Just when you though Canon did something right...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jan 2, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jan 2, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Nervous Nick Guest

    <pathetically lazy and useless link snipped>

    Maybe it's time for you to grab what's left of your mind and try to
    stuff it back up into your dribbling asshole.
     
    Nervous Nick, Jan 3, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Propaganda from the idiot troll.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 3, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Propaganda implies a manipulation of the truth. I just pointed your
    pointy head to actual incidents. Make of them what you will, assuming
    you aren't a complete moro-...oh, wait.
     
    RichA, Jan 3, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    A clue!
    Rich Rmirez was convicted of murder. You're also a Rich.
    Therefore people named rich must have a propensity for murder.

    Your logic, bigot.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 3, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    ransley Guest

    Why crybaby, for telling the truth, just google 7dsoft focus.
     
    ransley, Jan 3, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    ransley Guest

    RF = " Fail ". is Google broke "mr forger" ? Do yourself an
    enlightenment favor and Google 7D soft focus, you will have a days
    woth of factual education.
     
    ransley, Jan 3, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    ransley Guest

    There are too many crybabys selling this thing to get honest responses
    here. Darwin Wiggett has an interesting review, give them time and the
    bugs will be worked out, maybe. Why would somebody consider spending
    2000 on a crap shoot
     
    ransley, Jan 3, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    There is a fundamental problem with Canon's approach to autofocus in
    the EOS system. It was clearly and patiently explained on here some
    months ago by David Kilpatrick. At the root of it is Canon's choice
    of position for the AF sensors.

    It is possible to correct the problem by a very careful calibration of
    the camera and lens - together. It needs to be done precisely,
    otherwise there is a risk that it can make the problem worse. But if
    it is done properly, it solves the problem.

    This careful calibration is time consuming and therefore the technique
    does not suit the volume production of DSLRs.

    The problem is widespread. Several years ago I had my EOS 5D bodies
    calibrated. The technician stated that he believed as many as 70% of
    the EOS bodies that came in to his company for service and repair
    would have benefitted from autofocus recalibration. Most of them were
    sent in for other, unrelated work.
     
    Bruce, Jan 3, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:48:24 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >AF issues with the 7D. Unreal. One guy on Dpreview is on his 4th
    : >unit, which seems to be ok. Maybe it's time for Canon to grab their
    : >ankles and license Nikon's AF technology?
    : >
    : >http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q=canon+7d+af+issues&meta=&aq=0&oq=canon+7d+af+&fp=ca7bc37eb6518610
    :
    :
    : There is a fundamental problem with Canon's approach to autofocus in
    : the EOS system. It was clearly and patiently explained on here some
    : months ago by David Kilpatrick. At the root of it is Canon's choice
    : of position for the AF sensors.
    :
    : It is possible to correct the problem by a very careful calibration of
    : the camera and lens - together. It needs to be done precisely,
    : otherwise there is a risk that it can make the problem worse. But if
    : it is done properly, it solves the problem.
    :
    : This careful calibration is time consuming and therefore the technique
    : does not suit the volume production of DSLRs.
    :
    : The problem is widespread. Several years ago I had my EOS 5D bodies
    : calibrated. The technician stated that he believed as many as 70% of
    : the EOS bodies that came in to his company for service and repair
    : would have benefitted from autofocus recalibration. Most of them were
    : sent in for other, unrelated work.

    Which suggests, does it not, that the 5D's autofocus problem was so minor that
    it went largely unnoticed?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 3, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    You could draw that conclusion, but the technician's view (and my own)
    is that only a very small proportion of Canon DSLR owners know (or
    care) enough to check their AF systems and have them rectified.

    The vast majority of DSLR buyers either trust equipment reviews or
    trust that their chosen brand is a good one, without ever questioning
    their assumptions or testing their equipment to see if it lives up to
    their expectations. If it's a Canon (or any other brand), it must be
    good, eh?

    So many DSLR owners just point and shoot without having even the
    faintest idea of what their equipment does (or doesn't do) or why.
    They would be better served by a cheap P+S compact camera, but they
    want to appear "serious" so they *must* have a DSLR.
     
    Bruce, Jan 3, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    No, some of them work just fine. Most of the rest either equal or
    exceed the rock-bottom standards of their owners. Only photographers
    who check autofocus accuracy will find any problems. And most
    photographers unquestioningly trust their DSLRs, so never check them.


    I've also had problems with Nikon AF, but I must admit they were a
    long time ago, with an F801 in 1989-92. Everything since then has
    worked just fine.
     
    Bruce, Jan 3, 2010
    #12
  13. Ray Fischer wrote:


    Don't feed trolls, Ray.
     
    John McWilliams, Jan 3, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Henry Guest

    I see. If Canon grab their ankles....will Nikon shaft them?
    I believe that is the expectation is it not?
    Or have I been watching too many American war films?

    I never use AF. I prefer to control what I want the camera to record
    in the way I so desire. Why would anyone buy such an expensive
    camera to end up using automatic anything?

    The more I read news groups such as this the more I feel like
    advising against students touching them.

    Henry.
     
    Henry, Jan 3, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Or just Google "alien abduction".

    How much are you getting paid to spread rumors?
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 3, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    The troll is getting to be incoherent.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 3, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Certainly won't get any from you.
    "Interesting" in that's it's highly suspect because he uses an odd
    lens that won't do autofocus and doesn't provide any RAW images.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 3, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    ransley Guest

    Interesting is most if not all reviewers dont buy their test product,
    it is delivered by Canon. If the major reviewers all had to purchase
    the camera the complaints I can google for would be published
    everywhere. Of course canon would not send perfect samples to the
    reviewers and sell the public, just anything made, would they. Then
    why do I read about incidents of a good one, only after many poor
    units are tried.
     
    ransley, Jan 4, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    So you're saying that reviewers are all liars who don't objectively
    review cameras.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 4, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    MikeWhy Guest

    Because you *paid* for that automation. Your job is to know what the gear
    won't do. In any case, I haven't seen a recent system with a split prism or
    other usable focusing aid that even approaches the accuracy and speed of
    even the most mediocre AF.

    As for the alleged Canon problems, I shot a nifty fifty wide open at small,
    clothespin type clamps on a tape measure, to test the AF. At 24", it
    consistently front focused and placed the intended focus point at the back
    of the usable DoF, rendering the clamp somewhat soft. At 48" and beyond,
    focus was dead center, as near as I can tell with this simplistic setup.

    The results? My 7D is consistently consistent, always giving repeatable
    results. Manual focus with LiveView 10x for macro and near macro shots. Stop
    down for a usable DoF. Big news, isn't it? For everything else, just point
    and shoot.
    That would probably be best. The widespread sourgrape whining here would
    just give them the wrong idea of the level of intellect in the general
    population. Photo.net has a much higher level of knowledgable discourse.
     
    MikeWhy, Jan 4, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.