Jimbobp wrote:
Personally, I think Canon is just having some EOSFun with us and at our expense. I've been waiting for an upgrade (AF and low noise) since January and figure I can wait a little longer. But if I'm dissappointed (in the AF and low noise) whenever it's announced, then daddy will take the keys away for the EOSFun and I'll be looking for some coolpix.
- you just know that there's about 16 people in Chuck Westfall's office every morning looking at the previous evening's posts, and having a good EOSlaugh.
Ian Brown wrote:
The 17th of September,
Thats the date,
Canon drop the bomb shell,
Nikon's gonna hate,
But what about Sony?
Thats simple: fate.
Big up Canon,
You're my mate!
Can you tell I'm bored...
No, but I can tell that you're not Ian Brown, the gifted lyricist and song-writer from the Stone Roses.
Sean Mills wrote:
Well we can agree to disagree. My markIII, and the markIII's of many people work just fine. Internet banter is a small sampling of real life at times.
No, what you have is a camera under which the conditions you shoot doesn't show the problem - nothing more.
I have tested over a hundred different Mark IIIs from colleagues who say they don't have the problem and I have been able to replicate it for them after a day of shooting.
Ship me your Mark III and I'll prove you have a flawed camera too. If I can't you can have my 600/4 IS.
You're right about internet banter: except that it's working in reverse for you - the banter is from people who claim their camera is fine.
I'm sad to say it, but I think I might stay up until Midnight eastern tonight just to see what the fuss is about. Any other East Coasters doing the same?
I've been interested in a FF camera, although it's unlikely anytime soon unless Canon comes out with an EF 17-70mm f/2.8L IS too!
Just because you don't notice it, doesn't mean it doesn't have it. I have a friend who only noticed it when he went to the track to photograph race cars. His backup 40D outshined the 1D III 4 to 1 in the number of keepers. All had the same lens.
I noticed it when I shooting with harsh back lighting.
They still do have the issues, but just not as many copies.
cwphoto wrote:
No, what you have is a camera under which the conditions you shoot doesn't show the problem - nothing more.
I have tested over a hundred different Mark IIIs from colleagues who say they don't have the problem and I have been able to replicate it for them after a day of shooting.
Ship me your Mark III and I'll prove you have a flawed camera too. If I can't you can have my 600/4 IS.
You're right about internet banter: except that it's working in reverse for you - the banter is from people who claim their camera is fine.
You have proven you are right over a hundred times? I smell bullsh!t. Or just a flamer maybe...
- you just know that there's about 16 people in Chuck Westfall's office every morning looking at the previous evening's posts, and having a good EOSlaugh. 
