In the picture above you can see a car belonging to a Korean photographer, with banners attached containing a message about Canon’s EOS 1D Mark III camera. The text on those banners translates to: “Camera that is a piece of trash - Canon EOS 1D Mark 3.” Apparently, the problems with this camera drove the photographer so insane, he printed these banners and put them on his car to let the world know about it. Full picture and article can be found here. I can’t help but think that this guy spent his savings on this camera only to find out what a bad investment it turned out to be. Even the $8000 EOS 1Ds Mark III camera suffers from the same issues the 1D Mark III has. Imagine spending $8000 on that camera, and finding out you can’t use it for serious work.

And yet, this is the situation many photographers around the world have found themselves in, thanks to Canon. If you are new to this, I have written about all the quality control issues at Canon a few times already, just start looking here. Not only Canon camera bodies have problems, but even their lenses often contain issues right out of the box.

So after the release of the Nikon D3 and more recently D700, it’s no surprise that photographers everywhere seem to be switching to these camera’s. And it shows at major events. It showed at the Tour de France, and right now at the Olympics:

Photographer Michael Reichmann has made similar comments here:

In addition to being a fun perspective on a group of pros at work it’s also a sign of the times to note the number of Nikons (black) vs. the number of Canons (white) in the shot. For the past 10 years or so at almost any major sporting event the number of white lenses would almost always outnumber the number of black lenses by a huge margin. So much so that Canon has run magazine ads showing this disparity.

But that was then, and this is 2008. At this year’s Olympics the number of Nikons in use by pros seems to equal if not surpass the number of Canons. A definite sign of the times.

Photographer John Harrington comments on this here:

This year’s Olympics should well be the turning point where the sidelines of sporting events are - to pay homage to AC/DC - Back in Black. Nikon’s flagship D3 - even with a smaller chip than it’s competition the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III (and even it’s predecessor the 1Ds Mark II) has painted the sidelines at the Olympics (and so too, the news event press pens in DC) more and more black. (Click the photo to see it larger). This is substantially due to Nikon’s high ISO - insane at 25,600 ISO, and amazingly useful at 3200 and 6400 ISO without having to even think about it much. To add to this huge lead, consider Canon’s faltering with the autofocus mis-steps as highlighted by Rob Galbraith (repeatedly).

In a few days, I’m headed overseas on assignment for two weeks, and I’ll be working in mostly low-light museums and other national treasures in several countries. Even though I own an EOS 1Ds Mark III, and Mark II, instead, I am choosing to take my D3, and a D700 as well. It really was a no-brainer given the multiple times I won’t be allowed to use flash - but still am required by my client to make images during the trip. My Canons will sit in the equipment cabinet back in the office.

And as Harrington notes, Rob Galbraight recently released his final comments on the EOS 1D/Ds Mark III camera’s, and it doesn’t look good for Canon. Galbraith even mentions the EOS 40D:

While we haven’t written about the 40D’s autofocus performance before, we have done assignments with it and included the camera in various tests, starting at about the time it shipped in September 2007. Since then we’ve shot with four bodies, two focus-calibrated and two that came directly from the store shelf. Using focus-calibrated lenses with these bodies, the result has been the same: the 40D has real difficulties accurately picking up the focus on a moving subject and then tracking it from there.

…

A midrange digital SLR with a midrange price tag probably can’t be expected to offer the same autofocus performance as the company’s best. Even taking that into account, though, the 40D doesn’t fare well. It’s not that it can’t do the job at the level of a more expensive camera, it’s that it can’t do the job really at all.

And I have to agree, since I have experienced these issues first hand myself. For example, Galbraight wrote about the 1D Mark III:

Just enough testing was done to reveal a few things. Whereas the older firmware can introduce a change in focus distance with each One Shot activation, even if the AF point is aimed at the same subject at the same distance each time, the newer firmware seems to give more repeatable and accurate focus results under the same conditions. But if the test is done slightly differently - setting the focus to some other distance, then focusing one time on the subject using One Shot, autofocus variability seems about the same as before: there’s too much.

This same problem also exists with 40D cameras and it is very annoying because it’s unpredictable, and using it on assignments can give you (slightly) out of focus images where you don’t expect it.

Meanwhile, Canon remains quiet about all these issues that users are experiencing. Many people continue to invest large sums of money everyday in Canon DSLR bodies and lenses, only to find out they don’t work correctly out of the box.

Resale value of these items is also dropping fast right now, as Nikon has much better alternatives. I’m surprised a new defective 1D Mark III body still costs around $4000, when you can get a much better Nikon D700 with grip for about $3200. Canon must be smoking something very strong to think informed photographers are going to continue to buy the 1D Mark III at that price. But I think this reveals Canon’s strategy. And that’s a strategy of keeping quiet about the issues and not giving these problems a lot of publicity so they can continue to sell this crap to uninformed people as much as possible.

It remains to be seen what Canon will come up with later this year. They have been known to intentionally cripple products for “marketing” reasons (just look at the 40D and 5D). With Nikon now on the market with a D700 that can do almost everything the high end D3 can do, it seems Canon will have no choice but to release something at least as powerful. And if they can’t or won’t, they’re going to be in deep shit. Moreover, even if they do manage to release something better spec wise, if they can’t somehow improve the terrible quality control they currently have, they’ll continue to lose marketshare to Nikon. Because it doesn’t matter if you are the resolution leader with a 1Ds Mark III, when it can’t focus properly out of the box.

The Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L lens is another good example of the complete lack of quality control at Canon for the last few years. If you thought the 1D Mark III autofocus fiasco was a big problem, this seems to be much worse and up till now, after about 2 years, Canon simply refuses to comment on the issues hundreds, if not thousands, of users have mentioned with this lens. Apparently this case lacked a Rob Galbraith type of person who could really persist about the issues. In the case of the 1D Mark III autofocus fiasco, at first Canon didn’t seem too interested to look at the issues Galbraith was mentioning. After much feet dragging, they finally admitted there was a problem with the autofocus system of the camera, and then struggled for over a year to try and fix it (but failing each time), and up till now the camera still isn’t officially fixed. God knows what Canon Japan is up to. The amount of arrogance they’re displaying is simply astounding. As one user said:

However, for the last 18 months, Canon has displayed an arrogant, careless disregard for honesty and straight-forward practices. They have refused to replace cameras that are clearly defective (as demonstrated for them beyond doubt in my case, and in MANY other cases), and are churning out “L” lenses that ROUTINELY are WAY out of whack due to an apparent COMPLETE lack of testing.

If you’re new to this, take the time to read my previous posts on Canon quality control here, here and here. It’s worth it especially if you are considering to buy Canon DSLR hardware.

Now on to the topic. From the date of release (late 2006) of the Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L lens, it has been known to have a rather serious backfocusing issue. Many users reported this around the Internet very early on. If you just search on Google, you’ll find loads of information and confirmation on this problem. From here:

back focus with center AF point at f/2.8-f/4

———-

first the closing: I did return this lens.
At the store, I tried 2 other copies but those were form the same batch so I did not expect anything better.
I did try this lens on 2 different 1D series bodies FF and 1.3X (1Ds MKII and 1D MKII) and the result was the same: back focusing on distances 1-3 m. Now, I do have 3 other high speed EOS lenses (24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.2II) and none of those have this problem. So the statement from the previous reviewer on “accuracy” of my cameras sensors does not stand. The only lens with problem was the 50/1.2!
Sad, but I can not keep this lens at this time. Even with excellent results when manual focusing, I can not keep 50/1.2 just because those rare times when I really need critical AF (full open) ability…
———-

i will keep my canon service center story short but will say that i was very, very unhappy with how my problem was handled. lots of driving back and forth and, finally, the lens returned to me in the same condition as when i dropped it off.

finally, someone head my complaint and i brought the lens back to canon 1 final time.

HERE IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING:

1. the technician DID find that it backfocused.
2. he said that 4 CM was “within the spec” for the product.

i found this preposterous and asked him to have a crack at calibrating it.
he did.

in 20 minutes he was able to get the lens focusing properly on my 5D.

this 20 minutes was the culmination of 2 weeks of persistance.

in short:
- my copy of the lens did backfocus (i actually tried TWO copies: both with this problem)
- it was correctable.
- it was a terrible ordeal
- i have yet to determine if it was worth the time and aggravation.

this lens may yet go back to the store.

i am not a pixel-peeper and i rarely put my lenses through precise testing. this lens had GLARING issues, to my eye. perhaps my “review” will spare someone else a bit of grief.

———-

I tend not to harshly evaluate lenses, as I know that no lens will ever be perfect. However, this lens has been a very large disappointment for me (in addition to a waste of time and money). I heard plenty of talk about focus issues with this lens and how it’s not much sharper than the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens. Still, I purchased it because I expected very good contrast and wide aperture effects (thin dof, pleasant bokeh).

I did experience the above characteristics, but the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens suffers from a design flaw: focus drift and backfocusing. The lack of a floating aspherical element means there will be depth of field aberrations when stopping the lens. That is, the depth of field will appear to shift back when narrowing the aperture.

I have evaluated four copies of the lens on two camera bodies (one old calibrated body and a relatively new body), and each copy exhibits backfocusing. Even after compensating for the backfocusing, the lens sharpness at the center of the image circle within the depth of field isn’t too good. I compared it against the 50mm f/1.4 USM lens at f/1.4 and f/8. While the 50mm f/1.2L is the clear winner at f/8 in terms of contrast and sharpness, at f/1.4, the 50mm f/1.4 lens actually wins out in sharpness. I couldn’t believe it so I exchanged the lens once in May. Same deal. When I decided to give the lens another chance in October, I was disappointed yet again.

People with a need for speed will buy the 50mm f/1.2L USM because of its strengths and in part due to a need for speed. But with severe issues in terms of the focusing and focus drift, I don’t think any price, no matter how reasonable, can justify this lens’ flaws. If you’re looking for a great f/1.2 lens, the EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM will do everything you ask of it. But as for the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, buyer beware.

———-

When it focuses on the subject, it’s sharp, provides excellent contrast and beautiful bokeh. It’s really well built and feels great on a 5D. When it misses the focus on the subject … which seems to be most of the time … it’s not sharp, and is intensely frustrating to use. All 4 copies I’ve used demonstrate consistently inaccurate auto-focus with varying amounts of backfocus at all apertures - plus focus shift at f/2 - f/4 for close-in subject distances. My calibrated 5D focuses just fine with 85/1.2L II, 100/2.8 USM Macro, 70-200/2.8L IS, etc…

———-

I returned the lens because of repeatable mis-focusing/softness at about four feet, using an aperture of f2, that made purchase of the lens pointless. I have rated the lens at 7 but in truth I would not rate it at all-except as a paper weight(is that too mean?) Perhaps I was doing something wrong-but I don’t think I was - I am a very experienced photographer. I may test a different 50mm 1.2 in the future. But should one have to do quality control on such expensive optics?

And from here:

After my first shot with the 50 1.2L, I went WFT?!?!? It was seriously backfocusing… and I never experience that with my famed 85 1.2L lens.

———-

On the 50/1.2 Canon decided to save a few bucks and over-simplified the mechanics of the focusing mechanism.)

And from here:

Ok, so I need some input. I just received my 50 1.2L and took some test shots. It has focus issues as described by many, many people.

———-

I got a 50L. This one had something really wrong with it and all shots were fuzzy. I’ve never seen anything like it. It wasn’t OOF….it was just all fuzzy. I sent it back.
The second 50L I got consistently backfocussed about 4″ at all apertures. This was not the famous focus shift issue….just a straight up backfocus. I sent it back.

———-

I went through two different 50Ls before returning to the 85L. Like Jeffrey said, they all have the focus shift, it’s just part of the lens.

