I use MkII's for all my shooting but my buddy uses MkIII's. He always offers to let me use one of his MKIII's when we shoot together and I always take him up on it...but I always go back to the MKII. I love the high ISO performance of the MKIII but the AF performance of my MKII is just better. I have used these back to back many times and I always go back to my MKII. I recently shot a baseball tournament and used his MKIII a few times to try it out with the 400 2.8 (and my 300). There were a few times when the play went to a fielder, I held the focus button down (the fielder was full frame, mind you), and I just let the MKIII fly through the series and every single frame was OOF (seriously OOF...not a little). I am talking over 2 secs worth of holding the focus button down. This happened several times and his cameras have the latest fixes....one was even a loaner from canon while his other was in for the fix.
I tried another experiment with the MKIII after this happened a few times. Let's say I'm standing 10ft from home plate (to the side and behind) and shooting the short stop with a 400. If I focused on the back wall of the field and very slowly moved the viewfinder (center focus point) across the shortstop while holding the focus button down...several times the camera would not acquire focus on the much nearer short stop. It would stay focused on the wall. Very odd.
Would love to upgrade to a MkIII but it's just not gonna happen. MkIIIn or MKIV for me.
keithreeder wrote:
And does it not also suggest that this was never a "Mk III" problem in the first place?
It does. Conversely, the reports from people shooting them side by side with the Mark II, and noting how poorly the Mark III was performing under the same conditions, pushes the conclusion back the other way. Wild variance in Mark III copies? Quite likely I guess.
Joe Winn wrote:
I use MkII's for all my shooting but my buddy uses MkIII's. He always offers to let me use one of his MKIII's when we shoot together and I always take him up on it...but I always go back to the MKII. I love the high ISO performance of the MKIII but the AF performance of my MKII is just better. I have used these back to back many times and I always go back to my MKII. I recently shot a baseball tournament and used his MKIII a few times to try it out with the 400 2.8 (and my 300). There were a few times when the play went to a fielder, I held the focus button down (the fielder was full frame, mind you), and I just let the MKIII fly through the series and every single frame was OOF (seriously OOF...not a little). I am talking over 2 secs worth of holding the focus button down. This happened several times and his cameras have the latest fixes....one was even a loaner from canon while his other was in for the fix.
I tried another experiment with the MKIII after this happened a few times. Let's say I'm standing 10ft from home plate (to the side and behind) and shooting the short stop with a 400. If I focused on the back wall of the field and very slowly moved the viewfinder (center focus point) across the shortstop while holding the focus button down...several times the camera would not acquire focus on the much nearer short stop. It would stay focused on the wall. Very odd.
Would love to upgrade to a MkIII but it's just not gonna happen. MkIIIn or MKIV for me....Show more →
His cameras were not fixed properly then. The incident with the shortstop should never happen. Your friend needs to send his camera (s) back in. Did he send them to Virginia? That's the dedicated service center where the techs were brought in from Japan just for the latest autofocus fix. It seems he never got the latest fix or they botched the job cause the symptoms you describe are exactly what the camera would do before this latest fix.
Some shooters have had a difficult time getting the service done properly and in a few rare circumstances their MKIIIs were not able to be fixed so Canon replaced them - One example of that is Emile Gregoire's story:
Emile Gregoire wrote:
Hope you've read RG's article better because I never stated that. In fact, my camera came back worse than before. Canon ended up giving me a brand new one, with which indeed I am happy.
I think that Rob should stop making test to the AiServo of MarkIII to check the improvement as it seems that he has stucked in stable negative results. I really do not know why but I can say that his results are stabilised and has no new information either he is not so lucky with his cameras or Canon do not care to give him a well AF checked camera to see the best results. Most of as are saying that we are happy with MarkIII but Rob is not. The reason is that he always uses 300 2.8L lens that it really shows easyly the instability of the AF system. The question is how many of us do we use that type of lens in everyday photography to show this AF errors? How many of us we feel happy using the AF MarkIII in 300/2.8 shooting?
