Rampai65 wrote:
CyberDyne wrote:
For all those that told us "it's the settings stupid".....



-= " It was The Sub-Mirror Assembly Stupid! " =-

Same sentiments EXPRESSED HERE


Same Author too

I just got off the phone with Canon and he indicated that they were waiting on parts. I also got the impression that Canon has been shipping known good cameras for some time. Perhaps they were waiting on parts to execute the repair. He suggested that owners with cameras that appear to be good hold off so they can get to cameras with known issues. He also stated that later models should not be exhibiting the temperature issues seen in earlier models.
Jeff

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/561225/51#4970867

This is what we thought would be the case in early September. Why it took so long for Canon to determine this is what is surprising.

All I can say is it about time. Now if we can only get confirmation that the fix works.

Interesting. If this is all true, it looks like Canon has given up on the problem mitigation by firmware and now they might try some hardware changes.

One way or another, the success of the fix(es) should be ultimately judged by some sort of a consensus of a large body of camera users......we don't seem to be there yet, I think.

netexpress wrote:
All I can say is it about time. Now if we can only get confirmation that the fix works.

I'm a little bit skeptical. I never would've imagined Canon released a camera with this kind of flaw to begin with, so I'm not one to count as this being the end all fix until it's been thoroughly tested.

What about those people that have problems in One Shot mode? I had problems with one body that was front focusing in concert lighting with fast primes, and I've heard from others with that problem, too.

Called the Canon folks. Given the same information. They will notify me when parts arrive and send a shipping label. This will be the second effort by Canon to repair my 1DMK111. I have sold most of my Canon gear because of this issue....... Has anyone had the replacement parts installed and checked their camera??

Leehman

well I don't think they would go to the expense of sending out a shipping label, do the fix and ship it back if it was not a fix? That would be real costly.

To each his own, but selling your gear so fast seems a little quick to jump and would end up costing a lot of money?

Should I be correct in assuming that since I registered my camera with Canon, that they will contact me when or if it is nescessary to send it in?
They have sent me notification of the firmware update in the past.

Valerie S wrote:
netexpress wrote:
All I can say is it about time. Now if we can only get confirmation that the fix works.

I'm a little bit skeptical. I never would've imagined Canon released a camera with this kind of flaw to begin with, so I'm not one to count as this being the end all fix until it's been thoroughly tested.

What about those people that have problems in One Shot mode? I had problems with one body that was front focusing in concert lighting with fast primes, and I've heard from others with that problem, too.


It took them quite a while to find it so maybe a little credit should be given in their assertiveness to find the problem. We would not be in the loop of having conversations on this with the Canon engineers and they would be a very internal and secluded group.

The fact they tried firmware and then all talk about it died in a cold fast way shows they needed to get deeper to find out where this was happening.

As for the One-Shot question - if the mirror is not seating properly then the reflection to the AF sensors would continuously be all over the place and therefore the focus would be in one spot and then move a hair off to another spot basically making accurate focus almost impossible. It seems to be off in such a little amount that just a smaller f/stop is able to hide the inaccuracy. But on the Canon super fast lenses or very critical focusing - it showed up. It seems that even heat may have caused the unseating of the mirror to expand enough to become even more unstable in where it seated itself on each return sending erroneous info back to the AF sensors. It would have been better for it to have been WAY off then it would have been easier to find. It makes a lot of sense now in hind sight.

Peter

Valerie S wrote:
I knew this would happen:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/579781/5#5073572

Just as I predicted, I ordered a 40D this morning to tide me over until an announcement was made. You folks owe me one

Someone's got to take one for the team - good on you Valerie


Although I glad that something concrete has been identified and can be replaced, this now means I might be looking at a very expensive X-mas. We'll see. I can resist anything that is thrown at me, except temptation.

Wow, sweet if this works out I'll pick up a 1ds III when they come out.

Peter, I think your on to something, but it's even more insidious.
If the mirror subassembly does not re-seat itself "consistently" after a shutter release,. this is where the devil is, some could have cameras or be shooting in ways that the af subassembly re-seats correctly far more often and consistently than others.

Likewise as you say, the situation could reveal itself at any time, under almost any shooting condition or settings,. just with less or more frequency...

My guess is it is a VERY inconsistent problem, and this is why it's been so difficult to trace the source.

Just to be contrarian, since my Mark III didn't have any problems & i had faith in Canon fixing the problem, i was hoping that the prices of Mark III's would have dropped further so i could pick up a 2nd unit (recent prices dipped into the 4100 range)

On the used or new market?

biodan wrote:
Just to be contrarian, since my Mark III didn't have any problems & i had faith in Canon fixing the problem, i was hoping that the prices of Mark III's would have dropped further so i could pick up a 2nd unit (recent prices dipped into the 4100 range)

The fact that Canon waited so long to make a formal announcement is evidence of how hard this has been for them to pin down. As has already been said, assuming they actually do this fix, I would guess they are pretty sure it will do the job. The more loudly they make the announcement, the more sure they are.

Valerie S wrote:
I knew this would happen:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/579781/5#5073572

Just as I predicted, I ordered a 40D this morning to tide me over until an announcement was made. You folks owe me one

Thanks Valerie for facilitating a fix for my camera. I really do appreciate it.

72chevelle454 wrote:
Jim Victory wrote:
I hope it all pans out and this solves the problem.

I too bought a 40D to hold me over before adding another mKIII to my bag. I would have liked to have bought another one by now but not until the fix was in.

Jim

Jim do you find the 40d capable of focusing as well as the MIII, we tried one along side our MIII's and it did not seem to do much better, I understand that it is a much lower end camera. I was just curious as to your experience with it. Mainly in AI-Servo only.

Thanks

I find the AF in Servo on the 40D to be considerably better than the previous xxD cameras but it still isn't a 1 series camera. Although it doesn't have the AF performance of a 1 series camera I haven't found it limiting in any way.

FWIW I believe the Nikon D2x had focusing problems when it was released and it was related to the mirror box as well.

Jim

Used, of course! (from frustrated owners with low actuations). Its not going to happen anymore tho.

Wickedfn4u wrote:
On the used or new market?

biodan wrote:
Just to be contrarian, since my Mark III didn't have any problems & i had faith in Canon fixing the problem, i was hoping that the prices of Mark III's would have dropped further so i could pick up a 2nd unit (recent prices dipped into the 4100 range)

In late September, I sent my 1dIII into Canon Service at Irvine, with the following issues:

1. Err 99 (not resolving)
2. AI Servo and occasional 1 shot focus issues
3. Loose CF door leatherett

I received my repaired 1dIII on October 4th with the following comments regarding repair:
REPLACED SHUTTER UNIT, SH, MIRROR CHARGE UNIT.
CLEANED CMOS. ADUJUSTED FOCUS TO STANDARD.
REPLACED REARD CF DOOR LEATHERETT. CL/CK ALL
FUNCTIONS.

I am not sure what "SH" means, but it appears that they replaced both the shutter and parts of the miror charge unit...might this have been the fix we are all hoping for?

I can tell you that my camera (SN 533xxx) focuses much better in AI servo upon return. It's not perfect, but neither am I, and I suspect that most of the errors are my own. Interestingly, when I had the camera returned, my Custom Functions had been changed around, and file type had been set to JPEG. The only change I made was setting filetype to RAW again.

My camera seems to be working like a dream: See photos at:
http://ashwinlrao.blogspot.com


Edited by ashwinrao1 on Oct 17, 2007 at 08:57 PM GMT

biodan wrote:
Used, of course! (from frustrated owners with low actuations). Its not going to happen anymore tho.

Wickedfn4u wrote:
On the used or new market?

biodan wrote:
Just to be contrarian, since my Mark III didn't have any problems & i had faith in Canon fixing the problem, i was hoping that the prices of Mark III's would have dropped further so i could pick up a 2nd unit (recent prices dipped into the 4100 range)


So you would like to pray off the misery and frustrations of others? NICE

You're being rather high & mighty, huh? For every transaction, there is (a) a buyer who may have buyer's remorse and a seller who felt he got a good deal or conversely or (b) a buyer who felt he got a good deal and a seller who was willing to sacrifice some profit to expedite a rapid sale. Point is, there are always multiple ways of interpreting transactions. You can cast aspersions on a person's motivations, but they speak more clearly to your one-sided view of human nature.

Just to be clear, in this instance, a seller may have lost faith in Canon & wanted to exit. That seller may or may not disclose an AF problem. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a buyer knowingly paying for merchandise that he can fix or has faith in the manufacturer to fix. For example, damaged new cars have been sold to an owner of a body shop with full disclosure and BMW dealers have been known to sell 'refurbed' 7-series with known electronic gremlins.

Wickedfn4u wrote:
biodan wrote:
Used, of course! (from frustrated owners with low actuations). Its not going to happen anymore tho.

Wickedfn4u wrote:
On the used or new market?

biodan wrote:
Just to be contrarian, since my Mark III didn't have any problems & i had faith in Canon fixing the problem, i was hoping that the prices of Mark III's would have dropped further so i could pick up a 2nd unit (recent prices dipped into the 4100 range)


So you would like to pray off the misery and frustrations of others? NICE

ashwinrao1 wrote:
In late September, I sent my 1dIII into Canon Service at Irvine, with the following issues:

1. Err 99 (not resolving)
2. AI Servo and occasional 1 shot focus issues
3. Loose CF door leatherett

I received my repaired 1dIII on October 4th with the following comments regarding repair:
REPLACED SHUTTER UNIT, SH, MIRROR CHARGE UNIT.
CLEANED CMOS. ADUJUSTED FOCUS TO STANDARD.
REPLACED REARD CF DOOR LEATHERETT. CL/CK ALL
FUNCTIONS.

I am not sure what "SH" means, but it appears that they replaced both the shutter and parts of the miror charge unit...might this have been the fix we are all hoping for?

I can tell you that my camera (SN 533xxx) focuses much better in AI servo upon return. It's not perfect, but neither am I, and I suspect that most of the errors are my own. Interestingly, when I had the camera returned, my Custom Functions had been changed around, and file type had been set to JPEG. The only change I made was setting filetype to RAW again.

My camera seems to be working like a dream: See photos at:
http://ashwinlrao.blogspot.com


Edited by ashwinrao1 on Oct 17, 2007 at 08:57 PM GMT

It sounds like you may have the fix already, and the time frame is certainly right.

I sent mine in for service late August. When I mentioned to the Canon service this evening that mine had been sent in for the AF issue and asked re: the possibility that they had implemented this hardware fix then, the rep asked when had I sent it in.
When I told him August, he said "no"
But you were mere weeks ago, they must have been doing some for a while to get to the point that they are confident it is "the fix"

Anyway, simple answer is to ask Canon, have your service number handy when you give them a call.

I sent mine into Canon UK on 8th October, got it back on 12th October and only AF was adjusted, no parts replaced. So I guess Canon either didn't know about this fix at this point and it is going to have to go in again. Great.

I don't think I am going to be particularly enthusiastic until I have heard from people how the AF performs post this replacement sub mirror assembly. So keep jumping for joy guys and girls, but I will hold off running to the bar and buying a large single malt until this becomes a known fix.