Mariner wrote:
How foolish are the Mark III owners who wish to silence the non owners. It will be the lack of buying any new Series 1 bodies that will one day force Canon to deal with your problems, and deal with them in a fair way. If anything, you should trying to enlist non owner support. This is like a bad comedy. Do you think Ralph Nader owned a Corvair?
John

AGAIN, you are making a very erroneous assumption here. The majority of MkIII owners ARE NOT having problems. Canon has been VERY fair with me, I gave them a bunch of cash, they gave me an absolutely awesome camera. I get on here and talk about it, and get told by a bunch of people that have never held one, that I am wrong and that they know it is broken and that I am lying to them about it. Who looks foolish here?

No, Ralph Nader probably never owned a Corvair, but he did drive one, tested it, took it apart, got to know it before proclaiming it "unsafe at any speed." That has absolutely nothing to do with you reading about a camera on the internet and then telling me mine is broken.

I haven't heard of any Mark III owners silencing non-owners.

Each person gives his/her personal experience and though subjective I like to think they are honest opinions. As we are given more context/experience/empirical data then one's opinion may change. Myself, I have yet to see one AF problem but I do recognize I may not be pushing my camera to its limits and part of that is free time and partly shooting style and pure luck of getting a good one. If a problem occurs I will not be quiet but a problem may never occur.

Mariner wrote:
How foolish are the Mark III owners who wish to silence the non owners. It will be the lack of buying any new Series 1 bodies that will one day force Canon to deal with your problems, and deal with them in a fair way. If anything, you should trying to enlist non owner support. This is like a bad comedy. Do you think Ralph Nader owned a Corvair?
John

No one is asking for non-owners to be silenced. It's asking for them not to post information that sounds like they have first hand knowledge of problems when they don't. Nobody here has any knowledge of how many units have problems or don't. Unless we know what the issue is, it's unclear where it really affects them all or not. But some of the most vocal about the problems (on other forums too, not just here) are people who have never touched a 1D3.

QUIT BITCHING AND CALL, JEEEEEEEEZ, I'm so sick of all this crap, makes me want to puke listening to people defend Canon on this issue.

If you have a good MK3 we're all happy for you, if you don't have a good working camera call, it's really simple, the more calls the better.

QUIT BITCHING AND CALL, JEEEEEEEEZ, I'm so sick of all this crap, makes me want to puke listening to people defend Canon on this issue.

If you have a good MK3 we're all happy for you, if you don't have a good working camera call, it's really simple, the more calls the better.

QUIT BITCHING AND CALL, JEEEEEEEEZ, I'm so sick of all this crap, makes me want to puke listening to people defend Canon on this issue.

If you have a good MK3 we're all happy for you, if you don't have a good working camera call, it's really simple, the more calls the better.

Steve A wrote:
QUIT BITCHING AND CALL, JEEEEEEEEZ, I'm so sick of all this crap, makes me want to puke listening to people defend Canon on this issue.

If you have a good MK3 we're all happy for you, if you don't have a good working camera call, it's really simple, the more calls the better.

I just wanted to post this for a 4th time so that we were sure what to do...

Actually Ralph Nader never drove, or took a Corvair apart. Sorry to upset you with the facts What Ralph did was to examine the accident statistics of the car. Sort of like looking at the reported frequency of difficulties with the Mark III Keep on trucking baby.
John

There is one difference there. It's a pretty hard fact on whether there's an accident or not. Reports of focusing problems spread on internet boards have no way of being verified or not. Not saying that there aren't problems out there. But it's absolutely impossible to know how many. It could be 0.1%, 1%, 99% or anywhere in between. Anyone who claims to really know is kidding themselves and others.

Mariner wrote:
Actually Ralph Nader never drove, or took a Corvair apart. Sorry to upset you with the facts What Ralph did was to examine the accident statistics of the car. Sort of like looking at the reported frequency of difficulties with the Mark III Keep on trucking baby.
John

Heres some reading for you since you are so fond of quoting stuff you read on the internet.

http://www.calconnect.com/cars/nader_affair/nader_affair.htm

The best part of the article is a couple paragraphs from the end...

"The most telling comment of the whole Nader Affair, can be found in the Advisory Panel's musings on why this all happened. They stated:

In the opinion of the panel, Ralph Nader, et al sensed there was a difference between the Corvair and contemporary American cars of the 1960-through-1963 period. He expressed his feelings in terms that the Corvair handled in an unstable manner and also had a propensity to overturn.

In other words, the Corvair was unjustly persecuted because of Nader’s feelings, not engineering logic. Ironically, Nader usually celebrates diversity as a hallmark of his political movements. The Corvair’s only fault was that it was different."[i/]

hmmm...

And no, I don't drive a truck

Good that you don't drive a truck, very good. By the way, I worked for Nader and your statement that he drove and dismanteled a Corvair is just false. Actually you demonstrated that yourself. Keep on......whatever you do

Mariner wrote:
Good that you don't drive a truck, very good. By the way, I worked for Nader and your statement that he drove and dismanteled a Corvair is just false. Actually you demonstrated that yourself. Keep on......whatever you do

Yep, I stand corrected. I was basing that on having once seen the infamous pic of him with one, years after the hearings, I think he was at an owners club as a speaker or something, and someone snapped a pic of him with one.

My Mark III still doesn't work even after hand-carrying it to Jamesburg for "repairs."

The repair order when I got the camera back said the body 'tested to factory specs." Yup.
The only thing I could be sure they did was update the firmware.
That was back in July. I won't moan on about the particulars of its dubious performance since then.

Here's my bottom line: Canon doesn't owe the general public any explanation.
But it is shameful that it hasn't communicated in writing with those of us who gave them several thousand dollars for the Mark III.

Each registered owner is long overdue a letter from Canon first apologizing for their failure and then for our inconvenience.
Then the letter must explain exactly what they're doing to address the problems.

This should be followed by an offer to exchange our defective Mark III's for a new Mark III guaranteed to work as-advertised, or a full refund -- buyer's discretion.

I have much invested in Canon bodies and lenses, but I am reluctantly on the verge of switching to Nikon.

The short-term loss I'd experience would be repaid ten-fold with the security of knowing I'd be dealing with a corporation that I presume treats its valued customers with honesty, openness and respect.