Canon is slow to admit problems. Did they ever admit the focus problem with the new 50/1.2? I thought sales were halted, then started up again with no announcements.

jjlphoto wrote:
Canon is slow to admit problems. Did they ever admit the focus problem with the new 50/1.2? I thought sales were halted, then started up again with no announcements.

Well they did admit the 24-105 and 70-300 problems.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

And they did a hardware fix on the first generation 1D to correct banding problems...

Sorry the charts are still unavailable. New router on the way.

Here's the Thursday morning tally:

<#505xxx: YES, it has AF issues 9 8%
#505xxx - 509xxx: YES, it has AF issues 7 6%
#510xxx - 514xxx: YES, it has AF issues 8 7%
#515xxx - 519xxx: YES, it has AF issues 5 4%
#520xxx - 524xxx: YES, it has AF issues 7 6%
#525xxx - 529xxx: YES, it has AF issues * 7 6%
>#530xxx: YES, it has AF issues 1 1%
Subtotal YES 44 39%

<#505xxx: NO, it works as advertised 10 9%
#505xxx - 509xxx: NO, it works as advertised 6 5%
#510xxx - 514xxx: NO, it works as advertised 12 11%
#515xxx - 519xxx: NO, it works as advertised 15 13%
#520xxx - 524xxx: NO, it works as advertised 13 12%
#525xxx - 529xxx: NO, it works as advertised * 8 7%
>#530xxx: NO, it works as advertised 5 4%
Subtotal NO 69 61%
* (These two numbers adjusted to correct one miscast vote)
TOTAL SAMPLE 113 100%

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Man, I've wondered for years, and I gotta finally scratch that itch - Nill - how the heck do you pronounce your name?

So far, the only number group that statiscaly shows the best AF performance at 13% is 515xxx - 519xxx. Since users with more recent serial numbers still reporting AF issues, then the theory of a fix after a certain serial number doesn't seem to be valid. In addition, the changes are only trickling in now, pointing to a total number of FMers owning this camera at around 115-120 or so as of today.

wtlloyd wrote:
Man, I've wondered for years, and I gotta finally scratch that itch - Nill - how the heck do you pronounce your name?

Which one? ;-) Nill is pronounced just like it looks, rhymes with Bill (in English that is, it's a German name and is probably pronounced neel in that language). Toulme is pronounced Tool-may. It's French and generations ago had the accent over the e. The whole thing is a fine old Southern name if you go far enough south — Gulfport, Mississippi. Get out of sight of the former French-speaking regions of MS and LA though and all I get is "say what?" ;-)

To figure out how many times in my life I'd had to spell my name for someone, I'd start by calculating how many days I've been alive and multiplying by ten...

Thanks for asking.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

AGeoJO wrote:
.... In addition, the changes are only trickling in now, pointing to a total number of FMers owning this camera at around 115-120 or so as of today.

I think we had about 200 cameras represented in the old poll. Checking...

Actually it was almost 300 — 240 yes's and no's plus another 52 "not sure yet's."

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

I was having focus issues every now and again in one shot mode. I discovered that my thumb and hand would sometimes touch the AF button on top and on the vertical grip.

Since disabling the AF button I am not seeing those issues anymore.

Shot the kids rugby this morning.

Out of 360 shots, 30 were oof ... 90% keepers

Have set focus respons to one point slower than mid, and it is a little slower to kick in (maybe a little too slow?) but keepers on par with 1DIIn

Good to see you back up and charting Nill

I'm no statistician but I think it's shaping up as a reasonably decent sampling. You've got a knowledgeable base of users here who are well apprised of the issues and what to look for.

And I'm no psychologist either, but it would be my vague guess that people might be slightly more likely to want to conclude that their particular camera does not have problems than that it does — although there is of course the countervailing phenomenon, from which I myself suffer, of immediately feeling symptoms whenever I hear about some exotic new ailment. ;-)

Your asking people not to vote at all unless and until they're pretty darn sure one way or the other IMO adds significantly to the value of the survey.

As for trends, I dunno... one might be that it's fairly obvious that the problems haven't magically gone away in later production. Another might be that it's equally obvious that whatever the problems are, they don't affect all of the cameras — at least not to a level that bothers even the majority of users who are (presumably) actively looking for them.

And yet another might be that it *seems* as though there's a somewhat lower incidence of problems as production gets more recent, but that might be offset by (a) more people noticing/identifying the problems as they use their cameras longer, and/or (b) the problems in some cases first developing after several weeks or months of use — one or both of which was the case for you, was it not?

If nothing else, though, I think the survey pretty clearly establishes that this is not an insignificant problem (or set of problems).

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

508XXX No issues i am aware of......

