mark fadely wrote:
let's see if I can simplify my results:

MKIII before latest fix = BAD
MKIII after latest fix = GOOD

Look at my BIF galleries and see if it looks like I know how to shoot moving objects

I do believe some people's cameras are still not performing up to spec (maybe RG is one of those), but mine certainly is working very well

It's always good news to hear that people are satisfied. There were lots of things I liked about the 1D3 from the start so if it works, it's great.

Unfortunately, there are some here (on FM) that just can't get it through their thick skulls that some people MAY be having problems even after the fix.There was even a recent poll a couple of weeks ago and the person running the poll got very upset at anyone that suggested there might still be problems.

I've learned the hard way that it's possible to get a lemon, or ever several in a row, and I respect the right of others to say they're having trouble. Trouble with a 1D3 is an old saga however, and I'd really like to put the whole thing behind me for good.

musclepics wrote:
All the MKIII owners I know personally also have this same experience. I think it's RG that is broken, not the camera

Well, you don't know me personally, but...

Having moved from two of the original 1D bodies to the Mk II and then to the Mk III, I was really really disappointed with the Mark III's. In the studio or for landscapes, etc. it was wonderful and indeed low-light focusing was fairly good, but for shooting fast-moving sports (I shot a lot of bicycle races) or birds in flight, it was really poor.

I hung in there with the bodies, going through various fixes (and both bodies were the "blue dot" bodies which had the hardware fix done at the factory) but the percentage of out-of-focus shots I was getting was just not acceptable to me. RG's findings only confirm my own experience with the Mark III and I'm glad I sold the bodies when I did. Canon really disappointed me with that one.

I got myself two 5D Mark II bodies as a temporary measure until Canon comes out with a vastly improved pro body to replace the 1D Mark III. I can't wait to get back into a pro body, but in the meantime I'm fairly satisified with the 5DII's. Indeed, I might keep these for studio and landscape work even if I get pro bodies for other work. But if the next pro body does what the Mark III should have done AND offers what the 5DII does, well, I'll probably switch without keeping the 5DII's.

I'm sure RG's going to take a lot of heat for his report (again!) but I think he's bang on the money with his findings.

Eldor - too bad you didn't keep the MKIIIs for just a bit longer until this latest fix. The last fix is the one that really made the camera work.

Wow:-)) Great gallery and beautiful action shots! Lovely pics !
/Jannis
www.jannisnet.com

I just want to say that I hope the 1dmk4 comes out soon, so the used 1dmk3 goes down in price...oh and I hope that the 1dmk3 fixes are great, because I hope to get a used one :P

mark fadely wrote:
Eldor - too bad you didn't keep the MKIIIs for just a bit longer until this latest fix. The last fix is the one that really made the camera work.

For some, perhaps most, but not all. Mine is going back in because the latest fix has taken a well functioning 1DsMkIII and made it erratic. Although the possibility exists that I forgot how to focus in the four days it was gone, I prefer to think that there might be another cause for the greatly increased number of OOF shots.

In my case, I can see that the camera is having a lot of trouble on low contrast subjects - much more than it ever had before. It will hunt and often lose focus much more than it did before. This doesn't mean it can't be fixed but if RG's camera is like mine I am not surprised that he is unimpressed.

I didn't realize how bad the focus on my Mark III was until I tried a D3 for a couple of weeks in March.

Right out of the box, I was getting an entire series of basketball shots in focus. something that I could never do with a Mark III.

After mine is sent in for the fix...and if it greatly improves...I may just shoot with two brands.

Much success,

Lee Woolery
Speedshot Photo

jonbrach wrote:
I truly believe that the markIII has become a "mind game" to many people...if the camera was fixed perfectly and performed perfectly many people would still find issues because all cameras have problems and issues and this one is no different....at this point it is a waste of time to continue to debate the merits of the camera....the markIII has so many improvements over the markII that it is literally not worth comparison as far as i am concerned....if you get good results with it as i do then it is fixed...if you do not then it isnt....what more can be said about the camera anymore?
+1.

Hi fellow Mark III owners,
I would be curious to see the newest results -(after the last fix/update)- we each were to acheive if we each tested our longest telephoto's lens at their widest aperature with a runner coming towards us on a bright sunny day, such as what RG did in his original test...
I know my early model June '07 Mark III has had all the fixes and updates, been to Canon Irvine a few times, and I use it all the time, but I wonder how she would fare testing like RG's original test? Have many of you folks tried testing that way? It's been May gray here at the L.A. beaches alot, but I am curious to try mine out soon...
Randy
LAsurfpix.com

Hi Henry,

I have heard of some 1DsMK3 users had poor results with their fix. I was referring to the 1DMK3. For some reason results between the two models have been quite different throughout the recalls. I thought RG was using a MK3 as well and not a 1DsMK3? I hope you get your problem fixed with yours.


Hrow wrote:
mark fadely wrote:
Eldor - too bad you didn't keep the MKIIIs for just a bit longer until this latest fix. The last fix is the one that really made the camera work.

For some, perhaps most, but not all. Mine is going back in because the latest fix has taken a well functioning 1DsMkIII and made it erratic. Although the possibility exists that I forgot how to focus in the four days it was gone, I prefer to think that there might be another cause for the greatly increased number of OOF shots.

In my case, I can see that the camera is having a lot of trouble on low contrast subjects - much more than it ever had before. It will hunt and often lose focus much more than it did before. This doesn't mean it can't be fixed but if RG's camera is like mine I am not surprised that he is unimpressed.

Hi Randy,

My MKIII is working very nicely shooting a 300 2.8 wide open for soccer and BIF etc. RG's original test showed very poor accuracy with the MKIII when the DOF field was small. Now mine is more accurate than my MKIIn. The MKIIn is fantastic so that is quite an accomplishment for the MKIII.

I have followed and responded to many threads on the MKIII focusing over the last 2 years. Mine was manufactured in Feb '08 and originally only had an in-focus rate equal to 70% of my MKIIn. I kept the camera even though I was never really satisfied with it. Now after the latest fix it is spot on with all the critical narrow DOF shooting I do.

There is a lot of confusion out there right now with all the various fixes for the 1DMKIII and the 1DsMKIII respectively. If people don't own the camera they comment on it only is clouding concensus and interested readers are no doubt dumbfounded as to what is really going on.

Just to confuse things further it seems that users are getting inconsistent results after fixes to either model. One person cannot say that their experience will hold true for everyone else (including RGs findings).

I have been amazed with my MKIII ever since this last fix and I just hope that all the other owners could enjoy the results I'm getting with it now.

Randy Wright wrote:
Hi fellow Mark III owners,
I would be curious to see the newest results -(after the last fix/update)- we each were to acheive if we each tested our longest telephoto's lens at their widest aperature with a runner coming towards us on a bright sunny day, such as what RG did in his original test...
I know my early model June '07 Mark III has had all the fixes and updates, been to Canon Irvine a few times, and I use it all the time, but I wonder how she would fare testing like RG's original test? Have many of you folks tried testing that way? It's been May gray here at the L.A. beaches alot, but I am curious to try mine out soon...
Randy
LAsurfpix.com

Four easy words to remember....
Rob Galbraith is wrong.

mark fadely wrote:
Hi Randy,

My MKIII is working very nicely shooting a 300 2.8 wide open for soccer and BIF etc. RG's original test showed very poor accuracy with the MKIII when the DOF field was small. Now mine is more accurate than my MKIIn. The MKIIn is fantastic so that is quite an accomplishment for the MKIII.

I have followed and responded to many threads on the MKIII focusing over the last 2 years. Mine was manufactured in Feb '08 and originally only had an in-focus rate equal to 70% of my MKIIn. I kept the camera even though I was never really satisfied with it. Now after the latest fix it is spot on with all the critical narrow DOF shooting I do.

