p.9 #1 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff wrote:
Have you ever in your life used a view camera? A tilt-shift lens? If the MkIII were a view camera, this would make perfect sense, but it isn't, and thus it doesn't.
Norm, how's about you just 'leave it'? I don't really have too much interest in discussing this with you, for obvious reasons.
chiming in a little late here.
but Jeff, have you passed this under the nose of a canon tech? or is it just too much for them to handle right now, i.e. bigger fish to fry?
i agree with norm that the camera is good, but let sleeping dogs lie. opinions are noted.
to be frank, i'm still chasing up my mastercard claim (as my last resort). even tho this camera is good, it still gives me a bad feeling. if my claim goes through, i can always re-buy it in the future once the dust clears. until then i shall use other cameras.
p.9 #2 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
python2000 wrote:
Jeff, based on your focusing and focal length what would you estimate the depth of field to be on your latter sage-brush shot? I also would like to see the loupes again but this time on bushes a bit closer to the camera.
It is la 70-200/2.8L IS + 1.4x TC II at f/4.0, but however thin the DOF may be, it shouldn't cause it to not be parallel with the sensor.
p.9 #3 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff wrote:
Have you ever in your life used a view camera? A tilt-shift lens? If the MkIII were a view camera, this would make perfect sense, but it isn't, and thus it doesn't.
Norm, how's about you just 'leave it'? I don't really have too much interest in discussing this with you, for obvious reasons.
Hi Jeff:
I'm getting a little confused with all the noise (forum noise that is). Seems (to me) that one possible explanation is the sensor is not perpendicular to the optical axis OR the optical axis is not perpendicular to the sensor; this sounds like a circular statement but it really isn't, please stay with me through to the end of my reply.
Mind if I ask a question? Does your problem occur with "all" of your lenses or just one lens (sorry to ask this question but I haven't read all the posts)? If the problem is common to all lenses then the problem is a sensor not seated properly and not perpendicular to the optical axis. On the other hand, if the problem exists with only one lens then the optical axis of "that lens" is not perpendicular to the flange mount (and therefore the sensor). Does my explanation make sense or am I all wet (go ahead, lay it on me, I don't bruise easily)? :-)
p.9 #4 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
And here's yet another (without the 1.4x), no loupe needed. This time the effect is reversed, blurry on the right side of the rock, clear on the left, same distance to camera:
p.9 #5 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I kind of see what you mean by this. Assuming you are using the center focus point it looks like the image is in focus more from lower left to upper right diagonally rather than horizontally. Is this what you mean?
p.9 #6 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
jkurkjia wrote:
Hi Jeff:
I'm getting a little confused with all the noise (forum noise that is). Seems (to me) that one possible explanation is the sensor is not perpendicular to the optical axis OR the optical axis is not perpendicular to the sensor; this sounds like a circular statement but it really isn't, please stay with me through to the end of my reply.
Mind if I ask a question? Does your problem occur with "all" of your lenses or just one lens (sorry to ask this question but I haven't read all the posts)? If the problem is common to all lenses then the problem is a sensor not seated properly and not perpendicular to the optical axis. On the other hand, if the problem exists with only one lens then the optical axis of "that lens" is not perpendicular to the flange mount (and therefore the sensor). Does my explanation make sense or am I all wet (go ahead, lay it on me, I don't bruise easily)? :-)
No, it makes perfect sense. I'm looking into that as we speak, but this never occurred with the 1Ds and 70-200. It very well could have something to do with IS, maybe, but I'll look at some other lenses and I'll get back...
[Geez, I've never in the 5+ years I've been here gotten a "You can't post a message to this thread because flood control has been enabled" warning... This is getting ridiculous!] https://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting-data//3590/839330.gif
p.9 #7 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Hersch wrote:
I kind of see what you mean by this. Assuming you are using the center focus point it looks like the image is in focus more from lower left to upper right diagonally rather than horizontally. Is this what you mean?
Grant
Exactly. Has nothing to do with AF points, submirror, etc.
p.9 #9 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Geez Normcar, if you have nothing to say why are you trolling around these parts? If you have nothing constructive to say please go get a life. Let's stay on topic here on these images.
I haven't had the exact problem that jeff has, but largely I get pictures that seem to be in focus but there's some sort of blurring going on. I'll have a look again at my library (I usually delete these - no point keeping them) to see if I can find any of that sort.
p.9 #11 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
jkurkjia wrote:
Does your problem occur with "all" of your lenses or just one lens (sorry to ask this question but I haven't read all the posts)? If the problem is common to all lenses then the problem is a sensor not seated properly and not perpendicular to the optical axis. On the other hand, if the problem exists with only one lens then the optical axis of "that lens" is not perpendicular to the flange mount (and therefore the sensor).
Well Joe, it certainly doesn't seem to happen with the 24-70/2.8L, so perhaps the MkIII doesn't like IS on all this long glass that people are having issues with? I'm going to go back to some older 1Ds +70-200/2.8L and see if it's there. Could just be my lens got banged up somehow...
Here's one from the 24-70, and you could cut your finger on any one of those reeds all the way across the frame. This is one of my finest images from San Diego, I'm really proud of it...
p.9 #13 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
That ticking you hear is the time left on someone's posting privileges.
Jeff, I'm not trying to recommend a brick wall test, but...
