ben_is_in wrote:
It's not a settings issue. I've been shooting sports with a 1D for the past two years with center focus point only, no expansion, with servo tracking sensitivity set to moderately slow with good results.
The only new custom function that would affect my shooting style is CFn.III-3 which I set to 1 because I'm only using center point anyway. Having said that, I've tried different tracking sensitivity settings between default and slow and I can say that my 1D outperforms my 1DIII in aquiring and tracking subjects. This is not a good thing.
Are you shooting in good light and/or or warm days, since that's where RobG's article seems to indicate that most of the issues arise?
Yes, most of my issues are coming under bright sunlight when subjects are lit from the front as well as when they're backlit. Temperature is not a factor.
DavidP wrote:
Are you shooting in good light and/or or warm days, since that's where RobG's article seems to indicate that most of the issues arise?
72chevelle454 wrote:
This was on DP, thought I would share it here as well, they are letting us perform our own test.... Sorry if you have already read it
"Hi, Peter:
Neither I nor anyone else I know at Canon has any complaints about Rob Galbraith's comments on the EOS-1D Mark III, nor did we attempt to influence his report in any way, shape or form.
I can't comment on the specific AF issues affecting pre-production 1D Mark III cameras, but I can confirm that none of the pre-production cameras were completely functional in terms of AF performance. In other words, there was nothing unique about the particular camera that Rob used.
In the meantime, the initial firmware for mass production samples of the 1D Mark III (i.e., cameras intended for sale to the public) has been approved. Therefore, it stands to reason that any known AF issues that may have affected the preproduction cameras have since been resolved to Canon's satisfaction. In any case, the proof will be in the pudding as "they" say. We are content to let our customers tell us what they think after they perform their own tests.
Best Regards,
Chuck Westfall
Director/Media & Customer Relationship
Camera Marketing Group/Canon U.S.A., Inc." ...Show more →
It would only be fair to include the date of that statement. It's not particularly current, and certainly not since the great bulk of the recent online information regarding AF problems has come out. I think we can reasonably expect another statement from Canon in the near future.
And just how do you think Canon might prevent us from performing our own tests?
Nill
I agree with you. Canon will likely make a statement after they figure out a fix but not before. If they do not find a fix, they will likely not make a statement.
Nill Toulme wrote:
It would only be fair to include the date of that statement. It's not particularly current, and certainly not since the great bulk of the recent online information regarding AF problems has come out. I think we can reasonably expect another statement from Canon in the near future.
And just how do you think Canon might prevent us from performing our own tests?
Nill Toulme wrote:
It would only be fair to include the date of that statement. It's not particularly current, and certainly not since the great bulk of the recent online information regarding AF problems has come out. I think we can reasonably expect another statement from Canon in the near future.
And just how do you think Canon might prevent us from performing our own tests?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Agreed. This was in response to the preproduction model Galbraith was using.
The airshow I shot with my 1DMKIII about 10 days ago had a 95+% in focus rate for airplanes in flight. Bright conditions, very warm too. As good or better than I had with 1D, 1DMkII, or 1DMkIIn. Maybe I got lucky?
Well that is dis concerning for you (ben) and all of us, I did get feedback from canon in that they need to see these cameras to get it figured out unfortunately its a problem that doesn't present itself all the time, as above two tiers poster suggested a unified way to test would be good and a few more people to send their camera in for review. My self in taking bird shots I can get it to not track pretty easy, when I find a hawk around. I was looking into the Mark11 before I caught the bug to buy new I am still confident that canon will get this to focus as good or preferably better than the Mark11's. Thanks Chuck for the reply that is what most of us need is an acknowledgment that we are here and supporting Canon as Canon is here supporting us. Thanks again Chuch for your kind reply.
I do not know if this will help. Art Morris has developed a guide for the Mark III with details about setting the various custom functions. He is asking $20 for it. I have been reading in for the past few days. He has many suggestions for setting the focus for various activities. It seems quite complete to me.
I am not affiliated with him, just a Mark III user.
I am just mentioning this because of the frustrations that I see. I have not tested the settings yet since I have had no opportunity to take any pictures with action.
I have occasional error 99s which vanish on reset. I suspect that it's the battery (the one that came with the camera not the spare I bought later). So buy a spare if you don't have one.
John Ferguson wrote:
The airshow I shot with my 1DMKIII about 10 days ago had a 95+% in focus rate for airplanes in flight. Bright conditions, very warm too. As good or better than I had with 1D, 1DMkII, or 1DMkIIn. Maybe I got lucky?
www.johnferguson.net/blueangels
John,
Those are very nicely done. If those are from a "broken camera" I could probably live with it.
Can you please provide a few details about the images, ie. lens, ISO, aperture etc. as I can't access the exif info.
Those are very nicely done. If those are from a "broken camera" I could probably live with it.
Can you please provide a few details about the images, ie. lens, ISO, aperture etc. as I can't access the exif info.
Thanks for the kind words. I only average one airshow a year and was happy when my MKIII made it in time for this year. Was a bright, hazy day and since the Blue Angels flew at 3:30 and we were on the east side of the flightline, was slightly into the sun. Aerial shots taken with 70-200 2.8 IS with Canon 1.4 II extender. Here is one with EXIF intact. No sharpening, ACR conversion.
http://www.johnferguson.net/images/oracle.jpg
Here is a 100% crop of the above showing detail in the cockpit. No sharpening. EXIF intact.
http://www.johnferguson.net/images/oracle100.jpg
For the in-flight shots, used TV mode, 1/500 (to get prop blur) - 1/5000 sec (jet crossing shots) with ISO high enough to get decent aperture, generally 400 - 800. Lots of 1/1000 - 1/2000. +1 EV to push the sky all the way to the right of the histogram and get some detail out of the dark blue planes. Ground shots were 24-70L ISO 100 F11 with sun more at my back. If there are any others you would like to see the EXIF or 100% areas, send me a PM and I will be happy to share.
AI Servo (of course) and some shots using all focus points but most taken with center focus point only and c.fn set to expand to center 9 points. IS set to mode 2 (panning).
Has anyone tried to reverse the AF function between the * and AF-ON button in CF IV - 2 to see if there is a speed difference in focus speed when aquiring a new target? I made a post on this topic a few pages back and would like to see if anyone else can see this difference.
Wouldn't it be funny if that turned out to be the key? I bet a lot of people have made that swap, first thing out of the box, just to be consistent with what they're used to.
John Ferguson wrote:
The airshow I shot with my 1DMKIII about 10 days ago had a 95+% in focus rate for airplanes in flight. Bright conditions, very warm too. As good or better than I had with 1D, 1DMkII, or 1DMkIIn. Maybe I got lucky?
My guess is that you were shooting mainly against blue sky, so there was nothing in the background to confuse the AF?
Nill Toulme wrote:
It would only be fair to include the date of that statement. It's not particularly current, and certainly not since the great bulk of the recent online information regarding AF problems has come out. I think we can reasonably expect another statement from Canon in the near future.
And just how do you think Canon might prevent us from performing our own tests?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Sorry for the confusion... My point was that we have preformed our own test and it seem there is a problem with the majority of cameras out in the field. You are correct about including the date, but it clearly states in the letter that it was referring to the pre-production camera's. I was just making a point. it seems canon has left us to do the testing on their new AF system and we have, now lets get a fix out before we all go crazy
C.J. Well it is a long shot (pardon the pun)... do you have this camera and have you noticed a difference. that would be interesting if that made a difference
Eoscjr wrote:
Has anyone tried to reverse the AF function between the * and AF-ON button in CF IV - 2 to see if there is a speed difference in focus speed when aquiring a new target? I made a post on this topic a few pages back and would like to see if anyone else can see this difference.
72chevelle454 wrote:
Sorry for the confusion... My point was that we have preformed our own test and it seem there is a problem with the majority of cameras out in the field. You are correct about including the date, but it clearly states in the letter that it was referring to the pre-production camera's. I was just making a point. it seems canon has left us to do the testing on their new AF system and we have, now lets get a fix out before we all go crazy
That's what I object to — you're spinning Chuck's earlier statement to make it sound like he's saying "We don't need to test our cameras — y'all can test them for us after we sell them to you." That's not what he's saying at all; he was expressing confidence, as of that time, that the pre-production problems had been resolved.
And where do you get the conclusion about the problems affecting "the majority of cameras out in the field?" In the various "issues" threads here and elsewhere, there are as many people saying "mine works great" as are saying "mine doesn't," and even in the poll going on here re sending them back, most people have said their camera is fine. Not only is the presence or not of problems not consistent, but the very nature of the problems being reported is not consistent.
[/cognitive dissonance mode]
I still have not canceled my own pending order, but the whole thing is kind of nerve-wracking — especially as I sent my last Mark II out the door sold today, and I'm down to my 400D.
THere are too many variables. you have different cameras, different users (huge variable), different shooting conditions (light, subject, lenses, movement, temperature), different camera settings. These are not additive but exponential. NO wonder there is so much confusion.
