1DMkIII Firmware update. 1.1.3

ian408

Canon has released firmware version 1.1.3 for the 1DMkIII.

Owners will receive an e-mail describing the process for returning the body
for repair (if you believe it needs the mirror adjustment to fix AF) and
instructions for returning the camera as well as a customized link for the
firmware update.

If you can't wait, firmware is here. Requires a valid serial
number to download.

PrescottPhotog

Mark III Firmware 1.1.3 Problem
Hi,

Has anyone else that installed the new 1.1.3 firmware for the Mark III had a problem ?

As some of you probably know I am an avid BIF shooter. I've shot 8000 clicks through my Mark III since getting it in June.

It is one that has a problem serial number but I have managed to get mostly good shots while waiting for Canon to figure things out.

I am signed up for the mirror fix but thought I would install the new firmware anyway to see if it made any difference. What a huge mistake.

Today I went out for the first time after the firmware install and the results were a disaster. I shot 95 shots and almost ALL of them were out of focus.
And I mean REALLY out of focus.

It was a typical Arizona day after 2 days of rain. The sky was crystal clear. The sun was bright and to my back. I shot my normal BIF kit, a 500 on a monopod with a full Wimberley.

As I viewed my shots in the LCD I noticed they were OOF so I switched the focus points to center only, then expanded left and right, then expanded center, then full autofocus. There were no clouds so any of the focus points should have worked just fine, but nothing worked.

It didn't make any difference if the birds were coming directly toward me, side to side or going away, it wouldn't lock on anything. Even if I thought I had a lock it ended up OOF.

I loaded them in Lightroom when I got home and then checked them with Canon's ImageBrowser (with the focus point overlaid on the RAW image) to make sure my focus point was on target (see the two samples below).

Whether it was the center point or full auto, most were right on target but the shots ended up totally out of focus anyway. I can understand a few being OOF, or even more than a few.. but not almost 90 shots.

Nothing was done to the camera or lens before or after the firmware was loaded other than to take pictures.

Here are the results, first one of my typical shots and then two bad shots with focus point overlay..

#1 One of 90 out of 95 OOF shots showing focus point right on..


#2


Are they making things worse by trying to make them better ?

Just curious if anyone else has had any problem with 1.1.3 !!!

ziggy53

Chris,

Have you attempted to re-calibrate the lens to the body? The micro-calibration may have become disturbed with the new firmware. (I have no idea if that's true, pure conjecture and something to try.)

Definitely try some static shots to see if predictive AF is the problem.

I believe that you can revert to a previous firmware, if you still have it available. You might check with Canon to be sure.

A quick scan seems to indicate many folks are getting good results with this version. I am especially encouraged by people like this:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4410127&postcount=53

PrescottPhotog

Hi Ziggy,

No, I have not attempted any recalibration. In previous FW updates I left everything as it was and it seemed to work fine. Plus, since I am in line for the mirror adjustment I figured I wouldn't mess with anything other than the FW so I don't throw something else into the mix. After the mirror fix is a different story. The day before the FW update it was spot on.

I called Canon this morning and they said there is nothing I can do from my end. Even though I saved the previous FW update they said it can NOT be reloaded (like a computer "clean install") and until the mirror fix was done and they had a chance to look at my camera I was S.O.L. She said they had no idea when that would be and there wasn't anything that could be done until then.

I pressed her (nicely) because, as I told her, it could be a very long time before I got my recall notice and at the rate of rejectioned shots from just one day of shooting the new FW I might as well hang things up until then.

She left me on hold for a while and when she came back she said her supervisor told her to get my camera in immediately for the mirror fix and repair. They said they will send a repair ticket and pickup out within 24 hours, so I have my fingers crossed.

I think I know my camera pretty well by now and long ago managed a physical work around to the mirror problem while waiting for the fix.

What I do is to let the AF track the BIF until I get it where I want it.. then I let off the Shutter button and refocus just before I take the shot. Since the L-lenses focus so fast this took care of the OOF mirror problem because it released and reset the focus. This is basically the same as using the "one shot" setting instead of the Servo mode but since it is tracking right up until I release the shutter it refocuses in a fraction of a second. If you look at my web site BIF shots 95% have been shot this way. I don't take bursts when shooting BIF's so by doing this I have up'd my keeper rate to a very respectable percentage even with the autofocus problem.

