Canon's QC

[CYRN]

Ahhh... focusing, QC issues... lots of experience... lots to say...

i) As far as I know, Olympus is the only company that has least QC problems except for de-centering on the 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 lens. But note (i) Olympus uses focus by wire (ii) focusing is slow but accurate (iii) focus can hunt a lot in low light. And there are other non focus-related issues as well...

ii) Canon puts focus micro-adjustment in 1D bodies, but leaves it out in consumer bodies like 40D. They feel that consumers are generally idiots who do not need focus accuracy. Nikon is more thoughtful and leaves this feature on the D300.

iii) Focus can be considered as a separate issue from QC. Poor QC usually means de-centered or misaligned elements. Let me recall my experience:
- 35 f/2 was terrible out of the box but was sharp after Canon service folks moved the elements to get the lens to perform within spec
- first copy of 17-85 IS had de-centered elements; exchanged in store and second copy was much better... but focus needed recalibration
- found 3 copies of 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens with de-centering issues; bought the 4th good one
- first copy of 10-22 had de-centered elements; managed to convince Canon to exchange for a good copy within 1st week of purchase
- 100 f/2.8 macro and 70-200 f/4L IS were excellent out of the box
- went through several (~ 4 each) copies of Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 macro with awful focusing issues, went through 5 copies of Sigma 10-20 lens with de-centered elements
- used to own Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro lens that was excellent out of the box

iv) Canon's focus accuracy (or rather inaccuracy) issues in consumer bodies is rather well known, particularly in low light; this obfuscates the focus calibration problem even more. 10D/300D/350D have tolerance of about 1x DOF focus accuracy. 20D/30D spec is the same unless f/2.8 lenses are mounted (improves to 0.33 DOF) but performance degrades again for faster lenses. That is the tolerance spec for Canon.

v) Focus issues are more prominent in DSLRs than film bodies because people don't usually print large but they can now view their images at 100% magnification on their monitors.

vi) The internet has made the world smaller so every problem is now exacerbated.

som of my observation.

ii) micro adjustment so far onli 1d3 hav. dun tink anyother bodies (even 1ds3) hav.

iii) focus accuracy is as specified by Canon since the SLR times, again they failed to understand the market and change with the situation.

v) IMHO the N side seemed to have less focusing issue. :think: :dunno: I dun tink it's anything to do wif dslr. even 100% mag, those hom shoot and projet slides would hav seen it at much larger magnification.

 

[CYRN]

Where are they now? Probably went out of ammunitions and are DEAD already.

This forum is for helping one another and not stamping each others to death.

aint this a flamebait statement too? :nono:

 

[silverarrow]

Sorry, i apologise, my bad frustration...

 

[CYRN]

That said, I feel that Canon's QC needs to be tightened up (personal opinion!). I've had two new L lenses that required calibration out of the box. Both were bought at the same time and both were off factory specs. To their credit though I sent both in for calibration and they're tack sharp now.

hav you noticed that a lot of people are complaining about Canon's "quality" but are full of praise for the service center.

mabbe that's their strategy :think: sell you a half-past-six standard product so tat you need to pay a visit to their service center and afterwhich you'll be full of praise for them... this emotional low-first, high-later would instill some from of additional confidence in their future services, if not their products. So you'll hav confidence buying their product again. :think:

 

[thw]

hav you noticed that a lot of people are complaining about Canon's "quality" but are full of praise for the service center.

I don't think the conspiracy theory works here. :bsmilie:

Truth be said, Canon Singapore has very little say over Canon Japan's decisions. :cry: The Singapore market is after all extremely small, in comparison to Japan, Europe, US etc.

We're just blessed with courteous and patient Canon stuff at the service center. Based on my personal experience and forum anecdotes, I don't think the service quality for the competition is anywhere as good within Singapore. The Canon stuff may not always get things right the first time (but they often do), but they're patient and willing to try to get everything to the customer's satisfaction. :thumbsup: I am most pleased with the quality of service at CSC in Singapore.

 

[CYRN]

I don't think the conspiracy theory works here. :bsmilie:

Truth be said, Canon Singapore has very little say over Canon Japan's decisions. :cry: The Singapore market is after all extremely small, in comparison to Japan, Europe, US etc.

