I'm not a MkIII owner but am commenting on using it back-to-back with my MkII's on several occasions.
I think what scares me (and I'm a Canon guy...they have treated me great and I am not switching...I am ecstatic with the images I capture and they are only limited further by myself) is the notion that I might get a MkIII that isn't "fixed". I'd hate to spend time and lose money on OOF shots hunting down a problem that may be the cameras fault.
I usually blame myself before a peice of highly engineered equipment. But it would exasperate me knowing I could have saved myself alot of wasted shots and heartache had I just gotten a "good" one in the first place. How would you know how many more in focus shots you could have gotten if you didn't know any better?
I still want one pretty badly...but I'm still scared
Whatever the performance of the 1DIII, RG's references to custom functions in this report are not only demonstrably incorrect (ok, possibly a typo) but also vague and wooly in such a way as to greatly erode my confidence in his ability as a tester and technical writer.
e.g. "the camera should give priority to the manually-selected point, particularly when it's a closer subject." What's he trying to say here? This sounds like a vague stab at (wrongly) describing the cFn by someone who either misunderstands the cFn completely or totally lacks any interest in its effects.
His original testing seemed quite thorough and well conducted but this update looks shoddy and unconvincing IMO.
Joe Winn wrote:
I'm not a MkIII owner but am commenting on using it back-to-back with my MkII's on several occasions.
I think what scares me (and I'm a Canon guy...they have treated me great and I am not switching...I am ecstatic with the images I capture and they are only limited further by myself) is the notion that I might get a MkIII that isn't "fixed". I'd hate to spend time and lose money on OOF shots hunting down a problem that may be the cameras fault.
I usually blame myself before a peice of highly engineered equipment. But it would exasperate me knowing I could have saved myself alot of wasted shots and heartache had I just gotten a "good" one in the first place. How would you know how many more in focus shots you could have gotten if you didn't know any better?
I still want one pretty badly...but I'm still scared
You just summed up my views perfectly. I'm not currently in the market for another 1D-series but will be when the MkIV (or whatever) comes out. It'd be nice if there weren't still quite a few folks out there talking about AF shortcomings. Otherwise, I'll have to brush up on my testing protocol and give it a whirl but it would annoy me no end to have to spend time trying to prove to myself that the AF system was actually working as advertised.
Paul B wrote:
You just summed up my views perfectly. I'm not currently in the market for another 1D-series but will be when the MkIV (or whatever) comes out. It'd be nice if there weren't still quite a few folks out there talking about AF shortcomings. Otherwise, I'll have to brush up on my testing protocol and give it a whirl but it would annoy me no end to have to spend time trying to prove to myself that the AF system was actually working as advertised.
This is exactly the reason that Canon will have to handle the release of the 1DMIV differently. They will have to go out of their way to convince people that it is trustworthy. I would not be surprised to see a significant change in their pre-release testing as well as their marketing. Another benefit I expect is that Canon will spend a huge amount of time and effort preparing documentation on how to use the camera. Maybe even divulge some of the basics of the AF algorithm to ensure we know what the camera is supposed to do. If you don't know what it is supposed to do, you never know if it is working or not.
My comment has nothing to with RG's report by the way.
My feeling with a lot of Mk2 users casually picking up the Mk3 to try and not get good results has more to do with the operator than the camera. The Mk3's AF engine and algorithm is definitely different than its predecessor and trying to shoot with it the same way you shoot with the Mk2 likely won't get you as good results. After 18 months of shooting birds with a Mk3 I did the opposite, went back and tried the Mk2 and to my surprise I got more keepers with the Mk3.
Regardless, Canon has its work cut out for the Mk4, both in terms of convincing pros the AF engine is perfect and in terms of educating its users on the best way to use it.
I love both my 1D mark III and my 1Ds Mark III. I get more keepers shooting BIF and concert low light situations. I owned a 11N previously and am not sorry I upgraded. Perhaps both cameras have fallen short of RG's expectations, but I've never been happier with the quality of my images. My Canon experience goes back to the F1 and Ftb and while I'm not a full time professional any longer, I'm a former studio owner and have shot a few thousand weddings. I shoot mostly nature and concerts now and am all digital.