Mark, the MkIII I was using was a camera that Canon sent him to use while one of his MkIII's was in for service. I would assume that it is a fixed camera if Canon sent it to him to use?
dvarnav wrote:
I think that Rob should stop making test to the AiServo of MarkIII to check the improvement as it seems that he has stucked in stable negative results. I really do not know why but I can say that his results are stabilised and has no new information either he is not so lucky with his cameras or Canon do not care to give him a well AF checked camera to see the best results. Most of as are saying that we are happy with MarkIII but Rob is not. The reason is that he always uses 300 2.8L lens that it really shows easyly the instability of the AF system. The question is how many of us do we use that type of lens in everyday photography to show this AF errors? How many of us we feel happy using the AF MarkIII in 300/2.8 shooting? ...Show more →
Some people would use the word "stuck" and others would use the word consistent when describing his results. If you notice however, he still suggests the MIII for certain situations and I am guessing he still uses it.
I use the 300 2.8 almost every event I shoot and I understand why he chooses that lens for his test. It is a very demanding lens. If you are going to test, why not be demanding? I don't want to see tests with a 17-40 at f8.
Is this the NatureScapes thread? http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=103425
Not to be picky, it's only 9 days before RG published his findings, however, it's worth noting that RG already mentioned "AF problems" with the III in his April 2007 preview of the camera based on work with a preproduction unit.
Ron
Ron, yes that's the one. So my "months before" language was not accurate (this has been going on so long that memories fade and it's taken awhile to dig up the original NSN thread on the occasions that I've done so. )
As for RG's assessment of AF issues on the pre-production model, yes that preceded the NSN thread. However, this was a pre-production thing (which Canon informed RG about when they gave him the body) and apparently no one believed this would carry over to the production models (which obviously included Canon; they never would have allowed a preview of something they seriously thought could persist after production.) I can clearly remember posting a question in one of the original pre-production FM threads about why people would preorder the MkIII given the AF issues that apparently existed instead of waiting to see how things actually turned out. I was a bit surprised to get back a very polite response that I must have missed much of the preceding discussion of the MkIII (true - I hadn't been tracking all the pre-MkIII threads) and that it was "common knowledge" that Canon didn't have issues with actual production models of the 1-series. No counters to that from anyone here and I think most people on this board and elsewhere assumed Canon would get things in hand.
So I'd say that NSN thread was the first place that surfaced the issue.
I've always said that I thought eventually things would work themselves out and I think Canon's made a lot of progress to that end (and is probably there with most of their MkIII bodies.) As I read the RG piece even he's saying that it's focus initially works fine for the most part. It's just a question of figuring out why things sometimes go awry after that. And Canon clearly knows what they changed in design and production since the MkIIn so, if nothing else, they can work (and undoubtedly have worked) backwards to determine where issues have arisen.
PetKal wrote:
That Haka may indeed intimidate feeble children. You need to check the Scottish Haka. That's some real men's stuff. &feature=related" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Scottish Haka
Yeah, men stuff that usually happens after the Mardi Gras parade... and can also get you arrested for indecent exposure. You see there's a reason that Scottish haka never caught on... and hopefully never will.
He doesn't understand the custom function settings. He states:
"Specifically, there's a miswiring in how the camera utilizes the Assist AF points when C. Fn III-8-1 or III-8-2 are chosen, the result sometimes being the camera's tracking of the wrong subject. A related culprit is C. Fn III-4 [AI Servo AF Tracking Method], which is supposed to control how the AF system priorizes when choosing an AF point in the active group, but in practice it doesn't work.
For instance, with C. Fn III-4-1 selected, either C. Fn III-8 expansion option turn on and a manually-selected single AF point chosen, the camera should give priority to the manually-selected point, particularly when it's a closer subject. In reality, when photographing running subjects, the camera is as likely to attempt to track the more distant subject, even when the distant subject is all but covered up by the closer subject and the manually-selected point is aimed square at the closer subject also."
Now read what Canon says:
"C.Fn III-4: Closest focus priority in AI Servo AF if more than one AF point is active
4-0 Camera will try to re-focus on any subject that appears if closer than original target being tracked in AI Servo AF
4-1 The AF system will attempt to continue to track original subject, regardless of closer subjects
Whenever more than one AF point active, using either Automatic point selection or manual point selection + AF point expansion (C.Fn III 8), this C.Fn instructs the camera as to how to handle a second subject that may enter the focusing point area. In some cases you may want the camera to obtain focus on whatever the closest subject is as you are tracking (4-0), other times you may wish tracking to stay with the initial subject you focused on regardless of what else enters the frame (4-1). This C.Fn is totally disregarded if the user has manually selected one AF point."
In his example the camera is behaving as designed. He seems to think that the main focus point still takes priority in III-4-1 when it does not. Depending on his setting for III-2 and the issue is further effected. See also the link below.
elluDe wrote:
Has the article got the custom function settings mixed up - or am I just misreading it?
It states the tests were carried out:
"....with C. Fn III-4 [AI Servo AF Tracking Method] set to III-4-1, [Main Focus Point Priority]. When Assist AF points are switched on, this Custom Function is supposed to give priority to the manually-selected AF point as well as whatever's closest...."
On my camera C. Fn III-4 has to be set to zero (the default) to give "main focus point priority". Setting it to "1", as the article states, instead enables 'Continuous AF Track Priority".
So it seems to me that Rob Galbraith has either made a mistake in his wording or has been shooting with this custom function set differently than he intended....
Otherwise, I tend to agree with his findings. My MkIII, which I bought second-hand, has been working fairly well (when shooting soccer and other sports for a newspaper). It gets most action shots in focus - but usually some in a sequence will be a bit soft even when the focusing point is on target. I guess that would be the case with most cameras.
Even so, I decided to send it back for the free calibration. After using it for a couple of months, I can't say I've found any noticeable improvement.
You have it right. I should have read all of the posts before making mine on the next page. With III-4-1 and expansion points the camera would do as he described - shift to another point, not stay on the main point. His wiring is crossed not the camera's.
Emile Gregoire wrote:
"I know from personal experience that RG is wrong"...
"I have always believed it's mass hysteria"...
So you're basically suggesting that Galbraith is a mediocre photographer who hasn't learned to handle his camera? He probably knows more about the 1D3 than all of us combined. Musclepics, RG has different findings than you have, so he must be wrong. Please tell me why. Because you can't be? And mass hysteria? Like in Canon giving me a new 1D3 because even they considered my old one to be a piece of trash? Don't make me laugh. Or cry.
Listen, I'm in the "totally happy with my new 1D3" camp. It's better than my previous one in so many ways, I could write a book about it. But that doesn't mean I can now all of a sudden discount what RG says. He has images to download that prove what he says, so what's there to debate about? Doesn't mean my camera isn't great for what I do with it......Show more →
Certainly there was and perhaps for some there still is a problem with the 1DmkIII's AF, but "mass hysteria" (if you want to call it that) is undoubtedly a part of the issue.
With all the negative press surrounding this issue there will always be those who are convinced that their camera isn't right, even if there is nothing wrong with it. I work in health care and I see this all the time; recently, every sniffle is for sure Swine flu .
I would assume it was fixed too, but you are not getting good results so that's why I say your friend should send it back in and make sure it goes to Virginia. They performed a miracle on my camera and I hate to see others suffering with substandard performance when they have a fix for the camera.
I do shoot most of my stuff with the 300 @ 2.8 so I am shooting in the vulnerable zone of the camera. The results I'm getting are spectacular now. I can't wait for all my summer events.
