I firmly beflieve that the AF design itself is actually great. Somehow bad/faulty/out-of-specs parts were used in the early production batches. The sub-mirror was one of them but since people still reported AF problems after the sub-mirror fix, there has to be another bad part in those cameras. Yes, this is only a speculation on my part, BTW . What Canon should do would be to replace the faulty cameras that have undergone the sub-mirror fix but still not performing according to specs.
BenV wrote:
the mk3 is a remarkable camera, despite the few flaws it had in it. Since it still is a relatively new camera, I say we give canon some time to revise it, and then lets make some decisions about it :-)
Right, give canon some time to think about it. Do you really think that is the issue? Canon is a major corporation and had to get there yearly reports in. It's all about the money. Canon will not address any more issues with the mark3. They are just going to move on and try to pick up sales on a new lineup.
it's to bad canon took so long to address a problem that they were well aware of from the very begining. There should be a lawsuit against them and/or give every paying costomer that is unhappy a full return.
My wish list is independent of how good a camera the 1D III already maybe. Every camera can be improved. After the 1D IV ships we'll ask what we'd like to see in the next 1 series camera.
Pondria wrote:
I want it to be lighter. Too heavy now.
Pondria, you always cut to the chase!
I agree completely (though even the few ounces reduction from the previous model is noticeable), and I'd also like it a bit more compact.
The old story of a single button that could be dedicated to MLU would still be nice to have, though the "my menu" feature makes it not a big deal for some of us.
I'd still like to see a faster system for selecting AF points. The joystick could be dedicated to that (programmable) so that nothing else would have to be touched. When you're doing a shoot that requires quick changes of manually selected AF point, just move your thumb and slide that point right where you want it without hesitation. When you don't want to change point accidentally, turn off that feature.
I too, think the mkIII is an excellent camera body, and have yet for it to fail me. I have been holding back on getting the sub mirror "fixed", as I wonder if this would make it a better camera, or whether it would make it worse for me. So far, I've had wonderfully sharp photos from this body, especially with the 35L.
If they come out with a mkIV too soon, it will really piss off a large group of people!
A lot of earlier posts on the subject are asking for a FF sensor. Why?
Thats ridiculous, surely the noise levels are one of the few gains you will get from FF along with proper wide angles but other than that for all you sports shooters or wildlife shooters or news reporters, a FF sensor would surely jst slow the camera down and make it more expensive. As well I think 1.3x is the perfect crop factor, good for wides but better for teles, after all all of you with a mkIII and 600/4 wouldn't want that 600/4 to be an actual 600/4 would you, you'd rather keep that 780/4 that you are used to.
Fred Lindsey wrote:
A lot of earlier posts on the subject are asking for a FF sensor. Why?
Personally I couldn't care less about the MP race. I'd rather have better MP, not more MP. I would, however, like a FF sensor for one basic reason: Bigger viewfinder.
Fred Lindsey wrote:
A lot of earlier posts on the subject are asking for a FF sensor. Why?
Thats ridiculous, surely the noise levels are one of the few gains you will get from FF along with proper wide angles but other than that for all you sports shooters or wildlife shooters or news reporters, a FF sensor would surely jst slow the camera down and make it more expensive. As well I think 1.3x is the perfect crop factor, good for wides but better for teles, after all all of you with a mkIII and 600/4 wouldn't want that 600/4 to be an actual 600/4 would you, you'd rather keep that 780/4 that you are used to....Show more →
Fred if the FF has 16.4MP and the 1.3 crop has 10.1MP they have the same pixel density and thus reach. We'd be losing nothing if we cropped the FF and if we don't we have more detail and can make better prints. But I would be happy either way, although I would have liked to see the 1D III with 12MP.
. What Canon should do would be to replace the faulty cameras that have undergone the sub-mirror fix but still not performing according to specs.