1Ds Mark III - Summary Of Experiences And Conclusions

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by tarn_tantikij, May 27, 2008.

  1. I've written a summary of pertinent experiences and conclusions on the 1Ds3.

    This is not meant to be a complete review and addresses only certain aspects not
    widely known.

    http://www.vaja.com/tarn/1ds3



    tarn
     
  2. Hi there,

    The link seems to be going nowhere on my machine...
     
  3. There is a ".htm" missing at the end of the link

    Jakob
     
  4. Hi Ed,

    See if adding the .htm at the end might help:


    http://vaja.com/tarn/1ds3.htm


    tarn
     
  5. Yep - that works. Thanks Tarn...
     
  6. You've gotta be kidding. I smell an idiot. I dont think this guy has ever been pleased by any product he purchased. Why is it if I can get sharp sequences and he cant, then its the cameras fault. Even the unlevel shots of BIF were because of a missaligned VF. Not because he may have dropped an injured elbow during his pan of a BIF with a long lens. Nope..the VF. OH MY GOD! By the way, the 1DsIII is not an action camera so dont expect it to be real fast. Get a 1DIII for that. I got one and it rocks. BIF is not an easy shot and takes alot of technique and knowing your camera and to expect to take a new camera and a slow lens and go right out and achieve perfection is...well I smelled it before.

    Dude, go by a Nikon D3. Sell all of your Canon gear...right now and do it. You will never be happy unless you do so. On the other hand, I dont think anything can make you happy. Jeez.
     
  7. zml

    zml

    Tarn: This is one of this, "oh Dear Lord, not THIS again" things: You've been plastering the web with your posts, I wonder why..? If the camera is defective, talk to Canon (trust me, I have done it many times, and they fixed whatever was wrong with my equipment...) but IMO you are simply suffering "buyer's remorse" and want to return the camera but, as you state elsewhere on the 'net, the dealer wanted restocking fee (so you'd lose a few bucks...) Looks like you have a beef with Canon (and with a Canon dealer), so take it up with them...
     
  8. zml

    zml

    the 1DsIII is not an action camera so dont expect it to be real fast.
    The AF speed on 1Ds3 is nothing to snicker at. At normal shooting speeds it easily equals that of the 1D3 and it is faster and much more accurate than the 40D. Given proper technique, you can easliy track a Formula 1 car coming at ya at 200 mph at 5 fps.
     
  9. David Amerson wrote:
    >Why is it if I can get sharp sequences and he cant, then its the cameras fault.
    > BIF is not an easy shot and takes alot of technique and knowing your camera and to expect to take a new camera and a slow lens and go right out and achieve perfection is...well I smelled it before.


    I don't see any evidence of your expertise in bif photography:

    http://www.amberbrookephotography.com/All%20Birds/

    Separately, please try to keep exchanges civil.

    Be specific and post the sequences on your web page you would like to submit as counterevidence.

    Screen capture of DPP RAW shooting information such as I provided in my write up would be greatly appreciated.

    tarn
     
  10. Michael Liczbanski wrote:
    >the 1DsIII is not an action camera so dont expect it to be real fast.
    >The AF speed on 1Ds3 is nothing to snicker at. >At normal shooting speeds it easily equals that of the 1D3 and it is faster and much more accurate than the 40D. >Given proper technique, you can easliy track a Formula 1 car coming at ya at 200 mph at 5 fps.


    The 1Ds3 shares the same AF subsystem as the 1D3 (Canon 1Ds3 White Paper).

    If it has great difficulty going into and holding focus with 5FPS as I demonstrated you can perhaps start to understand why there are a lot of complaints among 1D3 owners who bought their cameras to do 10FPS.

    I don't see any sequence of Formula 1 car coming at 200MPH captured by your 1Ds3 at 5FPS in the link on your id page.

    http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=194894

    Please put it up along with screen capture of DPP showing RAW shooting datal.


    tarn
     
  11. For sure Michael its faster than the 40D. I didnt say anything about that. And I know the 1DsMarkIII isn't "Slow", but its not the speed machine the 1D III is. And yes, I would hope that the 1Ds is much more accurate than a 40D. I'd be pissed if it was the same. I was just making a point that the 1Ds is not a football camera per say, its mostly for large Portrait/Landscapes/Models and such. You are right though, "Not this again"

    To Tarn: I never said I was an expert in BIF. I never said I posted any at all. I do know how tough it can be because I have done it. Its not my cup of tea though. I enjoy birds just like the next guy, but I dont do BIF as a main style. If I'm out with family and see one, then yes. And, I'm being as civil as I can. You splattered all this on the internet when its easy to see how it could be user error. As many others here like myself own either 1DIII or 1DsIII some with both dont have these issues. The only ones who report them are ones that dont own the camera. Then you post this mess and never admit once that any of this could be your fault. I mean, An unlevel shot and its the VF's fault. Do you know how many times I've shot with a heavy Camera/Lens combo and cause my right arm to get tired and drop a little. But I dont say its the VF missaligned. Look at your AF point selection in the first shots. The outer points selected and they hit sand and focus sand and you get upset. What do you expect it to do. I use my 1D correctly and it performs correctly when I do so. When I miss, 99% of the time, its my fault. Maybe I wasnt consitent in my Tech. and it started focusing on something else. Despite your claims, my camera is lightning fast.

