CANON READ THIS!

[g dan mitchell]

<p>There are words to describe people who post stuff like this, but I'd probably be booted from PN if I used them here.</p>

<p>Moderator, I doubt if anyone would be too upset if you accepted the OP's invitation to delete the whole "post."</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>I'd strongly suggest you sell off your defective Canon equipment posthaste and buy into the gear that suits you.<br>

I used to own a fairly expensive expedition tent that everytime I went about setting it up, I cursed it, the manufacturer, and all their dogs and grandchildren. One of my friends walked over during one of my tirades and asked me why I kept the tent then. I picked up on that, sold the tent, bought a tent that did suit me, and have been happy with it since.<br>

It seems to me that your cognitive dissonance with Canon gear is getting in the way of your ability to shoot. Heed that, and act on it.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>Michael, skills will not make a lens or camera focus correctly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, one cannot possibly underestimate the value of skills... 99% of the shit you are implying is pilot error.<br>

And if your equipment <em>really</em> does not work properly, talking to Canon would be a good thing: they do help, you know... I use way more - and way more "exotic" - Canon stuff that you have enumerated and have no issues. Yes, some equipment had to be fixed/adjusted by Canon, but at the end it works as reasonably expected.</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>Thank you Ben. My point exactly. I...as a Canon owner I am not allowed to expect the point of focus in which I locked to actually be in focus. I must stop down to f5.6 and beyond to get sharp focus....or to hide the focus error rather. Its ignorance to expect a razor thin slice of my intended focus point at f1.2(or rather f2.8 for that matter) to be in focus. What an idiot.</p>

<p>You know, I also did a little painting in my time. Both home and car. I found the cheap crap you get from Walmart just didnt work quite as well as the Sata spray gun or the Purdy Brushes. Why, cause they are better. Better sparay guns work better, better brushes spread paint better, easier and more consistent.</p>

<p>Dont give me that old tired quote used by the Canon faithful to hide the issues and make excuses for equipment that doesnt work well. A pro painter makes a much better paint job with a Sata than a cheap Chicago Pneumatic from Walmart. Just as buying better gear delivers better IQ. Except with Canon, its just bragging rights, cause the level of gear doesnt provide more consistent results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry to tell you, your daddy says that to make you try harder and to keep you away from his tools. Why else does he own the very best and you are not allowed to touch them.</p>

<p>I have a dear friend who uses an older 1D3 and he does school photography. Shoots close to 800 images per day for the year book, seniors etc. Has done this for 25 years and thats all he does. He never knew his 1D3 didnt focus well until I showed him. He never knew cause he shoots everyday at f8 1/160 with strobes. Any focus errors are non existent there. It wasnt until he used it for a relatives pageant where he saw at home none of his f2.8 shots were in sharp focus. A quick try with his MarkIIn and it was perfect. He called and asked, " Have you ever noticed this with yours"</p>

<p>To which I replied, yes, I sent it in and had it fixed why? Well, my Mark IIn has always been spot on, but my 3 is off or something. I said, "Has yours never been in". He said no, I had no idea there was an issue. Guess I'll send it in. Its fine now.....or is it. He hasnt used it again in low light at large aperture, so it may still be bad. I suspect this is the case with so many happy users. They're so stopped down they dont see any difference.</p>

<p>Ben read this post <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00UGy1">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00UGy1</a> . Is David Crist an incompitent user. His 2.8 shots should have a thin area focused where he pointed it. And, if he could use the same lens at 1.2, the same spot should be in focus, just less in front and back. Why is this wrong. It works on Nikon. Guess thats not normal for Canon and I should learn that.</p>

<p><strong>Moderator</strong>....anytime you are ready. I'm done with this pointless attempt.</p>

[joshroot]

Yeah. I'm done as well. I want those 5 minutes of my life back. The whole thread was pointless.

 

Closed. Go shoot photos.