# GEAR GRINDING - or, what bug's you about your equipment



## Aglet (Feb 7, 2013)

Let's see how well this thread holds up!

We've got lots of threads here with various sides arguing the merits of read noise and banding in files, fixed pattern noise (FPN), dynamic range (DR), some on annoying lens aberrations and plenty more.

*INSTEAD OF RE-HASHING THE TIRED OR UNFINISHED ARGUMENTS, POST YOUR IMAGES HERE THAT SHOW THE FLAW THAT RUINED THE SHOT FOR YOU.*
If it's subtle, tell us what it is (and where) versus what you hoped for or expected.
Avoid posting images that started with poor technique or other major problems that are user errors rather than equipment flaws. If you were close but couldn't fix it in post... Show before, after, and describe what you wanted to achieve.

We have a lot of good people with good advice on good equipment here. A BIG HOLE IN THE INFORMATION, in my opinion, IS WHAT ARE THE WEAKNESSES OF A PARTICULAR CAMERA OR LENS or other bit of equipment that can make it impossible, difficult, or frustrating to get the shot you wanted.

LET'S SEE THE BAD STUFF SO WE CAN LEARN TO AVOID IT OR WORK AROUND IT and not miss any more shots because of it. I, for one, had been a little too remiss in the past and I accepted of a lot of positive reviews on equipment only to find out shortly after buying and using it that it had some significant flaws that hindered its usefulness to me.

*POST YOUR REMEDIES OR WORK-AROUNDS.* If discussing the issue, please EDIT YOUR QUOTING TO MINIMIZE THE QUOTE TO ONLY WHAT'S REALLY NEEDED instead of quoting everything including all the graphics.

Let the bashing, and learning, begin!
Have fun, keep it civil, make it EDUCATIONAL.

Addendum - to give you an example, here's a scaled shot taken with a 5D Mark II and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II
The image is basically ruined by garish, multi-outlined bokeh. This is not a crop, this is the full frame.
200mm at f/4.0

hasty typo fixed, supposed to be 200mm, not 20mm.


----------



## Trevor (Feb 7, 2013)

I quite like this idea ...

I recently took my 5DIII Ashdown Forest to take some photos. About 10 years ago I spent a lot of time in the forest with a medium format film camera ... I didn't like the look of the 5D photos - they seemed to have a very 'synthetic look' - and I guess this is the main reason I don't feel the 5D is a good landscape camera for me. My work-around is not to use it for such things ;-)

Sometimes I wish I'd never seen film, or indeed done a degree in Photographic Science that did nothing but reinforce my love of silver halide crystals suspended in cow gelatin 

But, there's so much to enjoy about digital and I've also got my name on the list for a Leica M ... I'm really hoping that it provides a nice simple, clean image that is less about the process and more about the subject.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 7, 2013)

Lots of talk skirting the subject, but no posts. All my bad images were my fault, I cannot blame the camera or equipment. So, while I'd like a camera with zero noise and infinite ISO, blaming a camera for ruined images that it could not capture is counter productive.

It seems to be a common human trait to blame something else. It happens everywhere, politics being the prime example. 

Here is a badly underexposed image taken with my new 5D MK III. When I boost it in LR, I get a horrible amount of noise, and a ton of banding but no image. 






After turning all the controls in Lightroom to their maximum






Workaround - Remove the lens cap.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 7, 2013)

I used to have a camera that would let you snap away and not tell you that there was no memory card in the camera. Obviously, I do NOT have a picture to show....


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 7, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Lots of talk skirting the subject, but no posts. All my bad images were my fault, I cannot blame the camera or equipment.



One of my favorite sayings is "If you have not truly screwed up.... persevere".


----------



## Aglet (Feb 7, 2013)

Trevor said:


> I quite like this idea ...
> 
> I recently took my 5DIII Ashdown Forest to take some photos. About 10 years ago I spent a lot of time in the forest with a medium format film camera ... I didn't like the look of the 5D photos - they seemed to have a very 'synthetic look' - and I guess this is the main reason I don't feel the 5D is a good landscape camera for me. My work-around is not to use it for such things ;-)
> 
> ...



funny thing about the demise of film... more people are giving it a try. some are liking it.
I still have a few rolls in the freezer and enough old gear to make use of it if I choose.

one of the other aspects of image "feel" is the glass in front of whatever's recording the image.
I'm having some fun with vintage lenses on my highly capable Nikon and Pentax bodies and even my older Canons. Hoping to get a handle on all their quirks over time and apply them where they can accentuate the subject matter.
They provide a look you can't get in software, then you can add the software emulated film response on top of that for a very interesting alternative to the otherwise sometimes sterile-feeling digital image.
i'd like to try that B&W dedicated Leica myself...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 7, 2013)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, you start. We're still waiting. Or maybe there was only that one example you could find, and you still don't have permission...
> ...


It got off to a fine start with the original post. Reread it and see if it makes sense. Are you talking about issues with damaged gear, or issues with photographers who do not know how to use their equipment. Perhaps its about those who manufacture imaginary issues, as I took it to be.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 8, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Lots of talk skirting the subject, but no posts. All my bad images were my fault, I cannot blame the camera or equipment. So, while I'd like a camera with zero noise and infinite ISO, blaming a camera for ruined images that it could not capture is counter productive.
> 
> It seems to be a common human trait to blame something else. It happens everywhere, politics being the prime example.
> 
> ...


I hate that bandning.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2013)

As the predawn shadows are lifted, I bet the rooster gets really noisy.


----------



## pwp (Feb 8, 2013)

Damn I should have read the small print properly. Neither my 5D3 or 1D Mk4 can make coffee. You would have thought....

-PW


----------



## rpt (Feb 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> As the predawn shadows are lifted, I bet the rooster gets really noisy.


Rooster? Huh! I thought that was more banding


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 8, 2013)

Aglet said:


> ...POST YOUR IMAGES HERE THAT SHOW THE FLAW THAT RUINED THE SHOT FOR YOU
> 
> Addendum - to give you an example, here's a scaled shot taken with a 5D Mark II and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II
> The image is basically ruined by garish, multi-outlined bokeh. This is not a crop, this is the full frame.
> 20mm at f/4.0



1. not my "art" images but i do think that all these images were ruined (scott kelby has his free critiq session, send them to him and ask to see if my thought is right. i do trust scott eyes): http://a2bart.com/gallery/new/new.htm (wonder that why it is call a-b not a-z LOL)
2. "a scaled shot taken with a 5D Mark II and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II... 20mm at f/4.0": show me how you go back and shoot with that focal lengh? if you should that with 20mm at f/4, i should not see that shallow dof, if i do not want to say that it should be all of them in focus (assume that you were not climbing on the tree to shoot that image 8)).
3. an experience photographer would not choose f4 in shooting the posted image (assume that you were shooting at focal of 200mm)


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> As the predawn shadows are lifted, I bet the rooster gets really noisy.



GROAN!!!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As the predawn shadows are lifted, I bet the rooster gets really noisy.
> ...



Is 'cock-a-doodle-doo--cock-a-doodle-doo' a fixed pattern?

Ba-dum-bum.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 8, 2013)

Really? The responses to this thread are childish. 

I get that the thread has a bit of the "it's not my fault, it's the equipment" vibe to it. But really, I think the OP was just trying to spark some conversation. No need to be jerks about it. 

I agree that the OP's perspective is grossly skewed, but I'll try to be civil about explaining the problem.

Cameras are tools. They have limitations. If they were perfect it would take all the fun and skill out of the process. It's like when people complain about dynamic range or noise or depth of field or any of the hundred other topics that litter this forum. 

It's working within the limitations of the equipment and sometimes, if you are really talented, turning those limitations into assets, that makes photography a craft. It's picking the right 1/125 of a second to select out of the infinite choices available, it's selecting what to include in the frame and what to leave out, it's picking where to stand to get exactly the point of view you want, it's knowing what subject to shoot and what to concentrate on and emphasize. 

I am almost never "bugged" by my equipment. On the other hand, I am thrilled and amazed when something works out right. If it were easy, we'd all be Robert Frank.


