DavidP wrote:
If it's always been an issue with any AF camera, then what's the fuss all about?
Well for me at least, I never expected the Mark III to excel in such situations. But, I have also experienced gross AF accuracy issues in situations that did not have any heat haze issues. These have particularly been in backlit situations. Using CF-III-8-2 seems to have resolved some of this as related to the subject matter I photograph.
As I reported in my post over at the AF issues thread, last evening I photographed a football game and turned down the fps rate to 8 from 10. AF consistency during sequences, whether front or backlit, tended to be quite good. Definitely not worse than my Mark II Ns. I came away from that game with generally better feelings about the Mark III. But it's still not perfect and after only one game it's difficult to really know if setting 8 fps vs. 10 fps made a significant difference. Towards the end of the game when it was dark (ISO 3200 1/400@f/2.8), there were still many frames in sequences at 8 fps where focus was somewhat off, usually slightly backfocused. I noticed this particularly in shots of players walking off the field (not running). I was using a 400 2.8 on the Mark III. But, an interesting comparison against the Mark II N I was using at the same time with the 135 f/2 indicated that the N had a much harder time keeping the same players in focus once they were too close for the Mark III & 400. So in that respect, the Mark III seemed to work better. And from what I recall from night games during football season last year, the Mark II N also had its fair share of OOF frames tracking players walking off the field with the 400...
I have had my body since June 1 (because B &H was closed the previous Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday!), and I have almost 2,000 frames on mine at this point...I have shot HS baseball and some other editorial assignments, and I don't know for certain that I've seen this issue...I plan on shooting some motorsports and some nature images in the next few days to see if I can reproduce the issue. I live in South Texas, south of Houston, so it's definitely warm...
Hi,
In the past two weeks I have had some strange numbering of the images. I set it for continuous numbering reset to zero. Often, when using a different CF card the number jumps to 6,000 +
The Canon tech had no idea.
BTW, I don't think many of the NY techs are up to speed on the Mark III.
mogur2 wrote:
Hi,
In the past two weeks I have had some strange numbering of the images. I set it for continuous numbering reset to zero. Often, when using a different CF card the number jumps to 6,000 +
The Canon tech had no idea.
BTW, I don't think many of the NY techs are up to speed on the Mark III.
I have noticed that if I insert a CF card in the Mark III that had been in one of my Mark II Ns and not yet formatted, that the Mark III will show a number on the cumulative frame counter on the back lower LCD that is the next number after the last file number on the card. If I don't format the card and proceed to use it in the Mark III, it continues the numbering sequence already on the card (the last four digits, not also the first four unique digits). If I format that card in the Mark III first and use it in the camera, it continues from the last frame number that it used on the previous card (in other words, continues the proper numbering sequence).
If you have to use a card that already has files on it from an earlier shoot with the camera or another camera, create a folder first and it should allow the Mark III to continue its original numbering sequence.
BTW anyone know why the M3 adds a misc folder onto each card?
rscheffler wrote:
If you have to use a card that already has files on it from an earlier shoot with the camera or another camera, create a folder first and it should allow the Mark III to continue its original numbering sequence.
