p.23 #1 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Red Grainger wrote:
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...Show more →
the thing that makes absolutely no sense to me, even though i feel like agreeing with you cuz i have a crappy 1d3, is:
1. why do many report that their 1d3's are fine? has canon covertly made changes (significantly above and beyond the sub-mirror assembly) to the latest blue-dot bodies? changes that the general public doesn't know about? sounds plausible considering how secretive they've been with releasing information about repaired bodies
2. if it is the sub-mirror that is the problem, as canon has claimed, under high temperatures and ai-servo. why am i seeing problems with one-shot at room temperature? furthermore, does the sub-mirror exist in sub-space or something-- does it change shape every second frame? cuz i don't understand how some shots can be in focus, while others are not within the span of 10 seconds. i don't think that temperature variations can change the shape of something so significantly, in such a small time span.
maybe i'm really confused, but things just aren't adding up. maybe i'm not qualified to truly understand this, but somebody please tell me if i've missed something.
Jan 05, 2008 at 01:59 PM
Red Grainger Offline • • [X]
p.23 #2 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
simonella_viru wrote:
the thing that makes absolutely no sense to me, even though i feel like agreeing with you cuz i have a crappy 1d3, is:
1. why do many report that their 1d3's are fine? has canon covertly made changes (significantly above and beyond the sub-mirror assembly) to the latest blue-dot bodies? changes that the general public doesn't know about? sounds plausible considering how secretive they've been with releasing information about repaired bodies
2. if it is the sub-mirror that is the problem, as canon has claimed, under high temperatures and ai-servo. why am i seeing problems with one-shot at room temperature? furthermore, does the sub-mirror exist in sub-space or something-- does it change shape every second frame? cuz i don't understand how some shots can be in focus, while others are not within the span of 10 seconds. i don't think that temperature variations can change the shape of something so significantly, in such a small time span.
maybe i'm really confused, but things just aren't adding up. maybe i'm not qualified to truly understand this, but somebody please tell me if i've missed something....Show more →
No I don't think you have missed anything at all. To the contrary, your experience is exactly what has led many to beleive (Jeff included) that the fault lies in a more fundamental aspect of the cameras design. If it were a simple sub mirror difficulty we would certainly be hearing glowing reports from everone with a fixed or blue dot camera. I wish Canon would realize that photographers are on to the game and get on with a replacement. Unfortunately I am not all that optomistic about their consumer insight. There will always be "fanboys" but you can't maintain a dominant role in this industry by sellling to their limited numbers. Those of us who make our living with this tool will switch. If not this month, next month or in 6 months but we will switch. I give Jeff, Rob G. and a few others a lot of credit for sticking with their guns.
Happy New Year-Red
p.23 #3 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Hrow wrote:
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. ...Show more →
I wonder if the two people who switched earn their income with that equipment or just have a CC with a huge credit limit. I do not know too many people who earn their living with their equipment who can just walk in to a Mom and Pop store and do this.
Hrow, no disrespect intended....I know how frustrating this has been.
p.23 #4 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Red Grainger wrote:
No I don't think you have missed anything at all. To the contrary, your experience is exactly what has led many to beleive (Jeff included) that the fault lies in a more fundamental aspect of the cameras design. If it were a simple sub mirror difficulty we would certainly be hearing glowing reports from everone with a fixed or blue dot camera. I wish Canon would realize that photographers are on to the game and get on with a replacement. Unfortunately I am not all that optomistic about their consumer insight. There will always be "fanboys" but you can't maintain a dominant role in this industry by sellling to their limited numbers. Those of us who make our living with this tool will switch. If not this month, next month or in 6 months but we will switch. I give Jeff, Rob G. and a few others a lot of credit for sticking with their guns.
Happy New Year-Red...Show more →
Red,
As someone who makes their living with these tools, you know how painful (costly) this would be. People I know (me included) did not sell their MKII or N when they bought the MKIII. If their III did not work, they went back to the II, and got in line for Canon's "fix". Some are pleased with the III, but will not sell the II for fear the III might mis-behave down the road. They (we) are willing to give Canon time to sort out the issues before making a move. Even if the III proves to be a hit and miss design, I'm sure Canon will be more than prepared with the MKIV. The beating most would take on the swap to Nikon would probably be more than the cost of a MKIV when it shows up.
Jeff,
I have always believed something other than the AF issue was wrong with your camera. I understand the VA facility is equiped to do the sub mirror work and not much else. It does not suprise me Canon would send it to NJ or CA for additional checks. I believe you will end up with a new camera before this is over.
I wish I could meet you somewhere and let you use my camera for a few days but I live in MS and that would be a big drive for one of us. As knowledgeable and as nice a guy as you seem to be, I'm surprised know one in your area has offered to meet with you and compare cameras.
p.23 #5 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Sounds to me like the photo industry needs something like the LEMON LAWs some states have for automobiles...I'm not thinking Canon is hiding anything, but it is almost equally disconcerting that they're not really clear on what's wrong...other than they have "good" ones and "bad" ones....I'm thinking their reputation is far more valuable that a few hundred or few thousand replacement cameras might be. I bought and use a Canon refurbed 5D that has no issues, and I'm sure Canon recouped most of their costs at the price I paid. Given the clear and present threat of the new Nikon, maybe they'll be extra sensitized to the customer.
p.23 #6 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
mill4570 wrote:
As someone who makes their living with these tools, you know how painful (costly) this would be. People I know (me included) did not sell their MKII or N when they bought the MKIII. If their III did not work, they went back to the II, and got in line for Canon's "fix". Some are pleased with the III, but will not sell the II for fear the III might mis-behave down the road. They (we) are willing to give Canon time to sort out the issues before making a move. Even if the III proves to be a hit and miss design, I'm sure Canon will be more than prepared with the MKIV. The beating most would take on the swap to Nikon would probably be more than the cost of a MKIV when it shows up. ...Show more →
Richard,
You make a good point about people that did not sell their MKII - It's always prudent to keep equipment that works and is a known quantity until the new models have proven themselves.
But at the same time I can't help raise the question (for those contemplating a switch) of how much loss it would be if all the lenses and bodies were sold, (albeit a defective MKIII would be sold at a substantial loss) and replaced with similar Nikon gear? Are we looking at more than the $4500 figure that was "wasted" on a defective body? (Eh, it's just a simple mental exercise.)
The only "out" that I see is for Canon to refund the purchase price on an obviously defective design. At a minimum, a $4500 credit on Canon equipment, which would at least keep their customers in the Canon market.
p.23 #7 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
AJ,
Actually it is more pen and paper exercise for me. To move from a Canon 500f4 to a Nikon 500f4 would probably cost close to $1800 by itself. The 300f2.8 between $500 and $800. It doesn't take long to reach $4500.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Canon Professionals or anyone else should take a $4500 hit on the MKIII, besides many bought at least two or more bodies $9000 and more). I'm simply saying it would very painful for most working Pro's to switch and most will simply see how this plays out.
p.23 #8 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
AJ Nadershahi wrote:
Richard,
You make a good point about people that did not sell their MKII - It's always prudent to keep equipment that works and is a known quantity until the new models have proven themselves.
But at the same time I can't help raise the question (for those contemplating a switch) of how much loss it would be if all the lenses and bodies were sold, (albeit a defective MKIII would be sold at a substantial loss) and replaced with similar Nikon gear? Are we looking at more than the $4500 figure that was "wasted" on a defective body? (Eh, it's just a simple mental exercise.)
The only "out" that I see is for Canon to refund the purchase price on an obviously defective design. At a minimum, a $4500 credit on Canon equipment, which would at least keep their customers in the Canon market. ...Show more →
After reading the white paper on the 1D III I was both ecstatic and worried. Ecstatic that Canon had basically built the 1D III from the ground up and it seemed a big leap up in performance from the 1D II. However, I was worried that such a massive change can bring about a lot of teething problems. This was one camera I wasn't going to touch for at least 6 months while I waited to see what issues arose and assumed a few firmware updates would sort things out. I didn't for once think though the AF would cause such massive grief, but I am glad I sat tight and kept my 1D II.
As it stands now I don't think I could ever buy a 1D III even if Canon does fix the camera. I think also got off to a poor start with the pricing alone of the 1D IIII and thought it could the market for all it's worth. Even worse in light of the current fiasco they still haven't done squat and expect a premium price for a possibly dud camera. I will now wait for the next 1 series (whenever that is) and be happy to see what the 5D II offers, replace my 20D with either a 40D or possibly even D300 if Nikon release an updated 80-400 VR II.
p.23 #9 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
mill4570 wrote:
I wonder if the two people who switched earn their income with that equipment or just have a CC with a huge credit limit. I do not know too many people who earn their living with their equipment who can just walk in to a Mom and Pop store and do this.
Hrow, no disrespect intended....I know how frustrating this has been.
Richard K.
Both were professionals and I must say that if I was shooting professionally, this body would be long gone and I'd be switching too. I think that there are two major points that need to be considered. The first is that you have to be able to trust your equipment. With the new 1D series that is proving to be difficult. Whether you are shooting a wedding or the Super Bowl your equipment has to give you consistent results. Secondly, Nikon has made major gains in system desirability with their new 14-24 and 24-70. By all accounts both lenses are stellar. I can easily see someone going for a switch that yields a reliable (big assumption) body and noticeable improvement in what, for many, is the most used focal range. Add in a more advanced flash system and changing vs. dropping back to using an "outdated" body while Canon tries to get it right is starts to look very attractive.
p.23 #10 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Red Grainger wrote:
No I don't think you have missed anything at all. To the contrary, your experience is exactly what has led many to beleive (Jeff included) that the fault lies in a more fundamental aspect of the cameras design. If it were a simple sub mirror difficulty we would certainly be hearing glowing reports from everone with a fixed or blue dot camera.
see that's where we go full circle. if it's a fundamental design flaw, then why do so many people say, "mine is great"? so, either design is fine or it's not- it can't be both. if it's not fine, then all of the cameras are crap. if the design is fine, then there should obviously be just a handful of cameras that are defective for the "sub-mirror" and the rest are awesome. due to so many positive, raving results, i'd like to think that it's not a design flaw, unless canon is making underhanded changes to their cameras without telling anyone.
but obviously, with the lack of any real information, it's really difficult to come to an intelligent conclusion on this. i can't believe i'm devoting so much neural activity to this. lol
p.23 #11 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
simonella_viru wrote:
see that's where we go full circle. if it's a fundamental design flaw, then why do so many people say, "mine is great"? so, either design is fine or it's not- it can't be both. if it's not fine, then all of the cameras are crap. if the design is fine, then there should obviously be just a handful of cameras that are defective for the "sub-mirror" and the rest are awesome. due to so many positive, raving results, i'd like to think that it's not a design flaw, unless canon is making underhanded changes to their cameras without telling anyone.
but obviously, with the lack of any real information, it's really difficult to come to an intelligent conclusion on this. i can't believe i'm devoting so much neural activity to this. lol...Show more →
As someone that has owned many Canon bodies, including Mark IIN and Mark III...(also Nikon bodies), I have to agree with you... I am one of those that fit the "mine is great" Mark III. I got mine in July and it has not had the submirror "fix" yet...
p.23 #12 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I believe that Canon knew there were focus problems before release (they acknowledged it), and thought that they'd be able to tweak the firmware to fix it. Once it was clear they could not, they then had to go looking for a cause for the errant AF issues. Once the submirror was confirmed to have a role in those AF problems, one would assume that it would be the end of it. Unless, of course, there was something additional going on, something more subtle, and likely more fundamental in the design of the AF system, and clearly it could be a random run of bad parts. I believe they are now working to sort that out, and were likely surprised to have to 'go there'.
I also fully believe that Canon will make this right, whatever it takes. I just don't know how long it will take to resolve.
mill4570 wrote:
Jeff,
I have always believed something other than the AF issue was wrong with your camera. I understand the VA facility is equipped to do the sub mirror work and not much else. It does not surprise me Canon would send it to NJ or CA for additional checks. I believe you will end up with a new camera before this is over.
I wish I could meet you somewhere and let you use my camera for a few days but I live in MS and that would be a big drive for one of us. As knowledgeable and as nice a guy as you seem to be, I'm surprised know one in your area has offered to meet with you and compare cameras. ...Show more →
I wish we could swap cameras for a few days, too, Richard. I don't know of anyone in the Denver area with a 'working' MkIII, but I certainly wish I did.
p.23 #13 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff wrote:
I believe that Canon knew there were focus problems before release (they acknowledged it), and thought that they'd be able to tweak the firmware to fix it.
My English is failing me. On the one hand you use the word "believe" which means you do not know for sure but OTOH you say "they acknowledged it" meaning that you saw some official report from Canon (I haven't) and that means you DO know.
p.23 #14 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Yakim Peled wrote:
My English is failing me. On the one hand you use the word "believe" which means you do not know for sure but OTOH you say "they acknowledged it" meaning that you saw some official report from Canon (I haven't) and that means you DO know.
What am I missing?
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Taken from the opening paragraph's of RG's first look article (First Look) -
There is one cause for concern, however, and it's one to pay close attention to if you're planning on buying an EOS-1D Mark III as soon as it ships. In the preproduction body we have, the autofocus doesn't work right. When it was issued to us, Canon made it clear that the autofocus wasn't working right in this generation of preproduction camera and/or firmware and provided the assurances you'd expect about how it will be working properly by the time the new model hits the streets. And that's likely to be the case. But it's not guaranteed to be the case, so please keep that in mind before you hand over your VISA card to your pro camera dealer.
p.23 #15 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
So it's RG that "acknowledged" it...Nothing official... Just what Canon told him.
Interesting. I honestly don't know what to think anymore....
Jan 06, 2008 at 03:38 AM
Red Grainger Offline • • [X]
p.23 #16 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
apdieb wrote:
As someone that has owned many Canon bodies, including Mark IIN and Mark III...(also Nikon bodies), I have to agree with you... I am one of those that fit the "mine is great" Mark III. I got mine in July and it has not had the submirror "fix" yet...
FWIW.
Andrew
Andrew,
I have been working as a professional photographer for over 30 years and during that time I have shot just about everything and owned bodies of every format available. Consider yourself lucky if your requirements dont' result in out of focus images. In many instances my Mark III worked as well as my Mark IIN but when I needed accurate AI servo autofocus it let me down far to frequently. I have NEVER had a difficult moment with either a Canon or Nikon Pro series body before. This leads me to conclude that something is either wrong with the Mark III fundamental design or it was designed for a use other than previous Series 1 bodies had been designed for. When I read the posts by mnay of those that are happy with their copies of the Mark III, I find that they are really being used for wedding, landscape, or snap shot work. This is hardly the market Canon identifies as its target for the Mark III. I use this camera for the photojournalist aspects of my work and that includes sports/adventure action and some wildlife/adventure. Repeatable and reliable perofrmance are crucial and the Mark III gave me more like 60-70% in focus images. My old Mark IIN gave me over 90% in focus and the 40D's I bought for temporary use are giving me nearly 90% as well. Unfortunately no criteria establishing the limits of acceptable autofocus have ever been published. That leaves it open for anyone to claim that their camera is acceptable. I suspect that in some ways Canon relies on that confusion to keep the waters muddy and delay the date of their final solution or fix. Just my two cents as a former Mark III owner.
Regards-Red
p.23 #17 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff wrote:
I believe that Canon knew there were focus problems before release (they acknowledged it), and thought that they'd be able to tweak the firmware to fix it. Once it was clear they could not, they then had to go looking for a cause for the errant AF issues. Once the submirror was confirmed to have a role in those AF problems, one would assume that it would be the end of it. Unless, of course, there was something additional going on, something more subtle, and likely more fundamental in the design of the AF system, and clearly it could be a random run of bad parts. I believe they are now working to sort that out, and were likely surprised to have to 'go there'.
I also fully believe that Canon will make this right, whatever it takes. I just don't know how long it will take to resolve.
I wish we could swap cameras for a few days, too, Richard. I don't know of anyone in the Denver area with a 'working' MkIII, but I certainly wish I did....Show more →
Jeff,
I would have guessed there would be a large number of MKIII's in the Denver area Wow
p.23 #18 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Monday - I will be sending in my Mark III for the fix. I did the firmware upgrade a month ago and the images since have been much worse than before the upgrade - which makes me think the upgrade needs the fix to be right.
I've tried the microadjustment approach and the result... I can make it front focus or back focus but never really IN focus. The images are so soft that generally they are if not unusable - certainly unreliable!
I have tried one shot AF with a tripod and gotten mostly soft images
I have tried hand holding and panning using IS and AFServo in high speed or low speed with shutters as slow as 1/30 up to 1/500 and at best small segments of the images are tack sharp while large areas are soft or badly out of focus.
I've used a 24-70, a 70-200, a 300 f2.8 and a 100 f 2.8 in macro mode - everything is soft.
At least i don't need a soft focus filter... maybe I should move to Florida and start doing glamor shots at retirement homes!
Any suggestions on what I should say on the questionaire I have to fill out to send the thing in? (other than "please send me a working Mark IIn and 1000 dollars")
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 
