p.65 #3 · ['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.
I guess the rest of us who don't work for major agencies or services will now have to wonder --- will we see this fix also?
After Canon's notice to the public on their website saying the 1DMarkIII is now fixed and AF test results are better than all previous models, you have to wonder how this is going to play out......
p.65 #5 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I might hazard a guess at this point that perhaps they do know the problem, and probably do know how to fix it. Assuming they have successfully 'fixed' cameras in this testing phase, it's conceivable that they would/could then start quietly replacing all the larger new organizations' cameras with better-functioning versions, while updating the production line to incorporate the changes. Since the newer Blue-Dot cameras function perhaps 90% of what they should (mine included), it becomes possible that they could indeed leave all units out in the market until people complain enough to get them fixed (if it's even possible) or replaced. I'm guessing under this scenario that my 90% functioning camera will be a hard to sell to get them to fix or replace it, since they are advocating a stance that it's already fixed (even though I believe there are more tweaks to current versions than mine has).
Their March 5 announcement then becomes mostly semantics in regard to the accuracy of the language, assuming their 'test' camera is one of the newly-fixed (truly-fixed?) units that actually does perform to spec.
p.65 #6 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff, i hope you're wrong.
after getting some strange results this weekend (with my 1d3 + 35L), i must concede that i truly don't know what fixed or "up to spec" means. coming from a 20d/5d, i don't know what to (quantitatively) expect in this latest iteration of the 1d line. regardless, i obviously don't like getting OOF shots for no apparent reason. and even if this camera is fixed to perfection, i think it'll always be suspect and jinxed.
in the end i can only hope that canon does the ethical thing, i.e. if they are making "quiet" fixes to the latest cameras, that they share that with the rest of us.
p.65 #7 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
That sure seems like a good guess, Jeff. Sounds like that's exactly what will happen, based on their website statement.
Mine works pretty good, but not quite as well as I expected it to. And it's a shame we'll have to try to convince them it still has a problem, after paying $4500. For many of us that was a pretty good chunk of change.
p.65 #8 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
simonella_viru wrote:
after getting some strange results this weekend (with my 1d3 + 35L), i must concede that i truly don't know what fixed or "up to spec" means. coming from a 20d/5d, i don't know what to (quantitatively) expect in this latest iteration of the 1d line. regardless, i obviously don't like getting OOF shots for no apparent reason. and even if this camera is fixed to perfection, i think it'll always be suspect and jinxed.
Why not rent a Mark IIN and compare the two for yourself?
p.65 #9 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Curator wrote:
Why not rent a Mark IIN and compare the two for yourself?
good point, though i don't think there's much value in that. i would have to set up controlled tests to compare the two. and even then, if i got the same results of Rob Galbraith, what would i do? harass canon and tell them what they likely already know?
i'll just continue using my 1d3 as-is and check the focus of my shots on the built-in lcd. at the same time, i'll keep my ear to the ground in anticipation for anything else that canon is coming out with.
p.65 #10 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
simonella_viru wrote:
good point, though i don't think there's much value in that. i would have to set up controlled tests to compare the two. and even then, if i got the same results of Rob Galbraith, what would i do? harass canon and tell them what they likely already know?
If you really have doubts, it would be good just to go out for a weekend of shooting under the conditions that caused doubt with the Mark III. I would take a few shots with one camera, and then switch the same lens to the other body and take some shots. Try this for the day and see how the two compare.
If the results look good, then at least you can sleep better at night, and if not, then you have a good idea there probably is some work to be done on your Mark III...perhaps a trip back to the service center.
p.65 #11 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Garylv wrote:
That sure seems like a good guess, Jeff. Sounds like that's exactly what will happen, based on their website statement.
Mine works pretty good, but not quite as well as I expected it to. And it's a shame we'll have to try to convince them it still has a problem, after paying $4500. For many of us that was a pretty good chunk of change.
Gary,
I'm in much the same circumstance. My 1DMkIII blows the doors of my 20D in almost every way, except AI Servo.
But is it me or the camera? I sucked at AI Servo with the 20D (and from what I read the 20D wasn't the greatest at it anyway), so should I be expecting big improvements with the 1DMkIII just by upgrading bodies?
Maybe put another way, how much talent/experience/practice is required to get a decent keeper rate in AI Servo with a 1D body?
In one shot mode the 1D kills me with sharpness and accurate focus, so I know its not a system wide issue.
p.65 #12 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
my first outing with a 1DmkII had 98% keeper rate (took over 200) w/ 70-200 (no IS) w/ AI-servo. Using 10D, 20D or 30D that ratio would perhaps be 50% at best (plus alot slower shutter allowing for more time between shots to obtain AF).
i can't imagine using a 1 in "one shot" unless you are constantly manually focus adjusting w/ the lens in AF mode.
imho something is awry with the mkIII .
which is unfortunate as a 1DmkIII that focuses like my II could replace two cameras i currently own :-(
mbellot wrote:
I'm in much the same circumstance. My 1DMkIII blows the doors of my 20D in almost every way, except AI Servo.
But is it me or the camera? I sucked at AI Servo with the 20D (and from what I read the 20D wasn't the greatest at it anyway), so should I be expecting big improvements with the 1DMkIII just by upgrading bodies?
Maybe put another way, how much talent/experience/practice is required to get a decent keeper rate in AI Servo with a 1D body?
In one shot mode the 1D kills me with sharpness and accurate focus, so I know its not a system wide issue....Show more →
p.65 #13 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
PasiM wrote:
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.
OK this might sound a bit far fetched but hear me out and try for yourselves.
I think The explanation of the mysterious RG blurry photo is explained by air turbulance.
To demonstrate the effects of this try the following:-
Setup your cam on a stable tripod pointing out of a clean but closed window zoomed into something distant that has lots of sharp detail. Use a 300mm at least like R.G. did. Switch to live view and switch to x10 so you can see the sharp detail zoomed on the LCD monitor.
Now depending on the difference on conditions between your warmer room you are in and how cool or cold it is outside the results will make a dramatic difference as soon as you open the window. The turbulant air currents will blur and render your sharp pic totally unstable to even try focusing manually never mind autofocus.
Atmosperic conditions over the hot run track has a similar effect in the R.G. test case it is possible the hot sun baked track causes enough turbulance to make the focussing unpredictable. This might explain why he was finding blurring in some parts of his pic yet it was sharp in other parts of the pic.
p.65 #14 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Everything seems to be functioning fine and I'm very pleased with my 1DmkIII. It is a new purchase with serial 565xxx. I will continue to test it and will report back if I find any fault with this high of a serial number. Just thought I'd put a little sunshine back in the sky for those still pondering a new one.
p.65 #15 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Photon wrote:
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.
I haven't had time to give it a proper test...but that comes tomorrow evening...I will shoot some HS baseball and softball... but on first blush, things look better...
p.65 #16 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Necip wrote:
"OK this might sound a bit far fetched but hear me out and try for yourselves.
I think The explanation of the mysterious RG blurry photo is explained by air turbulance...."
How does your hypothesis explain the fact that RG was able to get a MkIIn to perform adequately under the exact same conditions, with the same lens, at the same time (relatively speaking)?
p.65 #17 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Jeff wrote:
How does your hypothesis explain the fact that RG was able to get a MkIIn to perform adequately under the exact same conditions, with the same lens, at the same time (relatively speaking)?
Did you try out the test? if you did you would appretiate what I'm saying.
His test is is flawed, if he is going to compare two camera he should have mounted them on a bracket with centre aligned (its easy to do) and triggered both at exactly the same time, no two AIservo tracks could ever be under the same conditions as you don't have a control to compare.
p.65 #18 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
With all due respect...It isn't air turbulence. I wish it was....I also can understand why you might think that with heat, etc factoring in...
However, I haven't seen turbulence cause a camera to front focus terribly inside a house... It performed so much better before Canon replaced the submirror stopper. After the initial "FIX", I almost could agree with you that the results looked much like air turbulence (everything soft)...but it also grossly front focused.
Only after a trip to Irvine does it somewhat focus decently. It still front focuses, but is relatively sharp when lenses manually adjusted. Still not where it should be though. Heck even in one-shot, my 5D is sharper. My copy of the Mark III is usable now, but not as great as it should be...And I am still not convinced that this MA deal is the trick. Why in the heck do my 8 lenses focus well on all other bodies I have owned or tried
Anyway... I am beginning to get numb over this whole thing... I have a bit of cash to spend towards equipment right now and just keep holding off...I still feel very stung and not happy with the way Canon seems to be going about this....Until something significant changes, I will probably just hang on to the cash and make a decision on what to do when the time comes where I HAVE to make a move. I can understand a manufacturing or design flaw...but to sweep early adopters under the rug with some blanket statement will not sit well with me. That alone, could make me change companies (again). I was a Nikon shooter at one time, but wasn't heavily invested back then. I am sure grass may not be greener, but at least I haven't been blown off or dismissed.
For now, the jury is still out...Canon may do something to gain my trust back...we'll see. I am not in a situation at the moment where I have to make that decision YET. Time is coming though.
p.65 #19 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
I have a question. I'm not a pro but a hobbyist. My Mk3 has been sent back 2x now and Canon is telling me to send it back for a 3rd time. But I just noticed something today. After I focus on something (using the red AF point display) and take the picture, looking at playback I can see that the red AF point is to the left of where I placed it when I took the picture. Could this be part of the problem? I am nowhere near understanding this all but I do know that my AF is still not right. Anyone have any thoughts on this? For anyone that is having problems, can you check yours and see if yours is off also?
Thanks
p.65 #20 · ['NEW Fix' UPDATE!] - MkIII AF still broken
Are you focusing and then recomposing? The af point is showing which point was used...if you lock a subject and then move prior to shutter release, your review will show the point used (regardless of where it was when it locked).
