Garylv wrote:
Can you elaborate just a little bit? Are you shooting much in Servo focus? Lenses used? Common shooting subjects and conditions?
I have posted images here before.. I believe in this thread.. So far, I have been happy with the Servo performance with my Mark III. I will say this.. I am not shooting with a 300mm+ F2.8 lens though. Longest I have is a 70-200L IS F2.8 with a 1.4X extender.
My latest tests just involved my son at a water park on various water slides...fast motion, F4 at around 100mm in BRIGHT sun and 101 degree temperature. My sequences were not shot at 10FPS... 5 I believe..I was very happy with the results. I believe one of the crops is posted here a couple of pages back.
So.. (for me) and my subject matter (I am mainly a wedding and concert shooter...would like to get into sports more eventually, The body is working admirably. Who knows if I slap on a 400 F2.8 and shoot soccer if I'll be singing the same tune though.
Having said this, my son's soccer season is about to start in a week. I'll get out and do some additional testing and report back. There are no shortages of HOT and SUNNY days down here in Texas right now.
Thanks, I remember seeing the photo now, just recently. I would think you could still see some trouble with your 70-200 f2.8, although maybe not quite as much. In fact RG mentioned that lens seemed ok on some tests, until he used it to shoot a soccer game. You'll have to keep us updated ;-)
Based on my experience and reading that of some others, the trouble seems to show even more on longer telephoto lenses. But yet some others report issues with shorter lenses too.
Hot & sunny here in So California too. Lot's of time to shoot in those conditions.
Long bursts, short bursts, predictable movement, erratic movement, still subjects...doesn't really matter. Servo + sunny = crap. In other news, my 1D still works wonderfully.
Long bursts, short bursts, predictable movement, erratic movement, still subjects...doesn't really matter. Servo + sunny = crap. In other news, my 1D still works wonderfully.
Ben,
I have reviewed the whole series of images and they are bad. With the exception of 1 or 2 images, the focus seems to be consistently behind the player by 1-2 ft. I was focusing on looking at the ground than looking at the player.
I assume that your 1D will track the player without any problem. Actually from looking at your series of images, I really have confident that either my 1D or 1Dmk2 will give me very high keeper ratio, as the subject is relative fill frame and not exactly moving at high speed. I still have to try my Mk3 on subject like this yet.
slau wrote:
Ben,
I have reviewed the whole series of images and they are bad. With the exception of 1 or 2 images, the focus seems to be consistently behind the player by 1-2 ft. I was focusing on looking at the ground than looking at the player.
I assume that your 1D will track the player without any problem. Actually from looking at your series of images, I really have confident that either my 1D or 1Dmk2 will give me very high keeper ratio, as the subject is relative fill frame and not exactly moving at high speed. I still have to try my Mk3 on subject like this yet.
When it's off, it's almost always slightly behind the subject whether the subject is running toward me, laterally, or standing still. And the lens is not in need of a micro adjustment in case anybody is wondering.
Long bursts, short bursts, predictable movement, erratic movement, still subjects...doesn't really matter. Servo + sunny = crap. In other news, my 1D still works wonderfully.
Ben,
I've been reading enough of these threads to know you're frustrated. I still cannot decide if mine is "working" or not. I've done all the tests -- cars, runners, etc. If I do the runner test (ProPhotoHome.com), I consistently get 20% OOF, which technically makes mine a "good" camera.
But I got a chance to shoot my first soccer scrimmage of the season last weekend, sunny midday, horrible high contrast light, warm. ("good" examples at http://www.pbase.com/rwalkernm/scrim81807). I still wonder if OOF pictures are saying something about me or the camera. I can confirm other reports that it is crucial to get the initial shot in a burst in focus, or you can easily spin off a whole bunch of OOF pictures. Coming from a 10D, I am getting about the same percentage of keepers as before (!!). With erratically moving players, I am not talented enough to ensure the CF point is tracking on the desired target, so I need to allow focus point expansion and hope for the best. With a MkIII, you can make a lot of bad pictures very fast.
Some bursts start in focus, and then drop out -- but since it's not possible to figure out which AF point was being used, I can't tell if I wandered off the target or not. I guess I envy you guys who are sure of what you are shooting at.
If I ever decide, then I'll vote in this thread; but for now, I am effectively still in the "I am clueless" category.
Jeff,
Looking at your series of cycling with the subject almost fill frame, and the BG is way behind the subject, it makes perfect sense that the HIGH sensitivity and Center AF point will give you more keepers. From my experience with the Mk2, SLOW tracking is used only when there are occasionally undesirable 'things' get in between you and your subject, and/or your subject is relatively close to a background that is in high contrast and distracting.
The only time I will even dream of using 45 AF points and HIGH tracking sensitivity is when shooting BIF with a single good size bird (i.e. eagle or Sandhill Crane) against a white or blue sky background when the AF has no chance to acquire focus on the background.
ben_is_in wrote:
When it's off, it's almost always slightly behind the subject whether the subject is running toward me, laterally, or standing still. And the lens is not in need of a micro adjustment in case anybody is wondering.
Ben,
It seems like your camera and Gary's (scoccer series) camera are all doing the same thing: focus behind the subject when the focus is out. I wonder do other people's out-of-focus shots also show the "foucs behind the subject"?
No, if your lens is out of spec by that much, I doubt that the micro adjustment will do your any good . Plus, you must be getting good results with the same lens with the other bodies. I doubt that your lens is the problem.
I will go back and look at RG's series of OOF images closely and see if the focus is also behind the subject.
I've been reading enough of these threads to know you're frustrated. I still cannot decide if mine is "working" or not. I've done all the tests -- cars, runners, etc. If I do the runner test (ProPhotoHome.com), I consistently get 20% OOF, which technically makes mine a "good" camera.
But I got a chance to shoot my first soccer scrimmage of the season last weekend, sunny midday, horrible high contrast light, warm. ("good" examples at http://www.pbase.com/rwalkernm/scrim81807). I still wonder if OOF pictures are saying something about me or the camera. I can confirm other reports that it is crucial to get the initial shot in a burst in focus, or you can easily spin off a whole bunch of OOF pictures. Coming from a 10D, I am getting about the same percentage of keepers as before (!!). With erratically moving players, I am not talented enough to ensure the CF point is tracking on the desired target, so I need to allow focus point expansion and hope for the best. With a MkIII, you can make a lot of bad pictures very fast.
Some bursts start in focus, and then drop out -- but since it's not possible to figure out which AF point was being used, I can't tell if I wandered off the target or not. I guess I envy you guys who are sure of what you are shooting at.
If I ever decide, then I'll vote in this thread; but for now, I am effectively still in the "I am clueless" category.
We continue to see posts from photographers that believed they had a camera without problems that turned out to be problematic. I'm sure we have all noticed the scarcity of new Mark III cameras available. Somethings going on in Japan and hopefully we will hear from them soon.
Jeff
There is currently a huge push by CPS in the UK who are actively working with pro shooters to resolve these problems.
I will try what they have suggested to me but I remain slightly unconvinced that the root cause doesn't lie somewhere within the camera though. What I will say for certain is that wherever I go and whatever I shoot, my trusty 1D2N follows tucked into the camera bag!
Nill, have you received your Mark 3's yet or are you going into the fall sport season with only your 1Ds2?
I don't understand. What else are they supposed to do if they identify a fault and are prepared to make it right? Under UK law are they required to offer you a refund?
UA935 wrote:
If Canon do identify a fault with the AF I think they will have a S*** Storm on their hands.
I doubt it, I think everyone would be very pleased to finally see Canon admit the problem they found and offer a resolution, whether that is hardware or software fix. Canon CPS is already working heavily with pro photogs in the UK on this problem. Any fix will come out of Japan.
UA935 wrote:
I for one would not be happy having an item which I purchased brand new repaired due to the fault of the manufacturer.
Why? For what you shoot you don't have a problem? Canon are not responsible to replace your camera, you may not be happy, but that is not grounds for Canon giving you a replacement camera, unless of course this turns out to be the only rectification and Canon would do everything possible to have a product recall.
Wait till your shutter blows!
UA935 wrote:
If a fault is acknowledged, under the sales of goods act Canon would have supplied an item which is not fit for purpose.
And all Canon are liable for is putting it right. It is not like the Canon 1D3 has an electrical fault which under x condition is going to kill you!
Nill Toulme wrote:
I don't understand. What else are they supposed to do if they identify a fault and are prepared to make it right? Under UK law are they required to offer you a refund?
Under UK consumer law, ie. Canon market and sell a camera which then turns out to have a fault, all they are required to do is repair it free of charge. Nothing more.
Nill Toulme wrote:
I don't understand. What else are they supposed to do if they identify a fault and are prepared to make it right? Under UK law are they required to offer you a refund?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
First they have to find the issus and admit it. And under US law we get screwed.
I will be buying a MK III once the issues are resolved. I need the low light abilities for night football. I chatted with a rep from B&H PHoto and was told that they can't get any more at the time as Canon isn't shipping them any longer.
jlacasci wrote:
I chatted with a rep from B&H PHoto and was told that they can't get any more at the time as Canon isn't shipping them any longer.
Joe
Wow. I wonder where that information came from, exactly. It could be an assumption based on the fact they just haven't received any lately. Or maybe they really did put a hold on distribution.
Lots of rumors before, but now they have all the video tapes and samples RG described as having arrived in Tokyo.
We'll have to watch for any recent deliveries being reported.
I think Canon has a pretty big mess on their hands, but I just hope they can get this corrected in a timely manner and get it behind them.
. Plus, you must be getting good results with the same lens with the other bodies. I doubt that your lens is the problem.