-Official- 1D MK III AF Thread.

Imaginos wrote in post #5876307
Yeah, I though the 1Ds reference was interesting because A) we wants it precious, and B) I've not seen much talk about any systemic problems. So...I'm betting it's being used as a reference body...something that preforms "well" to set the expectation for the repaired 1D3.

Maybe....I was very very hesitant to buy the 1Ds and did a lot of email and PMing, looking at photos and reading many different forums. I did run across a few that said they were have some of the similar oof issues, but basically made the decision to take a chance and test the hell out of it and so far it's performed flawlessly but I still have a few more days before the return period is up. No plans to return it though.

Yes, should be interesting to see the results from this test.

The main problem, however, is that some cameras appear to work fine while others don't. So I guess that even if RG is now getting good results with his cameras there is always a chance that anyone buying a 1D MkIII could end up with a lemon. Or, on the other hand, could get a good camera even if RG reports that he's still having problems. A little worrying for anyone (like myself) thinking about buying!

Unfortunately, for any canon shooters wanting to buy a new camera for sports there's not really any alternative to the 1D MkIII (presumably it would be difficult to find a MkIIN now). I only started doing sports pictures about six months ago, mainly football but also some golf, hockey etc for a local newspaper. While I've been getting some fairly good results with the 40D I feel there are times - late evening games, games in poor light and wet weather, etc - when a properly working 1D MIII would be an advantage.

Just wish it was as straightforward as shelling out the (substantial) cash to buy one and feeling confident it will would work as it is supposed to!

Wavy C wrote in post #5877956
Yes, should be interesting to see the results from this test.

The main problem, however, is that some cameras appear to work fine while others don't. So I guess that even if RG is now getting good results with his cameras there is always a chance that anyone buying a 1D MkIII could end up with a lemon. Or, on the other hand, could get a good camera even if RG reports that he's still having problems. A little worrying for anyone (like myself) thinking about buying!

Unfortunately, for any canon shooters wanting to buy a new camera for sports there's not really any alternative to the 1D MkIII (presumably it would be difficult to find a MkIIN now). I only started doing sports pictures about six months ago, mainly football but also some golf, hockey etc for a local newspaper. While I've been getting some fairly good results with the 40D I feel there are times - late evening games, games in poor light and wet weather, etc - when a properly working 1D MIII would be an advantage.

Just wish it was as straightforward as shelling out the (substantial) cash to buy one and feeling confident it will would work as it is supposed to!

Wait, your sig says 20D

As far as your comment, I this is exactly the rub and the fallout from Canon rushing this model to market and not doing proper QA on the design and the subsequent faliure to handle it quickly. I'm a firm believer that there is a design flaw that is showing up due to tolerances in particular cameras. I think they have done about everything they can with software to correct for it, but even with the latest serial number I think there is still a possibility of the focus problem showing up.

kenyc wrote in post #5878000
Wait, your sig says 20D

As far as your comment, I this is exactly the rub and the fallout from Canon rushing this model to market and not doing proper QA on the design and the subsequent faliure to handle it quickly. I'm a firm believer that there is a design flaw that is showing up due to tolerances in particular cameras. I think they have done about everything they can with software to correct for it, but even with the latest serial number I think there is still a possibility of the focus problem showing up.

X2

I said the very same thing many months ago & still believe this to be the case. As always YMMV.

Mark

kenyc wrote in post #5878000
As far as your comment, I this is exactly the rub and the fallout from Canon rushing this model to market and not doing proper QA on the design and the subsequent faliure to handle it quickly. I'm a firm believer that there is a design flaw that is showing up due to tolerances in particular cameras. I think they have done about everything they can with software to correct for it, but even with the latest serial number I think there is still a possibility of the focus problem showing up.

X3 The problem has been minimized.... Personally, I will not buy another one until I know it has been corrected. ...and I think that takes a mechanical design change.

GBRandy wrote in post #5880158
X3 The problem has been minimized.... Personally, I will not buy another one until I know it has been corrected. ...and I think that takes a mechanical design change.

Agreed

Roll on MK3n????

Mark

wish you guys could shoot with mine, you'd be wondering why people are wanting a mk3n. Perhaps it is something with inconsistant copies, I've had two, the first one was good, but the AF wasn't as reliable as my mk2. This second one I have (march 08 datecode) is at least equal to in tracking and faster locking than both my mk2's. haven't had any questionable OOF shots except for when I shot it with my 35L, which I sold

thatkatmat wrote in post #5880769
wish you guys could shoot with mine, you'd be wondering why people are wanting a mk3n. Perhaps it is something with inconsistant copies, I've had two, the first one was good, but the AF wasn't as reliable as my mk2. This second one I have (march 08 datecode) is at least equal to in tracking and faster locking than both my mk2's. haven't had any questionable OOF shots except for when I shot it with my 35L, which I sold

Seriously I'm glad you have a good copy - at last. We can always hope that if a MK3n does materialise that Canon get it right seccond time around.

Mark

sprite wrote in post #5880787
Seriously I'm glad you have a good copy - at last. We can always hope that if a MK3n does materialise that Canon get it right seccond time around.

Mark

Agree 100%, might help to wipe the slate clean

Canon is not going to release a replacement until we learn how to use the Mk III.

Get busy, folks.

I'm learning and I'm not complaining!

belmondo wrote in post #5880929
Canon is not going to release a replacement until we learn how to use the Mk III.

Get busy, folks.

Hey There you are! I was wondering where you'd gotten to.

Leeuwarden wrote in post #5880938
I'm learning and I'm not complaining!

Canon EOS 40D

Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 40D
Image Date: 2008:06:21 14:03:05
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 420.0mm
CCD Width: 5.98mm
Exposure Time: 0.0008 s (1/1250)
Aperture: f/7.1
ISO equiv: 320
White Balance: Auto
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)

Palladium wrote in post #5880991
Canon EOS 40D

Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 40D
Image Date: 2008:06:21 14:03:05
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 420.0mm
CCD Width: 5.98mm
Exposure Time: 0.0008 s (1/1250)
Aperture: f/7.1
ISO equiv: 320
White Balance: Auto
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)

OMG... That is too funny. I think his face looks like this:

GBRandy wrote in post #5881142
OMG... That is too funny. I think his face looks like this:

Nah, the was just testing to see anyone could tell the difference.