They aren't getting mine back even if there is a recall. It's perfect in every way (even though it would be nice if the active AF point was illuminated all the time, but that should be a firmware fix).
Chad, I love mine too and it works flawlessly but if there is a recall, you will be better off sending yours in. We are talking about the resale value of the camera a few years down the road here since there is a good chance we will be upgrading to a 5D Mark IV, you know what I mean? Again, at this point there is no indication whatsoever that this is real. I am sure the official announcement will be made before too long if it is true. In the meantime, we just keep on using our camera .
AGeoJO wrote:
Chad, I love mine too and it works flawlessly but if there is a recall, you will be better off sending yours in. We are talking about the resale value of the camera a few years down the road here since there is a good chance we will be upgrading to a 5D Mark IV, you know what I mean? Again, at this point there is no indication whatsoever that this is real. I am sure the official announcement will be made before too long if it is true. In the meantime, we just keep on using our camera .
Right now my 5D3 is like my first born child. It's not leaving my sight until it's time for its first day of school
Its recalled for Err 500 !!
This is also known as Canon Customer Error.
You paid $500 too much for a Not Yet Ready Primetime Camera.
mark fadely wrote:
Doesn't it make sense for a company mass-producing a product to take a sample off the line after the first few hundred go out the door, and then have one of their own photogs go fully test it for a few days with every current lens in Canon's lineup just to make sure all is okay? I would bet they would find some little issues almost every time. For instance, the IS and viewfinder problem with the 5D III and 200 2.0 is one obvious example that could have been avoided. You mean they didn't test production units with this lens? That seems odd to me in lieu of all the costs for a possible recall.
Old School thinking but still wise in the absurb race for Commodity Camera King.
When Canonites bend over backward and pay thru the nose ...
the manufacturer does not even care to cover their rear end w/ quality control.
Remember the 1D MK III AF Recall ... Canon first said no problem .. then user error ... then AI ... then recalled it for sub mirror thickness replacement.
That was a year of problems and the final fix only took cvare of 80% of the AF problem.
Anyone remember when quality was King ??
I'm really hoping it's a minor fix or stock issues. I just want to get back back to shooting. I'm kicking myself for selling a perfectly good 5DmkII and 7D pair.
Hopefully Canon will have an official statement soon.
"UPDATE 2*
We have confirmed new firmware for the 5D Mark III that addresses a few issues is coming very soon. Cameras could get held back for this reason. The firmware will for sure address the 200 f/2L IS and 800 f/5.6L IS issues.
I changed the title of this post from “recall” to “stock delayed”.
*UPDATE*
Lots more information is rolling in about this. Two of the retailers are BuyDig and Beach Camera which are one in the same. The story coming from them is the cameras have been held back “in case a recall is necessary”. However there is no mention as to why. The word “recall” may be the wrong word to describe the experience the retailer and customer had.
Canon Digital Photo Professional to blame?
Another theory I have heard is a new version DPP is coming out next week to address the issues with it and the 5D Mark III RAW files, and the cameras are being held back to get the new version into the boxes. We reported the issue with DPP last week."
Aaah, yes, the power of the correct wording ; stock delayed sounds better than recall. I thought that indeed it would have to do with the funky behavior of the IS system in the 200mm (and 800mm) lenses, as I mentioned in my previous post.
Thought I'd ask here because there is so many other 5D3 threads, but when I have my 85L mounted with my new 580ex2, the flash reports the zoom as 80mm. Am I missing a setting here? Why isnt the flash showing 85mm?
gvg45 wrote:
Thought I'd ask here because there is so many other 5D3 threads, but when I have my 85L mounted with my new 580ex2, the flash reports the zoom as 80mm. Am I missing a setting here? Why isnt the flash showing 85mm?
Greg,
First, the beam coverage on the flash unit is not 100% precise. The zoom range, if you do it manually, goes from 70mm to 80 to 105mm. If your lens is 85mm and you get the flash to show 80mm, meaning the flash is actually covering more than your lens. So, it should be fine that way since the angle of view from your 85mm is actually narrower than the beam coverage of the flash at 80mm. Hope this helps.
Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with the recall...., correction, the stock delayed .
elfanucchi wrote:
Its recalled for Err 500 !!
This is also known as Canon Customer Error.
You paid $500 too much for a Not Yet Ready Primetime Camera.
Old School thinking but still wise in the absurb race for Commodity Camera King.
When Canonites bend over backward and pay thru the nose ...
the manufacturer does not even care to cover their rear end w/ quality control.
Remember the 1D MK III AF Recall ... Canon first said no problem .. then user error ... then AI ... then recalled it for sub mirror thickness replacement.
That was a year of problems and the final fix only took cvare of 80% of the AF problem.
Anyone remember when quality was King ?? ...Show more →
My first had problems with the SD card interface, causing intermittent "looping", i.e., unending card write. I returned it. The replacement has so far been fine with any cards.
I suspect the stock is being held for an impending firmware update, which will surely address the problems with a few specific lenses. I suppose it's also possible that it could correct for a hardware "sensitivity" that caused some units to have the problems my first body had? Whatever has caused some people's cameras to lock up and require rebooting might also be addressed in firmware (I hope).
.
