XsigmaSD wrote:
Uh, no, this poster is just another who doesn't even own the camera, but is constantly telling us all how bad ours are...
But why would anyone take the risk of spending that much money to possibly get a defective item? Are you suggesting that the poster spend the $4500+ just so she can qualify to have an opinion? That logic is a bit off don't you think?
Steve Ickes wrote:
But why would anyone take the risk of spending that much money to possibly get a defective item? Are you suggesting that the poster spend the $4500+ just so she can qualify to have an opinion? That logic is a bit off don't you think?
No, but there's a difference between "it doesn't focus right" and "I've heard it doesn't focus right and therefore I think it doesn't focus right". To be honest, if you don't have first hand experience you shouldn't make blanket statements about problems. That's like saying "the handling on a Ferrari isn't any better than my Ford" when you've never driven a Ferrari.
Steve Ickes wrote:
[But why would anyone take the risk of spending that much money to possibly get a defective item? Are you suggesting that the poster spend the $4500+ just so she can qualify to have an opinion? That logic is a bit off don't you think?
If I had known this was going to happen, I would not have gone forward with the purchase but would have waited. I was very early and picked mine up May 30th, SN #21512074. This was before there was clear and convincing testing done out there, and becuase it was a new system, I needed to do testing of my own...which I did over time. But had I known this then, of course I would not have made the purchase. Unlike the casual user, my camera is a source of income and $4,500 is a huge amount of money. That some don't have the problem is not my concern. I would guess that there are a significant number of the people that claim to not have problems just don't know what the 1D series of cameras should do in a shooting environment that uses AF constanting and quickly...but a $4,500 professional camera should work at least as well in this critical area as the model it replaces, and the Mk3 does not.
Folks, unlike so many others, I take few pictures in sunlight-almost every picture is taken in dim-available light. As such my Mk III (Sn#50xxx one of the first delivered in my LA) is a miracle camera which focuses so much better, in every way-compared to my 5D.
When Canon has a fix (and they will at some point) I will test in hot sunlight to see if I have to send my camera in. Until then the Mk III is the single best camera made (that means available today) for low light dance photography (sort of like a soccer match under dim stage lights).
I spoke with a guy I know the other day to see if he had any gear for sale, I always check in with him from time to time to see what he is getting rid of. He is the staff photographer for a pro NFL team and has always shot canon-his email to me the other day said the following;
"MarkIII is not worth $4500 or $4000 for that matter, hence the reason I have been shooting with my mkII and mkIIn still, I never thought I would say it, but I might goto nikon"
Human nature is indeed funny. Apparently many of the current Mark 3 owners want others to make the same mistake they did. How disappointing. I cannot recall another photographic product that has received such an overwhelmingly bad reception and later turned out not to be faulty in design or construction. My guess is that a year from now (hopefully sooner) the Mark 3 will be replaced by the Mark 3N.
John
Photographers can expect an exceptional degree of performance and reliability exceeding any film camera they've ever used. Speedy shooting is achieved with an entirely new, lightning-fast 45-point AF system, sophisticated tracking and predictive AF technology combined with precise, instant metering, no matter the setting.
This is why people should complain and keep complaining until Canon fixes the problem. Many people bought the camera specifically for the "lighning-fast 45 point AF system, sophisticated tracking and predictive AF technology" to cover action photography. The camera was developed with the sports photographer in mind and this is where it fails. Keeping quiet will not get this problem resolved. Everyone needs to let Canon know they have stumbled and that we are all expecting them to do the right thing and fix their mistakes. I don't even have an interest in this camera, but I surely still do have an interest in holding Canon accountable for thier mistakes. If not, maybe the next mistake they make and shrug off will have a direct effect on me.
Steve A wrote:
It's going to be interesting to see what 1.1.1 has to offer, what's scary to me right now is the feedback from 1.1.1 users, does not look promising with all of the ER99 issues with 1.1.1.
Mariner wrote:
Human nature is indeed funny. Apparently many of the current Mark 3 owners want others to make the same mistake they did. How disappointing. I cannot recall another photographic product that has received such an overwhelmingly bad reception and later turned out not to be faulty in design or construction. My guess is that a year from now (hopefully sooner) the Mark 3 will be replaced by the Mark 3N.
John
This is getting crazy.
Yea, we lay awake at night trying and trying to figure out how to screw you. Got news for you... I didn't make a mistake. My MkIII works as advertised. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? Why does every thread about this camera have to devolved into a hate fest? Every thread devolves along the line of "oh yea, I've read a lot about it, and a bunch of other non-owners are repeating it too, so it must be true..." OR "well, if you say it works you must not be using it right, I read if you use these settings, with this subject matter, it doesn't work." OR "I read where even if you believe it works, it won't for very long."
The other group is the people who write that they have purchased it, and having never shot a single frame at a sporting event or a single BIF, pronounce the camera broken because they can't get 50 out of 50 shots perfect. Kind of an insult to the folks that have spent their lives shooting such events, that all you needed to do was buy a camera and you are supposed to shoot like a pro, no experience needed.
The other day, someone posted in another thread that he has had 1.1.1 installed for a while, and it doesn't fix the focus problem and that now it gives continuous err99 reports. Someone else asked how long hes had the firmware and where he got it... no reply. BUT that thread gets quoted, so it must be true right?
Its funny, that not one positive post ever gets quoted by a non-owner. You won't read in this thread, someone posting that they READ where there are people actually using a MkIII and making money with it.
Now for the usual disclaimer, I totally believe that there are some broken cameras out there. I feel bad for the people that own them currently, you should be upset with Canon. Hopefully it will be sorted out, or your cameras replaced soon.
bcaslis wrote:
No, but there's a difference between "it doesn't focus right" and "I've heard it doesn't focus right and therefore I think it doesn't focus right". To be honest, if you don't have first hand experience you shouldn't make blanket statements about problems. That's like saying "the handling on a Ferrari isn't any better than my Ford" when you've never driven a Ferrari.
baslis has an excellent point. That's why hearsay isn't allowed in the courts. Hopefully we learned a lesson after what happened in Salem.
PS. Mine has problems and I am not a happy camper. Yes, I have gotten images I would not have gotten if I had stayed with my 20D over the summer but I do feel that Canon's behavior is now bordering on criminal if they are contunuing to sell a defective product. If the product is no longer defective it means that they have found the solution and have chosen not fix the defective bodies unless forced to.
To those who may argue that they may not know what caused the problem because they may have gotten a bad part(s) in the initial runs and now have good parts I respectfully say Bull Sh*t. There are only X parts involved and if they can't do a compare and figure out which one is defective then none of us should be buying anything from them as these advanced products are way over their heads.
Its funny, that not one positive post ever gets quoted by a non-owner. You won't read in this thread, someone posting that they READ where there are people actually using a MkIII and making money with it.
How true....of course my belief is that non owners should pull their heads in, and not comment at all about the performance of a camera they don't own, or have not even handled in some cases.
I think people that don't own a camera can comment on it. But it depends on what they are speaking to. For example, you can comment on how Canon is reacting, or a review they read, or about issues they may have if they want to buy one, etc. They cannot speak with authority on things like real-world shooting situations beyond general comments, but they can comment on specs and tech details.
We all comment on things we have not done all the time. Having a baby, or the economics of tax policy of people not in our fiancial situation...the examples are endless. So I would not say people that don't own the camera cannot comment on it...but is would not have the same value as someone that does own AND use one.
deadeyedick wrote: Its funny, that not one positive post ever gets quoted by a non-owner. You won't read in this thread, someone posting that they READ where there are people actually using a MkIII and making money with it.
How true....of course my belief is that non owners should pull their heads in, and not comment at all about the performance of a camera they don't own, or have not even handled in some cases.
Curator wrote:
Are you trying to claim that all Mark III's have a problem focusing in one-shot? The posters from the following thread would probably disagree with you:
It may not be until November, when the 1Ds is released that we learn if the autfocus issue has been identified. Canon claims to (by their own press release) use the same autofocus system in both series 1 bodies. If the 1Ds is free of autofocus issues, then 1D owners need to return their cameras and insist on the fix. If Canon claims a modified autofocus system in the 1Ds, then we can assume the problem was recognized and Canon will have to make good on the 1D repairs. In the U.S. when a product is sold it is expected to be "suitable for its intended or advertised purpose". A camera that will not focus is certainly NOT suitable. Canon needs to be concerned not only with irrate and frustrated consumers but with owners who have lost income from malfunctioning cameras. Just my two cents but perhaps someone from Canon reads these posts?
I am definitely not rich. I am a hobbyist and thought the MKIII would be the sole dSLR I would use for the next 3 years or more. It is investment but the build quality is so good that it could last for a long time so thinking long-term the value of this camera is not so over-priced. However, I split the time with my Nikon F6 and I sometimes think I would have kept the 5D if it was a tad bit faster. 3fps is a little slow for action. 5-8 fps and I probably would have kept it. I may eventually sell my 1D if I need cash as I'd rather have film for landscape and pick up a 40D or D300. Net result = $2000-2300 in the bank for X-mas/travel.
Madmax, you could right! Put the MKIII in the hands of RG and maybe the bad AF problems reach 75%. I've made my share of comments about AF accuracy and I may be eating my words soon. Maybe not. After reading in a little more detail RG review of the AF issues I am definitely not testing my camera the same way he is. Why? I don't have a super tele and I live in Seattle so it is usually cool here. Additionally the Sun is intermittent or rare for about 6-9 months out of the year. When I did use it on a 500mm f/4.5 over the Summer the images were in focus but the air temp was around 70 F.
Seems like the best testing will require bright light, warm temp, large aperture lenses, and shutter speeds over 1/2000. Living in Seattle the next time this will occur will be in July 2008.
I have used Static or AI Servo w/ and w/out flash with Canon 50mm and 180mm macro with no issues. Light was good but not super bright nor were the subjects moving erradically. I got my 300mm yesterday so this weekend I will try some more difficult subjects.
Maybe the MKIII is the perfect camera for a Seattle shooter! To be honest I may never push the camera to that of RG so I may never experience the same issues. However, at $4500 should there be AF issues? Not really.
The release of the D3 is going to be good for us MKIII owners! When Canon officially addresses this issue they will have to deal with us in a respectful manner (recall?). Why? Pros backed by companies will choose the newest and best equipment and if it is Nikon bodies then they will go. Even if the issue isn't seen in consumer/prosumer bodies the name Canon gets associated with "problems". This is already occuring.
I raise my hats to the complainers. If anyone is calling Canon about this, can you please mention that the joystick can't be set up to move AF points, and there is no persistent and comprehensive settings memory like C-mode. In fact if you get someone at Canon to listen, even if it doesn't affect you personally, to help others, please mention anything from the list of 1D3 shortcomings on this thread: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/569705
For UK based 1D3 users, a Canon rep suggested the best way to complain is to write to
Marketing Dept
Canon UK Head Office
Woodhatch
Reigate
Surrey
RH2 8BF
If you are so inclined, you may want to include a copy of the 1D3 AF poll using the 'print post' button, and this thread about non-AF shortcomings: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/569705
How foolish are the Mark III owners who wish to silence the non owners. It will be the lack of buying any new Series 1 bodies that will one day force Canon to deal with your problems, and deal with them in a fair way. If anything, you should trying to enlist non owner support. This is like a bad comedy. Do you think Ralph Nader owned a Corvair?
John