I talked to CPS about this long ago and they said this was a very good work around to the mirror problem because it released the focus and reset it. It has worked for me since June and doesn't take but a fraction of a second to reset.

I tried this yesterday after trying the normal AI tracking setting to give the FW update a test, but nothing worked. Because I could see the OOF shots in the LCD I tried everything but nothing worked. When I got home and viewed them on my computer is was much worse than expected.

But, as they say, never give up. So I will be back out today trying again or until I get the repair notice.

I can always use my XTI, it still works great !!

ziggy53

It sounds like Canon is going to expedite your camera so hopefully this will get resolved shortly.

I used a similar approach shooting sports with the 1D MKII; "pump" the shutter and shoot short bursts. I got a very nice keeper rate using that technique.

cmason

My guess is that the firmware assumes the physical mirror fix

PrescottPhotog

cmason wrote:

My guess is that the firmware assumes the physical mirror fix

Hi cmason, That was my thought too, but the email from Canon said, quote.. "EOS-1D Mark III Firmware version 1.1.3 is strongly recommended for all EOS-1D Mark III cameras including those manufactured with an updated mirror mechanism".

It said if you don't install it now it will be installed when you get it back from the mirror fix. So I installed it. Ya live and learn every day.

BBones

So is it recommended to hold off on buying a 1D Mark 3? Is Canon still shipping AF issue cameras?

I am pretty close to upgrading from a 1D Mark 2 for primarily motor sports racing.

ian408

I just sent mine back--not waiting for the notice to come.

Things weren't as good as they should have been and after receiving the e-mail,
back it went.

BBones

well then that is that. 1D Mark 2N or wait for the rumored 1D Mark 3N in February. Never had a problem with my existing Mark 2, it's just long since time to replace it I know I have long since cleared the amount of accuations that the Mark 2 can supposedly handle.

KED

PrescottPhotog wrote:

I think I know my camera pretty well by now and long ago managed a physical work around to the mirror problem while waiting for the fix.

I've been through 3 MkIII bodies so far and am hoping that the third time will be a charm, but IMO, for $4,500 we shouldn't be having to find no stinkin' workarounds!

ian408

There are only a few situations where the camera doesn't focus correctly. If
you avoid them, no big deal. I would still buy one today. Though I would do
so only if the serial number were outside the affected range.

Ian

KED

ian408 wrote:

There are only a few situations where the camera doesn't focus correctly. If
you avoid them, no big deal. I would still buy one today. Though I would do
so only if the serial number were outside the affected range.

Ian

No offense, but that's ridiculous since (a) for $4,500 you should be able to shoot whatever you want with extraordinary results and without needing to "avoid" situations, and (b) the camera was made for exactly the "situations" that it may not be able to handle (i.e., 10.5 fps in brilliant sun).

ian408

KED wrote:

No offense, but that's ridiculous since (a) for $4,500 you should be able to shoot whatever you want with extraordinary results and without needing to "avoid" situations, and (b) the camera was made for exactly the "situations" that it may not be able to handle (i.e., 10.5 fps in brilliant sun).

Well, you may think it's ridiculous but it is reality. For those who have the
camera today, they can use it and can be successful if they avoid
situations that exacerbate the problem. If you are going to buy a new one,
make sure it's not affected by checking the serial number.

There is a fix and we are all going to get it if the body we have needs it.
Until then, our choices are to do nothing or work around the situation as best
we can until the body can be sent in.

Is that something I am happy about paying for? No. Should I be able to shoot
whatever I want? Yes. But reality is what it is and for a time, I had to work
with it.

KED

ian408 wrote:

Well, you may think it's ridiculous but it is reality. For those who have the
camera today, they can use it and can be successful if they avoid
situations that exacerbate the problem. If you are going to buy a new one,
make sure it's not affected by checking the serial number.

There is a fix and we are all going to get it if the body we have needs it.
Until then, our choices are to do nothing or work around the situation as best
we can until the body can be sent in.

Is that something I am happy about paying for? No. Should I be able to shoot
whatever I want? Yes. But reality is what it is and for a time, I had to work
with it.

