Imagine for a moment if canon was to come out and officially state that their flagship sports ahooting camera has AF problems?...the only way they would do such a thing in my opinion was if they found a simple firmware fix that took care of it to everybody's satisfaction...galbraith included...or if every camera out there malfunctioned so badly that they all were being returned and there was absolutely no choice.....as it is there seem to be quite a few people reporting no problems and many people suggesting they love the camera....myself included in this group,admitting though that i dont use it often in the ways those complaining do.......as long as the current situation continues my guess is canon will continue to quietly test the camera and put out firmware versions that slowly but surely deal with it...sadly,under this situation there will always be a bit of a stigma attached to the camera...
the only thing that makes me confident that the problem will ultimately be repaired is the fact that shortly nikon is going to hit the street with their new cameras that have gotten so much press....i cannot imagine canon allowing nikon to be seen as the clear winner in this field and aside from this servo issue the markIII is a spectacular performer..we shall see
slau wrote:
I did not go to the CPS thingy in Calgary on Sept 5&6. But I think people attending the presentation was told by the Canon rep on site that the firmware 1.1.1 are not designed to address any AF issue. I definitely will not hold my breath.
Below is what Galbraith said on his site about 1.1.1, which makes it sound like the firmware update was meant to improve AI Servo (although perhaps not completely solve the problem.) If what you're saying is true, that's pretty interesting. It would be the second time Canon has backed away from saying an update they released (or beta tested) was meant to address the AF issue (the first was when they released an update and Chuck Westfall subsequently said it wasn't meant to "solve all problems" or words to that effect.) Maybe this is evidence that firmware cannot solve the problem and it will require a hardware fix?
From brief RG story, August 29, on 1.1.1:
"Several shooters have written us to say that Canon staff on site are advising photographers that the firmware is meant to improve AI Servo autofocus and a rare instance of the camera not firing.
This is consistent with the message being delivered to EOS-1D Mark III owners who call in to Canon's customer care centre in the U.S this week: that the beta firmware does exist, it's meant to improve the stability of AI Servo autofocus, it's being made available to professional photographers on a trial basis and that when the beta test is complete there will be a public release of new firmware for download via Canon's websites."
If Canon hasn't officially announced there is 'problem' with their new AF system, there will not be any 'fix'. As when there is no problem, there will not be any fix. If you watch the wording carefully, IMPROVE is the magic word. Yes, according to the Canon rep at the CPS Expos in Calgary, there seems to be a big event currently taking palce at the other side of the Pacific right now with lots of big guns testing the MK3 with the firmware 1.1.1. Hopefully this will be the last beta testing before they make the firmware available to users. Lets make one thing clear: the new Firmware only exists in the 'unofficial' or beta stage, and Canon has never promised a 'fix' (fix for what?) and thus, there has not been any 'back away'. Just to be fair not to mix facts and speculation.
As far as I am concerned, if there is really a problem with Canon's new AF system, Canon has to make an announcement to take the appropriate steps to have the problem fixed for the existing owners. There are so many ways to make an announcemnet and they can make one easily without losing 'face'. Canon has done that before (with the 1D and 24-105L that I can recall) and I see no reason why Canon will change their approach now, especially when there are so much smoke in the air about their new AF system.
slau wrote:
If Canon hasn't officially announced there is 'problem' with their new AF system, there will not be any 'fix'. As when there is no problem, there will not be any fix. If you watch the wording carefully, IMPROVE is the magic word. Yes, according to the Canon rep at the CPS Expos in Calgary, there seems to be a big event currently taking palce at the other side of the Pacific right now with lots of big guns testing the MK3 with the firmware 1.1.1. Hopefully this will be the last beta testing before they make the firmware available to users. Lets make one thing clear: the new Firmware only exists in the 'unofficial' or beta stage, and Canon has never promised a 'fix' (fix for what?) and thus, there has not been any 'back away'. Just to be fair not to mix facts and speculation.
As far as I am concerned, if there is really a problem with Canon's new AF system, Canon has to make an announcement to take the appropriate steps to have the problem fixed for the existing owners. There are so many ways to make an announcemnet and they can make one easily without losing 'face'. Canon has done that before (with the 1D and 24-105L that I can recall) and I see no reason why Canon will change their approach now, especially when there are so much smoke in the air about their new AF system....Show more →
You're right. All the Canon language is about "improvements" to the AF system. Based on your reasoning, it's quite possible Canon will never say that there is (or was) a "problem" for which they've issued a "fix." They may simply come up with the "improvement" and make it available somehow. I guess my point is that if this next version of the firmware does not succeed in making the AF system function consistently as designed/advertised, Canon will have tried 3 times now (the first time when they presumably tried to remedy the issue with the pre-production model that Galbraith used, the second when they tried to remedy the issue on the bodies they shipped for production, and the third with this latest version) to use firmware to get the AF system functioning at 100%. And that, in my view, would be pretty good evidence that the issue can really only be resolved with a hardware "improvement."
Don't forget that for quite a few users like myself (~ 58% according to our FM pool of Mk3 users) are just as happy with our 1DMk3 without any new firmware in the near future. Improvement or not.
If Canon ever makes an official announcement regarding the 'deficiency' of their new AF system, and offers a recall or fix, then I will consider sending mine in. Other than that, I am enjoying my Mk3 and will continue to enjoy my Mk3 as much as I have been enjoying my Mk2.
I do feel sorry for people who have problem with thier new purchases though.
Holy smokes. I shot some Horse Racing at the track today with a 300 f2.8 in bright sun and in Servo mode. The results were horrid. Probably half the shots were out of focus. Mostly back-focused.
Conversely, I shot a college Soccer game last night at dusk, then under stadium lights. The results were fine. I feel they could have been a little better, but it was acceptable.
What a difference it makes in bright sun with a moving subject. At least on my specific camera. And the horses run at a steady speed, not erratic at all. It's such a disappointment. I'm ready to pick up a 40D and use that until Canon improves the Servo focus on the Mark III.
I should add, One Shot focus works fine on my camera. No complaints there at all.
I haven't read this whole thread but it seems to me that there are just about as many who have no problems with their Mk III's as those who do. In this case I don't think it's a software problem. All of those that work fine have the same software. If the ones that seem to work okay do so under the same conditions as those that don't then there must be a hardware component within the camera that is defective.
Hersch wrote:
I haven't read this whole thread but it seems to me that there are just about as many who have no problems with their Mk III's as those who do. In this case I don't think it's a software problem. All of those that work fine have the same software. If the ones that seem to work okay do so under the same conditions as those that don't then there must be a hardware component within the camera that is defective.
"From what I've been told by a Canon product specialist, it seams that a physical design fix is required. The guy I spoke to at a CPS expo mentioned that the 40D's AF was designed specifically to withstand large temperature fluctuations (unlike the 1D3) and even the 1Ds3 has a slightly modified AF module that is a somewhat improved version of the 1D3's AF system.
There are basically two options, Canon does a mass recall to swap out AF modules for 1D3 owners or Canon slaps all the early adopters of the 1D3 in the face and quickly releases a 1D3n."
Garylv wrote:
Holy smokes. I shot some Horse Racing at the track today with a 300 f2.8 in bright sun and in Servo mode. The results were horrid. Probably half the shots were out of focus. Mostly back-focused.
Conversely, I shot a college Soccer game last night at dusk, then under stadium lights. The results were fine. I feel they could have been a little better, but it was acceptable.
Just for the sake of testing and confirmation, I'm going back to the Race Track today but also taking along one of my 20D's. The weather here today will be exactly like yesterday, warm and sunny. It will be around 90 degrees by the afternoon. The races are at the same time, every 30 minutes starting at Noon.
I'm going to alternate between the Mark III and the 20D, using my 300 f2.8.
If I get the same poor results with the 20D, then I'll conclude I'm just a lousy photographer, unable to maintain focus on horses coming down the track.
Garylv wrote:
Just for the sake of testing and confirmation, I'm going back to the Race Track today but also taking along one of my 20D's. The weather here today will be exactly like yesterday, warm and sunny. It will be around 90 degrees by the afternoon. The races are at the same time, every 30 minutes starting at Noon.
I'm going to alternate between the Mark III and the 20D, using my 300 f2.8.
If I get the same poor results with the 20D, then I'll conclude I'm just a lousy photographer, unable to maintain focus on horses coming down the track.
Don't bet on any horse named Canon. It will start with a big lead and then pull over to graze.
dcmiller wrote:
Don't bet on any horse named Canon. It will start with a big lead and then pull over to graze.
You're right. Sounds just like my Mark III.
To be honest, I've never felt the 20D was all that good at tracking in Servo either, but I expect it to outperform the Mark III in that area today. What a bizarre statement.
Garylv wrote:
You're right. Sounds just like my Mark III.
To be honest, I've never felt the 20D was all that good at tracking in Servo either, but I expect it to outperform the Mark III in that area today. What a bizarre statement.
Have you tried different types of focus, such as enabling all points, assist points, etc?
Thanks for the link Bruce, I haven't visited RG's site for a while.
I loved this comment by RG at the end of his article:
"We're also still waiting on the promised report from Canon, detailing the results of their investigation in Japan of our claims of significant autofocus problems in the EOS-1D Mark III."
, "still waiting", all I can say to RG is "join the crowd"; many of us fence sitters are patiently waiting to hear something positive from Canon.
RG should know if the 1.1.1 works or not. Here is the caption under a picture on his site.
"Taking Point: Canon EOS-1D Mark III production model (firmware v1.1.1 beta) + EF 300mm f/2.8L IS, ISO 200, 1/320, f/3.5, Elinchrom Style 600 S strobes (Photo by Rob Galbraith/Little Guy Media)"
mill4570 wrote:
RG should know if the 1.1.1 works or not. Here is the caption under a picture on his site.
"Taking Point: Canon EOS-1D Mark III production model (firmware v1.1.1 beta) + EF 300mm f/2.8L IS, ISO 200, 1/320, f/3.5, Elinchrom Style 600 S strobes (Photo by Rob Galbraith/Little Guy Media)"
Richard K.
Interesting so he is playing with the beta version. Ya just know he has tested it and I wonder how it did.
mill4570 wrote:
RG should know if the 1.1.1 works or not. Here is the caption under a picture on his site.
"Taking Point: Canon EOS-1D Mark III production model (firmware v1.1.1 beta) + EF 300mm f/2.8L IS, ISO 200, 1/320, f/3.5, Elinchrom Style 600 S strobes (Photo by Rob Galbraith/Little Guy Media)"
, "still waiting", all I can say to RG is "join the crowd"; many of us fence sitters are patiently waiting to hear something positive from Canon.