September 30, 2014, 02:12:10 PM

Author Topic: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries  (Read 15112 times)

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4664
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #75 on: December 13, 2013, 02:22:22 PM »
If Canon were protecting their 'monopoly' wouldn't they change the tech slightly each year to make it harder to copy?

That's exactly what they do as newer cameras are able to tell original Canon and Canon copies apart while older cameras keep recognizing all as valid.

If Canon were gouging it's customers, wouldn't it make the batteries different so every time you upgrade, they get more cash?

No, because you can only milk your customers for so much, and you have to have at least a somehow recognizable reason for doing so.

Take mobile phone manufacturers: They kept changing their power adapters so much that the EU intervened and make them implement a standard so prevent electronics garbage. Then they all had an own way of sticking a headphone to a mobile phone until customers were fed up about it and started buying phones that have a standard jack.

Canon might be a big manufacturer, but they don't have a monopoly so customers do have a choice ... and accessory continuity like old battery models in new models is an incentive to stick with the brand. Last not least, changing hardware production like batteries for each model is expensive for Canon, that's why they keep recycling parts like the af arrays and so on.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #75 on: December 13, 2013, 02:22:22 PM »

FatDaddyJones

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
  • Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #76 on: December 13, 2013, 04:51:48 PM »
Proprietary BULLCRAP!! This has nothing whatsoever to do with "customer safety protection." This is all about money. Make third party accessories incompatible so that customers will be forced to buy overpriced wares from Canon. Apple perfected the proprietary ecosystem, and now many other companies try to follow suit.

My third party LP-E6 batteries last over 50% longer than my Canon batteries. They register exactly like Canon batteries and work in Canon chargers. They were about a quarter the price of Canon batteries. I have no intention of ever buying a battery other than third party. I have used them for years in my cameras with no ill effects. If new firmware doesn't support my batteries, then the answer for me is easy. My camera works fine as it is. I won't upgrade to the newer firmware.
5D Mark III, 7D, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 70-300mm IS USM, EF-S 17-55mm IS USM, Redrock shoulder rig, matte box & follow focus, Rode Videomic, Zoom R16, Sure PG42, DSTE Pro BG-E11, Excella Neo D400 Studio Strobes, Excella Stardust 50, 580 EX II, lots of other fun stu

gunna64

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #77 on: December 13, 2013, 05:07:09 PM »
I pointed this out in the Canon Australia facebook page as soon as the firmware for the Canon 5DIII disabled reporting of third party batteries - their response? To delete my post!

They know very well the effect it has on all the users of third party batteries and they don't give a rats about it.

To my mind I have three choices - 1. Change brands 2. Put up with the stupid prompts about third party batteries or 3. Reinstall the original firmware which was working fine to start with (edit - Option 3 doesn't exist - once the version of firmware is upgraded, you can;t reinstall the original firmware back in it ).

Number 3 looks to be the winner until Canon realise that all they are doing is inconvienencing the people who shell out the money for their product.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 05:29:59 PM by gunna64 »

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4664
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #78 on: December 13, 2013, 05:26:03 PM »
I pointed this out in the Canon Australia facebook page as soon as the firmware for the Canon 5DIII disabled reporting of third party batteries - their response? To delete my post!

:-> usually if pressured, the first reactions of manufacturers is to attack back, the next step is to cave in if pressure continues to mount (though I don't think Canon will take this measure back).

Reminds me of Microsoft with the new xbox, and how not to do it: They wanted to force users to be connected to the Internet even when playing offline games and tried preventing them from selling used games. When customers complained, M$ argued "#dealwithit", and after the resulting outcry they took both measures back because the ps4 doesn't have it. Alas, with dslrs you are much more stuck to one system so it's not easy to exert working pressure other than to ask politely :-\

Jon

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #79 on: December 13, 2013, 06:00:10 PM »
Hi.. I am "Jon"...  I am a professional photographer based in Virginia..I have been shooting for over 20 years.. I have no vested interest in either Yokool or Amazon. I shoot a LOT of video which means I go through a lot of batteries in a day long shoot.. I use aftermarket batteries, so I can save money..  The 1.2.2 update gave me raw output from the hdmi port, but then required me 2 extra steps every time I put a new battery in. I spent a lot of time with my Canon rep over the last few months discussing this situation. Their position was that Canon would not remove this modification to the firmware. SO... I asked Maxtek/Yokool about this as they are the only 3rd party batteries I am aware of that also have a chip, the chip BTW that is needed to use the Canon registration system. I only sent this post in to CanonRumors in case others like me want to use the registration system, avoid the 2 step acknowledgment of the 3rd party battery.  I will repeat I have nothing to do with Yokool/Maxtek or Amazon.. I could care less if you purchase them or not.. I now have 5 of these (4 of the older ones and 1 newer) and they have always performed at least as well as the 3 Canon batteries I have..  BTW I will be in the Arctic in March with about 10 batteries (I plan to purchase 8 more of these) .. when I return I will advise how they hold up in -20C/-40C conditions..
5D3, 1Dx, Canon 28 f2.8 IS, 35 f2, 16-35, 50 f2.5, 85f1.2, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 300 f4 IS, 300 f2.8 IS, 50mm Zeiss f1.4, Sigma 8mm

Rat

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #80 on: December 13, 2013, 07:38:54 PM »
Appreciate the context and yeah, I can see how video would make a case here. I still would've liked some comparative research, but that's not your problem ;)
5DIII, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200/4IS, 50/1.8II, 85/1.8 and a truckload of gimmicks and bits.

dgatwood

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 726
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #81 on: December 13, 2013, 08:47:26 PM »

I bet if a few hundred recent DSLR purchasers updated their firmware, then sent the cameras back to Amazon, saying that the firmware update caused their camera to stop recognizing batteries, Canon would change their tune pretty quickly.  And by "quickly", I mean that with a few hundred returns, Amazon would automatically yank the affected products off the market pending an investigation, which would make it the single most expensive mistake any Canon exec ever made....


Nobody in his right mind should expect Canon to care about their competitors and they have absolutely no obligations to them. Although, one could argue that a working ecosystem of third party accessories is one of the key advantages of established camera brands ...

IMO, it's a mistake to call battery and lens manufacturers "competitors".  Canon isn't a battery manufacturer.  It's a camera manufacturer.  They build minor accessories, such as batteries, for one reason and one reason only: because the batteries must exist for the cameras to be usable.  Accessory makers expand their ecosystem and make their actual core products more desirable.  Anything that Canon does to harm those accessory makers harms Canon doubly.

The situation with Canon and lens/battery/flash manufacturers is a bit like Apple with third-party software makers.  Microsoft Office '08 and Photoshop CS3 still work in the very latest version of OS X even though they are both over half a decade old.  And there are plenty of Windows users out there who still run random apps from even farther back.  The reason those old apps still work is that companies like Apple and Microsoft go out of their way to minimize breakage of third-party software.

IMO, Canon has a similar responsibility to minimize breaking of third-party accessories unless it is truly unavoidable.  Anything less is unconscionably abusive.


But this protocol change, as documented in the dslr-forum.de thread, did not hurt Sigma as much as it hurt Canon's existing customer base.

Indeed, that's almost invariably the case.  Unless Canon managed to find some way to break compatibility repeatedly and often, it isn't likely to appreciably hurt Sigma's sales.  If anything, it helps Sigma by breaking compatibility for their older products, thus forcing users to buy new lenses (most of which probably won't be Canon's, because if cost were no object, they would have bought Canon lenses to begin with).  Worse, it hurts Canon's lens sales by forcing users to replace their existing low-end lenses for no reason instead of spending that money towards more expensive lenses that might actually be exclusive to Canon.

Now obviously the same logic doesn't really apply to batteries, but I dare say that given how hard it is to actually obtain genuine Canon batteries, this won't significantly increase Canon's battery sales.  Either way, IMO, the battery situation is just a symptom of a much larger problem with the way Canon's upper management sees its customers.  These sorts of vendor lock-in games tend to be a quick path to bankruptcy for most companies that are foolish enough to play them, and Canon would be wise to correct this craniorectal inversion sooner, rather than later, before the bad taste it leaves in their customers' mouths causes many to reconsider their relationship with Canon's products.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #81 on: December 13, 2013, 08:47:26 PM »

RustyTheGeek

  • Buy and Sell
  • 1D Mark IV
  • ********
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #82 on: December 13, 2013, 10:42:53 PM »
dgatwood makes some excellent points but first, I think the technical term 'craniorectal inversion' should be noted and given bonus points.  Excellent!  ;D

I've been busy and so I'm catching up on this thread.  In general, dgatwood's comments on this from the beginning are logical and appropriate.  Accessories are part of the whole camera market.  They shouldn't be marginalized by Canon or any other camera maker.  If one considers this topic from both sides without emotion, it's pretty obvious what's going on.  There are really no clear winners when this kind of thing occurs.  Whether the user always buys 100% Canon or not, these kind of tactics usually punish everyone, esp if unforeseen collateral problems develop.  It's just a short sighted idea that ultimately results in very little benefit for everyone.  Like the poor novice that is crestfallen when they think something is wrong with their new camera at Christmas and end up returning it as defective like dgatwood suggested.  Now Canon may have just shown a new buyer that their product is faulty out of the box (when it really isn't).

