The latest report on 1D Mark III AF issues

kmb wrote in post #3441714
Hmm, I remember somebody writing very confidently that the f4 verison of the lens is the sharpest of the 70-200 family (of course that was read from the Internet, so it's probably untrue ), and that picture is very soft to properly focused picture taken with 70-200/2.8 IS wide open... But just one pic doesn't really tell us anything.

If the subject is not moving, and no camera shake (using tripod, mirror lockup, in a studio with studio strobe light), the f/4 version is sharper. But obviously, the f/2.8 is one stop faster, so if the subject is moving, it will move half as much under f/2.8, thus half the motion blur.

What focus problems? Check here for BIF pics w/mkIII+400 5.6, Cf settings included.

http://forums.dpreview​.com …orum=1032&threa​d=23770336

pieq314 wrote in post #3442000
This picture is sharp. I would not expect any modern camera (except 5D) to take a sharper picture than this.

Correct me if I am wrong (your gear sig), but I am getting slightly tired of reading comments from people who do not have first hand experiences with the cameras they are referring too. I do personally own both 5D & Mark III and the Mark III images are _sharper_ than the 5D images "out of the box".

Both cameras produce just about the sharpest images of the Canon DSLR line-up.

I urge POTN'ers without first hand experience of the Mark III not to indulge in speculations of whether the AF system is bugged or not.

PetKal wrote in post #3441875
Yo Jaker, do I press the "order now" button or not ?
Lottsa post here, not much Servo AF meat.
LesZ makes a nice and lengthy case on Naturescapes Net, but I just don't seem to be able to extract a firm bottom line out of it.
So I am waiting for your progress report. Keenly.

I don't have anything that I would consider a convincing argument either way.

I did some more shooting with it on Sunday, and got better esults, much better. The bigest switch was to set CFIII-4 to Active focus point priority (as opposed to rtracking priority)
Interestingly this helped with both static objects (as expected) and moving targets. Thsi si also how I had it set when I got the dragonflys.
ie: I think this CF setting is pretty much useless for birders and other smaller object tracking and should not be changed from factory default. It might "work" for larger objects, track and field size, sports size.. but it certainly does not work the way it is intended for small birds.

I also bumped AI servo speed back up to default from the "slow" setting I have come to prefer on the MkII. Doesn't make much sense that this should be an advantage, but so far results are better.

I have not tried what Naturescapes is recommending yet (at least not to my knowledge, but given all the options I've tried, I may very well have stumbled upon there settings through trial and error or through using someones else's recommendations repeated here.)

The way I look at it Peter, is that over the years I have been happy to be, and continue to be happy to be one of Canon's Beta testers
If you are ready to take on that roll, then grab one.
If you can't wait, then grab one..
But if you want to play it safe, wait until one of the people with "trouble" you trust has "solved" the problem.
I have not yet..

Again, I'll re-iterate what is being said by both the people that are trying to solve the AF mystery, and in fact those that seem to want to lambaste us as we work through this,.
Other than this one questionable issue, the camera is nothing short of amazing!
I shot some purdy flowers with it set to "standard jpeg" with the 135mm f/2 mounted and never have I had jpegs straight out of a DSL look so damn good!

I hope to get it up and running with the 500mm this weekend.. might find a bird or two but will be getting some sailing pics for sure. More to follow.

Phonetic wrote in post #3442216
Correct me if I am wrong (your gear sig), but I am getting slightly tired of reading comments from people who do not have first hand experiences with the cameras they are referring too. I do personally own both 5D & Mark III and the Mark III images are _sharper_ than the 5D images "out of the box".

Both cameras produce just about the sharpest images of the Canon DSLR line-up.

I urge POTN'ers without first hand experience of the Mark III not to indulge in speculations of whether the AF system is bugged or not.

5D has lower pixel density than 1D Mk III. So with imperfect lens, and subject motion and camera shaking, each pixel from the 5D will be sharper. Plus the extra pixels, the printed 5D photos (on large enough size) should be sharper (I am not saying that every phohto from 5D will be sharper than that from 1D Mk III because there are other variations).

As far as getting tired, I would suggest that you just skip those posts that you do not want to read. And as far as my previous post is concerned, I do not need to own a 5D or 1D Mk III to see photos coming from these cameras, so your comment is not applicable anyway.

yonni wrote in post #3442193
What focus problems? Check here for BIF pics w/mkIII+400 5.6, Cf settings included.

http://forums.dpreview​.com …orum=1032&threa​d=23770336

Those pics are fabulous!
He's got the skills for sure!
I do have to note that none of the flight pics have what we would call "cluttered" back grounds, he's got pure black and water for the most part.
308shtr's CF settings

CFn # CF My Setting
1 1 0
1 2 1
1 3 Set As Needed
1 4 On
1 5 0
1 6 0
1 7 1
1 8 2
1 9 Disable
1 10 Ev-Spot
1 11 1
1 12 Disable
1 13 Disable
1 14 Disable
1 15 1
CFn
2 1 2 on
2 2 1 on
2 3 Disable
2 4 0
2 5 2
2 6 0
2 7 0
2 8 1
2 9 1
CFn
3 1 0
3 2 Fast
3 3 0
3 4 0
3 5 0
3 6 4
3 7 Set As Needed
3 8 2
3 9 0
3 10 1
3 11 0
3 12 2
3 13 1
3 14 0
3 15 As Needed
3 16 Disable
3 17 Disable

pieq314 wrote in post #3442245
5D has lower pixel density than 1D Mk III. So with imperfect lens, and subject motion and camera shaking, each pixel from the 5D will be sharper. ...

This is true only in theory, or in other words, if "all else is equal"

However pixel density is not the only variable, if it were the D30 and 1D would outshine all others with there colossal pixels and low density.

As Canon introduces new models with higher densities, they also make other improvements,. compare 5D to the 11MP 1Ds,. and the 5D wins. This is a nearly direct comparison of how the technology improvements outweigh the pixel density advantage.

With the Mk3's improved microlenses and 14 bit color, among other advances, it could very well outshine the 5D despite it's on paper disadvantage re; pixel density.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #3442287
This is true only in theory, or in other words, if "all else is equal"

However pixel density is not the only variable, if it were the D30 and 1D would outshine all others with there colossal pixels and low density.

As Canon introduces new models with higher densities, they also make other improvements,. compare 5D to the 11MP 1Ds,. and the 5D wins. This is a nearly direct comparison of how the technology improvements outweigh the pixel density advantage.

With the Mk3's improved microlenses and 14 bit color, among other advances, it could very well outshine the 5D despite it's on paper disadvantage re; pixel density.

I agree with your arguement (I would make similar arguement myself). But my post was only concerned with sharpness, and unconcerned with color, noise, and other quality factors. So pixel density would be the only factor that would affect sharpness per pixel. (If printing out, then, total pixel will also count).

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #3442242
I did some more shooting with it on Sunday, and got better esults, much better. The bigest switch was to set CFIII-4 to Active focus point priority (as opposed to rtracking priority)
Interestingly this helped with both static objects (as expected) and moving targets. Thsi si also how I had it set when I got the dragonflys.

Interesting. I had the opposite result. I set CF3-4 to Tracking priority(1). I'm NOT a good bird tracker, so this setting has kept birds in focus, even when I fall off target. At least thats what I think its doing, and what I understood as its purpose. I still have to keep the bird within the focus ring, otherwise the AF will latch on to something else, also as I'd expect.

How was Tracking Priority impacting your shots?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #3442242
I don't have anything that I would consider a convincing argument either way.
But if you want to play it safe, wait until one of the people with "trouble" you trust has "solved" the problem.
I have not yet..

Thank you for that, Jaker.
I don't think I'd be able to "solve the problem" myself, if you have not been able to do it yet, assuming my camera would be equal to yours.

JC4 wrote in post #3442322
Interesting. I had the opposite result. I set CF3-4 to Tracking priority(1). I'm NOT a good bird tracker, so this setting has kept birds in focus, even when I fall off target. At least thats what I think its doing, and what I understood as its purpose. I still have to keep the bird within the focus ring, otherwise the AF will latch on to something else, also as I'd expect.

How was Tracking Priority impacting your shots?

You'd want to go back several pages to see the examples I posted.. really bad AF problems.

yonni wrote in post #3442193
What focus problems? Check here for BIF pics w/mkIII+400 5.6, Cf settings included.

http://forums.dpreview​.com …orum=1032&threa​d=23770336

Wow, now those are results! I agree that the backgrounds aren't super busy but they are busier than a lot that I've seen, including my own so it gives me hope.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #3442242
I did some more shooting with it on Sunday, and got better esults, much better. The bigest switch was to set CFIII-4 to Active focus point priority (as opposed to rtracking priority)
Interestingly this helped with both static objects (as expected) and moving targets. Thsi si also how I had it set when I got the dragonflys.
ie: I think this CF setting is pretty much useless for birders and other smaller object tracking and should not be changed from factory default. It might "work" for larger objects, track and field size, sports size.. but it certainly does not work the way it is intended for small birds.

I also bumped AI servo speed back up to default from the "slow" setting I have come to prefer on the MkII. Doesn't make much sense that this should be an advantage, but so far results are better.

Again, I'll re-iterate what is being said by both the people that are trying to solve the AF mystery, and in fact those that seem to want to lambaste us as we work through this,.
Other than this one questionable issue, the camera is nothing short of amazing!
I shot some purdy flowers with it set to "standard jpeg" with the 135mm f/2 mounted and never have I had jpegs straight out of a DSL look so damn good!

I hope to get it up and running with the 500mm this weekend.. might find a bird or two but will be getting some sailing pics for sure. More to follow.

Interesting Jake that you switch CF III4 to 0 and the dpreview shooter also had it on that. I've been using III4:1 but I just switched it and hope to get out in the next couple of days to test the difference (with out the 2x tc ). I also noted that 308shtr had his aiservo tracking sensitivity to fast...I've never even considered that...did you bump yours up to fast as well or to medium (I don't remember which was the default)?

Thanks for posting the 308shtr's settings here so we wouldn't have to dig for them. I am really hoping any issues can just be solved by figuring out the intricacies of the AF cf.

Permagrin wrote in post #3442642
also noted that 308shtr had his aiservo tracking sensitivity to fast...I've never even considered that...did you bump yours up to fast as well or to medium (I don't remember which was the default)?

Medium is default.

one other question....in looking at 308shtr's settings, what would be the benefit of having CF III6 set to 4 instead of 0?

Permagrin wrote in post #3442660
one other question....in looking at 308shtr's settings, what would be the benefit of having CF III6 set to 4 instead of 0?

For some of us that is irrelevant Its for IS super teles (according to the manual).