To Canon and Loeb & Loeb: Thanks for the traffic!

Note: I’ve added a third update now at the bottom.

Traffic to my blog increased after Loeb & Loeb implemented their online marketing plan for my blog.

Traffic to my blog increased after Loeb & Loeb implemented their online marketing plan for my blog.

First let me take a moment to welcome all the new readers of my blog, I hope you’ll enjoy the existing content like many others have done in the past, and will stay long enough to enjoy future content. Due to my very busy work schedule at Canon USA I’m not always able to update the blog very frequently, but I do try to do so at least once a week. Also note that the content here is specifically geared towards serious photo geeks, photographers and others in the photography industry.

As many of you know, we’ve been quite arrogant in the past here at Canon, and still are. Communicating with our customers really isn’t one of our strongest points as a company. For example, just recently we finally released a service notice, after knowing about this problem for almost 3 years now and many users suffering the consequences, for the original 5D mirror falling off. If you think this is just an isolated incident, think again. The timing of the service release is ofcourse related to the 5D Mark II being “available” now, and since the 5D is going to be discontinued soon anyway, there’s no danger in admitting to the issues. In the same way, if Galbraith wasn’t so persistent after we kept denying, most of the world would never have known about the 1D Mark III focus issues. And we still haven’t said anything about the EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM focus problems that many are experiencing. As of right now, we’re still not saying much about the focus issues with the new 5D Mark II, let alone the vignetting problem. And lots more. That’s why I’ve been here at Canon USA working my ass off trying to participate online as much as possible, answering questions from customers through email, etc. etc., while trying not to get fired by my shortsighted superiors at Canon Inc. Having been in the business myself as a photographer in the past before I joined Canon USA, I feel for all of you. So last year I finally decided to start this blog as the first step of improving our communications with customers and allowing me to be a lot more open and frank about various issues.

Since the launch of this blog back in September 2008 I haven’t done much to promote the blog and get the word out about it. But apparently I was able to convince Canon to finally do something about promoting my blog and make some company funds available for it. So we hired the marketing experts at Loeb & Loeb, and they came up with a brilliant plan to promote the blog online. You can read all about that here. And as you can see from the image above, after the implementation of their plan, traffic to my blog increased exponentionally. After Thomas Hawk blogged about it, it got on Slashdot and the rest, as they say, is history. Needless to say, I would highly recommend our pals at Loeb & Loeb if you are looking to give your website more exposure online.

I have to tell you, sometimes I do wonder myself if I am working for a camera manufacturing company or the mafia. Seeing as how Canon likes to approach things sometimes, I can get confused. Last year one of my superiors in Japan actually wanted to send a ninja to DPReview’s Phil Askey “for handle him,” after DPReview posted a negative review of the EOS 50D. So it is no surprise that the good people at Canon Rumours are afraid to say anything about the shut down notice. They’ve had their own issues with Canon last year. A thread on the DPReview forums, discussing Canon’s shut down notice also seems to have vanished. From my website statistics logs, I can see that the thread existed at the following URL: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=31008091. I visited that thread yesterday and today, and know for a fact that it existed. This morning the thread was already up to 4 pages before it got taken down. Another thread discussing the issue still appears to be up: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=31018366. One can only speculate about what exactly happened to the missing thread. This is the first time I’ve experienced censorship on DPreview myself, but I have heard about it in the past.

Anyway I have to sign off now to take care of some work and then leave the office early today to go home and be err….bang.. err, I mean… be with my family. I expect to be tired and unavailable for the rest of the day. Thanks for your understanding.

Update:

I received some screenshots of the thread on DPReview which was deleted:

Deleted thread on DPReview Forums

Deleted thread on DPReview Forums

 

Deleted thread on DPReview Forums

Deleted thread on DPReview Forums

Now I know I wasn’t hallucinating when I saw that thread.

Barnett points out in the comments below that our pal Douglas “Doggy” E. Mirell from Loeb & Loeb is indeed a promotions specialist. Looks like we got the right man for the job. He took the blog mainstream like only he could: Doggy style.

Update 2:

Looks like DPReview is at it again. I received a screenshot of yet another thread that got deleted. The thread existed at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=31037898. Click on the image for larger view.

DPReview Deleted Thread

DPReview Deleted Thread

 Update 3:

Fake Chuck Westfall threads are dropping like flies over at the DPReview forums. Received another screenshot of a thread which existed at: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=31042825. Click on the image for larger view.

Deleted Thread on DPReview

Deleted Thread on DPReview

Viva la revolucion, indeed, LOL.

109 thoughts on “To Canon and Loeb & Loeb: Thanks for the traffic!

  1. Oh Well Done! I love this. It just keeps getting better!

    Love the part about Canon spending company funds to promote your blogg!

    Keep it up!

    Daniel

  2. Chuck, I’m glad our PR trick to gain more attention and readership for your blog worked. The takedown notice was a fucking pure thing of genius.

    But god damnit, I still haven’t gotten my check from either Loeb & Loeb or those fuckers back at the home office in Japan. Publicity this good costs money now. You’d better let those hacks back at the home office know that if I don’t receive my check pronto I might just send a few of those Ninja types back there myself.

  3. Keeping in the spirit of parody, perhaps the Canon logo should be restored but upside down and backwards this time. Maybe even mashed up with the Loeb and Loeb one – or just the same shades of blue.

    Yah know, the Loeb ‘L’ looks a bit like a foot. If someone with graphic arts skills made a ‘canon’ shooting it’s own Loeb ‘L’ foot that would sum the situation up visually.

  4. Almost 20,000 Visitors!?! From 200?

    I should think of a way to anger this big corporate morons so that they can also send me a take-down notice to get traffics on my blog.

  5. Looks like Canon got the right man for the job, Chuck. I see that Douglas Mirell from Loeb & Loeb lists “Advertising and Promotions” as his number one practice area on his web page at http://www.loeb.com/douglas_mirell/
    As always it pays to get a specialist for the job. And what a great job he did. I will certainly consider him for my next big web site promotion.

  6. Love it. Hated Canon’s since I got into photography. Use to shoot with a Pentax when shooting in 35mm but have since gone to Nikon.

    Canons were always such a lead weight around your neck and probably better used as boat anchors.

  7. Brilliant. I only heard of you after reading about it in ArsTechnica. Well done. One more for the little man.

    These companies can be soooo stupid sometimes. Same as the record companies. They are only increasing your traffic more by giving you this free promotion at their expense. I love the internet. Ha ha

  8. Thomas,

    Take it easy, you know how they don’t like violence at Canon Inc. and Loeb & Loeb. You have to be careful otherwise they’ll try taking your site down as well.

    Barnett,

    Yeah looks like Douglas “Doggy” E. Mirell is indeed a promotions specialists hahaha. He took this blog mainstream like only he could – Doggy Style.

  9. You guys are such pros! Turning the real pros who do this for a living and are getting paid by Canon onto their own heads and mocking them in the process. Actually they mock themselves. These pros, the lawyers and PR guys are essentially getting paid by Canon to promote your blog. 200 hits to 19,000 hits in less than 2 days!!!!

    Doggy and the firm he works for should be entered into the Internet Hall of Fame for the most successful internet marketing promotion program ever devised.

    Problem: How to give a site more publicity?
    Answer: Hire specialists in the field to threaten the site and see hits to it skyrocket.

    Brilliant….

  10. Just saw this:

    “The complaint listed four claims against the blog, and the fake Westfall responded by altering his site to comply with two of them. He removed the Canon logo, and he altered a comment, one he made himself, that could be interpreted as a violent threat. Now a plan to get people’s attention by “bashing their heads with a two by four” has become an arguably more frightening threat to “start dancing ballet in front of them.”

    http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/canon-threatens-humorist-humorist-gets-last-laugh

  11. Pingback: To Canon and Loeb & Loeb: Thanks for the traffic! - Fake Chuck Westfall | Photo News Today

  12. Can’t believe just how smart Canon is – again! They really learn from past experiences like Canon Rumors. Well, and what a great timing, just before PMA. Might switch to Nikon. Anybody interested in my 5D?

  13. Fake Chuck

    I discovered our friend, Douglas E. Mirell, has a FaceBook page… but only has 26 friends. After all the hard work he has done for you and your readers, I think it’s important that we show our support and send a friend request.
    http://www.facebook.com/s.php?q=Dougl++Mirell+&n=-1&k=400000000010&sf=r&init=q&sid=83f46406d979ce31628989c18fc76e84#/friends/?id=578702785

    Based on his unsurpassed success driving Blog traffic I understand Doug is working on his own… The Doogie Mirell Diaries – a behind the scenes look at Los Angeles law firm Lube&Lube. All the drama of the Osbournes. All the sophistication of Nancy Grace. Stay tuned.

  14. I am under the impression that this is, in fact, Chuck Westfall’s blog. Chuck, I’ve have to hand it to you. Risking your job during a recession is not for the weak, and yet you make it seem effortless.

