Because when you buy a product it should work as advertised. This camera is sold as a professional body. Canon knows people use this different than a 40D. You would not sell a race engine that had a detonation problem to teams if you wanted to stay in business.
If they knew about it or not I don't know or care it happed, I bought this cuz I believe in canon. Yeah on this I was let down.
Why would I buy without waiting to see. I believe any one successful in anything does not wait, all that happens is you get left behind.
Jim Victory wrote:
I would be more concerned about this statement:
"Q. Have you tested an EOS-1D Mark III that has had the sub-mirror adjustment done?
No. As soon as we're able to, we will. An update of this article will follow after that."
If they haven't tested it then how do they know it will fix the problem?:worried:
Jim
I think you are misreading their "FAQ". It seems to b a mix of RG commentary and Canon quotes. They were very careful to say "Chuck Westfall says..." when qouting Canon. They did not say that in your quote abve.
It seems obvious to me it is RG replying that they, RG, have not tested the Canon fix and as soon as they get their camera fixed by Canon, they, RG, will test it and report back.
I don't thing RG has said it will fix it. He was told by Canon that they believe they have found the issue. RG was just passing on or questioning Chuck.
GeneO wrote:
I think you are misreading their "FAQ". It seems to b a mix of RG commentary and Canon quotes. They were very careful to say "Chuck Westfall says..." when qouting Canon. They did not say that in your quote abve.
It seems obvious to me it is RG replying that they, RG, have not tested the Canon fix and as soon as they get their camera fixed by Canon, they, RG, will test it and report back.
Gene
Edited by GeneO on Oct 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM GMT
I read it several times and that is not what i got from it.
I just don't think you can be sure until some cameras have actually been repaired, with the fix, and function as they should. Until then it is just more lip service to keep the masses at bay.
If Canon knows this would fix the camera then why not fix RG's camera to prove a point and benefit from the PR, since many people are waiting for him to report.
Jim Victory wrote:
I read it several times and that is not what i got from it.
I just don't think you can be sure until some cameras have actually been repaired, with the fix, and function as they should. Until then it is just more lip service to keep the masses at bay.
If Canon knows this would fix the camera then why not fix RG's camera to prove a point and benefit from the PR, since many people are waiting for him to report.
Jim
Jim,
If you have read Rob G's previous articles, you wil see he has the Q&A in the same style, the Q's are what others have asked him and his answers.
So, i think the Question - have you tested the fix, is meant as a question that his readers have asked him, or a question he feels his readers would ask him. I did not interperate it as a question he asked Chuck W. This would be consistant with the format of of his previous releases.
As little faith as i have in canon right now, i just can't see them making a major statement if the fix doesn't work (although they were also pretty confident about the firmware fix that was supposed to be released in September. Then again, you would have thought their quality control would have caught this, but the number of issues they are having lately, i"m not sure if a quality control department even exists anymore at Canon.
khurram1 wrote:
Jim,
If you have read Rob G's previous articles, you wil see he has the Q&A in the same style, the Q's are what others have asked him and his answers.
Exactly, it's the same Q & A format as the previous updates. RG is talking about testing it himself.
Of course Canon has tested it. It would be insane for Chuck to say they haven't even tested the fix when they're making this big announcement. That makes no sense at all.
Now, did Canon test it properly? That will be the big question. If this doesn't fix it, Canon is going to look awfully ridiculous.
I think Canon is pretty sure on this becase they actually admit that there is a problem. In the past with the firmware updates they would improves foucus or helps focus blah blah. So I hope and believe this does the trick or Canon has opened the door to a butt whoopin'.
I'm sure some will argue that they published it now because of the D3, the 1Ds Mk III, the Beijing Olympics, the Photo Expo etc. but I know the REAL reason why they did it now. They waited for me to despair and buy the 40D. I hate them.
Talked to CPS in Germany again yesterday and they still have not heard anything specific about the fix from Canon Europe (Amsterdam). The rep I talked to seemed completely mystified why they don't know yet it has been announced in the US. Said to call back in another week for an update.
While I'm waiting for the mailing label to send the III in I decided to send the N in today to get serviced. It's just under 2 months since the warranty ran out (1 yr warranty for D series right?). I wonder if they'll charge me. So figured I'd get this done and then will have it for when I send the III in then I'll sell it
Reading Rob Galbraith notes again it strikes me that the Canon service center did not check all the hardware involved with the autofocus including the sub-mirror assembly and related components making the necessary adjustments prior to his retesting.
Here is what he said:
“We're of the firm belief that the EOS-1D Mark III's autofocus problems come from something other than a body or lens that needs adjustment or parts replacement. Using just the firmware v1.1.0 testing as an example, the two EOS-1D Mark III bodies, as well as EF 300mm f/2.8L IS and EF 500mm f/4L IS lenses, were all checked and calibrated by Canon USA service technicians before they were shipped here, so that they could definitively rule out equipment miscalibration or some other malfunction as the cause of the autofocus problems we've been reporting.”
What puzzles me even more is Westfall’s statement:
“Canon is planning to provide a simple way for EOS-1D Mark III shooters to identify if their camera was manufactured in production runs that included a sub-mirror assembly that is either adjusted differently or contains one or more different parts than a fixed sub-mirror assembly.”
Is Canon using substandard parts for their flagship professional camera, or they have no control over the assembly line where the sub-mirror assembly is adjusted?
I am invested only in Canon equipment and intend to purchase the 1D MK III but certainly not until I can be sure from professional users like Rob Galbraith that the autofocus issue is completely resolved with this sub-mirror assembly adjustment/replacement.
Wow!
After reading the previous 25 pages of posts I have this to say.
Goddamn I love my MKIII! Can I get a hallelujah?
I am glad that those of you who were made to feel crazy, ridiculous, amateur, overall crappy about your purchase appear to have vindication in hand. Hope once the hardware fix is applied, all will be good.
Here's to the woes that others have endured. I have no single malts in my cabinet, just some Stella Artois in the frigo and I raise the last one to you all.
For the curious. If my serial number happens to be in the pool of affected bodies, I will send in my camera, but only after a period of a month or so to allow for those really in need of a fix to get their bodies fixed.
Julius wrote:
Reading Rob Galbraith notes again it strikes me that the Canon service center did not check all the hardware involved with the autofocus including the sub-mirror assembly and related components making the necessary adjustments prior to his retesting.
Here is what he said:
“We're of the firm belief that the EOS-1D Mark III's autofocus problems come from something other than a body or lens that needs adjustment or parts replacement. Using just the firmware v1.1.0 testing as an example, the two EOS-1D Mark III bodies, as well as EF 300mm f/2.8L IS and EF 500mm f/4L IS lenses, were all checked and calibrated by Canon USA service technicians before they were shipped here, so that they could definitively rule out equipment miscalibration or some other malfunction as the cause of the autofocus problems we've been reporting.”
What puzzles me even more is Westfall’s statement:
“Canon is planning to provide a simple way for EOS-1D Mark III shooters to identify if their camera was manufactured in production runs that included a sub-mirror assembly that is either adjusted differently or contains one or more different parts than a fixed sub-mirror assembly.”
Is Canon using substandard parts for their flagship professional camera, or they have no control over the assembly line where the sub-mirror assembly is adjusted?
I am invested only in Canon equipment and intend to purchase the 1D MK III but certainly not until I can be sure from professional users like Rob Galbraith that the autofocus issue is completely resolved with this sub-mirror assembly adjustment/replacement. ...Show more →
I don't think this is something that would have been caught in a normal calibration of body and lens.
As for the part, who knows it could be spec'd out one way by Canon to a manufacture and they were the ones to screw it up too. Sometimes you design a part around function first, fit second and never the two shall meet.
CKeiser wrote:
Wow!
After reading the previous 25 pages of posts I have this to say.
Goddamn I love my MKIII! Can I get a hallelujah?
I am glad that those of you who were made to feel crazy, ridiculous, amateur, overall crappy about your purchase appear to have vindication in hand. Hope once the hardware fix is applied, all will be good.
Here's to the woes that others have endured. I have no single malts in my cabinet, just some Stella Artois in the frigo and I raise the last one to you all.
For the curious. If my serial number happens to be in the pool of affected bodies, I will send in my camera, but only after a period of a month or so to allow for those really in need of a fix to get their bodies fixed.
