Those people who doubt Canon's willingness to order a recall if the problem turns out to be in hardware are not without precedent.
One example that comes to mind is the roll feed unit for the Canon iPF5000 large format printer. For the first several months this was supplied with a set of gears that were very prone to disengaging themselves, rendering the unit useless. Canon have never admitted the problem but if you call out a Canon service engineer they will come ready equipped with a newly-designed replacement part that does not have the same flaw. That new part has also been silently introduced into later production runs of the roll feed unit.
I fear this may be precisely the path that Canon take with the MkIII.
I agree. This is a case of an eastern cultural/business response, rather than a more western approach to design/manufacturing problems. Anyone who has had business dealings with the Japanese know that their system works differently to ours.
Kier wrote:
Those people who doubt Canon's willingness to order a recall if the problem turns out to be in hardware are not without precedent.
One example that comes to mind is the roll feed unit for the Canon iPF5000 large format printer. For the first several months this was supplied with a set of gears that were very prone to disengaging themselves, rendering the unit useless. Canon have never admitted the problem but if you call out a Canon service engineer they will come ready equipped with a newly-designed replacement part that does not have the same flaw. That new part has also been silently introduced into later production runs of the roll feed unit.
I fear this may be precisely the path that Canon take with the MkIII....Show more →
So your fear is that they won't send a letter to all Mark III owners stating there is a recall if a hardware fix is necessary? If a hardware fix is required, I'm pretty sure we are going to know the issue is fixed one way or another. Either by an announcement, internal leak, or testing of new cameras that show no sign of the problem (probably all of these would take place). At that time, you can send your camera in for service for the auto-focus issue.
Curator wrote:
So your fear is that they won't send a letter to all Mark III owners stating there is a recall if a hardware fix is necessary? If a hardware fix is required, I'm pretty sure we are going to know the issue is fixed one way or another. Either by an announcement, internal leak, or testing of new cameras that show no sign of the problem (probably all of these would take place). At that time, you can send your camera in for service for the auto-focus issue.
Kier,
With respect, doesn't the IPF 5000 large format printer have a shipping weight of over 140 pounds? If I understand, you had an expensive printer that had a poorly deisgned gear system. Canon dispatched a service engineer with an improved part to your location to repair it rather than ask you to send all 140 pounds of it back to the service center. Did they charge you for the on site repair? And you are further upset because Canon did not continue to send out printers with defect parts?
almost every day I read : " Canon is actively working on the AF issues " : I start reading this at the beginning of the month june and now , after almost 4 months ( FOUR MONTHS !!! ) , I am still reading the same . But I still don't see improvements , I don't see results , I don't see (Canon)answers , I see NOTHING !! Are you ( Canon ) making a fool of us ? How much patience do we have to see our professional 4000€-camera working as it has to be ? hello Canon , are you listening , are you still there as so many MarkIII-owners, I'm very , very disappointed .
mill4570 wrote:
doesn't the IPF 5000 large format printer have a shipping weight of over 140 pounds?
Yes, but the printer itself had no problems - it was the roll-feed unit, which weighs significantly less and would not represent a major drain to world resources to ship around, unlike the iPF5000 itself.
The problem is that when the gear goes south the unit starts to misbehave rather than being obviously broken. Many people soldiered on for many weeks with the problem before throwing in the towel and calling Canon.
My point is that Canon released a product with a clear design fault but have done nothing proactive to alert customers to the cause of the problems they may already be having, prefering a policy of 'wait until it breaks then fix it', which is extremely inconvenient for those people whose businesses rely upon the printer working all day every day.
Sep 22, 2007 at 04:00 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Curator wrote:
Yes, I must have missed those threads. If there were that many threads, it sounds like there were people that did not agree that there were problems, but I guess it could have been 500 threads of people complaining.
Sorry I assumed you purchase Canon equipment. I forgot that there might be people that like to complain about equipment they don't own...nothing wrong with that I suppose, but doesn't sound like too much fun.
Funny when you defend Canon and then say that you never heard about the 50/1,2 problems. There is even one thread going on and that have been on the first page every day for the last four days in this forum. And nearly every week in 2007 there has been a thread about it in this forum
I am picking up a new Mark III today. It has a 53xxxx serial number. I know there is a chance it will be less than I hope it will be, but I have faith in Canon's ability to fix this issue. I also don't believe they would still be shipping cameras that they didn't believe could be made right. Hopefully with the next firmware upgrade. The silence lately regarding 1.11 testing, I believe is directed from Canon because they do not want any expectations set until they are ready to release what they hope provides closure to the focusing problem. This is just conjecture on my part, but I am confident enough to put my money where my mouth is.
Jeff
Jeff Winters wrote:
I am picking up a new Mark III today. It has a 53xxxx serial number. I know there is a chance it will be less than I hope it will be, but I have faith in Canon's ability to fix this issue. I also don't believe they would still be shipping cameras that they didn't believe could be made right. Hopefully with the next firmware upgrade. The silence lately regarding 1.11 testing, I believe is directed from Canon because they do not want any expectations set until they are ready to release what they hope provides closure to the focusing problem. This is just conjecture on my part, but I am confident enough to put my money where my mouth is.
Jeff...Show more →
Jeff, Enjoy the MKIII experience and just go out there and take pics as you would normally and don't look for problems.
Sad thing is I did not have to go look for problems they were right there. Taking these pictures and trying to sell and pass them off as a professional would be like selling a 4500.00 professional camera that does not work. Oh wait that has already been done.
TC
jeff,in most situations you will find the markIII to be the best camera you ever owned....keep your fingers crossed that the servo issues are dealt with asap....i tend to agree with you and assume canon will deal with this issue because they have no choice but to do so....
Jeff Winters wrote:
I am picking up a new Mark III today. It has a 53xxxx serial number. I know there is a chance it will be less than I hope it will be, but I have faith in Canon's ability to fix this issue. I also don't believe they would still be shipping cameras that they didn't believe could be made right. Hopefully with the next firmware upgrade. The silence lately regarding 1.11 testing, I believe is directed from Canon because they do not want any expectations set until they are ready to release what they hope provides closure to the focusing problem. This is just conjecture on my part, but I am confident enough to put my money where my mouth is.
Jeff...Show more →
Hi Jeff,
Best of luck! I picked mine up Thursday based on similar reasoning: it is Fall and I expect that most of my shooting in the next 6 months will not be in bright lights so they will have had a full year to fix the issue before the weather starts to get hot and sunny and the White Paper clearly states that the AF performance has 'significantly better real-world performance' and is 'the same as with the D-MkIIN' at 10 FPS. I know crap about product law, but would think that those two statements in the white paper would leave them open to some sort of action if they are consistently and demonstratively untrue - so they have both their reputation and maybe a legal reason to research and remedy the situation.
Thursday night was college men's soccer under the lights - ISO 6400 w/ the 300 2.8 SPU v. UM-Billings Soccer . Today I will shoot youth soccer in partially cloudy mid-day conditions two fisting with a 300 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 wide open and will swap Mk 3 w/ Mk I at half-time and compare keeper rates. I shoot AI Servo but normally refrain from 'bursting' so it will be more of a test on initial acquisition.
Kier wrote:
My point is that Canon released a product with a clear design fault but have done nothing proactive to alert customers to the cause of the problems they may already be having, prefering a policy of 'wait until it breaks then fix it', which is extremely inconvenient for those people whose businesses rely upon the printer working all day every day.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Funny when you defend Canon and then say that you never heard about the 50/1,2 problems. There is even one thread going on and that have been on the first page every day for the last four days in this forum. And nearly every week in 2007 there has been a thread about it in this forum
I have to admit that I don't read all the threads on this forum..I usually try and get outside once in awhile I usually look at the subject, and if it is something I'm interested in, then I'll check out that thread. I really don't have any interest in a 50mm lens, so yes, I missed those threads.
The Mark III is home and I can stop missing the IIN I sold. The serial number is 535XXX and does have 1.10 loaded. I've taken a few shots in Servo and one shot, but it's raining out and my Apple monitor has acquired a magenta cast, so I'll take care of that and hope it clears a little.
Jeff
almost every day I read : " Canon is actively working on the AF issues " : I start reading this at the beginning of the month june and now , after almost 4 months ( FOUR MONTHS !!! ) , I am still reading the same . But I still don't see improvements , I don't see results , I don't see (Canon)answers , I see NOTHING !! Are you ( Canon ) making a fool of us ? How much patience do we have to see our professional 4000€-camera working as it has to be ? hello Canon , are you listening , are you still there as so many MarkIII-owners, I'm very , very disappointed .
Just an observation, but this thread used to be sticky. Now that its sticky status has been withdrawn and it is allowed to disappear off to the second and third page, don't you think that might give the impression to Canon that it's no longer so important to us, and that we are resigned to our fate of having rubbish AF on our cameras?
I do not believe canon makes any decision based on this or any other thread or forum. As nice as this area is for spreading help and ideas, Canon was profitable long before Al Gore invented the Internet.
I usually look at the subject, and if it is something I'm interested in, then I'll check out that thread. I really don't have any interest in a 50mm lens, so yes, I missed those threads. 