Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 1ds3 alignment problems  (Read 79395 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2008, 06:19:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well the D3x is rumored to be announced at the end of the month with 24MP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think this will happen.

Nikon's D3x accouncement schedule is a balancing act between letting too many people buy a 1ds3 and preventing too many people from buying a D3 first.

IMHO, we are still way too close to the D3 introduction to make it interesting for Nikon to introduce the D3x now even if it were ready to ship. What they want is people to buy both, starting with a D3.

The only thing that might force Nikon to act quick would be the announcement of the Sony 24MP, but this is still only rumours at this point of time.

We will see.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2008, 06:27:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps some potential buyers of the 1DsIII will consider whether it is worth paying almost ten grand for a body with slapdash assembly standards and QC, using subpar wide angle glass and a defective autofocus system.

The autofocus issue with the 1D-MkIII was fixed before the 1Ds-MkIII was even released, and there's been zero evidence so far that the AF issue has cropped up in the 1Ds-MkIII. Your snarky comment about autofocus has no factual basis whatsoever.

The tape trick I mentioned will work to micro-align the grid focusing screen in the viewfinder if simply removing and re-seating the screen doesn't fix the problem. If you're not using a grid screen, then you aren't going to get accuracy better than +-2 degrees or so because eyeballing simply isn't any more accurate than that. If you use a bubble level attached to the camera, you can get within about +- 1 degree if you can adjust the level's attachment to the camera so that the camera and the level agree on what level is. Otherwise you are consistently going to be off in most cases. But even assuming you do all of that (and you probably haven't), user error can still creep in, like pressing the shutter release by hand instead of using a remote release. That can introduce an error of a couple of degrees even if the camera was leveled perfectly during focus & composition. And if you're shooting handheld and complaining about a degree or two of "misalignment"...

Canon's wide lenses (with the possible exception of the new 14mm prime) are the weakest part of Canon's lens lineup. Congratulations, one out of three ain't bad.
Logged

lightstand
Guest
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2008, 08:08:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Just to add numbers to this post as I haven't found a viable work around, but I have a 1dsm2 that has this misalignment problem and it is a pain. Whether I'm shooting in a very tight situation where cropping just isn't afforded or another step in the workflow I really don't believe an $8000 instrument should possess this type of problem. (you want me to place tape where? taking away viewfinder real estate, and if it melts? - due to a high temperature zone?)

I never remember having a misalignment problem such as this on any of the view cameras I've owned nor having any problem leveling any of the 1Ns with standard bubble levels.  Because the camera is labeled for studio I have always thought it would be nice if Canon would create flat surfaces on various regions of the body designed so the user could use a more precise leveling device than just the hotshoe. I would rather create a cool picture than having a camera designed with eloquent curves.
Logged
canmiya
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2008, 08:58:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Apparently a 24MP full-frame Sony Alpha is imminently going to be announced at PMA with built-in sensor-based antishake for $3000-$4000 or so. A Nikon D3x is also expected albeit probably in the $5000 range, and Nikon offers the incomparable 14-24/2.8 which absolutely thrashes every Canon wide angle lens, prime or zoom, in its range.

Perhaps some potential buyers of the 1DsIII will consider whether it is worth paying almost ten grand for a body with slapdash assembly standards and QC, using subpar wide angle glass and a defective autofocus system.

It's time for Canon to step up to the plate and stop acting like they own the high end marketplace, permanently, and can charge any price for their products.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166557\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
why would nikon offer a 24 mp ff camera in the same price range as their 12mp ff offering?  the fact is that every company prices items where they believe the market is.   one could make the case that inspite of it's robust features , that $5000 for a 12mp ff nikon might be pricey given the fact that  there is a 12mp ff canon currently selling for nearly $3000 less.  the market however, clearly says that plenty of people do not feel the nikon is overpriced and the long line of people waiting to take delivery of the 1ds3 suggest that there is indeed a market for the canon flagship. for those who do have issues with how canon and nikon have priced their flagships, they can elect not to buy them  and/or look at other options that are more in line with  their pocket books and /or needs.  if we think the price is too high, no one is putting a gun to any of our heads and forcing us to buy the item.

 while sony may announce a 24 mp ff camera, i believe their lens lineup falls far short of the offerings from nikon and canon, which should be a consideration for anyone considering a ff alpha.  given the fact that sony has priced their alpha bodies to date at the same level as "comparable" offerings from other maufacturers,  why would they price a 24 mp ff body  so much lower that nikon and canon?  are they not profit driven too?  
It also seems to be a stretch to "round up " the $7900 price tag of the 1ds3 to "almost ten grand."  you also might want to consider that not every shooter wants or needs an ultra wide.  there have also been plenty of photographers who have made a very decent living using that " subpar wide angle glass".  while people have complained about canon wides, and maintained nikon had better wides, if you take the kodak n model out of the equation, until the d3, their has been no nikon ff dslr that 'tested" any of their lenses the way the 1ds cameras have tested the canon lense line.
the botton line is that the recent releases (lenses and bodies), should make most of the camera companies assess or reassess  their strategies---and hopefully adapt where necessary and appropriate.   if they do that, every photographer from the season pro to weekend soccer parent will benefit.

i guess i should disclose that i am one of those people shooting with a body "with slapdash assembly standards and QC, using subpar wide angle glass and a defective autofocus system."
regards
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 09:03:34 PM by canmiya » Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2008, 09:34:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
why would nikon offer a 24 mp ff camera in the same price range as their 12mp ff offering?

Because the Sony with the same chip will be retailing for $3000 to $4000 with built-in antishake.

Quote
the fact is that every company prices items where they believe the market is.  one could make the case that inspite of it's robust features , that $5000 for a 12mp ff nikon might be pricey given the fact that there is a 12mp ff canon currently selling for nearly $3000 less.

I never said the D3 was a bargain.

The Alpha 900 at 24MP and $3000-4000 will be though, and it will force the other players to adjust pricing.

Quote
the market however, clearly says that plenty of people do not feel the nikon is overpriced and the long line of people waiting to take delivery of the 1ds3 suggest that there is indeed a market for the canon flagship. for those who do have issues with how canon and nikon have priced their flagships, they can elect not to buy them and/or look at other options that are more in line with their pocket books and /or needs. if we think the price is too high, no one is putting a gun to any of our heads and forcing us to buy the item.

If Sony delivers the 24MP for $3000 (that is the rumor, so low I find it hard to believe, but it comes from someone who has been spot-on with other Sony rumors in the past) they will sell way more of them than Canon sells 1DsIIIs.  Canon will be forced to respond.

Quote
while sony may announce a 24 mp ff camera, i believe their lens lineup falls far short of the offerings from nikon and canon, which should be a consideration for anyone considering a ff alpha.

How many lenses do you think a landscape photographer needs?  Come on!  Tons of enthusiasts will buy a 24MP sony at $3000 who would never pay $8000 for a camera.

Quote
given the fact that sony has priced their alpha bodies to date at the same level as "comparable" offerings from other maufacturers, why would they price a 24 mp ff body so much lower that nikon and canon? are they not profit driven too?

I don't know, but the rumor from (so far) reliable sources is $3000.  That is so low that some people are suggesting closer to $4000, but the most reliable source says $3000.

Apparently Sony is trying to compete with the 5DII.

The rumor could be wrong, but that is what the rumor says.

Quote
It also seems to be a stretch to "round up " the $7900 price tag of the 1ds3 to "almost ten grand."

It's not much of a stretch, $8000 and $10,000 are pretty comparable in terms of how many people are willing to spend that much on a rapidly depreciating camera body (answer:  not many).

There are droves of enthusiasts willing to spend $3000 on a camera body that is worth it, witness the massive success of the 5D in the landscape market where it has outsold the 1DsII 5 to 1 or more.


Anyway, if the rumor holds true and Sony releases the Alpha 900 with 24MP at $3000 (and I hope the 900 also has the Sony live twist-and-flip LCD leaked in pictures of the Alpha 300 back) I think this will be a serious game-changer for the high-end dSLR market, the way the original digital rebel at $999 was a serious game-changer for the dSLR market as a whole.  The camera makers have been charging far too much money to people who need maximum resolution, and bringing the price down to a reasonable level is good for everyone.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 09:35:33 PM by MatthewCromer » Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2008, 09:46:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The autofocus issue with the 1D-MkIII was fixed before the 1Ds-MkIII was even released, and there's been zero evidence so far that the AF issue has cropped up in the 1Ds-MkIII. Your snarky comment about autofocus has no factual basis whatsoever.

Rob Galbraith and many others don't seem to think it's fixed yet.  And there is no reason to think the 1DsIII is any better than the "blue dot" or repaired 1DIII cameras.

But to be fair, for a studio camera, I'm sure the 1DsIII autofocus is more than adequate, so that was admittedly a cheap shot (although one that Canon deserves).

Quote
The tape trick I mentioned. . .

Yes, I want to be putting tape on my $8000 camera to fix what should have been aligned correctly to begin with (and losing my 100% viewfinder in the process. . .)

Quote
Canon's wide lenses (with the possible exception of the new 14mm prime) are the weakest part of Canon's lens lineup.

That, and their refusal to use what is now commodity sensor-based antishake which breathes a huge amount of usefulness into fast primes in low light. . .  Admittedly Nikon is playing the same game here with their customers. . .

In any event, you should be thankful that Sony is about to introduce some competition into the high-resolution full-frame dSLR market.  It will make your Canon bodies a lot cheaper in the future. . .
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2008, 10:48:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I've seen evidence that the 1Ds3 alignment problem between the viewfinder and the image may exist. However, I've done a series of hand-held tests with my 1Ds3 this evening, photogaphing rectanglar furniture and a painting on the wall, and I have not detected an alignment problem even with this crude kind of testing. It may be argued that the testing is too crude to replicate the problem, but to cover for that I made a number of exposures, and where I succeeded to get the image aligned in the viewfinder it wasalso aligned on my display.

As for the auto-focus issue - again I cannot replicate this problem on my 1Ds3. In fact it focuses in almost total darkness, and it focused perfectly on very bright snow scenes here in Toronto last week.

Am I lucky to have gotten a good one, or are there a few unlucky people with sub-par ones? We'll know with more evidence.

As for Canon not being conscious of the need to market a top quality product for top dollar - I simply don't believe it. They may be insular and aloof, but many millions of cameras later they aren't dummies either and they MUST know what is going on around them - including all the rumours - because if you guys know these rumours you can bet your bottom dollar they knew them well before any of us, yet their prices are their prices and once they price the current model where they did, it's unlikely they will reduce it - that would be for the next model which may well be a good year or two away; meanwhile they need the current model to survive commercially. Either they simply couldn't price the 1Ds3 lower than they did, or they could but they aren't concerned about prices from Nikon and Sony. Time will tell.

As for Sony and Nikon, doesn't Sony manufacture Nikon's sensors? None of these folks live in a vaccuum. Competition is badly needed in this segment of the industry, but it won't be totally arms' length, and it won't levelize prices for differentiated products with many people holding expensive and dedicated legacy accessories. A 20+ MP camera isn't quite a commodity yet like a pound of copper.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 10:49:17 PM by MarkDS » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 545


WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2008, 11:40:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I never remember having a misalignment problem such as this on any of the view cameras I've owned[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lightstand,

Are you saying you never had a problem with the alignment between the film guides and the viewfinder of a view camera? How could you? They don't have viewfinders. They're called "view cameras" because you "view" the actual projected image from the lens, in exactly the same place the film will be. Maybe you mean the film holder guides in the cameras have always been parallel with the mounting surfaces of the cameras?

The OP is talking about the viewfinder image not coinciding with the sensor image. This should be extremely easy to test. Put the camera on a tripod in front of something with parallel horizontal lines. Line up one of those lines with one of the edges of the viewfinder frame. Take a picture, or better yet, activate live view, and see if lines in the scene are parallel to the image borders.

My old Canon S50 point and shoot is out of alignment a lot, but I've detailed my simple solution earlier. With my DSLRs, I don't see how the viewfinders are big enough to align an image to within one degree anyway. I'm really interested in seeing how big this discrepancy is with 1DSmkIIIs.
Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2008, 03:27:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I just want to report that both my cameras serials something with 605xxx are absolutly fine.  I checked both carefully on my computer screen and couldn't see any difference between live view and the viewfinder. That is great and how it should be.
Logged

carl dw
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2008, 07:41:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jonathan's advice works. If you align correctly the line of the grids then you will not need to rotate the image in PS.

The problem that his fix does solve is the crop since the wrong positioning of the mask of the camera will result in the viewfinder not being in fact 100%. In other words, you will shoot a correctly oriented image, but you will not see the full area of the image. Depending on the mask's misalignement, this could make you waste as many as 1 or 2 MP or sensor real estate.

As a side comment, the orientation sensor of the D3 is key, since it enables the photograph - even on the fly - to align his images much better, which reduces the need to crop, and therefore makes you win as much as 10% pixel counts compared to images taken with a camera without this feature. Thanks to it a 20MP D3x would practically have the same pixel count as a 22MP Mamiya ZD.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I do understand your line of reasoning, but the test seemed to indicate that the whole assembly (viewfinder, screen) may be out of sync. Line up in the viewfinder with the grid lines (or the edge of the frame).... and the resulting image is rotated. Even if your fix did work, it doesn't really help as, like so many photographers, I compose in camera to a great extent and the edge of the frame is an important part of that process.

But any attempted string and sticky tape solutions simply don't get away from the fact that it in such an expensive piece of kit things should work perfectly - out of the box!

It is not rocket science (or attributed to the the cutting edge nature of the new technology), it is simply nailing the bits together correctly!!

Maybe one misaligned camera may come off the production line in Japan on a Friday afternoon following a long lunch of sushi and too much sarke - but I've personally seen four with serials spreading over hundreds of units.

I've waited a long time for this camera to arrive. I actually want it to work!
Logged
djgarcia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2008, 12:59:56 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, just did some tests in my house with both 1Ds2 & 1Ds3, using a wall with a couple of paintings & doorway, and I do get some noticeable misalignment I would normally need to correct, not noticeable in my 1Ds2 which actually shows a bit less of the actual frame than my 1Ds3, though well aligned.

My 1Ds3 S/N is 615xxx for reference, and no I'm not switching back to my 1Ds2 - I much prefer using the somewhat misaligned 1Ds3. In my case I can deal with it until Canon hopefully comes up with a fix.
Logged

Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII & 1DsIII, Zeiss & Leica lenses
http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2008, 01:15:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A bit of tape applied to the right spot on the edge of the screen would easily fix this issue permanently; returning the camera over such a trivial thing seems a bit of an overreaction.

In any event, using Live View tethered is an even better option, and renders the issue moot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just bought a new Bently, but like all the recent models it has a duff starter motor, but as I always park it facing downhill it renders the issue moot.  Though I gathered if you got a starting handle and placed it under grill and yanked it  a few times it would normally start.  
God, you get some daft advice online sometimes.


Yesterday in my local dealer they just had a 1DsIII returned and the other 3 in stock were also useless. So looks like Nikon are going to be selling even more high end cameras than they could possibly have imagined as both the recent 1d + 1ds arrived with serious quality control issues. And it's not as if Canon [UK] are any good at sorting normal repair problems out either. For pros or amateurs.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 01:18:30 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
lightstand
Guest
« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2008, 02:00:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I apologize for the vague reference it was aimed not at the OP but the idea that the misalignment is because the simple "over-priced" bubble levels could never level a camera. A sentiment I do agree with to some extent however I do know with my 1dsm2 a misalignment between viewfinder & sensor is present.
Logged
phila
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 247



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2008, 09:29:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Just got the grid screen the other day and mine's out 0.75.

A hassle but hardly end of the world stuff. I'll get onto CPS tomorrow.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2008, 09:52:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
God, you get some daft advice online sometimes.

Yes, like "the hood ornament on my Mercedes appears to be misaligned clockwise by 0.75 degrees, so I'm going to return the car and walk 20 miles to work..."

For a 0.75-degree misalignment, re-seating the grid screen in its' socket will probably fix the "problem". And I'm still skeptical than anyone can realistically "eyeball" level to that degree of precision, even with a grid screen.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 09:54:53 PM by Jonathan Wienke » Logged

D White
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73

Don White


WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2008, 11:22:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

A week after I got my Ds3 I had a few weeks in Maui to do some shooting. I started to have this sensation that my viewfinder and bubble level did not agree. (It was a bit disorientating!)

The live view looks right so I am assuming that it is something with the viewfinder.

Now that I know that I am not the only one I will just sit back and wait for a fix to be announced. My focus tracking has been A1 in the hot and bright Hawaii sun.

This is one great camera for image quality and a significant refinement over the Ds2. I hope postings that trash this camera do not put people off of experiencing the excellent images one can get. It is not just less noise with a larger image file, but the quality of the noise that is there is "nicer" and more "film like" This really shows in B&W conversions and allows more extreme channel mixes without excessive and irritating noise and artifacts.

My "sub par" 16-35f2.8L is the best wide I have ever used. Maybe there is something even better out there but this lens is no dog. If you want to see bad, look at the corners of the famous 40mmCF Zeiss lens for the Blad, (one of my seven blad lenses). The Zeiss name is no mythical guarantee of optical nirvana as some posts would indicate. When people are throwing feces around, more seems to stick to the outside of Canon lens barrels than to the teflon coated barrels that the Zeiss lenses must have.

In terms of some one like Sony placing a full frame sensor based image stabilization system in there bodies, I am not sure of the physics. Would not the coverage of "full frame" lenses not be enough to cover the shifting of the full sensor?
Logged

Dr D White DDS BSc
Stephen L Starkman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59



WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2008, 12:11:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, like "the hood ornament on my Mercedes appears to be misaligned clockwise by 0.75 degrees, so I'm going to return the car and walk 20 miles to work..."

