CANON READ THIS!

[david_amberson1]

<p>This is started for those Canon users who want to complain about their equipment. Those who have had many troubles and want Canon to hear them. They feel they made a bad investment.</p>

<p>If you are happy with your Canon gear, and think its the greatest, <strong>dont</strong> post. This is for those who hate they bought Canon and wish they never had.</p>

<p>Come on guy/ladies. Dont be shy. Its ok to say it. Heres the place to do it. Its product launch time, they are looking around and watching consumers. Speak now, dont be shy, dont feel like you need to make excuses for them. If you bought something and it doesnt work or performs bad, say it.</p>

<p>I own:<br>

<strong>1D Mark3 (paid $4700 new w/tax)</strong><br>

<strong>40D Kit (paid $1600 new w/tax</strong><br>

<strong>16-35 f2.8II (paid 1700 w/tax)</strong><br>

<strong>24-70 f2.8L (paid $1400 w/tax)</strong><br>

<strong>70-200 f2.8L IS (paid $1700 w/tax)</strong><br>

<strong>50 f1.8 (who cares)</strong><br>

<strong>85 f1.2L (paid $1900 w/tax)</strong><br>

<strong>580 EX Flash (paid $400)</strong><br>

<strong>300mm f4 (paid $1500 w/tax)(its fine)</strong><br>

I want this equipment to perform better. I want it to focus more consistent(except 50 1.8 its cheap who cares) I want to use my lenses at f2.8 and get focus where I choose.</p>

<p>Who's next. You 5D2 users who arent quite happy. How bout you f1.2L users or f1.4 users who cant get a focused shot. I have trouble with my 2.8 stuff at range. So I know you are out there. How bout those sick of error 99 that cant be fixed for some reason. Those of you posting recently about your 5D2's and the 50 f1.2L comments. All those that posted how many time they sent theirs back before it got better, but still not great. Dont hold back.</p>

<p>Let go people...say it now or forever hold your piece.<br>

p.s It would be appreciated to get a sticky on this one. Not trying to start trouble, just wanting Canon to hear us. Thought this would be a good start.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>I want this equipment to perform better</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The chap who said that <em><strong>skills in photography are acquired by practice not by purchase </strong></em>was a very wise person.</p>

[claytontullos]

<p>Sounds like a personal problem.</p>

[jkaufman]

<p>With all due respect, why would one keep purchasing Canon equipment if it does not perform to one's satisfaction?</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<blockquote>

<p>forever hold your piece.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes it's nice to let someone else hold your piece for a while. Just sayin'.</p>

[edrodgers]

There in no such thing as the perfect camera, nor a perfect process to mass produce complex systems cheaply, and

without the occasional defect.

 

I must be extremely lucky after owning 6 EOS bodies, 3 580EX strobes, and 15 EOS lenses and never having a problem

with any of them.

 

What would I tell Canon? Keep making really great L primes at amazingly low prices, and please make us a rangefinder.

[William Kahn]

<p>I'm with Ed. I have four EOS bodies and six lenses (you win, Ed) and they all work beautifully. I think someone's been watching too many town hall meetings on TV.....</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>Alan, thats funny....real funny. Still laughing.</p>

<p>OK. This was supposedd to be for those unhappy. Of course there are those who are happy. Or dont know the difference. I tend to bet on the latter.</p>

<p>Michael, skills will not make a lens or camera focus correctly. Despite how much people tend to believe, its really not hard to push a button and make a camera engage focus where its aimed. Example, David Crist. Exposure, composition are a different story, but thats not what this was about.</p>

<p>Jason, its tough to switch. Most was bought at one time. I bought a 1 series after the 40D hoping for better AF and better ISO. The latter was definitley achieved, but AF...ah for most yes, but not consistent. But you buy hoping the better equipment will perform better. Thinking, I'll get what I pay for. Just I have never gotten what I paid for. I expect the equipment to focus where I point on a consistent basis, and I also expect the lens to be reasonably sharp wide open, instead, we get stuff like the 50 1.2 thats just dull wide open. We always here about how great primes are cause they're easier to make, yet the 50 1.2 is horrible wide open and anyone here who says theirs is razor sharp wide open doesnt know the difference. Canons 300 2.8 is what I expect in regards to sharpness wide open comparable to stopped down. Close. Its expensive, but so is the 50 1.2 and its 1/64th of the size, but price isnt 1/64 of the 300 f2.8.</p>

<p>Ed, I knew there was gonna be people like you posting exactley as you did. Thats why I stated, this is for those who are unhappy. If you are happy, keep buying Canon to show them. Also, I bet most of those bodies were older or not produced in the last 3 years. As I have said before, its Canons newer products that are having so many issues.</p>

<p>And what L primes are at amazingly low prices. The ones they make sure dont perform like the cost, as compared to some of the other brands. Maybe you are lucky.</p>

<p>Clayton, not a personal problem. Look around the EOS forum. Plenty of people just here on this website alone everytime I turn around having serious issues. Problem is, they wont respond to this in fear of being bashed by those of you here who say things like, "Sounds like a personal problem or user error" They cant comment in fear of either being deleted or just no help at all cause of the Canon Fanboys/faithful.</p>

<p>And if you are with Ed, good, but can anyone read. Its for those unhappy. Jesus, the need for the Canon faithful to defend that product to the end. Theres no hope. But it proved my point, the fanboys rule.</p>

<p>And uh, maybe if others had been watching town hall meetings, we would have the President we have now thats part of the problem, not the sollution. Just sayin.</p>

[sarah_michelle_larsen]

<p>

 

<p>We know your a Nikon guy trying to make Canon look bad. <br>

If there is something your wondering about just ask. <br>

Getting the focus right at 1.2 og 1.4 is easy. <br>

Just ask. Dont be proud.</p>

 

</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>OK Sarah, I'm a Nikon guy. I wish I were a Nikon guy, then I would be having any issues. Why dont you look through my history. Everything on my website has exif thats shows what I shoot.</p>

<p>What about Fellipe de Paula and his 50 1.2L paper weight.</p>

<p>Or David Crist and his Canon frequent flier 5D2.</p>

<p>Guess they cant focus right either. Or what about those that responded with there issues in regards to those. Where are they at. The only ones responding are the Fanboys/gals. Exactly my point. They wont, cause of those here. They dont want the heat. Easier to keep quiet. The older threads dont lie. Problem after problem.</p>

<p>Thats OK. Just thought I'd let Canon hear a little. But looks like they are hearing exactly what they trained you to say. Have a nice night.</p>

[sarah_michelle_larsen]

<p>I did not read their posts. But I have not had any problems of any kind. <br>

I have had almost all the canon lenses and houses. Just because Fellipe and David has problems, does not make Canon a bad company.<br>

Unless you just mean that all major companies have a few issues. Then I agree. But it is really nothing serious, or no one would buy it. Dont you think so?</p>

[derrickdehaan]

<p>No problems here!</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>Hahahahahah. WOW, so no one can read here. The need to defend the product. WOW!</p>

<p>You know, say something bad about Canon and you get responses as if you said someones mother was fat.</p>

[edrodgers]

So all of that are happy with our 50 f/1.2 lenses just don't care about quality?

 

All of my EOS bodies are newer than 2005.

 

I'm not a Canon fanboy. I use many brands, and in fact, Canon is losing it's status as my main system right now. Not

because Canon makes bad products, but because my needs are changing. As someone who uses many brands, I know

how cheap the Canon L primes are. Go price some Leica lenses. 35 f/2 : $2700. 1.4 : $5500. And the Canons are in

my opinion similar quality.

 

You want sharper at f/1.2? Go buy a.... Wait, never mind.

[ben_goren]

<p>David,</p>

 

<p>May I humbly suggest? Try renting comparable Nikon (or Pentax or Sony or whomever) gear for a

bit.</p>

 

<p>One of two things will happen. Either you’ll discover that Canon gear really is, as you claim,

a bunch of overpriced junk, or you’ll discover that the problem is not with the buttons being

pushed, but with the button pusher.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[sarah_michelle_larsen]

<p>Im sorry David. I should not have talked bad to you. I just got irritated, because you try to get everyone to think the same as you do.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Exactly what is stopping you from selling off your Canon gear and investing in that 'perfect' Nikon gear you mention?</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Wait a second — I just read through that again.</p>

 

<p>Let me get this straight: your big complaint is with the autofocus performance of an f/1.2 lens

wide open?</p>

 

<p>Really?</p>

 

<p>I’m having a very hard time taking you seriously. But, just to give you the benefit

of the doubt: the depth of field at f/1.2 is razor-thin. As in, you could set a focus point right over a

mannequin’s eye, but the autofocus might latch onto the eyelashes instead of the pupil and

therefore “screw up” the focus.</p>

 

<p>By complaining about autofocus performance at f/1.2, all you demonstrate is your own

ignorance of the fundamentals of photography.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>Ed, it’s pointless with you.<br>

<br>

Ben, I have used several Nikon systems and that "is" the problem. They work so much better than the Canon stuff I and others I know own. But you said it again; it’s always linked back to the button pusher. It’s never the equipment. Are you people so obsessed with making yourselves think using a camera is so difficult that only the elite know how to do it? Cause it’s really not. Despite what you think, pushing the button isn’t that hard. Or is it other brands buttons are easier to push. Please.<br>

<br>

Sarah, you didn’t talk bad to me. No need to apologize. I was just referring to those few I mentioned as very recent examples, sort of the tip of the iceberg. It’s been going on a while now and it’s not just those. Why else has there been such a switch to the other side. Look at FM Buy sell Board. I get on here everyday and there is always issues just like these. And there are always responses.....just like everyone’s here. Defend to the death. No credit to the photographer that maybe he knows how to use the equipment and it just doesn’t work right.<br>

<br>

I'm not trying to get anyone to believe as I do Sarah. I just want everyone to speak as I do. Say how you feel and quit being so afraid of the Canon cult. I've been a member of this site a while and see it all the time. Every 2 days theirs a new issue. But, as of now, I am the only one here that has a problem, when you look thru the posts and its loaded with complaints. It’s quite ok, I don’t mind the heat. I have thick skin. But what I don’t have….is patience for incompetence and that is why I post. I want better, not perfect, but better for my money.<br>

<br>

<strong>Moderator</strong>…. feel free to delete this whole post if you like. It’s turned into a pointless argument. It was intended to say something to Canon. But some can’t read. And the ones I thought would stand up say something are scared of the responses, so why bother.</p>

 

[david_amberson1]

<p>Elliot, I cant cause everyone knows the Canon gear is worthless right now. And didnt you recently start using lots of Nikon gear. Why is that?</p>

<p>Ben, I am getting crap even using f2.8. My point was, regardless of DOF, whatever I focus on should be in focus. Be it only the eye or whatever. Let me decide how much is in focus buy the chosen aperture. Personally, I dont have much use for f1.2 cause of the useless DOF in most cases. But as stated, I cant get consitency at f4 sometimes. I am posting link to an older post where I uploaded an image shot at 70mm, f4 1/125 ISO 1600. Focused on the near eye, and look behind the subject. Thats what 7K gets you from Canon. Its closer to the bottom as an attached photo. <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00UDYJ">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00UDYJ</a></p>

<p>Yes I am complaining about focus wide open. Cause using anything less than f4 and I cant depend on sharp images.</p>

<p>I am also complaining about how often you have to send in Canon gear(late Canon gear) cause it doesnt work right out of the box.</p>

[edrodgers]

Choose a tool, and work within the limitations of the tool.

 

Photography has ALWAYS been like this.

 

I can imagine HCB complaining about how his rangefinder couldn't auto focus at all, and the film was way too grainy. I

mean, that piece of junk didn't even have a meter. Everyone, let's send a message to Leica as well about how crappy

thier cameras are.

 

Canon knows what they are doing, and they have literally 100s of millions of happy customers. The unhappy ones vote

with their wallets, and Canon then corrects any problems they can if it begins to hurt them.

 

The number one consumer camera brand might know something about survival and maintaining dominance with their

products. They know what the problems are, and they are working on improving them within the limits of cheapskates that

won't pay for it.

[david_amberson1]

<p>Ben</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As in, you could set a focus point right over a mannequin’s eye, but the autofocus might latch onto the eyelashes instead of the pupil and therefore “screw up” the focus.<br>

By complaining about autofocus performance at f/1.2, all you demonstrate is your own ignorance of the fundamentals of photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why is it I dont have that problem with Nikon? I fully understand the fundamentals of photography. On a 3/4 portrait from across the room there is enough DOF even at 1.2 to not make a difference in whether the camera locked a pupil or eyelashes. The focus point is too large to be able to choose at that distance. That would be the case on macro work which I dont do. And you prove my point again. Canon forum users must always blame the photog first. I make a living with my equipment. Just sick of being disappointed when I get home that had I MF or used other gear, a particular shot would have been a keeper.</p>

[ben_goren]

<blockquote><p><em>My point was, regardless of DOF, whatever I focus on should be in

focus.</em></p></blockquote>

 

<p>And thus you confirm your ignorance of photographic technique.</p>

 

<p>Sorry, David. As my dad says, it’s a poor crafstman who blames his tools. To which

I’ll add: it’s an incompetent one whose arrogant ignorance causes him to blame his

tools.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[tdigi]

<p>This is a joke. I have yet to have a lens or body have even a single issue. Even my old Tamron 28-75 was pretty good. If Canon is so bad, why did you purchase so much gear. I would think most issues with focus are user error, its always been the case when I thought it was my gear. I think any camera, any brand is easier to get sharp focus at F8 then 2.8 or 1.4. I can't blame gear for that.</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>Ed, who cares about the film days. They are gone. I dont use Leica. I didnt pay for a $800 MF film camera. I paid for Canons best digital AF camera and it doesnt perform as well as the older AF cameras. Many here....if they werent scared would say it. I have heard them say it. Many users give up the old cameras and buy new ones, only to find their old wide aperture lenses dont perform as well on their brand new state of the art body.</p>

<p>And as far as Canon knowing what they are doing, yes they are big and build nice stuff. But in comparison to their competitor, they need a lesson. And as far as what they are doing to fix it, they dont budge until something like the RG story breaks wide open, by then, thousands of users are pissed they spent their money on junk. We almost made it to the new 1D4 launch before they made the 1D3 work even close to what they claimed it would. And had RG not made such a big deal, we'd still be having issues. I have a personal email from him where he stated to me he gave up on it, and was weighing giving a little file quality up for more reliable AF and switching to Nikon. I can dig that up if you like.</p>

<p>So lets not talk about how much they are "working" on at the moment. We see what they are willing to do. I am talking about now. The junk they're pushing now.</p>