my first post regarding 1D3
got mine on Friday and have put 400+ exposures on it so far...
FW 1.1.0 and serial number 5223xx
I have read lot's regarding the servo problem but I'm actually having an abnormal number of OOF's with one shot (single shot)... (don't shot a lot of servo anyways)
I have owned the 1D, 1Ds, 1D2 currently a 5D and now this, so not really a newbie..
I'm trying not to over react and am keeping in mind that this is a new body to me, but at the end of it all I don't think it's too much to expect perfect Af on static object with single shot Af, one point (cross type point) no expansion on a nice contrasty object in good light.
I'm really disappointed this very moment, and I was really looking forward to loving my new camera.... sigh!
Please keep us posted on this one. The majority of the bad behaving MKIII's did poorly from day one. Not sure many have experienced a good unit turning south after a month.
Leehman
indeed I have...
I have the 17-40, 24-105 and 100 mac in my bag for this weekend... but the results are the same regardless of which one I use.
I'll try posting images soon
am
mill4570 wrote:
Please keep us posted on this one. The majority of the bad behaving MKIII's did poorly from day one. Not sure many have experienced a good unit turning south after a month.
Richard, I'm not sure I have one that went bad. I'm not sure if it was bad before (since there was always another possible reason for the mis-focus), and I'm not sure that it's bad now. I don't wasnt to be paranoid ...
arashm : never heard of a 1D3 not focussing properly in One Shot AF and One Shot Drive. My first 1D3 was always perfect in that mode, it was only in AI-Servo and 10fps that the problem occured. Still, if it is as bad as you say, then it sounds like you have a good case to return it to the dealer.
Brooke : sounds very like the problem I experienced. Do you still see the problem with CFN III, 2 set one notch towards slow? I run this setting even on my new properly working Mark 3 as I still find the focus is a little more twitchy over my 1D2N.
I'm going to do more testing with my mark 3 on a shoot today... (will shoot the job with the 5d)
but since my first post I have noticed that the images that have focus issues are the ones where I'm using one of the extreme focus points (although one of the 19 cross type af points).
it's like this, I focus on let's say a street sign, lock focus and shoot, let go of the af-on or shutter release button (tryed both ways) and then depress half way and shoot again.. do this about 10 times, 7 images will be sharp 3 will be soft. I didn't move and the street sign didn't move.
call me crazy but I don't think this is too much to ask from a camera.
I've also have gone back and shot all the lenses on the 5d just to make sure it's not the lenses, then shot a focus calibration chart with the 1D3 and surprisingly my lenses all seemed quite accurate with this body as well, so what gives?
will update
For anyone that doesn't follow NSN Jim Neiger has a series of posts where he talks about his (successful) technique with the mkIII in aiservo starting here:
Alistair Watson wrote:
arashm : never heard of a 1D3 not focussing properly in One Shot AF and One Shot Drive. My first 1D3 was always perfect in that mode, it was only in AI-Servo and 10fps that the problem occured. Still, if it is as bad as you say, then it sounds like you have a good case to return it to the dealer.
There are also many cases, even in this forum, but here you have one:
There are at least three major photography websites reporting problems with this camera and at least two major retailers I have talked to have had bodies returned with the AF problem. It would be nice to hear something from Canon.
To add more noise to this strange thread.... (humm, Canon is not always low noise)
It seems to me that there is a design issue with the Canon 1D-III focus system. It seems that some samples work well and others do not (maybe 50% in each camp as the voting indicates). I doubt that this is a general "skill of user" problem. I also doubt that it is a firmware issue - Canon has a very good handle on how to write such code.
IMO, this is a component sensistivity issue. One or more of the chips (possibly an amplification circuit) are operating at the edge of their operating envelope - some cirucit components barely keep the AF withing spec but some components (resistors, capacitors, transistors, etc) manufactured in the chip fall outside of their operating envelope and cause AF errors. Of course, one of the engineering problems is to design the circuit so that it always works even if some of the components are somewhat out of spec.
Of course, somebody will say that Canon engineers have taken all of this into account and the problem lies elsewhere.
I'm wondering if anyone has checked the effect of CF IV-13 (faster shutter release). In setting up the camera, I sort of automatically enabled it. Might the AF not quite be able to keep up?
OTOH, that wouldn't explain weirdness like the AF jumping too far ahead of my subject. Never mind ...
tonyfield wrote:
To add more noise to this strange thread.... (humm, Canon is not always low noise)
It seems to me that there is a design issue with the Canon 1D-III focus system. It seems that some samples work well and others do not (maybe 50% in each camp as the voting indicates). I doubt that this is a general "skill of user" problem. I also doubt that it is a firmware issue - Canon has a very good handle on how to write such code.
IMO, this is a component sensistivity issue. One or more of the chips (possibly an amplification circuit) are operating at the edge of their operating envelope - some cirucit components barely keep the AF withing spec but some components (resistors, capacitors, transistors, etc) manufactured in the chip fall outside of their operating envelope and cause AF errors. Of course, one of the engineering problems is to design the circuit so that it always works even if some of the components are somewhat out of spec.
Of course, somebody will say that Canon engineers have taken all of this into account and the problem lies elsewhere....Show more →
Actually, you'd be in good company with this theory. Some of the folks on Naturescapes.net have put forward similar ideas, primarily including NSN's technical editor who works at Intel.
If it does turn out to be a component sensitivity issue, what is the likely future of all of the Mark III's even the ones that seemingly have no problem right now. I have always understood that the common components were subject to a certain amount of change over time, the process is sometimes refered to as drift. That might account for some of the cameras becoming bad after a certain time period. I'm begining to wonder if I would ever buy this model without a really full disclosure of the problem by Canon. I must say that I took a 30D with as backup on a recent African Safari because the Mark III had just begun to ship. Looking back, it was a bit of good fortune, the 30D did an outstanding job. Only 5 frames/sec but all images in focus and with a 300 mm L IS lens the results were impressive. I hate to say it but I'm tempted to go for the 1D full frame successor, providing it will do at least 5 frames/second and the autofocus problem is worked out. Maybe that was Canon's plan :-) Only trouble is that with the full frame I have to carry around the 500 mm and I really don't want to lug that on and off all of the small planes along with everything else. Wife is even less enthusiastic.
Cheers-John
Just a thing, I have read something about the behavior of the MkIII camera with the f/4 lenses is better than with the f/2,8 ones !! And you are saying the same, your 600 f/4 performs better than your 400 f/2,8 .... Can you try with anyone f/4 lens to see if it´s true in your case ??
So far that is also my impression, but I've mostly tried it in sports use with the 400 2.8 and 600 f/4. The only other f/4 lens that I have is the 70-200 f/4 IS, but I'm thinking of getting a 300 f/4 soon. What I would really like is for Canon to deliver the second Mark III I have on order so I can compare it against the first one. In the past it wasn't unusual for a body to work well with certain lenses and another body with other lenses. I'm coming from two Mark IIN cameras and I always had the impression that one of the two worked better with the 400 2.8... and the other with some of my other lenses...
FYI, the August 8 update of Rob Galbraith's MKIII article. It contains some kind of interesting details about Canon USA's involvement (they took notes and videotaped two days of his testing starting July 31 when he used a MKIII with firmware 1.1.0, have ensured that all the bodies and lens used were properly calibrated, etc.) Also, comments and pics from that shoot. (And he's now up to a total of six MKIIIs, all with the same issue.)
