Results 1 to 25 of 40
-
06-19-2007, 07:49 PM #1
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.
-AstroI got a Nikon camera...I love to take a photograph...So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
-
06-20-2007, 01:37 PM #2
-
06-20-2007, 02:33 PM #3Registered User
- 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?
-
06-20-2007, 03:04 PM #4
-
06-20-2007, 03:58 PM #5Registered User
- 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
-
06-20-2007, 06:09 PM #6
-
06-20-2007, 06:12 PM #7Registered User
- 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
-
06-20-2007, 09:28 PM #8
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.
-AstroI got a Nikon camera...I love to take a photograph...So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
-
06-20-2007, 11:37 PM #9
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.
-
06-21-2007, 01:06 AM #10I hate your life
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 2,388
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.
-
06-21-2007, 07:43 AM #11
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.
-
06-21-2007, 10:25 AM #12Registered User
- 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
-
06-21-2007, 10:30 AM #13
-
06-21-2007, 10:33 AM #14Registered User
- 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
-
06-21-2007, 10:33 AM #15
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.
-
06-21-2007, 11:00 AM #16click click boom
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Posts
- 11,329
Last edited by truth; 06-21-2007 at 01:15 PM.
-
06-21-2007, 11:49 AM #17
[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.
-
06-21-2007, 12:09 PM #18
[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.
-
06-21-2007, 12:49 PM #19who 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.
-
06-21-2007, 01:20 PM #20
-
06-21-2007, 04:17 PM #21
-
06-21-2007, 04:42 PM #22
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?
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.
Originally Posted by blurred
-
06-21-2007, 06:45 PM #23
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.
-
06-21-2007, 06:52 PM #24
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.Originally Posted by blurred
-
06-21-2007, 06:54 PM #25Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 8,887
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
-
Canon 1D Mark III
By grapedrink in forum Tech TalkReplies: 27Last Post: 02-25-2007, 04:38 AM -
DSLR - Canon v. Nikon
By Brocktoon in forum Tech TalkReplies: 35Last Post: 04-10-2006, 05:58 PM -
Canon Point and shoots - which is durable?
By LeeLau in forum Tech TalkReplies: 50Last Post: 01-29-2006, 11:56 PM -
Canon SLR lenses
By backpack in forum Tech TalkReplies: 9Last Post: 11-23-2005, 08:12 AM -
35mm camera ?
By Big E in forum TGR Forum ArchivesReplies: 53Last Post: 12-10-2003, 03:07 PM
Bookmarks