Another vote for the MKIII over the MKIIn or MKII. I have had them all. Not only is my MKIII focus better, I can also micro-adjust its focus to make it spot on. Try that with the MKII's.

Also, my friend has the Nikon D300 and D3 and is continually missing images that I get. Am I that much better than him? I don't think so. He has said that that latest Nikon firmware has improved his focus accuracy, but still not to the level of what I am getting with the MKIII. These are side by shooting comparisons, but granted there is a difference in shooters.

At this point, I really think there are a few bad bodies around, but I just looked at a two page NBA photo spread in SI magazine and at least 7 or 8 bodies out of about 10 were Canon. If Nikons were clearly better, I would not expect to see that ratio.

musclepics wrote:

from what I've heard, is not very good at what he does, .

Interesting saying...

Put what RG's finding aside, at least RG is Canon's TESTER, Canon values his test results..

I have both latest Af fixed 1D Mark III and 1Ds Mark III, they do perform better for what I shoot with the outer loop AF points, but it doesn't mean RG will get the better result for what he is shooting. and he has the test shooting pictures to back his words.

So who knows ! but i am happy with my cameras now, and I have no reasons to judge RG is poor for what he's doing as a photographer or Canon tester.

Cheers

Hmm... let's see if I can sum this up

Canon has spend time going through recalls, firmware updates etc. These series of events should qualify for most as an admission of the fact there was something wrong with the MkIII. At this stage we have some reporting, in their experience going through the fix process, a valued improvement, others not. We've all read the comments from those with strong conviction regarding the topic and yet we are still presented with dissenting opinions as to the current operating state of this model. This does not come as a surprise as nothing new has happened here. There have always been reports citing different experiences with almost every body each major camera company has produced. What most are hoping for out of this unfortunate situation is a definitive solution to their personal experience with its AF issues.

Given the multitude of reports with varying degrees of operator acceptability it becomes an interesting dilemma for one who has been sitting on the fence fervently hoping the MkIII will emerge as a body that is operating 100% as spec'd. At the end of the day, for those with the MkIII, each has to decide if they are satisfied and if not, what next steps are they going to take. And for those of us who haven't taken the jump, we will have decide whether its time to buy or wait.

Continuing to shoot my MkII.....

Matt

a summary was needed. pretty simple when we step back and look at it in review.

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.


You're not doing much to establish any credibility of your own with posts like these... perhaps your personal dislike of RG is clouding your judgment?

musclepics wrote:
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.


You can't be serious. When you follow forums like this regularly it's easy to see half the people didn't even understand what the main complaints were in the first place. Especially the newer owners.

I really believe this: A lot of people heard and saw the headlines: "1D Mark III Has Focus Issues", but they didn't bother to read the exhaustive details, stepped out into their back yards for a few test shots and said "Mine works fine, I don't see any trouble". And you could tell they didn't know the details because of the examples they posted. Many people don't even have the lenses to adequately test what RG demonstrated.

The polls are worthless.

RG is not claiming that everyone should be seeing the same trouble he is demonstrating. There are a number of contributing factors that don't always apply in everyone's situation. But he demonstrates clearly the trouble is still there

Pay particular attention to this:

"While we continue to find fault in that design, if for what you shoot, how you shoot, the lenses you shoot with and so on, the camera's getting the job done, there's no downside to that."

Just because a number of people don't SEE the trouble themselves, that doesn't mean it's not there for the rest of us. It's there and it's been demonstrated well.

molson wrote:

You're not doing much to establish any credibility of your own with posts like these... perhaps your personal dislike of RG is clouding your judgment?


Don't see why he has to "establish his credibility" here - he has before now backed his opinion up with images (ie proof) and so - in any logical sense - his opinion is already every bit as valid as RG's.

And indeed, more compelling in my view, because while it's not hard to make a good camera produce bad results (a la RG) it's all but impossible to make a bad camera routinely produce good results: conclusion, it may not be the camera that's the problem where RG is concerned.

And - please - no "RG is a pro, he knows what he's talking about": I see "pro" images every day (often on here) that make me wonder how the hell anyone producing such crappy images can be making money from photography...

Garylv wrote:
Just because a number of people don't SEE the trouble themselves, that doesn't mean it's not there for the rest of us. It's there and it's been demonstrated well.

The exact opposite works too: Just because RG has a problem, doesn't mean that it isn't down to him rather than the camera - I for one have long doubted his testing regimen...

keithreeder wrote:
I for one have long doubted his testing regimen...

But what really matters to the rest of us, is that Canon does not. They gave him more equipment again to test this time. Remember, they've been on-site with him in the past.

he just learned not to expand center poing AF assist. Ugh. remember he never micro-AF adjusts either and swaps lenses around like a hot potato.

I mean he might have a good eye for certain photo types but he is DENSE to say the least.

Emile Gregoire wrote:
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.

Glen_C wrote:
...but he is DENSE to say the least.



Canon clearly disagrees with you.

In year 2007, and Fm forum post:
"http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/585555/0#5126463"

- And finally on RG site:
"Q. I've heard of photographers whose EOS-1D Mark III focused much better after being sent in for the revised AF calibration routine. Why are they getting better autofocus and you aren't?

We've heard the same ....... explanation probably lies in the following:

* First, a different mechanical starting point. Several of the photographers who've been in touch, and included a description of the service work done, said that Canon replaced one or more bits of hardware inside the mirror box at the same time as the revised AF calibration was performed. One indicated that the entire mirror box itself was removed and a new one put in.This suggests that these photographers' EOS-1D Mark III bodies had mechanical problems instead of, or in addition to, an AF miscalibration, problems that would likely contribute to worse autofocus performance than we were seeing previously."

keithreeder wrote:
....I see "pro" images every day (often on here) that make me wonder how the hell anyone producing such crappy images can be making money from photography...

Now that's funny.

Actually, you can buy labels that stick to your shirt. Write "Pro" on them, stick them on, and behold, you're now (a) Pro!

I do agree with you though. I've seen many images here (and on my own monitor) that make me wince! all I can say is that when it happens to me I'm smart enough not to post that crap.

Garylv wrote:
musclepics wrote:

... A lot of people heard and saw the headlines: "1D Mark III Has Focus Issues" ...they stepped out into their back yards for a few test shots and said "Mine works fine, I don't see any trouble". And you could tell they didn't know the details because of the examples they posted. Many people don't even have the lenses to adequately test what RG demonstrated.



Count me in there ... I don't shoot sports, people running at me, on hot humid days, etc. BUT I figured I'd better test my MkIII when I got it to make sure it worked OK. I DID read the conditions RG used. Seemed pretty straight forward ...

What I discovered is I don't know how to shoot fast action sports, people running fast towards me, dogs running around chasing balls, etc. Sure, I had a lot of OOF shots, but on careful review, it was pretty clear why. So I worked at it and guess what .... fewer OOF shots. Seemed better after the latest fix, BUT I have also been working at it.

Digital and computers and 100% crops have made us all better "testers", and given us way more to look at vs the "old days" of film. Opened up a whole new world. Look at me: I tried to test a pro grade cam shooting conditions that were alien to me ... because I could and felt I should.

I'm not saying RG is an anyway wrong in his conclusions, or anyone else for that matter. Clearly there was and may still be an issue under certain conditions with this cam. But I suspect, as you do, that many opinions on this cam's AF performance, reflected in polls and forum posts, are conclusions from tests where user error or inexperience played the biggest role in the results.

All I can say for sure is that for indoor low light, dance and stage, my MkIII is far more consistent than the 5D I had, or the 50D I use sometimes ... especially the outer AF points.

musclepics wrote:
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.

Hope you've read RG's article better because I never stated that. In fact, my camera came back worse than before. Canon ended up giving me a brand new one, with which indeed I am happy.

musclepics wrote:
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.

And tell me why you have more credibility than Rob? Rob has backed up his findings with detailing his test and showing the results. What have you backed up your findings with other than a lot of hot air.

In a way the furore surrounding this camera has become a little like a religious debate - some people are convinced their cameras have improved & see RG's intractability as heresy, others (& many who don't own the camera) see this as a vindication of their conviction (not to believe). Both sides are arguing over what constitutes the basis for faith.

As for me, I just bought the camera & am very happy with it so far - & not particularly concerned with comparisons to a camera I've never used & likely never will. How it compares to the Mk IV - now that's a debate I'll be interested in.

Nello Milanese wrote:
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!

Well if it wasn't for Rob taking his stance and making his findings public...maybe Canon would not have tried so hard to fix the problems. I remember when the issue 1st focused ( PUN intended ), we had the majority of people on this forum saying Rob was full of it. Time proved Rob right and even Canon reluctantly caved in.

Once again Rob makes his statement and we again here those same people putting down Rob because they got a few good focused shots. History has a way of repeating itself and I would put my money with Rob as I have read his fully scientific focus test and his way of evaluating the results and that provides a lot more creditability than someone on a forum saying my camera is fixed...so Rob is full of it.

keithreeder wrote:
Garylv wrote:
Just because a number of people don't SEE the trouble themselves, that doesn't mean it's not there for the rest of us. It's there and it's been demonstrated well.

The exact opposite works too: Just because RG has a problem, doesn't mean that it isn't down to him rather than the camera - I for one have long doubted his testing regimen...

And why do you suppose Canon spent maybe millions of dollars recalling the cameras and coming out with numerous fixes if Rob was just a hack? Keith, I really don't follow your logic.

Just to play safe why not wait for the 1D3 and 1Ds3 replacement?

I truly believe that the markIII has become a "mind game" to many people...if the camera was fixed perfectly and performed perfectly many people would still find issues because all cameras have problems and issues and this one is no different....at this point it is a waste of time to continue to debate the merits of the camera....the markIII has so many improvements over the markII that it is literally not worth comparison as far as i am concerned....if you get good results with it as i do then it is fixed...if you do not then it isnt....what more can be said about the camera anymore?

Well no tool is perfect. But it is to RG's and Canon's credit that they continue to test and fix. If RG had nothing to offer then Canon would not have piggybacked on his testing. The real outcome may well be that the Mk IV will be delayed until Canon is sure that RG (and the rest of us) will be able to use a much more advanced AF system.

I too have been in the position of finding discrepancies in expensive professional equipment and in reporting them took a lot of flack. It took a lot of time and money to document what I had learned in, exhaustive, use of the product.

Later the manufacture, and other associated companies, used my testing and research to improve their products and use modalities. But I was left with the reputation of, at best, a troublemaker. So I want to thank RG for doing what, seemingly, no one else would do (and for nothing)-so all of us could benefit.

jonbrach wrote:
I truly believe that the markIII has become a "mind game" to many people...if the camera was fixed perfectly and performed perfectly many people would still find issues because all cameras have problems and issues and this one is no different....at this point it is a waste of time to continue to debate the merits of the camera....the markIII has so many improvements over the markII that it is literally not worth comparison as far as i am concerned....if you get good results with it as i do then it is fixed...if you do not then it isnt....what more can be said about the camera anymore?

+1

I have owned a total of 4 MKIIs and MKIINs and 3 MKIIIs. I have owned and used every 1 series camera manufactured by Canon, except the 1DsMKIII, from their inception.

The first 2 copies of the MKIII I had were problematic and the latest copy has been better than any of the MKIIs I have owned. I did see an improvement in focus accuracy after the recent AF adjustment. Most of my lens don't need any MA anymore.

I also shoot sports as well as wildlife and my MKIII has performed flawlessly compared to previous MKIIs. Any OOF shot is usually my fault. I really don't know what you could ask for more given the other improvements of the MKIII over the MKII.

I don't know RG and I wouldn't begin to question his ability or testing paradign because his results don't matter to me. What matters to me is the results I get with the MKIII because I'm the one it has to please.

Jim

Yeah, there is an element of shooting the messenger here & that certainly isn't fair. But reasonable people should be able to disagree. There are many people who feel RG's testing doesn't replicate their own experience & they should be entitled to voice that feeling without being told they don't know what they are talking about.

let's see if I can simplify my results:

MKIII before latest fix = BAD
MKIII after latest fix = GOOD

Look at my BIF galleries and see if it looks like I know how to shoot moving objects

I do believe some people's cameras are still not performing up to spec (maybe RG is one of those), but mine certainly is working very well