Re: Sigma SD10 shots

Douglas... <canvaspix@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

>> The truth is not always a defense for libel. There is usual a
>> "unless uttered from malicious motives" or even a "with good
>> motives and for justifiable ends", to give a few, probably way
>> outdated, examples. IANAL.

>> Yet even assuming the whole truth thou dost speak, and nothing but
>> the truth, pray tell how can others have so different experiences
>> to yours?

> Firstly... You are correct that the truth itself is no defense to
> defamation. If however it is in the public interest that the truth be
> told, that is a complete defense to defamation.

First, I am not a lawyer and don't know which exact laws you
fall under, so go ask a real lawyer local to you for definite
information.

Second, what _you_ believe to be "in the public interest" may
not be what the judge and/or the jury (depending on who gets to
decide) believes. Like how necessary your _isolated_ experience
is to people world wide, even if they _are_ thinking about Canon,
e.g. about their printers, not cameras.

Third, ask you lawyer if "in the public interest" is always a
defense. See the examples above, one may claim that your motive
was malicious, or not for justifiable ends.

Fourth, can you _prove_ every statement? (You cannot prove
opinons ... for one example)

> The "public interest" in my statements is that anyone about to part with
> cash for a Canon 20D, a 580EX speedlite or a 24-70 f2.8 "L" series lens
> would probably be interested in my experiences.

You know, google exists, no need to repeat yourself over and
over again. And the vitriol in your descriptions, well ...

> Secondly... Even the most outspoken defendant of Canon 20Ds yesterday
> agreed that he had at least some of the problems I experienced.

Pleas prove that that is "*the* most outspoken defendant of
Canon 20Ds". This assumes you know *all* defendants and can
judge their defense ranking to a suficient degree to crown a
first place. You cannot? Funny that.

So, lets rewrite your claim "Someone (whom I won't name, but who
seems to think highly of the 20D) yesterday agreed that he had
at least some of the problems I experienced." Of course that
indicates that your terrible experiences were not terrible to
the average user, certainly not to the unnamed one.

> Additionally he announced when he used his preferred flash (A
> Quantum)with ETTL II on either of his 20Ds, the exposures and flash
> firing reliability was not predictable. How convenient for Canon.

So basically he said, Quantum flashes, being 3rd party, don't
work for him. Fancy that. Could be he doesn't 'get' them,
the same way some people don't seem to 'get it' with the 20D.
Could be the Quantums are broken. Could be they don't do ETTL-II
properly (the joys of proprietary interfaces!).

> So here we have 5 people who post to this group who have first hand
> experience of Canon 580EX Speedlites, significantly underexposing. Last
> week someone who got a lot more vocal with Canon than me, had his camera
> "serviced" so it would not do this... Prey tell: what is that if it's
> not evidence more than one person who bought a 20D and 580 EX Speedlite
> has problems with either or both?

I don't prey. Not even slipping freudian ways.
But tell me: how many thousand users of a 20D+580EX exist worldwide
and have no such problem? 1? 10? 50? So we are looking at 0.0x
percent of broken units? Sounds like _maybe_ a slight QA problem,
or just that _sometimes_ even the best QA procedures fail.

> Thirdly...
> Canon, shortly after shipping the first run of 20D cameras announced
> there was a fault in them.

Let me ask, the provider of the OS of your computer, how often
has he to admit a fault? Monthly?

> Firmware upgrade available from the Japanese
> web site. Judging by the number of posts on DPreview from people who
> tried the upgrade while the lens was still attached and killed their
> cameras, maybe a significant number of 20D owners had to return their
> cameras to Canon for a fix.

Misuse of the word significant did help kill the Columbia, and
I quote from the "COLUMBIA ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD (Report
Volume I August 2003)":

| The vaguely quantitative words "significant" and "significantly
| "are used 5 times on this slide, with de facto meanings ranging
| from "detectable in largely irrelevant calibration case study"
| to "an amount of damage so that everyone dies" to "a difference
| of 640-fold." None of these 5 usages appears to refer to the
| technical meaning of "statistical significance."
(The analysis by Dr. Edward Tufte of the slide from the Debris
Assessment Team briefing (also shown on the page), page 191 of
the report, page 15 of the PDF
http://caib1.nasa.gov/news/report/pdf/vol1/chapters/chapter7.pdf
)

So you *say* that "maybe" the number of people who had to return
their cameras was above statistical noise. That I could agree to.

But you probably *mean* (at last you seem trying to imply it)
that it's near an 'everybody dies' implication ...


And again I remind you that you ought to look at the relation
between bought and returned items, not at absolute numbers.


> Fourthly...
> Canon announced the firmware upgrade they had just released was faulty.
> The offered another one which failed to fix some of the faults it was
> supposed to fix.

The firmware was not faulty, 1.0.4 and 1.0.5 are, as I understand
it, identical. Merely the firmware loader was buggy, and could
be problematic, especially with 3rd party lenses attached (who
have reverse-engineered the camera-lens-protocol).

> Fifthly... Canon finally surcumed to customer pressure and announced a
> total recall of the "Grip" for 20D cameras.

Untrue.
They redesigned some imperfect areas of the grip (better contacts
(gold-plated, IIRC) for AAA "emergency use only" batteries,
sturdier contact grip (containing batteries or LiIon accumulators)
to camera. They also offer to repair or exchange affected grips
and adjust a camera setting (lower voltage cut off) for owners
of affected grips.

