Jeff wrote:
I didn't read that into RG's very concise reference to the testing of the beta v1.1.1 firmware. Based upon the first two updates to the MkIII's firmware, let's just say I'm not holding my breath.
I know how you feel, Jeff. And I feel the same way. But more on the bright side, this is the first firmware update that is actually supposed to address the issues RG reported (as far as I know).
Chuck Westfall pointed out the previous firmware update was not in response to RG's report.
So..... I'm remaining cautiously optimistic. It sure would be interesting to see the results of Canon Japan's investigation, that RG mentioned was promised from them. But even if we don't see that, I'll be very happy if they can just get this issue corrected. This was an expensive camera for me.
First I had to laugh, I got the anacronym web page, thanks, then looked up PITA! What a great sense of homour thanks a lot guys.
Jeff, I'am holding my breath, I want this camera to be close to perfection. As far as I can tell the only negative is the focusing. If that gets fixed then YAHOO!!! I didn't vote in this pole because I don't have one, but I do want one. But looking at the "no I don't plan on owning one" is more than disheartening.
STILL HOLDING MY BREATH...come on Firm ware!
Alan F wrote:
I bet his face is a wonderful colour !
Alan.
I'm sure the slow shutter speed of the MKIII relative to the other cameras is due to a polarizer. Wouldn't a guy buying a mkIII that doesn't turn on AF also buy an expensive polarizer and leave it on? The MKIII showed about two stops slower.
Excellent shots, Jeff. I essentially enabled the same settings (except the 5 fps setting that you are using), and shot a bunch of speed boats out on Puget sound, with outstanding results using my 300 f/4 IS. Lighting conditions were typical for 7 pm in Seattle (i.e. clear skies, sun starting to set (Golden Hour), 70ish degrees, lots of contrasty subject matter, darkish water and foreground, bright sky) and the autofocus was on on nearly all shots. I consider my camera now to be doing well, where as I was concerned before.
I think the difference in my shooting were:
1. Using AI servo tracking sensitivity at the "fast" setting
2. Enabling AF expansion
3. I happened to be using a high ISO (1600) to get maximum shutter speed. Not sure if it would matter that much, but the time of day seemed to call for it, given my use of the 300 f/4 IS as handheld.
Once again. Terrific shots. I am excited about tomorrow evening's high school football openers!
These are some great shots! I have decided to give mine another test run also before assuming it is the camera's fault (as I hate the thought of sending it in)
Thanks for the update Jeff, these are similiar to the results I received with the same settings last Wednesday shooting a netball match. Using left/right expand really seems to help keep the focus lock but I was using tracking sensitivity set to +1 as opposed to the Fast you had set.
I have a full weekend of shooting planned so I will experiment also with the fast setting.
There's a lot of DOF in those shots. Look at the grass. Non of those shots really required precise AF. There plenty of examples from superteles where you can see maybe 18 inches of sharp focus behind the player.
Shooting a U19 soccer match I noticed the same thing as Jeff when another player would cut into the foreground: If the initial focus was on a particular player it would not shift mid-burst.
What is interesting is considering how sensitive the AF is is that once it establishes some sort of focus lock it tracks well. My current assumption is that during bright high contrast situations (most sports) the camera initially sees about 10 different potential focus points when using a 2.8 or faster lens yet somehow there is a logic rule that enables it to retain focus once it is achieved and it starts a burst. The problem with this theory is it doesn't explain why people like RG have problems gettig OOF shots mid burst.
Does stop recognizing the lens attached count as a focusing problem. Switch from Nikon to Canon just to have it break after 292 snaps. Wonderful product otherwise.
Iberian wrote:
The problem with this theory is it doesn't explain why people like RG have problems gettig OOF shots mid burst.
Yeah, it's quite a mystery. I was reviewing some of his example sequences again yesterday and some really look bad. In & out of focus during the sequence. It's amazing Canon didn't see it before the release. Or maybe they did, we don't really know.
Rob has done such a great job of demonstrating when the problem occurs most often, and how bad it can get.
If Canon really didn't see the problem clearly before, they should be giving RG a huge bonus for helping them identify what could be their biggest blunder of the century. At least give him all their latest Digital SLR's free for life. Or something.....
First of all, it does not seem ALL Mk3 have problems. Secondly the problem can be intermittent. Seeing the problem and konw what (may be a combinations of factors) causes the problem, and even toughest part is how to fix it without creating a new set problem for the other cameras that seems to be working fine !!
I can feel for the Canon engineers who are working to resolve this 'AF issue'. Be patient guys.
dcmiller wrote:
There's a lot of DOF in those shots. Look at the grass. Non of those shots really required precise AF. There plenty of examples from superteles where you can see maybe 18 inches of sharp focus behind the player.
As Jeff was already shooting with his 70-200f2.8 wide open, at the real world condition of his kids soccor games, what else do you want him to do and report? Go shoot a game with a supertele he does not have or care? Who decide what is the acceptable tolerance range or you expect your gears to be exactly 100% accurate, not even 99.5% ?
slau wrote:
As Jeff was already shooting with his 70-200f2.8 wide open, at the real world condition of his kids soccor games, what else do you want him to do and report? Go shoot a game with a supertele he does not have or care? Who decide what is the acceptable tolerance range or you expect your gears to be exactly 100% accurate, not even 99.5% ?
Jeff's photos are not within the scope of the thread. If you don't know why, try reading and learning about sports photography as opposed to adding more silliness.
dcmiller wrote:
Jeff's photos are not within the scope of the thread. If you don't know why, try reading and learning about sports photography as opposed to adding more silliness.
Not trying to take sides here but I really don't understand why Jeff's shots aren't within the scope of this thread. Can you explain please?
