larrytowell
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.14 #13 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems | |
rd4tile wrote:
Well mine chatters in that situation as well. So far it's taken perfect shots on static images in AIservo and my keeper rate is much better with BIF over the MKIII in spite of my playing with every AF custom function combination known to man during my shooting sessions.
So I have to question how you know (or think) this is a problem with the MKIV and not part of it's inherent design?
+1
I think we immediately scrutinized this body compared to our experience with the Mark III. I never had a problem with the Mark III, so I didn't start out expecting a problem. I also, as the white pages suggest, started shooting the Mark IV straight out of the box, and then started to learn how the other settings worked under specific circumstances.
It is really easy to over-scrutinize anything, be it man or machine, when it has let us down before.
As for the focus jumping around when pointed at a static object (wall, etc.) My camera does that as well. We have it set up to "search" for the perfect AF. In that scenario, it is doing its job. It will do the same, when set up as described when you focus on a person in a portrait setting. You are asking the camera to "Keep and Acquire" AF in a moving situation, when in fact, you are shooting something static.
Just as a "one shot" AF fails when shooting a subject moving to or away. The AI Servo is telling the AF to search for a moving subject. I don't think it is any more than that. When you pull the trigger in that situation, the shot is actually focused spot on. (at least on mine)
The earlier shot of a bird in the tree at 8.0 was extremely OOF. That is definitely not right. Now if the MA had been adjusted one way or the other in an extreme manner, as I have seen posted with some combinations, that might explain it. Other than that, I would expect that there is a definite problem with that body.
These cameras are built by man and machine. To that, I say that not every camera will be perfect. There will be a "bad nut" in the bunch here and there.
I have shot relatively few shots with my Mark IV (300 or so) because of the weather, but the tests I have performed on moving objects have been excellent. To that point I must add that my camera shipped with 1.0.6 version already installed. Shipped Jan. 28th from Adorama.
I think we are simply over-scrutinizing this body. Yes, there are going to be a few bad apples in the mix, but that is true of anything manufactured... just ask Toyota, one of the best car manufacturers on the planet.
I hope that each of you with problems are able to get them worked out QUICKLY! If you have changed the settings at all, whether to match your Mark II or just tweaking it, and something is wrong, I would suggest resetting to factory settings, starting over as if you just opened it. (I know that is hard) If that doesn't fix it, send it in to CPS, get a case number and let Canon sort it out.
For those who have sent their cameras in, please let us know what CPS did to fix it, and the results of that fix. In a community like this, we are able to gain powerful knowledge that was unheard of pre 2004.
United we stand...
I hope I am right in my suspicions about the Mark IV. I can't imagine Canon allowing cameras to leave the factory without it being right. As for the FW update, it happens all the time when you are talking about software. If you can make it better by uploading new instructions to the computer, then by all means, do so.
Okay, I am off my soap box...
I sincerely hope that all of my Canon friends get swift results with any issues around the MarkIV. It would be suicide to Canon in todays market to put out another AF debacle as was seen with the Mark III.
Best to you all,
-Larry
|
