------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with previous EOS cameras, the TTL-SIR (Through-the-Lens Secondary Image Registration) focusing principle is employed. The light flux passes through the camera lens and passes through the half mirror at the center of the main mirror. The light flux proceeds downward by reflecting off the oblong, concave secondary mirror to a fully reflective mirror in the base of the camera�s mirror chamber. Then it passes through an infrared-absorption glass, a secondary image-forming lens, and a cover glass before reaching the AF sensor.
scooby doo wrote:
no wonder many are switching to nikon..
Yeah, well I came to Canon from Nikon because of their intransigence - or inability - to sort out the D200.
Anybody who thinks Nikon would handle the Mk III situation any better is fooling himself, and Nikon are not inherently more likely to produce reliable and functional cameras from day one than are Canon.
jamesf99 wrote:
That's sad and you might want to reconsider that stance. Yes, they may have produced a camera that isn't "perfect" (wink, wink), but Nikon weaknesses are legion IMO. The new D300 is still a smudge machine (they smudge the images to cover noise problems). I wouldn't touch any Nikon digital camera with a DX sensor unless there was nothing else available, and that was after I tried all the others...
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.
Nikon as a secondary system? OK. Nikon as a primary system. Not a chance unless they become a different company over the next few months. Not gonna happen, so no thanks.......Show more →
Gosh Jim.
You have shot with the D300? or are you relying on the results of a certain website?
Maybe you should go check with people who have one and are getting excellent results.
Welcome to your opinion but that is like me bagging the 1D111 without using it. There are people out there getting excellent results with the 1D111 that I have seen and then there are those who have been badly burnt. The 1d111 sounds like a quality control issue to me where as the D300 comes out of the box on the soft side, but with a few tweeks you are flying
Tim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with previous EOS cameras, the TTL-SIR (Through-the-Lens Secondary Image Registration) focusing principle is employed. The light flux passes through the camera lens and passes through the half mirror at the center of the main mirror. The light flux proceeds downward by reflecting off the oblong, concave secondary mirror to a fully reflective mirror in the base of the camera�s mirror chamber. Then it passes through an infrared-absorption glass, a secondary image-forming lens, and a cover glass before reaching the AF sensor.
I think the White Paper made mention of the new super-modern concave submirror, and I think the new manufacturing capabilities that made it possible (something like that).
I think i got it wrong, just looked the white paper again. I do remember that some where stated the design differences for Af systems between the old 1D and 1D Mark III.
Jim Victory wrote:
I'm curious do any of the responders to this thread have the 1DMKIII? If you do have you had the "fix" done yet?
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 have one I purchased in May 2007 and a recent Blue Dot and they both outperform my 1DMKII's and 1DMKIIn. I'm here in Texas where we are still getting Sunny 80+ days and neither heat or sun is effecting its performance.
Why not wait until you get your camera fixed and test it and see if it works. If it doesn't then rant all you want.
I have been waiting impatiently to get my camera fixed. I have had to register twice to get on Canon's wait list (when i called back after 4 days to find out when i'll be getting an email, i was told they don't have any record of me). I called a few days again after registering a second time and was told i should be getting a call in a day or two. Still nothing. When i asked their CSR whether Canon Canada is going to extend the warranty, I was told that they have no idea.
I have contacted Canon Canada on a regular basis since getting the camera at the end of May 2007 and each time i have been told by Canon Canada that mine was the only call they fielded regarding any issue with the 1DIII. I have been lied to and then when they finally announce a fix, they can't even get their sh*t together so that I can simply send in my camera for repairs!!!
Just how much more of a chance do you expect people to give Canon I have had numerous OOF photos, many on trips that are 2000km or more away, so it's not like i can go back and re-shoot with my 5D. I left for a trip to california right after getting the camera, and unfortunately did not get back until the return period was over. But, as i've said before, i have been butting heads with canon since last june. The only advice they were able to offer was getting the firmware upgrade they did last summer and changing my custom function settings (which i had already experimented with on my own) - none of which of course worked.
So, after getting a poor replacement for my 1DIIN, and having a camera that doesn't operate to Canon's own specs (best and fasted AF system) and then having to deal with crappy customer service to boot, i think those of us who do have 1DIII's that don't focus or operate as per Canon's own specs, have earned our right to rant. BTW, i have been an EOS shooter since around 1991 and have had the EOS 10s, A2E, 3, 1v HS, Elan 7e, Elan 7N, EOS 1DIIN, Rebel xti and currently have the 5D and the 1DIII, so it's not like i don't know how to use canon cameras or am not operating the camera correctly as was suggested by one of utterly worthless Canon service techs in Calgary, who felt my issues could be user error related in calgary, bcoz as far as he knew mine was the ONLY complaint Canon had received regarding the 1DIII!!! I'd like to know where the hell that the bubble is that these guys live in I doubt if the guy knows the difference between an aperture and his ***hole!!!
When Canon had the issue with the 24-105L they dealt with that swiftly and appropriately. Their handling of the 1DIII issue has been an utter disaster. I think they need to do the right thing for those that are not satisfied with their cameras and offer a refund.
That's sad and you might want to reconsider that stance. Yes, they may have produced a camera that isn't "perfect" (wink, wink), but Nikon weaknesses are legion IMO. The new D300 is still a smudge machine (they smudge the images to cover noise problems). I wouldn't touch any Nikon digital camera with a DX sensor unless there was nothing else available, and that was after I tried all the others...
