EOS 1D Mark III, It's FIXED!

[david_amberson1]

I own a 1D mark III.

I updated to 1.2.3 the very day it came out. I did a dirt bike race Saturday and it

performed flawlessly!

These bikes were coming straight at me at 50-60 mph with the atmosphere very

dusty which lowered the contrast alot, and it clicked off and never missed one

shot. I shot a total of 1350 pics Saturday, and only 20 soft, which might have been

user error. There were a couple of times where I didnt pay attention Shutter speed

or I accidently flipped my switch to Manual AF. I was using a 70-200 f2.8 IS and

NO MICRO Adjustments. It was set to Zero. I set up my 200-500 Tamron which

SUCKSSSSSS by the way, to -5 and I was getting good acceptible shots with it

at the Zoo.

In my opinion, Canon really has this thing fixed now. I dont know what Rob Gal.

report will be, but to me...its done, over, history. Get a bad shot with an updated

Mark III and L - Glass, then its YOUR fault only. Only use this camera if you take

the pressure of NO excusses. Can the complainers out there take it? Heads up, if

your images are still bad, the a D3 wont make them better. I promise!

[JosvanEekelen]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but wasn't the issue with the 1D mk III with strong contrast/backlight situations at high fps? You don't mention your fps, and you were shooting in a low contrast situation. OTOH the mk III can't be so bad as it was sometimes reported.

 

For a comparison with a D3 see a post from a couple of days ago, the mk III seems to beat the D3 with regard to autofocus quality but I expect that you can take good pictures with a D3 as well.

[colinsouthern]

"I own a 1D mark III. I updated to 1.2.3 the very day it came out. I did a dirt bike race Saturday and it performed flawlessly!"

 

Hi David, I've always had pretty much flawless results from the 1D3 - and mine hasn't even been fixed yet! :)

 

"I dont know what Rob Gal. report will be"

 

Let me guess: "It's a little better in low-contrast situations, but no changes in other areas - still not as good as the 1D2n"

 

"Can the complainers out there take it?"

 

No - they'll continue to quote from the bible - oops - I mean the RG article, and without ever having used one, continue to bad-mouth it to all and sundry.

[david_amberson1]

>Jos van Eekelen - The original issue was "strong contrast/backlight situations", then it became an issue with "low contrast" subjects. Funny, thats how AF works...CONTRAST. Also, I was shooting at 10fps. Never anything less. If I wanted less, then I would have shot with my 40D. You are correct, it never was that bad and I'm sure a good photographer can take great pictures with both.

 

>Colin Southern - I know its always been good, but I posted just to give some positive feedback to people looking to buy and they are waiting on the newest Testement of King Rob's Bible. I'm sure according to him, it wont be 100% fixed. I dont know how though. I dont have a 300 2.8 like him and my sprinters were coming at me at 60mph instead of 15mph. I was using a little ol' 70-200 f2.8L IS and as I said, it never missed a beat.

 

But I'll say it again for whatever reason.

You all keep sitting around waiting on Rob Galbraith and everyone on the FM boards to give you an approval to purchase, and Colin and I will keep squeezin off rounds and enjoying what the latest 1 Series can bring to the table. I just hope that if people dont own one, then please dont give advice to a would be purchaser who's looking for some reassurance. I'm tellin you, ITS FIXED!

[david_amberson1]

>Jos van Eekelen - Point me in the right direction, I couldn't find the post you spoke of. I'm curious about it.

[colinsouthern]

"Colin and I will keep squeezin off rounds and enjoying what the latest 1 Series can bring to the table."

 

Actually ...

 

... I just upgraded to a 1Ds3 :)

 

No probs what-so-ever with the 1D3 AF - I just needed more width and resolution as I'm shooting more UWA landscape than sports these days (and 1Ds3 AF is the same anyway).

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

 

photo.net/photos/colinsouthern

[JosvanEekelen]

Ok, I guess I asked for it. Fortunately I just returned from holiday so I can easily search the IE history. Just follow the link in the original poster's message: <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PQof">link</a>

[mahonri_moriancumer]

In spending $4500 for a camera isn't something radically wrong when you have to post "It's FIXED"?

Even if I spent 300 for a used EOS3 I would expect it to work properly from the start.

Add to this Canons less than honest response to the problem... like a guy in the corner with his eyes closed and ears plugged saying 'don't bother me'.

 

Two links below discussing this pro and con, from working pro's who rely on their gear. Could you imagine going to the Olympics in China and only having three 1DMkIII's to cover the whole thing? Sure wouldn't inspire much confidence, would it?

 

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=28597

 

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=29395

[richard_wang10]

I tell all my colleagues at every opportunity how bad the MKIII's are, and how they should all switch to Nikon.

 

That the D3 is the way to go and how I'm going to switch over to the D3 as soon as I can.

 

Why?

 

Because I can get some sweet deals when they dump their equipment.

 

Hey anyone out there with a "bad" MKIII, because I'm such a good guy I'll do you a favor.

