Simple, it's working, and now it's time for the cry babies to stop. You know, once I thought that some of you had credibility, now you all sound like cry babies to me, sorry for being so mean, but I'm simply being honest, and without swear words
Normcar21 wrote:
Simple, it's working, and now it's time for the cry babies to stop. You know, once I thought that some of you had credibility, now you all sound like cry babies to me, sorry for being so mean, but I'm simply being honest, and without swear words
Soooo..... Your camera is working, and it's time for everyone else whose camera isn't to 'stop crying'?
Now you are living the trouble of being a first purchaser. I decided to buy that camera 3 times, and cancelled my order 3 times before actually deciding to purchase. I saw the same sort of potential as the Mark II, I was a first purchaser of that camera too, and then the "N" came out
I held back for 3 months, this time, and made a great decision, because my camera works perfectly in all ways.
Edited by Normcar21 on Sep 20, 2007 at 09:54 PM GMT
Paul B wrote: bcaslis wrote:
Personally I don't see how it's anything but a guess. I have a B.S.E.E. and I don't see how you could from a simple test like this whether it's hardware or software or both. Also I didn't see anything at all about making a judgement from photos. It's sounds like a pure guess based on the "sounds" the camera make in AI-Servo mode.
Obviously, a first quick test can't be conclusive but calling it a "guess" may be a bit harsh. Perhaps the fact that he's spent almost 25 years at Intel working on similar issues has something to do with what he's saying?
I'm sorry but I've been working with electronics for 26 years including companies that design the software tools that companies like Intel use to design their chips. It's a guess. It might be an educated guess, but it's a guess and anyone who claims they can tell it's an inproperly damped electrical loop from listening to an AF system is not being accurate. Honestly if it were this simple do you think the engineers (as in multiple engineers, at least a whole team) at Canon couldn't figure this out also? I've worked on hardware/software systems and there is no way anyone could possibly do more guess in a situation like this.
A responsible engineer might say something like "based on my observations, I think it might be..." but his post makes it sound like has determined it's bad hardware. Then of course it gets blown all out of proportion by repeated posts on multiple boards.
Even let's say he is 100% right. All it would mean is that he listened to 1 bad camera. It's entirely possible that there are cameras with defective hardware. This could then be an isolated incident and not the cause of the multiple complaints.
I stand by my assertion. It's a guess and not a very responsible one without qualifying it better.
The Mark III, if purchased today, and it isn't an old version, in my opinion is going to be an excellent and perfectly working camera, and that is why from now on you will see many businesses offering the camera rather than having it on backorder
Jeff, apparently you do not like me, that is your option. I have no problem with that, you seem to think that I'm trying to prove something, which I'm not. I'm simply stating an opinion, which is mine. Disagree all you wish, no problem. I've always struggled with the "spirit" of the Mark III discussion in this SLR forum but, what the heck, all is well, I don't mind people not agreeing with me.
Jeff, you are a good moderator, thankfully we don't need to love each other to converse
Normcar21 wrote:
Shane, what are your credentials with respect to this firmware offering? Have you spent time with the technicians who have developed it, and are you on the team of researchers who are working on the upgrade, or are you simply stating a viewpoint like most of us? If you are "in the mold" of the upgrade, and have some inside info, please elaborate. That would be very cool, and many of us would love to hear from you if that is the case.
"Perfect sense" is serious words
What are you talking about? That point is, which who knows why you can't see, is the AF is not working for half of those that own and use this camera. To post a few static shots is meaningless...I have many I could post. The point is that no one can't tell if the AF works until they use it.
If you have a good copy, so what? I don't care a lick if yours works or not. Hundreds, if not thousands, have an AF issue with this camera. So what is your point...the logic here is simple. Let me try again...no one can tell from a few static shots if the AF is fixed. You have to use the camera.
Jeff, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't think that Canon fixed it because I don't think that it was broken in the first place. I bought mine 3 months after production for good reason. My first "potential" purchase of the camera was probably before your own purchase, as it was back in April, from Camera Canada, but the problems were twofold: cost in Canada and focus issue rumors. I eventually, 3 months later, decided to purchase my camera from the US in order to save 1000 dollars in basic "cost" of item, and also I thought that 3 months was enough time for canon to work out the problems that you people experienced with the "first" purchase of the camera. I recall all of the posts that said, "wow, I now have my Mark III, I'm one of the first"
Well, yep, you were the first, and you got your camera, now you are complaining because you don't like what you got.
I waited and am pleased.
Cheers
Uh, there was a 1.1.1 post that mysteriously disappeared, can you help me in finding it?
So, why are my comments in the thread that I swore never to comment in? Jeff, you are playing games with me and I must say, I didn't expect it. I swore to Slau that I would never post in this string again and here my quote is, in this string. Can you explain that??
Look, I'm going to leave this entire SLR channel because I have no idea what your motives are, and have no intention of working it out with you, you won't hear anything from me in any string again in SLR, wow, you are really doing some strange things here and I have no idea why, cheers
I merely merged a thread about focus issues into the 'Master' thread for focus issues; it was redundant. It had nothing to do with you, but I see you've gotten another 7+ posts to your name in a mere 4 minutes. Well done.
Here was my email to Fred, but it didn't go through:
I'm sick of your games Jeff
Fred, Jeff in the SLR channel is moving me about from one string to another and I have no idea how or why, but I vowed never to post again in the Mark III channel because of the chat that I had heard over the months, I disagree with the general chat because I am completely pleased with my own Mark III, and became exhausted at chatting with the regulars there. I promised Jeff that I would never return to that string and then tonight, after chatting with him in another string, I found myself ensconsed in the very Mark III string that I vowed never to return to again, and a week ago a similar thing happened with photos where jeff removed a photograph I was chatting about because apparently it was "too large" for the string. It was less than 1000 pixels. My complaint with this guy is that he "does" things without warning. I was completely "amazed" to see my comments in a string that I vowed not to comment in ever again, and it was Jeff who transferred my comments to that string.
Jeff, you have too many knobs to press and not enough ability to moderate properly, You have turned me inside out like a clown and I'm still spinning at your seeming examination of my intentions. I'm completely amazed at your ability to do what you wish without even warning others that you are changing things around. You must be a freaking communist.
well I will tell you this. I picked up my second body one week ago and it only took one soccer game last weekend to find it had the same problem. No normcar latest does not mean greatest. It is hit and miss. Yours happens to work, you got lucky enjoy but does not help me or tons of others.