One of these days I might take up their offer. Yes, I *always*
use the grip. Yes I do use the camera. To me it's not a real
problem, though I see how it might be to others.

> At about the same time they
> issued yet another firmware upgrade to fix a problem when you used the
> flash.

The battery grip offer is mid July 2005, you mean 20D firmware
2.0.2 (early August 2005)? That's with the EOS Capture not
working with RAW+JPEG in firmware 2.0.0.

The one you mean, 1.1.0, is early December 2004 --- for a camera
anounced August 2004, you are *way* off. It's like saying unt
Emily, now 55, married around the same time (when she was 40)
she broke her leg (when she was 20).

And there's never been a geeral problem using flash, there had
been a problem using the *internal* flash at high ISO settings,
probably not even on ISO 800 ... Additionally, 3 languages were
added (increasing value to those speaking these, not fixing a bug!)

BTW, I bought my 20D with firmware 1.0.5, and never bothered to
upgrade. Why should I? I don't use the internal flash, I don't
speak Russian & co (1.1.0), I don't have a wireless transmitter
(2.0.0), I don't have v2.0.0 nor do I use EOS Capture (2.2.2).

> Sixthly... Canon have silently begun to provide chip replacements in
> 70-200 f2.8 lenses which exhibit loss of focus motion when connected to
> some DSLRs.

You mean Canon is fixing products that become broken? Similar
to Sigma rechipping lenses (as long as the chips hold out)?

In which way is that supposed evil, bad, anti-customer or planned
obsolescence?

Would you rather Canon not fixing their own lenses?

Oh, and I somehow doubt your statements, seeing as above claims
("total recall" (it might burst into flames, or what), "about the
same time", "firmware faulty") are at least subtly and misleadingly
wrong, and *trivially* researchable by the general public, like
simply browsing the dpreview news for Canon.

> Seventhly... Canon decide to introduce a full frame sensor camera at
> considerably more dollars than the 20D and call it an "Enthusiasts"
> camera.

So, you got a problem with marketing? Go talk to Microsoft
or any politican, see if they are any better.

> When every Professional in the world is frothing at the mouth to
> get one...

Resorting to hyperbole again?

Obviously not *every* "Professional in the world" is "frothing at
the mouth", not even figuratively, to get one. To name some
examples (assuming only photographer professionals):
- those with serious investments in a non EOS system, none in
the EOS system and happy with their system
- those shooting exclusively medium or large format
- those shooting exclusively on film

Let me ask, do you rate yourself a professional? From your
postings it does seem that way to me, making money with it and
all ... do you really frothe? literally? figuratively?

> How bloody convenient for Canon.

You mean Canon delivers a product that generates a lot of buzz
and is thought highly desirable? Very convenient, at least in
a free market economy! Even for me: Canon's not going down the
drain soon, so I can, in some years, upgrade to an even better
camera and keep the lenses.

> They told me I couldn't
> expect to use a 20D the way I was because "it wasn't a Professional
> camera"! No doubt the same excuse will be offered if the 5D turns out to
> fry it's electronics too.

I remember you using the camera in environmental conditions it was
not certified for. The allowable environmental conditions being
explicitely noted in the manual, and any professional being able
to read a camera manual, I don't see any problem except you being,
very understandably, disappointed.

But then, IIRC, you do live in a venerable furnance, and worse
go to even hotter places to shoot, don't you? I choose not to
use windows, so I have to learn what to look out for in terms
of interoperability, you choose to live where you do, you expect
not to have to be aware of these things?


Now, you see, a lot of what you wrote could be called libel,
and no truth defense will help you, as you did misrepresent the
truth and knew, or should have known, you did.

> All this Wolfgang, in the space of 8 months, for Christ sake. And you
> wonder why I'm pissed off because switching one of my 20Ds on was like a
> lottery. Maybe a win, maybe not?

I understand you being unhappy. I can almost emphasize, but
for the venom and the fact that your really don't mention your
not-quite-average environments might have a _tiny_ bit to do with
the cameras failure to perform as it does in more moderate clima.

-Wolfgang
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Resdy to buy
    ... the plunge and purchase a DSLR. ... I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a Canon ... If they can sell you a camera that will ensure that you have ... I find it truly amazing how everyone is wrong and you are the only one who stumbled on the truth. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • CANON CAMERA
    ... Canon Digital Camera ... Canon Powershot Digital Camera ... Canon Powershot S3 Is Digital Camera ...
    (sci.techniques.xtallography)
  • Re: Newbie to digital SLR
    ... let me tell you a little more about my needs and camera ... which included a lens. ... As for the Canon lens that came with my EOS-300; ... I've been looking towards Nikon. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • http://freh2.5webs.net/cheap-ca2a/map.html cheap canon 8 megapixel digital
    ... http://freh2.5webs.net/cheap-ca2a/index.html cheap canon 8 megapixel ... http://freh2.5webs.net/cheap-ca2a/floropp.html order 350d camera canon ... http://freh2.5webs.net/cheap-ca2a/jenernth.html order canon eos 350 ...
    (sci.lang)
  • User Report: Canon SD30 digital camera
    ... I have been using a Canon SD30 for about a week now. ... The camera is quite fast, faster than my old Canon SD10. ... photos of the same objects taken with the Canon SD10 and a Casio ...
    (rec.photo.digital)