Mk III Update: Just When You Thought it was Safe . . .

KED

This is meant to be informational, not a rant. I've documented my tour through three Mk III bodies here, and won't recap except to say that the last one was in the serial number range of affected bodies, but had been certified by Canon to be good-to-go vis-a-vis the AF problem. Unfortunately I got that body at the end of outdoor sports season last November so couldn't really put it to the test. I did fine with basketball indoors, and that made me feel pretty confident that I was out of the woods.

Now comes lax season. I shot 221 images last Saturday, several of which I was ecstatically proud of and posted here in Sports. But of the 221, at least 40 were uselessly OOF. (Mind you it was 35 degrees F, cloudy and snowing, not exactly the hot and bright conditions that Rob Galbraith has identified as being most problematic).

Canon has reviewed the images, thinks it's still the AF issue, and the camera is en route to Virginia right now.

The point: this problem is far from resolved, even if Canon tells you that your body is fine, and if you are taking your Mk III into an important (AI servo) shooting situation for the first time, be forewarned. Also, someone posted a link here to a Rob G. post about Canon meeting with pro shooters to disclose a top-secret new fix to this problem. As of yesterday, Canon's party line is that it is not true; there are no other "fixes" in the works. And right now I'm so happy I didn't trade in my Mk II N!

I will update when I get the camera back and have had a chance to try it again, assuming anyone is interested.

PS - I don't partake in the Great Debate, but this is the first time that I've ever had reason to think that I mighta picked the wrong horse, especially since at least 10 of the 40+ OOFs were of my own son! It doesn't feel like good karma deleting shots of one's own kid.

KED

And Further Update
I shipped the body via UPS overnight yesterday. Canon's Mk III repair center in Va. (yes, they have a dedicated Mk III repair center) received it at 9:41 a.m. At 3:31 p.m. it was picked up by Fedex for return to me, and they did find something mechanical in the dreaded sub-mirror assembly that they fixed, after which they reportedly assured that the camera was meeting spec and good to go.

I won't have it for tomorrow's game, but I am very impressed with the service and, even though I have reason to be wary, find that I am really excited to be getting back a Canon-certified, fully functional, blazingly fast AF camera. And in time for the start of the regular season next weekend. No hard feelings, Canon!

ziggy53

Fingers crossed.

kdog

This is as exciting as the Rob Galbraith saga!

Can't wait to hear how it works out for you.

-joel

KED

ziggy53 wrote:

Fingers crossed.

You and me both! Thanks . . . will post in 8 days either way.

KED

kdog wrote:

This is as exciting as the Rob Galbraith saga!

Can't wait to hear how it works out for you.

-joel

I am not in Rob's league, and believe me, the folks at Canon tech support know all about him!

I am sitting here laughing because "exciting" is about the last adjective that I would have expected to see applied to my whiny posts (or, on second thought, maybe you are bored equally by both of us ). Thanks for the good wishes in either case.

ziggy53

KED wrote:

I am not in Rob's league, and believe me, the folks at Canon tech support know all about him!

I am sitting here laughing because "exciting" is about the last adjective that I would have expected to see applied to my whiny posts (or, on second thought, maybe you are bored equally by both of us ). Thanks for the good wishes in either case.

I greatly appreciate the updates.

It's too bad Canon is struggling with these issues, but it's great that you and they persist to find a solution. Trust me, Canon appreciates customers that help them with valuable feedback. This new autofocus module hasn't been easy on anybody.

KED

ziggy53 wrote:

I greatly appreciate the updates.

It's too bad Canon is struggling with these issues, but it's great that you and they persist to find a solution. Trust me, Canon appreciates customers that help them with valuable feedback. This new autofocus module hasn't been easy on anybody.

I only got to the front of the repair queue because I climbed the customer service "ladder" to the highest rung I could reach (HOURS on the phone), and the last conversation was a nasty one because I was distraught about (on top of everything else) not having the use of the camera for lacrosse tomorrow. But, they did do the right thing. Various Canon personnel have told me, over the course of this, that when this thing works, it is beyond belief (like a D3 maybe ).

So props to Canon for their handling of this, and I am very hopeful. Still, if I were considering purchasing Canon's flagship DSLR (forgetting Andy's "s" version -- different animal, different application), knowing what I know now, I am not sure I'd pull the trigger. It is too bad -- I love the brand and want to see it continue to dominate the free world in perpetuity!

rwells

KED,

Am I a little confused here


Isn't this particular body a "Blue Dot" version? Already had the faulty mirror assembly replaced by Canon and given the thumbs up, (or blue dot in this case)?


If so, why did it go bad again?


Inquiring minds want to know...

KED

rwells wrote:

KED,

Am I a little confused here


Isn't this particular body a "Blue Dot" version? Already had the faulty mirror assembly replaced by Canon and given the thumbs up, (or blue dot in this case)?


If so, why did it go bad again?


Inquiring minds want to know...

You have amazing recall Randy! You are exactly correct, and the fact that my particular unit had supposedly been checked and certified to be AOK only magnified my frustration with all of this. I asked the Canon people the same question you asked me, and they had no explanation, but this repair did involve the installation of a part in the sub-mirror assembly. Maybe they didn't use enough glue the last time?

rwells

KED wrote:

You have amazing recall Randy! You are exactly correct, and the fact that my particular unit had supposedly been checked and certified to be OAK only magnified my frustration with all of this. I asked the Canon people the same question you asked me, and they had no explanation, but this repair did involve the installation of a part in the sub-mirror assembly. Maybe they didn't use enough glue the last time?

I can only imagine your frustration :splat


I know another photog that's had issues twice with his 1DMkIII. I'm sorry to say, but if I had the funds to upgrade to this level of body, I wouldn't touch a 1DMkIII with a ten foot pole!

This particular issue, about Canon fixing it and giving it the AOK, but only to find out that didn't fix it, Well...........

I personally would step up to a 5D for non-sports work (which I'm about to do) and go with a 1DMkIIn for sports. (I know you have this body also)


That's a real shame... I make my living shooting sports with Canon camera's, and the fact that I don't want (let's make that "I'm leery of it") the "top dog" sports camera body from Canon. :cry


I wish you luck getting these issues worked out

xris

5D Rumors?

rwells wrote:

... I personally would step up to a 5D

Speaking of the 5D. I've heard rumors of a pending update. Maybe something with a version 3 processor etc. Any scuttlebutt?

rwells

xris wrote:

Speaking of the 5D. I've heard rumors of a pending update. Maybe something with a version 3 processor etc. Any scuttlebutt?

There was a lot of speculation that it's successor would be announced at PMA, it was not.


I feel certain that they will at some point, but I need another body now. I can't wait till fall, or whenever.

KED

rwells wrote:

I can only imagine your frustration :splat


I know another photog that's had issues twice with his 1DMkIII. I'm sorry to say, but if I had the funds to upgrade to this level of body, I wouldn't touch a 1DMkIII with a ten foot pole!

This particular issue, about Canon fixing it and giving it the AOK, but only to find out that didn't fix it, Well...........

I personally would step up to a 5D for non-sports work (which I'm about to do) and go with a 1DMkIIn for sports. (I know you have this body also)


That's a real shame... I make my living shooting sports with Canon camera's, and the fact that I don't want (let's make that "I'm leery of it") the "top dog" sports camera body from Canon. :cry


I wish you luck getting these issues worked out

I agree with all your sentiments, and thank you for your good wishes. I shot 329 images yesterday with the II N, in the bright sunny conditions that give the III particular fits. The relatively few from yesterday that weren't sharp were clearly attributable to pilot error.

I don't know whether it's an act of trust or of gullibility, but I plan to use the III as my main camera next week with the 70-200 for the start of the regular college lax season, and put the II N back on a big lens. If it lets me down, Canon will have a lot more to repair than the sub-mirror assembly, and I don't think those repairs will be covered under warranty!

KED

Update to the Update: All's well that . . .?
I mentioned at the tail end of this older thread that Canon's turnaround on my unit was breathtakingly fast (received, repaired and back into shipping intra-day). I received it by Fedex on President's Day, so did not have a chance to try it until this past Saturday. The test was too limited to come to a definitive conclusion -- because I'm now getting screwed out of my press cred by my own kid's school, I was relegated to the stands and shot with my 300 in the first half (sorry, that's a whole 'nother story for a different sub-forum). But I couldn't wait any longer to try it out, so I slapped on the 70-200 and 1.4 extender in the second half and got, among others, the following sequence:









I'm not saying these shots belong in any hall of fame, but they were taken in the III's super-fast burst mode, and obviously in brilliant sunshine (which, except if you add in high temps, is ironically the most problematic condition for the III's AI Servo). Before the fix, these likely would have deteriorated in sharpness to the point where #4 would've looked like I had vaseline on the lens. PS some LR sharpening applied, but these images were obviously in focus to begin with.

I'm also not saying we're out of the woods, but I am definitely feeling better and believe that props are due Canon for their efforts to rectify the situation.

KED

KED wrote:

I'm also not saying we're out of the woods, but I am definitely feeling better and believe that props are due Canon for their efforts to rectify the situation.

I know that there are Mk III users out there who care about this, so I'll keep posting. Rob Galbraith posted again yesterday on the topic, and we are not out of the woods and Canon knows it:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9299

If I'm being a bore, somebody let me know (preferably via PM!). Just trying to be informative.

ian408

I can confirm that the mkIII, after the "fix", blows in back lit situations.

KED

ian408 wrote:

I can confirm that the mkIII, after the "fix", blows in back lit situations.

Terrific! Since that occurs so *rarely* in outdoor sports shooting, it shouldn't be a problem. :cry

ian408

KED wrote:

Terrific! Since that occurs so *rarely* in outdoor sports shooting, it shouldn't be a problem. :cry

I've never shot a back lit anything