Dauv McNeely wrote:
The problem I still have with this is that it is NOT just one camera he had problems with, it is THREE different bodies, and I can tell you that after he posted his first report, it is almost a certainty that Canon tried to send him a cream of the crop body for the 3rd go round which still had the same issues.
I am befuddled that so many people try to discount this issue instead of embracing it and coming to terms with it, there IS in fact an issue if so many people experience the same problem around the world, hell people in France are reporting the same issue, let alone 1 out of 2 responders here on FM for crying out loud. ...Show more →
Rant: On
The problem I still have with this whole situation is the vast number of people that don't even own the camera, pontificating about how I'm supposedly having problems with it. What doesn't get counted is the thousands and thousands of owners out there, like myself, who have had no problems, so don't choose to speak up. You are befuddled that I don't cry about a camera that actually WORKS? What exactly am I supposed to "embrace?" Mine works, the three other working pros I know who have it, work. Thats my experience with the III, all of the REAL cameras I have held and worked with, WORK as advertised. I'm getting every pennies' worth of my investment out of it.
That said, I have total sympathy for anyone who bought one, and is geneuinely having problems with it. I'm sure Canon will make it right, they have absolutely NO track record of screwing people in situations where their products are at fault.
I have no idea how many IIIs are out in the marketplace. 50 people in an internet forum poll report problems and now the other hundreds of thousands of people that dont have problems with them are somehow lying to you? Get one, work with it for real, have problems with it, post them here, then whine.
You know, if 50% of the copies don't work in bright sun in the heat with long focal length (basic summary of RobG's issues), yet 50% of the copies DO work in the same conditions, doesn't that indicate that it is NOT a firmware issue?
In fact, it doesn't sound like a DESIGN issue, either . . more like a QC issue.
Perhaps there's some component of the AF system that's having a huge failure rate when it gets heated up.
Nill Toulme wrote:
Maybe, but with regard to the likely bona fides of the 50/50 ratio, this post is perhaps the most telling I've seen recently.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Sure, Nill. Blame the user while you haven't shot with the camera. I'm sure you and lordcarl would have a lovely time with my camera while I shrug my shoulders. I noticed you didn't comment on my DPR post. What do you think? Did I screw it up somehow?
Components that die are almost always either a hardware design or mechanical thermal management issue.
These days, a design that varies significantly with temperature is almost always a hardware/mechanical design issue OR a purchased component not meeting a specification.
With sensors, who knows, it could be something as simple as the adhesive sometimes used to hold electro-optical components in place that is applying a physical stress to said electro-optical component. Note, I'm not discussing the CMOS image sensor here.
All of this is a lot of guesswork that doesn't really matter unless anybody seriously thinks there is a firmware problem. A change to the firmware may minimize the impact of the root cause of whatever is going on but it won't solve a hardware design problem.
Besides firmware, we can eliminate dust in the viewfinder as the root cause of the AF failures.
My gut feel, something was overlooked in the electronic design. Second gut feel, a few engineers will lose their jobs "after" the witch-hunt at Canon is completed.
As somebody who is very interested in purchasing an m3, I truly wish "dust in the viewfinder" was the cuplrit. :-)
I rember reading in the Whitev Paper, (i think) that when using live view for an extended period of time that the camera might shut down or become erratic due to sensor heating.
Might this be a logical path to follow in determining ?
Have had a M3 for about 1 week now and have gone back to my Mark 2n till Canon fixes the focusing issues..
I shoot an average of 6,000 baseball shots per week and I am very satisfied with my M2n. The M3, on the other hand, has a serious problem.
With the M3, I can shoot a batter waiting to swing and can see the focus going in & out - ever so slightly. (I shoot almost exclusively with a Canon 300 2.8 IS)
The first game I shot with the M3 required the deletion of over 50% of the shots.
I went back in and checked my settings and went out and shot another game with the same dissapointing results.
When shooting a burst of a kid running to 1st base, one image would be in focus and the next few OOF, one more in focus, then a couple more out of focus.
Even a large percentage of candid shots of kids standing around in the dugout were OOF.
I went in and grabbed the M2n and shot another game. This time I had less than 1% OOF.
