I don't deny anything, although I will readily admit to wishful thinking. Mostly I wish mine would ship so I can start complaining myself based on firsthand experience, instead of being stuck trying to make heads or tails of all this buzz.
Do you believe they are all busted, or only some of them?
Nill Toulme wrote:
I don't deny anything, although I will readily admit to wishful thinking. Mostly I wish mine would ship so I can start complaining myself based on firsthand experience, instead of being stuck trying to make heads or tails of all this buzz.
Do you believe they are all busted, or only some of them?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Mine is busted in that it reacts to bright light like Gizmo from "Gremlins." Other than that, it works pretty well as long as I don't feed it after midnight.
1. A lot of very experienced users are having problems with the 1DMkIII's AF system.
2. A lot of very experienced users are not having problems with the 1DMkIII's AF system.
3. Within groups 1 & 2 are people who are making mistakes, using bad technique, having unreasonable expectations, aren't shooting in an environment where the problem(s) would show up and thus assume that they have no problem, etc.
The logical conclusion that one can draw from 1, 2 & 3 is that some bodies have a problem and others don't. I don't know why this is such a hard concept to understand and why some feel it is necessary to demean RG and suggest that he does know how to use a camera and others to insist the "auto focus on the MIII is busted." For those bodies that are defective, Canon would be stupid not to take care of them. Not only do they have a huge PR problem but they would also be looking at a very costly class action suit.
Now to the reality that even if "the problem" is simply a matter of not using the new technology correctly (from the engineers perspective), Canon has an obligation to clarify the proper operational techniques that are required. They can, but shouldn't, simply advertise "the world's fastest AF system" without saying to obtain the full benefit you must do X, Y and Z or your techniques may need to be different than way you have done things before. Doing so allows people to make an informed decision as to whether the "new way" is worth the price of the upgrade for their particular needs. It may well be that for ceratin types of shooting that a 1DMkIIn will be superior and that's OK, maybe not with Canon, but most serious shooters will choose the best tool for the job regardless of number of I's after the Mk.
For some, buying the MkIII now makes a lot of sense, even if there are some probems and some small degree of risk. It handles beautifully and the IQ is stunning. I only need the high frame rate and servo AF about 5% of the time so for me to forgo buying a 1DMkIII would have meant losing out on its benefits for 95% of my shooting. To do so because of the possibility that I would have problems 5% of the time would have been irrational from my perspective. If I was shooting 95% action, I think I would probably be sitting on the sidelines for a bit longer to see how things shake out.
Interesting Nills, I started my post early this morning, came back later to finish it and only upon posting did I notice that I shouldn't have bothered because you hit all of the important points using very much the same line of thought.
Well said, Hrow. Now, if Canon could just get this show on the road. For me, as long as they get it solved within 18 months. That's when I project that (to borrow a phrase from another FMer) the "MkIII demons in my head" will start rampaging!
Stumped wrote:
What’s the problem Nill it is the same basic question you ask me?
It will be one or the other so what will it mean?
Your assumption that the AF on the MKIII is busted is wrong. Maybe on individual ones but not all of them as you propose. I have duplicated the test in RG's report and the BIF test on naturescape in the hot Texas sun and haven't experienced any of the problems cited.
I'm not implying that the people who are reporting problems don't have them only that not everyone's camera is defective as you seem to think. I shoot sports for a living and if the MKIII didn't perform as well as my 1DMKII's i wouldn't be using it. The same goes for BIF which I shoot for fun.
You attitude that the MKIII is busted is about as narrow minded as anyone that says that some are not having problems.
Stumped wrote:
Jim
IMHO a 46% reported failure rate =’s busted.
I never said that we do not have working cameras out there!
The mistake you are making is assuming that 46% of the respondents to an internet poll = 46% of all cameras in the market. I'll bet that more than 1/2 the people around the world that actually own the camera have never even heard of FM.
Reading about it, and actually doing it are two different things.
My EXPERIENCE is that mine, and the other 3 I've have actually held in my hands and shot with, all work... 100% reported good = not busted.
I'm sorry, your serial number is... ?
Again, total sympathy to those that may have a defective camera. Canon will make it right.
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.
Um.......no thank you.
I choose not to support the company at THIS fork in the road.
They can use their OWN money to R&D the OBVIOUS problem and NOT mine.
I am tickled pink that you have a "good" copy, It is also nice to know that you join the head in the sand crowd who continue to deny the truth.
Fire away with your new camera, again I am happy for you, but you drew the long straw when you bought yours, half the people drew short straws and are now screwed until a solution is (A) acknowledged (B) provided and (C) the problem goes away for good.
You may want to hit the switch again, I don't think your RANT feature disengaged completely.
Think about it though Dauv — the only way this is even potentially a truly serious problem is if it affects 100% of the cameras. If even one of them works correctly — and indications are that there are a lot of them working correctly — then ultimately it should be a simple matter of Canon's figuring out what's right with the right ones and what's wrong with the wrong ones. How hard can that be? (Not, mind you, that I'm arguing with your decision not to buy one at this juncture — an eminently supportable decision IMO.)
And by way of toning things back down a bit — can't we all agree that we simply don't know at this point if all cameras are affected one way or the other? I.e., that anybody who says, implicitly or explicitly, either that they're all busted or that they're all OK is assuming too much?
Dauv McNeely wrote:
Fire away with your new camera, again I am happy for you, but you drew the long straw when you bought yours, half the people drew short straws and are now screwed until a solution is (A) acknowledged (B) provided and (C) the problem goes away for good.
You may want to hit the switch again, I don't think your RANT feature disengaged completely.
Actually 52+62+27=141... 52 / 141=.3688... 36% is not = 50%
And yes, sorry, my Rant feature appears to have been set to AI Servo mode... I'll disengage it.
Edited by XsigmaSD on Jul 09, 2007 at 02:02 PM GMT
XsigmaSD wrote:
The mistake you are making is assuming that 46% of the respondents to an internet poll = 46% of all cameras in the market. I'll bet that more than 1/2 the people around the world that actually own the camera have never even heard of FM.
quote]
The mistake you made was assuming that I assumed such .
I know how polls work do you? You stuck a bunch of words in my mouth
that I have not said. I said REPORTED which is the info we have to deal with.
Stumped wrote:
You're claiming that all of the IIIs in the world are "busted" because 46 people on the internet say they are... who sounds more ridiculous?
Stumped wrote:
Jim
IMHO a 46% reported failure rate =’s busted.
I never said that we do not have working cameras out there!
Your assuming that anyone that has reported in this poll actually owns the camera must less can honestly evaluate it. This poll is not a valid indication of any problems with the MKIII. For it to be valid you would have to be able to not only validate ownership of the MKIII by the voters but also whether they have tested it properly.
Way too many variables for a valid conclusion from this poll.
BTW you stated the AF on the MKIII was busted which lead me to believe you meant all of them. Maybe next time you should consider putting a "some" in front of your busted statement.
[You're claiming that all of the IIIs in the world are "busted" because 46 people on the internet say they are... who sounds more ridiculous?]
[Your assuming that anyone that has reported in this poll actually owns the camera must less can honestly evaluate it. This poll is not a valid indication of any problems with the MKIII. For it to be valid you would have to be able to not only validate ownership of the MKIII by the voters but also whether they have teated it properly.]
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
