Just when you though Canon did something right...
RichA
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
Nervous Nick
> 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?
<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.
--
YOP...
George Kerby
On 1/2/10 6:24 PM, in article
7db5bf13-1eea-47a8...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, "Nervous
Nick" <nervou...@gmail.com> wrote:
<BFG!>
Ray Fischer
>AF issues with the 7D.
Propaganda from the idiot troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
RichA
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.
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 3, 1:00�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> RichA �<rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >AF issues with the 7D.
>>
>> Propaganda from the idiot troll.
>
>Propaganda implies a manipulation of the truth.
A clue!
> I just pointed your
>pointy head to actual incidents.
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
rfis...@sonic.net
ransley
Why crybaby, for telling the truth, just google 7dsoft focus.
ransley
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >AF issues with the 7D.
>
> Propaganda from the idiot troll.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
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
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
Bruce
wrote:
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.
Robert Coe
: On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:48:24 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
Which suggests, does it not, that the 5D's autofocus problem was so minor that
it went largely unnoticed?
Bob
Bruce
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
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>LOL!! So what you're saying is Canon can't make a dSLR system with
>interchangeable lenses that will work properly and focus correctly?
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 can put any Nikkor on my bodies and they focus perfectly every time. This is
>precious!!
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.
John McWilliams
Don't feed trolls, Ray.
--
lsmft
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 2, 6:24�pm, Nervous Nick <nervous.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 4:48�pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> 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?
>> > +...
>>
>> <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.
>
Or just Google "alien abduction".
How much are you getting paid to spread rumors?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 3, 12:00�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> RichA �<rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >AF issues with the 7D.
>>
>> Propaganda from the idiot troll.
>
The troll is getting to be incoherent.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 2, 4:48�pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> 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+...
>
>There are too many crybabys selling this thing to get honest responses
>here.
Certainly won't get any from you.
> Darwin Wiggett has an interesting review,
"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
rfis...@sonic.net
Bowser
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>LOL!! So what you're saying is Canon can't make a dSLR system with
>interchangeable lenses that will work properly and focus correctly? I can
>put any Nikkor on my bodies and they focus perfectly every time. This is
>precious!!
>
It's also horseshit. Then again, isn't horseshit what you live in?
George Kerby
On 1/3/10 3:50 PM, in article i742k5p388p4t5gpl...@4ax.com,
"Bowser" <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
Dog shit. He likes it so well, he post pictures.
A Medical professional would call it a "Scatophillic Obsession"...
ransley
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.
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 3, 1:15�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> ransley �<Mark_Rans...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 2, 4:48�pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> 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+...
>>
>> >There are too many crybabys selling this thing to get honest responses
>> >here.
>>
>> Certainly won't get any from you.
>>
>> > Darwin Wiggett has an interesting review,
>>
>> "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.
>
>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.
So you're saying that reviewers are all liars who don't objectively
review cameras.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
MikeWhy
news:i7p1k5ph8mg4edtf8...@4ax.com...
> 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?
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.
> The more I read news groups such as this the more I feel like
> advising against students touching them.
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.
Peter Huebner
nos...@yahoo.com says...
> > advising against students touching them.
>
> 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.
>
Well, I just blew in here hoping for some knowledgable thoughts
on my idea to put my very nice Contax/Zeiss T glass on a dSLR body. And
to pick up what else might be going in the way of info. At least I got
one reply. (Haven't done much photography for the last 25 years or so,
feel a little out of my depth with some aspects of the new tech).
Huh.
What I see in this ng so far is mostly ad-personam and name calling way
out of proportion compared to reasoned argument and discussion. Oh
well. Guess I'm going to be outta here a lot faster than I came in. The
insults and flames aren't even imaginative, nor even remotely
entertaining. And I have enjoyed watching a few flamewars in the past
...
Can't be bothered giving my killfile the Bloat.
f.w.i.w. -Peter
{goes to google up photo.net}
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -
You lack comprehension, re read what I posted, or get help.
Bruce
wrote:
>
>Well, I just blew in here hoping for some knowledgable thoughts
>on my idea to put my very nice Contax/Zeiss T glass on a dSLR body. And
>to pick up what else might be going in the way of info. At least I got
>one reply. (Haven't done much photography for the last 25 years or so,
>feel a little out of my depth with some aspects of the new tech).
Well, here's another (hopefully helpful) reply.
Just do it! Carl Zeiss (Contax) lenses are a wonderful addition to a
Canon DSLR outfit. The adapters you will need are very inexpensive
and almost all Contax mount Carl Zeiss lenses will fit the EF mount
without any problems.
Consider buying a full frame Canon body to get the very best out of
the Zeiss glass and to retain the lenses' original designed field of
view. I used two Canon EOS 5D bodies for several years for wedding,
portrait and general photography and still own one of them. The 5D is
full frame and has 12 MP. There is a Mark II model with 18 MP but the
original model can be found used at very competitive prices and is a
fine, reliable camera.
The most important accessory is a top quality focusing screen that is
optimised for manual focus use. The KatzEye screen is the most
popular, and it is excellent. Focusing is very easy with the
traditional split image "rangefinder" spot and a microprism collar
that surrounds it. The official Canon accessory screen for manual
focus is very disappointing indeed with much lower screen brightness
and a very grainy texture.
I used Carl Zeiss (Contax) 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses (all f/1.4) and
was extremely happy with the results.
If you have any questions, please ask, and I will answer them to the
best of my ability.
dj_nme
> In article <hhsf3o$q8q$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, boat042-
> nos...@yahoo.com says...
>> "Henry" <thee...@not.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>> The more I read news groups such as this the more I feel like
>>> advising against students touching them.
>> 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.
>>
>
> Hear, hear.
>
> Well, I just blew in here hoping for some knowledgable thoughts
> on my idea to put my very nice Contax/Zeiss T glass on a dSLR body. And
> to pick up what else might be going in the way of info. At least I got
> one reply. (Haven't done much photography for the last 25 years or so,
> feel a little out of my depth with some aspects of the new tech).
You could do worse than using your Contax lenses on a Canon EOD dslr
camera or perhaps a 4/3 dslr camera, both require adapters and some of
the EOS cameras even come with FF (24x36mm) sized sensor.
The only other way would be to do a bit of "lens hacking" and swapping
their C/Y mount with a PK one and using them on a Pentax or Samsung dslr
camera.
Either way, there won't be any automation (no electronic comms between
lens and body and no aperture stop-down either) as it's manual all the way.
> What I see in this ng so far is mostly ad-personam and name calling way
> out of proportion compared to reasoned argument and discussion. Oh
> well. Guess I'm going to be outta here a lot faster than I came in. The
> insults and flames aren't even imaginative, nor even remotely
> entertaining. And I have enjoyed watching a few flamewars in the past
> ...
> Can't be bothered giving my killfile the Bloat.
The easiest thing to do this is to just killfile all the gmail addresses
and then there's just a few select individuals who can easily be either
added or just ignored.
Allen
messages are clear.
Allen
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Why crybaby, for telling the truth, just google 7dsoft focus.
39 hits, 38 times you telling people to google it and one
single report ... Canon sold only 10 or 20 7D, all in all?
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> I can
> put any Nikkor on my bodies and they focus perfectly every time. This is
> precious!!
Since there is no such thing as perfect focus, the logical
conclusion is that you have 0 (ZERO) bodies.
-Wolfgang
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -
My 10 yrs old kid understood what I wrote, I pity you.
ransley
wrote:
I see the level of inteligence in this group is the real issue
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> On Jan 4, 3:33 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com>
>> 39 hits, 38 times you telling people to google it and one
>> single report ... Canon sold only 10 or 20 7D, all in all?
> I see the level of inteligence in this group is the real issue
Yes, Einstein. Just leave and the level of inteligence[sic] will
drop sharply, as the level of intelligence rises.
So, a single report over many, many, many 7Ds sold constitutes a
problem affecting all 7Ds? Come on, you can do better. You can
prove by your standards that the 5DIII will never work, because
there isn't a single report of it working yet.
Anyway, whoever paid you 10 cents for your campain was overcharged
by a couple million dollars.
-Wolfgang
Doug Freese
"dj_nme" <dj_...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b41e977$0$5423$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Peter Huebner wrote:
>> In article <hhsf3o$q8q$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, boat042-
>> nos...@yahoo.com says...
>>> "Henry" <thee...@not.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> The more I read news groups such as this the more I feel like
>>>> advising against students touching them.
>>> 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.
I just took a look at photo.net. Read a variety questions and answers
and by George no brand name pissing contests and infantile banter - big
people talk. It's not that I don't get some pearls here but I have to
suffer with A-holes like RichA who simply throws turds in the cess pool
cuz his mother didn't like him just to get some attention. tata for now
Peter Huebner
@gmail.com says...
>
> Consider buying a full frame Canon body to get the very best out of
> the Zeiss glass and to retain the lenses' original designed field of
> view. I used two Canon EOS 5D bodies for several years for wedding,
> portrait and general photography and still own one of them. The 5D is
> full frame and has 12 MP. There is a Mark II model with 18 MP but the
> original model can be found used at very competitive prices and is a
> fine, reliable camera.
