I'd say "sort of". For many people the auto-focus is working well, but there are still numerous complaints out there. I'd chalk that up to general negativity, but some of the issues appear to be with pro sports photogs (mostly rumors, unfortunately). And Rob Galbraith - a key figure in getting people to acknowledge the problem in the first place - has not released a review of the most recent firmware update. He does have a very extensive archive of previous findings, including a lot of work with Canon. The whole archive can be found here. And the most recent update was on April 29th.
I was ready to buy a MkIII when they were released, but have now changed my mind for two reasons:
1. Because of its reputation re autofocus problems--real, imagined, and overblown--the camera will not hold its resale value well, and will be replaced sooner than if it had been an issue-free "keeper";
2. The MkIII hit the market about the same time as Nikon's D3, which absolutely blows the MkIII's doors off as a low-light, high ISO performer (I shoot with three D3 owners). Whether in a dim concert hall, theatre or club, in the mountains or a meadow at dawn or dusk, or doing street photography at any hour, the D3 brings back images that are astonishingly free of noise, at ISO settings that don't even exist on Canon bodies.
I think and hope that Canon will answer within a year, andrelease a body that matches or surpasses the D3. If not, the exodus of pro shooters to Nikon that the MkIII's problems started will accelerate.
Meanwhile, there are screaming deals to be had on low actuation MkII and MkIIN bodies, which go for well under $2000 and focus perfectly.
The MkIII hit the market about the same time as Nikon's D3, which absolutely blows the MkIII's doors off as a low-light, high ISO performer (I shoot with three D3 owners). Whether in a dim concert hall, theatre or club, in the mountains or a meadow at dawn or dusk, or doing street photography at any hour, the D3 brings back images that are astonishingly free of noise, at ISO settings that don't even exist on Canon bodies.
While it's true that the D3 has ISO ranges never seen before, the difference between it and the MkIII is usually considered to be about 1 stop at ISO ranges that exist on both. (For instance, noise at 3200 on the MkIII is equivalent to 6400 on the D3.) While impressive, sometimes I think it gets overhyped. And the 1Ds MkIII is pretty darn close to the D3. The very upper ranges on the D3 are actually done in software, anyway, and could be replicated by post-processing a lower ISO shot.
I am shooting with a 1D Mark III and am VERY happy with it!!! After reading everything from Rob Galbraith's website the short version is the auto focus issue only propagates itself under VERY narrow conditions. MANY pro photographers are VERY happy shooting their 1D Mark III's and I am of the opinion that the auto focus issue is quite overblown.
I was thrilled when I bought my 1D Mark II. It still is an amazing camera. My 1D Mark III is that much more of an awesome camera!! The 1D Mark II is now my backup body and rarely comes out of the bin.
Comparing the 1D Mark III to the Nikon D3 is ONLY applicable if one is in the position to go Nikon. With my investment in Canon glass this is NOT an option. And if it were I'd be waiting for the D3X anyway.
So instead of sittin back and listening to all the nay sayers go talk to the folks who are happy with their 1D Mark III's!!
David, that's what I got from my reading on the subject, too.
So much hype to fall victim to out there these days, with strident advocates and naysayers in each camp. The DSLR wars continue, and that can't help but benefit us consumers as long as we don't swallow all the hype but simply use our heads and realize that in fact differences between these two brands' top bodies will continue to be small, and people will continue to want to make them large.
Does anyone here honestly believe that the choice between the newest 1D bodies or the D3 is so critical that choosing "correctly" will make them better photographers or help them produce more marketable or beautiful images?
Sorry if that sounds bitchy or critical. I'm not trying to be. I just feel a vast and weary impatience when marketing hype and techno-obsessed photo experts overtake reality.
Steve, I think Micheal Reichman would severely disagree with you. Of course, I think he places too much value in technology and not enough in the person behind the viewfinder.
I sometimes have to wonder how much time some of the technogeeks actually spend shooting, or if they ever shot film. The image quality vs film, for 35 mm based bodies, isn't even a fair comparison anymore. The bodies I have been using, the 5D and 20D compare favorably with my old EOS 3 and Elan 7 (which I still own and occasionally even use, and admittedly, I only rarely taxed the autofocus of the EOS 3).
Anyway... Josh, back to your question. As I understand it, there are still some problems with the autofocus. You can get it to fail under a fairly rare set of circumstances. Depending on your shooting, these rare situation may be rather frequent for you. You'll have to hunt them down, since this camera simply isn't an option for me right now. For most shooters and conditions, it is still a step up from the autofocus of the consumer level bodies like the 40D.
If megapixels are not a concern, the suggestion to find a used Mark II is probably a good one. They are (relatively) cheap, especially given their capabilities.
Dan - From this techno geek (I'm a computer engineer by trade) I have to say that no, I've never shot film. However, I don't think my photography would be better if I had a D3 or 1D mk III. It would be different, and maybe I'd enjoy the capabilites, but overall wouldn't be better. Maybe that puts me in the minority, but this site has certainly helped with that (which is a good thing).
Actually, I'd have to place myself in the technogeek fringe as well. But on the bright side, at least your comment recognizes the importance of the user, not the camera.
Discussion
9 repliesThanks,
~JA
1. Because of its reputation re autofocus problems--real, imagined, and overblown--the camera will not hold its resale value well, and will be replaced sooner than if it had been an issue-free "keeper";
2. The MkIII hit the market about the same time as Nikon's D3, which absolutely blows the MkIII's doors off as a low-light, high ISO performer (I shoot with three D3 owners). Whether in a dim concert hall, theatre or club, in the mountains or a meadow at dawn or dusk, or doing street photography at any hour, the D3 brings back images that are astonishingly free of noise, at ISO settings that don't even exist on Canon bodies.
I think and hope that Canon will answer within a year, andrelease a body that matches or surpasses the D3. If not, the exodus of pro shooters to Nikon that the MkIII's problems started will accelerate.
Meanwhile, there are screaming deals to be had on low actuation MkII and MkIIN bodies, which go for well under $2000 and focus perfectly.
While it's true that the D3 has ISO ranges never seen before, the difference between it and the MkIII is usually considered to be about 1 stop at ISO ranges that exist on both. (For instance, noise at 3200 on the MkIII is equivalent to 6400 on the D3.) While impressive, sometimes I think it gets overhyped. And the 1Ds MkIII is pretty darn close to the D3. The very upper ranges on the D3 are actually done in software, anyway, and could be replicated by post-processing a lower ISO shot.
I was thrilled when I bought my 1D Mark II. It still is an amazing camera. My 1D Mark III is that much more of an awesome camera!! The 1D Mark II is now my backup body and rarely comes out of the bin.
Comparing the 1D Mark III to the Nikon D3 is ONLY applicable if one is in the position to go Nikon. With my investment in Canon glass this is NOT an option. And if it were I'd be waiting for the D3X anyway.
So instead of sittin back and listening to all the nay sayers go talk to the folks who are happy with their 1D Mark III's!!
So much hype to fall victim to out there these days, with strident advocates and naysayers in each camp. The DSLR wars continue, and that can't help but benefit us consumers as long as we don't swallow all the hype but simply use our heads and realize that in fact differences between these two brands' top bodies will continue to be small, and people will continue to want to make them large.
Does anyone here honestly believe that the choice between the newest 1D bodies or the D3 is so critical that choosing "correctly" will make them better photographers or help them produce more marketable or beautiful images?
Sorry if that sounds bitchy or critical. I'm not trying to be. I just feel a vast and weary impatience when marketing hype and techno-obsessed photo experts overtake reality.
I sometimes have to wonder how much time some of the technogeeks actually spend shooting, or if they ever shot film. The image quality vs film, for 35 mm based bodies, isn't even a fair comparison anymore. The bodies I have been using, the 5D and 20D compare favorably with my old EOS 3 and Elan 7 (which I still own and occasionally even use, and admittedly, I only rarely taxed the autofocus of the EOS 3).
Anyway... Josh, back to your question. As I understand it, there are still some problems with the autofocus. You can get it to fail under a fairly rare set of circumstances. Depending on your shooting, these rare situation may be rather frequent for you. You'll have to hunt them down, since this camera simply isn't an option for me right now. For most shooters and conditions, it is still a step up from the autofocus of the consumer level bodies like the 40D.
If megapixels are not a concern, the suggestion to find a used Mark II is probably a good one. They are (relatively) cheap, especially given their capabilities.
There is hope for us...