Is the 1D Mark III fixed?

You are right.

OK, let me try again then.

I had a Lexus ES300 Sedan that was a lemon. Therefore all ES300 sedans are lemons.

I think I have a great 1DMKIII. Therefore I must be a casual shooter (Uhhh...I am...uhhh), don't push my camera HARD enough, and probably not paying attention to my files too much either.

Ah, I feel much better now!

cwphoto wrote in post #7033436


No-one is saying that all Canons are lemons. So the comparison you allude doesn't make much sense.

nicksan wrote in post #7031289
I had a Lexus that turned out to be a Lemon therefore all Lexus vehicles are lemons.

My Lexus is great - therefore there are no lemons in the whole world.

I dont want to alarm anyone but,
I took a picture of my dog with my Mark III a few minutes ago.
Focus was spot on, colors were great even though it was backlit...
The only problem...
IT WAS NOT MY DOG.

I HATE THIS CAMERA!!!!

In all seriousness though, the camera has AF issues. I dont know why anyone would argue that. I had and have only 1 and it had and still has issues in some really specific circumstances.

If you shoot sports then why would you even want this camera?
Just get a 1dIIN!
Its cheaper!

cwphoto wrote in post #7033427
Wrong. Canon hasn't fixed it.

Your RoF suggestion is irrelevant to the AF problem.

Please start discussing instead of biting and barking at (groups of) people. If you are here just to push your "it's broken, that's the truth" mantra to everyone who replies this thread then please note that your view has been duly noted, move on.

I'll try to wrap my view into couple of sentences.

On mirror fixed and firmware updated perfect specimen of Mark III the AF still works differently to Mark II. In some shooting genres worse (BIF) , in some equally well, in some much better (like in low light). It's a new design. To my view that is the actual "AF issue" people get and that is why some complain and some praise: it does not work with same logic as Mark II, or performs the same in all situations. In addition to this, it is vital that you understand AF settings and change them according to task, if needed.

nicksan wrote in post #7033601
You are right.

OK, let me try again then.

I had a Lexus ES300 Sedan that was a lemon. Therefore all ES300 sedans are lemons.

I think I have a great 1DMKIII. Therefore I must be a casual shooter (Uhhh...I am...uhhh), don't push my camera HARD enough, and probably not paying attention to my files too much either.

Ah, I feel much better now!

No.

No-one is saying the whole camera is a lemon - just one part.

A bit like your ES300 having a floormat problem and the company issuing a recall.

cwphoto wrote in post #7037287
No.

No-one is saying the whole camera is a lemon - just one part.

A bit like your ES300 having a floormat problem and the company issuing a recall.

Only it's not the floormat in this case, I wouldn't complain too much over that. It's the power-steering that occasionally drives my car off the road, and that to me is a bit more serious.

Pekka wrote in post #7033834
Please start discussing instead of biting and barking at (groups of) people. If you are here just to push your "it's broken, that's the truth" mantra to everyone who replies this thread then please note that your view has been duly noted, move on.

I'll try to wrap my view into couple of sentences.

On mirror fixed and firmware updated perfect specimen of Mark III the AF still works differently to Mark II. In some shooting genres worse (BIF) , in some equally well, in some much better (like in low light). It's a new design. To my view that is the actual "AF issue" people get and that is why some complain and some praise: it does not work with same logic as Mark II, or performs the same in all situations. In addition to this, it is vital that you understand AF settings and change them according to task, if needed.

I don't see anyone barking Pekka.

You can sit there defending Canon all you like with that "it's a new design" PR rubbish, but prepared to be drilled on it - because it's a total cop-out.

The problem is real, it has not been fixed, evidenced by many agencies and sports/PJs embracing Nikon. For you to turn around and suggest that these folks don't know how to operate the camera by needing to "re-learn" AF is frankly insulting.

I can only compare to my Mark IIs, and there I don't need to reprogram my cameras' AF system for each and every shooting situation. (Not that I find that the many instructions on how to set Mark III CFs depending on situation really make any major difference).

As with many industries, Canon only SAMPLE ~ what comes of the assembly line is shipped immediately.

It just might be, that when the reports started to arrive back to Japan, that the IQ samples were in fact perfect ~

Each and every camera is not tested.
And I agree that a complete rebuild is needed ~ the camera has multiple support systems that are effected by one another ~ firmware, it's not unlike the Microsoft updates all the time, fix a problem, introduce a new one.

Pekka wrote in post #7030764
Canon's fault was bad QC. There are many bad copies out there which should be opened and reassembled to fix them. Maybe even change some vital parts.

cwphoto wrote in post #7037302
I don't see anyone barking Pekka.

You can sit there defending Canon all you like with that "it's a new design" PR rubbish, but prepared to be drilled on it - because it's a total cop-out.

Why don't you say what's really on your mind?

So, your big "proof" that it is not fixed is that some have switched to Nikon? LOL. Perhaps Nikon gave them better deal, perhaps they did it before having sub mirror fix and new firmwares, perhaps they tested a lemon, perhaps they read RG.

I have met lots of professional shooters who do not know much about the settings. For example one pro did not even know there is silent mode in 1D. If you wonder why AF did this and that without knowing how it is set up then you are in mercy of the camera and not the other way around.

Rephrasing your own insult in https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=6937284&po​stcount=50 : "some pros are just more more ignorant solving the problems than others".

BTW: Why do you still use Canon, why do you still have 4 EOS bodies and 16 lenses?

FretNoMore wrote in post #7037310
I can only compare to my Mark IIs, and there I don't need to reprogram my cameras' AF system for each and every shooting situation. (Not that I find that the many instructions on how to set Mark III CFs depending on situation really make any major difference).

You do not need to set up with every situation or daily if you shoot fairly similar subjects. But many AF settings are important to get right if you except it to work the way you want it to work.

Now I remember why I stopped discussing Mark III AF problems quite some time ago.
It just comes down do a rather useless rehashing of personal opinion.
My camera is not like your camera.
I'm sure we'll revisit this topic once the Mark IV comes out, but until then I'll go away.

FretNoMore wrote in post #7038215
Now I remember why I stopped discussing Mark III AF problems quite some time ago.
It just comes down do a rather useless rehashing of personal opinion.
My camera is not like your camera.
I'm sure we'll revisit this topic once the Mark IV comes out, but until then I'll go away.

smart man. i use the mkIII and i am very happy with it but i still will not get into the whole it's fixed not fixed BS.

FretNoMore wrote in post #7038215
My camera is not like your camera.

And into that wisdom we close this thread