If anyone is considering a new 1D MKIII, you might want to wait a little while.
read this...
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-8740-9006
...and poke around some camera forums. Major autofocus problems. Not good.
-Astro
Printable View
If anyone is considering a new 1D MKIII, you might want to wait a little while.
read this...
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-8740-9006
...and poke around some camera forums. Major autofocus problems. Not good.
-Astro
Well that thread was a waste of time......Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroPax
None of those issues are any different than how the 1VHS performed.....
10FPS isnt for everyone, and apparently it esp isnt for pixel peeping Rob G.
I don't get it?
This photo was taken at ISO 1600 meaning it was shitty dark out, which usually kills AF, yet he still nailed this shot? Whats the problem?
http://www.robgalbraith.com/data/1/r..._rugby_01c.jpg
Neither do I. Rob Galbraith is an IDIOT. I really do not know why so many people are so obsessed with his reviews.....Quote:
Originally Posted by dipstik
I guess there's idiots on http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_index.html who have the same problem.
Well to be honest 95% of the guys on there are hacks, that worship the top 5% that actually shoot full time. There is a good reason that I don't waste my time with sportsshooter.comQuote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
so you've used the Mark III?
the "problem" has appeared on at least a half dozen photo forums.
Why are you refusing to accept that a problem might actual exist with this new camera? Are you one of those Canon fan boys that believe Canon can do no wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunder
I personally know two full-time pro photogs (both are active members of sportsshooter.com, BTW, and so am I) that are having (or have had) problems with MK III bodies...not only the focus issue, but also one camera just plain dying...and both have gone back to shooting MK II N's for the time being.
Just about every new DSLR body has had growing pains, to some degree or another, to include the Nikon D2X (focus), and the Nikon D200 (banding). Those problem(s) were eventually corrected, as I suspect the MK III problem(s) will also be corrected in short time.
Personally, I'm very happy to have people like Galbraith around to bring these problems to the forefront. He is not an idiot, and in fact, is doing a great service to both the consumer and professional photographer.
You don't need to (nor should you) defend Canon. They are big boys. They can take care of themselves.
-Astro
Where was I defending Canon????Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroPax
I shoot full time, and I have been selling camera gear full time for over 10 years. I'll be the first one to say that Canon has it's issues. I.E. How the fuck can the EOS system be around for 20 years, and they still can not make a decent flash system....
Now lets look at some facts:
There is not a SINGLE 10FPS body that has PERFECT FOCUS. There has NEVER been a 10FPS body that has not had focus issues.
If your used to a slower body I.E. 8.5 fps and then jump up to 10fps, your going to see some issues with the af. Think about it, there is a lot of information for the camera system to process, and do it quickly enough to keep up with the frame rate even under perfect conditons. Factor in low light condiotns i.E. iso 1600, or low contrast subjects i.e. the runner wearing th black shirt, and its going to become even more difficult for the system. There has never ever been a camera that has worked perfectly under these conditios.
Next in Rob Galbraiths examples, he hand held the camera. Look closely and you can see minute shifts in the framing. There is NOT a SINGLE lense in the workd that is not going to have minute shifts in focus when hand held....... comon guys this is prety damn basic.
As faras perfectly tracking a moving subject, once again there has never been a camra that does this perfectly. The 1VHS had issues, the 1Dmk2n has issues. etc etc.
I have probally shot, owned and sold more cameras than rob galbrath has ever has his hands on. I have NEVER found the perfect caemra. Even the most EXOTIC gear out there has flaws.
Cameras are tools everyone is designed for a specific genre and at a specific price point. the "perfect" camera is the one that closes matches your needs at a price that you are comfortable with.
The 1Dmk2n is usless at iso's above 800. The 1Dmk3 performs well at iso's way above 800. its focusing is on par with the 1dmk2n and is far superior to the 1vhs. Sure it aint perfect but heck, nothign is.
A lot of the people on sportsshooter and especially rob galbraith are idiots and just are there to stroke other's egos and with those on rob galbraith, flap about shit they will never even use. They just want to read tech specs and flap about them all day long on the interweb. If you think a 10fps camera is going to be in focus every frame you are a moron. Sure there probably are some issues but it won't be perfect even after it's addressed. It's just too fast to be perfect. I too know people (more than 2 and yes, pro) that have that camera that do not have that problem. Thing is they DON'T blast away at 10fps tracking with AI-Focus on until their frame buffer runs out....or their talent runs out. Also what Gunder said about lighting, you need good lighting for any AF focus system to work properly and efficiently. Also, with the 45 AF points on the 1d series cameras, well all of them aren't very efficient either.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroPax
He's not defending Canon, he's pointing out why these people's expectations and complaints are just stupid.
