RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1 2 3 … 18

20 21 end

khurram1
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.19 #1 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

72chevelle454 wrote:
I find it hard to believe that the file size would be consistent with all of the different drives that are out there, I would think the way the drive is formated would be the big factor on how big the files size is, I work on Mac's and PC's and when transferring files from one to another the files will show a different size, not by much but different.

khurram1 wrote:
Colin Key wrote:
Tink wrote:
The download size differ from the unzipped version of it.

Yeah,

But the unzipped file on my Mac was larger than the the unzipped file on my PC - don't understand why.

Colin

Now i'm confused. My PC file, is showing as being 10,127kb. However, when i use Canon's instructions of checking the file size using the properties-file size, the file is showing as being 10,369,144 bytes, which is larger then the 10,187,916 file size canon states in their instructions.

SHould i use this file

ordinarilly, i wouldn't even be checking the file size, however, canon has specificaly stated the folloiwng in their instructions:
The file for updating the firmware can be downloaded at the bottom of this page.
Select the compressed, self-extracting file appropriate for your OS and double-click to extract.

After completing the download and extraction, confirm that the following files have been generated :

Firmware update file

1D300110.FIR (10,187,916 bytes)

* Windows: Properties size
* Mac OS: Get Info, -> General information Size

If the file size differs from the above, please download the file again from the Web site. Also, firmware updating service is provided free of charge at Canon Service Centers.
[/quote
I've tried four times now on both my PC and Mac and have not been able to download the file size indicated by Canon.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 02, 2007 at 04:23 PM

72chevelle454
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.19 #2 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Just a FYI, when checking file size.

below you can see that the "size on disk" will change from one drive to another not the file "size" doing "properties" on the same file located in two different drives.

Look at red arrows for the correct location.

Sorry, all I had was the manual to check this with.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 02, 2007 at 04:39 PM

khurram1
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.19 #3 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

72chevelle454 wrote:
Just a FYI, when checking file size.

below you can see that the "size on disk" will change from one drive to another not the file "size" doing "properties" on the same file located in two different drives.

Look at red arrows for the correct location.

Sorry, all I had was the manual to check this with.

I checked both file sizes.

The "size" is listed as being 10,369,144
The "size on disk" is listed as being 10,371,072

I did not note the size on disk before, but the "size" of 10,369,144 was the file size on my PC (5 times i've attempted to download and got this same file size). The Mac size was 10,375,168 bytes.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 02, 2007 at 04:47 PM

72chevelle454
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.19 #4 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

I just logged onto my home computer and checked my firmware download and it was

"size" 10,369,144, I loaded it, worked fine on my M3

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 02, 2007 at 04:56 PM

khurram1
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.19 #5 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

72chevelle454 wrote:
I just logged onto my home computer and checked my firmware download and it was

"size" 10,369,144, I loaded it, worked fine on my M3

Thanks I guess, i'll try updating mine then. I did send off a question to Canon just now, but i'd rather just get this over with.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 02, 2007 at 05:12 PM

khurram1
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.19 #6 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Aug 02, 2007 at 05:12 PM

Bruce Sawle
Online
Image Upload: On

p.19 #7 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

khurram1 wrote:
72chevelle454 wrote:
I just logged onto my home computer and checked my firmware download and it was

"size" 10,369,144, I loaded it, worked fine on my M3

Thanks I guess, i'll try updating mine then. I did send off a question to Canon just now, but i'd rather just get this over with.

Are you checking the file size of the zip file or the file size of 1D300110.FIR The size of the zip will be 9.88 MB (10,369,144 bytes)

The size of the actual file 1D300110.FIR unziped should be 9.71 MB (10,187,916 bytes)

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 02, 2007 at 05:28 PM

72chevelle454
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.19 #8 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

I was checking the: eos1dmk3110.exe file size.
My .FIR file is 9.71 MB (10,187,916 bytes)

Bruce Sawle wrote:
khurram1 wrote:
72chevelle454 wrote:
I just logged onto my home computer and checked my firmware download and it was

"size" 10,369,144, I loaded it, worked fine on my M3

Thanks I guess, i'll try updating mine then. I did send off a question to Canon just now, but i'd rather just get this over with.

Are you checking the file size of the zip file or the file size of 1D300110.FIR The size of the zip will be 9.88 MB (10,369,144 bytes)

The size of the actual file 1D300110.FIR unziped should be 9.71 MB (10,187,916 bytes)

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 02, 2007 at 05:31 PM

khurram1
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.19 #9 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

72chevelle454 wrote:
I was checking the: eos1dmk3110.exe file size.
My .FIR file is 9.71 MB (10,187,916 bytes)

Bruce Sawle wrote:
khurram1 wrote:
72chevelle454 wrote:
I just logged onto my home computer and checked my firmware download and it was

"size" 10,369,144, I loaded it, worked fine on my M3

Thanks I guess, i'll try updating mine then. I did send off a question to Canon just now, but i'd rather just get this over with.

Are you checking the file size of the zip file or the file size of 1D300110.FIR The size of the zip will be 9.88 MB (10,369,144 bytes)

The size of the actual file 1D300110.FIR unziped should be 9.71 MB (10,187,916 bytes)

ditto.

i did the upgrade, everything seems to work fine. I did forget to reset my custom functions, which I read on another thread makes a difference, i will go do that now.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 02, 2007 at 06:21 PM

rscheffler
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.19 #10 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

If resetting the CF makes a difference, then why didn't Canon reset my settings when I had them install the 1.0.9 update? Kinda doesn't make sense that you'd have to reset the settings... but if it might work, what the heck!

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 02, 2007 at 07:33 PM

Colin Key
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.19 #11 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Custom functions are totally unaffected by the firmware upgrade - no need to re-set them.

Colin

P.S. Pleased to hear that it went well for you; I have noticed a lot of BIG improvements today.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 02, 2007 at 08:26 PM

Nill Toulme
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.19 #12 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

If you see problems after installing 1.1.0, reset your CF's. That was the report of a poster over on Naturescapes.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 02, 2007 at 10:08 PM

jbfaulconer
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.19 #13 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Mine seems to be better after the upgrade. Went out to test the following morning.

Check it out

http://www.faulconerphotography.com/gallery/3244501#179507749

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 03, 2007 at 01:13 AM

Tim Larson
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.19 #14 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Two weeks ago, I posted that reseting the CFs changed my camera completely. That was with 1.0.8.
Write down your settings. Reset. Install the new firmware.
Input your original settings.
Why? Don't know. My theory is that Canon flash loaded the original firmware like a computer and something wasn't talking to something else correctly. Heck, I don't know. The camera is a rocket ship now.

Tim

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 03, 2007 at 03:55 AM

rscheffler
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.19 #15 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

I'm not seeing a significant difference between 1.0.8, 1.0.9 (installed by Canon on July 25) and 1.1.0 in sports situations (only soccer and football so far). AI Servo AF is still inconsistent and am getting a number of soft images that I would otherwise expect to be in focus. Here's an interesting observation though: I'm definitely getting better AF consistency (though still not perfect) with the 600 IS (with and without TCs) than with the 400 IS. I am beginning to suspect there may be an issue with my 400 and my Mark III. In One Shot with static objects, the 400 seems to be accurate. In action situations, if the focus is off, it's usually back focused. But the frustrating thing is it is sometimes bang on, so it's not like it's a consistent back focus problem. If I could shoot everything with the 600, I would, but unfortunately for some night events, I'll definitely need the 400 2.8....

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 04, 2007 at 08:47 PM

Juan55
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.19 #16 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

rscheffler wrote:
I'm not seeing a significant difference between 1.0.8, 1.0.9 (installed by Canon on July 25) and 1.1.0 in sports situations (only soccer and football so far). AI Servo AF is still inconsistent and am getting a number of soft images that I would otherwise expect to be in focus. Here's an interesting observation though: I'm definitely getting better AF consistency (though still not perfect) with the 600 IS (with and without TCs) than with the 400 IS. I am beginning to suspect there may be an issue with my 400 and my Mark III. In One Shot with static objects, the 400 seems to be accurate. In action situations, if the focus is off, it's usually back focused. But the frustrating thing is it is sometimes bang on, so it's not like it's a consistent back focus problem. If I could shoot everything with the 600, I would, but unfortunately for some night events, I'll definitely need the 400 2.8....

Ron,

Thanks for your input ...

Just a thing, I have read something about the behavior of the MkIII camera with the f/4 lenses is better than with the f/2,8 ones !! And you are saying the same, your 600 f/4 performs better than your 400 f/2,8 .... Can you try with anyone f/4 lens to see if it´s true in your case ??

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 05, 2007 at 10:11 PM

DonM2
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.19 #17 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Ditto the post by Colin Key.

I just installed the new firmware 1.1.0 this morning. It went well and my several Custom Functions were not changed.

And, yes, the LCD previews are noticeably sharper.

Don M

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 05, 2007 at 11:19 PM

RFMSports
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.19 #18 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

1.1.0 didn't change a thing with my MKIII. It works as absolutely awesome as it did the day I bought it. Zero issues on day one. Zero issues now.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 06, 2007 at 02:12 AM

Mariner
Offline
[ X ]

p.19 #19 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Chuck Westfall has just announced that Canon will be addressing the Autofocus issue in a new edition of "Getting the Most Out of Your EOS-1D Class Digital SLR". For this announcement, see this months (August) Tech Tips, just out. Rather dissapointing and suggests that Canon will be limiting the fix to modifying user technique, rather than firmware/software or hardware revision. Look for a Mrk IIIN before long.
John

Edited by Mariner on Aug 06, 2007 at 04:06 PM GMT (Reason: spell typo)

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 06, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.19 #20 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

A bit disappointing.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 06, 2007 at 11:45 AM

72chevelle454
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.19 #21 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

So if they are saying "Modifying user technique" is the problem, what makes you think the 3N will be any different in AF performance

Mariner wrote:
Chuck Westfall has just announced that Canon will be addressing the Autofocus issue in a new addition of "Getting the Most Out of Your EOS-1D Class Digital SLR". For this announcement see this months (August) Tech Tips, just out. Rather dissapointing and suggests that Canon will be limiting the fix to modifying user technique, rather than firmware/software or hardware revision. Look for a Mrk IIIN before long.
John

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 06, 2007 at 11:55 AM

rd4tile
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.19 #22 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

72chevelle454 wrote:
So if they are saying "Modifying user technique" is the problem, what makes you think the 3N will be any different in AF performance

And even if they did change something you won't see an "N" version until 2009 at the earliest.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 06, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Mariner
Offline
[ X ]

p.19 #23 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

rd4tile wrote:
72chevelle454 wrote:
So if they are saying "Modifying user technique" is the problem, what makes you think the 3N will be any different in AF performance

And even if they did change something you won't see an "N" version until 2009 at the earliest.

That is of course possible, and by then (2009) many of the innovations and improvements will have trickled down to the 30D and 5D successors. I think the seriousness and significance of the fiasco has finally got Canon's attention. The Camera business is their avenue for all image processing and reproduction products. The 1 series is their flagship and they must address the issue in an acceptable manner. Stay tuned, I think they will soon announce a solution that will satisfy their customers. Anything less would be a real failure of their corporate strategy.
Cheers-John

Edited by Mariner on Aug 06, 2007 at 08:38 PM GMT (Reason: spelling)

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 06, 2007 at 01:11 PM

Nill Toulme
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.19 #24 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

There are those who believe that the AF in the II was "broken" and that the IIN was a silent fix for that "defect."

I must say though it's pretty amazing that the poll is still running almost exactly 50-50 after all this time and with newer units coming online.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 06, 2007 at 02:16 PM

biodan
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.19 #25 · RE-POLL: MkIII have AF issues?

Nill Toulme wrote:

I must say though it's pretty amazing that the poll is still running almost exactly 50-50 after all this time and with newer units coming online.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

I think many folks who have functional units simply do not post about them. Another category are those people who wanted to see the results before they received their units - and subsequently got a good copy. Such cases can't change their vote due to the forum software that doesn't allow updating the original vote. This is my case. My unit is ~14 days old & i have yet to have any auto-focusing issues since its arrival (5209xx) with 1.08 or subsequently post- 1.10 firmware.

It would be interesting to post the rate of bad copies over time. I suspect that the ~112 bad copies largely represent an early peak, but the bad-unit rate has likely dropped off as manufacturing or QC has improved. For example, if the serial numbers started at 500xxx, then at least 29k units have shipped (at an unknown shipping rate). If we assume the reporting rate here on FM has remained constant, then we should have seen many more than the reported 112 bad copies. This still doesn't explain how RG got 4 bad copies.

Edited on Sep 02, 2007 at 09:50 PM

Aug 06, 2007 at 03:44 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 … 18 19 20 21 end