October 23, 2014, 03:59:43 PM

Author Topic: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras  (Read 22376 times)

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1979
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #180 on: April 10, 2014, 07:56:16 AM »
On topic ... I sold my EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens because it backfocused. This was apparently within specifications and I was told to upgrade my cameras to AFMA-enabled models to solve the problem.

Sounds like you've been unlucky; most people seem to report very little MA needed on the 40 pancakes. The AFMA enabled models have completely changed my attitude and needs in lenses. Before, the quality of the manual focus mechanism on a lens was very important to me. Now with AFMA and BBF I basically don't use manual focus anymore, and so I'm using cheaper versions of lenses than I once would have done. Even when zone focusing I use AF. The only exception would be when focusing for a specific distance that is covered by the lens's distance scale.

I've had non AFMA cameras such as the 5D that have been fine until the body has suffered a good heavy knock or drop. Then the critical focus on a fast lens is out.

The irony of it is that these DSLR bodies are highly resilient to physical abuse, but an impact can shift the position of the AF module enough to cause problems.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #180 on: April 10, 2014, 07:56:16 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14736
    • View Profile
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #181 on: April 10, 2014, 08:29:41 AM »
The irony of it is that these DSLR bodies are highly resilient to physical abuse, but an impact can shift the position of the AF module enough to cause problems.

+1

I once dropped my 5DII from waist level to the pavement.  Not even a cosmetic scuff on the camera, and it functioned fine afterwords except that all of my AFMA values shifted by ~10 units.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Sella174

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • So there!
    • View Profile
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #182 on: April 10, 2014, 08:31:29 AM »
How many of those >15 year old lenses are f/2.8 or faster?

Let's see, shall we? There is/was the 50mm f/2.5, the 24mm f/2.8, the 28-70mm f/2.8, the 50mm f/1.4, the 50mm f/1.8, the 35mm f/2, the 100mm f/2.8 and the (borrowed) 16-35mm f/2.8 ... so, a quick count of EIGHT.

Slight misfocusing is usually masked by the deeper DoF of slower lenses.

That should be CONSIDERABLE misfocusing ... subject at 5 metres and the lens focuses at +6 metres.
Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14736
    • View Profile
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #183 on: April 10, 2014, 08:38:12 AM »
How many of those >15 year old lenses are f/2.8 or faster?

Let's see, shall we? There is/was the 50mm f/2.5, the 24mm f/2.8, the 28-70mm f/2.8, the 50mm f/1.4, the 50mm f/1.8, the 35mm f/2, the 100mm f/2.8 and the (borrowed) 16-35mm f/2.8 ... so, a quick count of EIGHT.

Slight misfocusing is usually masked by the deeper DoF of slower lenses.

That should be CONSIDERABLE misfocusing ... subject at 5 metres and the lens focuses at +6 metres.

Them it seems likely you got a defective 40/2.8.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Sella174

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • So there!
    • View Profile
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #184 on: April 10, 2014, 08:48:36 AM »
Them it seems likely you got a defective 40/2.8.

I wouldn't actually say defective, but rather that it was poor quality control in the calibration dept. The problem with the latter was that it could easily be fixed/adjusted, but not admitted and then blamed on my "old" cameras ... thus leaving me with the bill for "wasting" the repair shop's time.
Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

scottkinfw

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
    • kasden.smug.com
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #185 on: April 10, 2014, 11:01:36 AM »
I have had the same experience.

A tip- be sure to include a copy of the receipt.  That will often eliminate a lot of hassle. 

sek

Well, I'm a relatively new poster, but decided it was time to speak up based purely on the experiences I've had with Canon's customer service, since, at it's core, that's what this thread is for.   

Without fail, every time I've sent something to them for repair, items which should be well-within warranty (both based on time elapsed from purchase date, and for the issues experienced), I've been submitted an estimate, usually in the $250-350 range on the initial pass review by them.  Only after contesting their appraisal, do I ever get anything worked on without any charge.  To me, that's them saying that their product is without flaw and that I must have done something to prevent their gem of a device from working.  I wonder how many people just pay the fee and don't contest it.  I've had to go through literally hours of calls between customer service and their factory service reps to get to the point where they finally will say that they'll fix it free of charge. 

I'll be the first to admit if I've dropped a lens, camera body, or poured water into a printer - I'd expect to pay for that type of repair as it's not a defect of workmanship/materials.  I've never done any of those and then sent it in for repair hoping it would be covered by warranty.  Makes me wonder if that's what's happening so often that Canon is turning their backs on honest customers with honest warranty claims.  The very fact that there's possibly some known defects in their equipment and that we're potentially paying for it, to be honest, pisses me off a bit.  So I'm not actually very sorry if you find it hard to hear us "newbies" moaning about customer service or warranty repair policy especially with the literally hundreds, if not thousands of dollars some of us have had to spend to get items repaired, I guess not everyone has the same experiences you do.     

 
sek Cameras: 5D III, 5D II, EOS M  Lenses:  24-70 2.8 II IS, 24-105 f4L, 70-200 f4L IS, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 300 f4L IS, EF 400 5.6L, 300 2.8 IS II, Samyang 14 mm 2.8 Flashes: 580 EX II600EX-RT X 2, ST-E3-RT
Plus lots of stuff that just didn't work for me

tiggy@mac.com

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 10
  • 70D
    • View Profile
    • Forest Metrix
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #186 on: April 10, 2014, 12:24:17 PM »
Speaking as a a once-reporter...

One method that newspapers handle these sorts of situations is to use the documents as off-record assets, confirming details and running a story based on the facts within that are re-established through independent reporting. This is done with great frequency.

You can't un-know something you've seen, and you may well be able to independently corroborate this information in a clean manner. For instance, you might run a poll on CR that asks for people to give information about problems that they've had with lenses and cameras. Where you see your own data corroborating with the service memo information, you have independent information with which to follow up.

As others have mentioned, you certainly want to get advice from a lawyer who has experience dealing with fair use, trade secrets, and other relevant issues.

As a publisher, you also, of course, face a long-term issue of your relationship with the corporation that comprises the bulk of your publication's subject matter. To that issue, I'd just note that publications - web or otherwise - have tended to wither away when audiences sense that they've become captured by the interests of the corporation. My personal experience is that the reaction of a company that  hates your decision to divulge something they don't wish to be divulged is very much predicated on the manner and tone with which you do it. On the other hand, when I've had business dealings with Japanese companies, I've found myself really a fish out of water, with little of my previous experience having much use.

If you would like references to law firms that have good experience about this, please contact me directly. -tig


canon rumors FORUM

Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #186 on: April 10, 2014, 12:24:17 PM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #187 on: April 10, 2014, 02:25:57 PM »
On a tangent ... I don't own a 1DX and probably never will, so I never looked at the specifications. This thread actually made me do just that by pointing out that the operating temperature of this "professional-grade" camera is (only) zero to forty degrees Celsius with less that 85% humidity. In my (not so) humble opinion, that's pretty pathetic for the "top-of-the-range", "professional-grade" camera from a company with the (perceived) reputation of Canon!

On topic ... I sold my EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens because it backfocused. This was apparently within specifications and I was told to upgrade my cameras to AFMA-enabled models to solve the problem.
I live in Florida and it's a rare shoot where the humidity is less than 95%, especially at dawn.  You get used to it, sort of.  Anyways, from the 450D to the 1D X, 18-55 IS to 300 2.8 II IS, I've never had an issue.  I've shot with Canon gear in 105F temperatures with 85-90% humidity as well and have never had a single issue.  I have never noticed the specs before this week and don't care about them because they are the "Working Temperature/Humidity Range" as in the safe range.  Canon doesn't specify the minimum or maximum range (as you would see in mil-spec equipment) so I think this is less about what their gear can or can't do and more about warranty issues.  If you see where the equipment is used and survives (check out the photo of the frozen camera in this post on CPN) it's obvious that the cameras can take a lot of abuse outside of the "working range".

On the 40mm issues, that's a really lousy response from Canon.  While it is "a" solution, it's very unreasonable, and I think that's really poor customer service.  The response should have been, "Send in your camera and lens and we'll calibrate them together."

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1282
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #188 on: April 10, 2014, 03:32:35 PM »
The irony of it is that these DSLR bodies are highly resilient to physical abuse, but an impact can shift the position of the AF module enough to cause problems.

+1

I once dropped my 5DII from waist level to the pavement.  Not even a cosmetic scuff on the camera, and it functioned fine afterwords except that all of my AFMA values shifted by ~10 units.

HI Neuro

Any idea of the physical dimension of the shift?

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14736
    • View Profile
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #189 on: April 10, 2014, 03:50:41 PM »
The irony of it is that these DSLR bodies are highly resilient to physical abuse, but an impact can shift the position of the AF module enough to cause problems.

+1

I once dropped my 5DII from waist level to the pavement.  Not even a cosmetic scuff on the camera, and it functioned fine afterwords except that all of my AFMA values shifted by ~10 units.

HI Neuro

Any idea of the physical dimension of the shift?

It doesn't take much.  The shift was a bit more that one full depth of focus *the sensor-side equivalent to depth of field); one AFMA unit is 1/8 the depth of focus.  With an f/2.8 lens on a FF body, the depth of focus is ~160 µm (0.16 mm, 6/1000 in.)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

PVS

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #190 on: April 10, 2014, 09:43:45 PM »
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/we-have-more-internal-canon-service-information-on-lenses-cameras/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/we-have-more-internal-canon-service-information-on-lenses-cameras/">Tweet</a></div>
Yesterday we posted an <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/eos-1d-x-eos-1d-c-cold-weather-autofocus-issues/" target="_blank">internal service advisory for the Canon EOS-1D X and EOS-1D C</a>. These are advisories that are only known to a select few within Canon and not told to the consumers.</p>
<p>We have a lot of more of these documents that cover various Canon lenses and camera bodies, there’s even more on the EOS-1D X mirrorbox.</p>
<p>The person that sent them to us didn’t have an issue with Canon keeping this stuff internal. However, they were upset that a lot of the issues are known to Canon and they’re still charging customers for the repairs out of warranty. There are a couple of lenses with design flaws and Canon is charging $250-$450 for these repairs out of warranty and not fully disclosing the design flaw to the customer.</p>
<p>We’re not sure whether or not we’ll post the rest of the internal documents we have in our possession. If you think there’s value in us doing so, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20341.0">please sound off in our forum</a>.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>



Must be the radiation levels in Japan. Now, that's a serious issue that the public needs to know more about.

weixing

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
    • View Profile
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #191 on: April 10, 2014, 10:25:50 PM »
The irony of it is that these DSLR bodies are highly resilient to physical abuse, but an impact can shift the position of the AF module enough to cause problems.

+1

I once dropped my 5DII from waist level to the pavement.  Not even a cosmetic scuff on the camera, and it functioned fine afterwords except that all of my AFMA values shifted by ~10 units.

HI Neuro

Any idea of the physical dimension of the shift?

It doesn't take much.  The shift was a bit more that one full depth of focus *the sensor-side equivalent to depth of field); one AFMA unit is 1/8 the depth of focus.  With an f/2.8 lens on a FF body, the depth of focus is ~160 µm (0.16 mm, 6/1000 in.)
Hi,
    0.16mm?? How "long" is that?? Can't find that in the ruler... ha ha ha  :o
If you think about it, it's quite amazing that the design and manufacturing technology behind the DSLR... how do you secure the AF sensor and imaging senor in place to such precision even after all the vibration the camera had to go through...

   Have a nice day.

rainer

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #192 on: April 10, 2014, 11:11:10 PM »
Dear CR Team,

I think these kind of things should be made public. Canon is reputable and everyone knows things can go wrong - however in recent years the attitude from Canon has changed. Instead of admit the issue, find a solution and offer a free fix for design / technical issues, the company now tries to neglect issues and puts the blame on the consumer for not handling things correctly.

When you look in a lot of well known German sites and forums, the hottest topic is actually about the focus issue of the center focus point with certain lenses not working correctly at the EOS 70D. It has been documented well, but Canon denies any systematic fault. So when you have documents for this problem or other relevant EOS 70D information I feel strongly you should make this knowledge public.

That's my opinion & thank you very much!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #192 on: April 10, 2014, 11:11:10 PM »

Tiosabas

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #193 on: April 11, 2014, 05:46:13 AM »
Maybe its been mentioned already but another disgracfull design flaw that Canon dont admit to is the focus motor/focus color slippage problem on the 70-200 F4 IS. Canon seem to be happy to rip off their customers who are buying into their system and with that comes a certain amount of loyalty to the products. This doesnt seem to hold any water with Canon. >:( Its crazy to think that a customer should pay big bucks to repair a design issue.
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us"-Tolkien

Beckscum

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #194 on: April 12, 2014, 12:16:35 AM »
Maybe its been mentioned already but another disgracfull design flaw that Canon dont admit to is the focus motor/focus color slippage problem on the 70-200 F4 IS. Canon seem to be happy to rip off their customers who are buying into their system and with that comes a certain amount of loyalty to the products. This doesnt seem to hold any water with Canon. >:( Its crazy to think that a customer should pay big bucks to repair a design issue.

I own a 18 months old Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS lens and it has a motor malfunction recently.  Canon HK requested me to pay for the repairing motor slippage. I have been negotiating with them for over a month and even made a complaint to Canon Japan. A large discount (for the repair fee) was obtained and I finally agreed to pay it because the issue has lasted too long.

However, I was pissed off because I visited a few camera stores yesterday and found that they returned full batches of UA lens back to Canon in 2012 because most of the lens came with motor mal-function. This was clearly a QC issue and Canon must know it very well. They keeps denying that this is a QC/Design flaw issue.
 
Canon has been selling a product with QC/design flaw to customers and demanding customer to pay for the repair is extremely dishonorable.

Canon should initiate a global replacement for affected batches!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras
« Reply #194 on: April 12, 2014, 12:16:35 AM »