They mean the same thing. I am at 1.0.9, and my menu is the same as yours. The PDF is trying to give you a better explanation of the CF. Unfortunately, neither tells you the entire story. If CF3-4 is set to one, and something eneters the "Main Focus Point", it will be overlooked as long as one of the assist points can keep focus on your original subject. If the object that enters the main focus point is so large as to block the assist points as well, you loose focus.
Interesting if true it could be what everyone with focus issues has been hoping for a little incentive to force Canon to work out the issues with the MK III. Interesting a few months ago there was a photograph of a Reuters Camera crews equipment burned in an accident. Maybe it was them disposing of there MK III I myself have not experienced any issues as of yet and love my camera almost as much as my wife and daughter. I do however follow this thread religiously and hope for a resolution for all.
This about sums up my experience and I have owned numerous 1D series bodies. A pity the author didn't post their CFn settings, I would be very curious to see what they were.
Alistair Watson wrote:
This about sums up my experience and I have owned numerous 1D series bodies. A pity the author didn't post their CFn settings, I would be very curious to see what they were.
What is still mind baffling to me is how many people seem to have serious trouble with this camera and how many people seem to have almost no trouble at all. Unless there is some issue where there are 2 different plants producing a part (in a 60/40 split nontheless) which was defective would make sense...except for RG's 6 bad bodies that still doesn't make sense.
As time has gone on and I have read threads like this I have had almost no issues with out of focus shots, literally I will get 1 or 2 once in a while and almost always I remember it was my fault because I was moving or something. I cannot recall for sure a shot where the autofocus was at fault. Also the AF is amazingly quick which is good because I don't start shooting till it is in focus which I think helps but not tested scientifically.
It would be awesome if Canon could get to the bottom of this and let everyone know. If they never do come forth this will never make sense and people will debate for years about the Canon Mark III AF issue.
He said he used centre point AF so in that case I am not surprised with the results.
Can you elaborate on your statement, are you saying he shouldn't have used centre point AF or are you saying this is where the MKIII suffers compared to the MKII?
Iberian wrote:
What is still mind baffling to me is how many people seem to have serious trouble with this camera and how many people seem to have almost no trouble at all. Unless there is some issue where there are 2 different plants producing a part (in a 60/40 split nontheless) which was defective would make sense...except for RG's 6 bad bodies that still doesn't make sense.
As time has gone on and I have read threads like this I have had almost no issues with out of focus shots, literally I will get 1 or 2 once in a while and almost always I remember it was my fault because I was moving or something. I cannot recall for sure a shot where the autofocus was at fault. Also the AF is amazingly quick which is good because I don't start shooting till it is in focus which I think helps but not tested scientifically.
It would be awesome if Canon could get to the bottom of this and let everyone know. If they never do come forth this will never make sense and people will debate for years about the Canon Mark III AF issue....Show more →
I am with you on this, just what I was thinking, although under certain conditions or circumstances usually bright light sometimes I have to pump the AF-ON to get the camera to refocus, or the AF hunts.
Even if I use center point AF with my 1DMKII N I have more keepers then with the 1DMKIII. I just can't trust the 1DMKIII anymore, and I'm not the only one!
The link I have posted are not my pictures.
Iberian wrote:
What is still mind baffling to me is how many people seem to have serious trouble with this camera and how many people seem to have almost no trouble at all.
Agreed, although I've seen people post examples and say they don't see any focusing issues, but the samples are soft and some appear to be backfocused. And yet others post examples that are clearly not under the conditions where the Mark III has the most trouble.
One person said he tested the camera under "very difficult, low light conditions" and saw no sign of the focus trouble with his camera.
So those types of posts lead me to believe many people are only aware of the headlines: "Autofocus Issues with the New 1D Mark III", but they don't really know the details and test the camera under irrelevant conditions, and with shorter lenses, sometimes stopped down to f8.
I personally feel a lot more than half the cameras are affected, but I still hesitate to say all because I have seen a few people with examples under similar conditions and the samples look good.
Alistair Watson wrote:
Ooops!
He said he used centre point AF so in that case I am not surprised with the results.
NickRno77 wrote:
Can you elaborate on your statement, are you saying he shouldn't have used centre point AF or are you saying this is where the MKIII suffers compared to the MKII?
Nick
I am saying that centre point AF and AI Servo with the camera set to default CFns is pretty bad. All my experience so far with the Mark 3, more than 15K shots, shows that the Mark 3 has a hard time maintaining focus lock in single centre point AF mode. I am having much more success now using either left/right or ring expand along with AI sensitivity tracking set to +1.
However, focussing is still not a patch on my N except under very low light conditions.
As soon as I can I am going to send my 1D2N, 1D3 and all lenses back to CPS UK for calibration, the N was calibrated with everything earlier this year and works perfectly, I need to send the Mark 3 in with everything for the work to be worthwhile.
Frankly I am very very annoyed that I cannot trust my £3K 1D3 Canon flagship sports camera to do the job my Mark 2N performed with ease. In a dream I had the other night I imagined Canon put the dual digic 3 sensor and high iso capability along with the ISO button in the same frame as the 1D2N and left everything else alone. Then sadly I woke up. My 1D2/N's never gathered dust, never ever. They were always used, always out, always shooting. I just noticed my Mark 3 has dust on the top of it and my house is clean!
Garylv wrote:
Agreed, although I've seen people post examples and say they don't see any focusing issues, but the samples are soft and some appear to be backfocused. And yet others post examples that are clearly not under the conditions where the Mark III has the most trouble.
One person said he tested the camera under "very difficult, low light conditions" and saw no sign of the focus trouble with his camera.
So those types of posts lead me to believe many people are only aware of the headlines: "Autofocus Issues with the New 1D Mark III", but they don't really know the details and test the camera under irrelevant conditions, and with shorter lenses, sometimes stopped down to f8.
I personally feel a lot more than half the cameras are affected, but I still hesitate to say all because I have seen a few people with examples under similar conditions and the samples look good.
Garylv,
I couldn't agree more with your statement. Many 1d3 owners are not testing under similar conditions or using longer prime glass and using a wide enough aperture.
I myself have not experienced any issues as of yet and love my camera almost as much as my wife and daughter. I do however follow this thread religiously and hope for a resolution for all.