1D MKIII orderd, BUT................

Now i have to wait

I thought it was about time to "upgrade" from the good old 20D, and get the new 1D3 .So i orderd one today .

So theres me thinking i'd have it in my hands by the weekend.No such luck, i am number 68 in the pre-order line.With a waiting time of around 2-4 mounths.The chap on the phone(from warehouseexpress)said they are in such demand that they are only getting in 6-10 aweek.

And everywhere is in the same boat.

Its like going back to when i had to wait for my 500 to arrive from Canon, and back then there was no cue

Really looking forward to get it

Can i ask, how are you 1D3 owners finding the camera ? (as in useing it).

Cheers for now

Hi Alan

I was speaking to Matt at Mifsuds yesterday and they have instock

Martin

Hi Alan,

Decided to delay getting the "latest" 1 series until the new year, just got another MKII as I am very happy with their performance and it does what I expect it to.

Regards

Rob

This is what I wrote in the forums on another site:

..... when Rob Galbraith was invited to test the mk3, Canon were aware of AF problems in the pre-production models and the testers were informed of that by Canon. That is what RG reported and there was little comment about it because the problem was supposed to be fixed by the time the production models left the assembly plant. It obviously wasn't fixed but Canon nevertheless went ahead and started filling orders. Maybe it is a cultural thing involving not wanting to loose face, but the result is something that can only be described as corporate dishonesty and this is compounded by the absence of comment from Canon. The AF system in Mk3 absolutely sucks in my opinion, but we still don't know if it sucks because its broken or because it was designed like that. All this means that no-one in their right mind should be trusting a new Canon product release for a long time, and I cannot believe that people are still buying this camera.

I have now checked files from 6 different Mk3 cameras and all exhibit the same AI Servo focusing problem reported by Rob Galbraith.

In addition to this, the placement of the sensors is just not useful, the fact that you can only use 19 out of the 45 focusing points (what are the rest of them for then?), the absolutely illogical way of selecting single focusing points and the small field covered by each of the sensors adds up to system that completely sucks in comparison to the AF system in the 1D2 and 1D2N.

I thought that Canon bought out a firmware update to sort out the focusing issue ?.

EDIT - Hmmmmm just reading in another forum that there is reports of a 1.1.1 firmware coming out(might be rumers ?).That sorts out the focusing issue and a error 99 issue ?.

This sounds promissing...........................

I am seeing a difference in using the new firmware 1.1.1.....now I am getting results much consistent to my mark II. AF is working better, and especially in the bright light. Have a look at www.paolopolla.com at the first gallery posted yesterday using new firmware.
Whilst I do get better results, I still think this can be improved as new camera should be not on par with the old one but better....
Would not be surprised we get firmware 1.1.2 over the next few weeks made public. These are just my thoughts.
In any case....1.1.1 for me is an improvement.
Also, I think the LCD is even sharper than 1.1.0....


I think after my 2-4 mounths wait .Things might take a big turn around.

Oh and Phil, i hav'nt ever used the 1D2 only the 20D.So the focusing points would only be a big plus for .

Alan, I will be happy if a firmware update can fix the problem, but most of the informed opinion revolves around a defective or out-of-spec component. In your place I would look upon the enforced wait for the camera as an opportunity for Canon to fix it, rather than as a bad thing. I would much rather have a properly working factory assembled camera than one which has been cobbled together by technicians in the service centre.

There are many image quality improvements in the Mk3, but the AF-system certainly doesn't meet expectations.

Yeah point taken, and i was thinking the same thing.Being number 68 might be a good thing lol.

And coming from the 20D, the AF-system on the 1D3 is going to be such a difference for me.

Thanks for putting your points accross

Alan Why wait? Mifsuds are £200 cheaper and instock.

Martin

From an independant laymans viewpoint and discussing this at some length with Adrian whilst fruitlessly waiting for our morning trains......

The design error for an electrical component specification is the most compelling explanation for the problems being seen;

If for example all components have to work within a band range of 5 - lets call it for simplicity "3 to 8" and the design spec allows 20% drift error for the AF system to work, but the component manufacturing spec has been set at "1 to 10" (because it is impossible to manufacture components 100% accurately and it is cheaper to manufacture compenents with a wide operating spec rather than a precise narrow performance spec) then all manufactured components that work within band range "2 to 7" or "4 to 9" would give no real AF problems, but if we drift the manufactured tolerence along the band to work from "1 to 6 or "5 to 10" this would be considerably out of the design spec range of "3 to 8", but within manufacturing specification tolerence. As far as the supplier is concerned the component spec has been delivered - the cock up is at the design stage giving too much manufacturing tolerence

Heat causes electrical component drift - when is the worst AF performance being seen - hot sunny days in USA ....so that would tip more components to operate from the "4 to 9" band into the "5 to 10" band and voila AF problems

So there could be a camera lottery at stake here - all cameras are being assembled correctly, its just that the components may not work as required - if your read between the lines of Chuck Westfall's carefully phrased statements he denies any assembly glitches - all bodies are assembled the same way with the same specced components, but he does not comment on the component design theory

All of this is a long winded way of saying if it is a component based problem requiring recall/redesign, don't pin your hopes on a software/firmware fix actually doing anything for a cameras fitted with the "drifted" compenent error.

my worthless tuppence

Hi Alan

To date my MkIII appears to be performing well and I know I have it set up and use it a little different to Phil. That said I would like to try it it in a more controlled situation before I can say with 100% certainty that it is better than my Mk II which I have recently sold having satisfied myself that there ain't much wrong with my MkIII.

If you are still in the market for one you could try my prefered dealer Park Cameras. If you speak to the manager of the Haywards Heath branch, Anthony, he will usually do you a little better than the price posted on the web site.

David

I think there is a lot of confusion about what the MK3 problems and issues are. The AF problem is an inability to reliably capture sharp images in AI Servo focusing mode, either as single frames or in a burst. What happens is that sometimes the images are sharp, and sometimes they are not; sometimes some frames in burst will be sharp and others not; sometimes all the frames in a burst will be soft. This is the problem that Rob Galbraith has been commenting on. The only way to check this is to view the images at 100 percent as thumbnails will all look OK. In my experience, high ambient temperatures are not a causal factor, but I guess they may make the problem slightly worse. This is not an issue that can be addressed by selecting the right combination of custom functions, it is either a software design flaw or a component problem. As far as my experience goes, this problem does not occur if you use the camera in Single Shot AF mode.

The "bird in flight problem" relates to the inability of the camera to pick up and focus on an object that is small in the frame. This is typically how in flight bird photographs are taken: the subject is acquired way off in the distance and tracked until it reaches the position where the shutter is fired. The "problem" relates to the small area covered by each AF sensor in comparison to the AF sensors in previous Canon cameras including the 1D2/N and 1Ds2 as well as the 10/20/30D bodies. The AF sensors in Mk3 can be envisioned as a hard-edged brush in Photoshop compared with the AF sensors in the previous cameras which were more like a soft-edged brush and therefore gave you some latitude with acquisition and tracking. So this issue isn't really a problem, it is a design feature, but not a feature that is an improvement over the previous generation of cameras in my opinion.

My other complaints about the AF system relate to the distribution of AF sensors in the Mk3. There is the central sensor, then an inner-ring of 9-sensors and an outer-ring of 9-sensors. The inner-ring sensors are clustered so closely around the central sensor as not to be usefully distinct from the central sensor in terms of compositional (focus point) choices in the viewfinder. The adjunct to this is that the outer-ring AF sensors are often too close to the edge of the frame in terms of compositional choices, particularly when you are using the camera in vertical format. Clearly this is a design change, but why render the other 26 focusing points non-selectable? It just doesn't make sense.

My final gripe is about the way in which you navigate between individual focusing points, using two dials that have to operated more than once to select some AF-points. Scrolling to the left with one dial and then up with the other dial to select an AF-point on the upper left doesn't work, you have to dial partly round the inner circle with one dial, then up with the other dial, then back to the first dial again to go around the outer circle. The operations defy any ergonomic logic - its just crazy. I am sure that the intention in the design concept was to use the multi-controller to navigate between focusing points, but for some reason this was not implemented in the final design, leaving the multi-controller as essentially redundant.

Remember that the new AF system was supposed to be one of the much vaunted improved features of the Mk3 in comparison with the Mk2 cameras: well it isn't in my opinion, it is another compromise that you have to accomodate and work around.

Alan

I got my MK3 a week before I went to Kenya. Once you read the manual and set the camera up it is fairly simple once you get use to it, with some good features. With a few pointers from Mr Rouse whilst on safari it proved to work well with a good set of results as you may have seen. Although, having just spent a weekend in Norfolk with a friend who also as a MK3 & 40D I am begining to question would I have been better of buying the 40D as the results are much better and both are equal quality. Lets see what the new firmware brings the the MK3 shortly. BTW I to use WEx but as they could not deliver in time London Camera Ex had a few at a better price, worth calling perhaps Alan? Speack to Aron


Good article Phil

Steve

Thanks ALL for your comments on your input into the 1D3.I find it interesting that "some" are having problems and "some" are happy with it (i've read alot in other forums on the issues aswell).

And thanks for the other places to get one.But i might stay in the pre-order line and wait to see what the out come is with the 1.1.2 firmware or anyother developments.

I came back from nearly 3 weeks in California last night shooting mainly brids in flight, The camera was faultless for birds with a clean background and useless for anything else with a cluttered background, I tried various setting in the custom functions but nothing seemed to help, I also agree with Phil re the AF sensors being badly placed, I much prefered the MK2 for usability of AF points-Hoping the new firmware will help but will stay open minded-i presume the 1DS3 will be the same