# Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 13, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href=""></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href=""></a></div>
<p><strong>To Users of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera

</strong>Thank you for using Canon products.</p>
<p>The phenomenon described below has been confirmed when using the Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera.</p>
<p>Canon is now examining the countermeasures and once the countermeasures are decided, we will post the information on our Web site.</p>
<p><strong>Phenomenon

</strong>In extremely dark environments, if the LCD panel illuminates, the displayed exposure value may change as a result of the AE sensor’s detection of light from the LCD panel.</p>
<p><strong>Affected Product

</strong>Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera</p>
<p><strong>Support

</strong>Once the preparations are complete, we will be making an announcement on our Web site.</p>
<p>This information is for residents of the United States and Puerto Rico only. If you do not reside in the USA or Puerto Rico, please contact the Canon Customer Support Center in your region.</p>
<p>Please <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/registration/professional/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii" target="_blank">register the EOS 5D Mark III</a>. By registering, we will be able to notify you via email when service updates are available. If you already registered, please ensure you are opted-in to receive the notification.</p>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer?pageKeyCode=prdAdvDetail&docId=0901e02480538fc7" target="_blank">CUSA</a>]</strong></p>
<p><em>thanks Ken</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p><strong>

</strong></p>
```


----------



## JR (Apr 13, 2012)

*Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Service Advisory*

Well well well. Looks like the light issue you raised graig has got the attention of Canon. Really cool!


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 13, 2012)

*Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Service Advisory*

Kind of crazy to think that this might be because of the post on the forum. Sure, you didn't discover it, but you made it widely known. 

Starting to look like you have significant sway over Canon operations. Nuts.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 13, 2012)

My 5DIII does this, too, but I can't see when I'd be in shooting situation where it would be an issue. Perhaps there are situations where it would matter, but if Canon offers some kind of fix, I'm not going to bother sending the camera in.


----------



## JR (Apr 13, 2012)

*Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Service Advisory*



keithfullermusic said:


> Kind of crazy to think that this might be because of the post on the forum. Sure, you didn't discover it, but you made it widely known.
> 
> Starting to look like you have significant sway over Canon operations. Nuts.



It would be crazy to think Canon do not pay attention to some information from site like this one which is serious and dedicated to the brand! I certainly would pay attention. Not saying we influence operations, but just serve as one more reference point for them maybe.


----------



## altenae (Apr 13, 2012)

> This information is for residents of the United States and Puerto Rico only



What about Europe ?
Same problems with the 5D mark III in Europe.


----------



## JR (Apr 13, 2012)

altenae said:


> > This information is for residents of the United States and Puerto Rico only
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would assume each country is accountable to respond in a way they feel is best to reach its customer. So just mean Canon Europe would need to issue a comment as well...could not see this in one country and not the next!


----------



## Peerke (Apr 13, 2012)

Kind of funny too. It's only for the 5dIII and only for the USA and PR residents.

Mmmh, so Canon has a solution, but will only service the 5dIII owners.
Does Canon ship all the stuff that didn't pass the QC only to the USA and PR?


----------



## MrBeavis5 (Apr 13, 2012)

Makes you wonder if the 1D X has the same problem!


----------



## unfocused (Apr 13, 2012)

How is this much different from the longstanding recommendation from Canon to cover the viewfinder when shooting long exposures under low light?

Same idea right? Ambient light (in this case from the LCD panel) can throw the exposure off. Maybe Canon should include a big piece of black gaffer's tape to cover the LCD with every camera? 

Is this a problem because the new sensor has such incredible low-light sensitivity?


----------



## dstppy (Apr 13, 2012)

JR said:


> altenae said:
> 
> 
> > > This information is for residents of the United States and Puerto Rico only
> ...



Correct. In E.U. Countries, Canon will be forced to go door-to-door with a physical hat in their hands to apologize. ;D

Hrm, why was US pricing lower?


----------



## bchernicoff (Apr 13, 2012)

This kind of pisses me off. Not because I feel like I got a defective camera or that I even think this issue would really affect me. I'm pissed off because I will now have to decide if I want to be without my camera while it is getting an updated LCD cover or if I want to ignore the recall and deal with whatever the consequences of that are...


----------



## YoungStudios (Apr 13, 2012)

Wow, more and more disappointed with Canon (I've been a pro level user for 20+ years of Canon SLR's, etc.). I'm sure this will get straightened out. I'm thinking I made a mistake when I sold one of my two MkII's, in prep for purchase of a MkIII. But... I was looking to upgrade my main body to something that was not 4 y/o technology.

I guess time will tell.


----------



## nikkito (Apr 13, 2012)

MrBeavis5 said:


> Makes you wonder if the 1D X has the same problem!



yeah, that might be the reason why it got delayed


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 13, 2012)

dilbert said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > My 5DIII does this, too, but I can't see when I'd be in shooting situation where it would be an issue. Perhaps there are situations where it would matter, but if Canon offers some kind of fix, I'm not going to bother sending the camera in.
> ...



Alternatively, right before you shoot you A) know better and check with your external light meter (measure twice, cut once) and B) you double check focus, especially on a tripod before you fire looking in the VF and find the exposure to be off so you know to check again... To me this is such a non-issue... Plus craig also said in his tests, it only occurred when he had the body cap on... when the lens was attached, it did not happen... non issue once again.


----------



## esi32 (Apr 13, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> This kind of pisses me off. Not because I feel like I got a defective camera or that I even think this issue would really affect me. I'm pissed off because I will now have to decide if I want to be without my camera while it is getting an updated LCD cover or if I want to ignore the recall and deal with whatever the consequences of that are...



If you're not having any issues, why not just wait until it's convenient to be without your camera for a week?


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 13, 2012)

Oh well....I'm 15mins away from Canon Service Center in Irvine, CA. Same day service I hope


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 13, 2012)

MrBeavis5 said:


> Makes you wonder if the 1D X has the same problem!



c500, 1dc...


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 13, 2012)

I don't understand this... *My 5D2 does the EXACT same thing with the light leak as my 5D3!!!*

Why a recall on the 5D3 and never the 5D2? AND, will I be able to get my 5D2 fixed from them if indeed this is a problem?


----------



## facedodge (Apr 13, 2012)

Of course Canon looks here. Companies pay thousands if not millions for this type of market research.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 13, 2012)

facedodge said:


> Of course Canon looks here. Companies pay thousands if not millions for this type of market research.



I'm wondering why? Is it not enough to ask Ken?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 13, 2012)

Boring. Hoped (entirely foolishly of course) that they'd add the stuff missing from video or at least fix the crashes with eyefi and general usage some people are reporting at least.

If anything, maybe it's good for Canon, now they can sustain the $3500 longer since they will create a second backlog of pent up demand.  :'(


----------



## esi32 (Apr 13, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> I don't understand this... *My 5D2 does the EXACT same thing with the light leak as my 5D3!!!*
> 
> Why a recall on the 5D3 and never the 5D2? AND, will I be able to get my 5D2 fixed from them if indeed this is a problem?



Because people whined and complained and it got picked up by popular sites as a 5D3 issue; so Canon is doing what a good company does, grease the squeaking wheel. Unfortunately in the process, the number of people chiming in with my X (where X is not a 5D3) gets lost in the noise or ignored because talking about last years cameras doesn't get the page-views talking about a big screwup on this years new release does.


----------



## JR (Apr 13, 2012)

dstppy said:


> Correct. In E.U. Countries, Canon will be forced to go door-to-door with a physical hat in their hands to apologize. ;D
> 
> Hrm, why was US pricing lower?



it must be it!


----------



## JR (Apr 13, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Is this a problem because the new sensor has such incredible low-light sensitivity?



lol! Maybe they also thought the actually screen cover assembly was not strong enought (or the batch they got initially) compared to the mkii. So they are acting now in fear this part may cause other issue in the future...maybe?


----------



## Christian_Stella (Apr 13, 2012)

While I can't even remember ever turning on the top LCD's backlight in all the years I had my 5d2 and now 5d3, I can see why this would be a problem for some... I mean, why else would they even have the backlight if certain photographers didn't need it?

Does suck I'll probably have to get my camera repaired for something that will absolutely not affect me. I just wouldn't want to hurt the resale value by having an unfixed first batcher. Gives a new meaning to beta cam!


----------



## Wideopen (Apr 13, 2012)

I wonder if the next batch will be corrected. Havent gotten around to see if mines is affected yet.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 13, 2012)

So does this problem actually surface when a lens is attached? Last I checked, it's tough to take pictures when the body car or lens cap is blocking all the light to the sensor.


----------



## victorwol (Apr 13, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> My 5DIII does this, too, but I can't see when I'd be in shooting situation where it would be an issue. Perhaps there are situations where it would matter, but if Canon offers some kind of fix, I'm not going to bother sending the camera in.



Think this might affect the value when you try to sell it used...


----------



## revup67 (Apr 13, 2012)

> Oh well....I'm 15mins away from Canon Service Center in Irvine, CA. Same day service I hope



Same here being 15 mins away. However (you may know this), if you are a CPS member don't bother to wait in line when you arrive. You can go straight to the desk and avoid the meaningless wait. I've never had my lenses or camera back in the same day. Typically a 2-4 day wait as a CPS (free) member. Waits may be shorter if you are a paying CPS member. Hope that helps.

Rev


----------



## ocabj (Apr 13, 2012)

All the tests I've seen online were done with no lens and the body cap on, or with a lens and the lens cap on.

I've tried it on my camera with no lens and the body cap on and it has the issue described.

But has anyone demonstrated a scenario and taking an actual exposure where this will result in problems?


----------



## rushmore77 (Apr 13, 2012)

ocabj said:


> All the tests I've seen online were done with no lens and the body cap on, .....



https://vimeo.com/40135673

http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon5dMKIII/light_leak.cfm


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 13, 2012)

ocabj said:


> All the tests I've seen online were done with no lens and the body cap on, or with a lens and the lens cap on.
> 
> I've tried it on my camera with no lens and the body cap on and it has the issue described.
> 
> But has anyone demonstrated a scenario and taking an actual exposure where this will result in problems?



Kinda hard to get a proper exposure let alone take a freaking picture without a lens or the cap on... But what do i know, it may be the new big thing in photography... photos with no lenses.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 13, 2012)

victorwol said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > My 5DIII does this, too, but I can't see when I'd be in shooting situation where it would be an issue. Perhaps there are situations where it would matter, but if Canon offers some kind of fix, I'm not going to bother sending the camera in.
> ...



By the time I'm ready to sell my 5DIII, it's going to be damn near worthless anyway. The 5DC has known issues where the freakin' mirror falls off, but that doesn't seem to hurt resale too much. IMHO, mirrors that fall off are a bigger problem than a light leak that only affects exposure when the body cap or lens cap is on. Until the day comes where you can take pictures without a lens attached, this is an non-issue to me.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 13, 2012)

dilbert said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > My 5DIII does this, too, but I can't see when I'd be in shooting situation where it would be an issue. Perhaps there are situations where it would matter, but if Canon offers some kind of fix, I'm not going to bother sending the camera in.
> ...



Or you can just look at the quick menu on the bright, super-high-res 3.2 inch screen instead of the LCD panel. In the worst case scenario, you have an image that's underexposed, in which case you can change the exposure and fire off another frame. Problem solved. Do you want a camera that wipes your ass for you too?


----------



## RyanCrierie (Apr 13, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Kinda hard to get a proper exposure let alone take a freaking picture without a lens or the cap on... But what do i know, it may be the new big thing in photography... photos with no lenses.



