Sam Bennett wrote:
Thank you for the apology.
You're welcome. Never be too proud.
I've seen too many instances where manufacturers tried to escape responsibility. Cost me several thousand driving a new car that malfunctioned. Guess I jumped on the barricades too soon in this case ( lived in France for three years, jumping on barricades gets under your skin you know ) I'd still think it would be a nice gesture of Canon to refund part of the cost, but I agree it wasn't highway robbery and I can imagine it would be too costly a gesture as anyone would jump in.
nathanlake wrote:
The fact that Canon waited so long to make a formal announcement is evidence of how hard this has been for them to pin down.
not really. they waited until it was fixed... 2 weeks away.
plus until they took Rob's cameras, i don't believe Canon japan even took the claims seriously... that didn't happen until mid-summer if i recall. they wasted alot of time waiting to see if there was actually a problem (foolish move).
I just got off the phone, signing up for the fix!
The rep confirmed everything reported here. I also asked him if he was getting calls regarding single shot inconcistencies, as well. He said not as many, but the sub-mirror not re-seating properly due to heat expansion, would affect single shots as well. Since that's my experience, I was pleased to hear that!!
I sent in my 1D2N and 8 lenses in for service and calibration at the beginning of this year. It was done for free because Canon UK rules used to be that as long as you had one body within warranty the calibration work was free. This appears to have changed because as usual people seem to be taking advantage.
I got my first Mark 3 in June this year and it wouldn't focus for 5hit. Immediately returned. I then purchased another Mark 3 in August because I absolutely needed a 2nd body. After talking to CPS techs re custom functions for 6 weeks, sending images in, they couldn't work out what the problem was so they asked me to send the Mark 3 in for calibration. The problem is, when you shoot sports wide open, to make calibration worthwhile I said all gear should go in, Canon UK agreed and I did just that. However after dropping of the gear on Monday morning, I needed it back for Saturday for a shoot, on Wednesday they called me quoting over £700 for 1 1/2 days of a techs time. We eventually negotiated down to £330. I specifically detailed all the AI-Servo issues I had with the Mark 3 on the service form and told the techs that this was at the request of the CPS people. They didn't care and I needed my gear back.
Sure the Mark 3 now has an accurate DoF when shooting wide open, very accurate actually but it still doesn't focus properly for people sports. Given this new news I am going to try to recover the £330 because I have spent hours and hours on the phone with Canon, experimented repeatedly on shoots with a body I don't trust, lost important shots. I am very annoyed with Canon UK, to say the least! Typical British understatement here!
While Canon UK currently doesn't have a clue about the focus sub assembly I am going to try to get a replacement body from my dealer as long as Canon assure me that bodies produced after x date include the fix. I simply cannot be bothered to wait any longer. If I had £1 for every time I had heard Canon UK say "oh you can't compare the Mark 3 to the Mark 2N, it is an advanced camera and operates very differently from previous iterations of the 1D series" I could have easily bought myself a Wi-Fi unit for the body!!!! I am sorry but I have been shooting for 10 years and been a Canon customer for that long too apart from a brief and never to be repeated trial with Nikon. Given that I read every single tech doc on the Mark 3, trialed every single custom function, over 1000 shots with each settings, I find it insulting to be told it is my fault, I find it insulting to be charged £330 for calibration when i send my equipment in at the direct request of Canon. Frankly I am very angry at Canon UK. Sadly, no one at Canon UK cares one bit!
Without you all falling asleep from my rambling, I wonder where we would be without RG's opinion pushing Canon forward to find this resolution. I have gained more information from this forum on possible combinations of settings combined with docs I have read from CPS/N than I ever got from Canon people. Nearly all of the feedback I have had has been constructive and worthwhile and I thank you for that.
I am not going to take my 1D3 out on a shoot again now until either this body is fixed or I get a replacement from my dealer. Shooting this summer has become such a chore, rather than something I have always loved to do. The other thing I learnt was that sure the 1D3 could be a great camera, but the 1D2N is also a great camera and I think I learnt alot more about the 1D2N by doing so much customisation of the Mark 3.
Anyway, a quick gulp of a lovely vintage Lagavulin single malt and it is time for my rambling to end. (for today anyway )
You probably wouldn't have sent in all those lenses if the 1d3 was focusing properly in the first place. You should get your money back and I'd push them on it.
Jeff wrote:
Actually, it does indeed make a difference for those of us that have wrestled with this problem since Day One, and may have been the reason that such a long period of time was required to implement the fix. If it had been bad parts, a re-design would not have been necessary. A poor design would take much longer to remedy, as the replacement part would have to be both re-designed, and then manufactured in volume. In hindsight it makes little difference, but the fact reamins that here we are, 4+ months down the road, only now hearing about a hardware fix.
Like I suggested, I'd guess it was a design flaw that wasn't discovered during initial testing. Of course I could be wrong, but if it were simply bad parts that didn't extend throughout the entire line of production (until some recent time, presumably), I'd guess that the fix would have come months ago. I'd further guess that some months from now Canon will suggest that all MkIII's take a trip to a service center, once the initial influx has been dealt with.
Then again, who cares what I'd guess, anyway... ...Show more →
If you recall the Rob Galbraith preview based on a preproduction camera, Canon at that time already knew that particular camera's AF was not working properly. Which leads one to wonder whether they already knew about *a* problem at the preproduction stage but perhaps wrote it off as a preproduction issue during assembly?
For the exact problem to persist beyond preproduction, a design flaw/issue seems the most logical to me. Yet why are some people claiming to have no problems while others (including me) are? What are the tolerances/variables?
Perhaps this is an irrelevant discussion to be mired in pure speculation and second/third hand information, since we'll likely never be told by Canon (officially) what the exact problem really is. Therefore my hope lies in this fix being "the one" with which I can be on my merry way (until the Mark IIIN is released).
Glen_C wrote:
plus until they took Rob's cameras, i don't believe Canon japan even took the claims seriously... that didn't happen until mid-summer if i recall. they wasted alot of time waiting to see if there was actually a problem (foolish move).
That and the World Athletics Championships in Japan at the end of August to test the 1.1.1 firmware beta rollout, which I based on the info at RG apparently didn't address the problems satisfactorily.
I wholeheartedly agree with Alistair that we owe a lot to RG's persistence in this matter. Otherwise it would have been more a bunch of moaning/griping coming from forums, easily written off by Canon as uninformed speculation caused by user error.
Mine is at Canon right now for a small repair, so I'll be sure to call tomorrow morning to have them replace all the shutter stuff.
From a good read of this thread, it sounds very logical. If the mirror is off slightly, we aren't really seeing what it's focusing on, and could vary significantly from body to body. I hope this is the fix, otherwise Canon will be wasting a TON of money on a "beta fix".
Sam Bennett wrote:
Why would he get his money back? He sent in 2 bodies and 9 lenses, which they calibrated. If they didn't see the issue with his Mark III, how could they fix it? Alistair jumped the gun - that's not Canon's fault, it's his.
Not really true, They were telling me that I should send my body and lenses in for calibration to fix the problem. The reason I did not is I told them my M2 working fine with all my lenses and that if they think that is the problem then pony up and send a tag for them all and at their dime. All of a sudden they saw calibration as not an issue.
Every car you buy has problems, no refund is offered
Every computer program has bugs, no refund is offered
All computer crash, no refund is offered
Bashing Canon serves no point, except to complain
If you hate Canon so much sell the 1D Mark III and buy Nikon or some other brand
People on these forums complain & are whiners about so much how could Canon take them seriously. The bottom line is that Canon found the problem & fixed it.
Wrong on the first count, I have had a car bought back that was taken in several times for the same problems. Look up lemon law. If I give proof of improper operation, examples and they take it in and send it back "fixed" and it is still not they should take it back or offer a refund. To say it is op error or faulty settings or lens calibration is a crock.
Wickedfn4u wrote:
Wrong on the first count, I have had a car bought back that was taken in several times for the same problems. Look up lemon law. If I give proof of improper operation, examples and they take it in and send it back "fixed" and it is still not they should take it back or offer a refund. To say it is op error or faulty settings or lens calibration is a crock.
Wickedfn4u wrote:
I have had no problem still having soft images in cool weather it is just MUCH worse in sunny hot weather.
I'm not saying you can't get soft images in cool weather, I was referring what will be this method for owners to identify the problem? I can just see it now:
1.) Buy 500mm lens
2.) Go to a soccer field with ambient temperature of 80F or more.
3.) Shoot using AI-Servo and high speed capture.
4.) Review images.
Be kind of hard to do that! I'm really interested in knowing what this "method" is going to be.
No it will be more like
1. Remove lens mount cover
2. Use flat blade screw diver to prop up mirror
3. Look at sub assembly and check alignment by tapping with finger.
jomor wrote:
I think we all need to thank Rob Galbraith for his original report on this issue and his constant follow ups.
John
Definitely agree with that. I read a lot of IT/telecom research as well as trade journals on various products the IT/telecom industry is coming up with and that sort of objective analysis is not exactly the norm--usually people kind of pull their punches and you have to read between the lines. (That was never a problem with RG. ) The only other critical thing I saw in a pub was something in one of the Seattle papers--one of their columnists a few days ago started getting into the MkIII issue and all its woes.
That's still an unknown. I'm waiting as well. I think Canon knows for sure that Serial# XXXXXX are good, but they will probably keep this to themselves till current stocks are depleted.
) I'd still think it would be a nice gesture of Canon to refund part of the cost, but I agree it wasn't highway robbery and I can imagine it would be too costly a gesture as anyone would jump in.
)