Spendthrift
Leading Member
true...I'm a selfish bast% d...but, I did consider your points as well if it makes you feel better about humanity.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
2nd 1D MarkIV....What would you do?
- Thread starter Evangelos
- Start date
PhotoKhan
Forum Pro
Again, confused.
It is perfectly possible to be selfish without being a bast% d.
PK
--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
Is does get old in every thread..... I dont see you as half as negative in the canon photog on net site as you are here. What gives? Where you threatened with a ban?
--
Johnny
sturmgewehre
Well-known member
Threatened with a ban, where? No, I've never been threatened with a ban here or anywhere else.
Good Lord, now you're off onto conspiracy theories about me? I had no idea you were so wrapped up in what I type. Seriously man, find a hobby.
Good Lord, now you're off onto conspiracy theories about me? I had no idea you were so wrapped up in what I type. Seriously man, find a hobby.
Vernon Long
Forum Enthusiast
Tough decision. I purchased a D3S last week and found that it had what appeared to be a sensor defect under certain situations. So, naturally, I returned the $8000 camera for another, only to find it has the exact same defect. It turns out that of all the D3S shooters I was the first one to discover a sensor glitch under a very specific circumstanses. Nikon reps were actually able to replicate the problem with their D3S. They told me they would escalate the matter and send my sample pics as well as their own findings to Nikon engineers, and most likely their would be a firmware update, as there was with the D300 black dot problem.
What to do? Tell the DP community of my findings? Keep the camera? Send it back and be done with Canon (I've had lots of quality control issues with my past two purchases)?
Well to make matters worse....I've had 3 error 20 codes in the first two days of ownership of the second body. So, do I return this one (will BH even take it back?) repair it? Or, just get a refund and get a 1DIV?
What would yo do?
--
VL
What to do? Tell the DP community of my findings? Keep the camera? Send it back and be done with Canon (I've had lots of quality control issues with my past two purchases)?
Well to make matters worse....I've had 3 error 20 codes in the first two days of ownership of the second body. So, do I return this one (will BH even take it back?) repair it? Or, just get a refund and get a 1DIV?
What would yo do?
--
VL
Hop off you defensive horse there dude, I was just asking since you mentioned the word ban previously. I guess i am not understanding the split personalties between the two forums is all I was getting at.
--
Johnny
avh128
Member
IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
""""" I've already stated how ecstatic I am with the performance fo the camera. It really is a thrill to shoot with. BUT...
I was wandering around my house in photographic bliss, shooting away with all my different lenses, chimping with glee, and then I saw it.......a line running throught one of the shadow areas in my picture. I chimped back to the previous picture...same line, same location. Please NO!. I changed CFcards to rule that out, same thing. I changed lenses, same thing.
I tried recreating the defect by shooting with an Expo disc. Nothing. In the picture, shot vertically, the upper left corner was blown out by a window. The lower right, where the line can be seen, was a shadowy area. It turns out that the line only appears when the top half (vertically shot) is blown and the lower half is shadowy.
Needless to say, I called BH Photo and will have it exchanged. I'm back to crossing my fingers.
Evan """"
--
Armen H.
""""" I've already stated how ecstatic I am with the performance fo the camera. It really is a thrill to shoot with. BUT...
I was wandering around my house in photographic bliss, shooting away with all my different lenses, chimping with glee, and then I saw it.......a line running throught one of the shadow areas in my picture. I chimped back to the previous picture...same line, same location. Please NO!. I changed CFcards to rule that out, same thing. I changed lenses, same thing.
I tried recreating the defect by shooting with an Expo disc. Nothing. In the picture, shot vertically, the upper left corner was blown out by a window. The lower right, where the line can be seen, was a shadowy area. It turns out that the line only appears when the top half (vertically shot) is blown and the lower half is shadowy.
Needless to say, I called BH Photo and will have it exchanged. I'm back to crossing my fingers.
Evan """"
--
Armen H.
sturmgewehre
Well-known member
Stop making goofy comments about "split personalities" and I'll get off my defensive horse.
What have I said on POTN in the last, oh, month? Oh that's right, not much. The last time I posted over there with anything of any substance was a comment about a guy that copied a picture of mine. His comment to me was "I thought you left the site because I haven't seen you around" and he apologized for duplicating my image (which he didn't need to apologize for).
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
What have I said on POTN in the last, oh, month? Oh that's right, not much. The last time I posted over there with anything of any substance was a comment about a guy that copied a picture of mine. His comment to me was "I thought you left the site because I haven't seen you around" and he apologized for duplicating my image (which he didn't need to apologize for).
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
Spendthrift
Leading Member
yes Armen, that is what I was talking about.
Yellow_Hands
Forum Enthusiast
Do you have 2 threads going about this problem and if so why?
