If I was pressed to make a call on the "perceived " AF fault between camera or user error. I am going with user error. 3 cameras with the same fault & the conclusion is that the camera is the culprit. I don't think so. Sounds like user re education required.
I own a MK3 by the way (pre emtive defence)
Anyhow, were all on the same side & no doubt all have the same desire to get the best out of the current technology. And of course it seems the subject of IQ has been practically ignored in all this. I have said from the start that I believe the MK3 produces better looking images than the 1DSMK2 (which I also own)
FWIW my sources tell me that a firmware upgrade is imminent.......days away.
Cheers,
Paul
I should add by the way. I always enjoy checking out RG's site. No questioning his credentials of course. He has been in the game for a long time & definitely knows his stuff.
I just don't agree on this ocacasion is all. I may be wrong........time will tell.
SoundHound wrote:
Still wondering if there is anyone who claims there are no AF issues with their Mk IIIs under Rob G's problem conditions (Bright Sunlight and warm/hot temperatures)?
I shot an Atlanta Braves AA Team (Mississippi) in Solid White uniforms at 2:00pm here a couple of weeks ago. Temp's in the mid 90's...Hot and Humid. MKIII performed flawlessly with 400 f2.8. I am solidly sold on the MKIII.
DavidP wrote:
I say, send a few of them out with RobG and 500/4's to shoot birds in flight on a warm, sunny day, and let's see what happens.
It is for sure that RobG is not the only one shooting birds-in-flight with a 1DMk3 and a 500f4 on a warm sunny day . May be others are too happy to keep on shooting away (like the SI T&F pros) and find no need to TEST the camera. In addition, to bring things back to perspective, RobG is not really famous for his photography outside this 'internet circle'. Canon must have a farm of professional shooters whom they used regularly to test the professional Canon gears.
You don't need to be the most renoun photographer to see if you have issues with the AF AI Servo. Go shoot anything moving and then look at the results on the PC. Granted, you have to have shot something better than a P&S at a sporting event to set your expectation level. But if you have any ability to keep the subject in the center of the view finder and are not getting more than 50% keeper rate, then the camera is not any where near as advertised. Period. (was I too lenient to expect half of the images to be in focus where the pilot does not make a mistake?) The poll shows about a 50% "trouble" rate so far. This is ridiculous for THE top end camera Canon sells. I have owned only Canon since 1979 and it hurts me to say this but shame on Canon! I wish my 501xxx serial number MIII only wandered a bit when tracking a moving subject like RG's. Guys/Gals, if you are on the fense on this purchase, believe me, hold off and see what Canon does with this disaster. And they increased the initial price $1,000 for this headache? Go figure>>>
Thank you redman! So there'is at least one MkIII that doesn't have the Rob G, problem. So there maybe others! Maybe even mine (my experience is inside).
EB-1 wrote:
There was an error in the original white paper.
EB
There was no error in the white paper, this is what the white paper said about the price:
"The retail price of the EOS-1D Mark III at introduction will be $3,999, the same price at which the EOS-1D Mark IIN debuted."
They just changed their mind about the price.
After 3 weddings since I got the 1D Mark III, I can say that the focus outdoor is no complain for me, lighting fast. I tested the AI-Servo @ 10fps , when the bride turning around or walking fast toward me. The 1D MKIII nailed both cases.
However the biggest problem with 1D Mark III is focus in super low light , it's worse than my 5D. the focus is confirmed focus but the shot is out of focus.
2 weeks ago, I was on a motorsports assignment, using two EOS-1D Mark II Ns, accurate focus achieved was 5 out of 8 continuous shots I fired with either body, one equiped with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and the other with the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM.
Moments later, a photographer whom I came to get to know of just a few months earlier, came by and stood alongside me for the same angle. He was one of those got the new Mark III from the first shipment released on May 24th and I am still waiting for my own unit (shortage of stock is the reason, not because of the AF issue).
Anyway, his camera was mounted with the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM and after a while, he complained that his success rate was only 2 frames out of a one continouous burst (which can be as high as 20-30 shots per go).
I volunteered to test his camera with the same lens on my own CF card. He agreed. What I got within that 5 minutes of loan werea 9 out of 10 shots in focus (1st burst), 12 out 14 (2nd burst), 19 of 20 (3rd), 17-18 (4th), 20 of 22 (5th), 24 of 24 (6th) and 26 of 26 (7th). He stopped blaming the camera thereafter.
I admit I am not an expert in shooting athletics, volleyball, American football or soccer like Rob Galbraith is but I reckoned the speed of a motorsport vehicle is anytime faster than those sports he tested the Mark III with.
This reminds me of the time when I had an opportunity to test the EOS 300D not long after its introduction - the camera automatically switches to AI Servo AF when it detects movement on the subject. No such luck with morning joggers and pizza delivery boys on small bikes. But when the subject was the local Superbike racing series, the camera had no problem in tracking the bikes and the riders.
I have the utmost respects for Galbraith and enjoy reading his articles all the time but even an expert like him would eventually come across some technical problems which he may not be accustomed to - even me at certain times. I guess he came across one such limitation with his tests on the 1D Mark III. I last had such a limitation with the 1D Mark II (from the first shipment) and spent the next few weeks trying out various combinations to get the camera to give me the color rendition that I was so used to with the original EOS-1D. The N version replaced that unneccessary hassle for many motorsports shooters.
lordcarl...the question is: what did you do that your colleague didn't to get the better percentage of in focus shots? Or, what was he doing that you didn't do?
In my experience its keeping that center point dead nuts on the subject, if it drifts off for a moment, so will your focus. I know, I know.. you can speed up or slow done the sensitivity.
jhom wrote:
lordcarl...the question is: what did you do that your colleague didn't to get the better percentage of in focus shots? Or, what was he doing that you didn't do?
lordcarl wrote:
I have the utmost respects for Galbraith and enjoy reading his articles all the time but even an expert like him would eventually come across some technical problems which he may not be accustomed to - even me at certain times.I guess he came across one such limitation with his tests on the 1D Mark III . I last had such a limitation with the 1D Mark II (from the first shipment) and spent the next few weeks trying out various combinations to get the camera to give me the color rendition that I was so used to with the original EOS-1D. The N version replaced that unneccessary hassle for many motorsports shooters....Show more →
The problem I still have with this is that it is NOT just one camera he had problems with, it is THREE different bodies, and I can tell you that after he posted his first report, it is almost a certainty that Canon tried to send him a cream of the crop body for the 3rd go round which still had the same issues.
I am befuddled that so many people try to discount this issue instead of embracing it and coming to terms with it, there IS in fact an issue if so many people experience the same problem around the world, hell people in France are reporting the same issue, let alone 1 out of 2 responders here on FM for crying out loud.
Dauv McNeely wrote:
The problem I still have with this is that it is NOT just one camera he had problems with, it is THREE different bodies, and I can tell you that after he posted his first report, it is almost a certainty that Canon tried to send him a cream of the crop body for the 3rd go round which still had the same issues.
I am befuddled that so many people try to discount this issue instead of embracing it and coming to terms with it, there IS in fact an issue if so many people experience the same problem around the world, hell people in France are reporting the same issue, let alone 1 out of 2 responders here on FM for crying out loud. ...Show more →
I agree with you completely, way too many people have the AF problem to ignore it. I do not doubt that there are good cameras out there as the poll shows about 50% do not have any problem (I wish I had one of those cameras) which in turn indicates that there could be some marginal hardware issue involved with it in combination with the lack of proper Quality Control.
Canon should have already come out with a public acknowledgement of the problem indicating that they are working on it. Leica did it with the M8 even if it is still not completely resolved but at least they admit the problem and indicate that they are working on it.
Canon is building up a bad reputation starting with the last rebate fiasco and now the major AF issue with the MK III. Problems can happen with new camera releases but keeping quiet about it is not a popular thing to do.
