What astonishes me is the sheer level of hate and vitriol that I am seeing directed at RG by Canon Shooters. Comments that he is sponsored by Nikon, that Nikon supports him, and he is biased because he has Nikon ads on his website.
Honestly, this matters to only a small minority of us. Very few of us on these forums are shooting speed skaters or professional soccer. For Christ sake I shoot portraits of people who are still, flowers and landscapes - does this really affect me?
michael49 wrote:
Honestly, this matters to only a small minority of us. Very few of us on these forums are shooting speed skaters or professional soccer. For Christ sake I shoot portraits of people who are still, flowers and landscapes - does this really affect me?
Not everyone, but it is fun to read about. It just makes Canon sour, because it should be able to shoot all that stuff with no issues. They advertise as so, but deliver duds. I enjoy my Nikon.
michael49 wrote:
Honestly, this matters to only a small minority of us. Very few of us on these forums are shooting speed skaters or professional soccer. For Christ sake I shoot portraits of people who are still, flowers and landscapes - does this really affect me?
I agree with you.. me too..... I don't think so.... same as pixel peepers.... don't understand what they are talking about lol
Feb 12, 2010 at 02:08 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
michael49 wrote:
Honestly, this matters to only a small minority of us. Very few of us on these forums are shooting speed skaters or professional soccer. For Christ sake I shoot portraits of people who are still, flowers and landscapes - does this really affect me?
Yes, the bad press that Canon gets effects you. I'm not saying the bad press is justified, but it effects Canon's ability to sell its products and maintain revenue, which in turn impacts research and development which in turn effects future products and competitor prices.
Look what happen to US auto makers when they had issues in the 80's. Even when in the 90's when they caught up and in the 2000's when they were winning quality awards, the old reputation of building crap followed them.
Look at the recent VOLUNTARY recalls by Toyota and how that impacted the sales of Toyota products in the last month. Most of the recalls are about things that beat the legal requierments but don't meet Toyota's requierments. All the other car makers have recalls all the time, but let Toyota have a few recalls and the sky is falling ... it's all about perception.
I suppose if you NEVER plan to buy another piece of gear ever again, then it does not effect you; otherwise, at some point it will.
I love buying as much of my equipment used as I can, however, with the resurgence of Nikon users over the last couple of years, Nikon lenses have become scarce and the prices have risen dramatically. I miss the days when everyone was saying that Nikon was circling the bowl and dumping all their Nikon gear - I picked up a ton of stuff for a song and a dance...
Ah well...
Here's hoping that either RG is wrong or that Canon can come up with a relatively painless fix... it is good for Canon and good for the Industry.
Let's not forget you're reading an evaluation of ONE camera. Who's to say the ALL work that way. It might just be a bad copy (not unheard of in the Canon realm). I'm sure they will get over it. I'm also surprised to see anyone claiming RG to be pro Nikon. I always thought he was squarely in the Canon camp. Hmmm
traveler wrote:
Let's not forget you're reading an evaluation of ONE camera. Who's to say the ALL work that way. It might just be a bad copy (not unheard of in the Canon realm). I'm sure they will get over it. I'm also surprised to see anyone claiming RG to be pro Nikon. I always thought he was squarely in the Canon camp. Hmmm
Actually, his test is based on 5 production cameras:
1) Supplied by Canon and checked out by Canon USA staff.
2) Purchased
3) borrowed from a local shooter
4) and 5) Borrowed at events.
It doesn't matter what RG says about the 1D or D3s. As far as we know, it may very well be operator error on his part about not knowing how to figure out Canon's menu settings for AF. What will matter are those professionals who shoot with both Canon & Nikon making their decisions and at the end of the day it will all be about sales - and that will tell the truth.
rsg_1 wrote:
It doesn't matter what RG says about the 1D or D3s. As far as we know, it may very well be operator error on his part about not knowing how to figure out Canon's menu settings for AF. What will matter are those professionals who shoot with both Canon & Nikon making their decisions and at the end of the day it will all be about sales - and that will tell the truth.
Do you know who Rob is and his history? If there's any professional shooter out there qualified to speak on these issues, it's him. He is the one who brought the MkIII's issues to light for Canon and was instrumental in their testing and fixing the problems.
If it wasn't not for people like him doing public testing, all the other pro's out there would be buying blind and running the risk of wasting hard earned $$$ on faulty products. RG saved me $4000 when I held off on buying a MKIII.
You don't make $5K decisions based solely on one review and see if there is a consistent problem with a product. Switching from Canon<--->Nikon shouldn't be taken lightly as it can be quite costly if there is any investment in lenses.
If someone wanted to switch for a particular lens selection, ergonomics or speedlite controls, then switching can always be rationalized to a "faulty" product.
rsg_1 wrote:
You don't make $5K decisions based solely on one review and see if there is a consistent problem with a product. Switching from Canon<--->Nikon shouldn't be taken lightly as it can be quite costly if there is any investment in lenses.
If someone wanted to switch for a particular lens selection, ergonomics or speedlite controls, then switching can always be rationalized to a "faulty" product.
Absolutely right.
People do make $5k decisions though based on product launch history, the MkIII was borked, there's a chance in many folks eyes that the MkIV might be borked as well. It's hard telling. This is the first report of any problems. I made a $6K decision because Canon refuses to make a EOS 3 or 1V equivalent in the digital world, I desired a small body with pro AF. Only Nikon offered it and I had no faith in the MkIII. The 7D could have been close to what I wanted, but it's two years later a whole heap of income made with my Nikons.
rsg_1 wrote:
It doesn't matter what RG says about the 1D or D3s. As far as we know, it may very well be operator error on his part about not knowing how to figure out Canon's menu settings for AF. What will matter are those professionals who shoot with both Canon & Nikon making their decisions and at the end of the day it will all be about sales - and that will tell the truth.
An ad hominem attack against Rob does not disprove his experiences with the camera. The weakest attack against someone's presentation of facts(be they true or false) is to attack the person and not the facts. Rob is a professional, and it sounds like he has made some revealing decisions about a flagship Canon camera.
Nothing wrong with the 1Dmk4. Better than the 1dmk3 and the 1dmk2. Just not as good as the D3. How bad can that be? It is good enough for most things. Yes, even sports.
Il Medico wrote:
And ''the-digital-picture.com'' site has the most glowing, positive review of the IV and it's AF. So who to believe?
You might have a point, but if I was shelling out that kind of money for a new Canon I'd be a bit nervous.
I certainly wouldn't gloat over Canon problems - I'd prefer great products from both manufacturers to give us more choices. I made my choice and am unlikely to switch, and waited for Nikon to release the DSLR's I really wanted. (They did, and those are the two I have.) However, it would be nice for pros and consumer level buyers to each have good choices in both camps. The same goes for Sony, Pentax, Samsung, or whoever else is still in the DSLR business. I still believe, as others mentioned above, that ultimately we all benefit from healthy competition.