--
Shadco
--
Shadco
Schwany
Forum Pro
argue with yourself. ;-)
At first glance the anomaly in the example in the other thread started with your other user name looked like a streak on the sensor, because it only occurs through the mid section at that line. It doesn't go all the way across the image. Then I noticed there wasn't any exif.
This looks like it should be a piece of cake to reproduce, assuming it's real and the image is from a Mk IV. If I pick up a Canon 1D Mk IV, I'll be sure to check for it.
At first glance the anomaly in the example in the other thread started with your other user name looked like a streak on the sensor, because it only occurs through the mid section at that line. It doesn't go all the way across the image. Then I noticed there wasn't any exif.
This looks like it should be a piece of cake to reproduce, assuming it's real and the image is from a Mk IV. If I pick up a Canon 1D Mk IV, I'll be sure to check for it.
Spendthrift
Leading Member
Actually, if you click on full exif, Pbase shows you the rudimentary exif info.
Yellow_Hands
Forum Enthusiast
Why do you have 2 threads going under 2 different usernames?
Curious minds wonder why you need 2 user id's to make your "point"
--
Shadco
Jon_Doh
Forum Enthusiast
n/t
Schwany
Forum Pro
I'm not a pbase user, so I missed that. I'm not going to look at them again though. Thanks
sturmgewehre
Well-known member
My question to you is "why does it matter"? It doesn't negate the images he posted for your review.
My understanding is that he didn't want to use his primary user name to make his initial posts because he wasn't sure if he was going to return the camera or keep it. Once he said he was going to post the method by which you could reproduce his issue, he switched back to his regular user name to make the post.
You may have a problem with this, but I don't. It's completely irrelevant. You want to turn it into something to discredit his images with for some reason only you know. Perhaps you feel the uncanny need to defend Canon at all costs, or perhaps it's as simple as you want to discredit everyone for sport. Regardless, as I've said, his use of two names in the beginning is completely irrelevant to the discussion now that the test images are posted along with the method to reproduce them.
If you can't reproduce the problem, you have nothing to worry about. If you can, it's time to call Canon.
Pretty simple.
My understanding is that he didn't want to use his primary user name to make his initial posts because he wasn't sure if he was going to return the camera or keep it. Once he said he was going to post the method by which you could reproduce his issue, he switched back to his regular user name to make the post.
You may have a problem with this, but I don't. It's completely irrelevant. You want to turn it into something to discredit his images with for some reason only you know. Perhaps you feel the uncanny need to defend Canon at all costs, or perhaps it's as simple as you want to discredit everyone for sport. Regardless, as I've said, his use of two names in the beginning is completely irrelevant to the discussion now that the test images are posted along with the method to reproduce them.
If you can't reproduce the problem, you have nothing to worry about. If you can, it's time to call Canon.
Pretty simple.
I don't even have this camera and it infuriates me to know that someone would spend this much money on a camera, come into a forum with others that own it, claim there is a real world problem with this camera and not sure if you are going to disclose what it is.
You aren't the only one that spent $5k on a camera and why should you hold this information to yourself? Isn't that selfish.
You sound like a little 5 year old. Everyone is an adult here, er.. well, most of us and you are making this out to be some Angela Landsbury novel.
You played a cat and mouse game, posting under two different accounts.
If Canon said they could probably fix this with a firmware update and your self claim that you LOVE this camera. Then hold off and wait for the update. Especially since you said it was unique to a certain situation.
I wouldn't have commented on this post, but I was thinking of getting this camera. Hasn't changed my mind in the very least, but i really dislike and bothered by your initial postings about this claim.
You aren't the only one that spent $5k on a camera and why should you hold this information to yourself? Isn't that selfish.
You sound like a little 5 year old. Everyone is an adult here, er.. well, most of us and you are making this out to be some Angela Landsbury novel.
You played a cat and mouse game, posting under two different accounts.
If Canon said they could probably fix this with a firmware update and your self claim that you LOVE this camera. Then hold off and wait for the update. Especially since you said it was unique to a certain situation.
I wouldn't have commented on this post, but I was thinking of getting this camera. Hasn't changed my mind in the very least, but i really dislike and bothered by your initial postings about this claim.
sturmgewehre
Well-known member
Thank you for so eloquently demonstrating why someone might want to use an alias when posting to this forum.
The feigned rage and vitriol that spews from some of you if you read something you don't like or disagree with is staggering. No wonder someone might be apprehensive about posting something negative about a Canon camera in here using their primary account name... especially if they wanted to stay around for any length of time after bringing their issue to light.
The feigned rage and vitriol that spews from some of you if you read something you don't like or disagree with is staggering. No wonder someone might be apprehensive about posting something negative about a Canon camera in here using their primary account name... especially if they wanted to stay around for any length of time after bringing their issue to light.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum