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

[mark_chappell]

<I>So, yes. Specs were released at least a year before the body was sold to the public, and

they were in the press' hands about six months prior.</I><P>

 

OK, thanks. Surprising that it was in beta-test that long before any news leaked.

[fotografz]

Thanks again Yakim. I guess I was unaware of the poor treatment of Canon customers. I never knew about the AF issue until after I had used the camera for a whole wedding season.

 

By the time I found out, Canon was instituting the Blue Dot fix with very little inconvenience and no cost ... which I thought was well handled. In contrast, my Leica M8s both needed warranty work and took 3 months to be done ... plus, 3 lenses sent for poor focus calibration are still in Germany going on 4 months with zero

communication as to when they'll be returned.

 

Mark, I agree about the Beta testing. However, I was the one that blew the whistle on the M8s' much more obvious lack of adequate IR filter that turned many black fabrics into magenta ... and that camera had supposedly been Beta tested also. Go figure.

[._._z]

<small><i><blockquote>

 

I was the one that blew the whistle on the M8s' much more obvious lack of adequate IR filter that turned many black fabrics into magenta

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

Really? It was all over the net before it was first discussed on this site, apparently <u><A href =

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IiOx>here</a></u> .<p>

[keith_lubow]

Let's take a step back for a minute and think about the crazy feat we expect our cameras to pull off. We are asking a dumb black box to follow focus on a moving object while taking 10 pics per second. We get upset that this is not foolproof. It's technically complicated and takes practice and work to get it to work best...surprise! You can't just plug and play a pro camera and expect the best results. Maybe the nature of the Mk. II's AF better suits a lot of people, but I will tell you that pretty much every press shooter in the world has been using the Mk. III for over a year, and they still are doing so right now. They could go back the the Mk. II N if they felt it necessary. One issue of note is that no decent sports shooter hangs on the focus button, or on the shutter at 10 fps anyhow. Maybe this is why those on the Internet seem to be having the most trouble, while working pros are happy with the camera.

 

I do not deny that some people have had problems. But I also think that if these same people simply practiced harder and worked harder, they would get fine results. As for Rob Galbraith and Canon...if he has trouble with his cameras, then he can shoot something else. Canon did plenty of testing with lots of other people. I am going to listen to myself and make my own decisions, not a Website.

 

Keith

[fotografz]

"Really? It was all over the net before it was first discussed on this site, apparently here ".

 

Yes, really. Didn't discuss it on this site. Based on initial shots right out of the box, I posted the IR issue on the Leica Users Forum in October 2006, then followed up on the same forum with sample images from a

controlled test on November 8th 2006.

 

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/8890-back-into-box-goes.html

 

However, the point is that these production cameras are supposed to be tested prior to launch. Apparently no one noticed the M8s magenta blacks ... which one would think is far more obvious than this Canon issue.

[yakim_peled1]

Keith, Canon created an amazing camera but did two things wrong.

 

1. They did not perform a rigorously enough QC before launching it to the market.

 

2. They did not handle the complaining customers well.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[keith_lubow]

Yakim,

 

I agree.

 

Nikon has always seemed to place more emphasis on taking their time and making sure something is "perfect" before releasing it, while Canon's philosophy seems to be to rush things out just so that they have the latest greatest, and deal with technical problems later.

 

I think Canon [correctly] banks on the fact that people are more attracted to something new than something reliable. We camera consumers are an impatient and foolhardy lot these days.

 

Keith

[yakim_peled1]

Most people? Maybe. Me? Certainly not.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[fotografz]

More antidotal generalities in the never ending debate between brands we own and love:

 

Here are mine: the worst digital camera I ever owned was a Nikon 1DX, horrible software that you HAD to buy ... had a mind of it's own, ate files, died at the most inopportune moments ... and two Nikon Pro lenses that were DOA out of the box ... New USA

stuff BTW. Have had just about all Canon models since the 30D, a 1D body with a faulty master wheel which I returned that same day, one non-Pro lens that fell apart after two years of wedding duty. EOS 1Ds, 1DsMKII with years of flawless heavy duty

performance, and now 1DsMKIII that appears to be the same so far.

 

So, your milage may vary.

 

I'm not enamored of Canon and would replace the system is a New York heartbeat IF I could get better optics with as stable a digital body. Canon may be a lot of things, but unreliable they are not.

[larry_strumwasser]

I had the ability to borrow a MK3 from Canon at a Sportsshooter workshop....Blue Dot version was spot on in AI Servo focus....shooting track field....then used it in Big West Basketball at ISO 3200....unbelievable!.....I bought 2 bodies ...one Blue dot & the other that had the fix....they are equal in AF ......the fix with the firmware upgrade worked. I will be using these on the field at Pro Football.

Lets realize that the D3 is the first Nikon digital that has an edge over Canon.....