rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.53 #3 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken | |
Hrow wrote:
I'm really glad that they got your camera working but I really can't see sending in all of your lenses as being a viable answer for many people. For example, I have an opportunity for some unique portraits this weekend. I had been thinking of getting an 85L and this was a good reason to push me over the edge and spend the money. Can't do it if I have to send in my camera and new lens. Likewise, I can't even rent an 85L because it won't work with my body without first being calibrated.
Maybe I'm missing something but is there anybody here that would have bought an MkIII if Canon's literature said that every time you get a new lens you would have to send both the body and the lens into the elves at Canon? ...Show more →
(Apologies off the start for what turned out to be a long post)
If that was part of the standard procedure, was a documented requirement and resulted in guaranteed superior performance, then it could be compensated for during planning for new equipment purchases. It would certainly be a hassle for spontaneous purchases or rentals. The reality though is this is not, nor has ever been a standard requirement. Unfortunately it appears to be the next step to determine the problem with your camera and does not therefore apply to every Mark III user.
Sending in a camera with lenses is not a recent development or an unknown issue. Some forum research for those interested in the 1D series will bring this to light. Perhaps some of those who have dealt with combined camera and lens calibration in the past have considered it part of the user experience and necessary to maintain high image quality standards with such "high performance" equipment? A part of the overall equipment maintenance cycle necessary to ensure that the entire system is in proper spec. Just because the lenses and camera are sent in does not mean that the lenses must be recalibrated. When an item is in-spec, then it will work properly with other in-spec parts of the entire system. The matching is not to an arbitrary set of standards unique to a specific photographer's equipment, but to Canon's standard to ensure universal consistency. Look at other high performance (non-photo) equipment and it's evident that with tighter tolerances comes the potential need to have the gear calibrated more precisely and perhaps more frequently. Potentially inconvenient to be sure but maybe part of the overall deal. Testing, testing, testing - it's the only way to determine if each piece of equipment works properly within the system.
For some historical perspective: Back when the Mark II (non-s version) was released and the year that followed, there were difficulties and frustrations expressed by experienced photographers getting OOF images in situations where the original 1D appeared to perform properly. Issues were very similar to some of those discussed here about the Mark III: The plane of focus would be off, AI Servo tracking performance was poor or there just did not appear to be anything critically in focus. Compared to what's happening with the Mark III, this could be speculatively interpreted many ways, including: Canon's QA sucks and things have not improved; there is a consistent percentage of substandard equipment released for sale; that there is a degree of risk that a new camera/lens may not work properly/perfectly. Sometimes there was a very similar type of service escalation: Sent in camera - initial "fix" did not work; sent in camera and lenses - fix either did or did not work; if it didn't work, escalated issue to upper levels at Canon and eventually fault determined or equipment replaced. But in other cases it was a matter of proper AF calibration or understanding about how the II's characteristics differed from the original 1D.
If you want evidence of such discussions, here's a selection from the SportsShooter board:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=16709
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=17478
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=18235
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=21152
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=14367
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=14581
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=12248 in the OP's opening statement:
Posted: 9:21 PM on 10.03.04
->> I am a new Canon user just switched completely two weeks ago still learning the Canon system. My question is I seem to be getting a lot of unsharp images when shooting sports, images that are pretty simple shots runners coming at me, lineman coming up to block that sort of thing. I don't have a problem admitting when I can't do something or when I'm not very good at it but I know I don't miss this kind of shot I have been shooting long enough to know how to shoot sports. I have tried every setting I know, and can find on the camera, shot with two bodies, two different 400mm f2.8 lenses, three different sports and I still am getting the same kind of shots. Not really out but just enough that they aren't usuable to me.
Sounds similar to some of the complaints about the III, doesn't it? Interesting in hindsight....
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=9112 Here's one post that stands out during a quick skim through:
Posted: 7:58 AM on 04.26.04
->> ok. one more comment to the sharpness-discussion. i did my first weekend with the mark II. i have shot an important soccer-game in munich and there i have met some other photographers with the mark II. and sorry for canon, but they all have the same problem. some of them were so unhappy that they changed to the 1D in the second half of the game. the images of this camera are not sharp (enough)!!!
And interestingly from the same photographer regarding comments about the Mark III:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=25247
Posted: 4:24 PM on 06.17.07
->> and maybe i am the first one who gave his mk III back to his dealer a few days ago and get back my money. and a few other photographers in germany did the same. i have shot two matches of the german national soccer team last week. and it was a very disappointing story.
the mk III is in focus. nearly perfect. but the ai servo did not work correctly if the object is moving and you use the 10 fps for series, running portraits etc.
all my lenses are justified by cps germany and i think i am not to stupid to do my job.
but for all of you. enjoy the camera. a lot of my colleagues are very happy with the mk III.
i hate it!
Note, that he has had all his lenses calibrated (justified) by Canon (more evidence that some working photographers in fact do this).
AF problems are not unknown to Canon users and not unique to the Mark III, though the III's specific issues certainly are serious and in some ways more troubling than past problems. Re-reading those old Mark II discussions makes me wonder if, had there been enough negative feedback and poor reviews, would it have forced Canon into a "fix" situation similar to the one we are now in with the Mark III? It's clear that Canon has not had a spotless record concerning AF performance.
There is no denying the legitimate problems with the Mark III. Clearly they exist, as experienced by those including Ben is in, Jeff, Henry, Alistair, Andrew.... Both of my copies definitely have/had AI Servo tracking issues and quirky One Shot behavior. What I don't agree with is broadly sweeping condemnation of the Mark III when it is clearly evident that not every camera is affected. Perhaps my expectations are more tempered when it comes to Canon's equipment. Perhaps my take on "high performance" equipment is more along the line that it involves more responsibility by the user, both in terms of understanding and maintenance. Though, I know the maintenance aspect will be contested by some - that much of the responsibility should rest with Canon. Each of us has different degrees of tolerance. Perhaps it requires more trial and error learning by the user to better understand and determine the exact limitations of the equipment and then find ways to work around or within those limitations if they cannot be addressed by Canon. Yes, this equipment is expensive and it should work but being expensive does not automatically mean it will be perfect. It is also very complex. If anything, that combination should make photographers more cautious. Because it's complex it's important for the photographer to know it well and keep a close eye on what's going on, otherwise it can bite back with serious IQ consequences. The unfortunate reality is that there may be issues out of the box and it tends to be that those issues get the most attention on the forums. Realistically, how many are going to post that everything is working mundanely perfect?
Henry, regarding the 85L: I'd be wary of buying it right before a specific shoot. It's a fantastic lens but requires a lot of use to get a good feel for its quirks. It's not generally point and shoot simple (not to imply that is what you expect) and can easily bite you with OOF images that you thought should be sharp, primarily due to the shallow DOF. If you do get one, overshoot anything you photograph with it, at least until you get a good feel for its characteristics. Due to its limited close focusing ability, I'd also recommend the EF-12 extension tube if you don't already own one.
Ron
Edited by rscheffler on Feb 27, 2008 at 05:11 PM GMT
|
