A friend of mine is a professional bird photographer and bought the 1DIII. He states the camera is totally useless and it has been gathering dust for the last few months since he still uses his old 1D II. It will be interesting to see if he feels the sub-mirror fix and firmware update has done the job. I'll let you know.
I received my mark 3 a week ago (BD 1.1.3) and I have been generally happy unless I use my 400 5.6. For some reason I have a harder time getting sharp pics when shooting small birds. At first I thought the AF was jumpy, then I thought it was back-focusing, now after seeing Jeff's post I wonder if it is the 10fps phenomenon. Maybe it has something to do with long lenses I have had better luck in single shot mode.
bent-ove wrote:
Coming from a 1DII, there are so many improvements that I would never trade back. On the other hand I have never had any focus issues with my camera (other than the ones I caused myself) and do understand the frustrations of those who are affected.
When you came "from a 1DII", I assume you sold the II and bought the III. Do you expect your III will retain its resale value to the same extent your II did. Has Canon acted in a way that will preserve the integrity of the 1-series line?
After all, Canon itself set the standard. The following was copied from the USA website last night:
"Every facet of the EOS experience has been enhanced with the 1D Mark III. It's the new standard."
"Photographers can expect an exceptional degree of performance and reliability exceeding any film camera they've ever used. Speedy shooting is achieved with an entirely new, lightning-fast 45-point AF system, sophisticated tracking and predictive AF technology combined with precise, instant metering, no matter the setting."
"A processing unit devoted solely to focusing the 1D Mark III uses advanced algorithms that ensure the fastest, most accurate AF performance under the widest variety of conditions, with processing up to 3x faster and a full stop darker than on the EOS-1D Mark II N. The One-Shot AF mode is ideal for more static subjects. The camera rapidly selects the optimum focusing point and the subject is instantly brought into focus even if it is off-center. The AI Servo AF mode is excellent for moving subjects. Aided by a highly "intelligent" predictive focusing algorithm, it precisely tracks subject movement, even at speeds of up to 10 fps. Even with erratic or rapid subject movement, the photographer can shoot continuously, concentrating solely on image composition."
DavidP wrote:
Also, am I the ONLY person who would stop down to f/4 in those images to get a bit more DOF in the first place? The margin here is razor-thin. I only use f/2.8 (or wider) on shots like that when I *have* to (low light). And fortunately, the 1D3 seems to focus better than the 1D-2 does in low light (at least for me).
Good point David ! I think the average viewer looking at these images does not even realize just how shallow the DOF is on a 300mm super tele. at 40' (.69 ft total 50/50).
The question is "Does the MKIII work to Canon's specifications and satisfaction?" If Canon is satisfied, no more work will be done in the AF area. If Canon believes they need to improve the product, another firmware update will be coming. The MKIII is Canon's flag ship PJ and Sports camera, I don't believe it can end here. I believe the MKIII was designed to out perform the IIN and it appears it does not. Unless Canon works to resolve all issues with the MKIII, the MKIV and all future pro camera sales will be impacted.
Amateur Tom wrote:
Good point David ! I think the average viewer looking at these images does not even realize just how shallow the DOF is on a 300mm super tele. at 40' (.69 ft total 50/50).
T Tolla
Most would shoot this at f4, but that depends on what the end use would be. If you wanted total isolation of the subject, (parked cars or Porta-Johns, etc in the background) f2.8 helps, but I believe the point RG is trying to make is, the MKIIN will out perform the MKIII in bright light. This is an easy way to show it.
Phil Tower wrote:
When you came "from a 1DII", I assume you sold the II and bought the III. Do you expect your III will retain its resale value to the same extent your II did. Has Canon acted in a way that will preserve the integrity of the 1-series line?
I still have the Mark II, but not using it so much....
And I do see your point, but for me, holding a camera that lives up to my expectations and needs, I see no point in selling....
That said, I do understand the fact there are people affected by this that not are happy.
My point was that the people having one, which doesn't deliver to their needs have all the right in the world to be unhappy, but I don't see how people not having the camera should be complaining...
mill4570 wrote:
The question is "Does the MKIII work to Canon's specifications and satisfaction?" If Canon is satisfied, no more work will be done in the AF area. If Canon believes they need to improve the product, another firmware update will be coming. The MKIII is Canon's flag ship PJ and Sports camera, I don't believe it can end here. I believe the MKIII was designed to out perform the IIN and it appears it does not. Unless Canon works to resolve all issues with the MKIII, the MKIV and all future pro camera sales will be impacted.
