Rob Tells It Like It Is With Canon's Mk III AF Problems!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 20, 2007.

  1. I don't know much about Rob, but he seems to be telling it like it is.

    <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9006>







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 20, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Guest

    On Jun 20, 9:40 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    > I don't know much about Rob, but he seems to be telling it like it is.
    >
    > <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9006>
    >
    > Rita


    What he is describing is the God awful Canon inability to track moving
    objects. Minolta called it "predictive autofocus" when they resorted
    to guessing (and did it well) the position of moving objects when the
    shutter fired. Way back in the days of the original 9000 Minolta with
    body driven autofocus motor, Minolta used prediction to overcome some
    pretty critical problems with body mounted autofocus motors.

    Canon have had this problem since 20Ds. Another issue yet to surface
    (and it will soon enough if what Rob says is right) is the inability
    to focus on an object immediately after having focus on another object
    in much darker lighting. If you take a series of shots inside a
    church, the first shot you take in bright sunlight out side will be
    out of focus. If you try to shoot a sequence (20D and 5D) they will
    all be out of focus. The workaround is to shoot a few frames as soon
    as you exit dark rooms to get the AF working properly.

    If Canon didn't get this right with 20Ds, knew about the issue and
    still didn't fix it with 30Ds and the 5D does it intermittently, Then
    Rob is probably right on the money with his assessment of their latest
    bag of worms... Only thins time, they are playing with guys who won't
    tolerate it instead of the general public. Canon long ago lost my
    support. I'm only still (not for long) in the camp because of my
    lenses. They aren't much good on a my new Fuji and for my work, it's
    head and shoulders above and Canon camera in the same price range.
     
    , Jun 20, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >I don't know much about Rob,


    But you know about trolling.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jun 20, 2007
    #3
  4. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Eric Miller Guest

    wrote:
    > On Jun 20, 9:40 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I don't know much about Rob, but he seems to be telling it like it is.
    >>
    >><http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9006>
    >>
    >>Rita

    >
    >
    > What he is describing is the God awful Canon inability to track moving
    > objects. Minolta called it "predictive autofocus" when they resorted
    > to guessing (and did it well) the position of moving objects when the
    > shutter fired. Way back in the days of the original 9000 Minolta with
    > body driven autofocus motor, Minolta used prediction to overcome some
    > pretty critical problems with body mounted autofocus motors.
    >
    > Canon have had this problem since 20Ds. Another issue yet to surface
    > (and it will soon enough if what Rob says is right) is the inability
    > to focus on an object immediately after having focus on another object
    > in much darker lighting. If you take a series of shots inside a
    > church, the first shot you take in bright sunlight out side will be
    > out of focus. If you try to shoot a sequence (20D and 5D) they will
    > all be out of focus. The workaround is to shoot a few frames as soon
    > as you exit dark rooms to get the AF working properly.
    >
    > If Canon didn't get this right with 20Ds, knew about the issue and
    > still didn't fix it with 30Ds and the 5D does it intermittently, Then
    > Rob is probably right on the money with his assessment of their latest
    > bag of worms... Only thins time, they are playing with guys who won't
    > tolerate it instead of the general public. Canon long ago lost my
    > support. I'm only still (not for long) in the camp because of my
    > lenses. They aren't much good on a my new Fuji and for my work, it's
    > head and shoulders above and Canon camera in the same price range.
    >
    >


    My 5D has no problem with either tracking moving objects or autofocusing
    on a lighter object as you describe.

    Eric Miller
    www.dyesscreek.com
     
    Eric Miller, Jun 20, 2007
    #4
  5. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Mark² Guest

    wrote:
    > On Jun 20, 9:40 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >> I don't know much about Rob, but he seems to be telling it like it
    >> is.
    >>
    >> <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9006>
    >>
    >> Rita

    >
    > What he is describing is the God awful Canon inability to track moving
    > objects. Minolta called it "predictive autofocus" when they resorted
    > to guessing (and did it well) the position of moving objects when the
    > shutter fired. Way back in the days of the original 9000 Minolta with
    > body driven autofocus motor, Minolta used prediction to overcome some
    > pretty critical problems with body mounted autofocus motors.
    >
    > Canon have had this problem since 20Ds. Another issue yet to surface
    > (and it will soon enough if what Rob says is right) is the inability
    > to focus on an object immediately after having focus on another object
    > in much darker lighting. If you take a series of shots inside a
    > church, the first shot you take in bright sunlight out side will be
    > out of focus. If you try to shoot a sequence (20D and 5D) they will
    > all be out of focus. The workaround is to shoot a few frames as soon
    > as you exit dark rooms to get the AF working properly.
    >
    > If Canon didn't get this right with 20Ds, knew about the issue and
    > still didn't fix it with 30Ds and the 5D does it intermittently, Then
    > Rob is probably right on the money with his assessment of their latest
    > bag of worms... Only thins time, they are playing with guys who won't
    > tolerate it instead of the general public. Canon long ago lost my
    > support. I'm only still (not for long) in the camp because of my
    > lenses. They aren't much good on a my new Fuji and for my work, it's
    > head and shoulders above and Canon camera in the same price range.


    It's not a "Canon" issue...rather a "Canon 1D3" issue... And I can not only
    (unfortunately) confirm that it is very real...but also that it is not
    limited to tracking. It is entirely present in static subjects, as well.
    It isn't as noticed at shorter focal lengths, but on my new 500 f4, it is
    absolutely present. The lens focusses perfectly on my 5D...but misses BADLY
    on the 1D3...even after fine AF adjustment using the new custom function
    ability.

    Canon has a very real problem on it's hands, and I'm stuck with it--only 3
    weeks away from going to Africa.

    Bummer.
    (I'm sure Bret is cheering, as this will calm his green monster a bit...)
    :)

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Jun 20, 2007
    #5
  6. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    frederick Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >> I don't know much about Rob,

    >
    > But you know about trolling.
    >

    Why is his post trolling?
    Sure RÄB likes to stir the pot with Canon fanboys at times, but this
    seems a real issue.
     
    frederick, Jun 20, 2007
    #6
  7. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Mark² Guest

    frederick wrote:
    > Ray Fischer wrote:
    >> Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >>> I don't know much about Rob,

    >>
    >> But you know about trolling.
    >>

    > Why is his post trolling?
    > Sure RÄB likes to stir the pot with Canon fanboys at times, but this
    > seems a real issue.


    It's a very real issue.
    I've got one...and it's a problem.


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Jun 20, 2007
    #7
  8. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Ray Fischer Guest

    frederick <> wrote:
    >Ray Fischer wrote:
    >> Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >>> I don't know much about Rob,

    >>
    >> But you know about trolling.
    >>

    >Why is his post trolling?


    It's exagerrated and the evidence doesn't support the headlines.

    >Sure RÄB likes to stir the pot with Canon fanboys at times,


    Like this time.

    > but this
    >seems a real issue.


    Real but rather minor.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jun 20, 2007
    #8
  9. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    frederick Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > frederick <> wrote:
    >> Ray Fischer wrote:
    >>> Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >>>> I don't know much about Rob,
    >>> But you know about trolling.
    >>>

    >> Why is his post trolling?

    >
    > It's exagerrated and the evidence doesn't support the headlines.
    >
    >> Sure RÄB likes to stir the pot with Canon fanboys at times,

    >
    > Like this time.
    >
    >> but this
    >> seems a real issue.

    >
    > Real but rather minor.
    >

    Yeah?
    An apparently *real* issue with focus accuracy - even on static objects
    on *the* #1 US$4.5k uber-camera is "minor".
    Sure.
     
    frederick, Jun 20, 2007
    #9
  10. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jun 20, 12:54 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
    here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    > Canon has a very real problem on it's hands, and I'm stuck with it--only 3
    > weeks away from going to Africa.
    >
    > Bummer.
    > (I'm sure Bret is cheering, as this will calm his green monster a bit...)
    > :)


    ROFL!

    What kind of an idiot buys a new product that is unproven?
    (Besides me, of course.)

    Enjoy your $4500 lemon, PW.
     
    Annika1980, Jun 20, 2007
    #10
  11. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Mick Brown Guest

    (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4678cbc7$0$14109
    $:

    > frederick <> wrote:
    >>Ray Fischer wrote:
    >>> Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >>>> I don't know much about Rob,
    >>>
    >>> But you know about trolling.
    >>>

    >>Why is his post trolling?

    >
    > It's exagerrated and the evidence doesn't support the headlines.
    >
    >>Sure RÄB likes to stir the pot with Canon fanboys at times,

    >
    > Like this time.
    >
    >> but this
    >>seems a real issue.

    >
    > Real but rather minor.
    >


    I shoot every week with some Herald Sun and Getty shooters, so far, apart
    from the great high ISO, they are not saying good things about the Mark
    III.

    I'm glad I waited as I was about to change systems myself (for the high
    ISO) Guess I can wait longer to see how well they sort this.

    Mike Brown
     
    Mick Brown, Jun 20, 2007
    #11
  12. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]

    Rita Ä Berkowitz <> wrote:
    > I don't know much about Rob, but he seems to be telling it like it is.


    > <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9006>


    | except for autofocus, the EOS-1D Mark III is a photographer's dream
    | machine. That's the way we felt after shooting the preproduction
    | camera back in April, and this is no less true with the production
    | version in June.

    Yep, sure I would hate to own one. Please make me hateful.
    Send one my way.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 20, 2007
    #12
  13. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]

    Hello, Bully,

    <> wrote:

    [predictive AF]
    > Canon have had this problem since 20Ds.


    Have they? If so, I never have noticed, not even tracking birds
    or sports.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 20, 2007
    #13
  14. Mick Brown wrote:

    > I shoot every week with some Herald Sun and Getty shooters, so far,
    > apart from the great high ISO, they are not saying good things about
    > the Mark III.


    I'm positive it will get better. Once all the bugs are worked out this is
    going to be one sweet camera.

    > I'm glad I waited as I was about to change systems myself (for the
    > high ISO) Guess I can wait longer to see how well they sort this.


    I have no doubt that Canon will make it right in several months.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 20, 2007
    #14
  15. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...

    What he is describing is the God awful Canon inability to track moving
    objects.

    >>>Well, that explains all those white lenses I see at sporting events.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Jun 21, 2007
    #15
  16. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Jun 21, 2007
    #16
  17. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Mr.T Guest

    "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > | except for autofocus, the EOS-1D Mark III is a photographer's dream
    > | machine. That's the way we felt after shooting the preproduction
    > | camera back in April, and this is no less true with the production
    > | version in June.
    >
    > Yep, sure I would hate to own one. Please make me hateful.
    > Send one my way.


    I doubt the people who got one for nothing are complaining as loudly as
    those who actually had to pay the large asking price!
    But it's safe to assume pro's do not like large amounts of missed shots
    regardless of what they paid for the equipment. Lost revenue can soon
    outweigh equipment costs, even with a camera the price of the EOS-1DIII.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jun 21, 2007
    #17
  18. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]

    Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
    > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message


    >> Yep, sure I would hate to own one. Please make me hateful.
    >> Send one my way.


    > I doubt the people who got one for nothing are complaining as loudly as
    > those who actually had to pay the large asking price!


    I do promise, I will consider myself paid to complain about
    anything I can detect that doesn't work perfectly and is not an
    error behind the camera.

    > But it's safe to assume pro's do not like large amounts of missed shots
    > regardless of what they paid for the equipment. Lost revenue can soon
    > outweigh equipment costs, even with a camera the price of the EOS-1DIII.


    Of course.

    However, some pros may not even have a large amount of missed
    shots, and since they do not make money by complaining about
    all their perfect shots ... you never hear of them.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 21, 2007
    #18
  19. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Mark² Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    > On Jun 20, 12:54 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
    > here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>
    >> Canon has a very real problem on it's hands, and I'm stuck with
    >> it--only 3 weeks away from going to Africa.
    >>
    >> Bummer.
    >> (I'm sure Bret is cheering, as this will calm his green monster a
    >> bit...) :)

    >
    > ROFL!
    >
    > What kind of an idiot buys a new product that is unproven?
    > (Besides me, of course.)
    >
    > Enjoy your $4500 lemon, PW.


    Thanks for your kindness, as usual, Bret. ;)

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Jun 23, 2007
    #19
  20. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    PixelPix Guest

    On Jun 20, 9:40 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    > I don't know much about Rob, but he seems to be telling it like it is.
    >
    > <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9006>
    >
    > Rita



    Some comments from someone who has actually test driven the MkIII are
    available in this thread.

    http://www.potd.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2578

    I was thinking about getting one as my sports shooter, but now I will
    see if CPS has one for trial before I buy.... I guess the only real
    way of knowing is to shoot with the thing yourself.

    Cheers

    Russell
    Photography Help Blog: http://blog.pixelpix.com.au
     
    PixelPix, Jun 23, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ww_crimson

    Rob Thomas' new album

    ww_crimson, Jul 14, 2005, in forum: The Lounge
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    4,583
    pakeeza1990
    Jan 13, 2011
  2. Patrick B Cox

    Nikon Coolscan III vs Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III

    Patrick B Cox, Feb 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    4,392
    Gordon Moat
    Mar 2, 2004
  3. ANovice

    He Tells it like it is !!!

    ANovice, Nov 22, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    938
    Old Gringo
    Nov 24, 2007
  4. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Tell Me It Isn't So! Mk III's Focus Unfixable! (Rob Galbraith)

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 10, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    550
    Kinon O'Cann
    Dec 12, 2007
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    284
    Bruce
    Jan 21, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page