you know I used this example to a person that said they were not having a problem but the longest lens they used was a 24-105.
I got a recall/repair notice for my Chevy 2nd row middle seat belt. Said that it could fail during an accident. Well mine showed no signs of failure. I put it on and click it locked. The only way I would know I had a failure was to get in an accident to test it. Just because I never tested it does not mean it was not defective too.
So if you never used the camera like I did with the equipment I did and in the conditions I was under you would also say it was not defective. Do I feel vindicated, no, I knew something was up using my M2 right next to it and getting the shots I expected. I am happy it will (hoping) be as good or better than my M2. It has to be better there is so much to like about this camera aside from the focus.
I just got off the phone with Canon and he indicated that they were waiting on parts. I also got the impression that Canon has been shipping known good cameras for some time. Perhaps they were waiting on parts to execute the repair. He suggested that owners with cameras that appear to be good hold off so they can get to cameras with known issues. He also stated that later models should not be exhibiting the temperature issues seen in earlier models.
Jeff
Interesting. If this is all true, it looks like Canon has given up on the problem mitigation by firmware and now they might try some hardware changes.
One way or another, the success of the fix(es) should be ultimately judged by some sort of a consensus of a large body of camera users......we don't seem to be there yet, I think.
netexpress wrote:
All I can say is it about time. Now if we can only get confirmation that the fix works.
I'm a little bit skeptical. I never would've imagined Canon released a camera with this kind of flaw to begin with, so I'm not one to count as this being the end all fix until it's been thoroughly tested.
What about those people that have problems in One Shot mode? I had problems with one body that was front focusing in concert lighting with fast primes, and I've heard from others with that problem, too.
Called the Canon folks. Given the same information. They will notify me when parts arrive and send a shipping label. This will be the second effort by Canon to repair my 1DMK111. I have sold most of my Canon gear because of this issue....... Has anyone had the replacement parts installed and checked their camera??
well I don't think they would go to the expense of sending out a shipping label, do the fix and ship it back if it was not a fix? That would be real costly.
Should I be correct in assuming that since I registered my camera with Canon, that they will contact me when or if it is nescessary to send it in?
They have sent me notification of the firmware update in the past.
Valerie S wrote:
I'm a little bit skeptical. I never would've imagined Canon released a camera with this kind of flaw to begin with, so I'm not one to count as this being the end all fix until it's been thoroughly tested.
What about those people that have problems in One Shot mode? I had problems with one body that was front focusing in concert lighting with fast primes, and I've heard from others with that problem, too.
It took them quite a while to find it so maybe a little credit should be given in their assertiveness to find the problem. We would not be in the loop of having conversations on this with the Canon engineers and they would be a very internal and secluded group.
The fact they tried firmware and then all talk about it died in a cold fast way shows they needed to get deeper to find out where this was happening.
As for the One-Shot question - if the mirror is not seating properly then the reflection to the AF sensors would continuously be all over the place and therefore the focus would be in one spot and then move a hair off to another spot basically making accurate focus almost impossible. It seems to be off in such a little amount that just a smaller f/stop is able to hide the inaccuracy. But on the Canon super fast lenses or very critical focusing - it showed up. It seems that even heat may have caused the unseating of the mirror to expand enough to become even more unstable in where it seated itself on each return sending erroneous info back to the AF sensors. It would have been better for it to have been WAY off then it would have been easier to find. It makes a lot of sense now in hind sight.
Just as I predicted, I ordered a 40D this morning to tide me over until an announcement was made. You folks owe me one
Someone's got to take one for the team - good on you Valerie
Although I glad that something concrete has been identified and can be replaced, this now means I might be looking at a very expensive X-mas. We'll see. I can resist anything that is thrown at me, except temptation.
Peter, I think your on to something, but it's even more insidious.
If the mirror subassembly does not re-seat itself "consistently" after a shutter release,. this is where the devil is, some could have cameras or be shooting in ways that the af subassembly re-seats correctly far more often and consistently than others.
Likewise as you say, the situation could reveal itself at any time, under almost any shooting condition or settings,. just with less or more frequency...
My guess is it is a VERY inconsistent problem, and this is why it's been so difficult to trace the source.
Just to be contrarian, since my Mark III didn't have any problems & i had faith in Canon fixing the problem, i was hoping that the prices of Mark III's would have dropped further so i could pick up a 2nd unit (recent prices dipped into the 4100 range)
