I've had no issues. Its a fine camera and the IQ is very good. I have another local friend who got his last week and he, too, is extremely pleased.
Whether YOU buy one or not is your decision. This isn't a toy camera and you have to learn to use it. Having had a 2N (you didn't say for how long), you have an idea, The 1D3 has even more settings to learn and get right or screw up. It's on you.
jmaio wrote:
Whether YOU buy one or not is your decision. This isn't a toy camera and you have to learn to use it. Having had a 2N (you didn't say for how long), you have an idea, The 1D3 has even more settings to learn and get right or screw up. It's on you.
+1.
the 1d3 takes MUCH MUCH more time and learning to setup than the 1d and 1d2 did. it its not an out of the camera box.
i have 2 of them (one with 10k and one with 15k) and i love them.
1. Fix target to windshield of truck. Figure out a way to keep it vertical so it doesn't slope backwards.
2. Mark the 2x4 with ruler- type lines. Start marking in the center, making the center "0", and increase the ruler marks going out to each end of the 2x4.
3. Attach the 2x4 to the roof racks at a 45 degree angle to the camera. Attach it in such a way that the zero marking in the center of the 2x4 is directly over the vertical plane of the target, with half the 2x4 in front of the target, and half of it behind the target. In this way, half the 2x4 would extend over the hood of the truck and in front of the target, and the other half would extend behind the target, over the roof of the truck.
4. Have someone drive the truck directly at the camera, while focusing at the target. It will be easy to see if the camera is front or back focusing by analysing the marks on the 2x4, which is at a 45 degree angle to the camera, with half of it in front of the target, and the other half behind the target. Test at various car speeds, front lighting, back lighting, etc.
LATERAL FOCUSING TEST PROCEDURE.
Same basic proceedure, but just mount the target facing sideways either on the roof or in the bed of the truck. Mount the 2x4 again at a 45 degree angle to camera. Focus on the target while the truck drives across the field of view. Would be easy to vary the backgrounds the truck is driving across to check for front or rear focus "grab".
Yakim Peled wrote:
I have a question for all those who got nothing in focus. Did you set C.Fn III - 3 to 0? According to the manual it's suppose to prevent this phenomena.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yakim,
Yes, I have tried CFn III-3 as both 0 and 1, I don't see any significant difference, but I'll check again.
rscheffler wrote:
Bob, it's interesting you state the situation in this way as I've wondered if perhaps the camera was still driving focus during exposure (though not sure if this is exactly what you mean). [...]
I've been getting mixed results. I'd say on average my results are quite good, but I also get images that while not quite "nowhere" focused, are definitely not as sharp as the lens is capable of rendering.
Ron
Ron,
Yes, I was trying to say "driving focus during exposure". Clearer, thanks.
The nowhere focused images are not bad anywhere, but they are not good anywhere either. Almost looks like motion blur (but at 1/4000 - 1/6400??).
The AF issues have been noted in many bodies using longer lenses (greater than 300mm). The problems are mostly related to its ability to track focus. How many bodies are affected? I don't think Canon even knows that answer. At this point, Canon hasn't even acknowledged the problem .
If you don't do sports or fast moving wildlife photography, this may not be any issues but if you don't, why bother with this camera? You may want to wait until the 1Ds Mark III geared more for fine art photography or maybe the 5D Mark II. Between the two I think the replacement of the 1Ds MarkII is definitely looming and should be introduced by the end of the year.
AGeoJO wrote:
The AF issues have been noted in many bodies using longer lenses (greater than 300mm). The problems are mostly related to its ability to track focus.
It is so nice to own a 30D. I mean, if it has tracking problems with fast subjects, it is always easy to think that at least it costs only 1/4th of a 1D III.
rockit wrote:
the 1d3 takes MUCH MUCH more time and learning to setup than the 1d and 1d2 did. it its not an out of the camera box.
I would agree, on the sole basis that since the demise of personal functions, there are alot more custom functions made available to people who never needed to use the personal functions on the 1D's before.
Shooting motorsport I found that pretty much the default settings on the 1D2N for AF gave me excellent results, move the focussing to the * button and away you go. What I found with the Mark 3 was that yes it does take time to understand what impact each of the custom functions has on the operation of the AF, but certainly on the model I returned, the custom functions either made the camera sluggish to use or even more hyper, there does not seem to be a happy medium. Furthermore I believe that not enough processing priority is given to the AF in 10fps mode after the first shot is taken. All of these comments I add are specific to the Mark 3 I had.
Alistair101 wrote:
My own personal opinion is, as per previous posts, in AI Servo and 10fps mode, I feel the processing of the huge amount of data from the sensor to buffer and buffer to card is taking processing power away from the servo focussing, and thus decreasing the accuracy. My first shot in a (servo/10fps)burst was always sharp. A shot in servo/single shot drive was always sharp.
That might be the case, but with seperate processors for handling the AF, that is not what one would expect.
lexvo wrote:
That might be the case, but with seperate processors for handling the AF, that is not what one would expect.
Certainly not what I expected either but as I said, it is just a feeling based on 3 weeks and 3000 shots shooting motorsport with the camera, not the result of scientific testing!
Alistair101 wrote:
Certainly not what I expected either but as I said, it is just a feeling based on 3 weeks and 3000 shots shooting motorsport with the camera, not the result of scientific testing!
Yes, let's hope that Canon comes with a solution shortly. Thanks for sharing your experience by the way. I myself am also in the market for a 1DmkIII, but holding off my purchase until some solution turns up.
Fraga,
It is just my gut feeling, since the 1Ds Mark2 was introduced in September 2004, almost three years ago. The 5D was introduced later, in August 2005. The 1D Mark3 has a different operational layout than the typical 1D series bodies up to this point with a newly-designed battery, etc. The body for the 1Ds Mark3 body with basically the same layout that uses the same accessories as the 1D Mark3 is readily available. They just have to slap in a 22MP sensor and voila! To avoid any confusion, I am not using Roman numericals designation anymore in my response.
Joshua, I agree with you.
But other cenarios do come to my mind.
- Canon, at least at the present time, has no competition in the 1DsM2 segment.
In fact, the 1DsM2 is a segment by itself!
So, no absolute need to improve/ugrade just now, or at least rush it's release
- Given what I just wrote, if the 1DM3 does indeed prove to have faulty AF (I don't doubt it does), Canon will probably postpone the release of the 1DsM3 since, like you said, it will probably be basically a 1DM3 with a bigger sensor.
Canon is getting a lot of heat for releasing a 4500$ faulty camera, imagine doing it again in three months with a +/- 7000$ camera.
25th A report from Japan tells of numerous AF related issues with the 1D3 and that Canon has not yet recognised it officially, although there may be an announcement next month. It might well be a return for service option and -not- fixed by a firmware update.
guys this the latest detailed full review by andy rouse
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:btKtG9UgR4kJ:www.andyrouse.co.uk/img/files/1dmk3_1st_review.pdf+1d+mark+iii+AF+issue+uk&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6
ps:copy the link to your browser window, dont press on it directly
please read the conclusion and the addendum
Yakim Peled wrote:
Then it seems that this C.Fn is not working properly. IMHO this is unacceptable in such an expensive piece of equipment.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yakim, I think you misunderstand the purpose for that custom function. It's not to prevent the AF from focusing inaccurately for whatever reason, either due to user or camera error in following a small moving subject or it refocusing on something else of equal or greater contrast, etc. It's designed to prevent the AF from racking back and forth and wasting a second or two trying to focus on an area with no contrast. Instead it's supposed to keep the focus at the last reliable focus lock until there is enough contrast to again find focus. A problem with this CF is if your lens is accidentally defocused by a large degree and you try to quickly grab a shot, the camera can't detect any contrast to focus on and does not attempt to focus, thus resulting in a missed opportunity.
khurram1 wrote:
Please note that as far as post-processing goes, I have very little experience (something i'm learning i need to remedy), as the only software i have used is Canon' DPP and have been getting my lab to do everything else. The only adjustment i have made to any of my shots is setting the WB, exposure and sharpening in DPP and then converting to a 8bit TIFF file for the lab and they have done everything else for me.
That is why i don't want to attribute the pixalation to the camera at this point (despite not experienced this issue with the 1DIIN, xti or 5D)....Show more →
Looking at your file, it would appear to me that there is the possibility that quite a bit of post-processing has been done. If so, such extreme processing of the data can very easily result in posterization and 'pixellization'. Without 100% crops, it's almost impossible to tell, and the entire full-res file would help even more. You said yo set the white balance on this shot; how did you do this? For a sunset, that can be problematic...
Is this more what your shot looked like before processing?
Thanks for the reply. I had the camera on AWB. When i opened up the raw file in DPP, the shot was probably closer to mine (there wasn't any blue cast at all in the fog). however, when i set i changed the WB to manually set the colour temperture, it was closer to your shot (i think the colour temperture setting was at 5600), and i changed the WB setting to 7200.
The only other changes i made were:
-changed from the default Standard picture style to Landscape
- in curve in the second screen, I created a slight S curve by slightly pulling the highlights up and shadows down (this wasn't even close to really being an S-curve, as I barely raised the top/lowered the bottom), to slightly increase the contrast.
- Changed the default saturation from 100 to 105
-changed the sharpening from 0 to 175
Oh, one other change i did make was that since the histogram was bunched pretty much in the middle, I dragged the black controller to just before the start of the left end of the histogram.
Hmm. Maybe find an area in question, view at 100%, then crop a 600 to 800 pixel portion. 'Save as' a new file, and then upload/post it here so we can see what the issues are.
. 
