August 23, 2014, 03:08:44 PM

Author Topic: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory  (Read 34122 times)

swrightgfx

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory
« Reply #150 on: April 18, 2012, 09:49:51 AM »
Maybe a firmware update that turns off the LCD backlight when the shutter button is half pressed and before metering starts could solve this issue for most people? No?
Assuming software was able to detect the LCD light status, this would work, but only for aperture and shutter priority or program modes. Manual would still leave you "shooting in the dark."

Regardless you'd be shooting in the dark anyway and well below levels to meter accurately, so the content of the LCD would be already dubious even after a fix (if Canon chooses to offer one).

BDD

  • Guest
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory
« Reply #151 on: April 18, 2012, 12:05:23 PM »
I disagree. Canon (or any other manufacturer) should fix all acknowledged issues. Especially those that they have admitted to and is fairly known to camera users who frequent forums and sites like CR. They can't afford for the word to get out that they won't do anything.

Turn off the LCD on top of the camera. :) That solution would work for now. But imagine Ferrari telling the owners of their 458 Italia (has computer displays next to the tachometer). After having shelled out 300k on their dream sports car. "Just turn off the display...you have still the tachometer". I don't think it would go over too well.

I'm sure Canon will work on this and offer a fix soon. Question is how "soon".

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1806
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory
« Reply #152 on: April 18, 2012, 01:32:59 PM »
The equipment an artist uses has little to do with their greatness. You can have the best, faultless equipment available and still have little to no creativity or skill.
I agree but in that case an artist can do with a 5DII, 5D or a lesser camera. A 5DmkIII is not necessary!

In terms of practice and the way an artist uses their equipment, we as photographers should use our camera meters within their optimum range - outside of that and we are jeopardising and risking our artworks.
I agree

This isn't an issue and Canon have no obligation to fix it. We should instead be out shooting, not debating things that have no effect on it.
If canon has no obligation to fix a negligence that didn't exist even back in the EOS620 era then we definitely have no obligation to upgrade. It's as simple as that.

Etienne

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
    • View Profile
    • Photography by Steve Brule
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory
« Reply #153 on: April 18, 2012, 01:51:02 PM »
Brilliant. Canon should ignore an issue that they have determined is real.
Well that ought to drive product improvement.

It is attention to detail that makes a product, or an artist, great.

A known issue that might cause an error of 1/3 stop exposure is significant.
Fix it ... it's that simple.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. The equipment an artist uses has little to do with their greatness. You can have the best, faultless equipment available and still have little to no creativity or skill.

In terms of practice and the way an artist uses their equipment, we as photographers should use our camera meters within their optimum range - outside of that and we are jeopardising and risking our artworks. The amount of light where this issue is present is well out of that range. In these cases, the meter should not be used. It isn't a fault if it is something that affects a characteristic of the camera that is not a part of how it was designed to be used.

It is not like there are water leaks in the LCD or something (though this itself may need testing).

This isn't an issue and Canon have no obligation to fix it. We should instead be out shooting, not debating things that have no effect on it.

I didn't think I needed to be this specific but:

Attention to detail ..... makes an artist great
similarly
Attention to detail ..... makes a product great

Anyway, it can't be that difficult to block light from reaching the meter.
And ... 1/3 to 1 stop of consistent, or random, known error is not acceptable.

BDD

  • Guest
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory
« Reply #154 on: April 18, 2012, 02:54:20 PM »
Canon UK has temporarily stopped shipments till the light issue is dealt with.

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/canon-suspends-5d-mark-iii-shipping-1076503

Canon is working on it. Minor problem as it is. Shouldn't be happening. So those that actually use the illumination light when shooting in the dark can. As I said. i never used this light. The same information is visible through the viewfinder and the LCD on the back.

MrSandman

  • Guest
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory
« Reply #155 on: April 18, 2012, 02:56:15 PM »
Maybe a firmware update that turns off the LCD backlight when the shutter button is half pressed and before metering starts could solve this issue for most people? No?

That certainly won’t solve the issue of ambient light leaking past the LCD display.

This is a structural issue, it would appear.  That’s the kind of thing that’s going to require a physical remedy.  Better seals.  A black screen behind the LCD display.  I have no clue - I don’t design cameras.  But this doesn’t strike me as an issue of programming.

esi32

  • Guest
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory
« Reply #156 on: April 18, 2012, 03:04:22 PM »
Brilliant. Canon should ignore an issue that they have determined is real.
Well that ought to drive product improvement.

It is attention to detail that makes a product, or an artist, great.

A known issue that might cause an error of 1/3 stop exposure is significant.
Fix it ... it's that simple.

This isn't simply a matter of attention to detail, it's a matter of engineering. The engineering was for a meter that operated correctly form 1 to 20 EV w/ a 50/1.4 (t/1.6) lens. You can ignore that, you can stick your fingers in your ears and scream, "it should be fixed!" over and over all you want, but the simple reality is that the camera was designed to work properly over a specific range of light levels and, so far as I can tell, does so and beyond.

To recall the camera and issue a fix is tantamount to fixing something that literally isn't broken unless you use the camera outside of the designed conditions. It sets a precedent that with sufficient wailing and gnashing of teeth a product's specs can be altered after it was designed and released.


I disagree. Canon (or any other manufacturer) should fix all acknowledged issues. Especially those that they have admitted to and is fairly known to camera users who frequent forums and sites like CR. They can't afford for the word to get out that they won't do anything.

No they shouldn't just fix all acknowledged issues. Only issues where the product is deficient in functioning where it was designed to function, should be addressed with anything more than a workaround. The 5D3 wasn't designed to meter correctly at -10 EV, or -5EV, or 0EV. Under some cases it may, more often than not it performs better than the design specs indicate it should, but if you're relying on the meter outside of the designed parameters you're in undefined territory and may not get an accurate reading regardless. No company should be under an obligation, perceived or otherwise, to fix an issue that only occurs outside the designed operating range.

Quote
Turn off the LCD on top of the camera. :) That solution would work for now. But imagine Ferrari telling the owners of their 458 Italia (has computer displays next to the tachometer). After having shelled out 300k on their dream sports car. "Just turn off the display...you have still the tachometer". I don't think it would go over too well.

Your situation isn't even remotely comparable. A more apt one would be that Ferrari owners were complaining that their car knocks or otherwise doesn't get it's best performance when being run on 87 octane gas instead of the designed 91+. Then go on to insist that Ferrari should actually redesign the engine, and recall the car so that it does run correctly on a fuel it wasn't designed to run optimally on in the first place.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

That's the problem here. Yes, there's an "issue". Yes, Canon has acknowledged it. No the issue doesn't appear to occur inside the specified operating range of the camera, in fact it seems to occur at a point more than 4 stops below the specified operating range. Yet that's not good enough apparently. Well following that line of thinking neither is the ISO performance at 1600 or higher, nor is the AF performance with lenses that have a max aperture of f/16, nor is the fact that the viewfinder doesn't have 5/8" of nose relief. I can make a case that all of those are deficiencies with the camera, should I get enough people to whine about those, should Canon redesign the camera for them too too?

MrSandman

  • Guest
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory
« Reply #157 on: April 18, 2012, 03:13:04 PM »
I really hope Canon don't offer a fix for this, since seeing more test results.

It seems that this issue is only an issue at 0 or -1EV, which falls outside of the designed 2-20EV range of the meter. At these light levels, you should not be using the in-built meter anyway, so Canon does not have to act on something that does not fall within of the design specifications of this product.

I find myself in something of the same boat. Based on the growing body of testing I've been doing the meter appears to function properly in the specified range—and even some what below it—with pretty much anything lens you can throw at it without getting into teleconverters. And I seriously don't care for the precedent that recalling and "fixing" something that behaves correctly over the operating range it's supposed to work over sets. I honestly think the most appropriate solution would be similar to what they did with the 1D/s mk. 3 and Canon USA service notice dated 03-02-09; provide free service to those who believe their meter is functioning incorrectly.

I'm still writing up a report on this for my site, and I'll be sure to drop a link to the final version, but for the moment this is what my preliminary results look like.

The backlight becomes an issue when the light reaching the meter though the lens hits -6.5EV including transmission looses for the lens. In more practical terms for photographers it plays out something like this.

LensMin Light LevelExample exposure settings
24-70/2.8L or 70-200/2.8L IS II -330s f/2.8 ISO 200
24-104/4L IS - 1-2/3 25s f/4 ISO 100
70-300/4-5.6L IS @ 300mm 0 30s f/5.6 ISO 100
85/1.2L II -5 1.6s f/1.2 ISO 3200

As for leaking from a light shining on the top LCD instead of the backlight. I'm coming up with about 0.001% transmittance or something like 16-2/3 stops. So as long as you don't have some clown shining the equivalent of the sun at noon on your camera in the dark that shouldn't be a problem either. A light source that will light a surface 5mm away to 35K lx generates only a 1/3rd stop error when the meter sees ~ -4.67Ev from the scene (in my case that worked out to a scene lit to ~ -1-1/3Ev with an 24-70/2.8L lens on the camera).

It’s not that hard to make something light-proof.  More seals.  Walling off the LCD panel, etc. etc.  I don’t design cameras, but just off the top of my head I can think of a few reliable ways of preventing light from getting through.

Incidentally, I can also think of ways this issue would make a difference: for example, shooting a dim room under one halogen light shining down on your camera could affect the exposure.  If the LCD backlight can do it, so can an overhead light.  I don’t know the details of how a light meter works and I’m not a physicist, but it I’m guessing that the amount of light a meter senses is additive.  If the meter picks up ABC number of photons through the lens, the light leaking through the LCD display (or coming from the LCD backlight) will add XYZ number of photons to it.  In well-lit environments, it may be a very small percentage of the total amount of light.  But in less-than well-lit environments, it becomes a larger percentage of the total light hitting the meter and would make a bigger difference.  I doubt the claims that it doesn’t affect the exposure when you’re above 1EV.  People have already taken photos to show that it does.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3465
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory
« Reply #158 on: April 18, 2012, 03:16:13 PM »
Someone on FM says they tested it and the only time it made a difference when the lens cap was off is when they shot under EV1 lighting, the very bottom limit the meter is rated for, and it was only 1/3 stop under then, even just a bit above EV1 and they didn't find any difference.

Etienne

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
    • View Profile
    • Photography by Steve Brule
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory
« Reply #159 on: April 18, 2012, 04:52:47 PM »
esi32 ...

... All the EV talk in the world doesn't matter, but since others are making it an issue: f16 for 8 sec is listed as EV = 5, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value), and this is a commonly used setting for landscape, foaming water etc. And, Photogs like Dan Cheung have reported consistent under-exposure using the 5DIII. That too is interesting.

Anyway, it's not a personal issue, so I don't know why some posters are so angry that others want the issue fixed. That's bizarre.

Canon is taking it seriously, and that is a good thing. They will decide what to do, and personally I am happy that Canon takes feedback and complaints seriously.

esi32

  • Guest
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory
« Reply #160 on: April 18, 2012, 07:28:05 PM »
esi32 ...

... All the EV talk in the world doesn't matter, but since others are making it an issue: f16 for 8 sec is listed as EV = 5, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value), and this is a commonly used setting for landscape, foaming water etc. And, Photogs like Dan Cheung have reported consistent under-exposure using the 5DIII. That too is interesting.

Except it is a serious factor in whether and how much the meter would be incorrect for any given situation. In fact, it is THE factor for any given situation. The problem is we're talking about reality here. If you need to have the camera lit to 20EV to get a 1/3rd stop error on the meter, you're not realistically going to do that in the real world ever. So yes, what you're shooting, and how bright the area you're shooting from really does matter.

So as to your Ev 5 scene, you're going to have to provide more than just "this is used for..." how bright is the actual environment the camera is in? This is crucial to determining whether there's the potential for a metering error. If the camera is in EV12 and you're NDing down the scene to EV5 with a f/16 lens, ya, you're probably going to see a problem with a 5D3. If the camera is in EV12 and you're NDing the scene down to EV5 but using an f/4 or faster lens that doesn't require stop down metering, you're not going to see an error at all. This has been generally born out by my experience in the field with and my testing of my 5D3, and I don't believe my camera is an outlier in any special way on the good side.

Quote
Canon is taking it seriously, and that is a good thing. They will decide what to do, and personally I am happy that Canon takes feedback and complaints seriously.

As am I. I'd much rather they promptly acknowledge things, even if they ultimately do nothing, than not acknowledge it at all.