p.41 #1 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff wrote:
At least the camera is somewhat usable under these circumstances, and mostly usable overall. I used it in One-Shot mode quite a bit with the 70-200/2.8L IS, and got great results all around. But, something is clearly amiss, even with this relatively 'recent' production camera, as we all know...
-Jeff
Jeff, I feel awful for you and others in the same boat. I got lucky and sold off both my fixed mkIII bodies to a studio shooter who didn't care about servo AF. Of course, I lost my butt on the sale ($3000 each) but he's happy and I'm now rid of them and am using my last 1DmkII (never should have sold them off) and a pair of 40D bodies to tide me over until Canon replaces the mkIII. FWIW, the 40D bodies performed better than either mkIII in servo mode. Hope things get worked out as I now sit on the fence watching the situation unfold to the next layer.
p.41 #2 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
2nd 'Fix' UPDATE
Hey everyone, I have some new information from a fairly reliable source in regard to the impending '2nd Fix' which is assumed to be forthcoming from Canon. Again, I'm not in a position to be very specific, but suffice it to say that I can 'guess' this information is valid, and it may indeed be related directly to the upcoming fix that has yet to be formally announced.
My MkIII arrived at Canon today and apparently is getting extra-special treatment as I just had a lengthy chat with one of their managers. Apparently the latest 'issue' is that the distance from the back of the lens mount to the sensor is wrong, and in such a condition, there is basically no way that the camera can consistently produce an acceptable image.
He said something interesting that may pertain to my camera. Apparently they can measure the distance at five points and if they are not correct, clearly the camera will not perform to spec (read: 'soft images' or 'focal plane' issues). Since the mount seems to be pretty much in a set place it seems logical that it is the sensor that must be the culprit. A look at the sensor schematic from the white paper would lead one to believe that it has a pretty clearly defined point of attachment which could conceivably indicate an inconsistent chassis tolerance issue. Unless it is the dust shaker that is causing the problem (like many have speculated), I'm not sure I see what is happening here that isn't a rather large problem for Canon as the difficulties seem to include distance, "squareness", and also likely rotation (vis a vis the 1DsMkIII discussions).
I also got the sense from him that all hell is breaking loose from a service perspective and that they are dealing with each camera as it comes back in. He wouldn't comment on the report of a second fix but danced around the issue enough that it was clear that he thought one was needed. Word on the web is that April could become the timeframe of a formal announcement, though with the 'bean-spilling' that recently occurred, it could prove to be earlier....Show more →
Anyway, take it for what it's worth...
-Jeff
PS: And yes, for what it's worth, it is 'possible' that I could be wrong about this.
p.41 #3 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff wrote:
2nd 'Fix' UPDATE
Hey everyone, I have some new information from a fairly reliable source in regard to the impending '2nd Fix' which is assumed to be forthcoming from Canon. Again, I'm not in a position to be very specific, but suffice it to say that I can 'guess' this information is valid, and it may indeed be related directly to the upcoming fix that has yet to be formally announced.
Anyway, take it for what it's worth...
It seems like if this was root cause of the focusing issues, every shot would be out of focus, and not just the cases the Rob pointed out in his last tests with the blue dot Mark III. This sounds like an issue, but not the root cause of the focusing issues that Canon announced.
p.41 #4 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Interesting.... Perhaps distance from subject and the degree of misalignment may show varying degrees of the issues that some are suffering.
I am still trying to figure out why mine would come back with all my lenses front focusing after the submirror fix, when none were before. I am still confused by that... However, at least for now, +10 or so of adjustment seems to have done the trick. Still got much more real world testing to do though..
p.41 #5 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Just recieved my 6th copy from Canon. Fresh off the assembly line, the date code is Feb 2008. I haven't yet given it 2 thumbs up, but it has out perfomed all 5 of the previous bodies with the tests I have thrown at it. I'm one that beleives Canon has figured it out, and is now producing a good camera. From here on out the new ones will work great. I have spent many hours speaking with Canon techs and Customer relations people. When they sent this camera to me I asked them how many different bodies do I have to try before you admit you can't make one that is reliable and consistent, they replied "this one will work, trust me". I think they hope that most are satisfied with the sub mirror fix, even though they may still not be perfect. I had 2 blue dots, neither one impressed me. I beleive they will replace those cameras with new ones on a case by case basis, squeaky wheel gets the grease. I can see how the information about the senor distance relative to the lens mount makes sense. I have often wondered why you can take a photo of a boy in the batters box and his feet will be tack sharp, and his head is very soft. It has always made me think that the cause has been the sensor, and maybe the dust mechanism has something to do with its being inconstent. What ever the problem is, from 2 quick days of shooting the latest version I have serial number 56xxx made in Feb seems to be an improvement over all 5 of the other bodies I have had. I will give it a real test next week. Here is a photo that the other 5 didn't do well at. Though not very warm, it is very bright. The camera did a nice job tracking my very fast dog, with a 300 2.8.
p.41 #7 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Curator wrote:
It seems like if this was root cause of the focusing issues, every shot would be out of focus, and not just the cases the Rob pointed out in his last tests with the blue dot Mark III. This sounds like an issue, but not the root cause of the focusing issues that Canon announced.
It would still vary greatly with the shooting aperture as that affects the depth of focus inside the camera as well as the depth of field. By implication, a small aperture would mask the problem and a large aperture woud help to reveal it, but the focal length is also significant. There's enough variables there to cause a lot of conflicting reports from users.
p.41 #8 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Bmeister wrote:
FWIW, the 40D bodies performed better than either mkIII in servo mode.
You mean YOUR 40D performs better. Mine was crappy and worse than any of the reported 1D3 problems that I've seen. I think enough knowledgable people are reporting problems with the 40D now to make me think that it too has issues that are not necessarily common to every unit or even the majority but are significant if you have them. Maybe it shares the same technology glitch that the 1D3 has, such as the anti-dust shaker or whatever.
p.41 #9 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Alan321 wrote:
It would still vary greatly with the shooting aperture as that affects the depth of focus inside the camera as well as the depth of field. By implication, a small aperture would mask the problem and a large aperture woud help to reveal it, but the focal length is also significant. There's enough variables there to cause a lot of conflicting reports from users.
- Alan
I can understand how shooting with fast lenses would help show the problem if there was a mounting issue with the senor. What I don't understand is how shooting under bright conditions in servo mode would make any difference. If the sensor was not mounted correctly, how would these variables effect the image captured by the sensor?
p.41 #10 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Yakim Peled wrote:
JB, is your camera a BD one?
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
No, I have one of the first ones. Bought it last July 07. It has been back 3 times now. Canon currently has it again. When I call now, I can get no information at all about what is happening with the repair. The first 2 times it went back, it was returned in 5 days and 7 days. It has now been gone 2 weeks and no word when it will be back. The girl I spoke to yesterday said it would be back in 10 days from when they received it. I said its already been 10 working days........GULP!!! Well can you call back on Monday? HAHA. It doesn't give me loads of confidence!! Hopefully they are fixing it along with the NEW fix.
p.41 #11 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
My MkIII arrived at Canon today and apparently is getting extra-special treatment as I just had a lengthy chat with one of their managers. Apparently the latest 'issue' is that the distance from the back of the lens mount to the sensor is wrong, and in such a condition, there is basically no way that the camera can consistently produce an acceptable image.
He said something interesting that may pertain to my camera. Apparently they can measure the distance at five points and if they are not correct, clearly the camera will not perform to spec (read: 'soft images' or 'focal plane' issues). Since the mount seems to be pretty much in a set place it seems logical that it is the sensor that must be the culprit. A look at the sensor schematic from the white paper would lead one to believe that it has a pretty clearly defined point of attachment which could conceivably indicate an inconsistent chassis tolerance issue. Unless it is the dust shaker that is causing the problem (like many have speculated), I'm not sure I see what is happening here that isn't a rather large problem for Canon as the difficulties seem to include distance, "squareness", and also likely rotation (vis a vis the 1DsMkIII discussions).
I also got the sense from him that all hell is breaking loose from a service perspective and that they are dealing with each camera as it comes back in. He wouldn't comment on the report of a second fix but danced around the issue enough that it was clear that he thought one was needed. Word on the web is that April could become the timeframe of a formal announcement, though with the 'bean-spilling' that recently occurred, it could prove to be earlier.
I hope mine is getting the extra special treatment also.........Cuz i am about up to here (putting hand at neck area) with Canon and this Mark III. How long will it be before someone that has to work with this camera, can't get the results needed for a job and is fired for it! Then we will start seeing some lawsuits. I bet there already are some.
p.41 #13 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
lohnman wrote:
I can see how the information about the senor distance relative to the lens mount makes sense. I have often wondered why you can take a photo of a boy in the batters box and his feet will be tack sharp, and his head is very soft. It has always made me think that the cause has been the sensor, and maybe the dust mechanism has something to do with its being inconstent.
That is what I have been seeing too!
Hrmm.. I think I am going to be a squeeky wheel here soon..
p.41 #15 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Consistently bad. Then again, if it's plane is slightly off and your focus point happens to be where it's not that noticeable, I could see it not showing up so readily. Could the misalignment vary with the distance from subject and FL? Ie, although all are consistently off, some are more noticeable than others?
p.41 #16 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Let me state my assumptions more carefully:
Single AF point, and the same (wide-open) long focal length lens.
Given that, a series of shots taken in AI-Servo should show a fairly consistent front-focus or back-focus if the mount-to-sensor distance is screwed up.
Now if the mount-to-sensor distance is CHANGING during the series of exposures, that's a different story altogether.
p.41 #17 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
DavidP wrote:
A wrong distance from lens mount to sensor should *not* result in INCONSISTENT focus problems. The results should be very CONSISTENT.
Not necessay so.
There´s a possibility to screw up algorithms of cameras "brains"
After all cameras nowadays are computers.
p.41 #19 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Yakim,
I'm a Canon faithful. I have been through alot, have spent hours taking photos and speaking with Canon techs. I am very impressed with their interest in my satisfaction. I was a little frustrated in the begining when they were questioning my skill and not the camera, but since their addmission of a glitch, they have gone out of their way to make me happy. I just want a camera I can pick up a take photos with, and trust the results will be like all my other Canon gear, I believe Canon wants the same thing for all of us.
p.41 #20 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I admire you even more.
Personally, I am chaining my lust for the 1D Mk III as I am not willing to go through the kind of ordeal you and many others are having. I want cameras that simply work.
