)Sounds very interesting. What was the university context, please? (applied optics, computer systems, marketing?)

Photography

What Photography? they have classes for that! Cool

Emile Gregoire wrote:
gfiksel wrote:
Wow! The camera has love view?? I'm gonna get it !


It actually has! You take a shot of your wife, it's out of focus and suddenly she looks way better than ever before

I would still say that those images are the result of the 1D-3 being ever-so-slightly (maybe 3 - 4") front-focused on the runner.

And I still think that if the 1D-3 had been set to a +1 or +2 (or some positve number), it would've resulted in a greater percentage of the shots appearing in focus.

But it's impossible to say for certain since that test wasn't done. Too bad they didn't try something like a +2 instead of a -5.



Jeff wrote:
And, the last thing I took a look at tonight was prompted by DavidP's thread, and relates to accuracy of comparison sequences. In the 'slow' series, I was able to find the runner in virtually identical positions, in nearly the exact same spot on the track. The bottom 'loupe' view shows two things: that the focal plane was in a nearly identical position, and the runner was no more than 1 to 2 inches fore/aft of the exact same position in both images (note the slight softness of even the specular highlights in the MkIII image).

More importantly, the upper loupe view shows a significant discrepancy in the sharpness of the runner's face, even giving some wiggle room for the runner being up to 2" off in distance to the camera. It's this kind of result that MkIII owners familiar with the MkIII's AF problems readily admit to being anything but 'normal' for any camera. There is simply no logical explanation for it, other than some technically complex hardware issue.

Arianne Dubois wrote:
"...After the recent discussion in these days it became clearer, that we are dealing with a systematic design error not with a production flaw (i.e. the submirror-fix theme).

The unwillingness of the manufacturer to communicate the apparent dysfunction is without precedent in a field of professionally used equipment. It is a pity that the above reflections and conversations are conducted completely separated from the company. It can be assumed that Canon was able to replicate the malfunction under laboratory conditions at least after Galbraith's last tests. Nevertheless since the introduction of the model they did never publish a product advisory statement and did not directly address the professionals, that depend on their products as business investments.


I don't think that we can assume that Canon knows of all these issues before the collective 'we' do, although it does seem fairly certain that they knew the camera had AF issues before its release. How they communicate what is going on on a day-to-day basis is a different matter, but I have to point out that they have indeed formally documented the submirror issue on their website, on the MkIII page.

I think it is reasonable to assume at this point that Canon thought they had the problem fixed, but only now that one issue is resolved does it become apparent that there was (all along) a distinctly separate problem that results in a different sort of image quality issue. I can only hope that they will take this issue as seriously as the initial reports of problems, because I have no intention of possessing a camera of this caliber that is half-baked in any way.

Interesting that your school has 'already' done tests on a specific AF flaw that really only could have been separated out from the submirror issue in the last 48 hours (or by anyone possessing a 'Blue Dot' body). To date, I had not heard anyone (RG included) comment on this 'secondary ghost image' issue. With the previous submirror issues, it would have been very difficult to even describe as a discrete problem until only very recently. I'd be very interested to see your school's test results and methodologies, if you'd care to share the results.

Jeff

My 1dIII does this........does anyone elses?

In single shot mode, it will lock onto the subject, and "most" of the pics will be in focus. There is that occassional one that is soft or just completely OOF for no reason, but 8 out of 10 are in focus.

In ai servo shooting a stationary subject from a tripod, the focus point is constantly shifting. The distance ring on the lens constantly moves back and forth slightly, and looking through the viewfinder you can see the focus shifting. If it can't lock onto a stationary object in ai servo, how's it going to consistantly track a moving object?

My camera is in the affected range and is scheduled for the mirror adjustment. I've tried fw v1.1.0 and v1.1.3, and the focus acts the same. I've adjusted the focus sensitivity just to see if that affected the instability, and it didn't.

And speaking of the "ghost" images seen in RG's photos. I've seen that as well. Today I was taking shots of a focus calibration chart. The numbers on the chart that were in front of the focus area showed ghost images, the ones behind the focus area were just fuzzy, no ghost images. I took dozens of shots and the ghost images were always present in the same way, on the front end of the focus area, but not the back.

Has anyone else seen this with their camera?

I'd have to look at my test charts, but that certainly sounds more like a lens issue than a camera issue.

Steven Kelley wrote:
My 1dIII does this........does anyone elses?

In single shot mode, it will lock onto the subject, and "most" of the pics will be in focus. There is that occassional one that is soft or just completely OOF for no reason, but 8 out of 10 are in focus.



My 1D2's did that. So did my 1D's. So did my D30. I'm pretty sure my 1D3's also do it. As did my EOS-3.

Steven Kelley wrote:
My 1dIII does this........does anyone elses?

In single shot mode, it will lock onto the subject, and "most" of the pics will be in focus. There is that occassional one that is soft or just completely OOF for no reason, but 8 out of 10 are in focus.

In ai servo shooting a stationary subject from a tripod, the focus point is constantly shifting. The distance ring on the lens constantly moves back and forth slightly, and looking through the viewfinder you can see the focus shifting. If it can't lock onto a stationary object in ai servo, how's it going to consistantly track a moving object?

My camera is in the affected range and is scheduled for the mirror adjustment. I've tried fw v1.1.0 and v1.1.3, and the focus acts the same. I've adjusted the focus sensitivity just to see if that affected the instability, and it didn't.

And speaking of the "ghost" images seen in RG's photos. I've seen that as well. Today I was taking shots of a focus calibration chart. The numbers on the chart that were in front of the focus area showed ghost images, the ones behind the focus area were just fuzzy, no ghost images. I took dozens of shots and the ghost images were always present in the same way, on the front end of the focus area, but not the back.

Has anyone else seen this with their camera?
I'm on my 2nd 1D3 the latest 'blue dot"
I have experienced the same thing.
The oscillation is worse with the 300 than a 70-200.
Also approximately 1 out of 10 single shots are off.

MHJS wrote:
Steven Kelley wrote:
My 1dIII does this........does anyone elses?

In single shot mode, it will lock onto the subject, and "most" of the pics will be in focus. There is that occassional one that is soft or just completely OOF for no reason, but 8 out of 10 are in focus.

In ai servo shooting a stationary subject from a tripod, the focus point is constantly shifting. The distance ring on the lens constantly moves back and forth slightly, and looking through the viewfinder you can see the focus shifting. If it can't lock onto a stationary object in ai servo, how's it going to consistantly track a moving object?

My camera is in the affected range and is scheduled for the mirror adjustment. I've tried fw v1.1.0 and v1.1.3, and the focus acts the same. I've adjusted the focus sensitivity just to see if that affected the instability, and it didn't.

And speaking of the "ghost" images seen in RG's photos. I've seen that as well. Today I was taking shots of a focus calibration chart. The numbers on the chart that were in front of the focus area showed ghost images, the ones behind the focus area were just fuzzy, no ghost images. I took dozens of shots and the ghost images were always present in the same way, on the front end of the focus area, but not the back.

Has anyone else seen this with their camera?
I'm on my 2nd 1D3 the latest 'blue dot"
I have experienced the same thing.
The oscillation is worse with the 300 than a 70-200.
Also approximately 1 out of 10 single shots are off.


Both of you should know AI Servo has never been intended for stationary subjects. It assumes subject movement is present. There is no reason to be alarmed that it isn't working with a stationary subject, it never has. That's why you pump you AF ON button to acquire focus on a stationary subject and then let off as soon as focus is achieved while in servo mode.

That's like trying to remove a philips head screw with a straight slot screw driver and being upset it's not working correctly.

Steven Kelley wrote:
My 1dIII does this........does anyone elses?

In single shot mode, it will lock onto the subject, and "most" of the pics will be in focus. There is that occassional one that is soft or just completely OOF for no reason, but 8 out of 10 are in focus.

In ai servo shooting a stationary subject from a tripod, the focus point is constantly shifting. The distance ring on the lens constantly moves back and forth slightly, and looking through the viewfinder you can see the focus shifting. If it can't lock onto a stationary object in ai servo, how's it going to consistantly track a moving object?

My camera is in the affected range and is scheduled for the mirror adjustment. I've tried fw v1.1.0 and v1.1.3, and the focus acts the same. I've adjusted the focus sensitivity just to see if that affected the instability, and it didn't.

And speaking of the "ghost" images seen in RG's photos. I've seen that as well. Today I was taking shots of a focus calibration chart. The numbers on the chart that were in front of the focus area showed ghost images, the ones behind the focus area were just fuzzy, no ghost images. I took dozens of shots and the ghost images were always present in the same way, on the front end of the focus area, but not the back.

Has anyone else seen this with their camera?

Yes - and so did my 1dII. It's like it can't decide on a focus point. Even on one shot (shooting a ruler at 45 degrees) the focus will shift from front to back. If the sub-mirror is not working right, that might account for it, but anymore, I just don't know...

Steve

Yes,
I had 6 copies of Mark IIIs, all had the problem as you described at one shot mode.

Lide


Steve Perry wrote:
Steven Kelley wrote:
My 1dIII does this........does anyone elses?

In single shot mode, it will lock onto the subject, and "most" of the pics will be in focus. There is that occassional one that is soft or just completely OOF for no reason, but 8 out of 10 are in focus.

In ai servo shooting a stationary subject from a tripod, the focus point is constantly shifting. The distance ring on the lens constantly moves back and forth slightly, and looking through the viewfinder you can see the focus shifting. If it can't lock onto a stationary object in ai servo, how's it going to consistantly track a moving object?

My camera is in the affected range and is scheduled for the mirror adjustment. I've tried fw v1.1.0 and v1.1.3, and the focus acts the same. I've adjusted the focus sensitivity just to see if that affected the instability, and it didn't.

And speaking of the "ghost" images seen in RG's photos. I've seen that as well. Today I was taking shots of a focus calibration chart. The numbers on the chart that were in front of the focus area showed ghost images, the ones behind the focus area were just fuzzy, no ghost images. I took dozens of shots and the ghost images were always present in the same way, on the front end of the focus area, but not the back.

Has anyone else seen this with their camera?

Yes - and so did my 1dII. It's like it can't decide on a focus point. Even on one shot (shooting a ruler at 45 degrees) the focus will shift from front to back. If the sub-mirror is not working right, that might account for it, but anymore, I just don't know...

Steve

Some of you have probably seen this before. A Seattle Times sports shooter talks about this blurryness in his blog (serach for "Mark III Misses the Mark, Part I")

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/bestseatinthehouse/2007/10/

I stated the following opinion on NatureScapes a couple of months ago regarding similar over-all blurring of photos as shown by a Seattle Times photographer on SportsShooter.

Restating it now, my opinion is what we are seeing is the lens elements being driven by the focusing motor during exposure. The look is similar to what you would see if you exposed a frame with an IS lens very quickly after IS started up, before it has a chance to settle down. Those of you with a first generation IS lens which takes near a second to settle down can easily see this over-all blurring if you make an exposure before the stabilizer has stabilized. The commonality is moving lens elements.

An explanation for the directional aspect of the blurring is that for the focusing elements to move as quickly as they do with very little power draw, is there has to be a little bit of slop or play between the bearing surfaces. As the lens focusing elements are rotating to move forward or backward, they will also move slightly to the side, taking up that play, much like your car will always slide to one side or another if you spin the wheels on ice.

With exposure of these photos being so short I do not think subject motion is an explanation for the ghost image phenomenon. But I do think mistiming of the camera exposure and focusing sequence is a possibility, especially given all the other troubles the camera has exhibited, some of which would have masked this one. Is it correctable in firmware? One can hope.

Steve J

Jammy Straub wrote:
MHJS wrote:
Steven Kelley wrote:
My 1dIII does this........does anyone elses?

In single shot mode, it will lock onto the subject, and "most" of the pics will be in focus. There is that occassional one that is soft or just completely OOF for no reason, but 8 out of 10 are in focus.

In ai servo shooting a stationary subject from a tripod, the focus point is constantly shifting. The distance ring on the lens constantly moves back and forth slightly, and looking through the viewfinder you can see the focus shifting. If it can't lock onto a stationary object in ai servo, how's it going to consistantly track a moving object?

My camera is in the affected range and is scheduled for the mirror adjustment. I've tried fw v1.1.0 and v1.1.3, and the focus acts the same. I've adjusted the focus sensitivity just to see if that affected the instability, and it didn't.

And speaking of the "ghost" images seen in RG's photos. I've seen that as well. Today I was taking shots of a focus calibration chart. The numbers on the chart that were in front of the focus area showed ghost images, the ones behind the focus area were just fuzzy, no ghost images. I took dozens of shots and the ghost images were always present in the same way, on the front end of the focus area, but not the back.

Has anyone else seen this with their camera?
I'm on my 2nd 1D3 the latest 'blue dot"
I have experienced the same thing.
The oscillation is worse with the 300 than a 70-200.
Also approximately 1 out of 10 single shots are off.


Both of you should know AI Servo has never been intended for stationary subjects. It assumes subject movement is present. There is no reason to be alarmed that it isn't working with a stationary subject, it never has. That's why you pump you AF ON button to acquire focus on a stationary subject and then let off as soon as focus is achieved while in servo mode.

That's like trying to remove a philips head screw with a straight slot screw driver and being upset it's not working correctly.

The one shot in my case was not with AI Servo.

I'd be very interested to see your school's test results and methodologies, if you'd care to share the results.

It was more than two months ago with three different MkIII bodies that finally were returned. (Two by private owners, one by the institution.) Of course none of them had the so called fix. We never were able to detect heat-related problems anyway (attributed to the sub-mirror issue). But we had different long test series indicating what I said before: Unidirectional blur and supposed real-time processing errors. We actually did not try to test the cameras, we tried to produce photographic documents of a production process, where a high-speed hydropneumatic press had to be watched. The incapability of the AF-system to follow the movement of a high contrast well lit area led to further judgments and verifications regarding the camera.

I wonder if the ghosting you refer to may be something to do with the IS mechanism??

*note to self, read all posts before posting*

Obviously others feel it may be IS related.

In the shots where they look blurry... it's very hard for me to tell and/or see if they are front or back focused... For the most part the focus/DOF seems to be pretty well situated on the runner... yet as is noted throughout this thread the are blurry...

Forgive me if I'm way off base here... but could this somehow be caused by the IS? It's never been totally clear to me if IS is fully independent of the body, or if the lens and body do work together somehow...

If not IS... then surely something is moving...either the sensor or a lens element, etc... I don't think these are simply out of focus, but then as I said earlier it is somewhat hard for me to determine the exact focus point on those frames that are blurry...

I guess if nothing else... I'm glad I'm not a owner of the 1DMIII.

Next question though, is... has anyone ever done any extensive testing like this on a 40D (I do own one of these, but I don't typically shoot AI Servo in full speed sequential shooting)

I don't think it's IS-related (it happens on my non-IS lenses), though I do think that the idea that the lens continues to AF while the exposure is happening might be what is happening, and that, in the end, should be correctable via firmware. The other alternative is that it's the vibrating filter is somehow moving, which will involve a pretty major change.

I also doubt it's IS-related, as one would expect to also see the effect in the MkIIn images, which were shot (presumably) using the same lens and settings.

Its funny, I went to the Seahawks game this weekend with the Seattle PI's photo editor (gee think the seats were any good) and he gave me a couple tid bits. First he told me that Getty Images is telling Canon that they want over a hundred bodies replaced flat out. Second that they will not buy any new bodies (they even held off buying any so far) until canon gets this fixed.

could this be due to the dust cover?? I was thinking I was the only one that had seen this on his own camera. Guess I'm not :-( Class action here we come

Sad thing is no matter how much we discuss, unless someone's able to bring this issue up with Canon like Galbraith did with the heat issue (perhaps some sort of high-readership blog), there's virtually no chance that it will be fixed. Sad thing too; this problem bothered me much more than the (AF mirror-caused) out of focus shots did - I don't know how many images I've deleted that were "almost there" or "why the hell is nothing quite in focus". Looks like a MkIIIn is soon forthcoming eh?

JH

You got admit the 1D III is the ideal Xmas present as it's the gift that's keeps on giving oke:

I have a excellent condition 1D II I'm willing to sell for $4000

jianghai_ho wrote:
Sad thing is no matter how much we discuss, unless someone's able to bring this issue up with Canon like Galbraith did with the heat issue (perhaps some sort of high-readership blog), there's virtually no chance that it will be fixed. Sad thing too; this problem bothered me much more than the (AF mirror-caused) out of focus shots did - I don't know how many images I've deleted that were "almost there" or "why the hell is nothing quite in focus". Looks like a MkIIIn is soon forthcoming eh?

JH


Hopefully Jeff will contact RG with his analysis of the photos Rob posted. I'd say there's no reason to believe RG's coverage of this is over. He knows there's still a problem, and if someone presents the problem in a well thought out manor, he has no reason to not bring it to the public eye.

So yeah.. um anyone got Robs number for Jeff?

Things like the Cnet article that just ran aren't going to let help this just go away either.