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

[Astro]

i wonder if this whole bamboo is made up by nikon trolls.
if you read a website it´s nikon user who seem to be upset the most.. i wonder why they care at all?

i mean... i don´t visit nikon forums so i can´t say for sure if canon user troll their forums too.
but i know nikon user troll canon forums.

has anyone seen a link where this is tested under real life conditions?
i mean night shots... not lens cap shots?


anyways this issue is not as serious as this:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Service-And-Support/Service-Advisories/gezwvxil/D5000-Service-Advisory.html

did nikon had to swallow so much bulls*t back then as canon has today?

or is it because the issue is minor but the price for the 5D MK3 is high?

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

I suppose you could look at it from the POV that Canon is wasting resources by not being diligent in their R&D. Putting out a high priced, highly anticipated product that has a fundamental hardware flaw is unforgivable given how long they had to test this product. The other noticeable point that comes out of these discussions is that consumers are being played for suckers when they defend and accept poor workmanship. Brand loyalty is one thing but declaring that having bought a flawed camera at a premium price is OK is pure folly. Buying flawed products is a waste of everyone's time and resources and Canon should be held accountable. If indeed it is a hardware fault then Canon should recall, recycle and apologize to their loyal fans which include people who make a living with these tools.

Can't agree at all and I'll explain why. I'm very close to IT and work heavily with QA in the past. No products are free of bugs. None of them. However, you put a reasonable amount of QA in to make sure you get to a certain level of quality - say 99.9% or whatever is right.

Nothing in this world is perfect and no matter how much we want it to be we are, after all, human. Nikon will have issues. So will Sony. So will Panasonic. So will Apple. So will McDonalds. So will Ford. And so on.

It's the perfectionism which is causing the waste - not poor workmanship. There is a media or internet led assault along the lines of "how dare they" and "it's completely unacceptable". IMO it's quite childish. However, it's how people are these days. They want to be wrapped up in cotton wool and blame whoever they can.

I want to point out that if a problem is real and serious I'd be totally on the other side. However, this one just isn't. It's a very small issue affecting a very small percentage of users a very small amount and totally understandable that it hasn't been picked up. I've even heard this was on the 5d2 (although I've never checked 'cos it's totally irrelevant).

To those who are calling it "unacceptable" - explain how it will affect you personally and by how much. Justify your position. I've certainly justified mine

 

[MrSandman]

It's the very fact that it's not a $35,000 car that makes the camera more of a disposable/replaceable item. However, for a camera it is expensive, and as such should be able to perform basic tasks like isolating the meter from ambient light.

And the reason I have a different view is that people are seeing these things as so "disposable". That's not good for the world. This camera came from somewhere.

So it had a problem, which someone said they would fix. What's the difference between a camera which is fixed and a camera which was working as it should day one? Nothing. The only difference is in your mind - and especially since it's such a very very minor point.

I disagree with you on this point.

First, if for no other reason, a repair will almost certainly create cosmetic damage to the camera. I'm not saying that cosmetic damage is a big issue, especially considering that it'll pick up blemishes on it as we use it. But would you pay $3500 for a brand-new camera with cosmetic damage when you can buy one without cosmetic damage? Part of the joy of buying a new product is enjoying it in its brand-new, mint, pristine state.

On a more serious note, a repair creates opportunities for other problems to develop. Products can be mishandled by a careless technician, installed incorrectly, and so on. Why on Earth would you even subject your $3500 device to that scenario when you have the opportunity (and the right) to return it and buy a product that is manufactured without the defect?

I guess I hate the waste culture that has come about in the last 50 years especially. I've been to the slums of Kenya and I suppose my view of the world is different to many. I don't stop myself getting things I need or want, but I certainly wouldn't waste something for what I see as no good reason.

YMMV of course. I doubt we'd ever agree on this point.

The waste culture here is Canon's. This is a problem they should have fixed long before releasing this camera to the public. An ounce of prevention is worse a pound of cure. A stitch in time saves nine. They probably knew of this problem but let it go, and they got burned for it. I'm glad they're addressing it, however.

 

[MrSandman]

I suppose you could look at it from the POV that Canon is wasting resources by not being diligent in their R&D. Putting out a high priced, highly anticipated product that has a fundamental hardware flaw is unforgivable given how long they had to test this product. The other noticeable point that comes out of these discussions is that consumers are being played for suckers when they defend and accept poor workmanship. Brand loyalty is one thing but declaring that having bought a flawed camera at a premium price is OK is pure folly. Buying flawed products is a waste of everyone's time and resources and Canon should be held accountable. If indeed it is a hardware fault then Canon should recall, recycle and apologize to their loyal fans which include people who make a living with these tools.

Very well said, sir (or ma'am).

And let me add that this 'hardware' issue isn't something complex like a shutter or a computer chip. It's a defect in the simplest part of the camera -- the camera 'box'! An object whose main purpose is to block out ambient light.

 

[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.

I've worked with a company that has a no questions asked return policy and it has bred a culture of over-spending now and returning later. The manufacturers are required to take back all returns at their expense, and then they must put in the time to determine if in fact the item is defective or simply returned arbitrarily. Then they must spend the money to refurbish the item before selling it again at a deep discount. In most cases, many parts are simply disposed of because there is no cost effective way to test and or clean them. All of this is worked into the camera's original price. While it's nothing new, I think the internet has made it very easy to return a high-ticket item for no reason without the embarrassment of doing it in person. I guarantee you that some people are even purchasing cameras to use for a big shoot as a B camera with every intention of returning it afterward, the same way people would return big screen TVs after the super bowl.

 

[swrightgfx]

First, if for no other reason, a repair will almost certainly create cosmetic damage to the camera. I'm not saying that cosmetic damage is a big issue, especially considering that it'll pick up blemishes on it as we use it. But would you pay $3500 for a brand-new camera with cosmetic damage when you can buy one without cosmetic damage? Part of the joy of buying a new product is enjoying it in its brand-new, mint, pristine state.

On a more serious note, a repair creates opportunities for other problems to develop. Products can be mishandled by a careless technician, installed incorrectly, and so on. Why on Earth would you even subject your $3500 device to that scenario when you have the opportunity (and the right) to return it and buy a product that is manufactured without the defect?

What damage from what repair!? There is nothing to repair, so there won't be one. The camera works as designed. Give it a break.

 

[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.

I, like others on these forums, have actually tested it. As claimed by esi32 in the original thread, the LCD only throws the meter of at aroun -4 or -5EV, well below the accurate operational limits claimed by the manufacturer (like, 24 times less light lower).

First, some people have found that it throws off the metering by 1/3 stop at EVs of 1 or even 2.

Second, I suspect that under stronger ambient light, such as bright sunlight at high-noon in the middle of summer, the meter will be affected at EVs of higher than 2.

 

[jlev23]

i tested mine all day yesterday on my shoot, dark conditions, strong sunlight conditions, even some conditions that we fabricated when we had down time, the only time i could make the exposure move was when the lens cap was on, otherwise nothing. this is an absolute non issue for me, or maybe i just got a good camera, but we tried everything and anything to try to make the camera do what some people are saying it does. ill just keep on shooting! going on job 4 with the 5dmk3 next week!

 

[ippikiokami]

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.

I, like others on these forums, have actually tested it. As claimed by esi32 in the original thread, the LCD only throws the meter of at aroun -4 or -5EV, well below the accurate operational limits claimed by the manufacturer (like, 24 times less light lower).

First, some people have found that it throws off the metering by 1/3 stop at EVs of 1 or even 2.

Second, I suspect that under stronger ambient light, such as bright sunlight at high-noon in the middle of summer, the meter will be affected at EVs of higher than 2.

Wow you sure have a lot of time on your hands to troll about a problem that seems like you never encountered yourself when shooting.

I was shooting a venue (concert) when I HAD to use 25600 ISO to get what I needed and had no problems with the exposure meter. I used the lcd light quite a few times as it was the first real day on the field of the cam and I wasn't totally used to the settings yet. After being amazed by the pictures I got from the concert that night. I walked around the neighborhood that barely had distant city light glow to light it just to mess around. Again used the lcd light a few times (I specifically remember this because I hardly ever used it in the past except on the first day or so of getting a camera). Again issue never came up or never came up enough that I noticed it.

So is it an issue? Well yeah it's a bug but to go fire and brimstone about it? Are you kidding me???? Canon has already acknowledged it and will find a fix for it. If the box was as bad as you seemingly make it , there would be a lot more issues than this EXTREMELY fringe one.

 

[swrightgfx]

MrSandman, do you have links to back up these claims or any first-hand experience using a Mark III? I have not seen any confirmed cases at the levels of light you mention.

There have been two potentially different top LCD plastics used with slightly different rigidity, all of which seem to have similar, consistent metering shifts at extremely low light levels (we are talking borderline pitch black). If one or two people have had shifts occur at levels within the meters designed range, then it is most likely imagined or a rare fault, not endemic within the whole owner-base.

 

[rich in tx]

wow. not good, canon.

 

[chimpmitten]

Are there any comparison images that show this issue when actually taking pictures?

I found a comparison shot of the inside of a lens cap and both pictures were a very similar looking black rectangle.

From the sounds of it in this thread and some other places, this really seems like a non issue. If it was a problem I would imagine that it would be able to be reproduced in real world situations, like when shooting without a lens cap.

The complaints make it sound like if you remove a lens you would see a light shining down from the LCD. I have a feeling that this is not the case.

I would think that if this was an actual issue someone could take a picture of a blank wall or a test pattern, turn on the lcd light and take the same pictures with a noticeable difference between the two images. Where are these images?

 

[daniel-barton]

Suggested solution to light leak issue:

1) Point your $3000 camera body at something aesthetically pleasing.
2) Check composition and set exposure.
3) Press shutter release.
4) Double-check for proper exposure using your ultra-handy chimp screen.
5) Adjust exposure if necessary.

The only adjustment ever really required here is that if you're shooting something unrepeatable (sports, p-j, weddings), you might want to get your exposure nailed *before* the moment and perhaps shoot in raw in case you miss the exposure a little bit.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Take photographs.

 

[skitron]

This guy's 5D3 night shots look pretty good to me and he never even mentions light leak, so apparently it's not too much of an issue...

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

From thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5396.0

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

It's the very fact that it's not a $35,000 car that makes the camera more of a disposable/replaceable item. However, for a camera it is expensive, and as such should be able to perform basic tasks like isolating the meter from ambient light.

And the reason I have a different view is that people are seeing these things as so "disposable". That's not good for the world. This camera came from somewhere.

So it had a problem, which someone said they would fix. What's the difference between a camera which is fixed and a camera which was working as it should day one? Nothing. The only difference is in your mind - and especially since it's such a very very minor point.

I disagree with you on this point.

First, if for no other reason, a repair will almost certainly create cosmetic damage to the camera. I'm not saying that cosmetic damage is a big issue, especially considering that it'll pick up blemishes on it as we use it. But would you pay $3500 for a brand-new camera with cosmetic damage when you can buy one without cosmetic damage? Part of the joy of buying a new product is enjoying it in its brand-new, mint, pristine state.

On a more serious note, a repair creates opportunities for other problems to develop. Products can be mishandled by a careless technician, installed incorrectly, and so on. Why on Earth would you even subject your $3500 device to that scenario when you have the opportunity (and the right) to return it and buy a product that is manufactured without the defect?

I guess I hate the waste culture that has come about in the last 50 years especially. I've been to the slums of Kenya and I suppose my view of the world is different to many. I don't stop myself getting things I need or want, but I certainly wouldn't waste something for what I see as no good reason.

YMMV of course. I doubt we'd ever agree on this point.

The waste culture here is Canon's. This is a problem they should have fixed long before releasing this camera to the public. An ounce of prevention is worse a pound of cure. A stitch in time saves nine. They probably knew of this problem but let it go, and they got burned for it. I'm glad they're addressing it, however.

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.

 

[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.