The latest report on 1D Mark III AF issues

Tom W wrote in post #3890209
Canon HAS to sort this out, or they will lose significant market share. Not just a blip in market share, but a serious loss in the number of sports pros shooting Canon.

I agree. Even if there is only the perception of a problem (clearly not the case), Canon can expect to see Nikon (or others) eating their lunch if they don't deal with the growing discontent of Mk III owners. They need to either a) correct the problem, or b) make a clear, definitive statement that there is no problem, and prove it.

joegolf68 wrote in post #3890070
Did you send examples of the problem? If not, Canon still doesn't know how to fix the problem, that is why I havne't sent mine in. Doesn't make any sense to send a camera to them with a problem that they admit they don't know what is causing it or how to fix it.

And that's why I'm kind of standing by until either the next firmware update fixes my problem or we get the results/answer wrt the Rob Galbraith investigation.

KAC

blonde wrote in post #3889860
and here we go again

Not really. I think there are a lot of opinions and beliefs as to whether there is a problem and what it might be and how big it is and how much impact it is having.

Bottom line is we know very little because Canon has said nothing other than that they are looking into the possible issue that Rob Galbraith has identified. The only one that knows how big it might be is Canon and they have said nothing.

I'm basing my belief on the relative numbers of posters on several major photo forums that say they are having problems vs. those that say everything is working as well as those who have said they will not buy a MkIII until Canon acknowledges the issue and fixes it.

On top of that Nikon makes a major announcement which is a significant gut-punch to Canon. I'd call that at least a small disaster.

KAC

deeeez wrote in post #3890141
Man, I'm so sorry to hear you guys having issues with AI Servo... I hope Canon sorts this problem out and you guys get some kind of a voucher or credit for all your problems.

You guys have to be encouraged that at least they are making attempts to correct the issue by releasing firmware updates, even if they are unsuccessful. I would be livid if this happened to me.

Good luck to all of you..

Thanks for your empathy!

I want a voucher all right, a $4500 voucher.

KAC

kenyc wrote in post #3889853
I totally disagree Pekka, I've have Focus problems that have nothing to do with AI-Servo, so has Rob Galbraith, so have many others. It's not just my camera, I believe it's every MKIII and it depends on the circumstances.

Every Mark III? So basically what you say is I am delusional when I get excellent one shot AF from my Mark III? Or I am using it in so simple way and easy situations that I do not get to see how bad it is?

I called Finnish Canon repair, so far they have had two Mark III for repair. They have sold dozens Mark III's in Finland.

What you see in Internet does not always reflect real life. Internet makes bad worse because complaining gets people active. Noisy individuals create and illusion of larger problem. People gospel that they will not buy this camera, without mentioning they never were going to. Problem in AI Servo in certain conditions is elevated to larger than life issue. Some have bad units, but reports of good units are ignored as "you do not use it in a way that reveals the problems". Bad overweights good when it comes to internet writings. That is what bothers be in all this.

In my life electronic equipment working 95% is not a disaster. The camera is still so advanced that I have years of practice coming to get most out of it in its current status.

I have said this but I'll keep on saying it: Canon can not fix anything until they can identify and reliably repeat the problem. People have sent in demo photos, but as long as Canon can not reproduce those problems with scientific accuracy there is no point trying to write new firmware or change hardware. Fuzzy logic does not help here. And there are lenses in equation, and dozens of AF settings.

Maybe Canon has already found problems and solutions. It takes time to verify that solutions really work.

Well said.

Pekka wrote in post #3890638
Every Mark III? So basically what you say is I am delusional when I get excellent one shot AF from my Mark III? Or I am using it in so simple way and easy situations that I do not get to see how bad it is?

I called Finnish Canon repair, so far they have had two Mark III for repair. They have sold dozens Mark III's in Finland.

What you see in Internet does not always reflect real life. Internet makes bad worse because complaining gets people active. Noisy individuals create and illusion of larger problem. People gospel that they will not buy this camera, without mentioning they never were going to. Problem in AI Servo in certain conditions is elevated to larger than life issue. Some have bad units, but reports of good units are ignored as "you do not use it in a way that reveals the problems". Bad overweights good when it comes to internet writings. That is what bothers be in all this.

In my life electronic equipment working 95% is not a disaster. The camera is still so advanced that I have years of practice coming to get most out of it in its current status.

I have said this but I'll keep on saying it: Canon can not fix anything until they can identify and reliably repeat the problem. People have sent in demo photos, but as long as Canon can not reproduce those problems with scientific accuracy there is no point trying to write new firmware or change hardware. Fuzzy logic does not help here. And there are lenses in equation, and dozens of AF settings.

Maybe Canon has already found problems and solutions. It takes time to verify that solutions really work.

Pekka, I don't want to argue with you, You clearly have your opinion and only time will tell whether it is right or not.
I have gotten numerous excellent shots from mine as well, but it's not reliable. Your's may be working. Mine is not, many others are not.

Noisy individuals on BOTH sides as indicated right here.

2 of 24 is 8% bad. You don't know if they are being up front with you in any case. I've asked how many they have seen/repaired every time I talk to any one at Canon and they are always evasive. Bottom line, you can't base anything on the numbers you have, the internet is a better indicator. I'm talking about noise, I'm talking about COUNTING the individuals that say they have a good one vs saying they have a bad one, certainly that's as valid as the percentage bad in Finland. You've seen right here people who thought they had a good one decide it is bad. Maybe you will too. Bottom line is still as I said, no one knows for sure but Canon and they aren't talking.

Lenses are NOT in the equation. Not in my tests and not in the RG tests. They have been ruled out.

Maybe there is water on the moon and we just haven't found it yet.

KAC

kenyc wrote in post #3890713
Lenses are NOT in the equation. Not in my tests and not in the RG tests. They have been ruled out.

I don't think the suggestion is that the lenses in any way contribute directly to the problem. What cannot be denied is that they do constitute another variable in the myriad possible combinations of settings and factors that could affect AF, however. And what does water on the moon have to do with anything?

belmondo wrote in post #3890758
I don't think the suggestion is that the lenses in any way contribute directly to the problem. What cannot be denied is that they do constitute another variable in the myriad possible combinations of settings and factors that could affect AF, however. And what does water on the moon have to do with anything?

The point is that the same lens works fine on other cameras. Canon supplied factory calibrated lenses for the second set of RG tests. Lenses are OUT of the equation, there are the not the source of the AF problem.

If you'll observer the parallel in Pekka's posting and mine, you'll see the relevance.

KAC

kenyc wrote in post #3890801
The point is that the same lens works fine on other cameras. Canon supplied factory calibrated lenses for the second set of RG tests. Lenses are OUT of the equation, there are the not the source of the AF problem.

If you'll observer the parallel in Pekka's posting and mine, you'll see the relevance.

KAC

I assume you're saying that a lens that focuses properly on, say, a 1D MK IIn is not a contributing factor when used on a MK III that has focusing issues. I'm saying that even if working properly, that lens can contribute one more set of variables that might affect the AF on the MK III. I am not saying there's anything wrong with the lens. It's the relationship between the lens and the camera, and that's what has to be understood.

A brick thrown through a window is still a brick. The brick is exactly to spec and still fully functional while the window has failed. Not the greatest analogy, but it's the best I can do when a NASCAR race is on television.

kenyc wrote in post #3890801
If you'll observer the parallel in Pekka's posting and mine, you'll see the relevance.

KAC

Of?

belmondo wrote in post #3890872
I assume you're saying that a lens that focuses properly on, say, a 1D MK IIn is not a contributing factor when used on a MK III that has focusing issues. I'm saying that even if working properly, that lens can contribute one more set of variables that might affect the AF on the MK III. I am not saying there's anything wrong with the lens. It's the relationship between the lens and the camera, and that's what has to be understood.

A brick thrown through a window is still a brick. The brick is exactly to spec and still fully functional while the window has failed. Not the greatest analogy, but it's the best I can do when a NASCAR race is on television.

1) why are you watching that thing on tv?

2) your analogy is a bit flawed but i will try to use it myself: if you have a specific kind of brick that has been used by the same builder using the same technique to build 100's of houses, when one house crashes, i don't think that the bricks are at fault so it has to be the foundation of the house.

blonde wrote in post #3890941
1) why are you watching that thing on tv?

2) your analogy is a bit flawed but i will try to use it myself: if you have a specific kind of brick that has been used by the same builder using the same technique to build 100's of houses, when one house crashes, i don't think that the bricks are at fault so it has to be the foundation of the house.

Oh ****, I have a brick house.

jr_senator wrote in post #3890951
Oh ****, I have a brick house.

time to move my friend

blonde wrote in post #3890941
1) why are you watching that thing on tv?

Can't give you a good reason...I just enjoy it.:o

blonde wrote in post #3890941
2) your analogy is a bit flawed but i will try to use it myself: if you have a specific kind of brick that has been used by the same builder using the same technique to build 100's of houses, when one house crashes, i don't think that the bricks are at fault so it has to be the foundation of the house.

Okay. How about if you've been using the same bricks, but you change the mortar? The bricks are still capable of doing their job, but because of the mortar, the job fails.

Ummm. Forget the bricks.