p.24 #1 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Richard K kindly asked me to provide an update on my blue dot 1D3, so here it is!
I shot one rugby match with the 1D3 and 400/2.8 IS before Christmas and was quite pleased with the results, I hadn't expected it to be so cold so hadn't dressed properly and as a result I froze my ass off, hence I probably wasn't as focussed on my photography as I would have normally been. Yesterday I went to the local bird reserve and was shooting with 1D3, 500/4 IS and a 1.4x TC and I got some great series' of canada geese in flight, 6 or 7 shot bursts, each shot in focus, that is something my previous 2 1D3 would never have been able to do.
All in all I am quite happy at the moment with my blue dot 1D3. I have shot extensively with the 1D2 and N models so I know what to expect from a Mark 3 and the biggest thing I can say about this blue dot Mark 3 is that at least I can use it! It might not sound very positive, but to me at least it is a big step forward, I am using this camera on proper shoots and getting pretty good results. At least over the coming months I have a chance to see whether this Mark 3 rivals or surpasses the performance of my 1D2N.
The main thing that -expletive deleted- me off about the 1D3 is that sometimes I still find myself having to prod the AF-ON button repeatedly to try to get it to refocus. This symptom I have seen on each of the 1D3 I have used.
Also, sometime during the January or February the body does need to be calibrated with my lenses since it is a little bit off. I neither have the time or motivation to mess about with micro adjust so all the gear will go back to Canon UK for a proper calibration.
p.24 #2 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
bcaslis wrote:
I got mine back this past week. Got my first chance to take some AI Servo shots this Sunday. Here's the results: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/603397
Needless to say I'm not happy so far.
The only comment I have on the images in this thread is sure, the AF point may indeed be on target but it looks like AF never actually obtained AF lock to track the subject.........
p.24 #4 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Alistair Watson wrote:
The only comment I have on the images in this thread is sure, the AF point may indeed be on target but it looks like AF never actually obtained AF lock to track the subject.........
Actually the first two images in the 7 shot burst are in-focus. Image Browser (the only thing that shows the AF points on screen) makes it look blurry so I included the capture from dpp to show that it is more focused (other converters show the first two images sharp also). It's the next 5 that are out of focus.
p.24 #5 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Just hung up with a service rep in Virginia - said he hadn't heard anything but good news back from owners of fixed Mark IIIs. Said the forums are all talking about how great it is. I asked him if he read Fred Miranda - he hadn't!
p.24 #6 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I called Canon in VA Dec. 3 to set up my sub-mirror repair date and up to this date (1/7) I have not heard from them. I just called them again and they had no record of my Dec. 3 repair request.
Again they put me on the list and said they would get in touch with me.
At this point in time I don't know if I'll slip through the crack again or will finally hear from them.
p.24 #7 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
jbear2000 wrote:
Just hung up with a service rep in Virginia - said he hadn't heard anything but good news back from owners of fixed Mark IIIs. Said the forums are all talking about how great it is. I asked him if he read Fred Miranda - he hadn't!
Forums, what forums? Maybe the representative you talked to confused the D3 with an M3, do you think? :-)
Joking aside, maybe there are forums out there with a statically significant positive spin on units with the AF fix; it's a big world out there and we shouldn't discount this possibility. Having said that I'm a bit curious, do you think English was the Canon representative's first language?
p.24 #8 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
you've gotta be kidding. canon isn't aware that there are any problems with the mk III? they've never pulled that one before lol.
reminds me of a Bush quote. kinda went like this:
"Fool me once...” [pause] "... shame on...” [pause] "Shame on you...” [pause] "If fooled, you can't get fooled again."
p.24 #9 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
apdieb wrote:
So it's RG that "acknowledged" it...Nothing official... Just what Canon told him.
Interesting. I honestly don't know what to think anymore....
Actually, not to reopen old wounds but when Galbraith reported this (that Canon told him there was an AF problem with "pre-production models") it was accepted by people with no real question, from what I recall. I know, because in the middle of one of those huge pre-production threads I wondered why someone would purchase the camera if Canon said it had an AF problem (or at least hadn't demonstrated that the AF worked miracles.) I was informed (politely) that I must have missed previous discussions and that it was a "well-known fact" that Canon didn't have problems with their first production runs of cameras so the acknowledgment was not an issue. (I will admit to missing much of the 50+ pages of a pre-production MkIII discussion, and so had failed to understand this factoid. I'll know better next time. )
I've also since learned (or been told) that it's not unusual for high-tech companies to issue pre-production products to outside reviewers with known problems--the assumption (by the firm, I guess) is that they know what the issue is, and how to fix it, and it'll be remedied before product release. The obvious problem in this case is that Canon apparently didn't really understand the problem; or at least did not understand that whatever is going on would affect a large enough number of bodies that it would turn into a serious customer relations (and presumably profit/revenue) issue. I sure hope they get everything fixed, though. It'll be awhile before I get around to buying something beyond the MkIIn, but I do want to do that at some point....
p.24 #10 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
A few people mentioned that they had never seen anyone post a similar test with a Mark III that supposedly was working well..
So here is my feeble attempt at it.. Actually, I wasn't doing this as a test until I got back inside and said to myself.. hrmm.. perhaps this would work.
These are from this afternoon... Mark III prefix... 300L IS F2.8... shot at 2.8 and handheld..(if I had been planning to use these as a test, I would have tripod mounted it..).. Regardless, I thought I'd share.
My son was riding his scooter and I only made one pass at it... A couple of frames the bar moved in front of his shirt (which was my aiming point).
Not sure if this shows anything of use or not... There are a couple of semi-soft frames, but all in all I would be happy with this performance... particularly handheld and at 10fps with this narrow DOF. I think I would have had even more keepers with a tripod/monopod.
I included the opening frame at full size, then 100% crops thereafter. Sorry they are out of order...darn flickr...
FWIW.. Just wanted to try and share some examples. If I have the opportunity, I'll try something more scientific and post that later.
These are straight from Lightroom... with just my standard export watermarking. I should have turned that off.. sorry.
EDIT: Now that I look at the uploaded images.. I may need to find another place to host them.. Looks like Flickr compressed the heck out of them. I'll leave them there anyway for now...
p.24 #12 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Red Grainger wrote:
Andrew,
I have been working as a professional photographer for over 30 years and during that time I have shot just about everything and owned bodies of every format available. Consider yourself lucky if your requirements dont' result in out of focus images. In many instances my Mark III worked as well as my Mark IIN but when I needed accurate AI servo autofocus it let me down far to frequently. I have NEVER had a difficult moment with either a Canon or Nikon Pro series body before. This leads me to conclude that something is either wrong with the Mark III fundamental design or it was designed for a use other than previous Series 1 bodies had been designed for. When I read the posts by mnay of those that are happy with their copies of the Mark III, I find that they are really being used for wedding, landscape, or snap shot work. This is hardly the market Canon identifies as its target for the Mark III. I use this camera for the photojournalist aspects of my work and that includes sports/adventure action and some wildlife/adventure. Repeatable and reliable perofrmance are crucial and the Mark III gave me more like 60-70% in focus images. My old Mark IIN gave me over 90% in focus and the 40D's I bought for temporary use are giving me nearly 90% as well. Unfortunately no criteria establishing the limits of acceptable autofocus have ever been published. That leaves it open for anyone to claim that their camera is acceptable. I suspect that in some ways Canon relies on that confusion to keep the waters muddy and delay the date of their final solution or fix. Just my two cents as a former Mark III owner.
Regards-Red...Show more →
Oh I definitely get some OOF shots.. don't get me wrong. But it's nothing all that different than the Mark IIN or any of the others that I have owned. That's all I am saying...
p.24 #13 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
This may not be a good example either - i have some panning IS AFServo shots I could post but - this is what I have right now from last week in O'ahu at the mall.
p.24 #14 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Shutterbug wrote:
I called Canon in VA Dec. 3 to set up my sub-mirror repair date and up to this date (1/7) I have not heard from them. I just called them again and they had no record of my Dec. 3 repair request.
Again they put me on the list and said they would get in touch with me.
Hmm, I hope Dec 3 isn't an unlucky day. That's also the day that I registered.
