Jeff
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.13 #19 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved | |
Randy Wright wrote:
Hi fellow Mark III owners,
I would be curious to see the newest results -(after the last fix/update)- we each were to acheive if we each tested our longest telephoto's lens at their widest aperature with a runner coming towards us on a bright sunny day, such as what RG did in his original test...
I know my early model June '07 Mark III has had all the fixes and updates, been to Canon Irvine a few times, and I use it all the time, but I wonder how she would fare testing like RG's original test? Have many of you folks tried testing that way?
I have done so extensively once upon a time (and gave up further testing about a year ago when nothing had changed after having my camera replaced by Canon), and challenged those with cameras that 'worked' to do so as well, posting all said results online. Not one single person with a working camera did so in a way that demonstrated acceptable AI Servo/Focus performance in relation to Canon's claims of its superiority.
musclepics wrote:
Four easy words to remember....
Rob Galbraith is wrong.
Five easy letters to remember: moron. If your position is that RG's mediocrity as a photographer somehow convinced Canon to go on a wild goose-chase looking for problems that didn't exist, your ignorance belies your arrogance. No single photographer on earth has that kind of power, and certainly not RG. Canon continues to chase problems because they exist in what is effectively a very specific usage of the camera; unfortunately its one of its primary intended uses. As many have said, most user's posted examples of 'success' are irrelevant due to not actually testing the problem in question. Rob's pursuit of the issues has been incredibly comprehensive and detailed, thus the only thing left to pick on is his supposed lack of skills as a photographer or his motivations as a disgruntled web entrepreneur. And his lack of proofreading, perhaps.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
Yeah...gotta admit. It's just one thing after the next with Canon. I think they did well with the 5DMKII, though it wasn't without its problems. None of them show stoppers however. They really need to put something special out for the next gen 1D series...
Garylv wrote:
I wonder what will happen with the next one. That's actually something I'm looking forward to. Especially early user reports. It will be very interesting to see how Canon describes the AF system also. "All new AF system!" - Or - "Same Great AF System!" That's the part I'm really looking forward to!
I think the design of the next-generation AF sensor will tell the tale. My personal opinion (which is worth null, here or elsewhere on the 'net) is that the design of the 'new' elliptical submirror in concert with the widened array of f/2.8-compatible cross sensors somehow created a situation that causes the outer focus points to become unreliable in certain conditions, and for whatever reason Canon's lab-only R&D testing of the new AF assembly was incapable of replicating real-world scenarios that revealed the rather specific set of circumstances that cause the problems. Which, I might add, is directly related to why many people are happy with the performance of their MkIII's; they simply don't often encounter said conditions in their use of the camera. If you never see said errors, the camera is second-to-none in nearly all respects, especially file quality.
My personal solution to this ongoing saga has been to resort to shooting center-point only, at f/4 or higher when possible; rather a waste of those other 44 AF points I paid for. Kind of makes my investment in f/2.8 lenses also look foolish, especially given the quality of the recent f/4 L lenses. My editing of shoots has become very efficient, as I immediately shit-can the crap images and don't look back, count, try to figure out the cause, etc. It is what it is, until it is fixed. For the record, mine has not been back for this latest fix yet, but I'm guessing that mine is not one of the cameras with rather extreme problems (40% hit rates, for example), thus any improvement is likely to be negligible (if, of course, you buy into RG's opinions and experiences, which I do).
Breitling65 wrote:
I trust to my eyes and results made by my mk III with my lenses. I never had any problems with this camera in any mode. I never did any update/fix besides latest firmware and it is perfect body. Some tracking mode shot I did:
http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/image/103457859
Yet another perfect example of a series of images intended to prove that a camera works, when the 'evidence' in question proves absolutely nothing. Not full-res images, no settings listed, AF point used not shown via the Canon software, and most importantly, the subject is not likely to elicit the problem. It sure does indeed look like that camera works fine.
EvilZardoz wrote:
"...People coming from the 40D/30D loved the 1D III out of the box! Those coming from the 1D II complained..."
Of course, and this is a big part of why some people do have 'problems', and others don't. Expectations vary widely with experience. I will not shoot sports with my 40D after trying repeatedly to use AI Servo. Not that I expected it to work like a D-Series camera, but I've gotten way too many OOF shots exactly like RG posted. It's just not worth it, and thus it only serves as backup for non-sports imagery.
dehowie wrote:
Fast fighter jets with low contrast paint schemes against a blue sky is the hardest AF target ive ever photographed and the MK3's are excellent.
Hmm, I've never had a problem with this type of shooting; the MkIII performs admirably in this regard, as do most cameras (in my opinion), my 40D included. Heck, back in the days of MF with my F-1N, I could usually get most of the shots acceptably in focus, unless of course the Blue Angels were making a run right at me.
mark fadely wrote:
"...But here are the facts:
1. I bought my MKIII in Feb '08 and was never satisfied with the performance of the ai-servo AF. It was only about 70% as good as my MKIIn. I returned it to Canon twice to have them fix the problem and it was never any better so I just lived with a poorly functioning sports camera. I shoot action with center point only usually at f2.8 and always in ai-servo. I am constantly using the camera in it's weakest area o performance.
2. I sent in my MKIII for the latest "outer point" AF fix not knowing what to expect.
3. I received my MKIII back from canon with a completely different functioning center point focus. In ai-servo it is now better than my MKIIn. I have no idea how the outer points work cause I've never used them..."
It sounds to me like you had a lemon like my early MkIII that Canon replaced, only they were able to fix yours (probably due to the timeline difference). My second camera only operates decently enough center-point only, and whenever I engage any of the outer points (either singly or surround), AF performance is degraded and more erratic. It wouldn't surprise me if your camera is the same as my current camera; that is, OK with center point only, and otherwise lacking when outer points are engaged.
DavidP wrote:
If RG had come out and said the 1D3 was now perfect, the same folks who are slamming the camera now would say it was perfect. 
I would only do so if my camera worked as advertised for what I shoot. I'm certain it works fine for what you shoot, David.
chez wrote:
The IDIII fiasco is one instance where competition hurt the consumer. Canon knew very well that Nikon had some great cameras coming out and that they needed to release the IDIII when they did. They knew of the problems with the camera but had no choice and released a defective model due to competative pressures.
That's an interesting perspective on competition, and likely pretty close to the mark. I'd bet a dime to a donut that they gambled that they could fix it with firmware.
----------------------------------------->
For those of you that have suffered this chapter along with me for the last 2 years or so (I've forgotten how long it actually is), more character to 'ya. I haven't even logged on in the last 3 months, and this is the only thread here I've read, yes, in its entirety (thanks again to all for the resource; I didn't even know last time I logged on that there was a new fix!). I'll continue to use my camera within the bounds of its inherent limitations, and hope that this last fix does something when I finally send it in.
Best to all,
Jeff
|
