That whole scooter looks like it's in focus, is the bokeh from that lens that good?

No ethical problem, Its brand new, and I spoke with my dealer, and they will exchange it.

I don't think I said anything wrong.. Lamonica wants to move the darkside, I said if the price is right let me know I'll be interested. I'm sure he has that (moving to the darkside) in his mind.

GeneO wrote:
maverick666 wrote:
Hey I'll buy your 1D3....offer me a price that I can't resist!.

That was really useful and showed real sensitivity.

Seriously, engage Canon technical support. Its a tough to switch to the other side. You have to completely reequip and you have either an ethical dilemma of dumping your nonfunctional 1D3 or writing of ~ $4k.

Good luck. If maverick666 were really serious, I'd sell it to him and make it his problem.

Gene

Ok, let me know if this is strange. My 1D3 was dead on with my 400 2.8 after the last fix. Before the fix, I had used it with my 24-70 for T&I work and it was good. After the fix, my 24-70 front focused. I adjusted to out to a +8 and all is good with the world again...... Just kind of baffled me that's all....

lamonica66 wrote: "THE DARK SIDE"

This IS the Dark Side. Nikon had ALWAYS been the leaders and Canon the copiers ~ Canon's reputation was mud so the massive exodus to the Dark Side a few years ago was a phenomenon of supernova proportions and as unexpected.

But we are STILL the Dark Side.

Uhm, ooookaaaay.


gbee wrote:
lamonica66 wrote: "THE DARK SIDE"

This IS the Dark Side. Nikon had ALWAYS been the leaders and Canon the copiers ~ Canon's reputation was mud so the massive exodus to the Dark Side a few years ago was a phenomenon of supernova proportions and as unexpected.

But we are STILL the Dark Side.

Yes, very frustrating indeed. I would probably consider this a good test shot.

After all, if a $4000 camera can only focus well on test charts, but not in situations where a photog really uses it, it's not much good, eh?

That is one of the frustrating things sometimes dealing with tech support on situations like this. I don't think they ever take the camera outside and shoot moving objects. Generally they only shoot indoors on test charts, which doesn't reflect real-world situations.

I've experienced exactly this phenomena lamonica66, and it's very frustrating. My camera is currently at service awaiting the new fix, so my fingers are crossed.

Good luck lamonica66. Let us know how it all works out (btw, make sure you don't have AF Assist points enabled, I saw a post here somewhere that really fubar'ed somebody's BIF photos, but once disabled, his results were outstanding).

lidesun wrote:
lamonica66 wrote:
Its making me want to crossover to


"THE DARK SIDE"


ok, let me know when you are selling the 200/2.0L IS...

Seriously, do some controlled test shots, if the problem is still there, call Canon and send them in..

Good luck !

lidesun wrote:
musclepics wrote:
Pure placebo effect I'm 100% certain.


For RAW, yes, for JPG I am not sure your 100% certain...

Yes, that is possible I guess, although I think it would have been mentioned in the firmware release.

lamonica66 wrote:
I had my 1D Mark 3 service at canon in VA and it still stinks in servo!

The attached photo is shot with a 200 f2is@ f2, bright sun, at 1/8000th.

What gives? The focus point was on the girl's face!

I notice the lower sidewalk is in focus.

Could it be front focusing that much?

How many images out of a burst are like this?

I suspect it is not front-focusing (unless all images out of a burst are like this), but rather that focus isn't able to grab hold of something.

I get this kind of blurred images when using AI Servo on my 1Ds3 once or twice out of a few dozen. Usually the shot after a blurred one is tack sharp. I never have two blurred images in a row.

Hope this helps

RAW ,

Dean-

I figure the AF system is confused. The girl is not moving fast, and I locked focus on here face while she was static.

lamonica66 wrote:
Dean-

I figure the AF system is confused. The girl is not moving fast, and I locked focus on here face while she was static.

Okay, so you took only 1 shot of her?

attached are additional images for your consideration. I really appreciate everyone's help.

MATT

What baffles me, in that in one shot, it does not front focus.

lamonica66, Which AF point did you use? Do you use DPP? Did you have AF expansion off or on? Was the rest of the sequence in focus?

Here's a possibility, and please understand I am just a hobbiest, so my skills are fairly basic. And I don't shoot much action.

So, with that caveat, here's what could possibly have happened. Could the AF point you used be on the dark area over her ear? Maybe the cam could not focus on that spot? DPP is the only way I know to see where the actual focus point was.

I've seen a few like this one testing AF on my IDMkIII ... I use ACR. Took me a while to figure out what I think was the cause. First, I was using the camera display to see where the focus point was. I know, but I did say I am a hobbiest with beginner skills. So I loaded up DPP, and with that I could explain all but a few from several series of these: focus point had drifted off the target. User error. That would not explain yours, however. But I had a few left like yours to try and figure out ... where the focus point was too far away from the target to be simple drift.

After some time, I realized that the AF point, while basically where I wanted it to be, was on an area that was too smooth to focus on. Then I remembered reading about the AF on this cam, and that the actual AF points were smaller than the box on the screen would make you think. My settings were expansion off. Then looking at what the cam did focus on, I noticed that it was the sharpest contrast in the frame, which may not necessarily be close to the target area. For example, several of these of my dog running .... focus box was on a smooth area of fur that was in shadow ... no detail. The sharpest contrast in the frame, and where the cam focused, was the blades of grass in front of the dog. My son riding his bike towards me, focus box on a smooth blue area of his helmut, camera focused on the sharply defined numbers on his Patriots jersey. My wife on her bike, focus box completely in a smooth area on her forehead, area cam focus on was a crack in a large boulder off to the side and slightly behind her. Her shirt was white, low contrast.

On your shot, if indeed the AF on really on the smooth hair in shadow, the cam may have picked the crack in the sidewalk as the area of sharpest contrast. If so, why it jumped there on that frame could be your AF settings, or just something in the firmware logic that caused the cam to see that as the sharpest contrast in the fraction of a second it had to make that decision.

lamonica66 wrote:
attached are additional images for your consideration. I really appreciate everyone's help.

MATT

What baffles me, in that in one shot, it does not front focus.

In my experience, when the AF is not able to grab focus, it will throw focus in front of the target (sometimes even right at your feet). Why was it not able to grab focus...? I don't know. There are a number of options, including: lens/body not in optimal calibration, faulty AF system, user error, not enough contrast, etc... Another thing is that you always have a few images that are OOF with AI Servo (especially when DOF is really thin)... I don't think it is realistic to expect that AI Servo generates 100% in focus shots. After all, there are so many things to consider that could go wrong...

[Sorry in advance for cross-posting this in another thread before I realized that this is the 'Master' thread on the subject, but I figure I'm due after the dozens of hours I put into this debacle back in the day... Regards to all! -Jeff

------------------------------------------

Jeez, it's about time. I haven't logged on in quite awhile (nor have I picked up my MkIII lately), and of course I haven't heard a thing from Canon. Finally, some sort of resolution (no pun intended) to this problem, hopefully! I truly can't believe how long this has dragged on, and starting with my first post on this subject on 12/10/07, it looks like they are finally admitting to the specific problems I outlined in detail in my post of 7/3/08. So, I'm just curious (and not keeping up with current events, obviously), what are all the people who ragged on us MkIII Whiners saying now?

Wow, has it been a long road. Now all I have to do is send my camera in yet one...more... time...

I hope this one sticks.

Regards to all,

Jeff

PS: Man I just have to laugh at Canon's intro to their MkIII AF webpage:

"Canon has learned that some EOS-1D Mark III and EOS-1Ds Mark III cameras may suffer from problems in the accuracy of the AF (autofocusing) feature and is now offering free accuracy checks and adjustments for any affected products."

They've learned? Just now? In March of 2009? Did the frickin' memo get misplaced for a year?

Wow. I don't know what to say...

Canon offers its sincerest apologies to customers using these products who have been inconvenienced by this issue.

I guess "It's about time..." works for me!

-J

http://jlb.smugmug.com/gallery/7684021_NqEe8/1/496345464_3L7Z7

pictures after the fix in spring training florida about a week or so ago.....I am extremely happy

gbee wrote:
Nikon had ALWAYS been the leaders and Canon the copiers

So I guess it's true that loss of memory really does occur as you get older!

John,
Thanks for the phone number. I'll give them a call tomorrow.

Voltaire

Well, this is quite bizarre!! On Thursday, and again yesterday (Monday the 30th March), I was told by a Canon FSC (I called the 732 phone number) rep that my camera was on hold, awaiting the mirror box ass'y and other parts. They said they ought to arrive within 7-10 days. Others here, Gary Johnson for one, had reported a quick 2 day turnaround, last week. I'm thinking....what the hell is going on up there
Today, my camera arrived!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm still thinking.....what the hell is going on up there
Anyway, what pisses me off is, with the expectations from the phone calls, I was unprepared..... all my gear is at home so I've got to wait til tonite to try the sucker out!!!

Fingers still crossed!

Barry

ps,
btw, the note said that, besides the mirror box assembly being replaced and firmware updated, also replaced were the mirror charge & SH charge lever assembly parts.