The 1D MarkIII has earned a dubious distinction as the most bisected, joked about, laughed at, scrutinized, tested over and over again, scolded at but praised at the same time, etc. camera body up to this point. Even after the sub-mirror problem has been fixed, and the camera functions "normally" people will still blame any problems to the camera, regardless whether it actually is or not. For all we know, certain problems were there in previous camera bodies as well but the operators considered them as an operational error and not the camera's. Is there such a thing as an anti-rant..... ?.
Jeff wrote:
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...
I think you're on the right track.
The whole sub-mirror thing was just an example of a bad component, IMO. Hard to say if they simply mis-spec'd it, or if the initial batch from suppliers was out of spec.
I think the other issues will simply require continual "experimentation" in firmware upgrades as time goes on. Clearly the new AF system behaves differently than the old system did . . . quite possibly due to those extra f/2.8 sensors that you mentioned.
I imagine that the AF-algorithms are quite complex. Canon's had HOW many years now to perfect the old system that started with the EOS-3?
Some of us even remember the many complaints about the EOS-3 AF system when it was first introduced.
I think that Canon will eventually figure this thing out . . . but it'll take longer than many of us can stand.
AGeoJO wrote:
Even after the sub-mirror problem has been fixed, and the camera functions "normally" people will still blame any problems to the camera, regardless whether it actually is or not.
I really, really don't think that they are done fixing the MkIII's AF issues, just as I initially thought that firmware updates would be incapable of fixing it. I would 'guess' that Canon is working on the next known issue, one that is mutually exclusive to the submirror. How long it takes, and (more importantly) in what manner Canon chooses to communicate any further work on it will become the question. I personally think we are in a 'holding pattern', allowing some time for a significant number of 'fixed' cameras to get into people's hands, and it will likely be a little while before we learn of the next chapter in this story.
Yes, I am convinced that there is more than one chapter, unfortunately. But I also remain convinced that the answer is not the next iteration of the 1D; Canon will make this one right, and once it's right, it will shine the way they'd originally intended...
khurram1 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Did you go to the Calgary CPS Expo in Sept. When I was talking to the guys at the EOS booth, they seemed fully aware of the AF problems at the time.
Jeff wrote:
I really, really don't think that they are done fixing the MkIII's AF issues,
The very fact that Canon suggested RobG try an AF-microadjustment setting of -1 to cure the random AF issues he was experiencing in his latest testing sugests that Canon put some sort of "alternative AF-algorithm" in there (triggered by the -1 setting).
That, to me, suggests that they are still working on ways to "tweak" the AF algorithms in the new cameras.
Jeff wrote:
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...
Back in August (God, that seems like ages ago) there was a well-known photog named Paul Pope who made the mistake ( ) of posting his problems with the MkIII's AF on DPR. He said that with the MkIII, "Canon kept the prototypes to themselves until the first line samples came off. Their previous testing system had prototypes out testing from a very early point." It would be interesting to see if anyone has the same view/experience. Not that I'm imputing bad motives to Canon (stuff happens.) But if true, maybe Canon only began to get a hint of real problems until much too late in the process (i.e. too late "politically/internally" in Canon) to realistically make changes without serious heartburn? Of course, now they've had a boatload of heartburn, anyway.
The whole sub-mirror thing was just an example of a bad component, IMO. Hard to say if they simply mis-spec'd it, or if the initial batch from suppliers was out of spec.
I think the other issues will simply require continual "experimentation" in firmware upgrades as time goes on. Clearly the new AF system behaves differently than the old system did . . . quite possibly due to those extra f/2.8 sensors that you mentioned.
I imagine that the AF-algorithms are quite complex. Canon's had HOW many years now to perfect the old system that started with the EOS-3?
Some of us even remember the many complaints about the EOS-3 AF system when it was first introduced.
I think that Canon will eventually figure this thing out . . . but it'll take longer than many of us can stand.
I believe it was the same firm that polished the original Hubble Space Telescope mirror.
I agree they'll get it right eventually, but many of us aren't willing to become beta testers with a $4500 camera. I think there's enough other little things I'd like to see improved to wait for the replacement to get by with a 1D II/40D for my sports/wildlife/birding. The 1D III may well be better than the 1D II after the fix, but I'd always be questioning those OOF shots, whether I screwed up or the camera did.
I still think they should have gone for a entirely new AF configuration and not a modified version of the nearly 10yo EOS 3 AF.
Anyway I'm waiting for PMA before I decide anything and maybe by then the 1D III will be getting good feedback and the price will have dropped?
Yes, i remember his post at DPR back to August: here's part of his comment on Mark III's AF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to go into the details of the testing for the pixel peeping fools except to say a variety of lenses and shooting situations were used and experienced professional photographers took the shots.The results were disappointing to say the least and I'm sorry to say that all 4 of the cameras exhibited unacceptable AF performance in both one shot and AI servo modes regardless of settings used. 2 of the cameras were markedly better at one shot AF then the other 2 but all 4 were exhibiting the issues spoken about in AI servo mode.