I was quite happy with my Mark II's and III until I started seeing some soft and totally out-of-focus images with the Mark III during this past seasons winter sports of gymnastics, hockey and basketball. I certainly wasn't a victim of this "AF hysteria" when I was constantly deleting image after image due to focus innacurracies.
I'd talked to a couple of recent Nikon converts and they mentioned NPS had a program to "get back pro shooters who had switched to Canon."
A couple of e-mails and phone calls and I was shooting with a D3/70-200/24-70 for high school tournament basketball. Right out-of-the-box, I was getting more in-focus keepers than I ever got with the Mark III and I saw now why some shooters didn't hesitate to make the switch. They'd pretty much had it with their Mark III's and were moving on to the next level.
I could immediately see a huge difference in focus accuracy over the Mark III and realized that a change was a coming. Regardless of what negatives Rob Galbraith reported on the Mark III focusing, I knew there had to be a problem with that camera and my own tests have proven that. The AF systems on the D3 and D700 are either that much better or this Mark III is just not that good?
There may or may not be something wrong with my Mark III and I'll see after I send it in for the fix now that I have reliable focusing cameras I can use while the Mark III is in for repair.
I still have a Mark II and some L lenses left and may shoot with two systems if the fix makes the Mark III a better focusing camera.
Jim Victory wrote:
The first 2 copies of the MKIII I had were problematic and the latest copy has been better than any of the MKIIs I have owned. I did see an improvement in focus accuracy after the recent AF adjustment. Most of my lens don't need any MA anymore.
I also shoot sports as well as wildlife and my MKIII has performed flawlessly compared to previous MKIIs. Any OOF shot is usually my fault. I really don't know what you could ask for more given the other improvements of the MKIII over the MKII.
I don't know RG and I wouldn't begin to question his ability or testing paradign because his results don't matter to me. What matters to me is the results I get with the MKIII because I'm the one it has to please.
When you'll want to sell your Mk III, don't bother to post an ad. Just whistle....
nathanlake wrote:
This is exactly the reason that Canon will have to handle the release of the 1DMIV differently. They will have to go out of their way to convince people that it is trustworthy.
It's really very simple. Give one to RG and have him post a positive review. But to design a camera that would make him do that is the tricky part......
Emile Gregoire wrote:
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......Show more →
Oh, I don't disbelieve you - I think the AF issues were real. I just think that most of, if not all, of the AF issues have now been resolved at this point
J. Allen wrote:
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.
Ha - glad someone else noticed this too! I wondered if I was mis-reading the report somehow or if RG had got the custom function settings mixed up.
It doesn't look like a typo in the article - at the beginning he states that the custom functions have potential to mess up autofocus, especially the ones mentioned, and that this is something he maybe should have emphasised more in his earlier reports.
I was interested to read this as I've been shooting sports recently, mainly soccer, with the camera set to use the two side focus if needed. So far I'd say this setting does help get more shots in sharp focus. There are always times the centre point may slip off the intended target.
My camera has worked well since I got it. However, after sending it in for this latest fix, I've noticed it no longer focuses as reliably as before when using a 17-35mm lens (which I use a lot). There has been little noticeable change with other longer lenses, but I find myself having to take more shots using the wide lens to ensure I get one in focus.
Not really sure what to put this down to - especially as lots of other people appear to be finding their cameras are working better now
This post at dpreview may restore faith in the 1D III. Have a look at these shots of a red tail kite taken witha 1D III + 300 f/2.8L IS wide open or at most f/3.5 - amongst the best I've ever seen
thedigitalbean wrote:
My comment has nothing to with RG's report by the way.
My feeling with a lot of Mk2 users casually picking up the Mk3 to try and not get good results has more to do with the operator than the camera. The Mk3's AF engine and algorithm is definitely different than its predecessor and trying to shoot with it the same way you shoot with the Mk2 likely won't get you as good results. After 18 months of shooting birds with a Mk3 I did the opposite, went back and tried the Mk2 and to my surprise I got more keepers with the Mk3.
Regardless, Canon has its work cut out for the Mk4, both in terms of convincing pros the AF engine is perfect and in terms of educating its users on the best way to use it. ...Show more →
Canon has to shoulder a lot of blame IMO for not educating people about the correct way to set up this camera for different scenarios. Given how many people say it's AF system is very different in operation, then I'm sure a lot of angst could have been avoided with detailed user guides very early on and maybe even some workshops around the country. When people lay down $4K+ and then spend 2 years getting erratic results they have a right to be p!ssed. Plenty of them are very experienced users. For people looking to get one now at least there is a fair bit of user know-how to help out and clearly many have mastered it, but it's taken a long time and for some maybe too long with a 1D IV possibly due later this year.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
This post at dpreview may restore faith in the 1D III. Have a look at these shots of a red tail kite taken witha 1D III + 300 f/2.8L IS wide open or at most f/3.5 - amongst the best I've ever seen
I don't know what I'm more impressed by...AF performance at f/2.8-3.5 or the fact that those were shot with a bare 300mm. In any case they are excellent.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
This post at dpreview may restore faith in the 1D III. Have a look at these shots of a red tail kite taken witha 1D III + 300 f/2.8L IS wide open or at most f/3.5 - amongst the best I've ever seen
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Canon has to shoulder a lot of blame IMO for not educating people about the correct way to set up this camera for different scenarios. Given how many people say it's AF system is very different in operation, then I'm sure a lot of angst could have been avoided with detailed user guides very early on and maybe even some workshops around the country. When people lay down $4K+ and then spend 2 years getting erratic results they have a right to be p!ssed. Plenty of them are very experienced users. For people looking to get one now at least there is a fair bit of user know-how to help out and clearly many have mastered it, but it's taken a long time and for some maybe too long with a 1D IV possibly due later this year....Show more →
+1.
8 months ago when I was in the market for a camera of this spec a world renowned photog advised me to buy one as a lot of the hype was because some users of the camera did not set it up correctly in the first instance. Using mine predominantly for birds I set up as Art Morris recommends & have had no problems. This does not preclude that there are not problems out there especially with regard to some faster moving sports. However I am led believe that with the high end long lenses, even with its inherent problems, the mkIII & attachments perform equally as well, if not better, than alternative more expensive offerings because of the high quality & performance of these lenses. This too is obviously open to debate as are the findings of Galbraith et al. I could not recommend that a person outlay this amount of cash but would add the proviso that I have no intention of upgrading in the near future being well pleased with the camera's performance.
scott f wrote:
The images are excellent, however, they are big crops and shot against a clear sky which is about as easy as BIF gets.
I agree- not exactly where the 1d3 usually has any problems.
If the isues with the Mark III were merely photographers using the wrong set-ups, Canon would be sending out DVD's and instructional manuals to owners on the proper use of the Mark III AF system instead of paying for shipping and repairs/adjustments.
Maybe it's cheaper to replace parts and make adjustments then to print new instructional manuals or produce DVD's.
leewoolery wrote:
If the isues with the Mark III were merely photographers using the wrong set-ups, Canon would be sending out DVD's and instructional manuals to owners on the proper use of the Mark III AF system instead of paying for shipping and repairs/adjustments.
Maybe it's cheaper to replace parts and make adjustments then to print new instructional manuals or produce DVD's.
leewoolery wrote:
If the isues with the Mark III were merely photographers using the wrong set-ups, Canon would be sending out DVD's and instructional manuals to owners on the proper use of the Mark III AF system instead of paying for shipping and repairs/adjustments.
Maybe it's cheaper to replace parts and make adjustments then to print new instructional manuals or produce DVD's.
Lee Woolery
Speedshot Photo
I think it is a little of both. Canon did provide several manuals on how to use the MKIII and info explaining in detail how the individual settings effected performance. They are different from the MKIIn and it does require experimentation and using the right settings for the given situation.
This does not mean there wasn't problems with the hardware and software too but when you combine all of these elements there is a high degree of possible error on the performance of the camera.
As someone has pointed out I think they have found the solution both hardware and software but you still have to use the right settings for a given situation. If you camera isn't doing what it is suppose to do then your hardware and software needs adjustment, given you use the right settings. The solution is there now you just have to make sure Canon fixes it right.
