Canon does it RIGHT- announcement

[leros]

These problems would not have affected me anyway, but it's great to
finally see a camera company stand up and admit to flaws at launch,
rather than months or years later. Nikon will now have to do the
same.

Great news for everybody!!

Sal

Yea right, they stepped up for the defective 4500.00 1DmkIII and did
a bunch of nothing for most early adopters

Exactly. But now they have admitted the problem in writing, a few
weeks after it was noticed by users. They didn't do anything like
that with the 1DmkIII.

Great news!

Sal

They learned that they better fess us quickly after the problems and complaints with the 1DmkIII. Part of the reason they didn't come out about the mkIII is because they didn't and STILL DON'T know what's wrong with it!!
--
SteveO

 

[allnak]

Canon does in-house testing, as does Nikon and other major electronics manufacturers - extensive testing. And, they do know about some (potential) problems when cameras are released (at least I know this to be the case with Nikon). Now, I don't know if Canon knew or not in this case, but the fact that cameras and other electronic goods are launched before being 100% optimal is a fact that consumers should know by now. In many cases, IMO, they probably believe some issues can be fixed in updates and would rather meet their product launch times for a variety of reasons. Initial buyers have to accept the fact that they are beta testers to a certain extent and will see prices drop not long after they buy. That's the trade-off of being an initial buyer.

I doubt that they knew about the issue. They typically test by
providing pre-production cameras to select pros who shoot what is
important to them professionally. The pros report back their
experiences and make suggestions. Perhaps the stable of pros did not
shoot anything that really made the issue apparent. Perhaps the pros
are mostly interested in the appearance of an image under typical
viewing conditions. Perhaps, the pros would have considered the
other issues in the images as more important. I don't really know
but it does not seem at all unreasonable that a testing program might
miss something like this particularly if it had not happened before.
Testing programs do much better with a specific issue the second time
around.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

 

[leros]

You can tell they are still in denial about how the issue is
affecting their customers. Just read the last bits on the release
where they comment that “may become visible if the images are
enlarged to 100% or above on a monitor or if extremely large prints
of the images are made.” Come on, people don’t buy a 5D to make 4x6s
at Sam’s club. Don’t patronize your customers. Deliver quality
product from the get go without firmware gremlins.

-Suntan

That is perfect, I've been holding off buying a 5D waiting for the replacement because I'm getting into more landscape/comercial work that gets printed to 36"x48". With a statement like that about a 21+ mp body is really sad.

It may not affect my daylight shots but what if I need something taken at night? Do I dare? "Here Mr. Client, here are the 4x6 prints of your 20 story building"!!
--
SteveO

 

[wildlife1212]

can't hold breath too long .... I will get D700 while waiting

1. Get a life.
2. Hold breath while waiting.
3. Drink only decaf.
4. Take a chill pill.

must see the result of firmware first

does it degrades other function

am waiting...

--

 

[Grant158746]

I have no beef about this as a Nikon shooter (I would feel just as
disappointed in them if it were happening on their equipment) but as
an engineer that makes a living off of developing and releasing
consumer products for purchase at retail, I would have to disagree
completely with the notion that “Canon has done it right” by quickly
acknowledging that they have a problem with the performance of their
product.

To do it right would be to release the product without such an issue,
even if it meant losing out on the Christmas sales season.

Nope, sorry. I’ve been involved with situations like this. Where the
issue is seen in testing but some people within the corporation want
to convince themselves that the problem is either too small or two
random for customers to notice, or they just want to believe that
their customers will notice, but won’t care.

Exactly "they just want to believe that their customers will notice, but won’t care."

They've cashed in on that one several times now. Folks still lusting after the perfect camera just don't care. That is until the credit card bill arrives and their perfectly good camera has been sold and shipped.

Either way it occurs
because they are too worried about the project schedule and not in
touch enough with the customer.

You can tell they are still in denial about how the issue is
affecting their customers. Just read the last bits on the release
where they comment that “may become visible if the images are
enlarged to 100% or above on a monitor or if extremely large prints
of the images are made.

” Come on, people don’t buy a 5D to make 4x6s
at Sam’s club.

I think you might be surprised at the poll results on that one....

Don’t patronize your customers. Deliver quality
product from the get go without firmware gremlins.

-Suntan

--
http://grant247.smugmug.com/

 

[harold1968]

not sure this is as big issue as people make out, especially the banding
the black dots looks like simple software issue to me

Canon has done it right this time to issue a statement almost right
away that they acknowledge there is a problem with the 5D Mk II and
that they are working on it.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0812/08121902canon5ddots.asp

I think a lot of bad feelings and mistrust about the 1D III AF could
have been averted just by acknowledging there was a problem at first
and they were working on it with a firmware update.

P.S. I have never had any issues with my 1D III and love it.
--
kgirls
http://www.geistphotography.net

 

[bearcat]

While I agree with what you're saying, I tend to think that a LOT was overlooked by both beta testers and Canon because this sensor is derived (not identical, but similar) from the one used in the 1Ds Mk III. This was the camera I came closest to pre-ordering, as it seemed difficult for them to get IQ wrong with a sensor so similar to the excellent one in the Mk III. I am glad I held off, since I don't mind waiting a few weeks for a fix.

To use the other extreme, if this had been a completely new Foveon-style sensor, there would have been crazy amounts of image testing and extreme scrutiny across the board. The black dots on Laforet's photo would have been noticed immediately by hundreds of us. LOL

I doubt that they knew about the issue. They typically test by
providing pre-production cameras to select pros who shoot what is
important to them professionally. The pros report back their
experiences and make suggestions. Perhaps the stable of pros did not
shoot anything that really made the issue apparent. Perhaps the pros
are mostly interested in the appearance of an image under typical
viewing conditions. Perhaps, the pros would have considered the
other issues in the images as more important. I don't really know
but it does not seem at all unreasonable that a testing program might
miss something like this particularly if it had not happened before.
Testing programs do much better with a specific issue the second time
around.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

--

 

[Christian Wagner]

They have to do it right at the first time. They shall do some tests
before releasing it to the market.

I won't be a beta tester of Canon.

They do pay the Beta Testers. If they would have done more extensive testing, the camera would have cost more.

--
Christian Wagner
http://www.lifevicarious.com
448 Days Around the World

 

[Suntan]

No, sorry, imo they knew. At least someone at the project level had an indication of the problem. In my experience, the engineers developing the product know more about how the product works than anyone. They may not be capable of making masterpieces with it, but they will have the best understanding of how it works in every situation.

For as quickly as it was found by customers, and the fact that they already released a press release about it, they already knew it was in there prior to release (and I would put my bet on the fact that they already had high confidence that they could fix it in firmware prior to releasing it.)

Or put another way, I would be even more concerned if they did not know about it prior to customer complaints. An ethically shaky business decision to release with bugs still in the product is nothing compared to a NPD regimen that is so lax as to allow things like this to slip thru unnoticed.

-Suntan

 

[Suntan]

This isn't even a new "phenomenon” (the black dots.) I’ve seen it on TV news broadcasts before. Just last night they had a news bit about the bad weather, where they had a camera crew out at an interstate shooting footage of the cars driving slowly in the snow. All the bright headlights had fully recognizable black spots to the right of them.

-Suntan

 

[Jogger]

this whole black dot issue reminds me of the purple fringing issue on the Sony 828.. in which Sony never admitted anything and offered no fixes because it was a hardware/lens issue

anyways, i suspect that this is a hardware issue without an easy fix via firmware

Canon has done it right this time to issue a statement almost right
away that they acknowledge there is a problem with the 5D Mk II and
that they are working on it.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0812/08121902canon5ddots.asp

I think a lot of bad feelings and mistrust about the 1D III AF could
have been averted just by acknowledging there was a problem at first
and they were working on it with a firmware update.

P.S. I have never had any issues with my 1D III and love it.
--
kgirls
http://www.geistphotography.net

 

[ehlarson]

Please do buy Nikon and sell or give away all your Canon stuff. And post only in Nikon forum. As soon as possible.

1. Get a life.
2. Hold breath while waiting.
3. Drink only decaf.
4. Take a chill pill.

must see the result of firmware first

does it degrades other function

am waiting...

