I don't think I will send mine in right now. Even though I am a CPS member I have had great great success with my Mark III. Shooting bball I get almost 90% in focus when strobing and close to that when shooting ambient. This thing ROCKS for focus.
FretNoMore wrote:
Sure, though if this fix seems to work then that should help the reputation.
I am not sure I agree with this. Even if the AF works exactly as designed, it will miss sometimes. Until AF is linked to the photographers mind, it won't always know what you are thinking and some photogs will assume it is defective. I think the damage is done for this body and the only thing another fix is going to do is help with Canon's reputation (maybe).
I know if I was the 1DM-IV product manager I would hold that body back from general release for as long as possible to get a very long beta test.
There always was. Go back a few years to DPreview forum's formation. The Olympus forum was the best for a while, then the Kodak forum was the knowledge base.
The Canon forums were always being blocked with fights erupting constantly. Askey's response was the segregation of the Canon forum into the three basic groups. But that did not stop the fighting and it got so bad that Askey threatened to close down the Canon forums altogether ~ that's going back how many years?
This belligerent attitude surfaced for me in this forum recently and I had it dealt with by the mods.
I must confess to a certain amount of 'trolling' the DPreview Canon forums in the past, they'd rise like a spring salmon to a fly each and every time ~ totally predictable .. now if only my own 1DMKIII was as predictable ...
But despite university theses having been written on the Canon owners, overall in general, insecurities, no dependable analysis has unearthed a cause. Some believe it stretches into the work place and the constant kicking of the photocopier, a Canon photocopier naturally ....
globalkiwi wrote:
But how does any of that invalidate the simple point I was making? That there seems to be more discontent amongst Canon owners than Nikon owners. EDIT: Leaving aside the gratuitous "rank-pulling" & patronizing intent.
lidesun wrote:
It does seem to me - though this is entirely anecdotal - that there are far fewer complaints from Nikon users (at the moment at least)
The underlined section is precisely the point.
I was a Nikon user up to the D200 - and God! The amount of - entirely justifiable - flak that thing received (along with the D70's battery and GBLOD issues, the D2 series AF problems, much lamenting about Nikon's inability to produce a decent high ISO camera and so on and so on - Google "Nikon DSLR problems") prove without any doubt that this is a cyclical thing.
Every dog has his day. Nikon is doing well at the moment, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Dropped off my camera north of Philadelphia yesterday at 5:15 PM and it is now listed as out for delivery. It left the depot north of Philly at 10:03 PM - made it Laurel Md. by 12:22 AM (2:32 minutes and 137 miles according to Mapquest) - where it departed to Newport News at 1:33 AM and arrived at 2:00 AM (202 miles - obviously not covered by ground, but at that distance that plane really must have been "flying".
Any bets on Canon being able to provide similarly efficient service?
keithreeder wrote: Hmmm... Cause and effect, I'd say. The "beligerence" you've seen here was largely a response to perceived trolling on this board too, as I recall...
No, just belligerence, I've said my piece about my Canon products .. no more, no less.
And now we have another fix .. I was not trolling and Canon have vindicated my statements.
[BTW, He's an old DPreview foe, just a little spite that lingers, and we don't want that infection to blossom here ]
keithreeder wrote:
The underlined section is precisely the point.
I was a Nikon user up to the D200 - and God! The amount of - entirely justifiable - flak that thing received (along with the D70's battery and GBLOD issues, the D2 series AF problems, much lamenting about Nikon's inability to produce a decent high ISO camera and so on and so on - Google "Nikon DSLR problems") prove without any doubt that this is a cyclical thing.
Every dog has his day. Nikon is doing well at the moment, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Randy Wright wrote:
Hi again 1d Mark III owners,
I forgot to ask Canon if they are going to extend the warranty again, such as giving us an extra year warranty from the date of the S/M fix. That would be appreciated by me, at least. So I called Canon again a moment ago, the rep Kevin said the 1d Mark III camera will have another 6 month warranty on the whole camera after the AF fix...
Randy
Six months warranty only for the AF system, not the whole camera....
apdieb wrote:
Ok I am confused... Can Irvine fix it or not? I got my shipping labels today and they are to Irvine. I REALLY REALLY do not want to send to VA.
EDIT: I just looked at the label (and although the message says, included is your UPS label to IRVINE), the attachment is actually for NN, VA.
Guess I'll just send it to IRVINE once VA screws it up again.
Both IRVINE and JAMESBURG can do the fix, no HW replacement involved, only electronic adjustment. And this info was verified by Jamesburg CPS and Newport VA.
My camera was in for other AF service in NJ this Tuesday, and got it back yesterday, they did the AF Adjustment service there which was double confirmed with CPS.
And all I can say, yes, I can feel the difference after the AF Adjustment and new FW update, the camera acts more like the old Mark II, N, but still has the its own advantages-- quicker and more sensitive in low light situation compared with the older 1D bodies. and yes the outer AF points perform much better.
BTW--the AF system has 6 months warranty for th erepair
It would be nice if they'd let us know what serial numbers they think might be affected. That was one of the (multiple) disconcerting things - from the release, it sounds as if they don't really know if all 1Dm3 and 1Dsm3 are affected or only some.
Japan's announcement says they'll say more March 10 - so, why the delay here?
Some possible good news for newer 1Ds3's and 1D3 owners. I just got off the phone with a very helpful Canon rep who was able to tell me that they have just been provided with information on what 1Ds3's and 1D3's are potentially effected by this recall. They do have serial numbers of those cameras that have been manufactured without the soft focus issue. Basically any 1Ds3 or 1D3 sold after August 2008 had the counter measures and do not need the fix. There is no way that the rep could tell me how I can find the date my 1Ds3 was manufactured by looking at anything on or in the camera but she did just find out that Canon has released a list of serial numbers of those cameras manufactured without the problem. My 1Ds3 was on the list of cameras manufactured with the correction and it is serial number 647XXX. I purchased it new on December 29, 2008.
My 1D3 however which was one of the earlier models requiring the sub assembly fix will need to be sent in for a checkup to see if it needs the recall repairs. Apparently any of the 1D3's that were sent in for the sub assembly repair will need to be sent in for this repair. I'm not positive but it sounded to me that the rep believed the issue is somewhat related to the repair for the sub assembly that was performed. In other words it looks like when they repaired the sub assembly they caused this other issue some how and it wasn't discovered until sometime after.
I know that this a frustrating issue for many Canon 1D3 owners. I'm not pleased to have to send my 1D3 back again but at the same time I'm glad that they are at least admitting there is an issue and taking care of it.
Chuck Coyne wrote:
...snip...
There is no way that the rep could tell me how I can find the date my 1Ds3 was manufactured by looking at anything on or in the camera
...snip...
Chuck, if you pull out the battery and shine a torch inside the battery compartment, on the back near the battery contacts there should be a date code.
.
