Curator wrote:
Letting Canon off the hook? Canon produces a tool used by photographers. If that tool doesn't meet your needs, then look for something else. It seems that many of the responses to this problem take this as a personal issue, and want to punish Canon for not providing them with the right tool.
Your'e talking quite easy about looking something else. I own about 50.000 euro Canon gear.
Is that easy for looking something else?
leewoolery wrote:
There must have been a very real problem because Canon is paying for another fix and footing the bill for the shipping. It's not like Rob Galbraith made this whole AF thing up in an effort to sabotage Canon sales and boost Nikon's.
The last AF fix was to adjust the accuracy of the outer AF points. Is this the problem that those with issues have been complaining about? I don't use servo mode with my outer AF points, so I haven't really tested this.
leewoolery wrote:
As a working professional, I have found the Mark III to be unreliable when it comes to AF and my workaround was to purchase Nikon cameras and lenses that are much more predictable for shooting action.
What is your opinion of those other working professionals that are still using the Mark III? Do you feel they just don't stress the camera in the same way you did?
Gust wrote:
Your'e talking quite easy about looking something else. I own about 50.000 euro Canon gear.
Is that easy for looking something else?
You are not being forced to upgrade your current equipment. If the next camera released by Canon doesn't meet your needs, and you don't want to look for something else, you should be able to continue using your current equipment.
leewoolery wrote:
Attacking an individuals' character and insulting anyone who has different views than you do is immature.
You are right there
leewoolery wrote:
I have talked to...at least...10 former Canon pro photographers who have reluctlantly been forced to switch brands because of the continual Mark III AF problems...before and after the fix. They didn't want to make the change but Nikon had come out with better focusing sports/action bodies in the D3/D700.
I do have a D700. While I like this camera a lot but from my personal experience its AF capability under low lighting conditions doesn't measure up with that of the 1D series. YMMV, of course.
Curator,
Yes your'e write if you use your stuff only for fun.
If you run a company you must work with good current equipment, you cannot aloud working with old stuff.
I cannot imaging working now with body's from 10 years ago.
Am I the only person to think it rather odd and biased that RG's conclusions are based, as far as I can see, solely on rather tedious shots of athletes (in the broadest sense of the term)?
My very early (serial # 503xxx) Mk3 has not had any of the "fixes" offered, but has had each firmware update; I shoot mostly nature, and principally birds, including "birds in flight" in AI Servo mode (using 500 f/4, 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400 zoom). I have had no problems and find the Mk3 far superior to the Mk2n in every respect.
I do know a few other neurotic Mk3 owners who have sent their cameras in for each and every "fix" and almost every one of them now has a camera which performs worse than when they bought it.
Gust wrote:
Curator,
Yes your'e write if you use your stuff only for fun.
If you run a company you must work with good current equipment, you cannot aloud working with old stuff.
I cannot imaging working now with body's from 10 years ago.
Let's say you run a company that must have equal or better equipment than your competitor. I would think the following would occur:
1. A new camera body is released.
2. You buy and test the new body to see if it meets your company's needs.
3a. The product works great. You're done.
3b. The product doesn't work, so you keep your existing equipment. Since your competitors will most likely have the same problem, you should still have equal or better equipment than your competitor...unless they can make the problem camera work for them.
I would think if you want to have a company that uses the latest, best, equipment available, it's going to be expensive because it's going to involve using multiple camera manufacturers. I think at this point, we're going to see the "best" camera bounce back and forth between Canon and Nikon. The company that wins will be the one that can use their equipment the best.
Colin Key wrote:
Am I the only person to think it rather odd and biased that RG's conclusions are based, as far as I can see, solely on rather tedious shots of athletes (in the broadest sense of the term)?
My very early (serial # 503xxx) Mk3 has not had any of the "fixes" offered, but has had each firmware update; I shoot mostly nature, and principally birds, including "birds in flight" in AI Servo mode (using 500 f/4, 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400 zoom). I have had no problems and find the Mk3 far superior to the Mk2n in every respect.
Since Canon sent engineers to work with RG on three occasions, there is clearly something very specific to those conditions used for the RG test. It's almost like the 5D II black dot issue where the problem existed, but only under a very specific set of conditions. Or, RG could just have another bad camera
Glen_C wrote:
Terrible photos... no micro AF... no c.fn setup... like an imbicile uses AF-point expansion. ROTFLMAO.
This google-milking blogger - with the nonsensical HYSTERIA he created (along with Nikon zealots who found their FF religion) had people calling up Canon with problems that they didn't have.. Large dealers said this... people were finding problems that didn't exist thanks to hysterical bloggers.
And while all of this nonsense was happening Cannon found & corrected a couple of physical defects... none of which RG had any part of. Remember he still says the mkIII is broken. ROTFLMAO.
Anyways he's made some nice cash off you all hitting his site for the last year. ...Show more →
This must rank as the most convincing analysis of the Mk III "issue" I have ever read. ROTFLMAO indeed.
Curator wrote:
The last AF fix was to adjust the accuracy of the outer AF points. Is this the problem that those with issues have been complaining about? I don't use servo mode with my outer AF points, so I haven't really tested this.
What is your opinion of those other working professionals that are still using the Mark III? Do you feel they just don't stress the camera in the same way you did?
I'm glad their Mark III's are getting the results they expect. I have just found the D3 and D700 to be better for what I shoot.
I do have a D700. While I like this camera a lot but from my personal experience its AF capability under low lighting conditions doesn't measure up with that of the 1D series. YMMV, of course.
I shot candids for a high school prom last month with a Mark III and EF 24-70 on a dimly-lit dance floor. I wasn't able to get many shots because the camera couldn't lock on focus.
Two weeks ago I photographed a rehearsal dinner and reception where the lights were turned way down low....darker than the high school prom. The D700 and AFS Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 was able to focus on subjects on the dance floor and talking in the reception area whereas the Mark III on my side just stammered and stuttered to focus.
I also observed last weekend at a youth rodeo that the Mark III/EF 70-200 f/2.8 combination was jumping focus from foreground to background on fast/erratic moving subjects such as horses, bulls, sheep and calves.
The D700/AFS 70-200 f/2.8 locked on focus and stayed.
leewoolery wrote:
Two weeks ago I photographed a rehearsal dinner and reception where the lights were turned way down low....darker than the high school prom. The D700 and AFS Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 was able to focus on subjects on the dance floor and talking in the reception area whereas the Mark III on my side just stammered and stuttered to focus.
I must have a bad Mark III?
Well, even RG praises the low light ability of the Mark III, so you could have had a bad camera.
I used both systems as you mentioned without any problems in very very dark situations.
But I like how the images came out from the Canon, so still shoot with Canon, sold the D3 etc.
Curator wrote:
What is your opinion of those other working professionals that are still using the Mark III? Do you feel they just don't stress the camera in the same way you did?
Curator, here's my take on that. And I don't mean to single anyone out, but sometimes it can't be avoided when you're trying to clarify a point.
It's hard to determine why they're not seeing any trouble without seeing the sample photos and maybe asking some questions. They may not be shooting under the same circumstances that mostly cause the servo trouble to appear.
Take for example the photos posted in this thread by Breitling65. They look great, don't they? No problems there. But they're really not related to the focus issue most people have reported, and the ones that RG documented with Canon.
Yes the lens is a 300 f2.8 for the surf shots but those surfers are mostly moving laterally. And at quite a distance. I shoot a lot of surfing with mine also, I understand surfer movements well. The subject distance is not changing rapidly like a cyclist or a sprinter on a track coming right at you, or like the demonstrations that have been done for Canon.
The other shots were with the 400 f5.6, which at f5.6 is not subject to the same issues. At f5.6 the camera tracks well in Servo. So much so, that it's been described as like working with a different camera.
Now before anyone gets upset, the camera CAN produce properly focused shots even in the noted trouble circumstances. I can get lots of them myself. But there are certain times when it struggles much more that it should, and apparently more than the MarkII. And that's the issue.
The point to this reply, Curator, is that it's clear a number of people don't really understand the circumstances related to RG's exhaustive reports. We've seen many, many samples to suggest this.
And I'm not saying that everyone who sees no trouble is wrong, not at all. The camera may be working great for them. But it's hard to get an idea of how many when we see examples posted which are not really related to the issue.
Breitling65, your photos look great. I'm not trying to imply they don't. Please don't take that personally.
mark fadely wrote:
Now mine is more accurate than my MKIIn. The MKIIn is fantastic so that is quite an accomplishment for the MKIII.
I have been amazed with my MKIII ever since this last fix and I just hope that all the other owners could enjoy the results I'm getting with it now.
That's quite interesting, Mark. I wish we'd have more feedback of your sort from other folks too who are experienced in very fast action photography like yourself.
People like Melanson, etc.
If I had faith in the MkIII helping me raise my keeper rate on shots like this one even by something like 5% relative to MkIIN, I would have gotten the camera long time ago. But I don't. Because there is no orderly pattern in operating experience with the camera........the feedback is all over the map....Show more →
Garylv wrote:
It's hard to determine why they're not seeing any trouble without seeing the sample photos and maybe asking some questions. They may not be shooting under the same circumstances that mostly cause the servo trouble to appear.
I would think that must be the case. The thing that's odd is when you have one sports photographer that can't get good results, and another who has no problems, but I suppose the lighting could be a little different at the events where these photographers shoot.
I actually had the same focusing trouble while shooting at f5.6 on my 400mm during fast BIF action, so it can't be said that 5.6 or smaller apertures would have solved the problem completely. Again, conditions could be met that would tax the autofocus system beyond it's cababilities. RG was shooting a sprinter at 5.6 and he found that the larger DOF masked the focus errors enough to get by. But when you have a small bird flying at you at 40mph it's a different story. Even motorsports shooting could be accomplished easier because the subjects were larger in the frame. I never had a problem shooting cars at 60mph on the highway coming directly at me, but when you have a small bird that only fills 1/8th of the frame then the cam just couldn't track well.
Believe me, I have shot 100,000 of these type of shots with the MKIII and it has been a frustrating year in '08.
Yes, it is just kids but everything is spot on at very narrow DOF in many of the pics. I've also had the same great results shooting BIF.
Gary is right when he says a lot of folks are not using the camera in its weakest enviroment. I just want people to know that there are users out here that have a perfectly fine camera now and are taxing in the areas of its original defects.
If anyone cares to research my posts you will get a feel for the frustration that I experienced. I have shared with quite a few others here on FM throughout the entire ordeal. I'm very glad it's over
Gust wrote:
Your'e talking quite easy about looking something else. I own about 50.000 euro Canon gear.
Is that easy for looking something else?
I am not saying it is easy, but regardless of how much gear you own, if the camera will not do the job, you need to find something that will.
I have a 1DMIII. it is greatly improved since the fixes have been applied, but the AF in good light is still not as good as the 1DMIIN. I use the 1DMIIN in good light and the 1DMIII in low light.
The fact that these conversations continue tells me one thing...there way is too much variation between one MIII and the next for most people to be fully comfortable with it. Yes, some MIII bodies work perfectly, but others do not. That being the case, buying one is somewhat more risky than I think it should be.
That is what I meant earlier when I said most people are unwilling to buy a $4000 body for the chance to test it out and see if that one happens to perform well. Posting pictures taken by the MIII in AI proves only one thing...the body can take one picture that is in focus. Not much comfort when I generally take more than one picture at a time.
