Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras?

John Turco wrote:
> mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 8:35 am, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, re the matter of high noise, with high ISO. It is a function of the
>>> sensor, and, basically, the smaller the sensor element for each pixel,
>>> the higher will be the noise relative to the 'signal'. Since DSLRs have
>>> larger sensors with more surface/pixel, they can produce photos with
>>> lower noise at a comparable ISO than a P&S camera, Kodak, Canon, or
>>> whatever.
>>>
>>> I suggest you ignore the bias in the group, and make your own choices,
>>> after all, you are the one who will pay the bill, and use the camera.
>> Of course I understand the difference between DSLR and P&S sensors.
>> Magic intervened in the form of my Identity Fraud unit detecting a
>> false expiration date, and my order for the Canon S710 wouldn't
>> proceed. Now I'm thinking of getting the Kodak P712 after all. I want
>> the ability to process RAW files.
>>
>> But for all the dozens of replies this post has gotten, no one has
>> really addressed the issue of what digital bees in virtual bonnets a
>> photographer (particularly a landscape photographer) might find with
>> Kodaks. I figure I could compensate for noise at high ISOs by doing
>> something at lower ISOs with the aperture and/or compensation.
>
>
> Hello, mutefan:
>
> The P712 contains a "Panorama stitch mode," which you may find handy,
> concerning landscapes.
>
> Of course, you could merely choose to use third-party software, for
> such a purpose, instead; in that case, the older (but similar) Kodak
> P850 is currently a much better bargain, in my opinion.
>
> Good luck!
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

I often use PSE3 to stitch together pictures I take with my DX6440. As
long as I am careful with taking the pictures, it works very well.
The a panorama stitch mode does is fix the focus, aperture, and shutter
speed, and display a mark to judge overlap. I can manage all those
myself. I got some really good shots on a recent cruise.

mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:
> I purchased and then canceled an order for a Kodak that sounded really
> attractive to me. Folks here have advised certain priorities; other
> reviewers on other sites as well. But when I have a choice between a
> Kodak 7.1 MP with 12X optical zoom, IS, *and* the ability to record RAW
> files, versus an exactly priced Canon at 6.1 (or Panasonic) with no
> RAW, it would seem a no-brainer.
>
> Are Kodak cameras just the victim of elitism? Exactly how bad is the
> noise-at-high-ISO issue, or is this a digital straw man you'd find with
> other manufacturers of P&Ss? CNET said (about the Kodak P712), If you
> want to spend this much money (or something to that affect), buy the
> Canon PowerShot S3.
>
> I've owned two Canons (and returned the Digital Rebel). My first
> camera was a 4 MP Hewlett Packard. While the PowerShot A620 was a
> magnificent camera when it decided not to shake--a *really* magnificent
> camera--I find it hard to believe Kodak would invest their money into
> creating one lemon after another.
>
> Anyway, I Googled this group to see if I could find the source of the
> anti-Kodak-itis, but I found nothing. So I'll just ask: Why the
> anti-Kodak bias?
>
The anti-Kodak bias is purely elite-ism at it's worst, and has
absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Canon could release a
steaming heap of dog turd with their name on it, and people here would
still buy it and say how much better it is than everything else.
Actually Canon have released a steaming dog turd - they called it the
S2IS. I'm unfortunately the owner of one of these, and wish I wasn't.
While it's big zoom, IS and excellent battery life are good, overall it
just isn't a patch on the previous Kodaks that I've had. The S2 exhibits
less clarity, more noise, less dynamic range (all landscapes have white
sky, unless you underexpose), hopelessly inaccurate auto white balance,
less accurate colours in general, slower focussing, less accurate
focussing, and waaay too slow to charge the flash (90 second recycle
time with fresh NiMH batteries). Even my 6 year old 2MP Kodak DC3400
beats the Canon hands down in almost every aspect of image quality. The
detail in the 2MP images is almost the same as the detail in the 5MP
canon shots. All in all the Canon is very disappointing. On top of it
all, the canon has about a dozen hot spots on the sensor, which show up
as brightly coloured dots on every single photograph. All the above
makes it sound faulty doesn't it? - well it's been to Canon 3 times so
far - the first time they did something which seemed to make it's
metering a little bit better (only have to give it 1 stop under to stop
skies being burnt out white now, used to need 2 stops under). The
other 2 times they have returned it saying that it is "within
specification" - yep even with a dozen hot spots it is "within
specification". I can't see myself buying another Canon in a hurry.

In article
<45a972f5$0$27908$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Xatnep
<xatnep@spamtrap.com> wrote:

> The anti-Kodak bias is purely elite-ism at it's worst, and has
> absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Canon could release a
> steaming heap of dog turd with their name on it, and people here would
> still buy it and say how much better it is than everything else.
> Actually Canon have released a steaming dog turd - they called it the
> S2IS. I'm unfortunately the owner of one of these, and wish I wasn't.
> While it's big zoom, IS and excellent battery life are good, overall it
> just isn't a patch on the previous Kodaks that I've had. The S2 exhibits
> less clarity, more noise, less dynamic range (all landscapes have white
> sky, unless you underexpose), hopelessly inaccurate auto white balance,
> less accurate colours in general, slower focussing, less accurate
> focussing, and waaay too slow to charge the flash (90 second recycle
> time with fresh NiMH batteries). Even my 6 year old 2MP Kodak DC3400
> beats the Canon hands down in almost every aspect of image quality. The
> detail in the 2MP images is almost the same as the detail in the 5MP
> canon shots. All in all the Canon is very disappointing. On top of it
> all, the canon has about a dozen hot spots on the sensor, which show up
> as brightly coloured dots on every single photograph. All the above
> makes it sound faulty doesn't it? - well it's been to Canon 3 times so
> far - the first time they did something which seemed to make it's
> metering a little bit better (only have to give it 1 stop under to stop
> skies being burnt out white now, used to need 2 stops under). The
> other 2 times they have returned it saying that it is "within
> specification" - yep even with a dozen hot spots it is "within
> specification". I can't see myself buying another Canon in a hurry.

You don't know shit.

My girlfriend has an S2IS and it's pretty impressive. I don't care for
EVFs, but the 12X zoom is hard to beat. I've seen no problems with
noise or white balance or any of the other bullshit things you list.

Kodak made excellent film, but in the digital world, they just ain't
got it.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article
> <45a972f5$0$27908$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Xatnep
> <xatnep@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>
>> The anti-Kodak bias is purely elite-ism at it's worst, and has
>> absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Canon could release a
>> steaming heap of dog turd with their name on it, and people here would
>> still buy it and say how much better it is than everything else.
>> Actually Canon have released a steaming dog turd - they called it the
>> S2IS. I'm unfortunately the owner of one of these, and wish I wasn't.
>> While it's big zoom, IS and excellent battery life are good, overall it
>> just isn't a patch on the previous Kodaks that I've had. The S2 exhibits
>> less clarity, more noise, less dynamic range (all landscapes have white
>> sky, unless you underexpose), hopelessly inaccurate auto white balance,
>> less accurate colours in general, slower focussing, less accurate
>> focussing, and waaay too slow to charge the flash (90 second recycle
>> time with fresh NiMH batteries). Even my 6 year old 2MP Kodak DC3400
>> beats the Canon hands down in almost every aspect of image quality. The
>> detail in the 2MP images is almost the same as the detail in the 5MP
>> canon shots. All in all the Canon is very disappointing. On top of it
>> all, the canon has about a dozen hot spots on the sensor, which show up
>> as brightly coloured dots on every single photograph. All the above
>> makes it sound faulty doesn't it? - well it's been to Canon 3 times so
>> far - the first time they did something which seemed to make it's
>> metering a little bit better (only have to give it 1 stop under to stop
>> skies being burnt out white now, used to need 2 stops under). The
>> other 2 times they have returned it saying that it is "within
>> specification" - yep even with a dozen hot spots it is "within
>> specification". I can't see myself buying another Canon in a hurry.
>
> You don't know shit.
>
> My girlfriend has an S2IS and it's pretty impressive. I don't care for
> EVFs, but the 12X zoom is hard to beat. I've seen no problems with
> noise or white balance or any of the other bullshit things you list.
Probably is excellent - until you compare it to something better. I went
from a Kodak DC3400 to a Kodak DX6440 to a HP R707 to a Canon S2IS - The
move to the canon was meant to be an upgrade because of the 12x zoom and
more manual controls. Instead it was a downgrade. All of the other
cameras are capable of taking a landscape shot with blue sky using
default settings, but the canon can't. None of the other cameras take 90
seconds to recharge the flash. None of the other cameras have hot pixels
that show up as bright coloured dots in every single photograph. None of
the other cameras get their white balance so seriously screwed up. None
of the other cameras do such a disgusting job of skin tones. None of the
other cameras have difficulty locking focus in normal room lighting. At
first the camera was so bad I thought it was faulty, so sent it off to
Canon, who did make some adjustments, and improved it considerably. When
I got it back it still seemed faulty, so back it went again, and they
responded that it was all within spec. The next time I sent it in with
sample pics from the canon and from the R707 in identical conditions. I
highlighted the hot pixels. Once again they sent it back as no fault
found. If you handed me this camera I would think it is faulty, because
the image quality is so appallingly bad that it couldn't possibly be
from a camera that according to dpreview (are they owned by Canon?) is
one of the better of it's class. I'm not expecting DSLR quality, but I'd
expect it to be at least as good as a 6yo compact. But Canon are
convinced that it is within specification, so obviously it is just that
these cameras are steaming heaps of dog turd - either that or it really
is faulty but Canon's service centre qualifies as a steaming heap of dog
turd. Whichever one is the case, I'm not keen to put dollars into Canon
again.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:15:17 -0800, mutefan@yahoo.com wrote
(in article <1168514117.396472.87110@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups. com>):

> I purchased and then canceled an order for a Kodak that sounded really
> attractive to me. Folks here have advised certain priorities; other
> reviewers on other sites as well. But when I have a choice between a
> Kodak 7.1 MP with 12X optical zoom, IS, *and* the ability to record RAW
> files, versus an exactly priced Canon at 6.1 (or Panasonic) with no
> RAW, it would seem a no-brainer.

The camera snobs do seem to look down on Kodak; most of the criticisms seem
to be excuses, not real problems. The only valid criticism I have ever heard
is the JPG compression, a fault of many cameras. However, the P712 allows RAW
shooting, so JPG compression is not necessarily a problem. A few owners have
had minor complaints about the camera, but it has a very loyal following. The
photos I have seen taken with it are saturated, good white balance, sharp and
contrasty, but I don't know how of that is due to editing.
Personally, if I was looking at this type of camera, I would prefer a Nikon
D40, a DSLR, for not much more money. The larger sensor, quicker response,
greater flexibility, etc., are worth the extra cost. But that is a personal
preference; I really don't have much interest in the larger point&shoot
zooms, Kodak or otherwise. If it can't fit in my pocket, it might as well be
a DSLR.

Kodak does make some cameras which are, to say the least, weak. The V610 is a
good example of a camera that really could have used a little more thought.
True, it is pretty and nicely designed, and it is easy to use, but the zoom
lens is noted to be balky, the camera is slow, the lens is slow, and focus is
not good. Cameras like that can really hurt a camera manufacturer's
reputation.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:33:46 -0800, Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> In article
> <45a972f5$0$27908$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Xatnep
> <xatnep@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>
>> The anti-Kodak bias is purely elite-ism at it's worst, and has
>> absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Canon could release a
>> steaming heap of dog turd with their name on it, and people here would
>> still buy it and say how much better it is than everything else.
>> Actually Canon have released a steaming dog turd - they called it the
>> S2IS. I'm unfortunately the owner of one of these, and wish I wasn't.
>> While it's big zoom, IS and excellent battery life are good, overall it
>> just isn't a patch on the previous Kodaks that I've had. The S2 exhibits
>> less clarity, more noise, less dynamic range (all landscapes have white
>> sky, unless you underexpose), hopelessly inaccurate auto white balance,
>> less accurate colours in general, slower focussing, less accurate
>> focussing, and waaay too slow to charge the flash (90 second recycle
>> time with fresh NiMH batteries). Even my 6 year old 2MP Kodak DC3400
>> beats the Canon hands down in almost every aspect of image quality. The
>> detail in the 2MP images is almost the same as the detail in the 5MP
>> canon shots. All in all the Canon is very disappointing. On top of it
>> all, the canon has about a dozen hot spots on the sensor, which show up
>> as brightly coloured dots on every single photograph. All the above
>> makes it sound faulty doesn't it? - well it's been to Canon 3 times so
>> far - the first time they did something which seemed to make it's
>> metering a little bit better (only have to give it 1 stop under to stop
>> skies being burnt out white now, used to need 2 stops under). The
>> other 2 times they have returned it saying that it is "within
>> specification" - yep even with a dozen hot spots it is "within
>> specification". I can't see myself buying another Canon in a hurry.
>
> You don't know shit.
>
> My girlfriend has an S2IS and it's pretty impressive. I don't care for
> EVFs, but the 12X zoom is hard to beat. I've seen no problems with
> noise or white balance or any of the other bullshit things you list.
>
> Kodak made excellent film, but in the digital world, they just ain't
> got it.

I suspect you might change your mind if you'd ever bother to look through
the EVF on a Kodak P series and compare that with the view through the
s21s - the difference in image quality is absolutely striking. It clearly
shows the superiority of 237k pixels as opposed to 110k.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article
> <45a972f5$0$27908$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Xatnep
> <xatnep@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>
>> The anti-Kodak bias is purely elite-ism at it's worst, and has
>> absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Canon could release a
>> steaming heap of dog turd with their name on it, and people here would
>> still buy it and say how much better it is than everything else.
>> Actually Canon have released a steaming dog turd - they called it the
>> S2IS. I'm unfortunately the owner of one of these, and wish I wasn't.
>> While it's big zoom, IS and excellent battery life are good, overall it
>> just isn't a patch on the previous Kodaks that I've had. The S2 exhibits
>> less clarity, more noise, less dynamic range (all landscapes have white
>> sky, unless you underexpose), hopelessly inaccurate auto white balance,
>> less accurate colours in general, slower focussing, less accurate
>> focussing, and waaay too slow to charge the flash (90 second recycle
>> time with fresh NiMH batteries). Even my 6 year old 2MP Kodak DC3400
>> beats the Canon hands down in almost every aspect of image quality. The
>> detail in the 2MP images is almost the same as the detail in the 5MP
>> canon shots. All in all the Canon is very disappointing. On top of it
>> all, the canon has about a dozen hot spots on the sensor, which show up
>> as brightly coloured dots on every single photograph. All the above
>> makes it sound faulty doesn't it? - well it's been to Canon 3 times so
>> far - the first time they did something which seemed to make it's
>> metering a little bit better (only have to give it 1 stop under to stop
>> skies being burnt out white now, used to need 2 stops under). The
>> other 2 times they have returned it saying that it is "within
>> specification" - yep even with a dozen hot spots it is "within
>> specification". I can't see myself buying another Canon in a hurry.
>
> You don't know shit.
>
> My girlfriend has an S2IS and it's pretty impressive. I don't care for
> EVFs, but the 12X zoom is hard to beat. I've seen no problems with
> noise or white balance or any of the other bullshit things you list.
>
> Kodak made excellent film, but in the digital world, they just ain't
> got it.

Why should I believe your, obviously biased, opinion over a rationally,
and cogently, stated opinion, based on PERSONAL experience. Isn't it
reasonable that one person can get a seriously flawed sample of a
basically usable camera? He already said that the zoom lens was nice,
but that the camera had other problems.
So, if it doesn't match your experience, it is BS?

ray wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:33:46 -0800, Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <45a972f5$0$27908$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Xatnep
>> <xatnep@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The anti-Kodak bias is purely elite-ism at it's worst, and has
>>> absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Canon could release a
>>> steaming heap of dog turd with their name on it, and people here would
>>> still buy it and say how much better it is than everything else.
>>> Actually Canon have released a steaming dog turd - they called it the
>>> S2IS. I'm unfortunately the owner of one of these, and wish I wasn't.
>>> While it's big zoom, IS and excellent battery life are good, overall it
>>> just isn't a patch on the previous Kodaks that I've had. The S2 exhibits
>>> less clarity, more noise, less dynamic range (all landscapes have white
>>> sky, unless you underexpose), hopelessly inaccurate auto white balance,
>>> less accurate colours in general, slower focussing, less accurate
>>> focussing, and waaay too slow to charge the flash (90 second recycle
>>> time with fresh NiMH batteries). Even my 6 year old 2MP Kodak DC3400
>>> beats the Canon hands down in almost every aspect of image quality. The
>>> detail in the 2MP images is almost the same as the detail in the 5MP
>>> canon shots. All in all the Canon is very disappointing. On top of it
>>> all, the canon has about a dozen hot spots on the sensor, which show up
>>> as brightly coloured dots on every single photograph. All the above
>>> makes it sound faulty doesn't it? - well it's been to Canon 3 times so
>>> far - the first time they did something which seemed to make it's
>>> metering a little bit better (only have to give it 1 stop under to stop
>>> skies being burnt out white now, used to need 2 stops under). The
>>> other 2 times they have returned it saying that it is "within
>>> specification" - yep even with a dozen hot spots it is "within
>>> specification". I can't see myself buying another Canon in a hurry.
>> You don't know shit.
>>
>> My girlfriend has an S2IS and it's pretty impressive. I don't care for
>> EVFs, but the 12X zoom is hard to beat. I've seen no problems with
>> noise or white balance or any of the other bullshit things you list.
>>
>> Kodak made excellent film, but in the digital world, they just ain't
>> got it.
>
> I suspect you might change your mind if you'd ever bother to look through
> the EVF on a Kodak P series and compare that with the view through the
> s21s - the difference in image quality is absolutely striking. It clearly
> shows the superiority of 237k pixels as opposed to 110k.
>

His mind is made up, and he isn't about to do something that might force
him to abandon his already engraved in stone point of view. It is
typical of the type of person who starts with a conclusion, and looks
only at what supports that conclusion. Unfortunately, most people like
that become cops, or politicians....

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:01:54 +1000, Xatnep <xatnep@spamtrap.com>
wrote:

>The anti-Kodak bias is purely elite-ism at it's worst, and has
>absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Canon could release a
>steaming heap of dog turd with their name on it, and people here would
>still buy it and say how much better it is than everything else.
>Actually Canon have released a steaming dog turd - they called it the
>S2IS. I'm unfortunately the owner of one of these, and wish I wasn't.
>While it's big zoom, IS and excellent battery life are good, overall it
>just isn't a patch on the previous Kodaks that I've had. The S2 exhibits
>less clarity, more noise, less dynamic range (all landscapes have white
>sky, unless you underexpose), hopelessly inaccurate auto white balance,
>less accurate colours in general, slower focussing, less accurate
>focussing, and waaay too slow to charge the flash (90 second recycle
>time with fresh NiMH batteries). Even my 6 year old 2MP Kodak DC3400
>beats the Canon hands down in almost every aspect of image quality. The
>detail in the 2MP images is almost the same as the detail in the 5MP
>canon shots. All in all the Canon is very disappointing. On top of it
>all, the canon has about a dozen hot spots on the sensor, which show up
>as brightly coloured dots on every single photograph. All the above
>makes it sound faulty doesn't it? - well it's been to Canon 3 times so
>far - the first time they did something which seemed to make it's
>metering a little bit better (only have to give it 1 stop under to stop
> skies being burnt out white now, used to need 2 stops under). The
>other 2 times they have returned it saying that it is "within
>specification" - yep even with a dozen hot spots it is "within
>specification". I can't see myself buying another Canon in a hurry.

I can't compare with a Kodak anything, since I don't have any, but I
will call "Bullshit!" on two things...
If it takes your S2IS 90 seconds to recharge the flash, either you're
using crap batteries, or you can't count. I just tried this on our
S2IS with batteries that were used in Australia, and I can take flash
shots in a dark room multiple times with less than 3 second recharge
times.
And here's a shot my wife (who's not a photographer, but rather a
snapshooter) took in Costa Rica in P mode:
http://pippina.us/images/img_9835.jpg
Not a masterpiece, but note the *blue* sky.
Also note the lack of any hot pixels (though this is a sample thing,
not something that's across a whole model output).

--
Senate Democrats proposed ethics
reform legislation on Tuesday.
It calls for lawmakers to pay the
real cost of corporate jet flights
and the full cost of skybox tickets
for sporting events. If you want
to know ahead of time what's going
to happen to this bill, you simply
need to watch the last five minutes
of Old Yeller.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:01:54 +1000, Xatnep <xatnep@spamtrap.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The anti-Kodak bias is purely elite-ism at it's worst, and has
>> absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Canon could release a
>> steaming heap of dog turd with their name on it, and people here would
>> still buy it and say how much better it is than everything else.
>> Actually Canon have released a steaming dog turd - they called it the
>> S2IS. I'm unfortunately the owner of one of these, and wish I wasn't.
>> While it's big zoom, IS and excellent battery life are good, overall it
>> just isn't a patch on the previous Kodaks that I've had. The S2 exhibits
>> less clarity, more noise, less dynamic range (all landscapes have white
>> sky, unless you underexpose), hopelessly inaccurate auto white balance,
>> less accurate colours in general, slower focussing, less accurate
>> focussing, and waaay too slow to charge the flash (90 second recycle
>> time with fresh NiMH batteries). Even my 6 year old 2MP Kodak DC3400
>> beats the Canon hands down in almost every aspect of image quality. The
>> detail in the 2MP images is almost the same as the detail in the 5MP
>> canon shots. All in all the Canon is very disappointing. On top of it
>> all, the canon has about a dozen hot spots on the sensor, which show up
>> as brightly coloured dots on every single photograph. All the above
>> makes it sound faulty doesn't it? - well it's been to Canon 3 times so
>> far - the first time they did something which seemed to make it's
>> metering a little bit better (only have to give it 1 stop under to stop
>> skies being burnt out white now, used to need 2 stops under). The
>> other 2 times they have returned it saying that it is "within
>> specification" - yep even with a dozen hot spots it is "within
>> specification". I can't see myself buying another Canon in a hurry.
>
> I can't compare with a Kodak anything, since I don't have any, but I
> will call "Bullshit!" on two things...
> If it takes your S2IS 90 seconds to recharge the flash, either you're
> using crap batteries, or you can't count. I just tried this on our
On any NiMH batteries (Uniross 2500's, Uniross Hybrio, Energizer 2500's)
it will take around 90sec to charge - and I'm not counting, I timed it
with a stopwatch to provide in part my fault description when I sent it
to Canon. The batteries aren't crap, because I get about 900 shots per
charge - this is one of the Canon's strong points, it's battery life is
excellent. Of course I need 900 shots because every shot needs to be
bracketed :(
It is slightly faster when used with Energizer Lithium single use
batteries, at around 40sec - faster but still unusable.
> S2IS with batteries that were used in Australia, and I can take flash
> shots in a dark room multiple times with less than 3 second recharge
> times.
Then it would appear I have a faulty sample, which I believed all along,
and why I have sent it to Canon 3 times - but Canon refuse to
acknowledge any fault. Canon say it is within specification, so is mine
faulty, or were you lucky?
> And here's a shot my wife (who's not a photographer, but rather a
> snapshooter) took in Costa Rica in P mode:
> http://pippina.us/images/img_9835.jpg
> Not a masterpiece, but note the *blue* sky.
Then again it would appear I have a faulty sample.
> Also note the lack of any hot pixels (though this is a sample thing,
> not something that's across a whole model output).
Yes this one is obviously because I have a faulty sample, but again
according to Canon it is "within specification". So if Canon say it is
"Within Specification", then either their specification allows for a far
too broad range of tolerance, whereby a camera at the bottom range of
tolerance is essentially garbage, or their service department are too
lazy or too stupid to determine that it is indeed faulty, and from there
to know how to repair it. I know anyone can make a faulty product, the
difference is how they deal with it. The last time I bought a new film
SLR it had intermittent exposure problems. Sent it in to CR Kennedy (the
Australian Pentax importers), with some samples. A few days later a
replacement turned up (the time frame indicated they replaced it on the
very day they received it). Not only that, but I was also surprised to
find a bunch of rolls of film in the package along with an apology for
my inconvenience. The difference in service between the Pentax and the
Canon is remarkable - especially considering the Pentax problem was
intermittent so they may not have even seen the fault. The Canon problem
is persistent. Doesn't give one much confidence to spend more money on
Canon.
>