BTW - if you have a camera with a faulty autofocus you don't need to shoot at 2.8 to see the problem. I had focus problems even at f8 with longer (400mm) lenses and small, fast subjects like BIF. RG's sprinter coming towards the 300 2.8 is not nearly the autofocus demand of shooting a barn swallow that moves very fast and erratically and only fills 1/10th of the frame on a 400mm @ 5.6.
I keep writing and repeating this info because I know that Canon can fix the MKIII and people just have to follow through to get their job done right.
Mine was as bad as anyone else's when it went into the Virginia service center.
Mark
Joe Winn wrote:
Mark, the MkIII I was using was a camera that Canon sent him to use while one of his MkIII's was in for service. I would assume that it is a fixed camera if Canon sent it to him to use?
RG's misunderstanding of the MarkIII's CFns casts doubt on the accuracy of his conclusions and calls into question his competence to preform these tests IMO. He has tested and pontificated more than virtually anyone else on the Mark III's AF and he should know the effects of these settings inside-out.
One thing is for certain, if you don't understand what the cFns do on a MarkIII you are going to get some very unpredictable results. It's not a simple cam. Perhaps the mark IIIs problem is that it has the Mark IIs weaknesses (metnioned above) amplified by an even more rapid frame rate and huge potential for user error due to its unparallelled configurability.
michael49 wrote:
Certainly there was and perhaps for some there still is a problem with the 1DmkIII's AF, but "mass hysteria" (if you want to call it that) is undoubtedly a part of the issue.
With all the negative press surrounding this issue there will always be those who are convinced that their camera isn't right, even if there is nothing wrong with it. I work in health care and I see this all the time; recently, every sniffle is for sure Swine flu .
I'm one of those that never visits a doctor because I believe every sniffle will usually go away by itself & no need to worry a health pro with small stuff. Hence I'd been struggling with my 1D3 for more than 6 months, thinking I was the problem, even after all of RG's reports, before finally sending it in to Canon - without a solution. For a total of 1,5 years I've been loosing numerous shots where AF was (often way) off, not even using AI Servo. It was utterly unpredictable and seemed to get worse with every firmware update and visit to Canon. When it came back after the latest fix and I could clearly demonstrate that one AF point was at -10 MA and the one next to it at +10 and so on, they finally exchanged it for a new one. One that has been working flawlessly the past few months. So indeed: there are good ones, no doubt about it.
With this in mind, when someone writes off these problems as "mass hysteria", I'll assure you I'll be barking up his tree. While I could have been just the owner of the occasional lemon, seeing the amount of people having had problems I remain firm in my conviction there is more to it. While there will always be people who just like to bash this camera without having owned it, while there will always be people who'll try to blame their own mistakes on their camera, I still believe that, this being a serious camera for serious photographers, a lot of the problems reported are real. RG is only one of those reporting and luckily one important enough for Canon to notice. With their denying everything at first, I can be but happy this got blown into a big thing because of the internet...
Seems everyone's thinking that RG doesn't know about the C.Fn settings... And nobody thinks the Canon engineers that worked with him numerous times didn't tell him? I know about saving face in Asian culture but I find it hard to believe this all too simple explication. There are things like a simple typo...
You are probably right. He has had a few funky issues with his camera and even with cameras that were sent to replace other cameras. He has been unlucky in that way. Canon sent him a brand new camera to replace his previous camera that was verified to have the issue canon was looking for....the new camera stopped functioning with ERR message after two days shooting a baseball tournament. It would no longer release the shutter. He got another replacement where the focus points did not line up with focusing screen. The center point was not in the center of the focus screen...it was slightly off to the right. They are sending a replacement.
I really really WANT to own a MkIII. I would sell my MkII's to upgrade to a MkIII if I saw consistent results when I used his MkIII. His ISO3200 pictures look a tad better than my ISO1600 pictures. The slightly faster FPS is nice as well. Lighter, larger LCD...etc etc.
Everytime I use his I want one...until something funky happens again. I go back to the MkII and get more consistent results. I'm sooo afraid to switch
Maybe I should get a loaner from CPS and see if I get better results?
People give RG an awful lot of credit for his thoroughness and diligence, Emile - I find it every bit as easy to believe that he's been using the camera in a less-than-optimum way than that he'd let such an important typo through on a piece that has doubtless been checked, and re-checked, then checked by someone else, then checked again...
Joe Winn wrote:
I tried another experiment with the MKIII after this happened a few times. Let's say I'm standing 10ft from home plate (to the side and behind) and shooting the short stop with a 400. If I focused on the back wall of the field and very slowly moved the viewfinder (center focus point) across the shortstop while holding the focus button down...several times the camera would not acquire focus on the much nearer short stop. It would stay focused on the wall. Very odd.
It depends on what the custom functions were set at as to whether this would be odd. If CFn. 4-1 is set and CFn. 8- 1 or 2 then it is doing what it is suppose to do. Stay locked on the original subject, wall, and not allow something at a closer distance, shortstop, interfere.
Personally I would never use those CFn. because I have found them to be unreliable but if you go by what Canon says they should do just as you described. My problem is I could never get them to act in that manner so I left it at the default settings.
I hate to see this getting into another mine works so everyone who says theirs doesn't work is wrong or mine doesn't work so none of them work and the user just doesn't know how to recognize the difference.
I have owned 3 and two had problems and one didn't. I shoot the same types of things as RG in bright, and hot, Texas sun with a f/2.8 lens or faster. My present MKIII outperforms any of the previous MKIINs I have owned and I have owned 4 very good ones.
My point is the MKIII can be everything the MKIIn is and more which leaves me to believe that you can have a fully functioning MKIII and if you don't it needs further repairs to get it fully functioning. It is possible you just have to make sure Canon does it.
Don't forget CPS is manned by people and people make errors. It is not unreasonable to believe they botched a repair on one persons camera and not on another. I think this is where your seeing some of the differences in the results from the recent recall and past recalls.
good info Jim - from someone who has owned multiple MKIIIs
Here's a few success stories from another thread just in case some haven't seen:
stanj wrote:
Hugely better (1Ds 3) in the sun. Same in shade / darkness.
jfulton wrote:
Mine came back yesterday. The lid of the box had a white string tied to a rubber band. It must be the new "dot."
Any rate, it works brilliantly.
wsumrell wrote:
Got mine back in 6 days, and it is definitely better. Took some shots randomly yesterday evening and was very happy. Canon sent paperwork back saying adjusted AF focus issue and upgraded firmware although I had already upgraded to most recent firmware. Overall I am happy and satisfied, Ben
Peter Woods wrote:
Got mine back Monday..
Well went out Tuesday and rattled off a couple of 100 shots of which I deleted 15 for being OOF. OK this was just one outing but that is a vast improvement for me.... Also seem to focus better on low contrast shots and the images are sharper out of the camera in raw needing less usm when developed in CS4.. So far for me it is a thumbs up to canon and to think I was happy with my camera before it went in
Rick1000 wrote:
I have had my MK3 back from Canon a week or so and I have time to check AF on a variety of subjects as well as micro adjusting lenses. The AF is much improved, faster lock and repeatable focus. One test of a truck coming directly toward at about 45mph produced no oof frames and one slightly soft. Much better than before. I had microadjusted my lenses some time ago but did not get repeatable critical focus so I had left all lenses at zero. After the update, I can obtain critical focus every time, (and the center point performs the same as outerpoints), although all of my lenses required between +10 and +13 adjustment. Lenses range from 30 F2, 17-40, 100 Macro, 70-200 and 300 2.8. I was pretty happy with Mk3 before but had a nagging doubt about the percentage of shots that were ok but not crisp. I am now delighted with camera. Before the update I did not realize how good the camera could be. I appreciate Canon staying with the issue and offering a fix....Show more →
John P Mulgrew wrote:
Just took my MKIII out but in overcast skies, AV mode RAW, AI Servo and shot 16 of someone sprinting towards me, 1 was oof and it was the 10th. I was handholding my 300 2.8 so it may have been me. I'm impressed and I never would have had that many in focus in the past. Will wait for sun and try again
apdieb wrote:
Well.. I am thrilled with the results from tonight.
That whole occasional "smear/ghosting" I used to see pretty much completely disappeared. Shots moving directly at me used to be somewhat problematic as well. Not anymore. This is what I was hoping for.
PasiM wrote:
One Happy Consumer™ here !
After 1,5 years of uncertainty with my 1DMk3 has become to an end.
It works perfectly now!
Mattbtn wrote:
Lovin' it so far. Took some inside shots at f/2 of my boys running around the house, and the AF Servo hit every single one of them spot on.
Busy day today and the weather outside sucks so I don't be able to do a better test until Soccer this weekend or one night next week.
Matt OHarver wrote:
I got mine back wednesday, I finally had a chance to shoot a Baseball game with it. I never had any issues with my camera that made me not like it. But I can tell you this. It has never performed this well. Center point, outer point and any point in between. The only OoF or even slightly soft photos are ones I know I did, def. User error. I have bursts of infield play that every photo is dead nuts sharp. I have 16 assignments in the next 12 days to really put it through a test. I'll post some photos later tonight.
Bas Breetveld wrote:
After testing and adjusting a couple of days with test-charts and 'real live' situations, here are my conclusions.
It is a night and day difference before and after the last adjustment by Canon in a positive way.
The centre focus point is always spot on in ai-servo and one shot. The same conclusion on the outer points! But here is a huge difference using F4.0 lenses. It's obvious that this camera is made for F 2.8 and bigger apertures. That's were the benefit of the cross sensors appears. The outer AF-points are only cross-sensors using F2.8 or lenses with bigger apertures. With F 4.0 lenses you need much more contrast to focus spot on with the outer AF-points. That's something to keep in mind testing your mk III. But anyway, this is only the case in very difficult situations in low light.
I'm amazed by the results!
When the sun appears over here, I hope I can show you some results of birds in flight soon.
marchantron wrote:
Well I got my 1DIII back on Friday and tested this morning under very difficult backlit high contrast lighting conditions (where mine performed very poorly in the past) and it perfomed splendidly. I tested mostly the extreme outer focus points in Servo and consistently it focused well on fast moving subjects at close distance all at around F2. While I haven't tested enough yet, this is very encouraging!
Curator wrote:
Stories like this always seem to end the same; the person with the problem switched to Nikon. I've used the Mark IIn, and while I like the Mark III better, I wouldn't have a problem using a Mark IIn if the Mark III didn't exist. Why don't those with Mark III issues consider the Mark IIn as an alternative to switching to Nikon? I don't have a problem with Nikon, but it seems like an expensive alternative...especially for the super telephoto shooters.
You're right, it is expensive to switch for people using the big guns and Nikon doesn't have an 800/5.6. That's probably why more people in this segment haven't switched. A lot of people (me included) would prefer to continue using the MkIIn or perhaps try the 50D and even 5DII (although I still don't get why people substitute the latter.) But for a professional photog (particularly one who does a lot of BIF) it might be worth going with Nikon, despite the switching costs, if you believe the D3 is truly a better AF system and your livelihood is tied to producing the best pics. It's been awhile but I think the person who started the thread just got tired of Canon's "denial," as she put it, after much back and forth trying to remedy things (I think this was within the first year of when the MkIII came out) and needed a body that worked with no questions. You can check her website listed on the thread and see what she mostly deals with in subject matter. Others have had an easier (and less costly) decision to make if they use mainly shorter or medium-sized lenses.
)
.
and to think I was happy with my camera before it went in