Archive 2007 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Red Grainger Offline • • [X]
p.64 #1 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
mdurisseau wrote:
I got a call from Canon today...just to preface, I was contacted about three weeks ago about my Mark III, after I sent a letter to Canon's CEO and some of the other executives.
I sent a DVD of images to Canon a couple of weeks ago, and now that they've had time to review it, they asked me to send in my body for the engineers to take a look at. The good thing is that I will have a chance to use a CPS body with MY settings and the way I shoot, to figure out if there really is something to the notion that not all bodies are the same. I have to believe that CPS would not have bodies in their stable that would not work properly.
I will report back when I find out what's up....Show more →
Michael,
Can you give us the info and your findings referenced above. Also in your last post regarding the memb from Canon on the nature of your problem??
Thanks-Red
p.64 #3 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Yakim Peled wrote:
Still no word from Canon about that mysterious "root cause". I wonder….
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I thought there was never any news from Canon on the mysterious root cause, the rumour came from Rob Galbraith didn't it? Canon didn't confirm anything.....
From talking to the Canon UK chaps, they say nothing will come either, that RG was wrong. Who knows! The consumer (even Pro consumer) is always last to know!
p.64 #5 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Yakim Peled wrote:
Was RG indeed wrong? If so, why didn't he said so? To "save face"? He doesn't strikes me as that kind of person.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I think Galbraith was correct in exposing the flaws he found in the mkIII.
On the other hand, he is a controlling micromanager type and like a bulldog that never lets go. When he had the forums on his site, many posters were banned simply for expressing viewpoints contrary to his beliefs or unflattering toward his advertisers products.
As long as this issue drives viewers to his site, he will keep it alive.
$$$ talks.
p.64 #7 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Is it strange that RG is the only source of this debate of AF-prob-solving-root-cause-rumour-hassle. Web has mighty amount of info of everything but no reliable source anywhere considering this case.
Lost my faith in RG.
p.64 #8 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
It took a couple months for Canon to get the sub mirror stopper fix engineered and into the repair pipeline. I am still holding out hope that the focus can be improved. I was shooting birds in flight yesterday, not very impressed with the results on my 600mm.....perhaps a trip into Irvine is warranted.
p.64 #9 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I spoke extensively with a photographer from one of the major international services at the Philadelphia Flower Show and he was told by his management that Canon reps had indeed told them at PMA that they had figured out what the cause of the problems is and that they would be getting "fixed" cameras from Canon by mid-spring. He had no idea whether this means replacement cameras or repairs. He was shooting with 1DMkII's and said that that they had stopped using the 1DMkIII entirely, even Blue Dots, because of focusing inconsistencies. As he so succinctly put it, "better than sh*t isn't good enough."
p.64 #10 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
A few folks have asked how I am making out with my replacement 1DMkIII. It is is light years better than either of y old camera or the demo that I used before but it is still somewhat prone to front and back focusing in some, yet to be determined, cases. It is going to get returned as the main dial just randomly stops working which means no focus point changes and no menus till it decides to work again. Sometimes it stops for only a couple of fiddle abouts and other times it just stays broken till it gets in a better mood. I realize that this is an uncommon problem but with the focusing problems and all that I have been through Canon is going to have a tough time convincing me that their QC is up to the task these days.
p.64 #11 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I just figure as long as it took for Canon to pony up that there was even an issue it will take them that long to follow up on what RG has said. I have not lost faith in RG just that what he may hear and write about takes canon a long time to confirm.
p.64 #12 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
The problem is that Canon has now publicly announced that the mkIII is fixed and performing up to specs, and better in their tests than all previous models. Now, it could be that their March 5 announcement provides some outs in its language--including the so-called commitment to continue to improve or the fact that they don't define what tests--but it still is a relatively foolish statement for a corp. to make if they had truly determined there was a root cause to the problem.
It would be even more foolish to continue selling something that has such a problem after making this announcement. They've just left too many crumbs for even the most inept lawyer to follow.
I view the March 5 announcement as an indication that there will be nothing further from Canon on this issue and that it is performing up to what the customer is entitled to.
Edited by matsuib on Mar 24, 2008 at 07:26 PM GMT (Reason: typos)
p.64 #13 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Charlemagne wrote:
**UPDATE***
Well, I was on page 14 talking about how the MKIII was acting funny with my 35L and only that lens, and only when the flash was attached, well, it stopped doing that, but then it started giving me a serious lag with the shutter button, now, as of the other day, in the middle of a baseball tournament I was covering.. it died on me.. err 99, every time I pressed the shutter, err 99.. I almost threw the thing into the lake, but I composed myself and now its on the way to canon, I must say that so far Canon CPS has been kind to me, so let's see if they can fix this thing right the first time.. I just hope I don't end up like a lot of other horror stories around here with people sending it back 2-3 times and canon saying it is fine and "at specs"...
I will do another update when I get the camera back.
My Mark III is currently back at Irvine for the second time since purchase (late Sept.) for Error 99's (triggered on first shutter button press after being in the power off state w/ any combination of lenses/batteries/cards, with the error dissapearing after 2-10 additional shutter release button presses upon which time it continues to fire fine until it is turned off again). The first time it came back with a 'REPAIRED MIRROR SWITCH FOR ERR99' service notice. Three months after the first repair it is again exhibiting that behavior. Now the interesting coincidence(?) is that in both cases the ERR99's started immediately following using the Live-View function to help in calibrating all of my lenses. The Live View feature had not seen much other use outside of those sessions - nor had I been using per lens microadjustments, so I am speculating that something related to the mirror lock-up system is not running within spec voltage and the first time through they just fixed a symptom (or they have a suspect batch of mirror switch's, or it is truly is a coincidence).
