Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 18 19 end

Archive 2009 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Glen_C
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #1 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Garylv wrote:
Yes, I remember. That was after they had done two major firmware revisions after spending multiple test sessions with RG, documenting all of the tests and results. At that time, clearly they agreed with him and went to work trying to fix everything he demonstrated for them. And you might remember they were actually having him test some of the corrections after developing them. Apparently his initial and subsequent demonstrations for them were very effective. That's what I was referring to.

The press release you quoted is often referred to as "Damage Control".

Placating RG in the first place was "Damage Control". Rob showed them NOTHING except the mass HYSTERIA he essentially started, nurtured & milked.

They then summarily gave him the boot after seeing FIRST HAND just how clueless he is. They saw it in person. If they felt he was useful they'd still be working with him.

Terrible photos... no micro AF... no c.fn setup... like an imbicile uses AF-point expansion. ROTFLMAO.

This google-milking blogger - with the nonsensical HYSTERIA he created (along with Nikon zealots who found their FF religion) had people calling up Canon with problems that they didn't have.. Large dealers said this... people were finding problems that didn't exist thanks to hysterical bloggers.

And while all of this nonsense was happening Cannon found & corrected a couple of physical defects... none of which RG had any part of. Remember he still says the mkIII is broken. ROTFLMAO.

Anyways he's made some nice cash off you all hitting his site for the last year.

May 31, 2009 at 06:07 AM

Garylv
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #2 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Glen, your post misses the whole story behind the AF issue more than any post I've seen in any forum at any time.

Apparently you haven't paid any attention to Canon's announcements at all. Your post makes that very clear.

Go back and re-read all of Canon's announcements including the descriptions of the firmware revisions. Apparently you have skipped everything.

We'll give you some time to catch up with the rest of us.

May 31, 2009 at 06:46 AM

Nello Milanese
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #3 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Nick Nishizaka wrote:
After reading RG's article, all of a sudden my 1DMKIII started acting up...
I guess he has special powers...

This image is copyrighted by the owner

May 31, 2009 at 07:57 AM

rextter
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #4 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

All I can say is that my Mk3 is great! It had the Canon tune-up and was returned to me within three days even better than before.

As a Canon user I am impressed by, and grateful for, their after sales commitment to me. I will continue to use Canon cameras and lenses.

May 31, 2009 at 08:26 AM

willis
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #5 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

I'm afraid I'm another fully satisfied customer who can't really understand RGs findings.
Seems a bit odd that he's chosen to test a fix which Canon never claimed would improve AI servo performance. Anyway, my 1DIII is absolutely superb in these sort of situations now and I'm confident it performs at least as well as any other camera I've used (most of the usual Canon and Nikon suspects). I Can't help thinking he's got an axe to grind and while he's grinding the money's rolling in.
This is very bad news for Canon as the continued testing and development of the 1DIII's AF system suggests it'll probably form the basis for the 1DIV's AF system too. I suppose at least the launch of a 1DIV with AF which has been developed from that of the 1DIII would demonstrate Canon's confidence that it really works.

May 31, 2009 at 08:33 AM

Gust
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #6 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Read RG report carefully, in some circumstances the AF sucs.
After the fix, I shot with my 2 body's 6000 pic's.
in normal use the AF is very good and I like it very much, but when I shoot very fast moving objects [motorsports], the AF sometimes!!! refuse to work well. I tested myself all the different AF opportunities, but in some unexpected circumstances, there are some easy shots not sharp. I repeat, not always! I did all the conceivable test you can suggest, but I agree what RG say's: sometimes the mk3 keep disappoints you!

May 31, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Hrow
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #7 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Garylv wrote:
Glen, your post misses the whole story behind the AF issue more than any post I've seen in any forum at any time.

Apparently you haven't paid any attention to Canon's announcements at all. Your post makes that very clear.

Go back and re-read all of Canon's announcements including the descriptions of the firmware revisions. Apparently you have skipped everything.

We'll give you some time to catch up with the rest of us.

A very gracious response. You are to be commended.

May 31, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Garylv
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #8 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Hrow wrote:
A very gracious response. You are to be commended.

Thanks. No point in being hostile. Or offensive as some people choose to be.

If people are happy with their MarkIII, that's great. They should remain that way. I'm keeping both of mine also. I know how to work around the camera's issues where I see it struggle. And I like everything else about the camera enough to work around them. Especially the image quality.

Here's a recent quote from one of the working pros at Sportsshooter.com who does see the trouble with his:

Our newspaper has 10 Mark III's and they all have the same problem. They don't autofocus. In fact when you use an autofocus spot other than the middle, even if the person is NOT MOVING they still back focus then front focus, but rarely correctly focus. We are currently waiting for the Canon Rep to send us four loaner cameras so we can start sending our cameras into Canon for this repair that from a quick viewing of the images shot by Rob Galbraith, still do exactly what our cameras are already doing.

As time goes by a number of people forget how many complaints there were on the various online forums. The new owners are often not even aware of it.

This article was from last year, but it was a great example of what many of us saw back then. His sample there is just like the ones we saw from a number of other people, including mine. Since that time Canon has made significant improvements to the Camera's AF performance. It's interesting to note, he thought the AF issues were overblown at first too. At first
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1967

May 31, 2009 at 01:32 PM

nathanlake
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #9 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Curator wrote:
nathanlake wrote:
The ultimate result from all this....Canon is going to have one hell of a hard time selling the next 1D-series body

Only to people that allow others to do their thinking for them. Personally, I'd rather test the camera myself and decide if it meets my needs.

The vast majority of people have no interest in spending $4000 dollars on a camera for the privelige of testing its basic functionality...such as AF. In fact, I would consider it somewhat foolist to take that route. By doing so you are letting Canon off th hook to produce a quality product. At this point, it is incumbant on Canon to prove to me that their next 1D is worth my time and money.

May 31, 2009 at 01:36 PM

jerrykur
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #10 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Gust wrote:
Read RG report carefully, in some circumstances the AF sucs.
After the fix, I shot with my 2 body's 6000 pic's.
in normal use the AF is very good and I like it very much, but when I shoot very fast moving objects [motorsports], the AF sometimes!!! refuse to work well. I tested myself all the different AF opportunities, but in some unexpected circumstances, there are some easy shots not sharp. I repeat, not always! I did all the conceivable test you can suggest, but I agree what RG say's: sometimes the mk3 keep disappoints you!

Please post some samples

May 31, 2009 at 01:38 PM

Gust
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #11 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

jerrykur wrote:
Gust wrote:
Read RG report carefully, in some circumstances the AF sucs.
After the fix, I shot with my 2 body's 6000 pic's.
in normal use the AF is very good and I like it very much, but when I shoot very fast moving objects [motorsports], the AF sometimes!!! refuse to work well. I tested myself all the different AF opportunities, but in some unexpected circumstances, there are some easy shots not sharp. I repeat, not always! I did all the conceivable test you can suggest, but I agree what RG say's: sometimes the mk3 keep disappoints you!

Please post some samples

Here they are
http://www.getdropbox.com/gallery/685982/1/voorbeelden?h=6dd17d

1 houre later, in same positions, all shot were perfect.
3 weeks ago, practice WC Superbike in Assen, the same story.
I thought, I did something wrong, did at home all checks, but couldn't find anything.
now RG pic's showing the same results.

May 31, 2009 at 01:59 PM

Glen_C
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #12 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

No it doesn't.

It only misses the obvious point where some people have unrealistic expectations. And that dense people like Rob still fail to micro Adjust & turn off AF point expansion or do similar comparisons to other bodies (D3, etc). But hysteria sells so his nonsensical spew and get banner ad impressions (with zombies promoting the site).

The biggest disservice you're doing is that the causal reader believes the 1DmkIII can't focus. Which is entirely wrong and utterly absurd.

go shoot with a D3/D700 and you'll be whining & complaining about something else.

Too much canon glass.. buy a 1DmkII (Rob has a man-crush on it).

Either way ROB GOT HIS WEB IMPRESSION CASH BOLSTERED milking this

You guys are a waste of time, Canon said that a year ago.

Garylv wrote:
Glen, your post misses the whole story behind the AF issue more than any post I've seen in any forum at any time.

Apparently you haven't paid any attention to Canon's announcements at all. Your post makes that very clear.

Go back and re-read all of Canon's announcements including the descriptions of the firmware revisions. Apparently you have skipped everything.

We'll give you some time to catch up with the rest of us.

May 31, 2009 at 02:23 PM

Garylv
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #13 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Glen, your earlier post clearly, clearly demonstrates you didn't understand the announcements Canon has made. You could try deleting your post but it's still going to be available for people to see.

Well, it's still Sunday morning where I am and it's time to head out for some fun photography. Take advantage of the soft light from these overcast skies.

May 31, 2009 at 02:30 PM

scott f
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #14 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Glen_C wrote:
No it doesn't.

It only misses the obvious point where some people have unrealistic expectations. And that dense people like Rob still fail to micro Adjust & turn off AF point expansion or do similar comparisons to other bodies (D3, etc). But hysteria sells so his nonsensical spew and get banner ad impressions (with zombies promoting the site).

The biggest disservice you're doing is that the causal reader believes the 1DmkIII can't focus. Which is entirely wrong and utterly absurd.

go shoot with a D3/D700 and you'll be whining & complaining about something else.

Too much canon glass.. buy a 1DmkII (Rob has a man-crush on it).

Either way ROB GOT HIS WEB IMPRESSION CASH BOLSTERED milking this

You guys are a waste of time, Canon said that a year ago.

Garylv wrote:
Glen, your post misses the whole story behind the AF issue more than any post I've seen in any forum at any time.

Apparently you haven't paid any attention to Canon's announcements at all. Your post makes that very clear.

Go back and re-read all of Canon's announcements including the descriptions of the firmware revisions. Apparently you have skipped everything.

We'll give you some time to catch up with the rest of us.

I wonder if this issue will ever die? I really wish Canon would get the next series out so the mark 3 can be over.....and then the mark4 can start.

The past weekend I was shooting with a friend using a 1Dsm3, I was using a 1Dsm2. We were both using 500f4's and we were shooting purple martins in flight(not an easy thing for those non-BIF people). Despite the fact he is the more experienced photog, he could get NOTHING with the mark3, whereas the mark 2 could. It simply could not get on the birds and give a sharp image.

May 31, 2009 at 02:33 PM

pixelman
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #15 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Hard to believe two years later that some are still in denial about some owners having faulty gear. Why be angry about someone else having trouble? Walk away and let folks try to deal with fixing these things without you pissn in the fire ok. Shooo. Be an adult, take a walk.

May 31, 2009 at 02:34 PM

Hrow
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #16 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Glen, I am not sure I understand your hostility. Perhaps I could if you would explain why if none of these problems exist:

1. Canon has spent so much money fixing non-existent problems.
2. Why Canon has lied to us and told us that they are fixing problems that they know don't exist.
3. Why SI staff shooters have switched to Nikon after years of using Canon?
4. Why some very competent photographers suddenly lost the ability to focus.
5. Why it is so difficult to believe that some cameras work well and others have some significant problems.

On the last point, these are expensive, professional cameras and they are expected to produce professional results by competent photographers. Even if only 10% of the cameras have problems it is a big problem to those who own them if Canon can't fix them or won't replace them.

May 31, 2009 at 02:42 PM

leewoolery
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #17 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Why are some of you taking Rob Galbraith's findings so personally?

Attacking an individuals' character and insulting anyone who has different views than you do is immature.

We're just talking about a review of a camera body and I didn't see anything in Rob's article that personally bashed anyone. Those were his findings and some have agreed with his results...some do not but it's no reason to insult a person's intelligence or choice of camera brand.

There must have been a very real problem because Canon is paying for another fix and footing the bill for the shipping. It's not like Rob Galbraith made this whole AF thing up in an effort to sabotage Canon sales and boost Nikon's.

As a working professional, I have found the Mark III to be unreliable when it comes to AF and my workaround was to purchase Nikon cameras and lenses that are much more predictable for shooting action.

I do several outdoor events where on-location viewing is mandatory and the Mark III images were hit and miss as far as focus...many soft, back or front focused or in many cases clearly out of focus. I am not making this up in an effort to justify my recent purchases but the D3 and D700 produced nearly 100% keepers.

I have talked to...at least...10 former Canon pro photographers who have reluctlantly been forced to switch brands because of the continual Mark III AF problems...before and after the fix. They didn't want to make the change but Nikon had come out with better focusing sports/action bodies in the D3/D700.

Many of these were Nikon shooters who switched brands due to continual problems with the D2H and the 1D Mark II was clearly miles better in 2004.

It's now 2009 and it appears things have been reversed.

Lee Woolery
Speedshot Photo

May 31, 2009 at 03:08 PM

kewlcanon
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #18 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

IMHO this has to be a botch hardware/mechanical design, let see what Mark IV can do before I switch to P&S

May 31, 2009 at 03:27 PM

Breitling65
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #19 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

Mascat wrote:
So what's your take on this?

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-10086

I trust to my eyes and results made by my mk III with my lenses. I never had any problems with this camera in any mode. I never did any update/fix besides latest firmware and it is perfect body. Some tracking mode shot I did:

http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/image/103457859
http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/image/103457870
http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/image/103515975
http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/image/103457889
http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/image/101962576
http://www.pbase.com/breitling65/image/101962381

May 31, 2009 at 04:58 PM

Curator
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #20 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved

nathanlake wrote:
The vast majority of people have no interest in spending $4000 dollars on a camera for the privelige of testing its basic functionality...such as AF. In fact, I would consider it somewhat foolist to take that route. By doing so you are letting Canon off th hook to produce a quality product. At this point, it is incumbant on Canon to prove to me that their next 1D is worth my time and money.

Letting Canon off the hook? Canon produces a tool used by photographers. If that tool doesn't meet your needs, then look for something else. It seems that many of the responses to this problem take this as a personal issue, and want to punish Canon for not providing them with the right tool.

May 31, 2009 at 05:05 PM

1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 18 19 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 18 19 end