ward1066 wrote:
Please stop with the trolling, we get your point. If your so unhappy, just switch to Sony or something.
no trolling here, just good humor and a play on words.
i especially love the "why don't you switch to _______" comments because those are so value-added. there's definitely not enough of those comments around. maybe i should go out and take pictures as well? cuz surely, i can't do more than one thing...
simonella_viru wrote:
..... if canon had a stable, reliable system (and manufacturing/ QA process) that wasn't on a cun1t's hair edge of instability, .......
"cun1t's hair edge"
Now that's what this forum is missing. Color! Now who would have thought of using such a "colorful" term to describe Canon precarious 1D3 QA.
All the staid terminology most of use simply lack the necessary color to stand out, so let's recognize that anatomical references are the future!
rscheffler wrote:
I wonder about the AF microadjustment methodology too, like the logic in making adjustments based on a target that is quite close to the camera. Granted, with certain lenses, that is typically how I work, such as the 50 & 85 for people photos... but definitely not typical for some other lenses.
According to pg. 169 of the manual:
"It is best to make the [AF micro]adjustment at the actual place to be photographed. This will make the adjustment more precise."
I also wonder about light quality. Like, would it be wise to calibrate indoors under tungsten lighting when the camera will be used primarily outdoors?
Today I received the Mark III I sent to Canon for the "fix." It was already dark by the time I opened the box, so have only been testing it inside. I tried the computer monitor AF test chart (linked somewhere here) for the first time and so far have mixed feelings about it (tried both the crosshairs and rings versions). When I got the f/1.2 lenses to focus consistently on it, I found they both back focused on "real world" objects around the house. But the slower the lens, the less of an issue it was (kind of obvious). An 85 1.8 seems to be more consistent shot to shot based on focus set with the chart and the 70-200 f/4 so far seems rock solid in One Shot mode. It's the 1.2 lenses that were initially giving me some concern as they were not hitting the exact point consistently, particularly the 50 1.2. However, after some further "real world" shots around the house, the impression is that the camera *seems* to be better in One Shot than before sending it in - so far. Focus consistency with everything except the 1.2 lenses seems to be very, very good. Even the 1.2 lenses behave better than before the fix (it used to be I could hit the focus button numerous times before an exposure and each time the lens would refocus - not so much the case today). With this camera in particular I also had headaches with the 16-35 often being way out shot to shot. So far it looks promising with that lens too.
For the most part I'm not dialing in much, if any, microadjustment. The only significant offender so far at -7 is the 85 1.8, but I already knew it tended to back focus with everything. Other lenses are at zero or between -3 and +2. Even with such small adjustments, I only really notice a difference with the 1.2 lenses wide open and there the shot to shot AF inconsistency may be a greater factor.
I am still a little "iffy" about the micro-adjustment thing. Like you, I believe Canon intended this feature to be used in the same lighting conditions, and similar distance in order to tweak the lens. But, in some comments, Canon has led people to believe it would replace having to send a lens in for calibration. I'm not sure that is the case. If large adjustments need to be made to a lens, and it changes dramatically from subject to subject, that lens should go back, unless it works correctly on other 1 series bodies.
I also believe you need to have the lens AF from near to far and far to near to get a good adjustment. The AF system will not come back to the same place depending on the focus direction (the direction the lens moves). There is a tolerance associated with this.
Plus I still can't get the -1 thing out of my head. Canon came up this one and ask RG to try it in Servo AF. He can't explain why but said there was a noticeable change. I'm curious if this hasn't got something to do with the "new fix".
If you have to make an adjustment on a lens to say +10 on the Mark III , doesn't that say that on any other camera made by Canon the lens would not focus properly without being able to adjust in the other cameras?
EX. A 300mm f/2.8 that needs a +10 adjustment in the Mark III would not focus properly on a 40D.
jbfaulconer wrote:
If you have to make an adjustment on a lens to say +10 on the Mark III , doesn't that say that on any other camera made by Canon the lens would not focus properly without being able to adjust in the other cameras?
EX. A 300mm f/2.8 that needs a +10 adjustment in the Mark III would not focus properly on a 40D.
Yes or No?
JB
when you dial in +10 you are adjusting the body not the lens so it may focus perfectly normal on a 40D.
I have not adjusted my lenses yet. But if I did run into different settings in different situations (close, distance, etc.), the standard practice is to average both and use that setting. That way, you are not far off in either end. And besides, AF is not a percise thing where it would land right on the money. When I did careful tests of AF on first gen 1D series, it would miss focus by more than 5%. I would have to move the camera a fair bit manually while monitoring the results on my computer monitor to achieve peak focus.
beewee wrote:
Tell that to a Formula 1 driver. Your brake analogy is the same as saying how the 1D3 is fine if as long as you print 4x6 and nothing larger. I'm pretty sure even if you have OOF issues, if you're not printing larger than 4x6, they'll look acceptably sharp.
No, actually 1mt x 1.5mt (3 feet x 4.5 feet) ... guess I would see a problem at that size, wouldn't I?
And with the formula one example, sometimes their brakes don't work ... which is why they put the padding on the walls
ward1066 wrote:
when you dial in +10 you are adjusting the body not the lens so it may focus perfectly normal on a 40D.
I read on another post here at FM, each lens had two AF look-up tables, one for 1 Series cameras and a second for the XXD series cameras. I don't know if this is true or not, but it sounds plausible. It would also explain some apparent odd behavior some are experiencing.
I've listened and read, so far, of so many complaints on the 1DMK III, from focusing to incorrect shutter speeds, that I'm glad I'm still holding my 1D MK II's. On the other hand it seems also that there are a very few lucky people who haven't noticed issues on the 1D MK III.
I'm planning to get a couple of MK IIIs the days to come but... not sure if it might be a smart decision with rumors of a 1D MK IIIN.
Nevertheless, and after reading so many white papers issued by Canon, regarding new settings, new customization functions and so on, I think it's time for Canon to attend a workshop at Silicon Valley and learn something with Apple people - doing the things the right way, making it work 99% perfectly and easily out of the box, like any Mac.
Instead, the 1D MK III seems to be the Vista OS of photo gear - it's almost nice, almost works but in fact it's predecessors seem to be more reliable.
It's hard to understand how Canon risks their reputation amongst pros just to have a new model on the shelves a couple months earlier than Nikon. It's like taking a shortcut to get there first but then a series of flats puts you on the back of the race.
One of the cons I find in the MK III is its 10.3 mp non FF. Why? Why does the 5D has it and the 1D MK III don't? Is this camera really made for photographers and by photographers as Canon proudly announces? I doubt. It's made by Canon marketeers for a bunch of geeks, in which I still include myself, that keep believing in "Santa Canon".
Hope that in the next weeks to come, Canon comes out with some kind of really important things to say about their commitment to pro photographers regarding their pro line cameras .
Edited by MarioPro on Feb 10, 2008 at 12:18 AM GMT
MarioPro wrote:
I've listened and read, so far, of so many complaints on the 1DMK III, from focusing to incorrect shutter speeds, that I'm glad I'm still holding my 1D MK II's. On the other hand it seems also that there are a very few lucky people who haven't noticed issues on the 1D MK III.
I'm planning to get a couple of MK IIIs the days to come but... not sure if it might be a smart decision with rumors of a 1D MK IIIN.
Nevertheless, and after reading so many white papers issued by Canon, regarding new settings, new customization functions and so on, I think it's time for Canon to attend a workshop at Silicon Valley and learn something with Apple people - doing the things the right way, making it work 99% perfectly and easily out of the box, like any Mac.
Instead, the 1D MK III seems to be the Vista OS of photo gear - it's almost nice, almost works but in fact it's predecessors seem to be more reliable.
It's hard to understand how Canon risks their reputation amongst pros just to have a new model on the shelves a couple months earlier than Nikon. It's like taking a shortcut to get there first but then a series of flats puts you on the back of the race.
One of the cons I find in the MK III is its 10.3 mp non FF. Why? Why does the 5D has it and the 1D MK III don't? Is this camera really made for photographers and by photographers as Canon proudly announces? I doubt. It's made by Canon marketeers for a bunch of geeks, in which I still include myself, that keep believing in "Santa Canon".
Hope that in the next weeks to come, Canon comes out with some kind of really important things to say about their commitment to pro photographers regarding their pro line cameras ....Show more →
I know I am in the minority here but the lack of FF on the 1DMkIII doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I consider it to be an asset for much of my shooting. I really doubt that you are going to see a FF replacement for the MkIII anytime soon.
One of the cons I find in the MK III is its 10.3 mp non FF. Why? Why does the 5D has it and the 1D MK III don't? Is this camera really made for photographers and by photographers as Canon proudly announces? I doubt. It's made by Canon marketeers for a bunch of geeks, in which I still include myself, that keep believing in "Santa Canon".
Edited by MarioPro on Feb 10, 2008 at 12:18 AM GMT
It depends what you're using it for. The 1.3 crop is good for nature photogs (particularly birders, and presumably anyone dealing with small targets, large distances or both) since it effectively extends reach without adding glass. In some cases when trying to get the most distant targets (or really small birds that are "relatively near", the nature folks are going to be reaching for their 1.6 crop (which some/many use as a backup.)
The crop factor is great for lots of things that this camera was designed to do.. Sports is one type that benefits from the super high FPS, high ISO, and Crop factor features. And it is marketed heavily to these shooters.
Those that want a full frame 1D... There are a couple of models out there to choose from. I am still not sure why people knock the 1.3 factor Mark series. It is a tweener made to excel at certain things and there are other choices in the Full Frame area if you so choose.
From a marketing standpoint, I have no idea why you'd create 2 1D Full-Frame series cameras that are priced significantly different. The luxury of a 21mpix sensor 1DsMark III is nice, but not thousand upon thousands nicer than a 1DMark III (IF it was full frame too). I am very happy with the design/specs overall...Now if I can just get all my dang lenses calibrated. So far, my 70-200 and 85 have been calibrated and tested...They are looking pretty good (finally).
if a full-frame had the same pixel density as the 1d3, would it matter? isn't full frame better, provided you have a good resolution? you can always crop in post-processing...
if we have full-frame lenses, we may as well take advantage of them.
simonella_viru wrote:
if a full-frame had the same pixel density as the 1d3, would it matter? isn't full frame better, provided you have a good resolution? you can always crop in post-processing...
if we have full-frame lenses, we may as well take advantage of them.
Yep...IF they had same density.. For instance, a 5D image cropped down to the same size as a 20D image is about a 6mpix effective image, not a 8.2mpix like the 20D due to density. The one thing I like about my 5D is the fact that it isn't high density which results in less noise. Also, although we have lots of full frame lenses... Many show weaknesses at the edges...Having a minimal crop helps cut out some of these flaws.
I am still a little "iffy" about the micro-adjustment thing. Like you, I believe Canon intended this feature to be used in the same lighting conditions, and similar distance in order to tweak the lens. But, in some comments, Canon has led people to believe it would replace having to send a lens in for calibration. I'm not sure that is the case. If large adjustments need to be made to a lens, and it changes dramatically from subject to subject, that lens should go back, unless it works correctly on other 1 series bodies.
I also believe you need to have the lens AF from near to far and far to near to get a good adjustment. The AF system will not come back to the same place depending on the focus direction (the direction the lens moves). There is a tolerance associated with this.
Plus I still can't get the -1 thing out of my head. Canon came up this one and ask RG to try it in Servo AF. He can't explain why but said there was a noticeable change. I'm curious if this hasn't got something to do with the "new fix".
I don't 100% trust that they have found the "Root cause". For my whole career, I have been dealing with "Engineers". They tend to be genuinly optimistic to put it politically correct
Bottom line is that this ( MK3 AF ) is a new technology. Like any other new technology, it simply needs time to mature. I would wait for MK4 to get the working incarnation of the new AF.
mill4570 wrote:
I also believe you need to have the lens AF from near to far and far to near to get a good adjustment. The AF system will not come back to the same place depending on the focus direction (the direction the lens moves). There is a tolerance associated with this.
Richard, interesting that you mention this because I was wondering if this was normal behaviour? I've noticed this very thing when doing the focus tests. Depending on whether the lens is focusing from infinity or from minimum focusing distance, that it would hit a slightly different spot. Generally when focused from infinity slightly behind where it will hit from minimum. Whenever I do the focus checks, I always make the lens AF from one of the extremes - usually from infinity. I should mention I really only notice this on the very fast lenses, like the 1.2s
Plus I still can't get the -1 thing out of my head. Canon came up this one and ask RG to try it in Servo AF. He can't explain why but said there was a noticeable change. I'm curious if this hasn't got something to do with the "new fix".
Richard K.
I don't read much into that. It's possible that it's a byproduct or side effect of the system. Like any complex system, there's bound to be unexpected "features" discovered outside those that were planned.
ward1066 wrote:
when you dial in +10 you are adjusting the body not the lens so it may focus perfectly normal on a 40D.
Just to add to the explanation: Both camera bodies and lenses can be individually calibrated for focus accuracy by Canon. The in camera AF microadjustment is specific to the camera, it does not affect the lens. But, if you notice that the lens consistently front/back focuses with multiple cameras, then you can send it to Canon and have them calibrate it. The ideal situation is to send in all your cameras and lenses to have everything checked out... but definitely a pain in the butt if you use the gear on a regular basis.
.
