fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              16              18       19       end
  

Archive 2010 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems

  
 
rd4tile
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #1 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


bwhip62 wrote:
Thanks, Joe.

I'm still testing for sure, in a wide variety of different applications and conditions. Because my primary use for the camera will be in shooting motorsports, having outstanding AF tracking is critical.

I took several hundred shots that day, some better than others of course. There are so many different customization options with the camera, that it is difficult and time-consuming to test them all in a controlled and scientific manner. I can look at a shot later, and not be 100% certain whether the lack of focus where I wanted it to be had to do with
...Show more

I think it's tough to keep your AF point on a running dog's nose because your MKIV is vibrating itself apart in AIServo.



Feb 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM
ruimleal
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #2 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


Hi kc_photo,

definitely recommend upgrading. This is a complete different camera and a more capable one, in my opinion. Very fortunate to have upgraded. The camera never had any focus issues has MarkIII even my MarkIII was a god copy... maybe lucky me but I can say that mine was late 58XXX model.

I also would like to make clear here that I NEVER and I say again NEVER had any focus problems with the MarkIV. This firmware the only thing that messed with was the servo mode and only the part where it should be focusing on not the focus itself. The photos I have when it got lock on are tack sharp and usable. On my point of view the 1.0.6 made the servo more nervous and sensible and even on static people or objects he keeps searching.

I love this Camera for what I earn living with... as you may understand my concern is to serve my clients the best I can and not being in the field worried about servo options.

Notice that I do not work or have ever done any testing for Canon or their services, these are my 15 year of business talking. And yes I had Nikon in the past (film days)

--//--

Hi fraga,

thanks for the tips but I do not believe they will give me any help. Those directions are almost the same when you have some technical issues with some home appliances
I.E. when they do not know what could be wrong they simply tell you to do foolish things. Anyway here goes a complete valid response from canon Germany... for me the best service support I ever received from Canon.

Received today mail from Canon Europe Support Center (Germany) that goes has follow:

Dear Rui,

To find out, what's the problem, try both firmware's in the same condition to see any difference. Normally the new version shouldn't affect the low light capability.

When combining a new camera, with used lenses sometimes problems occur, because of varied tolerance levels due to different production ages of the used equipment. The Mark IV is a very precise camera and wrong tolerance levels, have strong influence in AF accuracy. When the flange back of the camera and the ultrasonic motor in the lens is not correct adjusted, the AF-performance will be worse. In most cases the ultrasonic motor of the lens has to be adjusted, the cameras normally have no big tolerances.

Is your equipment already checked by our service?

If so, when was it at last in our workshop, we changed the calibration method, to adjust, in the last half of year, the new method reached a much higher precision level.

Today I only can make assumptions, to get a better overview, if there are still problems, please send me a copy of some image (important some burst frames - 10 or more images in a row) to get an more analyzed answer.

At least a new AF-Guide for the Mark IV, to discover new functionality.

--//--

I think this says it all. Lenses need to be re-focused and tuned. What I wonder is why didn't Canon let us know about this and are the services (around the world) aware about this?

Here is the link ( see bottom - 5Mb pdf file) to the so missed, very complete and informative EOS Custom guideE01 (AI Servo AF custom Function & ISO Speed Setting Guide) it's a 46 page manual only about what we really need to know.

Hope this could help people around with these same problems.

As soon as I got any more news will let you know. Tomorrow will make a recalibration to all BIG lenses and post the results later. I just hope Canon Portugal has made that workshop upgrade on the new calibration service for the BIG WHITE Shark lenses.

I also noticed that the people that are more prune to complain are the ones that had previously the 1.0.4 and uses BIG White lenses such has the 400 2.8, DO 4.0, 500 4.0 and 5.6.

So far that's what I have reported around here. People with 70-200 and small this firm is a must. Stay tuned for more as soon as I got them. Mail me if you need some of my technical C.Fn.

EOS CustomGuideE01.pdf



Feb 11, 2010 at 05:48 PM
Ernie Aubert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #3 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


Rui, thanks a million for posting that link!


Feb 11, 2010 at 08:29 PM
ruimleal
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #4 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


More to come as soon has I got more news.

Rob Galbraith got his article posted today and the same issues has I was complaining about wit 1.0.6 are mentioned. Maybe he also needs to test the 1.0.4 which in my basic opinion is much better at servo mode.

Rob Galbraith 1dMarkIV Analysis



Feb 11, 2010 at 08:34 PM
Danpbphoto
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #5 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


Thanks for the link..PM to follow.
Dan



Feb 11, 2010 at 08:57 PM
copout
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #6 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


I have a similar problem with my 500mm F4 it just does not seem to want to focus on BIF shots but with my 400mm 5.6 no problems. It was not great before I added the upgrade but now it very poor indeed. I seemed to get better shots with the 500mm on my Canon 40D


Feb 24, 2010 at 10:09 AM
MarkEnglish
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #7 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


I have just caught up with this thread and it's contents. When My 1D1V arrived I immediately put the new firmware in not having heard of any issues. I had used the camera with my 70-200 2.8 on a couple of jobs and was delighted with its performance. After micro adjusting my 300 2.8 and 500 f4 is I went to do BIF shoot of Red Kites and swans. I took 880 shots with the 500F4 and never had a keeper.
I took over 300 shots with my 300 +1.4 and got my usual return of keepers which were sharp and good.
I presumed my 500 lens was the problem and I packed it up ready to send to Canon and now I have read this thread.
I will give them a phone tomorrow to see what the score is. If there is a problem they better get it sorted pretty dam quick as I have barely got cofidence back after the 1D111 fiasco of which I had 2.
I did actually contact them today briefly and asked if there were any issues with the two and a nice sounding lady with an American voice told me there had been general servo issues with the 1.04 software but that 1.06 had fixed all know problems.

M



Feb 24, 2010 at 03:03 PM
ruimleal
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #8 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


Just a quick word about this matter,

I've rolled out to version 1.0.4 and have much better results than after upgrading to the 1.0.6.

I believe that most people would not notice it since the new cameras are already sold with the 1.0.6. What I notice is that the servo tends to skip more often with 1.0.6 than with previous 1.0.4 and it takes longer to return to focus. All on servo mode and for football it's better you are using the surrounding points otherwise it will be useless as it hunts even more.

With 1.0.6 and low light concert, that it's my major, if the person is standing still at the mic and if you use servo be careful not to use any of the assisted points as the camera tends to like too much of the mic and if the person wears black you will have the focus hunting like crazy.

I've decided to return to version 1.0.4 as it tends to be much more stable for what I photograph and I have much more keepers. This does not mean the 1.0.6 is not good, but for me (since I tried the 1.0.4 with great success) is not an option.

Anyone having the same issues?

Rui



Feb 24, 2010 at 05:42 PM
John--G
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #9 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


ruimleal wrote:
I've decided to return to version 1.0.4 as it tends to be much more stable for what I photograph and I have much more keepers. This does not mean the 1.0.6 is not good, but for me (since I tried the 1.0.4 with great success) is not an option.
Rui


How are you "returning to 1.0.4" after upgrading to 1.0.6?




Feb 24, 2010 at 11:52 PM
Jim Victory
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #10 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


I upgraded my firmware to 1.0.6 after I received my MKIV and experienced the same focusing problems others have cited. Rather than go through the same headaches I experienced from 3 copies of the MKIII I sent mine back for a refund.

I'm just not ready to beta test a $5K camera so I'll wait a good while before considering it again.

Jim



Feb 24, 2010 at 11:58 PM
Spider
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #11 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


OK, I finaly got my camera back from Canon, here is what they said:

“Your product has been examined and upon close inspection the exact cause could not be indentified but it was found that causing inaccurate aouto focusfrom time to time. Electrical adjustments were carried out on the AF assambley and product funcions were confirmed. Other electrical adjustments and inspection and cleaning were carried out.”

Tomorrow will be a ultimate test as I’m going to L&D 14 shoot eagles…..



Mar 05, 2010 at 08:25 PM
SLD
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #12 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


Spider wrote:
OK, I finaly got my camera back from Canon, here is what they said:

“Your product has been examined and upon close inspection the exact cause could not be indentified but it was found that causing inaccurate aouto focusfrom time to time. Electrical adjustments were carried out on the AF assambley and product funcions were confirmed. Other electrical adjustments and inspection and cleaning were carried out.”

Tomorrow will be a ultimate test as I’m going to L&D 14 shoot eagles…..



That looks like a standard statement from Canon Service Paper...

Keep us posted....



Mar 05, 2010 at 08:56 PM
ruimleal
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #13 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


After a couple days with email exchange with Canon Germany the issue that Canon presents seems now related with lenses than the camera itself.

They say that maybe my 400 4.0 DO L, cause it's a soft lens, maybe that is causing the slow responsive on version 1.0.6.

Well 4.000 euros soft lens, not bad deal what do you think? Also 4000 for a 1D MarkIV updated to 1.0.6 not getting consecutive servo focus is also my problem, go figure. Maybe I need to buy something even more expensive...

