em_dee_aitch
Senior Member
Dear Canon -
Prior to the 1d3 incident, I was looking forward to your 20th EOS anniversary. I was a 1d3 early adopter, and I had a deposit paid months in advance on the 1ds3. But now, due to your poor handling of this incident, I have just this week returned the 1d3 for a full refund and transferred my 1ds3 deposit onto a pair of Nikon D3's. But while most of us here are focusing on the 1d3 debacle, I would like to remind you that your failure to serve us over the last couple of years extends beyond just the 1d3. Specifically, you have failed to serve us in the area of providing the best professional quality lenses, particularly in the 2.8 pro zoom area.
Example 1: 16-35/2.8
Your 16-35/2.8 released in 2001 was inferior to the Nikon 17-35/2.8 which was released in 1999. The version II revision this year brought it up to parity -- perhaps parity -- without breaking any new ground. At the same time, you hyped this lens as being better across the entire zoom range than its predecessor. However, this is totally false. All testing that I have seen, including my own, proves that this lens was only an improvement from 16-21mm and was a clear regression from 24-35mm. I found this to be very, very disappointing. And while you still try to achieve parity with Nikon's 1999 design in this space, you have allowed Nikon to pull way ahead with a 14-24/2.8, which by early reports appears to be the best wide angle lens of the auto focus era, and at a price point hundreds less than your 14mm prime. You have been clearly spanked there.
Example 2: 70-200/2.8 IS
At the 200mm end, this lens is a clear disappointment. Many will refuse to acknowledge how soft it can be, but we know it's true. It is soft... You have proved to us with your 70-200/4.0 IS that you know exactly how to fix this issue in a same-size form factor in this zoom range (based on clear improvment against it's 4.0 non-IS predacessor), and yet you continue to withhold this desperately needed revision on us. I expect you will release a revision within the next year, but it's already too late as far as I'm concerned.
Example 3: 24-70/2.8
Overall, I think this is the most optically adequate I've mentioned so far, but you've allowed Nikon to pull ahead again with a slimmer and more attractive design that by early reports would seem to be optically superior. Additionally, this is a lens that for many customers has been an inconsistent performer with a reputation of requiring trips to CPS for calibration.
Yes, I would say that many of your other lenses are great, but those 3 serve the foundation of all daily professional work, and you have let those three slide into unacceptable disadvantage relative to your competition. When that is combined with the 1d3 incident, I am very inclined to give Nikon a share of my money. Mind you that I am not yet abandoning the Canon system. I am retaining about half of my Canon glass, particularly pieces like the 24/1.4 which Nikon does not offer. But sadly, my Canon bodies will be stuck at the 5D and 1d2 era until such time that you become trustworthy again.
Oh, and I must mention the final nail in the coffin: You, Canon, CLEARLY possessed all the abilities necessary to have built a 1d3 as a full frame camera that would have competed directly against the D3 as a true competitor. But instead, you decided to further the arbitrary segmentation of your product line, offering me two different cameras -- the 1d3 and 1ds3 -- which do not meet my needs. The Nikon D3 is the camera which YOU should have built, because you could have. Your decision to continue the 1.3x sensor was a major mistake. I know you have a cadre of telephoto shooters who think that 1.3x is the greatest thing ever due to the "free teleconversion" effect, but to the rest of us doing normal work, the full frame 12 MP low light capable specification embodied by the D3 was the PERFECT spec that we had been waiting for. And you totally dropped the ball on that.
So in summary, I feel betrayed 3 ways by Canon this year: The inept and unethical handling of the 1d3 debacle, the mishandling of lens offerings which has put Nikon way out front in the key area of 2.8 pro zooms, and the marketing mismanagement of the 1-series product line which allowed Nikon to bring the D3 to market with absolutely NO competition from you--an amazing disappointment.
I hope you can pull yourselves back together in less than a 3-year product cycle.
Best of luck doing that.
