The 1D MK III has the best AF of all EOS cameras

[yakim_peled1]

Or at least, that is what Canon is saying...

 

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=14999&keycode=2112&id=39707

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[catchlight]

OK, the autofocus issue might be fixed. Now, if Canon would just produce a DSLR that can match the Nikon D3's revolutionary low-light, high ISO performance, I would would buy one to replace my 1D MkII. Until then, no sale.

[mark_chappell]

As has been discussed extensively here and elsewhere, there are some circumstances in

which the 1D3 has excellent AF, better than its 'ancestors', such as in dim light. Mine works

noticeably better than my 1D2 did in that situation. However, in at least one area critical to

many shooters -- bright light, as in daylight -- there are still problems.

 

I notice that this message from Canon doesn't mention the mysterious recently discovered

'root cause' that has been mentioned on the Galbraith site.

[john_bellenis]

It's great that Canon have finally realized the huge negative PR implications of this screw

up. They are now obviously in major damage control mode and are attending to their

customers and the issue itself in a professional manner.

 

No doubt this has been spurred on by the large amounts of negative press about this

(more in Europe and Australia than in the USA, for what it's worth) and it's also due to the

unfortunate fact that Nikon have coincidentally stepped up their game considerably at

exactly the time Canon had it's QC woes.

 

I also find it a little odd that, after informing the press only two weeks ago that they had

now found a new "root cause" for the 1D Mk III's AF problems, that they didn't see fit to

mention it in yesterday's press release. However, I am confident that a sufficiently large

fire has now been lit under their corporate butts that this issue will be a memory before

too long.

[dmanthree]

Canon has to realize that many, like me, who were considering that camera have now ruled it

out. Too many issues. And the next will get no slack, as well. Whatever they introduce in the

future will be under the microscope. This is a huge issue for them.

[whwhitejr]

I think it will take a MKIV for me to buy one and I need it now! The latest announcement was a transparent attempt to give them some wiggle room. I won't abandon Canon yet but they need to get with it. This is a big issue for me as well, Bill

[colinsouthern]

I was talking to a pro camera store yesterday. I asked them how many 1D Mk 3's they'd sold - he said "about 20". I asked him "how many have reported AF issues" - he said "1 - and that was having all sorts of problems" (ie not the issue we've "come to know and love").

[yakim_peled1]

I can't help wondering if there really is a "root cause". On the one hand, RG is well known for reliability and there are - still - many unhappy customers both before and after the fix. On the other hand, Canon don't mention it at all.

 

I'm confused.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[colinsouthern]

"I think it will take a MKIV for me to buy one and I need it now!"

 

Bill, I've got a flat spot in the middle of my head from banging it against concrete walls over the "1D3 AF Saga" - all I can say is "get hold of one and try it for yourself - make your own mind up".

 

We've all read all of the reports - and all I can say is that they appear to be at odds with what I've found (personally), with what my friends have told me, and with what I've found in talking to others online, with the noted exception of Mark Chappell. As I mention above - spoke to one of my suppliers yesterday - they've sold 20 and only had one come back. And that one had major AF issues - over and above the ones being discussed here. Don't take my word for it - give them a call on +64-9-529-5055 (Ask for Graham, the owner).

 

I respect that Rob Galbraith is only telling it as he sees it, but ultimately I feel that the article has done more damage than good in that it's spooked a lot of people away from buying a camera that by far the vast majority of people why actually own it are very happy with.

 

Unlike many who are discussing "the issue", I actually own one - and would buy one again in a heartbeat.

 

Moving on ...

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[brian_faini]

I've been playing with the III for a week now and can't find any issues with it...

 

I've shot the D3 and the only thing it has (I hate the ergonomics of Nikon, that is enough to keep me from ever using them) is High ISO. It doest get contrasty. I like how Nikon went from the worst in the noise/ISO to the best.(for now)

I have no problems with the 3200iso images on the MarkIII. Much better than the II and other bodies.

It will be interesting to see the second coming of the 5D.

