| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Galbraith 5-29-08 Update on Mk III
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
 |
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 9:55 AM on 05.30.09 |
| ->> S/B 5-29-09, not 08 obviously. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 2:12 PM on 05.30.09 |
->> What a nightmare ...
"Q. Does the revised AF calibration or firmware v1.2.5 bring an improvement in tracking autofocus?
No. The EOS-1D Mark III with these changes does not capture a greater proportion of properly focused or nearly focused frames when continuously tracking a moving subject. As before, the camera has a tendency to spontaneously focus in front of where it should - though it will at times shift the focus behind for several frames too, especially when Assist AF points are enabled - and it happens often enough to produce an unacceptable number of missed peak action moments."
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-10086 |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 3:16 PM on 05.30.09 |
->> Maybe this is why Canon has been having QC problems lately:
http://www.dannychoo.com/detail/mac/eng/image/19639/Canon+Electronics.html
"Also in the photo you can see a blue sign on the floor. When Nikkei went to interview the president, while walking in the corridor a siren and flashing lights went off.
The corridor was designed to detect whether employees were walking at least 5 meters for every 3.6 seconds.
The blue sign on the floor also says "Lets rush - if we don't then the company and world will perish."" |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 3:59 PM on 05.30.09 |
->> I'm pretty good at strategic stuff but I'm glad I don't have to fix this problem. The Mark III has been mis-managed by Canon from the get go. They have stone walled the issue initially, made claims as to fixes that didn't hold up. Galbraith is to be commended for telling the truth regardless; Canon..how much marketshare do you have to lose before you figure out that making it right for end users that still shoot Canon is the only real way to get your corporate butt out of the sling?
Sad, really sad. |
|
August Miller, Photo Editor
|
Farmington | UT | USA | Posted: 10:21 PM on 05.30.09 |
->> Our newspaper has 10 Mark III's and they all have the same problem. They don't autofocus. In fact when you use an autofocus spot other than the middle, even if the person is NOT MOVING they still back focus then front focus, but rarely correctly focus. We are currently waiting for the Canon Rep to send us four loaner cameras so we can start sending our cameras into Canon for this repair that from a quick viewing of the images shot by Rob Galbraith, still do exactly what our cameras are already doing.
What Canon should really do is replace ALL the Mark III's they have sold with new cameras, when the new Canon camera comes out that actually works as well as the Nikon D3 and they should replace them all for FREE. Our newspaper paid about $4200 each for these camera bodies for a total of about $42,000. Not to mention the large investment in Canon long glass. I know this is small potatoes to a big corporation like Canon, but to some newspaper, that's a lot of money!
With all the problems going on at newspapers and with the current recession we do not have the budget to switch all our gear over to Nikon or we would do so. I feel bad for the Canon reps, but the company needs to step up and do the right thing, especially when photographers like annie leibovitz who have used Canon for a long time can be seen in recent video's using the new Nikon D3's.
Sorry for the rant, but this is so much like buying a brand new car that never works no matter how many times you take it back to the dealer to get fixed. Most states have what they call a lemon law that requires the manufacture to replace or refund the money for the defective product. Maybe Canon should do the same. |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 11:41 PM on 05.30.09 |
| ->> Oooooo...snap! |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:31 AM on 05.31.09 |
->> August is right!!
If Canon wants to retain the few Shooters that are still using their product, they should replace ALL 1DMKIII's with Brand new good working replacements!! And by all, I mean ALL!!! Independent Freelancers, Newspapers, Private Corporations and even Amateurs!! Everyone should get a suitable replacement!! Folks paid good $$$ for a camera that after two long years still doesn't perform to Canons promises!! This is SAD!!! |
|
Paul W Gillespie, Photographer
|
Annapolis | MD | USA | Posted: 12:37 AM on 05.31.09 |
| ->> I would be suprised if there was not a class action lawsuit brought against them for this. I am no lawyer, but it seems right for one. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:44 AM on 05.31.09 |
| ->> The only bad thing is that in a Class Action suit, the only ones that make out are the lawyers!! The consumer gets a $4.99 Gift Certificate to the Online Canon Store!! |
|
Dennis Wierzbicki, Photographer
|
Plainfield | IL | USA | Posted: 11:30 AM on 05.31.09 |
| ->> Wouldn't surprise me if Canon's actions in this matter end up as the counterpoise to the "good" example that Johnson and Johnson demonstrated with the Tylenol recall in over 25 years ago. Much the same as J&J's response is reflected on more or less positively in business schools today, possibly Canon's response will also be used as an instructional "how to not totally mishandle a defective product and drive your loyal user base to your competition" |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 12:43 PM on 05.31.09 |
->> The thing to keep in mind with Canon in particular is the professional photography market is a very small part of a monster of a company. They have divisions that sell everything from copiers to printers. Even within their camera division the pro marketplace is small compared to their consumer/prosumer divisions.
The point is this type of issue is very important to those of us in the pro community, but outside of that...not so much. This won't be a "tylenol" moment for Canon as a whole...and it's questionable whether it will even have a huge dent in their pro sales. While they have no doubt lost some customers due to MkIII issues, they gained tons of customers previously during the Nikon D2 days. The customers they gained during that time are media customers. AP and most major newspaper camera departments switched wholesale to Canon gear not too long ago...not long enough for the equipment to be off the depreciation books in any event. Corporate bean counters are not going to be keen to budgeting yet another switch...particularly since the 5DMk2 means they can avoid buying expensive video gear.
It's a big cycle. Nikon didn't give photographers a break when it came to the D2H. In fact they torpedoed a lot of them by dropping the price over a thousand dollars overnight, killing the resale market. Nikon survived - and now has the hot camera of the moment when it comes to the pro still market. Nikon will no doubt catch up to Canon in the video realm soon. Canon will put the MkIII behind them by soon announcing a IIIn or a IV that has 5DMk2-ish video capability and a new AF system. It'll take a year to get to market...which will keep people from switching until it's available.
...and with each swing of the pendulum, we'll all be spending more money on the latest, greatest gear...as it has always been and always will be. |
|
Tony Leon, Photographer
|
Whittier | CA | United States | Posted: 1:49 PM on 05.31.09 |
->> I normally don't delve into these discussions, but in my current situation, I feel I need to comment, and I would be interested to hear from other Sportsshooter members who are in the same or similar position as me.
Currently I own (3) 1D Mark IIN bodies and (2) 5D bodies, that have worked tremendously for me. They've produced and continue to produce quality images. These have been workhorse bodies for me.
But I'm reaching the point where I need to seriously consider replacing them. I can't afford to make the switch, I have way too much Canon glass and accessories that i've accumulated, that the switch would probably put me under, and is out of the question. But if I upgrade to the newer Mark III which i've had some tempting offers to purchase, I run the risk of missing images due to the focusing issues. At this point I can't afford to take that risk, as my livelihood depends on me making quality captures, having a camera that I can trust is part of that.
I've read on many posts here from other Sportsshooters, that some 1D MKIII owners have not had any issues, that they've been diligent about sending in their cameras to Canon every time they've offered any type of upgrade or fix. While others continually light up the message board with the issues they're no doubt encountering. While others still, seem to be influenced by the exodus from one brand to the other.
Galbraith has tested models and has reached some pretty definitive conclusions. All of this makes me wonder, why would some 1D MKIII cameras appear to keep performing flawlessly (as stated by other sportsshooter members on this board), while others have continual troubles (as also stated by other members on this board)?
Is the 1D MKIII a victim of a production issue?
Hardware, Software, Firmware fixes? It gives the appearance that they're grasping at straws, and i'm sure in some back room at a Canon factory somewhere in Japan, there just may be some engineers scratching their heads, saying WTF!!!!!
With the current success of the 5D MKII, I can see that there is POSSIBLY some light at the end of the tunnel, and that Canon will hopefully soon answer, with an upgrade to the MKIII.
The question i'm asking myself right now, is do I gamble with a first generation MKIIIN or MKIV whatever they decide to call it, or hold out just a little longer? How do other Canon shooters feel? |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 4:29 PM on 05.31.09 |
| ->> If you can buy a new Mark III, that's probably the best way to tip toe forward. If that camera works, keep it. If not, send it back and wait. There's no way I would buy a Mark III used without a chance to test it first. |
|
David Croxford, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 4:51 AM on 06.02.09 |
->> OK so into the "For What It's Worth" column ....
I guess I'm one of the lucky(ier) ones. I have two Mk III's bought about 3 months apart and yet both fell into the first serial number rotation that needed the upgrade and firmware corrections. they are my main bodies and are backed up with a Mark II and then a 30d if all else fails.
Neither the Mk III I purchased for the company I work for in June of 07, nor the one I got for myself in September of 07, have suffered any of the problems in AF or AF servo, that can be attributed to faulty AF in the camera. I've dutifully sent them in for repairs as the requirements became known because I needed to hold any resale value in the equipment.
A good friend lambasted Canon more than once, having lenses and bodies checked and re checked because he "thought' he saw repeated errors, only to discover that certain CF settings were not correctly allocated. Finally, he took the time to check the AF on each of his lenses, making the corrections individually (CF III.7) by lens and setting each lens up.
Initially I laughed it off, after all I wasn't seeing any issues - but he assured me that he was doing this as a last resort and in response to Canon's suggestion. His issues disappeared and after about a week or so, and even though I didn't see any need, I checked my long glass out with the micro-adjustments.
It was tedious and laborious and even though I hadn't seen any major problems I did find that images recorded using my 600/4 benefitted from a small adjustment (+3) for that lens. My 300/4 was always right on and my shorter glass have always been crisp so since I really didn't have the time, I've left those alone.
At various points in this discussion thread, both this one and ones that have preceded it, people have ranted about having to "correct" AF issues by fine tuning the bodies. They felt that something costing $42-4500 needed to be working well right out of the box. I agree, but is that technically possible when the bodies we're slinging on our shoulders every day amount to nothing less than a high powered image making computer that just happens to look like your old AE1?
I guess for my two cents worth, I have to say that as cameras become more and more complex, the need for us to understand and know the equipment, right down to the nitty gritty obscure functions is paramount. And as I meet up with other photogs in my sphere of reference, asking them if they've ever read the manual usually gets a nonchalant disdainful stare!
The other side of that coin, of course, is that we expect a company of Canon's stature, to be on top of the problems rather than disavowing any knowledge of the situation that clearly exsists(ed).
I wish they'd put this to bed by doing something radical - a complete change out would be nice, and would set the resale market back right side up. But what's to say that if they have a totally new AF system with as many CF functions, that they won't experience some of the same issues with a different user group?
I think the days of the bare bones camera bodies, manual everything etc. are a thing of the past.
If you've done any freelance shooting recently, you know that you can't be too far behind the "pack" technologically because you'll be losing a whole lot more money. Your colleagues will provide bigger image files, faster and with better quality - even if you can fill a billboard at 300dpi with YOUR image! If yours is shot with an older camera, some neubie is gonna out class you with his megamillion pixel image at half the price. It ain't fair, it ain't nice - but it's life. And not the Bowl of Cherries kind either!
Here ends my once in a blue moon rant. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 11:15 AM on 06.02.09 |
->> David,
I think you bring up an interesting point re:complexity of current camera system. When you have lenses that you may have had for a decade being used with a camera that was made yesterday, you can understand that calibration might be an issue.
Manufacturers have always been a bit funny about allowing end users - even pro users - access to calibration settings. I'm assuming their main justification for this is to cut down on support calls, but there could be other reasons (unintentional damage, warranty issues, etc.). The lens micro adjustment and sensor cleaning functions are always buried in obscurity...very thin descriptions and procedures for making the correct adjustments or using them properly, and definite limits on how much you can tweak.
I think manufacturers should embrace the idea of user-tweakable pro cameras by selling a "pro calibration kit". The kit would have really complete tweaking software...basically friendly versions of the stuff they use at the factory. Bundled with the kit would be companion test charts, detailed calibration procedures, all the stuff you need to tweak out the cameras in an efficient manner. Don't worry about making it drop-dead simple - target the pro user that knows how to work with complicated equipment...and price it accordingly.
The same software could have a little more advanced diagnostic information to decrypt nebulous messages like "Err 99". If you really wanted to go for broke, you could have the software allow factory technicians to remotely access the camera for troubleshooting.
All of these ideas would be a win-win. If a camera manufacturer can avoid having a camera come into the shop it saves them time and money. The user of course is happier if they can get their camera back up to speed without sending it in. |
|
David Stluka, Photographer
|
Oregon | WI | USA | Posted: 11:52 AM on 06.02.09 |
| ->> I should consider myself lucky. I love my 2 Mk III cameras. I can't imagine life without them. I'm also using an a series II 400 f2.8 that is 12 years old and have never had to calibrate it or any of my other lenses. I have yet to use a camera that is flawless every single frame. I mainly shoot sports and I can tell you I'm light years ahead of where I was when I started using a manual focus 500 f4 lens 18 years ago. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|