Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon Products - JUNK IMO

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:02:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I am severely disappointed in Canon products. The 20D is NOT worth the
money. Come to think of it, DSLRs in general are not even worth the hassle!
Seriously, what good is it if you are constantly worrying that changing the
lens because of dust issues. so, you don't change the lens, which defeats
the whole purpose of why most folks bought a DSLR to begin with! Back to
Canon. I loved the film SLR cameras. AE-, AE-1 Program, EOS Elan IIe. 20D?
Well, in my experience it is an overpriced piece of junk! I also have a
Canon i9900. Same story, overpriced piece of JUNK. You would think that
using all Canon products (camera, ink, paper, printer) things would come out
half way decent. Nope. Quick labs do a much better job of printing than the
all Canon products... The 20D is more in line with what I would expect to
pay for about 200-300 bucks for a camera. It does not last, and will be
useless in about a year. Unless you can justify the 100 bucks a month (cost
to life cycle), it is not worth it. I say about a year based on the shutter
life expectancy.. You THINK you are getting a quality product, but wait,,,,
don't take too many pics, you want the shutter to last!!! What a joke. And
the "L" lens? Please, again overpriced junk that has sheep following
them....

Tossing all my Canon stuff out in the garbage. Good riddance!
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:03:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Some Computer wrote:
> I am severely disappointed in Canon products. The 20D is NOT worth the
> money. Come to think of it, DSLRs in general are not even worth the hassle!
> Seriously, what good is it if you are constantly worrying that changing the
> lens because of dust issues. so, you don't change the lens, which defeats
> the whole purpose of why most folks bought a DSLR to begin with! Back to
> Canon. I loved the film SLR cameras. AE-, AE-1 Program, EOS Elan IIe. 20D?
> Well, in my experience it is an overpriced piece of junk! I also have a
> Canon i9900. Same story, overpriced piece of JUNK. You would think that
> using all Canon products (camera, ink, paper, printer) things would come out
> half way decent. Nope. Quick labs do a much better job of printing than the
> all Canon products... The 20D is more in line with what I would expect to
> pay for about 200-300 bucks for a camera. It does not last, and will be
> useless in about a year. Unless you can justify the 100 bucks a month (cost
> to life cycle), it is not worth it. I say about a year based on the shutter
> life expectancy.. You THINK you are getting a quality product, but wait,,,,
> don't take too many pics, you want the shutter to last!!! What a joke. And
> the "L" lens? Please, again overpriced junk that has sheep following
> them....
>
> Tossing all my Canon stuff out in the garbage. Good riddance!

Where do you live so I can swing by and rummage through your garbage. ;) 
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:03:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

i don't know what happened to give you such a bad taste, but know that
there are thousands, millions even, of very happy canon customers, and
every person i know that makes a living off of photography uses only
canon. why is it that you're so angry at them?

and if you think L lenses are junk, you're NUTS!! but i'll be happy to
take them off your hands regardless ;) 
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
July 4, 2005 6:03:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Some Computer wrote:

> I am severely disappointed in Canon products. The 20D is NOT worth the
> money. Come to think of it, DSLRs in general are not even worth the
> hassle! Seriously, what good is it if you are constantly worrying that
> changing the lens because of dust issues.

Well Olympus thought of that one..

> Back to Canon. I loved the film SLR cameras. AE-, AE-1 Program, EOS
> Elan IIe. 20D? Well, in my experience it is an overpriced piece of junk! I
> also have a Canon i9900.

If you're getting poor results from the i9900, you just don't how to use it.
I see from your other post you are trying to plug the camera into the
printer? You might be better off with one of those kodak shoot and print
dock setups.

Yes these products may be too complicated or you can't be bothered to read
the manuals etc and might be better off with a P&S and let a lab fix all
your mistakes for you?

>
> Tossing all my Canon stuff out in the garbage. Good riddance!


I'll pay the postage for both of those, I'll even give you $100 each for
them! ;-)
--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:03:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <nN0ye.9555$Fy4.9211@trnddc04>, Some Computer
<BiteMe@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I am severely disappointed in Canon products. The 20D is NOT worth the
> money. Come to think of it, DSLRs in general are not even worth the hassle!
> Seriously, what good is it if you are constantly worrying that changing the
> lens because of dust issues. so, you don't change the lens, which defeats
> the whole purpose of why most folks bought a DSLR to begin with! Back to
> Canon. I loved the film SLR cameras. AE-, AE-1 Program, EOS Elan IIe. 20D?
> Well, in my experience it is an overpriced piece of junk! I also have a
> Canon i9900. Same story, overpriced piece of JUNK. You would think that
> using all Canon products (camera, ink, paper, printer) things would come out
> half way decent. Nope. Quick labs do a much better job of printing than the
> all Canon products... The 20D is more in line with what I would expect to
> pay for about 200-300 bucks for a camera. It does not last, and will be
> useless in about a year. Unless you can justify the 100 bucks a month (cost
> to life cycle), it is not worth it. I say about a year based on the shutter
> life expectancy.. You THINK you are getting a quality product, but wait,,,,
> don't take too many pics, you want the shutter to last!!! What a joke. And
> the "L" lens? Please, again overpriced junk that has sheep following
> them....
>
> Tossing all my Canon stuff out in the garbage. Good riddance!

Troll!
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 2:12:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Some Computer wrote:
> I am severely disappointed in Canon products. The 20D is NOT worth the
> money. Come to think of it, DSLRs in general are not even worth the hassle!
> Seriously, what good is it if you are constantly worrying that changing the
> lens because of dust issues. so, you don't change the lens, which defeats
> the whole purpose of why most folks bought a DSLR to begin with! Back to
> Canon. I loved the film SLR cameras. AE-, AE-1 Program, EOS Elan IIe. 20D?
> Well, in my experience it is an overpriced piece of junk! I also have a
> Canon i9900. Same story, overpriced piece of JUNK. You would think that
> using all Canon products (camera, ink, paper, printer) things would come out
> half way decent. Nope. Quick labs do a much better job of printing than the
> all Canon products... The 20D is more in line with what I would expect to
> pay for about 200-300 bucks for a camera. It does not last, and will be
> useless in about a year. Unless you can justify the 100 bucks a month (cost
> to life cycle), it is not worth it. I say about a year based on the shutter
> life expectancy.. You THINK you are getting a quality product, but wait,,,,
> don't take too many pics, you want the shutter to last!!! What a joke. And
> the "L" lens? Please, again overpriced junk that has sheep following
> them....
>
> Tossing all my Canon stuff out in the garbage. Good riddance!
>
>


I believe I understand your problem. It appears that your two brain
cells have migrated through your cerebral fluid and come in contact with
each other producing friction and thus overheating which in turn has
turned you into a mentally handicapped version of a human being.

Perhaps you just don't understand how to make a complicated camera
work? Instead of bashing one of the best cameras on the market you might
want to ask for assistance in figuring out how to get the most out of
your system.

Tim
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 7:09:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Some Computer wrote:
>
> I am severely disappointed in Canon products. The 20D is NOT worth the
> money. Come to think of it, DSLRs in general are not even worth the hassle!
> Seriously, what good is it if you are constantly worrying that changing the
> lens because of dust issues. so, you don't change the lens, which defeats
> the whole purpose of why most folks bought a DSLR to begin with! Back to
> Canon. I loved the film SLR cameras. AE-, AE-1 Program, EOS Elan IIe. 20D?
> Well, in my experience it is an overpriced piece of junk! I also have a
> Canon i9900. Same story, overpriced piece of JUNK. You would think that
> using all Canon products (camera, ink, paper, printer) things would come out
> half way decent. Nope. Quick labs do a much better job of printing than the
> all Canon products... The 20D is more in line with what I would expect to
> pay for about 200-300 bucks for a camera. It does not last, and will be
> useless in about a year. Unless you can justify the 100 bucks a month (cost
> to life cycle), it is not worth it. I say about a year based on the shutter
> life expectancy.. You THINK you are getting a quality product, but wait,,,,
> don't take too many pics, you want the shutter to last!!! What a joke. And
> the "L" lens? Please, again overpriced junk that has sheep following
> them....
>
> Tossing all my Canon stuff out in the garbage. Good riddance!

As usual, an anonymous poster. Go take some indigestion remedy and quit
trolling.

Colin
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 8:11:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mon, 04 Jul 2005 02:02:59 GMT skrev Some Computer:
[snip]
>
> Tossing all my Canon stuff out in the garbage. Good riddance!
>

Please, toss all your Canon L lenses into my garbage can - I'm happy to
pick them up :) 

--
Mandus - the only mandus around.
July 4, 2005 8:22:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Actually I think Canon engineers and builds products quite well as far as
the electro-mechanics go.
Where Canon falters across its entire consumer product line is in
programming, both what is embedded in the devices and in the software that
accompanies them.
Think about all the firmware updates for the Canon dSLR line, particularly
for the D20. The firmware for that camera was buggy on release, which is not
atypical for Canon.
Canon printers are capable of excellent results but the software drivers and
color management protocols are so bad they make the printers more useful as
doorstops unless you want to recalibrate them yourself.
In part this is due to Canon's too rapid new product cycle. The software is
never finished for new products and many new products, most recently the
Pixma printers, are merely repackaged i9x printers. If you do not believe
this then look at the replacement inks--they are the same as for the i9x
printers. Same printer head, same color gamut, same software driver.
Caveat Canon emptor.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 8:22:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> writes:

> Think about all the firmware updates for the Canon dSLR line, particularly
> for the D20. The firmware for that camera was buggy on release, which is not
> atypical for Canon.

It's probably one of those "Damned if you fix the bug, damned if you
don't". All software comes buggy and at least Canon tries to fix it.

If software vendor A has 25 (security) bug fixes for its products (during
a, say, period of 1 year) and vendor B has none for its line of products,
who is better? It could also be that B doesn't give a damn about its
software line (and bug fixes for it), we don't know. There is no such thing
as bug-free software.

Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
July 4, 2005 10:45:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

birdman wrote:


> Canon printers are capable of excellent results but the software drivers
> and color management protocols are so bad they make the printers more
> useful as doorstops unless you want to recalibrate them yourself.
>

The driver isn't too awful if you RTFM but the profiles included with the
printer are pretty bad.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:38:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 7/4/05 9:22 AM, in article _mdye.296$6%2.237@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com,
"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Actually I think Canon engineers and builds products quite well as far as
> the electro-mechanics go.
> Where Canon falters across its entire consumer product line is in
> programming, both what is embedded in the devices and in the software that
> accompanies them.
> Think about all the firmware updates for the Canon dSLR line, particularly
> for the D20. The firmware for that camera was buggy on release, which is not
> atypical for Canon.
> Canon printers are capable of excellent results but the software drivers and
> color management protocols are so bad they make the printers more useful as
> doorstops unless you want to recalibrate them yourself.
> In part this is due to Canon's too rapid new product cycle. The software is
> never finished for new products and many new products, most recently the
> Pixma printers, are merely repackaged i9x printers. If you do not believe
> this then look at the replacement inks--they are the same as for the i9x
> printers. Same printer head, same color gamut, same software driver.
> Caveat Canon emptor.
>
>

I would strongly disagree with your statement about Canon's software. I have
always been a Nikon fan and user. Had a reasonable amount of money invested
on Nikon equipment including many reasonably expensive lenses that made my
investment on camera bodies pale in comparison. It was only natural for me
to purchase Nikon digital SLR bodies to preserve the investment I had
already made on lenses.

