p.26 #1 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
When I called to ask why they had not sent the promised mailing label for my second trip in, the fine fellow proceeded to tell me that they didn't have a repair facility in Virginia and thus my camera could not possibly have been there nor would it go back there because there didn't exist. A long time on the phone finally got me another person and the story I got is that the call center handles all of Canon's products and unless you get to someone in the EOS section there is no reason for other service reps to know anything about the problem or how it is being rectified (in theory). When I asked why the hell they were answering the phone and taking service requests for something they knew nothing about I was told it was because they were trying to be helpful and reduce the phone wait times. Great.
From my call I got the distinct impression that we are giving Canon too much credit. I got the sense that their "special facility" is but a small dark room in the basement of the call center. I was told that the people handling the sub-mirror were not equipped or trained to fix any other problems and thus if the sub-mirror fix did not work then it needed to go to Jamesburg or Irvine. Mine went to Jamesburg this morning but Jamesburg, I was told, is not equipped to handle any sub-mirror problems so if it turns out that the fix is the problem they have no way to fix it and it has to go to Virginia.
Yakim, worrisome doesn't begin to describe how I feel.
p.26 #2 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff wrote:
However, the one thing I might wonder about is the physical design of the viewfinder (since it has to be different), and how the AF module is stuffed in there, and potentially how the submirror interacts with the new cross-type sensor(s).
Well, the AF sensor array isn't in the viewfinder, it's on the bottom of the mirror box, so viewfinder differences between 1D and 1Ds should play no role in AF performance
p.26 #3 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Yakim Peled wrote:
This is getting worrisome.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Considering I was quite happy with my mkIII from the beginning, it has become perfect after the mirror-fix. Most problems I experienced was with superteles. With 24-70, 135 and 70-200 the Af was very good even with fw 1.0.8. I know lot of photographers with mkIII, but none with such problems as described on this forum. To me the mkIII is the best canon DSLR to date. But then again; I also like the 50L which is useless if I should believe all the posts here.
But I am sorry for your problems.It seems that customer care is far worse in the U.S than here in Norway (which is very good)
cheers
Kjetil
Jan 11, 2008 at 08:09 PM
Red Grainger Offline • • [X]
p.26 #4 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Kjetil,
Lets see, the problems were first noted by RG to occur in hot weather and using one of the Superteles (the famous 300mm 2.8 LIS). Now you tell us how happy you are shooting in the Tropics of Norway using short glass, how refreshing. Do you really think the posts outlining the problems throughout the rest of the world are fantasy? I recall a couple of Swedish posters who claimed the same thing, at least until Canon issued its submirror recall fix. Glad you are happy with the 50L, is not all that bad.
Red,
p.26 #5 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I am sure you are aware of that many of the problems described in this thread and others are not specific to either hot weather or AI servo. Weather in the U.S is not tropical nowadays either. I have shot the mkIII in very hot and humid conditions the last 6 months as well (fw 1.8.8 and 1.1.0). Even if I experienced problems, I have been happy with the results at the end of the day. I will bring the mkIII to the Middle east next week so I guess I will get some hot and bright conditions there, as I haven't tested it in hot weather after 'the fix'.
p.26 #6 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Not so sure about that, I heard it was snowing in Baghdad recently.
FWIW, I've never noticed any difference whatsoever between cold-and warm-weather shooting, my camera performs the same at -5c as it does at 30c. Now bright light, that's a different story, as it seems to get much more flaky in very bright, directional light, possibly even worse with light that has lots of specular highlights.
Now what in the heck would that have to do with a piece of rubber called the 'stopper, submirror' that supposedly has different properties at different temperatures?
mt-m wrote:
Well, the AF sensor array isn't in the viewfinder, it's on the bottom of the mirror box, so viewfinder differences between 1D and 1Ds should play no role in AF performance
I guess that was typed fast and worded somewhat poorly. What I was trying to say is that the dimensions of the viewfinder are obviously different, and given that sensor assemblies would be significantly different as well, perhaps there's some sort of 'disconnect' between the two designs such that the Ds model doesn't have some inherent element of design that may be causing issues. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the AF assembly was in the viewfinder. Who knows, it's all specualtion on our parts.
p.26 #7 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I don't have a MkIII (I want one..), and I don't have the time to look through the more recent stuff, but a friend of mine said something that I thought I'd throw out as an idea for some of the issues...
From what I have gathered earlier in this thread the trouble came in bright light with fast lenses. Is it possible that since these lenses are designed to project an image circle that is larger than the 1.3 crop sensor that the 'excess' light is bouncing around in the mirror box a bit and confusing the camera, causing this ghosting even? If this is the case the issues would be absent, or less noticable in the 1Ds series. I might be completely wrong and confused, but just thought I'd mention it so someone who knows more could think about it.
p.26 #8 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
floris wrote:
I don't have a MkIII (I want one..), and I don't have the time to look through the more recent stuff, but a friend of mine said something that I thought I'd throw out as an idea for some of the issues...