If you are paying your money for that camera and you are fine with what you have described, then more power to you and I hope things work out for you. I have posted about my issues with the camera including bodies outside the serial range that still had issues (confirmed by Canon). My current body has the "blue dot" and I'm still not entirely sanguine. I am curious, though - how do you work with the reality that your $4,500 camera may not be capturing anything other than unfocused garbage that you will never be able to reproduce?

PrescottPhotog

ian408 wrote:

Well, you may think it's ridiculous but it is reality. For those who have the
camera today, they can use it and can be successful if they avoid
situations that exacerbate the problem.

Hi Guys,

I have to agree with both KED and Ian. I wish the camera didn't have the AF problem because BIF's is mostly what I shoot. My feeling is that as long as Canon stands behind the camera and doesn't try and pull any fast ones I will hang in there. If it was totally inoperative that would be a different story but it isn't. My only concern is that they don't "dumb down" the camera to make it seem to operate better rather than to fix the real problem or recall the whole thing.. which I am sure they could do without taking that much of a hit in the wallet. Canon is a VERY huge company.

I have gone through the same thing with Apple for years and feel they sometimes intentionally dump under-developed products on the market and let the folks deal with the problems. I've been stuck with some lemons (mostly laptops) from Apple but all in all I still think they make one of the best computers on the market. And they have really changed their practices in the last few years and offer quality and back it up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pushover but I am happy with so many things about the Canon products I will give them time to correct the issue.

After the disaster yesterday I went back out today. Even though the fast moving BIF's are still a problem the slower moving birds came out like this one (as well as quite a few others in this series).. so it was worth the trip while I am waiting for the label to send it in.

ziggy53

KED wrote:

If you are paying your money for that camera and you are fine with what you have described, then more power to you and I hope things work out for you. I have posted about my issues with the camera including bodies outside the serial range that still had issues (confirmed by Canon). My current body has the "blue dot" and I'm still not entirely sanguine. I am curious, though - how do you work with the reality that your $4,500 camera may not be capturing anything other than unfocused garbage that you will never be able to reproduce?

Just how bad is your camera? It sounds terrible!

ian408

KED wrote:

I am curious, though - how do you work with the reality that your $4,500 camera may not be capturing anything other than unfocused garbage that you will never be able to reproduce?

Well, as I said, the situation that affected me most was head on focus. So
for the stuff I shoot, I avoided head on shots. I talked to Canon about the
problem and felt comfortable with their position as well as 'the plan' to fix
the camera. I don't shoot professionally so I have more control over how
and what I shoot. Did I miss opportunity? Sure. And like I said, I'm not
happy despite what you might think I just realize that I can be pissed
about it or work with it while it gets fixed. I chose the later.

BBones

Yikes, head on shots is my bread and butter



Thanks for the info, looking like a lightly used 1D Mark 2N or someplace that has a new one on clearance

KED

ziggy53 wrote:

Just how bad is your camera? It sounds terrible!

I never shot with the first one -- I got it, saw that it was in the affected serial range and immediately returned it. The second one was FAR outside the serial range, and I shot a soccer game with it in brilliant sun, but in very cool temperatures (different from the conditions that Rob Galbraith has addressed). I took some sequences in burst mode where the AF started out "just OK" and deteriorated to a total blur over four or so frames - no mean feat at 10.5 FPS! In other shots at the same event, I would be focused squarely on my subject's number, and the camera would randomly jump to a player off in the background (focus confirmed in Digital Zoom). I wish I still had examples, but I am pretty fast with the "delete" key. I blamed myself, posted about it here (where plenty of folks also blamed me), but then I showed the images to Canon and they acknowledged that it was the camera and invited me to send it in. I had only had it for a couple of days, so instead I took it back to B&H who swapped it out for me no questions asked (well, few questions asked anyway).

This time I knowingly accepted a body with a serial number inside the range, but with the "blue dot" on the box indicating that it had specifically been checked for the problem. Unfortunately, this happened just as soccer season had ended, so I haven't had a chance to test it properly. I did shoot some active birds in burst mode (current post "Duck"), and while some of them came out sharp as a tack, a few others were terribly soft; I'm hoping that's a contrast issue and not "the" issue.

Long-winded response, I know, but while it's not world hunger, it's a serious issue that I have reason to believe extends beyond the boundaries of what Canon has acknowledged (or maybe even recognized) . . . had I known then what I know now, I definitely would have remained on the sidelines for a while longer.

KED

ian408 wrote:

Well, as I said, the situation that affected me most was head on focus.

Many of my issues were NOT in head-on shots, AND my camera was not even in the identified serial number range . . . it's the randomness of the thing that makes it particularly troublesome.

PrescottPhotog

FYI - Mark III Repair process

ian408 wrote:

Owners will receive an e-mail describing the process for returning the body
for repair

Update.. After Canon said they would get my M3 in immediately for the repair I waited two days for the email and shipping label they said they would send me the same day (2 days ago) but never came.

So I called them this morning and this is the scoop..

1. They call you BEFORE they send the emails (according to them) and if they can't get a hold of you you get passed up !! (that is what they told me).

I had call screening turned on on my phone (the one to block tele-marketers, thru my phone company) so when Canon tried to call the person calling wouldn't (or couldn't) put their phone number in (as required) so they couldn't get through.. so they passed me up. Never sent an email or tried again.

If I hadn't called again this morning I would still be waiting. I was right up front in line for two reasons, 1. I called the first day they announced the fix a month or two ago, and 2. my problem with the new Firmware kept me there... BUT, since they couldn't get a hold of me my Case number cancelled out and I went to the back of the line.

Luckily the operator I spoke to got a supervisor to help and after a couple holds he found my old case number. He said he had to do some checking and would call me back when he got an answer. About 20 minutes later he called back and had figured everything out. He said I was still up front but the case number from two days ago had been cancelled because they couldn't call me, but he found the old, original, case number and would handle it from there. This one would have cancelled out too because of the caller ID call screening if I hadn't called this morning. The tele-marketers never have a problem getting me.

Anyway.. if you are in line for the fix, turn off your call screening AND call with your case number periodically to make sure you are still in line. If you wait, thinking all is going good, you could be (as I was) history without even knowing it. I don't think calling all the time is helpful but I would check at least once to make sure you are still active with your case number.

Everyone at Canon (that I have talked with) is very nice and very helpful.. but you know how things can get messed up, especially in this type of situation. I have a feeling they are all learning as they go and are VERY busy with this project. So I was nice even though I was getting very frustrated and they were very helpful. I think they are trying very hard under "unusual" circumstances.

So, late today I finally got my return authorization via email (two separate emails). It included a return packing slip from Canon that you have to print out and put in the box and a separate email from UPS with an overnight shipping label you have to print for the return shipping.

There were no instruction on what to send or not send so I called them back because I was rushing to get to UPS. Here is the scoop..

1. Remove the battery and put the dummy battery cover on the battery slot.
2. Remove BOTH memory cards.
3. Remove the lens (duh) and put the cap on it.
4. DO NOT send the camera in the "original" box you won't get it back.
5. Be sure to put the packing slip in the box.

They also recommend the following..

1. Wrap it in bubble wrap to protect it.
2. If you are using peanuts in the box put the body in a plastic bag so the dust and peanut stuff doesn't get in the camera.
3. If you have UPS pack it.. be sure and tell them to wrap it in bubble wrap and take a large plastic bag with you in case they use peanuts.
4. Print the packing slip and be sure to tell UPS to put the slip it in the box.
5. Keep a copy of the UPS label (or at least the original UPS email) because it has your tracking number on it to make sure your camera it gets to Canon.
6. According to the packing slip, once Canon gets your camera and assigns an order number you can track the progress at www.usa.canon.com/repair but I don't know how you get an order number, unless they email one. Once I find out I will update this post.

That's it for now.. I'm already having withdrawals, . Guess I will have to break out the XTI for the time being.

ian408

Chris, that's a lot of great information! Thanks for posting that.

Ian

PrescottPhotog

PrescottPhotog wrote:

Update..

Hi, I called Canon today and talked to customer service. My service number is 000413, which means it is #413 being worked on. It is being done at Newport News, Virginia. I had to call to get the repair order.

What I found out is this.. They are using a special area (different from the normal repair facility) where they are doing the repairs to the Mark III and they brought in special engineers from Japan to do (or supervise) the work.

Plus, after the mirror fix is done it goes through another special area, (like quality control) to further check it.

It sounds like Canon knows how much they have riding on this repair of the Mark III and are doing their best to get it right. I sure have my fingers crossed because I really like this camera !!!

ziggy53

Good luck Chris, my fingers are crossed for you.

PrescottPhotog

Mark III Mirror Fix - Update
Hi,

I got my repair notice and sent my camera in to Canon last Wednesday. They received it on Thursday 12/6 at about noon according to the UPS delivery notice. I figured it would take a week to 10 days to get it back.. as rumor had it.

I was sitting here this morning (Monday, early) when the doorbell rang. I couldn't figure out who it was since I wasn't expecting anyone. When I answered the door the FedEx guy was standing there with a big box in hand. I asked who it was from and he said CUSA, Newport News, Virginia.

With a dumb look on my face I signed for it and took the package.. it was my Mark III, back from Canon in ONE day (if you take out the weekend).

They must have fixed it Friday or Saturday and shipped it back to me Saturday at the latest. It was packed well and had plastic over the LCD screen.

There was a nice letter from the VP and GM of Canon apologizing for the problem and extending the warranty for another full year.

Since it is snowing outside with rain expected for the next couple days I will try to get a test done and let everyone know my opinion as soon as I can get out.

To say I was surprised and pleased that it was back so soon is an understatement !!

Now I hope it works, both for me and for Canon.

KED

Rob Galbraith Update
Great news that Canon is providing good service (par for the course for them in my experience).

To all who are following this Mk III AF issue: Rob Galbraith, who is to this what Woodward & Bernstein were to Watergate, has at long last released his findings (exhaustively researched, 8,500 words, 650 images) on the "fix". Here is the link:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9168

The reviews are ~mixed~.

wxwax

KED wrote:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9168

The reviews are ~mixed~.

Baffling.

It sounds like somewhere along the way they designed themselves into a rat hole that they can't climb out of. I know nothing about engineering. But if software updates and a hardware change can't fully solve the problem, then it may be that there's a design flaw so profound that only a redesign will eliminate it.

How that could happen to a body that's fairly mature and on its fourth iteration is hard to imagine. Of course, this is complete speculation. But reading Galbraith, seeing the resources Canon's throwing at the problem, and understanding that the Mk III's impact on Canon's image and line of cameras extends far, far beyond its sales revenue, it's clear that this a very big deal.

That Canon, after all this time, still can't make Mk III as good as the Mk IIn speaks to the severity of the design problem they created for themselves.

And it makes me wonder two things. One, it may be that the autofocus issue won't be satisfactorily resolved until the 1D Mk IV. And two, that the Mk IV may be released much earlier than had previously been planned.

All rampant speculation, course.

ian408

Ugh.

Harryb

Rod G's EOS 1D Mark III update
Rod Galbraith's latest update is out. He finds the AF to be improved but still not as Good as the Mark II's AF.

As a Nikon shooter I really can't comment except to say I see pictures daily from the Mark III that blow me away.

kdog

wxwax wrote:

I know nothing about engineering. But if software updates and a hardware change can't fully solve the problem, then it may be that there's a design flaw so profound that only a redesign will eliminate it.

How that could happen to a body that's fairly mature and on its fourth iteration is hard to imagine. ....

All rampant speculation, course.

Since we're speculating, I've seen first-hand how this can happen -- a new team. There's usually one uber-guru that leads the designs of any particular product line within a company. He's probably been in the company a long time, a gifted designer and hit the ball out of the park with his designs. Such a person probably led the designs of the entire EOS Mark camera body lines through the Mark IIn. However, there eventually reaches a day when it's time for that person to move on for a variety of reasons, and for a new guru to take his place. The new guru is likely to be younger, more aggressive and cockier, and with the attitude that he can do this "faster, better, cheaper". He's got management's eye because of his academic credentials, maybe a smattering of successful designs under his belt. Like any new dog on the block, he's got to piss on things to make his mark. Maybe he's brought in a few cronies on the team, pushes the edge on new materials or techniques, and a few other gratuitous changes just because he can.

Next thing you know, problems start popping up. Nobody worries because there are always a few glitches that pop up which need to be patched. However, little by little it becomes apparent that these problems aren't going away, they're getting worse. And now the finger pointing begins.