Jeff - I sent mine in and they replaced the entire mirror box even though it was a "blue dot" model (bought Feb 2008).
My personal experience is more anecdotal... I've always sucked at servo/tracking. It started with the 20D and when the 1DIII gave similarly poor results trying to shoot my dog I just chalked it up to poor technique since the camera was much better in every other respect.
After the fix its like a new camera, I no longer totally suck a servo (although not by much).
my MK3 is from december 2007 (quite early model it seems). so far, i could not observe OOF in tracking mode, f.ex. BIF or action scenes.
is this possible?
what is the ultimate test then?
are there users with early models AND without these AF problems??
It could easily be possible, not explainable but possible. I would still recommend sending it in for all updates and fixes as it will be a resale question asked by any buyer. Plus you get a good looking over and cleaning too.
e.aland wrote:
my MK3 is from december 2007 (quite early model it seems). so far, i could not observe OOF in tracking mode, f.ex. BIF or action scenes.
is this possible?
what is the ultimate test then?
are there users with early models AND without these AF problems??
Yes, its possible.
There is no "ultimate" test. If there were Canon wouldn't have ended up in this position in the first place.
Yes, there are (or were) (some/many?) users with very early cameras who never had an AF issue, which further slowed Canon's initial investigation.
Based on everything I've read I would send yours in, just to be sure.
thanks for the replies. the resell-argument is logic. i knew what i was going to buy and i am still very pleased with the speed and the IQ of this camera. its a poem. anyway, the fact that i do not have these OOF phenomena yet, even shooting highspeed bursts on action, makes me hesitate to send it in too early. which guarantee i have what i'll get back? anyway, i called canon and they told me "not every camera makes this problem, most of them are ok, if there are problems, i should document them by photos and send the camera in".
e.aland, the issues are apparently more noticeable with longer telephoto lenses, certain aperture settings and certain subject movement. Much of RG's testing was done with a 300 f2.8, and with subjects coming towards the camera quickly.
e.aland wrote:
my MK3 is from december 2007 (quite early model it seems). so far, i could not observe OOF in tracking mode, f.ex. BIF or action scenes.
is this possible?
what is the ultimate test then?
are there users with early models AND without these AF problems??
Sure, it's possible, many people have no apparent problems, but I think that the number of hardware fixes that Canon has performed would leave me to believe it prudent to send the camera in for whatever repairs they deem necessary. I'd not bet a dime to a donut that we have been apprised of the full story in relation to how widespread hardware fixes are, and I know for a fact that repair summaries included with returned cameras do not necessarily reflect what has occurred when a camera is in for repair.
I actually think that the runner coming straight at you is indeed the ultimate test for the issues that the MkIII has. Unfortunately the test takes a bit of skill to be able to conduct in a manner that will give meaningful results (i.e. shooting sports isn't as easy as it might appear), and the subject needs to be wearing an appropriate shirt. A telephoto lens set at f/2.8 I'd say is almost required, set for center-point+expansion, or another off-center AF point. I can't use the 'ring of fire' for any sport or moving subject I've tried, it's simply very inconsistent, so I suppose that's another test you could try. I've also shot kids cycling and scootering and they work as well, but due to flailing body parts running is a pretty consistently inconsistent 'target' to reveal any AF/AI Servo problems that a camera has.
This testing also takes a significant amount of time at the computer using Canon's software (ImageBrowser) afterwards to truly determine the source of any AF errors, so prepare yourself to invest some time.
My experience with runners is to have III-2 at -1 or -2 depending on the brightness of the shot, III-3 to 0 for focus priority, III-4 to 0 and III-8 to 0. I use expansion points for sports and III-4 at 1 for events such as the pole vault, high jump or standing perpendicular to the finish line. Scenarios with small intervening objects or moving parallel to the camera. Generally I don't use expansion points. They have worked best for me to help tracking more isolated subjects than to keep focus on a particular subject in a group.
I get the most consistent results for sports with no expansion points, and III-4 at 0. My rule of thumb is the bigger the intervening objects and the more contrast around the subject the riskier the use of expansion points become, particularly with III-4 at 1.
III-4 at 1 with expansion points and I'm telling the camera to stay on what it thinks is the subject by moving the focus point to the highest contrast area in the group of expansion points it assumes is the subject. This works will when the subject isn't moving toward or away from you. Not so well when the subject is moving toward or away from you or with high contrast around the subject. Expansion points with III-4 at 0 and focus is staying on one of those points so if an intervening object like a wave of water or lane line could appear in one of those points I turn down III-2 to -1 or -2 to keep the focus from being moved to the line or wave. Anyway that's what works for me.
Q. Canon had told you they were still working on autofocus at the time you got the preproduction camera. What did they change prior to the production EOS-1D Mark III's release?
Not a lot. On a recent trip to Canon in Japan, we learned that one change was implemented, and that this change wasn't likely to impact autofocus behaviour much, if at all, in shipping units. We're not able to say what the change was, because it was to a capability of the autofocus system that Canon considers to be a trade secret.
I recall that RG stated Canon was made aware of AF problems during the pre-production/testing phase and that Canon had reported back with a statement along the lines of "the AF (or parts of the AF) in many of the pre-production bodies is not fully functional (whatever that means)."
I'm not aware of a single instance where RG states Canon was (1) aware of critical AF problems associated with the early production units or more importantly, (2) shipping production bodies with full knowledge they had problematic AF systems.
My gut feeling is Canon was aware they were shipping product with a weakness in the AF system BUT strongly felt (with assurances from the development engineering group) that any and all AF issues could be effectively fixed in the near future via firmware.
thank you garylv, thank you jeff for your input. i will definitely use your advice and test the camera. today i shot a school event. some of the (low ligh) photos (35L, center point, iso1600) were not focussed in the middle, but focussed at the borders were there was a wall, even i only used center point.
Joe, I think you are mostly spot on with your assessment. Here is the meat that still rings out. It was not that it was fully functional or not here is what he said.
From RG first review article
There is one cause for concern, however, and it's one to pay close attention to if you're planning on buying an EOS-1D Mark III as soon as it ships. In the preproduction body we have, the autofocus doesn't work right. When it was issued to us, Canon made it clear that the autofocus wasn't working right in this generation of preproduction camera and/or firmware and provided the assurances you'd expect about how it will be working properly by the time the new model hits the streets. And that's likely to be the case. But it's not guaranteed to be the case, so please keep that in mind before you hand over your VISA card to your pro camera dealer.
So I am sure Dev or Eng said we could fix it if there is a problem down the line and did continue to ship them out.
On a side note I re-read that first article on the Mk3 and man no wonder I bought one. Just reading it again makes me want to put money down on that body.
Wickedfn4u wrote:
Joe, I think you are mostly spot on with your assessment. Here is the meat that still rings out. It was not that it was fully functional or not here is what he said.
From RG first review article
There is one cause for concern, however, and it's one to pay close attention to if you're planning on buying an EOS-1D Mark III as soon as it ships. In the preproduction body we have, the autofocus doesn't work right. When it was issued to us, Canon made it clear that the autofocus wasn't working right in this generation of preproduction camera and/or firmware and provided the assurances you'd expect about how it will be working properly by the time the new model hits the streets. And that's likely to be the case. But it's not guaranteed to be the case, so please keep that in mind before you hand over your VISA card to your pro camera dealer.
So I am sure Dev or Eng said we could fix it if there is a problem down the line and did continue to ship them out....Show more →
Glad you found that RG text ... and yes, it was exactly what I was referring to but unfortunately couldn't remember the exact wording.
Oh, and regarding engineering the really great ones are right only about 70 to 75 percent of the time; their work is not always an exact science and MANY assumptions have to be made ... and made often with very little to go on. I know this comment will sound amazing but external customer demands, management demands, and often ridiculous schedules take their toll and prevent engineers from getting all the data they need to make better decisions ... and this is the way it should be because I've worked with some engineers that if given the time would take years to make even a trivial decision.
Wickedfn4u wrote:
Joe, I think you are mostly spot on with your assessment. Here is the meat that still rings out. It was not that it was fully functional or not here is what he said.
From RG first review article
There is one cause for concern, however, and it's one to pay close attention to if you're planning on buying an EOS-1D Mark III as soon as it ships. In the preproduction body we have, the autofocus doesn't work right. When it was issued to us, Canon made it clear that the autofocus wasn't working right in this generation of preproduction camera and/or firmware and provided the assurances you'd expect about how it will be working properly by the time the new model hits the streets. And that's likely to be the case. But it's not guaranteed to be the case, so please keep that in mind before you hand over your VISA card to your pro camera dealer.
So I am sure Dev or Eng said we could fix it if there is a problem down the line and did continue to ship them out....Show more →
I have no doubt the engineers were sinceree about the fact they could fix the problem, however, they were probably never testing it under the conditions in which many were having some serious issues. They probably have a standard suite of tests they have been using for a long time and got the AF to pass those, but with so many variables and hardware faults it was never going to be as simple as a firmware update or minor tweak of algorithms etc.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I have no doubt the engineers were sinceree about the fact they could fix the problem, however, they were probably never testing it under the conditions in which many were having some serious issues. They probably have a standard suite of tests they have been using for a long time and got the AF to pass those, but with so many variables and hardware faults it was never going to be as simple as a firmware update or minor tweak of algorithms etc.
jkurkjia wrote:
Oh, and regarding engineering the really great ones are right only about 70 to 75 percent of the time; their work is not always an exact science and MANY assumptions have to be made ... and made often with very little to go on. I know this comment will sound amazing but external customer demands, management demands, and often ridiculous schedules take their toll and prevent engineers from getting all the data they need to make better decisions ... and this is the way it should be because I've worked with some engineers that if given the time would take years to make even a trivial decision.
Joe, I think you hit it spot-on. Engineering is not known to be the fastest business process of all, because every little change may have great implication down the road.
The D700 and the D3 - simply Kill the 1 series Canons. Some may not like it ... but sadly it is true and on more and more tracks you see more and more Nikons due to this. Four years ago it was one shooter in twenty with Nikon gear, now it is roughly 40/60 (in canons favor)
You have a site musclepix? And test to back up the anecdotal hyperbole? Or ... you just don't like the evidence?
Keep in mind that when one in five cameras (just a number out of thin air) are defective ... it does not do much good to post "well, mine is perfect-it even slices bread!" ... does it.
Should it really be any surprise that sooner or later nikon came out with a camera or two that are better than canon? I mean really, the same things happens in most industries, no one company can put enough $ into their products to stay on top year after year, and canon has been whooping up on nikon for a long time until the D3/D300/D700's hit the market.
