Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    KSLC
    Posts
    1,089

    Canon EOS-1D Mark III autofocus problems...

    If anyone is considering a new 1D MKIII, you might want to wait a little while.

    read this...

    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-8740-9006

    ...and poke around some camera forums. Major autofocus problems. Not good.

    -Astro
    I got a Nikon camera...I love to take a photograph...So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mt. Baker
    Posts
    1,754
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroPax View Post
    If anyone is considering a new 1D MKIII, you might want to wait a little while.

    read this...

    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-8740-9006

    ...and poke around some camera forums. Major autofocus problems. Not good.

    -Astro
    Well that thread was a waste of time......

    None of those issues are any different than how the 1VHS performed.....
    10FPS isnt for everyone, and apparently it esp isnt for pixel peeping Rob G.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    2,837
    I don't get it?

    This photo was taken at ISO 1600 meaning it was shitty dark out, which usually kills AF, yet he still nailed this shot? Whats the problem?


  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mt. Baker
    Posts
    1,754
    Quote Originally Posted by dipstik View Post
    I don't get it?

    This photo was taken at ISO 1600 meaning it was shitty dark out, which usually kills AF, yet he still nailed this shot? Whats the problem?

    Neither do I. Rob Galbraith is an IDIOT. I really do not know why so many people are so obsessed with his reviews.....

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887
    I guess there's idiots on http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_index.html who have the same problem.
    Elvis has left the building

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mt. Baker
    Posts
    1,754
    Quote Originally Posted by cj001f View Post
    I guess there's idiots on http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_index.html who have the same problem.
    Well to be honest 95% of the guys on there are hacks, that worship the top 5% that actually shoot full time. There is a good reason that I don't waste my time with sportsshooter.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887
    so you've used the Mark III?

    the "problem" has appeared on at least a half dozen photo forums.
    Last edited by cj001f; 06-20-2007 at 06:14 PM.
    Elvis has left the building

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    KSLC
    Posts
    1,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunder View Post
    Well to be honest 95% of the guys on there are hacks, that worship the top 5% that actually shoot full time. There is a good reason that I don't waste my time with sportsshooter.com
    Why are you refusing to accept that a problem might actual exist with this new camera? Are you one of those Canon fan boys that believe Canon can do no wrong?

    I personally know two full-time pro photogs (both are active members of sportsshooter.com, BTW, and so am I) that are having (or have had) problems with MK III bodies...not only the focus issue, but also one camera just plain dying...and both have gone back to shooting MK II N's for the time being.

    Just about every new DSLR body has had growing pains, to some degree or another, to include the Nikon D2X (focus), and the Nikon D200 (banding). Those problem(s) were eventually corrected, as I suspect the MK III problem(s) will also be corrected in short time.

    Personally, I'm very happy to have people like Galbraith around to bring these problems to the forefront. He is not an idiot, and in fact, is doing a great service to both the consumer and professional photographer.

    You don't need to (nor should you) defend Canon. They are big boys. They can take care of themselves.

    -Astro
    I got a Nikon camera...I love to take a photograph...So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mt. Baker
    Posts
    1,754
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroPax View Post

    You don't need to (nor should you) defend Canon. They are big boys. They can take care of themselves.

    -Astro
    Where was I defending Canon????

    I shoot full time, and I have been selling camera gear full time for over 10 years. I'll be the first one to say that Canon has it's issues. I.E. How the fuck can the EOS system be around for 20 years, and they still can not make a decent flash system....

    Now lets look at some facts:

    There is not a SINGLE 10FPS body that has PERFECT FOCUS. There has NEVER been a 10FPS body that has not had focus issues.

    If your used to a slower body I.E. 8.5 fps and then jump up to 10fps, your going to see some issues with the af. Think about it, there is a lot of information for the camera system to process, and do it quickly enough to keep up with the frame rate even under perfect conditons. Factor in low light condiotns i.E. iso 1600, or low contrast subjects i.e. the runner wearing th black shirt, and its going to become even more difficult for the system. There has never ever been a camera that has worked perfectly under these conditios.

    Next in Rob Galbraiths examples, he hand held the camera. Look closely and you can see minute shifts in the framing. There is NOT a SINGLE lense in the workd that is not going to have minute shifts in focus when hand held....... comon guys this is prety damn basic.

    As faras perfectly tracking a moving subject, once again there has never been a camra that does this perfectly. The 1VHS had issues, the 1Dmk2n has issues. etc etc.

    I have probally shot, owned and sold more cameras than rob galbrath has ever has his hands on. I have NEVER found the perfect caemra. Even the most EXOTIC gear out there has flaws.

    Cameras are tools everyone is designed for a specific genre and at a specific price point. the "perfect" camera is the one that closes matches your needs at a price that you are comfortable with.

    The 1Dmk2n is usless at iso's above 800. The 1Dmk3 performs well at iso's way above 800. its focusing is on par with the 1dmk2n and is far superior to the 1vhs. Sure it aint perfect but heck, nothign is.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroPax View Post
    Why are you refusing to accept that a problem might actual exist with this new camera? Are you one of those Canon fan boys that believe Canon can do no wrong?

    I personally know two full-time pro photogs (both are active members of sportsshooter.com, BTW, and so am I) that are having (or have had) problems with MK III bodies...not only the focus issue, but also one camera just plain dying...and both have gone back to shooting MK II N's for the time being.

    Just about every new DSLR body has had growing pains, to some degree or another, to include the Nikon D2X (focus), and the Nikon D200 (banding). Those problem(s) were eventually corrected, as I suspect the MK III problem(s) will also be corrected in short time.

    Personally, I'm very happy to have people like Galbraith around to bring these problems to the forefront. He is not an idiot, and in fact, is doing a great service to both the consumer and professional photographer.

    You don't need to (nor should you) defend Canon. They are big boys. They can take care of themselves.

    -Astro
    A lot of the people on sportsshooter and especially rob galbraith are idiots and just are there to stroke other's egos and with those on rob galbraith, flap about shit they will never even use. They just want to read tech specs and flap about them all day long on the interweb. If you think a 10fps camera is going to be in focus every frame you are a moron. Sure there probably are some issues but it won't be perfect even after it's addressed. It's just too fast to be perfect. I too know people (more than 2 and yes, pro) that have that camera that do not have that problem. Thing is they DON'T blast away at 10fps tracking with AI-Focus on until their frame buffer runs out....or their talent runs out. Also what Gunder said about lighting, you need good lighting for any AF focus system to work properly and efficiently. Also, with the 45 AF points on the 1d series cameras, well all of them aren't very efficient either.

    He's not defending Canon, he's pointing out why these people's expectations and complaints are just stupid.
    Last edited by midget; 06-21-2007 at 01:24 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,247
    Didn't someone try to address this issue back in the film days with a 1/2 silvered mirror that didn't need to move? Isn't there also a difference between active and passive autofocus in these instances, as in the IR assisted ones?

    People arguing over tech sheet specs on the interweb? Unpossible.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887
    -10 demerits for tippster for not insulting the intelligence or quality of the other persons work or equipment, both requisite for photo forum arguments
    Elvis has left the building

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hyperspace!
    Posts
    1,370
    Quote Originally Posted by cj001f View Post
    -10 demerits for tippster for not insulting the intelligence or quality of the other persons work or equipment, both requisite for photo forum arguments
    +83 demerits to cj001f for giving tipster 10 merits for his lack of belligerence.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887
    damn and I remembered by PIN number on they was to get my MSDS sheet today too
    Elvis has left the building

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    20 steps from the hot tub
    Posts
    3,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunder View Post
    Rob Galbraith is an IDIOT. I really do not know why so many people are so obsessed with his reviews...

    ...I shoot full time, and I have been selling camera gear full time for over 10 years..


    ...I have probally shot, owned and sold more cameras than rob galbrath has ever has his hands on...
    This made me laugh.

    Rob's been a top photojournalist in Canada for two decades. He led the Calgary Herald in its switch to digital photography years ago - making it one of the first major newspapers in the world to make the changeover. I interned at The Herald back in 1991 (and still freelance for them now) and have seen first hand Rob's expertise and professionalism.

    Eventually he left The Herald to start his own consulting company and assisted many major North American publications in converting their photo departments to a digital workplace.

    He also created his website to share information on the growing use of digital cameras in photojournalism with fellow pros. His opinions and reviews are based on the needs of working photojournalists and his knowledge of digital camera equipment going right back to the beginning. He also remains a talented shooter who can often be seen at NHL games and other real life situations testing out gear.

    THAT is why many people take his reviews seriously. He is the real deal and respected by his peers. He's not just some guy who decided to start up a photography website. You may disagree with his opinions, but you have no standing to question his credentials.

    Anyways, about the review.

    Some of you don't seem to have read the entire review and its major point - that the autofocus issue occurs during bright, warm weather and is not a problem at other times, including more challenging situations such as low light or available light. That is the opposite of what you would expect to find.

    I assume there will eventually be a response from Canon as to whether there is a configuration fix in the autofocus settings, or if there is a software or hardware problem on some bodies.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    11,329
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroPax View Post
    Why are you refusing to accept that a problem might actual exist with this new camera? Are you one of those Canon fan boys that believe Canon can do no wrong?

    I personally know two full-time pro photogs (both are active members of sportsshooter.com, BTW, and so am I) that are having (or have had) problems with MK III bodies...not only the focus issue, but also one camera just plain dying...and both have gone back to shooting MK II N's for the time being.

    Just about every new DSLR body has had growing pains, to some degree or another, to include the Nikon D2X (focus), and the Nikon D200 (banding). Those problem(s) were eventually corrected, as I suspect the MK III problem(s) will also be corrected in short time.

    Personally, I'm very happy to have people like Galbraith around to bring these problems to the forefront. He is not an idiot, and in fact, is doing a great service to both the consumer and professional photographer.

    You don't need to (nor should you) defend Canon. They are big boys. They can take care of themselves.

    -Astro
    Are you always such a dick or just on the interweb? Your pretty fucking impressed with yourself aren't you? Why don't don't you keep your pompous blathering to sportshooter.com where your drivel fits right in?

    So many chances to post this today...you make it so easy.
    Last edited by truth; 06-21-2007 at 01:15 PM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mt. Baker
    Posts
    1,754
    [QUOTE=Eldo;1321574]This made me laugh.



    THAT is why many people take his reviews seriously. He is the real deal and respected by his peers. He's not just some guy who decided to start up a photography website. You may disagree with his opinions, but you have no standing to question his credentials.
    QUOTE]

    If he was the "real deal" than he would know that his review and methods of testing the AF where complete bull shit. See my post above for why.

    IMOP most newspaper photogs are hacks. Sure there are a few good ones, but generally speaking most newspapers A, can't afford great photogs, and B, the type of photography generaly used in newspapers is just plain old ducumentation.

    Now lets look at the facts. Rob Galbraith, has NO engineering degree, his ONLY "experience" in digital photography is from using the gear. He does NOT do scientific tests to evalulations of gear.

    His reputation is soley based upon his blog. Wich probally would not be any where near what it is if he didnt start it when he did. The vast majority of the dribble he posts in his so called " reviews" is mearly re-writes of the marketing info sent out by the mfg.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mt. Baker
    Posts
    1,754
    [QUOTE=Eldo;1321574]

    Some of you don't seem to have read the entire review and its major point - that the autofocus issue occurs during bright, warm weather and is not a problem at other times, including more challenging situations such as low light or available light. That is the opposite of what you would expect to find.

    QUOTE]

    Not nessarily true......

    All AF systems work off of CONTRAST. It is VERY possible to have a an issue with af on a bright sunny day when the subject is has low contrast. I.e. an all black or all white shirt.

    Second, he HAS absolutely NO EXAMPLES of this happening where the camera was NOT handheld, and where the SUBJECT had on high contrast clothing.

  19. #19
    bklyn is offline who guards the guardians?
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    5,764
    this is such a boy thing...

    Boy 1: My wee wee is longer than yours by 2.3 mm! Ah Ha!
    Boy 2: No! My wee wee is thicker than yours by 2.5 mm, therefore mine is bigger than yours!

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Girlfriends of Boy 1 & 2 have the same thought simultaneously...
    "Doesn't matter one bit if you can't fuck."
    I'm just a simple girl trying to make my way in the universe...
    I come up hard, baby but now I'm cool I didn't make it, sugar playin' by the rules
    If you know your history, then you would know where you coming from, then you wouldn't have to ask me, who the heck do I think I am.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mt. Baker
    Posts
    1,754
    Quote Originally Posted by bklyn View Post
    this is such a boy thing...

    Boy 1: My wee wee is longer than yours by 2.3 mm! Ah Ha!
    Boy 2: No! My wee wee is thicker than yours by 2.5 mm, therefore mine is bigger than yours!

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Girlfriends of Boy 1 & 2 have the same thought simultaneously...
    "Doesn't matter one bit if you can't fuck."
    Bklyn,

    You offering to test the skis of the guys on the board now or what

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    写道
    Posts
    13,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunder View Post
    Bklyn,

    You offering to test the skis of the guys on the board now or what
    ^^^ No, just their wee wees.
    Daniel Ortega eats here.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    Didn't someone try to address this issue back in the film days with a 1/2 silvered mirror that didn't need to move?
    Canon EOS 1 RS

    The term you are looking for is "Pelicle Mirror"

    Tradeoff for the increased shutter speed and truly continuous AF is of course: mirror dirt shows... a little bit of internal reflections... and of course the permanent 1 stop exposure penalty.

    Isn't there also a difference between active and passive autofocus in these instances, as in the IR assisted ones?
    AF SLRs all use passive AF: contrast comparison. Basically a computer analyzing a split image prism with a sensor underneath. Obviously, when the mirror is up for exposure, it cannot continue to track a subject which is why higher end and higher FPS cameras aim for shorter "viewfinder blackout" (it isn't just for the eye following the subject, the AF too). That is of course why the pelicle mirror is usefull. All AF SLRs have partial mirrors, but in movable mirror SLRs (virtually all) most light is reflected up to the prism instead of the AF sensors.

    Digital point and shoots use passive AF too. They use image-sensor data to focus (it is live-viewing too).

    Passive AF cameras can be passive/active with use of an AF assist beam which illuminates the target often with a contrast pattern projection from their flash unit (and bodies back before they got all cheap in lower bodies and started using the redeye/MF assist light as the AF assist light)

    Truly active AF systems like the IR one you mentioned project an IR-LED and sensor and it measures the bounce time. This was used almost exclusively on 35mm point and shoot cameras. Of course it would choose the fastest bounce so when you tried to take pictures of the mountains out the window, it would focus on the window which is why they had the little mountain "landscape" buttons for infinity focus.

    An even older active AF idea was the AF Poloroids that used ultrasonic tranducers to measure distance (easier than measuring IR bounce).
    Last edited by Summit; 06-21-2007 at 04:45 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,247
    I seem to remember some of the Nikon Flashes having big IR emitters/receivers on them as well for a time. I thought this was to help a fully integrated camera (via the hotshoe) with active AF info. Could have merely been to meter distance for the flash, I guess.

    Since the mirror is only down for 1/10th of a second on full speed burst mode in the MkIII it doesn't surprise me that the camera loses focus. Usually when you're shooting at a high frame rate you're looking for that "happy accident" anyway - naturally you'd like the subject to be tack sharp when they finally open their eyes or the ball hits the hand, but there's always the next try. Nobody uses every one of those slices of life, and if you're compositing then the little drift in focus is not THAT big a deal.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    I seem to remember some of the Nikon Flashes having big IR emitters/receivers on them as well for a time. I thought this was to help a fully integrated camera (via the hotshoe) with active AF info. Could have merely been to meter distance for the flash, I guess.
    IR systems are for wireless slave-flash control: you can use multiple slave flashes off camera and have them be remotely controlled by the on camera flash.


    With Nikon D flashes (and now Canon ETTLII), distance information is transmitted to the flash from the camera AF system.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    I seem to remember some of the Nikon Flashes having big IR emitters/receivers on them as well for a time. I thought this was to help a fully integrated camera (via the hotshoe) with active AF info. Could have merely been to meter distance for the flash, I guess.
    I'm not sure any of the flashes contribute to active AF, I think it's only for the Nikon CLS IR/wireless flash control system. edit: it appears Summit beat me to that!

    Several of the Nikon dSLRs have an integrated AF assist light - the D70, D80 and D200. Decidedly more primitive, but still somewhat useful.
    Elvis has left the building

Similar Threads

  1. Canon 1D Mark III
    By grapedrink in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-25-2007, 04:38 AM
  2. DSLR - Canon v. Nikon
    By Brocktoon in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-10-2006, 05:58 PM
  3. Canon Point and shoots - which is durable?
    By LeeLau in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 01-29-2006, 11:56 PM
  4. Canon SLR lenses
    By backpack in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2005, 08:12 AM
  5. 35mm camera ?
    By Big E in forum TGR Forum Archives
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 12-10-2003, 03:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •