Reading mode: Light Dark

MK III focus issued SOLVED! PERIOD!

Go to last post
N

Nello

Leading Member
Messages
603
Reaction score
0
Location
Milan, IT
I know everybody's gonna jump all over me since i'm an amateur,never had a MkII or III bla bla bla but the solution is simple as it can be (as always),and most of all comes from Canon not rich amateurs etc etc so here it goes...just watch this video (AUTOFOCUS PART)
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/masterclass.do

IT CLEARLY SAYS : "WE MAKE IT A CONFIGURABLE OPTION. YOU CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE THE CAMERA FOCUS ON THE 1st SHOT IN BURST MODE AND FROM THE 2nd ONE ONWARDS THE CAMERA WILL GIVE A PRIORITY TO JUST GET THE SHOT AND TRY TO GET THE FOCUS" it means the 1st one should be in focus and after that some of them or none might be in focus... as clear as it can be!! problem solved..let's all go to sleep now :-))

again talkin' about the so called Paparazzi mode : "THERE'S AN OPTION WHERE GETTIN' THE PICTURE RIGHT AFTER I PRESS THE SHUTTER BUTTON IS THE PRIORITY BEFORE FOCUS" "TAKING A PICTURE THAT'S SLIGHTLY OUT OF FOCUS IS BETTER THAN A PICTURE IN FOCUS BUT LOSES THE MOMENT"
Can it be clearer than that?

Throw in also the possibility that some people press the Af on (newly added) button accidentally (which stops the focus) or they selected the option where the AF assist points surrounding the main focus point thus give an expanded area for AF detection "SO YOU MIGHT SELECT A SINGLE POINT BUT BY HAVING THE AREA AROUND IT ACTIVE IT DETECTS A BROADER AREA OF YOUR SUBJECT" , and I have a complete picture (in focus) of what all this issue is all about.

So I bet "pros" will soon discover that there's another bug with the camera loool it can't reach precise focus after I press the shutter (EVEN IN STATIC SCENES)...oh my god!!! and the forum will be filled with all the others that didn't notice this right away and now they discovered that their camera is a piece of junk !!! Yeah go ahead and sell it for half what you paid for so the others can upgrade :-)))

Face the reality : CANON has taken a step forward with their new complex AF system and even pros have to get familiar with it b4 reachin' good % of in-focus shots ...it's full with new features thus makin' it very complex and prone to user error due to all the many various different option you have now!! Just listen how complex that Af sys. is...the old times when all you needed to get a picture in focus is half press the button ARE GONE ! wake up and smell the coffe :-) with this camera you really have to think what your AF settings are for the shot/situation you're tryin' to get

I know many of you might say I'm wrong but time will prove I was right...just give that excellent camera a 2nd chance...using this new model it's not gonna be a walk in the park like the mk II owners might have think.
Enjoy the camera you lucky bas* ds :-)))
--

 
My understanding of the issue as expounded by R.G. is that what you are claiming is not the same.
 
You CAN set it that way . . but you can also set it to prioritize on AF instead of frame rate.

There are three settings for CF III - 3

0) 1st image is AF priority, subsequent images are AF tracking priority
1) 1st image is AF priority, subsequent images are FPS priority
2) 1st image is release priority, subsequent images are FPS priority

Hopefully, those who are complaining about AF priority have this CF set to 0. Otherwise, they should have no complaints.

BTW, 0 is the default setting.
 
It's not the solution. How do you explain the fact that the people experiencing the AF issues have actually changed that custom setting?
Nello said:
I know everybody's gonna jump all over me since i'm an
amateur,never had a MkII or III bla bla bla but the solution is
simple as it can be (as always),and most of all comes from Canon
not rich amateurs etc etc so here it goes...just watch this video
(AUTOFOCUS PART)
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/masterclass.do
IT CLEARLY SAYS : "WE MAKE IT A CONFIGURABLE OPTION. YOU CAN CHOOSE
TO HAVE THE CAMERA FOCUS ON THE 1st SHOT IN BURST MODE AND FROM
THE 2nd ONE ONWARDS THE CAMERA WILL GIVE A PRIORITY TO JUST GET THE
SHOT AND TRY TO GET THE FOCUS" it means the 1st one should be in
focus and after that some of them or none might be in focus... as
clear as it can be!! problem solved..let's all go to sleep now :-))
again talkin' about the so called Paparazzi mode : "THERE'S AN
OPTION WHERE GETTIN' THE PICTURE RIGHT AFTER I PRESS THE SHUTTER
BUTTON IS THE PRIORITY BEFORE FOCUS" "TAKING A PICTURE THAT'S
SLIGHTLY OUT OF FOCUS IS BETTER THAN A PICTURE IN FOCUS BUT LOSES
THE MOMENT"
Can it be clearer than that?
Throw in also the possibility that some people press the Af on
(newly added) button accidentally (which stops the focus) or they
selected the option where the AF assist points surrounding the main
focus point thus give an expanded area for AF detection "SO YOU
MIGHT SELECT A SINGLE POINT BUT BY HAVING THE AREA AROUND IT ACTIVE
IT DETECTS A BROADER AREA OF YOUR SUBJECT" , and I have a complete
picture (in focus) of what all this issue is all about.
So I bet "pros" will soon discover that there's another bug with
the camera loool it can't reach precise focus after I press the
shutter (EVEN IN STATIC SCENES)...oh my god!!! and the forum will
be filled with all the others that didn't notice this right away
and now they discovered that their camera is a piece of junk !!!
Yeah go ahead and sell it for half what you paid for so the others
can upgrade :-)))
Face the reality : CANON has taken a step forward with their new
complex AF system and even pros have to get familiar with it b4
reachin' good % of in-focus shots ...it's full with new features
thus makin' it very complex and prone to user error due to all the
many various different option you have now!! Just listen how
complex that Af sys. is...the old times when all you needed to get
a picture in focus is half press the button ARE GONE ! wake up and
smell the coffe :-) with this camera you really have to think what
your AF settings are for the shot/situation you're tryin' to get
I know many of you might say I'm wrong but time will prove I was
right...just give that excellent camera a 2nd chance...using this
new model it's not gonna be a walk in the park like the mk II
owners might have think.
Enjoy the camera you lucky bas* ds :-)))
--

Click to expand...
--
Cheers,
Doug

http://www.doglesbyimages.com
 
Nello said:
IT CLEARLY SAYS : "WE MAKE IT A CONFIGURABLE OPTION. YOU CAN CHOOSE
TO HAVE THE CAMERA FOCUS ON THE 1st SHOT IN BURST MODE AND FROM
THE 2nd ONE ONWARDS THE CAMERA WILL GIVE A PRIORITY TO JUST GET THE
SHOT AND TRY TO GET THE FOCUS" it means the 1st one should be in
focus and after that some of them or none might be in focus... as
clear as it can be!! problem solved..
Click to expand...
Two things:

1. A lot of people are essentially indirectly criticizing Rob Galbraith in these threads about AF. Essentially, you're all saying that he has no idea what he's doing, that he's just got a setting or two wrong. First, in support of Rob, he's been one of the leading digital shooters for longer than most of you knew DSLRs existed. Second, he's well respected by everyone who's ever met or trained with him, and is highly respected by the powers that be at Canon and Nikon, as well (how is it that you think he got an early test camera from Canon?). A lot of you are avoiding saying outright "Rob got it wrong," but that's exactly what you're saying. Possible, but not probable.

2. Focus priority versus release priority is something that's been around for a long time with AF systems. Nikon has made a big point about it since the F5. But (perhaps surprisingly to some) the pro Nikon's don't really track focus more poorly just because you set them to focus priority. Neither do the pro Canons in my experience to date (though I haven't yet used a 1DIII). Personally, I'd be surprised if this was an intentional design parameter on the part of Canon. They know they're competing with video cameras now, so focus tracking would be a high priority, not a low one. Again, possible, but not probable.

Personally, I'm sure Canon will look into the matter quite closely and if there's something wrong, fix it. The only question that people should be asking is whether or not something is working so poorly that it limits their potential use of the camera. If the answer to that is yes, then the next questions are "can you wait for Canon's response?" and "is the problem a deal breaker?" If you answer no to the first and yes to the second, you shouldn't be shooting with a 1DIII. Otherwise, you work around the problem for the moment.

--
Thom Hogan
editor, Nikon DSLR Report

author, Complete Guides: D40/D40x, D50, D70s, D80, D100, D200, D1 series, D2 series
http://www.bythom.com
 
... that has already been discussed about 20 times ;)
--
EJP
 
Come on, things can't be that tough. You sound as if you think that everyone except you and the person who penned the CPS series are idiots. When someone makes that assumption they're usually wrong.

A couple of questions; do you own a 1D3? Have you used other 1-Series bodies? If you own a 1D3 how long have you used it and under what conditions?
 
Actually i'm not angry....i'm quite amused about all this "issue" :-)
Now if only I can get my hands on 1 of those Mk III

No I never owned a mkII or mkIII...I thought you got that from my initial post...as stated i'm just an amateur (although I sold some of my photos)

I've never wanted to insult anybody and sure enough I'm not sayin' that Rob Galbraith was wrong...actually I don't know who he is (sorry) and haven't read none of his post.

All i'm tryin' to say is that in my opinion this camera's AF system is more than many people can chew , pros or not...time will tell
--

 
Yes, and the reason a rocket launches is more than many people can chew on, me included, but I sure know when it crashes.
Nello said:
Actually i'm not angry....i'm quite amused about all this "issue" :-)
Now if only I can get my hands on 1 of those Mk III
No I never owned a mkII or mkIII...I thought you got that from my
initial post...as stated i'm just an amateur (although I sold some
of my photos)
I've never wanted to insult anybody and sure enough I'm not sayin'
that Rob Galbraith was wrong...actually I don't know who he is
(sorry) and haven't read none of his post.
All i'm tryin' to say is that in my opinion this camera's AF system
is more than many people can chew , pros or not...time will tell
--

Click to expand...
--
Cheers,
Doug

http://www.doglesbyimages.com
 
Nello said:
I've never wanted to insult anybody and sure enough I'm not sayin'
that Rob Galbraith was wrong...actually I don't know who he is
(sorry) and haven't read none of his post.
Click to expand...
Doesn't it make more sense to learn who he is and to read his post than to assume that he and other pros do not know how to use a camera style that they are intimately familiar with?

Olga
 
Nello said:
but the solution is
simple as it can be (as always),and most of all comes from Canon
not rich amateurs etc etc so here it goes...just watch this video
Click to expand...
If you'd read the complaints you'd have realized by now that the 'rich amateurs' have checked that setting to determine its impact on focus with no effect.

So you're half right. People are going to jump all over you, but not because you've never owned a 1-series camera, just because that's not the solution they're looking for. :-)

--Jeff
 
It could be a million things.

Heck why poking around on the europe site I found some info on configuring the 5D. Interesting point they made was using focus point expansion should NOT be done when focus is critical. That kind of caught me off guard, but thinking about it made sense as the camera may chose one of the expansion points and not focus where I thought it should.
 
Ok if you think i'm off how come ALL THESE PEOPLE SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS I DID !! (most of them own the Mk III)...just read the post on 1st page here and get real....all I see that in half a day there're a half dozen of people who came already at the same conclusions as I did...in a few days all those people who said Mk III was c* p will hind underneath the blanket only to come up in a month or so sayin' how cool the Mk III is...pathetic..just admit it: the camera was more complex that what you'd expect. Is these enough for you?? read and cry:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23717213
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23751122
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23751691
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23751833

--

 
Orcatek said:
It could be a million things.

Heck why poking around on the europe site I found some info on
configuring the 5D. Interesting point they made was using focus
point expansion should NOT be done when focus is critical. That
kind of caught me off guard, but thinking about it made sense as
the camera may chose one of the expansion points and not focus
where I thought it should.
Click to expand...
--Dah! I didn't know that! oops.

Thanks.
-nothing beats a fast lense, except a fast girl-
 
while I may not agree with the presentation of this idea, or the fact that it's presented by an individual who hasn't even touched the camera . . .

There's some new talk on naturescapes.net that is making it seem that "know they (new) camera" is actually the gospel truth in this case.

The adds for the mark III emphasize the "revolution" rather than "evolution" in this upgrade.

It's sytems are NEW

it's custom functions are NEW

it's behavior is NEW

anyway, check this out. starting with the post at the top of the page by LesZ

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=103425&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=580

where he says

LesZ

"I really didn't do a very good job, in my post above, of explaining what I'm seeing with CF III-2. I just ran another series of tests with different settings, and I'll try to do a better job of explaining. I was shooting a rapidly moving subject that filled a good part, not not nearly all of the viewfinder. The subject was moving toward me in an irratic fashion, and, to make the challenge more difficult, the background was quite busy. The camera was set to the selected center point with expansion to all surrounding points. I first tried several bursts of shots with CF III-2 set to the moderately fast position. Then, I shot several bursts with CF III-2 set to the moderately slow position. I looked at all of the pictures in ZoomBrowser, with the focus point visible. With CF III-2 set to the moderately fast setting, every picture that I took where the center focus point or one of surrounding points was on the subject (24 pictures) was sharply in focus, and every one of the 4 pictures that was not in focus was one where neither the center point or any of the surrounding points was on the subject. So, the camera seemed to be working the way I would want it to work. With the moderately slow position, however, the 14 pictures that were in focus were all ones where the center point or a surrounding point was on the subject (as you would expect). However, with the 12 pictures that were not in focus, 3 were ones where none of the active focus points were on the subject, but the other 9 were ones where the focus point or a surrounding point was, in fact, on the subject. So, what that tells me is that, with the slower setting, the camera was not switching from one of the active focus points to another quickly enough to keep the subject in focus. However, with the faster setting, it was switching from one active point to another fast enough to keep the subject in focus, which is, obviously what you would want.

Again, even though I was using the center point with focus point expansion, the same principle should apply to 45 point focus. Additionally, what is helping me significantly to figure out what is happening and why is happening is to make use of ZoomBrowser's ability to show the focus point, and, what I'm finding is that, with the faster focus tracking setting, even with a subject moving toward me and a busy background, the camera is switching from one focus point to another as it should. With the slower focus tracking speed, it is not. And, as I said above, the neutral position on the 1DIII seems to set to a similar speed as the slow or moderately slow speed on the 1DII, and that is consistent with what it said in the link to the dPreview thread."

a few posts later

LesZ

"Comparing the 1DII to the 1DIII, side-by-side, I would say that the tracking speed settings on the 1DII differ from those on the 1DIII by about 2 settings. Thus, the slowest setting on the 1DII seems to be about the same as the neutral setting on the 1DIII. And the neutral setting on the 1DII seems to be about the equivalent of the fastest setting on the 1DIII. Thus, if I was used to using the slowest setting on the 1DII, I need to use the neutral setting on the 1DIII.

While focus tracking speed shouldn't make much difference with static or relatively slow moving subjects, with faster and more irratically moving subjects, it will make a difference. One of the things that is becoming apparent to me is that this is a different focusing system. If I think that I can just take the settings that worked for me with the 1DII and use comparable settings with the 1DIII, I'm not going to get the best results I can, and I'd probably be better off using the 1DII. On the other hand, as I get more and more familiar with the 1DIII and keep an open mind about how some things need to be set up and used differently, I am more and more pleased with the results as each day passes. "

Continue on as he further tests his discovery.

AND his conclusions actually make a bizzare sort of sense. The sensativity custom function would seem to actually "numb" the system to changes in autofocus postion while tracking. I'm thinking slower speeds would be ideal while shotting a relatively stationairy subject with things moving in front of it constantly. A small child standing in a crowd for example. or a single bird perched with a flock of birds flying around it.

Crank up the speed, and now it'll track anything that moves with super precision, and it's up to you to release the AF-ON button when something begins to cross your path to the subject.

It's a speed demon, who loves to work in 5th gear . . . it seems downright sluggish when you tell it to be, which is the issue here.

I'm first on the list at my local shop, who has yet to recieve their first shipment.
 
And more a few posts after that

LesZ

"Here is an additional follow up to my speculation about CF III-3 and the tracking speed.

I've said before that I have not trusted 45 point auto selection of focus points. My results with the 1DII were, at best, inconsistent, and with the limited tries with auto selection with the 1DIII, they have not been good at all. My previous tries with auto selection have been, however, with the focus tracking speed at either slow or in the neutral position. I thought that I'd give 45 point selection a try with the tracking speed set to the fast position. Since I've never had what I consider to be acceptable results with auto selection, I wasn't expecting much.

I did the same kind of test that I had tried earlier. I had a subject with fast and irratic moves coming straight at the camera, and the background was quite busy. My earlier tests were with center point and expansion to surrounding points. This time, I tried it with auto selection, and, again tracking speed set to the fast setting (all the way to the right). I was amazed at how well the camera did. I ran the test 6 times. There were 73 total shots in the six bursts. When I checked the pictures in ZoomBrowser, 71 were in sharp focus, and the only two that were out of focus were ones where I had let the subject wander out of the "ring of fire".

I never got results anywhere near that good with auto selection of the focus point with my 1DII. Not only did it work flawlessly here, but, again, it was with an especially busy background. Since I couldn't get those positive results with the 1DIII in auto selection with the tracking speed in the slow or neutral positions, I'm thinking that I am on to something with regard to the the neutral position on the 1DIII being similar to the slowest position on the 1DII. My in-focus rate with the tracking speed set to fast has now been dramatically better with both a single point and focus point expansion and with auto selection. And if I can get it to work with auto selection, I am even going to have to re-evaluate my position about staying away from auto selection. "

And still more

LesZ

"Since my previous test, I went out one more time and tried it with the fast setting and 45 point focus--same irratic movement of the same subject moving quickly toward me quickly and with the same busy background. This time, out of 23 shots, 21 were in sharp focus. The two that weren't were two shots in succession. The subject was in the ring of fire, but focus was lost. However, it did get it back in the next shot, and 21 of 23 isn't bad, and it is certainly a world of difference better than I was getting with the tracking speed in the slow or neutral positions. Again, my assessment would be that the fastest tracking speed on the 1DII is pretty close to the neutral setting on the 1DII. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top