Re: EOS 3 underexposure
- From: "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:33:38 -0700
Malcolm Stewart wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:omS8f.3847$UF4.3269@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> Sounds like you got a double whammy...
>> (battery/exposure)
>> Mine was fine, and used an amazingly small amount of battery power.
>> I then used the booster with AA batteries, and the things last
>> forever, it seems.
>
> Yes, buying new from Canon hasn't been too good an experience for me,
> but I still do it - so they've won. My EOS3 is a totally different
> beast now that I rarely use it. Strangely, I've done much better
> with my many s/h purchases. Just hope that my 3 day old 5D is OK...
I would have to agree that Canon has a spotty record with these sort of
things.
Skip has reported that one of his two 5Ds appears to have an off-set
sensor(?).
Get with it, Canon!! Sheesh.
I'm a Canon guy, but they really need to get their act together in this
regard.
There has been a flurry of design-flaw announcements lately from Sony,
Canon, Nikon and others...
-They're either coincidental, or perhaps they are taking advantage of the
opportunity to announce bad news in the context of announcements from their
competitors.
.
- References:
- EOS 3 underexposure
- From: Donald Specker
- Re: EOS 3 underexposure
- From: Malcolm Stewart
- EOS 3 underexposure
- Prev by Date: Re: EOS 3 underexposure
- Next by Date: Re: Steve Kramer and Charles Manson
- Previous by thread: Re: EOS 3 underexposure
- Next by thread: Re: EOS 3 underexposure
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|