Reading mode: Light Dark

1DS MkIII Mirror-Slap issue

Go to last post
Leon Wittwer said:
Ben_Egbert said:
One of my big problems was poor focus at distance,
especially with L-zooms. This problem goes away with careful manual
focus.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have seen this with my 1d3 and zooms. I'm beginning to think
that the AF is hurt by the almost inevitable air turbulence, haze and
such atmospheric effects associated with longish shooting distances.
The eye seems to do a better job than the AF sensor.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm
Click to expand...
I shoot from aircraft most of the time, often with the 70-200mm f2.8 and it's sharp at any distance and any angle, I use it on AF.

Kevin.
 
Leon Wittwer said:
Ben_Egbert said:
One of my big problems was poor focus at distance,
especially with L-zooms. This problem goes away with careful manual
focus.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have seen this with my 1d3 and zooms. I'm beginning to think
that the AF is hurt by the almost inevitable air turbulence, haze and
such atmospheric effects associated with longish shooting distances.
The eye seems to do a better job than the AF sensor.
Click to expand...
My thoughts are that the AF is just better at near objects. For one thing, the AF has a tolerance, and when this tolerance is applied to a really distant subject, the error is magnified. Second, the distant stuff has less contrast (maybe for the reason you state). Also, the AF has a very large area even in center point, so it may be grabbing something closer rather than what you want. Finally, all my Canon gear front focuses even close stuff. When you want infity, front focus is always an error.

You would never use AF on the moon, even with a telephoto.
Leon Wittwer said:
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus/root

Ben
 
TomasJacko said:
Yeah, I noticed that.. I just didn't notice that it had auto iso..
--
Click to expand...
Canon does not call it auto iso on the 1D. However the ISO safety shift feature will work with the different shooting modes (Tv, Av and P) and the aperture and shutter speed range and shift ISO to make a normally exposed picture according to the metering mode. Pretty much like auto iso works on other cameras in principle, but the way to input the parameters to the camera differs, of course. ISO will be set between ISO 100 and 1600 and if ISO 1600 is not high enough then under exposure will result, which on the 1Ds mk3 corresponds to higher ISO's anyway.

--
Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
http://www.hanskruse.com
http://www.hanskrusephotography.blogspot.com/
 
I duplicated the test on our MkII and MLU did not appear to make a significant difference.
--
[Profound but corny saying here]

-Matt
 
At very fast shutter speeds to avoid motion blur, I assume.
--
[Profound but corny saying here]

-Matt
 
I see the difference also, shooting horizontal. Not sure how much is greater vibration or more pixels. 1DsIII images sized down to 10MP and compared to the 1DIII would be interesting. Or compared to 1Ds original.

I don't feel like the 1DsIII kicks harder than the 1Ds so I am inclined to believe that its (mostly) the size of the files.

Andrew
 
Is this for real ? Can you only use Canons top-of-the line with high shutterspeeds cause else you get blurry images ? Say this is a joke. I never experienced this with the 1Ds mk2. This camera produces great results with low shutterspeeds (handheld).

I am surprised that everyone seems so relaxed discussing this issue. If the shutter of the 1Ds mk3 really destroys low shutterspeed images I think that is a very serious problem. Or is it just me ?

Jeroen
 
[B] Jeroen said:
Is this for real ? Can you only use Canons top-of-the line with high
shutterspeeds cause else you get blurry images ? Say this is a joke.
I never experienced this with the 1Ds mk2. This camera produces great
results with low shutterspeeds (handheld).
I am surprised that everyone seems so relaxed discussing this issue.
If the shutter of the 1Ds mk3 really destroys low shutterspeed images
I think that is a very serious problem. Or is it just me ?
Click to expand...
See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=28142240 , if you haven't seen it.

