p.52 #3 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
sritri wrote:
Henry,
Did you get a chance to read Rob's update posted today ? Between the street sign of yours which is "green" and momv's which is "Blue", do you think heavy contrast colors is playing a role ? Your lenses may not be at fault here ? If you bring Rob's update to Canon repair techs' attention, would it help ?
I dont have a III myself, but the attraction is so great I am afraid when I will swipe my CC
The contrast was low as I got my camera back in the late afternoon. Yesterday it rained so I haven't had a chance to do any more testing. Historically, (pre-Canon screwing it up) I have found that my camera focuses much better on contrasty subjects that are close. The further away something is the more likely it is to be OOF.
I'd keep the CC in my wallet. Buying one at this stage is not a very good idea.
p.52 #5 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
A firmware fix (read FIX as in mkIIn fix) sounds 100 times better than send it in and we will rebuild something fix.
Just to keep things positive this camera still takes amazing shots and that is enough to keep me shooting. Hmm on the hand for weddings etc I have a 2nd shooter just so I don't miss any critical shots. So that isn't positive but welcome to the mk3 world.
p.52 #6 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
apdieb wrote:
MomV360,
Those images look the way I expect the MKIII files to look. Very nice. I am SO hoping mine comes back like that.
I did not send all of my lenses in though. If it comes out bad again, perhaps I'll send in my 300 and 70-200 since those are the 2 that I use primarily with the MKIII.
But regardless, this shows what can come from a GOOD FIX...
Perhaps the same tech will work on mine.
Thanks! I am so relieved you don't know. My 85mm 1.2 looks great too.
Good luck to you
Feb 27, 2008 at 10:31 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.52 #7 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
>The contingent from Japan came at the behest of Canon Australia, which had been receiving a steady stream of DVDs full of problem sequences from at least three different agencies' photographers at the event. The DVDs contained mostly or entirely unedited camera JPEGs.
Holy cr*p!?? Professional photographers shoot JPEG? FOOLS! No wonder they can't focus their cameras properly! We should set FM members on them to teach them that if you don't shoot raw you're not a photographer. I can't believe this whole AF thing comes down to clueless JPEG shooters ignorantly fumbling with their gear! ;-)
p.52 #11 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
rscheffler wrote:
It's very interesting technology. At this point, if there is a commercial release, I wonder by how much it will reduce the sensor's native resolution?
Ron
Its applications for professional photography are a long ways off. The resolution loss is still quite prohibitive for consumer photography. The amount of resolution loss is tied directly into how much additional radiance information you want to capture. Current research has revolved around capturing all of the radiance information. I suspect that for a consumer product you don't need information from all directions but a limited set of directions would be sufficient (in effect letting you refocus a little bit and not all the way from foreground to background) and the resolution decrease should also be reduced.
p.52 #13 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
vidoprof wrote:
Did you notice in those pictures though that the things that are "in" focus are not razor sharp?
Ryan
Like I said, I'm self taught. Photography is my hobby as a stay at home mom. What you see is probably just my lack of knowing how to pan. I'm pretty happy with it myself.
p.52 #15 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
momv630 wrote:
Like I said, I'm self taught. Photography is my hobby as a stay at home mom. What you see is probably just my lack of knowing how to pan. I'm pretty happy with it myself.
I disagree these pictures look very sharp. Was sharpening done in Post.
p.52 #16 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
momv630 wrote:
Like I said, I'm self taught. Photography is my hobby as a stay at home mom. What you see is probably just my lack of knowing how to pan. I'm pretty happy with it myself.
they look good!!!! and yes you should be happy!
p.52 #18 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Iberian wrote:
A firmware fix (read FIX as in mkIIn fix) sounds 100 times better than send it in and we will rebuild something fix.
It's only 100 times better if it does anything for the performance of the camera. I personally feel that this piece of information is disturbing at best; it would seem we are back in the initial loop of trying a variety of software 'smoke and mirrors' to correct something that Canon may not have adequately defined yet.
Also, I don't believe blue light has squat to do with it, I believe there remain two issues: 1) Poor focusing performance when contrast is low (typical of many AF systems), and 2) errant focusing accuracy/detection when light is strong and directional (or perhaps reflected). The basic issue with #1 is that the MkIII's system often performs worse than the MkII/n's in low-contrast conditions; it should not be this way, it should be better. The confounding factor with #2 is that it appears to be intermittent, possibly not manifest in all cameras nor at all f/stops, and thus hard to reliably reproduce. Add to this the 'focal plane' issues from misaligned lens flanges, and it gets pretty ugly.
I hope a firmware tweak does it, but it certainly won't do diddly for Henry's 'focal plane' or lens flange alignment issues. There's more to this, I just hope we hear something 'from above' soon...
p.52 #20 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Came home to a message from a lawyer asking me if I have an interest in a class action suit. Last week I wouldn't have called him back. Tomorrow I'll least listen to what he has to say.