Paul B wrote:
Back in August (God, that seems like ages ago) there was a well-known photog named Paul Pope who made the mistake ( ) of posting his problems with the MkIII's AF on DPR. He said that with the MkIII, "Canon kept the prototypes to themselves until the first line samples came off. Their previous testing system had prototypes out testing from a very early point." It would be interesting to see if anyone has the same view/experience. Not that I'm imputing bad motives to Canon (stuff happens.) But if true, maybe Canon only began to get a hint of real problems until much too late in the process (i.e. too late "politically/internally" in Canon) to realistically make changes without serious heartburn? Of course, now they've had a boatload of heartburn, anyway. ...Show more →
beewee wrote:
Did you go to the Calgary CPS Expo in Sept. When I was talking to the guys at the EOS booth, they seemed fully aware of the AF problems at the time.
No. I wasn't in town when that was on. I talked to canon technical support on the 1-800 line and then to a couple of the techs in the calgary service centre.
I shoot surfing so to me here on The Gold Coast of Australia where it is generally 40 degrees celcius + in direct sunlight this camera body would be useless to me.
Hence why I would not give $500 for it, hell I wouldn't take it if it were free.
No I don't own one but I've owned enough 1d's and 1dIIns to know what works and what doesn't.
If I had bought one of these lemons I'd be demanding a refund. You can put what ever spin on it that you want to ease your mind but aty the end of the day this dog doesn't hunt.
It is designed as a sports camera and its main function fast Af for sport is useless.
Sure it might work for weddings and low light stuff, BUT its primary design is for sport.
darryn patch wrote:
It is designed as a sports camera and its main function fast Af for sport is useless.
Sure it might work for weddings and low light stuff, BUT its primary design is for sport.
You act as if the only kind of "sports" occurs in hot, bright conditions.
Sorry, but the story simply isn't that simple. For those who shoot sports in LOW light levels, the camera has improved.
Does the camera have a problem? Yes, absolutely.
Is it useless? Absolutely not.
Some of us have wanted a camera that performs better in low-light for some time now . . . looks like we got that . . unfortunately at the expensive of those who shoot in bright light.
I would THINK that fixing problems in bright light would be far easier than fixing problems in low light.
Here's hoping Canon can finally put the pieces of this puzzle together soon.
Once again, I am reading about buying decisions based solely on reading comments from users that are having problems rather than trying it for themselves. There are plenty of us that are not, but don't necessarily post about it every day.
I shoot in Texas and it's regularly over 100 degrees here.. I have been very happy with the Mark III (owned a Mark IIN too). Darryn, if you find a $500 Mark III, shoot me an email, I'll pick up a second.
Once again, I am reading about buying decisions based solely on reading comments from users that are having problems rather than trying it for themselves. There are plenty of us that are not, but don't necessarily post about it every day.
****************************************************************************************
This type of comment I find intriguing.
If your looking at a car that you've heard has major flawes and it was going to cost you plenty would you buy it? given that you can not get a refund and you can not take it for a test drive, It just sits there in the window when you buy it your stuck with it moneys gone no refunds.
Do you relly expect me to beleive you when you say you would buy it after hearing all the issues from other owners of that car who are stuck with a car that wont go? Sure some of the cars have no probs but many do would you buy that car??
darryn patch wrote:
If your looking at a car that you've heard has major flawes and it was going to cost you plenty would you buy it? given that you can not get a refund and you can not take it for a test drive, It just sits there in the window when you buy it your stuck with it moneys gone no refunds.
Ummm, you CAN take the camera for a test drive. Buy it from a place that has a return policy, then TEST it.
The use of the concave mirror is new.... It also ties in with the problems we are seeing -- there is no correction plate mentioned in the canon atricle -- if there is no correction plate/lens then there is almost certainly a problem with SA and/or mirror alignment.
As a result of this analysis I have concluded that, until Canon re-designs the entire system it is unlikely to work properly, particularly in a dynamic environment (10 fps is definitely "dynamic"). I have not seen any reviews of the 1Ds MK III w/r to focus tracking but, if the problem is a dynamic alignment problem it may not exhibit the same issues... the recovery time is 2X longer and the impulse energy is 1/4 as much to damp out.... Energy being proportional to the square of frequency......
At any rate, given Galbraith's results this is what I came up with and I responded by returning the camera as I have no confidence in the repair (and BTW why should I have to have a "new" camera "repaired" in the First Place!?)
?.
But I also remain convinced that the answer is not the next iteration of the 1D; Canon will make this one right, and once it's right, it will shine the way they'd originally intended...
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.
