The latest report on 1D Mark III AF issues

blam wrote in post #3917682
so...has canon done anything? if a person was to send their MKIII in is there an actual fix available to cure the AF? I dont want to read 190 pages.

There have been some that have been fixed according to reports. Others have received inspections, cleaning and maybe firmware upgrades, but returned in essentially the same state as when sent in.

KAC

kenyc wrote in post #3917720
Please go do it another thread. This is totally off topic.

KAC

Yup. This thread is dedicated strictly to discussing the MK III focusing problems. Any further posts not dealing directly with that will be moved or deleted. Noise comparisons of other makes/models absolutely belong in a thread of their own.

Thanks for your cooperation.


Tom

kenyc wrote in post #3917720
Please go do it in another thread. This is totally off topic.

KAC

I agree, and I apologize for helping steer the subject away from the 1D3. This IS about the 1D3 and it's AF performance.

With a vested interest I have piped in from time to time on this thread from the beginning. It seems from the last several pages that we have deviated from what was originally maybe conjecture and is now a acknowledged problem. With all due respect to the community if you can not suggest viable settings or suggestions that will rectify this problem or concrete "hearsay" I think you , we and I are just talking for the sake of talking which serves no beneficial purpose to address this problem for a current user and those of future potential consumers.
My $.02 worth.

It took me a bit to type this while I was trying to watch my Yankees. It looks like Belmondo beat me to the punch.

Q. For those of you who have purchased 1D MIIIs, if the autofocus issue remains as it does permenantly, would you still purchase the camera again for its other features or would you have skipped this model?

RichNY wrote in post #3917806
Q. For those of you who have purchased 1D MIIIs, if the autofocus issue remains as it does permenantly, would you still purchase the camera again for its other features or would you have skipped this model?

I would have waited, certainly...not buy it at all? That's a hard call...

RichNY wrote in post #3917806
Q. For those of you who have purchased 1D MIIIs, if the autofocus issue remains as it does permenantly, would you still purchase the camera again for its other features or would you have skipped this model?

If you bought a car that had the best brakes in the business but they only worked half the time, would you still buy the car?

I haven't had a problem with the autofocus, but I haven't shot under the same conditions as many of the people who are having difficulties. Chances are, if I continue to use the camera as I am currently, I'll never experience the problem. That sure doesn't mean I would have ever bought the camera if I knew in advance that it was incapable of doing what it was supposedly designed to do and marketed as being capable of.

RichNY wrote in post #3917806
Q. For those of you who have purchased 1D MIIIs, if the autofocus issue remains as it does permenantly, would you still purchase the camera again for its other features or would you have skipped this model?

For me that's sort of like asking is you'd buy a $50,000 Cadillac Escalade if the power steering didn't work and you knew it never would.

KAC
P.S. I guess I should have said the power steering works intermittently. BTW nice analogy Belmondo.

blonde wrote in post #3915773
the point is that he is obviously affiliated with Canon and therefore has a good reason to try and hype up their products.

Again, you make a good and valid point.

That said, he charges $50k per wedding. I doubt very much if he would use a camera he did not have full confidence in. And I'm not for a minute saying there is no problem with it. I think we all know there is and are just waiting, some more patiently than others, for a fix once and for all.

mark

SilverOnemi wrote in post #3916538
it does seem to have alot of detail btw.

http://chsv.nikonimagi​ng.com …a/slr/d3/img/pi​c_003b.jpg

can you do that with your 5D at iso 6400

ok you've just got yourself a chalange
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=3917884#p​ost3917884

sorry Belmondo ...from now on my lips are sealed

belmondo wrote in post #3917823
If you bought a car that had the best brakes in the business but they only worked half the time, would you still buy the car?

I haven't had a problem with the autofocus, but I haven't shot under the same conditions as many of the people who are having difficulties. Chances are, if I continue to use the camera as I am currently, I'll never experience the problem. That sure doesn't mean I would have ever bought the camera if I knew in advance that it was incapable of doing what it was supposedly designed to do and marketed as being capable of.

kenyc wrote in post #3917834
For me that's sort of like asking is you'd buy a $50,000 Cadillac Escalade if the power steering didn't work and you knew it never would.