That whole slanted angle of focus makes me think that if you could find a place with lots of seating that spreads out left to right, and back to front, like church pews or a stadium, you could get to the bottom of the focal plane stuff fairly quickly.
Other than EXIF data, does the camera care that a lens has IS on/off?
p.9 #14 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I'm going to have to quote your post, just in case 'someone' is still up, so it doesn't look like I'm talking to myself, too...
python2000 wrote:
That ticking you hear is the time left on someone's posting privileges.
Jeff, I'm not trying to recommend a brick wall test, but...
That whole slanted angle of focus makes me think that if you could find a place with lots of seating that spreads out left to right, and back to front, like church pews or a stadium, you could get to the bottom of the focal plane stuff fairly quickly.
Other than EXIF data, does the camera care that a lens has IS on/off?
IS was on, and it didn't happen with this same lens on the 1Ds... ever. So, either my 70-200/2.8L IS broke as soon as I got the MkIII, or there is some kind of weird incompatibility between the MkIII and (perhaps) IS lenses? That's about the only thing I can come up with at the moment, as all the 24-70 pics look fine. Incidentally, the 70-200 pics with the 1.4x are worse than without it, but it's present in both. I wish I had another IS lens to test, but I'm becoming fairly certain that IS is related somehow.
Unfortunately my camera is in Virginia, so I can't shoot any test shots. I personally don't need to see any more (my eyes hurt for various reasons ), after poring over about 15000 images looking for the right kind of 'test' image from two different camera and lens combinations (thank god for LR!).
p.9 #15 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff...
I have looked very carefully at the images you posted, I'm not sure what to think, but I think this could be probably more of a lens issue than a camera issue. Maybe one of the groupings or elements is slightly out of place and only really visible at wide apertures? would stopping down "cover up" a very slight lens alignment?
again just putting some thoughts out there...
Also your thoughts on the camera price hike is very very interesting, the more I think about it the more it almost seems possible... after all RG stated in his very first article that the there was an AF issue present in the pre production body and that canon KNOW about it.
My body is now tucked away in the back of my gear cabinet and has been there for a while waiting for the fix. It's taken so long that I'm almost numb to this whole issue, but let me tell you I'm going to think very long and hard before I spend another dime on ANY canon products.
Thank you again for all the hard work.
am
p.9 #16 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff wrote:
I'm going to have to quote your post, just in case 'someone' is still up, so it doesn't look like I'm talking to myself, too...
IS was on, and it didn't happen with this same lens on the 1Ds... ever. So, either my 70-200/2.8L IS broke as soon as I got the MkIII, or there is some kind of weird incompatibility between the MkIII and (perhaps) IS lenses? That's about the only thing I can come up with at the moment, as all the 24-70 pics look fine. Incidentally, the 70-200 pics with the 1.4x are worse than without it, but it's present in both. I wish I had another IS lens to test, but I'm becoming fairly certain that IS is related somehow.
Unfortunately my camera is in Virginia, so I can't shoot any test shots. I personally don't need to see any more (my eyes hurt for various reasons ), after poring over about 15000 images looking for the right kind of 'test' image from two different camera and lens combinations (thank god for LR!).
Sounds like we won't know anything for sure until you get the body back and test a few more lenses, including other bodies, to confirm exactly what is going on. I'll assume you will report back with your findings in this thread rather than start a new one; this will help to give us all an opportunity to help out (assuming we can do it in a positive manner).
In the meantime let's all hope the forum noise goes to sleep (fingers crossed). :-)
p.9 #18 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Oh dear I know it's stupid to encourage you Norm, but you have obviously had a psychotic break. I urge you to self medicate immediately and then check yourself into a sanitarium before the drugs wear off.
p.9 #19 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Normcar21 wrote:
We are working this crap out with major channels like cnn and others, but I'm not going to deal with that stuff tonight
Norm, I know you and Jeff have some 'history' but the beauty of FM is that there are thousands of threads to read and participate in, if you don't like what someone is writing then you can simply go out to another thread, there is no need for this continual 'heckling' since it spoils the experience for everyone, people who might actually have something to contribute to what Jeff is saying will stay away. If you have nothing to contribute then say nothing, if you have a personal axe to grind with Jeff take it to PM, that's what it is there for! Don't spoil it for everyone.
p.9 #20 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Yakim Peled wrote:
Jeff, I'm having a hard time understanding how the topic shifted from the ghosting in RG shots to the focus(?) problems in yours.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Thanks, guys.
Yakim, my original question centers around whether or not the two phenomena are related. Unfortunately, I don't have enough equipment to do the kind of testing that needs to be done, but assuming my lens isn't broken (which it was not on the 1Ds), I think that some of the softness issues that people casually report with longer glass could be related to what I'm seeing. Several people have noted (in their own cameras) that they can sometimes not see where the focal plane is, even though they think that they should be able to, thus some of the disagreement as to front- vs backfocusing in some example images. At some point I'm going to sit back down with RG's latest images, and now that I've isolated a uniqueness to this effect seen with MkIII images, see if it is shown with others' equipment. Remember that, most often, it is longer glass (usually with) with IS that has exhibited focusing issues, and clearly (based upon RG's last set) it's not all due to the submirror.
Is it related to the ghosting? I have no idea, and may never know. Do RG's current set of images show this phenomenon? I don't know yet, but will try to answer that today. Is it my lens? It very well could be, but i can't make that determination without some help, and thus this thread.