 

I will trade one of my trusted, reliable, steady MKII for you unreliable, out of focus MKIII.

 

Oh by the way, have you heard all about how the 1DsMKIII has all those problems. You better get rid of yours. They're never going to work right.

 

(Wink Wink)

[Spearhead]

<i>In spending $4500 for a camera isn't something radically wrong when you have to post "It's FIXED"?</i><P>So what were your experiences with it? <P>FWIW, I've had no problems, before or after "the fix." But I've got photographs rather than a posting history, and I don't have the time to read every board to see what someone else says. Since I've used it, I figure my experience has some validity, so, once again, what's your experience with it?

[keith reeder]

"Add to this Canons less than honest response to the problem..."

 

God, I'm getting sick of seeing this ridiculous statement repeated ad nauseam...

 

Exactly *what* was "less than honest"? The fact that Canon didn't rush to press at the first sign that there "might" be a problem... with some cameras... in certain, specific circumstances?

 

That instead they evaluated the comments made by RG and others, identified *for themselves* what the problem might be, created a fix, set up an implementation strategy, costed it all out and then delivered it *worldwide*?

 

That even then they didn't simply say "that's that" but instead monitored and responded positively to subsequent evidence that - at least in some cases - the initial fixes weren't successful across the board and continued to research better solutions?

 

Yeah, Canon - bunch of crooks...

 

Oh - and in the links you posted, there nearly as many people *praising* the Mk III as there are putting it down. Hardly across-the-board condemnation of Canon and all its works...

[mahonri_moriancumer]

"Two links below discussing this pro and con,"

 

Keith, the above is from my post and the links. They discuss the Canon problems from both sides as those posting have both positive and negative experiences with the cameras. Work on your reading comprehension boy.

 

Just because you dont have problems does not mean others don't, whether cameras, girlfriends or beer.

 

I provided links to current discussions of Canon 1DMkIII cameras in use by working pros who rely on the gear daily. Some positive and some negative.

 

Enough negative that I won't buy one any time soon.

 

The SportsShooter.com site main man is Robert Hanashiro who shoots for USA Today. Used to be a Canon shooter and was known for it and a short while ago he quietly changed to Nikons. Doesn't mean Canon is no good but for one who publicly made a point of his Canon use to switch is interesting.

 

Canon does have problems with the camera we are talking about.

 

Again, Why would anyone have to trumpet "Its FIXED" if all was well? If I buy one and it doesn't work I would think the maker would immediately replace it, not have me send it in for a "fix" that may take two or three or more tries before the thing works as I was told it would before I bought it.

[colinsouthern]

"Enough negative that I won't buy one any time soon."

 

In my opinion, the crux of "the problem" is that 99.99% of the bad publicity seems to be generated by those who have never owned one, and have never used one.

 

Well I have owned one - and I have used one - and I've found it's AF performance to be it's greatest strength, not it's greatest weakness. And it seems that most other actual owners/users are reporting exactly the same thing. I recently traded my 1D3 for a 1Ds3 (same AF) without the slightest hesitation - and would do so again in a heartbeat.

[Spearhead]

<i>Canon does have problems with the camera we are talking about.</i><p>Please provide your experience. Having questioned a number of second-hand commenters, they either point to one of a few people commenting, people they don't personally know, or they just keep on yakking without saying anything.<p>I assume you must have some experience to make an absolute statement like this one, so please provide your experience.

[colinsouthern]

"Canon does have problems with the camera we are talking about."

 

I suspect the biggest problem Canon have with the 1D3 is the flock of parrots who - never actually having used one - like to repeat what some other flock of parrots said about it.

[david_amberson1]

>Mahonri - Again, Why would anyone have to trumpet "Its FIXED" if all was well?

 

I didnt have a problem with my 1DIII before the software update. I simply wanted to post a positive comment about the awaited firmware update before idiots like your self got on here bad mouthing a camera again without ever having one in your hands. Its amazing, I have only met one person thats actually used one that would say its bad. The ones that actually have one say its good. I met a photographer at a bike race in April and he had a IIn and III. He did say the III had more soft than the IIn. What he didnt say, was that the III was so damn fast at focusing that he needs to improve his technique on tracking a bike at 150mph or it migh focus on the ground quicker than the IIn.

 

It has to be technique. If I can get consitent results, then it doesnt mean I have the only good MarkIII in circulation. Also, the guy I met did not do it for a living. All the time. He was there for fun and favor. To get "consistent" results from a camera that fast, the "you" need to be consistent in shooting with it instead of shooting once a month. It takes practice, especially at those events.

 

So please, if you want to shoot Nikon, then shut up and do so. And quit looking to buy your way(piece of equipment) into making good images. You have to learn to use it. Mahonri, you keep spending time on forums and listening to others talk about the best cameras and what the will/will not do and you will never own one and learn to use it. By the time you get to buy one, there will be a 1D Mark VI and a D6 and you'll be griping about how the Canon wont focus a subject through a sheet rock wall and D6 can track a moving bullet.