I never see the 1D compared to the D3 always the 1Ds

Yes they are both top of the line but I don't think they are comparable

[mark_chappell]

<I>I respect that Rob Galbraith is only telling it as he sees it, but ultimately I feel that the

article has done more damage than good in that it's spooked a lot of people away from

buying a camera that by far the vast majority of people why actually own it are very happy

with.</i><P>

 

Colin, since you mention my name, let me say this: I'm impressed with your religious

devotion to the 1D3, but I think you're being irresponsible. Paraphrased, your argument is

basically this: Galbraith and his carefully documented tests are credible (even Canon

admits this) -- not to mention the MANY other reports of problems -- but you like your

1D3 so you're happy to suggest that potential purchasers ignore the problem reports and

spend $4500 on the camera anyway.<P>

 

I have no problems with recommending the 1D3 <B>if potential purchasers are aware of

the proven difficulties with AI-servo in bright light</b> and can live with them. Maybe

your use of the 1D3 is such that bright-light AI servo performance isn't a major

requirement, but my own usage has a heavy emphasis on fast-moving subjects in daylight

(lots of flying birds, for example), and based on 3.5 years with a 1D2 and 4 months (and

tens of thousands of images) with a 1D3, I'm quite confident that the former works more

reliably than the latter.

[colinsouthern]

Brian Faini wrote:

 

"I've been playing with the III for a week now and can't find any issues with it..."

 

Look - there goes another one.

 

Mark - I'm really sick to death of the whole issue - hence my suggestion that people stop reading all these "carefully documented reports" (well actually, just the 1 carefully documented report) and just go an try the damn thing - and see if it works for them or not. Forget the report - let the proof of the pudding be in the eating. If you feel the need to add a caveat to the label that says "caution: this pudding may contain the occasional sour grape" then go for it.

 

There is nothing what-so-ever irresponsible in anything that I've written - irresponsible is a word I reserve for those who take every opportunity to trash the cameras reputation when all they're going on is what they've read in the RG report - not having owned one - not having used one - and probably not having even seen one (and no, I'm not directing that at you). Equally unhelpful are those who treat the RG report as being some kind of independent analysis of the entire 1D3 AF performance - when in reality they were a limited range of tests designed to help pinpoint a weakness is a very small range of conditions in which the AF has to operate, and - as I've said previously - a "mountain gets made out of a molehill" and a great many people who would have been over the moon with the 1D3 pass up on it because they now percieve 1D3 AF performance to be what the bottoms of coke bottles would be to lens sharpness.

 

Unfortunately none of us have any hard and fast numbers as to how many users have experienced an issue with it first hand, so I have to go with what I've got - and that's that I've not had a problem with it - none of my friends have had any problems with it - others who have posted here (except you) haven't had any problems with it (with the latter being a forum where all people do is post about problems that they're having - STILL NOTHING) - Dealers I've spoken to aren't being flooded with returns.

 

So in real terms, just how many people is this affecting? I'd suggest if you line up the happy campers on one side and the unhappy campers on the other - the unhappy campers would be trampled to death as the happy ones moved to their side of the line.

[mark_chappell]

Colin, all your statistics-free hand-waving cannot overcome the simple facts of the

matter: even Canon admits Galbraith's tests are credible, and there are lots of other 1D3

<B>owners</b> who have reported problems. Just scan the SportsShooter site. I have

seen **no** test carried out in a careful, controlled way <i>a la </i> Galbraith's work that

found consistent good performance in AI servo in strong light.

 

All the happy owners you cite, yourself included, don't mean squat in that context unless

they've tested the camera in the same conditions and the same rigorous way that

Galbraith did. Be honest now: have you done so yourself? <P>

 

You say <I>"Unfortunately none of us have any hard and fast numbers as to how many

users have experienced an issue with it first hand."</I> If you believe that, then you have

no basis for asserting that the situation is "a mountain... made of a molehill", and

therefore it is irresponsible to continue to keep claiming that the problem is minimal.<P>

 

I particularly like your suggestion to "Forget the [Galbraith] report.". Yeah, great.

<I>"Folks, disregard the only carefully controlled test out there when you fork over your

$4500."</I> That kind of consumer gullibility is the all-time fantasy daydream of

advertising executives everywhere.<P>

 

If you want to believe that Galbraith's findings pertain to <I>" a weakness is a very small

range of conditions"</i>, you're entitled to that opinion, although I think that AI servo

performance in bright light in a camera designed for shooting action is much more than "a

very small range of conditions".

[colinsouthern]

You know what Mark - you are right, I am wrong.

 

Forget the fact that we're 100% satisfied with our 1D3's: We all made a terrible mistake buying them. And even though they appear to be working flawlessly for us, obviously we're mistaken - because Rob Galbraith tells us so.

 

Happy now?

 

Man - I am SO done with this topic.

[keith_lubow]

"the Nikon D3's revolutionary low-light, high ISO performance"

 

I think "revolutionary" is a bit of an overstatement in this case. It's a great tool and an amazing camera, just like any pro camera in the right hands. However, the term "noise performance" is subjective. I even think the Mk. II is often a little too heavy on the noise smoothing. I would rather have excessive noise than an overly processed looking image. I do like the resolution of the newer cameras, but am really in love with the "noise performance" of the 1D and 10D at high ISOs. As far as I see it, Canon had no reason to upgrade the Mk. II N, but Nikon did have a reason to upgrade the D2H to the D3. Revolutionary for Nikon maybe, but not for photography.

 

Keith

[digitmstr]

<i>>>irresponsible is a word I reserve for those who take every opportunity to trash the cameras reputation when all they're going on is what they've read in the RG report - not having owned one - not having used one<<</i>

<P>

 

DITTO! The point is: whether or not RG's test were credible, accurate, statistically significant, etc... there is no way that Canon or any other manufacturer would start a fight with anyone, it's just not good PR, period.

<p>

It is obvious that some cameras had the mirror issue Canon mentioned but, we (or at least *I*) still don't know what the percentage is. Without that KEY piece of info one could argue, as Collin did, that it is NOT responsible to classify one camera as 'having problems' - and that is a reasonable argument. A statement as broad as that MUST be qualified by accurate and disclosed statistics, not just internet paranoia.

<p>

What Collin is saying many of us feel as well: on the NET all it takes is ONE user who posts a negative comment about a product and then, you'll have the same post repeated, copied and linked to everywhere, for months. Particularly for us, in this forum, we have seen posts about Canon lenses and other products that had no basis whatsoever other than ONE person *opinion* (which in many cases involved blatant user error) pasted and re-linked at nauseum from people...who had NEVER owned the product and even used it. That is in fact, irresponsible and unnecessary as it makes it hard to impossible to differentiate between REAL issues and false alarms.

<p>

We are just saying, in general: let's chill with the FEAR posts (there is already 'nuff of that going around from other sources...not here...) especially from people who do not use, own or have ever used the product. It doesn't do the community a service. I am NOT talking about this thread of course :)

<p>

To answer the question of a few above: wouldn't the mirror be the 'root cause'? It seems as though Canon is indicating as much.

[dmanthree]

Giampi,

 

If it were only ONE user posting comments or test results about the AF issues associated with the camera, I'd ignore it. But there are lots of user and testers posting their results, and some, like RG, under controlled conditions. RG performed his tests, documented his procedures, and explained his results. That counts for a lot more, in my eyes, than any number of fanboys who claim that the camera is fine. If they choose to shoot the camera under conditions where it does work, fine. But in bright light using servo, it has issues. And for me, that's a deal breaker. For that kind of money, there's no way for me.

[digitmstr]

David, did you buy one? You should test one of the new ones and see if it works for you.

 

I didn't say ONE user, I said some cameras, there is a difference. We just don't know how many. Perhaps, we will never know...but, the issue seems to be resolved at this point with the new mirrors.

[mark_chappell]

<I>but, the issue seems to be resolved at this point with the new mirrors.</i><P>

 

No, it does not. Read Galbraith's December 10 update. Performance is improved but not

resolved. Here's a quote: <I>

<p>

"But in our view, there's more work to be done. In bright conditions, the EOS-1D Mark III

still doesn't match the EOS-1D Mark II N; at times the two are close, and at other times

the EOS-1D Mark III's autofocus performance is below what we consider acceptable. The

EOS-1D Mark III can autofocus much better outdoors on a warm, sunny day now than it

could at the time of its introduction, though this is a reflection of how much room for

improvement there was. There are also specific situations - mostly involving shooting

indoors or in dimmer outdoor conditions - where its AI Servo autofocus is actually

superior to the EOS-1D Mark II N.<P>

 

Looking at all of what we've shot with the two camera models in recent weeks, however,

the EOS-1D Mark II N is the one that has delivered the most in-focus frames. The culprit

that continues to cramp the EOS-1D Mark III's autofocus style is bright sunlight.<P></I>

 

You're welcome to your own interpretation but that seems quite clear to me.<P>

 

<I>It is obvious that some cameras had the mirror issue Canon mentioned but, we (or at

least *I*) still don't know what the percentage is.</i><P>

 

Galbraith reported all of the early cameras he tested had the mirror problem. Another

quote from his site:<P>

 

<I>"While we have no reason to doubt what Canon is saying, at the same time our own

experience is this: of the nine EOS-1D Mark IIIs we used before the introduction of the

sub-mirror fix, bodies whose build dates varied but were made before early October

2007, all performed especially poorly in warmer temperatures. It therefore stands to

reason that all nine contained sub-mirrors that were being affected by the heat."</I><P>

 

This is not an overwhelming sample size, but a little statistics should confirm that the

percentage of early cameras with the mirror problem was probably quite high. Let's test

the hypothesis that the problem occurred in only half of the cameras manufactured. In

that case, what's the probability of randomly picking 9 cameras, all of which have the

problem? It's the same as flipping a coin 9 times and getting 100% 'heads':

0.5⁹, or about 1 in 500. I dunno about you, but I'd reject the hypothesis

that the problem was as 'rare' as 50%.<P>

 

<I>We are just saying, in general: let's chill with the FEAR posts (there is already 'nuff of

that going around from other sources...not here...) especially from people who do not use,

own or have ever used the product</i><P>

 

I have owned and extensively used both the 1D2 and 1D3. Have you? I'm with David

here. Perhaps its my background in science, but I give FAR greater credibility to controlled

tests, with conditions and procedures explicitly described, and with results explained and

documented in detail, than I give to any number of vague anecdotes. As soon as RG or

anyone else runs a careful series of tests and shows bright-light AI-servo performance is

as good as (or hopefully better than) the AF of the 1D2, I'll start to believe the problem has

been solved. Until then, potential purchasers should know what they're getting into -- I

view this as realism, not 'FEAR' -- and Canon's corporate feet should be kept to the fire to

find a solution.

[john_bellenis]

I'm going to briefly weigh in here and then duck out as the arrows fly at my head...

 

My guess is that the vast majority of people who are happy with their 1D Mk IIIs simply

never use AI-Servo for their AF. If you don't use this mode, in the conditions described, of

course you will see no reason to gripe, or even get the fix done. Personally I NEVER use

AI-Servo - I'm a one shot or manual focus kind of guy - so it wouldn't be an issue for me.

 

However, in the pro sports photography and birding communities, where this is the

default setting and situation, the reports of AF problems have been huge from countries

all over the world - look at any industry specific forum, or speak to Calumet who have

sold 1,000's (not 20) to THESE VERY photographers - yes I have and it hasn't been pretty.

The 1D Mk III, for that demographic, has clearly been a failure as it doesn't operate as

advertised in Canon's own white paper, by not being as good as its predecessor. THIS is

why it's such a big deal and why it's harming Canon's reputation - not because wealthy

landscape and snapshot photographers are having problems (or not),

 

Canon has spent the last decade carving out a niche - and turning the tables on Nikon -

as the premier brand for pro photographers. This screw up has been an awful own-goal

and to their credit they are now dealing with it in a professional, concerned manner.

 

There is simply no benefit to sweeping problems and issues under the rug, and being an

apologist for a pretty faceless corporation, just because a specific problem doesn't affect

YOU. It should be clear that is doing a huge disservice to all the photographers who it

really does affect - and whose living depends on their images. Canon has it's own PR

department- it's customers shouldn't have to become unpaid PR hacks to justify a

purchasing decision, especially when minimizing an issue is not going to help those who

are seriously being affected.

[fotografz]

"That kind of consumer gullibility is the all-time fantasy daydream of advertising executives everywhere."

 

You are the gullible one in believing Hollywood's version of Advertising.

 

" ... not because wealthy landscape and snapshot photographers are having problems (or not)"

 

Another disparaging generality. RG admits that the blue dot camera isn't quite the equal to the 1DMKII-N in certain conditions ... sometimes as good, but not all the time. However, even he admits that it is better in other conditions ... which is one reason the MK3 is a weapon of choice for my wedding work which is primarily in low light

and is often very fast paced. One year of use has proven that fact to be true ... nothing I've used to date is as fast as this camera, or as easy to use. It's a horse for my course ... which isn't landscapes or snapshots.

 

BTW, wealthy landscape shooters buy 1Ds cameras or MF digital systems ... not 10 meg crop frame, speedocams.

[john_bellenis]

"... which is one reason the MK3 is a weapon of choice for my wedding work which is

primarily in low light and is often very fast paced. One year of use has proven that fact to

be true ... nothing I've used to date is as fast as this camera, or as easy to use. It's a horse

for my course ... which isn't landscapes or snapshots."

 

You are totally making my point for me - this is exactly what I was talking about... it's not

a problem or issue for you because of the way that you work and your subject matter,

therefore everything is OK and you can downplay the issue... screw the people for whom it

IS a problem for - namely people who want it to use it with AI-Servo is bright light (sports

photographers, airplane enthusiasts, birders, et al). This was exactly my point... and

demonstrably some wealthy landscape shooters do buy 1D Mk IIIs!

[dmanthree]

Giampi,

 

I did not buy one, but did rent one, and was not satisfied with the hit rate when shooting HS football. It was an early copy, but obviously suffered from the AF issues. I returned it and chalked it up to experience. And I'll never buy one. This thing is nothing but an endless series of fixes, and for $4k that's simply unacceptable.

[fotografz]

John, you are confusing me with someone else ... I am not down playing anything. I'm sure if sports/bird/racing shooters are bitching up a storm about the AI Servo, then there's probably something to it.

 

However, this issue appears to be a matter of degree, and it's being compared to one of the all time champs at AF. It's better than it was thanks to RG, but still not quite up to the champ, also according to RG.

 

This is disappointing for a specific cadre' of shooters who respect his opinion and wanted it to be better. Well, it is better ... at some things but not as good as they wanted it to be at what they want.

 

I think that the point of contention is about all the glib negative comments coming from those who wouldn't be able to shoot a sports event if their life depended on it, no matter what camera they had in hand ... speaking of which apparently hasn't included this camera ... ever.

 

It is also quite natural to expound on a camera's virtues just as much as it's faults. I'd enthusiastically recommend this camera to anyone shooting candid wedding photography, events, travel, fashion, corporate, personal art, street photography, small product, portrait, reportage

journalism, and so on ... I'd caution anyone that shoots action sports or birds for a living ... nor would I sell them off it ... just inform them so they can make up their own mind. But at least it is an opinion coming from someone who actually owns and uses the camera and who

make part of his living from it.

 

" ... and demonstrably some wealthy landscape shooters do buy 1D Mk IIIs!"

 

Demonstrate away there John. Don't forget to include their income tax statement for the past 5 years,

 

Just to keep this all in perspective, one of the best "Bird" shooters I know uses a manual focus Leica DSLR. How does he do it?

[Spearhead]

I shoot sports professionally with mine and have had no problems, AI servo and all, and I bought it before the latest changes.

 

I'd like to know who at Calumet is giving out information on how many have come back. What is the exact number of units? What types of shooters are they? Who is this employee (name and number please) that they know all of this? An unattributed "Calumet" is worthless as a statistic. I could point out that the shop I bought from, which sells almost exclusively to pros (no real showroom) also had none come back.

 

It's easy to whip up hysteria on the net. I don't have a lot of respect for Rob Galbraith, he published the card speed charts as if they meant something but never bothered to measure what really matters to a shooter, which is throughput. I could care less how fast the write time is if I can't tell how many shots I can get continuously. A waste of time over there, if you ask me...