This is a shot of me getting ready to make a run. I am stationary at this point. Notice that in this series the center focus point is manually selected. The focus point should have been squarely on the face. Instead, it is just behind me about 3-5 inches. Enough to cause a problem at such a shallow depth of field. But, not enough to be a real problem at a larger aperture such as f/5.6.
Now, go back and look at the running series from the two days before, paying special attention to the asphalt area that is in focus. You will often see that at f/2.8 on the MKIII the focus is clearly in back or in front of the subject. Whereas, the MKII only has 2 or 3 clear instances of this happening at f/2.8.
Stationary shots like this where the center point is selected just don't happen very often unless there is a lens/ body mismatch and it is consistently back-focusing or front focusing. But, as you can see in this sample series and the other ones, it is anything but consistent. The out of focus images are often backfocused, but they are also front-focused and focused correctly. Using the new microadjustment feature would not likely do much good here.
Going back to the Dogs:
To illustrate the point more clearly with stationary subjects let's go back to the dog photos from the full review. Below is a series of 4 frames from the high iso test for each camera.
Canon MKIII Stationary Subject:
Canon 85mm at f/1.8, ISO 6400, Shutter of 1/400
MKII Stationary Subject:
Canon 85mm at f/1.8, ISO 1600, Shutter of 1/125
It should be noted that a difference in contrasts at the chosen AF selection point, and other issues could be playing a factor here. But, while this is far from the ideal test for this sort of thing. It does allow you to see the inconsistency involved with the distance calculation. I guess someone should break out the rulers again.
To navigate this review use the arrows at the bottom of each page and/or the content box at the top right of this article.
So far so good. Reinforces my theory that a problem such as Rob saw must be a manufacturing defect. Let's be realistic: It would actually be difficult to design an AF system that would be negatively affected by temperature.
The fact that Rob tested two different bodies and found virtually the same defect in both may mean it's a component problem with a particular batch, which was a different batch than the one from which the camera you tested, Drew, was made.
It's a shame there had to be a controversy over this new camera, even to the point where folks canceled orders. Even the best home run hitters in baseball don't hit home runs every time at bat, and even a whole game devoid of homers doesn't mean their capacity to hit them is diminished.
-Noel
P.S., your review's second page is a bit wide as viewed in IE7.
Last edited by Noel_Carboni; 06-27-2007 at 10:28 AM..
Even the best home run hitters in baseball don't hit home runs every time at bat, and even a whole game devoid of homers doesn't mean their capacity to hit them is diminished.
You HAVE got to be kidding. The difference between us and the masses is that we ARE expected to come back with 'the' shot EVERY time. I can hear it now..... Lets just go into the church's basement for your portraits, it's too hot and bright out here. MY batting average HAS to be better than .500, it darn well be better than .750 or I can trade all my gear in for a mini van and start shuttling kids off to soccer practice.
Good thing the Super Bowl is held in February and in the evening.
Drew,
I appreciate your effort to evaluate the AF quality in the Canon 1D MkIII. As one who has taken delivery of an early model, I am most interested in how the AF is working. The football season is still a few months away, but concerns about the AF system's effectiveness are weighing on my mind right now.
I would have liked to see some comparisons of the "runner" standing still at a few distances from your camera to see how the AF works on a non-moving object. In addition, there seems to be some motion created blur which indicates that a faster shutter speed could have resulted in less overall blur.
Thanks for contributing to our understanding of the issue. My hope, of course, is that Canon is listening and will make appropriate adjustments to both currently manufactured and future Mk III bodies.
Nope. Perhaps you misunderstood me. I meant to imply that Canon has quite likely designed a great camera, and that several may have gone out the door with a particular problem that is not seen in every one. Drew keeps proving the camera he has his hands on does NOT exhibit the AF problem seen by Rob Galbraith.
The issue here is whether the Mark III has an overall DESIGN flaw or Rob's cameras have a common MANUFACTURING flaw. The sample size is WAY too small to prove it DOES have a design flaw, but just one camera shown to be working properly can go a long way toward proving it DOES NOT.
I got in late last night from testing the camera at a local Atlanta professional soccer club with Ron Holt. I just wanted to get something up.
I am planning on doing more running tests today with additional settings and a higher ISO to yield a faster shutter throughout the run. I spent at least two hours yesterday in the heat lining up and running at the camera. While I was generally satisfied that all was working well. There was too much motion blur due to the low shutter speeds to produce consistent and definitive positive results. This was especially true of the ones where I was wearing all black to try and more closely simulate the runner on Rob's site. I must say I am not really looking forward to running at a camera over and over again today. It is almost as hot as yesterday.
The difference between us and the masses is that we ARE expected to come back with 'the' shot EVERY time. I can hear it now..... Lets just go into the church's basement for your portraits, it's too hot and bright out here. MY batting average HAS to be better than .500, it darn well be better than .750 or I can trade all my gear in for a mini van and start shuttling kids off to soccer practice.
Linear Mode
