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

[prestonpalmer]

I really would like to know how many people would have noticed this flaw on their own, not reading about it on the web. So the Internet ruined it all! ;D

This is EXACTLY why canon said something about it publicly. The same problem was NOT considered a problem in earlier models. IE, 40D, 5D2. The only reason canon has said something is because you guys are all picking up your pitch forks.

 

[nikkito]

The problem is users who take photos with their lens hoods on...

Really ?

https://vimeo.com/40135673

Wow, light will enter thru the viewfinder if you take your eye away from it!

This has been known and happens in every SLR and DSLR for at least the past several years. Canon includes a eyepiece cover and tells you to use it, and Nikon has a lever that closes a shutter to block light from entering. Every DSLR does this.

Talk about a newby photographer posting his amazing discovery on vimeo, and then those who think its a new discovery and are shocked.

Haha well Said!

 

[nikkito]

What the hell is going on with some people here? Thye buy a camera and instead of going out to take pictures they just stay at home, investigate their camera hoping to find something bad, strange, whatever to post its later on YouTube and become famous.

I wonder how many of this camera nerds know how to take pictures.

It's so annoying...

 

[wockawocka]

What the hell is going on with some people here? Thye buy a camera and instead of going out to take pictures they just stay at home, investigate their camera hoping to find something bad, strange, whatever to post its later on YouTube and become famous.

I wonder how many of this camera nerds know how to take pictures.

It's so annoying...

You can't cure stupid.

 

[Otter]

Honestly, I don't know why everyone is making such a big deal about this on both ends of the spectrum?

I think people do have the right to complain if they aren't happy with a product. I don't think it is bad that they want their piece of $3500 electronics to be problem free. I think the quality control is much tighter on a camera as opposed to an automobile. And if there is an issue, it's fine if people complain about it or have issues with it, even if it is almost a non issue.

On the other hand...The ones with issues really have to relax. Canon should be embarrassed, shame on Canon, I'm switching to Nikon!!! If you aren't happy with your camera or the light leak, here's a solution. RETURN IT! Nothing wrong with that. Canon WILL fix the issue. Don't act like Canon has insulted you and your family personally by releasing a camera with a mild defect that is fixable. Just return it and wait, then you have no reason to be upset if this is a deal breaker for you. You can go into a Bestbuy and buy a TV and there's a good chance that some of those TV's they have in stock will have issues. It happens.

So those are just my 2 cents on the topic of the light leak and everyone over reacting on both sides. It'll get fixed, you'll all be happy in the end and then we can bitch about something else instead. In the mean time just chill a bit and go and shoot some photos!

 

[hnjdk]

The biggest non-problem of them all - the light leak!

I'm sure Canon are going to fix it, if it's a REAL problem. By a real problem i mean, if it's affecting anything within the specified range of 1EV-20EV. It doesn't look like that's the case.

And if Canon are going to "repair" you camera, i'm sure they will extend your warrenty. Don't overreact - you were so happy about your camera until you saw a video on Vimeo/Youtube by a guy who bought a camera he couldn't afford. You've got yours in two separate boxes, and was worried about that too. The guy with the video knows nothing about how cameras with AE have always worked - now, and 1-5-10 years ago - he just expect that he can use/abuse the camera without reading the manual and put the viewfinder-cover on when he use the camera on a tripod with light shining directly into the viewfinder. It's an advanced piece of electronics, and most problems comes from people who just don't read the manuals or specifications before other have to take care for them.

My order for a 5D3 still stands, and i'm not worried at all. I'm sure that it will be a lot better for low-light(leak)than my 60D. I just have to sell som EF-S lenses to by EF's instead.

Sorry for my english, not my main language.

 

[peederj]

Count me amongst those unperturbed by the light leak. I shoot RAW and often use -1/3EV compensation; if the light leak pre-dials me the -1/3 that's a feature not a bug. :-*

But what I think Canon has reason to recall over is nothing in the stills department but of course the video implementation. How can we be sure Canon has intentionally crippled the 5D3 video resolution to protect the overpriced Cinema line? Consider the computational complexity of anti-aliased downscaling of an image from 22MP to 2MP versus that of H.264 encoding. The 5D2 could H.264 encode just fine with a single Digic 4. The Digic 5+, Canon proudly trumpets, is SEVENTEEEN (17) TIMES as powerful as the Digic 4!!!!1!

Now see if you can manage a straight face and tell me that the Digic 5 can't properly downscale a video image in real time...something PC's could do 15 years ago without breaking a sweat...but can H.264 encode just like the Digic 4 did. 3x3 pixel binning is like a cruel joke on top of the even crueler joke of line skipping the 5d2 kludge performed. Only malice would lead one there.

If they simply updated the firmware to allow downscaling...and no, no laws of physics or thermal breakdown would be violated...why would anyone need anything more than a decrippled 5D3 for video? It was this question they pondered, and, LAMELY, decided to cripple. Thank Gawd for Blackmagic Design and their showing up Canon for what they are....crippleware is a market inefficiency that will be RESOUNDINGLY corrected, and the decaying carcass of the dinosaur forgotten after a few weeks of shooting with proper equipment.

The light leak? I am not sending my 5D3 in for repairs until they tell me they are fixing the crippled video. And yes, I shoot at least as much stills as video. And yes, if youzeguys shot as much video as stills, you'd be right there with me.

 

[D.Sim]

Similarly, a camera properly blocking out light should be rule #1. A camera is supposed to block out light....just in case we decide to shoot in extremely low light environments (which many already do). And for a fairly-dim LCD backlight to alter the metering in a dark environment is just plain scandalous. That kind of thing suggests that Canon pushed this camera out before testing it thoroughly (or maybe they knew about it and decided to ship it out anyway and hope for the best).

I don't want Canon to come up with a camera that blocks out light... how would I take pictures! ???

 

[degies]

Just found this

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/canon-said-to-be-halting-5d-mk-iii-shipments-as-it-seeks-to-resolve-light-leak-issue/

Looks like they might stop orders. Maybe they pull it and issue the mark iv with more pixels.

Funny how people throw money at them and the blunder this so badly. Suppose if apple could do it with the first iPhone4 anybody can

And I am still a Canon fan

 

[D.Sim]

Just found this

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/canon-said-to-be-halting-5d-mk-iii-shipments-as-it-seeks-to-resolve-light-leak-issue/

Looks like they might stop orders. Maybe they pull it and issue the mark iv with more pixels.

Funny how people throw money at them and the blunder this so badly. Suppose if apple could do it with the first iPhone4 anybody can

And I am still a Canon fan

"Said to be"

Funny how people read a random website that speculates something and take it to be the truth, when the actual websites dealing with these have nothing to say about it.

 

[swrightgfx]

... ... ... I thought this had been put to bed here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5648.150

MrSandman, you have already made comment on this and been subject to relatively accurate testing proving this not to be a design flaw. If it was to be classified as a design flaw, then it would have to affect metering within the designed range of 2-20EV; it doesn't.

Seriously, this whole thing is out of hand and becoming ridiculous and immature. Canon has no obligation to fix this, just as they have no obligation to produce a camera that works outside of the design specifications it claims to adhere to.

Give it in, move on and buy a D800 if you want one so much. I know I'd rather have better ISO performance and compatibility with my considerable Canon lens investment than move to the other side, but this may not be an issue for you.

I honestly hope Canon replies with no reparation for this non-existent issue just to shut you all up.

 

[Astro]

bottom line... if it´s an issue and can be fixed they should fix it and not ignore it.

as much as i dislike the fuzz about this issue, im unsure about if canon would have adressed this issue without the uprising on the internet.

 

[swrightgfx]

bottom line... if it´s an issue and can be fixed they should fix it and not ignore it.

as much as i dislike the fuzz about this issue, im unsure about if canon would have adressed this issue without the uprising on the internet.

That is just it though: bottom line, this is not an issue. We should not be calling something that has no detriment on the way the camera is meant to behave an "issue." It is only an issue or flaw if effects the intended use of the device, which this described phenomenon does not.

 

[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 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.

 

[AG]

Just found this

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/canon-said-to-be-halting-5d-mk-iii-shipments-as-it-seeks-to-resolve-light-leak-issue/

Looks like they might stop orders. Maybe they pull it and issue the mark iv with more pixels.

Funny how people throw money at them and the blunder this so badly. Suppose if apple could do it with the first iPhone4 anybody can

And I am still a Canon fan

"Said to be"

Funny how people read a random website that speculates something and take it to be the truth, when the actual websites dealing with these have nothing to say about it.

Thats the power of the internet.

The main reason we heard nothing about this on previous models is 3+ years ago the internet was not as sensationalist as it has become nowadays.

And before anyone decides to jump on the "no your wrong" bandwagon remember when the iPhone 4 had all its antenna "issues". You know the ones that they proved were an issue for phones since the beginning of GSM phones.

How soon did that little "issue" get out of hand thanks to blogs and such reporting rumour as fact?

Im sure that some people have light leak issues, just like some people had antenna issues.
But it only becomes a mainstream issue once people who are relying on page views to fund their incomes via their "news" sites, get ahold of it and blow it way out of proportion.

Oh and most guys i know that are serious about taking night/astro type time-lapse photos etc, put gaff over the top LCD and viewfinder once the camera is aimed up. They leave nothing to chance AND they do all the calculations for metering with .....well, calculators.

 

[swrightgfx]

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.

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.

Indeed, Phil. I agree and would also like to point out the consequences of a possible recall of the 5D Mark III. If they were to be recalled, a whole heap of plastic waste and transport-related emissions and chemical releases would eventuate as a result. The camera will continue to be a good camera for many years to come, without any immediate upgrade and without sending your camera back to the manufacturer or authorised repairer for repair of a non-existent fault.

There is no reason to feel ripped-off in this situation, as you are getting everything you paid for - a camera that works within the range and specifications the manufacturer designed it to. It is a great camera. Perhaps we should be using them to point out the waste of the world Phil was referring to with some photo-journalism, rather than being the wasters ourselves.

 

[SandyP]

Nearly 4 full pages, and not 1 photo that has anything to do with this leak... come on now. Haha.

 

[2020digging]

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.

 

[Astro]

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.

nikon as done it a few times (for example D5000).... im sure canon will do it if needed.

 

[swrightgfx]

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.

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). This isn't about brand loyalty (I mainly shoot with vintage non-canon film cameras, including Nikon); this is about whether there is an issue or not. There is no issue. Simple.