Is this the NatureScapes thread? http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=103425
Not to be picky, it\'s only 9 days before RG published his findings, however, it\'s worth noting that RG already mentioned \"AF problems\" with the III in his April 2007 preview of the camera based on work with a preproduction unit.
Ron
Ron, yes that\'s the one. So my \"months before\" language was not accurate (this has been going on so long that memories fade and it\'s taken awhile to dig up the original NSN thread on the occasions that I\'ve done so. )
As for RG\'s assessment of AF issues on the pre-production model, yes that preceded the NSN thread. However, this was a pre-production thing (which Canon informed RG about when they gave him the body) and apparently no one believed this would carry over to the production models (which obviously included Canon; they never would have allowed a preview of something they seriously thought could persist after production.) I can clearly remember posting a question in one of the original pre-production FM threads about why people would preorder the MkIII given the AF issues that apparently existed instead of waiting to see how things actually turned out. I was a bit surprised to get back a very polite response that I must have missed much of the preceding discussion of the issue (true - I hadn\'t been tracking all the pre-MkIII threads) and that it was \"common knowledge\" that Canon didn\'t have issues with actual production models of the 1-series. No counters to that from anyone here and I think most people on this board and elsewhere assumed Canon would get things in hand.
So I\'d say that NSN thread was the first place that surfaced the issue.
I\'ve always said that I thought eventually things would work themselves out and I think Canon\'s made a lot of progress to that end (and is probably there with most of their MkIII bodies.) As I read the RG piece even he\'s saying that it\'s focus initially works fine for the most part. It\'s just a question of figuring out why things sometimes go awry after that. And Canon clearly knows what they changed in design and production since the MkIIn so, if nothing else, they can work (and undoubtedly have worked) backwards to determine where issues have arisen.
Jun 01, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Previous versions of Paul B's message #7138517 « Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved »
)