I did get an email within a day (maybe the same day) that requested me to take a poll, though. Did you get one of those?
p.24 #16 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
apdieb wrote:
A few people mentioned that they had never seen anyone post a similar test with a Mark III that supposedly was working well. So here is my feeble attempt at it.. Actually, I wasn't doing this as a test until I got back inside and said to myself.. hrmm.. perhaps this would work.
These are from this afternoon... Mark III prefix... 300L IS F2.8... shot at 2.8 and handheld..(if I had been planning to use these as a test, I would have tripod mounted it..).. Regardless, I thought I'd share. My son was riding his scooter and I only made one pass at it... A couple of frames the bar moved in front of his shirt (which was my aiming point).
Not sure if this shows anything of use or not... There are a couple of semi-soft frames, but all in all I would be happy with this performance... particularly handheld and at 10fps with this narrow DOF. I think I would have had even more keepers with a tripod/monopod. ...Show more →
Thanks for sharing that, I appreciate it the effort. Since you have a subject that has something (the hands) in front of your focus target (the shirt), it's a bit hard to tell what should and should not be in focus. It would be interesting to see the 100% crops using a screengrab of Canon's ImageBrowser so the AF point used can be seen. They do look pretty good, and oddly, your 300/2.8 appears to have more DOF than my 70-200/2.8L IS at 200 and f/2.8.
p.24 #17 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
DOF - may be due to distance from subject. Those 100% crops are quite cropped. He was at one end of the block and I was at the other... I have some others that I shot of my wife and daughter that were 75% frame filled with a tree probably 5 ft behind them... Nothing but a wash of blur/soft bokeh shows up.
When I get back to my editing machine, I'll see about using Image Browser... (never have before...)
I'll also see if I can recreate this a little tighter and with him just running at me or something.. Oh...and put it on a tripod too..
BTW: Does anyone find it odd that there haven't been any more comments on this test? When someone shows a bad MK III test, people seem to be all over it... hrmm.
Perhaps my method wasn't perfect, but I would have thought my method would have actually made it worse, certainly not better... Oh well...I do want to try and help...so I'll do my best to do whatever I can...
p.24 #18 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
apdieb wrote:
BTW: Does anyone find it odd that there haven't been any more comments on this test? When someone shows a bad MK III test, people seem to be all over it... hrmm.
It's hard to make an appropriate comment without knowing the details. Without knowing the focus point for sure it may be right on or not. Are the images 100% crops? Was there any sharpening or anything done? I don't use flikr, but it looks like maybe some sharpening or compression is done in the upload since there are some jaggies in some of the high contrast edges.
So, it may be great results but I'm not sure by looking. But I do appreciate the effort.
p.24 #19 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
In my initial post with the link, I gave you as many details as I could think of.. I agreed that Flickr did introduce some artifacts... Next go around I'll find another place to host them. I would place them on my site, but unsure about bandwidth and don't want to hose myself.
No sharpening. 100% crops... Handheld Focused on chest, F2.8, 1/2000th-1/2500th (AV Mode), ISO 400, AF-Servo, 10fps....Converted from RAW. Flickr retained the EXIF data too I believe.
They were a tad underexposed, so I brightened a little in Lightroom. Nothing more than that (other than the watermarking script that I left on accidentally).
p.24 #20 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
apdieb wrote:
DOF - may be due to distance from subject. Those 100% crops are quite cropped. He was at one end of the block and I was at the other... I have some others that I shot of my wife and daughter that were 75% frame filled with a tree probably 5 ft behind them... Nothing but a wash of blur/soft bokeh shows up.
I think you're probably right, your distance to subject is further than my typical test sequence (I'd usually start a buffer-filling sequence perhaps a touch 'later' than your full-frame image shows). I usually shoot sequences like this vertically, so as the subject fills the frame, DOF becomes more apparent.
I would like to hear more from your ImageBrowser experience if you get that far with it. We do appreciate it; contrary to popular belief, I'm not out to defame the MkIII, I want to get to the bottom of the problems, find out how widespread they really are, and discover if there are MkIII's out there that truly perform better in AI Servo than previous iterations of the venerable 1D.
) 