Not able to since I previously pressed show me the results.

527XXX Definite problem but different than most:

Noticed seroius focus problem when using 580EX as fill flash in Manual mode using single shot single point & ring of fire. Sent the body and a DVD with 4+ GB into CPS got a call back saying they found the problem & fixed it, but would not elaborate. It was suppose to ship Friday, if not Monday. Interesting enough CPS Irvine said they have only logged 44 Mark III's coming in...

Jeff wrote:
Ron, how is your AI Servo tracking sensitivity set? I'd be curious to see if changing it to one click on the 'fast' side would change anything. I was getting a fair number of backfocused shots with the occasional front-focused shot as well, and moving one click to the fast side seems to have cleaned up that issue a bit.

rscheffler wrote:Jeff,

It's set between slow and normal. I've played around with that setting somewhat and found for the field sports I photograph regularly, setting it to the faster settings has caused problems when a player is momentarily blocked by something closer to the camera. Even at the semi-slow setting, I've found the AF tends to jump rather quickly. If I remember, I'll give your suggestion a shot at my next football game. Over at the naturescapes forum, in the huge Mark III thread, one of the guys (LesZ) recommended BIF be done at the fast setting, which makes sense since usually a BIF is the closest object to the camera. I think I will probably use the fast setting for specific situations where I know the subject will usually be the closest object to the camera.

My CF III settings are: 2-semi-slow, 6-5, 7-2 (I've made adjustments for the 400 2.8, which seemed to have helped somewhat), 8-2, 10-1 and 16: set H to 9 fps, L to 8 fps. I usually shoot at 8 fps and it "seems" to improve results somewhat, though I have not made a controlled direct comparison against 10 fps. I've used 4-1 somewhat but am not convinced it made a difference. 5-1 I've found to be too dangerous for my liking, having been burned using it a couple times.

Here's an update:

I shot an NFL preseason game - 7 pm start. Used the Mark III and a couple IIN bodies. While the light was still good I used the 600 on the III and the 400 on one of the IINs. I left the III & 600 combo set to center point AF with CF III-8-2 set because I know it works for me (and I get cross sensor sensitivity). As in the past, results were generally very good. Occasional oof images. The IIN was set to center point AF with expansion enabled and interestingly, I'd have to say the results were mixed. As it got darker, the IIN had more oof issues. Some certainly were due to my technique, but there were instances where focus should have been OK but wasn't. At the half I packed up the 600 and used the III with the 400. Based in part on the discussions going on over at the Pro Photo Home's Mark III test, the suggestion has been to set AF to "ring of fire" and let the camera select the relevant AF point. So that's what I did for much of the second half and left CF III-2 set to medium slow. Results were pretty good. Better than I expected because I generally have never trusted the ring of fire approach. It wasn't perfect, but I think on the whole better than what I was getting with the IIN & 400 during the first half. There were still sequences where AF was a bit wonky. One in particular, of a player running at me, was pretty bad with less than 50% in focus and some of the oof frames way out. During the fourth quarter I switched back to single point with expansion using one of the off center points (one up from the middle when shooting vertically) and results were also decent.

I'm still shooting at 8 fps... at least it doesn't fill the buffer as fast as 10 fps.

And it was a night game... we'll see how/if it works during a day game.

Ron

What about the 513 xxx?

Jeff wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Ron, how is your AI Servo tracking sensitivity set? I'd be curious to see if changing it to one click on the 'fast' side would change anything. I was getting a fair number of backfocused shots with the occasional front-focused shot as well, and moving one click to the fast side seems to have cleaned up that issue a bit.

rscheffler wrote:

Jeff,

It's set between slow and normal. I've played around with that setting somewhat and found for the field sports I photograph regularly, setting it to the faster settings has caused problems when a player is momentarily blocked by something closer to the camera. Even at the semi-slow setting, I've found the AF tends to jump rather quickly. If I remember, I'll give your suggestion a shot at my next football game...

...I'm still shooting at 8 fps... at least it doesn't fill the buffer as fast as 10 fps.

And it was a night game... we'll see how/if it works during a day game.

Ron

Hey Ron, thanks for the update. I sure would be curious to see if taking the tracking sensitivity up a notch or two would help your results. I was dubious, thinking it wouldn't be beneficial, but it was for me. I'll know more in regards to crowded images once the kids start soccer scrimmages soon...

-Jeff


Jeff, that will be the next change to try. I wanted to change just one variable at a time as it's difficult to keep track of too many changes during an actual event. I found that even medium slow will switch AF to a closer player quite quickly during football games. So, since it's already happening, going to medium fast might help get the AF back to where I want it faster.

Ron

5048xx

It shows the same focusing trouble as the six cameras RG tested. Very noticeable in bright sun.