For a 0.75-degree misalignment, re-seating the grid screen in its' socket will probably fix the "problem". And I'm still skeptical than anyone can realistically "eyeball" level to that degree of precision, even with a grid screen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan,

I don't believe it is the grid focussing screen that is mis-aligned. In one case I know of the camera is equipped with the factory screen, yet the image is rotated .75 degrees. The test was repeated with a 5D - same setup, same lens etc - and no rotation was observed.

The importance of an accurate viewfinder is really an individual decision for each  photographer. For example, I shoot with tilt-shift lenses and use the Angle Finder C to assist me in aligning the images in the viewfinder. So, for me, the accuracy of the viewfinder is crucial - I would be unable to fully utilize my 1Ds3 if there was a .75 degree viewfinder error built into it. I've returned items for exchange to my dealer in the past for various flaws discovered shortly after purchase, and I don't see why this would be any different. The decision is the purchasers -  I don't think it unreasonable.

For the record, my own 1Ds3 does not appear to have this problem. I currently know of an  additional 1Ds3 owner without the issue as well.


Stephen
« Last Edit: January 13, 2008, 12:52:01 AM by Stephen Starkman » Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 545


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2008, 12:12:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And I'm still skeptical than anyone can realistically "eyeball" level to that degree of precision, even with a grid screen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Again, my experience in the surveying world leads me to believe Jonathan is correct about this. Are any of you who are experiencing this problem absolutely certain that it was never present at all in any of your other cameras?

I never obtained (or needed) that kind of framing precision in the film days, but I suppose there would have been no point when one could simply rotate the print under the enlarger without even thinking about it. But to fractions of a degree?

If your work requires such precision, are you sure that taking a few seconds to rotate the image in Photoshop is really that disastrous? Aren't there a thousand other things you have to do to produce the finished results, making this just one tiny part of the puzzle? I'm not criticizing anyone here, just trying to fully understand the issue.

Some of you may be misunderstanding what Jonathan is suggesting with his tape solution. He isn't suggesting you tape over part of the viewfinder or the focus screen. What he's saying is that you may be able to rotate the focus screen so that it is then exactly parallel to the sensor. You might force that rotation by adding a tiny piece of tape to the outside of the screen frame on one corner. Essentially shimming it a tiny bit so that it turns inside its socket.

I did a quick back of the enevelope calculation, and I'm thinking that the required shim thickness to correct the .75 degree error would be .0047 milimeters. I don't have a 1DsMIII, so I can't know if my calculation was realistic, or even how the assorted viewfinder parts work together, so I could be off a good bit.

Assuming I'm even within an order of magnitude on that, I think it's pretty clear that we're talking about extremely fine measurements. I'm wondering if that kind of tolerance on a replaceable part like a foucs screen is even a realistic manufacturing possibility.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2008, 12:29:08 AM by Misirlou » Logged
Stephen L Starkman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2008, 12:42:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Misirlou,

It doesn't appear to be the screen.

In the one instance where I've seen evidence of the misalignment, the camera had the standard factory screen installed (not the grid screen). A test chart was photographed first by aligning using LiveView. The test chart was then photographed by aligning with the viewfinder frame and the resulting image was .75 degrees rotated. The test was followed by shooting the target using a 5D, without a grid screen, aligning with the viewfinder frame and there was no rotation of note. I don't see how shimming the screen would affect the end result in this case.

A grid screen is installed in my 1Ds3 - which does not appear to have the issue.

S.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2008, 01:04:53 AM by Stephen Starkman » Logged
djgarcia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2008, 12:58:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I will say this, I love my 1Ds3, nothing will make me go back to my 1Ds2 except an emergency or where I really need two cameras at the same time, but I don't need a level to tell me my viewfinder is off by probably 3-4 degrees, noticeable if you try shooting straight doorways, wall sides, any obviously perpendicular or horizontal shape. If you turn on Live View it's immediately obvious if you aligned a vertical or horizontal line in the viewfinder.

I just went through a test with both 1Ds2 & 1Ds3 and the discrepancy is visible in the Mk III without any measurement, just the eyeball, and any working eyeball at that, no experience necessary. Still went out and had a great time (and some nice shots) doing marshes and trees and such.

I live about 20 minutes from Canon's headquarters in Lake Success, NY. If anybody knows somebody there I'd be happy to show them my 1Ds3 and they'd see it immediately, or else they're not driving legally .
Logged

Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII & 1DsIII, Zeiss & Leica lenses
http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad