Canon's Advisory a lot of double-talk in my opinion.

Started Apr 24, 2012 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
tmr Senior Member • Posts: 1,520
Re: Don’t bother.....

BillyGoatGruff wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

A $3500.00 camera is a precision instrument.

Whether or not it is working correctly is NOT subjective. It is either working according to design or it ain't.

Relativism is fine for art; not instrumentation.

The issue is not my personal concerns or "comfort level".

You are absolutely right. Canon’s specifications for the 5D3 state (presumably) that light should not leak into the body, period. And there are 5D3 bodies that allow light to leak in. That means they are not functioning to spec. And since it’s a phenomenon that doesn’t exist in all 5D3 bodies, it’s automatically a defect.

I can understand how two units of the same engine model can deviate slightly in horsepower, as engines are complex devices. But a camera body’s case (i.e. without the electronics inside) is an exceedingly simple object that should not display variation from unit to unit.

Unfortunately, you’re wasting your time trying to explain this to the people who frequent this forum. They don’t understand this, conceptually.

They’re the kind of people that exist in large enough numbers to allow companies to dupe their customers.

I'm not sure what your complaint is. Canon has acknowledged the issue and the impact "Under almost all shooting conditions (including dark environments) this phenomenon will not affect your captured images." which is what most folks have been telling you since day one. What's the dupe? If you think it will affect your images, then you did the right thing in returning yours. You'll probably be lucky when you reorder though and get one of low serial number bodies.

 tmr's gear list:tmr's gear list
Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM +4 more
KZEE Regular Member • Posts: 181
Re: Here we go again....

BillyGoatGruff wrote:

Jesus Christ, man....

I can understand your frustration with some of the fanboys in this thread, but please show some civility and respect to the Christian members of this forum by not using God's name in a disrespectful manner.

 KZEE's gear list:KZEE's gear list
Canon EOS 450D
DFPanno
DFPanno OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,603
Re: sigh

Feeling threatened?

BillyGoatGruff Forum Member • Posts: 93
Re: Don’t bother.....

DFPanno wrote:

Thank you.

I have a very substantial education ( doctorate and a three-year post-doc) largely based on a fairly profound understanding of engineering.

I have spent much of my life handling VERY expensive pieces of precision equipment so while not an expert photographer I have a strong understanding of the characteristics that equipment should (ideally) exhibit.

I read your post and I agree with you too!

(Group hug here)

They say great minds think alike! I have a doctoral degree too, but not in engineering. It’s really amazing how higher education teaches you to understand technicalities better (while at the same time giving you the ability to be flexible where flexibility is appropriate). Without a doubt, most of the people here who say the light leak isn’t an issue do so because they don’t understand the technical significance of it (and the possible ramifications of it). Their standards are very lax and they’re happy to shape their conclusions based purely on what they see, without considering the possibility that there are situations they haven’t contemplated where the leak may prove significant.

When you look at Canon’s response to the issue, it mirrors these peoples’ attitudes to a T. Wishy-washy, imprecise, ambiguous, inconsistent, inexact.

What’s worse, there are actually videos of people demonstrating (in actual shooting situations) how the light leak affects the exposure!

BillyGoatGruff Forum Member • Posts: 93
Read Canon’s words carefully....

tmr wrote:

BillyGoatGruff wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

A $3500.00 camera is a precision instrument.

Whether or not it is working correctly is NOT subjective. It is either working according to design or it ain't.

Relativism is fine for art; not instrumentation.

The issue is not my personal concerns or "comfort level".

You are absolutely right. Canon’s specifications for the 5D3 state (presumably) that light should not leak into the body, period. And there are 5D3 bodies that allow light to leak in. That means they are not functioning to spec. And since it’s a phenomenon that doesn’t exist in all 5D3 bodies, it’s automatically a defect.

I can understand how two units of the same engine model can deviate slightly in horsepower, as engines are complex devices. But a camera body’s case (i.e. without the electronics inside) is an exceedingly simple object that should not display variation from unit to unit.

Unfortunately, you’re wasting your time trying to explain this to the people who frequent this forum. They don’t understand this, conceptually.

They’re the kind of people that exist in large enough numbers to allow companies to dupe their customers.

I'm not sure what your complaint is. Canon has acknowledged the issue and the impact "Under almost all shooting conditions (including dark environments) this phenomenon will not affect your captured images." which is what most folks have been telling you since day one. What's the dupe? If you think it will affect your images, then you did the right thing in returning yours. You'll probably be lucky when you reorder though and get one of low serial number bodies.

Under ALMOST ALL shooting conditions?

Do you understand the significance of the use of the phrase “almost all”?

What it means is that there are some shooting conditions where an inexcusable light leak through the LCD panel may actually cause a problem. Let me reiterate: an inexcusable light leak. Once again: an inexcusable light leak. A light leak that shouldn’t exist.

DFPanno is absolutely spot on. Canon’s new advisory is double-talk. They admit to a bunch of 5D3s deviating from specs (i.e. they have a light leak where there shouldn’t be one), but then go on to say “Oh...but the light leak doesn’t matter most of the time”.

DFPanno
DFPanno OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,603
Re: Don’t bother.....

Actually my complaint was a very simple one. I think Canon should simply state whether or not there is a problem.

If there is not then why not state "there is no problem". Over and out.

The failure to do so has the potential to cast a shadow over those of us whose cameras are listed in the advisory.

Yes ; I can return mine but the issue is not me or my camera. It is a general feeling about the response.

Unfortunately fanboys get their panties in a twist and you are now labeled a hater.

BillyGoatGruff Forum Member • Posts: 93
Re: Here we go again....

KZEE wrote:

BillyGoatGruff wrote:

Jesus Christ, man....

I can understand your frustration with some of the fanboys in this thread, but please show some civility and respect to the Christian members of this forum by not using God's name in a disrespectful manner.

No offense, pal, but grow up.

And thicken your skin a little while you’re at it.

DFPanno
DFPanno OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,603
Re: Don’t bother.....

Well put!

bhollis
bhollis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,278
Re: Canon's Advisory a lot of double-talk in my opinion.

BillyGoatGruff wrote:

I think Canon responded as definitively as they could. They acknowledged the phenomenon, but stated that it's extremely unlikely to have any real-world effect, which I think is completely accurate.

If that’s what you think, then you really don’t understand principles of engineering very much.

As DFPanno stated earlier, a device either works to spec or it doesn’t. Obviously, a series of 5D3 units haven’t been functioning to spec. Just because images in uncommon shooting conditions aren’t coming out grossly over- or under-exposed doesn’t mean that it’s not a deviation from spec that shouldn’t be rectified.

If Canon had denied the issue entirely, they'd be called liars, and even more videos would be posted on the web of midnight shooting scenarios with folks shining flashlights into their cameras. OTOH, if they'd said this is definitely a problem that needs fixing, they'd be overstating the issue, and causing a lot of cameras to be returned to them unnecessarily.

You appear to be a big boy, and fully capable of deciding for yourself whether you consider this a "problem" that needs fixing. If you do, or you're concerned about resale, then send it in. If not, enjoy your new camera.

Don’t you see what’s going on here?

If Canon made ALL of the 5D3s to manufacturing and performance specs, then we wouldn’t even be having to determine whether or not the light leak is significant.

Some (idiots) say that the light leak only occurs with the lens cap on. Others say it doesn’t (and there are videos to prove that they’re correct). What’s important here is that it’s a debate that shouldn’t even be taking place. We are debating the significance of a light leak that shouldn’t be there.

OK, so you seem to be saying that it's inexcusable that Canon should ever have allowed even an inconsequential "light leak" to occur in the 5D3. Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and at this point I'm sure Canon wishes it had never happened, too.

So let's assume you're right. Canon never should have allowed this to happen. So what? What's your point?

tmr Senior Member • Posts: 1,520
Re: Read Canon’s words carefully....

BillyGoatGruff wrote:

DFPanno is absolutely spot on. Canon’s new advisory is double-talk. They admit to a bunch of 5D3s deviating from specs (i.e. they have a light leak where there shouldn’t be one)

This is where you go wrong. The 5d3 isn't deviating from spec. It is working exactly as Canon designed it. Now the spec for the xxx3 bodies will presumably be slightly different.

DFPanno has a valid concern and likely his only recourse when questioned when he tries to sell his 5d3 will be that Canon has inspected it and found no problem. Not great, but at this point I don't see that Canon is offering a fix, just an inpection. Personally, if there is any damage done for resale it has already been done. If I ever bought used (which I don't) I wouldn't buy a xxx1 or 2 body, fixed or not if a xxx3 body was available at the same price.

