I really hope you are joking and not just dense...
You are missing the point... It isn't a flaw or a fault. The product behaves as it was intended to by the designers. Try it for yourself, if you don't believe me. If you don't have the camera or have not used someone else's under reasonable shooting conditions (ie. without a lens cap on), then reserve your comments until you have first hand experience.
And just out of curiosity, Canon intended for the LCD panel to leak light into the meter?
I doubt they intended for the LCD to leak, but the consequences of the leak do not warrant you screaming from the rooftops that the camera is a dud. The device meter operates as intended, thus it has not been jeopardised by the LCD leak - therefore, the camera as a whole (at least in relation to this particular issue), is not faulty.
I was trying to be sarcastic, yes.
I’m not screaming off the rooftops saying the camera is a dud. I think it’s a great camera - which is why I chose it over the D800, in fact. But I also think it has a problem that needs to be fixed.
You’re really looking at this issue the wrong way. What’s significant here is not that the defect only produces a problem in ‘extreme’, rarely-encountered environments. What’s significant here is that the defect is a very minor, easily-corrected one. Making the LCD panel more light-proof. It’s a defect that should never have existed in the first place - it’s that easy to do if one pays a little attention. THAT is why it behooves Canon to fix it. We’re not talking about a shutter mechanism blasting away at 14 frames/sec that hesitates once or twice after 30 continuous actuations, or a buffer that sometimes fills up quicker than expected. We’re talking about blocking out light a little better - a very simple task.