----------



## dolina (Feb 8, 2013)

I hate the idea that the paint job of my lenses flakes off. :'(


----------



## Aglet (Feb 8, 2013)

ishdakuteb said:


> 1. not my "art" images but i do think that all these images were ruined (scott kelby has his free critiq session, send them to him and ask to see if my thought is right. i do trust scott eyes): http://a2bart.com/gallery/new/new.htm (wonder that why it is call a-b not a-z LOL)
> 2. "a scaled shot taken with a 5D Mark II and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II... 20mm at f/4.0": show me how you go back and shoot with that focal lengh? if you should that with 20mm at f/4, i should not see that shallow dof, if i do not want to say that it should be all of them in focus (assume that you were not climbing on the tree to shoot that image 8)).
> 3. an experience photographer would not choose f4 in shooting the posted image (assume that you were shooting at focal of 200mm)



Hey, if you want to buy a copy of that, I'll sell you one. 
_But the example as art is not being debated. In that sense I'll put my best up against your best or anyone elses._

This is one of many shots I took at close to the minimum focus of the lens to see how it would perform.
Now I know, and I'm trying to share that info in case someone else thinks this highly praised and pricey piece of gear is nearly perfect because of all the fan-boy ravings about it.

Did you know or suspect that this lens would render the image this poorly in this circumstance?
I have another example to post from a competitor's 70-200mm that's as bad or worse. Just in case someone was thinking that might be one solution.

EDIT: hasty typo fixed, supposed to be 200mm, not 20mm.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 8, 2013)

Here's more unpleasant bokeh from spankin' new Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR
I'd hoped it would have less nasty multiple-outline bokeh than the faster Canon I posted at the start of this thread.
Alas, no. It seems, in fact, to be as bad or worse at times. No point going this direction instead of the Canon lens unless you're aiming to save size, weight, and money.

scaled from whole FF shot, looks even worse in full rez

200mm @ f/6.3


----------



## willis (Feb 8, 2013)

Low ISO performance on 7D... that bug's me quite bit.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 8, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Did you know or suspect that this lens would render the image this poorly in this circumstance?



Yes and no ... 

Thanks to you of course , because I remember this picture being posted before and then there was this ... 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11915.msg212684#msg212684

Thanks BTW. If I'd heard someone criticizing the 70-200 on the issue of bokeh, I would have said "I'll wait till I see it".


----------



## SwissBear (Feb 8, 2013)

my .02$ for this "multi-outline-bokeh": try shooting these images WITHOUT image stabilisation, and you have solved the problem.
Before further explanation, try to understand how IS works...


----------



## Trevor (Feb 8, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Here's more unpleasant bokeh from spankin' new Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR




It doesn't look unpleasant to me .... I really don't get this 'bokeh' stuff. I agree in the picture of the berry the out of focus bits detract ... but it's ok

I think it's another internet photography meme ... bokeh, sharpness, megapixels ... 

Still, you've got to be happy with your own photos. But I'd suggest no one would care too much about your fuzzy bits ;-)


----------



## Sith Zombie (Feb 8, 2013)

Family Guy You Know What Really Grinds My Gears


----------



## J.R. (Feb 8, 2013)

SwissBear said:


> my .02$ for this "multi-outline-bokeh": try shooting these images WITHOUT image stabilisation, and you have solved the problem.
> Before further explanation, try to understand how IS works...



Does IS affect bokeh? I've been shooting for only for just over a year so I'm a relative newbie here ... want to learn.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Feb 8, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As the predawn shadows are lifted, I bet the rooster gets really noisy.
> ...


I liked that one! lol


----------



## SwissBear (Feb 8, 2013)

J.R. said:


> SwissBear said:
> 
> 
> > my .02$ for this "multi-outline-bokeh": try shooting these images WITHOUT image stabilisation, and you have solved the problem.
> ...



Yes it does (in special circumstances only: shallow DOF with objects just OOF). Consider the location of the IS group inside your lens and imagine what happens when you tilt the camera body by a single degree or less during the exposure. Think about location of the sensor, location of the IS group, location of the photographed object (which remains focussed) and the location of the object(s) slightly out of focus. A sketch might help 

Corollary: If you happen to shake your lens around the nodal point, no "multi-outline-bokeh" will occur


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 8, 2013)

Another thing that grinds my gears is when you shoot video without an external microphone... if you forget to turn image stabilization off, you get a wonderful soundtrack of the IS motors... Now that's grinding gears!


----------



## Aglet (Feb 8, 2013)

SwissBear said:


> my .02$ for this "multi-outline-bokeh": try shooting these images WITHOUT image stabilisation, and you have solved the problem.
> Before further explanation, try to understand how IS works...



These 70-200 zooms have produced plenty of similar effects while mounted on a tripod so IS is not the cause, even if it can contribute a similar effect when it's quite active.

There are also plenty of non-IS lenses also capable of similarly busy, outlined bokeh. In fact it's become a bit of a fad to create as much using certain old Helios lenses. The 44M in a 50-some mm focal length come to mind.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Feb 8, 2013)

Gear grinding of a different sort... ;D

In reality though... ever since picking up the 5D3 and 1Dx... I hate my 7D!!!


----------



## Aglet (Feb 8, 2013)

ChilledXpress said:


> Gear grinding of a different sort... ;D



That's kind of funny... and possibly offensive to some people.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 8, 2013)

Trevor said:


> It doesn't look unpleasant to me .... I really don't get this 'bokeh' stuff. I agree in the picture of the berry the out of focus bits detract ... but it's ok
> 
> I think it's another internet photography meme ... bokeh, sharpness, megapixels ...
> 
> Still, you've got to be happy with your own photos. But I'd suggest no one would care too much about your fuzzy bits ;-)



Well, the photo of those berries (crabapples, actually) is only a test shot of sorts, altho I've got similar shots which have much greater visual appeal. What it does is show that if you are _counting_ on this lens to provide a smoothly burred out of focus area it may not always be able to provide it.

Sometimes we want or need to have the busy, finely structured portion of a composition deliberately blurred by the lens in such a way that it becomes part of the overall composition, and as such, you may want more control over how it will look. This is just one of the reasons for using fast, large aperture lenses.

I wish I had my old 200mm prime with me at the same time for the same shot.
I can describe how it would have rendered the same scene. Using the same shallow focus zone, the prime would have been slightly softer. Foreground and background elements, as you move farther away from the focal plane, would progressively and smoothly get more blurred until they disappeared into each other and the backlight, adding only a hint of tone or shading.
That would have left the cluster of apples almost floating in space in appearance. Which was the effect I was hoping the EF 70-200 2.8 L IS 2 would have provided. The lens renders the focus area with tremendous accuity, but I am not satisfied with the out of focus part of the image.
Unfortunately, i need to be satisfied with the _whole_ image to find it useful. This is actually something that older lenses are often better at; what they lack in sharpness is offset by often smoother bokeh.
Actually, some cheaper lenses will also do this in a more balanced way too. There are a lot of variables.


----------



## smithy (Feb 8, 2013)

The 5D3's flash sync limitation of 1/200th bugs me a lot. It's irrelevant when I'm shooting with my Yongnuo HSS flash, but when I'm using my studio strobes, 1/200th just isn't fast enough - and it limits the DOF I can achieve. I realise I could add ND filters to my lenses, but that only does so much and isn't always practical. I could post several images with the DOF I want, but overexposed, but you can imagine them can't you?

And I really dislike the fact that when I remove and reinsert the CF card in my 5D3, it switches over to the SD card and I have to manually select CF storage again to get it saving to the correct card. I want it to have a persistent setting that always chooses the CF card if it sees that it is inserted and has free space. Surely it can't be that difficult to program. It doesn't stop me from taking a photo, but if I'm in a hurry and need to photograph long bursts of action with high FPS, having the camera save to the SD card produces slower frame rates.


----------



## sandymandy (Feb 8, 2013)

I like wideangle and got an APS-C that bugs me. Solution? Get FF body ....uhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :-\


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 8, 2013)

That my 135L isn't half a stop faster and isn't IS.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 8, 2013)

Nothing TBH. I hate the Cstraps I bought instead of black rapid but that was my own mistake.


----------



## twcull (Feb 11, 2013)

I wish that there were more options for people such as myself who seem to have monstrous hands. It makes it hard to want to carry a camera all day thats just wayy to small.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2013)

The lady sitting beside me in the plane..... As we are passing over Winnipeg, at night, at 35000 feet, the pilot announces "and if you look out of the windows on the right side of the plane you can see the lights of Winnipeg". She whips out a DSLR and starts taking flash pictures of Winnipeg.

Why isn't my flash bright enough to light up a city from 35,000 feet? Why won't my camera magicaly cancel out the reflection of the flash off of the window? Does this mean I have to upgrade to FF and the new magic super sensor?


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> The lady sitting beside me in the plane..... As we are passing over Winnipeg, at night, at 35000 feet, the pilot announces "and if you look out of the windows on the right side of the plane you can see the lights of Winnipeg". She whips out a DSLR and starts taking flash pictures of Winnipeg.
> 
> Why isn't my flash bright enough to light up a city from 35,000 feet? Why won't my camera magicaly cancel out the reflection of the flash off of the window? Does this mean I have to upgrade to FF and the new magic super sensor?



Yes~


----------



## tron (Feb 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> The lady sitting beside me in the plane..... As we are passing over Winnipeg, at night, at 35000 feet, the pilot announces "and if you look out of the windows on the right side of the plane you can see the lights of Winnipeg". She whips out a DSLR and starts taking flash pictures of Winnipeg.
> 
> Why isn't my flash bright enough to light up a city from 35,000 feet? Why won't my camera magicaly cancel out the reflection of the flash off of the window? Does this mean I have to upgrade to FF and the new magic super sensor?


Well if she were lucky there would be a storm and maybe a lightning during the time she was pressing the button...

Now, that would be a little more powerful flash ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> The lady sitting beside me in the plane..... As we are passing over Winnipeg, at night, at 35000 feet, the pilot announces "and if you look out of the windows on the right side of the plane you can see the lights of Winnipeg". She whips out a DSLR and starts taking flash pictures of Winnipeg.
> 
> Why isn't my flash bright enough to light up a city from 35,000 feet? Why won't my camera magicaly cancel out the reflection of the flash off of the window? Does this mean I have to upgrade to FF and the new magic super sensor?


 
 reminds me of the days when I used to give / attend lectures with a projector onto a White screen. People would try to take pictures of the image on the screen with flash and were later dumfounded to find they had a picture of a White screen ! ;D

Biggest grip I have with gear is the dreadful build quality of an otherwise great lens like the 50 mm 1.4. The manual focus on it really winds me up when I have to use it. :'(


----------



## tron (Feb 11, 2013)

I have witnessed people using flash to shoot the Total Solar Eclipse ...    

Fortunately my telephoto lens had a hood...


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 11, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The lady sitting beside me in the plane..... As we are passing over Winnipeg, at night, at 35000 feet, the pilot announces "and if you look out of the windows on the right side of the plane you can see the lights of Winnipeg". She whips out a DSLR and starts taking flash pictures of Winnipeg.
> ...



I like my (close to dead) nifty fifty. The USM motor is starting to die so it will focus to a point and then just give up. I think 6 years isn't bad=). Trying to decide now between a Zeiss manual 50 f/1.4, since I am now used to manual focus, or a Canon 50 f/1.2. I just feel bad for the little lens as it used to nail focus 95% of the time.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 11, 2013)

I am kinda satisfied with anything. Sure, a 1DX would be nice, but that won't be happening anytime soon.

I would really love an _affordable_ ultra wide prime or zoom instead of my manual Samyang, which I am satisfied with by the way, but just to scratch off that manual focussing. Sadly there is no real alternative qualitywise other than the Canon 14mm L II prime itself which is way too expensive. Tamron 14mm, Sigma 12-24mm, Sigma 14mm all are while being affordable far away from reaching the Samyang's image quality.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 12, 2013)

twcull said:


> I wish that there were more options for people such as myself who seem to have monstrous hands. It makes it hard to want to carry a camera all day thats just wayy to small.



Used to be a time, back in film days, that there were some interesting add-on accessories that would be helpful.
There sure did add a lot to the overall bulk of the system tho.
Friend of mine with big hands has similar complaints with his 7D, even with a grip it's kind of small for him. Kinda funny to see him try use a little Rebel.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> The lady sitting beside me in the plane..... As we are passing over Winnipeg, at night, at 35000 feet, the pilot announces "and if you look out of the windows on the right side of the plane you can see the lights of Winnipeg". She whips out a DSLR and starts taking flash pictures of Winnipeg.
> 
> Why isn't my flash bright enough to light up a city from 35,000 feet? Why won't my camera magicaly cancel out the reflection of the flash off of the window? Does this mean I have to upgrade to FF and the new magic super sensor?



egads, some Co. I don't remember even has a MODE for this on some of their small cameras!


----------



## Aglet (Feb 12, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> I am kinda satisfied with anything. Sure, a 1DX would be nice, but that won't be happening anytime soon.
> 
> I would really love an _affordable_ ultra wide prime or zoom instead of my manual Samyang, which I am satisfied with by the way, but just to scratch off that manual focussing. Sadly there is no real alternative qualitywise other than the Canon 14mm L II prime itself which is way too expensive. Tamron 14mm, Sigma 12-24mm, Sigma 14mm all are while being affordable far away from reaching the Samyang's image quality.



here's hoping their 24mm Tilt-shift is on the same sharpness level as that 14mm!
Could use something that performs the job for less than the OEM priced options.


----------



## Chris_prophotographic (Feb 12, 2013)

Pocket wizards Miss fires and DISTANCE needed 

1DX battery life

Pushing an image from a 1DX more noise than i thought to see in the shadows 

Models canceling appointments.

Ninjas.

Canon still thrills me with its AF and some stellar lenses 24 mk II and 70-200 mkII

VERY GOOD TOPIC


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 12, 2013)

Overall I like my 7D still a lot .. after 3 years.
Got only Canon glass [10-22, 17-55, 40 pancake, 60 Macro, 50/1.4, 100/2.0, 70-200 2.8 II, TC 1.4x II] and Canon speedlites [580EX II, 2x 430EX/II]. 
No third party gear whatsoever - for fear of autofocus issues and due to zoom rings turning the wrong way round in Sigma, Tokina and Tamrons.

Shortcomings: 

7D
* useless Auto-ISO implementation [much better in almost every Nikon]
* ISO 100 IQ could be way better ... especially +2 EV DR [compared to e.g. Nikon D7000]
* no fully articulated LCD
* no WiFi built in
* no GPS built in (less of an issue to me)
* tracking AF could still be better

Canon glass
* would love to finally get a sensibly priced 50/1.4 II with IQ like Nikon 50/1.4 AFS and with Ring-USM AF and built quality exactly like 100/2.0
* still waiting for a - sensibly priced - 100-400/4.0-5.6 II turning-zoom, fully weather-sealed
* otherwise no complaints ... except recent pricing of new lenses

flash
* no second curtain sync with Canon wireless ETTL 
* no 360 degree turnable flash head on 430EX/II
* no Canon-RT radio receivers for my Canon speedlites available

That's it, i guess. Short list. Would be really cheap to fix for Canon.


----------



## pierlux (Feb 12, 2013)

Although there are several things I don't like in my Canon gear, nothing is really worth mentioning as far as image quality is concerned, I'm pretty OK with it. But there's one thing that really bugs me, it's not a quality issue, I'd rather call it a logical conflict. I know this topic has been covered hundreds of times among various fora in the last decade, it just seemed to me worth mentioning it in this thread. It's about the symbols used for metering modes. Spot (rectangle and dot) and partial (rectangle and circle) are quite intuitive, but evaluative (rectangle and circled dot) and center-weighed average (empty rectangle) are absolutely counterlogical, they should be inverted. I know we have all get used to this already, so Canon eventually swapping them would generate more confusion, nevertheless this thing is so illogical that really upsets me every time. 

Logical cheers!

Mr. Spock


----------