This isn't an issue for me though, but I realize may be for some. I never sell my old gear. I still have my first SLR from 30 year ago, a minolta x700 (which by the way had an eyepiece cover even in those ancient times).

 tmr's gear list:tmr's gear list
Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM +4 more
ArabiaSandStorm Regular Member • Posts: 128
Re: Canon's Advisory a lot of double-talk in my opinion.

1) Immediately after the issue was known, Canon pulled all available stock from distribution. I am sure that those bodies had the problem and are with the 1 & 2 serial numbers.
2) In the mean time, Canon Japan start manufacturing 'fixed' bodies.

3) Canon waits almost two weeks "investigating the issue" which is clear, but they are just buying time.

4) Announce that this is not an issue, but if you purchased one of the affected bodies, will check it for you FREE OF CHARGE! lucky you!. now since those bodies are affected as they stated, what do they mean by "check it"? They have already confirmed that Serials 1 & 2 are affected, shouldn't they say 'fix it' instead? do they assume all Canon users that stupid?

5) They also announce that bodies will be "released" to retailers soon. I am 100% sure they are referring to newly 'updated' bodies being shipped from Japan now, not the stock they pulled from retailers.

fool me not!, my kit is going back today to join the affected stock they pulled earlier.

ArabiaSandStorm Regular Member • Posts: 128
Re: Read Canon’s words carefully....

WHY WOULD THEY INSPECT IT IF THEY ALREADY SAID THAT SERIALS 1 & 2 ARE AFFECTED???

some common sense please!!!!

ArabiaSandStorm Regular Member • Posts: 128
Re: Canon's Advisory a lot of double-talk in my opinion.

Yeah, bravo for them. Regardless, I am getting my refund.

BTW, do you SERIOUSLY believe CANON reacted to this issue because some people are photographing their lens caps!!!! You either can't read or on Canon payroll! Posts like this insult everybody. Seriously, all this fuzz and Canon pulling all available stock, identifying affected bodies, because people are taking photos with the lens cap on????????

DFPanno
DFPanno OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,603
Exactly!

The mumbo jumbo doesn't change the reality of the situation one way or the other but a more definitive assessment would allow those of us still able to return our kit to make an informed decision.

michaelcheddar Junior Member • Posts: 26
Re: sigh

DFPanno wrote:

Feeling threatened?

No actually. But I can see some are, hence the remark. The thread was a box of matches to begin with.

DFPanno
DFPanno OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,603
Re: sigh

Yeah but it didn't have to be.

Lesson learned.

alien3333 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,476
like I proposed $1000 refund for all affected camera :)

DFPanno wrote:

The mumbo jumbo doesn't change the reality of the situation one way or the other but a more definitive assessment would allow those of us still able to return our kit to make an informed decision.

DFPanno
DFPanno OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,603
DEAL !

LOL; that would work for me.

EvokeEmotion Contributing Member • Posts: 998
Re: Don’t bother.....

You've been trading words with someone who would seemingly say "what's the big deal" even if his 5D3 were to burst into flames in his hands. After reading this forum for a few weeks, I figure there's about a dozen of these diehard 5D3 fanatics who would defend the camera with their dying breath. There's just no point trying to talk reason with them.

DFPanno wrote:

Thank you.

I have a very substantial education ( doctorate and a three-year post-doc) largely based on a fairly profound understanding of engineering.

I have spent much of my life handling VERY expensive pieces of precision equipment so while not an expert photographer I have a strong understanding of the characteristics that equipment should (ideally) exhibit.

I read your post and I agree with you too!

(Group hug here)

 EvokeEmotion's gear list:EvokeEmotion's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS M Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +8 more
ArabiaSandStorm Regular Member • Posts: 128
Re: Canon's Advisory a lot of double-talk in my opinion.

Canon Europe are more transparent than Canon US:

"The products affected by this issue will be inspected and repaired free of charge after 10 May 2012 therefore you are kindly requested to contact one of our authorised service facilities."

They clearly say "REPAIRED".

Still I AM 100% Sure that someone will jump-in and shout "IT IS NOT AN ISSUE UNLESS YOU TAKE PHOTOS WITH CAP ON"

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads