So what's your take on this?

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-10086

Mascat wrote:
So what's your take on this?

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-10086




Not surprised. My 1DsMkIII has been quirky since getting "fixed" and a thorough evaluation of over 1000 images taken recently show front, back and no focus errors in too high a percentage to be a happy camper. Mine will be going back for a third time.

Also, I had a recent conversation with an SI staff photographer who prefers to shoot Canon but who had switched to Nikon because of the focus issue. They still aren't satisfied, even with the improvements and he cited inconsistent performance as the issue. Sometimes it focuses and sometimes it doesn't.

That it is still an issue was clearly illustrated by the very, very small number of 1DMkIII's at the Penn Relays this year. At least 100 pros and I only saw two 1DMkIII in the media room or on the track. Well over 1/2 were shooting D3's and the majority of the balance was 1DMkIIs.

Whole thing is really frustrating but I am glad that the percentage of people who seem to be happy with theirs is going up.

My first thought was that perhaps the topic had been so beaten to death that no matter what canon did some would never be happy with the result. However, since they say it repeatedly would not live up to shots taken with the 1d mk ii N it would see it is still subpar in it's AF servo. It's odd that others have reported significant improvement but that could be because of other issues or larger mis-calibrations. It could just be that canon has changed it's AF algorithms and these few situations are no longer ideal for their current servo algorithm. This would be a huge mistake to me simply because fast moving action coming toward you is a frequent situation for action shooting. It does make me wonder if the problem is wide spread, I mean there has to be pros all over the world that have to shoot that kind of action, and are they all having such issues with AF on this camera? Is it only a few that are having major issues with this type of action. It just seems that if it was widespread that canon would have done whatever it took quickly to fix the issue or risk loosing a huge marketshare.

What would concern me right now is that the 1d mkIII is getting towards the end of it's cycle life most likely, how long will canon try and fix this problem before abandoning the attempt. Certainly we will see a replacement in the next year, and possibly in the next few months. So that begs the question if in over 2 years canon cannot fix the problem how long will they commit significant resources to fixing it. At what point (and maybe already since this last firmware seems to have done nothing) will they quit seriously working on the problem and put all the effort into the new camera's AF. My guess would also be that maybe it's a hardware issue, obviously repeated firmware changes have not fixed the problem, and canon is probalby unwilling to foot the bill for another major recall if it was a hardware issue this late in the products life. It just seems odd that a software algorithm only issue would allude their engineers for 2 years with no fix. In most products that usually means it's a hardware problem that's not worth doing a recall/repair from a cost standpoint.

If I had spent $4500 on a pure sports camera that would not focus as well as a 1d mk ii N I would be a very upset canon customer that is for sure. It does surprise me that on this level of camera, that it's taken this long and canon cannot still fix the issue decisively.

I know from personal experience that RG is wrong, or he didn't get his cameras fixed properly. I used the MKII and MKIIN for 2 years, and prior to the fix, they had much more reliable AF in daylight than the MKIII. Now after the fix, the MKIII is at least as good as the MKII in daylight, if not better. In low light, the MKIII destroys the MKII, and always has.

Combine that with the fact that the overwhelming majority of users on these forums have stated the same improvement, as have the various polls. Even before the fix, a respect german magazine, and a few websites that ran head to head daylight servo tests with the top cams out there showed the 1D Mark III tops, beating the Mark II and D3.

All the MKIII owners I know personally also have this same experience. I think it's RG that is broken, not the camera

Is a working Mark III AF system really THAT much better than the older AF system used in the 1D Mark I and Mark II?

It'd be funny to see Canon revert back to the older AF system for the Mark IV.

Oh well. Mine got better, for my use, and that's all I care about

I fully supported Rob before, but a lot of very good photographers have been seeing marked improvements and are saying their camera is now much better than their 1D II (N)'s ever were. I am at a loss to explain the dichotomy and just hope the 1D IV is free of major issues as I don;t think I could bring myself to spend big money on this camera despite the reports of many talented shooters.

Ariel Bravy wrote:
Is a working Mark III AF system really THAT much better than the older AF system used in the 1D Mark I and Mark II?

It'd be funny to see Canon revert back to the older AF system for the Mark IV.
In daylight, I find the AF systems about the same with the 1D's. I think the Mark III has a slight edge using off center AF points.
In lowlight, it's no contest, the MK III destroys the the MK II and MK IIN in my combined 3+ years of use of both cameras. I have not used the MK I.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
I fully supported Rob before, but a lot of very good photographers have been seeing marked improvements and are saying their camera is now much better than their 1D II (N)'s ever were. I am at a loss to explain the dichotomy and just hope the 1D IV is free of major issues as I don;t think I could bring myself to spend big money on this camera despite the reports of many talented shooters.
+1
Although, I'm so happy with my MK III atm, and crunched for cash, so the if the MK IV doesn't come any time soon, I don't mind. And now using the new FlexNR custom 1D MKIII action, I get cleaner high ISO images than any DSLR out there. I just wish the 1D MKIII was a FEW more Mpixels for stock even if it doesn't make much real world difference.

I have always believed it's mass hysteria, my cameras are always quirky when I get them, till I actually learn the camera, then it works just the way I expect. I don't hear people talking about learning the camera these days, just complaints that the camera doesn't read their thoughts and doesn't have a built in coffee maker. I guess I'm just old fashioned like that? I just say that because I used a few Mark III's that were suppose to be "broken", but after a short learning curve and tweaking the settings, it worked fine for me, but not the owner. Maybe I just got lucky?

Daniel K wrote:
I have always believed it's mass hysteria, my cameras are always quirky when I get them, till I actually learn the camera, then it works just the way I expect. I don't hear people talking about learning the camera these days, just complaints that the camera doesn't read their thoughts and doesn't have a built in coffee maker. I guess I'm just old fashioned like that? I just say that because I used a few Mark III's that were suppose to be "broken", but after a short learning curve and tweaking the settings, it worked fine for me, but not the owner. Maybe I just got lucky?
I have similar experiences.
What settings in particular do you find work best?
For me, I get the best results mainly leaving all the AF functions at default.

Never felt I had a problem, but since coming back from latest round, all I can say is it definately works better than the 1DIIn, So I remain happy.

"I know from personal experience that RG is wrong"...
"I have always believed it's mass hysteria"...

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.

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...

The quote below taken from Rob's article:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-10086


"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.

RG copped a lot of flak earlier on but was ultimately proven right. All Canon has to do is fix HIS cameras and he'd give a good report but they never managed to do that. And at one stage the Canon people were on site with him during his extensive testing.

I think he gave a balanced account of how things are and why other people may or may not have similar findings. Given the run of crap I've had with my 1D2, 1Ds2 and 40D I'm not at all surprised that he and others continue to have problems even after getting the cameras serviced.

- Alan

PetKal wrote:

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.


... but not yet quite enough to make you get a Nikon

- Alan

I read this earlier this morning. Sadly, the cloud hanging over this camera's head - both Mark III's actually - will persist.

I'm sure that many are seeing improvements, but as RG reports, some still do not. Canon can't put this body behind them soon enough, but in this economy I don't see it happening. Perhaps August/Sept will bring something, but I'm not too hopeful.

Alan321 wrote:
PetKal wrote:

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.


... but not yet quite enough to make you get a Nikon

- Alan

Right, it is the good EF lenses I own which like a proverbial albatross keep me anchored aboard the EOS ship. The Mk II's, while not of scintillating AF servo performance in my books, will have to make do until something decidedly better comes along, be that Mk IV or whatever.

Well, RG is one dude. The VAST majority of users on these forums report the opposite results (including me) of his findings. And I've used the 1D Mark II's for over 2 years, and the 1D Mark III for over 1 1/2 years, so I know how to compare the two cameras. So, those of us with positive experiences far outweigh RG's "single" experience, no matter how good a photographer he (thinks) he is... (shh, don't tell him, he isn't, read below).

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.

And even before the fix, there were two other sources, a German Photo Magazine, and an online web site much like RB's ran the exact same tests as RG, and the 1D Mark III came out on top, ahead of the D3, etc.

I know a bodybuilding photographer in Calgary who has worked with RB many times and says he's not worth much as a photographer, and even less as a reviewer of hardware (and since the original MK III debacle, he's had nothing good to say about anything Canon).

Anyway, the fact that my camera now operates miles better than any other DSLR out there after the fix (from personal experience), and the same for the majority of 1D Mark III owners, means that RG's opinion doesn't mean jack squat to us.

So for those of you who don't even own a 1D Mark III and want to believe RG... go right ahead!
For those few who still have problems, I really do feel sorry for you... that sucks.
But for the vast majority of us who own the 1D Mark III and now feel it's fixed and has the best AF on the planet, well, none of this really matters any more.

Emile Gregoire wrote:
"I know from personal experience that RG is wrong"...
"I have always believed it's mass hysteria"...

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.

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...

This is why I recently switched back to Nikon.

The AF on the D3 and D700 is so much more accurate than the Mark III.

It's too bad Canon couldn't have fixed this problem but those of us who depend on our cameras to make a living cannot afford to wait for Canon to get this right.

I tried to use a Mark III this past weekend for a youth rodeo but after a couple of events, there were just too many missed shots.

I left the Canon in my camera bag and shot everything with a D700/MB10/ENL4 and 70-200 and had about 99% keepers as opposed to less than 50% with the Mark III.

I was leaving the door open for a Mark IV but the last of my Canon gear will be gone by the end of June.

Lee Woolery
Speedshot Photo

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.

This is similar in relationship to the ProPhoto test that showed the Mark III besting the D3 before the recall.
http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/pro-photo-reviews-articles/76674-canon-canon-1d-camera-canon-mkiii-camera-vs-nikon-nikon-d3-camera-sports-autofocus-showdown.html

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.

PetKal wrote:
The quote below taken from Rob's article:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-10086


"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".

Here's the gallery of kids soccer http://www.fadely.smugmug.com/gallery/8245100_6tfnM#539172846_QqdJx

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.

This is similar in relationship to the ProPhoto test that showed the Mark III besting the D3 before the recall.
http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/pro-photo-reviews-articles/76674-canon-canon-1d-camera-canon-mkiii-camera-vs-nikon-nikon-d3-camera-sports-autofocus-showdown.html

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.

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.

Lee Woolery
Speedshot Photo

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!