    /s

  15. Dear Canon,

    thank you very much for this new communication channel with your clients. However, thinking about twice to get a new Canon 5D MkII perhaps it will be better to switch to the (better sealed Sony A900 and getting a pair of good wide angle Zeiss lenses (with better quality). In the meantime I will use my old 5D until it will loose it’s mirror.

    And thank you Canon about the whole buzz of this website, otherwise I wouldn’t have found fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com !!!

  16. I was concerned after the Boston Legal television series ended. I wonder what would happen to Denny “Never Lost; Never Will” Crane and his mad cow affliction.

    Apprently he changed his name and got a job at Loeb & Loeb in advertising and promotion.

    You’re in good hands Fake Chuck and keep on tilting at that big Canon windmill.

    Maybe one day we’ll be proud Canon users again.

  17. Streamwood Bill and others, Fake isn’t tilting at the big Canon windmill. He’s abusing Chuck’s good name and image. That’s downright MEAN. Whatever you have to say about Canon products, you shouldn’t take it out on the real Chuck personally. He’s a genuine guy and has been very helpful to photographers. Other camera manufacturers should be so lucky (and wise) as to have a Chuck Westfall responding to their customers.

    Photographers, please stand up for Chuck! Fake’s blog is just plain abusive of this man.

    Someone needs to say this: if you support this idiotic blog, you’re supporting ABUSIVE mean-spirited behavior toward a good individual. Besides that, the blog is in such poor taste and so unfunny. The individual behind it won’t reveal his real name lest he be victimized in the same way that he has victimized the real Chuck.

    WordPress, please shut down this blog for abuse and harassment of the real Chuck Westfall.

  18. Beerboy, please let me know your real name and your family members’ real names and send me a portrait of yourself so that I can make a “fake” site about you — you personally. Also, please send information about your employer, so I can make the site a an unfunny critique of your employer’s products and services. I’ll just say it’s all Fake, so you won’t mind at all, I’m sure, since you called me an idiot. And your employer won’t mind at all, no doubt. Um, would that be OK, Beerboy? BEERBOY?

  19. To tt:

    “Beerboy” is a private citizen. The man you name and refer to is a “Public Figure”. Believe me, if you knew what you were talking about, you’d have a better grasp of the situation:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

    Now don’t come back until you’ve read what the term “Public Figure” means, because it includes your friend too!

    I support FakeChuckWestfall like a jock-strap, and so should you!

  20. “Public figure” is a legal term applied in the context of defamation actions and claims of invasions of privacy, as per the Wikipedia article linked above. Whether Chuck legally qualifies as a “public figure” is subject to debate. In any case, Fake’s blog site is personally abusive and harassing of this man and his family. Even public figures have some protection from abuse and harassment.

    I’m not a friend of Chuck’s, have never met him, and don’t expect to meet him. But I do know that he’s been very helpful to photographers, month after month, year after year. He and his family don’t deserve to be named and abused in Fake’s blog.

    If Fake were a stand-up person, a mensch, he would have critiqued Canon without a personal attack on one of its employees.

    If you feel otherwise, Beerboy, please identify yourself and your family and your employer so that someone can make a blog about you, personally, and mentioning all of them. As you feel that abuse and harassment are OK, then you won’t mind being on the receiving end. You too can be a “public figure”.

  21. Chuck has earned a lot of respect and gratitude in the photographic community. He’s not the leader of Canon. He’s not Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or someone like that. You and Fake are seriously mixed up if you feel it’s appropriate to treat him to this abuse.

  22. Following the eff.org link above, it appears that Chuck may be a “limited-purpose public figure” (unlike a celebrity or politician):

    “A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across.”

    By that definition, Fake and Beerboy, you are both limited-purpose public figures. So, come on now, let’s have your personal & employer info for a Fake blog site about you personally. Hey, you’re public figures!

  23. And for anyone who doesn’t know about the Real Chuck, here is what Mike Johnston had to say at http://theonlinephotographer.com on Monday (2/16/09):

    “Real Chuck Westfall … is someone who’s been friendly and generous to me over the years; few people so highly placed in any company I’ve ever had to deal with have been as unfailingly generous with their time and knowledge. Many times Real Chuck went out of his way to provide good, solid information for me when needed. He’s deeply knowledgeable about the products—all the products—he represents, and I’ve known him to personally help photographers of every description, seemingly tirelessly. Chuck didn’t personally make Canon the World’s #1 camera maker, but he’s done his part to help make that happen—and Canon’s lucky; there aren’t a whole lot of guys like him out there. Say what you want to about any camera—I certainly do—but don’t make good folks (and their families) into straw dogs in the process, I say.”

    So, please think about that when you support Fake like a jock-strap.

  24. You obviously don’t want to be harassed the way that Fake harasses Chuck, so you won’t give your real personal info. I’m not surprised.

  25. Pingback: Pas sûr que Canon apprécié ce buzz.. | web&toiles

  26. tt you’re a knob.
    Anyone would think you’re Chucks Mother or something.
    I think it’s only fair that you give us your real identity in exchange for Beerboy and Fake Chuck’s real identities.

    If you have a problem with the site the sollution is fairly simple – piss off and visit some other fake site.

    When has Fake Chuck ever been ever been abusive to the real Chuck ?
    Are you telling me that the real Chuck lives in some sort of glass bubble and doesn’t realise that all the products Canon are releasing at the moment are shit ? Do you even use Canon gear ?
    Have you ever had the misfortune to own a 1d3 that won’t work in the sun, or a 5d that simply won’t work at all after the damn mirror fell off ?

    I reckon the real Chuck wishes he could express some of the views Fake Chuck has, which is what makes the whole site so damn funny.

    It’s funny because it is real.
    All Canon need to do to make this site go away is to go back to producing decent photography equipment for photographers, not the dickheads in marketing.

  27. David, I’m not going to give my real identity because I don’t support this site or Fake’s conduct. I think it’s reprehensible to abuse Chuck’s name and image. But you do support it, so you wouldn’t mind being on the receiving end of an abusive, harassing web site, right?

    Beerboy gave up on his attempt at a legal argument, and dropped into crude insult mode. He may be worried that he too is a “limitted-purpose public figure”.

    Sorry, but my “pissing off” would not be a solution. This site still exists.

    What is abusive here to the real Chuck? Using his name in the title of a blog site that is critical of his employer. Duh! Using his image in the same. You feel that this is fair and not abusive?

    Your claim about “all” Canon products being shit is preposterous, as are many of the claims on this blog. I rely on Canon gear for all of my work and every dollar of my income is earned photographing with Canon gear. Has been for years. It’s not perfect — nothing is. It’s completely fair to criticize a company’s products and policies. A mirror falls off or something like that, fine, write about your mirror all you want, all day and all night. Boohoo, my mirror fell off! (Actually, my mirror never fell off.) But this site goes way beyond that in making its criticism personal, using an employee’s name and image and his family members’ names. That is way out-of-line and just plain rude. Didn’t your parents teach you better?

    And I don’t work for Canon or Loeb & Loeb. I’ve seen Chuck being helpful to photographers for years. See Mike Johnston’s comment above. So I feel sorry to see Chuck’s name abused on this site.

    You think Chuck wants to say what Fake says? You can imagine anything you want, but neither one of us has any clue about that. Don’t confuse your fantasy land with reality.

    So what part of this site is real? That Canon products fail? Every damned company’s products fail! Your products fail. Rocket scientists fail. The economy fails. Lot’s of things fail. But Chuck is one of the good guys. And if you’re in the photography business, you should know that. That’s why this site is so damned unfunny.

    As for trying to get Fake’s identity by stealth, what fucking stealth? I’m asking whether he’s willing to have his real identity abused in the way that he abuses Chuck’s. It’s easy for Fake to abuse and harass when he can hide behind a Fake name. But that’s what scoundrels and jerks do.

  28. Hey, Not Chuck, can I get a letter of introduction from you to Loeb and Loeb? My blog is pitifully short of visitors.

    I am worried, though, that tt might show up there and not get it at all, since that seems to be his SOP. Can you keep him here? Chain him to a radiator or something? I’d consider it a personal favor and a public service, cuz letting the humor impaired wander loose in the streets will just make the world a duller place for us all.

  29. Hey John Mikes,

    Chuck does not run Canon. He’s not the head of Canon. Do you understand that? Perhaps you don’t.

    I gather from his many online posts that Chuck has been the guy listening to photographers’ concerns and complaints and transmitting them to Japan. Chuck has been very responsive to photographers. I’m going to guess that some improvements and new products in the Canon line may well have been influenced by input from Chuck. I’m saying that we want a guy like Chuck to be listening to us. Don’t you? Or do you just want to trash his name? Can I trash your name?

    Fake Steve Jobs was apparently a funny site. But remember that real Steve Jobs ran Apple. HE RAN THE COMPANY. If you have a beef with a company, why not direct your criticism at its leader?

    I admire what Rob Galbraith did with his in-depth analysis of the 1DIII’s autofocus. That was good factual journalism. But note that after MORE THAN A YEAR of testing, Rob Galbraith kept on using the 1DIII for his professional work:
    http://robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537
    He kept using the camera that was the subject of all of that debate for his livelihood. And he had a lot of other choices. “But it’s the quality of the photos that has kept me coming back,” wrote Rob. Just look at Rob’s work and you know that he knows what he’s talking about. And Rob didn’t abuse anyone’s name.

    By the way, it appears that even Fake Steve revealed his true identity (Dan Lyons?): http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/
    There’s a lesson there for you, Fake.

  30. Hey Oleksandr,

    If you really want to stand up for freedom of speech, let me make a fake blog about YOU personally and your family, and let me notify all of your clients about it. You’re a public figure, OK?

    I’ll say all kinds of things that I imagine you are saying or thinking. I’ll say some thing that I think you would really like to say. I know you wouldn’t say them yourself because they would be too embarrassing, so I’ll say them for you. I’ll let my imagination really run WILD. It’s OK if I do that right? And if I use your real photo at the top? Your clients and your family will just think it’s funny right?

    Anything is fair for freedom of speech, so you won’t mind if I really s-t-r-e-t-c-h my writing skills in putting words in YOUR mouth. I’m sure you won’t sue me for anything because you believe in free speech — any kind of free speech, even rude, abusive, tasteless, harassing free speech about you and your work and your employer and your clients and your family. We’ll just say it’s all “Fake” and all will be good and funny.

    Just kidding, of course. But I’m making a point about freedom of speech.

  31. Hi I’m not really tt.

    I’m actually Fake Toni Schneider!

    In my imagination, I’m CEO at Automattic, the company that runs the excellent WordPress.com service which powers the very words you are currently reading. I live in San Francisco with my wife and kids. I like technology startups, cars, and alternative energy. Once upon a time I grew up in Switzerland, then moved to California for college.

    I’m currently fakely involved with these fine companies:
    Automattic (CEO)
    True Ventures (Venture Partner)
    Bandcamp (board member)
    Vodpod (board member)
    GoodTree (advisor)
    Aurora Biofuels (angel investor)

    Please check out my new blog at http://faketonischneider.wordpress.com

    (Let’s see if WordPress allows this.)

    I thought it was about time that I had my own blog on the Internet. I’m going to use this blog as a platform to let you all know what I’m up to, and what Automattic is up to, and to give you the inside scoop about my company. So stay tuned for some exciting posts about Automattic and the other fine companies that I’m not involved in.

    If I were the real Toni Schneider, I would blog at http://toni.org, but I’m FakeToniSchneider so don’t go there.

    But do check out all of my passionate friend’s WordPress blogs here:

    http://fakebarryabrahamson.wordpress.com
    http://fakemichaelhttp://fakeadams.wordpress.com
    http://fakenikolaybachiyski.wordpress.com
    http://fakeraananbarcohen.wordpress.com
    http://fakesambauers.wordpress.com
    http://fakeryanboren.wordpress.com
    http://fakeanthonybubel.wordpress.com
    http://fakelloydbudd.wordpress.com
    http://fakemayadesai.wordpress.com
    http://fakeanndorman.wordpress.com
    http://fakejonfox.wordpress.com
    http://fakeeoingallagher.wordpress.com
    http://fakenoeljackson.wordpress.com
    http://fakedemitriousmeechkelly.wordpress.com
    http://fakeisaackeyet.wordpress.com
    http://fakedavidlennylenehan.wordpress.com
    http://fakemariannemasculino.wordpress.com
    http://fakenickmomrik.wordpress.com
    http://fakemattmullenweg.wordpress.com
    http://fakedonnchaocaoimh.wordpress.com
    http://fakethorstenott.wordpress.com
    http://fakeandrewozz.wordpress.com
    http://fakeandypeatling.wordpress.com
    http://fakemichaelpick.wordpress.com
    http://fakewarwickpoole.wordpress.com
    http://fakeheatherrasley.wordpress.com
    http://fakemarkriley.wordpress.com
    http://fakejosephscott.wordpress.com
    http://fakealexshiels.wordpress.com
    http://fakeandyskelton.wordpress.com
    http://fakenoriykotate.wordpress.com
    http://fakemattthomas.wordpress.com
    http://fakejanewells.wordpress.com
    http://fakehailinwu.wordpress.com

    I’m so excited that WordPress is supporting fake blogs that abuse company employees’ real names and photos!

  32. Hey tt,
    Please keep your posts short so it’s easier to skip over them. Your long posts are no doubt wasting good disk space on the server which could be better used to point out Canon’s shortcomings.

    Thanks for the website FakeChuck, keep up the great work, and I’ll remember to allocate more marketing budget to my legal dept next year. They seem to know how to increase the website traffic.
    Thanks
    John.

  33. Now if only some lawyer would ‘cease and desist’ you regarding those damnable popups with the little window that looks like webpages. Have no no idea how tgruly annoying those are? Even worse that some lawyer threating to sue you for exercising your 1st Amendment rights. Worse than a Nikon camera. Worse than a dirty sensor. Worse than, than, than, speculation about Canon’s next camera and a photoshopped picture of it made from some older model with a cheesy fake model name pasted onto it! Well, you get the idea.

  34. David, that’s easy to say when you can’t respond to any of my arguments.

    By the way, I hear the Fake Toni Schneider is starting a blog. Real Toni Schneider is the CEO of Automattic, the company behind WordPress. As of this moment,

    http://faketonischneider.wordpress.com

    is available! As WordPress is supporting Fake Chuck Westfall, I have no doubt that they will treat Fake Toni Schneider with the same sense of fairness. Just wait until Fake Toni writes all of the things that real Toni would like to write but won’t because he would be too embarrassed!

  35. Jay and others, I’m so happy that I could entertain you, not.

    You guys should start a club together called “Defenders of the Fake”.

    As far as I can tell, these are the moral and practical principles that unite you:

    1. You simply can’t make a decent photo with your inadequate Canon equipment, none of which works properly.

    2. You support the anonymous abuse and embarrassment of one Canon employee (not the CEO) as payback.

    3. In order to solve your equipment crisis, you want to discourage Canon employees (like Chuck) from listening and responding to photographers for fear that they and their families may become the victims of an anonymous blog site.

    Have I summarized your founding principles correctly? That’s all perfectly sensible, right?

    Defenders, I say, stand up for your principles! Even though you can’t make a rational argument, that shouldn’t stop you from uniting in your cause.

  36. John Mikes, uh, I’ve summarized the point just above your post … three points actually. You subscribe to the three guiding principles of the Defenders of the Fake, so how do you defend these principles?

    Look, I’m very sorry that you can’t make a decent photo with your Canon gear, but please explain exactly how are you making Canon better? By embarrassing the guy who helps photographers?

    There are some excellent web sites that offer valuable critiques of Canon gear but that do so in an intelligent way and with the authors signing their real names. That’s called decency. Have you any?

  37. Pingback: The Marketing Plan From Heck - Just Get A Lawyer Involved - Make Money With WordPress Blogs AND ActiveBlogging!

  38. John Mikes, funny how you won’t respond to any of my questions. Can’t defend your three core principles? Don’t care to share your more rational thoughts, or you simply don’t have any?

    By the way, check out this new blog — you’re going to absolutely LOVE it:

    http://fakejohnmikes.wordpress.com

    Fake John Mikes is about you and your employer, complete with profanity and threats of violence by the Fake John Mikes. Stuff about hitting people — it’s ugly. But your real photo is featured at the top, and your real family members names are mentioned, you know for extra authenticity and offensiveness. Fake John Mikes says everything you would allegedly like to say if you could, but you can’t because it would be too embarrassing to you and your employer. Good thing that Fake John Mikes can say it for you, publicly. Go see how he’s *helping* you! Fake John Mikes rocks!

  39. Good work tt, you succesfully filled out the first line of a wordpress account. Give yourself a gold star and a pat on the back, then lie down and have a little nap for your hard work… you must be exhausted.

    Unfortunately when it comes to websites, content is king.
    You’re Fake John Mikes and Fake Toni Schneider screen grabs qre seriously lacking in content.

    I think you might need to spend more time developing the idea.
    if you can display a fraction of the comedy genius of this website I might visit it.

    But first you’ll have to fill out the rest of the account sign up page – maybe you should have an adult help you out with that one !

    Once you’ve got the sites sorted I’d suggest getting loeb & loeb to help you out with one of their strategic plans to help boost your traffic and search ratings.

    By all means feel free to make a fake David site about me, nothing would make me happier.
    The more people talk about me, the more people will know who I am, and the more money I will make from all my public apperances and the like…. It’s all good !!

    In Australia we embrace taking the piss out of people, (Aussie term, please don’t ask me to explain it) and we’ve been doing it to Americans for decades.
    Hell if I’m surprised you didn’t drop the bomb on us instead of Japan, but I digress….

    This website is in no way detremental to the real Chuck’s reputation, other than perhaps portraying him to have a bit of a potty mouth. (Maybe the real one does, who knows and who really cares?)

    If the real Chuck doesn’t like it then maybe he should toughen the hell up, and put more heat on Canon to spend more money on quality assurance of their products.

    Seriously tt, how difficult is it to build a 50mm f1.2 lens that doesn’t backfocus, a FF camera that doesn’t launch it’s mirror into orbit when it feels like it, a new sensor that is actually better than the one it replaces, a decent auto focus system that works in both bright and dark conditions, (or in the case of some Canon cameras one that simply works at all) must I continue ? Can you see where we are all coming from ??

    Is it still such a surprise to you that someone would want to poke fun at a company that can’t even threaten someone with legal action without totally fucking it up ?

  40. So I go away for a few days, come back and see a lot of comments by someone named tt. Read a few of them and got bored, then .

    Some comments:

    I, for one, do not find Fake Chuck demeaning the Real Chuck. Don’t try to convince me otherwise. I am a Republican and my mind is made up. tt, waste your words on someone else.

    Been shooting Canon products for 40 years. Just bought an expensive L lens which did not work properly out of the box. Sent it to Canon and they fixed it. I am not whining about it, but quite frankly, it should have never gotten passed QC. I am distrurbed and disappointed at the downward spiral Canon is going. It is like seeing an old friend come down with what might be a terminal disease.

    I find Fake Chuck’s site to be very entertaining and never once believed it to be anything but a put on. Of course I have been frequently told that I am more perceptive than most. I appreciate good “sour-casm” (sarcasm for you, tt) and FC is a master of it.

    From the tenor and number of tt’s comments, I am wondering if he or she is not employed by Loeb and Loeb, specifically that Denny Crane wannabee. By posting a significant number of non-supportive comments, it can be argued that Fake Chuck’s site is overtly offensive to a number of readers and should be shut down.

    Any thoughts from non-tt readers?

  41. David,

    I was starting to thing that Defenders of the Fake were only capable of insults. I guess my little joke about Fake John Mikes and Fake Toni Schneider made you think about writing a real reply. I have no intention of setting up those sites, but I’ll bet you were curious to see them.

    I love the idea of “taking the piss out people” as you say. The *right* people. Chuck is the wrong person for this, as I’ve already explained. Maybe I’m taking the piss out of Fake, by describing exactly what he’s doing with this blog.

    You’re probably right about this site not being detrimental to real Chuck’s reputation. If it did somehow damage real Chuck’s reputation, real Chuck would be entitled to damages from Fake. That would be a personal lawsuit, not one filed by Canon. It’s not nice to interfere with people’s employment, to say the least.

    I don’t know how the real Chuck feels about this site. Never met him. Never even asked him for technical advice. But I do know how I feel about this site. Look up what Mike Johnston wrote about real Chuck and you’ll get a sense of who real Chuck is: friendly, unfailingly generous with his time and knowledge, goes out of his way to provide good solid info, deeply knowledgeable about the products, helping tirelessly. Need I go on. As Mike wrote, “there aren’t a whole lot of guys like him out there.” If you’re a Canon shooter, you should know that the real Chuck is a great resource for photographers. I know that and a lot of other photographers know that. (Why doesn’t Fake know that?)

    David, you write that maybe real Chuck should “put more heat on Canon to spend more money on quality assurance of their products.” Is that the so-called “point” of this site? To make real Chuck put more heat on Canon? Get real, man! Remember, Chuck is the man out there helping photographers, tirelessly. He’s not the Head of Quality Assurance. He’s not the CEO. He doesn’t work at Canon headquarters in Japan. Besides, how much do you know about how much “heat” real Chuck puts on Canon? ZERO. You don’t know a damned thing about that. Neither does Fake. Neither do I. If you’ve read real Chuck’s posts online, you know that he does communicate problems to Japan. How the hell do you know that he doesn’t do it with the proper zeal?

    And let me ask you, David, if you work for a large corporation, do put a lot of “heat” on them? Is that your job, putting heat on your employer? Good luck.

  42. David,

    Now let’s talk about Canon products, as you do in your post. Apart from abusing real Chuck’s name and image, this site claims to have something to say about Canon products.

    How difficult is it to build a 50mm 1.2 lens that doesn’t backfocus? I don’t know. If you’re a genius at optics, you tell me. The 50mm 1.2 lens doesn’t backfocus — you don’t mean “backfocus”. That lens has focus drift at and around f/4. Amateurs who shoot box tops and rulers jump up and down when they detect focus drift. Professionals know (or should know) that this is a characteristic of *many* lenses. It is unfortunate and no one likes it. Sean Reid on Reid Reviews checks for this in nearly every lens he tests, and he *often* finds it, in varying degrees. It is present in Leica’s $4,000 35mm 1.4 lens (and others). That’s a manual focus lens, and it has the dreaded focus drift. Do you think Leica doesn’t know how to make a lens? How difficult would it be (you tell me)? Shouldn’t we screw some slacker Leica employee with a Fake site for this.

    Anyway, use the Canon 50mm 1.2 lens for its strengths (and learn what they are). Some photographers do fantastic work with it. Canon offers other 50mm options if you don’t like that one. Use the right tool for the job.

    About the 5D camera and its mirror flying off — never happened to me in years of usage and I use it hard. Canon has sold a hell of a lot of 5D’s and how many cameras have had this problem? You have no idea. Neither does Fake. Of course it’s possible some leave the factory faulty. What factory doesn’t have that happen? Tell me. If you look long enough, you’ll find that *every* manufacturer has had some products go out faulty. It sucks, but do we abuse their employees’ for it?

    Now EVERY Canon camera that I’ve purchased over the years has had a sensor that was better than the one it replaced. I don’t have the 50D and I understand that may be an exception if you measure *only* noise.

    A decent autofocus system that works? Let’s talk about that. Rob Galbraith found a genuine problem. Those slackers at Canon sent a team of people to meet with Rob and test and test and test. It was a complex problem. Eventually they found a way to make it better. And Rob Galbraith continued using his 1D3 for sports action — photography that’s highly demanding on an autofocus system. That’s the camera he CHOSE to work with among all others then available. I had the sub-mirror fix done on my 1D3 and I’ve successfully used it for many thousands of photos. It’s not perfect (nothing is) but it works.

    So, where are we going with this? Nowhere. Fake adds NOTHING of value to the public discussion about Canon products. EVERY flaw and issue gets discussed on numerous non-anonymous web sites already — every problem you mentioned and others too. I value the information on those web sites. What I don’t value — what I despise — is this anonymous dumping on one Canon employee, the good guy who’s been helping photographers. See my point?

  43. Streamwood Bill,

    It’s amusing when people buy a single defective item and then imagine that its manufacturer is in a “downward spiral”. Canon fixed your lens under warranty. Now make a web site about it.

    On a popular Leica forum, a thread with nearly 400 posts and nearly 23,000 views was about maybe 4 or 5 cameras on which the baseplate broke. Possibly a design or manufacturing flaw. But a *handful* of cameras out of many thousands that Leica sold of the same model. 23,000 views and 400 post about 4 or 5 cameras!

    See the downward spiral?

  44. Funny thing. I was going to get a Powershot A510′s LCD replaced once (sat on it–don’t leave your camera on your chair). But the website would crash with a JSP error instead of, say, taking payment and telling me to send the camera somewhere.

    For a week.

    Now I have a D40 which has never been sat on.

  45. I don’t have time to read all of tt’s comments. But has he/she come out to say that he IS or IS NOT an employee of Loeb & Loeb? If he hasn’t then I’ll say that he IS. Cos that question was asked specifically by another poster.

    Is this all Loeb can do? Cos I would say those PR guys at Loeb aren’t worth their salt if thats the case. Time to admit you’ve lost and just move on. Maybe you should just do the responsible thing and refund the money paid to you by Canon. Recommend that Canon go spend that money on QUALITY CONTROL & Fixing 5D mirrors, repairing broken L lenses, redesigning the 50 L so that it has a floating element and offering these free to affected users.

    And on the PR front, Canon should stop lying about having “no space” to put in a better AF module and pop-up flash. The D700 can do it so so can Canon.

    And last and not least, give users proper / ISO rated and defined weather resistence. And back it up with warranty, not lip-service.

    This will go some way to repairing Canon’s reputation. Then you wouldn’t need to spend so much money on Lawyers and PR specialists.

  46. Wow, Daniel, you miss a lot when you DON’T READ, and then you announce how you didn’t read.

    I don’t work for Canon or Loeb & Loeb. — I wrote that up above on 2/19 at 3:23 pm. But you don’t read, so you missed it. So I’m writing it again, just in case you have time to read a little.

    I’ve already addressed the issues you raised, but you don’t read. You want a lot of free stuff, but you’re just entitled to fixes under warranty. That’s how the world works. That’s how *your* business works. By the way, Canon fixes stuff under warranty and sometimes a little past warranty … for free.

    If you’re not happy with that 50mm 1.2, then buy any of the other 50′s Canon offers. If you don’t want focus drift at f4, please buy the cheap 50 1.8 and save over $1,000. Canon’s 50mm 1.2 is damned good, just not as perfect as you would like it to be. If you want perfection and you know better than Canon about 50mm lenses, then please design your own 50mm (with floating element).

    Canon hasn’t lied about “no space” — YOU have. Pop-up flash is a big issue — are you joking? Just buy a camera with pop-up flash. Canon makes them. Some very good cameras don’t have pop-up flash. No one is lying about pop-up flash, silly.

    Weather resistance? That’s what the 1-series if for. Shooting football in the rain, shooting at the beach, etc. Don’t buy a 5D (or cheaper camera) if you want a hard-weather camera. The 5DII is improved but not weather-proof. Read the instructions!

    Look, Canon is fairly and unfairly criticized on a lot of non-anonymous web sites much better than this one. But Canon doesn’t need to repair a reputation based on your imagination, your lack of reading instructions, your made up claims about products, your wish-lists for what products, your feelings about what should be free, etc. They operate in the real world and, while not perfect, they make some damned good products and provide some excellent service. That’s why photographers all over the world are making great images with Canon gear.

    If you’re not making great images with Canon gear, you probably have problems that have nothing to do with Canon. Seriously.

  47. I’d be interested to know how many people around the world had never even heard of Chuck Westfall until this blog was set up.

    I already own the 50 1.4 tt and it’s a heap of crap.
    Focus is very hit and miss and it only becomes sharp once it’s stopped down to about f4.
    It could just be a bad copy, which brings me back to my point of Canon seemingly no longer doing any QA.

    Building a decent 50mm lens with autofocus is possible.
    I recently had a play with a Carl Zeiss 50 1.4 on a Sony A700 and it worked brilliantly wide open.

    If it wasn’t for the large investment I have in Canon glass (most of which works because it was bought at a time when Canon had some sort of QA system in place and the vast majority of stuff left the factory in working order) I’d switch to Nikon in a heartbeat…. hell even Sony would be a better option at the moment. I don’t care much for the bodies, but the Carl Zeiss lenses are very nice.

    Instead I eagerly await a replacement for my 1d3 that will no doubt have many more MP and some black dots and banding chucked in for good measure.

  48. Daniel and others, your conspiracy theories about me are silly and wrong, and they say more about you than me. Just accept that I’m a photographer, that I use Canon, and that I find this blog to be stupid and offensive exactly for the reasons I’ve given.

  49. tt, Loser of the year, is making great photos with Canon gear. How about you bb? Sorry for your troubles.

    By the way, David Pankhurst at http://activeblogging.com, who commented on this blog on Feb. 20th, has followed up with this comment:

    “And while I agree that personal attacks on individuals and writing anonymously are both lousy ways to blog, my main point was that businesses have to be very careful with how they handle them because of the possibility of this very issue online – a small vendetta exploding into a big (and public) issue.”

    Did you hear that, Fake Chuck? Personal attacks on individuals and writing anonymously are LOUSY WAYS TO BLOG. You’re not going to hear that from your acolytes — the Defenders of the Fake — but someone needed to say it.

    I agree, Fake Chuck. You’ve succeeded in exploding your *small vendetta* into a big, public issue. Congratulations. And you’ve effectively put the blame on real Chuck for your issues with Canon. How dumb is that?

  50. Not sure how you would have time to take any photos with all the time you spend quoting people and providing links e.t.c.

    You truely are a wanker. (aussie term – go google it and provide a link with your next post in five minutes time)

  51. Mr tt, you are very wrong if you think that this blog is something personal or that Fake Chuck is the only one frustrated with Canon. There are many others that feel exactly the same, real people with real problems that speak from personal experience.

    You make comments like “you shouldn’t take it out on the real Chuck personally” and “Fake’s blog is just plain abusive of this man”. Either you have not actually read this blog or you are braindead. This blog is targeted at Canon, it has nothing to do with Chuck Westfall other than building a satirical story around him.

    Everyone knows how helpful Chuck Westfall is and how he always communicate feedback to Canon. The point is Canon never listens, not to him, not to anyone. They are too arrogant for that.

    For how many years now have people not been asking for user programmable buttons on the cameras. And what do they get, a dedicated direct print button. That is arrogance. When users asked for better AF on the 5DMkII all they got was “there is no space in the camera to fit a better AF system like that of the 50D”. To even think that users are dumb enough to believe that, that is arrogance. They wrote in the 5D MkII whitepaper that “videographers can capture high definition video with depth-of-field control found only in professional video models” but then release the camera without that functionality and then do nothing about it other than come up with some lame “No, what we actually meant was…” excuse. Everyone wants this functionality and knows how trivially easy it would be for them to add it, yet they purposefully won’t do it. That is arrogance. Do I need to go on?

    What else, Mr tt, do you suggest Canon users do to get the message through to Canon? At least we know they are reading this blog and they don’t like it. Good! Now that they have seen that they cannot simply censor frustrated customers, perhaps they will consider listening to them instead.

  52. David, you’ve descended into name calling. I’ve addressed your comments in depth above, and your only reply is an insult. As Fake has established an insult site, insults are the standard reply for Defenders of the Fake.

  53. Barnett,

    Fake has effectively put the blame on real Chuck for whatever issues he has with Canon. You claim this site is targeted at Canon and has “nothing to do with Chuck Westfall other than to create a satyrical story around him”. NOTHING to do with real Chuck? Oh, please. This site uses real Chuck’s real name and photo and his real family members names, so it is VERY targeted at him personally.

    Mike Johnston (The Online Photographer) recognized that right away. He wrote, “Say what you want to about any camera—I certainly do—but don’t make good folks (and their families) into straw dogs in the process, I say.”

    About Canon’s arrogance and Canon “never listens”. That is absurd. Every time Canon releases a new model, they’ve made many changes and improvements. There is usually a list of like 30 improvements with every camera model, some minor and some major. What Canon doesn’t do is respond to every stupid wish-list on the internet. Is that arrogance? No, it’s good business sense, and it has served them well. That’s why the sell a zillion cameras (well, a lot anyway). Why do you feel the need to run their business better than they do?

    Canon has listened in many ways (you just haven’t been listening to how they listen). Each year they introduce new stuff that meets photographers requests and needs. The new tilt-shift lenses are an example. They may be of no interest to you, but they are exactly what some photographers need for their work. That’s Canon listening and being responsive. Sometimes it takes a few years, sometimes more than a few, but they have to run on their schedule, not yours.

    Why do you and others feel that you are ENTITLED to some precise set of features from Canon? They make a lot of cameras, and you’re not satisfied with *any* of them. This one isn’t weather-sealed. That one doesn’t have a pop-up flash(!). Another one doesn’t have a specific autofocus system. And so on. You’re not *entitled* to one specific camera, with *every* feature you want, at the specific price you want. That’s unrealistic, and you don’t have that contract with Canon. If you don’t like the cameras, don’t buy them. The only camera and the only feature set you’re actually entitled to is the one you buy.

    Ford, Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Volvo, Rolls Royce and Jaguar don’t make the EXACT car that I would like at the price that I would like, OK? Is that arrogance on their part? What do you suggest I do to get the message to them to build my car?

    I agree with some of your criticisms of Canon. The description of the 5DII’s video functions was wrong. And the 5DII should have had better autofocus. That’s been discussed in-depth on non-anonymous web sites. We didn’t need Fake for that.

    Canon “gets the message” constantly — many thousands of messages — through numerous web forums, through trade shows, through discussions with photographers and dealers, through sales figures, through service requests, and so on. But they are not obligated to respond to your specific message and to build your specific wish-camera. Attacking one of their employees certainly doesn’t get your wish-camera built any faster.

    Canon does not censor frustrated customers. Where did you get that idea? Frustrated customers speak on various web sites, along with happy customers. I can make a list of those web sites for you, but you probably already know them.

  54. Shot a birthday party last night with my 5D, with predictable results. . Great IQ. Pitiful focus performance. Too bad Canon spends its money on shitty lawyers like Lube & Lube when it could be trying to give customers decent value for their money.

    But help is on the way, for this Canon user at least: I ordered a D700 this morning.

  55. tt said:
    > Is that arrogance? No, it’s good business
    > sense, and it has served them well.

    Well, we will see how well that “business sense” serves them while there are blogs like this warning people of the dangers of buying into the Canon system. You see, this is how a camera is different from an automobile. You cannot just sell your old car and get a new one. Most people have a huge investment in lenses and accessories that makes it difficult to switch to another company.