———-

I got rid of mine as well. Even using the alternate focus points didn’t seem to make much difference. I’m much happier with my 35L, 85L, and 50 1.4 than I was with the 50 1.2. I tried at least five and they all had the same issues. Really wanted the lens to be decent, but no such luck.

———-

Surely, the chances of two copies being THAT bad are very slim, right?
I thought the same, but gave up after 5 or 6.

From the review here:

It was been mentioned by others that the 50 f/1.2 exhibits slight back-focusing at these maximum magnification, near-minimum focus distances. Since I don’t shoot with a lens like this at these distances very often, I had to go back and check mine. And my aditional tests confirmed a slight backfocusing at 10-20″ or so. The mis-focusing isn’t dramatic, but will have a slight negative effect on image sharpness at these distances.

William Castleman did some tests with this lens, and you can clearly see the issues here:

I concluded that the Jackson 2004 FocusTestChart detected real focus problems at the very short working distance (46cm). These misfocus problems are of questionable significance because I almost never try to produce wide aperture images at the shortest possible working distance to produce tack-sharp images. With the EF 50mm f/1.2L focus function was normal at longer working distances (129 and 258 cm).

Let me make this very clear: THIS LENS BACKFOCUSES / MISFOCUSES AT ALL DISTANCES AND ALL APERTURES AND IS SIGNIFICANT. At longer distances it is just harder to detect (but if you look for it, you find it), as well as smaller apertures because the focus plane is deeper. But the back focus problem remains. I have done my own tests which confirm this. The backfocusing happens only when using autofocus. Manual focus works OK.

If you’re wondering what this means in real world shooting, have a look at this picture:

50mm, f2, 1/50s, ISO 400

At this size, it looks ok, but when you look at the actual pixels, you see that the focus is WAY off. I focused on the left eye, and the camera decided to focus around the ear instead, while still giving the focus confirmation on the left eye! Check the 100% crops below:

Wrong focus on ears because of the defective lens.
50mm, f2, 1/50s, ISO 400

This eye should have been in focus.
50mm, f2, 1/50s, ISO 400

This is absolutely unacceptable behaviour. Imagine having to work with this lens, and find out later that the focus is off on almost all your pictures. You focus on the eyes, and you get the ears in focus instead. There’s a lot more on this here with some sample pictures of backfocusing. With this kind of performance, you can’t consider this lens for any kind of serious work. Just think of what will happen when you print such a picture large enough. Commercial work is out of the question. And with a price of about $1500 you have to wonder what the fuck they’re smoking at Canon HQ to expect to sell this to people. The only reason why they’re still selling it seems to be because they keep quiet about the issues and people buy it not knowing better, and finding out about these issues later.

Representatives from Canon were also sent information about this problem early 2007 if not much earlier. But up till today, Canon has still not officially commented on this problem, provided no fix, and simply pretends there’s nothing wrong. Meanwhile they are perfectly happy to keep selling a defective product to everyone without any kind of warning about the issues which they KNOW exist. The only comments about this lens were made unofficially by Chuck Westfall from Canon USA in emails to some users:

I asked chuck westfall for an update last week and this was his esponse:

“Technical discussions about the EF50mm f/1.2L USM are continuing to occur between Canon USA and Canon Inc.. The matter is not resolved yet, but it is most certainly not being ignored. Unfortunately, I can’t say much more about it until there is an official conclusion.”

————————-

If you look through all of the threads on the 50L you’ll find that a bunch of us wrote Chuck last May and got the response back that an announcement was expected from Canon in the near future. Follow-ups with Chuch haven’t gone anywhere. Here was his response:

“Canon Inc. is definitely aware of the claims concerning the AF accuracy of the EF50/1.2L USM. They’ve been investigating for the past couple of months, and I am told that there will be some kind of public announcement forthcoming in the near future. Stay tuned, and thanks for using Canon equipment!” - email from Chuck Westfall 5/24/2007

Since we’re now in July 2008, and that email from Westfall was in May 2007, I have to wonder what Canon’s definition of the “near future” is. And again, meanwhile they are perfectly happy to keep selling a defective product to everyone without any kind of warning about the issues which they KNOW exist. They even thank you for using their defective equipment.

At this point I have to ask myself, who the fuck tests these products at Canon? What kind of engineers do they have working there? When I got my copy of the 50mm f1.2 lens, I noticed within a day of using it that it was back focusing. And this was without doing real focus tests, just from normal use. How in god’s name, does Canon manage not to notice this big problem, and proceed to manufacture the lens? Seriously, how?? Is there even some kind of quality control at Canon? It’s the same with the 1D Mark III autofocus issues. Who the fuck tested that camera? How did they manage to release it with an obvious defect in the autofocus system, one which they still can’t seem to fix after a year, even after a few attempts?

And what is even more astounding, is that these issues aren’t small issues. They are CRITICAL issues. If you can’t take a picture that is in focus, that should be a MAJOR showstopper. Focusing well is one of the most important things that this equipment should be able to do. What is the use of having a lens that can’t focus well?? It’s practically unusable! If this is Canon’s idea of delivering good image quality, they might as well rub some vaseline on the sensor of every body they release from now on.

This is what Canon says about this lens:

The EF 50mm f/1.2L USM is suitable for any shooting situation; its lens coating and construction are optimized to minimize the ghosting and flare that frequently occurs when lenses are used with digital cameras. This high-performance, weather-resistant lens delivers all the superb image resolution and contrast you expect in a Canon L Series Lens.

Simply awesome. 

What is even more incredible, is that Canon seems to get away with this kind of behaviour as well. I look at this and keep asking myself how it is that companies seem to get away with such behaviour these days:

Another thing that has me amazed, is that I cannot understand how consumers seem to be so tolerant these days. It seems companies can do to consumers what they want and even rip them off, like Microsoft is now doing, without them even saying anything about it. Such a move from Microsoft should at least have sparked some major PR issues for them if not lawsuits. But consumers these days appear to have a very high level of tolerance. I recently also wrote about the bad quality control at Canon, with regards to their DSLR products. And there you see a similar problem, consumers are having issues with the products not working well, even out of the box, and many are complaining, but it looks like they just accept it for some reason as being normal. When has it become normal for a company to massively screw so many customers on such a large scale, as Microsoft is doing? When has it become normal to buy a DSLR and finding out that it does not work (well) as soon as you power it on? When has it become normal to buy a lens for your DSLR and finding out it only takes soft pictures and doesn’t focus well?

Indeed, when? And why wasn’t I informed? Did I miss a memo or something?

It looks like Canon might have taken their position as market leader for granted, and got sloppy for a few years now. With Nikon coming back into the game, it’ll be interesting to see how Canon will behave from now on. Many pros are switching to Nikon these days, and black Nikon lenses are replacing the white Canon lenses (image from Tour de France 2008 from here) everywhere. With their DSLR division operating at DEFCON 1 right now, maybe they’ll show some improvement. Meanwhile, their customers are still being screwed around the globe, and trust me, they’re not using any kind of lube.

If you’re from Canon, I understand if you initially almost get a heart attack to see another post on my blog about Canon, especially since my last few posts about Canon were not very positive. Yes, there’s a lot that Canon needs to work on, and I’m quite sure that after the 1D Mark III autofocus fiasco the shit hit the fan at Canon in Japan. If you thought that was an isolated incident, think again. It appears to be part of a structural quality control problem at Canon and I’ve written about it here a few times. And after the release of the Nikon D3/300 and recently D700, I have it on good authority that the entire DSLR division at Canon was taken to their equivalent of DEFCON 1. Various Canon managers and engineers were hand delivered messages by actual ninja’s, threatening with “serious consequences” if things don’t get better in the near future. So I have to say, I’m very interested to see what Canon releases later this year.

Anyway, back to the topic. Last weekend I took some pictures with my Canon EF 135mm F2.0 lens, and I have to say, this is an incredible lens. Many reviews around the Internet will tell you this lens is sharp, and boy is it sharp! Even wide open at f2. Colors and contrast are great, and bokeh is very nice and smooth. This is a great lens for portraits (easily isolate subjects from the background), candid photography (you can get subjects close from a distance) and even some sports. I’ve posted some samples below, just some snapshots of my family, and with most of these pictures, using the EOS 40D body (1.6x crop), I was able to stand 8-12 meters away and give them more than enough room to walk around, while still being able to get them close on the pictures and throwing the background out of focus.

My daughter Sarah. I bite her at least once every minute.
135mm, f2, 1/250s, ISO 100

Sarah with my dad.
135mm, f2, 1/250s, ISO 100

Sarah with my dad.
135mm, f5.6, 1/250s, ISO 100

Sarah grabs everything within range.
135mm, f2, 1/250s, ISO 100

Sarah with my dad.
135mm, f2, 1/200s, ISO 100

Sarah with my dad.
135mm, f2, 1/200s, ISO 100

Sarah with my dad.
135mm, f2, 1/250s, ISO 100

Sarah grabbing flowers.
135mm, f2, 1/320s, ISO 100

Sarah with my dad.
135mm, f2, 1/800s, ISO 100

Sarah, my girlfriend and me.
135mm, f4, 1/500s, ISO 320

Sarah with my girlfriend.
135mm, f5.6, 1/80s, ISO 100

Sarah with my girlfriend.
135mm, f5.6, 1/80s, ISO 100

Sarah with my girlfriend.
135mm, f2, 1/250s, ISO 100

Sarah with my girlfriend.
135mm, f2, 1/500s, ISO 100

Below is a 100% crop of one of the pictures above. Converted from RAW, no sharpening applied. You can see the amount of detail and sharpness you can get with this lens starting at f2.

135mm, f2, 1/250s, ISO 100

As you can see, the stuff Canon sells is actually pretty good if you can get a good working copy. This lens is also great for low light work. Together with the 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 lenses from Canon, the 135mm f2 is a prime that can deliver some of the most beautiful images.

Nikon has announced their second full-frame camera body, the D700, and it looks like they have a killer product on their hands. I’m not going to write about all of the details here, you can get more information from these links: Nikon D700 Brochure, Nikon D700 Page, Preview on DPReview, More Information. In addition, Nikon has also announced a new flash (SB900) and some new lenses.

With these announcements, Nikon is giving Canon a serious blow. If you look at the technology that is in the D700, Nikon seems to be far ahead of Canon, and it doesn’t seem likely that Canon will be able to have an answer to the D700 in the near future. Not too long ago I wrote:

And now they are rumored to be working on the 5D mark II body. If that body doesn’t have as much focus points as the Nikon D3/300 (or very close), if it doesn’t have micro adjust for lenses and if it doesn’t have weather sealing comparable to the 1D bodies, they don’t have to release it at all in my opinion. Because Nikon is going to be a much better alternative, as it already is right now. Weather sealing on the Canon EOS 40D is laughable. It’s incredible that Canon even claims that the 40D body is weather sealed. That is simply a big lie.

Canon needs to get their act together ASAP in order not to further damage their reputation, or what remains of it at this point.

Nikon already was a better choice since they launched the D300 and D3. And now with the D700, there simply is no arguing.

The features of the D700 which I like the most are:

• The 51-point auto focus system. You only get this many auto focus points in Canon’s 1D series bodies. The 40D has only 9 points, which quite frankly is hilarious in this day and age. Even the Nikon D300 has 51 points. Less points is seriously limiting your composition options.
• Nikon’s Live View implementation with Contrast-detect autofocus is MUCH more useful than Canon’s. Contrast-detect lets you focus ANYWHERE in the frame in live view. Having used this feature on the Sony DSC-R1, it is amazingly useful. Canon not having this is a serious handycap.
• Nikon’s D700 body is fully weathersealed and built like a tank. Canon’s 5D is a cheap plastic toy in comparison. Canon’s 40D is not weathersealed.
• Exceptional image quality at high ISO ranges, compared to Canon.
• High resolution LCD screen, compared to Canon’s crappy LCD screen on all their bodies.
• Microadjust feature (AF Fine Tune) for lenses with slight autofocus calibration errors. This is a VERY important feature as you can fine tune the autofocus system to get the sharpest images possible. Canon’s 40D and 5D bodies don’t have this. Only their expensive 1D series bodies have this feature, which is fucking stupid. Especially when they can’t seem to calibrate most of their lenses well and their quality control is non existent. If their next 5D body and 50D body don’t have this feature they can close down their camera division for good. I wonder what kind of morons work at Canon that decide to leave microadjust out of camera bodies like the 40D. If they did that to make people want the 1D series bodies more, they are getting what they deserve from Nikon right now.
• Nikon seems to understand Flash more than Canon, since they are including a color filter set with the new SB900 flash. Everyone knows that Nikon’s flash system is better than Canon’s, and the SB900 takes it a step further.
• Nikon’s D700, D300 and D3 bodies feel better, more comfortable, in your hands because of their design.

The only thing Canon has going for them right now is that they have a better lens lineup, though most of their lenses are very old and in serious need for updates. But this won’t get them very far, because Nikon is starting to catch up with their lenses. And better yet, all of Nikon’s new lenses include their latest innovations such as Nano coatings. I think the only thing Nikon needs right now are some light sensitive lenses that can compete with Canon’s f1.2 primes lineup.

And to think that Nikon might be releasing the D3x later this year, probably with all the features of the D700 but with a 24 megapixel sensor inside. That will put even Canon’s 1Ds Mark III to shame. Canon is going to have serious issues from now on. Even Sony is launching their 24 megapixel A900 later this year. That is sure to cause the highly inflated price of the 1Ds Mark III ($8000) to significantly drop. I wondered why the 1Ds Mark III ($8000) had to be so expensive compared to the 1D Mark III ($4000). The bodies are almost identical except for the 21 megapixel full frame sensor in the 1Ds Mark III. Does that justify a price double that of the 1D Mark III? Later this year, we’ll find out when the Sony A900 and Nikon D3x get released.

The price of about $3000 for Nikon’s D700 will further bring down the inflated prices for Canon camera bodies. Canon won’t be selling the 1D Mark III anymore if they don’t drop the price to below $3000. Not that it matters, because since the release of the D3 and D300, Nikon has been the better choice for camera bodies. If you have to buy a new camera now, you should just invest in a Nikon body. It won’t surprise me at all to see pros switching to Nikon, as already seems to be the case everywhere. And with all the quality control issues at Canon (part 2), they make it very easy for you to decide.

It’s going to be interesting to see what Canon can come up with now.

Update: Here are some sample images from the D700: Page 1, Page 2. Exceptional high ISO performance. With this performance in low light, you get even better results when using fast lenses as well.

Also, it seems Canon continues to struggle with their lack of quality control and Canon users everywhere continue to suffer. Just check out some user comments here from this thread on DPReview:

I’m right now in the process of boxing up my brand new 35 1.4L lens and sending it back for replacement. The stupid thing couldn’t focus within 12 FEET of an out-door target (and I’m not kidding!!). Not even CLOSE.

And that’s AFTER a +20 micro-adjust on the $4500 body they claim is “fixed”!!

I’ve just about HAD IT with Canon’s BS.

———

Their quality control is absolutely in the toilette…and anyone who denies that is sleeping. How many people are on their third or fourth copy of a 100-400? How many people had the same with a 24-70?

How many times have you had to listen to one more post asking the LEGITIMATE question, “Did you get a GOOD COPY of ___ L lens?” Or, “I hope you get a good copy.”

Ridiculous.

———

However, for the last 18 months, Canon has displayed an arrogant, careless disregard for honesty and straight-forward practices. They have refused to replace cameras that are clearly defective (as demonstrated for them beyond doubt in my case, and in MANY other cases), and are churning out “L” lenses that ROUTINELY are WAY out of whack due to an apparent COMPLETE lack of testing.

Pros from every corner of the globe have to routinely send their BRAND NEW LENSES in …just so they will work up to specifications.

This is totally unacceptable, and is FAR WORSE than in the past.

I own 11 L lenses. The most recent 3 have ALL needed major adjustment, and the trend is more and more and more problems.

How many times have you read a post saying, “I hope you get a good copy” or “I’m on my third/fourth copy and FINALLY got one that is sharp!”

This is common now, and the word that fits this pattern is indeed…RIDICULOUS.

And from another thread:

So here is the deal. I have a 1D Mark IIN, a 500/4L, a 400/5.6L and a 135L. Both the 1D Mark IIN and the 500/4L were calibrated for severe back focus independently. The 400/5.6L front focused severly and was calibrated for that. I got the 135L after all of this calibration and it was spot on out of the box. These are all spot on now. So I trust all of these are calibrated and focus correctly.

I just got a 40D tonight. Put it through my usual first AF test with the nice feature I can now test this against the liveview. And guess what - it back focuses. $&#$@@!~~**#

Here is the standard battery test. Furthest battery on the left, closest on the right, middle battery the focus point - all at a 45 degree angle longitudial to the lens axis. 100% crops.

I’ll tell ya, I am about ready to chuck it in, return the 40D, and sell all of my Canon gear. What a royal PITA. That is 2 lens I have had out of calibration, two bodies, and I have had IS fail on another L lens after 7 months. I would just like to be able to for once buy some equipment, receive it, and start using it

———

I dont like to whine but i feel your frustrations as i have had a similair experience with all the Canon gear i bought, a 40D severely frontfocussing, a 70-200 backfocussing, a 400mm frontfocussing (which was all dealt with by a Canon servicecentre…but it took many weeks for the gear to return from Canon which i consider unacceptable by itself…) and now i have a similair problem (again..) because the 400mm began to show a serious defect (after 3 months of usage) and while i got a (new) replacementlens from canon (which is positive by itself) that is up to the same level as the first lens IQ-wise…its also backfocussing just like the first copy wasnt properly in calibration…

With so many calibration ‘faulties’ one would have expected Canon to give us atleast a feature to instantly calibrate it on the fly, be it via the body or what do i care how as long as i wont have to sent my gear in all the time and will be able to shoot-on as i need to.

And before somebody comes rushing in saying these things can happen but dont occur that much…yes they do as a lot of my fellow shooters have had to deal with the very same, from their MKIII’s to their 40D’s to their L-lenses.

The Canongear-quality overall is outstanding but its a very bad thing they dont seem to take the time to properly calibrate the stuff before it leaves the factory…

———

Well duh, no kidding. Why should I have to send every bleeding piece of equipment into calibration for Canon. The stuff is not cheap.

And I didn’t even mention my 1d Mark IIn being in twice and out of my hands for a month to fix severe banding at high ISO. This was also out of the box. They had to replace the whole sensor assembly.

———

Canon needs to *&(#()* up and get their act together. I’ve sent in equipment twice and got it back with no apparent improvement although the Canon Service center stated that xyz was replaced and cleaned (8-[)…

Doesn’t look so good, does it?

I mentioned this before on my blog here, but it looks like it just got worse.

In case you didn’t know, Al Gore, the man who would like you to use less energy, think of the environment and is scaring everyone with global warming bullshit, owns a house that uses 20 times more energy per month than an average home! Yes, that’s 20 times MORE energy than an average home.

Even after changing his home to become more energy-efficient and environment friendly, his power usage has actually GONE UP. Imagine that. How the hell is that possible? Just check this out:

NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.

Looks like spreading all the global warming bullshit is making Gore a richer man. Good business as usual, it seems.

Don’t forget to watch a documentery titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” which you can download here with Bittorrent. You might learn something from it.

I’ve been meaning to write about this for a long time now. And today, after reading this article on Jim Gray, I thought of finally writing about him on my blog. If you don’t know who Jim Gray is, and want a little background on him, check this link. He was one of the brightest scientists of our time and a very nice human being, from what I’ve read, and seen from video interviews with him. Check out this interview Robert Scoble did with him back in 2005.

On January 2007, Jim Gray went missing during a solo sailing trip to the Fallon Islands near San Francisco. When you read enough about what happened, you’ll discover that he just suddenly, somehow, vanished from the face of the earth without a trace. There are a lot of things about this that just don’t seem to add up. At least in my opinion. And here’s why:

1. Jim Gray is a very intelligent guy. Him getting into any kind of trouble and not being able to do something about it is not very likely. Him getting into trouble in the first place, especially as a result of his own mistakes, is not very likely.
2. Jim Gray used to make solo boat trips all the time, and so I would assume he has experience with it. This was not his first time ever, alone on his boat. And again, he’s the kind of guy that should be able to take care of himself.
3. The weather on the day he went out sailing was very very good!
4. Gray’s boat was equipped with an automatically deployable EPIRB (Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon), which should have deployed and begun transmitting the instant his vessel sank.
5. So, Jim Gray is smart, he certainly had experience sailing alone where he went, the weather was good, the boat had a EPIRB - what the fuck happened? How could he vanish from the face of the planet without a trace?
6. Even if something happened, one of the most massive search and rescue efforts took place after that in order to find any trace of him, just check this out:

The Coast Guard searched for four days using a C-130 plane, helicopters, and patrol boats but found no sign of the vessel.
However, Gray’s boat was equipped with an automatically deployable EPIRB (Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon), which should have deployed and begun transmitting the instant his vessel sank. The area around the Farallon Islands where Gray was sailing is also well north of the East-West ship channel used by freighters entering and leaving San Francisco Bay. The weather was clear that day and no ships reported striking his boat, nor were any distress radio transmissions reported.
On February 1, 2007, the DigitalGlobe satellite did a scan of the area, generating thousands of images. The images were posted to Amazon Mechanical Turk in order to distribute the work of searching through them, in hopes of spotting his boat.
On February 16, 2007, the Friends of Jim Gray Group suspended their search, but continue to follow any important leads. The family ended its search May 31, 2007. The massive high-tech effort did not reveal any new clues.

So, what do we have here? One of the smartest guys on earth goes out sailing in a familiar location, being an experienced solo sailor, during clear weather, and vanishes without a trace. His boat has a EPIRB, which should have started transmitting a distress signal as soon as it sank, but that also didn’t happen. Perhaps it didn’t sink? Thousands of highly detailed satellite images (560,000 images from 3 satellites, covering nearly 3,500 square miles of ocean) revealed absolutely nothing! A 4 day search by plane, helicopters and boats by the coast guard as well as many others (friends, family etc.) revealed nothing. A massive undertaking by Friends of Jim Gray, revealed absolutely nothing.

How the fuck is this possible? It is astonishing to me that apparently nobody has asked this question before. How the fuck is this possible? I mean, what are the odds here?

If you ask me, there are two options here. Either Jim Gray went hiding all by himself, tired of the world and just wanting to be left alone, or, he was abducted. Nothing else makes sense. Apparently someone, somewhere, was in need of a seriously smart database expert to help solve their problems.

If you think I’m kidding, think again.

All relationships are based on expectations. It doesn’t matter what kind of relationship it is, or between whom or what the relationship is. It could be a romantic relationship between two people, a partnership, friendship, between businesses and clients, or for a few technical examples, relationships between two tables in a database, or between two computers trying to establish a TCP/IP connection. Either side, and there could be more than two sides or parties involved, expect one or more things from the other side in order for the relationship to be established and to keep existing. The relationship cannot keep existing if either side does not meet the other’s expectations, and in such a case has no use.

In this post I’ll concentrate more on romantic relationships, or relationships based on love. So when I use the word relationship, that’s what I mean from now on.

In my opinion, the only expectation that should exist in a romantic relationship between two people, is giving and receiving love. Any romantic relationship which is based on other needs is doomed to fail. This has always been my main requirement for entering into a romantic relationship with someone else. The only thing I would expect from her, is to love me and give me enough attention and anything that naturally comes with that. I wouldn’t expect anything else. And I would want her to expect the same from me.

These days people enter into relationships with all kinds of wrong motives and expectations. This is one of the reasons why many relationships don’t work on the long term. For example, you have women, usually in their late 20s when they feel like they have partied enough and want a more stable life now, looking for men “to take care of them.” You have young boys and girls wanting to be with someone to be popular, or to be able to feel like they are part of something. Relationships based on such motives don’t have a lot of potential to last long, simply because they are based on the wrong things. If a girl is with you because of your money, what do you think will happen when one day you don’t have enough of it anymore? If she’s with you because of your status, what do you think will happen when one day you lose it?

A relationship based on love, true love, has the most potential to last long. It doesn’t mean that it will always last long, but just that it has the best chances to last long. And here, I’m talking about a relationship between two people as we know it in the traditional sense, where they remain faithful to eachother and essentially agree to belong to eachother (with or without marriage). Even this relationship, even though it has the best chances to last longer, often doesn’t last very long these days. The reason why is because people and situations can change over time. Apart from the fact that people can naturally change over time, it’s often also the case that they were just pretending to be someone else at the start of the relationship, just to meet the other’s expectations in order to establish the relationship. You can’t pretend to be someone else your whole life, and sooner or later, the other person will start to see the real you. Apart from the fact that it’s not easy to pretend to be someone else your whole life, you can also never be happy being someone else and doing the things that you don’t like.

Another reason why such a relationship doesn’t last very long, is that it is often limiting to both people involved, and its duration will depend on the level at which both people are able to live with the limitations they impose on eachother. I wrote before about love and limitations, and I wrote back then that such a relationship is not natural. People naturally want to be and feel free. And so limitations in relationships, or with regards to love, will only cause trouble.

Essentially, what I’m saying is that relationships in the traditional sense (boyfriend-girlfriend, husband-wife) and love, don’t belong together. Why? Because it’s not natural, and anything that is not natural, will require a lot of (wasted) energy to keep going.

It was about time I did another photography update on my blog. About a week ago I had the opportunity to do another shoot with a model. Nothing too fancy, just a simple shoot for her portfolio. It was her first time modeling, and I think she has great potential. The shoot lasted for about 5 hours, including the time for me to set up my stuff on location and pack everything up again at the end. Below you can see a picture showing the setup that I used for all the images: 

Two large softboxes, a hairlight, large sheets of white paper held together with duct tape, and a piece of black cloth. The shoot was done at Leaders Group Conference room, which became my studio for those 5 hours. An excellent location for a wide variety of reasons, very pleasant to work at. It’s also where I did a previous photoshoot. You can clearly see wineglasses in the image above, which is an indication that people were enjoying themselves.

Make-up and styling was done by Euvie Karijoredjo. I had previously worked with her on another photoshoot. She did a very nice job again, and in particular created some really juicy looking red lips for some of the images below. As a direct result, it wasn’t very easy for me to look at the model while operating my camera at the same time. But things worked out in the end. Below are a few pictures of Euvie working on the model. All these pictures were taken using the Canon EF 50mm f1.2L lens, which is one of my favourite lenses to use, shot using available light.

It looks like Ron Paul might be a Freemason. I can’t say I’m surprised. This explains why he could seem so intelligent and take good positions on many subjects, and yet, when it came to one of the most important subjects, sound completely stupid. This is what I wrote recently:

While you may think that Ron Paul is a highly intelligent man, with some really brilliant views, somehow he isn’t capable of viewing the available evidence on 9/11, and seeing that there’s something wrong there. Any person that is able to think clearly, and objectively looks at all the information about the attacks on 9/11 can only come to one conclusion: That 9/11 was an inside job. At the very least, they should realize that the official story about 9/11 is completely ridiculous.

And yet, Ron Paul somehow can’t get himself to look at all the available evidence and see that there is something seriously wrong. In fact, he even says he wants nothing to do with people who believe 9/11 was an inside job, even though he’s quite happy to receive the millions in donations from those same people. Just look at this video and also this one starting at 2:30. Is Ron Paul simply blind to the facts, or does he just really want to get elected and remain politically correct? There’s something seriously wrong and fishy about this. It appears he’s just another corrupt politician.

And now it’s clear what was going on. Ron Paul is just another gatekeeper. His purpose is to appeal to a certain group of people and control their efforts to try and change things and ultimately defuse them, while at the same time robbing them from their money (via donations), which will ultimately be used by the organization of which he is a part of (and now we know what organization that is).

Again, the fact that Alex Jones is still supporting him, even while Ron Paul made his views on 9/11 Truth public, should make you wonder if Alex Jones himself isn’t another gatekeeper operating at another level.

And finally, I’m including the article I linked above here just to make sure it doesn’t vanish from the Internet:

I know this is a taboo subject among Ron Paul supporters, of which I was one myself in the very beginning of his presidential campaign. And even if it is proven beyond any doubt that he is a freemason, many will just put it aside and pretend it doesn’t matter “because he is such a decent and honest man” etc. But many others are very curious to know what RP’s status is regarding Freemasonry because it does matter, and I fully intend to find out myself. Therefore, it is high time we started talking openly about it and try to ascertain the truth, one way or another.

I just happened to stumble across this comment over at the Daily Paul yesterday, and thought that I should share it with whoever is interested in knowing whether or not Ron Paul is a Freemason.

This does not prove anything in that regard, however it makes the probability that he is a Freemason very much higher since Eastern Star members are generally married to Freemason husbands, Rainbow girls are generally children of masons and because Ron Paul’s father was also a mason. And in addition, according to the comment, he “respects the organization”, which is wholly uncharacteristic of anyone who is supposedly fighting against the masonically-inspired New World Order. Ron Paul is also an unofficial member of the John Birch Society, which was founded by masons, funded by Nelson Rockefeller and run by Jesuit-trained Knights of Malta. In other words, the JBS is a gatekeeper organization, designed to control the opposition and make sure nothing substantial is ever done to impede the New World Order system which just keeps on rolling over humanity. How about the Jahbulon Bullshit Society for a more appropriate name?

Here is the comment in full rebutting an anti-masonic posting:

Ron Paul and Freemasonry

On April 20th, 2008 the oak says:

Liberty Oak Ranch

Quit using Ron Paul as a forum for your bigotted beliefs. You don’t know anything about him or his ideals obviously. You also know nothing about the Freemason or Eastern Star organizations.

1. Ron Paul’s father was a Freemason and Dr. Paul has said himself many times that he respects the organization and has been to many of the open meetings in his district. I should know, I was his scheduler for ten years.

2. His wife, Carol is a member of the Velasco Order of the Eastern Star and maintains her membership in the Freeport area lodge.

3. Their daughters, Lori and Joy, were both Rainbow girls, another organization associated with Freemasonry.

Your hatefilled retoric regarding a benevolent, Biblically based organization is likened to those who have a fear of the unknown. It spawns lies and hate toward those who are innocent and have done good for others. Just try taking your child to the Shriner’s burn or crippled childrens hospital. They will take care of your child regardless of your ignorance and will do it free of charge. How many people has your paranoia helped?

Source: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/46310
Unfortunately, the link now says “access denied” for whatever reason. Maybe you can explain to me why the link no longer works. I even tried to find the page again through a Google search (how I found it originally) and nothing. Poof! Gone. No trace. Not even a Google cache available. I wonder why? Hmmm….

If anyone knows the actual identity of this “scheduler” with the handle of “Liberty Oak Ranch”, please share it here with us to help confirm the validity of the comment.

I looked up the Eastern Star chapter being referred to if anyone wants to try and research this further:

Velasco Chapter No. 220 (District 4)

Worthy Matron: Mrs. Leota Romine
Worthy Patron: Paul Romine
Secretary: Mrs. Yvonne Huffhines
1210 N. Avenue O
Freeport Texas 77541
2nd & 4th Mon 7:30pm
Ph. (979) 233-1567

 

Then, one might assume that Ron Paul frequently goes (as the scheduler claims) to meetings at a masonic lodge in the same area, so I found this lodge listed with the Grand Lodge of Texas website which it would seem is a very likely candidate for being one of those lodges he attends:

Velasco Masonic Lodge #757

Douglas Raborn W.M.
email Edward Garcia edgarcia005@sbcglobal.net
Masonic District 31-C
Located in Brazoria County
115 year old Lodge ( Charter granted December 8, 1893)
Members: 176
Lodge Address: 1210 N. Ave. O, Freeport 77541
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 757
Meetings: First and Third Tuesday of each month, 7:30 p.m.
Lodge Phone: 979-233-3623

As I gather more information on what I am 90% sure is a fact, that Ron Paul is a high Freemason of the 33rd degree or above, who knows the masonic agenda and yet keeps it all a secret from his supporters (as Dick Cheney kept his CFR membership a secret from his constituents in Wyoming), I will immediately pass it on to you the public who have a right to know the truth.

PW

PS: Keep an eye on this post as I believe I will be updating it with new information over the next few weeks and months. If you have something definitive regarding Ron Paul’s membership in any secret society, please post a comment with specifics.

After receiving a lot of feedback from my previous post on Canon Quality Control sucking bigtime, I thought it would be good to write an update. Before you read on, please read my previous post including the comments to make sure you know where I’m coming from.

A day after my previous post, I noticed that I got banned from the forums at DPReview. And my thread on that forum where I discussed my blog post got deleted as well. Apparently the moderator(s) there, whoever they are (Phil Askey?), don’t like the fact that I seemed to have enough courage to question the many issues Canon seems to have with their DSLR products. Even though I mentioned that the basis of my post was not only because I had experienced issues first hand, but also that I had noticed a trend on the forums where you had posts discussing focus issues every day. And to this day, this trend continues, as I have shown in the comments section of my previous post. Click here to check for yourself. As you will also notice from the feedback I got in the comments section of my previous post, there are many who have issues and agree with me, and you will find many more posts with similar issues by just searching on Google. Today I even noticed a thread on DPReview, where the poster said:

Seems every other thread you read here is about a camera and/or lens not focussing properly or some other issue that results in lousy photos. I’ve had lots of good examples of bad photos

I’m glad I am not the only one who noticed.

I also got feedback from a few professional photographers operating some of the popular digital imaging sites online today, and they also wrote to me in agreement. I noticed however that very few of them talk about these issues openly. And indeed it seems many are afraid to speak up, perhaps afraid to hurt their relationship with Canon or others. Who knows? I was surprised to find photographer Lloyd Chambers courageous enough to post a comment on my previous post where he just honestly admitted to the many issues with Canon lenses, even mentioning:

I would estimate based on my own experience that somewhere between 30-50% of brand new pro-grade lenses have at least mild optical issues, and some, like the 70-200/4 have moderate to severe ones-.

The 30-50% estimate is roughly what I thought myself based on what I have seen online. And I don’t know about you, but that’s A LOT. If this is true, it proves Canon’s quality control is bad. When I browsed around Lloyd’s website, one thing made me understand how he could speak his mind so freely:

Diglloyd.com accepts no manufacturer advertising.  Much content is free [free articles, blog] , but paid reviews help finance the site. Equipment used for paid reviews is purchased through normal retail channels; manufacturer discounts are not accepted.

It’s easy to be honest when you don’t accept ads or other gifts from manufacturers. You don’t have to worry about losing income, losing deals or hurting your relationship with them. I wish more people could be like this. It’s easier to trust Lloyd’s reviews on his website because of this.

But on DPReview? I mentioned issues and got banned. Perhaps there are things we can conclude from this. But I’ll leave that to your own imagination.

But again, what is very clear is that Canon has a major quality control issue on their hands, and every day users write to complain about it, as I have shown here. And again I have to remind you, this is just on one site, searching on Google reveals lots more.