Question about 1D MkIII for sports use

desantnik

desantnik

Messages
9,848
Name
Vlad
Edit My Images
Yes
Am thinking of taking the plunge to a 1D MkIII and obviously I have heard all about the problems around the AF system.

Have read old Galbraith's latest update on it and he still rekons it back and front focuses... BUT... just how much of a problem is it?

My main subject is motorsport and the reason for heading this direction is to get away from slow focus problems and increase my hit rate.

Can anyone who uses this for motorsport give me some idea of the percentage of misses due to the "problem" or even speculate as to whether Canon's latest fixes have improved on the issue or not noticeably.

I just want some kind of rough idea of what I am actually letting myself in for here - am prepared to accept a reasonable problem rate to be honest.

So some serious opinion based on experience rather than second hand gossip if you can please...
 
I have shot many subjects with mine including football and other sports, with no problem.

Canon 1DMKIII with Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM & Canon 1.4 extender

8B8C0640.JPG


8B8C0638.JPG
 
Just spotted this under my name (Prefers Average User Mode) cheeky monkeys.
It's true though.
 
Well, given that the whining has all revolved around athletics and young girls playing football (judging by the sample photos on a certain website), I'd say your experience is pretty relevant to me as it should show up the "problem"

Is yours in the serial number range for the fault though?

Obviously mine won't be (or I damn well hope not!)
 
I am not sure about the serial number range,dont know whats ment to be good or bad.
Same for this blue or white dot thing as well, mine has no dot's anywhere on the camera or in it. Mine worked fine out of the box and with a few settings changed even better.
Have a look at the Canon link for setting up the camera for all sorts of shooting.
You can save each setting onto a memory card and call them up as you need them, 10 settings can be saved on a card.

1st shot with the 1DMKIII

Mand_1.jpg


Other shots with the camera

Swan_fly.jpg


8B8C0229.jpg


8B8C0590.jpg





http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedim...S1D_1DsMark_IIIoptimizingAFsettings_Final.pdf
 
i have no problems with mine, there are many different setting in the menue to help with different situations.. to do with the speed in which it'll shoot, it can be set to prioritise over the first shot, makes sure its sharp before it'll let the shutter go and then track for the burst, there is a better way to explain things im sure but its a cracking bit of kit.. im SURE you wont be dissapointed..
 
Forgot to say all shots are with the Canon 70-200 F2.8 L and the 1.4 extender on as well.
It's that good I am getting a 2nd one in a few months, so I might sell the 1DSMK11 or the 1DMKIIN.
 
Ok, thats two with the "no problems here mate" view... which is what I've heard from all but one MkIII owner I have spoken to at the race track...

Would love to hear from more of you before some serious cash outlay... an outlay I said I would never do....
 
It'll be noticeably better than the 30D, which you have now. Getty Tried nikon D3, and have sent photographers to the Olympics with the canon mk111.
 
Once you have used a 1 series camera, you will think how did I ever use those others things.
Got a nice mint condition 1DMKIIN for sale with aound 4000 shutter actions for £1400.
Or a mint 1DSMKII with around 2000 actions for £2900.
 
Hmmmm the MKIIN would probably be my choice if I could find one... but couldn't be doing with ebay auction stupidity...

I might take you up on that!
 
natjag said:
It'll be noticeably better than the 30D, which you have now. Getty Tried nikon D3, and have sent photographers to the Olympics with the canon mk111.
Click to expand...

Yes, I moved from a 350D to the 30D and that was a revelation and then some! Always said I never needed a 1D but... here I am!

Am just very cautious about the MkIII horror stories, and curious to see if my peers on here believe those to be true. Call me a cynic ;-)
 
I've not had any problems with my mkIII and I've done a fair bit of testing trying to find the limits of the AF. Ring of fire is good for tracking objects against a plain background such as a bird in flight. Using the assist points can lead to errors too as the system will prefer higher contrast and closer so if the assist point gets a better hit it will tend to switch. Single point and good tracking technique and I've had fantastic results with runners, football and even our dog running full pelt towards me. Each time I've had poor focus on a frame it's been easy to see that it was my fault. I shot a 10k/10mile race last month with over 600 runners and only rejected around 1% of the frames because of focusing - a single AF point on the number and the camera couldn't miss.

I'm not sure why Galbraith has had so many problems. Some of his sequences show obvious errors such as using the wrong point, any AF is going to struggle with black shorts/top with little contrast and not knowing the full details of the settings it's a little hard to make any judgement on his results so I can only go on my own experience.
 
I too don't understand how he has had so many problems...

I've never yet used a 1D, but my gut feel for fast action would be single focus points anyway... ok, so I don't fully understand the focus mechanism enough to genuinely predict how it should work, but surely one precise point placed on the moving subject should give you the best bet for an in focus shot... call me old fashioned! Its got to be easier for me to place one point on a fast moving subject than multiple ones?
 
desantnik said:
I too don't understand how he has had so many problems...

I've never yet used a 1D, but my gut feel for fast action would be single focus points anyway... ok, so I don't fully understand the focus mechanism enough to genuinely predict how it should work, but surely one precise point placed on the moving subject should give you the best bet for an in focus shot... call me old fashioned! Its got to be easier for me to place one point on a fast moving subject than multiple ones?
Click to expand...

I came up from 350 to 20D to 5D and then 1Ds Mk II and I promise you 1D is the way to go.

Just bought a very nice 1D IIN off fleebay and waiting for it to land...the 1D AF advantage is simply UNREAL!!

More to the point on your question, I bought a IIN because they are tried,tested and proven. Many local guys have 1D III bodies and all say they are now fine but I still opted for the IIN.

Oh, and I cannot afford a MkIII to be brutally honest:bonk:

But then I got the IIN at 1/3 of the price of a III
 
I bought mine when I was covering football and never had any real problems with the focus (apart from user error that is). Now I use it all the time for wildlife and if anything it has improved with use. No blue dots or white dots on mine as I got it about 1-2 months after they were realeased and now have over 10000 actuations and it has never missed a beat.
 
Dont forget the battery life!!! flippin eck!! its brill!!!
 
PapaLazarou said:
Once you have used a 1 series camera, you will think how did I ever use those others things.QUOTE]

yip, i'd agree totally with the above. it seems a lot of people convince themselves that they can't or don't want a 1 series camera, or that they are too complicated or fancy to get used too. for my money, they are much simpler to use, easy to setup, and better by miles than any of the other canon bodies.

i have a 1D mk3 and rate it very highly. no dots in mine either, and i have no idea about the serial no's that had the problems, but mine works as it should to my mind.
Click to expand...
 
The odd thing here is that nobody has put their hand up to having "the problem"... luck? not the same light/heat conditions in the UK? Pilot error?

Think it seems good to go from my point of view... just down to me as to whether to save a few quid on a IIN or punt for the "buy now pay later" approach on a III.

Will work that one out myself :D
 
desantnik said:
The odd thing here is that nobody has put their hand up to having "the problem"... luck? not the same light/heat conditions in the UK? Pilot error?

Think it seems good to go from my point of view... just down to me as to whether to save a few quid on a IIN or punt for the "buy now pay later" approach on a III.

Will work that one out myself :D
Click to expand...

It's those dam YANKS they don't know how to use there gear like us BRITS.

The MKIIN is a great camera as well, I love it too bits.
 
Rob Galbraith's mammoth update is worth reading before spending that sort of money
HTML: 
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9357
 
Before this thread disappears off the page, I read through the Gailbraith report last night and was interested in the bit where he said that even with any focus problems after the upgrade it was still his camera of choice for sports. So for those who have used both, is there a huge difference between the MK2N and the MK3?

I was allowed to use a MK3 for a short while a week or so ago and really loved it, but can only really compare it to my 40D and the 1D so I would be interested as one day when the MK4 comes out and the price of the MK3 drops as everyone upgrades I may be able to get one - even if I can't use it properly it still feels fantastic :LOL:
 
Susie

I feel that the Mk III (though obviously newer and fancier) is not that much of an improvement over the IIN. Yes it is a progression but does it REALLY warrant dumping the previous model? Yes, if you do not have the IIN and start with the III then by all means...

Let's compare: 8.2 vs 10 MP (really that much?)
8.5 vs 10 FPS (really that much?)
Digic II vs Digic III (again, how much difference in real life?)
12 bit vs 14 bit images - wonderful improvement but does this make a visible in any A4 or A3 print?

Highlight tone priority...Is this a real advantage or a fix for sloppy exposure calculation? Yes the metering on the MkIII works of a 63 zone system as opposed to 21 zone in the MkIIN...:shrug:

A 40 Jpeg burst is nearly 5 seconds of continuous shooting at 8.3-8.5 FPS. Will 10-11 seconds REALLY get you that prize winning shot if you cannot get it in 5 seconds? With the jpeg being nearly a 100% improvement (III over IIN) the difference when shooting RAW is only a 50% improvement(30 RAW on the III as opposed to 20 on the IIN).

In simultaneous RAW + Jpeg, they both fill the buffer at about 3-4 seconds...see the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfZzmfjygwQ&feature=related

sRAW? Personally I do not see the value in this feature although others might. The merits of sRAW has been discussed here on occasion and I was not the only uneducated village idiot in that respect...

0.5' extra diagonal display? You tell me?

The III is claimed to be 250 grams lighter than the IIN...fit a 70-200 lens and let's see if that makes such a difference. Personally (again;)) I prefer a heavier system as I cannot afford my kit AND a gym membership:naughty:...but seriously...Heavier is often better, IMHO.

Ahh, live view...some love it, some stand absolutely neutral to it. Maybe I will love it once I have used it. Until then it is of no consequence to me and I will live without it and lose little sleep over it.

That should pretty much summarize the differences I believe.

Oh yes, do spice the above with a generous dollop of the knowledge that (a) I have just bought a very nice IIN off fleebay (b), the financial implications weighed up of buying a nice IIN at MUCH less than a new III and (c) the fact that the IIN is tried, tested and trusted. The same cannot be said for the III.

Even if the III now leaves the factory better than the nice peeps at Canon ever dreamed of, it would always be under at least a bit of a cloud, wouldn't it?
 
The only thing I would add to the that is on paper the specs might not look that far apart but looking at the output tells a very different story. The mkIII images have a glorious quality to them, street ahead of the 40D which is also digic3 and 10.1
 
antonroland said:
I feel that the Mk III (though obviously newer and fancier) is not that much of an improvement over the IIN.
Click to expand...

You have to be joking. I do football mostly and in very poor low light conditions. The higher iso capabilities is worth the money alone.. I am constantly finding little helper things each time I use it that makes it all a lot easier.

I used iso 3200 last night and I can only say WOW again. I just couldnt get these shots on my mkII well not at this quality
 
pxl8 said:
The mkIII images have a glorious quality to them, street ahead of the 40D which is also digic3 and 10.1
Click to expand...

I should hope so, given the difference in price, similar number of (larger) pixels on a larger sensor and various other reasons...(y)
 
KIPAX said:
You have to be joking. I do football mostly and in very poor low light conditions. The higher iso capabilities is worth the money alone.. I am constantly finding little helper things each time I use it that makes it all a lot easier.

I used iso 3200 last night and I can only say WOW again. I just couldnt get these shots on my mkII well not at this quality
Click to expand...

You did note my disclaimer in the last paragraph, right?

If the III really is a great improvement in that aspect then I am happy about that. Will simply remember to use my 5D for low light/ high ISO work then...provided the AF and frames rate can keep up...
 
antonroland said:
Susie
Let's compare: 8.2 vs 10 MP (really that much?)
8.5 vs 10 FPS (really that much?)
Digic II vs Digic III (again, how much difference in real life?)
12 bit vs 14 bit images - wonderful improvement but does this make a visible in any A4 or A3 print?
I doubt that would make any difference to me!

Highlight tone priority...Is this a real advantage or a fix for sloppy exposure calculation? Yes the metering on the MkIII works of a 63 zone system as opposed to 21 zone in the MkIIN...:shrug:
:thinking: HTP I do use sometimes on the 40D, but since I use mostly Tv or Av the camera does most of my metering as I could make a mess you would not believe possible if I did it ;)

A 40 Jpeg burst is nearly 5 seconds of continuous shooting at 8.3-8.5 FPS. Will 10-11 seconds REALLY get you that prize winning shot if you cannot get it in 5 seconds? With the jpeg being nearly a 100% improvement (III over IIN) the difference when shooting RAW is only a 50% improvement(30 RAW on the III as opposed to 20 on the IIN).

In simultaneous RAW + Jpeg, they both fill the buffer at about 3-4 seconds...see the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfZzmfjygwQ&feature=related10 or 11 hours would not get me a winning shot, so an extra few seconds will make no difference

sRAW? Personally I do not see the value in this feature although others might. The merits of sRAW has been discussed here on occasion and I was not the only uneducated village idiot in that respect... Not something I use!

0.5' extra diagonal display? You tell me? Not really needed, if its a crap shot it will not look any better with a bigger display!

The III is claimed to be 250 grams lighter than the IIN...fit a 70-200 lens and let's see if that makes such a difference. Personally (again;)) I prefer a heavier system as I cannot afford my kit AND a gym membership:naughty:...but seriously...Heavier is often better, IMHO.Weight will make no difference!

Ahh, live view...some love it, some stand absolutely neutral to it. Maybe I will love it once I have used it. Until then it is of no consequence to me and I will live without it and lose little sleep over it.Not something I use, could possible be useful at some point though

That should pretty much summarize the differences I believe.