--
Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
http://www.hanskruse.com
http://www.hanskrusephotography.blogspot.com/ [/B]
 
[B] Jeroen said:
Is this for real ? Can you only use Canons top-of-the line with high
shutterspeeds cause else you get blurry images ? Say this is a joke.
I never experienced this with the 1Ds mk2. This camera produces great
results with low shutterspeeds (handheld).
I am surprised that everyone seems so relaxed discussing this issue.
If the shutter of the 1Ds mk3 really destroys low shutterspeed images
I think that is a very serious problem. Or is it just me ?
Click to expand...
I am not even sure of this problem and I tested for it. It is subtle. The 1ds-mk3 produces such fine images that you need to learn everything over and do everything a bit better. At least in my case.

I never got such sharp long lens images before because all my previous cameras front focused. Now I have that problem fixed via micro adjust. Now I confront the next issue, shake. I may have had shake before but could not see it for OOF issues. It is fairly easy to fix shake with higher shutter speeds and MLU. You just need to know teh limits.

But it does seem possible that a full size mirror that is shooting at 5FPS may produce more shake than a 5D (slower) or a smaller one like the 1d-mk3 or a 1.6 crop.
*Jeroen* said:
Jeroen
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus/root

Ben[/B]
 
Matt Shanley said:
I simply started this thread to point out that MLU was a NECESSITY
when shooting straight down. I WAS shooting at 1/60th and the
vibration was plainly visible, and I wasn't exactly pixel peeping at
copywork if you know what I mean. As I said before, horizontally it
was not an issue.
Click to expand...
I understand, but I was not referring to your post, but to the others going a bit far on using MLU imho.

I will test this also on a tripod. Were you using a timed delay, cable release or were you touching the shutter button when you were not using MLU?

I did a few vertical hand held tests this morning. Here is one at 100% view, 1/40s, f/8, 70mm (using Canon 24-70 f/2.8L) and ISO 400



Would you call this critically sharp?

--
Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
http://www.hanskruse.com
http://www.hanskrusephotography.blogspot.com/
 
What do you think, would the future Nikon / Sony "suffer" from the same kind of 'mirror-slap-issue' as the mk3 ?

Another question: does Canon use another type of mirror in the mk3 compared to the mk2 ? I never notices mirror slap influence on the 1Ds mk2.
 
Ben_Egbert said:
My thoughts are that the AF is just better at near objects. For one
thing, the AF has a tolerance, and when this tolerance is applied to
a really distant subject, the error is magnified.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because the distant detail is very small in scale, this detail appears to me to be less tolerant to any given amount of blur. Thus, I am not a fan of hyperfocal focussing. Since the distant detail in many of my landscapes extends to below what I can resolve, I wonder if the AF sensor perhaps has some difficulty in "seeing" this detail.
Ben_Egbert said:
Second, the distant
stuff has less contrast (maybe for the reason you state).
Click to expand...
Yes, this is often an issue. This is why shooting in the western US during the winter or spring at 5000+ ft altitude is such a pleasurable experience. The light is very crisp, the air is less dense, cleaner and with less turbulence.
Ben_Egbert said:
Also, the
AF has a very large area even in center point, so it may be grabbing
something closer rather than what you want. Finally, all my Canon
gear front focuses even close stuff. When you want infity, front
focus is always an error.
Click to expand...
I have not seen that. If the front focussing is consistent across all your lenses, that suggests that a camera calibration may be in order.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm
 
Ah, ok, you mean the safety shift. Quite a different thing though.
Hans Kruse said:
TomasJacko said:
Yeah, I noticed that.. I just didn't notice that it had auto iso..
--
Click to expand...
Canon does not call it auto iso on the 1D. However the ISO safety
shift feature will work with the different shooting modes (Tv, Av and
P) and the aperture and shutter speed range and shift ISO to make a
normally exposed picture according to the metering mode. Pretty much
like auto iso works on other cameras in principle, but the way to
input the parameters to the camera differs, of course. ISO will be
set between ISO 100 and 1600 and if ISO 1600 is not high enough then
under exposure will result, which on the 1Ds mk3 corresponds to
higher ISO's anyway.

--
Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
http://www.hanskruse.com
http://www.hanskrusephotography.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...
--
http://www.tomasjacko.com

Only those who cannot see beyond their viewfinder consider cropping a sin.
 
Leon Wittwer said:
Ben_Egbert said:
My thoughts are that the AF is just better at near objects. For one
thing, the AF has a tolerance, and when this tolerance is applied to
a really distant subject, the error is magnified.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because the distant detail is very small in scale, this
detail appears to me to be less tolerant to any given amount of blur.
Thus, I am not a fan of hyperfocal focussing. Since the distant
detail in many of my landscapes extends to below what I can resolve,
I wonder if the AF sensor perhaps has some difficulty in "seeing"
this detail.
Leon Wittwer said:
Second, the distant
stuff has less contrast (maybe for the reason you state).
Click to expand...
Yes, this is often an issue. This is why shooting in the western US
during the winter or spring at 5000+ ft altitude is such a
pleasurable experience. The light is very crisp, the air is less
dense, cleaner and with less turbulence.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and this is my favorite sort of place to do photography. So when I have a problem with distant subjects, I sort of rule that out. Also, my 28-135 Will get the distant stuff much sharper than my 17-40 or 24-105 if I just use AF. I can sort of equalize it if I manual focus. So this is not purely an atmospheric condition.
Leon Wittwer said:
Leon Wittwer said:
Also, the
AF has a very large area even in center point, so it may be grabbing
something closer rather than what you want. Finally, all my Canon
gear front focuses even close stuff. When you want infity, front
focus is always an error.
Click to expand...
I have not seen that. If the front focussing is consistent across
all your lenses, that suggests that a camera calibration may be in
order.
--
Click to expand...
All but my newest lens (35f1.4) have been calibrated as have all my cameras, some twice. They start out front focused, and come back a bit less front focused.

My 1DS-mk3 has micro adjust and the average is +7 clicks (almost 1DOF front focus). It was sent in Monday along with my 35L which needed 12 clicks.

I have started thinking that I do something wrong that leads to front focus, but I sure can't put my hands on it. I test my lenses with a very good test target, and have the ability to measure the focus error very accurately. I always take a series of tests with defocussing in opposite directions between shots, then take an average. Some lenses are pretty consistent, others vary according to direction of starting location.

It really hurts that I am unable to see sharpness until I get home and start looking at 100% on a good monitor. If I were able to see mis focus at the time, I would probably be able to correct it.
Leon Wittwer said:
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus/root

Ben
 
[B] Jeroen said:
What do you think, would the future Nikon / Sony "suffer" from the
same kind of 'mirror-slap-issue' as the mk3 ?

Another question: does Canon use another type of mirror in the mk3
compared to the mk2 ? I never notices mirror slap influence on the
1Ds mk2.
Click to expand...
Even if the mirrors are identical, the faster burst rate of the 1dsmk3 means that they need to use a more aggressive system to get the mirror closed fast. This could mean stiffer springs, or a faster motor, and less time for dampening between shots.

Think of it this way, if I had lots of time, I could make the mirror close as slow as I wanted and as softly as I wanted.

On the other hand, I think flim cameras had even faster rates, anyone know the numbers? I assume a film camera has a very simmilar mirror and shutter.

--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus/root

Ben[/B]
 
john pringle said:
I now have an explanation for some of my attempts as well. Thanks for
the heads up.
Click to expand...
My 1ds-mk3 just went in for cleaning and viewfinder alignment. I asked them to check the mirror mechanism as well.

It will be interesting to see what response I get. I expect them to say it meets factory spec, with no explanation. This seems like a good question for Chuck Westfall.
john pringle said:
--
I love photography
http://jpringlephoto.com/
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus/root

Ben
 
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