I recently purchased a 1Dmiii for shits and giggles. It was $300 and I figured why not. Since I've gotten it home and fooled around with it a bit I've noticed an issue with it that may be related to the focus issues this camera had with the early serial numbers of which this camera is one. To the best I have been able to figure out this particular body while in the list of serial numbers affected did not have the fix done by Canon. There are no dots anywhere on it that I can find to indicate the repair was completed and Canon could not verify by serial number when I called them.
On to my particular issue. This camera will auto focus spectacularly with my Canon EF 135mm f/2 L, will do an acceptable job after adjustments with my EF 25-105mm f/4 IS L, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III and EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. Then we get to my third party lenses, with my Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 VC after adjustment is does an acceptable job, with my Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 VC I can almost adjust it to correctly focus but not quite, then with the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 I can't even get it close to focusing correctly. I also have a Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 that if I remember correctly if focused acceptably with after a little adjustment. All of these lenses focus just fine on my R7 so I don't thing it's an issue with the lenses themselves but rather with the 1Dmiii. All of the lenses, except the Tamron 45mm because it was grey market, have been updated to the latest firmware.
While I have no direct experience with the autofocus issue with the 1Dmiii I would have assumed if I was experiencing the issue that Canon offered the repair for that it would have presented equally across all lenses while I have experienced a wide spectrum of auto focus accuracy with various lenses.
Can anyone offer any insight or possible solutions? Do I just have a bad body?
cdaulton wrote:
I recently purchased a 1Dmiii for shits and giggles. It was $300 and I figured why not. Since I've gotten it home and fooled around with it a bit I've noticed an issue with it that may be related to the focus issues this camera had with the early serial numbers of which this camera is one. To the best I have been able to figure out this particular body while in the list of serial numbers affected did not have the fix done by Canon. There are no dots anywhere on it that I can find to indicate the repair was completed and Canon could not verify by serial number when I called them.
On to my particular issue. This camera will auto focus spectacularly with my Canon EF 135mm f/2 L, will do an acceptable job after adjustments with my EF 25-105mm f/4 IS L, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III and EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. Then we get to my third party lenses, with my Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 VC after adjustment is does an acceptable job, with my Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 VC I can almost adjust it to correctly focus but not quite, then with the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 I can't even get it close to focusing correctly. I also have a Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 that if I remember correctly if focused acceptably with after a little adjustment. All of these lenses focus just fine on my R7 so I don't thing it's an issue with the lenses themselves but rather with the 1Dmiii. All of the lenses, except the Tamron 45mm because it was grey market, have been updated to the latest firmware.
While I have no direct experience with the autofocus issue with the 1Dmiii I would have assumed if I was experiencing the issue that Canon offered the repair for that it would have presented equally across all lenses while I have experienced a wide spectrum of auto focus accuracy with various lenses.
Can anyone offer any insight or possible solutions? Do I just have a bad body?...Show more →
I can't speak on the differences between brands but I had a couple 1DmkIII's and they were great bodies at the time, but just weren't as reliable as my old 1DmkIIn's. I captured tons of great images with the 1DmkIII's and I enjoyed the IQ at the time, but I was happy to move on to the 1DmkIV's from there. If I was going to buy a "vintage" DSLR, I would buy a MkIIn or MkIV
Canon put certain color dots inside the batter compartment to specify a fix. Does your have any dots?
Like artsupreme above, I used 1D mk IIn first, then 1D mk III and finally 1D mk IV.
For me the biggest improvement in the 1D mk III was the increase in ISO capability. I don't remember specific AF issues, but AF may have expected them and paid them less mind. That said, I got a mk IV as soon as I could afford it.
cdaulton wrote:
I recently purchased a 1Dmiii for shits and giggles. It was $300 and I figured why not. Since I've gotten it home and fooled around with it a bit I've noticed an issue with it that may be related to the focus issues this camera had with the early serial numbers of which this camera is one. To the best I have been able to figure out this particular body while in the list of serial numbers affected did not have the fix done by Canon. There are no dots anywhere on it that I can find to indicate the repair was completed and Canon could not verify by serial number when I called them.
On to my particular issue. This camera will auto focus spectacularly with my Canon EF 135mm f/2 L, will do an acceptable job after adjustments with my EF 25-105mm f/4 IS L, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III and EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. Then we get to my third party lenses, with my Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 VC after adjustment is does an acceptable job, with my Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 VC I can almost adjust it to correctly focus but not quite, then with the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 I can't even get it close to focusing correctly. I also have a Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 that if I remember correctly if focused acceptably with after a little adjustment. All of these lenses focus just fine on my R7 so I don't thing it's an issue with the lenses themselves but rather with the 1Dmiii. All of the lenses, except the Tamron 45mm because it was grey market, have been updated to the latest firmware.
While I have no direct experience with the autofocus issue with the 1Dmiii I would have assumed if I was experiencing the issue that Canon offered the repair for that it would have presented equally across all lenses while I have experienced a wide spectrum of auto focus accuracy with various lenses.
Can anyone offer any insight or possible solutions? Do I just have a bad body?...Show more →
It's not unusual for 3rd party lenses to have AF issues on old Canon DLSRs. If you are seeing much more than a couple of units of adjustments variability between multiple calibrations on all lenses then that's a problem. Tamron and Sigma have docks for internal calibration; maybe your lenses can be adjusted to a decent range for that body. You also have to consider the aperture since some lenses have focus shift. The DSLRs only calibrate AF at one aperture so sometimes you have to split the difference between wide open and the frequently used aperture.
EB-1 wrote:
It's not unusual for 3rd party lenses to have AF issues on old Canon DLSRs. If you are seeing much more than a couple of units of adjustments variability between multiple calibrations on all lenses then that's a problem. Tamron and Sigma have docks for internal calibration; maybe your lenses can be adjusted to a decent range for that body. You also have to consider the aperture since some lenses have focus shift. The DSLRs only calibrate AF at one aperture so sometimes you have to split the difference between wide open and the frequently used aperture.
EBH
I have the Tamron dock and considered adjusting them, especially the 35mm which is the worst offender. The issue is you cannot set different adjustments for different bodies and it works flawlessly on my R7 which is my main body.
I don't think it's focus shift, the issue I'm having is if I'm shooting a subject that is 20 feet away it will focus 8 feet in front of the subject.
artsupreme wrote:
I can't speak on the differences between brands but I had a couple 1DmkIII's and they were great bodies at the time, but just weren't as reliable as my old 1DmkIIn's. I captured tons of great images with the 1DmkIII's and I enjoyed the IQ at the time, but I was happy to move on to the 1DmkIV's from there. If I was going to buy a "vintage" DSLR, I would buy a MkIIn or MkIV
I actually didn't buy this on camera on purpose. The guy had it listed as a 1D and I thought the CCD sensor could be fun to play with, especially at car shows with all the vibrant colors. Turns out it was 1DmkIII and I figured why not? It was only $300. I looked into getting it the fix for the auto focus mirrors and KEH is the only one I have found who may be able to do it and IF the have the parts and IF they they can fix it they want a minimum of $385 but they won't even tell me if they have the necessary parts till I mail it in. So I'll use this with the lenses that work well with it for now. I considered a MkIV as they can be had for around $300-$400 in fairly good shape. One of the things I like about my MkIII is the way the images look SOOC. I had it out at a rodeo a couple of weeks ago and the images from it were fantastic. They had a different feel to them than the images I get out of my R7. Would you say the MkIV images have a similar feel to them?
cdaulton wrote:
I actually didn't buy this on camera on purpose. The guy had it listed as a 1D and I thought the CCD sensor could be fun to play with, especially at car shows with all the vibrant colors. Turns out it was 1DmkIII and I figured why not? It was only $300. I looked into getting it the fix for the auto focus mirrors and KEH is the only one I have found who may be able to do it and IF the have the parts and IF they they can fix it they want a minimum of $385 but they won't even tell me if they have the necessary parts till I mail it in. So I'll use this with the lenses that work well with it for now. I considered a MkIV as they can be had for around $300-$400 in fairly good shape. One of the things I like about my MkIII is the way the images look SOOC. I had it out at a rodeo a couple of weeks ago and the images from it were fantastic. They had a different feel to them than the images I get out of my R7. Would you say the MkIV images have a similar feel to them?...Show more →
I definitely remember really liking the IQ out of the 1DIII but I can't say I remember having the same feeling about the MkIV IQ as I was more excited about the resolution bump. I had a love/hate relationship with the MkIII but it did capture some nice images and I really liked that sensor for whatever reason. The MkIV was better in every way on paper and got rid of the random AF issues, but I still loved the IQ out of the 1DIII.
I wouldn't even bother sending it in for the fix because from my experience it does not guarantee it will come back 'perfect' (or even close).
What I liked about the Mark III was the body design, the color from that sensor and it had live view, which at the time was a new thing and was neat to have for certain applications.
The biggest headache I had with it was that micro focus adjustment had to be redone in different light conditions. For example, if you tuned focus under tungsten lighting AF performance would change under daylight or fluorescent, and would require recalibration. One of the bodies I had required a ton of micro focus adjustment under tungsten... it was a headache and I overshot a TON with these cameras to be sure something was in focus.
The Mark IV was an improvement but I didn't feel like the AF was markedly improved until the 1DX. It's notable that with the Mark IV Canon added a color temperature sensor dedicated to the AF system. It tweaked AF automatically depending on the predominant color temperature of the lighting in the scene. Already from the 1DII series I noticed that AF with really fast lenses like the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L had a tendency to front focus in tungsten lighting. At that time I even resorted to installing the Ec-S focusing screen to improve fast aperture manual focus precision to counter this when MF was a viable option. The standard Ec-C screen couldn't 'resolve' the plane of focus at apertures wider than f/2.8, IIRC, whereas the Ec-S screen could (but was noticeably darker when used with slower lenses).
Probably more info than you wanted to know. Honestly, working with the current mirrorless cameras is so much more enjoyable and productive, IMO.
rscheffler wrote:
I wouldn't even bother sending it in for the fix because from my experience it does not guarantee it will come back 'perfect' (or even close).
What I liked about the Mark III was the body design, the color from that sensor and it had live view, which at the time was a new thing and was neat to have for certain applications.
The biggest headache I had with it was that micro focus adjustment had to be redone in different light conditions. For example, if you tuned focus under tungsten lighting AF performance would change under daylight or fluorescent, and would require recalibration. One of the bodies I had required a ton of micro focus adjustment under tungsten... it was a headache and I overshot a TON with these cameras to be sure something was in focus.
The Mark IV was an improvement but I didn't feel like the AF was markedly improved until the 1DX. It's notable that with the Mark IV Canon added a color temperature sensor dedicated to the AF system. It tweaked AF automatically depending on the predominant color temperature of the lighting in the scene. Already from the 1DII series I noticed that AF with really fast lenses like the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L had a tendency to front focus in tungsten lighting. At that time I even resorted to installing the Ec-S focusing screen to improve fast aperture manual focus precision to counter this when MF was a viable option. The standard Ec-C screen couldn't 'resolve' the plane of focus at apertures wider than f/2.8, IIRC, whereas the Ec-S screen could (but was noticeably darker when used with slower lenses).
Probably more info than you wanted to know. Honestly, working with the current mirrorless cameras is so much more enjoyable and productive, IMO. ...Show more →
Definitely not more that I wanted to know at all. Once I talked to KEH there was no way I'm sending it in. I could buy one that I know is either out of range for the issue or has been corrected by Canon for less than they may be able to "fix" it for. This is just a fun camera for me. My R7 is my "work" camera for now, not that I do any real photography work.
I've been looking for a Ec-S or even an Ec-B focus screen for it as I have a few manual focus lenses I'd like to use on it. I think they are worth more than their weight in gold these days are far more rare.
Caleb Williams wrote:
Canon put certain color dots inside the batter compartment to specify a fix.
But only for the ones that were recalled and had the mirror mechanism replaced. The ones that were good from the factory never had the dots.
Cameras with serial numbers between 501001 to 546561 inclusive, except for certain ones which were assembled with the “updated” mirror mechanism, require the fix. (Presumably 501001 was start of production!) Cameras with serial numbers after 546561 have the new mechanism and are good (judging from mine, very good). The list of good cameras in the affected range runs to 17 pages. @cdaulton, if yours is in the range, PM me with the serial number and I’ll check it against my copy of the list.
Mine’s late production – I actually bought it discontinued – and the AF was excellent, including with fast-moving subjects moving towards the camera. I very rarely used it in artificial light and never ran into problems needing to recalibrate lenses. I also have never owned or used any third-party AF lens.
melcat wrote:
But only for the ones that were recalled and had the mirror mechanism replaced. The ones that were good from the factory never had the dots.
Cameras with serial numbers between 501001 to 546561 inclusive, except for certain ones which were assembled with the “updated” mirror mechanism, require the fix. (Presumably 501001 was start of production!) Cameras with serial numbers after 546561 have the new mechanism and are good (judging from mine, very good). The list of good cameras in the affected range runs to 17 pages. @cdaulton@, if yours is in the range, PM me with the serial number and I’ll check it against my copy of the list.
Mine’s late production – I actually bought it discontinued – and the AF was excellent, including with fast-moving subjects moving towards the camera. I very rarely used it in artificial light and never ran into problems needing to recalibrate lenses. I also have never owned or used any third-party AF lens....Show more →
I looked it up already, mine is in the affected range and not on the "good" list, I looked and as I said in my post there are no dots to be found anywhere.
cdaulton wrote:
I looked it up already, mine is in the affected range and not on the "good" list, I looked and as I said in my post there are no dots to be found anywhere.
Well I think you should either return it or cut your losses and sell it on. Mine was perfect, but the camera has a reputation for a reason. The internet seems to have been cleansed of the story of the young Korean photojournalist who took Canon on over this. Perhaps it’s still around in Korean, which I can’t read, but this is in English:
cdaulton wrote:
I've been looking for a Ec-S or even an Ec-B focus screen for it as I have a few manual focus lenses I'd like to use on it. I think they are worth more than their weight in gold these days are far more rare.
Yeah, good luck finding any of those. They might actually be more common for the 5D series.
EB-1 wrote:
Rob Galbraith was the first to report on it in depth IIRC.
EBH
Yes, and that was with preproduction samples, too. And I thought, there's no way it can be that bad and end up in the production versions. I got one right at release and my second ordered body came about 5 months later. Maybe I should have cut my losses after the first one, but for whatever reason I also took delivery of the second. And my experiences with the Mark III pretty much mirrored Galbraith's. IIRC, his reporting of the problem really divided his readers/followers. And it may have damaged his relationship with Canon, to a degree.
But he deserves credit for holding Canon's feet to the fire and holding fast to his findings. IMO his reporting of the problem likely forced Canon to find a fix and roll out the recall sooner than they otherwise would have.
The Mark III has so far been my most cursed Canon digital camera. On top of the AF micro adjustment issues in different lighting conditions, files from one of the cameras had a single pixel wide vertical white line (when shot in landscape orientation) running through every single image. It was less noticeable at low ISOs, but still present. I had to run every single 'final' image through a Photoshop action that selected one half of the image exactly beside the line, made a copy layer and shifted it over one pixel to hide the line. That was until Canon figured out the problem was the sensor after first replacing the circuit board(s). The icing on the cake was when one camera suddenly had a cracked sensor cover glass, likely the result of rough baggage handling of my gate-checked Pelican 1510 during a leg on a commuter style plane that couldn't accommodate the case (well, they probably could have). Canon quoted me CAD 1500 to replace the sensor but I opted not to. When shooting with longer lenses at or near wide open it was barely noticeable. You had to know where to look to see indications. By that point the Mark IV was on the horizon and I waited it out instead.
For me the Mark III was very much a love-hate relationship. Other than the multiple AF related problems, I loved the files, the body, the new battery. While I never owned one, the 1DsIII was very well regarded for image quality. Every once in a while a thread pops up with someone who bought one just for kicks and nostalgia. It might have been the last sensor Canon released that was class leading.
rscheffler wrote:
Yeah, good luck finding any of those. They might actually be more common for the 5D series.
Yeah, I've found one or two on ebay, they are going for about $150 each. There are cheap Chinese screens that claim to fit for about $50 but I'd rather have original Canon equipment.
