I had intended to not post again untill my Mark III was returned from CPS. But the echo chamber of ...it's busted--it's not busted, people don,t know how to use it--oh yes we do, yeah well your mom wears Nikon--branded combat boots... etc. is getting awfully loud in here.
The AF is busted on my Mark III, I have proven this objectively (see my post on page 10 of this thread). CPS agrees. They have found a defective part in the AF system and are waiting for the replacement to arrive. They have not refused to replace the body if neccessary but clearly think the replacement part will resolve (pun intended) the problem.
Given that CPS has been gracious about replacing bodies for a few other folks I know of, and reading between the lines, this leads me to suspect that the AF problems are likely the result of a bad batch of AF parts in some bodies and Canon wants to repair rather than replace to confirm this.
Les Z and a few others have documented good AF results under strenous conditions. There is both objective evidence of malfunctioning Mark IIIs (se also "prophotohome.com") and excellently performing Mark IIIs. Reverberating and echoing conjecture resolves nothing.
I will post again when I have my Mark III back and have something of value to contribute.
Thanks for the update John, I have yet to hear from anyone who had focus issues repaired by Canon, so I await with interest your results. If it is fixed could this be a 'silent fix' by Canon, - no official statement just quietly repairing/exchanging the faulty ones?
Has anyone purchased a 'bad copy' (say) in the last week or so? it seems to have gone quiet on dpreview or perhaps the early adopters have gone underground and will re emerge when the dust has settled?
John Mahan wrote:
To all,
I had intended to not post again untill my Mark III was returned from CPS. But the echo chamber of ...it's busted--it's not busted, people don,t know how to use it--oh yes we do, yeah well your mom wears Nikon--branded combat boots... etc. is getting awfully loud in here.
The AF is busted on my Mark III, I have proven this objectively (see my post on page 10 of this thread). CPS agrees. They have found a defective part in the AF system and are waiting for the replacement to arrive. They have not refused to replace the body if neccessary but clearly think the replacement part will resolve (pun intended) the problem.
Given that CPS has been gracious about replacing bodies for a few other folks I know of, and reading between the lines, this leads me to suspect that the AF problems are likely the result of a bad batch of AF parts in some bodies and Canon wants to repair rather than replace to confirm this.
Les Z and a few others have documented good AF results under strenous conditions. There is both objective evidence of malfunctioning Mark IIIs (se also "prophotohome.com") and excellently performing Mark IIIs. Reverberating and echoing conjecture resolves nothing.
I will post again when I have my Mark III back and have something of value to contribute.
I had intended to not post again untill my Mark III was returned from CPS. But the echo chamber of ...it's busted--it's not busted, people don,t know how to use it--oh yes we do, yeah well your mom wears Nikon--branded combat boots... etc. is getting awfully loud in here.
The AF is busted on my Mark III, I have proven this objectively (see my post on page 10 of this thread). CPS agrees. They have found a defective part in the AF system and are waiting for the replacement to arrive. They have not refused to replace the body if neccessary but clearly think the replacement part will resolve (pun intended) the problem.
Given that CPS has been gracious about replacing bodies for a few other folks I know of, and reading between the lines, this leads me to suspect that the AF problems are likely the result of a bad batch of AF parts in some bodies and Canon wants to repair rather than replace to confirm this.
Les Z and a few others have documented good AF results under strenous conditions. There is both objective evidence of malfunctioning Mark IIIs (se also "prophotohome.com") and excellently performing Mark IIIs. Reverberating and echoing conjecture resolves nothing.
I will post again when I have my Mark III back and have something of value to contribute.
Wow, actual hard data. Thanks for posting this. It'll be interesting to see if the part solves the issue (and even more interesting to hear any details about what part it is, if that's doable.) Look forward to hearing more from you.
kevin Coppalot wrote:
Thanks for the update John, I have yet to hear from anyone who had focus issues repaired by Canon, so I await with interest your results. If it is fixed could this be a 'silent fix' by Canon, - no official statement just quietly repairing/exchanging the faulty ones?
If that is the case, I think it is a poor attitude for Canon to take. If I take any product in to be repaired, I expect the courtesy of being told what exactly the problem was and what exactly was done to repair it.
First poll I said i wasn't sure, 2nd poll I said yes, it's busted and now I'm not sure again. I probably need to buy a 1D2n to see if I can get a decent BIF shot with that before I vote anymore!
John, that's good news I'm not sure if I've actually seen anyone else send the mkIII in for repair, be told they found a problem with the AF and then get it back again fixed so I too hope you will report back when you've got it back and have thoroughly tested it.
My Mark III went in for repair early last week showing some of the same problems that John is describing. I received word today that it has been repair, not shipped back to me yet, just repaired. I was not working with CPS so who knows what they have done with it. I guess I should know the end of this week.
A very important piece of the puzzle will be answered when you get your cameras back. I believe you are the first to return them for repair rather than back to the dealer for refund / exchange. If the cameras are no better, then it is working the way Canon intended. If the AF is much improved, then the silent fix is in place and the 50% number may be explainable. Please keep us posted.
I agree now that there may be a problem. After shooting quite a few games and reviewing my shots compared to the RG examples under similar conditions, I'm getting very similar results. Have two more games this weekend, after that, will send it in and see what happens. Maybe nothing and it is all a matter of getting used to it, but I don't think so now after working with it for over a month.
Also going to try something radical for the first half of one game this weekend, I cleared all Custom Functions to the defaults and will give that a go. Have to admit that the first thing out of the box I tried to do was set it up as a MarkII or MarkIIN, which may not have been smart. Will see. Will report back.
I called CanonUSA west coast repair and itentified myself as CPS.
The person I spoke to was well aware of possible AF issues, but was unaware of any chip or part replacement fix now being done. He said that Canon has not given out any report of any fix for the problem; he said that the most he can get from Canon Japan is that the problem is being "looked into".
I made clear that there were one, possibly two people who reported having a part replaced on their 1D3 via service center to correct AF issues. The most I could get in speculation was that perhaps some other AF problem was also affecting the camera (a more routine problem) and that this part replacement was solving that, unrelated but coincidental AF problem.
I also asked if certain serial numbers were affected more than others and he seemed to lean toward this not being the case, although since he has not been told anything by Canon, I would take this more as lack of information than fact.
This is very confusing. First we wait for a slipping ship date. Now we wait for an unspecified comment and/or action of unspecified magnitude from Canon which may already have taken place silently, never take place, take place but be only partially effective, or may never need to take place.
Coincidentally just made that same call myself. Was also told in no uncertain terms that they are "not even sure there is a problem" (exact words), further, _no_ 1D MkIII's have been/are being repaired at the Irvine facility for AF problems of the nature generating all the news/controversy. Re: any firmware or any other fix coming "any day now", I was told that the repair facility will know the day the "fix" arrives from Japan. I'm having a hard time buying that nobody knows anything. Canon has had as much data/user input, etc, as I assume they would need for, what, a month now? I've held on to my MKIII till the very last moment in my return window (tomorrow) in the desperate hope of some good news, but it seems like it won't be coming in time for me. My fear now is that the only "fix" will be implemented in the next generation of the 1D, and once the AF shortcomings in what seems to be many of the cameras become common knowledge, the resale value will be nonexistent if I take a chance, keep it, and the fix never comes. My sporadic AF problems, while definitely present, are not so horrendous that I couldn't deal with them for a while if I had any concrete reason to believe the camera could be brought up to 1D AF performance levels, which it is not. Canon is not giving me that confidence, unfortunately. Such is life. So I suppose all of us experiencing glaring inconsistencies in the AF performance of this camera are just "imagining" it...
Jim Hayes wrote:
I made clear that there were one, possibly two people who reported having a part replaced on their 1D3 via service center to correct AF issues. The most I could get in speculation was that perhaps some other AF problem was also affecting the camera (a more routine problem) and that this part replacement was solving that, unrelated but coincidental AF problem.
For those who want a little more information from bird photographer Arthur Morris, there is an update available to his 1D III user's guide.
Morris does not feel there is a problem with his bodies, but he has developed some specialized ways of using the camera. For those interested, the User's Guide is $20 and includes the updates. Personally, I have found the UG useful.
Since I have no experience with earlier 1D bodies, I don't have a basis for concluding definitively whether or not there is an AF problem with my Mk III. I shoot mostly in one-shot mode which works just fine, but my servo series have been pretty good too. I expect they will get better with a firmware update :-).
.
Would like to add that sharp files from the MkIII are really, really amazing and print extremely well. 6400 is a life saver. 10fps does not sound like much more than the MkIIs but is in practice. AF is fast, shutter response is improved. A super machine despite what I do find to be hunting with AF under some circumstances. And this they will address no doubt, either through helping us understand the new AF sensitivity, firmwear, etc...but no way they will let this go as is, this is the flagship sports and PJ camera and an audience they cater to.
Shane Canfield wrote:
And this they will address no doubt, either through helping us understand the new AF sensitivity, firmwear, etc...but no way they will let this go as is, this is the flagship sports and PJ camera and an audience they cater to.
I'd sure like to think you're right, as would many others. Seems like we should have heard something by now, but maybe not.
I keep referring back to these two sentences from the RG article, remembering it's probably going to be a slow development:
"The EOS-1D Mark III's designers obviously developed it with the sincere belief that its autofocus system was as good or better than anything they've done before, and the EOS-1D Mark III has only been in the hands of paying customers for a few weeks as this is being written. Therefore, if there is to be a solution to these autofocus problems, the only thing that's certain is that these are the early days of that process. "
Until Canon makes an official announcement, no one at Canon is going to admit to anything or make any statement suggesting there is a problem. I am not surprised at all. I suspect that the folks in Japan are aware and working on a fix. Mark Jim Hayes wrote:
I called CanonUSA west coast repair and itentified myself as CPS.
The person I spoke to was well aware of possible AF issues, but was unaware of any chip or part replacement fix now being done. He said that Canon has not given out any report of any fix for the problem; he said that the most he can get from Canon Japan is that the problem is being "looked into".
I made clear that there were one, possibly two people who reported having a part replaced on their 1D3 via service center to correct AF issues. The most I could get in speculation was that perhaps some other AF problem was also affecting the camera (a more routine problem) and that this part replacement was solving that, unrelated but coincidental AF problem.
I also asked if certain serial numbers were affected more than others and he seemed to lean toward this not being the case, although since he has not been told anything by Canon, I would take this more as lack of information than fact.
This is very confusing. First we wait for a slipping ship date. Now we wait for an unspecified comment and/or action of unspecified magnitude from Canon which may already have taken place silently, never take place, take place but be only partially effective, or may never need to take place.