My first digital SLR was a Nikon D100. The results were very disappointing
to say the least. Please keep in mind that my main application involves
close-up and macro photography. After testing the D100 for approximately 3
days I contacted the vendor and arranged an exchange for a Canon EOS 10D
which has served me really well up until recently when I replaced it for
another Canon digital SLR. The photos taken with the Nikon D100 were very
inconsistent as far as color accuracy and reproduction were concerned. Nikon
only offers one (1) macro flash (SB-29s) and it does not sync with the
camera in TTL mode. In case one is trying to obtain consistent lighting and
good color reproduction this is not the flash to use. Since both Fuji and
Kodak use Nikon lenses and flashes, this same problem applies to their
cameras (with the exception of Kodak's new digital SLR that uses Canon
lenses and flashes).

Canon offers not only one but actually two outstanding macro flashes that
sync in full auto TTL with their camera bodies - the MR-14EX ringlite and
the MT-24EX twinlite. Both are outstanding products that allow the user to
either get as creative as he wishes or to set everything to auto TTL and let
the camera to the rest. Simplicity and reliability as I see it with very
consistent and reproducible results. Canon also offers a superb macro lens
(MP-65 1x-5x) which offers up to 5 times magnification if mounted on a body
with a full frame sensor (such as the EOS 1Ds Mark II) and up to 8 times
magnification if mounted on a camera with a reduced sensor size that
requires the 1.6 x lens conversion factor (such as the EOS 20D). This can
only be accomplished with a belows, belows extension and a number of other
not so easy to use accessories in case you are working with Nikon cameras.
Not to mention the issue of light metering. Canon's MP-65 macro lens works
in full sync with their cameras' metering systems. It only requires focusing
as it is not an auto-focus lens. The rest is quite simple. Try this on a
Nikon mounted with a belows, belows extension and all other required
accessories !

Last but not least, as an objective user who also owns a Nikon D70 and a few
other Nikon film cameras, I feel unbiased enough to make this statement.
Canon has been a very good surprise particularly in the digital SLR arena. I
am now using Canon's only for professional (medical and dental) photography
and only use the Nikon D70 to try to take advantage of the lenses I already
owned. The quality of the D70 does not (in my very humble opinion) compare
to that of Canon's cameras (the closest comparison would be the EOS 20D),
from image quality to craftsmanship.

Since one of the replies relates to Canon's inability to write proper
software for their digital products I will also have to say that I don't
agree with this assessment. I initially used Canon's File-Viewer utility
that accompanied the EOS 10D. This software was very simple to use and had a
good interface. It was then updated and somewhat replaced by the newer
version EOS viewer utility. This update represents an improvement over an
already good software. The software that came with my Nikon D70 (Picture
Project) is one of the least user-friendly and most problematic programs I
have used to date.

A recent review on a respected professional photo magazine also praised
Canon's efforts and the image quality from its CMOS sensors. The D70 came
out short and reviewers stated that they expected this camera equipped with
a CCD sensor to produce higher quality images. The D70 produced images that
were in the lower end in terms of image quality in a group that also
included Fuji, Minolta and Olympus SLR digital cameras. After insisting on
CCD sensors Nikon seems to have finally accepted the benefits of CMOS
sensors and adopted them for their D2X.

I have several colleagues that come to me and ask what digital SLR I would
recommend. Based on my experience my suggestion is for them to stay with
Canon. More accessories available, better image quality, better construction
and craftsmanship, better software, better integration. And if you are
serious about close-up or macro photography Canon is the only game in town.

Best regards,


--
Dr. Joseph Chamberlain, D.D.S.
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:38:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" <drjchamberlain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BEEEEC62.15CB6%drjchamberlain@earthlink.net...
> On 7/4/05 9:22 AM, in article
> _mdye.296$6%2.237@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com,
> Nikon
> only offers one (1) macro flash (SB-29s) and it does not sync with the
> camera in TTL mode.

OK, I'm confused. The SB-29s is promoted as a "TTL Speedlight for Micro
Nikkor and Select Lenses." So was the problem specific to the D-100?

Walt
July 5, 2005 1:58:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

birdman wrote:

> Canon printers are capable of excellent results but the software drivers and
> color management protocols are so bad they make the printers more useful as
> doorstops unless you want to recalibrate them yourself.
> In part this is due to Canon's too rapid new product cycle. The software is
> never finished for new products and many new products, most recently the
> Pixma printers, are merely repackaged i9x printers. If you do not believe
> this then look at the replacement inks--they are the same as for the i9x
> printers. Same printer head, same color gamut, same software driver.
> Caveat Canon emptor.
>
>
I agree - except that I don't believe that it's due to rapid product
cycles. In my opinion, the Canon Pixma and 9900/9950 printers produce
great looking prints of landscapes, macro shots of flowers etc. As a
subject matter, they are the prints that are going to have far more
"wow" factor in the showroom than portraits. Within reason for those
prints, colour accuracy doesn't matter much, and most people will prefer
nice vibrant colours and that "kodachrome" look over colour accuracy.
I use a different printer and a reasonably calibrated monitor - and get
pretty accurate results printing portraits - often with no colour
adjustments applied to the ex-camera result. Change the subject matter
to landscape or a macro shot, but use the printer at the same settings,
and the photos still look quite good to me, but almost everyone prefers
the same picture with saturation increased significantly and a lot of
unsharp mask applied before printing. I don't use the auto scene modes
on my camera, but for someone who either does not want to, or does not
know how to do post processing of images, then I expect that using the
auto modes on the camera is going to give them the best results. That
probably covers the bulk of the market - and that is who Canon are
trying to reach - "advanced simplicity".
I think that Canon know exactly what they are doing, and they do it
well. They sell printers, and despite their colour accuracy flaws and
vastly overstated implied claims for dye based ink longevity, I bet they
sell more consumer level photo inkjet printers than HP and Epson combined.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 9:39:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

CAREFUL!

Do *NOT* throw those Canon products into the garbage ... they are quite
possibly TOXIC WASTE.

Contact *ME* ... off-list, ship them to me, and I will be happy to take
care of your disposal problem(s).

[ S-CNR ... ;-)) ]




"Some Computer" <BiteMe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nN0ye.9555$Fy4.9211@trnddc04...
<snip>
>
> Tossing all my Canon stuff out in the garbage. Good riddance!
>
>
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 9:00:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 7/4/05 3:32 PM, in article J5ydneXiHt-5JFTfRVn-vg@comcast.com, "Walt
Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> "Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" <drjchamberlain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BEEEEC62.15CB6%drjchamberlain@earthlink.net...
>> On 7/4/05 9:22 AM, in article
>> _mdye.296$6%2.237@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com,
>> Nikon
>> only offers one (1) macro flash (SB-29s) and it does not sync with the
>> camera in TTL mode.
>
> OK, I'm confused. The SB-29s is promoted as a "TTL Speedlight for Micro
> Nikkor and Select Lenses." So was the problem specific to the D-100?
>
> Walt
>
>
Walt:

You can trust me on this one. I have contacted Nikon's technical support and
done extensive research and tests on this very issue. Nikon is the first to
admit that the flash does not sync in full auto TTL mode. The problem is not
specific to the D100. I own a D70 and it doesn't work with this camera
either. Unfortunately the SB-29 (and also the newer SB-29s) is not a full
auto TTL flash. Although it is a "TTL" it does not sync with the camera in
the same automatic and reliable manner that Canon flashes do using their
E-TTL mode that is fully controlled by the camera and its metering system.

I have used this flash with my Nikon F100 film camera for slides and it does
work in TTL. However, it requires manual adjustments (such as determining
and setting the proper aperture based on the ISO speed of the film and the
distance from the subject) to be made which make it more complicated for
those without photographic experience (and even those with experience are
inconvenienced by having to take the time to pay attention to this variables
and set the flash accordingly. When photographing a surgery, for instance,
one does not have this kind of time). The beauty behind the macro flashes
from Canon is the fact that one can simply set them to auto mode and
everything else is handled by both the camera and flash in full auto sync.
Overall, Canon has a superb system for those interested in macro and
close-up photography.

Best regards,


--
Dr. Joseph Chamberlain, D.D.S.
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
!