Archive 2007 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Guest
Guest
p.22 #1 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Hrow wrote:
I have to say PESCADOMAN, that if I were Canon I would want to see the RAW file from that as well. That looks like seriously bad PP, if it is not, you have a big ass problem and I would hate to see ISO 3200.
acr>cropped and saved to web in order to fulfil 175 kb max on here.
Last person I spoke to at Canon refused my offer to send them images, saying they didn't need to see blurry pictures.
Customer service returned my phone call a week late, so I called service....again.
Jan 03, 2008 at 08:12 PM
Guest
Guest
p.22 #2 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
BTW, I've noticed that some of my high iso images have NASTY artifacts, much like what you see in the cropped truck. I am speaking about Raw files converted to Jpegs in cs3. i'll c if i can find one. Honestly, haven't bothered using this camera much
at all.....
Jan 03, 2008 at 08:17 PM
Guest
Guest
p.22 #3 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Here is one that seems....off.
Jan 03, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Guest
Guest
p.22 #4 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
original...seems a bit front focused as well......
nobody moved or was hurt in the making of this image...
p.22 #5 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Tom Conte wrote:
No, really, I would be surprised if Canon didn't read blogs and message boards like FM. They have already admitted that they read dpreview.
p.22 #8 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Now, here's the right side of the same frame at 100%, and even though it contains houses, trees, and lights at the same distance as on the left side, NOTHING IS IN CRITICAL FOCUS:
p.22 #9 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Different lens, no IS to blame, and earlier today I got a set of images (in daylight) with the 70-200 that didn't exhibit this softness on the right side.
I now know it's not lens-related.
Edited by Jeff on Jan 03, 2008 at 10:55 PM GMT (Reason: (k)nown typo)
p.22 #10 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Wow that is real bad. You know what they say.... must suck to be you. j/k
Jan 04, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Guest
Guest
p.22 #11 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I think the obvious question is......How is it possible that certain cameras left REPAIR in such a pathetic condition. I asked Canon this and their reply, the obvious one, was "we don't know".
p.22 #12 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff, I am not saying this to be funny or snide but I'm really impressed by the left side of your camera. If the right side behaved the same way you would have a hellava camera.
p.22 #13 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Pescadoman, my camera was like this before the repair, it clearly has nothing to do with focusing and the submirror assembly, and--worst of all--it's intermittent. Those guys in VA don't even know how to test for this yet (whatever it is), and they may not even in Japan, either. Hopefully it's isolated to my camera, but I've heard some similar reports in the recent past, so I'm not holding my breath.
--------------------------------------------
Henry, so am I! Some pictures are like that on both sides (anyone remember my 24-70 astrophotography shots for the Grand Canyon?), and some aren't. Like we've been saying for so long, when this camera is on, it is ON! Note also that this particular problem is not obvious when viewed at 50%; you really need to view the image at 1:1 to see it clearly. Oddly, the two images like this followed four completely out of focus images, though I can't be sure due to the darkness and new tripod that the first ones weren't somehow user error. However, I've seen that blurriness before, and I'm certain most of 'those' shots weren't user error.
Anyway, looking through more shots from tonight, I was able to find one where the entire field is in focus, and I just now found one that is blurry on either side, but incredibly sharp in the center. This is not user error, and it clearly has nothing to do with the submirror.
The interesting part of this (as I said before in regard to Rob's 'fast runner' sequences) is that this would account for not being able to find something in focus near a runner's face while shooting vertically, while something near the feet or legs would accurately show the focal plane actually being in focus. That assumes that the error is most often in the right side of the field of view, which it seems to be with mine.
Jan 04, 2008 at 01:42 AM
Guest
Guest
p.22 #14 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff wrote:
Pescadoman, my camera was like this before the repair, it clearly has nothing to do with focusing and the submirror assembly, and--worst of all--it's intermittent. Those guys in VA don't even know how to test for this yet (whatever it is), and they may not even in Japan, either. Hopefully it's isolated to my camera, but I've heard some similar reports in the recent past, so I'm not holding my breath.
--------------------------------------------
Henry, so am I! Some pictures are like that on both sides (anyone remember my 24-70 astrophotography shots for the Grand Canyon?), and some aren't. Like we've been saying for so long, when this camera is on, it is ON! Note also that this particular problem is not obvious when viewed at 50%; you really need to view the image at 1:1 to see it clearly. Oddly, the two images like this followed four completely out of focus images, though I can't be sure due to the darkness and new tripod that the first ones weren't somehow user error. However, I've seen that blurriness before, and I'm certain most of 'those' shots weren't user error.
Anyway, looking through more shots from tonight, I was able to find one where the entire field is in focus, and I just now found one that is blurry on either side, but incredibly sharp in the center. This is not user error, and it clearly has nothing to do with the submirror.
The interesting part of this (as I said before in regard to Rob's 'fast runner' sequences) is that this would account for not being able to find something in focus near a runner's face while shooting vertically, while something near the feet or legs would accurately show the focal plane actually being in focus. That assumes that the error is most often in the right side of the field of view, which it seems to be with mine....Show more →
Jeff, considering I started getting err99 within a few hudred shots and most of what i was doing up to that was testing the 85L2 for basketball(not suitable), I can't say for sure if it is related or not.
p.22 #15 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
This has probably been discussed at length already in this very long thread,
but would the dust-shaking mechanism on the anti-aliasing fliter
by the most likely culprit in any asymmetries in image sharpness
if you've ruled out a lens problem? It never seemed like a safe idea
for Canon to stick an object right on the sensor that can be vibrated.
Seems like the shutter could cause the sensor-and-filter to vibrate too,
which shouldn't be good for IQ.
p.22 #16 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Tim,
Glad to see I'm not the only one that seems to think it might be this type of issue. It's exactly what I stated two different times in this thread.
If the same lens works flawlessly on other series bodies, and the suspect camera SOMETIMES doesn't exhibit this behavior, then logically it's either something in the circuitry where the image isn't processed properly, or a mechanical issue within the sensor housing, which includes the bayer filter and anti-dust mechanism.
p.22 #18 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Oddly, today I received a hand-written overnight UPS label for my camera that was Fed-Exed to my home, addressed to the manager of the VA facility. I also found out that they have been advised (not by myself) of my sensor's apparent focal plane issues, and they now say that the camera may also be sent to NJ or Irvine from VA, depending on what they find.
This is getting more interesting every day, though now it'll be at least a week before I hear anything, I'd guess.
Jan 05, 2008 at 01:49 AM
Red Grainger Offline • • [X]
p.22 #19 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff,
My hats off to you mate, you are a patient fellow. I have more than a simple gut feeling that all of these problems are the result of single mechanical flaw. Any electromechanical design would allow for small mechanical variation occuring as a result of manufacturing variablity. No doubt in my mind that this new series 1 body is flawed at the basic design level. Canon cannot admit this but I'd be willing to wager that they have come to the conclusion that a redesign is required to fix the camera. The interesting aspect will be how they keep peace among those that are "stuck" with the flawed bodies The other major SLR maker has claimed for years that Canon had become too large to adjust to the newest technology and that they had the edge in responsive design. Perhaps they are correct
Cheers-Red
p.22 #20 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
After a funeral this morning I stopped at a small dealer some distance away that I have used on rare occasion. The purpose, to take a look at the D3 (not in stock) and/or the D300. Explained that I was "only looking" and only would make a move if my 1DMkIII came back again in the same non-focusing condition. The salesman just chuckled and called the owner over. Apparently I am the fourth 1DMkIII owner so far this week that has come in inquiring about making a move to Nikon. I don't know if the cameras have been in for the fix or not but the salesman said he has had his best week ever as two of the people did switch, bought (ordered) multiple bodies and also converted sizable lens arsenals.
Apparently, we are not alone in our feelings that some of the cameras have serious problems and some people are doing something about it.
PS. The D300 is a pretty nice smaller camera. Seems to handle very well and the LCD really is in a different league. Canon blew that one though it doesn't really matter in the long run.
The other major SLR maker has claimed for years that Canon had become too large to adjust to the newest technology and that they had the edge in responsive design. Perhaps they are correct 