A light leak somewhere in the body would be an issue for those of us who do shoot in darkened environments like museums without tripods (some museums don't allow tripods), or night-time photography, in that while there are times we can take the time to make sure we get that shot, there are other times where we can't take a couple minutes to get the shot right, and have to take it "on the fly". 

This is where the camera's automatic metering comes into play; and if there's a light leak that throws this into doubt...


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 13, 2012)

RyanCrierie said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Kinda hard to get a proper exposure let alone take a freaking picture without a lens or the cap on... But what do i know, it may be the new big thing in photography... photos with no lenses.
> ...



But on the fly, i'm assuming you would be framing up your shot with the VF or rear LCD and not having the top LCD shining away.... I guess to me it was a nice reference but something i rarely used to base exposure off of. Every so often I shoot for banks who send me out to take photos of buildings they have mortgages on, like retail centers/warehouses/apartments... If the buildings are occupied, great, but other times i'm shooting in buildings, sometimes without power turned on, pretty dark.... Shot with the 5d2 which had the same problem but it wasn't a problem... never affected me to the point where it was an issue. I can see your point for how i work, i would never base exposure off of using the top LCD.


----------



## mvinson1022 (Apr 13, 2012)

One word - Automatic exposure bracket. At 6fps it is an easy answer. A better answer is to do it a little slower with silent shutter on. Wouldn't want to walk up those people sleeping at the museum.


----------



## gmrza (Apr 13, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> I don't understand this... *My 5D2 does the EXACT same thing with the light leak as my 5D3!!!*
> 
> Why a recall on the 5D3 and never the 5D2? AND, will I be able to get my 5D2 fixed from them if indeed this is a problem?



There are different reasons for doing a product "recall" - generally they fall into one of the following categories:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The product is genuinely defective (and possibly dangerous - mainly an issue for car manufacturers)
[*]There is a possible risk the failure of a product may result in liability - watch Apple's behaviour
[*]There is potential reputational damage from a real or _imagined_ fault
[/list]
Car recalls generally fall into the first category. Apple's recall of the first generation iPod nano falls into the second (they replaced my 6 year old iPod nano free of charge, because there was a risk that maybe something could go wrong with the battery).
I think the 5DIII fits into the latter category. Canon cannot afford any adverse press or publicity about the 5D line, because of how important it is to the overall positioning of the EOS product range. Fixing this while it is only being discussed by tech nerds on forums like this has lower impact for Canon than letting it start getting into broader circulation. The 5DIII has to be a success for Canon, so fixing even a "fault" which has no appreciable impact on the performance of the product is important for Canon's image.


----------



## esi32 (Apr 13, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> So does this problem actually surface when a lens is attached? Last I checked, it's tough to take pictures when the body car or lens cap is blocking all the light to the sensor.



Yes, under very specific conditions. Namely the subject you're shooting must be lit at EV 1 or darker (that's 1/4s f/4 ISO 3200, or some equivalent exposure). If the subject is brighter than that, I can't (at least on my body) produce any error in metering by switching the backlight on/off, and have to step up to shining a 100+ lux flashlight on the top LCD.

Moreover, I've tried to reproduce in the "lab" a "concert" like scenario where the camera was in the dark pointing at a slightly brighter subject with a flashlight (simulating a spot light) shined over it. Again, so long as theh subject was lit to better than EV1 I couldn't produce a change in exposure (though there are quite a few more variables here than I would have liked). 




rushmore77 said:


> http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon5dMKIII/light_leak.cfm



I find it hard to take anything that camera town has to say very seriously, after his comments about removing your eye from the viewfinder affecting the metering, given that's normal and expected behavior. Moreover, I find his claims that his 60D doesn't do it to lack voracity at best, doubly so given the lack of control in his tests.




RyanCrierie said:



> A light leak somewhere in the body would be an issue for those of us who do shoot in darkened environments like museums without tripods (some museums don't allow tripods), or night-time photography, in that while there are times we can take the time to make sure we get that shot, there are other times where we can't take a couple minutes to get the shot right, and have to take it "on the fly".
> 
> This is where the camera's automatic metering comes into play; and if there's a light leak that throws this into doubt...



I don't see how, by the vary nature of this problem, if you're composing the image though the viewfinder, there's no reason to have the top LCD on. Moreover, so long as whatever you're photographing is lit to better than EV1, there doesn't appear to be a problem—at least in my testing. Finally, so long as you don't have a super bright light shining on your camera lighting you/your camera to an appreciable level over the subject material, again, there shouldn't be an issue (at least there wasn't when I was testing this with my camera).

Which brings me back to the "concert" scenario (which too could be applied to your museum scenario, that is a dark environment with very bright lights shining on the camera directly. How accurate is that really though? I can't recall the last museum that I was in that shone lights directly on the patrons while keeping the exhibits comparatively in the dark.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 14, 2012)

In all seriousness it does seem like an very, very.... very.... very, very minor issue.


----------



## justsomedude (Apr 14, 2012)

ocabj said:


> All the tests I've seen online were done with no lens and the body cap on, or with a lens and the lens cap on.
> 
> I've tried it on my camera with no lens and the body cap on and it has the issue described.
> 
> But has anyone demonstrated a scenario and taking an actual exposure where this will result in problems?


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 14, 2012)

esi32 said:


> I don't see how, by the vary nature of this problem, if you're composing the image though the viewfinder, there's no reason to have the top LCD on. Moreover, so long as whatever you're photographing is lit to better than EV1, there doesn't appear to be a problem—at least in my testing. Finally, so long as you don't have a super bright light shining on your camera lighting you/your camera to an appreciable level over the subject material, again, there shouldn't be an issue (at least there wasn't when I was testing this with my camera).



That's what myself and others in this thread are getting at. Most people compose their images through the viewfinder, and therefore meter through the viewfinder. The number of people freaking out about this issue makes it seem like using the top LCD screen to meter in dark environments is a common scenario. It may be for some, but there are easy ways to work around it. 

I don't see why you'd use the top LCD screen to meter when it's much easier to do so in the viewfinder, or even the rear LCD if you're on a tripod. I often shoot from very low angles where the camera is an inch or two off the ground, sometimes at night. I just find that it's much more convenient to meter through the viewfinder. I guess others prefer to look at a tiny LCD screen on top of the camera that's difficult to see. 



> Which brings me back to the "concert" scenario (which too could be applied to your museum scenario, that is a dark environment with very bright lights shining on the camera directly. How accurate is that really though? I can't recall the last museum that I was in that shone lights directly on the patrons while keeping the exhibits comparatively in the dark.



Another good point. If you're in a dark environment where bright light is beating down on the camera, the light on the LCD panel isn't even going to be turned on. If it is, the light entering through the viewfinder is going to impact exposure much more than the LCD illumination. Again, it's an easy fix. Shade the camera or cover up the viewfinder with your thumb. 

Exposures get thrown off all the time for a number of reasons, but it's not like we're shooting film anymore. Just review the image on the back of the camera, and adjust exposure accordingly if necessary.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 14, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> In all seriousness it does seem like an very, very.... very.... very, very minor issue.



yep. And my 5D2 does the EXACT SAME THING!


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 14, 2012)

I use the top LCD all the time. When it's dark I tend to use it over the back screen, the main reason is that it's easier to see, and if your camera is low down you can just look straight down instead of getting on your knees.

Don't understand all the anger about canon fixing this. It's a problem that affects a lot of people, and just because it doesn't affect you it doesn't mean that you have to get mad at the people it does affect.


----------



## justsomedude (Apr 14, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> Don't understand all the anger about canon fixing this. It's a problem that affects a lot of people, and just because it doesn't affect you it doesn't mean that you have to get mad at the people it does affect.



+1,000



V8Beast said:


> I don't see why you'd use the top LCD screen to meter when it's much easier to do so in the viewfinder, or even the rear LCD if you're on a tripod. I often shoot from very low angles where the camera is an inch or two off the ground, sometimes at night. I just find that it's much more convenient to meter through the viewfinder. I guess others prefer to look at a tiny LCD screen on top of the camera that's difficult to see.
> 
> ...
> 
> Exposures get thrown off all the time for a number of reasons, but it's not like we're shooting film anymore. Just review the image on the back of the camera, and adjust exposure accordingly if necessary.



I think "dilbert" explained this well enough on the bottom of the first page. Many nighttime landscape photographers and astrophotographers use tripods with their cameras mounted in extremely bizarre positions. This can make composition via the viewfinder very difficult, and often times totally impossible with the back display. Many astrophotographers also implement angle finders to assist with the chore of difficult compositions at night. That said - once the desired composition is achieved, most people don't want to go back to crawling around on the ground just to meter. 

I often times use Av off the top LCD (with backlight on) to get an idea of the available light's impact on the sensor. Then I calculate out a manual exposure at a lower ISO for a bulb exposure. But if that initial metering is incorrect, my final manual exposure could be off by an uncorrectable amount.

As Keithfullermusic pointed out above: if this doesn't effect you - why are you expressing so much frustration towards the people who are happy it's being fixed? I'm an astrophotographer and I am personally thrilled Canon is stepping up and addressing this. Moreover, I'm a little baffled by the number of photographers who find this kind of light leak completely acceptable in a $3,500 camera body. 

Heck, it seems to be a simple fix - let's let Canon address it and move on.


----------



## darash (Apr 14, 2012)

It's been posted in Canon Malaysia customer support website since yesterday. Let's just wait and see what their countermeasures are. Maybe a firmware update will solve it (by decreasing the low light capability)


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 14, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> As Keithfullermusic pointed out above: if this doesn't effect you - why are you expressing so much frustration towards the people who are happy it's being fixed? I'm an astrophotographer and I am personally thrilled Canon is stepping up and addressing this. Moreover, I'm a little baffled by the number of photographers who find this kind of light leak completely acceptable in a $3,500 camera body.
> 
> Heck, it seems to be a simple fix - let's let Canon address it and move on.



Frustrated? Hardly. Frustration and anger aren't emotions I waste on internet forums  Kudos to Canon for stepping up to fix this. It will be great for people like you and Keith since the light leak actually affects how you shoot, but for every person like you two, there are many more people making a big stink about it even though the light leak issue won't affect their style of shooting. The internet has a way of making distorting the severity of problems, and the hysteria can get a bit silly.


----------



## javier (Apr 14, 2012)

darash said:


> It's been posted in Canon Malaysia customer support website since yesterday. Let's just wait and see what their countermeasures are. Maybe a firmware update will solve it (by decreasing the low light capability)



I thought about this, and reminds me the iPhone 4 antenna, how you will fix a hardware problem with a software?

I saw a video showning the sensor is getting to much light from the view finder.

my theory is:

the sensor is getting to much light "leaks" and when you take the picture the picture just use the light coming through the lens and that is why the pictures is underexposed. 

IF... this is a problem of only some cameras... "Maybe a firmware update will solve it (by decreasing the low light capability)" this means the cameras with no problem then will produce overexposed images.


----------



## esi32 (Apr 14, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> I think "dilbert" explained this well enough on the bottom of the first page. Many nighttime landscape photographers and astrophotographers use tripods with their cameras mounted in extremely bizarre positions. This can make composition via the viewfinder very difficult, and often times totally impossible with the back display. Many astrophotographers also implement angle finders to assist with the chore of difficult compositions at night. That said - once the desired composition is achieved, most people don't want to go back to crawling around on the ground just to meter.
> 
> I often times use Av off the top LCD (with backlight on) to get an idea of the available light's impact on the sensor. Then I calculate out a manual exposure at a lower ISO for a bulb exposure. But if that initial metering is incorrect, my final manual exposure could be off by an uncorrectable amount.



If you're metering an subject darker than 1 EV with a 5D3, there's no guarantee that the exposure you get will be correct anyway. That's what that little bit in the manual where it says, "EV 1 - 20 (at 23°C/73°F with EF50mm f/1.4 USM lens, ISO 100)," is telling you. Moreover, if the subject is brighter than 1 EV, my testing at least, indicates that there's no effect on the meter from the backlight. Hence my concern that Canon will come to the conclusion that there is no issue at all and the camera operates as designed, and I still am concerned about this even with the service bulletin having been issued.

As for darker scenes, there's no guarantee that what you're metering is in any way correct at all to start with. The metering sensor is no different than the image sensor with respect to the influence of noise. The influence of dark current, thermal noise, and the LED display in the viewfinder on the metering can be seen simply by the fact that they don't report off scale low (blinking 30" / blinking aperture at all ISOs) when the lens mount and viewfinder are blacked out.

My 40D (1-20EV meter) has a hard lower bound of -1EV (though accuracy pretty much goes to crap below 1EV).
My 1D3 (0-20EV meter) has a hard lower bound of -4-2/3 EV.
My 5D3 (1-20EV meter) has a hard lower bound of -4EV (1EV with the backlight on or I get errors from it).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 14, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> ocabj said:
> 
> 
> > All the tests I've seen online were done with no lens and the body cap on, or with a lens and the lens cap on.
> ...



I wonder though if most really use Av in such a scenario? Don't most maybe use Av for a quick ballpark and then snap some shots in M mode until exposure is perfect? Granted this might have you start out perhaps an extra 2/3rd stop or so off base, but it's probably not the end of the world. Actually these days don't most people do that sort of shooting using liveview so they can quickly dial in exposure and use 10x zoom to get a top focus?

Although I suppose there are rare times when I maybe shoot some close in detail shots of Christmas tree and use Av but these days that is usually done in liveview mode.

Anyway I don't want to say it can't affect anyone but it's not too easy to come up with a realistic scenario although I'm sure there are a few.


----------



## clicstudio (Apr 14, 2012)

*Total BS*

I don't own a 5D III but I rented one for a week. 
I couldn't use it at the studio with my pocket wizard system cause it's not compatible... 
It is also not compatible with some lenses. Canon's own DPP has problems. 
The much needed grip is not even Available anywhere...
And now, although it is a really stupid problem, this light leak BS...
How in the world can Canon keep releasing products prematurely?
I hope all the additional wait for The 1D X will be worth it and the Camera will perform as expected.


----------



## xthebillx (Apr 14, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I don't want to stay looking through the *eye finger* because it is an uncomfortable position to be in.



My body didn't come with an eye finger. How does it work? Is it compatible with the 5Dii?


----------



## vuilang (Apr 14, 2012)

AND When Will they address the issues:

1) AF points illuminations- Hard to see in daylight
2) problem of IS noise for Canon 200L and 800L
3) Pocketwizard sync speed wont go higher than 1/200....... (killed hypersync.. but im not too sure if this is canon problem)


----------



## Heavyweight67 (Apr 14, 2012)

This morning emailed Canon Australia Support regarding this issue, there (or was) nothing listed on the Canon Australia website...

As yet it's anyones guess what the "fix" will be...Hardware/Software...

So far I'm not sure this has affected me, exposure or the correct exposure is subjective...

My issue is that even though I purchased my camera in Australia I live in Asia, so if a Canon Service Centre is required "Who" will it be...

Like many others, not everyone purchased their 5Diii where they live...whether they travelled or purchased online...will be interesting to see how it all plays out...

If and when I hear from Canon Australia I will update my post.


----------



## iSy (Apr 14, 2012)

First post on the CR forums, thought i would say hello 

I bought my 5D3 a week ago, and haven't really used it much as was waiting for the grip to arrive. I saw this post on the site and was shocked that there might be an "issue" with my new £3000 camera! I am based in the UK and can confirm my new 5D3 has the light leak "issue".

To be fair, I agree with most on here that it isn't really an issue unless you shoot as said in near pitch black with lens cap on etc etc Although, this isn't a 500D so when you pay the premium, and £3000 is a lot of premium, you really don't expect to get this kinda issue. Will the "issue" actually effect my photography (Weddings, Portriats and some landscapes) probably not, but I am one of these guys that when I know something isn't right it bugs me, not because its effecting my pictures as i am sure it won't, but knowing there is a known issue on something that is classed as Pro gear just bugs me.

With this in mind I took my camera back to the retail store i purchased it from, who were completely unaware of this issue so I showed them the post on the Canon website and then on my camera. He agreed the issue was there.
I was offered a repair or replacement, I then stated there is no point in a replacement as it will have the same issue, and I was not willing to give it in for repair as its only a week old and Canon haven't even said what is causing it yet.

The thing is, I have bought a lot of gear from this shop. I have a 5D2+grip, 24-105 L & 70-200 f2.8 L IS II all bought from them so add the 5D3 and its coming close to £10k so I feel I am within my right see what they can do to help.

The guy then called his area manager, who also checked the Canon website and basically agreed to replace my camera when Canon issue a updated/fixed model and to keep using the one until that time. And as a good will gesture they even gave me £100 cash 

So I am more than chuffed, the non "issue" I am happy to live with on this model and if and when Canon revise the camera I have a receipt saying they will replace it for me FOC and I have a £100 in my pocket. Don't ask, don't get


----------



## squarebox (Apr 14, 2012)

was just a free canon macro shooting class at the Canon Showroom here in Nagoya, Japan. I specifically asked the people there about the 5Dmk3 issue and if the camera is still for sale in Japan and if there is a problem would they fix it or not? Well she ran off and talked with the people behind the curtains and came and said that they it is still being sold and that there isn't any issue they know about, but if there was they'd be obligated to fix it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 14, 2012)

I guess the words "Mark III" are just bad mojo for canon.


----------



## Yasmin (Apr 14, 2012)

Is Canon's Steve Job also dead?


----------



## Jason Beiko (Apr 14, 2012)

I wonder how much recent events will affect sales of the Mark III? Based on many recent internet reviews, I think new buyers looking to purchase a FF DSLR would be heavily leaning towards Nikon. The success and reviews of the D800 and the light leak issue might sway new users to Nikon. 

However, I don't think many Canon users who are heavily invested with lenses and other equipment are going to switch. I suppose the other aspect to consider is just how many initiate DSLR owners are going to jump right into a pro DLSR? So maybe these recent events won't matter WRT to sales. 

For myself I was thinking of upgrading my Canon 7D to a Mark III but now I am going to hold off and see where things are going.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 14, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> I use the top LCD all the time. When it's dark I tend to use it over the back screen, the main reason is that it's easier to see, and if your camera is low down you can just look straight down instead of getting on your knees.
> 
> Don't understand all the anger about canon fixing this. It's a problem that affects a lot of people, and just because it doesn't affect you it doesn't mean that you have to get mad at the people it does affect.



+1

Exactly. One member posted an angry post at me recently, simply because I suggested that the camera should not under-expose. 

It's a camera, ... a tool ... and it should work properly, especially at $3500.
I am reassured that Canon is responding quickly.

I still intend to get a 5D3, but I'm waiting until they get all the little bugs ironed out.


----------



## mrmarks (Apr 14, 2012)

This is a physical leak, therefore a hardware fix will be necessary. I think Canon will need two to three months to finalize and make available the hardware modifications and parts.


----------



## epiem (Apr 14, 2012)

I'm so glad I haven't wasted the money on these yet.

$3500 and now a possible recall.

GTFO Canon


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 14, 2012)

Hi all,

This is my first post here (yes, I do expect an official welcome).

I recently acquired a 5D Mark III. Great camera; loving it. I do, however, have the described "issue."

Like almost everyone here, I too originally scoffed at the idea this could be fixed in firmware, but then I got thinking and some questions came up: is the LCD button independent of and thus mechanical, or does it communicate with the software? If the latter, is the issue uniform - that is, does the metering deviate to the same degree on each affected camera? If this is the case, could not firmware tell the camera to compensate the metering for the false readings?

I purchased from Hong Kong but am based in Australia, so would hate to have to lose the use of my camera while it carts around the world to make use of the local-only warranty.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 14, 2012)

Jason Beiko said:


> I wonder how much recent events will affect sales of the Mark III? Based on many recent internet reviews, I think new buyers looking to purchase a FF DSLR would be heavily leaning towards Nikon. The success and reviews of the D800 and the light leak issue might sway new users to Nikon.



Well, the D800 gets stuck at times apparently. Is this better or worse than this light leak?


----------



## javier (Apr 14, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> Hi all,
> 
> This is my first post here (yes, I do expect an official welcome).
> 
> ...



This reminds me iPhone 4 antenna.....

The light leak is a hardware problem so how you fix a hardware problem with a software update?
Like I said before the problem is the AE Sensor is getting too much light through LCD, View finder and lens. when you adjust your meter you are adjusting the meter with all that amount of light.
At the moment the camera take the picture just take the picture with the light coming through the lens and that is why the picture is underexpose.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 14, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> is the LCD button independent of and thus mechanical, or does it communicate with the software?



The camera obviously communicates to the LCD; it should be noted that I am not suggesting the LCD speaks back, but whether the button that initiates the backlight is activated mechanically or via the camera's software.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 14, 2012)

Yes, I know that, but if the camera KNOWS the backlight is on, then, assuming the defect is relatively uniform in its effect on exposure, it may be possible for the camera to compensate.

EDIT: eg. "When light = on, increase exposure by x."


----------



## Mcarlsen (Apr 14, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-service-advisory/"></glusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-service-advisory/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-service-advisory/"></a></div>
> <strong>To Users of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera
> 
> 
> ...




Such is what happens when a company releases 6 new cameras in 6 months... They are scrambling to figure out what the right thing to do is... I love my 5DMKii... But canon has completely disappointed me with their latest "Releases" which are nothing to write home about... All lacking something.. Instead of just bringing about ONE camera that does it right... They bring 6 that does it all wrong...

All beta cameras BTW... That is what happens when you're scrambling ;-)


----------



## llcanon (Apr 14, 2012)

First, I'd like to understand the basis of the claim that the light leak would cause under exposure. I've heard this many times and it just does not make sense to me. Theoretically, the meter should only measure the light through the lens to give the "correct" exposure for the image in the frame. In reality, the light also "leaks" through the viewfinder and, in the case of 5D III, the top LCD panel as well. My guess is the light leaking through the LCD Is far less than through the viewfinder. I don't think you will get underexposed image if you don't put the viewfinder cover on. 

Secondly, leaking LCD is very disappointing. That just reflects the deterioration of Canon's workmanship or quality control. For those who understand how Canon's cameras were put together, can you please shed some light on what type of "countermeasures" would be deployed to fix the issue? I think it would require significant work to get to the part between the LCD and the sensor. I am just not 100% confident about the skills of the technicians at the Canon service center. I suggest that if the issue does not bother you, just go out and take more photos. If it does, return it now and wait for a few months to get a new one. 

Eoseoseoseoseos
5DIII, x0D, 1v, 16-35 L, 28-70 L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 100 2.8L IS.


----------



## esi32 (Apr 14, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> Yes, I know that, but if the camera KNOWS the backlight is on, then, assuming the defect is relatively uniform in its effect on exposure, it may be possible for the camera to compensate.
> 
> EDIT: eg. "When light = on, increase exposure by x."



That's not a workable fix, the problem isn't with the backlight—even though that's what everybody seems to be fixated on. Any sufficiently bright (compared to what the lens sees) light incident on the top LCD will alter the meter reading, and the brighter the light the more the reading is altered. Shine a really bright flashlight on the top LCD and you can alter the meter reading even in relatively bright environments (then again my 1D3 does this only to a much smaller degree).

