Talk:Canon EOS-1D Mark III

message: I have added new relevant information to the article proper including information on the time of release of the camera, additional information on Live View (from practical experience and resources such as the camera's manual and menu systems), and more. I have also taken a series of photographs detailing the camera from the major sides, with descriptions of all controls and/or major features. Only the bottom was not photographed, but the main feature is the series of regulatory labels and hand strap lug. My personal camera was used in the photos. Nikonmadness 05:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you posted is about the 1Ds and not the 1D. -- Mfnalex (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added 

message: It says in the text that "...the Mark III returns below-par focus performance." under the circumstances mentioned. I think this should be altered. As of now, it's relatively few who have actually reported this, and a lot can be blamed on the user and learning curves. People seem to think this is a Mark IIn 2. edition, while it is clearly not. It is not clear, as of now, if there actually are any 'real' problems with some or all cameras.
:Having said that, Rob Galbraith did say that since he published his original article he's had - quote - several hundred eMails confirming what he found. It's probably a moot point though - we're receiving good feedback on Firmware 1.1.1, which is due to be released sometimes in Sep 07. T h e M a v e r i c k 10:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AF Performance 

message: Canon has admitted to the AF issues referenced as of October 2007, and has since, started repairing affected cameras, some 45,000 in December 2007.  Mine has been through the fix, and works better, especially with the older (1.1.0) firmware.  That change is NOT recommended by Canon, who is updating all cameras with the 1.1.3 firmware.  A search of the internet for the AF problems will show that all of the issues are NOT user error.
[Michael Durisseau]98.196.157.91 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AF Performance, update 

message: I'm concerned about the disparity between the 1D Mk III and IV articles concerning sensor size in these articles and the actual sensor sizes as specified by Canon themselves. This article states a 28.1 × 18.7 mm 10.1 megapixel sensor, while the website states 36 x 24mm, 21.1 megapixel sensor.
http://www.canon.com.au/en-AU/For-You/Digital-Cameras/EOS-Digital-SLR-Cameras/1DS
Ukiedukie (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disparity 

message: The Canon EOS 1D Marks III is NOT an APS-H classified in the proposed timeline of the 1D. Please have that fixed. Source: EOS-1Ds Mark III 	Aug 2007 	21.1 mp 	Full frame 	5.0 fps, 56 images 	3.0" (Live view) 
Reference: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dsmarkiii
D. Lau (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The EOS-1Ds Mark III and EOS 1D Mark III are two different cameras. The current information is correct. Mindmatrix 14:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full frame not APS-H! 

message: The reference for the range of affected serial numbers is a dead link.
However the following page gives the numbers:
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_1d_mark_iii?pageKeyCode=prdAdvDetail&docId=0901e0248004cd3d
and they match the range give in the article. Unfortunately I am having trouble reconciling the dates in the article with the product advisory dates given above or my memory of the issues. Therefore I am leaving the article unedited. I do think it is unfair as it stands, since it gives the impression that the problems are unresolved, whereas, according to all I've heard, they have been.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.183.163 (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affected serial numbers