['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

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 … 5

7 … 56 57 end

lidesun
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.6 #1 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Jamesf99,

I can feel your pain, and i think you did a right decision, i know there are tons of WORKING 1D Mark IIIs, but it's too risky to get in now....

Let's see how this matter will end....

Lide

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 13, 2007 at 10:18 PM

andregold
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #2 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

It is clear that some of the MkIII shots have some sort of blurring or ghosting. But looking at the MkIIn shots, I also noticed some sort of ghosting, a dark line along the shape of the letters on the T-shirt. Did anybody else noticed this?
The crops below were taken from the SLOW runner sequences. MkIIn on the left and MKIII on the right.

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 14, 2007 at 01:49 AM

lohnman
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #3 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

I just got off the phone with VISA, they credited my account back for my MkIII. I am on my 4th body, and it is a blue dot, which was sent to me right when the fix was announced, I have had several weeks to try it, I'm not impressed. I am happy to get rid of it, if I tried to sell it right now I would take a huge loss. Now I can sit back, let Canon dig out of the deep hole they have created and buy the next body.
I spent the summer shooting weddings with my TRUSTY 5D, trying to figure out how I forgot to take pictures. To me that is the biggest disappointment. I have spent several hours of my time speaking with Canon techs who all tried to tell me I didn't know how to take a photo. I've owned every Canon dslr they have made except the D60 and the 1DsMkII, I think I'm fairly familiar with Canon cameras and I'm confident in my ability to get quality images out of a properly working camera.
I will say that I'm impressed with VISA, they really are in it for the customer.

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 14, 2007 at 02:07 AM

simonella_viru
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #4 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

lohnman wrote:
I just got off the phone with VISA, they credited my account back for my MkIII. I am on my 4th body, and it is a blue dot, which was sent to me right when the fix was announced, I have had several weeks to try it, I'm not impressed. I am happy to get rid of it, if I tried to sell it right now I would take a huge loss. Now I can sit back, let Canon dig out of the deep hole they have created and buy the next body.
I spent the summer shooting weddings with my TRUSTY 5D, trying to figure out how I forgot to take pictures. To me that is the biggest disappointment. I have spent several hours of my time speaking with Canon techs who all tried to tell me I didn't know how to take a photo. I've owned every Canon dslr they have made except the D60 and the 1DsMkII, I think I'm fairly familiar with Canon cameras and I'm confident in my ability to get quality images out of a properly working camera.
I will say that I'm impressed with VISA, they really are in it for the customer.

so visa credited you back the amount, eh. did you have to submit a formal claim? did they give you much trouble? how did you approach this?

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 14, 2007 at 02:19 AM

Raimund Rau
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #5 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Hi,

I had those blurred images occasionally with my pre-fix MIII too.

I have a fixed version now, but wasn't able to test it so far, so can't comment on that (though RGs test was performed with blue dot fixed ones).

Here is a far far fetched idea.
Does the Dual-Digic process one picture at a time, means both cpus work on the same pic at a time (which would be stupid, because it would require some image split coding), or do the digics work on two pictures parallel, one pic each cpu (easy to implement).

If they split up the image and don't accurately put it together again, then some sort of blur can appear.
Which would explain that some areas look blurry, and other look sharp.
Which wouldn't of course explain why pre-dual-digic cameras show this kind of problem.

Like I said, just a far fetched idea

Any replay from RG on this so far?

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 14, 2007 at 11:36 AM

lohnman
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #6 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Yes, you need to put in a formal dispute, which is really just a letter documenting your experience. They told me I had a very good case. I have done everything I can to make this work. I have sent body 2 in for focus cal. Body 3 went back with my entire lens collectiion for focus cal. And as stated previoously I'm on body number 4. The only thing I will not get back from VISA is the monthly payments I made to VISA since May, and all the hours I have spent trying to make it work.

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 14, 2007 at 11:57 AM

DynoMoHum
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #7 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

I'm a bit skeptical that you have a good case... I don't think your beef is with the retailer but is with Canon. If the retailer told you you had 14 days to return and you exceeded that... then I think the retailer did nothing wrong and deserves payment.

Anyway, good luck with your dispute.

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 14, 2007 at 12:38 PM

FretNoMore
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #8 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

The whole thing is frustrating... I don't want to return my camera, it suits my needs best of the models that are available and I very much would rather see it fixed even if it takes some time. How much time though... and will Canon even bother trying any more once the next version is released?

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 14, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #9 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Raimund Rau wrote:
Any replay from RG on this so far?

Rob hasn't responded, so I'd guess he has no intention of doing so (perhaps, based upon the rather bland nature of his details of what's still wrong with the camera, he prefers not to comment according to his current relationship with Canon?). Who knows. Chuck did respond, but I don't have anything of significance to tell you about his response. I'm guessing RG won't comment further until something happens on Canon's side, which I think he effectively said.

I'm getting tired of the waiting game, but I guess that's where we're at. I'll be interested to get mine back from service, as if the submirror fixes 90% of the problems I was experiencing, at least I'll be able to rely upon it without hesitation.

I guess this thread can die a slow death now (after 10,000 views in its first 48 hours, it probably deserves a rest!).

Jeff

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 14, 2007 at 03:22 PM

Steve A
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #10 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Got my camera back Tuesday after a three working day turnaround, My camera is 100% better than it was in brite sunlight.
Living here in Sunny California I had the opportunity to give it a go in the afternoon, temp was aprox 68 degrees and sunny, here's a few Osprey shots to give you a look at the results of the fix on my camera.
The osprey was not moving extremely fast but did have a bit of a tail wind, before the fix these images would have been hit or miss.
These are just three of aprox 40 captures from different distances, I can honestly say they were all acceptably sharp for me, I can live with the camera now.

#1
This image is copyrighted by the owner

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 14, 2007 at 03:55 PM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #11 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Nice, that's good to see that perhaps the submirror fix will alleviate the most widespread problem that the MkIII exhibits. Thanks for posting!

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 14, 2007 at 03:57 PM

alundy
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #12 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Well, we still want to know what happens when it comes back from repair. If its fixed then there may be hope .

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 14, 2007 at 06:20 PM

simonella_viru
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #13 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

man, so much of this hysteria could've been avoided (or at least diminished) by:
1. canon being a little more communicative and proactive
2. canon just offered an F'ing refund to the belly-achers (like me)

there are those who are happy with their cameras and will not part with them. then there are those who have genuine problems and don't have time (or money) to wait...

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 14, 2007 at 06:55 PM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #14 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

You know, I was sitting back and thinking today how much this submirror fix (and potential further hardware fixes) is going to cost Canon, not only in customer satisfaction, but also in cold, hard cash. Somewhere along the lines it occurred to me that this new, groundbreaking camera also came with a new, groundbreaking price structure: it was more expensive than its predecessor. That was basically a first for digital SLRs, and I started to think back 6 months to how incensed I was to learn of it.

Then, the conspiracy theorist in me started adding up numbers, reading in between the lines of the White Paper's MSRP of $3999 (same as the MkII), and Rob Galbraith intimating that Canon had admittedly given him a pre-production MkIII to test that had known AF issues. After that came the magical release of the 1D MkIII with a price tag $500 more than anyone, and I do mean [anyone, could ever have expected.

It really makes you wonder if someone up the chain knew that these AF issues would entail hardware fixes, and wanted to 'pay for' some amount of it in advance, rationalizing that it was such a technologically advanced camera, it 'deserved' a higher price tag.

I hate to think that it's possible, but the way things have gone, absolutely nothing would surprise me...

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 15, 2007 at 12:52 AM

lidesun
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.6 #15 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Jeff,

I remember that someone posted the question that how much will the FIX cost Canon long time ago, and i replied that $500 was calculated in the price of $4500, and i still believe it's true

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 15, 2007 at 12:56 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #16 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Hmm, someone less trusting than me...

Whew!

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 15, 2007 at 01:02 AM

MSC
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #17 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

lidesun wrote:
Jeff,

I remember that someone posted the question that how much will the FIX cost Canon long time ago, and i replied that $500 was calculated in the price of $4500, and i still believe it's true

!!! Now that is both funny and scary.

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 15, 2007 at 01:03 AM

AJ Nadershahi
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #18 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

If tha'ts the case then in the words of the computer hacking community, you've been "Owned" by Canon.

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 15, 2007 at 01:53 AM

calvillo
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.6 #19 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

timbop wrote:
Nice analysis Jeff. I have a feeling that 2007 will be remembered as the year canon laid 3 eggs*. Oddly enough, it seems that the 40d will probably be the best of the 3 new cams, and it is woefully outclassed by the d300. It's a shame, but canon got complacent in the midrange and suffered from an engineering mistake in the high end.
The good news is that 2008 will (hopefully) see the resurgence of innovation and putting everything into each product.

* OK, the 40D will prove to be a great midlevel camera so it doesn't actually qualify as an "egg".

So you're saying the more expensive 300D has more to offer than the 40D? Shouldn't it?

I agree with you the the D series cameras though, not the way Canon wanted their big anniversary year to pan out I'd bet.

You're also right that these problems are bound to spur Canon to start competing, especially when accompanied by Nikon's intro of the 3D. For $500 more you get more iso, FF, and about the same frame rate as the D III. Combine this with the focus issues and there should be some switching going on.

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 18, 2007 at 12:08 AM

hhski
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #20 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

I initially thought the problem might be in the circuit boards with the temp related problems. While reading this I started wondering as did 1 other poster is it the anti dust nature of the sensor. The post where the middle top part of the images being blurred and the ghosting make me wonder where is the sensor fixed and does high shutter sped induce vibration. The other thing is the battery. Is there a small voltage drop in this new very light battery that changes output of the circuit components in burst/servo . My MK3 went back thursday. I hope to see it in another week.

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 18, 2007 at 01:00 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #21 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

I personally think that it is some physical characteristic of the AF assembly design that has gone awry. I spent some time yesterday looking through some MkIII images, and confirmed that I actually am seeing something that I only 'thought' I might be seeing previously. I wish I had the image here at work to post as an example, but will have to wait until tonight.

I've seen a few people mention AF plane vs. sensor field issues that result in a lateral inconsistency in the field of focus, not quite like the results of a view camera, but something similar. In my case, the image in question that illustrates it best is of a series of ridgelines, each of which is close enough to parallel to the sensor to be considered roughly equidistant (DOF-wise). The ridge is admittedly further away on the left side than the right, but it is >1 mile away (shot with a 70-200/2.8L IS at f/2.8), so I really doubt that the left side could be out of the plane of the DOF while the right side remains within it. The effect that I see in the image is that as you follow the primary ridgeline from right to left (landscape orientation), it becomes more and more out of focus until at the left edge it looks absolutely horrible. It's almost impossible to see with the image 'fit on screen', somewhat hard to see at 50%, but glaringly obvious at 1:1. The image in question printed at anything beyond about 5x7 would look marginal, at best.

There's no way to know whether it's a sensor alignment issue, or a lens mount issue, or related to the dust shaker, or...

I can't fathom how it could be a user error phenomenon, though perhaps after the 'sheep incident' someone can point out the error in my ways.

Since the variability is horizontal in orientation, I also can't see how it could be related to focus mechanism movement during exposure, as some have postulated for the 'ghosting' issue. I've noted that some 1D MkIII users have reported some images to almost have a very, [very extremely limited depth of field, and what I'm seeing is along those lines.

I'll try to post the image with 100% crops tonight so you all can see what I'm talking about. I've thought that I've seen this before in some of my images, but I never thought much of it, since I never tried to print any of the images. The main thing about this issue is that if it's widespread, it likely affects all types of shooters, not just sports guys shooting fast-paced people sports. Hopefully it's just an issue with mine.

The question in my mind is now this: is this effect related to the secondary image (i.e. 'ghosting') issue? Jeez, I hope that it's related, because if my camera needs a third trip to Canon to make it right, that'll be when I call it enough. 'Lemon Law' or class action lawsuit, if this thing ain't fixed within a year of it's release, something will need to be done, despite how good the camera otherwise is.

[As an aside, my 60" Sony XBR1 SXRD rear-projection TV has a class action settlement going on right now, and it's for a heck of a lot less than this issue with the MkIII. I will likely end up with a brand-new XBR2 (after two strikes of repair attempts) two years after buying it for $4000, so no one should try to say that it can't happen to Canon, too. Oddly, it was a first generation product that, other than the inherent defect in the optical block, gives the finest 1080p HD image out there, bar none. IMHO. ]

Cheers...

-Jeff

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 18, 2007 at 02:47 PM

mill4570
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #22 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Jeff,

The price increase had more to do with dollar / yen exchange rates than anything else. The fact that internet forums were full of "this is what I have been waiting for, I will upgrade my 10D", or "I will pay $5000 if anyone has one" didn't help any. The MKIII was and still is Canon's flag ship sports and PJ camera, the embarresment and lost sales this will cost Canon will be much more than $500. 2007 was a special year for Canon and they intrduced what they thought was a revolutionary product, and it failed. People outside Canon will never know the full impact or the fall out. Some engineers and execs will loose their jobs over this if it makes anyone feel better. It is foolishness to think Canon would release this camera marked up $500 to cover future repair and litigation cost.

As to the issue you have with images, the fact that something else may be wrong with the MKIII is most interesting. I have seen what you are talking about with my MKIII more so than AF issues. It is difficult to describe and I chalked it up to lens issues, but maybe not.

Richard K.

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 18, 2007 at 04:13 PM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #23 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

I originally chalked it up to 'figments of my imagination', but after taking a critical look at both my 1D MkIII and 1Ds (MkI) images, I'm now completely convinced otherwise. It's not normal, and not easily explainable (at least by my lowly self) as to a cause. I be purty dang sure it ain't my fault, dag'nabbit...

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 18, 2007 at 04:36 PM

mill4570
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.6 #24 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

Jeff,

You said you had an image at home you would post that better indicates the problem. Please do, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Thanks in Advance,
Richard K.

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 18, 2007 at 04:49 PM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.6 #25 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken

I will tonight, I promise, as currently:

-Jeff

Edited on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:47 AM

Dec 18, 2007 at 04:55 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 56 57 end