Tom_W wrote:
I wanted one of these Mk III's and I was almost convinced that it was finally OK to purchase one, but I guess I won't be getting one after all.
I'm in the same boat. I guess the best thing to do is just wait a bit longer.
simonella_viru wrote:
i was not a "first buyer". i still got duped. canon screwed up. it will literally pay for its mistakes. and then we'll pay, cuz they'll jack-up the price of their cameras, photocopiers, or whatever.
They already jacked up the cost on the 200/2 to make up for the fixes...
Even some of the booth reps at PMA were hinting at something like this. I have said ever since I got my "blue dot" that is was not right. Funny how some people will swear THEIR 1DMIII is working perfectly in spite of the obvious problems.
I for one will send mine in as soon as I can. From RG's article, it sounds like Canon might really know what the issue is this time. It will make using this camera a lot less nerve wracking this summer.
This is certainly bad news for anyone planning to buy a MIII in the next few weeks. They either buy one and plan on sending it in very quickly for repair, or they have to wait until new stock hits the shelves. Hopefully, Canon will issue a list of seriel numbers that are after the final fix.
Jeff wrote:
[I just had to get this on record in the bigger thread, too, apologies in advance...]
Let's see, how shall I put this? Delicately, or bluntly? Ah, screw it...
I TOLD YOU SO!
(Yes, after all the flak I've taken by 'non-believers', I was due...)
[flame]...
You certainly have the right to use capital letters on this one!
The worse part is that I was going to go down and buy a D300 tomorrow but now they have devalued the 1DMkIII so much further, if I could even sell it, that I can't afford to make the switch.
Brent Ward wrote:
Can't tell me they just figured out what the problem is, but the 1ds III doesn't have the same issues.
Precisely, Brent, it would be hard to believe. I guess about the only possibility is that perhaps the design of the entire mirror box having to be different due to the larger sensor could somehow have avoided whatever the problem is (or perhaps the 1D MkIII's design was 'hacked' from the 1Ds MkIII's design, which actually works).
I still suspect that it has something fundamental to do with these new f/2.8 sensors and how widely spaced they are (due to the newly designed 'super-duper-special' concave submirror). Time will tell, hopefully not long from now...
Jeff wrote:
Precisely, Brent, it would be hard to believe. I guess about the only possibility is that perhaps the design of the entire mirror box having to be different due to the larger sensor could somehow have avoided whatever the problem is (or perhaps the 1D MkIII's design was 'hacked' from the 1Ds MkIII's design, which actually works).
I still suspect that it has something fundamental to do with these new f/2.8 sensors and how widely spaced they are (due to the newly designed 'super-duper-special' concave submirror). Time will tell, hopefully not long from now...
At this point with the 14-24 and 24 TS from Nikon, all they have to do is come out with a great high res FF camera and I'm done with canon.
Edited on Feb 03, 2008 at 05:45 PM
Feb 03, 2008 at 05:44 PM
anthony whitmo Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
FUNNY Mine is sitting at Canon RIGHT NOW............ The work was completed Friday but I did not get confirmation that it was mailed back to me.............. hmmmmm I'm sure I'll have to send it back again
(Yes, after all the flak I've taken by 'non-believers', I was due...)
[flame]...
Didn't RG state that he felt there were still issues that needed to be resolved after his last set of tests with the sub-mirror corrected Mark III?
Unless people didn't believe Rob's results, I'm not sure why so many people are surprised that Canon made this announcement. It's almost like many would have been happy if Canon had stopped looking into the issue.
Curator wrote:
Didn't RG state that he felt there were still issues that needed to be resolved after his last set of tests with the sub-mirror corrected Mark III?
RG did indeed utter words that he still didn't think the AF performance was on par with a 1D2N and that he had given all his test results to Canon to do further research.
Having first hand experience of all these 1D3 problems I imagine that alot of the frustration here is that Canon told us that this was the fix and would hear none of the negative comments from owners saying they still weren't happy. In addition, people have only just sent their 1D3s in for service, or only just received it back and now they are faced with yet another 'body visit' to Canon. I was lucky, I pushed hard enough to receive a replacement new blue dot but if I had just received my 1D3 back from Canon after the sub mirror fixed I would be pretty annoyed, to put it mildly.
Still, after the fire of frustration dies down and if this does turn out to be the final fix which allows the 1D3 to perform as per specification and marketing then most people will be happy yet as always there will be some who threaten never to buy a Canon product again but oh well... each to their own.
Jeff wrote:
Precisely, Brent, it would be hard to believe. I guess about the only possibility is that perhaps the design of the entire mirror box having to be different due to the larger sensor could somehow have avoided whatever the problem is (or perhaps the 1D MkIII's design was 'hacked' from the 1Ds MkIII's design, which actually works).
I still suspect that it has something fundamental to do with these new f/2.8 sensors and how widely spaced they are (due to the newly designed 'super-duper-special' concave submirror). Time will tell, hopefully not long from now...
Figuring out what the problem is, and figuring out how to fix it, are two very different issues. I would not expect Canon to make any announcment until they know what the problem was and had a fix nearly ready to go. That could easily take months. That would be even more true if they intend to say this is the "real" fix...something they never said about the sub-mirror change.
If you thought there were screams before, imagine what would happen if Canon said this is the real deal and it still did not fix it.
nathanlake wrote:
Figuring out what the problem is, and figuring out how to fix it, are two very different issues. I would not expect Canon to make any announcment until they know what the problem was and had a fix nearly ready to go. That could easily take months. That would be even more true if they intend to say this is the "real" fix...something they never said about the sub-mirror change.
If you thought there were screams before, imagine what would happen if Canon said this is the real deal and it still did not fix it.
Nathan, most of the time I agree with you but Canon indicated that the fix was "The Fix". These folks are being cut way to much slack. They knew they had a camera that had problems before releasing it and now, more than a year later the damn thing still doesn't work correctly. Bad business.
