Discussion
Reading reviews (canon stuff) it seems that almost every second review is written by a person who either had to try 2-3 cameras before he got one (new) from canon which worked - or several lenses, some are far too soft out the box, and for those who again had to try three lenses of the same model, often found that they all performed differently. Are canon renowned for poor QC??
Step away from dpreview now...
It's full of moaning pixel peepers
, most of whom have never taken a proper photo in their life.
I've got a ton (probably literally!) of Canon gear, and have only had one problem, which was fixed quickly and efficiently under warranty.
>> Edited by ehasler on Wednesday 22 February 09:37
It's full of moaning pixel peepers
, most of whom have never taken a proper photo in their life. I've got a ton (probably literally!) of Canon gear, and have only had one problem, which was fixed quickly and efficiently under warranty.
>> Edited by ehasler on Wednesday 22 February 09:37
There are a lot of posts from people who've bought their first ever SLR, a completely unforgiving piece of professional gear, and are suprised to find that their photos don't look like the ones in magazines. Clearly there must be something wrong with the camera! Unlike hi-fi freaks who can spend thousands on equipment and have no way of measuring how 'good' it is, (digital) camera freaks can zoom to 400% and look at those messy out of focus pixels. Given that at least half of them don't have a clue when it comes to pixels, resolution, aperture, hyperfocal distance and so on, it's not clear how they can be so sure that their kit is 'wrong'.
My 350D and two canon lenses are absolutely fine. When I get it right, the photos are stunning. On the other hand as a relative newbie, my old point and shoot produced more consistently good photos. That is, it produced photos that were rarely terrible (something I can do with ease with my DSLR) and rarely stunning (something I can do if I'm lucky with my DSLR).
>> Edited by Tuna on Wednesday 22 February 10:06
My 350D and two canon lenses are absolutely fine. When I get it right, the photos are stunning. On the other hand as a relative newbie, my old point and shoot produced more consistently good photos. That is, it produced photos that were rarely terrible (something I can do with ease with my DSLR) and rarely stunning (something I can do if I'm lucky with my DSLR).
>> Edited by Tuna on Wednesday 22 February 10:06
Tuna said:
My 350D and two canon lenses are absolutely fine. When I get it right, the photos are stunning. On the other hand as a relative newbie, my old point and shoot produced more consistently good photos. That is, it produced photos that were rarely terrible (something I can do with ease with my DSLR) and rarely stunning (something I can do if I'm lucky with my DSLR).
An excellent summary of DSLR-dom. I was disappointed when my D70 failed to turn in sparkling photos out of the box, then I started learning.
simpo two said:
I was disappointed when my D70 failed to turn in sparkling photos out of the box, then I started learning.
Ah, I'm the opposite..my best couple of photos so far from the 20D were taken almost as soon as I got it out of the box..The camera and lenses must have deteriorated now though as most of my shots aren't anywhere near as good
Perhaps I should upgrade UKBob, despite me having used film SLRs for far too many years for me to want to remember, the 20D still gives more features than I a) have learnt how to use b) likely to use. As a 'beginner', as you describe yourself, I really can't see the point of jumping straight in at a top of the range DSLR unless you just don't care about the money. I only decided on the 20D rather than a 'lower' model because the 20D felt so much better in my hands than the 350D etc. Have you actually played with any of the cameras yet or are you just basing everything on reviews?
UKBob said:
Reading reviews (canon stuff) it seems that almost every second review is written by a person who either ...
Have you read the Nikon reviews as well?
If so, was the pattern different?
I have had Canon 35mm kit for years, some bought used, and none of it has failed or disappointed on a realistic price/performance basis.
The only service work required to date was a change of the light seals/mirror cushion foam on my AE1, purchased in 1977 or '78 iirc. That work was last autumn after I noticed that the foam was turning to goo. It was still working fine though.
In fact over the years the family has only ever had 2 cameras fail. A Canon Canonette of about 1960 vintage (a first user compact of its day) which developed a shutter fault after about 15 years and some lack of use and a Praktica which was bought used and started an intermittent shutter problem at a similar age to the Canonette. By that time the thing was worth next to nothing so I didn't have it fixed.
I think failures are rare no matter who manufactures the kit. However the software, as with all software, can be iffy from time to time. That you can count on.
GregE240 said:Yep, for sure. Too true.
Its the same behaviour whatever Bob, nobody shouts when they get a goon 'un, its just the poor sods who get a dud that make the noise.
Firstly, the comments mainly came from fredmiranda.
But... most people were saying "I love the lens/camera, super stuff, totally happy, best decision I made etc etc etc" they sounded happy, and merely qupiied they did have to try 3 cameras, or 3 lenses, before they got one which worked as it should and was free from defect.
And there were also quite a few people who had to buy/try 2 cameras and 2 lenses, before they worked.
Coupled with comments (on dp
) of people saying canon had very bad QC, I just wondered if things were really as bad as they made out.cirks said:Im a beginner in the SLR world, but Ive got a G5 so am not a total beginner in that respect. Im basing my decision to buy an SLR on conversations had with 10+ friends/clients who own SLR's over the last few years. I made the mistake of not listening to them, and starting out with a G5 rather than a 10d. My justification was that I would save money. I regretted it almost instantly. Im basing my decision on which camera to buy on reviews and also by speaking to people. A 30d would suit me fine, but I would like to print as large as A1/A2, and would prefer something with a few more megapixels.
UKBob, despite me having used film SLRs for far too many years for me to want to remember, the 20D still gives more features than I a) have learnt how to use b) likely to use. As a 'beginner', as you describe yourself, I really can't see the point of jumping straight in at a top of the range DSLR unless you just don't care about the money. I only decided on the 20D rather than a 'lower' model because the 20D felt so much better in my hands than the 350D etc. Have you actually played with any of the cameras yet or are you just basing everything on reviews?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff