| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Mark III auto focus
Scott Greenlee, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Crescent Springs | KY | United States | Posted: 10:17 PM on 06.10.07 |
| ->> The Mark III has been out over a week now and nobody has asked the question all Canon user want to know. How's the auto focus? Is it better than the Mark II N? |
|
Alex Menendez, Photographer
 |
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 10:28 PM on 06.10.07 |
->> Check my newest update, http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4663,
I shot last night, stayed at 1600 all night to compare it to the markII. I left the focus point on center and shot mostly at 2.8. There is a bit of blur to the shots but I was shooting multiple shots with a simple on board flash so not every image had the light.
The focus did seem a little slow but I credit that to the lack of light and leftover smoke in the arena.
I would like to know if SI has a setup on this camera yet and if anyone knows where to get it. When the MarkII first came out they let their shooters know what settings they wanted when they shot for the magazine, I would really like to get that setup if possible (Mr Beck).
I set the camera up to use the back-focus button but it still takes time to get use to the camera. The playback and menu buttons are simply not there and you now have the new thumb button above the big dial on the back so in time I hope to master it.
Don Montague and I are shooting in Miami tomorrow night and probably in the rain at the Orange Bowl, i will play with the ISO a bit more and post when we get back. We are shooting 2 soccer matches (concacaf cup) so it should be a test with the 400 at night.
c-ya
alex |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 10:31 PM on 06.10.07 |
->> In a word: Yes.
And the files are sharp, unlike the files from many Mark II bodies.
There are many, many options via Custom Functions in setting up the AF for the Mark III. I think the best way to determine what works best for you is to take it out in the field and use plain old trial and error.
I have used a couple of baseball games to do this. I received a list of CF settings from a friend that noted that was worked best for him. After one baseball game I had changed two of those settings.
Many people have emailed me the past couple of weeks asking me for advice on how to set up their camera's Custom Functions and I have told them all the same thing: It is something you really have to determine yourself.
As with just about anything out there, YMMV.
Mahalo. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 10:32 PM on 06.10.07 |
->> Yes Mr. Beck!
I too am breathlessly awaiting to read how you have your Mark III bodies set up. |
|
Preston Mack, Photographer
 |
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 10:37 PM on 06.10.07 |
->> They added a third button "AF-ON" , in the thumb area.
It is to the left of where the traditional af start button for the thumb is.
You can switch the function with the "+" button, so the AF remains where it was on the previous Canon bodies, but when you chimp, you need to use far left "Af-ON" button to zoom the preview. That is abit awkward.
I would prefer to have only the 2 thumb buttons, like the past few EOS bodies, but it is a minor complaint.
Otherwise, the camera seems to be very good. i like being able to shoot sRaw files. I will have to convert some of them and see if the results are comparable to the normal full RAW file. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 10:59 PM on 06.10.07 |
->> I had changed my "back button" pref to the one in the middle ("-" button) like many MIII owners.
But I changed it back to the default button ("AF-On" button) and have used the past couple of weeks to get to know the positions of the controls on my cameras.
I had thought like many that changing the AF button to one that was in the position on the MII would be best.
But I found that I really liked the position of the MIII vertical AF button ... so for me it was best to just learn and get used to the new top AF button.
As I said previous, these settings are all according to personal tastes, use and comfort.
Mahalo! |
|
John Froschauer, Photographer
 |
Seattle area | WA | USA | Posted: 11:49 PM on 06.10.07 |
| ->> Yeah, but those of us with small hands like it swapped with the button that is the same as the Mark I/Mark II. Personal tastes and comfort. Robert's right about one thing, sharp so far. |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
 |
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 7:52 AM on 06.11.07 |
->> "Yes Mr. Beck!
I too am breathlessly awaiting to read how you have your Mark III bodies set up."
Please don't hold out too long Mr. Beck, I hate seeing SportsShooters turn blue as they gasp for air. Grin. An entire industry moves on your single word. Feel the power!!!
Does the Mk3 have a Holga setting? I'd switch if there was a Holga setting. Double Grin.
Glad to learn that the Mk3 is sharp. Does that mean previous version of this model where NOT sharp? Perhaps the earlier version DID have a secret Holga setting that need to be turned off? Just a hypothesis.
Anyway, I'm leaving my Holga past, and moving into the Aero-Ektar era. Nothing Nikon or Canon makes can top 1940s Kodak Military glass. It's radioactive!!! |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
 |
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 1:12 PM on 06.11.07 |
->> So far I think the Mark III AF is an improvement, but it's not flawless. Yesterday I photographed a couple hundred cyclists in a triathlon and for the most part the Mark III AF did well, but there were still missed shots. Sometimes it would be the first frame in a sequence (which was the most common if AF was off), or it would be somewhere in a sequence. But, I was able to get very nice results with a 400mm, ranging from full bike & rider head on to as tight as rider & handlebars, this with them coming at me down a slight hill at probably around 30mph. I tried with and without the 1.4x and found the results to be better without the teleconverter, with more in focus images. While I have not found the off center AF points on the Mark II all that reliable, I used the upper most point (when in vertical) with the Mark III and was happy with the results. At least in this instance, it appears to be as reliable as the center point from the Mark II models. Where the AF had some trouble was when I had to quickly pick off cyclists as they approached in groups. It seems the Mark III (like most cameras) likes to have a half second or so to properly calculate the subject speed, but when forced to do this quickly, it might take a frame or two for the AF to finally make an accurate lock.
Results with other sports like ice hockey shot from an overhead position and soccer have been good, though the soccer was difficult to judge due to the amount of heat coming off the Field Turf, which always throws off the AF.
In general the AF gives the impression of being much more responsive, but it will take more in the field experience to determine if it's a huge improvement over previous cameras.
About the AF On button placement. I agree I like the position of the button when shooting verticals but not so much for horizontals. For the time being I've switched it back to the same buttons as the Mark II. But, the button placement in vertical mode is fairly close together and sometimes I hit the wrong one... |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 1:38 PM on 06.11.07 |
->> That's funny...I found that the MIII's biggest improvement is in picking up focus instantly (especially first frame) and tracking throughout sequences also much improved.
I've only used the MIII shooting hockey, baseball and trapeze and once I settled on a couple of sets of CFs it has been very consistent.
I guess some people's "Sopranos" are other people's NBA Finals...
Mahalo! |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 4:40 PM on 06.11.07 |
->> Robert,
That is also what I've noticed while using the Mark III, that the AF is much faster at finding the initial point of focus. It's just after looking through a huge stack of the cycling images that I noticed some instances where it would still missfocus, and for me it was usually the first frame. It could very well have been influenced by my technique in this situation, as often there wasn't more than a split second to properly line up the next cyclist after finishing a sequence. I agree that the Mark III's AF performance is faster and more consistent, but don't want to simply say it's "perfect" because in reality, it still misfocuses some shots, just like any other camera (and then there is user error to factor in as well, which I'm sure affected my results to a certain degree). |
|
David Bergman, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 6:45 PM on 06.11.07 |
->> I'll determine Sports Illustrated's Mark III settings recommendations and post them at siphoto.com in the next couple of weeks. As Bert says, however, many of the functions should be changed based on your own preference.
David Bergman
http://www.DavidBergman.net |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
 |
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 6:48 PM on 06.11.07 |
->> I've had good luck with it in the the two baseball games I shot. I am curious to know which focus point you all are using? I've defaulted to the middle one, but is it more beneficial to use all 19?
Jody |
|
Robert Beck, Photographer
 |
Carlsbad | CA | USA | Posted: 3:14 AM on 06.12.07 |
| ->> I don't think I've ever posted my settings from any camera and I've heard these newbies take a while to figure out. I'd be happy to post my settings...When I get a body and the time to test it. |
|
Robert Beck, Photographer
|
Carlsbad | CA | USA | Posted: 3:23 AM on 06.12.07 |
| ->> By the way...Any tips on how to charge the new batteries? |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
|
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 7:08 AM on 06.12.07 |
->> What? Mr. Beck doesn't even have a MkIII?
Man, there's a lot of blue faced SportsShooters out here!
*****
"By the way...Any tips on how to charge the new batteries?"
Read the manuel. Grin |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 10:14 AM on 06.12.07 |
->> Robert,
I would post my settings if I thought anyone would actually trust the way I shoot -- and if I weren't still toying with a few things.
I have played with the focus settings a bit and am still fine tuning but I've been very happy so far.
As far as the batteries go, they are pretty much the same battery in the Nikon D2 series (just switched from D2 series to the MKIII so I have a good comparison) and the batteries are very solid.
It's kind of like the Ronco Rotisserie infomercial "just set it and forget it." Just charge it when it needs it and maybe every now and then refresh.
Hopefully they are set up like the Nikon batteries/chargers and will automatically refresh when it needs.
You'll find great information in the Battery Info menu item such as percentage charge left and how the overall battery life is holding up (is it still good or about to die and never take a charge again).
In several years of shooting the D2 cameras I never had a battery go bad, not take a charge and they just keep going and going and going. Seriously, I've run through an NFL game and still had well over 50 percent charge left on my batteries and have gone two or three NBA games without recharging. |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 9:31 PM on 06.12.07 |
->> I will happily share my settings. Just drop me an email. I think I have it pretty well dialed, but I'm open for suggestions if I send you my settings and you see something that can be tweaked.
:~)
Jody |
|
Alex Menendez, Photographer
|
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 2:28 PM on 06.14.07 |
| ->> A few more shots on my member page from a recent soccer event in Miami. I got the dreaded ERROR99 message 7 times during the night. I have since cleaned the lens contacts and haven't had problems since. I will keep you posted after I shoot the F1 race this weekend at Indy. |
|
Michael Rogers, Photographer
|
Kailua | Hi | USA | Posted: 2:41 PM on 06.14.07 |
->> Speaking of settings for the Mark lll, is or has anyone been shooting with the 600mm f4 Lens, and are you using all of the focal points or just Center Point focus only??
I've been out twice for surf shoots, the 1st go was center point focus only, and the 2nd I used all points...I felt that the use of all gave me more focused shots overall, but, not as good a percentage as my Mark lln |
|
Robert Deutsch, Photographer
 |
NY | NY | USA | Posted: 5:30 PM on 06.15.07 |
->> Hey Alex,
I got an error 99 on one of my Mark III bodies.. twice.. shooting portraits last week.
The files were messed up also... in those frames. Did you notice if you had bad files corresponding to the error99's??? |
|
Wade Barker, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
College Station | TX | USA | Posted: 6:30 PM on 06.15.07 |
| ->> Has anyone played with the individual lens focus adjustments? Mine will be here in a couple days and I'm curious how that works. |
|
Alex Menendez, Photographer
|
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 7:23 PM on 06.16.07 |
->> Robert,
Just got confirmation at the F1 race at Indy by the Canon guys set up at the track that I have to send the camera in for repair. I will call you directly to tell you more.
I shut off the camera about 60 times today to get it to reset.
alex |
|
Paul Anderson, Photographer
|
Münster | Germany | Germany | Posted: 9:31 PM on 06.16.07 |
->> I spoke with a Canon shooter in Germany this week who had a Mark III on order. He told me that his dealer sent the entire 1st order of cameras back to Canon. He told me that the dealer had multiple problems and errors the several cameras right out of the box.
I spoke with a Mark III user who did not complain about any error problems. He also said that ISO 2500 is usable, when ISO 1600 was usable on is Mark IIn, and that he hated the new screen.
The Getty staffer I spoke with said he did not know when he would get a Mark III, he guessed in September.
Paul |
|
Slobodan Juric, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Saint Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 10:14 PM on 06.16.07 |
| ->> I have my Mark III - why did her hate the screen Paul? |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 10:52 PM on 06.16.07 |
->> Maybe it is because the screens have a gamma something or other that makes them look more like computer screens. Here's a quote from the white pages: "the color reproduction range has been increased and gamma is added to simulate a personal computer monitor. Thus, color reproduction is improved to make the images look more natural."
It takes a little getting used to. It seems to be a bit bluer than the IIn.
Jody |
|
Slobodan Juric, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Saint Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 11:18 PM on 06.16.07 |
->> JODY - Thanks for bringing that to the attention of the interested ones. I think it is definitely more blurry then the Mark II N. I guess perhaps its the same screen resoultion as the Mark II n - just stretched to fit the 3" thats making it not so good. Before I used to be able to tell if things were in focus on the screen - now I am not too sure - that seems to be a little of a problem for me.
I had been wondering if others noticed the same as myself about the LCD blurry - lack of sharpness. |
|
Josh Lehrer, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 11:25 PM on 06.16.07 |
->> Hello all:
After using the brand new Mark III we just got in at school, I have to agree with some of the statements made here. Over the course of a 7 hour day of shooting, with 2 different 580ex flashes (original ones), a 24-70 and 16-35, the camera gave me an Error 99 about 7 times, each time resulting in me having to restart the camera.
Another note, I was shooting Raw+small jpeg, sometimes when the camera would lock up, it would only write the small jpeg and not the raw file. Very strange.
I also noticed that a lot of the shots did not look tack sharp on the LCD, this worried me until I got them back on the computer and saw everything was in focus.
Perhaps issues that will be address in firmware upgrades? Maybe our copy was bad? Who knows.
JL |
|
Slobodan Juric, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Saint Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 11:33 PM on 06.16.07 |
| ->> Josh I think the LCD issue is a big problem - freaked me out first - hope its something that can be fixed with firmware and not something that's only fixable via CPS, etc. |
|
Jack Joseph Jr., Photographer
 |
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:11 PM on 06.17.07 |
->> "It takes a little getting used to. It seems to be a bit bluer than the IIn."
OMG Jody, my 1D2N and 5D screens are so cyan/blue that using them for judging color or WB is useless. I don't know if I could stand even more blue! |
|
Nick Doan, Photographer
|
Scottsdale Phoenix Tempe | AZ | USA | Posted: 3:39 PM on 06.17.07 |
->> My MarkII is a little too Magenta, and my 5D is very Blue. But, the mark III screen I used last night was very close to what my monitor showed me later. (I'm using a brand new 22" widescreen connected to the X1900 vid card in my Mac Pro if that matters to anyone. Calibration done with the Mac OS.)
I used the default AF On buttons, and found it wasn't that hard to get used to, though whe I switched from shooting vertically back to horizontal, it took a half second longer for my thumb to find the button.
The AF was fine, I shot in all three modes last night while shooting football (Arizona HS All Star Football game), and I think I decided that the default AF priority was the most trustworthy; and though it limits yo to a 14 frame burst...I never really approach that. When looking at the files at home, the photos were all great, and it didn't do that weird MarkII thing where some files in a sequence were just out of focus.
The best part of the camera was that I was shooting at 1/500, F2.8 at ISO2500, and there was so little noise, that I had to find underexposed files to see any at all. I even checked out a couple of files at ISO6400...and the 6400 files were way cleaner than the ISO3200 files on my Mark II.
The worst part of the camera though is definitely the LCD. When it zooms in 10x and everything looks soft until you step all the way out...that was a little disconcerting. But, I thikn it will be something we can get used to. (Maybe it will help some of us to stop chimping so much...)
I borrowed the camera from a friend, and I shot less than 800 frames with it, but I feel like I got ot know it well enough to be very confident about it. I will definietly purchase one a my earliest opportunity. |
|
Matthias Hangst, Photographer
 |
Asperg/Germany | BW | Germany | Posted: 4:24 PM on 06.17.07 |
->> and maybe i am the first one who gave his mk III back to his dealer a few days ago and get back my money. and a few other photographers in germany did the same. i have shot two matches of the german national soccer team last week. and it was a very disappointing story.
the mk III is in focus. nearly perfect. but the ai servo did not work correctly if the object is moving and you use the 10 fps for series, running portraits etc.
all my lenses are justified by cps germany and i think i am not to stupid to do my job.
but for all of you. enjoy the camera. a lot of my colleagues are very happy with the mk III.
i hate it! |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 10:47 PM on 06.17.07 |
->> The screen was one of my first feedback complaints about the camera. The original 1D Mark II's 2" screen is 230,000 pixels. The Mark III's 3" screen is 230,000 pixels... C'mon Canon, what were you thinking here? Of course it's going to end up looking softer! When I chimp with the Mark III, I just tag everything that looks reasonable then wait for the verdict during edit on the computer. I've found the slight softness also makes critical focusing with live view slightly hit or miss. Even though the live view image is oversharpened, the screen's softness can at times make precise placement of the plane of focus with very fast aperture lenses tricky. Additionally the gamma of my camera's display is too high, not displaying shadow detail that actually exist. This is particularly an issue when working in direct sunlight as the images tend to look too heavy in the shadows, but checking the histogram will confirm that shadow detail exists. However, the background color of the histogram is nearly black, the background in the histogram view playback mode is pure black. In bright sunlight it is virtually impossible to see where the histogram boundaries are vs. the black background, making it difficult to determine how close one is to clipping highlights/shadows. And, my camera's display is too saturated and on the yellow/green side.
Today it was another MLS match, but the Field Turf was radiating so much heat it was impossible to get a truly sharp image with the 400. As with the Mark II N, the heat caused focus tracking issues with the camera focusing all over the place, so will have to find something else...
Regarding my comments above from June 11: I took a much closer look at the images from the triathlon and found that my Mark III did well with the cyclists when I placed the AF point properly (go figure!). I looked at a bunch of shots in Canon's ImagebrowserZoombrowser and used the AF point overlay feature to show exactly where the AF point was placed during exposure. Quite a few "soft" images were due to poor technique on my part, where the cyclist's face was soft because the AF point was actually placed on a shoulder or upper torso area for a few frames (and those areas were in focus). Yet, there were often at least one or two frames per sequence that were just not focused where the AF point was placed. What troubles me most are the relatively poor results shooting the run portion backlit. If the subject was wearing something like a plain t-shirt, I'd say the keeper rate was 50/50. Sure, low contrast can often be an issue for AF, but unfortunately at least for my Mark III, it appears to still be a challenge. But it should be noted that the AF setup was pretty much at default. Some of the results may have been different with tweaking of the CFs. For example the AF point expansion might have helped with the backlit runners.
For normal non-action photography, the Mark III has been great. I really enjoy using it, but as stated above, it's also not perfect. While I don't think my results have been as bad as what Matthias stated, I feel I still haven't shot enough action or optimized the CF settings to really draw a definitively negative conclusion (or definitively positive). |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 10:51 PM on 06.17.07 |
->> Jack, the screen on my Mark IIn is sort of greenish/yellow in tint. I didn't know there could be so much difference.
As far as my Mark III, I guess I'm blessed. No problems so far. Same with my 30D when I bought it - and mine was one of the first.
Thank Goodness for small favors.
:~) |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 2:48 PM on 06.18.07 |
->> For all those with great luck so far with their Mark IIIs, have you shot any backlit sports action with subject movement? This is specifically where I'm seeing the most issues. Front lit, direct sunlight with great contrast is not generally a problem. Lower contrast subject matter is...
Let the rest of us know...
There has also been a suggestion made elsewhere to try shooting at a slower FPS rate to see if it resolves tracking issues, like 6 to start with. I'm going to test this in a few days at my next event. |
|
Richard Heathcote, Photographer
 |
London | . | UK | Posted: 6:19 PM on 06.18.07 |
->> I have been shooting with a mkIII this weekend at cricket. Most of the action requires a 500mm, and also the use of convertors...
Now with my 70-200, 400 and 500 the convertors were a big no-no on my mk2 bodies, to the point I thought my convertors were a bad batch and so awful I would rather consider pulling up a smaller frame than put the convertor on.
With the mkIII - amazing...500mm with the 1.4x was razor sharp, front and backlit, even wide open... and the 500mm and 2x was also very very good, and if I stopped down just 1 stop...perfect
whatever canon have done with the AF on the mkIII it works... |
|
Abner Kingman, Photographer
 |
Tiburon | CA | USA | Posted: 5:15 PM on 06.19.07 |
| ->> I've had focus problems with the mark III and moving backlit subjects - whole series that were out of focus. |
|
Derick Hingle, Photographer
 |
Hammond | LA | USA | Posted: 2:15 PM on 04.29.08 |
->> I just acquired a Mark III a few weeks ago, and was just looking for some suggestions for custom functions, I looked on the siphoto.com site, but there was no listing for Mark III.
Thanks for the help. |
|
Derick Hingle, Photographer
|
Hammond | LA | USA | Posted: 9:20 PM on 04.30.08 |
| ->> Thanks guys, I will check those out, appreciate the help! |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
We BUY & TRADE you OLD Gear
|
Available from:
Adorama Camera
|
Price: $0.00 |
Notes:
We all have some cameras & lenses sitting around collecting dust right?...Or you work at a Newspaper that has downsized?...What to do with your excess photographic equipment? Adorama's Used Dept is looking for your used gear to purchase or take in trade. Contact me directly jsnyder@adorama.com or 1-800-223-2500 X2435 and I can fill you in on the details. Cash in your pocket is better than sitting on the shelf, right?
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
