Mark III update from Rob Galbraith

real interesting

I wonder, do the film bodies (like the 1N or 1N-HS which I notice I still see people using) have similar focus issues?

Just a question or a thought: Why would a big compony put their name on the spell, especially in such a completive market. He mentioned that they have removed their technicians that tested with him –“In the wake of its publication, Canon USA abruptly ended our EOS-1D Mark III testing collaboration.” One never knows what politics are behind the scenes. I'm not a professional photographer, but I do work with people and if some one starts their report on how the Canon people are going about doing their busyness and then start to talk about his test results, I'm just wondering. I don't have any doubt that his test are professionally done, I'm just wondering what his big motive behind all of this is.

Unlike the vast majority of people who feel compelled to discuss the “AF issue” with 1D3 and/or 1Ds3 I actually use both cameras so lemme address the issue from my experience. I’ll concentrate on 1D3 in AI Servo AF with a longish lens (300/2.8 L IS, early model) simply because I haven’t done any high-fps “action” shooting with my 1Ds3.

First of all, I don’t believe that RG is completely wrong, the AF is not 100% consistent, but I do sense more than an ounce of exaggeration, perhaps even user error, on his part. Yes, the sub-mirror assembly had issues in some models (both my 1D3 bodies come from the “affected” S/N range) and the software could be better off the bat, but the issues were not nearly as serious, frequent or widespread as reported on his site or hyped (literally) elsewhere on the ‘net. Secondly, in my experience, the AF performance of 1D3 is much better than that of 1D2n (I’m in total disagreement with RG on this one) not to mention that 1D2n shots at 8.5fps only (a bit less than that in my experience, closer to 7.5-8) whereas the 1D3 gets the full 10 fps.

Canon loyally warns that AI Servo AF works best for subjects that approach/retreat from the camera at a constant rate (that’s why there are few known complaints from the Formula 1 photogs…) and that the first image in the series may be OOF but if you get the subject in focus with the center AF point, subsequent images will be OK. Indeed, each time I nail the center focus point on the first shot, I get a perfect series at 10 fps from the first (or second – see above) image in the series, even with over 50 images of a dog running at/away from me. Now, the dog is pretty much monochromatic, uniformly black - runners (favorite test subjects of RG) on the other hand are not uniformly colored, for instance the skin color differs from the uniform colors and then there is the starting number tag, which often is another color/pattern altogether. It is almost impossible to hold a focus point (esp. with a long lens) in the same (exactly the same) spot on a fast moving, bouncing, smallish target and the camera’s AF point (or points) can bounce to a different part of the subject (or a different runner in a bunch…) making it easy for the predictive AF software to re-qualify it as a different target, reassess its speed and direction and react accordingly. In my experience, one “bounce” like that causes the subsequent images to vary widely in focus. Yep, sometimes I get a really bad series but if I can nail the focus on a running dog, I surely can follow a runner. Or can’t I..? So, I chalk most OOF series as user (i.e. my) error.

The 1D3 can be set up differently in terms of and it is my belief, that many reported AF issues stem from the incorrect setup (plain vanilla out of the box) or from a total misunderstanding of the applicable CFn settings. Canon has not done a great job explaining this, BTW. Also, some lenses (most notably the 70-200/2.8 L, the only lens mentioned explicitly by Canon in the manual) can focus properly only with the center AF point if used with an extender yet I see lots of “expansion points” used for pretty much all lenses. FWIW – here are my 1D3 settings: All NR functions off; Neutral picture style if the light is bright; Fn. III-2 (Servo tracking sensitivity) set to slow; Fn. III-3 (Servo focus 1st/2nd image priority) set to 0; Fn. III-4 set to 1 (continuous AF track priority); Fn III-5 (focus search) zero; Fn. III-8 set to 1 (one expansion point.)

I do agree with RG that the AF performance varies considerably in different lighting conditions, esp. with changing contrast and direction of light but that shouldn’t surprise anyone who has taken more than five pictures in his lifetime: light meters fail in many situations so do AF sensors. Where the both - 1D3 and 1Ds3 – cameras fall flat on their faces is AF performance in backlit, low contrast conditions: 40D is an order of magnitude better in this respect!

In terms of AF performance I get a much larger percentage of keepers from 1D3 (and 1Ds3) than from any AF camera I have ever used, including 1D2n. The big question is whether the 1D3’s AF performance can be made more consistent with a subject bouncing in and out the focus tracking “scope” in varied intervals and with varied speeds. I hope so; it would be nice to have a camera that will automagically focus and expose “en punto” each and every time at high fps shooting. Realistically, I’d expect some incremental fixes and a better AF performance in the backlit situations (especially on 1Ds3) from the next round of firmware upgrades. I also expect Canon to extend the warranty on 1D3 and 1Ds3 in the US to 3 years. In the realm of “wishful thinking” I’d like Canon to replace all existing 1D3 (and 1Ds3) cameras with a hardware-fixed/redesigned upgrade to remove any lingering doubts and put this issue to rest. Chances of that happening? Snowballs in hell…

Michael,

Do you see problems with chest-focus, when hands pump in and out of that area? I don't understand why RG didn't focus on the faces (I'm not a sport shooter, just hobbyist).

At any rate, Canon's response has even me convinced that I'll need to look at Noink for when my 1Ds dies. That's sad. Canon must now fight to regain trust.

Lad:

focus on the faces
The head is small; the chest is bigger so it is easier to focus. With faster lenses (f/2.8-4) DOF is thin (esp. when the magnification increases) but should easily cover the entire silhouette and that’s the idea here.

look at Nikon
Well, Nikon has nothing to offer (perhaps “yet”, but still) to the shooters who are likely to experience AF issues with the 1D3, so this is a moot point.

I haven’t lost “faith” in Canon (1Ds3 is the best DSLR camera ever made, period) but I’m puzzled by their handling of that debacle. From the US perspective, it is a major PR disaster with no happy end in sight (i.e. Canon didn’t even attempt to spin it in public - bad, bad, very bad thing in the US.) I see two reasons for that: lawyers and “the Japanese art of covering shit with silence.” The former is fairly easy: any admission of faults in 1D3/1Ds3, other than the tepid "press relases", would have triggered a slew of lawsuits (after all this is our national pastime…), the Uniform Commercial Code violations, etc. The latter is the famous “losing face” thingy (I’m oversimplifying here): the Canon management was afraid to be disgraced in the eyes of their peers if they admitted any wrongdoing. Perhaps they woul dbe disgraced (or even fired...), but a full and open account of troubles, a recall and a fix would have preempted any lawsuits and we would all live much happier lives. Screw the lawyers and the lawmakers, eh?

>>One workaround suggested is to stop down to F5.6 if the light allows<<

But, the lens focuses wide open regardless...

I have owned (and still own) and used a Mkl, Mkll and Mklll in a sporting career spanning more than 30 years. I am not in a position to doubt Rob Galbraith's findings with the bodies he has used but, in my experience, the Mklll is by far the best of the three. I still use the Mkll as back-up from time to time but the focussing accuracy is far better on the Mklll - in my opinion.

It's worth noting that others have tested and compared the Mkll and Mklll and come to a completely opposite conclusion to Mr Galbraith.

I seldom shoot sports so I usually use one-shot focus mode; rarely AI. I cannot get AI on my 1D MkIII to work well, but one-shot works pretty much 100% of the time for me. Find a contrasty area, position an appropriate focus spot on it; wait for the beep; shoot.

Is anyone else finding this OK as I am?

Aren't we expecting too much from a camera autofocus? For all its faults it is still miles better than manual focus that is for sure!

Rumor has it that Canon is working on the new mark 3 and may be announced as soon as October. It's said to use a lot of the same guts as the 1DS mark3, but will have an incredably fast 13 frames per second and at 18 megpixels. Perhaps this is why Canon has removed the tech's. Please don't take this as the truth and nuttin but the truth! Sticker price is said to be around $5500.

So much work, so much money, so many manpower invested and they STILL can't get it right? OMDG........ :-(

Nikon has changed its management and look at what they achieved. I think a similar move in Canon should take place.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

"Readers should also note that Rob's take on the 40D is that it is not an adequate (at all) substitute body for shooting subjects in motion...such as athletes, birds in flight, etc."

Readers can *ignore* that advice completely - he's just flat wrong about that, at least as far as BIFs are concerned - the 40D is excellent for that.

akim,

"So much work, so much money, so many manpower invested and they STILL can't get it right? "

*Says RG*.

There is an absolute wealth of contradictory evidence out there - the MK III is a wonderfully capable camera in other users' hands, despite what RG says...

Don't you think it telling that - even with this so-called problem - *it's still his camera of choice?*

Seriously: it can't be *that bad*, can it?

I wonder why RG has not published side by side comparisons of the Nikon D3 and Canon 1DIII? He claims that the Canon's AF is adequate, but still has issues, but is the D3 any better? Is anything better?

>>Nikon has changed its management and look at what they achieved. I think a similar move in Canon should take place<<

Man! You're ready to send someone who probably has wife and kids to feed looking for a new gig based on internet BS! Geez..excuse me, Do you even OWN the ID MKIII?

This plethora of highly debatable claims doesn't help new buyers either. "Scaring" someone away from something is NOT the same as *informing* them. Lets we forget our current US administration...

No camera is or will ever be perfect, no matter who makes it or how much you pay. If the 1DMKIII doesn't make you money, by all means, sell it, switch system, whatever you have to do to stop posting the same stuff, year 'round.

There are far more expensive PRO Video and PRO Audio equipment that is so full of bugs that makes those contested claims about the 1DMKIII AF look like nothing yet, people using these tool manage to put out movie after movie and countless CDs, while getting some Grammys and Oscars along the way to boot.

If you like the camera use it, if you don't, stop posting about the same old stuff. Serves no purpose, especially if you do NOT own the camera.

Seems many photogs are either waiting every hour of every day for a 'change' on the 1DMKIII, presumably NOT making any money with it...because the AF doesn't work? In that case, I wonder how they are surviving?

ANd those NOT using the camera to make living, by all means, whine away.

And, again, how is stopping down a lens a 'workaround' for AF when the EF lenses all work wide open?

End of rant :)

There are getting to be a lot of self proclaimed "web reviewers" and Mr. Galbraith is one of them. With the swarm of these reviewers competing for attention from the public (and product from the manufacturers) there seems to be a zeal on the reviewers' part to 'scoop' the other reviewers. "Molehills to Mountains"...that's the philosophy that keeps tabloids like The National Enquirer flying off the store shelves, but the Enquirer is not the place to get an unbiased view of the daily news.

I own and use both the 1D3 and 1Ds3. I work and am acquainted with 11 other photographers who own one or both of these cameras and when we talk about camera bodies (which is almost constantly), I've rarely heard a negative comment and when I do, it's a "mild" complaint about one thing or another - and that includes issues other than AF.

There is no tool, anywhere, that can't be faulted if someone has a mind to do so - like "perfect" marriages, the "perfect" camera doesn't exist. I have a very happy relationship with my Mk 3's based on months of using them daily to earn my living. When anyone who depends upon these bodies as a critical tool of their craft loses perspective about the importance of reviews like Mr. Galbraith's, a visit to the local supermarket and a quick read of the Enquirer about the aliens who implanted microchips in a Nebraska farmer's dairy herd might restore perspective about the importance of these web reviews.

One thing I know for an absolute certainty about the Mk III - I'll have one, one day: and the sooner the better.

"He mentioned that they have removed their technicians that tested with him –“In the wake of its publication, Canon USA abruptly ended our EOS-1D Mark III testing collaboration.”"

Hi Dennis,

I've assumed that this is simply because Canon now consider the matter closed (I can understand why they would) and consider that any further time spent with RG will be pointless and unproductive.

I own and use both the 1D3 and 1Ds3. I work and am acquainted with 11 other photographers who own one or both of these cameras and when we talk about camera bodies (which is almost constantly), I've rarely heard a negative comment and when I do, it's a "mild" complaint about one thing or another - and that includes issues other than AF.

I have similar experience, mostly with pjs and other sports shooters. It's mostly people on these forums who haven't used the camera that seem to have all the negative comments.

>> Do you even OWN the ID MKIII?

No, and this problem is the exact reason why. Apart from reading (a lot…), I have quite a few friends with 1D/s Mk III bodies. Most of them are unhappy and two have already switched to Nikon. As for me, I am not switching but I am planning to add a Nikon body (probably D300) to my 40D.

And let me tell you another story. I have a friend with 1D Mk III from the first batch. His camera operates flawlessly (no version updates, no fix, no nothing). I tried it and was absolutely flabbergasted. As a 1D owner this camera was my dream come true. Recently he updated to 1.2.3 to enjoy the joystick AF selection and immediately he noticed a drop in AF performance. All of a sudden those blurry pictures started to appear. He sent it for calibration (that's what the lab told him). No change. He switched back to 1.0.3 but the problem persists. He now has a useless camera (his words, not mine) with no cure as the lab says it's within spec. He shoots with his 40D and 5D and is very miserable as BIF are his passion and these bodies are nowhere near to what he had.

And why don't you read from the experience of people who have it? As they do, you will probably give them more credit than you give me.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/663083/

Happy shooting, Yakim.

Third hand reports are exactly that. Since these are "friends" and apparently not people using and working with them every day, there is the strong possibility that people haven't actually mastered the camera. It's a real pain to get it set up right the first time for the type of shooting one does, after that it's easy.

People here should take first hand reports from people that have to use a camera and can't afford to not have it work. That Fred Miranda thread is about some guy who takes kid photos while backpacking and most of the posters seem to think he has other problems.

Cut out the third party reports and comment on what you have experience with. Show some photos you've taken that demonstrate the problem, after mastering the camera.

>> Show some photos you've taken that demonstrate the problem, after mastering the camera.

RG has done exactly that...... :-)

Happy shooting, Yakim.

Well there people who truly do have bad copies of this camera and I am one of them. No question when it works it is amazing however mine for pro applications does not work consistantly enough to be my main work camera. While waiting for Canon to make the fixes through CPS I purchased a EOS1DS MK11 to be my main camera with my 5D as a backup.

Sure if I was using it for pleasure to shoot birds or sports on the weekend and had no client to answear to I could wait and not be so mad but when covering corporate events or weddings there are a lot of instances where I get one shot at it, if it miss it, its gone along with my credibility which I have spent years to establish and have done so all with Canon camera's.

Not once have I been scared to use a camera till the MK111, now it rides along as a test camera. Mine is one of the affected camera's very early production and it had the sub mirror fixed which was a slight improvement, then version 1.2.3. came out and it went really bad and setting it back didn't help. It went back to CPS again and had more parts replaced and was sent back to me 'within spec" .

The focus is worse than ever and noise issues which I didn't have before are now a nightmare.

I have none of these issues with my other camera's and have beenn using photoshop for many years. There is alot of issues I won't go into about dealing with CPS but it has become evident that they want to keep fixing the camera instead of replacing it. At this point and with 3 trips back already I no longer feeling or appreciating the loyality I have shown them over many years.

I appreciate someone being upset about the value of their camera dropping through forum posts but appreciate the no value of a non working camera, especially one that is a working tool not a enjoyable past time purchase.

Should you buy a MK111, certainally but test it and if it has problems return it, if it works you will have an amazing camera and they are out there as one of my fellow shooters bought one and it works amazing and very consistent.

Should people who don't own the camera or people who do but have limited time or experience scream how bad it is, of course not but don't get too mad at a working photographer who knows their skills and camera's. Why am I mad? Because I have owned the camera for better than a year and never thought it wouldn't be fixed in a reasonable amount of time so I didn't return it, I waited and I waited too long. That is my fault and my mistake.

I mean no disrespect to any type of shooter weekend or otherwise in this point. Take Care, Pete

Those looking for a Canon 1D MkIII vs. Nikon D3 AF comparison can find one here - (link)

"Should you buy a MK111, certainally but test it and if it has problems return it, if it works you will have an amazing camera and they are out there as one of my fellow shooters bought one and it works amazing and very consistent." - Pete

It's such a shame Canon made such a mess of things and took so long to solve the problems.

Bob's link gives a realistic tester:

Does this mean that the Canon 1D MKIII is the clear choice for overall autofocus?

No. It simply means that it performs better under this rigorous test.

Why can't other testers acknowledge this?

I don't think that Drew's test is more or less realistic than Rob's test but like many, I wish RG would test the D3 as well. I would be very interested to know how it fairs under the same conditions. Than again, he is a Canon shooter and I don't see how this could happen unless someone (e.g. Nikon USA) actually gives him a D3 + several lenses.

Happy shooting, Yakim.