10D.....a waste of money!

Leon Wittwer · Apr 9, 2003

The gods would seem to be capricious. My 70-200 2.8L IS lens is preforming very well over its entire range. The IS part is a particularly pleasant surprise. It was my first IS. My 16-35 2.8L, on the other hand is a bit soft but still acceptable. Leon

Mike Jones said:
It's not so much the lens, but whether you are one of the ones who
may have been blessed by the Canon Gods! The 10D is a gamble, and
with some people one lens works fine, and with the next person the
same lens may produce out of focus results on a different 10D. I
will say that the worst performing lens IMO and in others opinions
is the 70-200L 2.8 lens, especially at the 200mm end. Truly
laughable results, a shame for the normally super sharp lens.

hawkeye1 · Apr 9, 2003

the first 10D i tried worked just like Mike's..........plus a star field on any exposure over 2 minutes.

dewayne howse said:
hawkeye1 said:

dewayne howse said:

Pigasus said:

Daniel B. said:

This is what happens when people move up from point and shoot
cameras to digital SLRs. I have 2 10D's now, and a 1D, and I can
tell you the 10D has no focus issues. Learn to use your camera,
shutter speeds that are hand holdable versus needing a tripod etc,
but please stop blaming equipment for poor photography skills. No
offense intended, but these kinds of threads are either trolls, or
pure stupidity.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

gpb11 · Apr 9, 2003

Mike Jones said:
I did NOT issue a "Blanket condemnation".

So when you said "10D.....a waste of money!" that was what, praise?

--
Any DSLR beats unexposed film.

Hugo So · Apr 9, 2003

Lew said:
Mike Jones said:

I did NOT issue a "Blanket condemnation".

Click to expand...

So when you said "10D.....a waste of money!" that was what, praise?

--
Any DSLR beats unexposed film.

--
My dirty uploads: http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=43271

Uncle Matt · Apr 9, 2003

Mike Jones said:
Maybe I should have tried threatning my 10D with a rusty old lens
also! I only had L glass however. Glad to hear your 10D is
"finally" working. Post some pix so we can see how sharp your 10D
has decided to be. These 10D's have a mind of their own!

Mike:

I don't know if the museum pictures measure up as sharp by others standards. Compared to the first fifty test shots I took I am pleased. I left the tripod in the trunk at the museum and shot handheld. Many of my shots were ruined due to shallow DOF. One lesson learned, 98 to go. (then we start over and sing it again!)

Matt

One of my earlier (very unscientific) test shots:

50mm 1.4 @ 1.4
1/250s
ISO 800
Unprocessed - Save for web

Crop
Unprocessed - Save for web

Museum pictures:

Handheld
50mm 1.4 @ 4.0
1/180s
ISO 800
Unprocessed - Save for web

Crop
Unprocessed - Save for web

Handheld
50mm 1.4 @ 2.0
1/60s
ISO 800
Sharpened - Save for web

Crop
Unprocessed - Save for web

JohnM31499 · Apr 9, 2003

Daniel B.142695 said:
This is what happens when people move up from point and shoot
cameras to digital SLRs.

since Mike had a 1D & a D60, he is hardly "moving up from a p&s camera"

You might want to pay a little more attention to the posts you are responding to.

-John

Michael Salzlechner · Apr 9, 2003

that after 3 it might just be you and not the camera ?

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

photos at http://www.salzlechner.com/photo

Pigasus · Apr 9, 2003

Stefan1967 said:
Let's face it, folks like us are not normal! Probably 90% of those
that purchase this camera will use it with consumer glass and could
have gotten one of the camera's Mike got and been thrilled with the
images. I haven't seen examples from Mike that show how bad his
focusing issues were, but I'm sure at least 1 of those camera's out
of 3 that he tried would have been a great performer for anyone
without Mike's pro background and experience with ultimate
performing pro gear like the 1D.

I've seen some examples from the 10D that show exactly how good that camera is meant to be. And it's excellent. No one, be they pro or point and shooter, should ever have to settle for an even slightly substandard 10D. Even if they don't currently notice the difference, they may well do in time.

This isn't about the capabilities and quality of the 10D in general. I believe it's a camera that is more than capable of results to satisfy any pro. What it is about is the apparent lack of quality control from Canon in producing this body to date. I'd love a 10D that works the way it's meant to. But I don't feel up to the trial of possibly getting a dud. So I'm waiting. I'm not alone in this. Hopefully Canon will realise that many potential purchasers have been put off by the issues and will respond.

--
Pigasus
The pig that flies
http://www.pigasusgrove.net/gallery/

gpb11 · Apr 9, 2003

it may be winnings, it's more likely just entertainment/excitement, but if gamblers weren't receiving something which makes it "worth it" then places like Monte Carlo and Las Vegas wouldn't be what they are.

Apart from that you clearly missed the entire point of my post. Read the words, read what was said. Don't manufacture something that wasn't there and you'll regain some credibility.

-- Lew

Hugo So said:
Lew said:

Mike Jones said:

I did NOT issue a "Blanket condemnation".

Click to expand...

So when you said "10D.....a waste of money!" that was what, praise?

--
Any DSLR beats unexposed film.

Click to expand...

--
My dirty uploads: http://www3.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=43271

--
Any DSLR beats unexposed film.

RichW · Apr 9, 2003

Mike Salzlechner said:
that after 3 it might just be you and not the camera ?

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

photos at http://www.salzlechner.com/photo

gpb11 · Apr 9, 2003

Make careful note of what he said and what he did NOT say.

Namely; he did NOT say the Mr. Jones is at fault. He did not say that it is impossible that all three units were bad.

If you read either of those two meanings into his post, you did not read it properly.

-- Lew

Mike Salzlechner said:
that after 3 it might just be you and not the camera ?

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

photos at http://www.salzlechner.com/photo

--
Any DSLR beats unexposed film.

Daniel B.142695 · Apr 9, 2003

Mike Jones said:
Where there's smoke there's fire

You have that part right, but I'm afraid its blowing up someones
read end.

JohnM31499 · Apr 9, 2003

Mike Salzlechner said:
that after 3 it might just be you and not the camera ?

I wondered the same thing, but he seems to have had no problem with a D60 & a 1D??(unless that's total BS)

-John

William Wood · Apr 9, 2003

I agree, I tried a 24-85 and it was front-focusing. Now I have a 28-135 IS and its very nice. I tried a second 28-135 in the store yesterday and it did not focus as well though - go figure!

SteveVideoman said:
I changed my lenses. With my 24-85 lens images were VERY soft out
of camera almost looking unfocused. I applied quite a bit of USM to
make them look good. Then I tried a 75-300IS and even at 300mm my
pics were sharp ( i set my paramaters to COntrast +1, Sharpness +2
and Saturation +1) - Now I was getting super sharp shots. I then
tried a 28-135IS and it was better than the 24-85 but still a
little soft. Nothing PS couldnt fix. below is a shot from my
100-400LIS - This has been resized and minor USM appied (0.3, 150,
0) - other than that it is straight from the camera. If this was
taken with my old 24-85 it would of been almost blurry. I have
found that the 10D is sensitive to certain lenses.

Jack A. Zucker · Apr 9, 2003

Why do folks insist that there are no 10D focus problems based on the fact that their 10D cameras are working?

It reminds me of the Iraqi Information Ministry which is still insisting that the US troops are nowhere near baghdad even as the tanks roar through the center of town...

This logic cracks me up.

JohnM31499 · Apr 9, 2003

Jack A. Zucker said:
Why do folks insist that there are no 10D focus problems based on
the fact that their 10D cameras are working?

It reminds me of the Iraqi Information Ministry which is still
insisting that the US troops are nowhere near baghdad even as the
tanks roar through the center of town...

This logic cracks me up.

Peter70 · Apr 9, 2003

Mike Salzlechner said:
that after 3 it might just be you and not the camera ?

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

photos at http://www.salzlechner.com/photo

Gary Rodgers · Apr 9, 2003

Hugo So said:
I also suggest potential buyers to at least wait until Canon fix
the issue, or if not pick up a D60.

And my D60 was soft out of the carton. I took many shots, realized that the camera wasn't operating up to its potential -and shipped it off to Canon repair in NJ.

It came back 6 days from when I sent it. It now produces stunning images.

I bought a $35000 4Runner. I've had it in the shop for repair on more than one occasion.

My dad had a Jag XJS that the dashboard trim (all wood) fell off. He took it in for repair. They fixed it.

The point is that manufacturing processes are not perfect. There are acceptable percentages of defects. That's why there is a warranty.

Get over it. Part with the camera for a week or 2. Get it back working better than ever. If it won't, demand that Canon work with your retailer to get your money refunded. Buy a different product.

--
Gary

Doug Eddleman · Apr 9, 2003

And what I don't get is that everyone who has a problem with their camera has trouble believing that most have no problems. In several polls I have seen on this forum 10D owners with no problems outnumbered owners with problems by a very large margin.

I agree that it appears there are some 10Ds with problems but to make statements like the original post makes it appear that most of the 10Ds are defective which is simply not the case.

Your statement about Iraq implies that all the cameras are defective and we are just lying to ourselves if we think it is working correctly?

Doug

Jack A. Zucker said:
Why do folks insist that there are no 10D focus problems based on
the fact that their 10D cameras are working?

It reminds me of the Iraqi Information Ministry which is still
insisting that the US troops are nowhere near baghdad even as the
tanks roar through the center of town...

This logic cracks me up.

Jack A. Zucker · Apr 9, 2003

Doug Eddleman said:
And what I don't get is that everyone who has a problem with their
camera has trouble believing that most have no problems.

Over and over I've stated that my particular camera was a lemon and that the VAST majority seem to be fine.

Doug Eddleman said:
In
several polls I have seen on this forum 10D owners with no problems
outnumbered owners with problems by a very large margin.

So what? That means you have to belittle folks who have problems?!?

Doug Eddleman said:
I agree that it appears there are some 10Ds with problems but to
make statements like the original post makes it appear that most of
the 10Ds are defective which is simply not the case.

From reports I have read, an abnormally high percentage of bad cameras do exist.

Doug Eddleman said:
Your statement about Iraq implies that all the cameras are
defective and we are just lying to ourselves if we think it is
working correctly?

It implies nothing of the sort. Are you watching CNN?

Jaz

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

10D.....a waste of money!

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Michael Salzlechner

Guest

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

William Wood

Guest

Jack A. Zucker

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Jack A. Zucker

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts