jack1a

jack1a

Joined on Dec 5, 2011

Comments

Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4

nice

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2011 at 14:58 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On Variation Facts and Fallacies article (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

Larry Winters: When the camera manufacturers started including a back/front focus adjustment feature in their camera's that was an admission there were indeed focus problems between many lenses and cameras..That fact is not a FALLACY!!!

This added feature has saved the camera makers from repairing literally thousands of returned lenses...They initially didn't listen or care about customer complaints about focus issues until they were swamped with returned lenses, based on what customers had learned from reliable sources...Had it not saved the camera makers money they still wouldn't care...

It's always about the money and that't not a fallacy either!!!

Here here, however the focus adjustment dosen't fix the problem so they failed again

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2011 at 16:11 UTC
On Variation Facts and Fallacies article (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

Antony John: For those who think that perfection can be reached by throwing money and QA at something think again.
The most obvious optical example can be summed up in one word - Hubble.

Quality will never improve if we dont have "zero tolerance" for crapy equipment

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2011 at 16:05 UTC
On Variation Facts and Fallacies article (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

jimkahnw: Roger confirms my intuition on equipment build quality--a "broad" range of tolerance. I went through a quest with two copies of a Nikkor 16-85 zoom. I told tech support that images were "soft" at short focal lengths and with distant subjects the lens never hit the infinity mark. They looked at my samples and said they were within tolerance. I disagreed and they serviced the lenses without improvement. I sent them back with the camera body, a D300, again failure. So, I took equipment to the Nikon repair station in Melville, NY and pleaded my case to the techie. I even shot a series of images of the Nikon headquarters to demonstrate the problem. When the equipment was returned, lo-and-behold, the lenses were sharp. I don't know what repair was performed. As I understand it, a lens calibration with the camera is only good for one focal length; useless on a zoom. Oh, and the lenses still do not hit the infinity mark on distant subjects and short focal lengths. So much for zone focus.

I find the main article interesting however I feel quality should never be an issue it never was with film SLR's you knew what you were buying, you could also focus and set DOF and subject position within DOF from the lens barrell markings. I have never been happy with either of my crop sensor DSLR's (30D&40D&50D) with my L lens even the "kit" lens were "Soft" no pixel peeping required. I also was told by canon that there was nothing wrong twice with all bodies and 3 different L lens. So I experimented because I needed a work around and happened on a set up where i could consistantly repeat the annomallies and which helped me figure out the workaround. I foolishly believed it would improove with next model body but I believe it is a fundamental mismatch of 2.8 L series lenes to crop sensor bodies that canon can't admit.
No 60D for me I have enough paperwieghts I have resurected the F5 and some fuju 100 slide film

BTW Jim I can't get anything sharp in infinty either

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2011 at 15:48 UTC
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4