Light leak on 5D3 IS a big issue, and should embarrass Canon

[skitron]

Either way, I’m returning mine, and will consider buying it again after Canon has satisfactorily addressed the matter.

I can understand your frustrations, but below is a link where a guy tested extensively in exactly the conditions that should provoke the problem, yet he never mentions the problem. He took real pictures when he tested...so what do you think of his pictures? Personally, I'd be more inclined to use something like that as a benchmark of how problematic the issue is as opposed to a bunch of internet chatter. Just sayin'...

http://www.extremeinstability.com/2012-3-30-2.htm

[MrSandman]

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?

[MrSandman]

Anybody who returns a camera just to re-purchase it later, rather than get a repair, is not allowed to complain about Canon's raise in price.

But I don’t intend to re-purchase it later.  I intend to purchase a different camera: i.e. the EOS 5D Mark III that doesn’t let ambient light hit the meter.  That’s a different camera than the one I purchased a couple days ago.

[MrSandman]

 

As noted, nothing is perfect. That you seem to misunderstand, but as I said earlier it's all part of the blame culture we have now.

As an aside, complete guesses on your part:
Visual damage with a repair
Further problems from a repair
They knew about the problem

To be honest we're at completely opposite ends of a very very long room, so there's no point in discussing it further. As far as I'm concerned you can carry on believing that the world should be perfect. Me? I'll go out and take some photos.

Light leaking through the camera body is not an imperfection.  It’s a defect in every sense of the word.  I’ll bet a million bucks Canon intended for that LCD panel to block out all ambient light, and that this light leak problem is something inadvertent and unforeseen.

[ramon123]

I don't see anything harsh or out of line about the OP's view on this. This isn't about being a "good guy" or demonstrating that you can grin and bear the small stuff. And it's not about expecting a perfect product, either. It's about the expectation that for your money, which here, is plenty, you'll receive what we call a "merchantable" product.

The light leak seems to admittedly be a flaw, correctable or not. With all bigger money DSLR's, the manufacturer of the product needs to know that flaws that are incompatible with the basic object of the product aren't going to be considered small stuff. Likewise, loyalists and people that pride themselves in "not sweating the small stuff" can be mum if they choose to, but they shouldn't be squelching polite commentary about such issues. Trust me, manufacturers need to know that customer satisfaction and loyalty do not go so far as to make flaws or errors off limits to discussion. At the end of the day, if you expect less, you'll get less.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on both sides.

However to me, this is what I object to:

"Either way, I’m returning mine, and will consider buying it again after Canon has satisfactorily addressed the matter.  Shipping a brand-new camera back to Canon to have it modified or repaired is completely unacceptable, and utterly out of the question."

I just think its totally fair to offer a fix and unnecessary to object to it.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm of the opinion that when something gets shipped to you as a defective product right from the get-go, it should be replaced, not repaired.  You are contending that I should be content to send my brand-new camera back to Canon to let them open it up and work on it.  Again, for a brand-new camera.  No way.

Nicely said.

[CanineCandidsByL]

From my quick personal tests, I'm not too worried about this except for one thing....

if Canon makes a change to the design but doesn't replace/fix the earlier models, then those of us with the early design may find our cameras with a lower resale value. In short, this could cost *me* money, and I don't like that.

I could just see Canon offering % or fixed $ off coupon in the Canon store. I had that happen before due to a printer design issue, and it was very displeasing since the discounted price was still higher that what I could get on the open market.

[PhilDrinkwater]

 

As noted, nothing is perfect. That you seem to misunderstand, but as I said earlier it's all part of the blame culture we have now.

As an aside, complete guesses on your part:
Visual damage with a repair
Further problems from a repair
They knew about the problem

To be honest we're at completely opposite ends of a very very long room, so there's no point in discussing it further. As far as I'm concerned you can carry on believing that the world should be perfect. Me? I'll go out and take some photos.

Light leaking through the camera body is not an imperfection.  It’s a defect in every sense of the word.  I’ll bet a million bucks Canon intended for that LCD panel to block out all ambient light, and that this light leak problem is something inadvertent and unforeseen.

No manufacturer ever intends for issues to exist. Yet they do. Everywhere!!

Accept that 

[nesarajah]

I just want to add 3 things:
1. I love 5dmk3 and the light leak issue is not really an issue
2. There are either a lot of trolls or liars who pretend to own canon gear
3. I am in full agreement about the images popping due to lack of dynamic range. It's not what I would call a feature but I'm sure canon engineers thought about it .

[Christian_Stella]

Anybody who returns a camera just to re-purchase it later, rather than get a repair, is not allowed to complain about Canon's raise in price.

But I don’t intend to re-purchase it later.  I intend to purchase a different camera: i.e. the EOS 5D Mark III that doesn’t let ambient light hit the meter.  That’s a different camera than the one I purchased a couple days ago.

Your re-purchased "different" 5d3 will have simply gone through the same repair job that they'll offer on your current model. Somewhere there's a huge stockpile of the cameras getting prepared for modifications. Depending on how long it takes them to revamp their production line, I'm afraid you may never know if your 5d3 was ever touched by a technician's hands.  I think you are best skipping this generation or at least asking for a tour of the factory in Japan before purchasing a new model. This way you will know for certain that Japanese hands enacted the fix in the middle of the assembly line, rather than at the end.

I will patiently wait for Canon's repair information before I get back to work doing my true passion... Taking photos deep in the belly of caves with a motorcycle's headlight strapped downward, into the camera's top LCD screen.

[skitron]

I will patiently wait for Canon's repair information before I get back to work doing my true passion... Taking photos deep in the belly of caves with a motorcycle's headlight strapped downward, into the camera's top LCD screen.

Yes...5D3 seems to work just fine in the pitch black if you aim the headlights at something other than the LCD:

http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/2012/v-i36758.jpg

[markIVantony]

Either way, I’m returning mine, and will consider buying it again after Canon has satisfactorily addressed the matter.  Shipping a brand-new camera back to Canon to have it modified or repaired is completely unacceptable, and utterly out of the question.

Why not just wait to see if there will actually be a recall?  It's possible that the fix may come through a firmware update.  For example, the camera knows the light level from the exposure meter.  The camera also knows when the LCD light is turned on or is active.  If the light meter reading is really low, and the LCD light is turned on, and the camera registers a (known) light level increase, the firmware can reduce the exposure proportional to the measured level it increased by at the moment the LCD backlight was turned on.  Just an example, but the point is that there may be some clever ways to handle this in firmware that I'm sure Canon is investigating.

[MrSandman]

Anybody who returns a camera just to re-purchase it later, rather than get a repair, is not allowed to complain about Canon's raise in price.

But I don’t intend to re-purchase it later.  I intend to purchase a different camera: i.e. the EOS 5D Mark III that doesn’t let ambient light hit the meter.  That’s a different camera than the one I purchased a couple days ago.

Your re-purchased "different" 5d3 will have simply gone through the same repair job that they'll offer on your current model. Somewhere there's a huge stockpile of the cameras getting prepared for modifications. Depending on how long it takes them to revamp their production line, I'm afraid you may never know if your 5d3 was ever touched by a technician's hands.  I think you are best skipping this generation or at least asking for a tour of the factory in Japan before purchasing a new model. This way you will know for certain that Japanese hands enacted the fix in the middle of the assembly line, rather than at the end.

I will patiently wait for Canon's repair information before I get back to work doing my true passion... Taking photos deep in the belly of caves with a motorcycle's headlight strapped downward, into the camera's top LCD screen.

Incorrect, sir.  I will wait long enough to be nearly certain that the existing stock of defective cameras is gone.  And if by some chance I get one that looks like it has been opened up and repaired, I’ll return that one too.  I realize that may sound unreasonable to you, but in my line of work, I know that repaired devices (especially more complex devices) are more prone to problems than ones made correctly the first time around.

[swrightgfx]

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 really hope you are joking and not just dense...

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.

[MrSandman]

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 really hope you are joking and not just dense...

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.

[swrightgfx]

What’s significant here is not that the defect only produces a problem in ‘extreme’, rarely-encountered environments.

What defect? The camera behaves as it was DESIGNED to behave. If you are shooting beyond the specified limits of the meter, then you are doing so at your own risk in any case, light leak or not. This will NOT affect your shots, if you know what you are doing in those situations and use a meter or your own calculations in the rare situations you are in those conditions. (To reuse someone else's example from the original thread, "This would only be an issue if you are shooting a black cat in a coal pit, with no moon." In which case, you should be using either an exceptionally sensitive light-meter or careful calculations and a strobe set to M.)