We're just blessed with courteous and patient Canon stuff at the service center. Based on my personal experience and forum anecdotes, I don't think the service quality for the competition is anywhere as good within Singapore. The Canon stuff may not always get things right the first time (but they often do), but they're patient and willing to try to get everything to the customer's satisfaction. :thumbsup: I am most pleased with the quality of service at CSC in Singapore.

mabbe it's time for temasek to enter the lucurative DLSR market... come up wif a company called Singnon. come up wif cams that hav Sg QC standard. Then no need to depend on Japan decision, we can change faster to market demand. ;p:bsmilie:

 

[thw]

v) IMHO the N side seemed to have less focusing issue. :think: :dunno:

If you're talking about front/back focus, I can assure you it's just as bad. Same goes for Pentax, Minolta (not sure about Sony) etc. Only Olympus users are spared this headache. (Keep in mind that Olympus AF system will hunt and hunt in low light.)

If you're thinking about focus accuracy in low light after the afore-mentioned front/back focus issues are sorted out, then it's true that Nikon DSLRs have better hit rate under low light. But under less contrasty situations, Nikon DSLRs will not lock focus as easily as Canon.

Note that we're discussing consumer DSLRs. All the pro DSLRs (perhaps with the exception of the 1D MkIII) focus extremely fast and accurately.

To be fair, we should also take into account what Rob Galbraith has this to say about AF accuracy on the D200:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-7891-8214-8216

"More importantly, we've shot the D200 and 20D side-by-side for available light basketball over several weekends this winter, and the 20D is by far the better camera for this purpose. Not only were the ISO 800 through ISO 3200 frames massively cleaner and more usable, the percentage of in-focus frames was signficantly higher. In fact, we've ruled out using the D200 for this sort of assigment again. So, we don't think Nikon has in the D200 a camera that's a clear winner over the upcoming 30D by any means."

 

[thw]

thw,
wah piangz... u really went thru all those changing and selection of lenses??! You must know the store people well? I can imagine the frustration of the shop guy if a customer asks to test all their lenses and then reject all cos of focusing issues. :bigeyes:

I did a lot of that when I was studying overseas where the store exchange policy is MUCH, MUCH better than here. I have 2 weeks to try out an item and get a full refund if I am not happy with the purchase.

 

[CYRN]

I did a lot of that when I was studying overseas where the store exchange policy is MUCH, MUCH better than here. I have 2 weeks to try out an item and get a full refund if I am not happy with the purchase.

sigh... I wonder when will Sg catch up wif their service policy, then sure SLS/SB will be very "clean" liao.

 

[CYRN]

If you're talking about front/back focus, I can assure you it's just as bad. Same goes for Pentax, Minolta (not sure about Sony) etc. Only Olympus users are spared this headache. (Keep in mind that Olympus AF system will hunt and hunt in low light.)

If you're thinking about focus accuracy in low light after the afore-mentioned front/back focus issues are sorted out, then it's true that Nikon DSLRs have better hit rate under low light. But under less contrasty situations, Nikon DSLRs will not lock focus as easily as Canon.

Note that we're discussing consumer DSLRs. All the pro DSLRs (perhaps with the exception of the 1D MkIII) focus extremely fast and accurately.

To be fair, we should also take into account what Rob Galbraith has this to say about AF accuracy on the D200:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-7891-8214-8216

"More importantly, we've shot the D200 and 20D side-by-side for available light basketball over several weekends this winter, and the 20D is by far the better camera for this purpose. Not only were the ISO 800 through ISO 3200 frames massively cleaner and more usable, the percentage of in-focus frames was signficantly higher. In fact, we've ruled out using the D200 for this sort of assigment again. So, we don't think Nikon has in the D200 a camera that's a clear winner over the upcoming 30D by any means."

I'm basing on own experiences wif trying out friend's cams loh, most other brands aniway in various but similar conditions... day shoot/night shoot/event shoot...etc.

 

[peapilot]

Wow, thanks for all the sharing. Now I know to be really careful when choosing lenses. Guess I was lucky with only focusing calibration and not mis-aligned elements.

 

[CYRN]

Wow, thanks for all the sharing. Now I know to be really careful when choosing lenses. Guess I was lucky with only focusing calibration and not mis-aligned elements.

ummm... how you tell the difference? :dunno:

 

[peapilot]

Front/back focusing you can tell from where the plane of focus falls, misalignment you tell when one side of the pic is in focus while the other isn't, meaning plane of focus doesn't fall perpendicular to your shooting axis... I THINK.

Is this correct? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I think we're lucky actually, because not all canon service centers are as good as what we've got here. I've been to one in China and almost vomitted blood there. ;p

 

[jlchong]

I have the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8. Prior to this, i had the 70-200 IS and the f/4 version, also used to own the 17-40.

Out of these 6 lenses, i had to calibrate the 70-200 IS and the 24-70. so for me, it's a 1/3 strike rate.

but then again. i must say that the CSC over here gives very good service. esp this particular technician, nicholas.

 

[thw]

but then again. i must say that the CSC over here gives very good service. esp this particular technician, nicholas.

Errrr.. Nicholas is the supervisor... of course, he's good. :bsmilie:

 

[triotary]

I have the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8. Prior to this, i had the 70-200 IS and the f/4 version, also used to own the 17-40.

Out of these 6 lenses, i had to calibrate the 70-200 IS and the 24-70. so for me, it's a 1/3 strike rate.

but then again. i must say that the CSC over here gives very good service. esp this particular technician, nicholas.

Lol your input makes me very insecure about purchasing my next canon lens, which is the 24-70. So how do I actually know that I have a good copy?

Lol after reading photozone review on this 24-70 lens, I'm even more paranoid now :sweat:

"It took me 4 (f-o-u-r) samples of the lens to get a good one - please note: "good", not a "great" sample. The first three variants showed rather hefty centering defects which spoiled the results quite a bit."

"The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L proved to be a worthy representative of the pro grade lens league ... if you can get a good sample. During the last two years four lenses has seen the lab with only one within specs - this is disappointing especially for a lens of this price class. If you´re lucky enough to get a decent sample you can expect a very high performance level, especially when stopped down a bit. Distortions, vignetting and CAs are well controlled. "

 

[mervinb]

When I finally made my transition from SLR / digital P&S to DSLR (350D), I was undecided between Ni*** and Canon. In the end, it was a chat with a pro I had engaged for an event, who explained why he used Canon. In short, he said that he could not afford to choose Ni*** because of their service compared to Canon's (in Singapore).

Recently I sent my 350D for sensor cleaning, and I understand what he meant. I'm not saying other service centres aren't as good (I don't have experience), but so far I'm pretty impressed by Canon service. Good sensor cleaning at $21.40 in 50 min. is really quite impressive.

 

[jlchong]

Lol your input makes me very insecure about purchasing my next canon lens, which is the 24-70. So how do I actually know that I have a good copy?

Lol after reading photozone review on this 24-70 lens, I'm even more paranoid now :sweat:

"It took me 4 (f-o-u-r) samples of the lens to get a good one - please note: "good", not a "great" sample. The first three variants showed rather hefty centering defects which spoiled the results quite a bit."

"The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L proved to be a worthy representative of the pro grade lens league ... if you can get a good sample. During the last two years four lenses has seen the lab with only one within specs - this is disappointing especially for a lens of this price class. If you´re lucky enough to get a decent sample you can expect a very high performance level, especially when stopped down a bit. Distortions, vignetting and CAs are well controlled. "

well, to be fair. the focusing of the 24-70 only went abit off after abt 2 yrs of usage. though.. i still felt abit hard done. as our rationale for buying L lens is that they should work fine for at least 10 good years. haha. but after calibration. it's as goood as new.

as for my 70-200 IS, it was really terrible. it was a brand new warrantied set. the front focusing issue was terrible. when i brought it down to canon CSC. the technicians also shook their heads in embarrasment that the lens actually managed to pass the QC.

once again. after calibration. the lens was razor sharp. i only sold it away in favour of the 70-200 2.8 non IS version becos of the weight and also becos i feel that the IS actually slows down the focusing speed.

all these said. i must say that i believe that every brand will have their own problems. perhaps its the law of large numbers. the more people use canon gear, the more likely there will be lenses that fail the QC.

although i must say that i am deeply disappointed with the many issues of the recently released 1Dmk3. i sure hope that complacency is not getting to their heads.

 

[peapilot]

That's really strange because it seems a lot of people are having problems with 24-70 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS?

Those were the two new lenses I brought down that needed calibration too. :think:

 

[SFS]

Canon has went thru her 30th million lens production... in QC, there's a term called tolerance level.