Oh yes, do spice the above with a generous dollop of the knowledge that (a) I have just bought a very nice IIN off fleebay (b), the financial implications weighed up of buying a nice IIN at MUCH less than a new III and (c) the fact that the IIN is tried, tested and trusted. The same cannot be said for the III.

Even if the III now leaves the factory better than the nice peeps at Canon ever dreamed of, it would always be under at least a bit of a cloud, wouldn't it? Its hypothetical anyway as I could not afford to goo out and buy one, if they bought out a MK4 though and everyone sold their MK3's at a nice price that may be different though!
Click to expand...

pxl8 said:
The only thing I would add to the that is on paper the specs might not look that far apart but looking at the output tells a very different story. The mkIII images have a glorious quality to them, street ahead of the 40D which is also digic3 and 10.1 If I ever see the person who let me use one again I will see if I can use my own CF card so I can see the difference for myself!
Click to expand...


KIPAX said:
You have to be joking. I do football mostly and in very poor low light conditions. The higher iso capabilities is worth the money alone.. I am constantly finding little helper things each time I use it that makes it all a lot easier.

I used iso 3200 last night and I can only say WOW again. I just couldnt get these shots on my mkII well not at this quality Now higher ISO would be a real help in winter as I would use it a lot! the WOW factor may not be as great with me using one though :LOL:
Click to expand...

Thanks for all your replies, one day when they are a few years old I may be able to get one, until then I will just have to :love: from afar!!! Right now I could do with the 40D coming back so that I can use it.
 
The small RAW thing for me is a waste of time on the 1DMKIII, I can see the point of it on the 1DSMKIII at 21MP but not on the 10MP 1DMKIII.
 
PapaLazarou said:
The small RAW thing for me is a waste of time on the 1DMKIII, I can see the point of it on the 1DSMKIII at 21MP but not on the 10MP 1DMKIII.
Click to expand...

Even so, Papa, the sRAW thing is completely lost on me...good thing I am not into R/D and marketing...:LOL:

If billboards were my thing I would still have loved to have the benefit of every single glorious Mp I could get. Why would you want to spend...I dunno...GBP 6K or whatever a 1Ds Mk III goes for and then use it like a 40D...?? 'TIS BEYOND ME!

Anyway, this point has been done to death...
 
Interesting read and thanks to all the MKIII owners for the feedback.....I'm getting quite tempted to buy one.
 
I have had my mk3 for about 3 weeks now and seen no problems with AF. Having gone from my beloved mk2 I find the mk3 a lot better in a lot of ways ie flash sink of 1/300 is handy, amazing battery life ( not sure why I got a spare)
superd battery info, better iso images, better layout of the controls and so on. here is a few of my shots with it.
8R3Y0060.jpg


8R3Y0085.jpg


8R3Y0343.jpg


8R3Y0374.jpg


8R3Y1412.jpg


8R3Y0628.jpg


8R3Y0755.jpg


8R3Y0764.jpg
 
Well us brits have had no problems with our MKIII cameras, Think we need to give the Yanks some camera lessons.
 
Steve 7 said:
Oops, clearly didn't read it carefully enough for some, but then I don't have the experience of 3000 posts, I'm out using my camera.
Click to expand...

You could always read the posts through the viewfinder if it helps :D
 
Well, the question initially was only if anyone had experienced the "problem", which it seems they haven't...

It doesn't surprise me... in the short time I've been into photography I have seen an awful lot of chinese whispers going on and very little in the way of straight answers to well worded questions.

For me, once again as the original questioner, the IIN vs III issue is simply "do I buy a second hand camera or a brand new one with a warranty" and to add to that, the brand new one also can be had on "buy now pay later". Even if they were identical, the differences are obvious...

But which one I punt for... the jury is still out while I liquidate some assets to pay for one!
 
desantnik said:
Well, the question initially was only if anyone had experienced the "problem", which it seems they haven't...

It doesn't surprise me... in the short time I've been into photography I have seen an awful lot of chinese whispers going on and very little in the way of straight answers to well worded questions.

For me, once again as the original questioner, the IIN vs III issue is simply "do I buy a second hand camera or a brand new one with a warranty" and to add to that, the brand new one also can be had on "buy now pay later". Even if they were identical, the differences are obvious...

But which one I punt for... the jury is still out while I liquidate some assets to pay for one!
Click to expand...
Remember if you go for the mk3 and get it before the end of the year you get 2 years warranty.(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top