musclepics wrote:
See this doesn't make sense. People give online reviewers way to much credit, when the answer they want is right before them. You admit you are happy with the huge improvement with the 1D Mark III after the fix. You've seen it with your own eyes. Then you have this guy who, from what I've heard, is not very good at what he does, telling you that there was NO improvement with this last fix. So who are you going to believe? Him or yourself? Because that's what RG is saying.. not that there is a vast improvement, but still some problems. He's saying there is NO improvement with this last recall fix, and you and I both know that's completely wrong. RG's initials SHOULD be BS as far as I'm concerned. ...Show more →
And tell me why you have more credibility than Rob? Rob has backed up his findings with detailing his test and showing the results. What have you backed up your findings with other than a lot of hot air.
In a way the furore surrounding this camera has become a little like a religious debate - some people are convinced their cameras have improved & see RG's intractability as heresy, others (& many who don't own the camera) see this as a vindication of their conviction (not to believe). Both sides are arguing over what constitutes the basis for faith.
As for me, I just bought the camera & am very happy with it so far - & not particularly concerned with comparisons to a camera I've never used & likely never will. How it compares to the Mk IV - now that's a debate I'll be interested in.
Nello Milanese wrote:
I swear if I read RG's name again my head is gonna explode. I'm sure he's a great guy and all and have nothing against him but over these last 2 years or so I got so fed up of people just dying and drooling waiting for him to write a few lines like he's the God almighty or something!
Well if it wasn't for Rob taking his stance and making his findings public...maybe Canon would not have tried so hard to fix the problems. I remember when the issue 1st focused ( PUN intended ), we had the majority of people on this forum saying Rob was full of it. Time proved Rob right and even Canon reluctantly caved in.
Once again Rob makes his statement and we again here those same people putting down Rob because they got a few good focused shots. History has a way of repeating itself and I would put my money with Rob as I have read his fully scientific focus test and his way of evaluating the results and that provides a lot more creditability than someone on a forum saying my camera is fixed...so Rob is full of it.
keithreeder wrote:
The exact opposite works too: Just because RG has a problem, doesn't mean that it isn't down to him rather than the camera - I for one have long doubted his testing regimen...
And why do you suppose Canon spent maybe millions of dollars recalling the cameras and coming out with numerous fixes if Rob was just a hack? Keith, I really don't follow your logic.
I truly believe that the markIII has become a "mind game" to many people...if the camera was fixed perfectly and performed perfectly many people would still find issues because all cameras have problems and issues and this one is no different....at this point it is a waste of time to continue to debate the merits of the camera....the markIII has so many improvements over the markII that it is literally not worth comparison as far as i am concerned....if you get good results with it as i do then it is fixed...if you do not then it isnt....what more can be said about the camera anymore?
Well no tool is perfect. But it is to RG's and Canon's credit that they continue to test and fix. If RG had nothing to offer then Canon would not have piggybacked on his testing. The real outcome may well be that the Mk IV will be delayed until Canon is sure that RG (and the rest of us) will be able to use a much more advanced AF system.
I too have been in the position of finding discrepancies in expensive professional equipment and in reporting them took a lot of flack. It took a lot of time and money to document what I had learned in, exhaustive, use of the product.
Later the manufacture, and other associated companies, used my testing and research to improve their products and use modalities. But I was left with the reputation of, at best, a troublemaker. So I want to thank RG for doing what, seemingly, no one else would do (and for nothing)-so all of us could benefit.
jonbrach wrote:
I truly believe that the markIII has become a "mind game" to many people...if the camera was fixed perfectly and performed perfectly many people would still find issues because all cameras have problems and issues and this one is no different....at this point it is a waste of time to continue to debate the merits of the camera....the markIII has so many improvements over the markII that it is literally not worth comparison as far as i am concerned....if you get good results with it as i do then it is fixed...if you do not then it isnt....what more can be said about the camera anymore?...Show more →
+1
I have owned a total of 4 MKIIs and MKIINs and 3 MKIIIs. I have owned and used every 1 series camera manufactured by Canon, except the 1DsMKIII, from their inception.
The first 2 copies of the MKIII I had were problematic and the latest copy has been better than any of the MKIIs I have owned. I did see an improvement in focus accuracy after the recent AF adjustment. Most of my lens don't need any MA anymore.
I also shoot sports as well as wildlife and my MKIII has performed flawlessly compared to previous MKIIs. Any OOF shot is usually my fault. I really don't know what you could ask for more given the other improvements of the MKIII over the MKII.
I don't know RG and I wouldn't begin to question his ability or testing paradign because his results don't matter to me. What matters to me is the results I get with the MKIII because I'm the one it has to please.
