Two weeks ago, I posted that reseting the CFs changed my camera completely. That was with 1.0.8.
Write down your settings. Reset. Install the new firmware.
Input your original settings.
Why? Don't know. My theory is that Canon flash loaded the original firmware like a computer and something wasn't talking to something else correctly. Heck, I don't know. The camera is a rocket ship now.
I'm not seeing a significant difference between 1.0.8, 1.0.9 (installed by Canon on July 25) and 1.1.0 in sports situations (only soccer and football so far). AI Servo AF is still inconsistent and am getting a number of soft images that I would otherwise expect to be in focus. Here's an interesting observation though: I'm definitely getting better AF consistency (though still not perfect) with the 600 IS (with and without TCs) than with the 400 IS. I am beginning to suspect there may be an issue with my 400 and my Mark III. In One Shot with static objects, the 400 seems to be accurate. In action situations, if the focus is off, it's usually back focused. But the frustrating thing is it is sometimes bang on, so it's not like it's a consistent back focus problem. If I could shoot everything with the 600, I would, but unfortunately for some night events, I'll definitely need the 400 2.8....
rscheffler wrote:
I'm not seeing a significant difference between 1.0.8, 1.0.9 (installed by Canon on July 25) and 1.1.0 in sports situations (only soccer and football so far). AI Servo AF is still inconsistent and am getting a number of soft images that I would otherwise expect to be in focus. Here's an interesting observation though: I'm definitely getting better AF consistency (though still not perfect) with the 600 IS (with and without TCs) than with the 400 IS. I am beginning to suspect there may be an issue with my 400 and my Mark III. In One Shot with static objects, the 400 seems to be accurate. In action situations, if the focus is off, it's usually back focused. But the frustrating thing is it is sometimes bang on, so it's not like it's a consistent back focus problem. If I could shoot everything with the 600, I would, but unfortunately for some night events, I'll definitely need the 400 2.8.......Show more →
Ron,
Thanks for your input ...
Just a thing, I have read something about the behavior of the MkIII camera with the f/4 lenses is better than with the f/2,8 ones !! And you are saying the same, your 600 f/4 performs better than your 400 f/2,8 .... Can you try with anyone f/4 lens to see if itīs true in your case ??
Chuck Westfall has just announced that Canon will be addressing the Autofocus issue in a new edition of "Getting the Most Out of Your EOS-1D Class Digital SLR". For this announcement, see this months (August) Tech Tips, just out. Rather dissapointing and suggests that Canon will be limiting the fix to modifying user technique, rather than firmware/software or hardware revision. Look for a Mrk IIIN before long.
John
Edited by Mariner on Aug 06, 2007 at 04:06 PM GMT (Reason: spell typo)
So if they are saying "Modifying user technique" is the problem, what makes you think the 3N will be any different in AF performance
Mariner wrote:
Chuck Westfall has just announced that Canon will be addressing the Autofocus issue in a new addition of "Getting the Most Out of Your EOS-1D Class Digital SLR". For this announcement see this months (August) Tech Tips, just out. Rather dissapointing and suggests that Canon will be limiting the fix to modifying user technique, rather than firmware/software or hardware revision. Look for a Mrk IIIN before long.
John
72chevelle454 wrote:
So if they are saying "Modifying user technique" is the problem, what makes you think the 3N will be any different in AF performance
And even if they did change something you won't see an "N" version until 2009 at the earliest.
rd4tile wrote:
And even if they did change something you won't see an "N" version until 2009 at the earliest.
That is of course possible, and by then (2009) many of the innovations and improvements will have trickled down to the 30D and 5D successors. I think the seriousness and significance of the fiasco has finally got Canon's attention. The Camera business is their avenue for all image processing and reproduction products. The 1 series is their flagship and they must address the issue in an acceptable manner. Stay tuned, I think they will soon announce a solution that will satisfy their customers. Anything less would be a real failure of their corporate strategy.
Cheers-John
Edited by Mariner on Aug 06, 2007 at 08:38 PM GMT (Reason: spelling)
I must say though it's pretty amazing that the poll is still running almost exactly 50-50 after all this time and with newer units coming online.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
I think many folks who have functional units simply do not post about them. Another category are those people who wanted to see the results before they received their units - and subsequently got a good copy. Such cases can't change their vote due to the forum software that doesn't allow updating the original vote. This is my case. My unit is ~14 days old & i have yet to have any auto-focusing issues since its arrival (5209xx) with 1.08 or subsequently post- 1.10 firmware.
It would be interesting to post the rate of bad copies over time. I suspect that the ~112 bad copies largely represent an early peak, but the bad-unit rate has likely dropped off as manufacturing or QC has improved. For example, if the serial numbers started at 500xxx, then at least 29k units have shipped (at an unknown shipping rate). If we assume the reporting rate here on FM has remained constant, then we should have seen many more than the reported 112 bad copies. This still doesn't explain how RG got 4 bad copies.
Mariner wrote:
Rather dissapointing and suggests that Canon will be limiting the fix to modifying user technique, rather than firmware/software or hardware revision.
In which case they will be losing at least one sale. The ProPhotoHome Review suggests that it is NOT user technique and that there are indeed good (or at least currently working) bodies and bad bodies. I find the review quite compelling given that the same photographer is consistently getting markedly different results from two bodies in similar circumstances. There is no way that I can justify to myself forking out the price of the 1D Mark III until Canon have demonstrated that the issue has been fixed. Which is a shame because I really want a working version of this camera!
Without serious time behind a 2/2N I wonder if one is qualified to really know in most cases whether the AF is working properly or not. At first I thought my mkIII had issues but lately between the firmware update, some lens calibration and just serious practice I'm beginning to wonder if my expectations were always realistic and technique wasn't the big factor. However I will say that throughout my mkIII has just been money in single shot mode and I know there were early ones that had issues there as well.
The common thread, regardless of what you believe as a mkIII owner or interested bystander, is that Canon needs to make a statement one way or the other and put it all to rest.
I'm not one to panic, and I take lots of internet babble as just that. And I'm basically happy with my Mk3. However, shooting a triathlon this weekend, I noticed some OOF shots that I can't explain: the camera would track a biker OK, but suddenly give me an image that was ~5 feet front focused from a distance of about 100 feet. It's easy to see the plane of focus in the pavement.
These are the first OOF shots I've had that can't at least theoretically be explained away. Not a quick point and shoot situation, not a potential BG target grabbed by the AF, etc. I'll keep an eye on it ...
