October 22, 2014, 02:41:18 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Martin

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Noise & Aliasing Reduction for Small Pixels
« on: January 20, 2013, 01:19:12 PM »
I am not sure if I understood the post properly but there is no info what kind of patent is this. It could be a kind of digital post processing algorithm so It does't have to influence raw and sensor quality but jogs and noise reduction only from a digital side? Is that possible?

17
Lenses / Re: Help with Canon 85 F1.2 L II and Canon 5D Mark III
« on: December 30, 2012, 07:35:16 PM »
Check on flat surface or a text. Maybe one of the side is frontfocusing and the other one is backfocusing. Maybe the lens are not properly aligned inside. I am sure if that is a good conclusion but it might be the case. I have a similar problem with one of my L lens .from my test it seems thats the lens problem. Also check on other body. If i were you i would send it back.

18
Lenses / Re: 5D3 + 50 F1.2 L
« on: December 30, 2012, 04:18:24 AM »
Did you check if this is a lens decentralization or a body (AF sensors) issue ? Might be one of them. I would definitely check other lens . I had a problem with 35L which were not properly aligned inside.

19
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: right now i am not happy to be a canon user
« on: December 20, 2012, 07:35:56 PM »
look at the topic

20
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: right now i am not happy to be a canon user
« on: December 20, 2012, 05:44:03 PM »
and...I would understand if your pay for a camera which works flawlessly. Unfortunately I bought my in May, and so far, several European service actions hasn't fixes mine. Service in Germany even completely blocked one of my ,almost new, L lens. No one is willing to exchange the camera for a new one. I own 5 lenses (4 Ls) and that's why I  cannot be happy with Canon. Paid really a lot for the brand new, faulty body, without good working AF, so I feel like I just waste my money right now. I completely agree that Canon is too expensive relatively, but mine was the most expensive camera I had ever bought. I wanted to buy some new lens next year but I just cant. Trust me-that is a real reason to be unhappy with Canon, the will just left you with faulty body if you are unlucky. The issue and the whole case is not only my problem as there are also 3  other professional photographers on the local most known Canon forum, who have the same problem with Canon. We have been just completely left with faulty gear.  So my advice is double or triple check otherwise service will not help you in some cases.

When you say you are left with faulty gear, do you mean 1) it does not work as advertised and Canon won't fix it, or 2) that it does not work the way you want it to (but does work exactly the way it is designed)?

If the former (1), you have legal recourse available to you.  Contact your government trade commission and ask them how to file a complaint.  I seriously doubt that Canon repair really is leaving you high and dry - I want to hear the rest of the story.

If the later (2), then there is really nothing to be done, other than to either wait until Canon makes one works the way you want, see if Magic Lantern does what you want, or change to a different brand that may (or may not) work the way you want.

hey I am normal customer and photographer not a psycho, it obviously option no 1.


ad 1/ Do you think that 5d3 is designed to not achieving focus precisely? NO, and I think the same. Please have the full story (sry 4 my english-it not my mother tongue):

Bought 5d3 in May with 50 1.4 and 35L. I already own 24-70L, 70-200 L II IS, 135L, 85 1.8. The camera was faulty from the beginning. The focus points were completely misaligned. Took it to store, they advised to sent the camera to service in order to calibrate it with all lens. I was completely sure that that is not a issue with calibration but also with misaligment, therefore I made a detailed description. The body with lens was sent 2 times there and nothing was done besides standards calibration which obviously did not aligned AF sensors properly and did not adjust properly all lens. Sent it for the 3rd time and push them to exchange the camera. They did not exchange the camera but they exchanged the mirror box. It solve the misalignment issue but the lens was still not calibrated. After that 24-70 had problem with longer distance, 50mm was backfocusing for short distance. I also ask them to check a brand new 35L as I was sure it is soft so they should exchange it or fixed. They once more tried to calibrate all gear. After that 50 1.4 was still backfocusing at short distance, 135L started to miss at longer distance and 35L was still soft (nothing to do with calibration). They also stated that they checked 35L and it is fine. I was really frustrated with everything as  it took 3,5 months and I still did not have a flawless body which I paid for. I took 35L for testing and you know what? A look inside and the glass inside was  broken a bit, and it was for sure made during production. The lens was still just soft. So I was sure the service did not checked it seriously. I came back to store and bag them to exchange the lens, and they decided they will. The second glass was sharp! Besides that I still had focusing problems with body and other lens. First of all I checked once more the 50 and sent the test photos to service-they stated that it was calibrated correctly even if a show them bacfocused results(with lenscal). I though that maybe this is a lens issue so I sold 50 and tried 4 other 50mm samples from store to test at home. All were back focusing on short distance ( ca. 1m) . I did not buy any. So I thought it is camera issue. Next I decided to try other service so I bring the gear to Germany. They stated that the body is OK but some lens need calibration (already calibrated in my country). After that service activity my 135L  is completely blocked (aparture) and I have err 01 (lens was rarely used). Also I found that I my 35L is not focusing properly with right side focus points (front focus on right sensors) so the second copy is faulty or maybe that's a camera issue once more (but german service did nothing with this lens) Other lens, which now works acceptable like 24-70 focus properly on side AF points.  A. Trust me Canon service did nothing to REALLY solve the issue, and to satisfy me as a customer. They did what they know or pretend to but it does not solve the real problem. I know what 5d3 is capable of but mine is not. Its end of 2012 right now, and camera was purchased in May. Do u think I should be happy? I paid a lot for something that has't got its full value and I am left with the problem. That's the full story.

21
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: right now i am not happy to be a canon user
« on: December 20, 2012, 07:42:33 AM »
and...I would understand if your pay for a camera which works flawlessly. Unfortunately I bought my in May, and so far, several European service actions hasn't fixes mine. Service in Germany even completely blocked one of my ,almost new, L lens. No one is willing to exchange the camera for a new one. I own 5 lenses (4 Ls) and that's why I  cannot be happy with Canon. Paid really a lot for the brand new, faulty body, without good working AF, so I feel like I just waste my money right now. I completely agree that Canon is too expensive relatively, but mine was the most expensive camera I had ever bought. I wanted to buy some new lens next year but I just cant. Trust me-that is a real reason to be unhappy with Canon, the will just left you with faulty body if you are unlucky. The issue and the whole case is not only my problem as there are also 3  other professional photographers on the local most known Canon forum, who have the same problem with Canon. We have been just completely left with faulty gear.  So my advice is double or triple check otherwise service will not help you in some cases.

22
I had 5d2 and have 5d3 and those cameras underexpose permanently by ca. 1/2 EV, 2/3EV. I sent the 5d2 to the service and they stated that everything was ok, despite the fact I tested the cameras with wall against Sekonic external meter and a Nikon body.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: December 06, 2012, 07:49:14 AM »
...and to be honest I have no idea why someone mentioned the underexposing problem only with 6d while it is and was present in 5d2 and 5d3 as well. Maybe 6d underexposes even much more.

Funny you say that because in this side by side comparison a completely different conclusion is found:
 http://nevillelockhart.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/nikon-d800-vs-canon-mkiii-part-1/

Strange thing, however they should use an external meter as reference no a camera's one. I sell my 5d2 but I think it underexposed in similar way that 5d3 (-1/3 - 2/3)...I did not have D800 but it should work like other Nikons. However the test you've posted shows ineed a the different conclusion.

Please make a simple test-take few Nikon DSRLs, Canon, and ie. Sekonic Lightmeter-check the metering on ie. white wall-the histograms will be completely different in terms of exposure (histogram peak). I checked it some time ago with 2x5d2, 5d3, d70, d90, d300, d700 and sekonic. When I switched to Canon and just thought that my camera's meter was broken, cause I was used to brighter images in standard exposure. Nikon/Sekonic were ideantical giving a histgoram peak in center. Canon's peak were biased to the left ( ca. -2/3 or -0,5 EV).

A also found that there are some lens which gives a perfect exposure for my bodies - 85mm 1.8. The histogram peak was perfectly in center. All my other lenses gives different results. Why? No idea, aperture maybe ?

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: December 05, 2012, 08:15:16 PM »
trolling? I am writing about the facts only.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: December 05, 2012, 07:49:06 PM »
Also, I think that taking into consideration canon ISO sensitivities and explaining the underexposure in that way is completely illogical. OK..let it be that Canon cheat a little beat for marketing and put even ie. ISO 200 for 100, BUT the exposure should be always correct providing well lit images (well means-in line with standards, so the user may correct it with the scene evaluation, but the basic exposure must be predictable and" correct"). Maybe there is ie. iso 200 instead for 160 however, the light meter should match a longer shutter speed to give a standard lit image. Otherwise any user will have to deal with it in PP. That is not a standard behaviour. Canon could even name 3200 for ISO 200 (to make a wow! factor for high sensitivities) but it should not give you completely black image.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: December 05, 2012, 07:36:53 PM »
...and to be honest I have no idea why someone mentioned the underexposing problem only with 6d while it is and was present in 5d2 and 5d3 as well. Maybe 6d underexposes even much more.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: December 05, 2012, 07:31:29 PM »
The most funny and strange thing is that all Canons expose incorrectly and the most dissapointing thing is that almost no one in Canon would like to correct this (especially if we have to deal with banding when pushing up shadows) Some more advanced users noticed that especially when they has switched from Nikon or use any external light meter. To be honest it even does not require such a comparison. Just shoot any white wall or homogeneous surface. The histogram peak should be in the center. In canon bodies it is not. I've checked it with a lot of bodies and it always expose incorrectly. You even don't heve to mesure it-when you shoot any other brands-canons are darker. That's a huge mistake when you post process and its even more stupid if you shot jpgs.  I have no idea why people or other testing sites do not mention it loudly because it is serious and last for years. Take Nikon, take sekonic-identical metering, take Canon ca. -1/2 underexposure or even up to -1EV. As mentioned before I don't really get it, as Canon should have even a tendency to overexpose, cause there is a problem with banding when pp an underexposed image. Really strange for me...especially when we talk about a such a photo company.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: November 27, 2012, 02:37:04 AM »
I hope Canon will put a good AF there.

29
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon Sales Rising
« on: November 07, 2012, 02:20:29 AM »


Quote
That is appalling. Did you buy your 5D3 online or from a store? You would've thought that Canon would go out of their way to replace a high-end DSLR pronto ???

Bought it in a store which sells online too, however it does not matter right now. I could count only on service which really did not help me. It fixed one thing but untune everything else for a few times.

30
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon Sales Rising
« on: November 05, 2012, 04:48:08 PM »
You should be happy about the fact that finally you have a good one (D800). You should not blame N service as you are happy at the end. My 5d3 was  a crap since purchase. Sent it 5 times for service for fixing AF. I bought my body in May...still not working. That's Canon service from my point of view-and they did not exchange it for new and good copy .  I have terrible experience with Canon service. Now I have a 3500$ body without working AF.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7