Lee, no, RG isn't making up the story, but other equally competent (if not in all cases as well-published) photographers have experienced different and much more favorable results. Indeed, the most striking thing to me about all of this is how inconsistent and disparate the "issues" seem to be.
As for the poll, of those of you who already have your cameras and said you either will or would like to send them back — for how many is that because you've actually experienced problems with them, and for how many is it simply because other people have reported problems with their cameras?
Nill Toulme wrote:
Lee, no, RG isn't making up the story, but other equally competent (if not in all cases as well-published) photographers have experienced different and much more favorable results. ...
I think all III's have the problem, I'm sure RG contacted Canon before publishing his findings, if Canon had a Mark III that worked they would have been rushing to send it to him.
mark1958 wrote:
Or how many will cancel their orders or elect not to order based on current concerns
That's different — I can understand somebody who hasn't purchased yet holding off based on all this buzz. I'm halfway onto straddling that fence myself, but I'm letting my order stand for now.
I'm more interested in those who have the camera, find that it works fine or at least have experienced no problems first-hand, but want to send it back anyway because of what others are saying about it.
I've had posession of my MKIII for a little over two weeks now. It works great. I'm not the kind of person who shoots 1000's of frames a day, but I used it under some pretty tough conditions, indoor rodeo arena. I don't think I could have taken nearly as good of images with my previous MKIIN.
My MKIII won't be on the B&S board until the MKIIIN comes out.
As for the users of the mkIII that are reporting good results now, there are also plenty of people with the 50 1.2L who continue to report no problems. In both the case of the MkIII and the 50 1.2L, there will be people who a) just don't use the device in a way that the fault occurs or b) experience the problem but not recognize it (perhaps they think its user error).
What if your computer crashed everytime it ran MS Word, but you never run MS Word. You might say you didn't have a problem. I'd agree...untill you try to sell your computer, that is.
Rob G. found the problem on the pre-production model and multiple production copies. Presumably the pre-production copy and production copies were manufactured weeks (or months) apart. If that doesn't make it a real problem, I don't know what would.
It's going to be a really embarassing day for Canon when they have to announce the recall on both the mkIII and the 50mm. I wonder what's worse PR, announcing two recalls 5 months apart or two on the same day?
Nill Toulme wrote:
What makes you so sure? How do you explain the many users who are reporting good results, and essentially no problems, with it?
Nill Toulme wrote:
Lee, no, RG isn't making up the story, but other equally competent (if not in all cases as well-published) photographers have experienced different and much more favorable results. Indeed, the most striking thing to me about all of this is how inconsistent and disparate the "issues" seem to be.
As for the poll, of those of you who already have your cameras and said you either will or would like to send them back — for how many is that because you've actually experienced problems with them, and for how many is it simply because other people have reported problems with their cameras?
Mine is on the way to the dealer but I just can't take a chance the AF will not operate properly. An in-store trial just won't cut it for me and I don't think my dealer will give a cash refund if I use the III for the weekend and end up with the same results as Rob Galbraith and staff.
I think Rob is as fair as can be in his assessment of the camera and he loves everything about it EXCEPT the issues concerning AF problems and these seem to be real issues. Issues he experienced with 4 different bodies.
The exact conditions he describes where the III has its shortcomings in regards to the AF are the ones I shoot in the most.
I just can't take that chance.
When Canon fixes the problem, I'll be ready to plunk down my $4495.00... hopefully by fall high school football season when I was looking forward to ISO 3200-6400 @ 10 frames-per-second.
But...until then, I'll do fine with the 1 Series bodies that I currently own and have complete faith in their abilities to do what a pro sports camera should do...everytime out.
I have been following all of the Mark III threads on this forum and I find it amazing that only 85 people have participated in this poll. It seems to me that those who are having problems and those who love the camera would be very vocal. Such a meager response to a very important concern is puzzling.
Nill Toulme wrote:
What makes you so sure? How do you explain the many users who are reporting good results, and essentially no problems, with it?
Someone with a 'good' copy of the Mark III should contact RG, maybe they can work together to prove or disprove that good copies exist, it seems RG couldn't find one in the preproduction and production cameras he and his partners tested....
Jim Turner wrote:
I have been following all of the Mark III threads on this forum and I find it amazing that only 85 people have participated in this poll. It seems to me that those who are having problems and those who love the camera would be very vocal. Such a meager response to a very important concern is puzzling.
I just think that people are honest here and there really aren't that many that own one yet. I asumed that the poll was just for owners.........mabye I'm wrong?
John Ferguson wrote:
My MKIII seems to focus fine. AI Servo, hot day, bright and hazy.
www.johnferguson.net/blueangels
Considering the circumstances RG tested (300 F 2.8 wide open), those images aren't really that bad. Doubt the MKII would have a higher perfect focus rate. Print any of the soft ones at 8X10 and you won't be able to see much difference between them and the ones RG considers to be in-perfect-focus shots.
Great shots!
But considering the contrast those aren't to tough of a job for AF, even given the speed those travel they stick out like a sore thumb against that clear sky, But glad your having fun with it.
I was stationed years ago where the Thunderbirds practiced, and as many times as I saw them I never got sick of watching.
But considering the contrast those aren't to tough of a job for AF, even given the speed those travel they stick out like a sore thumb against that clear sky, But glad your having fun with it.
Thanks and I agree, not the toughest environment for AF to lock on. I need to quit reading the forums and give it a more difficult test.
JackCnd wrote:
Someone with a 'good' copy of the Mark III should contact RG, maybe they can work together to prove or disprove that good copies exist, it seems RG couldn't find one in the preproduction and production cameras he and his partners tested....
On this page poster lohnman reports having had a "bad" sample of the Mark III replaced with a "much better" sample. This reminded me that I have seen at least one other user report having bad results with one sample of the camera and good results with another. Sample-specific problems are among the few things that could readily explain the significant variation in results that different users are seeing with this camera.
I'm in no way a MkIII owner... not even potentially unless maybe I win the lottery sometime soon... I'm personally waiting for a replacement for the 30D.... I briefly owned a Xti, but returned it as I was getting less then pleasing exposures. Many others have reported the same problem with the Xti... yet there are many who either don't have the problem or they adjust their exposure compensation and don't worry about it, etc... Some have sent the Xti's in for repair and they come back apparently fixed, or at least exposing differently then before they sent them in...
So why do I post here? Well... I thought the Xti issues were a big enough and frequent enough that I would have thought that Canon would have made some statement about the issue, etc... but none has been made that I'm aware of... And well now, I read about these AF issues with the MkIII... I have to say that if Canon does not make some official statement about this issue, I will personally have a much lower opinion of Canon... and while I was fully prepared to buy a 30D replacement the moment one becomes available (to replace my 300D)... I will have a much harder time jumping so quickly on that purchase due to this seemingly pretty serious issue with Canon's latest and presumably greatest camera to date...
So, while Canon isn't likely to sell me anything close to a MkIII anytime soon... I sure hope they square away the problems that some people are seeing with this camera... and soon. My meager purchase of a '40D' may not be big potatoes in the grand scheme of things for Canon... I have to say that this will effect my next decision to purchase my next Canon...
I do hope they step up and find a solution to the apparent problems... and the sooner the better.
Big dilemma, my dealer just notified me I can get my back-ordered Mark III Friday. I figured I'd have a few weeks before my number was up and I could wait to see what shakes out with the AF question. Decisions, decisions!!!
DynoMoHum wrote:
I'm in no way a MkIII owner... not even potentially unless maybe I win the lottery sometime soon... I'm personally waiting for a replacement for the 30D.... I briefly owned a Xti, but returned it as I was getting less then pleasing exposures. Many others have reported the same problem with the Xti... yet there are many who either don't have the problem or they adjust their exposure compensation and don't worry about it, etc... Some have sent the Xti's in for repair and they come back apparently fixed, or at least exposing differently then before they sent them in...
So why do I post here? Well... I thought the Xti issues were a big enough and frequent enough that I would have thought that Canon would have made some statement about the issue, etc... but none has been made that I'm aware of... And well now, I read about these AF issues with the MkIII... I have to say that if Canon does not make some official statement about this issue, I will personally have a much lower opinion of Canon... and while I was fully prepared to buy a 30D replacement the moment one becomes available (to replace my 300D)... I will have a much harder time jumping so quickly on that purchase due to this seemingly pretty serious issue with Canon's latest and presumably greatest camera to date...
So, while Canon isn't likely to sell me anything close to a MkIII anytime soon... I sure hope they square away the problems that some people are seeing with this camera... and soon. My meager purchase of a '40D' may not be big potatoes in the grand scheme of things for Canon... I have to say that this will effect my next decision to purchase my next Canon...
I do hope they step up and find a solution to the apparent problems... and the sooner the better. ...Show more →
I would be surprised if Canon made any official announcement when the problems vary from user to user. They may come up with a firmware update to remedy the situation or tell you to send it in for repair if it doesn't work properly but they are not going to say their new sports camera sucks and everybody needs to send them back for a refund.
I don't own one, but from what I've read the AF system is highly customizable. Isn't it likely that a lot of people's problems are lack of knowledge about the AF itself ? Or maybe the default settings are not appropriate for their style of shooting. This is a complicated piece of machinery, I think if I did own the MK III, I'd give it a week or two to make sure I knew what I was doing with it before I thought about returning it.
My two cents. Good luck.
CMOS said :
"Absolutely, Canon needs to be held to higher standards.
Canon has also known about the problems with the 50 1.2L for many months, but continues to sell them nonetheless.
Canon seems to be saying to us "We will knowingly release and sell defective equipment because it's more important that we take your money than get it right."
Someone at Canon Japan needs to be fired. I'm serious. "
