Canon 40D falls apart after delivery ?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Focus, Jun 1, 2008.

  1. Focus

    Dev/Null Guest

    Focus is the same TROLL that claims a Mattel err Sony A200 is a better
    camera ...
    Dev/Null, Jun 2, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Focus

    OldBoy Guest

    That would be ignorance :)
    Bless you.
    OldBoy, Jun 2, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Focus

    Alan Browne Guest

    Much advertising is not to attract new buyers but to reinforce the "feel
    good" of the recent buyers. Then you hit them with a "satisfaction" survey.
    Alan Browne, Jun 2, 2008
  4. Steve Sherman, Jun 3, 2008
  5. Focus

    ^Tems^ Guest

    Proof it?
    ^Tems^, Jun 3, 2008
  6. Focus

    frederick Guest

    Print a copy of the supposed "consumer report", and see if it's
    off-colour. My guess is that it would be brown and smell.
    frederick, Jun 3, 2008
  7. Focus

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Says who?

    When you tried to claim two photos were taken from the same location.
    Ray Fischer, Jun 3, 2008
  8. Focus

    Focus Guest

    J.D. Powers:

    Nikon #1, Sony #2 (only one year in the market, LOL), Canon #3

    If your brain refuses to work and can't see that these picture were made at
    the same location (from a ship), then there's no hope for any correction on
    your observation.
    Before I call someone a liar, I make sure I have some hard evidence to
    support my claim.
    But you're likely a troll, who doesn't even own any camera...just trying to
    stir some shit.
    Focus, Jun 3, 2008
  9. Focus

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Here's what you actually said, Focus:
    I note those links are now dead (convenient). I also note that there is
    NO initial reference to being on a moving ship. As your point was about
    the light conditions not changing (which they clearly had) and that the
    scene was 'identical', then the location and time are two rather
    critical factors.

    (Although in the case cited, the simple fact that there were irregular
    specular highlights from differently lit patches of water, would mean
    that the exposure would change from second to second anyway.)

    Focus, most folks who refer to the 'same place' will think of it as
    being relative to some accepted geospatial datum, rather than the floor
    of a moving vessel...

    As Wolfie showed here:
    - those images do not contain the same content, and were most certainly
    NOT taken from "exactly the same place". Maybe they could have been 3
    seconds apart if the ship was moving at a fast pace, but you had already
    misled the audience once...

    So, at the very least, you were 'mistaken' in your initial claim. Most
    folk would just admit that and move on. But then you tried to cover up
    the fact, so that's why the 'liar' term got used.

    So call me a troll too - I'm with Ray, and Wolfie on this one.
    Mark Thomas, Jun 3, 2008
  10. Focus

    Noons Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote,on my timestamp of 2/06/2008 4:35 AM:


    this is going to be another boring,
    never-ending thread of fake "hatred",
    undisguised scams and all the other
    usual crap...

    Good old Usenet: always at the foreskin
    of misinformation!
    Noons, Jun 3, 2008
  11. Focus

    Focus Guest

    Well here are the pics.

    My main problem was with the first two. As you can see, the others have much
    more difference, but are exposed the same way.

    And, sorry, but if people see all pictures and still don't understand they
    were taken from a ship or boat, they're not among the Einsteins of the world

    Besides that, I do think the 40D makes good pictures. It's just that I want
    to be sure a camera is consistent in its metering.
    Here are some pics that did go very well:

    So I'm not against Canon or the 40D. I just saw something strange, reported
    and showed it. That's all.
    If I had known I'd be on trial here....
    Some would argue: "Me thinks the Lady protests too much..."
    Focus, Jun 3, 2008
  12. Focus

    Noons Guest

    Focus wrote,on my timestamp of 3/06/2008 8:34 PM:
    yes, but you see: in these newsgroups
    dominated by scam artists peddling their
    canon gear, that is not allowed.
    I wouldn't give it a second thought.
    Just keep taking nice photos and enjoying
    it. The gear is really not that important,
    unlike what most here claim.
    BTW: that goes for any brand.
    Noons, Jun 3, 2008
  13. Focus

    Bob Guest

    and without knowing the geography of the 'harbor',
    how does anyone know that 'the same place' was a moving boat
    that was not in 'the same place',
    and not the other side of a small harbor,
    on a rock that was 'in the same place'?
    Bob, Jun 3, 2008
  14. Too bad if you can't hit back after exposing yourself, isn't it,

    And such a fine double standard, too! Just show your (as in:
    developed and build by you) better DSLR ... or shut up!

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 3, 2008
  15. As you have been told many times, if you prefer consistency to
    quality, don't use evaluative or matrix metering, especially
    with varying specular highlights.
    Suuuure, and the lion's a vegetarian, he never ate meat and
    you never complained about *other* peoples '99'-Errors with
    the 40D.

    Pull the other one, fraud.
    Born yesterday? I've seen this kind of 9-sniping for years.
    You put Canon on trial, so it's only fair.
    Yes, thou dost protest too much.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 3, 2008
  16. You are *sooo* right, though I wouldn't call Focus an idiot
    to his face.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 3, 2008
  17. Focus

    Focus Guest

    You're just a freaking troll. You never, never, never contributed anything
    positive, let alone any pictures.

    I seriously doubt you even own a camera, but probably get your "wisdom" from

    Let me guess: no wife, no kids, no pets, no life...

    Anyway: you're boring the crap out of a lot of people with you stupid,
    smartass remarks.
    Focus, Jun 4, 2008
  18. Focus

    Focus Guest

    Well, you're too dumb to even understand who she's talking about. And yes,
    you're a hero behind your keyboard.
    I don't think your mouth would be so big if you met me in real life...

    Just out of curiosity: is there anybody that likes you?
    No, I mean from this planet and human species.
    Focus, Jun 4, 2008
  19. Focus

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Anyway: you're boring the crap out of a lot of people

    I just love folks speaking on behalf of the group...

    My (single) opinion is that Wolfie tried to help, and while he can be a
    little terse, he has added much good information in his posts here and
    elsewhere. I speak for myself only.

    As a general rule, if you complain about a camera's behaviour based on
    posted images, it is generally best if the images clearly show the
    problem. To re-iterate:
    are two images taken from *different* locations, with similar but
    different (and differently cropped) scene content, and they clearly have
    different lighting - as you would expect from a sunny-with-clouds day,
    even over a 3 second interval. If anyone thinks they are the same
    scene, just load them into an image editor, and overlay them, or flick
    from one to the other. They also appear to have VASTLY different
    post-processing (look at the difference in sharpness!) and white balance
    - if they were shot using AWB (the EXIF seems to be missing this info),
    there's another problem. Add on specular highlights from unevenly
    backlit rough water, patchy sunlight and matrix metering of different
    scene content, and you have a recipe for inconsistency.

    Just out of interest, I note that the second image has about twice the
    colour information that the first has (90K unique colours against 45K) -
    this is not necessarily a problem, but it is certainly curious, and
    suggests that maybe one was shot RAW or there was some other conversion
    issue beyond white balancing. Frankly, the two shots look like they
    came from two different cameras.

    The whole exercise was an indication that you need to understand the
    equipment better and know what sort of metering, and other camera
    settings, are appropriate.

    Anyway, this is just wasting your time and mine, it seems. By the way,
    I give you credit for admitting that you were 'hasty' and used flawed
    logic when you lambasted the Sony in earlier posts - try to apply that
    sort of logical thinking to more situations, and be prepared to admit
    that you have much to learn. I also have much to learn, and am
    sometimes wrong too, and am happy to admit that. But in this/these
    cases, that does not seem to apply (O:. If others can contradict me
    with facts and figures and logic, I'll listen and apologise if necessary.

    PS, I don't use nor particularly like Canon, fwiw.
    Mark Thomas, Jun 4, 2008
  20. Focus

    Noons Guest

    Bob wrote,on my timestamp of 3/06/2008 11:58 PM:
    Dude, I've crossed that same harbour in that ferry
    a zillion times, formany years. It's exactly the same
    spot, maybe with a few metres in between due to
    boat movement.
    Noons, Jun 4, 2008
    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.