    And I am not suggesting that Canon implement every feature that is requested either. Some things are however just (1) very easy to add/fix and (2) has been requested by a large number of people, yet Canon does nothing about it. That is very annoying.

    The new TSE lenses are a welcome addition. I have been saying all along that the TSE 24mm is a terrible lens that suffers from CA. I hardly ever use mine because of this. The new TSE 17mm looks like a very useful lens, if it performs well. I am however not aware of people asking for this lens so I would definitely not say that this is an example of “Canon listening”.

    tt said:
    > Canon does not censor frustrated customers. Where
    > did you get that idea?

    How is acting dumb going to help the discussion Mr tt?

    As for your continued insistence that this site is “an attack on one of their employees”, I rest my case.

  56. With regards to Canon’s post sale support – I have been supported very well with issues experienced after purchasing my EOS 5D.

    As an early adopter, I had to take the camera body in to a local service facility because my serial number camera body could not have a firmware update applied in the field. This was an update that resolved issued related to the 5D combined with a canon flash and the 85mm f/1.2L – a combination that I rarely if ever use although I do own all the components. (Why would I use a flash with such a fast lens? I suppose it is possible to do that but it is not my style as I shoot mostly using available light).

    Canon applied the firmware update within a few hours and also nicely cleaned the camera sensor. Very nice. It was never really explained to me why the firmware update could not be applied to 5D bodies with the ‘dreaded’ 1 in a particular serial number location, but the root of the issue related to a failure of Canon to properly vet their new camera body with other current Canon accessories. I realize that checking all permutations and combinations of equipment would be a daunting task, but all the equipment required to trigger the anomaly was relatively recent and still available for sale by Canon.

    To this day I still experience occasional ‘lockups’ with my 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS lens, requiring momentary unmounting and remounting to clear. Let me say that although this is less frequent on my 5D than on my 10D (which I no longer have), it is quite annoying when it occurs and has cost me more than one missed opportunity during live performance photography. I remain unconvinced that Canon understands and can completely resolve the problem based upon continuing ‘complaints’ from numerous photographers. If the 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS wasn’t such a great lens optically I would shy away from its use, but it produces stellar results and so I suffer with the annoyance. Again this issue should have been caught during the vetting process before these products were released into the field.

    I have already mentioned the mirror detachment issue with the 5D and won’t dwell on that except to say that although Canon should be commended for standing by its product and offering repairs for free even after the product warranty has expired, it remains unclear if Canon will refund payments from any 5D owners who had to pay for this repair during the three year period after the camera’s release and before Canon announced the issue and offered to make it good. To me this appears to be another example of a QA problem that should have been caught before the cameras were released into the wild. Although the issue requires an unknown number of actuations to be triggered, the engineering associated with the mirror mounting should have been vetted more thoroughly during the design and production phase.

    For what it is worth, I am in the process of obtaining a second 5D body (lightly used and in excellent condition) to ‘back up’ my existing 5D body as I do not want to have a mirror failure result in being unable to capture images at music festivals. The 5D’s stellar low light performance at high ISOs remains the key feature that keeps me coming back to that model. The focusing system (when using the center focus point only and fast lenses) is good enough for many applications if I use a focus and re-compose technique, however this method is less than ideal when attempting to track younger rock musicians who are much more animated than their hall of fame brethren who have been in the business for 3 or more decades and have stopped turning ‘handsprings’ on stage :)

    For me Canon is a mixed bag, and I am adaptable enough to work around the ‘crunchy spots’. As a self funded photographer, purchasing decisions are based upon the fatness of my wallet and the need / performance quotient. I will continue to pony up for Canon gear if I am convinced that it will do the job. Trust which may be more easily granted based upon a company’s good reputation may be lost due to spotty first hand experiences and once lost is very difficult to regain.

    Canon stands at a crossroads of sorts here. I want them to succeed and I thin Fake Chuck does too. I also think the real Chuck wishes nothing more than to provide great components to photographers around the world.

    Reasonable satire and humor can be very effective in de-fusing a bad situation and may bring all parties back to the table to work together to fix whatever ails them. Although this blog may have gone over the line in some aspects (IMHO), the kernel of it is sound and I applaud Fake Chuck for what he seems to be trying to do. I also appreciate how he adjusted the blog to remove some ‘features’ which made this photographer cringe.

    Now the ball is in Canon’s court. If they wish to stay at or near the top of the heap of camera manufacturers, they will redouble their efforts to address the product deficiencies that are sullying their name. In fact I believe that this is the far greater risk to the once proud Canon trademark as compared to anything Fake Chuck may have done.

    How about it Canon? Your users (even many of those users who are now or have recently become disgruntled) are rooting for your success. As we should.

  57. Stephen, you summed it up pretty well. I have actually had very similar experiences than you.

    My first 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lens was absolutely terrible on the 10D. It used to lock up the camera every few minutes. I returned it to the shop for a replacement. The second lens they gave me did not lock up the camera as the first did, but I discovered an air bubble in one of the optical elements (looks almost like a chip mark). The shop got me a third lens that I never even took out of the shop. It had a huge blob of debris on one of the internal glass elements. I am not talking about the fine dust specs that you see inside all new Canon lenses, this was a huge black blob of something. The fourth lens they gave me is the one I still have. It did eventually also cause my 10D to lock up once in a while but I decided to just live with this annoyance. Ever since I got the 5D I have never had another lockup – touch wood.

    The 5D remains my main camera while I wait for Canon to make something better. The 1Ds MkIII is beyond what I am prepared to pay for a camera body and the 5D MkII does not address my biggest problem with the 5D: AF accuracy of the outer AF points.

    The 5D MkII is a 21MP camera. This surely sounds impressive on paper, and it is probably the reason Canon made it like that, but it is just not practical without a much better AF system. To get an image that is sharp down to pixel level requires extreme care, even with “only” 12MP. You have to:
    1) Use only the best lenses at their optimum apertures.
    2) Use a solid tripod or use flash light or shoot at very high shutter speeds. The old 1/f rule for shutter speed is not sufficient to get a sharp picture at 12MP. You have to use at least 1/2f if you want it sharp down to pixel level. ***
    3) Get the focus spot on!
    The 5D MkII with it’s inadequate AF system and 21MP sensor combination makes no sense to me. Canon should take a good look at the Nikon D700 to see what the AF system of a 12MP camera should look like – never mind a 21MP camera.

    *** Canon does not seem to get this either. Even thought this 1/f rule no longer applies to such a high resolution camera, they hard coded it into things like Auto-ISO. I have seem many users asking for a more user configurable Auto-ISO (like Nikon has), but do you think Canon listens?

  58. Hey Chuck. Just wanted to drop you a line to say keep up the good work!

    I believe you ARE the real Chuck Westfall secretly venting through a ‘fake’ Chuck channel only to turn around when Canon faces you to join with them in trying to force yourself into closure, with the ultimate intent on fighting yourself / Canon into staying up and running so you can continue to trash talk your company behind their back right to their faces!

    Keep em’ honest, real fake Chuck! Your posts on Canon’s idiocy and complacency always brightens my day (not as much as my Nikon with its amazing bright viewfinder and kick ass high ISO, but a close second).

    To Canon.. instead of wasting time screwing around with one of your real employees setting up a fake chuck channel to vent (which is highly therapeutic I might add), perhaps you can instead focus on getting your cameras to focus (oh yeah, also, get rid of those unsightly black dots and crappy ergonomics while you’re at it). You’re number 2 overall (which ain’t bad for a camera company hell bent on ripping its customers off with blurry images and spots all over the damn place), but hey, this Nikonian doesn’t care.

    Real fake Chuck, fight your company with all you’ve got, because at the end of the day, you’re the only real employee with enough balls to stand up to Canon behind this fake facade and tell them how it’s really going down! I wish you would encourage other employees at Canon to get their balls to drop into place and speak up (directly, or through some fake chuck channel of their own!). Your company is out of focus (literally and figuratively speaking). The more employees that band to fight these rich, fat cats the better. Stand up for all the Canonites that just feel like chucking their cameras at the designers, QA and management / marketing over at Canon. Stand up for what’s right in this world real fake Chuck! Because if you don’t, who will?

    your Nikonian friend

    -boomstick

  59. Barnett,

    Selling a car is a much bigger hassle than selling a camera & lenses. That’s my experience, anyway. So, I don’t see your point. If people have made a huge investment in Canon gear, there is presumably something they really like about it. But if they need to switch, it’s never been easier than now. Some who’ve switched to Nikon have commented how excellent the resale value of their used Canon gear was.

    People repeatedly say “how easy” it would be for Canon to do something, but they don’t really know. Everyone on a photography forum is an amateur expert in lens design & optics it seems. Also, they don’t know Canon’s development schedule. Canon may well plan to add exact feature you want but at a future date. Again, they don’t operate on your schedule.

    You personally don’t know of any photographers who wanted a 17mm TSE, so you deny that this is an example of “Canon listening”. But again, you just don’t know. It sounds like you’re just predisposed to giving them as little credit as possible. I’ve read comments online from photographers who are quite eager to add this lens to their architectural work.

    When you say a feature is requested by “a large number of people” — you don’t really know how large. You can find 100 people on the internet to agree to anything. You can find “a large number of people” to agree that Canon should not have created a new battery for the 5D2. Many people wanted to continue using their old batteries, batteries that were designed for the D30 back in the year 2000. Should Canon have listened? No way! The new battery is fantastic, way better than the old one.

    Back in the days before autofocus, Nikon asked pros whether they wanted autofocus and the answer was a resounding NO. Nikon *listened* and put autofocus on the back burner — to its own detriment. As a result, when Canon first introduced the EOS system, with autofocus, Canon quickly became popular among pro sports photographers.

    I can make a long list of products that were the result of Canon “listening”. Canon has introduced many breakthrough products that were the first of their kind or the first to offer specific features at a lower price level. Witness the huge popularity of the original D30, the original 5D, the original 1D, the original 1Ds. All breakthrough cameras. The same for lenses. The improved 85mm 1.2 II. The improved 24mm 1.4 II. The fantastic 70-200mm 2.8 IS. The amazing 200mm 2.0 IS. All examples of Canon listening.

    But for people who are predisposed to trash a company, such examples will all be missed as, for them, the company can’t do anything right. Thus, you can make a long list of wished-for (by someone) products that Canon didn’t create and cite them as examples of Canon not listening.

    And again, Canon doesn’t censor. If you think the request against this blog was censorship, you simply don’t know what censorship is. Canon has to protect its logo against unauthorized usage, for one thing. Every brand does. Also, Canon was fully justified in seeking to protect its employee from this abuse, especially when Fake made threats of violence.

    As proof that Canon doesn’t censor, witness all of the web sites that have published critical comment on Canon gear. I hope you know them already. They don’t get shut-down notices. No lawyers get involved. When Rob Galbraith published a lengthy series critical of the 1D3′s autofocus, did he get a shut-down notice. NO. Canon sent a team of experts to meet with him to test cameras and figure out the problem. And they responded with a recall and repair at Canon’s expense. That’s listening, not censoring.

  60. bb, I’m so sorry you can’t make a decent photo with your Canon gear. I just don’t think it’s the gear. Maybe take a photography class or something.

  61. Where I come from girls are considered to know nothing about IT, but my girls and I started a blog and promoted it to receive some visits. It’s a start but we will not back down from this challenge.

  62. Wow Barnett your experience with the 70-200 f/2.8L sounds like a surreal nightmare.

    FWIW the instances of lockup with my 5D seem to have something to do with bright objects within the field of view – or that is the opinion I am developing. The issue rarely if ever occurs in uniformly low light situations, but when shooting at a desert music festival it reared its ugly head multiple times. At first I was very concerned that it may have been a dust related problem (it was extremely dusty at the festival) but as it turned out the camera insides and the lens insides remained dust free despite multiple lens changes. I carefully cleaned the exteriors of the camera and body before changing lenses and retreated to less dusty areas before doing so. I also made lens changes very quickly to attempt to reduce the dust problem. Frankly I am shocked at how little dust entered the camera body. Lenses used at the festival were the 85mm f/1.2L (which is amazingly sharp, even wide open) and the aforementioned 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Both lenses appear to be well sealed.

    Some day I would like to try a canon professional camera body and see if the improved focusing system allows me to obtain sharp photos using multiple focus points. 8K a pop for camera bodies seems out of reach for now, but then again I never thought I would be photographing rock and roll hall of famers on a semi regular basis when I started this music photography hobby 4 years ago.

    As with our relationship with a Camera manufacturers, the music photography hobby (or profession for you pros) depends not only on skill but also depends upon establishing and maintaining a relationship of trust with the Artists and venues. I absolutely have no entitlement to take photos and access is granted based upon many factors, respect and professionalism raking very highly on the list.

    I have worked very hard to get where I am (as Canon has over decades) and a few slip-ups (or one major screw up) can get a photographer black balled.

    What I a getting at here is how important it is for Canon to get their QA house in order. Although the ‘horror stories’ tend to be posted with greater frequency than the stories of praise, I have developed a feeling that something is wrong with the process control at Canon. This feeling has been developed not only through y own personal experiences, but also after fairly obsessive review of hundreds if not thousands of posts on several highly trafficked websites. One has to filter out the extremes and read between the lines when reading any info on the net, but with so many individuals reporting similar issues it is hard to reach the objective conclusion that all is well and there is nothing amiss.

    Cameras are incredibly complex machines comprised of cutting edge electronics and mechanical assemblies. That they have achieved the level of performance we have grown accustomed to at a consumer level price is simply amazing. We are blessed. BUT what has been fought for by thousands (millions?) of engineer man hours can be lost in short order by carelessness. Trust me I know, having been a designer of spacecraft electronics. Trust me, you don’t want to make service calls on a satellite, and lessons learned over generations can be forgotten with very ugly results.

    While I am tempted (as an engineer) to cut Canon some slack for what I hope is only a temporary lapse in process control, I also know that what may seem like a temporary lapse could also be the first indications of an irreversible rush towards mediocrity.

    Please Canon, make those of us who have committed to your EOS system proud to have made that decision. We are rooting for you as dedicated users (if only due to our costly investment), but perhaps also because we have seen the miracles you have ushered forth in technology and KNOW that if you wish it to be so, you can turn this car around and once again redefine the state of the art and enable the capture of images that no one would believe possible previously.

    I have praised the phenomenal low light low noise performance of the 5D. Compared to the 10D it was revolutionary and transformational for my photography, allowing the capture of high quality images in clubs where the lighting is extremely dim. I have no desire to distract artists with a flash and relish the rich colors possible when using the 5D paired with fast primes such as the 85mm f/1.2L and the 35mm f/1.4L.

    Please make us proud and confident in Canon equipment again. Help me to feel positive about making a huge investment in equipment, and that I wont be regretful after such a major purchase. Your name is displayed prominently on every camera body you sell. The images from those camera bodies have opened doors for me that I never thought possible.

    Please strive to make that logo synonymous with quality. Shooters like me want you to succeed, for when you succeed so will we. We are partners after all. I believe the real Chuck Westfall knows this implicitly.

    I am going to bow out after this post. I believe Canon is beginning to understand what it is facing, and the challenged ahead will require a renewed attention to detail and a re dedication to statistical process control. These are not foreign concepts to Canon. Now is the time to shine. There is little I can add beyond what I have shared other than my sincere hopes that some time soon we may all look back at this blog, and the recent QA difficulties and agree that this was the beginning of a turn around that secures Canon’s future rightful position as a leader in optical technology that can be depended on right out of the box, and every day it is taken into the field.

  63. tt said:
    > Selling a car is a much bigger hassle than selling a camera & lenses.
    > That’s my experience, anyway. So, I don’t see your point.
    > …

    Maybe in the US, most definitely not where I live.

    > People repeatedly say “how easy” it would be for Canon to do
    > something, but they don’t really know.

    Apart from working as a photographer I am also an electronic engineer. I know.

    > Everyone on a photography forum is an amateur expert in lens
    > design & optics it seems.

    Sometimes I wonder about some of the people Canon employs. Take for example their feeble excuse for not adding aperture control on the 5D MkII: “depth of field in movie mode with the EOS 5D Mark II can be controlled, in the sense that it can be made narrow or deep depending on the user’s choice of focal length and subject distance.” It is clear that whoever wrote this is confused about the difference between background blur and DOF. That is apart from the fact that suggesting photographers should be happy to control DOF with their feet is not only insulting but also arrogant.

    > When you say a feature is requested by “a large number of
    > people” — you don’t really know how large.

    Anyone who reads a large enough number of posts on the various forums can quickly get a feeling of how popular a particular suggestion is. I can easily do that and Canon should be able to do the same.

    I actually agree with you on the point that camera manufactures should be allowed to innovate and make changes that will be beneficial in the future, even if it is painful in the short term.

    > But for people who are predisposed to trash a company, such
    > examples will all be missed as, for them, the company can’t
    > do anything right.

    Canon has done many things right. No one denies that. But if they sometimes listens to their customers they will get it right much more often.

    > Thus, you can make a long list of wished-for (by someone)
    > products that Canon didn’t create and cite them as examples
    > of Canon not listening.

    Just like you listing the products that people are happy with as examples of Canon listening.

    > And again, Canon doesn’t censor. If you think the request
    > against this blog was censorship, you simply don’t know what
    > censorship is.

    Well, you can call it by any name you want, I call it censorship.

    > Canon has to protect its logo against unauthorized usage,

    That is a BS excuse.

    > Canon was fully justified in seeking to protect its employee
    > from this abuse, especially when Fake made threats of violence.

    Again, that is rubbish, considering the nature of this blog.

    > When Rob Galbraith published a lengthy series critical of
    > the 1D3’s autofocus, did he get a shut-down notice. NO. Canon
    > sent a team of experts to meet with him to test cameras and
    > figure out the problem. And they responded with a recall and
    > repair at Canon’s expense. That’s listening, not censoring.

    But they also stopped talking to him when he did not give the “fixed” Cameras the thumbs up. This is what RG said: “It has been an interesting ride on the Canon AF express since the last major update to this article on December 10, 2007. In the wake of its publication, Canon USA abruptly ended our EOS-1D Mark III testing collaboration”

    So much for listening…

  64. Funny stuff bb, notice how the question was completely avoided ??

    tt – Your car comment has no merit.
    Of course cars are hard to sell in the US, it’s because they’re all 5 tonne heaps of crap that fall over when you try to go around a corner at more than 30kph.

    Stephen, my experience with the 1d3 has shown that you can get reasonably sharp photos in one shot mode using multiple focus points, but it’s not ideal. I usually just pick a single point, but at least you have a lot more to choose from than on the 5d.
    In AISERVO mode the only way you can get decent photos is to manually select a focus point, and if it’s fast moving action the middle one works best.

    Incidently my 1d3 was one of the early ones needing the mirror fix.
    It worked brilliantly in low light situations, but was completely useless in bright conditions – Unfortunately I live in Australia and we tend to have a lot of sun so I wasn’t real pleased to find my old 30d costing less than a third of the 1d3 could outperform my new AUS$6500 camera.

    Maybe Canon did the calibration on the dark side of the moon.

  65. (Oops. Put this in the wrong thread.)

    I wonder if tt works for Lube & Lube? Seems like the kind of guy they’d employ. And it is SOP for a media savvy organization taking money from a well-heeled client to delegate someone to troll the comments of the offending site.

    I also wonder if the the Friends of Canon who are embarassing themselves ranting about how this site is all about the real Chuck have actually read the blog. If they have, then their comments are a seriously indictment of their reasoning capacities. Or lack thereof. But I suspect most haven’t, cuz if that had, they’d know that this blog portrays the real Chuck as a hero! Standing up for his company and it’s customers.

    But the real reason some, like tt, are trying to make this all about the real Chuck is to deflect the issue away from Canon’s reprehensible behavior (see, Response to Mark III Fiasco, Volumes 1-30) and try to paint this as a personal attack on an innocent bystander. Obviously not all of the people making asses of themselves here by buying into the trolling of tt & Associates are Canonite trolls, so we have to assume they brought thier dumbassery with them.

  66. John Mikes,

    Your SOP is to spout a conspiracy theory that’s entirely false. That says a lot about you, but nothing about me. It’s a fantasy that lets you avoid dealing with the issue.

    The 1D3 autofocus problem has been discussed on numerous web sites. Rob Galbraith discussed it in *great* depth. Ultimately he found some improvements and some disappointments. Under some circumstances, the camera was worse than it’s predecessor, the 1D2N. (That didn’t stop Rob from using it when he could have continued using the 1D2N.) That problem was widely discussed. And there I go mentioning it again. Rob and other real reviewers do a great service for photographers.

    My comments on Fake’s blog do nothing to deflect from any attention on any issues with that camera or any other gear. Your spouting a theory that doesn’t even make sense. There’s not of trace of logic to it.

    Real issues get widely discussed all over the internet. You KNOW that. Fake adds nothing to the discussion. He just anonymously abuses the name and image of a Canon employee. He makes real Chuck the straw man for some vendetta he has against Canon. Fake’s anonymous blog isn’t a service to photographers, other than that it amuses some *mean* ones like you. It’s just a nasty, lousy way to blog.

  67. Barnett,

    Reality check: protecting a company’s logo is not BS. Just try to use a big corporation’s logo as the header of your personal web site and see what happens.

    Yes, Canon did eventually stop their testing collaboration with Rob G. You’re right, Rob didn’t give the modified camera a thumbs up (other than that he continued to prefer it for his own work). I suspect that they were very embarrassed by the issue and tried very hard to find a solution. It was a complex problem and took a very long time, which some try to characterize as “not listening” or “arrogance”. They issued both a hardware fix and a firmware update that ultimately left Rob with mixed conclusions.

    I’ve used the 1D3 for a long time and continue to use it. It’s not perfect (nothing is), but it works well enough for me and I’ve gotten plenty of use out of it. If I had a big issue with it, I would have continued using the 1D2 & 1D2N, but I don’t. I’m not going to freak out about a camera that serves me well.

  68. tt we get it, you don’t like this blog…. yet you keep coming back.

    I personally find it very funny, and I’m sure many other people do as well, else they wouldn’t keep coming back.

    Some of Fake Chucks past comments like the 5d2 having better autofocus than the 1d3 because it will only shoot a maximum of 3 out of focus frames per second compaired to the 1d3′s 10 out of focus frames per second is hillarious, and funnily enough in a warped kind of way it’s true.

  69. Just ignore tt. We should celebrate the humour of Fake Chuck on this site and continue putting the pressure onto Canon to behave themselves before we all move to Nikon. Let’s not have tt’s discussions detract us from the laughs we get from this site and the tremendous pressure Canon must be feeling now because of it. Increased somehow by Canon’s utter failure to shut down this site and the stupidity of resorting to lawyers and PR specialist in the first place, instead of putting their DSLR camera division in order. We’ll see now long Canon can keep ignoring and censoring its customers who make their voices heard on the internet and social networking and SIG sites.

    Canon’s arrogance has been discussed almost to death. Meanwhile, lets go take more photos and keep supporting this site for its laughs and meaningful insight. I’m sure there’ll be more news and screw ups from Canon (and more jokes) as it tries to put its own house into order. PMA is just round the corner….

    Fake Chuck Rocks!

  70. Ignore tt? A natural born comedian with his skill? Why, that guy is a ray of sunshine on a dark day. Why would I willingly remove the pleasure he brings to my life?

    What position do you suppose tt holds at Lube and Lube? I think he’s an intern, the guy sitting in the closet down the hall from the copy room. Not the closet with the spare staplers, the other one with the mops and buckets. Is intent on being the best litigator Bleaker Street has ever seen (he’ll show `em!). Models his life after the greatest lawyer ever: Denny Crane.

  71. Didn’t you know the closet is where all the action is John ?
    It’s the place you go to have a crack at the waitress on your wedding night!

  72. Thank you Fake Chuck from Cleveland Ohio! You crack up my whole family! Every day I read your blog after my Bible time with The Lord, I thank him putting funny people like you to get me off!

    Oh, and you were so great when you blogged about the coming of the D3x! I couldn’t get that thought out of my mind of you barricading yourself in your office, even while having sexual intercourse with my husband! Right in the middle when I was on the bottom position, taking it fully inside of my vagina, I busted out a laughter, imaging my bald pear-shaped middle aged balding husband in the same situation, but got him so angry that he pulled out and finished his part by playing with himself!

    I can’t help it FakeChuck, even when you don’t blog, I come back here every day to re-read your wonderfully expressive notes, that stay with people, even while they are in the middle of an orgasm!

    Don’t ever stop what you do best!

    Mary J

    • Mary, thank you for this wonderful comment. BeerBoy seems to have a wonderful wife. I wish I was getting as much as he appears to be getting. Lord knows I need it.

  73. What about all the time you’ve been spending at home lately Fake Chuck ?
    Don’t tell me you’ve been spending the time off with that bloody D3x instead of trying to increase the birthrate with your wife ??

  74. Pingback: EOS 1D Mark III Autofocus Fix - For real this time. Seriously. « Fake Chuck Westfall

  75. Hey fake chuck. I got my 50D in the fall of 2008 and well; the iso shows a lot of noise at 1600. Thanks for droping the price to $1,050.00 so fast. It made me feel so stupid after paying $1,399.00. Please do a recall on this camera so that I don’t have to sell all of my glass to switch to Nikon or Sony.
    Thanks for listening
    Conrad

  76. Pingback: Canon USA Fuckup Notices « Fake Chuck Westfall

  77. Pingback: Follow me on Twitter! « Fake Chuck Westfall

  78. Pingback: The Apollo XI One Light Photography Workshop « Fake Chuck Westfall

  79. Pingback: Karel Donk’s Blog » Blog Archive » Canon EOS 7D Review: Noisier than 40D

  80. Pingback: Now… About those Megapixels… « Fake Chuck Westfall

  81. Pingback: Conference call to Canon Inc.’s Masaya Maeda « Fake Chuck Westfall

  82. Pingback: Are we trying to take down Canonfilmmakers.com? « Fake Chuck Westfall

  83. Pingback: Shut Down Notice 3-Year Anniversary! | Fake Chuck Westfall

  84. Pingback: Canon Inc., will you be my Valentine? | Fake Chuck Westfall

  85. Pingback: Karel Donk's Blog » I am Fake Chuck Westfall

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s