RG : never happened before

as far as I can tell it never happened before that the reputation of a camera was totally depending on a 1 (one) reviewer's opinion!

well done RG, including the "suspance" .

the new thing is that everything now goes on the internet. Times are changed.



P.S.: meaning that now we can't tell if our camera works anymore: we need to wait for a review before saying that it works.

It's a new age.

If you've got the goods and can back it up, your credibility skyrockets and thousands will value your opinion. If you stumble, you're toast.

The power of the internet will force Canon to act. (It has already and may continue to)

antonello wrote in post #4468381
as far as I can tell it never happened before that the reputation of a camera was totally depending on a 1 (one) reviewer's opinion!

well done RG, including the "suspance" .

the new thing is that everything now goes on the internet. Times are changed.



P.S.: meaning that now we can't tell if our camera works anymore: we need to wait for a review before saying that it works.

The reputation of a camera does not totally depend on one reviewer's opinion. I would look to the opinions of the likes of some of the well-respected posters here on POTN and other forums as being as good a guide as anyone else in making judgement on a camera. My opinion is that few look to RG for the definitive word.

That said, I respect his opinion. And it does carry weight, as Rob Galbraith does have a solid reputation and is trustworthy. But his voice is but one in many that matter in this situation. So yes, I await his word on the 1D3, but no, it won't be the ONLY word.

This may sound a bit arrogant, but I don't rely on reviews to determine whether my equipment is good or not. I do like to peruse several reviews before I make a determination as to whether to get new gear or not, and I pay special attention to the reports and threads here. There are several reputable reviewers out there, but they bring their own bias (and expectations) to to the table. If my gear does what I need it to do, and does so reliably, then it serves my purpose.

Having said that, I agrew with Zivnuska that their is power in these reviews that can persuade large manufacturers like Canon to act, though I think in most cases, pressure from the profession would have required them to implement corrective action in long term. The reviews probably accelerated their response.

Mark

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #4469715
This may sound a bit arrogant, but I don't rely on reviews to determine whether my equipment is good or not. I do like to peruse several reviews before I make a determination as to whether to get new gear or not, and I pay special attention to the reports and threads here. There are several reputable reviewers out there, but they bring their own bias (and expectations) to to the table. If my gear does what I need it to do, and does so reliably, then it serves my purpose.

Agreed. Study all information prior to buying. Then, trust your own observations.

I think that what is persuasive is that RG, among others, made repeatable observations about a performance problem under controlled test conditions. They proved their case. And although may seem to look to RG for his word, one look at sportsshooter.com, here, Fred Miranda's site, or other photography forums will show that there were many, many shooters with problems. In the case of the 1D3, the leverage in this case lies not with just Rob Galbraith, but with the multitude of people that noticed the focus issue. Rob has the enviable spot of having gained contact with Canon, and has published the results of his meetings with them, so he does have some status as a pseudo-spokesman.

If anything, the internet sped up the response (even if it appeared/appears to be slow) by demonstrating the problem early, repeatedly, and en masse.

One complainer will not move Canon or any other manufacturer. A storm of complaints from reputable shooters will.

I'm thinking it's time to change that to the past tense. In the past, he showed excellent professionalism in demonstrating the problem. Now, it looks like he had a report on a blue dot camera with firmware 1.1.0 as early as two weeks ago, but was asked to sit on it and report back when he'd tried 1.1.3. Now, he's sitting on the report for Canon's sake, rather than splitting the report into pieces. Holding your presumably well-respected and methodically-tested results to appease the manufacturer smells bad to me.

pjtemplin wrote in post #4469798
I'm thinking it's time to change that to the past tense. In the past, he showed excellent professionalism in demonstrating the problem. Now, it looks like he had a report on a blue dot camera with firmware 1.1.0 as early as two weeks ago, but was asked to sit on it and report back when he'd tried 1.1.3. Now, he's sitting on the report for Canon's sake, rather than splitting the report into pieces. Holding your presumably well-respected and methodically-tested results to appease the manufacturer smells bad to me.

Does that make him less trustworthy, or does that make him fair? Giving Canon an opportunity to speak their piece or prove their case is fair - withholding evidence for their approval is not. Let's see what the results are, and what his commentary is before claiming his professionalism "dead".

I realize that there are many that think that this is an "us versus Canon" battle, but I don't see it that way.

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #4469715
The reviews probably accelerated their response.
Mark

Yes, I know it for sure.

I complained in my review, like many others, about AI Servo AF being too sensitive, and now 1.0.3 gives us much more calm, less jumpy AI Servo. It's not a standard bugfix firmware - it's a new AF algorithm. So we were heard.

Westfall mailed me:
"I enjoyed reading your review of the 1D Mark III. Your comments and feedback on the camera's features and performance are sincerely appreciated, and will be passed along to Canon Inc. in our next monthly market feedback report."

This was about two months ago.

RG brought the issue of warm weather AF problems. That is caused by the sub-mirror fault. RG earns full credit for that finding.

But, the rest of the AF problems were described by all the reviews, and lots of forum members - they did not go unnoticed by Canon as seen from above. Firmware 1.0.3. has fixed those (it's all in algorithms after all), it has clearly changed how AF behaves. The kudos goes to ALL Canon 1D Mark III users who wrote about it online and sent photos and letters to Canon. RG's part in that process is marginal.

I am with Mark on this one!
No matter how reputable the source of information is, one opinion is just not enough.
As much as I appreciate reviews from Rob Galbraith, Phil Ashley from DPReviw, Michael Reichmann, guys from Luminous Landscape and other well respected authors, even more I care about opinions from our own photographers, POTN members.

After all, reading reviews, comparing experiences, discussing features and specifications, educating yourself - is part of the fun!
That’s one of the things, one of the aspects, that I like about Photography!

Sorry RG, nothing personal!

I look to the reviews of others who have a lot of experience along with the methodology and equipment for testing. Many of us do not have this. If possible, I use their methods to do my own testing. The technology we use is becoming more sophisticated with all the settings, functions, and features.

Many reviewers simply nit-pick, I guess, so they will seem smarter than the rest of us. RG and many individuals backed him up with the problems he states so well. This helps us and it helps Canon. His concerns have been shown to be legitmate by many people and rather easily proven. Rons report will be the starting point for my determination and I appreciate his work.

I also appreciate his working with Canon. If he doesn't work with them they will soon stop listening. He should remain the neutral as much as he can but state the facts as he sees them. On a $4500 camera we deserve that and we deserve aggressive action by Canon.