From what I have gathered earlier in this thread the trouble came in bright light with fast lenses. Is it possible that since these lenses are designed to project an image circle that is larger than the 1.3 crop sensor that the 'excess' light is bouncing around in the mirror box a bit and confusing the camera, causing this ghosting even? If this is the case the issues would be absent, or less noticable in the 1Ds series. I might be completely wrong and confused, but just thought I'd mention it so someone who knows more could think about it. ...Show more →
With light so fast, getting to the bayonet at the same time and somewhat bottlenecking seems it would really make no difference consider the aperture as the faucet and the lens as a light bucket.
So if the aperture is fully open to strong light the maximum limit of light absorption is reliant on the intake = speed, the chamber can only hold so much light even when its overflowing.
p.26 #9 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
kjetils wrote:
I am sure you are aware of that many of the problems described in this thread and others are not specific to either hot weather or AI servo. Weather in the U.S is not tropical nowadays either. I have shot the mkIII in very hot and humid conditions the last 6 months as well (fw 1.8.8 and 1.1.0). Even if I experienced problems, I have been happy with the results at the end of the day. I will bring the mkIII to the Middle east next week so I guess I will get some hot and bright conditions there, as I haven't tested it in hot weather after 'the fix'.
p.26 #10 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
floris wrote:
I don't have a MkIII (I want one..), and I don't have the time to look through the more recent stuff, but a friend of mine said something that I thought I'd throw out as an idea for some of the issues...
From what I have gathered earlier in this thread the trouble came in bright light with fast lenses. Is it possible that since these lenses are designed to project an image circle that is larger than the 1.3 crop sensor that the 'excess' light is bouncing around in the mirror box a bit and confusing the camera, causing this ghosting even? If this is the case the issues would be absent, or less noticable in the 1Ds series. I might be completely wrong and confused, but just thought I'd mention it so someone who knows more could think about it. ...Show more →
Who knows, it very well could.
Then again, the other thing I've wondered about in the back of my mind is why it tends to be more evident in long lenses, typically at f/2.8 (where the lack of DOF would admittedly make any issues more apparent). Maybe the fact that the light exiting the rear element of the lens is much more perpendicular (compared to wide angles) in relation to the various 'users' of said light (AF assembly, sensor when mirror is up) has something to do with it? It seems counterintuitive in that one might expect the higher angles of incidence of a WA to cause more problems, not less. But, again, who knows...
The main thing that I want to know right know is whether 'fixed' units are somehow different than 'Blue Dot' units. I've spent a fair amount of time browsing around SportsShooter.com lately, and its clear that many feel their cameras work well, while many don't (many of whom have been able to dump their problematic MkIIIs, some of which are now testing D3s).
I really don't know what to think at this point, and until Canon deals me their next card, I won't.
p.26 #11 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Many pro-photographers and serious amateurs are very satisfied with their mkIII, so if there was a serious design-flaw that may seem as a contradiction. Many praise the mkIIN as well, but personally I get high amounts of OOF shots in certain conditions. I think canons next card will be the mkIIIN, and that is not likely to happen soon.
p.26 #12 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Although I definitely think there are problems with some bodies...I do feel like the images are being scrutinized a WHOLE LOT more than previous images from other bodies. I know that I take a much harder look at almost every image that comes out of my Mark III. I never did that with any other body. Going back and looking at my Mark IIN images closer, I notice about the same focus performance...Then again, I did not have my 300 F2.8 IS when I had the IIN. So I am comparing 70-200IS F2.8 images..
Who knows lol... I get the feeling this will never be resolved to everyone's liking..
p.26 #13 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
apdieb wrote:
Although I definitely think there are problems with some bodies...I do feel like the images are being scrutinized a WHOLE LOT more than previous images from other bodies. I know that I take a much harder look at almost every image that comes out of my Mark III. I never did that with any other body. Going back and looking at my Mark IIN images closer, I notice about the same focus performance...Then again, I did not have my 300 F2.8 IS when I had the IIN. So I am comparing 70-200IS F2.8 images..
Who knows lol... I get the feeling this will never be resolved to everyone's liking..
The implication, whether intended or not, is that we are being too fussy. That may be true for some but I don't have to do a whole lot of scrutinizing to know an OOF image when I see one. Whether the camera is being treated unfairly or not by the masses I don't know and I don't care. Mine can't produce sharp images consistently using AF when mounted on a tripod, using a cable and locking up the mirror - that's all I care about. If my standards are considered too high then I would respectfully suggest that it is the corollary that is more applicable. That being, that other's standards are too low.
Jan 12, 2008 at 08:53 AM
Red Grainger Offline • • [X]
p.26 #14 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
apdieb wrote:
For the record (again...), I live in Dallas, TX... got my MKIII in July. Been working fine in AF-Servo (even at 101+F degrees) as did my MkIIN.
FWIW
For the record yet again based on your profile you really are not shooting long (supertele) glass
Jan 12, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Red Grainger Offline • • [X]
p.26 #15 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
What good is a body that is disabled when faced with high temperature, bright light, or supertelephoto lenses? Particularly when that camera is designed for sports photojournalisim or wildlife? Common guys, Canon can do better than this.
Red
p.26 #16 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I think at this stage of the game we all agree to disagree, based upon our own experiences with our specific cameras. There is no 'black & white' answer to any of this, and until Canon gives us more information, it's somewhat unproductive to speculate as to causes, unless we are presenting specific images and discussing what we're seeing in them.
I have several questions that remain, that I want answered:
1) Are 'affected' cameras truly able to be fixed as well as 'Blue Dot' versions?
2) Do 'Blue Dot' versions have any hardware/production differences from 'affected' versions (i.e. was anything else changed on the production line)?
3) Do currently-produced cameras exhibit any remaining IQ issues ('ghosting' or 'focal plane' effects), however subtle they may be?
4) If yes, do the problems occur infrequently or subtly enough that the masses will be happy with the camera?
5) And lastly, is my camera an 'aberration', and if so, what is Canon going to do about it (and others like mine, which there are)?
My current thinking is that the submirror did indeed fix many issues that people were having, even though it did nothing for mine (and others). Based upon general 'web consensus', it would appear that many MkIII's may work properly in AI Servo, even though I haven't seen any concrete evidence that they do. I would guess that either there is a run of bad parts or an intermittent production error that has caused the problems that I and others continue to have. Now that the submirror has been removed from the equation, perhaps Canon is on the brink of discovering the cause of remaining problems, a la RG's not yet being satisfied with 'Blue Dot' versions. Or, perhaps some design issues do remain beyond the initial submirror 'fix'? Hopefully, time will tell.
Until I hear what Canon has to say on Monday, who knows. They held my camera in VA and did not ship it back to me, per my request.
p.26 #17 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I acknowledge the problems that exist or existed with the markIII....that said,i honestly beleive that if canon was to completely redesign the camera so that it worked as well as a camera could work but kept the same markIII name that people would scrutinize it to death and find problems...on the other hand,if canon was to put out the same exact camera with the sub mirror fix and brand it as markIIIn i believe that everyone collectively would say ..thank goodness we finally have a working camera and go back to shooting pictures with it.....i am not being critical of others,i own the markIII and also find myself scrutinizing it more than any other camera i have ever owned...it cant be helped given the volume of stories and complaints....this is human nature and sadly i do not think that canon will ever be able to completely reverse the negative image the camera has acquired...i have a 5d and a 40d as well and i love them but my markIII is simply the best camera i have ever used despite the psychological aggravation it has put me through!
p.26 #18 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I've had a blue dot 1D3 and a non-fixed/fixed 1D3. Maybe I'm unlucky, but I will say that AI Servo on both of them always seemed twitchy to me. It's never completely still, it always seems to hunt a little. People have commented on the test of focusing on a static target and the camera focus never completely settles down. While I agree that it's questionable if this is a valid test, I think it's interesting comparing to other cameras. I don't have my 1D2 or 5D anymore so I couldn't try them. But I did compare to "another" camera last night and it's continuous focus locks completely solid on a static object. I took a bunch of bursts on both and the 1D3 focus can be seen to wiggle in and out of focus. The other camera had completely solid focus on every shot. There's a lot to love about the 1D3 but I think the AF redesign isn't as successful as Canon thinks it is.
p.26 #19 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Red Grainger wrote:
For the record yet again based on your profile you really are not shooting long (supertele) glass
yep...I need to update that... 300 F2.8 IS with 1.4X is about is long as I get. Long enough and hot enough here to tell if I have AF issues or not. IMHO.
The tests I showed earlier in the thread were with the MKIII and the 300...
p.26 #20 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Hrow wrote:
The implication, whether intended or not, is that we are being too fussy. That may be true for some but I don't have to do a whole lot of scrutinizing to know an OOF image when I see one. Whether the camera is being treated unfairly or not by the masses I don't know and I don't care. Mine can't produce sharp images consistently using AF when mounted on a tripod, using a cable and locking up the mirror - that's all I care about. If my standards are considered too high then I would respectfully suggest that it is the corollary that is more applicable. That being, that other's standards are too low.
I did say that there was definitely a problem with some bodies. My point was, my MKIIN and MKIII pretty much performed the same when going back and looking through my images.. (mainly soccer and baseball from last summer).
I don't disagree or question anyone that is actually having problems...I was just suggesting that many people are now obsessed with pixel peeping every MKIII image to prove that they are in or out of focus. A grossly oof image is one thing, but a slightly soft image rarely if ever has ruined most of my average sized prints... Sure razor sharp images are desirable at all times...I just am wondering if this hysteria has caused some to stop working on taking good pics and are concentrating on running servo tests of people running at them all the time.
Once again, I am not suggesting that anyone's problems are not for real, and I do understand the consistency is really the problem. If you can't rely on it, then it makes you not want to use it... I understand that. I really do. I was just posting my observations about looking through my comparable images from both bodies. No intended implications..
), I live in Dallas, TX... got my MKIII in July. Been working fine in AF-Servo (even at 101+F degrees) as did my MkIIN. 
based on your profile you really are not shooting long (supertele) glass