| 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
I got a NEW Mark III -- Images are very soft - Cry Cry--
Michael Cullen, Photographer
 |
Wexford Town | 0000 | Ireland | Posted: 4:59 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> I got new Canon EOS-1D Mark III camera.
I took pics yesterday of a GAA Football game, (400 ASA 1,000/1) and 95% of the images are VERY soft....
I dont understand the custom settings on the camera, dont know if that's why the images are soft.
What do you think the problem is..... The camera, or the settings?
Thanks |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 5:34 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> Well we'll need more info on the settings you used, including the CF functions. Are you new to Canon or have you been shooting say a 1D mkII N for years and therefore are quite familar with how Canon's menus and functions work.
That said, the M3 is probably one of the most documented cases of being a lemon of any modern DSLR. Not every one of course, but the first two I bought had the issues that it sounds like you might be having. Totally soft images and just a total inability to focus on any moving subjects no matter what I did.
These were early pre sub mirror fix though and from what I've heard, most newer ones should be pretty good. My "blue dot" worked pretty well save for some still weird AF behavior at times but nothing like 95% OOF images. |
|
Michael Cullen, Photographer
|
Wexford Town | 0000 | Ireland | Posted: 5:41 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> Jeff
I have never used the Mark cameras before.
Here is the setting I used:-
Picture style:- Neutral- Sharpness
I'm not familar with how Canon's menus and functions on this camera yet.
Thanks
M |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 5:55 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> I dont have a link sorry, but there was a pretty informative PDF file that Canon put out about how all the custom functions work and under what conditions they'd be best suited etc.
Sort of Canon 1D mkIII sports photography crash course if you will. I think if you search for it a bit you should be able to come across it.
Its alot more to the point and written with examples of sports photography so it makes a lot more sense than the manual.
I'd suggest giving that a try to eliminate the obvious user errors but sad to say that sometimes you do just get a total lemon of a camera and its best to return those to your dealer for an exchange |
|
Lesley Ann Miller, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Stephen Lam, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 6:09 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> Jeff,
Is this the pdf file you're talking about?
http://tinyurl.com/34fcgr |
|
Joe Morahan, Photographer
|
Denver | Co | USA | Posted: 6:50 PM on 03.30.09 |
| ->> just use auto-focus |
|
Fabio Muzzi, Photographer
|
GHEZZANO | PISA | ITALY | Posted: 1:07 AM on 03.31.09 |
->> Hi Michael,
I 'm been using the Canon Eos1 Digital camera since the first model.
Every time arrived the newer camera the images are been more soft than the older.
It's a long time that there are great debate around entire photographic world for much kind and different problems.
About us: the fastest way to understand if the problem is into your focus tracking or not, is try to set a lot of Custom Function as sharpness ( before all) on the camera.
For default it is set on 2 or 3. I don't remeber exactly.
Also for me, I set it around 6 or 7 ( maximum).
In this way the file should be better clear than the other immediately to see.
If this not appear, and you continue to see a not perfect focusing ( or clear ),
this could be mean that the camera could be affect of other issues as back or front focusing or focus tracking.
Also, and I don't know if already tried, you have to test on every lens that you use, if these lens need to be focus calibrate with the camera.
If not right calibrated, that's can create also not perfect sharpening on the files.
To do this calibration, you have to surf into the menu of the camera, into the Custom Function until you see the panel AF Microadjustement.
If also that can not adjust anything............ send the camera to CPS service.
Good luch,
Fabio
www.fabiomuzzi.it
www.tuscanylandscapes.com |
|
JC Ridley, Photographer
|
Coral Springs | FL | US | Posted: 6:45 AM on 03.31.09 |
| ->> Congrats! You have just purchased the "Ford Pinto" of professional DSLRs! |
|
Michael Cullen, Photographer
|
Wexford Town | 0000 | Ireland | Posted: 8:32 AM on 03.31.09 |
->> Thanks for your info/help here...
I will play around with the settings, and the links here are great.
Thanks
M |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 10:03 AM on 03.31.09 |
->> "What do you think the problem is"
The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves...
You should remember the first rule of computing (and now digital cameras).
RTFM.
Read The F**king Manual.
If you haven't done so, cover to cover, then do it now. |
|
William Purnell, Photographer
|
Wichita | Ks | | Posted: 1:29 PM on 04.01.09 |
->> Even though people like to bag on the camera and point out its faults, it actually can be a great piece of equipment.
However coming to a 1 series body if you havent used one before is going to be somewhat of a learning curve. The autofocus and focus tracking on these camera's is very sensitive, It takes some practice.
Also, you might want to check different lenses, sometimes a little micro-adjustment is needed. |
|
Robert Catto, Photographer
|
Wellington | NZ | New Zealand | Posted: 5:48 PM on 04.01.09 |
->> > I 'm been using the Canon Eos1 Digital camera since the first model. Every time arrived the newer camera the images are been more soft than the older.
Really, Fabio? I'm surprised to hear you say that - of course the change from CCD to CMOS (MkI to MkII) had that feeling as the contrast was reduced, but I found - when in focus - the MkIII files have SO much more detail than my MkII that there's no comparison between the two. When it's good, it's very, very good; when it doesn't focus, it's horrid!
> The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves...
Nice. The most literate version of RTFM I've found - thanks, Jim!
Questions of course become - what lens, are you shooting .jpg or RAW (ie. whether in-camera sharpening settings come into play or not), what focus mode (and the many variations of settings within that) and of course whether you mean they're just plain out of focus, or just not sharpened in-camera.
There are too many options out there to give a real opinion yet - but one other note is that I've found in low light situations that the decision-making processes in my MkIII will sometimes choose a high-contrast background object over the low-contrast subject in the foreground. This has been improved by later firmware updates - so check whether your camera is up to v1.2.6, and if not, put it in there right away.
In either case, read more about the AF system fixes recently announced by Canon at http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030310canon1dfirmwareupdate.asp and see if you think that applies to your case...
R
p.s. and microadjustment, as Fabio pointed out - best way I've found to do this is at http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4708&page=7 and see post #67 for the summary so far... |
|
Robert Catto, Photographer
|
Wellington | NZ | New Zealand | Posted: 5:56 PM on 04.01.09 |
->> Oops, sorry - that should read firmware 1.2.5 (not 1.2.6) as the current release for the 1DMkIII. My mistake!
R |
|
Michael Cullen, Photographer
|
Wexford Town | 0000 | Ireland | Posted: 6:06 PM on 04.01.09 |
->> Robert
Thats a great post, and good info....
off to look at the links now....
M |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 3:27 AM on 04.02.09 |
->> I just spent a couple hours looking at lacrosse images (24 games, three shooters, two Mark IIIs and a D3, shooting all day) and *it's not even remotely close*. All of us (the shooters) are seasoned pros that know our equipment and how to shoot. The difference is so dramatic as to be hard to believe...virtually everything out of my D3 is tack, and I do mean TACK sharp. The Mark III...not so much. Even the stuff that is sharp just isn't...the same. I won't even get into color, contrast and intangibles, but the softness is more than just a focus issue.
Even though I've followed the whole debacle with some curiosity, even shot briefly with a borrowed Mark III, nothing prepared me for the reality of looking at thousands and thousands of images and seeing it for myself in full resolution.
Not. Even. Close. |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
|
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 3:41 AM on 04.02.09 |
->> don't bad mouth the ford pinto.
Mine would do 45mph uphill. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 6:42 AM on 04.02.09 |
| ->> Yeah, Aaron, the question is was it on fire or not? |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 8:30 AM on 04.02.09 |
| ->> Yeah, and was the sail up or down? |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 1:12 PM on 04.02.09 |
->> Michael,
You probably have more experience then me but I shot both the D3 and the Mark III.
And my properly working Mark III was better image looking wise then the D3. Sharpness, color, contrast etc...
I shot the D3 for a few months and now the Mark III for at least a few months.
I like the look of Mark III files much better then D3 files.
But again that is a personal preference. But I believe the focus ability of a properly working Mark III is faster then the D3 |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 1:41 PM on 04.02.09 |
->> You are one of the lucky ones, I guess. I haven't done a rigorous side-by-side test, although that would be interesting. But I was shocked by what I saw in a real-world situation with two good shooters with Mark IIIs. Clearly, photo editors are seeing the same thing, thus the (remarkable) migration back to Nikon.
There are more compelling things about the D3 than the AF, by the way. That camera is simply magic. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 1:46 PM on 04.02.09 |
->> Michael,
Not going to lie, the camera is a beast. I loved using it! Being able to use ISO 25000 for artistic type shots was fun.
It was everything I hope Canon can produce one day.
Like I said in my experience that is what I feel and when it comes to the way an image looks that is always going to be a personal opinion.
Take care |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 3:41 PM on 04.02.09 |
->> There are inerrant differences between the Canon and Nikon files. Without getting into a battle on what is better it's fair to say that the difference is similar to the differences between the Fuji and Kodak chromes. There is a noticeable difference in the 'pop' and edge qualities.
I took over for my wife doing the post processing for some of our events and after sitting in front of a pair of 21" displays it becomes obvious. That being said, as a devoted Nikon-nut I haven't found it that difficult to push the levels and bump the sharpness a tad more to get a similar output from my Canon shooters. For ME if I had to send files straight from card to print I'd prefer the Nikon files as they have that Velvia snap and pop. If the files are going to go through a controlled post then short of the noise at high (3200+) iso's it's a matter of what system and body you are comfortable with. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