--
David Hill
http://www.davidhillphoto.com
Austin, Texas
Prior to the 1d3 incident, I was looking forward to your 20th EOS anniversary. I was a 1d3 early adopter, and I had a deposit paid months in advance on the 1ds3. But now, due to your poor handling of this incident, I have just this week returned the 1d3 for a full refund and transferred my 1ds3 deposit onto a pair of Nikon D3's. But while most of us here are focusing on the 1d3 debacle, I would like to remind you that your failure to serve us over the last couple of years extends beyond just the 1d3. Specifically, you have failed to serve us in the area of providing the best professional quality lenses, particularly in the 2.8 pro zoom area.
Example 1: 16-35/2.8
Your 16-35/2.8 released in 2001 was inferior to the Nikon 17-35/2.8 which was released in 1999. The version II revision this year brought it up to parity -- perhaps parity -- without breaking any new ground. At the same time, you hyped this lens as being better across the entire zoom range than its predecessor. However, this is totally false. All testing that I have seen, including my own, proves that this lens was only an improvement from 16-21mm and was a clear regression from 24-35mm. I found this to be very, very disappointing. And while you still try to achieve parity with Nikon's 1999 design in this space, you have allowed Nikon to pull way ahead with a 14-24/2.8, which by early reports appears to be the best wide angle lens of the auto focus era, and at a price point hundreds less than your 14mm prime. You have been clearly spanked there.
Example 2: 70-200/2.8 IS
At the 200mm end, this lens is a clear disappointment. Many will refuse to acknowledge how soft it can be, but we know it's true. It is soft... You have proved to us with your 70-200/4.0 IS that you know exactly how to fix this issue in a same-size form factor in this zoom range (based on clear improvment against it's 4.0 non-IS predacessor), and yet you continue to withhold this desperately needed revision on us. I expect you will release a revision within the next year, but it's already too late as far as I'm concerned.
Example 3: 24-70/2.8
Overall, I think this is the most optically adequate I've mentioned so far, but you've allowed Nikon to pull ahead again with a slimmer and more attractive design that by early reports would seem to be optically superior. Additionally, this is a lens that for many customers has been an inconsistent performer with a reputation of requiring trips to CPS for calibration.
Yes, I would say that many of your other lenses are great, but those 3 serve the foundation of all daily professional work, and you have let those three slide into unacceptable disadvantage relative to your competition. When that is combined with the 1d3 incident, I am very inclined to give Nikon a share of my money. Mind you that I am not yet abandoning the Canon system. I am retaining about half of my Canon glass, particularly pieces like the 24/1.4 which Nikon does not offer. But sadly, my Canon bodies will be stuck at the 5D and 1d2 era until such time that you become trustworthy again.
Oh, and I must mention the final nail in the coffin: You, Canon, CLEARLY possessed all the abilities necessary to have built a 1d3 as a full frame camera that would have competed directly against the D3 as a true competitor. But instead, you decided to further the arbitrary segmentation of your product line, offering me two different cameras -- the 1d3 and 1ds3 -- which do not meet my needs. The Nikon D3 is the camera which YOU should have built, because you could have. Your decision to continue the 1.3x sensor was a major mistake. I know you have a cadre of telephoto shooters who think that 1.3x is the greatest thing ever due to the "free teleconversion" effect, but to the rest of us doing normal work, the full frame 12 MP low light capable specification embodied by the D3 was the PERFECT spec that we had been waiting for. And you totally dropped the ball on that.
So in summary, I feel betrayed 3 ways by Canon this year: The inept and unethical handling of the 1d3 debacle, the mishandling of lens offerings which has put Nikon way out front in the key area of 2.8 pro zooms, and the marketing mismanagement of the 1-series product line which allowed Nikon to bring the D3 to market with absolutely NO competition from you--an amazing disappointment.
I hope you can pull yourselves back together in less than a 3-year product cycle.
Best of luck doing that.
--
David Hill
http://www.davidhillphoto.com
Austin, Texas
)