Only a hardware fix will actually address the problem in any meaningful way.


----------



## esi32 (Apr 14, 2012)

llcanon said:


> First, I'd like to understand the basis of the claim that the light leak would cause under exposure. I've heard this many times and it just does not make sense to me. Theoretically, the meter should only measure the light through the lens to give the "correct" exposure for the image in the frame. In reality, the light also "leaks" through the viewfinder and, in the case of 5D III, the top LCD panel as well. My guess is the light leaking through the LCD Is far less than through the viewfinder. I don't think you will get underexposed image if you don't put the viewfinder cover on.



Yes, the light leaking though the LCD can be far smaller than what leaks though the viewfinder. It can also be sufficient to be a source of error if everything is sufficiently dark. For example, the case of a relatively well sealed viewfinder against your eye v. a spotlight shining on you and the camera but not in the lens.

The second part however, largely depends on how bright everything is relatively speaking. If I'm shooting a dimly lit subject from an even dimmer area I don't necessarily have to block the viewfinder, and the backlight will still cause a metering error. Actually, at least according to my testings, so long as the whole environment is dimmer than about EV1 turning on the backlight will alter the meter reading regardless of whether you have lens caps or viewfinder blocked.

A lot of the problem here, IMO, is that there has been lots of "cursory testing", gnashing of teeth, and complaining about how the camera is broken, without understanding either the design limits of the camera or doing any serious controlled testing inside and out of those limits. For example, the original Canon Rumors test with the lens caps on is so far outside the designed limits of the metering system as to be utterly useless in speaking to anything other than to show that there is in fact some light leaking from the LCD/LCD backlight to the meter. 

I've conducted more controlled tests, at least to the best of my ability though even I admit that they aren't done to my fullest satisfaction (largely because I don't have sufficient equipment to do so), and they seem to indicate that the meter functions properly inside the designed range (1-20EV) unless you shine considerably brighter light on the top LCD than the lens or viewfinder can observe. 

In practice, the situations where you're both operating inside the stated specifications of the meter (1-20EV) and doing something that would put a sufficiently bright light on the top LCD are vanishingly small. Even the assertion that this defect affects astrophotographers and nighttime landscape shooters, runs into problems when in all likelihood what they're metering is already outside the camera's design limits to start with, where they're no guarantee of function anyway. Which is why I keep saying that there is the distinct possibility that Canon will decide that no mitigating action needs to be taken and that the problem only occurs outside the designed limits of the camera. I sincerely hope they don't, since the fix is probably a bit of black tape somewhere, but it's a possibility that can't be ignored.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 14, 2012)

vuilang said:


> AND When Will they address the issues:
> 
> 1) AF points illuminations- Hard to see in daylight
> 2) problem of IS noise for Canon 200L and 800L
> 3) Pocketwizard sync speed wont go higher than 1/200....... (killed hypersync.. but im not too sure if this is canon problem)



Yeah stuff like that and missing zebra strips and 1.6x 2x2 samples 1920x1080 cropped video mode sure seem a lot more important to me.


----------



## fotoray (Apr 14, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> This kind of pisses me off. Not because I feel like I got a defective camera or that I even think this issue would really affect me. I'm pissed off because I will now have to decide if I want to be without my camera while it is getting an updated LCD cover or if I want to ignore the recall and deal with whatever the consequences of that are...



Choices, oh choices.... at least you have this choice


----------



## fotoray (Apr 14, 2012)

llcanon said:


> Secondly, leaking LCD is very disappointing. That just reflects the deterioration of Canon's workmanship or quality control. For those who understand how Canon's cameras were put together, can you please shed some light on what type of "countermeasures" would be deployed to fix the issue? I think it would require significant work to get to the part between the LCD and the sensor. I am just not 100% confident about the skills of the technicians at the Canon service center. I suggest that if the issue does not bother you, just go out and take more photos. If it does, return it now and wait for a few months to get a new one.
> 
> Eoseoseoseoseos
> 5DIII, x0D, 1v, 16-35 L, 28-70 L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 100 2.8L IS.



Seems to me that Canon may have felt pressure to get the 5D3 to market, in presence of earthquake issues and competition from Nikon. There is no other excuse for not discovering this problem in QC and fixing it before distribution. Not good. But I am confident Canon can and will fix it.


----------



## llcanon (Apr 14, 2012)

Hi, esi32, I am very impressed by your diligence on the tests. I agree with your analysis. I was just trying to ease the concerns by many of us who would seldom 1) shoot in extremely dark environment or 2) use the in-camera meter when shooting in extremely dark environments. My concern is when shooting outdoors of something dark in the shade while standing under the bright sunlight, whether the leak would cause inaccurate metering. But I am still not sure how much light would go through the LCD compared to the viewfinder. If the leak is significant enough to alter meter reading by 1/3 stop or more, then it's unacceptable. And any bandage type of fix (e.g., a black tape) performed outside the factory condition may inadvertently cause more harm to your camera than the leak issue itself (e.g., introduce dusts or alter the position of some precise component by accident).

Anyone has done tests under more normal shooting conditions? I haven't heard any issue so far. 

Happy shooting!


----------



## Respinder (Apr 14, 2012)

I am very disappointed by this recent announcement.

Since I will be using this camera in many low-light situations, this will probably become a major issue for me.

My biggest concern is that Canon Canada has not released any press release whatsoever, and the camera stores still claim (as of today) that this is a rumor and that no real hardware problem exists. I have also not heard of any "new shipments" with design changes coming in.

From the various websites covering this, the issue goes well beyond the LCD screen (as the US website describes) to the top display and even the viewfinder, so this is pretty substantial.

I was planning on purchasing this camera this week (prior to my upcoming vacation) but as I will ultimately spend upwards of $6000 on this (kit, accessories, etc), I am pretty concerned about buying this if it is defective? What about all of your thoughts on this? For those of you have who have yet to purchase, has this issue now put you on the fence?


----------



## esi32 (Apr 14, 2012)

Throwing more caution to the wind, I should have a engineering lux meter in my hands early next week, and I'm going to rerun though my tests with ambient light measured by the lux meter instead of just trying to get it right.

Moreover, it's worth remember that depending on the metering mode there's more than just simple metering going on. In evaluative, the metering is tied to the AF points and will change as the camera feels that one AF point or another is more or less in focus and therefore more or less relevant. Likewise, for some lenses (especially macro lenses) the effective aperture will change as the magnification is increased (e.g. see the effective apertures for the MP-E 65 at various magnifications).

I was playing with the camera in the dark earlier and seeing stabling metering in CWA down to what I'm guessing was close to EV 0 or EV -1 (was metering 8s, f/2.8 ISO 200, the only appreciable light source in the room was a pair of mostly black 24" LCDs) but varying the focus—and not over the full throw either—on the macro lens I happened to have on the camera was sufficient to change the metering by more than a stop. I'd really love to be able to get my hands on a ZP.2 EF or Canon CN-E Cine lines with t-stops since they account for actual light loss, but that's outside my budget.

One think I just though of is that metering seemed much more stable in CWA than Evaluative, it's possible that whatever leak exists, only affects certain peripheral zones but does so enough that in low light situations that the camera alters the overall exposure. Stability in various metering modes is on the list of things to test.



llcanon said:


> My concern is when shooting outdoors of something dark in the shade while standing under the bright sunlight, whether the leak would cause inaccurate metering. But I am still not sure how much light would go through the LCD compared to the viewfinder.



Doesn't seem to be much of an issue in practice. One of my test was shooting from under an relatively bright overhead lamp into the darkest part of the room (I'd guesstimate a 4-6 EV delta between the camera and what the camera was pointed at), and metering seemed pretty reliably as long as the backlight was off, but at the same time I wasn't on a tripod with fixed focus, and I was using evaluative which in general seems more prone to being "jumpy" when in log light/signal cases when I was tried that.

About the only case where you might have a problem would be shooting someone in a long dark tunnel from outside the tunnel under broad daylight, and even then I'm not sure it'd be a problem (and lack a sufficient tunnel to test with).



> If the leak is significant enough to alter meter reading by 1/3 stop or more, then it's unacceptable. And any bandage type of fix (e.g., a black tape) performed outside the factory condition may inadvertently cause more harm to your camera than the leak issue itself (e.g., introduce dusts or alter the position of some precise component by accident).



Well the over the top, "I'm utterly paranoid my images will be wrong" fix, would be to simply put a piece of black gaffer tape over the top LCD and use the rear one for any external meter readings. Won't damage the camera, is easily undo-able, and doesn't involve tinkering in the body. I certainly wouldn't advocate taking a 3-week old camera apart and electrical taping things randomly.

In any case, I think Canon does need to improve the light sealing around the top LCD. The problem I keep coming back to is that so far as I've been able to tell, the meter largely seems unaffected inside the designed range* and under what I'd consider reasonable conditions may prompt a no-action response.


* Again, sample of 1, my camera, which isn't statistically relevant when talking


----------



## esi32 (Apr 14, 2012)

Respinder said:


> Since I will be using this camera in many low-light situations, this will probably become a major issue for me.



Low light is a very relative term. Just what do you mean by low light?

For example, as I just noted, in my previous post, with the meter on CWA I see a stable meter in a room lit by 2 24" LCDs monitors and nothing more (meter reading 8s f/2.8 ISO 100, est EV0).

If you want to frame your expectations, look though the images you have, anything darker than about EV1* (meters 4s f/2.8 ISO 100 or equivalent), is below the design range of the meter and may not meter correctly. Anything below EV -4* (2m f/2.8 ISO 100 or equivalent) is below the meter's hard sensitivity floor. As it stands*, anything between EV -4 and EV 1 have the potential to be thrown off by turning the backlight on. There are of course caveats to this, the actual cases are subtly more complicated but that should put you in the ballpark.



> My biggest concern is that Canon Canada has not released any press release whatsoever, and the camera stores still claim (as of today) that this is a rumor and that no real hardware problem exists. I have also not heard of any "new shipments" with design changes coming in.



Keep in mind Canon is a big company, and the regional Canon divisions aren't all in complete sync with each other. Things take unequal amounts of time to work their way though the bureaucracy in different places. There may also be various legal implications with posting something like that in different places, which likely means each region has to run the service notice though legal and that doesn't happen instantly either.



> From the various websites covering this, the issue goes well beyond the LCD screen (as the US website describes) to the top display and even the viewfinder, so this is pretty substantial.



I would urge you to be very careful what you consider valid information while reading about this. The barrier to entry for publishing something on the Internet is incredibly low and there are no safeguards to stop the blind from leading the blind so to speak.

The behavior seen in the CameraTown video, where the meter changes as you move your eye away from the viewfinder, is typical and expected behavior in an SLR where the metering sensor is in the viewfinder—read all of them. Some may be less susceptible to light intrusion because they have a smaller viewfinder, a viewfinder that is more recessed, or there are other differences in the internal design (different reflectivity of the focus screen for example). But make no mistake, under the right conditions, and those aren't just "with the sun at your back", removing your eye from the viewfinder will change the meter reading.



> I was planning on purchasing this camera this week (prior to my upcoming vacation) but as I will ultimately spend upwards of $6000 on this (kit, accessories, etc), I am pretty concerned about buying this if it is defective? What about all of your thoughts on this? For those of you have who have yet to purchase, has this issue now put you on the fence?



Well it's probably pretty clear that I already own a 5D3, and I'm using my 5D3 with little concern with the reported issue as it doesn't actually seem to be a problem in practice. My 5D3 meters virtually identically to my 1D3 in any situation where I've had the two side by side. Worst case scenario, if Canon determines that they must fix something, there will be a recall and a fix will be made for free, you'll just have the hassle of sending the camera in for the work to be done.

In fact, in practice, the biggest problem I've had with the 5D3 is the missing battery grip, lack of an RRS's L-plate for said missing grip, and having to run release candidate software (LR4.1 RC) to be able to work on the images.



* Based on my testing (though EV1 is the lower design limit for the 5D3's meter) and I reserve the right to adjust those numbers based on further testing.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 14, 2012)

Wouldn't the easiest fix just be to push the little on off button again to turn the lcd light off before snapping a photo in super low light? 

I understand that won't fix anything if you are in direct sunlight, but that shouldn't matter as much.

Or am I missing something?


----------



## javier (Apr 15, 2012)

Update Canon Japan April 14, 2012

※ "dark environment" is such a case are likely to be:.
1- If you have installed the body cap
2- If you attach the lens cap

This sound like they are saying, if you use the body cap or lens cap then "the displayed exposure value may change as a result of the AE sensor’s detection of light from the LCD panel." but at the same time you can not take a picture so the lcd light does not affect the image.

In another words they are trying to do nothing.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 15, 2012)

javier said:


> Update Canon Japan April 14, 2012
> 
> ※ "dark environment" is such a case are likely to be:.
> 1- If you have installed the body cap
> ...



Really funny info 

It sounds ike:
the camera is not operating when:
1 - battery is discharged
2 - battery is charged but not in a camera


----------



## javier (Apr 15, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> javier said:
> 
> 
> > Update Canon Japan April 14, 2012
> ...



Yes, you understand very clear my message.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 15, 2012)

javier said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > javier said:
> ...



Translation quote from the site:
"We are currently considering how to respond now. As soon as determined, will guide you at the Canon website."
And response will be like:
"In order to avoid this phenomenom, prior to making photo in described cases follow the procedure:
1. Remove the cap from the camera
2. Remove the cap from the lens"

Jeez, there are more serious problems in Japan to be solved right now...


----------



## dcreisman (Apr 15, 2012)

Would this have to be a hardware fix where we'd have to send our camera's in, or could it be taken care of with a firmware update? Any thoughts? Sorry if someone already asked this, I didn't have time to read the entire thread.


----------



## javier (Apr 15, 2012)

dcreisman said:


> Would this have to be a hardware fix where we'd have to send our camera's in, or could it be taken care of with a firmware update? Any thoughts? Sorry if someone already asked this, I didn't have time to read the entire thread.



This reminds me iPhone 4 antenna.....

The light leak is a hardware problem so how you fix a hardware problem with a software update?
Like I said before the problem is the AE Sensor is getting too much light through LCD, View finder and lens. when you adjust your meter you are adjusting the meter with all that amount of light.
At the moment the camera take the picture just take the picture with the light coming through the lens and that is why the picture is underexpose.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 15, 2012)

javier said:


> dcreisman said:
> 
> 
> > Would this have to be a hardware fix where we'd have to send our camera's in, or could it be taken care of with a firmware update? Any thoughts? Sorry if someone already asked this, I didn't have time to read the entire thread.
> ...



Someone suggested it already here: if camera knows if lcd is On or Off, it probably could be compensated with firmware. If camera doesn't know lcd light status then it's only fixable by hardware manipulation.


----------



## esi32 (Apr 15, 2012)

Re. Canon JP's response. As I keep saying, the meter appears to behave normally inside the specified operating range. The camera + a lens cap/body cap + the viewfinder blacked out is not a situation that occors inside the specified parameters for the operation of the meter. People keep ignoring that, but the reality is getting the meter to error inside the designed range requires a considerably high delta in light levels between the top LCD and the subject—and doesn't work on the backlight alone. I'm not convinced yet such a situation will actually happen in practice—hopefully I'll have some actual numbers on that sometime next week.




marekjoz said:


> Someone suggested it already here: if camera knows if lcd is On or Off, it probably could be compensated with firmware. If camera doesn't know lcd light status then it's only fixable by hardware manipulation.



And as I already pointed out that doesn't work because light incident on the LCD, not just the backlight, will also affect the meter reading and the camera doesn't know that the light incident on the meter is actually light incident on the meter. A hardware fix is the only possible fix unless it's determined that the erroneous behavior is only see outside the designed range for the meter's operation.


----------



## rlarsen (Apr 15, 2012)

I've been busy using my camera and didn't know it had a problem until I read it here. The product advisory has given people an opportunity to be mad about many things. A lot of people online are really mad about stuff.
Some believe Canon rushed the new camera, others are pissed they had to wait so long. Others want a bunch of new features as long as the price stays low. And why isn't it just like the new Nikon ? Some say they will never purchase Canon cameras again but visit this website every day. 

I want to start using perfect cameras, can someone suggest a model or brand ? 

For years I've driven Honda sedans. Great cars. Recently I received a recall notice for an airbag problem. I brought it to the dealer and they corrected it quickly at no charge. I appreciate the safety notification and the quick, friendly service, but I'm considering being mad. I spent a lot of money for that car and it should be perfect like a Toyota.

Canon may come up with a reasonable solution to this issue, and I may never hear of anyone having a serious problem with the camera, but I just might become mad anyway. If I send my camera in once in a while to be cleaned or for a new shutter I'll get by, but if there's any kind of recall, I'm switching to Nikon !


----------



## dturano (Apr 15, 2012)

rlarsen said:


> I've been busy using my camera and didn't know it had a problem until I read it here. "I havent responded to this thread, i like you own a 5dmk3. But this post drives me nuts, nothing personal but you start by saying you have been busy using your camera and didn't know it had a problem....? I should just assume this whole post is sarcasm and move on..... I read the whole post, I havent read any follow ups, just clicked on the newest response, saw this and almost got really upset. Either way, all the negative on this site on the 5dmk3 has driven me to buy a nikon, that new camera they invented that puts all others to shame, with the mega -pixels! I decided i needed to have the best with the least negative feedback, tomorrow i plan to buy a toyota. The product advisory has given people an opportunity to be mad about many things. A lot of people online are really mad about stuff.
> Some believe Canon rushed the new camera, others are pissed they had to wait so long. Others want a bunch of new features as long as the price stays low. And why isn't it just like the new Nikon ? Some say they will never purchase Canon cameras again but visit this website every day.
> 
> I want to start using perfect cameras, can someone suggest a model or brand ?
> ...


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 15, 2012)

People Overreact.


----------



## pd2002 (Apr 15, 2012)

5d mark iii light leak

light leak with normal operation in sunlight


----------



## dturano (Apr 15, 2012)

Is anyone actually mad at canon on a personal level? I know we live in the age of demanded customer satisfaction. Im happy they held shipments for now can posted the issue on there site, while they may have posted this issue they may be working on other issues. Some may say they rushed to market, others the issues are unacceptable, and some just nit pick to ride the bandwagon.

I personally feel for my needs, without shooting any comparable nikon or even the newest canon and upcoming that the 5dmk3 is a great piece of equipment and am a satisfied camera, what ever canon decides to resolve an issue that may or may not affect me I will consider sending it in for bringing it in for the adjustments or fix.

Would anyone have truly be happy with the new camera in this day and age? Canon comes out with te 5dmk3 with the newer more expensive 1d model on its tails, if canon only made one body i could see an uproar, the 5dmk3 is no entry level and i think we can agree it outperforms on a body level all entry level slrs. The 5dmk2 was flawed but can be argued the best wedding body around and before true 5dmk3 specs was touted and not overly criticized.

I think many expected 1 series int he new 5. Canon has to spread within levels, and tries to satisfy each audience within the appropriate group. 

Some may say they responded because of a possible reputation issue, if that was the case they would have to recall and put out a different camera. 

Canon waited a while for the next 5dmk3, years and the newest in my opinion is more advanced but to many for the time not enough. 

I use my 5dmk3 to make money, like many on the site, for everyday shooting i use a simple p&s and at times grab the money maker because it does capture better images. I know others use pro dslrs for shooting there personal material which i dont take issue with, i find people spend more time analyzing, debating, complaining, & arguing than enjoying. Not all but a lot. Enjoy the new toy, realize it may or may not make you a better photographer, try different lens and techniques, dont blame the hardware but consider what you can change. If and when hardware is a defect be happy the manufacturer acknowledges an issue and await the opportunity to correct it and move on


----------



## VirtualRain (Apr 15, 2012)

pd2002 said:


> 5d mark iii light leak
> 
> light leak with normal operation in sunlight



That would explain my consistent under exposures in direct sunlight!


----------



## Etienne (Apr 15, 2012)

Some people are disappointed with Canon for releasing a 5DIII with a measurable, reproducible problem. That's reasonable. We want value and reassurance that the tool is as good as it could be.

The early adopters are inexplicably defensive and seem angry that anyone should expect the 5DIII not to leak light. If you're ok with a light leak, then carry on. Why the anger?

The issue has been identified and confirmed. Canon has acknowledged it, and we will soon see how they respond. 

Personally I am glad that the community is very demanding. I will end up with a better product and responsive support from Canon.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 15, 2012)

Have anyone tried setting the DOF button to switch between Ai Servo and One Shot? I aimed at the same spot, but the exposure varied from 1/500s to 1/800s when I switched af-mode. How the hell can that be?

It's not happening 100% of the subjects I shoot at, but 90% and it's 100% consistent at one subject when I push the switch...


----------



## llcanon (Apr 15, 2012)

pd2002 said:


> 5d mark iii light leak
> 
> light leak with normal operation in sunlight



This is NOT a test under "normal operation". I bet the lens cap was on or the person was pointing the camera to an "extremely dark" object under the sunlight (maybe it is the lens cap? . Just note the aperture and shutter speed. 

I just couldn't believe the light leaking through the LCD would exceed the light coming through the lens during normal shooting conditions (other than the "extremely dark environments"). 

Has anyone really detected any exposure difference when shooting under the direct sunlight? If so, can you please share a few photos of the exposure display? I did the tests and didn't see any real issue. I look forward to esi32's testing results next week.


----------



## macrodust (Apr 15, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Have anyone tried setting the DOF button to switch between Ai Servo and One Shot? I aimed at the same spot, but the exposure varied from 1/500s to 1/800s when I switched af-mode. How the hell can that be?
> 
> It's not happening 100% of the subjects I shoot at, but 90% and it's 100% consistent at one subject when I push the switch...



I have set the DOF button on my 5DIII in the same way and stumbled across this very issue the other day. However, the exposure only changes when in evaluative metering mode. I have not been able to find the exact answer to why this is, but when googling it, I found that this has also been the case for previous canon models and therefore likely not a problem. It could have something to do with how the camera interprets subject/background differently between the to AF modes when it's set to evaluative metering. I'd appreciate a better explanation as well, but I don't believe it's a problem with our cameras.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 15, 2012)

macrodust said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Have anyone tried setting the DOF button to switch between Ai Servo and One Shot? I aimed at the same spot, but the exposure varied from 1/500s to 1/800s when I switched af-mode. How the hell can that be?
> ...



Thanks! Very strange indeed...


----------



## Bosman (Apr 15, 2012)

rlarsen said:


> I've been busy using my camera and didn't know it had a problem until I read it here. The product advisory has given people an opportunity to be mad about many things. A lot of people online are really mad about stuff.
> Some believe Canon rushed the new camera, others are pissed they had to wait so long. Others want a bunch of new features as long as the price stays low. And why isn't it just like the new Nikon ? Some say they will never purchase Canon cameras again but visit this website every day.
> 
> I want to start using perfect cameras, can someone suggest a model or brand ?
> ...


I'm taking this as being a joke right?


----------



## donjensen (Apr 15, 2012)

Bosman said:


> rlarsen said:
> 
> 
> > I've been busy using my camera and didn't know it had a problem until I read it here. The product advisory has given people an opportunity to be mad about many things. A lot of people online are really mad about stuff.
> ...



Of course it´s a joke!!


----------



## VirtualRain (Apr 15, 2012)

llcanon said:


> Has anyone really detected any exposure difference when shooting under the direct sunlight? If so, can you please share a few photos of the exposure display? I did the tests and didn't see any real issue. I look forward to esi32's testing results next week.



I'm not sure what the cause of my problem is, but these were all shot in direct sunlight using evaluative metering, with a single AF point on the subject (bird, person, etc.)... the whole lot is about 1 stop under exposed. Note the histograms... nothing on the right third whatsoever.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 15, 2012)

pd2002 said:


> 5d mark iii light leak
> 
> light leak with normal operation in sunlight



that has to be with lens cap still on though, no?
I mean ISO 400, f/1.2, even shooting into shady woods, mid-day you won't be at 6"-10" exposures.


----------



## Cali_PH (Apr 15, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Jason Beiko said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how much recent events will affect sales of the Mark III? Based on many recent internet reviews, I think new buyers looking to purchase a FF DSLR would be heavily leaning towards Nikon. The success and reviews of the D800 and the light leak issue might sway new users to Nikon.
> ...



Unfortunately, some Canon users are also experiencing some type of lockup. 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5358.0

I hadn't heard that about the D800 (haven't really read up on it recently), but it's interesting to hear. Gotta wonder what other bugs/issues will show up in the future from both cameras.


----------



## BDD (Apr 16, 2012)

This is nuts. You'd think Canon would have detected this in the QA process before releasing them. Glad I didn't run out and buy mine yet.

Though the D800 isn't immune from an early hiccup either. Forget what it was/is. Not that I'm considering a D800 or D4.

Will be interesting to hear what Canon plans to do for existing 5D3 owners and when this problem will be eliminated from future production runs.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 16, 2012)

I think we can have every confidence that Canon will right this, the Eye-Fi problems and lens IS issues. It would be devastating to their image not to (and potentially the images of their customers ). I expect we will hear very soon their plan-of-action and I also expect a global recall for affected devices (all sold units, basically).

It is great that the customer is so critical of the products so that Canon themselves can build on what they have and will deliver in the future. Does all this talk affect sales? Of course it does. Will it affect Canon's profit margin and thus future research and development for new gear? Of course, but only to the most minor and negligible amounts. Let's face it, Nikon is also "struggling with production problems," with back-logged orders stacking to the roof, most likely to cover for their own array of fixes they have to implement before shipping the next batch.

Cameras are complex pieces of kit, let us not forget that; the odds of having something perfect out-of-the-box in such high-competition, fast-paced industry is quite low. Luckily, because of this competition, all we need to do as consumers is voice our concerns and the manufacturers will heed our calls. 

In the meantime, get out shooting with your mostly-working 5D Mark III. Take photos: isn't that what photography is about?

(As for those with an inferiority complex envying the D800 mega-pixel count, you should have made a fuss about it while the 5D Mark III was still in the research and development phase. This is one thing a recall won't fix - that is, unless every 5D Mark III out there has a defective sensor - with the noise performance I am getting with my Mark III, I question anyone who could consider it the least bit defective. )


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 16, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> I think we can have every confidence that Canon will right this, the Eye-Fi problems and lens IS issues. It would be devastating to their image not to (and potentially the images of their customers ). I expect we will hear very soon their plan-of-action and I also expect a global recall for affected devices (all sold units, basically).
> 
> It is great that the customer is so critical of the products so that Canon themselves can build on what they have and will deliver in the future. Does all this talk affect sales? Of course it does. Will it affect Canon's profit margin and thus future research and development for new gear? Of course, but only to the most minor and negligible amounts. Let's face it, Nikon is also "struggling with production problems," with back-logged orders stacking to the roof, most likely to cover for their own array of fixes they have to implement before shipping the next batch.
> 
> ...



What problem is there with the eye-fi? I was thinking about getting myself one to play with.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 16, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> What problem is there with the eye-fi? I was thinking about getting myself one to play with.



A few users are having their cameras lock up, displaying "Err 80: Electronic control or image malfunction." These users are predominately using either Eye-Fi cards or third-party batteries. There are many possibilities for this error though and Canon has been recommending people go through a list of potentials before writing off any future use of Eye-Fi cards. You can follow the developments here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5358.0

It may well be worth taking your camera to your retailer and asking if you can test an Eye-Fi card for 50-100 shots in-store before buying. However, some seem to be experiencing the errors continually, while others only once in 1000 shots or so from what I recall reading on photo.net.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 16, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > What problem is there with the eye-fi? I was thinking about getting myself one to play with.
> ...



hmmm interesting. Thanks for the info!


----------



## tasteofjace (Apr 16, 2012)

I have been extremely pleased with the performance of my Camera since I received it weeks ago. Of course that may be because I have spent less time complaining about it, and more time shooting with it. However, I certainly agree that Canon should indeed correct these bugs and issues as they are discovered. 

I am no stranger to the side effects that come with early adoption, especially in camera gear, so I was not at all upset or surprised when the light leak issue popped up. 

Even though, I haven't notice it effect me at all in my shooting thus far, as an owner of the camera, I definitely want to know it is the best it can possibly be, so I certainly expect Canon to do what needs to be done to correct it.


----------



## pen43 (Apr 16, 2012)

I do not understand why none of the professionals who have tested the camera for several months did not see the problem. Canon, you now know who to call next time!


----------



## ChrisJ_SLH (Apr 16, 2012)

pen43 said:


> I do not understand why none of the professionals who have tested the camera for several months did not see the problem. Canon, you now know who to call next time!



Just maybe because it wasn't actually a problem in real world scenarios?


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 16, 2012)

ChrisJ_SLH said:


> pen43 said:
> 
> 
> > I do not understand why none of the professionals who have tested the camera for several months did not see the problem. Canon, you now know who to call next time!
> ...



I'm more surprised they didn't detect that crazy IS noise on EF 200/2.0 and EF 800/5.6!


----------



## sparda79 (Apr 16, 2012)

BDD said:


> Though the D800 isn't immune from an early hiccup either. Forget what it was/is. Not that I'm considering a D800 or D4.



I heard D800 have an issue with green/yellow tint with its rear LCD screen


----------



## Fleetie (Apr 16, 2012)

VirtualRain said:


> pd2002 said:
> 
> 
> > 5d mark iii light leak
> ...


Of course it would.


----------



## sparda79 (Apr 16, 2012)

VirtualRain said:


> pd2002 said:
> 
> 
> > 5d mark iii light leak
> ...



Anybody ever tried taking a normal in sunlight shot and another one while covering the LCD to verify this under-exposure issue?


----------



## Michael7 (Apr 16, 2012)

Canon quality control stinks.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 16, 2012)

sparda79 said:


> Anybody ever tried taking a normal in sunlight shot and another one while covering the LCD to verify this under-exposure issue?



No need to. The camera meter doesn't change once you take off the lens cap.

Try it yourself. Take the camera outside on a sunny day. Leave the lens cap on, have the full sun shine on the top LCD, take a meter reading. Shade the top LCD with your hand, take another reading; it'll be a stop or so different.

Now, take the lens cap off and try the same. Even if you're pointing at something dark in deep shade, the meter reading won't change.

Why? Because the meter is actually sensitive enough to get a reading in pitch dark, but it's a veeeeeeery noisy reading at those practically-nonexistent light levels. Noisy enough that the less-than-starlight leak through the LCD is able to alter the readings.

Think of it this way. You can light a candle at the far side of the field on a bright, sunny day, and you might not even be able to tell that it's lit. It certainly won't cast a shadow at that distance. Do the same thing in the middle of a moonless night and you'll have no trouble seeing the flame, and though you might not be able to see it cast a shadow, your camera can probably take a picture of the shadow.

I don't think there's any way to trigger the fault while using the camera (and its meter) within published specifications. Now, of course, people use their gear outside of the range of published specs all the time, and more power to them. And if Canon wants to demonstrate a bit of goodwill by helping those living over the edge, that's fantastic.

But pretty much everybody panicking or even whining about this is making a mountain out of a molehill when they live in the middle of a city where the only moles to be found are in the zoo a few hundred miles down the coast.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## CarpetFeet (Apr 16, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> sparda79 said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody ever tried taking a normal in sunlight shot and another one while covering the LCD to verify this under-exposure issue?
> ...



Well said, TrumpetPower


----------



## BDD (Apr 16, 2012)

Michael7 said:


> Canon quality control stinks.



I'm thinking you're right now. I don't see how Canon could have missed the light affecting the exposure problem. This should have been easy to test. Unlike the problem with the Eye-fi card or the 200mm lens (don't think Canon would test the 5D3 with every single one of their lenses..though now knowing this happened maybe they should0. 

Canon needs to implement a new and more comprehensive QA program. I could understand issues with maybe one of the menus slipping past them. But not the issues mentioned so far.

As long as they fix this in future production and let us know when...

I don't think too many people know of these problems...unless they too frequent Canon forums. They might actually miss these problems depending on their shooting habits.


----------



## Alker (Apr 16, 2012)

> I don't see how Canon could have missed the light affecting the exposure problem



Maybe beause they test the camera with the lenscap off.......


----------



## BDD (Apr 16, 2012)

Alker said:


> > I don't see how Canon could have missed the light affecting the exposure problem
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe beause they test the camera with the lenscap off.......



This only happens with the lens cap ON? I assumed with it off. If it only happens with the lens cap ON this really isn't an issue.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 16, 2012)

BDD said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > > I don't see how Canon could have missed the light affecting the exposure problem
> ...



Well, to be fair, it'll also happen if you're photographing black cats at the bottom of an unlit coal mine. Granted, in those kinds of conditions, using the backlight (or a flashlight) on the top LCD is an entirely reasonable thing to do. But using the built-in meter in those conditions is _not_ a reasonable thing to do, which is why those of us who take pictures of things other than the insides of our lens caps are so puzzled....

I think if people understood the nature of a logarithmic scale, this wouldn't be an issue. Let's say that the backlight lights up the meter sensor the same as a gray card in -6 EV light (which seems to be about what the math suggests). If you're actually in the middle of nowhere at midnight on a clear moonless night, using the backlight will change your exposure from 4 seconds @ f/2.8 @ ISO 12,800 to 2 seconds @ f/2.8 @ ISO 12,8000 and you'll underexpose by one stop.

Now, let's say you come back a week later and you've got a half moon out lighting up the landscape. Proper exposure is up to 1 second @ f/2.8 @ ISO 12,800, but you decide to keep a slow shutter and drop the ISO for 2 seconds @ f/2.8 @ ISO 6,400. You turn on the backlight. This time, it's not adding a stop to the proper exposure, but only a quarter stop -- maybe not even enough to register on the meter, maybe enough for it to be off by a third of a stop if it's right on the cusp.

Another week later, the moon is full, and you're at 1 second @ f/2.8 @ ISO 6,400, and the backlight is only adding an eighth of a stop to the exposure reading. Nothing short of putting the lens cap back on will make the "problem" detectable now.

The next night, you go to the county fair at night. You're at 1/60 second at f/2.8 @ ISO 800. The LCD's pollution is 1/4000 of a stop.

Remind me why we're having this discussion...?

Cheers,

b&


----------



## esi32 (Apr 16, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Have anyone tried setting the DOF button to switch between Ai Servo and One Shot? I aimed at the same spot, but the exposure varied from 1/500s to 1/800s when I switched af-mode. How the hell can that be?
> 
> It's not happening 100% of the subjects I shoot at, but 90% and it's 100% consistent at one subject when I push the switch...



In Evaluative, the metering is tied to the AF system to determine the importance of a given zone (in focus or not). It may also be tied to Servo v. no servo because they present different "focuses" on operation (tracking a moving object v. a non moving one).

Moreover, in general the focus affects the metering by changing the light that's incident on it. So does changing the focal length if the aperture doesn't precisely change to compensate. Inner and rear focusing lenses change focal length (which is why the generally breath) when focus is changed. If the aperture isn't precisely compensating for the focus, the result can be a sufficent error in light transmission, hence the meter changes.




sparda79 said:


> Anybody ever tried taking a normal in sunlight shot and another one while covering the LCD to verify this under-exposure issue?



I've both gaffer taped over the LCD and compared the exposures to those on my 1D3 and I get the same reading within a 1/3rd stop. So in my experience, black gaffer taped LCD, uncovered LCD, and 1D3 with similar framing and identical lens, perform nearly identically in practical shooting situations.

As I said a page back I'm going to be going though a much more riggerous testing routine, and publishing my findings, simply because it interests me. But in my un-scientific, but generally way better controlled than I've seen anybody else do, tests I find that in practice the meter is completely unaffected over the design ed 1-20EV range, and maybe a few stops more than that. THough one of the things i'm looking for is the relative difference in power between T-LCD incident light and though the lens light to start skewing an exposure.




TrumpetPower! said:


> I think if people understood the nature of a logarithmic scale, this wouldn't be an issue. Let's say that the backlight lights up the meter sensor the same as a gray card in -6 EV light (which seems to be about what the math suggests).



So far as I can tell, the meter has a noise floor around -4EV, due to thermal/dark current noise and the fact that there are those LEDs in the viewfinder contributing light. And by the specified design, anything darker that 1EV isn't guaranteed to meter correctly in the first place.


----------



## ChrisJ_SLH (Apr 16, 2012)

CarpetFeet said:


> Well said, TrumpetPower



+1. 

All I have seen is some slight odd behaviour with the lens cap on and the eyepiece blocked and completely expected behaviour with the lens cap off.

Move along, nothing to see? A bit like the back of a lens cap....


----------



## ramon123 (Apr 16, 2012)

1. does anyone have the direct web link to canon's press releases regarding 5D Mark III potential recall? 
2. when do you think they'll give a definitive response?


----------



## ChrisJ_SLH (Apr 16, 2012)

ramon123 said:


> 1. does anyone have the direct web link to canon's press releases regarding 5D Mark III potential recall?



As far as I can tell all they have done is acknowledge the 'phenomena'. The only mentions of recalls has been in the near hysteria all over the forums.



ramon123 said:


> 2. when do you think they'll give a definitive response?



Hopefully when they have assessed it and decided what, if any, action is necessary.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 16, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Remind me why we're having this discussion...?



You make too much sense. I find your logic and reason in wake of such hysteria to be quite disconcerting ;D


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 16, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Well, to be fair, it'll also happen if you're photographing black cats at the bottom of an unlit coal mine.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> ...



And what about a white bear in the snow storm? Will it be correctly exposed?



TrumpetPower! said:


> (..)
> Remind me why we're having this discussion...?



I dunno but I know now why I haven't bought it. I had a feeling I could not make good photos of black cats at the bottom of an unlit coal mine and white bear in the snow storm...


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 16, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Well, to be fair, it'll also happen if you're photographing black cats at the bottom of an unlit coal mine.
> ...



Actually, yes. Snowstorms are generally pretty dim conditions. The spec for the 5DIII goes all the way up to EV 20, which is a few stops beyond the white bear on an ice plain at high noon in the middle of summer. Actually, EV 20 is 1/2000 @ f/22 @ ISO 100, so much of anything beyond that and you'll need an ND filter just to be able to get the camera to record the scene at all. Not to mention welding glasses for yourself....



> I had a feeling I could not make good photos of black cats at the bottom of an unlit coal mine and white bear in the snow storm...



Rest assured, the 5DIII is excellently suited to polar bear photography. Can't help you with the spelunking felines, though, I'm afraid. I hope that's not a deal breaker...?

b&


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 17, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > TrumpetPower! said:
> ...



Happily my cat is red-haired and very jealous of me making pictures of other cats, no matter how deep they would try to go 
Truely speaking I'm not decided yet whether to sell 5d2+7d, add some cash and go for 5d3 or get some another glass...


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 17, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Happily my cat is red-haired and very jealous of me making pictures of other cats, no matter how deep they would try to go



Hmmm...to be honest, I haven't even thought of taking pictures of other cats. I don't think mine is the jealous type, but I'm not sure it'll ever occur to me to find out....



> Truely speaking I'm not decided yet whether to sell 5d2+7d, add some cash and go for 5d3 or get some another glass...



That actually should be a pretty simple decision to make.

If you exclusively or mainly do slow-paced low-ISO work, especially in studio settings or landscapes or that sort of thing, get the glass. No question.

If you do anything performance-related, especially events / weddings / sports / journalism / kids, or if you want to do that sort of thing or are planning on doing it, get the 5DIII. Again, no question.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 17, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > > Truely speaking I'm not decided yet whether to sell 5d2+7d, add some cash and go for 5d3 or get some another glass...
> ...


----------



## javier (Apr 17, 2012)

Ok, Enough is enough....

stop talking about what IF, IF IF and start to write all over the net to put pressure on canon to tell what is going to be the action. I don't want to be waiting 2 or 3 weeks.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 17, 2012)

javier said:


> Ok, Enough is enough....
> 
> stop talking about what IF, IF IF and start to write all over the net to put pressure on canon to tell what is going to be the action. I don't want to be waiting 2 or 3 weeks.



Canon - I write this to put a pressure on you. Nobody wants to wait 2 or 3 weeks.


----------



## zim (Apr 17, 2012)

canon - I won't be able to afford this camera until after Christmas so chill have a few days off

see what I did there I just cancelled you out hehehe


----------



## Renato (Apr 17, 2012)

Canon - You should let these members decide if you cant.


----------



## BDD (Apr 17, 2012)

I did a little more reading on this LCD light changing the exposure issue. Turns out it's related to the LCD on the top of the camera. If it's dark and you illuminate...that's when it happens. I didn't think any one actually used that feature (illuminating the LCD display on tops of cameras). I never do. So this is a non-issue. All the same this should still be addressed by Canon. For those that like to shoot in the dark and illuminate the top display.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 17, 2012)

sparda79 said:


> Anybody ever tried taking a normal in sunlight shot and another one while covering the LCD to verify this under-exposure issue?



Oddly enough, this is the one test that I didn't see anybody carry out even though it is the only test that would even matter. Take a shot with camera under direct noon sun shooting into deep shadows, if it doesn't affect that then the whole thing would seem to be much ado about nothing. Where it does affect things in the deep, dark district 12 mine I don't see why you would be expecting to use the meter or not using liveview anyway. Perhaps there are some legit circumstances since Canon have made a big deal about it but it seems hard to think of. Honestly I'd look into getting a sharp 1.6x crop video mode and some zebra stripes and focusing peaking in there for video and removing the /250th max min shutter speed in AutoISO and fixing up EyeFi card usage before wasting time and money on this exposure thing which might possibly not be an actual practical issue. Although I guess they do get props for listening to forums.


----------



## cschmeer (Apr 17, 2012)

Canon Europe has posted the same message 

http://www.canon.co.uk/Support/Consumer_Products/products/cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_5D_Mark_III.aspx?faqtcmuri=tcm:14-924822&page=1&type=important

Waiting for a fix!  Love the camera, but what I don't like so much about the Mark III is that the buttons feel kind of cheap when you press them in comparison to the Mark II and the large thumbwheel makes variating rattling noises when you turn it (the Mark II had a rock solid clicking thumbwheel). Maybe it's just my 5D Mark III that has this rattling thumbwheel?


----------



## BDD (Apr 18, 2012)

Lot of reviews i've come across say the 5D3 reminds them very much of a 7D. Don't know how much of a truth there is in that. Still, I'd think the 7D is a fairly well put together camera. As are all Canon EOS cameras. maybe you should check other 5D3's at the local shop. Assuming they have any not already spoken for and on display.

i think my next DSLR will still be the 5D3. I don't see a need for the 1D-X unless you're a working photographer shooting mostly sports or some kind of movement. i'm sure a lot of working pros will love the 5D3 as they did the 5D2 and it's joke of a AF system. Though for studio work it was well suited.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 18, 2012)

I really hope Canon don't offer a fix for this, since seeing more test results.

It seems that this issue is only an issue at 0 or -1EV, which falls outside of the designed 2-20EV range of the meter. At these light levels, you should not be using the in-built meter anyway, so Canon does not have to act on something that does not fall within of the design specifications of this product.

I hope Canon reads this, as I'd rather not have to send my camera away and not be able to shoot with it based on something that will not affect anyone under normal circumstances and is within the design limits of the device, but would feel obligated to repair for possible impact on future resale sale should they recall.


----------



## esi32 (Apr 18, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> I really hope Canon don't offer a fix for this, since seeing more test results.
> 
> It seems that this issue is only an issue at 0 or -1EV, which falls outside of the designed 2-20EV range of the meter. At these light levels, you should not be using the in-built meter anyway, so Canon does not have to act on something that does not fall within of the design specifications of this product.



I find myself in something of the same boat. Based on the growing body of testing I've been doing the meter appears to function properly in the specified range—and even some what below it—with pretty much anything lens you can throw at it without getting into teleconverters. And I seriously don't care for the precedent that recalling and "fixing" something that behaves correctly over the operating range it's supposed to work over sets. I honestly think the most appropriate solution would be similar to what they did with the 1D/s mk. 3 and Canon USA service notice dated 03-02-09; provide free service to those who believe their meter is functioning incorrectly.

I'm still writing up a report on this for my site, and I'll be sure to drop a link to the final version, but for the moment this is what my preliminary results look like.

The backlight becomes an issue when the light reaching the meter though the lens hits -6.5EV including transmission looses for the lens. In more practical terms for photographers it plays out something like this.


LensMin Light LevelExample exposure settings 24-70/2.8L or 70-200/2.8L IS II -330s f/2.8 ISO 200 24-104/4L IS - 1-2/3 25s f/4 ISO 100  70-300/4-5.6L IS @ 300mm  0 30s f/5.6 ISO 100 85/1.2L II -5 1.6s f/1.2 ISO 3200

As for leaking from a light shining on the top LCD instead of the backlight. I'm coming up with about 0.001% transmittance or something like 16-2/3 stops. So as long as you don't have some clown shining the equivalent of the sun at noon on your camera in the dark that shouldn't be a problem either. A light source that will light a surface 5mm away to 35K lx generates only a 1/3rd stop error when the meter sees ~ -4.67Ev from the scene (in my case that worked out to a scene lit to ~ -1-1/3Ev with an 24-70/2.8L lens on the camera).


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 18, 2012)

esi32 said:


> I'm still writing up a report on this for my site, and I'll be sure to drop a link to the final version, but for the moment this is what my preliminary results look like.



Excellent work esi32! Appreciate the time you are putting into this (especially given I only had time to test with a 17-40 pointing into a black sheet at night (which, by the way, only caused 1/3 stop shift within 5mm or less of the fabric surface).

I'll be kicking myself for these comments when I find myself in that decisive Manchester/bedware macro shooting moment.  Maybe a product shot of "thread count" at 104k ISO?


----------



## esi32 (Apr 18, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> I'll be kicking myself for these comments when I find myself in that decisive Manchester/bedware macro shooting moment.  Maybe a product shot of "thread count" at 104k ISO?