I have ZERO confidence in shooting sports with the M3.
One kudo I'd like to give the M3 is, at 6400 iso, with light from only 1 table lamp, the M3 made incredibly clear photos.
Shooting sports, however, is another issue. Canon needs to get this issue resolved immediately or the Nikonians will have a field day with it and Canon will have a long-lasting black eye!
ben_is_in wrote:
Sure, Nill. Blame the user while you haven't shot with the camera. I'm sure you and lordcarl would have a lovely time with my camera while I shrug my shoulders. I noticed you didn't comment on my DPR post. What do you think? Did I screw it up somehow?
I have no idea. I doubt it, but the fellow in lordcarl's post probably thought he knew what he was doing too, I don't know. You may have seen my earlier posts though expressing the wish that some of the folks with "bad" cameras could get together with some with "good" ones and swap and compare. lordcarl's post is one of the few reports I've seen of that sort of "experiment," which is why I considered it "telling."
My point was not that all 50 of the survey cameras that are reported to be "broken" are in fact just fine, but rather that it is at least likely that some of them are. I've seen enough examples where people posted "broken" shots where there was obviously no focus point on the subject that I can't help but discount a lot of the "bad" user reports.
Was I talking about your experience? Of course not — how could I? I hadn't seen it yet.
Do I think there's something wrong with some of the cameras out there? Yes, of course. Surely *everybody* who's experiencing problems can't be imagining them. Your experience, and Mike's post above describing his side-by-side experience with his III and II are obvious examples of real problems. But, OTOH, instances like lordcarl's demonstrate that at least *some* of the users are imagining or exaggerating problems, no doubt fueled by all the internet talk of problems.
It's why I've never liked hearing about diseases — I immediately start feeling symptoms. ;-)
Hope your camera gets straightened out soon. I've seen several mentions of a firmware update being no more than days away.
BTW, did you shoot any at all with AF point expansion turned off? I never liked expansion on my II's (SI's recommendation notwithstanding), and I really don't understand why so many people are apparently automatically turning it on for the III.
Good luck,
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
p.s. I've now glanced at your DPR thread. Way too much noise in that thread for me to try to respond to you there. I do see you tried with expansion off as well as on. Have you tried sensitivity set faster though? I know you say you can't do that because of players moving in front of your subject, etc., but have you actually tried it? LesZ has reported finding that the sensitivity settings in the Mark III seem to be calibrated much differently than in previous 1-series, with the III's default apparently equivalent to a much slower setting on the earlier cameras, and that he got better results with the faster settings.
Edited by Nill Toulme on Jul 08, 2007 at 10:37 PM GMT
Nill Toulme wrote:
Maybe, but with regard to the likely bona fides of the 50/50 ratio, this post is perhaps the most telling I've seen recently.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
At this point I could believe pretty much anything about the MKIII AF issues (and I'm not an owner although hope to be in the future.) I guess what puzzles me about the statements in the post you cited regarding Galbraith's "limitations" in understanding new technology is that he's reportedly been in what he calls "almost constant" contact with Canon about this issue. Surely if it were simply a question of him (and others) not understanding the camera and how to best use it Canon would have educated him and the "problem" would have been solved instantly. But at last report he's continued having problems, even with one or more new cameras Canon has sent him. Arrgghh. It's a shame no one has put together an effort like the one you suggested of several people getting together with "good" and "bad" bodies. By the way, I assume Canon "seeds" new bodies to sports photogs before introduction. Does anyone know whether they do something similar with nature (and bird) photogs?
Well I guess I should clarify that the part of the post I found "telling" was the actual user experience reported therein — i.e., a new Mark III owner thinking he had a "broken" camera handing it to someone else who promptly got excellent results with it. I have no opinion on the comments regarding RG's experience.
As for whether nature photogs get pre-release cameras — FWIW, in his recent Mark III hands-on user report, Canon "Explorer of Light" Art Morris mentions that he still hasn't received either of the two cameras he ordered from Canon; he got the one he's using from a local dealer.
Mind you, I'm still in heavy cognitive dissonance mode over this whole flap. I want the camera to be OK — not just OK of course, but great, wonderful, the photographic holy grail — because I've sold both my Mark II's and await the arrival of my own III next week. Will it be broken? Will I? Stay tuned. ;-)
Nill Toulme wrote:
Well I guess I should clarify that the part of the post I found "telling" was the actual user experience reported therein — i.e., a new Mark III owner thinking he had a "broken" camera handing it to someone else who promptly got excellent results with it. I have no opinion on the comments regarding RG's experience.
As for whether nature photogs get pre-release cameras — FWIW, in his recent Mark III hands-on user report, Canon "Explorer of Light" Art Morris mentions that he still hasn't received either of the two cameras he ordered from Canon; he got the one he's using from a local dealer.
Mind you, I'm still in heavy cognitive dissonance mode over this whole flap. I want the camera to be OK — not just OK of course, but great, wonderful, the photographic holy grail — because I've sold both my Mark II's and await the arrival of my own III next week. Will it be broken? Will I? Stay tuned. ;-)
I've got to believe the camera's not OK but it's something Canon can fix (hopefully they'll get around to it soon, or at least provide some sort of communication about the issue! )
I haven't actually seen a whole lot of discussion of the Arthur Morris piece although I got it when it first was sent out. My initial impression was that he was being far too easy and guarded in his comments. He had lots of qualifiers on everything (sort of reminded me of my previous life writing, and commenting on what others had written, for National Intelligence Estimates.) But after rereading it, I think it's actually relatively critical of the camera (although balances this with positive things.) Yes, he says he's "satisfied overall" with the AF system. But his recommended strategy for using the MkIII is him essentially saying the camera won't track the way Canon advertises that it's supposed to (I realize others use this technique but what sort of company produces "advances" in an AF system that force the user to use manual focusing to get it to work optimally? Moreover, the method he describes is using a tripod--is it even possible to handhold a tele and do that sort of manual focusing? Doesn't that potentially just introduce more wavering by ones hands?) He also talks pretty extensively about the comments of others he was with (the two photogs that exchanged a "good" and "bad" camera) and then relates their agreement that the camera can't track birds against the ocean in good light, although dimmer light is a different story.
Anyway, maybe I'll get flamed for this interpretation of the Morris piece. In retrospect, though, I'd have to say it was very diplomatically done and he said a number of positive things to take some of the sting out of his critique (certainly not the RG style ) but if I were a Canon exec or engineer, I'd sure be thinking that something got royally messed up along the line.
Nill Toulme wrote:
Well I guess I should clarify that the part of the post I found "telling" was the actual user experience reported therein — i.e., a new Mark III owner thinking he had a "broken" camera handing it to someone else who promptly got excellent results with it. I have no opinion on the comments regarding RG's experience.
As for whether nature photogs get pre-release cameras — FWIW, in his recent Mark III hands-on user report, Canon "Explorer of Light" Art Morris mentions that he still hasn't received either of the two cameras he ordered from Canon; he got the one he's using from a local dealer.
Mind you, I'm still in heavy cognitive dissonance mode over this whole flap. I want the camera to be OK — not just OK of course, but great, wonderful, the photographic holy grail — because I've sold both my Mark II's and await the arrival of my own III next week. Will it be broken? Will I? Stay tuned. ;-)
WRONG AGAIN
He did receive pre-production cameras for evaluation-
You imply many things which in fact are bogus. You pick & choose
your info reporting only that which supports your denial. Where is the info
from the people that were shooting puffins with him? All reported tracking problems.I bet you did not miss that info.
Auto focus on the M III is busted!
I have had my MKIII for a few days, racked up 1,000 plus exposures in every focus mode I can program, and I haven't experienced anything but bliss. Most of the shots have been of fast moving subjects air to air and ground to air. I notice that the focusing is extremely fast and very sensitive, much more so than my 1Ds MKII's. I find myself switching modes and autofocus points as my subjects change. I shot my Grandson's baseball game and if I had the focus point selected as the large oval, the camera went nuts if someone stuck a hand in at the edge, so I switched to center for much of the game. 300 or so shots and they seem to be as sharp as my 1Ds MKII. It's an amazing piece of technology and I think the learning curve is steeper than my previous Canons, but I'm liking it. I put a 16GB card and a 4GB SD in the slots which gives me 880 shots in the RAW + L configuration. So far I haven't had the buffer go busy on me, but Oshkosh will be the acid test.
JW
I don't know how you could expect more from a camera than this...
I admit I am not an expert in shooting athletics, volleyball, American football or soccer like Rob Galbraith is but I reckoned the speed of a motorsport vehicle is anytime faster than those sports he tested the Mark III with.
[...]
But, obviously, a motorsport vehicle doesn't have flailing limbs, vertical repeating movement, fluttering garments, bobbing hair and so on. Save some catastrophic incident, a car or bike will have all its parts going at the same speed and the same approach angle. Not so for athletics.
This Mk III AF problem appears to be about what it ought to track. Looks like the AF is thrown off too easily. I'd put my money on a tracking lock problem, not tracking itself.
(Sorry, I didn't follow this whole thread, so I don't know if I'm repeating anyone.)
Tentacle wrote:
This Mk III AF problem appears to be about what it ought to track. Looks like the AF is thrown off too easily. I'd put my money on a tracking lock problem, not tracking itself.
I tend to agree with you after the experiences I'm having as well. As far as Art Morris' last bulletin goes, there is a recent report here near the end of that long NSN thread from Charles Glatzer who is highly respected as a BIF shooter.
Stumped wrote:
You imply many things which in fact are bogus. You pick & choose
your info reporting only that which supports your denial. Where is the info
from the people that were shooting puffins with him? All reported tracking problems.I bet you did not miss that info.
I said I was in cognitive dissonance mode, didn't I? ;-)
Auto focus on the M III is busted!
OK, then how do you explain the 54% in the current poll who say there's nothing wrong with their Mark III's? Are they all stupid?
I feel that 54% positive is not a good number at all for a $4500 dollar camera that is sold to be a better focusing/tracking camera for sports and wildlife, there are a lot of people that could and are shooting this camera that may never notice the issues that the AF tracking has.
We are going on the list for replacement cameras this week. Ron and I have put our cameras through some testing and have noticed some issues that have not happened with our 1D2's. I'm not real confident that new cameras will fix the problem, and hopefully canon will come out with a firmware/hardware fix soon.
Chad
Nill Toulme wrote:
I said I was in cognitive dissonance mode, didn't I? ;-)
OK, then how do you explain the 54% in the current poll who say there's nothing wrong with their Mark III's? Are they all stupid?
Of course it's not a good number. But it seems to me that if you add up all the user reports and poll numbers, the choices are these:
1. All the cameras are fine, and the people who are experiencing problems don't know what they're talking about.
2. All the cameras are busted, and the people who aren't experiencing problems don't know what they're talking about, or else they just haven't run into the particular circumstances that make the problems show themselves — even though lots of those people say they've shot in exactly those situations, sometimes even side by side with people who thought the camera was busted.
3. Some are busted and some are not. In addition, for a variety of reasons, some people who have busted cameras just haven't noticed it yet, and some people whose cameras are just fine are seeing problems because, like me, they're hypochondriacs and have read on the net that they should be seeing problems.
So far, #3 is the only one that makes sense to me. I simply can't believe that everybody who thinks their camera is fritzed is nuts, or that everybody who thinks their camera works great is nuts either.
But maybe it really will turn out to be #1 or #2, or maybe there's a #4 I haven't thought of.
Actually, there is a #4, although it's really more of a 3(a): It seems pretty clear to me (from my excellent vantage point here in the peanut gallery) that if nothing else, the Mark III works differently in some significant ways than did previous 1-series bodies, and that people with substantial 1-series experience who come to the camera expecting it to work just like their other cameras are being met with either some retooling of assumptions or some frustration, or both.
Nil wrote
[OK, then how do you explain the 54% in the current poll who say there's nothing wrong with their Mark III's? Are they all stupid?]
Nope- those are your words not mine. I have no problem accepting the fact that some cameras are capable of working for some(different subjects - different conditions – different cameras) & not others.
) 
