The latest report on 1D Mark III AF issues

Oops -forgot to give the link, It's on last page 5, named Drill.

Direct download:
http://ftp.robgalbrait​h.com …Mark_III_ISO200​_Drill.zip

Tommy- I understand. I already promised that I will try to control my sarcasm so yes, my post was serious. Btw, I just did my good deed for the day and saved a frog from certain death....

blonde wrote in post #3707871
Tommy- I understand. I already promised that I will try to control my sarcasm so yes, my post was serious. Btw, I just did my good deed for the day and saved a frog from certain death....

Are you literally "in the field?" I mean like posting here from a blackberry or mobile phone or something?

KAC

[QUOTE=blonde;3707615]​Geez I thought most people would be asleep at this time...

This implies it's night time, does that mean the AF works better at night ? ( cooler / no bright sunshine etc )

Hey CDS,
When do you expect your camera back? Did you do it with a CPS 3 day return?
and please start a new thread so we can find the outcome easily. Thanks

I'm not sure what this means, but I'll post it anyway, then go hide behind a rock.

This thread has been running for a while, and has roughly 1650 posts. Of those posts, 577 have come from five individuals, roughly the same number as the bottom 144 contributors combined.

It impresses me that much of the perception regarding this problem (and I concede there is a problem) is being fueled by a relatively small group of people who feel the need to vent loudly and frequently on the problems with the camera, Canon, people who believe in Canon (I believe the term was 'fanboy'), and general dissatisfaction with anything to do with the Mark III.

I believe the problem, while real, is being somewhat overblown, and the impatience of a few individuals reflects unfairly on Canon to a great degree, and this forum to a lesser degree. Until we have a definitive word on the problem and the solution, we're just fueling anti-MK III hysteria with the constant droning which really covers no new ground.

Just my opinion.......


I will now crawl under my chair.

belmondo wrote in post #3708537
I'm not sure what this means, but I'll post it anyway, then go hide behind a rock.

This thread has been running for a while, and has roughly 1650 posts. Of those posts, 577 have come from five individuals, roughly the same number as the bottom 144 contributors combined.

It impresses me that much of the perception regarding this problem (and I concede there is a problem) is being fueled by a relatively small group of people who feel the need to vent loudly and frequently on the problems with the camera, Canon, people who believe in Canon (I believe the term was 'fanboy'), and general dissatisfaction with anything to do with the Mark III.

I believe the problem, while real, is being somewhat overblown, and the impatience of a few individuals reflects unfairly on Canon to a great degree, and this forum to a lesser degree. Until we have a definitive word on the problem and the solution, we're just fueling anti-MK III hysteria with the constant droning which really covers no new ground.

Just my opinion.......


I will now crawl under my chair.

Certainly you are free to have a take on the camera and the postings here, but there's no chance this is "out of proportion." We're talking a top-of-the line camera, marketed as the fastest digital slr in the world, it should not have focus problems.

Clearly the problem has been seen and demonstrated by reliable sources. Canon has had plenty of opportunity to respond (even from before the release) and they haven't. This lack of response is in itself is a serious issue.

Your camera may be working fine as many seem to be, but many are not and waiting on Canon to say whether there is a problem or not is silly. They are like every other corporation today and it often takes legal action to force them to stand by the products they build.

I certainly don't know the extent of the problem and I really don't think there's a reliable way to determine that, certainly not by number of posts in a thread.

And yes I do tend to be very vocal when I spend $5000 on a product that doesn't work, I would hope you would be too give the same situation.


KAC

belmondo wrote in post #3708537
I'm not sure what this means, but I'll post it anyway, then go hide behind a rock.

I will now crawl under my chair.

Tommy, I am not really sure what is that you are saying/suggesting to be done, after all you seem uncertain about it yourself, however, I do take that you keep a rock under your chair.

I'm not suggesting anything, Pete. As mentioned already, the problem is very real to those who have spent a significant amount of money for a camera that doesn't work right. I just don't know how many such people there are with the same small group making so much noise.

I'm sure Canon is aware of the problem whether they choose to acknowledge it publicly or not.
They will do something about it once they fully understand it. After all, they can't afford to lose their position of preeminence in the pro camera market, and one bad issue could very well plant serious doubts in the minds of the most demanding buyers on the planet.

I am not sure the constant complaining and hand-wringing here will do anything to improve the situation. I think this thread has turned into less of a sharing of useful information, and more of choir preaching to itself.

Anyone coming to this thread for the first time is going to see hundreds of pages of people complaining about their MK III. Very few folks are going to be inclined to read through every post to hear that a number of people don't have the problem, or have found ways to deal with it.

More useful information might be something like: How many people here actually own a MK III, and how many have clearly ascertained their copy to be bad. 1%? 5%? 25%?

I think there has been a lot of painting with a broad brush here.