    In fact, I wasnt gonna do this, but why not. I went to my dealer this weekend to pick up some prints and I saw a D3 sitting in the case. I asked and he allowed me to install my card and one of their fast Nikkor lenses. I'd swear just as I'm standing here on anything, that POS was so slow at focusing on anything in the store, me and the salesman was laughing. It couldnt touch the 1D3. I'm dead serious. Not even close. It reminded me of a Rebel and kit lens. So then, I jacked up the ISO to do a little noise comparison. When I got home, I was surprised at how close the 2 cameras performed. The D3 wasnt near as sharp as some people post. The 1D3 had just a tad more chromiance noise at 6400, but not enough to matter. They both retain same detail. And after both files were processed in LR, they looked the same. Not impressed. So if you have Nikon stuff, go for the D3, but dont switch and vise versa. If you have Canon and switch to the D3 you will be dissappointed in AF speed. I'd bet money on that.
     
  12. Tarn: Michael didnt say he did track a Formula 1 car at 200mph. He said it could be done with proper technique. Jeez. Can you post any sequences of any BIF where you were happy at all. With any Camera. I bet you have never been happy.

    Here is a link to some high speed sequences that I do have.

    http://www.amberbrookephotography.com/The%20Ridge%20Hare%20Scramble/

    All 705 of them. The only deletes are the ones that are so close the prior shot it pointless to post all of them. There was already 705. Every one of these are spot on. There are some that look soft due to alot of dust, but even through this, it tracked flawlessly.
     
  13. You should probably switch to Nikon. Then all your problems would be solved...
     
  14. >>he first thing I did with it was to use it to test a copy of the Tamron 28-75/2.8 I had received from Tamron Repair Service some months back as a replacement for a copy that could not be adjusted after several attempts then was damaged in the process. It was said to have been ascertained on an optical bench to perform according to spec.i>
    According to TAMRON's spec. Where does CANON say that its AF figures and shoot rates are guaranteed to work with ANY 3rp party lens?
    How can you write "This was the first inkling of the AF difficulty to come!" when you are using a TAMRON lens? Makes no sense to fault ANY camera for that. Especially since you didn't have any issue with the 24-70L.
    There is no guarantee, implied or even reasonably expected that ANY 3rd party lens or accessory will work with ANY camera. It's always a gamble of sort.
    But, as far as the AF I am not sure you have proven anything...except that your shots were OOF.
    IF you say "The focus simply went crazy with the pelicans in the waves and reacted to every movement of water in the periphery as apposed to the bird in the middle of the frame." it only means you picked the wrong group of AF points for your target. Auto AF selection is not a mind reading process. It works for some work, not for every situation. You should either limit to the center group or use one AF point when tracking.
    Give time to learn your camera's features and it will work as you want it to work. AUTO settings are a general compromise but, the fact that the factory setting didn't work for you in that instance doesn't mean the camera's AF is faulty.
    Look, I am not bird photographer whatsoever but, with my lowly 10D and an EF 200 f/2.8L (shot wide open) I was able to track birds all day long in Venice Beach, CA. I am sure, in Florida you should have ZERO problems tracking any of the many thousands of birds on and around the beach, once you get the know the AF system of your camera.
     
  15. If you wonder whether it is or is not worthwhile to encourage this OP, do a bit of
    searching and you'll find some other, uh, threads on this topic. Not just at photo.net.
    Really, really long threads. On the same thing. Over and over.

    I recommend just letting this thread die a natural death. YMMV.

    Dan
     
  16. David Amberson wrote: >As many others here like myself own either 1DIII or 1DsIII some with both dont have these issues. >The only ones who report them are ones that dont own the camera. >Then you post this mess and never admit once that any of this could be your fault.

    Well, the write up is there for you to refute pointedly.

    So far you haven't shown where the supposed "fault" is but repeating the same mantra of how uber super these cameras are supposed to be, that it's the users error, etc. Those are the real same old we've heard before.

    Even if other professional sport shooters and what not have not reported any AF issues, and they have, quite contrary to your remark, we're quite beyond the brow beating.

    I have put up some results. Feel free to put together a coherent refutation or better yet counterevidence.

    Which camera do you own? If it's a 1Ds3 you have what I used. If it's a 1D3 according to you it's even faster. Go achieve superior results and show me that I didn't know how to use the camera. Put up some sequences replete with DPP RAW file and shooting info screen shots like I have done.

    Show where my test of the view finder not matching the file with simple line test doesn't indicate that the VF is misaligned, for instance.

    Be logical and rigorous with your argument. Be strong with your evidence.

    Other lines like the laughing with the salesman at the D3 are completely superfluous.


    tarn
     
  17. David Amberson wrote:>Here is a link to some high speed sequences that I do have.

    I don't think you understand what's being presented in the report.

    There is enough DOF in your shot to cover the entire motorcycle from head to tail.

    I can prefocus a manual camera and stay in the same spot and snap each bike as it comes by and the result will be the same.

    Reread the presentation again and see how limited DOF and size of subject and distance are central to the AF test.


    tarn
     
  18. Bob Atkins wrote:>You should probably switch to Nikon. Then all your problems would be solved...


    Are you suggesting that Nikon is superior?

    Are you telling people who need accurate high speed AF to all switch to Nikon to solve their problems?


    tarn
     
  19. Giampi wrote: >Look, I am not bird photographer whatsoever but, with my lowly 10D and an EF 200 f/2.8L (shot wide open) I was able to track birds all day long in Venice Beach, CA. >I am sure, in Florida you should have ZERO problems tracking any of the many thousands of birds on and around the beach, once you get the know the AF system of your camera.


    These were done with dog slow AF Fuji S2 and screw focus Nikkor 80-200/2.8D Push/Pull.

    http://vaja.com/tarn/1041.htm

    http://vaja.com/tarn/1033.htm

    http://vaja.com/tarn/1025.htm

    They don't have anything to do with the points presented in the summary.

    I do all kinds of photography and it is my evaluation that there are serious issues with the 1Ds3/1D3 AF. The illustrations for those are in the summary and relavant to the points presented.

    If anybody has any convincing sequences, atleast 800x533 pixel size, replete with the DPP RAW shooting info screen shots, I'd like to study them.

    Anybody?


    tarn
     
  20. gdanmitchell wrote:

    > I'm not playing moderator, but I do have an opinion on this thread
    > and its value. And expressing said opinion is what such threads are
    > for, even if the opinion is that that obsessively posting gigantic
    > posts on such topics is, well, odd.


    As I have responded to you before in a thread that got deleted:

    People may find their own utility in each thread.

    One musn't feel compelled to read every thread and respond to every post, replete with their own rating of the utility.

    That would be truly obsessive and megalomaniac.

    I, for instance, only read a few and respond to a few when I feel like I have something meaningful to share.

    An empty negative one liner opinion only disrupts others' discussion with no added value.

    That can not be difficult to understand.

    When you want to say something negative, be prepared for a good argument, what you call "gigantic."

    You apparently have it backward.

    A good opinion is considered a compliment and may be brief.

    A negative opinion usually calls for development and support for such.

    Or one would be thought of as a jerk.


    > If I were playing moderator I might ask you to go ahead and post your
    > extraordinarily long missives on your own web site - as you did in
    > one other case - and simply point a link there. Take comments on your
    > site if you want.


    You already did in a thread that got deleted.

    And posting the summary with illustrations and pointing to the link is what I did here on this very thread.

    I don't have time to run a web board on my site.

    On your own site I note that you have a web board with no participation or you wouldn't have time to be here making spurious comments.


    > And...
    >
    > I'll "stand behind what have to say."
    >
    > And...
    >
    > I'm not going "try... to get this and that thread deleted" though it
    > would be no great loss to the photographic community.


    That would be a start.

    You tried to kill one of the two threads that got deleted posting that people should not respond to my thread. Remember?

    As to the value of this thread, do you particularly post on threads you deem of no value?

    That is the opposite of what mot normal people who value their time do.


    > Have a happy day.
    >
    > Dan
    >
    >
    > --
    > ---
    > G Dan Mitchell
    > SF Bay Area
    > Blog: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
    > Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/wpg2-3/


    Thank you.

    Have a good evening yourself.



    tarn
     
  21. The response that the above post deserves follows:
     
  22. Tarn

    Because I'm such a magnanimous guy, I'll take the 1dsMkIII off your hands.

    Just to make it all work out I'll even send you my Canon PowerShot, which to the best of my knowledge doesn't have any focusing problems at all.

    It would take nice pictures of birds all day.

    Let your problem now be my problems.
     
  23. G Dan Mitchell wrote:<The response that the bove post deserves follows:

    Thank you. As I requested before. That would be a start.

    When you have anybody on your own web board you can rate everyone and every post if you like.

    Elsewhere please refrain and let other people form their own judgement based on evidence and presentation.


    tarn
     
  24. BTW, despite including a huge and out of context quote from a discussion at another web site in
    his "reply" to my message, our Dear OP "forgot" to include the part of his post from said other web
    site in which he invented a story that I had deleted one of his threads.

    I'm not going to reply to his strange post, but I thought that others here might wonder what the
    heck is going on.

    BTW: It looks like the post from which he extracted this mangled quote has been deleted by the
    other web site. And, no, I had nothing to do with it. The further this thread goes the more likely
    others will understand how this typically evolves...
     
  25. Richard Wang wrote:<I'll take the 1dsMkIII off your hands.

    As stated in the write up, the second copy of the 1Ds3 was returned due to the view finder misalignment.

    Don't get me wrong, if it's free like what you're asking, I would keep it and use live view everytime if I have to.

    The problem is it's $8K +/- and will likely be replaced in a hurry due to the hobbled AI Servo AF (limited to center focus point only) in my estimation.


    tarn
     
  26. >>hese were done with dog slow AF Fuji S2 and screw focus Nikkor 80-200/2.8D Push/Pull.<<

    You missed MY point ENTIRELY. You may well be capable of using manual focus lenses but, what does that have to do with what I said?

    To put is simply: do you actually believe that the AF system on my 10D is BETTER than the one the 1Ds MKIII. If you do...then, the conversation will take another turn. If you don't, then...something is going wrong on your end.

    To me, it seems you may not be using it properly and it's locking on the surrounding areas as opposed to where you want it to lock.

    Have you tried using ONE AF point? How did that work?
     
  27. Giampi wrote:<To me, it seems you may not be using it properly and it's locking on the surrounding areas as opposed to where you want it to lock. <Have you tried using ONE AF point? How did that work?

    Did you read the summary?

    Most of the write up dealt with the ONE AF point as you put it.

    The test scenario had no surrounding areas, so to speak.

    Others report of the AF being easily confused by small and seemingly insignificant items in the periphery, like a wire that is barely visible to the photographer.

    My report concentrated on the slow reaction of the AF made worse possibly by the latest firmware, and the gross limitation of the singular central AF point in term of framing and possibly where it falls, eg, the flat of an athlete's uniform or the brown of a pelican's coat.


    tarn
     
  28. Let me see if I understand.....

    1) You purchase an $8K item from E-bay...
    2) You purchase an $8K item that you did not research thoroughly before hand...
    3) You perform self-designed tests with a 3rd party lens...
    4) You are not happy with the results....
    5) You won't return the item because there's a small charge to do so....

    What am I missing here?
    You seem to insinuate you have been mislead by Canon because their product won't do what you want it to do. Show me one product of any type in any market that can satisfy everyone. This isn't about your vision of Canon being less than you thought it should be...this is about you not doing your homework first and now complaining that you can't get your money back. Return the camera, pay the small fee to do so, and take the experience and learn from it.
     
  29. with all respect, if you are not happy with one brand, try other brands and see if you getting better results. or build your own gears.
     
  30. Dale Yarbrough wrote:<Let me see if I understand...

    1) The seller was an authorized Canon dealer

    2) I was the one who posted about the 1Ds3 AF issues subsequently confirmed by Rob Galbraith in a statement.

    3) Incorrect. The tests were done with the standard bif lens, the 400/5.6L.

    4) Correct. But the camera was in fact returned due to the gross VF misalignment - the dealer wanted me to send it in to Canon and get it fixed myself.

    5) Incorrect. The camera has been returned. The dealer wants a 2% charge for return. But the sale contract stipulates a merchandise free from defect so the matter is being referred to the credit card company for non fulfillment of contract and therefore complete refund of payment.

    The first copy upon examination of the files exhibited diagonal striation noise and general added graininess. First I thought it was the high ISO but upon receipt of the second copy and re-examining the files of the first it was discovered that the noise occurred at only ISO200. Read the report.

    Secondly, it was not know at the time that the 1Ds3 had any AF issues. As it is, the multi point AI Servo AF is virtually useless in its instability. This was subsequently revealed through discussions with 1D3's owners that they can only use the single central AF point in AI Servo. It would appear that most other 1Ds3 owners manually focus the camera or some such.

    Thirdly, what I would like to discuss here on this thread are the findings I have presented.

    For some reasons people such as yourself are avoiding the central discovery and focusing on the peripheral. Pretty ironic considering the parallel in the camera's AF.

    tarn
     
  31. Anson Ko: <with all respect, if you are not happy with one brand, try other brands and see if you getting better results. or build your own gears.

    Aren't you intellectually curious about the findings?


    tarn
     
  32. All products have flaws, all software have bugs.......there is no one product that satisfy everyone :)
     
  33. This didn't refer to the center AF point, did it?
    >>"The focus simply went crazy with the pelicans in the waves and reacted to every movement of water in the periphery as apposed to the bird in the middle of the frame."i>
    The summary is only as meaningful as the data preceding it.
    But, again: do you actually believe that the AF on my 10D is SUPERIOR, BETTER, FASTER, MORE PRECISE than the on the 1Ds MKIII?
     
  34. :)

    Hey, everyone, the only acceptable response is, "Yes, Tarn. You are right. In
    everything you say."

    :)

    Dan
     
  35. Giampi wrote:<This didn't refer to the center AF point, did it? <The summary is only as meaningful as the data preceding it. <But, again: do you actually believe that the AF on my 10D is SUPERIOR, BETTER, FASTER, MORE PRECISE than the on the 1Ds MKIII?


    Giampi, now you're not being intellectually honest.

    That's at the top of the report, an example of how the multi point AF reacted to the periphery rather than focusing on the central subject much like the behavior of this board so far.

    The rest of the report then proceeded on center AF only, under very clear heading announcing so.

    The conclusions came at the end of the report.

    In the middle would be the supporting evidence.

    Look, I can not read the report for you.

    And as much as you'd like to and keep asking, I can not comment on your 10D as I have not used it. Although it doesn't seem to stop you from making conclusions about the 1Ds3 and telling me about it. You'll have to find out for yourself how it compares to the 1Ds3's AF.


    tarn
     
  36. Anson Ko wrote: <All products have flaws, all software have bugs.......there is no one product that satisfy everyone :)

    Agreed. And all I am doing here is reporting the flaws.

    But it would seem beyond the belief of the participants of this discussion so far that it could be true with the 1Ds3.


    tarn
     
  37. >>Giampi, now you're not being intellectually honest.<<

    How so. I simply stated that a conclusion is only as valid are the data used for the analysis. I have read your 'report' and I find it statistically inconclusive. Except to maybe illustrate a possible issue between your camera body and lens.

    Why did I compare the 10D? Because as a totally inexperienced photographer in BIF shooting I was able to lock AF without problemsm using the center AF point of my 10D. Thus, in my mind, the only possible conclusions could be::

    1) the 10D AF is superior to the 1Ds MKIII

    2) some possible issue between the lenses your used and your 1Ds body.

    3) User error

    But, IMO it's your mindset that is biased: you state that using ONE, center AF point would prevent "the tracking of a group of subjects spread out in the frame" - but, that is an impossibility! You cannot track, with ANY system on earth a GROUP of moving objects. You can only track ONE object among a group.

    The lens has to be in focus somewhere, on ONE point -

    If you have a group of football players for example, you the photographer, have to decide on WHICH player to lock when following the action. You can NOT lock on ALL of them! They move independently, as a flock of bird does, and therefore it is NOT possible, with any lens, from any camera, from any manufacturer to lock on all of them and have everyone of them being in focus. I know you know that...but, as I have said it seems that your mindset is being affected by your assumption (apparently skewed by your previous reading of complaints on the web) that the camera's AF is faulty. It may be but, your report does not prove it.

    You should really let Canon take a look at your camera and lens to determine what may be causing the 'problem'. and see what comes of that.

    Whatever it is, I hope you can solve and get back to shooting... :)

    Peace,

    G
     
  38. Giampi wrote:<...Because as a totally inexperienced photographer...

    You need to get a hold of a 1Ds3 to better understand the report.

    I can not recreate the experience for you through words alone.

    Perhaps you should read what people complain about specifically.

    Then get hold of a copy to maybe know what to look for.

    Don't be enthralled by the 5FPS shutter going off and other irrelavancies.

    It means nothing when the camera can't focus.

    I can however offer you something to picture in your mind as to the limitation of the one single central AF point, aside from the illustrations and comments in the write up you obviously missed.

    I was trying to capture a pair of pelicans diving for fish at the same time. Naturally I wanted to frame the birds one on each side to efficiently use the frame. Then the center AF would point on nothing. See what I mean?

    Look at the sequence of the pelican diving for fish in the report. Now imagine one on each side of the frame.

    But alas, the AF took forever to just lock on one, only the fourth and the fifth frames were in focus. Even as the pelican was tracked well before any shot was fired.

    As I said before, I can not read the report for people.

    You really read with your mind, the eyes are mere conveyance.

    One really can't be told anything revolutionary. It only makes sense with the stepping stone of prior experiences.


    tarn
     
  39. Ah, poetic:

    You really read
    with your mind,

    the eyes
    are mere
    conveyance.

    One really can't be told
    anything revolutionary. It
    only makes
    sense with
    the stepping stone of prior
    experiences.
     
  40. <p>You really read
    <br>with your mind,

    <p>the eyes
    <br>are mere
    <br>conveyance.

    <br>One really can't be told
    <br>anything revolutionary.

    <p>It only makes sense
    <br>with the stepping stone
    <br>of prior experiences.
     
  41. I suggest you get an EOS 3...

    It has the same 45-point AF system, but with ECF, which is the closest to a telepathic point-selection you'll get till Canon introduces MCF (mind-controlled focussing) in the EOS 5D mkII

    It's also a film body, which means you can correct any slight tilt of the picture (caused by you OR VF misalignment) during printing...

    Using film also means there's no histograms and suchlike to make you think the picture isn't good. You can just look at the picture itself, and be satisfied. (or not, in which case, take another one). Cause quite frankly, my eyes don't see much amiss with either sequence of BIF shots in the middle of the article. Sure not everything on the bird is in focus. But maybe that's because the bird is bigger than the DOF?

    And you get them for about $150 on Ebay nowadays!
     
  42. >>Now imagine one on each side of the frame.<<

    I did, which is why I said there is no AF system (or lens) in the world that can focus on two objects concurrently.

    You missed my point...and you also missed YOUR own quote about the AF system no allowing "the tracking of a group of subjects spread out in the frame"

    Again, no AF system in the world can track a group of moving objects. It can only lock and track ONE object within a group.

    If you have two objects spread in the frame how's the AF system (any system) to know which of the two objects is important to you?

    The ONLY system I know that can do that was the one on my old EOS3 which had a sorely missed feature: ECF - other than that,: if there's a group in any action shots, being sports, birds, etc... you, the photographer, will have to decide on which object within the frame to lock on and follow action in AI SERVO mode.

    In the one shot mode again, with two objects spread in the frame, as in your example, the AF has no way of knowing which of the two object should be in focus, which is important to you. You'd have to use manual focus point selection. If you limit the AF points you can do that quickly with the wheel.

    But, that is not a problem with the AF system. I did a lot of wind surfing shoots in Malibu, just for fun, using a 5D and my 70-200 f/2.8 IS. To successfully lock on one surfer within a group I'd have to manually select the focus point. There would be no other possible solution: With three or more surfers within the frame, how would the AF system know which of the surfer is important to me?

    For example: many times, they would cross paths, 2 surfers coming from left to right, 3 coming from right to left. The AF would have no way to know which to follow, it would lock on one of othem, but, I may want to lock on a totally different surfer. So, the ONLY way was to manually select the active focus point (either center or off-side).

    I don't think that is a sign of defective AF, it's just a limitation dictated by physics: there can only be ONE focus point for the lens to focus on and the camera doesn't know which it's important to the photographer.

    THat is precisely why I wish Canon would bring back ECF - it' s the ONLY way I know that allows instant, manual focus point selection.
     
  43. If your Fuji was so good, why the switch. I cant help but wonder why you need different equipment if one setup is giving you everything you asked for. The Fuji shots are beautifull Tarn I have to ask the uncomfortable question now. Everyone seated, deep breath.

    Tarn...Are you an equipment measurebater? There it is I said it.

    This thread is insanley long now and for the love of God and everyhting in photography...please switch back to Fuji. Its the only way you can ever be at piece with yourself again. Complete Mind, Body, and Spirit.

    Now the thread may RIP
     
  44. Giampi wrote:<I did, which is why I said there is no AF system (or lens) in the world that can focus on two objects concurrently.

    What if the two objects are traveling in the same DOF zone at the same rate? Two pelicans are coming at you head on side by side. A group of pelicans diving for fish at the same time, etc. Remember, if the frame can cover the group, they are further away and in the same DOF zone. Read further discussions in the report with John W. Peterson in this regard. In this particular case I would not want to use a lens longer than 400mm and notice that I should at f/8.

    Imagine you and your girlfriend walking towards me hand in hand. I want to spread the two of you across the frame, to use the language of the write up, the center only AF point would be pointing at nothing, the small space between you two. See what I mean?

    Re-examine the illustration of the pelican taking off used to make the point about the utter silliness of needing to keep everything center of frame to focus.

    By the way, that would be the third frame. The two previous frames that would have made the three frames take off sequence were completely out of focus, the camera focusing on the water beyond. Perhaps I should bother to include them as well.

    I never used an EOS 3 but I do own a 1v.

    tarn
    tarn
     
  45. B.J. Scharp wrote:<Cause quite frankly, my eyes don't see much amiss with either sequence of BIF shots in the middle of the article. Sure not everything on the bird is in focus. But maybe that's because the bird is bigger than the DOF?

    Well, I can not help you there.

    If your eyes can't see when the focus is off here then I would have to prepare a separate report for you using grossly oof examples.

    The artist in me wants to put together a nice looking presentation with nothing stabbing the eyes.

    Perhaps try one more time and look carefully as instructed.

    In the illustrations provided, when the bird was not in focus, nothing on the bird was in focus.


    tarn
     
  46. David Amberson wrote:<If your Fuji was so good, why the switch. <The Fuji shots are beautifull...

    The examples with the Fuji S2 were used as comparables to Giampi's link to illustrate the point that individual shots do not tell the tale in this case. Read the epilogue of the report.

    That is why in my report sequences are used.

    As for the rest of your remark, do you still drive your first car?

    Please take a moment to reflect on what you write. We are not having a private conversation. We are in the most public of public places, on the Internet. David, ask yourself, do you really want the whole world to judge you by what you have to say on this thread?

    tarn
     
  47. In the last reply to Giampi, Tarn Tantikij wrote:<...notice that I should at f/8.

    It's just a typo, but for the sake of clarification, the 'should' was supposed to be 'shoot.'

    tarn
     
  48. >Re-examine the illustration of the pelican taking off used to make the point about the utter silliness of needing to keep everything center of frame to focus.

    That's why the 1D comes with 45 AF points, not one. One flick of your thumb and you have the AF point you want. Granted, it's not as great as ECF, but it's not THAT hard.

    As for the focus. Sure, some of them have the focus on parts of the body that might not be what you had wanted (body instead of head and such). If that's your problem with them, use MF or get an ECF camera and calibrate it well.
     
  49. B.J. Scharp wrote:<That's why the 1D comes with 45 AF points, not one. One flick of your thumb and you have the AF point you want. Granted, it's not as great as ECF, but it's not THAT hard.

    That depends on the situation.

    In the examples to Giampi of the lovers walking hand in had used to illustrate why the central AF point alone is not acceptable, you have time to fiddle with the selection.

    In other instances there might be no time to fiddle with the AF, hence the automatic AF point selection.

    Look at the sequence of the pelican diving for fish and the time involved. The second prior that you spent fiddling with the AF point selection and the sequence would be missed, the framing would be off, etc.

    Like I said, I would be glad to look at any sequence you care to submit and show that it can be done and I will gladly re-evaluate if the weak link was in fact my camera handling.

    By the way, what happened to the ECF if it did work?

    >As for the focus. >Sure, some of them have the focus on parts of the body that might not be what you had wanted ...

    In the illustrations the birds were either in focus or they were out of focus.

    For instance, the third frame of the pelican dive above, no part of the bird was in sharp focus.

    tarn
     
  50. Hey, Tarn:

    Please take a moment to reflect on what you write. We are not having a private
    conversation. We are in the most public of public places, on the Internet. David, ask
    yourself, do you really want the whole world to judge you by what you have to say on
    this thread?

    Just funnin' ya...
     
  51. To Tarn - No I dont still drive my first car. It was worn out and way to big. You are compairing apples to oranges. I said, if your current equipment is working flawlessly, then why change. My first car was not what I needed. Therefore the change.

    As for what I the whole world thinks of me...I dont give a damn what they think. The only ones that matter to me are God, my Wife and Daughter. My equipment allows me to photograph the two people I love the most. And thats it. When I'm not doing that, it pays for itself which is why I chose a 1D. All of my comments were carefully thought out. Otherwise, I would have caused this thread to be deleted almost 40 posts ago by my language.

    Bob was being sarcastic when he said," You should probably switch to Nikon. Then all your problems would be solved..." It meant, no matter what "you" own, "you" will never be happy. Your problem isnt the equipment.

    I am ending my post in this thread with this. I can select all of the outer focus points on my 1D MarkIII so that it makes a circle. Then it covers both subjects coming at me which eliminates the "Whole" in the middle.
    If yours will NOT, then send it to Canon as 40 others have already said. Make whatever comments you want after this. I'm done. I cant believe I have argued with you this long.
     
  52. If two objects are moving towards the camera, no matter how close they may appear to be, even if they are perfectly on the same line, the photographer must decide on which of the two objects to focus as it is not possible to focus on both.

    In real life there is no such a thing as two objects being exactly on the same axis.

    To use the girlfriend and boyfriend example: even if their bodies were approximately on the smae DOF plane the legs would be moving differently as would the arms thus triggering different AF points at different times. IF all points were active the 45 AF system would lock onto something, maybe the torso, maybe one of the swinging hands, etc... depending on what percentage of the frame each part occupied. To avoid surprises, in that example, I would MANUALLY select the AF point with the wheel. As noted above, that's easily accomplished.

