Very interesting spread of good vs. bad. Some serial numbers appear to be better than others. So far 30 good and 16 bad. That is different from the previous poll that was going 50/50.
I have switched off my AF expansion and set AF speed to moderate slow and itr seems to work better or rather not that jumpy of course with FW 1.1.0.
Wickedfn4u wrote:
I have had mine for about 2 months now using mainly for soccer. The only thing I noticed when I was in Europe was it jumping to the banner ads that line the field if the subject was close to them and I was at a distance. This did not happen all the time and I had it on center + the two expansions L&R. Other than that it is fast but I wonder if the expansion is causing it. My next tournament I am turning it off and actually going to factory defaults to see how it does.
What is the single shot problem if someone can say in a nut shell. Also what would be the best way or set up to test?...Show more →
Well, Jeff correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say if you don't plan on getting one in the immediate future — let's say the next few months — then go ahead and feel free to "just see the results." But if you think you'll be getting one soon enough that this poll might still be active and you'd want to contribute to it, then just content yourself with the periodic reports of the results here in the thread. Like this one, which is current as of the time of this post:
Hmmm.. Interesting! Except for the 525xxx - 529xxx range; there are more cameras with no AF problems than those with. But it was "reported" that those with 525xxx & above are supposedly those without AF problems but the poll indicates its those 515xxx - 519xxx that are performing as it should!
I bought mine end of July, serienumber: 525xxx
Today it's the first warm day with blue sky, so I went out and for AI-servo testing.
I went to a viaduct and tracked cars with a speed of 80km (it's a controlled traverse)
In every serie of lets say 15 pictures I had several OOF pictures
I found out I have one shot AF problems as well.
Edited by Chris Dees on Aug 12, 2007 at 05:47 PM GMT (Reason: Poor English corrected )
What is with Canon lately? Obviously there is SOMETHING wrong here. At least to a degree. There wouldn't be this much discussion (not to mention the firmware update that acknowledges the issue) about AF problems on the MarkIII if they didn't exist.
It seems that almost every product the company releases lately has some sort of problem. Every day I just wish that they would admit to, and fix the AF problems of the 50mm f/1.2L. Oh how I would love to have that lens (in proper working order, worth it's price tag).
James Cripps wrote:
What is with Canon lately? Obviously there is SOMETHING wrong here. At least to a degree. There wouldn't be this much discussion (not to mention the firmware update that acknowledges the issue) about AF problems on the MarkIII if they didn't exist.
...
I agree completely about the smoke-there's-fire aspect of the discussion of this issue, but as to the firmware, in fairness, I believe there have been AF firmware updates of one sort or another for every 1-series. I know there were at least three for the 1DsMkII because I just bought one and updated it.
They're complex devices with complex programming. We're lucky they *can* tweak them in firmware.
None of which is to belittle the problems with the Mark III, which more and more seem perhaps to be of a different order.
And all of which is OT for this thread, which Jeff has asked us to limit to reporting of actual experience with problems on this particular camera.
I just had a router bite the dust so my site will be down for a few days. That means I won't be able to post/host the update charts again till it's fixed, but here's the current tally in text form:
<#505xxx: YES, it has AF issues 8 10%
#505xxx - 509xxx: YES, it has AF issues 3 4%
#510xxx - 514xxx: YES, it has AF issues 7 8%
#515xxx - 519xxx: YES, it has AF issues 3 4%
#520xxx - 524xxx: YES, it has AF issues 3 4%
#525xxx - 529xxx: YES, it has AF issues * 6 7%
>#530xxx: YES, it has AF issues 1 1%
Subtotal YES 31 37%
<#505xxx: NO, it works as advertised 8 10%
#505xxx - 509xxx: NO, it works as adv 5 6%
#510xxx - 514xxx: NO, it works as adv 6 7%
#515xxx - 519xxx: NO, it works as adv 13 16%
#520xxx - 524xxx: NO, it works as adv 11 13%
#525xxx - 529xxx: NO, it works as adv * 5 6%
>#530xxx: NO, it works as advertised 4 5%
Subtotal NO 52 63%
* (These two numbers adjusted to correct one miscast vote)
There does seem to be something different about Canon's recent testing methods (apologies if this has already been covered--my brain is in meltdown mode due to reading off too many MKIII threads. ) Quote from Paul Pope, a UK photog, on this with a link to his posting about recent tests he did.
"Canon also needs to look at the (new) way its been testing its cameras. If their testing failed to pick up a serious flaw like this then they need to consider their testing methods a failure. The old way would have picked this up months before production began."
Paul B wrote:
There does seem to be something different about Canon's recent testing methods (apologies if this has already been covered--my brain is in meltdown mode due to reading off too many MKIII threads. ) Quote from Paul Pope, a UK photog, on this with a link to his posting about recent tests he did.
"Canon also needs to look at the (new) way its been testing its cameras. If their testing failed to pick up a serious flaw like this then they need to consider their testing methods a failure. The old way would have picked this up months before production began."
Have you considered discussing it with your vendor? They should take it back if it was defective. I took the risk and have been very happy that I did. My camera has a little over 2000 images taken with it, and it's been stellar. Yesterday I tested fast motion (water slide) AF Servo in bright sun, temperature was 101, and my bursts were all very sharp. I was very happy with the results. Of course they were not shot with an ultra-tele at F2.8... (F4 on a 24-105L at 100mm)...
I posted this in another thread.. but here is a crop from a series just converted straight from Lightroom. No post processing. Thought it might be helpful. Just my son staying cool down here in Texas.
)