digitmstr Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 >>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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn_tantikij Posted May 27, 2008 Author Share Posted May 27, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dale_yarbrough Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anson_ko Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn_tantikij Posted May 27, 2008 Author Share Posted May 27, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn_tantikij Posted May 27, 2008 Author Share Posted May 27, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anson_ko Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 All products have flaws, all software have bugs.......there is no one product that satisfy everyone :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 This didn't refer to the center AF point, did it? <p> <i>>>"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> <p> The summary is only as meaningful as the data preceding it. <p> But, again: do you actually believe that the AF on my 10D is SUPERIOR, BETTER, FASTER, MORE PRECISE than the on the 1Ds MKIII? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 :-) Hey, everyone, the only acceptable response is, "Yes, Tarn. You are right. In everything you say." :-) Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn_tantikij Posted May 27, 2008 Author Share Posted May 27, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn_tantikij Posted May 27, 2008 Author Share Posted May 27, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 >>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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn_tantikij Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 <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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjscharp Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 >>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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_amberson1 Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn_tantikij Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn_tantikij Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn_tantikij Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn_tantikij Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjscharp Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 >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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn_tantikij Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now