It seems doubtful to me at least, that the "root cause" could be a firmware problem. However, they might be able to use firmware to compensate now that they know what the source is.
It seems to me that its a software fix and it will be proven shortly. The Full Frame version is not going to be affected by this due to the lower frame rate. My camera work fine on AiFoecus sports and each time it hunts (specially in Birds shooting) this is due to background otherwise that problems can be eliminated by some CFIII group sugestions. But the software I think needs some improvement. As we can understand Canon R&D just got some defective Mark III from the source of the heavy duty tester and they tried to find the main cause of the failure so nwo they are going to say us the result and the way to fix it
It might be of some educational value to Canon Inc. Japan, to examine what Leica has just announced regarding the M8 rangefinder problems and how they intend to solve issues. In my view they (Leica) is acting in a highly ethical manner, typical of European campanies. Canon, on the other hand, looks only to the bottom line and damn the customer. Shame on Canon. Yes I also own a Leica M8, I sold my Mark III some months ago when I was convinced that neither hardware nor frimware could correct the intrinsic focus issues. Now I'm more convinced then ever that Canon's problems stem from a basic design flaw. They need to get on with a new model and offer compensation to owners who remain unsatisfied. Just my two cents.
Red
John Ferguson wrote:
Considering I just bought my second MIII, I am livid! If Canon doesn't make it right in more ways than just a fix, they have seen my last penny.
dcmiller wrote:
It could just be a firmware fix with the existing mirror fix.
Yes it could be, but...
dvarnav wrote:
It seems to me that its a software fix and it will be proven shortly. The Full Frame version is not going to be affected by this due to the lower frame rate.
Since when does Canon ever announce a software fix in advance of releasing it? If it were only software, the code would be changed, and we'd have it in our cameras today. Why 'announce' something like that? All they'd be doing is drawing attention to the fact that it doesn't work correctly, whereas if it were only a software fix they'd get it in our cameras, and all of their woes would magically be solved overnight.
No way. Me 'thinks' we all have another trip to Virginia in our futures, although when it will be remains to be seen. Hopefully they won't allow this to drag on too long without giving some details.
Seems like Canon is dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. If I owned a mkIII, which by many accounts is a wonderful camera in many (if not all) ways I personally would be delighted to have Canon figure out a way to make it measurably better. If Canon announced tomorrow a way to make my 5D focus better I'd be all over it. So I listen to all the mkIII grumbling and think to myself - hey, at least Canon is trying to make the camera work better. This to me is good corporate behavior. Think about the US car manufacturers and the way that they reacted to exploding gas tanks to put it all back into proper perspective.
What we are talking about here after all is just a camera. Nobody is forcing anybody to buy one. Gosh, we can even buy a Nikon D3, a very fine camera by all accounts. Focus on the important things in life. Take more pictures. Complain less. You'll be happier and a better photographer to boot.
Red Grainger wrote:
It might be of some educational value to Canon Inc. Japan, to examine what Leica has just announced regarding the M8 rangefinder problems and how they intend to solve issues. In my view they (Leica) is acting in a highly ethical manner, typical of European campanies. Canon, on the other hand, looks only to the bottom line and damn the customer. Shame on Canon. Yes I also own a Leica M8, I sold my Mark III some months ago when I was convinced that neither hardware nor frimware could correct the intrinsic focus issues. Now I'm more convinced then ever that Canon's problems stem from a basic design flaw. They need to get on with a new model and offer compensation to owners who remain unsatisfied. Just my two cents.
Red...Show more →
I was under the impression that the Leica fix/improvement is NOT free.. around $1,800 is what i read somewhere (3rd party information that I have not verified).
rceres wrote:
Seems like Canon is dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. If I owned a mkIII, which by many accounts is a wonderful camera in many (if not all) ways I personally would be delighted to have Canon figure out a way to make it measurably better. If Canon announced tomorrow a way to make my 5D focus better I'd be all over it. So I listen to all the mkIII grumbling and think to myself - hey, at least Canon is trying to make the camera work better. This to me is good corporate behavior. Think about the US car manufacturers and the way that they reacted to exploding gas tanks to put it all back into proper perspective.
What we are talking about here after all is just a camera. Nobody is forcing anybody to buy one. Gosh, we can even buy a Nikon D3, a very fine camera by all accounts. Focus on the important things in life. Take more pictures. Complain less. You'll be happier and a better photographer to boot.
I can appreciate your sentiment but to be realistically for a number of 1DMkIII users we would need to change your 3rd from the last sentence to so that it reads "Focus on the important things in life. Take more OOF pictures. Complain less. You'll be happier and a better photographer to boot." Loses a bit when looked at from that perspective doesn't it?
Since when does Canon ever announce a software fix in advance of releasing it? If it were only software, the code would be changed, and we'd have it in our cameras today. Why 'announce' something like that? All they'd be doing is drawing attention to the fact that it doesn't work correctly, whereas if it were only a software fix they'd get it in our cameras, and all of their woes would magically be solved overnight.
No way. Me 'thinks' we all have another trip to Virginia in our futures, although when it will be remains to be seen. Hopefully they won't allow this to drag on too long without giving some details.
Since now after a big flaw research in Mark III firmware that they finally found it but on the other hand they are not ready to prepare it for all the cameras. The first Fix has nothing to do with the second and the reason is that not all the camera had this rubber part issue. About the magician that you said please be more gentle when you are refering to software/firmware/hardware R&D engineers as these people is working to find a solution for the flagship of their company and beleive me with presure of Olympic games in a very short time it is not so easy. It will be not a very good idea to be on the second place with that flaws.
BryanB wrote:
I was under the impression that the Leica fix/improvement is NOT free.. around $1,800 is what i read somewhere (3rd party information that I have not verified).
You are quite correct, it is not free but Leica is offering an upgrade to a new LCD glass and a few other tweaks for the cost. I imagine many of the pros who lost assignments, or were otherwise inconvenienced, would have gladly paid something towards a fix. Many think that Canons last minute price increase (remember $3995 to $4495) was due to their anticipation of a costly fix down the road. We will never learn this of course because if this were true, Canon would be at serious risk for lawsuits and the liability of bringing a product "not capable of delivering its stated performance goals". This is a bit of law that holds true here in OZ, the European Union, and the U.S.. I'm not sure it holds for other regions but the liability would be enormous. For Canon to be liable, they would have had to know the defective products could not perform to their advertised specifications. If this were established, then professional photographic associations, in each region effected, could bring individual class action suits against the maker of the product (Canon). Most companies don't let things go that far because the bad pulicity outweighs any cost savings. Canon just continues to be a bad actor. For most of us, these bodies are just tools, all would be forgivein if they just own up to their responsibility and assure owners that they will sove the problems. What continues to amaze me are the number of people who continue to buy this body, whether as the Mark III or the 1Ds Mark III.
Certainly my comments will upset some of you, if so I'm sorry.
Cheers-Red
Edited by Red Grainger on Feb 04, 2008 at 05:14 PM GMT
