7D full review at dpreview

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Charles, Nov 6, 2009.

  1. Charles

    Paul J Gans Guest

    How many folks brand new to dSLR's start out by buying
    a 7D? I'd suspect that the number is miniscule.

    And quality control should have kicked in before the camera
    was generally shipped.

    And no, I have no particular animus toward Canon. In fact I'm
    a Canon owner. And yes, the camera is a dSLR.
     
    Paul J Gans, Nov 9, 2009
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Some of us who use Tex every day and have for years would love
    to know your examples of bugs.
     
    Paul J Gans, Nov 9, 2009
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charles

    Ray Fischer Guest

    I'll take that as a "yes".
    I don't pay much attention to know-nothing fools. Software is
    something I happen to know quite a bit about.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 9, 2009
    #23
  4. Charles

    Ray Fischer Guest

    That's a stupid statement. The mere fact that you claim you haven't
    FOUND any bugs doesn't mean there aren't any. I happen to have had
    access to corporate bug databases where they keep track of all the
    bugs that they know about. Products are routinely shipped with
    hundreds of bugs, most of which you would never, ever find.

    Claiming that a piece of software has no bugs is stupid because you
    don't know if it has any bugs. In fact, you don't even know what
    constitutues a bug because that would requre comparing the software to
    the specification and looking for discrepancies.

    The catch is that the only complete specification for any software is
    the software itself, so by one standard all software is bug free - you
    just define the "bugs" to be features of the software.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 9, 2009
    #24
  5. Charles

    Ray Fischer Guest

    It was.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 9, 2009
    #25
  6. Charles

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Says who?

    Yes,
    All complex software has bugs.
    Bullshit. It's a rare case that only showed up in a few models of the
    camera.
    Do you think that ANY manufacturer subjects EVERY item shipped to a
    complete test of all functions?
    It certainly hasn't happened very often, has it?
    Previous models from Nikon as well.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 9, 2009
    #26
  7. Charles

    Ray Fischer Guest

    He wants perfect products but doesn't want to pay for them.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 9, 2009
    #27
  8. Charles

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Or Nikon's? Or Leica's?
    Liar.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 9, 2009
    #28
  9. Charles

    Bruce Guest


    The early EOS 5D bodies were also very problematic. I had to have
    mine recalibrated four times before it would work properly with the
    Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L zoom. The second and third attempts were done
    with body and lens together, but were still unsuccessful. The fourth
    recalibration was also done with the lens, and fixed the problem,
    possibly because a firmware upgrade was done at the same time.

    I took delivery of my second 5D body only after it had been
    recalibrated to the same lens. I still have it, and it has always
    worked fine, but only because it went to a very good Canon service
    centre for work to correct the ex-factory error(s) before I used it.
     
    Bruce, Nov 9, 2009
    #29
  10. Charles

    Wilba Guest

    Or ask the 450D owners who have had to get the PD AF calibrated to fix
    persistent front-focussing. (When it is fixed they work very well.)
     
    Wilba, Nov 9, 2009
    #30
  11. Charles

    Bruce Guest


    Canon gave themselves a major headache when they designed their
    focusing systems. Almost all Canon DSLRs have problems. The Canon
    trained technician who worked on mine estimated it at over 70%. It is
    just that the majority of Canon DSLR users don't bother to test
    whether their AF is accurate or not.
     
    Bruce, Nov 9, 2009
    #31
  12. Really.

    Please research the first Ariane 5 launch (Flight 501).
    Please research the Therac-25 --- which took years(!) to fix
    and killed several people --- and in the same vein the
    National Cancer Institue in Panama City and their therapy
    planning software by Multidata.
    Please research the case where (allegedly) the CIA slipped a
    deliberate bug into the control software later used for the
    trans-Siberian gas pipeline, causing not only a tremendous
    explosion (by turning the pumps to full power after everything
    worked OK for some time, building pressures way above the
    safety limit, I read) but also very much doubt which of the
    stolen and bought Western technology might also be 'infected'.

    Really, are you absolutely sure that the AF problem is not
    fixable in firmware?
    [...]

    I am comparing a known-to-be-problematic area from a company,
    not default settings[1].
    Well, if you think Canon's got a problem there, waddaya expect?
    That was the whole point.
    Microsoft must be one of the exeptions, then.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] which are, as far as I know, not much better. Or are all
    not strictly needed services disabled out of the box?
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 9, 2009
    #32
  13. If an AF doesn't cause unsharp images, would you still rate it as
    inaccurate?

    And which Canon DSLR users have the optical equipment and
    knowledge to *really* check out the calibration of an AF, the
    way your technician would?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 9, 2009
    #33
  14. Charles

    Peter Chant Guest

    The Pentax K20d intervalometer is a good case in point. I don't know
    whether the spec stated a limit on the number of frames, but it has a range
    of 1-99. I tried timelapse and found 99 to be too few. So is stopping at
    99 a bug? Perhaps the specification states 99, so it is correct, but to my
    requirements the spec is wrong. On the the other hand if it did not have an
    intervalometer on it I would not be commenting on it stopping at 99, and as
    it is not a key requirement in the camera then it would not influence a
    purchase decision.

    So is stopping at 99 a bug? Maybe, probally not.

    Pete
     
    Peter Chant, Nov 9, 2009
    #34
  15. Charles

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Once YOU start being insulting then it's too late to whine about being
    insulted.
    I've known about him for some 30+ years and even went to the very same
    school he works at. Even met him once.
    You're one of those idiots who doesn't know the difference between
    computer science and software engineering.

    I do.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 10, 2009
    #35
  16. Charles

    Ray Fischer Guest

    When you resort to such patent bullshit it only shows everybody that
    you're capable of nothing more intelligent than parroting dishonest
    propaganda.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 10, 2009
    #36
  17. Charles

    Ray Fischer Guest

    A classic in software engineering literature.
    Damn few people know enough about software engineering to offer any
    credible opinions.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 10, 2009
    #37
  18. Unless you own shares, why should you care?
    And why don't you answer the question?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 10, 2009
    #38
  19. The error cannot be in the firmware (== software), because ...?
    So you go on to assume that the next Canon camera will have
    perfect AF, because Canon has problems there ... right?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 10, 2009
    #39
  20. Charles

    Ray Fischer Guest

    You're just a stupid hypocrite who can't even take responsibility for
    what you write.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 10, 2009
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.