My experience with runners is to have III-2 at -1 or -2 depending on the brightness of the shot, III-3 to 0 for focus priority, III-4 to 0 and III-8 to 0. I use expansion points for sports and III-4 at 1 for events such as the pole vault, high jump or standing perpendicular to the finish line. Scenarios with small intervening objects or moving parallel to the camera. Generally I don't use expansion points. They have worked best for me to help tracking more isolated subjects than to keep focus on a particular subject in a group.

I get the most consistent results for sports with no expansion points, and III-4 at 0. My rule of thumb is the bigger the intervening objects and the more contrast around the subject the riskier the use of expansion points become, particularly with III-4 at 1.

III-4 at 1 with expansion points and I'm telling the camera to stay on what it thinks is the subject by moving the focus point to the highest contrast area in the group of expansion points it assumes is the subject. This works will when the subject isn't moving toward or away from you. Not so well when the subject is moving toward or away from you or with high contrast around the subject. Expansion points with III-4 at 0 and focus is staying on one of those points so if an intervening object like a wave of water or lane line could appear in one of those points I turn down III-2 to -1 or -2 to keep the focus from being moved to the line or wave. Anyway that's what works for me.

Yakim Peled wrote:
mbellot wrote:
Did Canon release a camera with problems? Yes.
Knowingly? Only Canon can really answer that...

You're right but RG stated they knew about it. Now's the question: Do you believe he is telling the truth?

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

Q. Canon had told you they were still working on autofocus at the time you got the preproduction camera. What did they change prior to the production EOS-1D Mark III's release?

Not a lot. On a recent trip to Canon in Japan, we learned that one change was implemented, and that this change wasn't likely to impact autofocus behaviour much, if at all, in shipping units. We're not able to say what the change was, because it was to a capability of the autofocus system that Canon considers to be a trade secret.


Happy shooting,
Yakim.



I recall that RG stated Canon was made aware of AF problems during the pre-production/testing phase and that Canon had reported back with a statement along the lines of "the AF (or parts of the AF) in many of the pre-production bodies is not fully functional (whatever that means)."

I'm not aware of a single instance where RG states Canon was (1) aware of critical AF problems associated with the early production units or more importantly, (2) shipping production bodies with full knowledge they had problematic AF systems.

My gut feeling is Canon was aware they were shipping product with a weakness in the AF system BUT strongly felt (with assurances from the development engineering group) that any and all AF issues could be effectively fixed in the near future via firmware.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

thank you garylv, thank you jeff for your input. i will definitely use your advice and test the camera. today i shot a school event. some of the (low ligh) photos (35L, center point, iso1600) were not focussed in the middle, but focussed at the borders were there was a wall, even i only used center point.

Joe, I think you are mostly spot on with your assessment. Here is the meat that still rings out. It was not that it was fully functional or not here is what he said.

From RG first review article
There is one cause for concern, however, and it's one to pay close attention to if you're planning on buying an EOS-1D Mark III as soon as it ships. In the preproduction body we have, the autofocus doesn't work right. When it was issued to us, Canon made it clear that the autofocus wasn't working right in this generation of preproduction camera and/or firmware and provided the assurances you'd expect about how it will be working properly by the time the new model hits the streets. And that's likely to be the case. But it's not guaranteed to be the case, so please keep that in mind before you hand over your VISA card to your pro camera dealer.

So I am sure Dev or Eng said we could fix it if there is a problem down the line and did continue to ship them out.

On a side note I re-read that first article on the Mk3 and man no wonder I bought one. Just reading it again makes me want to put money down on that body.

Wickedfn4u wrote:
Joe, I think you are mostly spot on with your assessment. Here is the meat that still rings out. It was not that it was fully functional or not here is what he said.

From RG first review article
There is one cause for concern, however, and it's one to pay close attention to if you're planning on buying an EOS-1D Mark III as soon as it ships. In the preproduction body we have, the autofocus doesn't work right. When it was issued to us, Canon made it clear that the autofocus wasn't working right in this generation of preproduction camera and/or firmware and provided the assurances you'd expect about how it will be working properly by the time the new model hits the streets. And that's likely to be the case. But it's not guaranteed to be the case, so please keep that in mind before you hand over your VISA card to your pro camera dealer.

So I am sure Dev or Eng said we could fix it if there is a problem down the line and did continue to ship them out.

Glad you found that RG text ... and yes, it was exactly what I was referring to but unfortunately couldn't remember the exact wording.

Oh, and regarding engineering the really great ones are right only about 70 to 75 percent of the time; their work is not always an exact science and MANY assumptions have to be made ... and made often with very little to go on. I know this comment will sound amazing but external customer demands, management demands, and often ridiculous schedules take their toll and prevent engineers from getting all the data they need to make better decisions ... and this is the way it should be because I've worked with some engineers that if given the time would take years to make even a trivial decision.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Wickedfn4u wrote:
Joe, I think you are mostly spot on with your assessment. Here is the meat that still rings out. It was not that it was fully functional or not here is what he said.

From RG first review article
There is one cause for concern, however, and it's one to pay close attention to if you're planning on buying an EOS-1D Mark III as soon as it ships. In the preproduction body we have, the autofocus doesn't work right. When it was issued to us, Canon made it clear that the autofocus wasn't working right in this generation of preproduction camera and/or firmware and provided the assurances you'd expect about how it will be working properly by the time the new model hits the streets. And that's likely to be the case. But it's not guaranteed to be the case, so please keep that in mind before you hand over your VISA card to your pro camera dealer.

So I am sure Dev or Eng said we could fix it if there is a problem down the line and did continue to ship them out.

I have no doubt the engineers were sinceree about the fact they could fix the problem, however, they were probably never testing it under the conditions in which many were having some serious issues. They probably have a standard suite of tests they have been using for a long time and got the AF to pass those, but with so many variables and hardware faults it was never going to be as simple as a firmware update or minor tweak of algorithms etc.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Wickedfn4u wrote:
Joe, I think you are mostly spot on with your assessment. Here is the meat that still rings out. It was not that it was fully functional or not here is what he said.

From RG first review article
There is one cause for concern, however, and it's one to pay close attention to if you're planning on buying an EOS-1D Mark III as soon as it ships. In the preproduction body we have, the autofocus doesn't work right. When it was issued to us, Canon made it clear that the autofocus wasn't working right in this generation of preproduction camera and/or firmware and provided the assurances you'd expect about how it will be working properly by the time the new model hits the streets. And that's likely to be the case. But it's not guaranteed to be the case, so please keep that in mind before you hand over your VISA card to your pro camera dealer.

So I am sure Dev or Eng said we could fix it if there is a problem down the line and did continue to ship them out.

I have no doubt the engineers were sinceree about the fact they could fix the problem, however, they were probably never testing it under the conditions in which many were having some serious issues. They probably have a standard suite of tests they have been using for a long time and got the AF to pass those, but with so many variables and hardware faults it was never going to be as simple as a firmware update or minor tweak of algorithms etc.

Agree 100 percent!

Joe

jkurkjia wrote:

Oh, and regarding engineering the really great ones are right only about 70 to 75 percent of the time; their work is not always an exact science and MANY assumptions have to be made ... and made often with very little to go on. I know this comment will sound amazing but external customer demands, management demands, and often ridiculous schedules take their toll and prevent engineers from getting all the data they need to make better decisions ... and this is the way it should be because I've worked with some engineers that if given the time would take years to make even a trivial decision.



Joe, I think you hit it spot-on. Engineering is not known to be the fastest business process of all, because every little change may have great implication down the road.

The D700 and the D3 - simply Kill the 1 series Canons. Some may not like it ... but sadly it is true and on more and more tracks you see more and more Nikons due to this. Four years ago it was one shooter in twenty with Nikon gear, now it is roughly 40/60 (in canons favor)

You have a site musclepix? And test to back up the anecdotal hyperbole? Or ... you just don't like the evidence?

Keep in mind that when one in five cameras (just a number out of thin air) are defective ... it does not do much good to post "well, mine is perfect-it even slices bread!" ... does it.

Should it really be any surprise that sooner or later nikon came out with a camera or two that are better than canon? I mean really, the same things happens in most industries, no one company can put enough $ into their products to stay on top year after year, and canon has been whooping up on nikon for a long time until the D3/D300/D700's hit the market.

Didn't surprise me either. But since I have a substantial investment in Canon glass & accessories, I'm ready for Canon to go ahead and whip Nikon's ass again. Let's have some of that fantastic performance over here for the Canon users now.

Pavel wrote:
The D700 and the D3 - simply Kill the 1 series Canons.

Wow, those Nikon cameras sound amazing! I would think if you were a professional, you would have to be crazy to not buy Nikon.

I was a pro until recent health issues. Shot with Canon and Nikon back to back for several years. The most subtle issues can become irritating sometimes when you aren't doing it for fun and while I love much about the 1 series bodies the constant hyperdrive, jittery focus was not one. I found that despite all the forum talk, most guys (and myself) with Canon gear, shoot in single focus mode. That works quite well in its own way. The first time I tried a Nikon it was when I was telling a guy thinking of switching to Canon due to the 45 vs 11 focus points. So we switched as a favor to him for half a day.
I had to be a bit humble. He still shoots Nikon, and I slowly switched, despite the then much worse high iso noise (didn't need it for my niche - but I still hated to lose the all purpose aspect that it gave) and megapixel disadvantage.

Now I can't do sports so I shoot Nikon film (and a bit of digital but very little) , Leica digital (love the rangefinder) ... and I just bought a little rebel for walkaround when I'm not going to take the M8. I'm not biased against Canon and have 16 years experience with Canon. I'm just not biased FOR them, neither.

but ... wow .... a guy would have to be pretty crazy to be closed minded. Gear is closer to a hammer than a crucifix ... don't you agree?

Pavel wrote:
but ... wow .... a guy would have to be pretty crazy to be closed minded. Gear is closer to a hammer than a crucifix ... don't you agree?

If you do this for a living, and tool 'A' simply kills tool 'B', why would any professional choose tool 'B'?

Nikon rocks - In focus. That is all I said. When you have 18,000 bucks tied up in glass .... sometimes one performance aspect not worth an insanely expensive switch. Its just an observance to talk about over coffee ... or some forum. Ergonomics were the other factor for me, and I'm stupid with money.

Times change, and rather quickly too - next year ... canon may have the tables turned (and likely will ... before Nikon or sony perhaps ... turn them again)

I gave up several features because the small but significant focus difference, which manifested strongly IN MY WAY of shooting ... was the most important point. But, and this is a big but ( I mean ... a big however ) ... I never said that Nikon gear was "better". There is no such thing - and if you read what I said ... I said focus ... and meant, quite plainly ... and this stage with those two cams.

(don't tell any of my Nikon friends, I don't want to get flame broiled ... but I actually like Canon long lenses a bit better - because it is cheaper ... level for level. We all make our choices ... and trade-offs)

Pavel wrote:
I gave up several features because the small but significant focus difference, which manifested strongly IN MY WAY of shooting ... was the most important point.

Right! Why people (both the 1D3 apologists and the Nikon fanboys) have such a difficult time understanding that is beyond me. Different folks shoot different subjects and many even shoot the same subject differently. Because one individual finds one system to be superior doesn't mean that everyone will. FOR ME, having spent the last 7 months shooting with both Nikon and Canon I just don't see this huge AF difference. Of course I DON'T shoot sports, probably never will and don't really care to, but for MY WAY of shooting and for my subjects (wildlife), I see little difference in AF reliability and tracking. What little difference I see in tracking, true, the Nikon seems to do a little better especially against busy backgrounds. However I would never be so pretentious as to suggest to someone else that they wouldn't see a difference for what THEIR WAY of shooting.

Pavel wrote:
Nikon rocks - In focus. That is all I said. When you have 18,000 bucks tied up in glass .... sometimes one performance aspect not worth an insanely expensive switch. Its just an observance to talk about over coffee ... or some forum. Ergonomics were the other factor for me, and I'm stupid with money.

Times change, and rather quickly too - next year ... canon may have the tables turned (and likely will ... before Nikon or sony perhaps ... turn them again)

I gave up several features because the small but significant focus difference, which manifested strongly IN MY WAY of shooting ... was the most important point. But, and this is a big but ( I mean ... a big however ) ... I never said that Nikon gear was "better". There is no such thing - and if you read what I said ... I said focus ... and meant, quite plainly ... and this stage with those two cams.

(don't tell any of my Nikon friends, I don't want to get flame broiled ... but I actually like Canon long lenses a bit better - because it is cheaper ... level for level. We all make our choices ... and trade-offs)

I thought this is what you said:

"The D700 and the D3 - simply Kill the 1 series Canons. Some may not like it ... but sadly it is true and on more and more tracks you see more and more Nikons due to this. Four years ago it was one shooter in twenty with Nikon gear, now it is roughly 40/60 (in canons favor)

You have a site musclepix? And test to back up the anecdotal hyperbole? Or ... you just don't like the evidence?

Keep in mind that when one in five cameras (just a number out of thin air) are defective ... it does not do much good to post "well, mine is perfect-it even slices bread!" ... does it."

Arrrrrrrrrrgh noooooooooooo used my 70-200 2.8 today on the MKIII, 2 pm, bright bright sun right above and many oof shots again This is the first 2 pm softball game I've had where I used the MKIII and it was bright sun. I've used the 1DsMKIII with my 300 2.8 and that combo is perfect. Will take it out again to test but man I'm pissed off!

John P Mulgrew wrote:
Arrrrrrrrrrgh noooooooooooo used my 70-200 2.8 today on the MKIII, 2 pm, bright bright sun right above and many oof shots again This is the first 2 pm softball game I've had where I used the MKIII and it was bright sun. I've used the 1DsMKIII with my 300 2.8 and that combo is perfect. Will take it out again to test but man I'm pissed off!

Did it undergo all fixes, including the last one?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

ArtRider wrote:
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."


As stated eralier ... Now Canon finally rebuilt the hole AF-Chamber.

Man, you reall dig deep.....

Happu shooting,
Yakim.