On page 3 of the dforum thread there is a response by the dealer who is referred to by the OP. His statement is as follows (through Google translate but polished by me):
Klaus Bothe wrote:
I must set something straight here:
1. There is NO official recall by CANON.
2. At 4 pm today (July 20) we received a call from CANON/CPS/Mr. Hermanns indicating that customers (AND REALLY ONLY THOSE!!!!) experiencing problems with the Mark III's AI-SERVO are to send their cameras to the CPS service in Willich.
3. The service department will examine the cameras and - only so far as necessary - will replace a part.
4. My question to him was whether the problem thereby will be eliminated, to which he answered with a clear “Yes”.
We have a great many content Mark III customers, therefore it would be completely wrong if EACH Mark III owner would return his camera. This fix concerns only the customers who are not content with the AF tracking performance in AI-SERVO. Further information is unfortunately not available to us at the moment. We hope that after rectification of the hardware problem, distribution of the camera will again increase.
----
The OP also mentioned that shipments of the "reworked" Mark III should arrive in the German market in about four weeks.
Following the first statement by Klaus Bothe, the question was raised whether or not to send in a camera anyway since it might improve performance for all cameras and one couldn't be sure whether the AI Servo problem might eventually surface - to which he replied:
My guess is rather of a kind of “plate assembly problem” or such a thing like a “cold soldered connection” - but this is without knowing much about these electronics/parts.
This is however in NO case a “tuning option” - and all who are unable to achieve good AI Servo results clearly understand what is meant here. There are thus no degrees of “good” or “bad”, but only the absolutes of “it works” or “it does not work”. Those who do not get sharp results in IDEAL AF conditions should contact CPS service. All others should continue making wonderful photos and not worry about this. Interestingly enough those problem cameras used under BAD AF conditions have created relatively usable images - thus a perplexingly irrational AF-behavior…. And that has made some user rightfully upset.
rscheffler wrote:
On page 3 of the dforum thread there is a response by the dealer who is referred to by the OP. His statement is as follows (through Google translate but polished by me):
Klaus Bothe wrote:
I must set something straight here:
1. There is NO official recall by CANON.
2. At 4 pm today (July 20) we received a call from CANON/CPS/Mr. Hermanns indicating that customers (AND REALLY ONLY THOSE!!!!) experiencing problems with the Mark III's AI-SERVO are to send their cameras to the CPS service in Willich.
3. The service department will examine the cameras and - only so far as necessary - will replace a part.
4. My question to him was whether the problem thereby will be eliminated, to which he answered with a clear “Yes”.
We have a great many content Mark III customers, therefore it would be completely wrong if EACH Mark III owner would return his camera. This fix concerns only the customers who are not content with the AF tracking performance in AI-SERVO. Further information is unfortunately not available to us at the moment. We hope that after rectification of the hardware problem, distribution of the camera will again increase.
----
The OP also mentioned that shipments of the "reworked" Mark III should arrive in the German market in about four weeks.
Following the first statement by Klaus Bothe, the question was raised whether or not to send in a camera anyway since it might improve performance for all cameras and one couldn't be sure whether the AI Servo problem might eventually surface - to which he replied:
My guess is rather of a kind of “plate assembly problem” or such a thing like a “cold soldered connection” - but this is without knowing much about these electronics/parts.
This is however in NO case a “tuning option” - and all who are unable to achieve good AI Servo results clearly understand what is meant here. There are thus no degrees of “good” or “bad”, but only the absolutes of “it works” or “it does not work”. Those who do not get sharp results in IDEAL AF conditions should contact CPS service. All others should continue making wonderful photos and not worry about this. Interestingly enough those problem cameras used under BAD AF conditions have created relatively usable images - thus a perplexingly irrational AF-behavior…. And that has made some user rightfully upset.
Good news and it has sense to me also ... That´s also has sense with RB tests and afirmations ... Its clear that there are good cameras over there too, ... but someones (may by a lot for a normal production) that also "has something wrong" ...
If this were true why would they not offer to take all 3 or RGs cameras in for repair. Seems like they would want to resolve this with him since his website is widely read and respected. Chuck Westfall has even been in contact with RG. I just do not understand why there would be different statements to different individuals
Some info more coming from translation at Dforum.de:
"Canon will also exchange the defective bodies and it looks like Canon also already knows the serial number of the defectives bodies, although this information is not public available ...."
BTW. Klaus Bothe is the owner of Isarfoto; a well known photo shop at Germany (Munich, I believe by the Isar river is passing through). So I believe the source is reliable. His On-Line shop can be reached at:
mark1958 wrote:
If this were true why would they not offer to take all 3 or RGs cameras in for repair. Seems like they would want to resolve this with him since his website is widely read and respected. Chuck Westfall has even been in contact with RG. I just do not understand why there would be different statements to different individuals
mark1958 wrote:
If this were true why would they not offer to take all 3 of RGs cameras in for repair. Seems like they would want to resolve this with him since his website is widely read and respected. Chuck Westfall has even been in contact with RG. I just do not understand why there would be different statements to different individuals
We can only speculate at this point but maybe they have and RG has not yet publicized it. So far the only consistent information coming from Canon worldwide is that there is new 1.0.9 firmware. The announcement by Klaus Bothe about a hardware fix for certain cameras appeared Friday afternoon German time, a couple days after the firmware supposedly became available through the service centers. You'll note that RG never reported on a firmware update until after it was installed in his cameras and he had a day to test it (and also coincided with the official Canon USA press release). This is consistent for him (and his former forums) in never reporting on rumors or until there are sufficient facts to draw a conclusion. If we surmise that he is aware of the hardware fix, that his cameras will be serviced and that he will follow his usual form, we will not hear anything about it from him until after he has had sufficient time to run reliable tests.
I'm sure that within the near future we will have a better idea about the existence (or not) of a hardware fix and whether it affects all or only some cameras.
Well this may be all true but the fact is that even Chuck Westfall made a statement to RG yesterday and despite what you are stating as a theory that sounds good in principle and well reasoned does not seem to be the case.
"Q. I've heard that EOS-1D Mark IIIs selling more recently have better autofocus. Do you think that's true?
We've seen nothing that would suggest that's the case.
Of the two bodies we've tested with v1.0.9 firmware, one was purchased in the last 10 days from a dealer in Europe. This camera has a serial number that's about 18,000 increments higher than the other EOS-1D Mark III we've tested (which is the same one we refer to as the third production body earlier in this article). The autofocus performance of these bodies is so similar as to be interchangeable.
Plus, Chuck Westfall, Canon USA's Director of Media and Customer Relationship, told us today that there have been no changes to the autofocus hardware in EOS-1D Mark III bodies to date.
Add these two things together, and the evidence points to the autofocus in "new" EOS-1D Mark IIIs being the same as "old" ones"
One could speculate that Canon (Chuck) are ducking the direct response - "yes the autofocus system is the same", and (this unsaid) "some cameras will need components replaced".
I owned a 1DIII. It had definite autofocus problems. At Canon's request, I returned it to the Dealer. That was two weeks ago. Canon has yet to contact the Dealer about a replacement. The Dealer says it will be at least two more weeks for a replacement that probably doesn't resolve the issue, and this is a normal stock body coming in un-named, not a Canon replacement unit.
I have $4500 invested in "air." As far as I am concerned, I have loaned Canon and it's Dealer $4500 at no interest.
Unfortunately I sold a perfectly good body to fund this one. Live and learn. Next time I'll wait.
Canon has a long way to go in customer service. Rob Galbraith is "right on in his description of the failures, and this is the type of shooting I do.
It also makes no difference that I am a CPS member.
This is sort of a complaint, but Canon has sent me phone numbers to call, and these "Help?" numbers just say "We are not authorized to do anything." Why bother, they just waste my time along with my money.
mark1958 wrote:
If this were true why would they not offer to take all 3 or RGs cameras in for repair. Seems like they would want to resolve this with him since his website is widely read and respected. Chuck Westfall has even been in contact with RG. I just do not understand why there would be different statements to different individuals
Depends on who speaks the loudest and who seems to be have more influence among the common internet users? Customer is always right, especially if he/she can make lots of noises .
it makes no sense for them to duck issues with all the problems being reported. It is hurting their business. The folks who represent Canon need to be consistent in their responses. I suspect they are still evaluating the problem and solution.
wtlloyd wrote:
This is debating angels on the head of a pin.
One could speculate that Canon (Chuck) are ducking the direct response - "yes the autofocus system is the same", and (this unsaid) "some cameras will need components replaced".
Regarding the discussion of a possible hardware fix at the German dforum.net that was brought up a couple pages ago... I read through the new comments just now and it appears at least two German CPS members have spoken to representatives at CPS in German to confirm this and have both been told there is only a firmware update available and no hardware fix.
So now the discussion at the forum is about who is lying - Canon or the pro dealer who made the statement.... and lots of speculation on the possibility of a silent hardware fix.
"Update, July 23, 2007: Canon USA has asked that we not release EOS-1D Mark III full resolution photos taken with firmware v1.0.9 loaded while Canon in Tokyo examines one of the bodies we used to check out the new firmware. Because what we want more than anything is for the camera's autofocus problems to be resolved, and because an encouraging roadmap for investigating the problems was mapped out in an extended phone call with Canon USA's Chuck Westfall this morning, we've agreed to not put up photos as originally planned for today. We will of course continue to write about EOS-1D Mark III autofocus when there is news to share."...Show more →
rscheffler wrote:
Regarding the discussion of a possible hardware fix at the German dforum.net that was brought up a couple pages ago... I read through the new comments just now and it appears at least two German CPS members have spoken to representatives at CPS in German to confirm this and have both been told there is only a firmware update available and no hardware fix.
So now the discussion at the forum is about who is lying - Canon or the pro dealer who made the statement.... and lots of speculation on the possibility of a silent hardware fix.
but listen, take into mind that both may be saying the true .. let me explain
When I update the software in my medical equipment (the main software I means), I have to update also many times the ucode in the ucontrolles of the different subsystems too !!! I am not laying if I say to the customer: .Hi, I have just update the software, I DID NOT change any hardware, and it´s true ..
In our case, they can update the firmware at version 1.0.9 but also at the same time they can update the ucode of the AF subsystem (for example).... and they DON´T change hardware ...
We can see in the next future if this assumption is correct or not knowing if the update to v 1.0.9 is going to be done via Canon Tech Serv or via download from the Web (update via CF or SD by ourselves, as usual)
Anyway, the fact that one of the RG´s Mk III is in Tokyo for investigation is a good sign !
I don't know if this is related but has anyone had problems with the 1D3 and the auto assist function?
I am unable to achieve focus under low light conditions using the 580EX II or the 580EX. There is no problem when there is enough light to focus and the flash works correctly but as soon as it's too dark there is no assist light.
Both flashes work with my 30D under the same conditions so it's not the flash. The 1D3 does not seem to be communicating with the flash under low light conditions. I spent close on 2 hours with Canon support, reset all the special functions (I really didn't have much time to screw anything up as I only got the body and flash on 7/20 ) with no finite results other than they want me to send the body in to them for the 1.0.9 software upgrade. Canon USA told me that this was the first time they had heard of this problem. Their test body seemed to work just fine.
As for the AF issue under discussion - with only 242 clicks on it it's too soon to tell for me to comment
Rob, I have seen three reports on dpreview from people with problems with the MKIII and 580EX, - erratic behaviour re exposures but this is the first I have heard of your problem.
Robl114 wrote:
I don't know if this is related but has anyone had problems with the 1D3 and the auto assist function?
I am unable to achieve focus under low light conditions using the 580EX II or the 580EX. There is no problem when there is enough light to focus and the flash works correctly but as soon as it's too dark there is no assist light.
Both flashes work with my 30D under the same conditions so it's not the flash. The 1D3 does not seem to be communicating with the flash under low light conditions. I spent close on 2 hours with Canon support, reset all the special functions (I really didn't have much time to screw anything up as I only got the body and flash on 7/20 ) with no finite results other than they want me to send the body in to them for the 1.0.9 software upgrade. Canon USA told me that this was the first time they had heard of this problem. Their test body seemed to work just fine.
As for the AF issue under discussion - with only 242 clicks on it it's too soon to tell for me to comment
.