Got my body back from Canon Irvine about an hour ago. I've been testing it with various lenses and the 1.4x TC II and I can't make it give me any errors. Going to shoot some softball tonight, so we'll see what happens. Also keeping my fingers crossed that when my second body finally comes the same thing doesn't happen.
Service details, as stated on the repair order:
"Adjustments were carried out on the internal component. Other inspection and cleaning and mechanical adjustments were carried out."
I have a question that may be considered a "stupid question", but... Would there ever be a need to have the MKIII's front/back focus calibration/compensation set differently for the same lens both with and without the 1.4x TC? If so, is it capable of saving different settings for a given lens both with and without a TC? Thanks.
EMC 2 wrote:
I have a question that may be considered a "stupid question", but... Would there ever be a need to have the MKIII's front/back focus calibration/compensation set differently for the same lens both with and without the 1.4x TC? If so, is it capable of saving different settings for a given lens both with and without a TC? Thanks.
Not a stupid question at all... I wondered about this too and since I have III here, I did a quick test with settings for just the lens (70-200) alone, with 1.4x and with 2x TC and it remembers a unique setting for each combination. So, yes, it works.. you can have a setting for each lens with and without TC.
As to whether you would need that... there have been times I've sworn I got sharp images without a TC but with TC the lens would consistently front/backfocus, so yes, I think there is value in having this option.
DonM2 wrote:
I just rescued an EF 50mm f1.4 I’ve had for years from dustbin or trade-in fate by the above process. Previously, the only way to handle this matter would be to send body and lens in to Canon Service Center. This is what I call ‘progress’!!!
I haven't had to use the function . . . yet.
But, I now feel vindicated for my YEARS of preaching that Canon's lenses and bodies often don't wokr well togehter . . . while all that time suffernig the jeers of others who thought i was crazy.
I suppose they think that Canon put this feature on the 1D-3 just to cure hypochondriacs like me, and that the problem isn't really real.
I really think they should've called this the DavidP function.
rscheffler wrote:
Not a stupid question at all... I wondered about this too and since I have III here, I did a quick test with settings for just the lens (70-200) alone, with 1.4x and with 2x TC and it remembers a unique setting for each combination. So, yes, it works.. you can have a setting for each lens with and without TC.
As to whether you would need that... there have been times I've sworn I got sharp images without a TC but with TC the lens would consistently front/backfocus, so yes, I think there is value in having this option.
Ron
Ron -- Thank you very much, that's exactly what I wanted to know.
DavidP wrote:
I haven't had to use the function . . . yet.
But, I now feel vindicated for my YEARS of preaching that Canon's lenses and bodies often don't wokr well togehter . . . while all that time suffernig the jeers of others who thought i was crazy.
What about the people who have figured out that you really are crazy? Don't their jeers count?
I haven't shot a lot of moving subjects yet, but I did shoot a hawk catching a vole. Only about 10% of the shots were in focus, even when I thought it was tracking well.
This NatureScapes.Net thread has more and better information on the Mark III's so-called "focusing issues" than anything else I've seen — especially in the latter parts of the thread, not so much in the early going. (It's a long thread.)
I haven't shot a lot of moving subjects yet, but I did shoot a hawk catching a vole. Only about 10% of the shots were in focus, even when I thought it was tracking well.
WOW, I doubt RG would publish a report like that unless he was absolutely sure there were issues and he had done enough testing to preclude operator error. My problem is I don't have enough experience using 1 series tracking to know whether my mkIII is performing flawlessly and it's operator error or not.
This about sums it up for me..taken from Rob Galbraith article...
"it's our view that the EOS-1D Mark III's autofocus is not so much inferior as it is broken. Therefore, the EOS-1D Mark II N is the better autofocus camera in almost all respects."
I'm really impressed that Rob did publish this critical report at the expense of possibly ruffling some feathers at Canon. His report saved me $4495+. I've been holding off on purchasing the new MkIII until I could find an unbiased opinion like his that confirmed my fears. I'll be sticking to my 1DMkI which does an excellent job.
Rob put the consumer ahead of the manufacturer, and I really respect him for that.
Hopefully Canon can address the issues Rob addressed. Until they do, I'm certainly not spending $4495 on the premier sports shooting camera that cant autofocus worth a darn. LIke I'm going to buy the MarkIII for stills and portraits. That's why I have a pair of 5Ds.
Agreed, I thought he did a great job with his article and a real service to potential buyers. I have the camera and even though I couldn't really detect any problem yet, I'm grateful to see his followup. Now I know what to look for when testing, and also what to watch out for while using the camera.
Everybody's results are still rife with inconsistencies. RG had trouble with a runner in broad daylight. Other people here and elsewhere have had good luck with running dogs and large birds in flight, but not with small birds. Others still have had excellent results with small birds in flight, against backgrounds both busy and clean. Some say it's OK with one point selected but not with 45 point, others otherwise. Very weird all round. Certainly more than enough smoke to conclude there's a fire, but it doesn't seem to be one fire — it seems like any number of different fires.
It's also hard for me to believe there's not some significant sample variation at work here. If this were indeed a consistent set of problems that affects all of the cameras, it's almost inconceivable that Canon would have let it out the door in such a condition.
There comments on the Auto focusing abilities of the MK III all sounded positive. They all mentioned that the AF seemed much better than the MK II and IIn. My belief is if there is an issue hopefully Canon will be able to fix it with a firm ware upgrade. My initial observation is that like anything new it may take us awhile to dial in the proper settings each of us will need to be effective in what were shooting. The AF is very sensitive and everyone may need to spend a little more time dialing in there custom functions and practicing with the new focusing system.
I personally have not had any issues with the AF although I have not shot in high heat or overly bright sun as of yet. I will test this when I am in NY this week.
I've had my 1DIII for 2 weeks. I've shot T-ball, baseball, basketball, football, and golf, and I'm experiencing what Galbraith describes.
I'm coming from a 1D, and so far I'm not extremely impressed, but I will stick with it until I determine whether or not it will work out.
AF is the most important feature for me, but I've fallen in love with this camera's functionality. I don't think I could go backwards simply because of the cross-type af points around the periphery. Hopefully, if it's a widespread problem, Canon will tweak it with firmware updates.
72chevelle454 wrote:
I must admit that the focusing was not spot on but did seem to catch up and achieve focus.
That's not what I'm expecting from a camera with a $4495 price tag that is supposed to be the world's "premier" sport shooting camera.
Nice shots.
P.S. I'm a BIG Canon fan (1DMkI + 1 5Ds), but am disappointed about all the auto focus issues in the production bodies, especially after Canon was aware of them in it's preproduction models (see www.robgalbraith.com). I'm glad I held off on my purchase and will solider on with my 1DMKI until Canon can do something to improve the camera's consistiency. I can't spend that much money on a camera and hope I'm one of the people not having focus problems.
I do not yet have any warm and sunny experience with my 1Dmk3, but I will be on the lookout for issues. It is a little harder to find those conditions here in the Pacific Northwest this time of year. Assuming these issues are real, and affect my camera, lets hope that in the long term a firmware rev can help it. Untill then, I am hoping that when there is plenty of light that I can stop down a little, to get extra depth of field to help compensate for any errors. I know that is not always an option for many others, but it fits in OK with most of my needs. As RG concludes near the end of his article, there are really a great deal of other really nice things about the 1Dmk3 to be very happy about, and I am.
