
musclepics wrote:
See this doesn't make sense. People give online reviewers way to much credit, when the answer they want is right before them. You admit you are happy with the huge improvement with the 1D Mark III after the fix.
Hope you've read RG's article better because I never stated that. In fact, my camera came back worse than before. Canon ended up giving me a brand new one, with which indeed I am happy.
