I looked at your previous image late last night and have to agree that it looked a bit soft...however, your new post looks much better. As long as you (and client) are happy and it prints well, that's all that matters.
I'm also a happy camper with my MKIII!
susi wrote:
Your picture doen't even show up on my monitor Colin, but that red X looks out of focus
beautiful Pepito!
Susi,
Sorry for just posting a link to a PBase shot. I (and apparently many other Europeans) are having great difficulty in getting credit card authorisation for paid membership, image uploading, etc. on US forums (I have been trying for nearly a month to give NSN forum my $40).
Anyway, we're getting a bit off-topic; my only reason for linking to the photo of the Black-tailed Godwit was to show what a "mere" XTi/400D can do (that bird was 80 metres away and the shot is very heavily cropped) and that I feel the Mk III should be much better. In fact, quite e few people who have visited my PBase site have commented that most of my older 400D shots are sharper than my Mk III shots - I find that a bit worrying.
Hrow wrote:
I don't know, the bottom part of that shot sure looks fuzzy to me.
Believe it or not, I sent a full size version of that image to a friend in the U.K. - she showed it her tutor (she is doing an evening course in Photoshop) who reckoned that I had "dodged" (i.e. replicated the reflection) that shot!!!
At lunchtime I re-set all camera settings as well as Custom Functions and started again from scratch - suddenly, BINGO ...
You know you've just started the latest rumor, don't you? Bet I see at least a couple of posts on it today at DPR. Actually, I'm surprised that at least the suggestion hasn't surfaced earlier.
Oh, wouldn't it be great if that was the answer ...
Brooke Clyde wrote:
You know you've just started the latest rumor, don't you? Bet I see at least a couple of posts on it today at DPR. Actually, I'm surprised that at least the suggestion hasn't surfaced earlier.
Oh, wouldn't it be great if that was the answer ...
It isn't rocket science Brooke (although the camera itself may be!), but this approach got me out of trouble yesterday. I have one of the very first Mk IIIs shipped to a Canon main dealer in the U.K. (my serial number is 503xxx) and from the first shots (literally straight from the box) I was impressed. I was testing different lenses with both animate and inanimate objects and really just looking at IQ to begin with. I then began to experiment with different camera settings and custom functions (some of these are so poorly explained, even in the additional Canon "help pages" which Galbraith put on his site, as to be almost meaningless - at least to me) and was keeping notes on what I was doing and what the results were, and at the same time reading everyone else's suggestions on various forums.
I have not really tried to duplicate the conditions which RG found were causing AF problems, but I do shoot birds in flight and was getting very good results with my 500 f/4 + x1.4TC. I reckoned that I had a "good copy" of the Mk III body. I then bought (only last week) the 100-400 zoom as a "walk-around" lens and initially got good shots, although found that the x1.4TC did affect IQ somewhat. So, more adjustment of CFs and suddenly yesterday I could not get a single shot in focus using any AF point setting, One-shot, AI- servo, etc. I was in a blind panic and my wife thought I had gone nuts as I had so many rulers, tape measures and downloaded charts festooned around the garden in an attempt to determine the focus characteristics of each lens.
It was just a final act of desperation that I reset the camera to default setting and cleared all CFs and slowly started again to set-up from scratch. It just suddenly happened that the camera "came to life again". Regrettably I do not yet have the image upload facility on this site (for reasons explained elsewhere), and posting links to images is a bit "messy", but I will try to get some comparative shots uploaded before too long. For example, before I changed all the settings I took several shots of a paper sack of charcoal by the barbecue and when I looked at them on my computer I could barely read the writing on the sack; after changing the settings the same shot was totally different; not only was the printing on the bag well-defined but the paper fibres at the edge of the ripped top of the sack were crystal clear.
The only deduction I can make from this is that there is an interaction between camera settings and/or custom functions which is causing a problem. There may well be other hardware and/or firmware problems but I cannot comment on that - only reporting what I did what the result was.
Colin Key wrote:
The only deduction I can make from this is that there is an interaction between camera settings and/or custom functions which is causing a problem. There may well be other hardware and/or firmware problems but I cannot comment on that - only reporting what I did what the result was.
Colin
Despite how my post reads, I wasn't doubting you. Or complaining. Just noting how the net rumor mill works, especially among gear heads.
Given your situation (good out of the box, then screwy), I suppose the reset makes sense. It's always the first thing I do when electronics act up. I wonder how many people will find relief by re-setting? Did very many shoot out of the box without setting CFs? I will now, but it wouldn't have been my inclination ...
Most posters in this kind of forum are interested in the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin down to two decimal places.
Subject matter and context of the moment are almost irrelevant in any critique here. Only a shot of a yardstick or a textured wall at a 45 degree angle to camera view seems to have any relevance in these discussions.
If you keep blasting away at the precious neighbor girl with your Mk3, you, she and her family should be able to share the spoils of a very nice stock pix archive.
Your response here might be to just continue an occasional post of shots of the little girl sans comment of any kind except the EXIF data and let the other folks count the angels in their own context.
DonM2 wrote:
Subject matter and context of the moment are almost irrelevant in any critique here. Only a shot of a yardstick or a textured wall at a 45 degree angle to camera view seems to have any relevance in these discussions.
If you read the title of this thread, it might actually make sense to you why this is the case.
PS: The focus of the girl seems fine, to me. But I reserve the right to change my mind if a larger version (full-size) is ever posted.
Brooke Clyde wrote:
So I'm to understand that it's only the default settings that are working for you? I.e., when you re-set some CFs, did it work?
The default settings do work in that I can get good IQ on static subjects. I have SLOWLY moved on to re-setting some of the settings in C.Fn. III: e.g. III-2 now set to -1 (mod. slow) whereas previously I had it set on +2, but had experimented with all settings. III-5 set to 1 to avoid "hunting". III-8 set to 2 for centre AF point assist (still not sure how effective this is, and it certainly needs returning to 0 for static subjects. Have also been experimenting with all AF points enabled which seems to work fairly well when the moving subject fills 30% or more of frame and the contrast is good, such as bird against blue sky). Have also changed fps speed (C.Fn III-16) to 4 (3 was too slow) and 8 (10 is way too fast).
C.Fn III-4 is a bit of an oddity and after experimenting a bit today (with birds in flight) cannot come to a conclusion on this one.
So, to answer your question Brooke, no it is not ONLY the default settings which work, but they do work (depending on subject) - I am just taking the set-up a bit more slowly this time because the number of permutations possible with CFs and camera settings is huge and there is a lot of scope to "mess up". I am not offering a solution, just reporting my findings.
There has been a few others who, after sending in their mkIII's to Canon for repair, have gotten them back with most of the issues apparently fixed. It's still not clear what they are fixing though and why.
I have to agree with Colin's assessment of a reset and the results given. I got one of the first units in the States. Upon receipt, I cleared all settings and started to customize everything the way I wanted since I had read the manual twice before I got the body and thought I knew what I was doing.
Shooting a lot of paintball tournaments with heavy action, I was quite frustrated and experienced some shots where NOTHING was in focus. That didn't seem logical. I came to the conclusion that I would have to send in the 70-200 2.8 IS for a cleaning and calibration.
As a last resort, I whiped out all CFs and kept my other settings. I followed most of the stuff I picked up at the Birds as art site. At least the ones that applied to my needs. BANG! I started by experimenting with some birds at Ft. DeSoto and then had to shoot a paintball catalog and a tournament last week. I brought the 20D for a backup, but everything went sweet! IQ was beautiful. If there was a problem, I could at least see if it was a back or front focus issue or tell that my center point dad fallen off in a moment of intense action.
Perfect? No. However, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel from here. My percentages went back into the 90s where they should be. I even moved the AI servo focus acquisition speed to fast, just for kicks and I think it may have even helped. Go figure. I too, have only added a setting at a time and experimented to evaluate results.
You can find the stuff at http://www.tampasportsphotography.com/sports.html and find the paintball section, then look for NPPL Boston. The shots aren't perfect, but everything is done in AI Servo.
I know this sounds strange, but this whole MK3 thing has sort of defied logic anyway.
Thanks for all of your help. I think a firmware update at this point may put us right in the pocket of where this camera should be.