On the microadjustment front all of my lenses required positive microadjustments except one which required 0 with an average correction of +9 required so I asked them to look at the calibration of the AF system while they had the body as having 8 lenses all require a strong positive adjustment is also an interesting coincidence.
I have to admit that at this time with all of these negative threads it makes me think that it will come back with only a superficial investigation in to the root cause of the Err99's and that the AF calibration will not be touched... Hopefully Canon will prove me wrong!
Thankfully I purchased the body from a stellar local dealer that provides loaner bodies to cover warranty repairs or I would really be unhappy. As all of my income over the last three months has been generated from photography perhaps it is time to pursue a CPS membership as well. I do think that I have shot my last indoor sporting event until fall, so at least my 1D will serve as a solid back-up, versus all of the high ISO in gym/under lights shooting that I have been leaning on the Mark III for these last six months.
p.64 #14 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
mdurisseau wrote:
I have to believe that CPS would not have bodies in their stable that would not work properly.
Yeah, I would have thought that too except on Thursday I picked up a Mark III CPS loaner while one of my IIIs is in for the "fix" and found out the hard way 2 hours later on a job that it was defective. It will constantly Err99. Sometimes I can get off a sequence of images, but often it's two or three at most before it locks up. BTW, I'm referring to CPS here at Canon Canada...
Checking the body, it's serial # 504xxx and OV0501, meaning May 2007 production and has the white dot inside the battery compartment, so it's had the fix... I kind of wonder if it's a demo camera that's been moved to CPS loan. I haven't been loaned equipment enough to have a sense for how new it is on average, but if this is any indication, it's possible the loaner gear is on the old side, at least here in Canada. In any case, I'm not pleased.
p.64 #15 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
apdieb wrote:
Interesting..I had read that too in their literature.. Sheer craziness.. my other bodies shoot fine under differing situations and light. Last thing I want to be doing is calibrating every time my light or focal length changes. Call me picky.
Although I am getting better at "guestimating" in the field, I am not confident with MA on the fly for something important.
PITA.
I recently had a job that involved a lot of low available light work. About half was under pure tungsten lighting (RAW files were corrected at 2500K and were still a bit on the warm side) with an average exposure of around 1/80 f/1.2 at ISO 3200, the other half was fluorescent that was about 1 to 1.5 stops brighter. The job started under the tungsten lighting and I quickly realized all images were significantly OOF and IIRC front focused, so made a MA adjustment to compensate. Later under the fluorescent lighting, I had to do the MA again but in the opposite direction.
To be fair to the Mark III, I've had issues with Mark IIN AF accuracy under very low ˚K lighting but at that time I wasn't sure if it was a general AF calibration issue that was exaggerated by the f/1.2 lenses. Now my impression is there seems to be some sort of AF flakiness that may be dependent on the color quality or color spectrum of the light itself... This could make sense if one considers that extremely red light will be refracted differently through an optical system (such as an AF system) than extremely blue light at the other end of the spectrum. And perhaps Canon's AF system is susceptible to such problems. Has anyone else noticed anything similar to this?
At least the Mark III has the MA function and I was able to compensate sufficiently to get enough in focus frames. In the past with the IIN I resorted to MF but have found that the 50 1.2 in particular has been difficult for me to MF if the subject wasn't very close. The Ec-S screen seems to help to some degree, but more so with the 85 than the 50. If the subject is stationary and I have enough time, I now resort to checking focus at 10x using Live View.
p.64 #17 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
mdurisseau wrote:
Here is that note from Canon I received...there's not a whole lot to it, but thought some might be interested in their findings...
http://www.thepostnewspaper.net/transfer/canonletter.jpg
Thanks for posting the link. I noticed that your initial impression was good when you got it back that time. Is the camera continuing to check out as ok, and are you satisfied with the overall AF?
FWIW, I've been using a blue dot MkIII for about 11 weeks/5000 shots, and the AF seems to function very much the same as my MkII, but considerably better in low light. It's also more accurate with the fast primes, thanks to the micro-adjustment feature.
p.64 #18 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Hrow wrote:
I spoke extensively with a photographer from one of the major international services at the Philadelphia Flower Show and he was told by his management that Canon reps had indeed told them at PMA that they had figured out what the cause of the problems is and that they would be getting "fixed" cameras from Canon by mid-spring. He had no idea whether this means replacement cameras or repairs. He was shooting with 1DMkII's and said that that they had stopped using the 1DMkIII entirely, even Blue Dots, because of focusing inconsistencies. As he so succinctly put it, "better than sh*t isn't good enough." ...Show more →
They had stopped using the 1DMkIII entirely but they had not stopped using Canon entirely. As Monty Python said: Always look on the bright side of life….
p.64 #19 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Yakim Peled wrote:
They had stopped using the 1DMkIII entirely but they had not stopped using Canon entirely. As Monty Python said: Always look on the bright side of life….
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
You are absolutely right, they were still using Canon. The difference though is that these are the type of folks that Canon relies on for much of their earned media (free, unpaid for advertising) and he did not have a single kind word for Canon. It is not just what he is holding in his hands, it is what he is verbalizing as well that comes into play.