--

 

[ehlarson]

So then why is Canon saying they will issue a firmware fix for it?

anyways, i suspect that this is a hardware issue without an easy fix
via firmware

Canon has done it right this time to issue a statement almost right
away that they acknowledge there is a problem with the 5D Mk II and
that they are working on it.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0812/08121902canon5ddots.asp

I think a lot of bad feelings and mistrust about the 1D III AF could
have been averted just by acknowledging there was a problem at first
and they were working on it with a firmware update.

P.S. I have never had any issues with my 1D III and love it.
--
kgirls
http://www.geistphotography.net

--

 

[ehlarson]

It's a safety notice because they are afraid OCD pixel peepers will have stroke or heart attack when they see any black dots.

Canon U.S.A. now has it's version of the service notice up.

Safety Notice: Image quality phenomena that appear under certain
shooting conditions.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17662&keycode=2112&id=55060

Why it's called a "Safety Notice:" must be only known to Canon.

--
'No matter how capable it may be, any camera you have to hold out in
front of you like a tourist is not cool.'
Dean Forbes

 

[Kabe Luna]

...should have been absolutely nailed down in terms of delivering the best image quality in all situations. Point sources of light against dark backgrounds is not an uncommon photographic situation, despite all the dismissals of pundits (LOL) like Ken Rockwell. Then again, there was the same kind of denial going around when the D200 sensor was misbehaving and producing banding under the same kinds of lighting–and Nikon was no more eager to admit a design flaw or able to come up with a solution than Canon is likely to be–so I'm not terribly surprised.

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

 

[Sal Baker]

this whole black dot issue reminds me of the purple fringing issue on
the Sony 828.. in which Sony never admitted anything and offered no
fixes because it was a hardware/lens issue

Yes, it's exactly the same...except Canon has done the exact opposite. Other than that, it's the same.

Sal

 

[Taikonaut]

Cause he is a Sony troll.

anyways, i suspect that this is a hardware issue without an easy fix
via firmware

Canon has done it right this time to issue a statement almost right
away that they acknowledge there is a problem with the 5D Mk II and
that they are working on it.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0812/08121902canon5ddots.asp

I think a lot of bad feelings and mistrust about the 1D III AF could
have been averted just by acknowledging there was a problem at first
and they were working on it with a firmware update.

P.S. I have never had any issues with my 1D III and love it.
--
kgirls
http://www.geistphotography.net

--

--

 

[RDKirk]

An ethically shaky business decision to release with bugs still in the product is nothing compared to a NPD regimen that is so lax as to allow things like this to slip thru unnoticed.

Every product of this type has "defects" when compared to the engineering specifications. Count on it. Nothing is ever perfect.

The question then becomes how to handle the known defects.

Some defects are critical and require the project to be halted because the device can't operate according to even minimal requirements.

Some defects are purely cosmetic--say the color of the menu lettering is yellow rather than gold.

Then you have a vast middle ground where the project has to make choices between the severity of the defect (which, frankly, does include a judgment of how likely customers are to notice it) and the economic pressure to get the device on the shelves and earning back the money you've been paid to develop it.

Yes, a known defect that doesn't interfere with basic operation of the camera, that doesn't affect most operations, that most users are unlikely to notice, and that can probably be fixed in firmware later will most likely be allowed into production. That's actually a pretty common occurance.

Is it ethical? Well, one thing that is definitely unethical (and in the US, even illegal) is to make a judgment that doesn't profit shareholders.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[Priaptor]

another flawed product.

If you read, and in not such a subtle manner, the problem may be mitigated and not eliminated.

Another faulty product does not bode well for Canon.

I am not sure what they learned from the MKIII fiasco other than to make a quicker announcement. Let us see what the next step is. My guess, learn to live with it and if it doesn't make a difference to most photographers and this is the only "flaw" we should all be thankful to Canon for not releasing a more flawed camera. We will see, but I would bet/hedge that Canon's firmware "fix" will be a custom function that makes the "problem" less a problem at the expense of other characteristics.

This is becoming comical already.

 

[Victor Engel]

Anyone have samples of the vertical banding indicated in the news item? Does it occur on multiples of 11 pixels?
--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/



5 D M a r k I I : Very multi-promise cabbage soup!