    Talking about 'sequences': you are now discussing a series of shots, presumably in continuous shooting mode, which are usually taken AFTER having locked AF onto a particular subject. In that case it all depends on which object you locked focus prior to starting the shoot sequence.. If you have two pelicans flying toward you, as you suggested, you still can't lock on both, no matter how close they are. There will always be some part of their bodies, necks, etc... that move differently from each other and therefore will be a different distance from the lens. You would have to manually select the AF point, lock and then, start shooting your sequence.

    I just don't see how the AF could lock on both and stay locked. Especially since their trajectories would, at some point, change as they dive for fish.

    I don't have sequences of diving fish but I do have sequences of other stuff (surfers, bif, soccer, etc...) - I have always used manual focus point selection to lock focus first and then, start shooting. That's my style: I follow the action and when I decide something interesting is about to happen I lock focus on a particular are on the subject and then, start shooting.

    Now, if you camera loses AF after locking that's something else. But, that could be a combination of lens AF speed and/or calibration.

    The ECF worked great! I used it exclusively and was very surprised that Canon decided to no longer offer it. My guess, and it's only my thinking, is that PRO photographers didn't really use it and serious amateurs weren't enough of a slice of the market to justify keeping it.

    I hope that it will be re-introduced in future models but, I am not holding my breath. On that subject, I have to say that the ECF on my EOS3 was basically error proof. All I'd have to do is look at an area in the frame and the AF point would activate. It was as perfect as one could ever design it. I ended up selling my 1v (I didn't need the extra weather sealing anyhow...) and got another EOS 3 from Canon refurb. dpt.

    ECF is the feature I miss the most of my EOS 3.
     
  53. David Amberson wrote: <I am ending my post in this thread with this. I can select all of the outer focus points on my 1D MarkIII so that it makes a circle. Then it covers both subjects coming at me which eliminates the "Whole" in the middle.

    That is my very point!

    Even the ardent defenders of the 1D3 confess to using just the center AF point, because the AF wouldn't be half reliable otherwise.

    Your neglecting to claim the above till now only betrays that you don't use it yourself.

    If only it would work...

    tarn
     
  54. Giampi wrote:<In real life there is no such a thing as two objects being exactly on the same axis.

    You mean plane, not axis.

    But can they exist in the same focus zone?

    You're making the mistake of splitting hair without real world experience.

    Read about a real world example of focus zone here:

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=27801293

    I must ask you to read the further discussions link at the end of the write up.

    That way we perhaps can expand on the discussion and not overly repeat the same ground.

    Even if the DOF would be very shallow. It wouldn't be the point of this discussion, the multi point AF would still pick on one bird, by the usual convention the nearest one. Then it's the experience of the photographer to use the right focal length and aperture to determine how much of it would be in focus.


    tarn
     
  55. Giampi wrote: <The ECF worked great! I used it exclusively and was very surprised that Canon decided to no longer offer it.

    I have no experience with the ECF so I can only take your words for it.

    See, I will not sit here and tell you that you're wrong on something I have not used and experienced.

    If you somehow could get a hold of the 1Ds3 or 1D3 and help in the discovery.

    Atleast you're intellectually engaged.

    All that is lacking here is real world experience with the camera in question.


    tarn

    PS - It is curious why Canon would discontinue something that worked so well. But then again, people are sticking with the 1D2n or going back on account of 1D3 AF. In this case, however, it's probably the case of a flawed execution of an intended improvement.
     
  56. >>You're making the mistake of splitting hair without real world experience.<<

    Not at all. I am talking about REAL world situations. Your examples require that the photographer select the focus point manually...or...accept the camera's decision.

    If the subjects or any part thereof are moving the AF will lock onto something when in servo mode. That something may not necessarily be what you want. In one shot mode if may fail to achieve precise focus because many parts of the different subjects may be moving in different directions.

    There is no way around that. You can theorize all you want but the real world of physics does rule.

    Send me your 1Ds MKIII and I'll send you my 10D... less focus points, easier to use :)
     
  57. Giampi wrote: <If the subjects or any part thereof are moving the AF will lock onto something when in servo mode. <That something may not necessarily be what you want. <In one shot mode if may fail to achieve precise focus because many parts of the different subjects may be moving in different directions.

    You're in effect arguing that auto multi point AF is useless. This is a farce because then it wouldn't be offerred.

    Rather, you're not understanding the significance of focus zone and DOF/size/distance.

    Not every situation is the DOF tending to zero needing precise selection of a particular part of the object of interest.


    tarn
     
  58. Giampi wrote:<Not at all. I am talking about REAL world situations. Your examples require that the photographer select the focus point manually...or...accept the camera's decision.

    Let's look at my example together then.

    Does it matter whether the multi point AF picks the left or the right pelican (the nearest one)?

    The understanding and marvel at two pelicans diving in synchrony is achieved even if they are not in the same focus zone.


    tarn
     

Share This Page