There is a lot of confusion out there right now with all the various fixes for the 1DMKIII and the 1DsMKIII respectively. If people don't own the camera they comment on it only is clouding concensus and interested readers are no doubt dumbfounded as to what is really going on.

Just to confuse things further it seems that users are getting inconsistent results after fixes to either model. One person cannot say that their experience will hold true for everyone else (including RGs findings).

I have been amazed with my MKIII ever since this last fix and I just hope that all the other owners could enjoy the results I'm getting with it now.

Randy Wright wrote:
Hi fellow Mark III owners,
I would be curious to see the newest results -(after the last fix/update)- we each were to acheive if we each tested our longest telephoto's lens at their widest aperature with a runner coming towards us on a bright sunny day, such as what RG did in his original test...
I know my early model June '07 Mark III has had all the fixes and updates, been to Canon Irvine a few times, and I use it all the time, but I wonder how she would fare testing like RG's original test? Have many of you folks tried testing that way? It's been May gray here at the L.A. beaches alot, but I am curious to try mine out soon...
Randy
LAsurfpix.com

++1
Your post mirrors my experience, and the experience of the vast majority of MK III users out there. RG can say his cameras aren't working properly, and that's about it. For him to say there is a problem still across the board shows how wrong he really is. RG is part of the tiny, but vocal minority.
Randy, you and I represent the vast majority whose MK III's are better now than any other camera out there when it comes to AF. I can point to 2 polls in this forum alone that show a 70-85% satisfaction rate with the AF of the MK III, especially after the recall, with most saying it now trumps the MK II in daylight action.


Oh and when I asked my friend in Calgary (a Nikon shooter btw) today why RG is so miffed at Canon... was it just because of the AF issue? He said "no, it's actually about $$$... if you notice Rob Galbraith's page used to be littered with Canon adverts, and now they are nowhere to be seen. He's pissed that they will no longer advertised on his site, and is probably seeking retribution with these MK III articles".

Again, remember the 4 words....
Rob Galbraith is wrong.


Oh, and at the last marathon I shot, all the local media were using Canon, mainly MK III's, and there was one lonely dude using a Nikon (not sure which one). I talked to a few photogs from the local papers and they all said their MK III's are incredible since the recall fix, and they have now upgraded most of their MK II's. So it's a myth to think all media has switched over.

Randy Wright wrote:
Hi fellow Mark III owners,
I would be curious to see the newest results -(after the last fix/update)- we each were to acheive if we each tested our longest telephoto's lens at their widest aperature with a runner coming towards us on a bright sunny day, such as what RG did in his original test...
I know my early model June '07 Mark III has had all the fixes and updates, been to Canon Irvine a few times, and I use it all the time, but I wonder how she would fare testing like RG's original test? Have many of you folks tried testing that way? It's been May gray here at the L.A. beaches alot, but I am curious to try mine out soon...
Randy
LAsurfpix.com


Well, I've done exactly this, and my keeper rate is about 93% after the fix.
Before the fix, Prophotohome showed the 1D MKIII as the best DSLR using this test (beating the D3, MKII, D300, etc).

This fellow did the same on another forum, with something like 95% keeper rate in the same test as RG.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8017646&postcount=33

Mercy sakes, just when I thought my 1DMKIII was working well enough, Rob tells me it's not .........

He even has a term to dismiss my own reports, he believes my camera was so immeasurably bad that post 3rd recall, I'd think it fantastic, but in reality it's not ...

So how can I answer that?

He might be right too, despite my satire.

musclepics wrote:
Randy Wright wrote:
Hi fellow Mark III owners,
I would be curious to see the newest results -(after the last fix/update)- we each were to acheive if we each tested our longest telephoto's lens at their widest aperature with a runner coming towards us on a bright sunny day, such as what RG did in his original test...
I know my early model June '07 Mark III has had all the fixes and updates, been to Canon Irvine a few times, and I use it all the time, but I wonder how she would fare testing like RG's original test? Have many of you folks tried testing that way? It's been May gray here at the L.A. beaches alot, but I am curious to try mine out soon...
Randy
LAsurfpix.com


Well, I've done exactly this, and my keeper rate is about 93% after the fix.


Let's see your shots.

rhyder wrote:
musclepics wrote:
Randy Wright wrote:
Hi fellow Mark III owners,
I would be curious to see the newest results -(after the last fix/update)- we each were to acheive if we each tested our longest telephoto's lens at their widest aperature with a runner coming towards us on a bright sunny day, such as what RG did in his original test...
I know my early model June '07 Mark III has had all the fixes and updates, been to Canon Irvine a few times, and I use it all the time, but I wonder how she would fare testing like RG's original test? Have many of you folks tried testing that way? It's been May gray here at the L.A. beaches alot, but I am curious to try mine out soon...
Randy
LAsurfpix.com


Well, I've done exactly this, and my keeper rate is about 93% after the fix.


Let's see your shots.
I have about 400 from a few hours shooting a marathon, with people doing nothing but jogging directly at me. So, I have lots to choose! My keeper rate was about 93% (in sharp focus). Last year under the same circumstances prior to the recall, my keeper rate in bright daylight was about 40%. I don't do a lot of "spray and pray" so I will try to find a continuous sequence to post.

gbee wrote:
Mercy sakes, just when I thought my 1DMKIII was working well enough, Rob tells me it's not .........



! Yes, I was afraid to even pick mine up today and turn it on, after reading RG's latest!

Garylv wrote:
Glen_C wrote:
...but he is DENSE to say the least.
Canon clearly disagrees with you.

Actually you are wrong.

Much or Rob's petty nonsense is from the fact that Canon ignored his initial drivel, then after working with him & watching his methods took their equipment, issued a firmware upgrade & said (to paraphrase) the 1DmkIII is the best focusing camera they ever built.

You can search for their presser but it basically dismissed Rob telling him to STFU (which he really should already his 15-minutes long ago expired).

Now canon did have obvious QC/hardware DEFECTS but that has nothing to do with ATTENTION STARVED Rob. Sure we''d have liked Canon to fixed the defects quicker but who is to say they weren't working on it 24/7/365.

If it works for you why care about what RG said, it's like saying "your wife is ugly if you believe it ..well "

kewlcanon wrote:
If it works for you why care about what RG said, it's like saying "your wife is ugly if you believe it ..well "


+1

Maybe all the issues are due to disgruntled canon employees.

http://gizmodo.com/5273192/canon-employees-are-forbidden-to-sit-down-walk-at-normal-pace

kewlcanon wrote:If it works for you why care about what RG said, it's like saying "your wife is ugly if you believe it ..well "

Nikon is ugly, it's how hard she, erm it works, gets the dinner, cleans the clothes, makes the bed and how well she disturbs it that counts ... I sell paper sacks for ugly wives ... to put over her head ....

Hrow wrote:
Mine is going back in because the latest fix has taken a well functioning 1DsMkIII and made it erratic.

You had a well functioning body and you sent it in for a fix? If it was well functioning, what did you ask them to fix?

I'm liking my fix

Curator wrote:
Hrow wrote:
Mine is going back in because the latest fix has taken a well functioning 1DsMkIII and made it erratic.

You had a well functioning body and you sent it in for a fix? If it was well functioning, what did you ask them to fix?




The improvements were supposed to improve performance on the outer points (and supposedly the latest fix applied equally to the 1D and the 1Ds). 70% of my shooting is center point - which was fine - but the outer points were a bit marginal but not awful, as would be expected. The improvement I have seen on the outer points would have been very welcome if it did not have the price of lowering the consistence of the center point performance.