Don't touch - no problems. With the recent strides Nikon is making, it would be in Canon's very best interest to sit up and take notice. History has many examples of a Nikon doing to Canon, what Canon did to Nikon a few years back.
jvarszegi wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear how the AI Servo problem caused the OP's problem shooting waterfalls!
I believe this was answered much earlier in the thread. The issue is that it is a focus problem and one that is not constrained to AI Servo. Many people have reported problems in One Shot and if it is a mirror problem, that would be a perfectly reasonable explanation.
Canons marketing does not state, Our mark III out performs Nikons ****.
It states it is more advanced than the IIn, clearly not the case.
Why is it people tolerate this ****. If you dropped 5K on a new car that wouldn't get over 40MPH when they claimed it'll do 100MPH. They'd have their asses sued.
The mkIII is a dog as one post suggest people will find it hard to get 2k for it, hell I wouldn't pay $500 for it. This issue is going to hound canon for years. I would be very sceptical about buying a new model until it was a proven winner.
darryn patch wrote:
The mkIII is a dog as one post suggest people will find it hard to get 2k for it, hell I wouldn't pay $500 for it.
Although I can see where you are coming from, I'm guessing that you've never owned a MkIII. The AF is only a truly 'fatal flaw' for those who rely on AI Servo to shoot fast-paced people sports in bright light, and the internet hysteria about it has amplified the issue several orders of magnitude.
Of course, I won't tolerate a $4500 camera that performs the way this one does, but for what I shoot, 90% of the results are stunning. I'd personally buy every single MkIII I could get my hands on at $500, but to each his own...
darryn patch wrote:
The mkIII is a dog as one post suggest people will find it hard to get 2k for it, hell I wouldn't pay $500 for it. This issue is going to hound canon for years. I would be very sceptical about buying a new model until it was a proven winner.
I'm sorry so many people are experiencing problems, and I'm sympathetic for how it must feel to have invested that amount of money and find serious flaws in the camera, but people need to get a grip. The camera is not without merit.
I too will buy anyone's Mark III for $500. Just contact me. And maybe everyone should have been a little more skeptical about jumping on the "newest and fanciest" bandwagon from the beginning. Why did people who had Mark II's find it so necessary to spend that money before they knew the Mark III was a good camera? Because Canon said they should? Hmmm......... I see a possible problem with that argument.
While Canon is not dealing with this fiasco well, neither are the consumers. Buyer beware. Perhaps being a "consumer" is not as wise as big companies want us to think it is. Perhaps we should all calm down and be more conservative with our rush to buy.
I hope Canon can find a proper solution for everyone.
Jeff wrote:
Although I can see where you are coming from, I'm guessing that you've never owned a MkIII. The AF is only a truly 'fatal flaw' for those who rely on AI Servo to shoot fast-paced people sports in bright light, and the internet hysteria about it has amplified the issue several orders of magnitude.
Of course, I won't tolerate a $4500 camera that performs the way this one does, but for what I shoot, 90% of the results are stunning. I'd personally buy every single MkIII I could get my hands on at $500, but to each his own...
Well said Jeff. I am in the same position, Fully aware of the problems, but I've never shot with anything better. (Yes I had a MKIIN which was great)
Mark III (Purchased 5/25), shot Nov 23, 07, AI servo, in gusting winds, in bright sun light, in Florida, 80'F, 500mm + 1.4x.
Cicindela wrote: Mark III (Purchased 5/25), shot Nov 23, 07, AI servo, in gusting winds, in bright sun light, in Florida, 80'F, 500mm + 1.4x.
That's a very well photographed shrike on a stick. I suppose you had to use AF Servo because the bird was swaying in the wind ? Either way, I think the shot illustrates the lens quality more than the MkIII AF capability.
DavidP wrote:
Oh, I think the 1D3 is more "advanced" than the 1D2 . . . . certainly in the things that I use it for.
The MkIII is clearly more advanced that the dopes in R&D who designed it, to be sure...
It would sure be interesting to know at what step of the R&D process things got tripped up. Was it early (first-gen pre-production) testing methods, i.e. using some test-sled deep in Canon's basement, rather than real-world tests? Was it some sort of production/manufacturing tolerance or flaw? Was it basic arrogance on the part of marketing to push product development faster than was prudent (clearly there must be an element of this, given the events that occurred).
I actually think that the MkIII's autofocus system has the potential to be both incredibly fast and accurate, but I'd guess they somehow got tripped up in its implementation. I've always been a bit leery of the significant expansion of the f/2.8 cross-type AF sensors, and I wonder if they made too many assumptions in the design stage relative to how they would behave in practice, in real-world shooting conditions...
Who knows, I just want my camera back so I can find out for myself just how many of the MkIII's AF ills the submirror fix cured...
I have had numerous OOF photos, many on trips that are 2000km or more away, so it's not like i can go back and re-shoot with my 5D. I left for a trip to california right after getting the camera, and unfortunately did not get back until the return period was over. But, as i've said before, i have been butting heads with canon since last june. The only advice they were able to offer was getting the firmware upgrade they did last summer and changing my custom function settings (which i had already experimented with on my own) - none of which of course worked.
