rceres wrote:
In the end, if you want to make a lawyer rich, sue. There will almost certainly be a class action suite - as I said before, you might get a $200 coupon when Canon settles - whoopee! If it went to court Canon would almost certainly win. They could simply trot out a Nikon D60 with a "properly functioning" autofocus - replicate the RG test and show that the 1DIII gets more shots in focus - 1DIII autofocus therefore works.
We are all disappointed by Canon in this, but don't get your hopes up that you'll get your money back or get your revenge.
In the meantime, if you do sue your local retailer you will probably regret it when he decides to quit the business. The old time photo store with knowledgeable staff down the corner is almost a thing of the past. Ah well, there is always Walmart. ...Show more →
I don't think Canon can take the chance of its employees being deposed about this situation. But I also don't think they'll blink unless sued. I have two friends who are litigators and hate to lose. I'm willing to spend some money on this. I don't like being cheated.
Hrow wrote:
A whole day's worth of waterfalls were OK at 8x10 but unusable at 13x19. Considering that the location is 5 hours away, that's a huge loss for me and one that I don't care to replicate.
Just as a matter of interest, why were you shooting waterfalls in AI Servo?
I don't think Henry said he shot them in AI Servo, and the submirror issue isn't mutually exclusive to AI Servo, high frame rates nor ambient temperatures. Focus problems have been widely reported in one-shot modes, as well.
Edited by Jeff on Dec 11, 2007 at 04:44 PM GMT (Reason: name change to protect the... )
dcmiller wrote:
I don't think Canon can take the chance of its employees being deposed about this situation. But I also don't think they'll blink unless sued. I have two friends who are litigators and hate to lose. I'm willing to spend some money on this. I don't like being cheated.
jamesf99 wrote:
The D3 looks good, but it's the ONLY camera they have. Their lens line up is very weak IMO. They finally are offering the sports crowd long VR lenses after 10+ years of waiting, they still don't have a good selection of fast primes, they have one "fair" TSE equivalent lens vs. 3 for Canon, their lens prices are often outrageous, yada, yada, yada.
That's an interesting stance. I could do 99% of my shooting with a 12-24, a 24-70, and 70-200VR all of which are supposed to be excellent. TSE lenses are a luxury and used by few photographers and their 85 f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 35mm f2, and 200mm f/2 are all said to be excellent. Granted their fast primes aren't quite as fast as Canon's but their throat opening isn't as large. I imagine we'll see new primes from them soon.
For lots of photographers High ISO performance isn't a compelling reason to purchase a camera. If your not concerned with performance above ISO 400 the D2x and D200 were excellent.
We all have opinions though and they are all valid.
Antony wrote:
Just as a matter of interest, why were you shooting waterfalls in AI Servo?
Because the water was running.
No, seriously. All done in one shot on a good CF tripod with an RRS B-55 head with a cable release. It has been very interesting to go back and really look at the results of some of my shoots now that I have some time and the weather precludes a lot of outdoor shooting. Not encouraging.
I don't know many of you in this forum but I would not be suprised if some of you (at least) do not know of me since I've been around over on the old usenet nature photo group and on photo.net for going on 2 decades now.... In other words -- I'm not just blowing smoke about this.....
Anyhow, I have noticed AF "hunting" on static subjects also. Just took a bunch of pics of Sandhill cranes next to my father -- standing there the AF hunted in and out to the extent that even f16 DOF at 1/100 magnification with a 500mm f4 EF-L was insufficient to keep the crane sharp......
I was hoping that they would "fix" this camera in a timely manner but it appears that this is not happening -- even the after the "fix" the camera is not up to par or partly "broken."
Wickedfn4u wrote:
What does get me and has really pitted my stomach is that Canon knew about this 100% and still released it. They said the camera, though a pre production model and some focus issues. This was told to RG in the first review. So they knew and I assumed that they would have fixed this before release. Not that they would release a broken AF system and hope nobody noticed? or released and would fix it later? That to me really is poor business. I am in a service industry and people are always shocked when I do what I say. Guess they are not in a service industry because they produce a product but guess I expected them to do what they said too....Show more →
I don't know if they knew about it or not, but I suspect that you're right. My theory is that the marketing department gained authority over engineering and manufacturing to the point that when marketing said that they wanted a camera NOW, manufacturing gave them an incomplete product. Had they waited 3 or 4 months and finalized things, this would not have happened.
Marketing - to me - is a fancy word for sales. Salespeople are important, but you can't sell what you don't have. And the Mk III was not ready for market when it was introduced.
Tom_W wrote:
I don't know if they knew about it or not, but I suspect that you're right. My theory is that the marketing department gained authority over engineering and manufacturing to the point that when marketing said that they wanted a camera NOW, manufacturing gave them an incomplete product. Had they waited 3 or 4 months and finalized things, this would not have happened.
Marketing - to me - is a fancy word for sales. Salespeople are important, but you can't sell what you don't have. And the Mk III was not ready for market when it was introduced.
One mysterious effect I was studying was why my OneShot focus was so inconsistent in light levels at EV4 or lower. I would hit the focus button, it would lock on but two thirds of the time it was off. Even stranger.. if I had it lock on the target three times it was almost always in focus. Apparently the successive attempts would get it closer until it was right.
I discovered it was caused (at least partially) by a spot of oil or some other kind of gunk that had been sprayed on the center of the main mirror, right over the submirror. Yes, the camera came brand new with this mess on its mirror. It was barely visible in the viewfinder but it was very visible under an LED light pointed into the mirror box.
Once the mirror was cleaned, the OneShot focus was much more reliable.
Steve A wrote:
The thing that amazes me is that so many owners are willing to just let this thing takes it's own course.
Well, it IS going to take its own course. There's not much one can do other than refusing to buy more Canon products in the future (or at least waiting a long, long time before doing so).
Jim Victory wrote:
I would think you may want to judge whether the "fix" actually works for yourself rather than relying on someone elses evaluation. There are a number of well known wildlife photographers that have the Blue Dot and new firmware update and they all feel it performs better than the 1DMKIIn for BIF.
I agree.
BTW, I assume you're using long fast lenses for this kind of work in very bright conditions, and still seeing an improvement over the 1D2?
I don't know if they knew about it or not, but I suspect that you're right. My theory is that the marketing department gained authority over engineering and manufacturing to the point that when marketing said that they wanted a camera NOW, manufacturing gave them an incomplete product. Had they waited 3 or 4 months and finalized things, this would not have happened.
Marketing - to me - is a fancy word for sales. Salespeople are important, but you can't sell what you don't have. And the Mk III was not ready for market when it was introduced.
Oh it was very well known, there is someplace in his first review that he even said, they gave it to us knowing it has a focus issue but it is pre-production so don't worry. ( something along those lines)
Wickedfn4u wrote:
Oh it was very well known, there is someplace in his first review that he even said, they gave it to us knowing it has a focus issue but it is pre-production so don't worry. ( something along those lines)
Although I believe Rob Galbraith to be sincere, I would not consider his voice to be the lone voice of the 1D3 user. Canon had to have had alpha/beta versions of the camera out among the pro shooters. Perhaps they ignored those users, or perhaps the type of shooting situations that those users encountered did not present the problem.
Or, as I implied before, the marketing people felt that it was too important to beat Nikon to market to worry about a simple focusing problem. I mean they knew that the D3 was coming, and wanted to get commitment from a great number of customers before that strong competitor hit market. Unfortunately, haste may have made waste in this case.
You can probably tell from my posts that I've worked in manufacturing in my younger years, and not in marketing. I sometimes let that chip on my shoulder see the light of day. Goes back to a couple of incidents where those of us that made the product knew that it wasn't ready but marketing overrode our opinion.
Call me when it gets to $2000... I'll take one of someone's hands at that price.
nathanlake wrote:
Here is what I think is likely to happen.
Obviously, this is a nightmare for Canon and even if it is eventually completely fixed, most people will remember "that is the camera that won't focus". That will drive the price down...and drive it hard. I would expect to see the price at or below $2000 within a year.
Canon may try more firmware fixes, but in the end will hurry its replacement and probably even offer some kind of deal to those registered owners that buy the new one. They won't even call it the MIIIN. Canon will dump 1DMIII and move on to something else. This is no longer about a camera...it is about marketing.
A first look at the Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Sunday, April 22, 2007 | by Rob Galbraith
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
Dont know how to make it any more clear here is what Canon said to RG
thedigitalbean wrote:
This is the part that confuses me. If you feel slighted that Canon sold you a $4500 camera that doesn't perform at the level their marketing had claimed and then failed to give you a refund, why on earth would you feel compelled to fork over yet more money on a future newer model?
I should add that I knew what I was getting into when I got my Mark 3 and that it performs really well for my uses. I am a little irritated that were I to try and sell it down the road, I'd probably take a bath on it now, but its only a slightly irritation since I bought my 1D3 with the intention of shooting with it, rather than as an investment.
Edited by thedigitalbean on Dec 11, 2007 at 09:18 AM GMT...Show more →
Hmm, reminds me of the Intel Pentium that wouldn't calculate correctly. It was obvious that Intel had no intentions of fixing the problem, till public outcry forced them to do so. Last I checked Intel still sells way more processors that AMD so people obviously didn't quit buying from them for a failure.
Wickedfn4u wrote:
A first look at the Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Sunday, April 22, 2007 | by Rob Galbraith
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
Dont know how to make it any more clear here is what Canon said to RG...Show more →
You know, I remember reading that and thinking that this kind of problem just isn't something that is fixed at the last minute. But thought they may know something I don't. AF algorithm in the form of AI Focus is a mix of science and art. A lot of gray areas. With older cameras, they had years of tuning it. Seems like a bright engineer came up with a new system now, and they are climbing the learning curve on it. The concern however is whether the fundamental design of the new system is correct. If not, no amount of firmware tuning is going to do any good.
I've had similar issues in one shot. Even in studio at f8 and f11, the odd shot will be completely out of focus - like the mirror is moving. Of course, it could be the heat issue, as reported -though it rarely gets that warm in studio.
B
Hrow wrote:
Because the water was running.
No, seriously. All done in one shot on a good CF tripod with an RRS B-55 head with a cable release. It has been very interesting to go back and really look at the results of some of my shoots now that I have some time and the weather precludes a lot of outdoor shooting. Not encouraging.
)
