Consumers ARE the new Quality Assurance. The major brands are losing their credibility by allowing early adopters to test products for them. This is caused by the pressure to conform to an "annual refresh cycle" a la the iPhone, etc. Manfacturers should resist this. They aren't losing market share to each other on an annual basis -- they are losing market share to innovation and pressures from specific innovatons (like pocket phone cameras or m4/3).

So when innovation is stable, they should launch it. They don't need to worry about having a D5500 that is exactly the same as a D5300 but with some untested components, every year on the dot. They can just make a D5300S, with boosted already known/stable tech, or something, if they need an annual refresh, and then launch the NEWLY innovative things when they have been fully vetted internally.

Too many people stop down excessively saying that the depth of field is too shallow if they don’t do that. For A-PSC cameras the depth of field is very broad at F22 and beyond with any of the wider lenses.

For example a 25mm lens with A-PSC has a Hyperfocal distance of only 4.85 feet. Unless you are doing macro there is no reason to stop down that much.

That was my point. I do a lot of product photography where small apertures come into play. Also, some landscapes where you want a fence to frame a distant scene or a field of flowers with one up close and mountains in the background. There are many instances where I want something very close to be as sharp as possible and the same with the background. A 4.85 foot hyperfocal distance may not be enough. I've needed 12-18 inches sometimes. I admit, I do shoot full frame, but none the less.

I didn't say you were wrong so much as painting with too broad of a brush. Just like too many novice photographers excessively stop down, not understanding how to isolate, too many novice photographers over-use shallow depth of field too. Note how many over-use aperture priority, getting stuck there for life, never learning much more. :-)

@ Azurael

They put it in there because people would revolt if it didn’t do it. All I ask is that everyone run through the calculations of depth of field just once when they stop down excessively to determine if it really was warranted to stop down that much.

I bet that in the majority of non-macro cases you would have had plenty of depth of field and much better detail at a wider aperture with an A-PSC or smaller sensor.

I am not saying don’t ever stop down. I am simply saying don’t guess at what your depth of field is. Just calculate it once and see if it really is prudent in that situation. Far too many people stop down the max the camera and lens will allow and say that it is necessary for depth of field when in most cases it simply isn’t and all they are doing is hurting detail because of diffraction.

omg a whole three days.. seriously. lens rentals informs canon usa, who in turn informs canon japan (there's one day loss right there btw), who in turn has to look at the current manufacturing, and lot numbers to determine .. what the heck happened .. and then .. they have to contact legal, make a press announcement, get it translated into n number of languages - pass through legal again .. and then you hear about it.

The Rebel series has been selling well since the early 1990's.
I'm not sure what 'reasonable consumer world' you seem to be referring to, but whatever that is it hasn't existed for at least 25 years.

So either you are unreasonable or the world is.

They can be great cameras. My only problem with CanonUSA's Rebel line is somewhat silly of me, I know, but I hate the word Rebel emblazoned in red on a camera. It strikes me as somewhat insulting to think we Americans need Rebel on a camera to be hairy chested macho Marlboro Men. They don't use Rebel anywhere else in the world. LOL Just us.

Like I said, it's not a serious objection, just a pet peeve towards Canon's US marketing arm.

LOL. I know, but underneath that tape, I'd still be a Rebel, by Gawd. YeeHaw! Chew tobaccee, spit. ;-)

What was Canon thinking?

Because Americans are considered very low brow compared to the rest of the western world.
That Harry Potter movie title was changed for the US audience cause marketers didn't think anyone would know what 'Philosopher' meant.
Mad Max was dubbed cause it was established that the US market wouldn't understand the accent.
And many in the US believe that guns in every house creates a safer environment.. :/

@fmian You had me nodding in agreement, until you tossed in that last little piece of irrelevant op-ed personal opinion to what otherwise might have been a good point. :/

@fmian Which keeps us from being overrun by errr... multiculturalism.

@fmian Regardless of where you got it and what some other op-ed you quote, it still is irrelevant and a personal opinion which doesn't match the rest of what you said. Many US citizens on both sides of that issue are intelligent and cultured individuals. Regardless of not wanting to discuss politics, that remark was more political rather than cultural. Note, your article is under politics, if you look at the URI. OP-Ed at best, flame bait, at worst.

In recent years, The National Journal has been criticized for hiring left-leaning journalists. I don't know or care. This really shouldn't be a political forum. My teasing about the word Rebel was in no way politically motivated.

If having widespread private gun ownership doesn't increase gun crime, then can somebody please explain to me why the US has BY FAR the highest per-capita gun crime rates in the developed world?

Somehow, insulting Americans over their apparent inability to understand the word 'Philosopher' or mentioning the need to overdub Mad Max because they 'wouldn't be able to understand the accent' is somehow less of a challenge to you than questioning whether it might be a good idea to put deadly weapons in everyones' hands? Seems a little odd to me, but I guess different things matter to different people.

And neither point is really relevant to faulty filters on Canon's sensors.

@Azurael "And neither point is really relevant to faulty filters on Canon's sensors." And is why a hot political view has no place when I was just teasing about the word Rebel. Whether true or no, even your contribution is politically argumentative at the best and highly contentious at the worst. There are many intelligent, cultured, and educated individuals on both sides of this issue, each with reams of supportive statistics, regardless of your personal viewpoint.

I agree and the worlds in a sorry state, btw I have used gear from 7 manufacturers. Everyone has theyre preference.

But I will gladly critique canon and nikon, people should.
I have used both for many years, and am currently carrying Nikon gear.

They are doing more financial harm to them selfs because they wanted to save a few dollars, instead its costing them a lot more, not just the reputation but money as well.

They do happen rrccad But the POINT here is: when a mistake happens, have quality control that ensures MISTAKES do not LEAVE the factory. That was my JOB.

And I am amazed that someone thinks that every mistake hits the market, you would be surprised how many mistakes are made in production. That is why you have proper field testing and quality control.

And it is pretty visible if you open your eyes, any defect is.
It is called: disassemble it to see if everything was done right & do rigerous tests before saying its ready.

I would not buy a used car without making sure its engine runs well. I prefer a car that is not going to die on me after a week.

I would agree. At least for the time being, I'd check it on occasion, maybe a month or so. These seem to be tiny bubbles which could be caused by the adhesive deteriorating over time. It might be a chemical reaction like oxidation. Not being a chemist, I've just theorizing, but I'd none the less do my due diligence and keep an eye on it.

Canon might do some kind of time limited repair or replacement which you could miss if you'd checked yours out, finding it clean, then assumed it remained that way.

It seems to me, since this was missed at the QA level, maybe it was because it didn't exist at that point, but might be a deterioration which developed over time and after shipping. Too early to tell, but something to consider and keep an eye on.

It might be a ticking time bomb. Good now, bad later.

Imaging Resource now says they're fairly confident that the problem isn't one that will show up later, such as adhesive deterioration could. The evidence seems to point rather strongly to problems during the vapor deposition of the dichroic IR-reflective (hot mirror) coating on the back of the first Low Pass Filter — that would be the one that's mounted in the ultrasonic dustshaker.

A lot of the time -- just like "dust on sensor" or "oil on sensor" -- these things are hard to see under majority of conditions (such as indoors with wide aperture.

The people who notice these defects first are very critical of their images (have high standards), or are using very narrow apertures on well-lit backgrounds with flat character (so that deviations in the sensor surface can be seen).

But if you are taking pictures of textured surfaces, at normal apertures, often these defects are "hidden". If you took a picture inside of a jungle, and your sensor was full of dust and oil and defects, you probably wouldn't even notice -- because the jungle background would be so irregular, that it'd be effectively camouflaged.

But if you take pictures of a deep blue sky on a clear day, closed most of the way down, with the sun out of the image, you can see almost every defect and every bit of dust crystal clear.

In fact, the visibility of spots is given not by the depth of field, but by the size of the umbra (darkest zone of the shadow) produced by blocking the light rays by the spots on the sensor. The size of the umbra depends on the size of the illuminating source, as shown in this figure:

http://www.mcglaun.com/UMBRA.jpg

In the case of a sensor in a camera, the illuminating source is the lens exit pupil, whose size is inversely proportional to the F-number. This explains why the spots on the sensor are more visible for small apertures (F11, F16, F22, etc.)

You're welcome!
Besides the lens aperture, another important factor for the visibility of the spots is the distance from these spots to the sensor, which is basically given by the thickness of the filter stack. The m43 cameras with filter stack of 4 mm are the less prone to show the spots on the sensor, while the digital Leicas with filter stack of only 1 mm are the most. The cameras from Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax, etc, with filter stack of 2 mm are between these two extremes.

Lol. As used by more professionals than any other brand

No panpen, they haven't gone out of business in the 3 weeks since you last commented on a Canon article :)

I don't see it the way. If an individual has this problem they can get fobbed off with a line like "you must have done something to the camera" (e.g. stored it inside a hot car). But a rental company with a bigger sampling goes public about it so, if others have an issue, they're less likely to be fobbed off.

Manufacturers have to take the heat when their Quality Assurance process fails. Why should companies and individuals who buy their equipment worry about the manufacturer's reputation? That's a fanboi reaction.

The manufacturers spend enough telling us how wonderful their products are and how our lives will be better if we buy them. Some negative feedback from owners helps to rebalance this a little in the direction of reality.

Dan.

Muqdad, Lens Rentals did exactly the right thing. The consumer needs to know about defects in products as early as possible. It would only be in Canon's commercial interest to hush it up. As a consumer, I am more interested in avoiding a product with a major defect.

Besides, Canon's customer service is about the same as any other company... sometimes bad, sometimes OK, depending on who you are dealing with.

@Muqdad That is the most fanboy ridiculous responses I've ever heard here at DPR. People like R. Cicala have a responsibility to comment to the public when he spots issues which could easily affect a possible buying decision. Receiving six out of twenty with defective sensor arrays is atrocious and sales should probably be halted until these unsold cameras are inspected and the issue known better. Moreover, if this is caused by a rapidly deteriorating adhesive, additional quantities could be affected.

Canon doesn't need your or anyone else's protection. Quality control is their job. Had you been considering a purchase of this camera with your hard earned money, you'd probably be happy to receive this information.

Who knows how long it will take to remedy this. If it affects more cameras, it might require a retool or redesign. Who wants a refurbished camera they paid a premium to own? What kind of frustration must one go to to ship it back and wait for a possibly lengthy repair?

You can be correct that Canon did damage to themselves because of quality control. But who says there is a problem with quality control, and that the spots are a bad thing?

The spots may be part of the fabrication, e.g. a film coating that is required to limit contact between the laminates, and once the laminates relax for a period after fabrication, the spots go away. So in that case this is not a problem, however the marketing damage created against Canon has a scale felt all over North America, affecting stores like B&H, Adorama, Canon employees, and worried owners. It's a tragedy.

It's too early to say that the product is defective.
We can curse Canon later if it is, but right now don't hang'em using this form of prejudice.

I think a lot will agree with this position, especially if you are an engineer or scientist. Right?

Yeah no. He did consumers a big favor and warned potential buyers of a major defect. But you can go ahead and defend a large camera company ($) that releases cameras with defects IN the sensor assembly, not something anyone can remove or clean.

"The spots may be part of the fabrication, e.g. a film coating that is required to limit contact between the laminates, and once the laminates relax for a period after fabrication, the spots go away. So in that case this is not a problem"

Interesting conjecture. So the cameras come from the factory under-matured and should not be used for serious work until they've had time to age?

Haven't heard that one before. Isn't the internet wonderful?

Dan.

Some Canon fans are beyond belief. Unfortunately for them there is no wishing this one away or pretending that the defective sensors are going to fix themselves.

Canon cameras has some defects that affect pictures when the aperture is closed down and people come to criticize LensRental. WHAT THE HELL.

Fanboyism has hit new levels.

If something is wrong, you tell the world to help customers avoid having a chance of buying a camera with an issue, not keep it as a secret between business and manufacturer. This way, you let customers be aware that they may have to return their cameras if affected or to keep away from that product and wait til Canon gives an official word about recalls or free change.

@Martian Keyboard Also NO. Tell you what, if you believe that nonsense and expect folks to wait around for their camera to fix itself, go ahead and buy one yourself. I'd bet you wouldn't.

Do you really believe the consumer should bear the brunt of this issue and it's a good idea to keep it secret? Canon and retailers can continue to sell a possibly defective camera? Canon continues to profit and a high percentage of buyers get to basically loan those profits to Canon while waiting for the sensor to repair itself or waiting for Canon to come up with some solution.

What if there is no easy solution and owners must wait for a full redesign and then ship it back for a complete sensor replacement? What if the redesign has different specs than they expected? What if the solution is to peal back the glass, dissolve the glue and put it back, essentially a refurbished camera? I just don't believe it should be incumbent on the consumer to bear the brunt of this. However, go buy one yourself.

wrong

You seem to be fine but I do not understand how it is both 100% and resized.

I think we will find many who gloated in Nikon's QA problems trying to laugh off Canon's QA problems. :D

I feel free to laugh off ANY QA problems as long as they do not affect my camera... ;-)

@M Jesper,

"It's not visually obvious, as is explained in the full story."

I am sorry but the included photo irrefutably proves that it IS visually obvious.

Tilting a camera through multiple incident light angles over the sensor sounds like a very basic step for an effective QC.

I suspect you should learn how to learn your sensor. Dust contamination on the surface of a sensor is fairly common and easy to deal with. This issue is different since the contamination is within the layers of the sensor.

We reported it to the manufacturer 3 days before publishing, making sure they weren't sandbagged by it. But we are not a retailer of the manufacturer. We buy our stuff from camera stores just like everybody else.
Roger Cicala

To Roger Cicala:
That sounds pretty fair. The perspective changes then. Thanks.

What is the proper sensor fresh lamination time cure period?
LOL.

What D7000 issue?
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3588591
D600, fiasco, and according to people on nikon rumors they are getting free shipping. How is your d7000, D600 and 300 VR doing, or are you just trolling? Oh, and don't forget the 1Dmk3, the grandaddy of denial.