I believe we're heralding in a new age of photography, for the first time in history people will truly be able to experience the many shades of black that are present in the world of complete darkness.


----------



## cschmeer (Apr 18, 2012)

I got a response from Canon Europe:


> "Further to your enquiry, I can confirm that what you are experiencing has been recognized by Canon as a known issue and we would like to draw your attention to the following information. We very recently (in April) became aware of this phenomenon in the EOS 5D Mark III model which means that the AE sensor in the camera detects the light from the LCD panel when it is turned on and the exposure value is altered. The change is not significant as it is only altered by approximately 1/3rd of a stop but this can be noticeable. You can continue to use your 5D Mark III and the LCD screen can be turned off to receive the correct exposure.
> 
> Canon is now examining the countermeasures and once the countermeasures are finalized we will post the information on our website. Until then please accept our apologies for the inconvenience caused."


----------



## Etienne (Apr 18, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> I really hope Canon don't offer a fix for this, since seeing more test results.
> 
> It seems that this issue is only an issue at 0 or -1EV, which falls outside of the designed 2-20EV range of the meter. At these light levels, you should not be using the in-built meter anyway, so Canon does not have to act on something that does not fall within of the design specifications of this product.
> 
> I hope Canon reads this, as I'd rather not have to send my camera away and not be able to shoot with it based on something that will not affect anyone under normal circumstances and is within the design limits of the device, but would feel obligated to repair for possible impact on future resale sale should they recall.



Brilliant. Canon should ignore an issue that they have determined is real.
Well that ought to drive product improvement.

It is attention to detail that makes a product, or an artist, great.

A known issue that might cause an error of 1/3 stop exposure is significant.
Fix it ... it's that simple.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 18, 2012)

Etienne said:


> Brilliant. Canon should ignore an issue that they have determined is real.
> Well that ought to drive product improvement.
> 
> It is attention to detail that makes a product, or an artist, great.
> ...



I'm sorry, but I disagree. The equipment an artist uses has little to do with their greatness. You can have the best, faultless equipment available and still have little to no creativity or skill.

In terms of practice and the way an artist uses their equipment, we as photographers should use our camera meters within their optimum range - outside of that and we are jeopardising and risking our artworks. The amount of light where this issue is present is well out of that range. In these cases, the meter should not be used. It isn't a fault if it is something that affects a characteristic of the camera that is not a part of how it was designed to be used. 

It is not like there are water leaks in the LCD or something (though this itself may need testing). 

This isn't an issue and Canon have no obligation to fix it. We should instead be out shooting, not debating things that have no effect on it.


----------



## madmailman (Apr 18, 2012)

Maybe a firmware update that turns off the LCD backlight when the shutter button is half pressed and before metering starts could solve this issue for most people? No?


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 18, 2012)

madmailman said:


> Maybe a firmware update that turns off the LCD backlight when the shutter button is half pressed and before metering starts could solve this issue for most people? No?


Assuming software was able to detect the LCD light status, this would work, but only for aperture and shutter priority or program modes. Manual would still leave you "shooting in the dark."

Regardless you'd be shooting in the dark anyway and well below levels to meter accurately, so the content of the LCD would be already dubious even after a fix (if Canon chooses to offer one).


----------



## BDD (Apr 18, 2012)

I disagree. Canon (or any other manufacturer) should fix all acknowledged issues. Especially those that they have admitted to and is fairly known to camera users who frequent forums and sites like CR. They can't afford for the word to get out that they won't do anything. 

Turn off the LCD on top of the camera.  That solution would work for now. But imagine Ferrari telling the owners of their 458 Italia (has computer displays next to the tachometer). After having shelled out 300k on their dream sports car. "Just turn off the display...you have still the tachometer". I don't think it would go over too well. 

I'm sure Canon will work on this and offer a fix soon. Question is how "soon".


----------



## tron (Apr 18, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> The equipment an artist uses has little to do with their greatness. You can have the best, faultless equipment available and still have little to no creativity or skill.


I agree but in that case an artist can do with a 5DII, 5D or a lesser camera. A 5DmkIII is not necessary!



swrightgfx said:


> In terms of practice and the way an artist uses their equipment, we as photographers should use our camera meters within their optimum range - outside of that and we are jeopardising and risking our artworks.


I agree 



swrightgfx said:


> This isn't an issue and Canon have no obligation to fix it. We should instead be out shooting, not debating things that have no effect on it.


If canon has no obligation to fix a negligence that didn't exist even back in the EOS620 era then we definitely have no obligation to upgrade. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 18, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Brilliant. Canon should ignore an issue that they have determined is real.
> ...



I didn't think I needed to be this specific but:

Attention to detail ..... makes an artist great
similarly
Attention to detail ..... makes a product great

Anyway, it can't be that difficult to block light from reaching the meter.
And ... 1/3 to 1 stop of consistent, or random, *known * error is not acceptable.


----------



## BDD (Apr 18, 2012)

Canon UK has temporarily stopped shipments till the light issue is dealt with. 

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/canon-suspends-5d-mark-iii-shipping-1076503

Canon is working on it. Minor problem as it is. Shouldn't be happening. So those that actually use the illumination light when shooting in the dark can. As I said. i never used this light. The same information is visible through the viewfinder and the LCD on the back.


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 18, 2012)

madmailman said:


> Maybe a firmware update that turns off the LCD backlight when the shutter button is half pressed and before metering starts could solve this issue for most people? No?



That certainly won’t solve the issue of ambient light leaking past the LCD display.

This is a structural issue, it would appear. That’s the kind of thing that’s going to require a physical remedy. Better seals. A black screen behind the LCD display. I have no clue - I don’t design cameras. But this doesn’t strike me as an issue of programming.


----------



## esi32 (Apr 18, 2012)

Etienne said:


> Brilliant. Canon should ignore an issue that they have determined is real.
> Well that ought to drive product improvement.
> 
> It is attention to detail that makes a product, or an artist, great.
> ...



This isn't simply a matter of attention to detail, it's a matter of engineering. The engineering was for a meter that operated correctly form 1 to 20 EV w/ a 50/1.4 (t/1.6) lens. You can ignore that, you can stick your fingers in your ears and scream, "it should be fixed!" over and over all you want, but the simple reality is that the camera was designed to work properly over a specific range of light levels and, so far as I can tell, does so and beyond. 

To recall the camera and issue a fix is tantamount to fixing something that literally isn't broken unless you use the camera outside of the designed conditions. It sets a precedent that with sufficient wailing and gnashing of teeth a product's specs can be altered after it was designed and released.




BDD said:


> I disagree. Canon (or any other manufacturer) should fix all acknowledged issues. Especially those that they have admitted to and is fairly known to camera users who frequent forums and sites like CR. They can't afford for the word to get out that they won't do anything.



No they shouldn't just fix all acknowledged issues. Only issues where the product is deficient in functioning where it was designed to function, should be addressed with anything more than a workaround. The 5D3 wasn't designed to meter correctly at -10 EV, or -5EV, or 0EV. Under some cases it may, more often than not it performs better than the design specs indicate it should, but if you're relying on the meter outside of the designed parameters you're in undefined territory and may not get an accurate reading regardless. No company should be under an obligation, perceived or otherwise, to fix an issue that only occurs outside the designed operating range.



> Turn off the LCD on top of the camera.  That solution would work for now. But imagine Ferrari telling the owners of their 458 Italia (has computer displays next to the tachometer). After having shelled out 300k on their dream sports car. "Just turn off the display...you have still the tachometer". I don't think it would go over too well.



Your situation isn't even remotely comparable. A more apt one would be that Ferrari owners were complaining that their car knocks or otherwise doesn't get it's best performance when being run on 87 octane gas instead of the designed 91+. Then go on to insist that Ferrari should actually redesign the engine, and recall the car so that it does run correctly on a fuel it wasn't designed to run optimally on in the first place.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

That's the problem here. Yes, there's an "issue". Yes, Canon has acknowledged it. No the issue doesn't appear to occur inside the specified operating range of the camera, in fact it seems to occur at a point more than 4 stops below the specified operating range. Yet that's not good enough apparently. Well following that line of thinking neither is the ISO performance at 1600 or higher, nor is the AF performance with lenses that have a max aperture of f/16, nor is the fact that the viewfinder doesn't have 5/8" of nose relief. I can make a case that all of those are deficiencies with the camera, should I get enough people to whine about those, should Canon redesign the camera for them too too?


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 18, 2012)

esi32 said:


> swrightgfx said:
> 
> 
> > I really hope Canon don't offer a fix for this, since seeing more test results.
> ...



It’s not that hard to make something light-proof. More seals. Walling off the LCD panel, etc. etc. I don’t design cameras, but just off the top of my head I can think of a few reliable ways of preventing light from getting through.

Incidentally, I can also think of ways this issue would make a difference: for example, shooting a dim room under one halogen light shining down on your camera could affect the exposure. If the LCD backlight can do it, so can an overhead light. I don’t know the details of how a light meter works and I’m not a physicist, but it I’m guessing that the amount of light a meter senses is additive. If the meter picks up ABC number of photons through the lens, the light leaking through the LCD display (or coming from the LCD backlight) will add XYZ number of photons to it. In well-lit environments, it may be a very small percentage of the total amount of light. But in less-than well-lit environments, it becomes a larger percentage of the total light hitting the meter and would make a bigger difference. I doubt the claims that it doesn’t affect the exposure when you’re above 1EV. People have already taken photos to show that it does.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 18, 2012)

Someone on FM says they tested it and the only time it made a difference when the lens cap was off is when they shot under EV1 lighting, the very bottom limit the meter is rated for, and it was only 1/3 stop under then, even just a bit above EV1 and they didn't find any difference.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 18, 2012)

esi32 ...

... All the EV talk in the world doesn't matter, but since others are making it an issue: f16 for 8 sec is listed as EV = 5, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value), and this is a commonly used setting for landscape, foaming water etc. And, Photogs like Dan Cheung have reported consistent under-exposure using the 5DIII. That too is interesting.

Anyway, it's not a personal issue, so I don't know why some posters are so angry that others want the issue fixed. That's bizarre.

Canon is taking it seriously, and that is a good thing. They will decide what to do, and personally I am happy that Canon takes feedback and complaints seriously.


----------



## esi32 (Apr 19, 2012)

Etienne said:


> esi32 ...
> 
> ... All the EV talk in the world doesn't matter, but since others are making it an issue: f16 for 8 sec is listed as EV = 5, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value), and this is a commonly used setting for landscape, foaming water etc. And, Photogs like Dan Cheung have reported consistent under-exposure using the 5DIII. That too is interesting.



Except it is a serious factor in whether and how much the meter would be incorrect for any given situation. In fact, it is THE factor for any given situation. The problem is we're talking about reality here. If you need to have the camera lit to 20EV to get a 1/3rd stop error on the meter, you're not realistically going to do that in the real world ever. So yes, what you're shooting, and how bright the area you're shooting from really does matter.

So as to your Ev 5 scene, you're going to have to provide more than just "this is used for..." how bright is the actual environment the camera is in? This is crucial to determining whether there's the potential for a metering error. If the camera is in EV12 and you're NDing down the scene to EV5 with a f/16 lens, ya, you're probably going to see a problem with a 5D3. If the camera is in EV12 and you're NDing the scene down to EV5 but using an f/4 or faster lens that doesn't require stop down metering, you're not going to see an error at all. This has been generally born out by my experience in the field with and my testing of my 5D3, and I don't believe my camera is an outlier in any special way on the good side.



> Canon is taking it seriously, and that is a good thing. They will decide what to do, and personally I am happy that Canon takes feedback and complaints seriously.



As am I. I'd much rather they promptly acknowledge things, even if they ultimately do nothing, than not acknowledge it at all.


----------