KAC
P.S. I guess I should have said the power steering works intermittently. BTW nice analogy Belmondo.

I've got to say that is a poor analogy.

I bought a first model year Volkswagen Touareg. As an early adopter, the car was in high demand. I paid sticker for it. FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, a darn sight more than the Mark III.

This car/suv had myriad problems. I had it back to the dealer more times than I care to count or remember. It still has electric gremlins that pop up now and again. Just the other day, after months of no problems, the TPMS (tire pressure monitoring system) showed a fault in the display. I turned it off, back on, and is hasn't recurred. Now obviously that doesn't cure the problem with the camera. If only it did.

Point is, I would buy the car again. It is a fantastic automobile in spite of its teething problems. I've put 120,000 miles on it in four years and it still rides like new, has a 300hp V8 which pulls my trailer as if it's not behind it.

Would I buy the Mark III again? In a word: YES.
mark

MDJAK wrote in post #3917870
Again, you make a good and valid point.

That said, he charges $50k per wedding. I doubt very much if he would use a camera he did not have full confidence in. And I'm not for a minute saying there is no problem with it. I think we all know there is and are just waiting, some more patiently than others, for a fix once and for all.

mark

I think his comments are very valid when one ignores the focusing issue, which I'm sure he is.

Low noise, 14-bits, highlight tone priority - a lot to like if you don't include the bugs.

I would definitely buy the camera again too. It has everything I need in a camera and more. My only knit pick is the ROF which is totally unreliable in AI_servo.

MDJAK wrote in post #3917906
I've got to say that is a poor analogy.

That's okay. People didn't like my brick and mortar analogy of a few days back. I guess I'm not very good at analogies.

Your Volkswagen is a different situation IMHO. Maybe all your problems are not clearly understood, but the manufacturer/dealer appears to be making an effort to resolve your issues. Also, they're very likely communicating with you. I'm not sure you'd be quite so happy with the car if the dealer only washed it and gave it back without telling you what was wrong with it, what else they did, and whether you had a reasonable prospect of good service from it in the future.

If you weren't satisfied that the dealership and VW weren't making a valid effort to make you happy, then you might feel differently. This is the problem with Canon; nobody really knows what's happening with them, and it's the general dissatisfaction with Canon and how they're failing to communicate that is their biggest problem right now.

Your analogy sucks, too.:p:p

OK - So I don't read the posts in the last 3 days and it jumps to over ten pages and I'm thinking that there was some AF miracle that occurred. No such luck!

I haven't really posted my experience with the MKIII since recieving it in July(#514xxx). I take care of the sports photos at my school and haven't really put the camera through the kind of capability that is expected of it. I also got the 16-35 II with it, and that's what I've been playing with all summer. The kind of shots I did over the summer were basic vacation, pet pics, and a family reunion. Most of the time, the shots were dead on, and the OOF shots my error.

To date, I have shot a couple of soccer, field hockey, football games and a cross country meet. I have used m 400 2.8 for every game and my 70-200 2.8 for the cross country meet. Coming from the AF-Servo of a 10D, I was more than used to manually focusing, and I was excited to test the AF capabilities of the MKIII.

Unfortunately, I have had more OOF shots than I expected. Many of the players were coming towards me, and most bursts were OOF. They looked clear on the LCD, but at 100% they were soft. What a dissapointment! When I reverted back to manual focus, many pictures were tack sharp.

I'm not afraid to manually focus, but like everyone on the forum I expected the AF to be a huge improvement over the 10D. I guess I'll have to settle for using AF-servo in hopes of getting a few usable shots as well as taking time to manually focus.

I hope that Canon fixes ths problem soon. I look foward to this second and hopefully final firmwear update. It is hard to realize that I invested so many $$$ for a manually focusing camera. Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed with the camera for everything that it offers above the 10D, but I can maunually focus my 10D for the same shot!

Let's hope for the best,
Joe P