I also been telling them that the 70-200 L USM IS and my fellow with the 400 2.8 L IS is getting the same issues with firm 1.0.6 but we cannot replicate that with firm 1.0.4 and since I bought it with firm 1.0.4 I did not have any problems with servo as I get with version 1.0.6 even with the "soft" 400 DO that always got me very in sharp pictures.

I'm waiting for the new 70-200 USM L IS II to test them both and see if this is really a lens problem or what. Imagine just having to exchange my all L lens collection because they do not fit the new released cameras... then I will have to start thinking on moving to the dark side, and man I can tell you that is not on my plans for the moment.

Canon is letting me know that the new sensors are less prone to fail focus unless the lens is not well calibrated by the new rules implemented since 6 months ago. But since I do not have the Canon Service Center here in Portugal in shape to calibrate my lens to the news system I cannot confirm if this will in deed correct or not the problem with firm 1.0.6.

At the moment I'm sticking with firm 1.0.4 until they, at least, issue a statement or make a new one available.



Mar 06, 2010 at 01:48 PM
ruimleal
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #14 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


John--G

Canon has send me the 1.0.4 so I can make some testings, so I have both versions on a card and swap as per test purposes.



Mar 06, 2010 at 01:49 PM
M006
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #15 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


ruimleal, can you please share 1.0.4 for us who got the camera with 1.0.6 preinstalled and would like to try the older version as well and compare? Thanks in advance.



Mar 06, 2010 at 08:35 PM
fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #16 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


Rui, as far as I understand there are a lot of 1DMIV users that would like to go back to 1.04 again.
The thing is Canon refuses to provide them with the older firmware.
It would be really nice if you could put it online so that people can download it.

Think of it as a public service.

I believe the FM community would really appreciate it.



Mar 07, 2010 at 06:15 AM
ruimleal
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #17 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


Hello Fraga,

thank you for answer and sorry for the late reply but I'm stuck at Lisbon Fashion week with not much time to write.

For the moment I'm on negotiations with Canon to free up the firmware to the general public so It's just a matter of time.

Please people keep pressure on Canon about this issue and pressure them to downgrade your firm to 1.0.4 as they are not aware of this affecting their cameras.

Edited on Mar 15, 2010 at 07:45 PM · View previous versions



Mar 15, 2010 at 07:37 PM
ruimleal
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #18 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


For the moment I'm on negotiations with Canon to free up the firmware to the general public so It's just a matter of time.

Please people keep pressure on Canon about this issue and pressure them to downgrade your firm to 1.0.4 as they are not aware of this affecting their cameras.

I also got a reply from Canon Germany that it's very interesting and that could help a lot of the questions raised about blurry images (what I mean is: the image is in focus but not quite) on Canon 1D MarkIII and 1D MarkIV.

---//---

"Increased likelihood of blur

EOS-1D Mark IV's 16.1 megapixels - approx. 1.6 times more than the EOS-1D Mark III and approx. twice that of EOS-1D Mark II. Images shot with the 1D Mark IV will show the effects of blur and defocus more than images shot with the Mark III or Mark II especially when viewed at the same size (i.e. at 100% on a computer monitor). When printed at same size, the visible effects of blur and defocus are not as noticeable. EOS-1D Mark II and EOS-1D Mark III users should be informed of the increased likelihood of blur and/or defocus when using high-resolution cameras. To prevent these image defects, photographers should use faster shutter speeds at high ISO settings and/or shoot with IS (Image Stabilizer) lenses.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_c-dl4fJSVhM/S57OYM6YOdI/AAAAAAAABBo/L-c0n-8zJIw/Canon_CauseOfBlur.gif

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_c-dl4fJSVhM/S57OYOtv9dI/AAAAAAAABBs/8pYdGOVPkao/s512/Canon_MotionBlurSurpass_1.gif

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_c-dl4fJSVhM/S57OYtULJzI/AAAAAAAABBw/9k1Ed0d255s/s512/Canon_MotionBlurSurpass_2.gif


Predicitve AF

When using AI Servo AF for continuous shooting of moving subjects, one of the most common issues is the focus shifting to the background instead of the targeted subject. Focus shifting to the background usually occurs because the subject is moving extremely quickly, and it is caused by the selected AF point not being able to continue tracking the subject. When the AF point is on the background instead of the subject, focus naturally shifts to the background.
Custom Function C.Fn III-8 ‘AF point expansion’ can reduce occurrences of this issue. When option 2: ‘Surrounding AF point’ is selected, it increases the number of active AF points. The subject is easier to track because it is more likely to remain within the area covered by the active focusing points. Also, setting C.Fn III-2 ‘Tracking Sensitivity’ to one of the slower options can improve the stability of subject tracking.

Additional to the better AF accuarcy due to the larger AF-area, helps the pre tracking ca. 0.5 sec to get a better AF-prediction, see the following example:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_c-dl4fJSVhM/S57OZG9uocI/AAAAAAAABB0/3560c5OtQNs/s512/Canon_PredictiveAF_1.gif

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_c-dl4fJSVhM/S57OZN353xI/AAAAAAAABB4/x3cxdayWXHw/s512/Canon_PredictiveAF_2.gif

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_c-dl4fJSVhM/S57WV-caZTI/AAAAAAAABCI/FHCC542H-sI/s720/Eagle_Double%20Exposure.gif


In your example with the flying eagle, you can notice, that the eagle is not hit accurate with the AF-points and sometimes get lost, even with 'surrounding points'. The AF switch's every time between the subject and background, you can improve such a situation, like I explained above, with C.Fn III-2 'tracking sensivity. With setting 'slow (-2)' or 'moderate slow (-1), the focus stay's longer on the detected subject, also C.Fn III-4 affect the tracking, see the following example:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_c-dl4fJSVhM/S57OoCE9owI/AAAAAAAABB8/VsIBiP1LpH4/s512/Canon_PredictiveAF_3.gif

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_c-dl4fJSVhM/S57OoX9z8RI/AAAAAAAABCA/6hAjGa_Yk1w/s512/Canon_PredictiveAF_4.gif


Please keep in mind, when using C.Fn 4-1 'Continuous AF tracking priority' that you hit the subject with the AF-point on the first frame, if you fail the background could be the main subject for the camera, if this happens release the AF-button and press again.

Summary:

The delivered sample images, gave me no possibility to give a clear statement. I discovered only two issues, that the chosen shutter speed in that resolution class and combined with long telephoto lenses is quite long, so a reduced shutter time should improve the results. 2nd the tolerance level of camera and lenses should be checked by our service, to see, that lenses and body fit on each other. Today's service adjustments are more precise than in the past. When was the equipment adjusted, last time?

Please don't feel misunderstood, we don't want to disabuse you or rate your photographic skill's. We think that you have good knowledge and photographic experience. But because of the much higher accuracy of the new cameras, a lot of details will be visible, we didn't see before. A view at 50 % on the screen, the resolution of Mark IIN (8 Megapixel), shows a lot more sharp images. We still want to handle your complain serious and this explanation is only a assumption. Please try the above illustrated topics and get an appointment with your service to see what changes they will deliver.

Our actual experience show, that 1.0.6 delivers better results than 1.0.4, especially the described hunting issue, is more less with the new 1.0.6. That matches also the experience photographers told us on the olympics in vancouver, I personally attend. It's confusing that you'll get better results with 1.0.4.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me.

---//---

This was the answer I got from them after sending a DVD with a collection of a football game I did to test both versions.

My conclusion is still the same, at the moment, the 1.0.4 is a more stable version if you shoot on low light and football, but hey! that is just me talking.

I'm very apprehensive about the double speed to freeze things up and to maintain sharp images as this result in a higher ISO and a not so good quality for the final image also not talking if you need to make a crop of that image with high ISO as it sometimes it's necessary on football games.

I believe Canon could have deliver a much better sensor and even moved into a full frame one but you know Canon, marketing above all.

Last words if you are shooting moving targets remember to always, at least, double your shutter speed to get those really crispy images and try to keep you ISO low as possible to maintain HQ files. If you are on Low Light then you are f... or you can always try to change to the Dark side.

Edited on Mar 15, 2010 at 07:54 PM · View previous versions



Mar 15, 2010 at 07:45 PM
Nill Toulme
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #19 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


ruimleal wrote:
I'm very apprehensive about the double speed to freeze things up and to maintain sharp images as this result in a higher ISO and a not so good quality for the final image also not talking if you need to make a crop of that image with high ISO as it sometimes it's necessary on football games.


Rui you will be interested in this thread.

Nill



Mar 15, 2010 at 07:52 PM
ruimleal
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #20 · Mark IV Firmware 1.0.6 problems


Nill,

thank you for your link thread I will take a look at it.

Rui

"Together we are stronger"



Mar 15, 2010 at 07:57 PM
1       2       3              16              18       19       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              16              18       19       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account