Didn't someone try to address this issue back in the film days with a 1/2 silvered mirror that didn't need to move? Isn't there also a difference between active and passive autofocus in these instances, as in the IR assisted ones?
People arguing over tech sheet specs on the interweb? Unpossible. ;)
-10 demerits for tippster for not insulting the intelligence or quality of the other persons work or equipment, both requisite for photo forum arguments
+83 demerits to cj001f for giving tipster 10 merits for his lack of belligerence.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
damn and I remembered by PIN number on they was to get my MSDS sheet today too
This made me laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunder
Rob's been a top photojournalist in Canada for two decades. He led the Calgary Herald in its switch to digital photography years ago - making it one of the first major newspapers in the world to make the changeover. I interned at The Herald back in 1991 (and still freelance for them now) and have seen first hand Rob's expertise and professionalism.
Eventually he left The Herald to start his own consulting company and assisted many major North American publications in converting their photo departments to a digital workplace.
He also created his website to share information on the growing use of digital cameras in photojournalism with fellow pros. His opinions and reviews are based on the needs of working photojournalists and his knowledge of digital camera equipment going right back to the beginning. He also remains a talented shooter who can often be seen at NHL games and other real life situations testing out gear.
THAT is why many people take his reviews seriously. He is the real deal and respected by his peers. He's not just some guy who decided to start up a photography website. You may disagree with his opinions, but you have no standing to question his credentials.
Anyways, about the review.
Some of you don't seem to have read the entire review and its major point - that the autofocus issue occurs during bright, warm weather and is not a problem at other times, including more challenging situations such as low light or available light. That is the opposite of what you would expect to find.
I assume there will eventually be a response from Canon as to whether there is a configuration fix in the autofocus settings, or if there is a software or hardware problem on some bodies.
Are you always such a dick or just on the interweb? Your pretty fucking impressed with yourself aren't you? Why don't don't you keep your pompous blathering to sportshooter.com where your drivel fits right in?Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroPax
So many chances to post this today...you make it so easy.
[QUOTE=Eldo;1321574]This made me laugh.
THAT is why many people take his reviews seriously. He is the real deal and respected by his peers. He's not just some guy who decided to start up a photography website. You may disagree with his opinions, but you have no standing to question his credentials.
QUOTE]
If he was the "real deal" than he would know that his review and methods of testing the AF where complete bull shit. See my post above for why.
IMOP most newspaper photogs are hacks. Sure there are a few good ones, but generally speaking most newspapers A, can't afford great photogs, and B, the type of photography generaly used in newspapers is just plain old ducumentation.
Now lets look at the facts. Rob Galbraith, has NO engineering degree, his ONLY "experience" in digital photography is from using the gear. He does NOT do scientific tests to evalulations of gear.
His reputation is soley based upon his blog. Wich probally would not be any where near what it is if he didnt start it when he did. The vast majority of the dribble he posts in his so called " reviews" is mearly re-writes of the marketing info sent out by the mfg.
[QUOTE=Eldo;1321574]
Some of you don't seem to have read the entire review and its major point - that the autofocus issue occurs during bright, warm weather and is not a problem at other times, including more challenging situations such as low light or available light. That is the opposite of what you would expect to find.
QUOTE]
Not nessarily true......
All AF systems work off of CONTRAST. It is VERY possible to have a an issue with af on a bright sunny day when the subject is has low contrast. I.e. an all black or all white shirt.
Second, he HAS absolutely NO EXAMPLES of this happening where the camera was NOT handheld, and where the SUBJECT had on high contrast clothing.
this is such a boy thing...
Boy 1: My wee wee is longer than yours by 2.3 mm! Ah Ha!
Boy 2: No! My wee wee is thicker than yours by 2.5 mm, therefore mine is bigger than yours!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Girlfriends of Boy 1 & 2 have the same thought simultaneously...
"Doesn't matter one bit if you can't fuck."
Bklyn,Quote:
Originally Posted by bklyn
You offering to test the skis of the guys on the board now or what ;)
^^^ No, just their wee wees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunder
Canon EOS 1 RS :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
The term you are looking for is "Pelicle Mirror"
Tradeoff for the increased shutter speed and truly continuous AF is of course: mirror dirt shows... a little bit of internal reflections... and of course the permanent 1 stop exposure penalty.
AF SLRs all use passive AF: contrast comparison. Basically a computer analyzing a split image prism with a sensor underneath. Obviously, when the mirror is up for exposure, it cannot continue to track a subject which is why higher end and higher FPS cameras aim for shorter "viewfinder blackout" (it isn't just for the eye following the subject, the AF too). That is of course why the pelicle mirror is usefull. All AF SLRs have partial mirrors, but in movable mirror SLRs (virtually all) most light is reflected up to the prism instead of the AF sensors.Quote:
Isn't there also a difference between active and passive autofocus in these instances, as in the IR assisted ones?
Digital point and shoots use passive AF too. They use image-sensor data to focus (it is live-viewing too).
Passive AF cameras can be passive/active with use of an AF assist beam which illuminates the target often with a contrast pattern projection from their flash unit (and bodies back before they got all cheap in lower bodies and started using the redeye/MF assist light as the AF assist light)
Truly active AF systems like the IR one you mentioned project an IR-LED and sensor and it measures the bounce time. This was used almost exclusively on 35mm point and shoot cameras. Of course it would choose the fastest bounce so when you tried to take pictures of the mountains out the window, it would focus on the window which is why they had the little mountain "landscape" buttons for infinity focus.
An even older active AF idea was the AF Poloroids that used ultrasonic tranducers to measure distance (easier than measuring IR bounce).
I seem to remember some of the Nikon Flashes having big IR emitters/receivers on them as well for a time. I thought this was to help a fully integrated camera (via the hotshoe) with active AF info. Could have merely been to meter distance for the flash, I guess.
Since the mirror is only down for 1/10th of a second on full speed burst mode in the MkIII it doesn't surprise me that the camera loses focus. Usually when you're shooting at a high frame rate you're looking for that "happy accident" anyway - naturally you'd like the subject to be tack sharp when they finally open their eyes or the ball hits the hand, but there's always the next try. Nobody uses every one of those slices of life, and if you're compositing then the little drift in focus is not THAT big a deal.
IR systems are for wireless slave-flash control: you can use multiple slave flashes off camera and have them be remotely controlled by the on camera flash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
With Nikon D flashes (and now Canon ETTLII), distance information is transmitted to the flash from the camera AF system.
I'm not sure any of the flashes contribute to active AF, I think it's only for the Nikon CLS IR/wireless flash control system. edit: it appears Summit beat me to that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
Several of the Nikon dSLRs have an integrated AF assist light - the D70, D80 and D200. Decidedly more primitive, but still somewhat useful.
Actually they use Phase detection, not contrast comparison.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
As you have already gleaned from my posts in this forum, I'm an absolute Strobe and AF JONG. We had photo voltaic slaves and radio slaves in my Studio classes for our strobes, but I never use flash in any non-standard way these days. In fact I have none for my film cameras - the battery corroded the terminals in my Sigma flash that I had for my old Nikon setup. Guess I prefer natural light....
You know, I've been chewing on this for a day and decided I have to say something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunder
If it was so easy, Gunder, then even some schmuck who works in a camera Shop in the PNW could do it. The fact is it's a shitload harder than it looks. Yes, the best guys end up working for an Agency or big newsmag/paper, but that's probably the top 5% of the guys out there trying their damndest, like you, to make a living JUST TAKING PICTURES, something that only one person on this board, AFAIK, does -- and she doesn't shoot skiing.
Don't believe me that it's hard to shoot breaking news? Imagine this scenario for what you enjoy shooting:
You are given a location
You have 15 minutes (tops) to get there
You don't always know who you're shooting or what they look like
You don't know exactly where they're going to be
You might have people trying to beat the fuck out of you
The cops really don't want you there
You have one shot to take a picture. No do-overs.
Oh - your picture better not be merely a snapshot, there wil be 20 of those. It needs to tell its own story... like the Paris Hilton crying in the back of the cop car pic. Ut got some shit - from people who don't understand - about that shot, especially since it was taken on the Anniversary of his Pulitzer winning shot from Vietnam. Fact remains that the picture captured the essence of the story in one frame. Not one of the other 30 hotogs there got anything close to that, and it ran everywhere.
The AP was pleased, I'm sure.
But it was merely documenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
I agree with ya tip, though the vast majority of the images run in papers are total crap.
[QUOTE=Tippster;1323270]You know, I've been chewing on this for a day and decided I have to say something.
If it was so easy, Gunder, then even some schmuck who works in a camera Shop in the PNW could do it. The fact is it's a shitload harder than it looks. Yes, the best guys end up working for an Agency or big newsmag/paper, but that's probably the top 5% of the guys out there trying their damndest, like you, to make a living JUST TAKING PICTURES, something that not one person on this board, AFAIK, does.
QUOTE]
Actually I made $45K last year just off of licensing my pics....
The camera shop gig is now somthing that I judt do in the summer mostly to A, kill time and because believe it or not I actually like helping peeps. Plus I'm trying to purchase a house, and its a hell of a lot easier to get a decent loan when you can show consistant income from the same source.
"You are given a location
You have 15 minutes (tops) to get there
You don't always know who you're shooting or what they look like
You don't know exactly where they're going to be
You might have people trying to beat the fuck out of you
The cops really don't want you there
You have one shot to take a picture. No do-overs."
Fuck, REALLY?????
Try doing the same shooting ski pics...... trust me its 100 times more difficult for obvious reasons.
A whole $45k? You are a big shot. Everybody move the fuck over.
Most of even excellent photographers images are mediocre. Ever looked at the lesser images of Ansel Adams or Galen Rowell.
When you can do that from basically only working 6 months a year, while skiing, than speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
Trust me its not easy making any $$$ off of actions sports it's even more difficult to try and make a decent leiving, just ask midget.
...which may not always be the fault of the photographers, as they're generally not the ones who pick which photos run. A better photo may get sidelined because the lesser photo makes the subject look meaner or smarter or richer, which is the editorial slant the paper is using, or because there's an event sponsor logo in the better photo that the paper doesn't want to show, or simply because the editor(s) prefer the other photo. And then they get printed in a low-quality reproduction setting, where colors and contrast may or may not match what the photographer expects. Or the photo may have been submitted with the expectation of being printed color and the B&W conversion just doesn't convey the same things.Quote:
Originally Posted by truth
"Let's go up and do it again."Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunder
"OK"
That doesn't happen in my world. You either got the shot and you get paid, or you didn't and hope to God you will get it tomorrow.
I'm not slagging on what you do. At all. I am standing up for a profession I know quite a bit about. Painting every News Photog with a local paper Dog Park Story brush is a bit ignorant - that is my point. It's like saying Ski photography isn't so hard - look at all the folks with TRs in this forum.
I'm gonna have to side with Tippster on this one.
I've been into news photography for about a year now, the last 2 months interning full time at a legit mid-size paper, and I have learned quite a bit...
The difference between the type of photography GG is into and what news photogs are into are totally different animals. GG's job is to produce high quality, artistic work. The quality of the image is the most important thing.
For news photos, quality is a secondary issue. Its about capturing a moment, and telling a story with a single image, all under enormous time constraints, and multiple jobs per day. I bet ZERO of the photos you see in Powder were organized, shot, processed, and mailed off to the magazine within the same working day.
Both types of photography are respectable, and both are difficult.
That being said, there is a reason news photographers win pulitzer prizes. :the_finge
I agree with dipstick they are both difficult but very different animals. The demands on the output of each is so different they are hard to compare. They are not competing disciplines any more than aerial photography is to studio still life.
Sometimes you can redo a ski photo, sometimes you cannot. Usually the line or the landing is douched or a redo is too dangerous. Again, it isn't worth comparing to photojournalism.
Tippster has mentioned the many real difficulties of PJs. There are many for ski photography. I think the greatest difficulty is that the mountain dictates, usually quite narrowly, where you (the photog) are allowed to be.
PS: I think underwater photography is the hardest type of photography out there (short of being a war photographer)
Ahem... (raises hand).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
Although I am also the marketing/PR rep, accountant, assistant, bag carrier...
Hey Jamie, go jump off that 180 foot cliff again and land on your head again ok?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
No, a good portion of the news stuff that is seen everywhere from the AP/other news wires is really good stuff. However, that is done by a small portion of the photography community, at the national level. The good portion of the crap that is seen is the regular local crap done at the local and regional level. Same with any industry.
I had gone back and edited that part, m'lady.Quote:
Originally Posted by bklyn
oops...:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster