Hmmm...not quite the point though. The whole selling point of the 1D3 series is it is a pro build camera, targetted at PJs and Sports shooters who need fast reliable AF. To get the AF wrong in a fairly substantial way, so much so as to issue a recall, doesn't inspire confidence in future releases. Confidence which was pretty solid previously....I don't remember the great 1DsII having any major issues for example.....
Emile Gregoire wrote:
I've been reaching that very same conclusion too this week. The MkIII thrives on big, contrasty things but can have problems with low-contrast detail.
Ditto
Small and low contrast subjects are giving the mkIII AF a hard time. Most of the time it does work when aiming for edges when this happens.
Lord Fluff wrote:
Hmmm...not quite the point though. The whole selling point of the 1D3 series is it is a pro build camera, targetted at PJs and Sports shooters who need fast reliable AF....
Well let's see:
It IS a pro build camera. Put one in your hands and try and dispute that.
It IS targeted at PJ's and Sports Shooters who need reliable AF. That's why I and countless other shooters I know have one.
To get the AF wrong in a fairly substantial way, so much so as to issue a recall, doesn't inspire confidence in future releases.
Again, like so many other naysayers, you're generalizing here. Again, I think most reasonable people have acknowledged that a problem did exist for a number of people who purchased the Mark III. However, I've talked to and read many posts by others who stated that while they did send it in the for mirror replacement they were not experiencing any problems with AF. In their case they felt it better to be safe rather than sorry and also to extend the warranty. I've also read just as many posts stating that their Mark III was operating as intended.
Any Nikon D2H owners here? How many of you had to send yours back in for the meter replacement? And what of the replacement model that followed, the D2Hs? Had one, hated it. I personally thought the AF on that thing sucked, much worse than the D2H. My point is yes companies bang their drums about their latest and greatest and well sometimes their newest products are far from that. And yes, Canon couldn't handled the whole thing a lot better but they didn't so there. Get over it or don't, makes no difference at the end of the day. But seriously haven't we all been going on about this for far too long now?
Steve, I see your point, though take issue with being labelled a 'naysayer'. I bought 20D on release, the 5D not long after release, and never considered them having issues. Now I feel a little 'once bitten, twice shy'....
I don't expect brand new products to be perfect (though many are), but for Canon to bungle the AF of a camera where AF performance is a key need of its target market is pretty fundamental.
My Lord Fluff (or can I just call you "Fluffy"?) - maybe the term 'naysayer' wasn't what I was looking for but either way you really shouldn't take issue with it. I didn't expressly direct it toward you.
I've found that those who have been most vocal in speaking out against the Mark III seem to fall into one of two categories. The first group spent a lot of money on an item that was faulty and felt alienated by what seemed to be Canon's lack of remorse or willingness to make good. If my MK III exhibited any of the problems so many have discussed, I'd be pretty pissed too. The second category (and this is the one I just don't understand) are those individuals who've never even picked up a Mark III (maybe never even a Canon) and continue to tell everyone what a crappy camera body it is. Either way, it really has just gone on to the point of being somewhat absurd IMO. If anyone has had an axe to grind with Canon over the Mark III mess then I would think that they've had ample time to do so and move on. However, it seems like every time I check these forums there's a new post about what a doorstop of a camera the MK III is.
I'm simply saying stop attacking those who are willing to defend the operation and function of their Mark III's. I don't think anyone with a fully functional MK III body is trying to make anyone feel badly. I simply think that we're trying to balance the scales a bit for those of us who don't have issues. I would almost be willing to bet that if I posted some pictures taken with my mine, there's at least an 80% chance that the thread would invariably lead to a Mark III bashing. Seriously, it's time to heal and if not at least move on.
Understood. I actually fall into a third camp - think the 1D3 looks great, want one, have always wanted one, have used one and found it had horrendous issues (including One Shot on stationary objects) so have been perplexed ever since......
And speaking of moving on - it's the fact that we may be near the typical cycle point that makes me question pulling the trigger now anyway....but who knows.
Lord Fluff wrote:
Understood. I actually fall into a third camp - think the 1D3 looks great, want one, have always wanted one, have used one and found it had horrendous issues (including One Shot on stationary objects) so have been perplexed ever since......
And speaking of moving on - it's the fact that we may be near the typical cycle point that makes me question pulling the trigger now anyway....but who knows.
Come on over to the house Fluffy and I'll let you use mine out in the desert here. We'll finish the day with a good scotch and a cigar.
Steve Ickes wrote:
Again, like so many other naysayers, you're generalizing here. Again, I think most reasonable people have acknowledged that a problem did exist for a number of people who purchased the Mark III. However, I've talked to and read many posts by others who stated that while they did send it in the for mirror replacement they were not experiencing any problems with AF. In their case they felt it better to be safe rather than sorry and also to extend the warranty. I've also read just as many posts stating that their Mark III was operating as intended.
I fall into this camp. But I shoot in the conditions that guys like Rob Galbraith admit the 1D Mark III excels at - indoor sports. But of course, even though RG is probably more familiar with the ins and outs of the 1D Mark III's AF system, he confesses that he still uses them despite the issue. Unlike the armchair pro photogs who've used one for an afternoon and spend the rest of their time bashing them online.
Again, the issue is overblown by people for whom it ultimately doesn't make a scrap of difference to.
Gary Petersen wrote:
Come on over to the house Fluffy and I'll let you use mine out in the desert here. We'll finish the day with a good scotch and a cigar.
Well if Lord Fluffy won't take you up on that let me know and I'll catch the first plane out!
'Naysayers'... I feel the ones who deny there is a problem with a fair number of 1DIII's fall into that camp just as easily.
This is no black or white debate. It seems there are quite a few people without any problems but at the same time quite a few that do have them. It seems both camps are denying the other camp exists and for that reason alone it would be good to have a 1D Mk IV. One with as much debate as there was over the Mk II(n): none, as it was the best PJ camera at its time.
I disagree with Sam. This issue wasn't overblown, at least not by people who actually use it - I can't and won't digress on those who've never used it: I agree they should keep out of any discussion. I do have issues with mine and I'm not exaggerating and I'm not an arm-chair photographer. That said, it's still the best I've ever used for a number of reasons but AF isn't on that list. I haven't used other 1D-series cameras but coming from a 5D I had expected more. The AF on my 5D generally speaking is at least as reliable as my 1D Mk III and center point on my 5D is more reliable. I'm talking low-light, low-contrast shooting. Alas, it's what I do most frequently...
edit to say: when I do use it in the right conditions, it's one heck of a camera, and the positives outweigh the negatives most of the time. I was shooting in heavy rain for instance a week ago and knowing I could just stand there with my 1D and 70-200 2.8 IS mounted and that it would simply keep on working was simply superb (considering the awful circumstances).
It's worth noting that the jittery behaviour on stationary subjects is fixed in the firmware update. As regards the focus tracking issues, I had none with my 1D3 and have none with my 1Ds3, but I am sure these issues are real, and I am sure that a number of photographers have been unlucky in receiving bad units, sometimes even a succession of bad units. The best thing to do is try it out and see how you get on. If you're buying a used unit (my 1Ds3 is for sale!) then I would just check that it focusses accurately with a wide aperture lens on central and peripheral af points, and test the tracking. If all seems OK, then I don't think you will have any problems. The exception to that is those who shoot sport in bright sunlight. Anybody who does that should take the body on sale or return, try it in those conditions, and see what you get. You might be pleasantly surprised.