Canon Fan Boy,
Richard K.
Or they will bring out the IIIn with more expensive components and leave us foolish, trusting III owners behind.
mill4570 wrote:
Most would shoot this at f4, but that depends on what the end use would be. If you wanted total isolation of the subject, (parked cars or Porta-Johns, etc in the background) f2.8 helps, but I believe the point RG is trying to make is, the MKIIN will out perform the MKIII in bright light. This is an easy way to show it.
Richard K.
I wouldn't necessarily shoot at f4. The 1D2N with the 300/2.8 IS used in RGs test shots show that with a properly focussed camera you can get just enough depth of field of the subject plus ensure the subject is isolated. I routinely shoot my 400/2.8 IS at f2.8 for rugby photography and my 2nd 1D3 wouldn't match the AF tracking of my 1D2N.
To date, I have proved through 5 rugby matches that my 2nd 1D3 would not even match the accuracy of my 1D2N, the conditions were all cold, wet and windy and yes, both 1D3/1D2N were body match calibrated to my 400/2.8 IS. I did notice a dramatic improvement in the 1D3 performance after upgrading to the 1.1.3 firmware but still, nothing close to that of my N.
I will reserve further judgement on this until I have tried my own new blue dotted 1.1.3 firmware'd body at the rugby this Saturday. If it works and produces the results that are equal to, or exceed, my 1D2N then with all due respect to RG I will be happy with my 1D3.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that has questions about these tests. I would think that given the effort and expense involved (travel for a number of people to Phoenix), they could have done a better job making sure it was an apples to apples comparison.
In the fast runner 1, because of the buffer differences the IIN sequence has the runner starting and finishing much closer than the III sequence. How hard can it be to place the cameras side by side and shoot the same sprint? Granted there may be minor differences because of parallax, but I can tell more from that comparison than I can from different sprints on different parts of the track.
In the soccer game action, again the comparisons must be made from different games, at different times, different lighting, and different uniforms. Both cameras have examples where the player next to the one being focused on is sharper than the "subject." I'd like to see how they both handled the exact same scenario. I'd also like to see comparisons of the same scenario at something other than f2.8, so we know it is a focusing issue rather than a narrow DOF issue.
Besides apples to apples, it is also about how you interpret the data. On one of these threads someone mentioned that with the fast runner the Mk III shot 36 photos but had only 1 more in focus shot (23 to 22). While I'm not about to concede that interpretation, let's go with these numbers for now.
One interpretation could be: "OMG, the IIN has a much greater keeper percentage!!!"
The other interpretation could be: " Let's line them up side by side and cover the state championship 100 meter run. By the end of the run the III has MORE in focus shots at arguably better IQ, and this number may go up with some of the tweaks mentioned above. Meanwhile, the IIN numbers will probably go down cause I'm not buying 100% focus everytime.
Now, let's go to the dungeon/high school gym and cover a fast break side by side. "
One more thing, while I do read RG on a regular basis, and have read his coverage of this with interest, I am not ready to annoint him as the official watchdog. If he had never published these findings I believe they still would have been addressed because of the attention from the pro sportsshooters and other CPS customers. They spend a boatload more on high end gear than the amateurs or semi-pros and there are too many $$ involved for Canon to ignore these guys.
Bottom line is each of us must determine if the camera meets our own needs and shooting conditions. RG's work helps with that, but is in no way definitive for each of us.
No photographers were injured during the making of this "rant".
bent-ove wrote:
I still have the Mark II, but not using it so much....
And I do see your point, but for me, holding a camera that lives up to my expectations and needs, I see no point in selling....
That said, I do understand the fact there are people affected by this that not are happy.
My point was that the people having one, which doesn't deliver to their needs have all the right in the world to be unhappy, but I don't see how people not having the camera should be complaining...
How about the users that are invested heavily into Canon glass and there MarkII bodies are nearing the end of there life cycle? Mine are still going but I would have liked to be confident that when I am ready for the MarkIII,it will be an upgrade.
patconva wrote:
Bottom line is each of us must determine if the camera meets our own needs and shooting conditions. RG's work helps with that, but is in no way definitive for each of us.
No photographers were injured during the making of this "rant".
Interesting that RG is testing using a monopod while crouching. Is he testing the capability of this camera or his ability to hold it steady? This causes me great concern for the validity of his test results. Yes it replicates actual use, but it does not isolate the camera from the operator in tests which are supposed to determine if the camera is fixed, not the operator. RG for all we know may have Tourette's and mutters a curse word or two at Canon mid way into the shoot. The camera needs to be static, not wavering on top of a stick being held by a man barely holding balance crouched on the ground.
Edited by Willamette on Dec 12, 2007 at 10:10 AM GMT (Reason: word economy)
I really hope that RG gives the D3 the same kind of scrutiny and critical examination of the focus system as he has given the Mark III I think it is border line slander the way he has singled out the brand and consistently attacked it.
I am also not happy to find out how closely he has been working with Canon on this issue, since June his website has indicated that Canon has been a quiet non responsive party in the issue towards him. He hasn't been fair and has been on a vengeance. If we are going to pick apart cameras like we are with the Mark III we should start looking closer at other brands as well
Personally the Mark III was the best upgrade I could ever make and I have taken some of the best pictures of my life.
Rampai65 wrote:
If we question RGs method of shooting would we also not be questioning the Canon Engineers who went along with him for the tests ?
My only other suggestion, other than redoing the test again with both cameras at 8fps and then another test using AF expand on the 1D3, is to stick a focus test chart on the chest of the girl in the sprint pictures, that would perhaps give us an indication of how bad the misfocus is!
Rampai65 wrote:
If we question RGs method of shooting would we also not be questioning the Canon Engineers who went along with him for the tests ?
Not necessarily. According to RG, they were there to observe the tests, bring back data and provide calibrated lenses. They weren't conducting the tests. Additionally, their presence does not infer their endorsement of the test procedures.
In view of this, it wasn't surprising that the Canon reps didn't want their names mentioned.
As a matter of fact, the Canon folks were merely identified as "Canon representatives" "Canon staffers" and "Canon people". Nowhere does he claim they were Canon engineers.
Alistair Watson wrote:
I wouldn't necessarily shoot at f4. The 1D2N with the 300/2.8 IS used in RGs test shots show that with a properly focussed camera you can get just enough depth of field of the subject plus ensure the subject is isolated. I routinely shoot my 400/2.8 IS at f2.8 for rugby photography and my 2nd 1D3 wouldn't match the AF tracking of my 1D2N.
To date, I have proved through 5 rugby matches that my 2nd 1D3 would not even match the accuracy of my 1D2N, the conditions were all cold, wet and windy and yes, both 1D3/1D2N were body match calibrated to my 400/2.8 IS. I did notice a dramatic improvement in the 1D3 performance after upgrading to the 1.1.3 firmware but still, nothing close to that of my N.
I will reserve further judgement on this until I have tried my own new blue dotted 1.1.3 firmware'd body at the rugby this Saturday. If it works and produces the results that are equal to, or exceed, my 1D2N then with all due respect to RG I will be happy with my 1D3. ...Show more →
Alistair,
As I said, it would depend on the end use. In football or soccer, I would shoot at f4 because the increased DOF may bring other players in reasonable focus. This means I might sell this shot to two or three moms. It will also increase your keeper rate when your goal is to sell pictures. If I were submitting to Sports Shooter, or if I was being paid by SI to do a feature on one player, then I would go for isolation. If the backgrounds were really bad, go for the isolation. It depends on why you want the images.
dcmiller wrote:
Or they will bring out the IIIn with more expensive components and leave us foolish, trusting III owners behind.
I am not a big believer in the "silent fix". There were not any between the II and the IIN. If Canon released the the IIIN or the IV late next year, even us fan boys would be skeptical. How would Canon introduce it. "Here is the camera we promised you last year". "The MKIV has a completely new AF system much improved over the III and even the IIN."
No, Canaon needs to simply step up to the plate and fix the MKIII. They are a reputable company, and I expect them to live up to their reputation.
I have had better luck in single shot mode.
