Canon releases 1D X Mark III firmware update to fix lock-up issue, add 23.98p video capture

everyone will be unemployed by then

In Europe nobody used the ntsc system. We used pal which was a slightly better IQ.

@wasTF technically neither gives you ”p”. NTSC is 60i and PAL is 50i.

wasTF: Interlacing is very much not gone. 1080i is widely, if not almost exclusively, used in HDTV broadcast transmissions when smooth motion is required (e.g. sports).

Sharlin: It is a fools errand to set your video camera to 60 fps mode in a 50 Hz mains country (e.g. the whole of Europe) unless you take good care of setting exposure time to either 1/25s, 1/50s, or 1/100s. If you don't do that, many kinds of electric lights (including most LEDs) will flicker like crazy. And even if you do use one of the "good" exposure times, you may get funky-looking motion artifacts.

Ugh, I need to correct my previous message. You obviously cannot set the exposure time to 1/25s or 1/50s if shooting at 60 fps. So the only exposure time that avoids obvious flickering under most artificial light in a 50 Hz mains country when shooting at 60 fps would be 1/100s.

I'm just happy that over the last few months the Sony fans have pretty much shut up. Cheese and crackers, what an annoying bunch!

I'll bet anyone at 5:1 that the Canon Mugger Defense will shoot more published sports and reportage photos between now and the end of the 2021 Olympics than any mirrorless body. Probably more than all mirrorless bodies combined...

It was a minor glitch that only surfaced when using the electronic level function.

Obviously the pro's weren't objecting too much...esp. since their wasn't much sports action to cover lately.

And the product continues to be sold out everywhere...so people are buying it. And yes, new stock has come in...the Canon website has gotten stock the last few days and immediately sold out.

So the best judge of the severity of the bug are the owners and customers...and their didn't seem to be too much of a fuss.

When a camera locks up it is never a minor bug.

It is a minor bug if you can turn off a simple option and have it still work fine.

But who are you to judge? Do you own the camera? Has it failed you? If not then why comment to be negative?

Also, if there was to be a software bug, it came at the best time, when many of the pro's who are going to be using this camera are in a situation where they cannot use it due to COVID-19. No sports, no wildlife trips, etc. So the impact has been minimized due to the current events.

Bottom line: this hasn't dampened the enthusiasm of users or future customers. They are the ones that count in making this judgement. If you are not using the camera, then you really have no basis to comment.

Prosecutor - "a bug that is considered critical"

Critical?

What planet do you come from?

It was an extremely minor bug and within about a week all users were aware of the very easy workaround, i.e. just turn off the e-level.

I don't know of a single digital camera in existence that hasn't suffered from some kind of bug, and invariably they attract full attention from fanboyz of alternative brands, but rarely bother the people who actually buy them.

I think a few people are missing a key point here. Shooting action in bursts means you're not checking a viewfinder spirit level on a frame-by-frame basis; you're doing it by eye - in which case, there's a pretty good chance that you'll probably have the function switched off to avoid clutter in the viewfinder. Conversely, if you've got the time to check a viewfinder spirit level, then you've probably either got the camera on a tripod and/or are not shooting bursts.

Chances are the reason that noone was apparently too fussed about the bug is that the number of people who a) have the camera in the first place, b) have the level enabled, AND c) shoot bursts is going to be pretty small. That said, if you *are* in that small set, then it's definitely going to get really annoying, really fast. You prioritise based on level of impact (high) vs. probability of seeing the issue (low) - I'd say one month (including working out the cause of the problem) is PDQ in the circumstances.

Andy - Yes I agree, although I don't know if the e-level is turned on by default in the 1Dxiii. Probably not.

The only people likely to be using an e-level for stills shooting, are those shooting tripod-based landscapes, astro or architectural work - and none of these are typical applications for a sports/wildlife/photo-journalism workhorse like the 1DXiii.

Thoughts - In a way, it's "lucky" that the issue surfaced at a time when Covid has minimised photography, but I don't think Covid is relevant to the question of whether or not this was a critical bug.

The fact of course, as most agree, is that it *wasn't* a critical bug, as there is a simple workaround, and the number of instances where someone shooting bursts *and* needs to use an e-level are tiny.

@entoman: good points. It's funny but you have some on this discussion who have never used the camera, trying to tell those who have that they somehow had a bigger problem than they thought. That's pretty crazy when you think about it.

And of course, now with the software fix, the problem doesn't even exist any longer and so is a moot point. By the time we come out of COVID-19 lockdown, and these cameras get back to being used far more, no one will even remember that this bug existed.

@Thoughts R Us

lol

RubberDials - It took about a week to identify the cause of the bug, i.e. a "phenomenon" that occurs if the e-level is operational while firing bursts.

And any pro or serious shooter with half a brain would have a backup body as a sensible precaution at all times, let alone when using a brand new model, that by definition, regardless of brand, will not have been field tested under every conceivable condition!

No one *needs* an e-level, it is very much a luxury, and doesn't prevent anyone from utilising the camera to its full potential, once they turn off the e-level. It is therefore a very minor bug, that takes a minimum of understanding and almost zero inconvenience to overcome.

So no terrible urgency over fixing it. Canon responded very quickly and not only fixed the bug but added minor upgrades.

... and just in case you are wondering, I'd be making exactly the same comments if it had been a Nikon, Sony or any other brand that was affected by a similar minor inconvenience.

Entoman when the first camera becomes unusable because of a major bug. The beackup becomes the main camera and for that you need another backup for as long as the problem persist.

A single backup is never a true backup.

The best judge of the severity are the camera's users and prospective customers...and they don't seem to have minded that much.

I've seen some great photogs post some backyard bird and wildlife photos using the 1DX III during this time....they aren't complaining. The sports pro's of course don't have much work during this time, and so it really hasn't impacted them. They will have the software update before any sports resumes.

Customers continue to buy...the camera is sold out.

It's funny how some people who don't own the camera, haven't even used it, no interest in purchasing it, are on this discussion trying to pass a negative judgement. I wonder why?

Prosecutor - The 1Dxiii is the new and relatively untested model. So it's extremely unlikely that anyone would be stupid enough, or rich enough, to use another copy of the same camera for backup.

The backup would clearly be a time-tested camera, most likely an earlier model in the 1D series.

It's *never* possible even with two thoroughly time-tested and proven cameras, to absolutely guarantee that they won't *both* fail.

It happened to me a few years ago when I had two 6D bodies that both suffered from temporary electronic malfunctions in conditions of high temperature and extreme humidity in Amazonia.

6D of course isn't a pro camera and I was cutting corners by using prosumer models on that shoot, as I needed to travel light. Luckily both cameras were working perfectly again once they'd dried out. But it taught me a lesson - *always* use pro bodies, and *always* have a backup camera that is proven and that you know you can trust.

Here's the other wrinkle that some are neglecting: with COVID-19, there are no sports. There are no wildlife trips. There are no paid gigs.

For many in the target market, there hasn't been much opportunity to use the camera. So this software bug has come and gone during a time when most of the users were sidelined due to the current events re COVID-19. A minor software bug has become even more minor because of that.

@entoman

//It took about a week to identify the cause of the bug, i.e. a "phenomenon" that occurs if the e-level is operational while firing bursts.//

//No one *needs* an e-level, it is very much a luxury, and doesn't prevent anyone from utilising the camera to its full potential, once they turn off the e-level. It is therefore a very minor bug, that takes a minimum of understanding and almost zero inconvenience to overcome.//

You appear to be assessing the severity of the bug once it's cause was known. Of course an owner can turn off the electronic level if it is causing the camera to go to sleep and they know about it, but people didn't know what was causing it - you say for a week.

I would consider any bug that causes the camera to stop taking photographs once the shutter has been released to be a major bug. It's bricking the camera.

An example of a minor bug would be the electronic level freezing/disappearing but not stoping the shutter actuating.

RubberDials - Yes, I'm assessing the situation after the cause has been understood. But let's be realistic here:

Firstly, no one but a fool would rely on a brand new model that hasn't been field-proven, as their sole camera on a critical shoot. They would have a backup in the form of a time-proven model, and would instantly switch to that, and continue using it until the bug in the new camera was fixed.

Secondly, because it is a brand new model, the number of people using it would be very small. The number of people, who for odd reasons best known to themselves, would use an e-level for burst-shooting, must be even smaller, as indicated by the fact that the number of people who reported this issue as a result of real world usage, could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Most of the very small number of reports actually came from people who deliberately tried to duplicate the effect, after it had been pointed out that the original complainant had the e-level turned on.

continued....

But those with a grudge against Canon or any other brand, will always find some excuse to have a dig at their perceived enemy brand, so by all means carry on amusing us.

@entoman

//But those with a grudge against Canon or any other brand, will always find some excuse to have a dig at their perceived enemy brand, so by all means carry on amusing us.//

My 'grudge' in this instance is with your use of language. Nothing to do with Canon. I haven't criticised them in any way about the fault.

I didn't criticise the existence of the bug.

I didn't criticise the time it took to fix.

I've passed no comment on either of those things.

I've never even commented about the issue before today. My criticism was of your referring to it as 'minor bug' that didn't need fixing 'urgently'. I don't agree that it's minor. You don't allow me to have that view? I question why you are unable to actually understand what I write and see it as something it is not.

RubberDials - I was actually one of the first people to criticise Canon for poor quality control when this bug was first publicised.

But then I thought about it, and realised how insignificant it was, due to the very unusual circumstances under which it happens. The insignificance was underlined by the knowledge, within days, that there was a very simple workaround, and that Canon would rapidly provide a bug fix.

So I disagree with your assertion that the issue is/was anything that would cause a photographer to lose shots, especially as anyone using a pro camera would have a time-proven spare body with them on a shoot anyway!

Now, of course you are entiltled to hold whatever views you choose, and to express them. But, as we both know, you are unfortunately notorious on this site for instantly jumping on any item related to Canon, and criticising, while I don't think I've ever heard you accept even the mildest criticism of your own brand, no matter how justified it was....

@entoman

//But, as we both know, you are unfortunately notorious on this site for instantly jumping on any item related to Canon, and criticising,//

You once accurately differentiated me from people like that, pointing out that I don't actually bash other brands but tend to defend Sony. It seems that you have forgotten this.

If I am 'notorious' for 'jumping on any item related to Canon, and criticising' as you rather floridly say then you will have no trouble linking to some examples of me doing this. Shall we say 3? If I am 'notorious' you should be able to do this easily.

When you can't find even three posts by me bashing Canon perhaps you'll post an apology instead.

@entoman

Regarding the bug. What you're saying is it's 'rarely occurring' rather than 'minor'. A user is unlikely to see it because it requires the use of the electronic level in burst shooting. I would agree with that. But the bug when you get it is obviously very far from minor as it shuts down the camera while you're trying to take pictures.

I find your notion of having managed expectations because it is a new camera somewhat over-generous considering it's cost, probable development time and intended market. And I have heard many times on here that Canon disseminates its pro bodies prior to release for extensive field testing by professionals. It seems that is perhaps more an assumption than a reality.

@RubberDials: Why do you care about a software update for a camera that you do not own and do not intend to own? Let the users of the camera, and future potential customers, judge whether this bug was minor or not.

Going by the sales, and the initial response to the camera from the early adopters, it is indeed a minor bug.

Until you can say that you've owned the camera and lost some shots because of it, then you really have no standing to comment. Of course you can comment, but your remarks have no weight to them. They are indeed just a pattern of criticism of non-Sony brands that you exhibit.

RubberDials - If I could be bothered to spend time looking, I'm pretty certain I could find 50 or more of your posts where you've jumped on anything related to Canon and criticised it. But I'm happy to rely on the general impression you create, rather than to spend my evening searching through your prolific post history, and I see no reason to retract or apologise for these (non-personal) criticisms.

And I notice that even you have failed to deny that you constantly fail to recognise any shortcomings in your own brand, no matter how many reviewers, and hundreds of users other than yourself, accept them. That's called blind fanaticism.

On the other hand, in my posts, you'll see that I criticise or give praise where it is due, regardless of whether it's Canon, Nikon, Sony or any other brand.

continued....

The bug is both rarely occurring *and* minor. I certainly agree that in an ideal world a very expensive camera would be so exhaustively tested that it was impossible for faults or bugs to slip through the net, but it's rather unrealistic. Even Lamborghinis and Ferraris are not immune.

In real life, the cost of an item doesn't guarantee perfection, and the more complex an item is, the more likely it is that minor issues will arise with early examples.

Canon responded very quickly at a time when any manufacturer could be forgiven for being slow, underlining their professional response to what was in any case a very minor issue.

Now it's time for my supper, so I'll sign off and wish you goodnight.

@entoman

//RubberDials - If I could be bothered to spend time looking, I'm pretty certain I could find 50 or more of your posts where you've jumped on anything related to Canon and criticised it.//

Lol. I asked you find just 3. You're sure you could find '50 or more' but for some reason you just can't right now. You Berk. Next time you accuse me of something back it up or be quiet.

//And I notice that even you have failed to deny that you constantly fail to recognise any shortcomings in your own brand, no matter how many reviewers, and hundreds of users other than yourself, accept them. That's called blind fanaticism.//

Got any links to that, either? Give me one example of a shortcoming in my brand that a reviewer has pointed out that I've denied. Not 50. Not even 3. ONE example. One. Do it, or again, think before you baselessly smear people.

@Thoughts R Us

//@RubberDials: Why do you care about a software update for a camera that you do not own and do not intend to own? Let the users of the camera, and future potential customers, judge whether this bug was minor or not.//

I criticised entoman's language, not Canon - bugs and recalls happen. An interesting idea that no-one is able to voice an opinion on anything here unless they intend to own it.

Could become very expensive to maintain a presence in the comments section.

I assume you'll follow this prohibition of yours in relation to Sony.

//Until you can say that you've owned the camera and lost some shots because of it, then you really have no standing to comment. Of course you can comment, but your remarks have no weight to them.//

So you're saying that your hundreds and hundreds of highly critical comments about Sony products are without value?

@RubberDials: Again, why do you care about the language of one person on this forum, regarding a software update to a camera that you do not own?

And yes, I actually did rent some Sony equipment to test it so that before I criticized Sony again I would have some basis in experience. I may not have been perfect in the past, but I do not recall recently posting anything negative about a Sony product that I had not actually used. And for your accounting purposes, I've used the Sony a9, a7RIV, 100-400, 135, 85f1.4 ,12-24. And to the best of my knowledge, I've certainly not been critical of any Sony software update. In fact I believe the only thing I've said about a SW update is that the one that added animal AF may be useful to many.

So again, why comment on a matter of semantics on what one person posted on a SW update to a camera that you have no experience with?

The speed with which Canon addressed the issue with their newly released flagship camera locking up clearly indicates Canon did not view it as a “minor bug.”

@Rubber...
It would be harder to find three posts where you WEREN’T critical of Canon 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣👹

@Thoughts R Us

//Again, why do you care about the language of one person on this forum, regarding a software update to a camera that you do not own?//

Equally, why do you care what I write? Answer that question for yourself and you've got an answer to the one you keep asking me.

//And yes, I actually did rent some Sony equipment to test it so that before I criticized Sony again I would have some basis in experience.//

Most of your criticisms of Sony come from Tony Northrup videos and others. You know so little about mirrorless cameras and Sony in particular that you are not even able to dress up his criticisms and make them look like your own.

It's clear from what you write that you don't own a mirrorless camera let alone both the EOS R and Z7. You ludicrously claimed that you couldn't even tell the difference between IBIS being on or off on a ≈45mp camera.

Contd.

//I do not recall recently posting anything negative about a Sony product that I had not actually used//

Try here from a few days ago:

https://www.dpreview.com/videos/6597912443/dpreview-tv-mirrorless-and-dslr-microphone-pre-amp-shootout?comment=6579014554

"Sony now ranks last in video for ILC's. It is apparent that in their rush to get new models to the market, they cut some corners. Even their IBIS is now worst in class."

Sony isn't last in video for ILCs. The A7III downsamples 6K for it's 4K output and DPR found it to be the most detailed in class;
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dc-s1-review/8
It is better than the Z6, EOS R and even more detailed than the Panasonic S1H because of that camera's strong low-pass filter. Sony also provides a more detailed suite of video tools than any manufacturer - even the mighty 1DXIII doesn't have zebras.

Contd.

The deficiency in Sony is that it is limited to 8-bit 4:2:0. However most other FF cameras are also 8-bit. The z6 can output 10-bit to an external recorder and the S1 can record 10 bit with $200 dollar upgrade, but off the shelf they have inferior video output to the Sony according to DPR. The Nikon doesn't even have any internal log profiles. In the case of video AF Sony is miles ahead of Panasonic and Nikon and even Canon since Sony introduced Real-time tracking and eye-AF to video. Recently Sony allowed unlimited recording (vital for event videography) and digital audio input through the hotshoe. None of that puts Sony last. It's clearly a better choice than the Z6, R and S1. If you must have 4:2:2 it's off the table but it wasn't designed for pro video work. You actually have to go to aps-c to get a better video camera at the A7III price point. In FF you have to go to the 1DXIII at $6K

Contd.

Your IBIS comment is a lie which you continue to promulgate despite me correcting you at least six times. CIPA ratings for Sony is 5.5 stops as against 6 for Panasonic and 5 for Nikon. The Canon rating is 0 btw.

//So again, why comment on a matter of semantics on what one person posted on a SW update to a camera that you have no experience with? //

Just unpick that sentence. You're asking why I'm criticising someone's language when I haven't used a camera. Your mind is a jumble sale.

And I don't appreciate your authoritarian notions of who can or can't comment here and on what topic. While you remain able to comment absolute anybody else can as well.

Thoughts - It's best just to give up and move on to another thread, as I'm doing. It's impossible to communicate sensibly with a fanatic suffering from blind patriotism. Beyond ridiculous.

Entoman: I agree...it's amazing how RD can gaslight and get a discussion off track.

I'm reminded of the great Roger Cicala quote:
uritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. H. L. Mencken, 1917

*Sonyfanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy with other equipment. Roger Cicala, 2018

@entoman

It's impossible to communicate sensibly when you have no arguments and you make accusations you can't back up, yes.

Also probably best not to use words like 'blind' and fanaticism' when you've decided to team up with someone like Thoughts R Us against me.

Rubber - One final comment to answer you before I abandon this thread:

I'm not "teaming up" with Thoughts or anyone else. My comments are entirely independent and there have been plenty of occasions when I've disagreed with the thoughts of Thoughts.

The difference between you, is that Thoughts is enthusiastic about Canon and DSLRs but from the evidence I've seen over the years on dpr, he is neither fanatical or blind in his outlook.

Unfortunately you are so blinded by patriotism and fanaticism, that it becomes exceedingly tedious trying to discuss anything sensibly with you. Please don't take this comment as personal but you really are the most awkward individual to deal with ;-)

@entoman

//The difference between you, is that Thoughts is enthusiastic about Canon and DSLRs but from the evidence I've seen over the years on dpr, he is neither fanatical or blind in his outlook.//

Lol. Thoughts R Us is genuinely notorious ( a word you misused against me) for his relentless link and fact-free assaults on Sony. Most people think he is paid to do it.

I defend Sony - a brand I use. You expect me to run them down? Don't want me to defend Sony - don't attack them baselessly. If you said to me Sony is at the the bottom of the pile in regard to the resolution of their rear screens, I wouldn't argue because it's true. Say their IBIS is the worst in the industry and I won't agree because it's not true.

//Unfortunately you are so blinded by patriotism and fanaticism, that it becomes exceedingly tedious trying to discuss anything sensibly with you.//

You post this below a long post by me with multiple facts and links in it that both of you have failed to engage with.

@tru and entoman
Your correspondent is sadly the font of an endless river of drivel that I guess nobody (I never bother - it’s always the same f@nboy cr@p) ever bothers to read - sigh....

these guys are cheaping out on 0.2 fps. what thieves!

0.02 fps, so only middling thieves :-). As I mentioned above, the difference is about editing and timing, not about the image.