In soft light conditions, the problem almost disappears. I wish it worked that way all the time.

rscheffler wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Ron, how is your AI Servo tracking sensitivity set? I'd be curious to see if changing it to one click on the 'fast' side would change anything. I was getting a fair number of backfocused shots with the occasional front-focused shot as well, and moving one click to the fast side seems to have cleaned up that issue a bit.

rscheffler wrote:

Jeff,

It's set between slow and normal. I've played around with that setting somewhat and found for the field sports I photograph regularly, setting it to the faster settings has caused problems when a player is momentarily blocked by something closer to the camera. Even at the semi-slow setting, I've found the AF tends to jump rather quickly. If I remember, I'll give your suggestion a shot at my next football game...

...I'm still shooting at 8 fps... at least it doesn't fill the buffer as fast as 10 fps.

And it was a night game... we'll see how/if it works during a day game.

Ron

Hey Ron, thanks for the update. I sure would be curious to see if taking the tracking sensitivity up a notch or two would help your results. I was dubious, thinking it wouldn't be beneficial, but it was for me. I'll know more in regards to crowded images once the kids start soccer scrimmages soon...

-Jeff


Jeff, that will be the next change to try. I wanted to change just one variable at a time as it's difficult to keep track of too many changes during an actual event. I found that even medium slow will switch AF to a closer player quite quickly during football games. So, since it's already happening, going to medium fast might help get the AF back to where I want it faster.

Ron

Ron and Jeff...if I set it to fast I won't be able to achieve shots like these anymore...

tracking sensitivity slower 1

tracking sensitivity slower 2

Also, for what it's worth, I've tried it set to faster with similar results. When the AF is off, it's almost always slightly behind my subject.

Ben

Ben, I am jumping in here and you probably already addressed this but are you using 45 point or center point in these two shots? Ron

ronone10 wrote:
Ben, I am jumping in here and you probably already addressed this but are you using 45 point or center point in these two shots? Ron

Only one point (can't remember if it was center or one up from center). I have historically not liked either 45 point or expansion. The two pictures I posted are really just examples of the CF in action. Usually, what happens is a player or ref runs all the way through the frame, blocking the subject only temporarily.

I just don't want the focus to jump to these types of things, so if setting sensitivity to fast actually helps focus consistency on a primary subject (I haven't found this to be the case, but others have), it'll give me headaches.

501xxx perfect with fw 1.1.0

528xxx
I use the canon 35mm F/1.4 lens and especially outdoors It is not accurate at focusing. It is always a dissapointment when I look through the photos and find many unfocused photos.

Seems like it realy only focuses when multiple AF indicators light up as opposed to just one.

My 5D did a much better job at focusing unfortunately.

Until this is fixed, I have grown to like the live-view feature. Using the 10x magnification I can get very presice focusing. Just something to get used to i guess.

Well after bragging about my camera for the past 3 months this last Sunday in 90 degree F heat here is sunny Southern California my camera would not focus to save my life.

With a friend of mine I was capturing or attempting to capture flocks of Canadian geese flying up and out of the Los angeles river basin, as the birds entered the tree line the camera lost focus to the background.

These flocks were thick, 20-30 birds in a wave, the camera went tack sharp to the background, weird, it looks like my camera is now in the same boat as those experiencing this issue.

I did nothing different from my normal routine which up to this point has produced wonderful images, something crapped out. seriall # 511xxx

My camera is going back to Canon tomorrow.

523xxxx

So far i believe all issues I have had have been self inflicted.
Camera is a dream in low light of all kinds. I always shoot night races under terrible lighting and have seen a nice increase in "keepers"

More examples here
www.pbase.com/slamothe

It did take 2 or 3 races to get the camera configured to my likeing and for me to get comfortable with it.During this time I though I was having AF issues also. I may be but my results are excellent so I'm shooting and watching!!

Steve A wrote:
Well after bragging about my camera for the past 3 months this last Sunday in 90 degree F heat here is sunny Southern California my camera would not focus to save my life.

I did nothing different from my normal routine which up to this point has produced wonderful images, something crapped out. seriall # 511xxx


Steve, that's incredible, isn't it. Similar to what Jeff experienced when he posted his thread. He was not seeing any trouble before, and all of a sudden had horrific results. I wonder if that's still a big mystery to Canon. I hope they know what's causing all the trouble. If they don't, the 1DsMarkIII will be the same way. It has the same AF system.

In my experience so far the camera didn't really seem to stop working at one point, it's just very random bad results in bright sunlight. Once I get in to softer lighting, it seems ok again.

If you get any new information from Canon about this or your replacement camera, please let us know.


Gary