Serious Problems for me with my whole Canon set-up!

[pjmeade]

<p>I have those same problems.<br>

Since starting down the Canon route, I've had only 2 problems; my 20D shutter wore out and the lens hood of my 300/4 IS comes apart (after 3 years of continuous heavy use).</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p><em>Geoff Francis... "But that 6 Canon failures out of 25 is significant."</em> It would only be significant if this were a scientifically controlled experiment.</p>

<p>Even Rolls Royce and Ferrari have service departments. Imagine that!</p>

<p>When it comes to lenses, it appears the grass is sometimes greener on the other side. I have read numerous posts about Canon users switching to Nikon for their lenses. I have also read numerous posts about Nikon users switching to Canon for their lenses. Go figure!</p>

<p>Sorry, gotta run. I am going to put a 5DMKII and D3 in a freezer for a few hours and then try them out. I will post the results later.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>JDM, I have the same (lack of a) problem. There are just a lot of people out there afflicted with the dreaded photohypochondria, or PHC. One of the drug companies advertises a pill for it on TV.......</p>

[luis_g]

<p> I was wondering... could have a test-target photo-contest?</p>

<p> "L-fever" is a marketing exec's dream. Most masterpieces in photography were made with lenses that the average noob here wouldn't use as a loupe or paperweight. Most masters worked with a smaller focal length range than many kit zooms have.</p>

<p> Every lens and camera has its own delightful character. Mindless slavish adherence to the ideal of MTF curves, etc goes back to the Steichen era.</p>

<p> </p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Just two quick observations. One; the Antartica failures have not and probably never will be properly investigated, analyzed and reported upon using a disciplined methodology like we do with aircraft accidents. A lot of conclusions are being drawn without factual backup. I do not and probably never will know the truth. I think it futile to speculate on what we don't know. Two; I did good photography with a variety of equipment in my business. As a former aviation professional I know that one has to adapt and compensate for the equipment one uses whether it be airplanes of cameras in order to achieve a professional outcome. No equipment is perfect. Two; what started out as a rather lighthearted thread has turned into a new version of the old, long running debate between brands that frankly is very tiresome. I again say I must be delusional and a victim of my own lack of perception because I have difficulty seeing significant problems with my Canon equipment. And yes, I use and have used a lot of flash. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>"Well, the 5DMKII would be a poor choice for sigmoidoscopy"</p>

<p>OOOOOUUUUUCH! 8-|</p>

<p>Well, we all know that Nikons would be vastly superior for that application, owing to the best weather sealing in the industry. The next time I hear that Nikon is the ONLY camera in the serious photographic universe, I think I'll make that suggestion. [grin]</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Maybe hanging out at the p.n. eos forum is like visiting the hospital - there are lots of truely sick people and even more hypochondriacs. But that doesn't mean you're ill or the population at large is diseased.</p>

[znabal]

<p>I had all kinds of focus issues with my 24-70 & 70-200 2.8L's...<br>

then I learned how to use them :)<br>

jeffl</p>

[tarashnat]

I'm selling all my gear and building a pinhole camera.

[matthijs]

<p>Me, all of the above.</p>

<p>By the way, I've taken pretty nice pictures with a Sigma 18-200 (non-OS) on a 400D.<br>

Something the "experts" tell me is impossible.</p>

<p>In all fairness I must confess that I'v bought a very nice 70-200L since and I do see the difference in image quality. But that doesn't mean one cannot shoot a fine picture with a renowned crappy lens.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I have exactly the same problem. I've owned two EOS film SLRs and one EOS DSLR, along with a total of nine assorted lenses (primes and zooms, L and non-L), over the years, and I can't tell you how much time I've wasted in my efforts to get them to front- or back-focus. All they seem to do is work properly, and it's driving me crazy. How can I possibly participate in Web discussions of this stuff if my equipment won't malfunction like everyone else's does?</p>

 

<p>Certainly, there are some lenses and bodies out there that don't perform up to spec. It happens. Just like the engine computer in my previous car died after I'd had the car for about three weeks. It happens. It was fixed under warranty and never caused a problem again. So when you get a new piece of camera gear, give it a test. Shoot pictures of a newspaper taped to the wall, or the bricks on your neighbour's house, or a ruler at an angle (being careful to account for the size of the AF sensors), or take the thing out on a test shoot that uses it the way you plan on using it in real life - whatever you think constitutes a valid test. If it works properly, as the majority of these bodies and lenses do, be happy. If it doesn't work properly, exchange it or have it repaired.</p>

[phyrpowr]

<p>JDM, not only does my Canon gear work as advertised, but I use a tripod/ballhead system that works and <em>did not cost $800!</em> So I don't know <em>what's </em>going on here</p>

[ilkka]

<p>I have two hammers. One is cheap Chinese. It has some dents on it but it still works. The other one is a branded American, cost a bit more and is also actually made in China. It has a small chip on it, but it also works. So I keep using them whenever I need to use a hammer. If I ever become a carpenter (highly unlikely) I will buy a professional hammer.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I've used eight FD bodies and over 40 FD lenses. The only problems I've ever had any of the bodies were having to have minor adjustments made to the meters and shutters in my almost 40 year old F-1's. The only problem I've had with any of my lenses, and only a few at that, was sticky diaphragms caused by oil on the blades, and that was easily and cheaply corrected.</p>

<p>It was because of the high degree of reliability of my FD gear that I decided to stick with Canon when I adopted an AF film/digital system, and I still use my FD gear in tandem with my EOS gear (1V, 3, and 5D Mark II bodies; EF 50/1.4 and 100/2 primes, and EF 17-40/4, 24-70/2.8, 24-105/4 IS, and 100-400/4.5-5.6 L zooms). And I've yet to experience a single problem with any of my EOS gear.</p>

<p>I realize that fully electronic AF bodies and lenses are more prone to failure than are fully or semi- mechanical manual focus gear, but that's not my point. I could have gone with any AF system (since FD lenses are notoriously incompatible with almost everything), but I stuck with Canon for the simple reason that it has provided me with very reliable and well built photgraphic tools. To quote Bob Dylan, "What's the use of changing horses in midstream?"</p>

<p>Oh, did I forget to mention that I, too, am worried about the fact that none of my Canon FD or EOS gear has failed?</p>

[dogbert]

<p>"It would only be significant if this were a scientifically controlled experiment."<br>

Elliot think carefully about what you have said. Should I take it that nothing on this forum is of any significance because it does not come from a scientifically controlled experiment?</p>

[des adams]

<p>http://www.afashionshooter.com/2009/02/08/canon-5d2-so-long/</p>

[adrian_lowe]

<p>I have had no end of trouble with all of my Canon digital gear... I was about ready to give up all together, all of my images were black, not a single image was viewable.,let alone sharp..and then I had a bright idea... I took the lens cap thingy off....apparently they come free of charge with every lens...</p>

<p>Problem solved.</p>

[phyrpowr]

<p>Adrian, are you telling me.....that Leica and all those lenses I won in that contest....that I gave to my cousin...?</p>

<p><em>NOOOOOOO !</em></p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Al,</p>

<p>we get it! Give it a bloody rest.</p>

<p>Even that site has this among its comments:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry to hear that the 5DMKII did not work for you. I continue to be ecstatic with mine. I even tried mine in sports and the AF performed very well.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I can dig out similar "enough is enough" threads about any camera you care to mention - hell, I wrote a doozy myself about the Nikon D200...</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I think it's healthy that people have gripes about their Canon equipment at least we don't have a crazed cult following on this forum. Unfortunately just like the evening news you often only hear about the bad things.</p>

[mathew_gardella]

<p>i don't have that problem with any on my gear... because i use tamron lenses:)</p>

[mageproductions]

<p>Ah yes, and would it not be logical, and quite, for people to realize that they have front/back focusing problems after coming here (or somewhere similar) and learning that those problems exist?<br>

Since 1973 I had ONE canon film body - an EX Auto - and I have to wonder at people that say they have/had seventeen film bodies, if they all worked perfectly? That EX Auto got better images than 99.9% of what I've seen, since! After almost 30 years it just died, one day.<br>

I set up my "country boy" focusing test in Roberts Imaging and rejected five 70-300 IS lenses, then bought one that focused properly. Mayhaps a bumpy ride, somewhere in the shipping. That, my friends, is all it would take...<br>

It's always good to walk in the other fellow's shoes, to the extent that is possible, before you judge him. If a review site always gushes (and many do) they are soon labeled pundits, of the manufacturers. Given the state of today's equipment, finding something "significant" (here we go again!) about which one might complain is a task, in itself. So they are caught, in the crossfire.<br>

Still, places like this educate consumers. They make people aware that there may be problems and, at times, even explain how to check to see if you have those problems. Some go off the deep end, becoming paranoid insomniacs, but not all - lol<br>

"I used to think I hated country music. Then I heard rap! Now I know just how good country really is." Likewise, some people thought their cameras were getting good shots. This site gave them a baseline - a way to compare what their cam does to what others do. There is never a problem, until that problem is perceived...<br>

Information is a good thing. Like all good things, it can have bad results. Take sex, for another example...<br>

Canon is a company, that makes cameras. Some may have had the good fortune to receive only perfect products, from that company. I have learned that luck is a flighty mistress, indeed. My Canon products work well because I check them out BEFORE I buy them and/or buy them at a reputable place that will make it right, if they do not work.<br>

Like another, above, my current (and recurring) problem with my camera equipment is that it's February outside... and that's why I sit here, making stupid jokes, instead of doing what I love.</p>

[samoksner]

<p>I don't have any issues with my gear... that sucks. I'm selling it all and buying some Nikon gear, maybe i can get some good quality problems with them. <br>

<br /> And how bout people that complain about focussin issues after having bought a fast sigma? The same people that are warned against these issues in the first place. I have nothing against buying from sigma, in fact i own 2 sigma lens' and when my 50mm front focussed a bit, i sent it in and 2 weeks later it was back perfect, imagine that, a lens manufacturer willing to calibrate it's own lens while it's under warranty, that nuts, i'd much rather sit here and complain.</p>

[zargahi]

<p>My dear JDM,<br>

Probably what we need is more people like my dear John McEnroe, who removed a photographer because of the loud noise of his Canon EOS1's rewind (sorry boys, I am a Canon user, but pointing the right finger to the camera industry is another story).<br>

Thanks</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>I agree, the only back focus issues I have had are between my eye and the back of my head, with my gear I have been very lucky, or so I thought with all the complaining I have seen, maybe its just normal to get good working gear from Canon after all.</p>