Canon's 1D3 premature release, could mark the beginning of the end...

Jan Madsen said:

I don't think any court in the world would call the 1dIII mess "false
advertising", as it is not a piece of equipment not working, but
equipment working in a less than desirable way, under some
circumstances. The only people benefitting from taking this to court
would be the lawyers, which I have heard are making quite a decent
living in the US... The real punishment is bad publicity, which no
major company can ignore.

Click to expand...

If you have read the widely quoted material from the Canon USA website, the MK III white paper and other advertising material Canon has used to promote the MK III and you have read the RG report, and you come to that conclusion, then I can't think of anything I can say that I haven't yet said over the past two days to change your mind.

All I would ask you to consider is that Canon promised far more than that the camera would "work", and by your admitting it is working in a "less than desirable way" under certain circumstances I think you have stated the case for false advertising.

I would ask that you go back and read carefully Canon's promotional material and remember that the circumstances under which the MK III seems to be working is a "less than desirable way" are circumstances of outdoor, action shooting, and sports shooters are one of the major target users for the MK III.
--
Phil Tower

Just got off the telephone with CanonUSA tech support.

Apparently my camera that was received 12/6, the Mirror/AF repair is completed, however, when they were testing it, they found another issue, and shipped it directly to Canon's Jamesburg, NJ service facility... so the repair goes on...

As unpleasant as all this is, I'm glad they found other issues, now, rather than sending it back to me, with other unresolved issues...

JimW

--
.
‹(•¿•)›

JimWilson, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
http://www.rumor-page.com
http://www.FAUdigital.com

brianric said:

How about consumer fraud, knowingly selling a defective camera.

Click to expand...

I don't think Canon "knowingly" sold a defective camera. I suggested from the beginning that the focus problems were a hardware issue, and most likely related to the failure of a supplier to meet Canon's specs (or maybe changed materials or manufacturing after getting initial approval).

However, the fact that issues remain after the hardware fix that require further firmware revision, indicate that someone at Canon dropped the ball before releasing the camera to production. But, since most digital cameras get one or more firmware upgrades after release, Canon could probably defeat any clain that they "knowingly" released a "defective" camera.

I speculate that Canon sourced the AF assembly to a non-Japanese supplier, and would rather not publicize that fact. The Japanese have long had a good quality reputation, and I suspect that the QC problems we have been seeing stem from poor QC in offshore suppliers. It's certainly a big problem with US firms sourcing manufacturing offshore.

Plusiotis said:

the hell did this super-expensive camera pass Canon's (presumed)
rigorous testing procedures? Or are the latter a total myth?

Click to expand...

Canon should hire RG, since he single-handedly(!!) outclassed whatever pathetic testing facility Canon does (or doesn't) have.

More evidence of testing failure:
I took my own 1D3 to Irvine in JUNE...
...Their TOP tech from Japan completely(!) missed the problem.

An hour later, I had literally demonstrated it FOR him...and was showing OBVIOUS problems on my own laptop...of shots I'd taken on their front lawn, in their presence.

Once he saw these, he immediately had to concede the issue, and wondered how he'd missed it.

This is indicative of a FATALLY FLAWED testing regimen.

Until Canon copletely revamps their routine in this regard, more failures will occur.

-Markuson

--
-----------------------
A few Markuson Images...
Look-see at:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson

James L Wilson said:

Markuson said:

James L Wilson said:

Ken Phillips said:

The term "class action" really means "extortion" AND "lawyer
enrichment scheme". The should be ruled unconstitutional, because the
ARE.
Not to mention that besides buying lawyers such as Stan Chesley and
John Edwards huge mansions by paying them far out of proportion to
their contribution, they raise the price of goods and services that
WE buy.
Let Canon have its chance to fix the damn thing, or buy them all back.

Click to expand...

Agree completely.

James L Wilson said:

Do you think that there is even a little chance that this problem
showed up in testing and they let it go anyway?

Click to expand...

No chance of this whatsoever.

Click to expand...

What?
We already know they knew.
Canon TOLD RG before giving him the pre-release version that it had
focus issues.
So Canon absolutely DID know.
What none of us expected was that they'd just go ahead and leave them
as is...but that is exactly what happened. The EXACT same problems
exhibited in the pre-release version showed up IDENTICALLY in the
production version.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY how do you know this...
Because RG told you.
Who made him in charge.
There is no consus that many of his findings are correct or consistent.

Click to expand...

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8738-8908

Scroll to the very bottom, and read the paragraph above the last image on page 1 of this April 2007 report on RG's pre-production unit.

Still think he's making it up?

--
-----------------------
A few Markuson Images...
Look-see at:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson

is this, they'll do deals with their big customers. aka the news agencies who bought in bulk. (repair / quick turnaround, new cams) and shaft the rest of its 1 Series customers.

As I've declared before in my previous posts, nothing shot of class action will force them to pay more respects to their customer base. (how easy or hard that is in the US I don't know) Again, this unequal treatment may add weight towards a case against Canon or for that manner any company which does deals like that.

The other thing Canon will do is to be moving quickly to the next iteration of the 1Series. For their own benefit not ours.

As a side point which illustrates by point, Chuck Westfall of Canon responded in the Digital Journalist Tech Tips that Canon will investigate the dust complaints from owners of the 5D. That was many many months ago. They said they'll check but they never said they'll take care of their customers who have dust issues with their 5d.

DY

macphoto said:

But, despite all the
wonderful things about this camera, there is no doubt that the AF (in
some conditions) is NOT performing to the level promised by Canon,
and I'm very interested to see how they are going to proceed from
this point (given the fact that their very expensive "fix" is merely
an improvement, not a true fix).

--Michael

Click to expand...

Jan Madsen said:

"class action suit" - "all owners are experiencing" - "full refund" -
oh dear...

It is a COMMERCIAL product, not some piece of rocket equipment, or
military equipment. Commercial products are build down to an exact
price, and in a competitive environment like digital cameras, rushed
out at the earliest possible date, in order to maximize return on the
development investments. Errors are bound to happen, and DO happen,
no matter the name of the manufacturer. Nikon D200 banding (also took
a long time to correct), Leica M8 infrared mess, Hasselblad zooms
falling apart, lenses from all brands with sample variations, and so
on. Irritating for the customers, but not the end for the companies -
unless they do it repeatably.

Canon should of course address the problems, and hopefully they are
(almost) there.

The 1dIII is a professional camera, but we are talking about an
investment of EUR3400 (or something like that), which is of course a
sizable sum of money, but frankly don't buy you much specialized
professional equipment in this world. The 1dIII is a mass produced
item, not a small series production, where the demands for quality
and consistency would be higher - and the price much much higher!
Don't expect that EUR3400 buys you something that is perfect. That is
simply unrealistic.

Click to expand...

Then Canon shouldn't say "Perfect Focus In An Instant", and all ther other deceptive and untrue statements about the AF of the 1D MKIII.

This is the definition of the word "perfect" from Dictionary.com:

per·fect adj., n. ˈpɜrfɪkt; v. pərˈfɛkt Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[adj., n. pur-fikt; v. per-fekt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective

1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.

2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.

3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.

4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.

5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.

6. thorough; complete; utter: perfect strangers.

7. pure or unmixed: perfect yellow.

8. unqualified; absolute: He has perfect control over his followers.

9. expert; accomplished; proficient.

10. unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree: He made a perfect fool of himself.

Number 10 seems to have a relationship to the way Canon has handled this whole mess.

Jan Madsen said:

James L Wilson said:

CANON must cause the 1D3 to operate to the specifications CANON
prescribed and CANON advertised... if not, CANON may subject to a
potentially huge class action suit, or worse, the migration of the
Professional community away from Canon.

The depreciation in user confidence and in economic value, that all
owners are experiencing with Canon's 1D Mark-III, is unacceptable.

If full repair is not implemented quickly, or replacements provided,
full credits for a next version in the near future, or full refund,
this milestone event, the premature release of the 1D Mark-III, could
mark "the beginning of the end" of Canon's dominance in the
Professional digital SLR arena.

Click to expand...

--

• Jan

Click to expand...

Never ever believe marketing material 100%...

But I don't dismiss this case, Canon clearly HAS a problem with the 1dIII, I just think that the opinions expressed by the OP are way over the line. Talking about legal actions is nonsense in this case, if that was reasonable you can sue almost any company with a complicated product, as something is certain to annoy some people, or be not quite as fantastic as the marketing gang would make you believe. Should we sue Nikon for the D200, which never got 100% fixed, only "almost", sue Leica for the IR mess with funny looking filters mounted in front of lenses, despite the camera costing many thousands of Euros, and still showing cyan corners needing PP, etc.?

Phil Tower said:

If you have read the widely quoted material from the Canon USA
website, the MK III white paper and other advertising material Canon
has used to promote the MK III and you have read the RG report, and
you come to that conclusion, then I can't think of anything I can say
that I haven't yet said over the past two days to change your mind.

All I would ask you to consider is that Canon promised far more than
that the camera would "work", and by your admitting it is working in
a "less than desirable way" under certain circumstances I think you
have stated the case for false advertising.

I would ask that you go back and read carefully Canon's promotional
material and remember that the circumstances under which the MK III
seems to be working is a "less than desirable way" are circumstances
of outdoor, action shooting, and sports shooters are one of the major
target users for the MK III.
--
Phil Tower

Click to expand...

--

• Jan

Good question. Apparently, the testing wasn't "rigorous".

Maybe Canon just thought the camera is pretty enough to satisfy a lot of customers just on it's looks alone.

More likely though is that they just wanted to get it out there and make some fast money and figured that they would correct any flaws later with firmware. There's nothing better than to have a lot of free beta testers that will accept flaws until there's a fix, or forever if there never is one.

Also, Canon surely takes into account the nature of humans, especially fanboys, and the ever faithful Canon customers, many of which just have to have the latest gadget.

A five minute perusal of the forums just on this site alone readily shows that some people will have an orgasm over anything Canon produces and will believe anything Canon says, whether realistic or not. So, they jump at the chance to be one of those free beta testers, although they'd never admit that, and they believe that Canon will take great care of them on a personal level, similarly to how religious zealots believe that prayer will stop a flood or a hurricane.

The name "Canon" could easily be replaced, in what I said above, by the name of pretty much any other camera company and it would still apply.

Plusiotis said:

the hell did this super-expensive camera pass Canon's (presumed)
rigorous testing procedures? Or are the latter a total myth? If so,
then I suggest you buy the equivalent Nikon ....or ... perhaps .....
shock ....horror ... the Olympus E-3.

Click to expand...

Jan Madsen said:

Never ever believe marketing material 100%...

But I don't dismiss this case, Canon clearly HAS a problem with the
1dIII, I just think that the opinions expressed by the OP are way
over the line. Talking about legal actions is nonsense in this case,
if that was reasonable you can sue almost any company with a
complicated product, as something is certain to annoy some people, or
be not quite as fantastic as the marketing gang would make you
believe. Should we sue Nikon for the D200, which never got 100%
fixed, only "almost", sue Leica for the IR mess with funny looking
filters mounted in front of lenses, despite the camera costing many
thousands of Euros, and still showing cyan corners needing PP, etc.?

Click to expand...

Reduced to its essence, your argument is that our laws mean nothing.

If you're going to compare this situation with Nikon or Leica, you need to show what the advertising claims were for those products.

Refer to http://us.bbb.org/WWWRoot/SitePage.aspx?site=113&id=8e20ba59-acb8-4dcf-a1e2-0cc3ab9cfbb4#Do

"# Superlative Claims-Puffery

Superlative statements, like other advertising claims, are objective (factual) or subjective (puffery):

• objective claims relate to tangible qualities and performance values of a product or service which can be measured against accepted standards or tests. As statements of fact, such claims can be proved or disproved and the advertiser should possess substantiation.

• subjective claims are expressions of opinion or personal evaluation of the intangible qualities of a product or service. Individual opinions, statements of corporate pride and promises may sometimes be considered puffery and not subject to test of their truth and accuracy. Subjective superlatives which tend to mislead should be avoided."

If you think that deceptive advertising laws can be ignored with impunity and dismissed by telling us to never ever believe marketing 100%, see:

http://polaris.umuc.edu/~tgrodsky/admn687/articles/kmarple.html

http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/2003/rel042403c.shtml

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/predawn/F93/hasbro-gr1.htm

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1996/09/newhyde.shtm

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/03/wonderbread.shtm

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1996/09/exxon1.shtm

--
Phil Tower

• but I would never trust marketing material using the word "perfect". What is perfect focus? Under which circumstances? You can't put a number on it. It is nonsense, but everybody states that there product is "perfect" in this and that regard.

But Canon should of course remedy the defects found in their product(s) to a reasonable degree.

natureman said:

Then Canon shouldn't say "Perfect Focus In An Instant", and all ther
other deceptive and untrue statements about the AF of the 1D MKIII.

This is the definition of the word "perfect" from Dictionary.com:

per·fect adj., n. ˈpɜrfɪkt; v.
pərˈfɛkt Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[adj., n. pur-fikt; v. per-fekt] Pronunciation Key -
Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective

1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal
type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.

2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement:
There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are
almost perfect.

3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain
purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for
cutting out keyholes.

4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect
apple; the perfect crime.

5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.

6. thorough; complete; utter: perfect strangers.

7. pure or unmixed: perfect yellow.

8. unqualified; absolute: He has perfect control over his followers.

9. expert; accomplished; proficient.

10. unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree: He made a perfect
fool of himself.

Number 10 seems to have a relationship to the way Canon has handled
this whole mess.

Click to expand...

--

• Jan

Phil Tower said:

Reduced to its essence, your argument is that our laws mean nothing.

Click to expand...

Of course not! But dragging a company to court for a deficiency which you can't measure directly, and which they are in the process of correcting, is a waste of human resources, which frankly could be used for better purposes.

Once more: If you would drag Canon to court for this you can drag any company to court. Would be good for the lawyers...

I am amazed of the things you can get sued over in the US. As an example we have a company here in Denmark making ladders, they simply gave up the US market (which is of course big), because they could get sued if a person fell down from one of their products! Ridiculous. At the same time scam photo shops in New York keep running, year after year. They could surely need som sueing. I fail to see the proportions in all this...

--

• Jan

Jan Madsen said:

Phil Tower said:

Reduced to its essence, your argument is that our laws mean nothing.

Click to expand...

Of course not! But dragging a company to court for a deficiency which
you can't measure directly, and which they are in the process of
correcting, is a waste of human resources, which frankly could be
used for better purposes.

Click to expand...

The history of postings here and on other boards strongly suggests that countless days and weeks of human resources have been wasted by pro and amateur photographers who have stored their MK IIIs in a drawer while Canon dragged its feet. Canon created this problem and if the only way to ultimately get it to comply with the law is to "drag" it to court, then it will be the one solely responsible for even greater waster of human resources.

Jan Madsen said:

Once more: If you would drag Canon to court for this you can drag any
company to court. Would be good for the lawyers...

Click to expand...

No matter how many times you repeat that claim without substantiation, it still remains without substantiation.

Jan Madsen said:

I am amazed of the things you can get sued over in the US. As an
example we have a company here in Denmark making ladders, they simply
gave up the US market (which is of course big), because they could
get sued if a person fell down from one of their products!
Ridiculous. At the same time scam photo shops in New York keep
running, year after year. They could surely need som sueing. I fail
to see the proportions in all this...

Click to expand...

I think this statement is gross generalization which does not necessary stand upon close scrutiny. Nonetheless, Canon has chosen to rake in hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars by doing business in the USA. It has voluntarily submitted itself to US laws. It didn't have to do business here.
--
Phil Tower

Where is teh evidence that Canon is dragging its feet or intende to deceive through its advertising?

Indeed RG says that he went and tested a previous fix to the sub-mirror one on September 12 & 13. Considering the whole product lifeccylce process, that was very recently. I think that RG's article is good evidence that Canon has been working very hard on this issue.

Canon did not falsely advertise. You cannot compare not meeting specification with teh sort of false advertising demonstrated in some of yor links (e.g. SUVs handle like cars - that is just blatant lying). They delivered a product that did not meet THEIR specifications and it would seem that they did not expect the system to perform badly. Final testing was probably in winter and spring in Japan - not very warm: I do not expect that they do the same level of extremes testing that car manufacturers do by going to Finland in winter and Arizona in summer.

I believe it would be right for every owner to write a strongly worder letter to Canon - the enrichment of lawyers shoud not be attempted - I won a class action suit and got about $50 - a bit less than the lawyers - tehre is no way you will get your money back by class action. I bet Canon lawyers have copies of every good report said about the MkIII on this forum, others and in reviews. For example the OP of this thread is doomed to get nothing since he claimed his camera works perfectly

Hello Jan, thanks for your response.

I think, to answer your questions, you might want to look at the post at the link below. It contains exact quotes from the Canon website. Canon's own words make the camera sound infallible.

I agree that a lot of companies overstate the perfection of their products and that Canon should remedy the defects in their products. I just also think that Canon, and a lot of other companies, should quit saying deceptive, false things in their advertisements too.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=26005796

Jan Madsen said:

• but I would never trust marketing material using the word

"perfect". What is perfect focus? Under which circumstances? You
can't put a number on it. It is nonsense, but everybody states that
there product is "perfect" in this and that regard.

But Canon should of course remedy the defects found in their
product(s) to a reasonable degree.

natureman said:

Then Canon shouldn't say "Perfect Focus In An Instant", and all ther
other deceptive and untrue statements about the AF of the 1D MKIII.

This is the definition of the word "perfect" from Dictionary.com:

per·fect adj., n. ˈpɜrfɪkt; v.
pərˈfɛkt Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[adj., n. pur-fikt; v. per-fekt] Pronunciation Key -
Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective

1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal
type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.

2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement:
There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are
almost perfect.

3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain
purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for
cutting out keyholes.

4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect
apple; the perfect crime.

5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.

6. thorough; complete; utter: perfect strangers.

7. pure or unmixed: perfect yellow.

8. unqualified; absolute: He has perfect control over his followers.

9. expert; accomplished; proficient.

10. unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree: He made a perfect
fool of himself.

Number 10 seems to have a relationship to the way Canon has handled
this whole mess.

Click to expand...

--

• Jan

Click to expand...

Hey DY, your view is pretty cynical on what you think Canon will do (or not do) to get their equipment up to published specifications.

Most folks that acquire a $4500 camera are not "soccer moms, taking shots of little Billy." These folks are serious Photographers that have serious reasons for spending $4500 to take pictures.

Canon WILL make it right. Its a matter of when, not IF. Canon is a global enterprise that will not abandon a multi-hundred million dollar segment of their business, because they "just don't want to bother with this annoyance."

Canon has a very serious/important reputation to protect, and in this case resurrect, as this 1D3 matter has gotten a bit out of their control. So there will be some serious catching up on Canon's part to make the FIX, followed by some firmware updates, given a reasonable period of time to examine all these units, and implement all of the above.

We sit here making our comments. Some will criticize the matter well after the FIX is completed; and the industry will evaluate and perform the a post-operative. Canon has to sift through all the information and mis-information, perform their own testing.

At risk for Canon in the near term, is the risk that a certain percentage of "buyers" are on the sidelines not BUYING, until the post-op is complete... Many of the dealers are not seeing the drop in sales, however, personally some of my friends/contacts/students are waiting for reports of the FIX actually changing the performance issues.

Of note, my local Professional Camera ProShop, is not seeing any decrease in demand for the 1Ds or the 1Ds3, there remains, pre-order lists yet to be fulfilled, with no cancellations, other than an individual getting the 1D3 else where faster...

One thing is for sure, the recent release of 1Ds3 are being shipped very sparingly, with plenty of pre-testing, to be sure these AF issues do not follow through to their flagship camera.

So far my informal "testing" has not discovered any adverse issues with the 1Ds3 camera, that some had with the 1D3.

What a beauty this 1Ds3 is. It will be put into service next week with our job at the New Orleans BOWL on Dec 21.

Go to http://www.416-1100.com next Sunday, Dec 23 to see some unique shots of what goes on behind the scenes of a Nationally Televised NCAA Bowl event.

We're also going to give the 1Ds3 a stress test having it perform on-field for some Action Sports imaging. Lets see what 5fps does. I have fond memories of using a Nikon F4 many years ago, with far fewer frames per second...

Lest hope this game is competitive.
However, be it kown, we are loyal FAU folks through and through.
Go Owls !!!

JimW

--
.
‹(•¿•)›

JimWilson, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
http://www.rumor-page.com
http://www.FAUdigital.com

Andrew Hughes said:

Where is teh evidence that Canon is dragging its feet or intende to
deceive through its advertising?

Indeed RG says that he went and tested a previous fix to the
sub-mirror one on September 12 & 13. Considering the whole product
lifeccylce process, that was very recently. I think that RG's article
is good evidence that Canon has been working very hard on this issue.

Click to expand...

Badgerh said:

Canon did not falsely advertise.

Click to expand...

I would strongly disagree with that statement, and I'm sure some others will too.

Also, I would say that Canon is still falsely advertising the 1D MKIII.

Badgerh said:

You cannot compare not meeting
specification with teh sort of false advertising demonstrated in some
of yor links (e.g. SUVs handle like cars - that is just blatant
lying). They delivered a product that did not meet THEIR
specifications and it would seem that they did not expect the system
to perform badly. Final testing was probably in winter and spring in
Japan - not very warm: I do not expect that they do the same level of
extremes testing that car manufacturers do by going to Finland in
winter and Arizona in summer.

I believe it would be right for every owner to write a strongly
worder letter to Canon - the enrichment of lawyers shoud not be
attempted - I won a class action suit and got about $50 - a bit less
than the lawyers - tehre is no way you will get your money back by
class action. I bet Canon lawyers have copies of every good report
said about the MkIII on this forum, others and in reviews. For
example the OP of this thread is doomed to get nothing since he
claimed his camera works perfectly

Click to expand...

James L Wilson said:

This is making for an unfair rapid level of "depreciation" every
month that Canon fails to determine/implement the complete FIX; Not
to mention the nagging fear that professionals have in their minds,
that the equipment may not be operating up to the specifications that
were promised.

Click to expand...

I have but 3 questions!

1) Has the sale price of the 1Dmk3 crashed? If so, sign me up for it...

Even if it has...

2) Do Canon guarantee you a high re-sale value? Tough nuts if your camera is depreciating.

Even if they did...

3) Why should it even concern you if you're actually intending to use it rather than sell it on?

Don't think your point will stand up in court :/

--
Daniel

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eclipsechaser/

every time my friend succeeds, a little part of me dies

Jan Madsen said:

The 1dIII is a professional camera, but we are talking about an
investment of EUR3400 (or something like that), which is of course a
sizable sum of money, but frankly don't buy you much specialized
professional equipment in this world. The 1dIII is a mass produced
item, not a small series production, where the demands for quality
and consistency would be higher - and the price much much higher!
Don't expect that EUR3400 buys you something that is perfect.

Click to expand...

Well, Canon wants customers like you. FAT included the 1d is more like 3600-3800 or so (about that amount of money every 24 months BTW), and everyone knows it was intended to be the best sports camera out there, just as the 1dII was before.

So in a sports camera there are a few things that are critical: The AF MUST be fast and precise. Color would be less critical. Even LCD quality...

I know I would not accept if I bought a fast sports camera and found that it has focus errors all the time.

It is faulty, and it already takes too long for them to fix it. Looks almost that they are not sure how to do it.

If Nikon got everything in the D3/ d300 right, this is really a turning point.

Bernie

natureman said:

Good question. Apparently, the testing wasn't "rigorous".

Maybe Canon just thought the camera is pretty enough to satisfy a lot
of customers just on it's looks alone.

More likely though is that they just wanted to get it out there and
make some fast money and figured that they would correct any flaws
later with firmware.

Click to expand...

This is absurd.
No global enterprise would entertain such a position.
Sorry to say, however, you sound like a 10 year old, making up stupid stories.

natureman said:

There's nothing better than to have a lot of
free beta testers that will accept flaws until there's a fix, or
forever if there never is one.

Also, Canon surely takes into account the nature of humans,
especially fanboys, and the ever faithful Canon customers, many of
which just have to have the latest gadget.

A five minute perusal of the forums just on this site alone readily
shows that some people will have an orgasm over anything Canon
produces and will believe anything Canon says, whether realistic or
not.

Click to expand...

I guess you have fallen into soup of the negative crazies in cyber-land.

Canon are big boys, and will get this FIX implemented irrespective of these chats and negativism.

To be sure there are "heads rolling" in Tokyo for this very important blemish in their reputation. Many are not sleeping well over on the other side of the planet, as this will take years to overcome, well after the FIX was fully implemented.

jw

natureman said:

So, they jump at the chance to be one of those free beta
testers, although they'd never admit that, and they believe that
Canon will take great care of them on a personal level, similarly to
how religious zealots believe that prayer will stop a flood or a
hurricane.

The name "Canon" could easily be replaced, in what I said above, by
the name of pretty much any other camera company and it would still
apply.

Plusiotis said:

the hell did this super-expensive camera pass Canon's (presumed)
rigorous testing procedures? Or are the latter a total myth? If so,
then I suggest you buy the equivalent Nikon ....or ... perhaps .....
shock ....horror ... the Olympus E-3.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
.
‹(•¿•)›

JimWilson, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
http://www.rumor-page.com
http://www.FAUdigital.com