Although the response is guarded and convenient at least they indicated a problem existed and that would do whatever was necessary to correct any problems encountered later.
Its funny now that RG has indicated the new firmware didn't correct his problems and Chuck is saying that the new firmware was not meant to be a panacea. How convenient.
Reports coming in from those that have gotten the updated firmware have been pretty positive so far, with the exception of RG. It would be interesting if the original posters on Naturescape that had the problems, described to be fixed by the firmware update, will benefit from 1.0.9.
Just picked up a Brand New Mark III with firmware 1.0.9, I will be testing it this weekend on everything that moves or flies in site... Well..maybe not everything
Jim Victory wrote:
Although the response is guarded and convenient at least they indicated a problem existed and that would do whatever was necessary to correct any problems encountered later.
Its funny now that RG has indicated the new firmware didn't correct his problems and Chuck is saying that the new firmware was not meant to be a panacea. How convenient.
Reports coming in from those that have gotten the updated firmware have been pretty positive so far, with the exception of RG. It would be interesting if the original posters on Naturescape that had the problems, described to be fixed by the firmware update, will benefit from 1.0.9.
I was just glad to hear that "Canon in Tokyo," all by their lonesome, uncovered things in testing that they realized probably ought to be fixed. Now if they could just "uncover" some of the main problems that people are complaining about, all would be peace and happiness in Canon-land.
"What's in the firmware is not necessarily a direct response to Galbraith's report," Westfall told PDN. "What it results from are things that Canon in Tokyo uncovered during their testing that they wanted to improve."
Paul B wrote:
"What's in the firmware is not necessarily a direct response to Galbraith's report," Westfall told PDN. "What it results from are things that Canon in Tokyo uncovered during their testing that they wanted to improve."
My question would be did they do this testing before the camera was released or after? If they knew their was possibly a problem before being shipped it doesn't say much for their integrity. I guess we are indeed Beta testers. So where is my check?
I went down to Dana Point Harbor a couple of days ago in the evening and got some good sequence shots in Al Servo of the birds flying around.
Note that when shooting birds, I do a focus on the eye, lock the focus and then recompose it. When I recomposed the shot, the focus info from Zoombrowzer shows the newer location even though the focus is locked on the eye. This is the Unprocessed image with the Zoombrowser focus info:
I love this camera!
DeeDee
Have I missed something here? It is not possible to "focus lock" and recompose in AI Servo.
Well not strictly speaking, but if you use the AF or * button to activate AF in AI servo instead of the half shutter press, you can lock focus by releasing it, then recompose and shoot. That's one of the several significant advantages of using a separate button to activate AF.
That doesn't work very well or moving subjects of course, so I don't know whether it's what deedee is describing or not.
Jeff, Best of luck with your shoot. I have found the custom settings greatly affect the AF Servo behavior(as well as my own ability). With my field sports in blazing sunshine with messy backgrounds the settings from the BIF sites did awful things for my keeper rate. I have had good luck with the settings recommended on the europe-canon cps(?) site that someone provided a link to. Basically not using the assist points expansion and not speeding up the tracking sensitivity. Along with the new firmware (and AF sensor debri clean) these fixed the tendency for my camera to always jump to high contrast grass in front or back as well as players/spectators. If you can not get yours to outperform a D2N (mine now does), with these settings, send it in to canon and insist something is specificly wrong. This camera can work very well and I think RG made a huge leap when applying his bad luck to the entire line of cameras (not sure what's behind that). This new AF system has a steep learning curve and it is very different from the D2N, which compared to the D3 is like a point and shoot. The D3 AF is very customizable which I think is a double edge sword. I am no digital photo-god but it took me longer than a day or two of shooting many frames to get a handle on how these custom settings effect my particular real life shooting situations, not BIF frames. Following anyone elses recomended settings without testing can result in many needlessly OOF frames and dissatisfaction with the camera. Just wanted to pass along these thoughts.
With 19 cross sensors in the right place who needs to focus and recompose any more, no way
I shoot mostly wildlife, 90% of which is birds. If you are shooting a static bird (usually with the lens wide open and very shallow DOF, depending on size of bird/distance from subject) then you really need to be in One Shot, Centre Focus Point, and focus on the eye (or at least the head and bill area) and then recompose with focus lock.
Jim Victory wrote:
My question would be did they do this testing before the camera was released or after? If they knew their was possibly a problem before being shipped it doesn't say much for their integrity. I guess we are indeed Beta testers. So where is my check?
Jim
Sorry Jim, you only get a check if you find something wrong!
Remember the "banding" problem some EOS 5D users experienced in AI Servo mode with some lenses?
The 5D problems seem to have been caused by electrical interference between analog signals.
I now wonder if the 1D Mark III's AI Servo mode, at least on some cameras, isn't affected by similar problems.
Tiny power supply voltage fluctuations caused by the lens' USM drawing short bursts of current, or hard to pin crosstalk noise from various sources might be affecting the cleanliness of the signals coming from the AF detector.
If that's the case, a pure software fix via a firmware update might not be sufficient to solve the problem...
H. Ludens wrote:
Remember the "banding" problem some EOS 5D users experienced in AI Servo mode with some lenses?
The 5D problems seem to have been caused by electrical interference between analog signals.
I now wonder if the 1D Mark III's AI Servo mode, at least on some cameras, isn't affected by similar problems.
Tiny power supply voltage fluctuations caused by the lens' USM drawing short bursts of current, or hard to pin crosstalk noise from various sources might be affecting the cleanliness of the signals coming from the AF detector.
If that's the case, a pure software fix via a firmware update might not be sufficient to solve the problem... ...Show more →
H. Ludens wrote:
Remember the "banding" problem some EOS 5D users experienced in AI Servo mode with some lenses?
The 5D problems seem to have been caused by electrical interference between analog signals.
I now wonder if the 1D Mark III's AI Servo mode, at least on some cameras, isn't affected by similar problems.
Tiny power supply voltage fluctuations caused by the lens' USM drawing short bursts of current, or hard to pin crosstalk noise from various sources might be affecting the cleanliness of the signals coming from the AF detector.
If that's the case, a pure software fix via a firmware update might not be sufficient to solve the problem... ...Show more →
Who knows, but Canon has pushed up the clock frequency of the two RISC processors involved in the control of the AF system and the camera itself; so they had to re-design the circuits. Now add the vibration at 10 fps and all the problematic about interference and good shielding ... Just speculation, but interference can cause random behaviors ... specially in hot conditions.
With 1.0.9 installed has anyone else see any difference in the LCD screen (Sharper or not).. I have 1.0.9 and recently had 1.0.8 and I see very little difference comparing to my brothers camera (with 1.0.8) with the same exact shot, we shot one in Raw and one in JPEG and could not see much of a difference at all.
AI focus I still have to test, I tried but it was 93 and nothing was flying or running around here.
I did take this one (and no.. its not the shuttle )
Well, as some of you may remember, my first Mark 3 I purchased on June 1st and returned it for a refund on the 21st June, it just was not anywhere close as consistent in AI-Servo mode as my 1D2N.
Anyway, I picked up my second Mark 3 a week ago and went through 2000 motorsport shots over the weekend. All I will say is post processing has suddenly become hard again! The first Mark 3 body I had it became very simple, 1st in burst keep, all others delete. Now I am back to the usual 1Dxx series standard where very nearly all shots in a burst are sharp and I have to carefully choose the best composition/exposure/expression etc., I am very pleased. My body is a 5258xx running 1.08. All I will say is about bl00dy time, I have a wonderful high iso capability plus reliable focus.
Alistair Watson wrote:
Well, as some of you may remember, my first Mark 3 I purchased on June 1st and returned it for a refund on the 21st June, it just was not anywhere close as consistent in AI-Servo mode as my 1D2N.
Anyway, I picked up my second Mark 3 a week ago and went through 2000 motorsport shots over the weekend. All I will say is post processing has suddenly become hard again! The first Mark 3 body I had it became very simple, 1st in burst keep, all others delete. Now I am back to the usual 1Dxx series standard where very nearly all shots in a burst are sharp and I have to carefully choose the best composition/exposure/expression etc., I am very pleased. My body is a 5258xx running 1.08. All I will say is about bl00dy time, I have a wonderful high iso capability plus reliable focus. ...Show more →
What was the serial number of your first body? Thanks.
