Photon wrote:
I have the feeling that the problems Galbraith had with the sprinters had to do with pumping arms and constantly changing clothing contours. The plane presents contours that only change as its angle changes, which occurs in a pretty steady fashion. Since Mark did a great job of tracking it with the center point, the MkIII did its job (not perfectly, but very well). If the MkII really does have any advantage in tracking sprinters (or birds in flight), maybe it's because it doesn't react to minute changes in subject position quite as quickly as the MkIII does. That would also fit with RG finding that adjustments to C. FnIII-2, AI Servo Tracking Sensitivity were the only ones that affected his particular problem....Show more →
That sounds pretty reasonable.
Mark: Impressive series, but it's not quite exactly like RG's sprinters series in that his photos were of runners coming directly at the camera. Your series begins with the plane coming fairly straight at the camera, but by the end the shots are at an angle and a lot of the plane's speed has become lateral motion rather than directly at the camera. You didn't ask the pilot to fly it directly at you?
From what I recall of RG's claims is that the III performs better when there is a degree of lateral motion rather than 100% directly at the camera. Also, with a distant high speed object, even though it is covering a lot of ground, the relative change in distance to the camera is quite manageable for the AF system. It's once such an object is much closer that the relative change in distance to the camera is much greater and therefore much more challenging for the AF. Transitioning the fast directly forward motion to one at an angle to the camera will offset this to some degree, assuming you can keep up with the object, which you've done an excellent job of doing.
In any case, it's clear based on your images that the III can AF relatively consistently on fast objects.
No 4 is the only completley OOF frame, the others all have parts of the plane in sharp focus, with such a fast target this may well be due to the centre point having moved a little from the front of the plane. It says a lot that some posters look for ways to explain away this excellent performance by contrasting it's demands with RGs tests. Shows how determined some folks are to find fault with the 1DIII. With any camera there will be some areas of performance where it does better than others. I cant claim all 1DIIIs are good but am convinced that some are now excelllent. Canon will never prove to many of the 1DIIIs detractors that it is fully functional however well it performs.
Photon wrote:
I have the feeling that the problems Galbraith had with the sprinters had to do with pumping arms and constantly changing clothing contours. The plane presents contours that only change as its angle changes, which occurs in a pretty steady fashion. Since Mark did a great job of tracking it with the center point, the MkIII did its job (not perfectly, but very well). If the MkII really does have any advantage in tracking sprinters (or birds in flight), maybe it's because it doesn't react to minute changes in subject position quite as quickly as the MkIII does. That would also fit with RG finding that adjustments to C. FnIII-2, AI Servo Tracking Sensitivity were the only ones that affected his particular problem.
I don't have a lens comparable to the 300/2.8, but my MkIII with 100-400L tracks soccer players well, with a slightly higher hit rate than my MkII. f/4.5-5.6 is obviously not as demanding as 2.8, but the MkIII AF has been working fine for me....Show more →
His problems were clearly due to his cf settings. With runners coming straight at him he had expansion points selected, III-4 at 1 and III-3 in 1 or 2 to get 10 fps but also tell the camera that the focus of subsequent and possibly the first shot in a sequence was not a priority. His settings should have been III-3-0, III-4-0 and III-8 at 0. Expansion points only help track focus with subjects moving laterally or vertically, not straight toward you. With III-4 at setting 1 and expansion points enabled he was telling the camera to track laterally or vertically with subjects running straight at him and high contrast in the area of the expansion points. He thinks the III is the IIN and it's simply not. Finally, his conclusion on III-2 having the greatest effect is incorrect. According to Canon: "To summarize, disabling III-8 effectively disables III-4, III-8 takes precedence over III-2, and setting 0 of III-4 takes precedence over III-2."
It's not rocket science with the MKIII. You can register 3 settings of your custom functions. I shoot track all the time. Hurdlers and runners coming straight at me in the dashes I use the default settings of III-4 at 0, III-3 at 0 and III-8 at 0. If it's very bright sun I'll dial III-2 down to keep the arms and hurdles from possibly breaking focus. Note that with III-4 and 8 disabled 2 now is the key. High jump, long jump and shooting perpendicular to the finish line in track I go to registered setting 2 which has III-8 at 1, III-3 at 0 and III - 4 at 1 so the intervening high jump poles and runners at the finish don't shift focus since I want to track the jumper with expansion points and III-2 won't control this with III-4 & 8 in play and it's okay to have them in play since there is veritcal and horizontal movement of the main subject. With III-4 at 1 and III-8 enabled I worry less about III-2 and bright sun. With the pole volt and ultimate frisbee I go to registered setting 3 which is the same as 2 but has III-8 at setting 2 because of the vertical movement. Never shoot III-3 at settings 1 or 2 and you have to give the camera a second to get the first shot in a sequence in focus. If I shoot something like ultimate frisbee in bright sun I go to setting 1 and dial down III-2 to avoid shifting focus. Shoots other than sports and the camera could really care less which registered setting I'm using .
I'm not impressed yet. I would like to see 100% crop.
so first look on the website it looks very nice, but in PS, I really doubt.
to me it seems there only a few at the end really sharp.
so show us the 100% and the exif please.
I had a very bad experience last week, shooting motorsports, with a very colorful grandstand in de back with
sunny weather, the results where a disaster.
later on that day, with pretty much green in the background, it was much, much better.
Gust wrote:
I'm not impressed yet. I would like to see 100% crop.
so first look on the website it looks very nice, but in PS, I really doubt.
to me it seems there only a few at the end really sharp.
so show us the 100% and the exif please.
I had a very bad experience last week, shooting motorsports, with a very colorful grandstand in de back with
sunny weather, the results where a disaster.
later on that day, with pretty much green in the background, it was much, much better.
Andrew J..............
same as my MII and MKIII experience.............( I do mostly fast moving dogs)....... and get a number of OOF shots from both. With the latest fix on the MKIII, it is FAR superior to the MKII.......(which is now gone and replaced with a back up MKIII).........send in your III.............you will be well rewarded.
2 years testing [ got my first mk3 in may 2007] are these the best settings.
Af point manually chosen
CfnIII
2 fast
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 2
8 2+1+0 [ depends on the subject.the smaller the subject, the lower the number]
I agree RG conclusions very much. he is write!
I have the same experiences. Shot about 10.000 pics after the last fixes.
static photography the AF of all my mk3s are perfect and I love that camera much, but
in speed, the AF sometimes [ not always] sucks.
the AF of the mark3 is sometimes by surprise very disappointing!!
On a lighter note Mark, that is an awesome aircraft! I didn't realize that they were this large either. That seems to be a demanding test, we are fortunate for AF and the speed of it, how bout keeper rate on MF for this type of shooting I remember those days
Gust wrote:
2 years testing [ got my first mk3 in may 2007] are these the best settings.
Af point manually chosen
CfnIII
2 fast
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 2
8 2+1+0 [ depends on the subject.the smaller the subject, the lower the number]
I agree RG conclusions very much. he is write!
I have the same experiences. Shot about 10.000 pics after the last fixes.
static photography the AF of all my mk3s are perfect and I love that camera much, but
in speed, the AF sometimes [ not always] sucks.
the AF of the mark3 is sometimes by surprise very disappointing!!
Your problems are with III-2 on fast and III-8 on 1 or 2. With those settings there are 2 scenarios as far as the camera is concerned. If the camera detects an "optimal" af point within the expanded focus points it will imediately switch to that point regardless of the sensitivity setting of III-2. So on a bright day if you have a higher contrast area (in an expanded point) than your selected focus point it will imediately jump to that point and begin tracking focus again. With those same settings if it does not see an optimal focus point the speed with which it jumps to a new focus point is determned by the setting of III-2. So if you have a uniform subject and low contrast background the speed of the focus shift will be determined by the setting of III-2. Low contrast background like your green foliage and it likely won't shift even on the fast setting. High contrast background with III-8 on 1 or 2 it's going to jump to whatever has the highest contrast in the expanded focus points and then start tracking again. Throw in III-2 on fast settings to the high contrast settings and the camera is like "a cat on a hot tin roof."
It does the same thing with III-4 at setting 1 but with this setting the camera thinks in terms of the plane of focus being parallel to the camera. That's why there's a III-4 in addition to III-2. III-4-1 moves to a focus point with higher contrast in an expanded focus point that the camera assumes is within the existing plane of focus in order to maintain focus on the main subject and track it. That means if that point isn't in the same plane of focus you lose focus and then the camera begins to track on the new point, not your main subject. It looks for higher contrast areas to the left and right if III-8 is in 1 and top, left and right if III-8 is in 2. If there's more contrast it jumps to that area but it maintains the current focal plane to stay on the subject which it assumes is parallel to the camera. Remember 4-1 is used to keep it from jumping to objects that come in between your subject and the camera like the runner coming from first base to second when you're focused on the second baseman. So when the runner comes in between the camera and the second baseman it jumps to another area of contrast it assumes is on the second baseman and the speed with which it makes the jump is determined by the setting of III-2. When it does this since it intially keeps the focus on the plane of the second baseman and since tracking is interrupted for a split second as well, if the second baseman was running toward the camera it would have to pick up focus again to track with the new focus point it found on the second baseman. If the higher contrast area it found in an expanded point wasn't even on the second baseman but was in the background it would shift to that point and start tracking that which puts even more of the sequence oof. That's also why the settings of III-3 further exacerbate the sequence of shots oof. If you've told the camera only the first shot in the sequence matters (III-3-1) then it emphasizes fps for the remaining, and may get nothing in focus when it makes the shift if your on 3-2.
The only time you speed up III-2 is if you want to jump quickly from subject to another subject without releasing your finger from the focus button. The only time you use 4-1 is when the subject is virtually parallel to the camera or not coming straight at the camera at a consistently high speed. If the subject is moving toward the camera and you still want III-4 on 1 as in a soccer game be sure to have III-3 on 0 if you want to maintain the most sequence of photos in focus and slow down III-2. If III-3 is on 1 then only the first shot may be in focus and if it's on 2 well then it's in shoot and pray mode.
III-2 covers the speed with which the camera switches to a new focus point wherever it is.
III-4 covers the movement of the focus point within the same plane of focus in an effort to ignore intervening objects. So if you want to keep focus on the same focus point that is not parallel to the camera, you want to use expansion points and you want to keep the entire sequence in focus put III-4 at 0 and III-3 at 0. If you have a contrasty background slow down III-2.
J. Allen wrote:
His problems were clearly due to his cf settings. With runners coming straight at him he had expansion points selected, III-4 at 1 and III-3 in 1 or 2 to get 10 fps but also tell the camera that the focus of subsequent and possibly the first shot in a sequence was not a priority. His settings should have been III-3-0, III-4-0 and III-8 at 0. Expansion points only help track focus with subjects moving laterally or vertically, not straight toward you. With III-4 at setting 1 and expansion points enabled he was telling the camera to track laterally or vertically with subjects running straight at him and high contrast in the area of the expansion points. He thinks the III is the IIN and it's simply not. Finally, his conclusion on III-2 having the greatest effect is incorrect. According to Canon: "To summarize, disabling III-8 effectively disables III-4, III-8 takes precedence over III-2, and setting 0 of III-4 takes precedence over III-2."
It's not rocket science with the MKIII. You can register 3 settings of your custom functions. I shoot track all the time. Hurdlers and runners coming straight at me in the dashes I use the default settings of III-4 at 0, III-3 at 0 and III-8 at 0. If it's very bright sun I'll dial III-2 down to keep the arms and hurdles from possibly breaking focus. Note that with III-4 and 8 disabled 2 now is the key. High jump, long jump and shooting perpendicular to the finish line in track I go to registered setting 2 which has III-8 at 1, III-3 at 0 and III - 4 at 1 so the intervening high jump poles and runners at the finish don't shift focus since I want to track the jumper with expansion points and III-2 won't control this with III-4 & 8 in play and it's okay to have them in play since there is veritcal and horizontal movement of the main subject. With III-4 at 1 and III-8 enabled I worry less about III-2 and bright sun. With the pole volt and ultimate frisbee I go to registered setting 3 which is the same as 2 but has III-8 at setting 2 because of the vertical movement. Never shoot III-3 at settings 1 or 2 and you have to give the camera a second to get the first shot in a sequence in focus. If I shoot something like ultimate frisbee in bright sun I go to setting 1 and dial down III-2 to avoid shifting focus. Shoots other than sports and the camera could really care less which registered setting I'm using . ...Show more →
I don't have a mk3, so I've stayed on the sidelines for this debate until now. As a software engineer, I was very much concerned that the CFn's for the mk3 seemed overly complicated, with conflicts between the settings being readily apparent (as eloquently described by J Allen). My perception has always been that the reason for the "lovers" and "haters" to be so vehement (as well as the problems so erratic) is that the interface was overengineered and poorly documented. As always, engineers and not photographers designed the UI for Canon, and in their desire to make the camera able to be "perfect" in all situations they allow misconfigurations to cause the camera to perform poorly. Canon considers this to be user error, but in reality they did a bad job of design and an even worse job of educating their customers - despite the addtional "getting the most" guides they've released.
As RG himself has always said, the issues appeared to be firmware and not the AF hardware itself. I suspect that if RG followed J Allen's settings his results might be different than what he has previously gotten.
As a MK3 owner, who gets amazing results now after the recall, I actually have to agree with this. Hardware was definitely improved greatly with the fix, but yes, the CFn's do seem complicated, and probably account for a lot of the problems. Which is why I leave most of the AF CFn's alone now and get amazing results.
But then again, as a Canon user, looking at all the AF settings for the Nikon D3 makes my head spin even more.
timbop wrote:
I don't have a mk3, so I've stayed on the sidelines for this debate until now. As a software engineer, I was very much concerned that the CFn's for the mk3 seemed overly complicated, with conflicts between the settings being readily apparent (as eloquently described by J Allen). My perception has always been that the reason for the "lovers" and "haters" to be so vehement (as well as the problems so erratic) is that the interface was overengineered and poorly documented. As always, engineers and not photographers designed the UI for Canon, and in their desire to make the camera able to be "perfect" in all situations they allow misconfigurations to cause the camera to perform poorly. Canon considers this to be user error, but in reality they did a bad job of design and an even worse job of educating their customers - despite the addtional "getting the most" guides they've released.
As RG himself has always said, the issues appeared to be firmware and not the AF hardware itself. I suspect that if RG followed J Allen's settings his results might be different than what he has previously gotten....Show more →
I remember those days 
