Canon 1ds3 alignment problems

[Wayne Fox]

1Ds3 Serial # 603xxx, checked viewfinder alignment via Live view, a very, very slight difference.  Not enough that I'm concerned or worried about getting it adjusted.

Posted this just in case someone is trying to find an affected range of serial numbers.

[Lester]

Canon might have this problem fix, I tested my 1Ds Mk3, today, with a EcD ruled focusing screem and it is perfect, my camera serial # 606xxx

[pfigen]

I got a 1DsMKIII on Saturday and checked the alignment today in the studio. There was about 1/10 of a millimeter lateral shift between the viewfinder and actual image and absolutely zero rotation. Pretty damn close. Love the ergonomics, LCD, speed, interface, etc, but I have to say that in preliminary testing with very sharp lenses, there is an almost imperceptable improvement in image detail, not enough to see in any real print or reproduction. Further testing this week; we'll see...

[carl dw]

Canon might have this problem fix, I tested my 1Ds Mk3, today, with a EcD ruled focusing screem and it is perfect, my camera serial # 606xxx
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I tested and rejected four 1Ds MkIII bodies ranging from 606xxx to 609xxx. The problem seems to be random and widespread.

People all over the world are now being told different things by Canon i.e. "no known issue", "there is a bulletin", "it has been identified as prism misalignment" etc.

My guess is that the smokescreen of misinformation will buy time while they check and tweak the unsold stocks before dispatch.

A wholesale admission of fault would be embarrassing for Canon, though I actually think a bit of honesty at an early stage would restore customer confidence!

As they say .... "Sh*t happens!" - bite the bullet and get on with it Mr Canon.

[Mark D Segal]

A wholesale admission of fault would be embarrassing for Canon, though I actually think a bit of honesty at an early stage would restore customer confidence!

As they say .... "Sh*t happens!" - bite the bullet and get on with it Mr Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168747\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly what I told them in a customer satisfaction survey they sent me by email yesterday. While I don't think I've been much affected with this current fault, one wants to be invested with a camera system backed by a company one can trust for honesty and responsiveness.

The very fact of how mute they've been despite the deluge of complaints on a number of forums demonstrates just how insular they are and what kind of corporate cultural makeover is needed at Canon. The service agent I consulted late last week told me they don't base their service policies on information from web forums. Well fine, forums would be less reliable than what they know first-hand, but the whole attitude reeks of insularity. A company more connected with their customers would respond openly to these concerns, deal with defects promptly and learn from it.

Canon has made marvelous technological breakthroughs in concepts, design and manufacturing, for which they deserve much credit. We are where we are partly due to their technological prowess, but there is more to the business than that. I think those of us reading this thread know all that - the question is whether Canon is reading us and do they?

[Dinarius]

Well I'm glad I found this thread.  

Just spent the weekend in London shooting hotel interiors and aligning the camera to the doorframes, architraves or whatever (always checking that they were true - not always the case in old buildings) nearly drove me nuts.

The problem in my case (serial number 614xxx, for what it's worth) is slight, but annoying.

It should NOT be present in a camera of this expense.

D.

ps. I should add that I still had to correct a few images in ACR too. This costs time and pixels and can affect composition slightly. A pain in the butt.

Now that I've seen this thread, I'll get onto my dealer tomorrow.

[geotzo]

Just tested mine and it looks ok    thank God

[Dinarius]

Just tested mine and it looks ok    thank God
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169437\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

geotzo,

What serial number is yours? i.e. first three digits.

Thanks.

D.

[narikin]

glanced at this thread and cynically thought maybe this was a case of nit picking nerdishness, till I tested mine (brand new USA model Jan 16th, 610xxx)  and guess what - its out by a noticeable amount... 0.3 to 0.35 degrees.

viewfinder set up on tripod with nice clean parallel line, but the actual image opened on computer drops down on right side.

seems they're still shipping them that way from Japan.

got to send mine back to Canon now. damn it.

[Lester]

Wow, people with 610xxx and 614xxx still have this problem. You guys must be unlucky or everyone with the problem is posting here. Canon should have this problem fix by now. I thought they did, since my is 606xx and there was no problem with being off. Canon better fix it, there are too many people bitching about it. We all know what happen to Kodak and their DSLR. Canon Service Center should go overtime and fix this problem for owners. Paying $8000 for a body and finding out it is out of wack is not a good thing.

[Mark D Segal]

Wow, people with 610xxx and 614xxx still have this problem. You guys must be unlucky or everyone with the problem is posting here. Canon should have this problem fix by now. I thought they did, since my is 606xx and there was no problem with being off. Canon better fix it, there are too many people bitching about it. We all know what happen to Kodak and their DSLR. Canon Service Center should go overtime and fix this problem for owners. Paying $8000 for a body and finding out it is out of wack is not a good thing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you think you will ever get any over-time service from Canon, you are dreaming in Technicolor. Here in Canada Canon's service center has not admitted there is a problem, and they openly state they pay no heed to web Forums; but if you have a defective camera they will repair it under warranty provided you leave it with them for two to three weeks. I think my camera is OK and so far it seems that the image quality is excellent, but with this kind of corporate attitude and service turnaround it raises serious questions about whether to buy anything more in the future from Canon.

[Dinarius]

I've got a 614*** and I've just tested it again with the camera in portrait mode/format.

While I can't be absolutely sure, it looks OK.

The problem is that the bottom edge of the viewfinder, which becomes the right hand side edge when the camera is in portrait mode, is far from true itself. i.e. there is very slight barrel distortion because the viewfinder glass is less than perfect.

I shot a door frame and some kitchen cupboards. When I open this up in Bridge and drag the crop tool lines across the image, they align pretty perfectly with the verticals in the image.

However, ideally I'd like to be testing it with a grid screen fitted so that I can align the camera against one of the barrel-distortion free inner lines. I have one on order and I'll hold my fire until I test it with this fitted.

D.

[Mark D Segal]

The barrel distortion is probably from your lens. I've observed the same and I agree it interferes with evaluating alignment. I got around that issue by correcting for barrel distortion in Camera Raw's lens correction tab before checking for any off-angle of straight lines in the image once rendered in Photoshop.

[Dinarius]

Hi Mark,

You may be right, but Canon's 50mm 2.5 Macro is considered to have zip distortion.

The viewfinder, on the other hand, is another matter.  

D.

[canon_uw]

I posted this on DPR as well, but figured some people here might be able to add their input...(summary is - my viewfinder was tilted, sent to Canon, my viewfinder is still tilted)...

I received my camera with a serial number 606xxx, and after shooting a number of landscapes, noticed the tilt in the viewfinder.

I took these shots to show the variation - there's a 0.8deg tilt:


I called Canon Irvine, they told me to bring the camera in. I dropped it off, and after 2.5 weeks (with no updates!), finally saw 'Completed' on the repair status page. I picked it up a couple days ago, and shot a new test image (lined up like the last one, but with grid paper and center crop. If people really want a through-the-viewfinder shot, I can do that too...but I was lazy at the time):



Canon didn't fix the problem! Instead of 0.8deg, it's between 0.5deg and 0.6deg.

What do I do now? It wasn't a particularly good feeling to not have the camera for over two weeks and miss out on shoots, and it doesn't appear as if Canon Irvine can even do the repair accurately. Is there anyone I can contact?

[dottore]

Canon didn't fix the problem! Instead of 0.8deg, it's between 0.5deg and 0.6deg.

What do I do now? It wasn't a particularly good feeling to not have the camera for over two weeks and miss out on shoots, and it doesn't appear as if Canon Irvine can even do the repair accurately. Is there anyone I can contact?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what I suspected: since these camera viewfinders and/or sensors are assembled using "passive" methods there is no possibility of positive adjustment. The repair shop can try to re-assembly it, but the result is more or less random.

If there was an actual tilt adjustment, someone would finally find out how to do it at home.  I don't care to prove it to anyone, you can believe it or not, but the evidence indicates that the angular alignment in the trio camera baseline-vewfinder-sensor is not adjustable.  Maybe we should admire the wonderful technology that allows less than 2 degrees accuracy without adjustment in most cases. Wow.....

I don't see any remedy to that situation, except screaming and trying to shame and ridicule all camera makers whose lemon cameras produce so obviously sloping horizons.

[Mark D Segal]

That's what I suspected: since these camera viewfinders and/or sensors are assembled using "passive" methods there is no possibility of positive adjustment. The repair shop can try to re-assembly it, but the result is more or less random.

If there was an actual tilt adjustment, someone would finally find out how to do it at home.  I don't care to prove it to anyone, you can believe it or not, but the evidence indicates that the angular alignment in the trio camera baseline-vewfinder-sensor is not adjustable.  Maybe we should admire the wonderful technology that allows less than 2 degrees accuracy without adjustment in most cases. Wow.....

I don't see any remedy to that situation, except screaming and trying to shame and ridicule all camera makers whose lemon cameras produce so obviously sloping horizons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170043\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You don't have to care to prove anything, but I don't have to care to believe anything you say either. I think your basic hypothesis is unproven and not credible. There is a consistency problem with assembly, QC and QA in Canon's factory because some of these cameras are defective in this respect and many others are not. There is also no consistency in repair experience, because we've had reports on this website of both successful and unsuccessful repairs. The one thing that does seem to be consistent almost everywhere is that unless you are a CPS client Canon's service arrangements are rotten.

[Mark D Segal]

What do I do now?  Is there anyone I can contact?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, based on what you've said, and only if you are absolutely positive the problem is the camera and not the way you are testing it (to be sure of this have a second person whose technical skills are relevant and trustworthy verify it with you), you've reached the point where you need to get to Canon's operational centre and exert pressure. In your position and if I were totally sure of myself, I would send a very polite but stiff letter to the head of Canon's operation in the USA telling him in no uncertain terms why you have solid evidence that the behaviour of his company in respect of your camera is inadequate, incompetent and unworthy of their reputation. Give him a deadline to provide you with a camera that is as flawless as it should be for this model, and tell him if he fails, the same letter will be sent to the CEO of Canon in Japan, and if he fails you all the correspondence and the evidence will be re-posted on every photographic website worldwide that can possibly influence what cameras people buy. In Japan they take reputational issues very seriously, and you will get attention, most likely before you need to go that far.

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Mark,

You may be right, but Canon's 50mm 2.5 Macro is considered to have zip distortion.

The viewfinder, on the other hand, is another matter.   

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I didn't realise you were using that lens. But just to be sure, it may be an idea to double-check for this factor bu putting that lens on another similar body and see whether the appearance is the same or not.

[phila]

That's what I suspected: since these camera viewfinders and/or sensors are assembled using "passive" methods there is no possibility of positive adjustment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170043\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well Canon Aust managed to do an exact adjustment to mine in under 24 hours!