Back to my rock under the chair.

belmondo wrote in post #3708801
More useful information might be something like: How many people here actually own a MK III, and how many have clearly ascertained their copy to be bad. 1%? 5%? 25%?

https://photography-on-the.net …o=showresults&p​ollid=1543

Im with belmondo.

There is a problem, but I dont think any forum is going to give an accurate show of percentages. Im willing to bet 9 out of 10 people with a problem that read this or other forum on the topic will take the time to post. But those with no issues will probably have a higher number of those that choose not to post.

Plus Canon has made mention of this issue and said, (paraphrasing) They are investigating it and If/When a problem is found they will make sure it is corrected by what ever means neccassary.

But heres the rub...

People want more and more technologicly advanced gear, as the gear becomes more advanced, it also becomes more complicated, as it becomes more complicated so does troubleshooting, and the time in which we can expect to see results greatly increases.

If Canon comes out and says there is no porblem with any of the cameras Then I can see everyone being upset, not just those that have a problem, but also those that dont that see others with a problem.

Very interesting observation, Belmondo. It's definately worth keeping an open mind and a sharper eye on the posting trends regarding this issue.

Dekka wrote in post #3709110
Very interesting observation, Belmondo. It's definately worth keeping an open mind and a sharper eye on the posting trends regarding this issue.

It's very interesting that many respected pros in various fields are all throwing their weight behind there being a serious issue. I'm not sure how the people who say that there are no problems out there can argue with that?

belmondo wrote in post #3708801
Back to my rock under the chair.

Get out from under the rock. In the poll above it has you in the category that you are now experiencing problems after going to 1.1.0 firmware. What problem are you having?

Tom, thanks for posting this. I think you are voicing an opinion that many may have wished to voice, but were not willing to for any of a number of reasons.
I admit totally to be fully embroiled in this situation, and it is clearly effecting not only my own involvement, but may have an influence on the thread itself.

belmondo wrote in post #3708537
I'm not sure what this means, but I'll post it anyway, then go hide behind a rock.

I don't know what your post means either,...
But you mentioned some statistics that I don;t think show the whole picture very well..
Numbers never tell the whole story, to get the whole story one would need to read the whole thread end to end.

Doing so might also provide some more telling numbers such as these;

The standing IN THIS THREAD as of this post:

27 members have at some time reported there MkIII's as good or perfect buy user.

24 were reported as “bad” either initially or upon testing. These are members that never stated there's was "good", but either new they were bad or needed more use to decide.

6 of the initial 27 with "good" MkIII's have subsequently returned to say there's are showing signs of being bad.

Keeping score? With the 6 changing from good to bad were at;
30 bad cameras and
21 good cameras in this thread.

2 of the bad cameras have returned from Canon repair still in bad shape.

1 of the bad Cameras was sent in a second time and current report is that it is improved.

These last two are a matter of perception, and may be colored by my own opinion. I believe most of the 30 with bad cameras would agree with this assessment if shown the posts involved.

11 members at least post habitually in this thread with no “stake” that show total diplomacy and take no sides.

13 members post regularly in this thread in a manner that IMHO is only to stir up trouble troll or belittle those that are having problems with there MkIII's


This is the statement that concerns me;

Since the beginning of the issue, we have made it a point to try and contain this situation as much as possible.
We have attempted to relegate all discussion to one thread, in fact this thread is of course an amalgamation of many thread as new ones are merged to contain it.
There are dozens of threads on the forum, including several that those of us with "bad" MkIII's have posted, whose subject is what a wonder the MkIII is, dozens of positive threads. These are not being policed and merged into one thread to protect those that don't have a good one from being upset, yet we knowingly ad willingly (and rightfully IMHO ) do the opposite with this touchy subject.

Fueling the issue I have not seen.
Continuing to post information to try and ascertain the cause and possible fix has been the predominant motivation as far as I can see.
Yes there are trollish posts on both sides, the worst of them have been removed from all but the Mods to see.

We are posting with a purpose in this thread. For most of us that purpose is to try to resolve the issue be it by solving the settings problem (how we started) to getting Canon to create a fix or some form of support for those with bad cameras.
I personally think that this thread is more germane to the Canon Digital Photography forums essence than a vast number of other longer running more populated threads here.

I'll try and find an old post on it that said it better, but this is the thread that Canon and Chuck get pointed to and it's people posting there information in this thread, the people sending in there borked Camera to Canon with DVDs of misfocused images etc that are helping motivate Canon to take this seriously.
Please do not begrudge us taking an active roll in this situation.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #3709140
Please do not begrudge us taking an active roll in this situation.

I begrudge you nothing, Jake, least of all a pleasurable experience with a camera that works as advertised. I just question the value of repititous assaults on Canon, UPS, and people whose experience with the MK III allow them to still believe in Canon.

I will go away now.

Sorry I brought it up.