Yeah, there is an element of shooting the messenger here & that certainly isn't fair. But reasonable people should be able to disagree. There are many people who feel RG's testing doesn't replicate their own experience & they should be entitled to voice that feeling without being told they don't know what they are talking about.
mark fadely wrote:
let's see if I can simplify my results:
MKIII before latest fix = BAD
MKIII after latest fix = GOOD
Look at my BIF galleries and see if it looks like I know how to shoot moving objects
I do believe some people's cameras are still not performing up to spec (maybe RG is one of those), but mine certainly is working very well
It's always good news to hear that people are satisfied. There were lots of things I liked about the 1D3 from the start so if it works, it's great.
Unfortunately, there are some here (on FM) that just can't get it through their thick skulls that some people MAY be having problems even after the fix.There was even a recent poll a couple of weeks ago and the person running the poll got very upset at anyone that suggested there might still be problems.
I've learned the hard way that it's possible to get a lemon, or ever several in a row, and I respect the right of others to say they're having trouble. Trouble with a 1D3 is an old saga however, and I'd really like to put the whole thing behind me for good.
musclepics wrote:
All the MKIII owners I know personally also have this same experience. I think it's RG that is broken, not the camera
Well, you don't know me personally, but...
Having moved from two of the original 1D bodies to the Mk II and then to the Mk III, I was really really disappointed with the Mark III's. In the studio or for landscapes, etc. it was wonderful and indeed low-light focusing was fairly good, but for shooting fast-moving sports (I shot a lot of bicycle races) or birds in flight, it was really poor.
I hung in there with the bodies, going through various fixes (and both bodies were the "blue dot" bodies which had the hardware fix done at the factory) but the percentage of out-of-focus shots I was getting was just not acceptable to me. RG's findings only confirm my own experience with the Mark III and I'm glad I sold the bodies when I did. Canon really disappointed me with that one.
I got myself two 5D Mark II bodies as a temporary measure until Canon comes out with a vastly improved pro body to replace the 1D Mark III. I can't wait to get back into a pro body, but in the meantime I'm fairly satisified with the 5DII's. Indeed, I might keep these for studio and landscape work even if I get pro bodies for other work. But if the next pro body does what the Mark III should have done AND offers what the 5DII does, well, I'll probably switch without keeping the 5DII's.
I'm sure RG's going to take a lot of heat for his report (again!) but I think he's bang on the money with his findings.
I just want to say that I hope the 1dmk4 comes out soon, so the used 1dmk3 goes down in price...oh and I hope that the 1dmk3 fixes are great, because I hope to get a used one :P
mark fadely wrote:
Eldor - too bad you didn't keep the MKIIIs for just a bit longer until this latest fix. The last fix is the one that really made the camera work.
For some, perhaps most, but not all. Mine is going back in because the latest fix has taken a well functioning 1DsMkIII and made it erratic. Although the possibility exists that I forgot how to focus in the four days it was gone, I prefer to think that there might be another cause for the greatly increased number of OOF shots.
In my case, I can see that the camera is having a lot of trouble on low contrast subjects - much more than it ever had before. It will hunt and often lose focus much more than it did before. This doesn't mean it can't be fixed but if RG's camera is like mine I am not surprised that he is unimpressed.
jonbrach wrote:
I truly believe that the markIII has become a "mind game" to many people...if the camera was fixed perfectly and performed perfectly many people would still find issues because all cameras have problems and issues and this one is no different....at this point it is a waste of time to continue to debate the merits of the camera....the markIII has so many improvements over the markII that it is literally not worth comparison as far as i am concerned....if you get good results with it as i do then it is fixed...if you do not then it isnt....what more can be said about the camera anymore?...Show more →
+1.
Hi fellow Mark III owners,
I would be curious to see the newest results -(after the last fix/update)- we each were to acheive if we each tested our longest telephoto's lens at their widest aperature with a runner coming towards us on a bright sunny day, such as what RG did in his original test...
I know my early model June '07 Mark III has had all the fixes and updates, been to Canon Irvine a few times, and I use it all the time, but I wonder how she would fare testing like RG's original test? Have many of you folks tried testing that way? It's been May gray here at the L.A. beaches alot, but I am curious to try mine out soon...
Randy
LAsurfpix.com
I have heard of some 1DsMK3 users had poor results with their fix. I was referring to the 1DMK3. For some reason results between the two models have been quite different throughout the recalls. I thought RG was using a MK3 as well and not a 1DsMK3? I hope you get your problem fixed with yours.
Hrow wrote:
For some, perhaps most, but not all. Mine is going back in because the latest fix has taken a well functioning 1DsMkIII and made it erratic. Although the possibility exists that I forgot how to focus in the four days it was gone, I prefer to think that there might be another cause for the greatly increased number of OOF shots.
In my case, I can see that the camera is having a lot of trouble on low contrast subjects - much more than it ever had before. It will hunt and often lose focus much more than it did before. This doesn't mean it can't be fixed but if RG's camera is like mine I am not surprised that he is unimpressed. ...Show more →
