Mariner wrote:
Rather dissapointing and suggests that Canon will be limiting the fix to modifying user technique, rather than firmware/software or hardware revision.
In which case they will be losing at least one sale. The ProPhotoHome Review suggests that it is NOT user technique and that there are indeed good (or at least currently working) bodies and bad bodies. I find the review quite compelling given that the same photographer is consistently getting markedly different results from two bodies in similar circumstances. There is no way that I can justify to myself forking out the price of the 1D Mark III until Canon have demonstrated that the issue has been fixed. Which is a shame because I really want a working version of this camera!

Without serious time behind a 2/2N I wonder if one is qualified to really know in most cases whether the AF is working properly or not. At first I thought my mkIII had issues but lately between the firmware update, some lens calibration and just serious practice I'm beginning to wonder if my expectations were always realistic and technique wasn't the big factor. However I will say that throughout my mkIII has just been money in single shot mode and I know there were early ones that had issues there as well.

The common thread, regardless of what you believe as a mkIII owner or interested bystander, is that Canon needs to make a statement one way or the other and put it all to rest.

I'm not one to panic, and I take lots of internet babble as just that. And I'm basically happy with my Mk3. However, shooting a triathlon this weekend, I noticed some OOF shots that I can't explain: the camera would track a biker OK, but suddenly give me an image that was ~5 feet front focused from a distance of about 100 feet. It's easy to see the plane of focus in the pavement.

These are the first OOF shots I've had that can't at least theoretically be explained away. Not a quick point and shoot situation, not a potential BG target grabbed by the AF, etc. I'll keep an eye on it ...

The size of the zip will be 9.88 MB (10,369,144 bytes)

The size of the actual file 1D300110.FIR unziped should be 9.71 MB (10,187,916 bytes)

The why do they bother to zip it?

Has anyone applied the new 1.1 software fix? and does it?
Les

my first post regarding 1D3
got mine on Friday and have put 400+ exposures on it so far...
FW 1.1.0 and serial number 5223xx
I have read lot's regarding the servo problem but I'm actually having an abnormal number of OOF's with one shot (single shot)... (don't shot a lot of servo anyways)
I have owned the 1D, 1Ds, 1D2 currently a 5D and now this, so not really a newbie..
I'm trying not to over react and am keeping in mind that this is a new body to me, but at the end of it all I don't think it's too much to expect perfect Af on static object with single shot Af, one point (cross type point) no expansion on a nice contrasty object in good light.
I'm really disappointed this very moment, and I was really looking forward to loving my new camera.... sigh!

Brooke,

Please keep us posted on this one. The majority of the bad behaving MKIII's did poorly from day one. Not sure many have experienced a good unit turning south after a month.

Richard K.

Arashm

I know you have tried more then one lens? Please post a picture.
Leehman

Leehman
indeed I have...
I have the 17-40, 24-105 and 100 mac in my bag for this weekend... but the results are the same regardless of which one I use.
I'll try posting images soon
am

mill4570 wrote:
Please keep us posted on this one. The majority of the bad behaving MKIII's did poorly from day one. Not sure many have experienced a good unit turning south after a month.

Richard, I'm not sure I have one that went bad. I'm not sure if it was bad before (since there was always another possible reason for the mis-focus), and I'm not sure that it's bad now. I don't wasnt to be paranoid ...

But I'll keep you posted.

arashm : never heard of a 1D3 not focussing properly in One Shot AF and One Shot Drive. My first 1D3 was always perfect in that mode, it was only in AI-Servo and 10fps that the problem occured. Still, if it is as bad as you say, then it sounds like you have a good case to return it to the dealer.

Brooke : sounds very like the problem I experienced. Do you still see the problem with CFN III, 2 set one notch towards slow? I run this setting even on my new properly working Mark 3 as I still find the focus is a little more twitchy over my 1D2N.

Alistair Watson wrote:
arashm : never heard of a 1D3 not focussing properly in One Shot AF and One Shot Drive.

http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/pro-photo-reviews-articles/73689-canon-1d-mkiii-autofocus-interactive-review.html?garpg=5#content_start

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Alistair Watson wrote:
arashm : never heard of a 1D3 not focussing properly in One Shot AF and One Shot Drive.

Yakim Peled wrote:
http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/pro-photo-reviews-articles/73689-canon-1d-mkiii-autofocus-interactive-review.html?garpg=5#content_start
Happy shooting,
Yakim.


Time for his Mark 3 to have a little trip to Canon me thinks!

Yes….

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I'm going to do more testing with my mark 3 on a shoot today... (will shoot the job with the 5d)
but since my first post I have noticed that the images that have focus issues are the ones where I'm using one of the extreme focus points (although one of the 19 cross type af points).
it's like this, I focus on let's say a street sign, lock focus and shoot, let go of the af-on or shutter release button (tryed both ways) and then depress half way and shoot again.. do this about 10 times, 7 images will be sharp 3 will be soft. I didn't move and the street sign didn't move.
call me crazy but I don't think this is too much to ask from a camera.
I've also have gone back and shot all the lenses on the 5d just to make sure it's not the lenses, then shot a focus calibration chart with the 1D3 and surprisingly my lenses all seemed quite accurate with this body as well, so what gives?
will update

For anyone that doesn't follow NSN Jim Neiger has a series of posts where he talks about his (successful) technique with the mkIII in aiservo starting here:

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=103425&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1271

Alistair Watson wrote:
arashm : never heard of a 1D3 not focussing properly in One Shot AF and One Shot Drive. My first 1D3 was always perfect in that mode, it was only in AI-Servo and 10fps that the problem occured. Still, if it is as bad as you say, then it sounds like you have a good case to return it to the dealer.



There are also many cases, even in this forum, but here you have one:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23967698

There are at least three major photography websites reporting problems with this camera and at least two major retailers I have talked to have had bodies returned with the AF problem. It would be nice to hear something from Canon.

To add more noise to this strange thread.... (humm, Canon is not always low noise)

It seems to me that there is a design issue with the Canon 1D-III focus system. It seems that some samples work well and others do not (maybe 50% in each camp as the voting indicates). I doubt that this is a general "skill of user" problem. I also doubt that it is a firmware issue - Canon has a very good handle on how to write such code.

IMO, this is a component sensistivity issue. One or more of the chips (possibly an amplification circuit) are operating at the edge of their operating envelope - some cirucit components barely keep the AF withing spec but some components (resistors, capacitors, transistors, etc) manufactured in the chip fall outside of their operating envelope and cause AF errors. Of course, one of the engineering problems is to design the circuit so that it always works even if some of the components are somewhat out of spec.

Of course, somebody will say that Canon engineers have taken all of this into account and the problem lies elsewhere.

Chuck Westfall addresses this focus issue in:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0708/tech-tips.html

I'm wondering if anyone has checked the effect of CF IV-13 (faster shutter release). In setting up the camera, I sort of automatically enabled it. Might the AF not quite be able to keep up?

OTOH, that wouldn't explain weirdness like the AF jumping too far ahead of my subject. Never mind ...

tonyfield wrote:
To add more noise to this strange thread.... (humm, Canon is not always low noise)

It seems to me that there is a design issue with the Canon 1D-III focus system. It seems that some samples work well and others do not (maybe 50% in each camp as the voting indicates). I doubt that this is a general "skill of user" problem. I also doubt that it is a firmware issue - Canon has a very good handle on how to write such code.

IMO, this is a component sensistivity issue. One or more of the chips (possibly an amplification circuit) are operating at the edge of their operating envelope - some cirucit components barely keep the AF withing spec but some components (resistors, capacitors, transistors, etc) manufactured in the chip fall outside of their operating envelope and cause AF errors. Of course, one of the engineering problems is to design the circuit so that it always works even if some of the components are somewhat out of spec.

Of course, somebody will say that Canon engineers have taken all of this into account and the problem lies elsewhere.

Actually, you'd be in good company with this theory. Some of the folks on Naturescapes.net have put forward similar ideas, primarily including NSN's technical editor who works at Intel.

If it does turn out to be a component sensitivity issue, what is the likely future of all of the Mark III's even the ones that seemingly have no problem right now. I have always understood that the common components were subject to a certain amount of change over time, the process is sometimes refered to as drift. That might account for some of the cameras becoming bad after a certain time period. I'm begining to wonder if I would ever buy this model without a really full disclosure of the problem by Canon. I must say that I took a 30D with as backup on a recent African Safari because the Mark III had just begun to ship. Looking back, it was a bit of good fortune, the 30D did an outstanding job. Only 5 frames/sec but all images in focus and with a 300 mm L IS lens the results were impressive. I hate to say it but I'm tempted to go for the 1D full frame successor, providing it will do at least 5 frames/second and the autofocus problem is worked out. Maybe that was Canon's plan :-) Only trouble is that with the full frame I have to carry around the 500 mm and I really don't want to lug that on and off all of the small planes along with everything else. Wife is even less enthusiastic.
Cheers-John

Juan55 wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
I'm not seeing a significant difference between 1.0.8, 1.0.9 (installed by Canon on July 25) and 1.1.0 in sports situations (only soccer and football so far). AI Servo AF is still inconsistent and am getting a number of soft images that I would otherwise expect to be in focus. Here's an interesting observation though: I'm definitely getting better AF consistency (though still not perfect) with the 600 IS (with and without TCs) than with the 400 IS. I am beginning to suspect there may be an issue with my 400 and my Mark III. In One Shot with static objects, the 400 seems to be accurate. In action situations, if the focus is off, it's usually back focused. But the frustrating thing is it is sometimes bang on, so it's not like it's a consistent back focus problem. If I could shoot everything with the 600, I would, but unfortunately for some night events, I'll definitely need the 400 2.8....

Ron,

Thanks for your input ...

Just a thing, I have read something about the behavior of the MkIII camera with the f/4 lenses is better than with the f/2,8 ones !! And you are saying the same, your 600 f/4 performs better than your 400 f/2,8 .... Can you try with anyone f/4 lens to see if it´s true in your case ??


So far that is also my impression, but I've mostly tried it in sports use with the 400 2.8 and 600 f/4. The only other f/4 lens that I have is the 70-200 f/4 IS, but I'm thinking of getting a 300 f/4 soon. What I would really like is for Canon to deliver the second Mark III I have on order so I can compare it against the first one. In the past it wasn't unusual for a body to work well with certain lenses and another body with other lenses. I'm coming from two Mark IIN cameras and I always had the impression that one of the two worked better with the 400 2.8... and the other with some of my other lenses...

FYI, the August 8 update of Rob Galbraith's MKIII article. It contains some kind of interesting details about Canon USA's involvement (they took notes and videotaped two days of his testing starting July 31 when he used a MKIII with firmware 1.1.0, have ensured that all the bodies and lens used were properly calibrated, etc.) Also, comments and pics from that shoot. (And he's now up to a total of six MKIIIs, all with the same issue.)

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9006#aug8