Regarding Rob\'s possible effect on sales, do you think Canon feels it has an impact? Do YOU feel it has an impact?
We know their \"official\" word is to say \"We don\'t monitor, follow or endorse any website blogs\". At least that\'s what their customer service department will tell you if you call them.
But I think most of us feel at least some of the representatives will read or have read the latest report.
If they felt his testing/shooting methods were incorrect, they could have said so back when he tested the Mark III along WITH the Canon engineers in attendance. But would they? Wouldn\'t you think they have enough corporate muscle to make a little statement like that without concern?
Or, do you feel they don\'t really see any significant impact on sales to warrant any kind of a response at all?
Based on following the 1D AF issue since 2007, my impression is Canon does not see an issue with his testing methods.
In fact, Canon referenced him positively and the input they received from him in one of the web newsletters they did updating the AF issues with the III. This was early to mid 08 if I recall correctly (I still have a download, but I don\'t thin k they archive them on their site) I think they acknowledged it because he became the public face of the issue by running a long series on the issue. They also eventually pulled back from the relationship as time went on and they continued upgrading firmware. It was a strange dynamic in which RG\'s ongoing evaluation of the MkIII somehow became publicly the center of gravity of whether the camera shot well. I\'m sure they needed to disengage from that for many reasons that make sense for a corporation; the quality of the on-going relationship may have been an issue, or not, that\'s sheer speculation beyond noting (as RG did) that they didn\'t give him a preproduction MkIV to evaluate. It wouldn\'t surprise me in the least if the MkIII series eventually strained their relationship.
Whatever was going on with the articles then, you have to know that Canon was getting much more input privately from the legions of pros. However prominent RG\'s MkIII efforts may have seemed to the public, especially at the outset, it had to be a small part of the constructive feedback they were getting.
I\'m sure RG felt pressure to get something out quickly, particularly in the new \"all eyes on RG\" world. That\'s probably neither fair to him or to Canon. Maybe the judgments were too much, too soon, and with too much conviction.
Bashing or calling him out for having Nikon ads on his site is going places one needn\'t go. It\'s speculation and innuendo. He says some things some people like, don\'t like, agree with, don\'t agree with. That\'s life. I haven\'t experienced the negatives he reported shooting the same situation with the same lens combo, but I use different settings. In the end, I only care about my results, and learning from people\'s successes and failures, and sharing that back to the extent it helps for someone else. I don\'t think there\'s any reason to think RG\'s any different.
Regarding Rob\'s possible effect on sales, do you think Canon feels it has an impact? Do YOU feel it has an impact?
We know their \"official\" word is to say \"We don\'t monitor, follow or endorse any website blogs\". At least that\'s what their customer service department will tell you if you call them.
But I think most of us feel at least some of the representatives will read or have read the latest report.
If they felt his testing/shooting methods were incorrect, they could have said so back when he tested the Mark III along WITH the Canon engineers in attendance. But would they? Wouldn\'t you think they have enough corporate muscle to make a little statement like that without concern?
Or, do you feel they don\'t really see any significant impact on sales to warrant any kind of a response at all?
Based on following the 1D AF issue since 2007, my impression is Canon does not see an issue with his testing methods.
In fact, Canon referenced him positively and the input they received from him in one of the web newsletters they did updating the AF issues with the III. This was early to mid 08 if I recall correctly (I still have a download, but I don\'t thin k they archive them on their site) I think they acknowledged it because he became the public face of the issue by running a long series on the issue. They also eventually pulled back from the relationship as time went on and they continued upgrading firmware. It was a strange dynamic in which RG\'s ongoing evaluation of the MkIII somehow became publicly the center of gravity of whether camera shot well. I\'m sure they needed to disengage from that for many reasons that make sense for a corporation; the quality of the on-going relationship may have been an issue, or not, that\'s sheer speculation beyond noting (as RG did) that they didn\'t give him a preproduction model to evaluate. It wouldn\'t surprise me in the least if it strained their relationship.
Whatever was going on with the article, you have to know that Canon was getting much more input privately from the legions of pros. However prominent RG\'s MkIII efforts may have seemed to the public, especially at the outset, it had to be a small part of the constructive feedback they were getting.
I\'m sure RG felt pressure to get something out quickly, particularly in the new \"all eyes on RG\" world. That\'s probably neither fair to him or to Canon. Maybe the judgments were too much, too soon, and with too much conviction.
Bashing or calling him out for having Nikon ads on his site is going places one needn\'t go. It\'s speculation and innuendo. He says some things some people like, don\'t like, agree with, don\'t agree with. That\'s life. I haven\'t experienced the negatives he reported shooting the same situation with the same lens combo, but I use different settings. In the end, I only care about my results, and learning from people\'s successes and failures, and sharing that back to the extent it helps for someone else. I don\'t think there\'s any reason to think RG\'s any different.
Feb 15, 2010 at 01:36 PM
Previous versions of ftemoto's message #8135957 « RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance »
