-Official- 1D MK III AF Thread. Firmware? Hardware Fix Is IN!!!

kenyc wrote in post #4183345
Cool!

Since it's been announced/supposedly fixed they can do it without incurring the full wrath of Canon advertising-wise.

KAC

Jon wrote in post #4183314
I doubt it - there's a good couple of months lead time involved there between testing, writing, printing and distributing the magazine.

But they were probably writing it about the same time that RG was re-testing with Canon at his side; it's likely just coincidence that it's turned up now that word of the repair's slipped out.

Jon wrote in post #4183395
But they were probably writing it about the same time that RG was re-testing with Canon at his side; it's likely just coincidence that it's turned up now that word of the repair's slipped out.

Or they could have had in the queue and hesitating to publish it until now.

KAC

They would have had to commit to publishing it at least a month ago, what with editorial and production issues. Look at the lag time on new camera reviews. OP's just getting first looks on the 40D and 1Ds III into print.

The Magazine is published weekly, so I think the article was researched in the last 4 weeks and the Camera tested was with firmware 1.1.0

I could post the article as a .pdf but I am not sure if that is legally allowed by the Moderator here?

Nope. If the publisher makes a PDF available on their site, you can link to it. Any other presentation is not allowed.

The original review of the Mk III in Amateur Photographer was after the RG findings. I was enraged enough to write to AP and complain and pointed the reviewer to RG's site and review. He contacted me and said don't worry, Canon has a new fix of firmware and he would be re-testing at the end of August. Seems very funny his latest article referred to web rumours about the problems as "not adult" (sorry RG). Now his conclusion is saying there are a few problems with focusssing on a "Tram" in some european country, but most problems lie with the user and a complex camera to set up. Ironic on the week that Canon announced a hardware problem and recall.

peeps27 wrote in post #4184325
The original review of the Mk III in Amateur Photographer was after the RG findings. I was enraged enough to write to AP and complain and pointed the reviewer to RG's site and review. He contacted me and said don't worry, Canon has a new fix of firmware and he would be re-testing at the end of August. Seems very funny his latest article referred to web rumours about the problems as "not adult" (sorry RG). Now his conclusion is saying there are a few problems with focusssing on a "Tram" in some european country, but most problems lie with the user and a complex camera to set up. Ironic on the week that Canon announced a hardware problem and recall.

KAC

Don't forget that there's significantly more delivery time involved in paper media than on the web. The two could have easily been contemporaneous, or the AP could have even predated RG in performance. BTW - "tram" is a form of trolly and/or cablecar.

peeps27 wrote in post #4184325
The original review of the Mk III in Amateur Photographer was after the RG findings. I was enraged enough to write to AP and complain and pointed the reviewer to RG's site and review. He contacted me and said don't worry, Canon has a new fix of firmware and he would be re-testing at the end of August. Seems very funny his latest article referred to web rumours about the problems as "not adult" (sorry RG). Now his conclusion is saying there are a few problems with focusssing on a "Tram" in some european country, but most problems lie with the user and a complex camera to set up. Ironic on the week that Canon announced a hardware problem and recall.

Nothing new there, plenty of crow to go around. They grow on trees I hear

The Conclusion from the article has been copied and pasted here:-

http://www.eos-forums.com/index.php?t​opic=16572.15

Oh Geez, it IS the settings.. we were wrong all along .. (and now Canon is too) :lolL

That article would seriously have fit in just fine, in early August!

I just can't keep from wondering though, just exactly what application did the designers have in mind to take full advantage of the "focus anywhere but where the single active AF point is currently located" CF Settings?
What particular shooting style does this work for?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #4184623
Oh Geez, it IS the settings.. we were wrong all along .. (and now Canon is too) :lolL

That article would seriously have fit in just fine, in early August!

I just can't keep from wondering though, just exactly what application did the designers have in mind to take full advantage of the "focus anywhere but where the single active AF point is currently located" CF Settings?
What particular shooting style does this work for?

does that mean that i need to change my signature again?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #4183249

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'application/xml'

By the time it hits the shelves, the issue will be solved.
Soooooooo last months news

Bought it, read it. Nothing I didn't read on this forum months ago. Just a bunch of tests of someone takign shots of a moving tram and seeing how the AF system can't cope unless slowed down to 7fps. Old news.

I think the point to note is the impact it has. Having Canon and AF disaster on the front of the magazine has a HUGE impact to all potential customers...Canon would be very 'Red Faced' by this very public statement, the Japanese will not like this kind of public humiliation at all and it can only increase the drive to fix this quickly

I keep fearing we will have a rash of Canon executive suicides.