The latest report on 1D Mark III AF issues

There are a couple of reasons why I posted.

• To immediately check the camera within the return period and post the results along w/SN and build date for those who are tracking this info. (this is a canon forum w/canon enthusiasts)
  
• To post the actual images of what I was claiming (without pics, claims are subjective)
  
• To help people who might be trying to make a decision

JC4 wrote in post #3934690
The complex scenarios (busy, bright background, small non contrasty subject....) are not being displayed in these new tests. There are far more people having issues in this area than any simple shots, or sports shots, or motor sports..... This is especially true of people who had excellent results with a IIn.

The simple stuff has been proven to work on a lot of III's. This isn't new.

although these shots look awesome, i have to agree with the comment above. my problem doesn't seem to happen when i can fill the frame or completely cover the selected focus point, but rather when i'm attempting to get more surrounding action included in the frame, i.e. jumps, ramps, sky, etc.

but these shots from a "new" body are hard to argue with, they look awesome. let's trade.

Blue Deuce wrote in post #3934870
Can anyone who has had there MKIII serviced by Canon provide me an answer ? I sent mine off and just received the following email,

"We are pleased to confirm that the service you requested on your EOS-1D MARK III has been completed and your equipment has been shipped to you on 14-SEP-07"

When I get the camera back will they provide me with a detailed list of what they actually fixed ?

There is a small section on the repair ticket. Mine has said things like "Inspected, clearned, updated firmware."

KAC

squiress wrote in post #3934914
I'm following reports pretty closely here and other places and I would agree with jr_senator to a point. I'm not seeing anyone getting new cameras complaining about AF issues. It's got me thinking that maybe some AF part was out of spec and Canon caught it and tightened it up. There still is the need for a fix for prior, although it kind of makes you wonder if that type of thing would justify a recall. Simply speculation, still, things do seem to be getting better. The psychological shift still is present though. Some people have read or assimulated the thrust of over 3000 posts in this thread and are fearlessly putting out $4500 for this body.

So Kenny, what are you gonna sell that broken and scratched up body for?

Stew

Make me an offer. Seriously! I've got an extra battery for it and it's been certified by Canon repair twice now. I'm very likely going to go to the 40D til the air clears.

KAC

Mr. Clean wrote in post #3934954
Nobody hardly complained about their camera at first.

One person has a good experience owning for a couple days and now the problem is fixed?

That's as strange as one person having a bad camera and everyone thinking there's a problem.

Yep, it was well past the return period before I knew I had a problem. I kept blaming the OOF shots on myself until I got serious about doing direct comparison shots between my different bodies with the same lens.

KAC

This thread is being locked. We made this decision a while back, but I'm just getting around to it now. The 'new' thread is here.

I hope you will all see the value in cutting back on the volume of traffic in the Mk III conversations. We want it to be a resource for people looking for answers, and this discussion has become somewhat circular and needlessly lengthy without really imparting any new or useful information.

Thanks,

Tom