Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory

[Etienne]

I use the top LCD all the time. When it's dark I tend to use it over the back screen, the main reason is that it's easier to see, and if your camera is low down you can just look straight down instead of getting on your knees.

Don't understand all the anger about canon fixing this. It's a problem that affects a lot of people, and just because it doesn't affect you it doesn't mean that you have to get mad at the people it does affect.

+1

Exactly. One member posted an angry post at me recently, simply because I suggested that the camera should not under-expose.

It's a camera, ... a tool ... and it should work properly, especially at $3500.
I am reassured that Canon is responding quickly.

I still intend to get a 5D3, but I'm waiting until they get all the little bugs ironed out.

 

[mrmarks]

This is a physical leak, therefore a hardware fix will be necessary. I think Canon will need two to three months to finalize and make available the hardware modifications and parts.

 

[epiem]

I'm so glad I haven't wasted the money on these yet.

$3500 and now a possible recall.

GTFO Canon

 

[swrightgfx]

Hi all,

This is my first post here (yes, I do expect an official welcome).

I recently acquired a 5D Mark III. Great camera; loving it. I do, however, have the described "issue."

Like almost everyone here, I too originally scoffed at the idea this could be fixed in firmware, but then I got thinking and some questions came up: is the LCD button independent of and thus mechanical, or does it communicate with the software? If the latter, is the issue uniform - that is, does the metering deviate to the same degree on each affected camera? If this is the case, could not firmware tell the camera to compensate the metering for the false readings?

I purchased from Hong Kong but am based in Australia, so would hate to have to lose the use of my camera while it carts around the world to make use of the local-only warranty.

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

I wonder how much recent events will affect sales of the Mark III? Based on many recent internet reviews, I think new buyers looking to purchase a FF DSLR would be heavily leaning towards Nikon. The success and reviews of the D800 and the light leak issue might sway new users to Nikon.

Well, the D800 gets stuck at times apparently. Is this better or worse than this light leak?

 

[javier]

Hi all,

This is my first post here (yes, I do expect an official welcome).

I recently acquired a 5D Mark III. Great camera; loving it. I do, however, have the described "issue."

Like almost everyone here, I too originally scoffed at the idea this could be fixed in firmware, but then I got thinking and some questions came up: is the LCD button independent of and thus mechanical, or does it communicate with the software? If the latter, is the issue uniform - that is, does the metering deviate to the same degree on each affected camera? If this is the case, could not firmware tell the camera to compensate the metering for the false readings?

I purchased from Hong Kong but am based in Australia, so would hate to have to lose the use of my camera while it carts around the world to make use of the local-only warranty.

This reminds me iPhone 4 antenna.....

The light leak is a hardware problem so how you fix a hardware problem with a software update?
Like I said before the problem is the AE Sensor is getting too much light through LCD, View finder and lens. when you adjust your meter you are adjusting the meter with all that amount of light.
At the moment the camera take the picture just take the picture with the light coming through the lens and that is why the picture is underexpose.

 

[swrightgfx]

is the LCD button independent of and thus mechanical, or does it communicate with the software?

The camera obviously communicates to the LCD; it should be noted that I am not suggesting the LCD speaks back, but whether the button that initiates the backlight is activated mechanically or via the camera's software.

 

[swrightgfx]

Yes, I know that, but if the camera KNOWS the backlight is on, then, assuming the defect is relatively uniform in its effect on exposure, it may be possible for the camera to compensate.

EDIT: eg. "When light = on, increase exposure by x."

 

[Mcarlsen]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-service-advisory/"></glusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-service-advisory/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-service-advisory/"></a></div>
<strong>To Users of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera



</strong>Thank you for using Canon products.</p>
<p>The phenomenon described below has been confirmed when using the Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera.</p>
<p>Canon is now examining the countermeasures and once the countermeasures are decided, we will post the information on our Web site.</p>
<p><strong>Phenomenon



</strong>In extremely dark environments, if the LCD panel illuminates, the displayed exposure value may change as a result of the AE sensor’s detection of light from the LCD panel.</p>
<p><strong>Affected Product



</strong>Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera</p>
<p><strong>Support



</strong>Once the preparations are complete, we will be making an announcement on our Web site.</p>
<p>This information is for residents of the United States and Puerto Rico only. If you do not reside in the USA or Puerto Rico, please contact the Canon Customer Support Center in your region.</p>
<p>Please <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/registration/professional/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii" target="_blank">register the EOS 5D Mark III</a>. By registering, we will be able to notify you via email when service updates are available. If you already registered, please ensure you are opted-in to receive the notification.</p>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer?pageKeyCode=prdAdvDetail&docId=0901e02480538fc7" target="_blank">CUSA</a>]</strong></p>
<p><em>thanks Ken</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p><strong>

</strong></p>

Such is what happens when a company releases 6 new cameras in 6 months... They are scrambling to figure out what the right thing to do is... I love my 5DMKii... But canon has completely disappointed me with their latest "Releases" which are nothing to write home about... All lacking something.. Instead of just bringing about ONE camera that does it right... They bring 6 that does it all wrong...

All beta cameras BTW... That is what happens when you're scrambling ;-)

 

[llcanon]

First, I'd like to understand the basis of the claim that the light leak would cause under exposure. I've heard this many times and it just does not make sense to me. Theoretically, the meter should only measure the light through the lens to give the "correct" exposure for the image in the frame. In reality, the light also "leaks" through the viewfinder and, in the case of 5D III, the top LCD panel as well. My guess is the light leaking through the LCD Is far less than through the viewfinder. I don't think you will get underexposed image if you don't put the viewfinder cover on.

Secondly, leaking LCD is very disappointing. That just reflects the deterioration of Canon's workmanship or quality control. For those who understand how Canon's cameras were put together, can you please shed some light on what type of "countermeasures" would be deployed to fix the issue? I think it would require significant work to get to the part between the LCD and the sensor. I am just not 100% confident about the skills of the technicians at the Canon service center. I suggest that if the issue does not bother you, just go out and take more photos. If it does, return it now and wait for a few months to get a new one.

Eoseoseoseoseos
5DIII, x0D, 1v, 16-35 L, 28-70 L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 100 2.8L IS.

 

[esi32]

Yes, I know that, but if the camera KNOWS the backlight is on, then, assuming the defect is relatively uniform in its effect on exposure, it may be possible for the camera to compensate.

EDIT: eg. "When light = on, increase exposure by x."

That's not a workable fix, the problem isn't with the backlight—even though that's what everybody seems to be fixated on. Any sufficiently bright (compared to what the lens sees) light incident on the top LCD will alter the meter reading, and the brighter the light the more the reading is altered. Shine a really bright flashlight on the top LCD and you can alter the meter reading even in relatively bright environments (then again my 1D3 does this only to a much smaller degree).

Only a hardware fix will actually address the problem in any meaningful way.

 

[esi32]

First, I'd like to understand the basis of the claim that the light leak would cause under exposure. I've heard this many times and it just does not make sense to me. Theoretically, the meter should only measure the light through the lens to give the "correct" exposure for the image in the frame. In reality, the light also "leaks" through the viewfinder and, in the case of 5D III, the top LCD panel as well. My guess is the light leaking through the LCD Is far less than through the viewfinder. I don't think you will get underexposed image if you don't put the viewfinder cover on.

Yes, the light leaking though the LCD can be far smaller than what leaks though the viewfinder. It can also be sufficient to be a source of error if everything is sufficiently dark. For example, the case of a relatively well sealed viewfinder against your eye v. a spotlight shining on you and the camera but not in the lens.

The second part however, largely depends on how bright everything is relatively speaking. If I'm shooting a dimly lit subject from an even dimmer area I don't necessarily have to block the viewfinder, and the backlight will still cause a metering error. Actually, at least according to my testings, so long as the whole environment is dimmer than about EV1 turning on the backlight will alter the meter reading regardless of whether you have lens caps or viewfinder blocked.

A lot of the problem here, IMO, is that there has been lots of "cursory testing", gnashing of teeth, and complaining about how the camera is broken, without understanding either the design limits of the camera or doing any serious controlled testing inside and out of those limits. For example, the original Canon Rumors test with the lens caps on is so far outside the designed limits of the metering system as to be utterly useless in speaking to anything other than to show that there is in fact some light leaking from the LCD/LCD backlight to the meter.

I've conducted more controlled tests, at least to the best of my ability though even I admit that they aren't done to my fullest satisfaction (largely because I don't have sufficient equipment to do so), and they seem to indicate that the meter functions properly inside the designed range (1-20EV) unless you shine considerably brighter light on the top LCD than the lens or viewfinder can observe.

In practice, the situations where you're both operating inside the stated specifications of the meter (1-20EV) and doing something that would put a sufficiently bright light on the top LCD are vanishingly small. Even the assertion that this defect affects astrophotographers and nighttime landscape shooters, runs into problems when in all likelihood what they're metering is already outside the camera's design limits to start with, where they're no guarantee of function anyway. Which is why I keep saying that there is the distinct possibility that Canon will decide that no mitigating action needs to be taken and that the problem only occurs outside the designed limits of the camera. I sincerely hope they don't, since the fix is probably a bit of black tape somewhere, but it's a possibility that can't be ignored.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

AND When Will they address the issues:

1) AF points illuminations- Hard to see in daylight
2) problem of IS noise for Canon 200L and 800L
3) Pocketwizard sync speed wont go higher than 1/200....... (killed hypersync.. but im not too sure if this is canon problem)

Yeah stuff like that and missing zebra strips and 1.6x 2x2 samples 1920x1080 cropped video mode sure seem a lot more important to me.

 

[fotoray]

This kind of pisses me off. Not because I feel like I got a defective camera or that I even think this issue would really affect me. I'm pissed off because I will now have to decide if I want to be without my camera while it is getting an updated LCD cover or if I want to ignore the recall and deal with whatever the consequences of that are...

Choices, oh choices.... at least you have this choice

 

[fotoray]

Secondly, leaking LCD is very disappointing. That just reflects the deterioration of Canon's workmanship or quality control. For those who understand how Canon's cameras were put together, can you please shed some light on what type of "countermeasures" would be deployed to fix the issue? I think it would require significant work to get to the part between the LCD and the sensor. I am just not 100% confident about the skills of the technicians at the Canon service center. I suggest that if the issue does not bother you, just go out and take more photos. If it does, return it now and wait for a few months to get a new one.

Eoseoseoseoseos
5DIII, x0D, 1v, 16-35 L, 28-70 L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 100 2.8L IS.

Seems to me that Canon may have felt pressure to get the 5D3 to market, in presence of earthquake issues and competition from Nikon. There is no other excuse for not discovering this problem in QC and fixing it before distribution. Not good. But I am confident Canon can and will fix it.

 

[llcanon]

Hi, esi32, I am very impressed by your diligence on the tests. I agree with your analysis. I was just trying to ease the concerns by many of us who would seldom 1) shoot in extremely dark environment or 2) use the in-camera meter when shooting in extremely dark environments. My concern is when shooting outdoors of something dark in the shade while standing under the bright sunlight, whether the leak would cause inaccurate metering. But I am still not sure how much light would go through the LCD compared to the viewfinder. If the leak is significant enough to alter meter reading by 1/3 stop or more, then it's unacceptable. And any bandage type of fix (e.g., a black tape) performed outside the factory condition may inadvertently cause more harm to your camera than the leak issue itself (e.g., introduce dusts or alter the position of some precise component by accident).

Anyone has done tests under more normal shooting conditions? I haven't heard any issue so far.

Happy shooting!

 

[Respinder]

I am very disappointed by this recent announcement.

Since I will be using this camera in many low-light situations, this will probably become a major issue for me.

My biggest concern is that Canon Canada has not released any press release whatsoever, and the camera stores still claim (as of today) that this is a rumor and that no real hardware problem exists. I have also not heard of any "new shipments" with design changes coming in.

From the various websites covering this, the issue goes well beyond the LCD screen (as the US website describes) to the top display and even the viewfinder, so this is pretty substantial.

I was planning on purchasing this camera this week (prior to my upcoming vacation) but as I will ultimately spend upwards of $6000 on this (kit, accessories, etc), I am pretty concerned about buying this if it is defective? What about all of your thoughts on this? For those of you have who have yet to purchase, has this issue now put you on the fence?

 

[esi32]

Throwing more caution to the wind, I should have a engineering lux meter in my hands early next week, and I'm going to rerun though my tests with ambient light measured by the lux meter instead of just trying to get it right.

Moreover, it's worth remember that depending on the metering mode there's more than just simple metering going on. In evaluative, the metering is tied to the AF points and will change as the camera feels that one AF point or another is more or less in focus and therefore more or less relevant. Likewise, for some lenses (especially macro lenses) the effective aperture will change as the magnification is increased (e.g. see the effective apertures for the MP-E 65 at various magnifications).

I was playing with the camera in the dark earlier and seeing stabling metering in CWA down to what I'm guessing was close to EV 0 or EV -1 (was metering 8s, f/2.8 ISO 200, the only appreciable light source in the room was a pair of mostly black 24" LCDs) but varying the focus—and not over the full throw either—on the macro lens I happened to have on the camera was sufficient to change the metering by more than a stop. I'd really love to be able to get my hands on a ZP.2 EF or Canon CN-E Cine lines with t-stops since they account for actual light loss, but that's outside my budget.

One think I just though of is that metering seemed much more stable in CWA than Evaluative, it's possible that whatever leak exists, only affects certain peripheral zones but does so enough that in low light situations that the camera alters the overall exposure. Stability in various metering modes is on the list of things to test.

My concern is when shooting outdoors of something dark in the shade while standing under the bright sunlight, whether the leak would cause inaccurate metering. But I am still not sure how much light would go through the LCD compared to the viewfinder.

Doesn't seem to be much of an issue in practice. One of my test was shooting from under an relatively bright overhead lamp into the darkest part of the room (I'd guesstimate a 4-6 EV delta between the camera and what the camera was pointed at), and metering seemed pretty reliably as long as the backlight was off, but at the same time I wasn't on a tripod with fixed focus, and I was using evaluative which in general seems more prone to being "jumpy" when in log light/signal cases when I was tried that.

About the only case where you might have a problem would be shooting someone in a long dark tunnel from outside the tunnel under broad daylight, and even then I'm not sure it'd be a problem (and lack a sufficient tunnel to test with).

If the leak is significant enough to alter meter reading by 1/3 stop or more, then it's unacceptable. And any bandage type of fix (e.g., a black tape) performed outside the factory condition may inadvertently cause more harm to your camera than the leak issue itself (e.g., introduce dusts or alter the position of some precise component by accident).

Well the over the top, "I'm utterly paranoid my images will be wrong" fix, would be to simply put a piece of black gaffer tape over the top LCD and use the rear one for any external meter readings. Won't damage the camera, is easily undo-able, and doesn't involve tinkering in the body. I certainly wouldn't advocate taking a 3-week old camera apart and electrical taping things randomly.

In any case, I think Canon does need to improve the light sealing around the top LCD. The problem I keep coming back to is that so far as I've been able to tell, the meter largely seems unaffected inside the designed range* and under what I'd consider reasonable conditions may prompt a no-action response.


* Again, sample of 1, my camera, which isn't statistically relevant when talking

 

[esi32]

Since I will be using this camera in many low-light situations, this will probably become a major issue for me.

Low light is a very relative term. Just what do you mean by low light?

For example, as I just noted, in my previous post, with the meter on CWA I see a stable meter in a room lit by 2 24" LCDs monitors and nothing more (meter reading 8s f/2.8 ISO 100, est EV0).

If you want to frame your expectations, look though the images you have, anything darker than about EV1* (meters 4s f/2.8 ISO 100 or equivalent), is below the design range of the meter and may not meter correctly. Anything below EV -4* (2m f/2.8 ISO 100 or equivalent) is below the meter's hard sensitivity floor. As it stands*, anything between EV -4 and EV 1 have the potential to be thrown off by turning the backlight on. There are of course caveats to this, the actual cases are subtly more complicated but that should put you in the ballpark.

My biggest concern is that Canon Canada has not released any press release whatsoever, and the camera stores still claim (as of today) that this is a rumor and that no real hardware problem exists. I have also not heard of any "new shipments" with design changes coming in.

Keep in mind Canon is a big company, and the regional Canon divisions aren't all in complete sync with each other. Things take unequal amounts of time to work their way though the bureaucracy in different places. There may also be various legal implications with posting something like that in different places, which likely means each region has to run the service notice though legal and that doesn't happen instantly either.

From the various websites covering this, the issue goes well beyond the LCD screen (as the US website describes) to the top display and even the viewfinder, so this is pretty substantial.

I would urge you to be very careful what you consider valid information while reading about this. The barrier to entry for publishing something on the Internet is incredibly low and there are no safeguards to stop the blind from leading the blind so to speak.

The behavior seen in the CameraTown video, where the meter changes as you move your eye away from the viewfinder, is typical and expected behavior in an SLR where the metering sensor is in the viewfinder—read all of them. Some may be less susceptible to light intrusion because they have a smaller viewfinder, a viewfinder that is more recessed, or there are other differences in the internal design (different reflectivity of the focus screen for example). But make no mistake, under the right conditions, and those aren't just "with the sun at your back", removing your eye from the viewfinder will change the meter reading.

I was planning on purchasing this camera this week (prior to my upcoming vacation) but as I will ultimately spend upwards of $6000 on this (kit, accessories, etc), I am pretty concerned about buying this if it is defective? What about all of your thoughts on this? For those of you have who have yet to purchase, has this issue now put you on the fence?

Well it's probably pretty clear that I already own a 5D3, and I'm using my 5D3 with little concern with the reported issue as it doesn't actually seem to be a problem in practice. My 5D3 meters virtually identically to my 1D3 in any situation where I've had the two side by side. Worst case scenario, if Canon determines that they must fix something, there will be a recall and a fix will be made for free, you'll just have the hassle of sending the camera in for the work to be done.

In fact, in practice, the biggest problem I've had with the 5D3 is the missing battery grip, lack of an RRS's L-plate for said missing grip, and having to run release candidate software (LR4.1 RC) to be able to work on the images.



* Based on my testing (though EV1 is the lower design limit for the 5D3's meter) and I reserve the right to adjust those numbers based on further testing.

 

[Tcapp]

Wouldn't the easiest fix just be to push the little on off button again to turn the lcd light off before snapping a photo in super low light?

I understand that won't fix anything if you are in direct sunlight, but that shouldn't matter as much.

Or am I missing something?