IMO, there are two or three camps of buyers for DSLRs.  The novices, the pros and the 'pro-sumers' in between.  All of these groups buy 3rd party accessories for their DSLR for a variety of reasons and have for decades.  Canon knows most everyone won't jump ship over this but won't appreciate it either.

The novices will buy a Canon battery because it's the safe call.  One.  Likely the one extra they think they need but will probably never use because they never use the camera except at special events or holidays to take less than 100 frames.  They may have just bought a Canon battery anyway at the same time the bought the camera.  So no big change or increase in that market for Canon.  However, if they bought a 3rd party battery, they may think the camera is bad and just return the whole kit and buy something else.  They aren't invested in a system, they just want a camera that doesn't have problems.

The pros either always bought Canon batteries before or they didn't.  And that won't change as a result of Canon's little tactic either for many of the reasons stated here in this thread.  $40 increase times 5 batteries is significant so the battery message will just be endured, or Canon batteries simply aren't available, etc.

That leaves the 'pro-sumers'.  More than likely, these are the only ones that might actually pony up more money for the Canon batteries and even replace their existing 3rd party batteries.  Why?  Because the 'pro-sumer' market buys most of this stuff because they want it, not because they need it or even use it that much.  It's a toy.  Even if they do use it a lot, they want it all to work perfect.  'Pro-sumers' buy all the extra goodies and likely have special luggage just for the trip to the neighbors house.  The backpacks, special straps, covers, hoods, etc.  And there's nothing wrong with that!  But I guess Canon thinks that the 'pro-sumers' are going to buy a hell of a lot of batteries because I don't see the other two parts of Canon's buyer market changing much.  Not changing much except to perhaps hate on Canon a bit in blogs and forums and wonder what they did to deserve such treatment after giving Canon so much of their money.  So thanks for the love Canon!
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

josephandrews222

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #83 on: December 13, 2013, 10:46:00 PM »
I've got two batteries  that worked fine before the firmware upgrade, they still work fine but you have to OK them.  I also have two wasabi's that I purchased several months after the "upgrade" and they register normally.
Canon's playing a losing game.  The third party vendors adjusted quickly to  Canon's change.

The total cost of the four third party batteries was less than the cost for one genuine Canon.   

I am a bit confused about your post.

The 5d Mark III's latest firmware is 1.2.3, I think. It has only been in the wild for a few weeks, not a few months (I think).

I own the 5d3 running 1.2.1 (which has been out for several months). 1.2.1 is nicely compatible with all four of my Wasabi batteries, which were purchased 4 months ago.

Can you re-confirm that 1.2.3 and Wasabi batteries play nice?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 10:53:40 PM by josephandrews222 »
5DMkIII; 40D; M; S95 + a dozen or so lenses & a half-dozen flashes

malmak

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #84 on: December 14, 2013, 03:55:36 AM »
I've got two batteries  that worked fine before the firmware upgrade, they still work fine but you have to OK them.  I also have two wasabi's that I purchased several months after the "upgrade" and they register normally.
Canon's playing a losing game.  The third party vendors adjusted quickly to  Canon's change.

The total cost of the four third party batteries was less than the cost for one genuine Canon.   

I am a bit confused about your post.

The 5d Mark III's latest firmware is 1.2.3, I think. It has only been in the wild for a few weeks, not a few months (I think).

I own the 5d3 running 1.2.1 (which has been out for several months). 1.2.1 is nicely compatible with all four of my Wasabi batteries, which were purchased 4 months ago.

Can you re-confirm that 1.2.3 and Wasabi batteries play nice?

I think the point is that nobody really can confirm that for sure.

I have 6 replacement batteries, where two of them were originals (coming with an EOS 60D and the EOS 5D III), two being original and two of them third party.

I also own a grip for both of them and just wanted to have the third party batteries on hand for the originals being empty unexpectedly.

First I had no issue with any of them.

After a certain upgrade-level of the firmware, as well at the EOS 60D as at the EOS 5D III I got the notification with three of them.

And you are counting right when you notice that at least one of the 'originals' is causing the notification. Both of the originals where bought at the same retailer (which is quite a big one) at the same time.

And I am getting the notification also for quite a few months. This did not start with the last firmware upgrade for me (Please: I'm talking about myself only.)

But with the grip, which are also original ones it's really annoying.

I waited for this to pop up somewhere and I'm not a frequent forum-reader anywhere, i was just wondering why this was happening.

Hopefully Canon will think over its policy in handling third party equipment, because if there's the first grip from third party that supplies 'coverage' for this issue I will turn away from the original equipment completely.  >:(

zim

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 725
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #85 on: December 14, 2013, 08:15:59 AM »
Hopefully Canon will think over its policy in handling third party equipment

Never going to happen unless dgatwood's suggestion is taken up in large numbers which of course is never going to happen. You could always go back to the retailer and challenge them for selling counterfit goods, after all you have proof !

RustyTheGeek

  • Buy and Sell
  • 1D Mark IV
  • ********
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #86 on: December 14, 2013, 10:29:44 AM »
Hopefully Canon will think over its policy in handling third party equipment

Never going to happen unless dgatwood's suggestion is taken up in large numbers which of course is never going to happen. You could always go back to the retailer and challenge them for selling counterfit goods, after all you have proof !

This brings up another wonderful consequence of this issue.  The retailers are now stuck in the middle of all this and forced to deal with a new topic of complaints from customers who either want refunds, exchanges or think their equipment is faulty which will then require the retailers to deal with it however required.

So the moral to the story for retailers is to stop selling 3rd party batteries so they don't have to deal with the complaints.  This means that not only will the genuine Canon batteries be in shorter supply and more expensive,  you may not even have the 3rd party battery choice available in some places.  And this also means more lost revenue for local camera shops if they choose to stock only genuine batteries and folks buy the batteries online afterward.  Wonderful.  I don't buy everything from my local store but I try to buy many things there to support them.  I don't want them to go away!!

I don't see this thing being good for anyone in any way at all, including Canon.  How unfortunate and sad.
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

Fleetie

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 272
  • Watching for pigs on the wing
    • View Profile
    • My Facebook
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #87 on: December 15, 2013, 09:04:03 PM »
Why would one spend a few thousand (insert currency here; mine was £3000.00 on 21 March 2012, the evening before it was supposed to be available - and you Americans were crying about it being $3000; we paid $4700 at the exchange rate then - sheesh!) on a 5D3, and then cheap out on batteries?! If you can afford the camera, you'd be silly to fit a crappy battery in it.



Canon 5D3  ,  70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II ,  24-105mm f/4 L IS  ,  50mm f/1.4  ,  85mm f/1.8 ,  EF 2x III
Olympus OM2-SP , 50mm f/1.2 , 55mm f/1.2 , 50mm f/1.4 Silvernose , 135mm f/2.8 , 28mm f/2.8

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #87 on: December 15, 2013, 09:04:03 PM »

WPJ

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #88 on: December 16, 2013, 08:51:33 AM »
Why would one spend a few thousand (insert currency here; mine was £3000.00 on 21 March 2012, the evening before it was supposed to be available - and you Americans were crying about it being $3000; we paid $4700 at the exchange rate then - sheesh!) on a 5D3, and then cheap out on batteries?! If you can afford the camera, you'd be silly to fit a crappy battery in it.

who ever claimed we wanted to use crappy batteries.


dgatwood

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 726
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #89 on: December 18, 2013, 10:33:00 AM »
Why would one spend a few thousand (insert currency here; mine was £3000.00 on 21 March 2012, the evening before it was supposed to be available - and you Americans were crying about it being $3000; we paid $4700 at the exchange rate then - sheesh!) on a 5D3, and then cheap out on batteries?! If you can afford the camera, you'd be silly to fit a crappy battery in it.

Because I ordered two genuine Canon batteries from Amazon back in late November, and they won't actually reach me until early January (delivery date is while my employer is shut down for Christmas).  Third-party batteries, many of which are likely made with the exact same brands of cells as the genuine article, are available for immediate delivery.  If Canon can't deliver the goods, no one should be even slightly surprised when their customers turn to third-party suppliers.

Third-party batteries also come free with third-party battery grips (which cost hundreds of dollars less than the genuine Camera grips and are easier to find in stock), and even come with the camera if you buy it from B&H, so many people would have to throw away something that they got for free if they wanted to avoid third-party batteries.  That borders on idiotic.

Finally, for those of us who carry around 6+ batteries, the cost difference can be hundreds of dollars.  We're not talking about cutting corners to save $20 here.  We're talking about buying third-party batteries to save the entire cost of a new midrange lens, and to be able to start shooting within the first two months of owning the camera.  Unless Canon dramatically improves their availability and cost, IMO, you'd be silly not to use third-party batteries.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 10:40:24 AM by dgatwood »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« Reply #89 on: December 18, 2013, 10:33:00 AM »