Nah. I think that what you are seeing are some of people used to
"buying the best" or the leader with little knowledge of photography,
as you said. You know, the type that buys a Porsche and drives it
like a Buick and complains about the ride or engine noise. Unclear on
the concept. And what an ego booster to be able to criticize Canon
engineering. You must be so smart.
My take on camera QC, especially on lenses, is that it is better than
people think. I just don't think that the variation claimed by owners
or even reviewers would be allowable by the manufacturer. Of course
things can break or electronic components can fail, but I seriously
doubt that a Canon L lens leaves the factory out of spec.
I recently tried out a 400/2.8 lens on my D200 pointing it at birds
and despite a lot of years of experience with SLRs, I admit I get
flummoxed in a new situation with a very complex camera. It must be
hard for someone whose ego will not admit that he needs a simpler
camera and that he has nothing new to learn. It must be the lens or
camera.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Jun 5, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Surely Canyon's QC isn't that shabby?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|