>
> The most important accessory is a top quality focusing screen that is
> optimised for manual focus use. The KatzEye screen is the most
> popular, and it is excellent. Focusing is very easy with the
> traditional split image "rangefinder" spot and a microprism collar
> that surrounds it.
>
Riiiight ... ok. I see what you're saying about the focussing screen,
nifty that somebody makes such a thing. I had thought previously that my
best (only realistic) option would be to go with an Oly 620 or the
Panasonic counterpart since the micro3/4 don't have a mirror nor, one
conjectures, a focussing screen. The focussing screens open the vista
considerably in terms of what bodies might be used afaict.
Historically I'm the sort of guy who used to go back a distance and use
a tripod, tele lens with HP5 pushed to somewhere between 1800 and 3600
to extend DOF so I could get near and far objects in focus as
counterpoint and achieve almost grainy, high contrast photos. I've done
other work ... insects were a fascination of mine for instance. But
mostly looong shots in low light. Also had a Leica M3 as a walk-around.
Sadly it died while I left it with the parents for a decade or two...
Reading about the Oly 620, it seems that it has a processing mode that
will try to achieve that kind of style ... and getting my 200mm Tessar
to reach out like a 400 on 35mm film seems very attractive to me. (Hope
I'm not fooling myself there).
Of course, I'd trade in the shallow DoF and I'd have to get some short
fast lenses, I currently have a 26 or 28mm Distagon, not sure without
going for the box. But I'm unlikely to do studio type things ever again
anyway, I lost access to that ~30 years ago (used to have a couple of
pro friends with a full setup back when I was living in Hamburg).
Do you think focussing off the sensor without something like the KatzEye
would be a problem on a 3" screen? Seriously, I am just not sure.
I've decided to put this project on the back burner for the time being,
because getting the parts when you're living 5 miles beyond the black
stump in lil' ole New Zealand will be a time consuming project. We may
go to visit Norte America some time later this year or next ... and we
may have visitors coming from Europe, I shall have to get this all clear
in my head what will or won't work and get the parts together after the
planning phase. I think the micro3/4 to ya/con converters are made in
Germany for instance. Unavailable here. Canon ones might be more readily
had, I'll have to dig.
So your input is highly valued in terms of helping me build a roadmap.
For the meantime, I've just ordered an sx20-is to go and goof around and
try to get my eye in again. But that's not where it's going to stay at,
one way or the other.
thanks -P.
Paul Furman
> In article <8an3k5hckqr3bmoip...@4ax.com>, docnews2011
> @gmail.com says...
>> Consider buying a full frame Canon body to get the very best out of
>> the Zeiss glass and to retain the lenses' original designed field of
>> view. I used two Canon EOS 5D bodies for several years for wedding,
>> portrait and general photography and still own one of them. The 5D is
>> full frame and has 12 MP. There is a Mark II model with 18 MP but the
>> original model can be found used at very competitive prices and is a
>> fine, reliable camera.
>>
>> The most important accessory is a top quality focusing screen that is
>> optimised for manual focus use. The KatzEye screen is the most
>> popular, and it is excellent. Focusing is very easy with the
>> traditional split image "rangefinder" spot and a microprism collar
>> that surrounds it.
>>
>
> Riiiight ... ok. I see what you're saying about the focussing screen,
>
> Do you think focussing off the sensor without something like the KatzEye
> would be a problem on a 3" screen? Seriously, I am just not sure.
Sure, you can zoom in when focusing. Very precise if you have the time.
Hard to see the big picture though.
> I've decided to put this project on the back burner for the time being,
> because getting the parts when you're living 5 miles beyond the black
> stump in lil' ole New Zealand will be a time consuming project. We may
> go to visit Norte America some time later this year or next ... and we
> may have visitors coming from Europe, I shall have to get this all clear
> in my head what will or won't work and get the parts together after the
> planning phase. I think the micro3/4 to ya/con converters are made in
> Germany for instance. Unavailable here. Canon ones might be more readily
> had, I'll have to dig.
Samsung is coming out with an APS size sensor sans mirror, which would
get you more reasonable wide angle to take advantage of the old
rangefinder glass you are talking about.
> So your input is highly valued in terms of helping me build a roadmap.
>
> For the meantime, I've just ordered an sx20-is to go and goof around and
> try to get my eye in again. But that's not where it's going to stay at,
> one way or the other.
>
> thanks -P.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
jean-daniel dodin
>>> traditional split image "rangefinder" spot
oh oh... is my dad "tï¿œlï¿œmï¿œtre" still in use?
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
Le wiki des forums son-image franï¿œais:
http://new.dodin.org/frsv/
http://valerie.dodin.org