Its interesting though as it looks as if his 1st MKIII was really bad.
fredster said
"I have no kids! but I did get a Harrier in flight using a 300 with a 2X tel Convertor today. that made my day because before could not get the camera to focus with a 2X"
I took many images at the weekend with his setup 300mm f/2.8L IS + 2.0X had 90% success with the AF even BIF, I must say sometimes I couldn't get consistent focus at all, that's the 10%?
Its interesting though as it looks as if his 1st MKIII was really bad.
fredster said
"I have no kids! but I did get a Harrier in flight using a 300 with a 2X tel Convertor today. that made my day because before could not get the camera to focus with a 2X"
I took many images at the weekend with his setup 300mm f/2.8L IS + 2.0X had 90% success with the AF even BIF, I must say sometimes I couldn't get consistent focus at all, that's the 10%?
fredster said
"I have no kids! but I did get a Harrier in flight using a 300 with a 2X tel Convertor today. that made my day because before could not get the camera to focus with a 2X"
I took many images at the weekend with his setup 300mm f/2.8L IS + 2.0X had 90% success with the AF even BIF, I must say sometimes I couldn't get consistent focus at all, that's the 10%?
Cheers
Nick
This is true Nick, but he still hasn't posted one picture of a moving subject with the new camera except one of a stationary bird. It seems some , or at least one of the above mentioned pictures taken last weekend could have been posted
Edited by deadeyedick on Nov 07, 2007 at 04:14 PM GMT
Edited by deadeyedick on Nov 07, 2007 at 04:15 PM GMT
I do want to emphasize that the MkIII's utility really depends on your use pattern. I have one of the very first MkIIIs delivered in the LA area. I have never had "the focus problem" but then I use AI Servo inside in dim light. I never felt the need to sell a lot of Canon gear. However, because I now can use my 24-70 @ F2.8, due to the MKIII's better hi ISO (vs my 5D's 1ISO 600) I could sell a few super speed primes.
So I am waiting until all those people who shoot in bright sunlight get their cameras fixed before I send my Mk III in for calibration with some lenses and a mirror retrofit. Maybe by then Canon will have the parts for MKIII Seatbelt recall-because it's been a wild ride.
I had a big conversation here in Greece with a tech from the Company that supports Canon in Greece (Intersys) and he told me that the whole situation was initially caused from a photographer that took some photos from Imola GrandPrix that actually took some blured pictures and then followed RG site analysis that CanonUSA and Tokyo is trying to find out what happened. He talked with a person in CanonUSA and he told him that its not a big issue and actually its about some cameras that from all over the product line without any S/N restriction. They do not have any further information about the FIX as Canon RND has not made any finall statement about the issue. In CanonHolland (European Headquarters) told him that if we have no problem we should not care of taking the camera for repair as the really affected cameras are having serious AF problems In Greece I think that noone had any of that kind of problem. I told him about the detail of the Korean Canon site (about the rubber) and he didn't know anything about it but he admited that this explains most of the attitude that kept during the phone conversation from the Nethelands and USA representatives. I beleive that its wise to wait see the results from RG tests and also other people tests as I beleive that the whole situation is a little bit overexposed.... and blow-upped to use some of our terminology ....
dvarnav wrote:
I had a big conversation here in Greece with a tech from the Company that supports Canon in Greece (Intersys) and he told me that the whole situation was initially caused from a photographer that took some photos from Imola GrandPrix that actually took some blured pictures and then followed RG site analysis that CanonUSA and Tokyo is trying to find out what happened. He talked with a person in CanonUSA and he told him that its not a big issue and actually its about some cameras that from all over the product line without any S/N restriction. They do not have any further information about the FIX as Canon RND has not made any finall statement about the issue. In CanonHolland (European Headquarters) told him that if we have no problem we should not care of taking the camera for repair as the really affected cameras are having serious AF problems In Greece I think that noone had any of that kind of problem. I told him about the detail of the Korean Canon site (about the rubber) and he didn't know anything about it but he admited that this explains most of the attitude that kept during the phone conversation from the Nethelands and USA representatives. I beleive that its wise to wait see the results from RG tests and also other people tests as I beleive that the whole situation is a little bit overexposed.... and blow-upped to use some of our terminology .......Show more →
Bit over exposed? Are you saying again that there really is no problem? I think if anything it is under exposed. Just like SountHound said if you don't use it in the situations that bring the defect out you would never know. Those that use long glass at 2.8-4.0 deal with it every click.
SoundHound wrote:
I do want to emphasize that the MkIII's utility really depends on your use pattern. I have one of the very first MkIIIs delivered in the LA area. I have never had "the focus problem" but then I use AI Servo inside in dim light. I never felt the need to sell a lot of Canon gear. However, because I now can use my 24-70 @ F2.8, due to the MKIII's better hi ISO (vs my 5D's 1ISO 600) I could sell a few super speed primes.
So I am waiting until all those people who shoot in bright sunlight get their cameras fixed before I send my Mk III in for calibration with some lenses and a mirror retrofit. Maybe by then Canon will have the parts for MKIII Seatbelt recall-because it's been a wild ride. ...Show more →
I think that is very wise and nice of you. The way you shoot and what, yeah you would have never known or seen it most likely.
Wickedfn4u wrote:
Bit over exposed? Are you saying again that there really is no problem? I think if anything it is under exposed. Just like SountHound said if you don't use it in the situations that bring the defect out you would never know. Those that use long glass at 2.8-4.0 deal with it every click.
I am not the one that tells here that there is no problem. In fact I am that I am saying that the information that they are saying us is definately not complete and Canon should give all of us the complete guidelines to reproduce the problem with the most obvious way if the problem is not possible to be reproduced there is no problem. BTW I use my camera with 2 lens 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 IS 2.8L and I can definetly can say that I am not having that problem with every click my last phototest -work was the Athens Cycling tour and I shot about 9.5GB shots most of them seqential at 10fps I did not see big difficulty to have Focused shots anyway I have to wait and see more news from the testers and of Course we need to make the right guideline of problem reproduction
Dvarnav, if a car had a recall for a defective seatbelt that failed in an accident you would not know unless you were in an accident that you had a defect. This is the same thing, if you do not use the camera in a way that caused the defect to show you would never know. It does not mean that your camera is not defective, just not how you use it. I shoot with 70-200, 300 and 400 2.8 glass with sports, fast random movements. The subjects were always soft when shot 2.8-4.0 as you got stopped down the DOF covered the defect. I have said all along every body had that same issue just depended on the type of use it got would the issue show up. SoundHound is a great example opposite of mine, short glass, dim light with people on stage would not get it to show up. Put that same body on mine outside shooting soccer, rugby or football and there is the issue.
It is not just some bodies, that is why Canon has said a range of SN#'s so it did effect all that had been produced.
Wickedfn4u wrote:
Dvarnav, if a car had a recall for a defective seatbelt that failed in an accident you would not know unless you were in an accident that you had a defect. This is the same thing, if you do not use the camera in a way that caused the defect to show you would never know. It does not mean that your camera is not defective, just not how you use it. I shoot with 70-200, 300 and 400 2.8 glass with sports, fast random movements. The subjects were always soft when shot 2.8-4.0 as you got stopped down the DOF covered the defect. I have said all along every body had that same issue just depended on the type of use it got would the issue show up. SoundHound is a great example opposite of mine, short glass, dim light with people on stage would not get it to show up. Put that same body on mine outside shooting soccer, rugby or football and there is the issue.
It is not just some bodies, that is why Canon has said a range of SN#'s so it did effect all that had been produced....Show more →
I agree with most of your sayings and I have to check back my shots if they are at the range of 2.8 - 4 to find out the softeness defect. As I checked them back I see what you are talking about most my shots was at F4 and on that stop I have the most out of focus problem .... for the cycling Athens ride in a shiny day at 21-25C temp. I was not so sure about the problem but now I have a proof that something is going wrong. I have to make a more sophisticated test just to be sure for the issue. The reason I am mad about Canon is that definetly they do not clarify that all or the majority of the producted cameras are affects (please make a read to the CanonUSA statement and that shows me that maybe they are not sure about what causes that affect.
To findout a defective system is easy but if the Company doesnot says you the whole truth you need other ways to prove your sayings thats what have been done from RG way. After seeing back all the sequences that I made from the event I have to say that I must reconsider the way that my Mark III works... I wish I could have a 300 or 400 lens to make it more obvious of the issue
From what I understand and the email the shop owner showed me it was a range. I would assume it was from the first ones produced up to X the last ones before the fix was made. Chuck W said it did not effect all but I think he miss spoke.
Wickedfn4u wrote:
Kind of curious why RG has not tested a Blue dot yet?
I would've thought we'd have heard from him by now. I've only heard an initial report from somebody on SS who didn't use it in too warm conditions or too long of a lens. So, basically,it still seems kind of unknown what the result is/are of the "fix".
Yeah it was not the kind of test RG would have done. My only but would be Canon would not admit or come out with "a"problem if it was not solved too. Funny thing is I tell my kids or employees don't come to me with a problem, bring a solution to a problem. Guess that is what Canon did.
deadeyedick wrote:
fredster said
"I have no kids! but I did get a Harrier in flight using a 300 with a 2X tel Convertor today. that made my day because before could not get the camera to focus with a 2X"
I took many images at the weekend with his setup 300mm f/2.8L IS + 2.0X had 90% success with the AF even BIF, I must say sometimes I couldn't get consistent focus at all, that's the 10%?
Cheers
Nick
This is true Nick, but he still hasn't posted one picture of a moving subject with the new camera except one of a stationary bird. It seems some , or at least one of the above mentioned pictures taken last weekend could have been posted
Edited by deadeyedick on Nov 07, 2007 at 04:14 PM GMT
Edited by deadeyedick on Nov 07, 2007 at 04:15 PM GMT...Show more →
I have no doubt that Canon got it right this time. I love the speed of my M2 and as long as it works like that yippee, if it works better OMG. I love everything about the camera that I used, size, ISO, single figure functions and many of the CF's. Just having that albatross round its neck really left a bitter taste. I have not even tested my new Blue dot yet and I just ordered a second. See Canon that is all you had to do fix it and they will come.
Love the new nick name for the M3.. will call it the Blue dot.
We have to wait RG to make a full test for the repaired - Fixed - new S/N or Blue Dotted cameras before we are finally happy with the MarkIII fix. Personaly I am a little bit anxious for the silence of RG about the FIX and on the other hand what happened with the situation of the fake BlueDotted cameras?
