1DM3 AF settings... looking for advice

rockcanyonphotos

anyone out there using a 1DM3 I would love to hear your advice on AF custom settings. Primary subject this season is football (day and night games).

After my first few games I am focusing on trying to improve the AF performance in this environment. Any insights, ideas, suggestions, thoughts on the following would be appreciated:

1) The speed at which the camera locks into AF. It is just a gut feel but I don't think I am getting the incredible lock-on speed the camera is reputed to have.

2) AF setting, I am currently set to the "inner 9 points" with center AF point selected. Looking at my results there seemed to be a lot of times when the camera focused on a peripheral subject instead of the one in center focus.... I am thinking this could be related to the constraints on how fast/slow the camera should shift AF.

3) is there any way to just select the center AF point only?? it makes it a bit difficult sometimes to focus on the player I want to track when they are all grouped together at the line of scrimmage just before the snap.

Thanks, Kevin

KED

rockcanyonphotos wrote:

anyone out there using a 1DM3 I would love to hear your advice on AF custom settings. Primary subject this season is football (day and night games).

After my first few games I am focusing on trying to improve the AF performance in this environment. Any insights, ideas, suggestions, thoughts on the following would be appreciated:

1) The speed at which the camera locks into AF. It is just a gut feel but I don't think I am getting the incredible lock-on speed the camera is reputed to have.

2) AF setting, I am currently set to the "inner 9 points" with center AF point selected. Looking at my results there seemed to be a lot of times when the camera focused on a peripheral subject instead of the one in center focus.... I am thinking this could be related to the constraints on how fast/slow the camera should shift AF.

3) is there any way to just select the center AF point only?? it makes it a bit difficult sometimes to focus on the player I want to track when they are all grouped together at the line of scrimmage just before the snap.

Thanks, Kevin

Kevin, I own one (I've actually been through 3 bodies as a result of the "AI servo AF issues" (hereinafter: "AII"). here are my thoughts on your questions, and I will be fascinated to see others' as well:
(1) Its reputation is very mixed in this regard. My experience is that it's highly variable, although surely not random. I know always to look for contrast when focusing (see 3 below), but even so, in shooting sports mid-summer in high heat and in high sun, I thought that the camera's AF was lethargic at times. Impossible to pinpoint, therefore impossible to get Canon to address (just like that annoying rattle in your car that only you, and certainly not the dealer, can hear). In the Canon and third-party workarounds to the known AII, the recommendation has been to slow down (to medium slow) Ai Servo tracking sensitivity in C.Fn. III-2 for the recognized challenging conditions. I have generally gone with that, but have found it necessary to speed it up from time to time.

(3) Easy to adjust to center point only -- spin the wheel (just check the manual).

(2) I don't understand how you can ask this question without already knowing the answer to #3. In any case, using center point AF, I have enabled the two points on either side, but if I see them come up, I sense that something is wrong so I generally re-focus.

rockcanyonphotos

KED,

I stayed out of the M3 world for awhile because of the AII issues I had read about but finally bought in since I needed the higher ISO and it looked like a lot of the issues had been worked out.

1) I do notice (with just a few weeks hands on) that the AF performance seems to be better in dusk/evening than on bright days.

2) I will give the C.Fn III-2 slowdown a go and see if it improves tracking focus.

3) I guess I poorly worded my comment about the Center AF point (I know how to select it). But making me go back to the manual did help me find my stupid mistake. I am used to the M2 having a single setting for AF point selection (C.Fn 17 - AF Point Activation area). I just assumed on the M3 that C.Fn III 9 was this function... OOPS. Your comment about the left/right assist made me look further and I think I found the source of my problem (C.FnIII 8) I had it set to "Enable surrounding assist p". I am going to back that down and either "disable" or try your "left/right" setting idea.

4) My biggest concern however, is still the speed of the initial AF acquisition. It is just a gut feel at this point but I don't "feel" like it is locking in to initial AF with "blazingly faster" speed than my M2 did.

anyway, thanks for highlighting my dumb mistake and sending me back to the manual :-)

kevin

KED

rockcanyonphotos wrote:

anyway, thanks for highlighting my dumb mistake and sending me back to the manual :-)

kevin

I hope I didn't seem brusque in referring you to the manual -- I would have told you specifically how to do it (not, as it turns out, that you needed me to), but frankly I don't remember because I never change mine, and I didn't have my manual handy.

So, what IS your feeling about the camera's high ISO performance? I don't have much to compare to, but I have never shot in low light at 1600 or 3200 that I didn't need the help of Noiseware -- I am curious whether that is normal?

rockcanyonphotos

nope, didn't mind at all... I needed a good slap upside the head on that one.

as for High ISO settings and Noiseware. I don't know about others but I have always used Noiseware on ISO1600 and beyond action shots. I actually posted an example of the M3 at ISO6400 untouched and then with Noiseware and sharpening added in PP.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=104111

thanks again, kevin

KED

rockcanyonphotos wrote:

I don't know about others but I have always used Noiseware on ISO1600 and beyond action shots.

That's comforting to know. Noiseware is excellent in terms of automation/effectiveness, I just wanted to gauge whether I ought to be needing it at 1600.

Have a good night.

Kent

ian408

I have left the settings for AF alone on my MkIII. Having had it serviced for the original AF "issues", I can honestly say it is better but still has problems with harsh back light.

KED

ian408 wrote:

I have left the settings for AF alone on my MkIII. Having had it serviced for the original AF "issues", I can honestly say it is better but still has problems with harsh back light.

Not sure the problems are now limited to harsh backlight; problems definitely do persist, unfortunately, although Canon seems loathe to acknowledge them. I've seen it suggested (by Rob Galbreath actually) that at this point Canon's engineers may have moved on to the Mk IV or III N; I sure hope not.

90% of the time it's a great camera; unfortunately, as one of Canon's flagship products, you'd expect that number to be somewhere up around 110%!

ian408

KED wrote:

Not sure the problems are now limited to harsh backlight; problems definitely do persist, unfortunately, although Canon seems loathe to acknowledge them. I've seen it suggested (by Rob Galbreath actually) that at this point Canon's engineers may have moved on to the Mk IV or III N; I sure hope not.

By extending the warranty, they've committed to a longer support cycle. So maybe they are still working on software related things?

I tell you this though, I'd be inclined to wait a lot longer for the next mk-whatever to work out the kinks before committing to be a Beta tester for Canon again.

KED

ian408 wrote:

By extending the warranty, they've committed to a longer support cycle. So maybe they are still working on software related things?

I tell you this though, I'd be inclined to wait a lot longer for the next mk-whatever to work out the kinks before committing to be a Beta tester for Canon again.

I agree with your general sentiment, but I am no Beta tester; I bought a Mk II N long after the III was released (and about a week before the IIN was discontinued!). But, if we were waiting for some pronouncement that the Mk III issues were absolutely fixed, we'd still be waiting, wouldn't we? I expended a lot of energy and frayed a lot of nerve endings over this issue initially, and while I don't love it, I'm strangely resigned to it, I guess because there's so much that I DO like about the camera, even compared to the IIN that I still have and use. In any case, I am full on camera gear and even if a Mk IV came out tomorrow, I'd be relegated to Omega-tester status.