I spoke with a rep and she informed me there is no specific group of serial numbers affected, rather the issue seems more sporadic. After the UPS label gets here mine is off to Virginia for repair--hopefully they don't mess it up.
I never notice any issues on my 1d but 3 weeks ago i bought a used 1ds and i started using the outer AF points on the FF body...I thought my Micro-Focus Adjustment was off so i dropped my stuff off last week Thursday....Just called canon and they confirm they will upgrade the FW and check both bodies ;-) glad i beat the rush.
M Vers wrote:
I spoke with a rep and she informed me there is no specific group of serial numbers affected, rather the issue seems more sporadic. After the UPS label gets here mine is off to Virginia for repair--hopefully they don't mess it up.
I didn't hear any squawks about the sub-mirror fix. Fingers crossed.
PetKal wrote:
It is ironic that their new AF servo manual uses an image of the EF 300 f/2.8 non-IS when they talk about AF points with lenses faster than f/4. The very lens which is on Canon's "do not touch" service list.
Corporate sloppines is like that......it permeates every aspect of company operation, from camera design, to equipment quality control, public announcements, equipment servicing and documentation.
Has anyone found the new manual as a pdf download, or is it just the Flash version available here? http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dm3af/index.html
GeneO wrote:
I didn't hear any squawks about the sub-mirror fix. Fingers crossed.
Gene
I'm sure all rep's were informed to keep that on the DL if anyone asks...I highly doubt Canon would be forthcoming about such information after informing the masses the initial problem was "fixed". How's that saying go? fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...wait, what happens after twice? Surely Nikon is not the answer...is it
M Vers wrote:
I'm sure all rep's were informed to keep that on the DL if anyone asks...I highly doubt Canon would be forthcoming about such information after informing the masses the initial problem was "fixed". How's that saying go? fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...wait, what happens after twice? Surely Nikon is not the answer...is it
Actually that's not the saying. George W. Bush redefined it:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Talofa wrote:
Actually that's not the saying. George W. Bush redefined it:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Yah yes, one of the finer moments in American history.
Does that mean there won't be a 1D/1Ds Mark III N (possibly fixed by the brown dot, or IV, V whatever it'll be called) released anytime soon so we'd be whining about MORE problems? BOOOOO!!!
stuuke wrote:
Are there really still people insisting that this is user error and not the camera?
Are there really still people insisting that all focus issues must be hardware problems?
Somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of the soft shots I get are easily spotted as "user error". The rest? Could be the body, could be something more subtle.
The vast majority (95+%) of the shots that I don't screw up are spot on. There is no such thing as a 100% accurate AF system, deal with it.
Either way I think mine is going back, if nothing else for resale value at a later date.
mbellot wrote:
Are there really still people insisting that all focus issues must be hardware problems?
Somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of the soft shots I get are easily spotted as "user error". The rest? Could be the body, could be something more subtle.
The vast majority (95+%) of the shots that I don't screw up are spot on. There is no such thing as a 100% accurate AF system, deal with it.
Either way I think mine is going back, if nothing else for resale value at a later date.
I think the majority of reasonable people would say that
1. there are many cameras that function correctly
2. there are cameras that have a variety of mechanical or software flaws
3. there are some photographers that would not notice or have issues with the camera because of the type of photography they are using the camera for
4. Canon has acknowledged issues by repeatedly offering different versions, mechanical repairs and firmware for the camera
Saying that it 100% one way or the other is just crazy at this point.
M Vers wrote:
Is it really that difficult for you to believe Or are you under the impression that the 1DIII should be capable of a 100% keeper rate?
I didn't say anything about what the expected performance of the camera should be. I just can't believe that there are still people insisting that the issues are made up.
stuuke wrote:
I didn't say anything about what the expected performance of the camera should be. I just can't believe that there are still people insisting that the issues are made up.
It's not people saying the AF problems are made up, it's people feeling the issue are/seem more camera operator oriented rather than hardware oriented in their specific case. Surely not every camera is effected by the issue. For instance I haven't noticed anything wrong with my 1DIII's AF system and from what I've seen so far the images that were oof seem to be associated with user error...whether or not that is the case I don't know but I do know it doesn't seem consistent enough to be the AF system. Regardless the camera is getting sent in just in case.
Well, I have a 1D MKII and a 1DsMkIII. I go out and shoot still birds. On my 1D MkII I get some OOF but that's usually because a branch was in the way or something like that. But out of 300 shots, I would say 240 or more are OK. I took out the 1Ds MKIII yesterday and took 100 shots. I would say about 10 were in focus. Some were back focused, some were front focused. I tried some micro adjustments and that didn't help. And this is after Canon adjusted the focus a month ago. Could it be user error? Maybe, but I have a pretty good feeling I know what I'm doing on a static subject.
With that said, I'm sure some shots are OOF because of me but with that kind of keeper rate....
Schlotkins wrote:
Well, I have a 1D MKII and a 1DsMkIII. I go out and shoot still birds. On my 1D MkII I get some OOF but that's usually because a branch was in the way or something like that. But out of 300 shots, I would say 240 or more are OK. I took out the 1Ds MKIII yesterday and took 100 shots. I would say about 10 were in focus. Some were back focused, some were front focused. I tried some micro adjustments and that didn't help. And this is after Canon adjusted the focus a month ago. Could it be user error? Maybe, but I have a pretty good feeling I know what I'm doing on a static subject.
With that said, I'm sure some shots are OOF because of me but with that kind of keeper rate.......Show more →
That sounds suspect. Do realize that with the much greater resolution any sloppiness in technique will show much more readily. It was quite an eye opener when I used the 1Ds3 with long lenses for a while after having used the 1D3 previously.
Greg Schneider wrote:
That sounds suspect. Do realize that with the much greater resolution any sloppiness in technique will show much more readily. It was quite an eye opener when I used the 1Ds3 with long lenses for a while after having used the 1D3 previously.
So with that kind of logic, shooting with a film camera and long lenses should be almost impossible to get good shots considering how much greater that resolution is.
My keeper rate dropped by about 20% when I moved from the 1DMIIn to the 1DMIII.
I have not had any big issues with either of my bodies. I use outer focus points 90% of the time. It could be the few shots that are not spot on are to blame on the camera. Phew all this time I thought I was not perfect.
