# We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 4, 2014)

```
<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="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/we-have-more-internal-canon-service-information-on-lenses-cameras/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/we-have-more-internal-canon-service-information-on-lenses-cameras/">Tweet</a></div>
Yesterday we posted an <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/eos-1d-x-eos-1d-c-cold-weather-autofocus-issues/" target="_blank">internal service advisory for the Canon EOS-1D X and EOS-1D C</a>. These are advisories that are only known to a select few within Canon and not told to the consumers.</p>
<p>We have a lot of more of these documents that cover various Canon lenses and camera bodies, there’s even more on the EOS-1D X mirrorbox.</p>
<p>The person that sent them to us didn’t have an issue with Canon keeping this stuff internal. However, they were upset that a lot of the issues are known to Canon and they’re still charging customers for the repairs out of warranty. There are a couple of lenses with design flaws and Canon is charging $250-$450 for these repairs out of warranty and not fully disclosing the design flaw to the customer.</p>
<p>We’re not sure whether or not we’ll post the rest of the internal documents we have in our possession. If you think there’s value in us doing so, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20341.0">please sound off in our forum</a>.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Nick Gombinsky (Apr 4, 2014)

Well, I for one think that it is a scam to sell something that will brake because of a design flaw and then charge for it's repair.
I vote for releasing this information and have Canon deal with what should have dealt when they realised they had an issue. We shouldn't have to pay for someone else's mistake.


----------



## gsealy (Apr 4, 2014)

The reason these forums exist is to share information. So yeah, anything factual of this nature should be socialized. If there is a known design flaw, then that is different than a malfunction of a lens after the warranty expires. For a design flaw Canon essentially sold something that was not as described and presented in the marketing materials. It hurts, but they should make good on them. Their reputation and consumer confidence is at stake. Otherwise, what are we to believe in the future? Should we buy a $3000 lens that is a piece of junk? 

Please post any information that you have, so at least we know what lens are affected and what the issues are.

Thanks!


----------



## Hannes (Apr 4, 2014)

Interesting, I can imagine some canon execs being a bit sweaty right now


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 4, 2014)

I have a couple of Canon lenses that have been back and forth to Canon with the faults yet to be fixed.

It would be good to see if there is a recognised problem with these expensive lenses.


----------



## ImageDayphoto (Apr 4, 2014)

I would certainly like to see this information having just had to replace my 24-105mm L zoom due to an auto focus fault which, based on other internet forums appears widespread


----------



## johnschipp (Apr 4, 2014)

Send the materials to the Consumer Protection Agency and announce it on the site. That should get some attention.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 4, 2014)

.
If you're going to do it, do it quick and all at once...

before Canon lawyers can have the courts shut you down.


----------



## kjosker (Apr 4, 2014)

It is basically dishonest to know of a design flaw, keeping it quiet, and then charging for repairs. I'm all for releasing any and all information available. And I'm all for reporting these unethical practices to consumer advocacy groups, state's attorney general and anyone else with an interest in consumer rights.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 4, 2014)

Well I think you should if the info discloses information showing that Canon is charging customers for design flaws. The equipment that Canon sells is typically at an incredibly high price, however, we are willing to pay this because of its optical and build quality. This sounds as if Canon is cheating its customers, and in that case I'd think that its your obligation to post it.

If this is just info that only hurts Canon, but doesn't show any misuse of customer trust, then that's up to you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2014)

Of course you should get the information released, but I'd be very careful how you do it. Goodwill and being in, or on the edge, of a loop can swing both ways.

Consumers should be privy to this kind of information, just ask the new Chair of GM. But it is equally important to keep perspective and not let rumour and incorrect conclusions unduly damage the core business, after all I am sure every company has such a list of papers. When I worked for Mitsubishi, many years ago we, had a silent recall on Pajero/Shogun manual gearboxes, to my knowledge nobody was ever hurt because of a failed gearbox and they were quietly replaced whenever a customer got a new clutch, but the huge cost and pressure of thousands of people demanding new gearboxes all at one time because of a recall would have completely overwhelmed the dealerships, that would have lead to poor service and cut corners, and subsequently the diminishing of a brand that tried to do the right thing.

But Canon should not be charging for faulty or failing design or manufacturing issues.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Apr 4, 2014)

I say publish ASAP.


----------



## R1-7D (Apr 4, 2014)

Yes, absolutely post the rest of the internal documents! I am particularly interested in the new Canon 24–70 II lens clicking problem.

Both GM and Toyota have got caught with their pants down because of internal documents and ignoring problems. Why should Canon get away too just because it's a camera maker?


----------



## gratomlin (Apr 4, 2014)

absolutely you should publish this information, i have a 10-22mm that is really soft on the right hand side when the weather is hot, so i would like to see if its on the list, i think you owe it to your readers to disclose any info of this nature to be honest


----------



## Raw Image (Apr 4, 2014)

I think the info should be posted, there's people who save and spend their money thinking they will be getting a great quality item. Canon should fix the problem on their dime, not ours


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> Yes, absolutely post the rest of the internal documents! I am particularly interested in the new Canon 24–70 II lens clicking problem.
> 
> Both GM and Toyota have got caught with their pants down because of internal documents and ignoring problems. Why should Canon get away too just because it's a camera maker?



The fundamental difference between GM and Toyota, and Canon, is that faulty cars kill people, a clicking 24-70 is annoying. 

Keep perspective.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 4, 2014)

I would say go ahead and release the info. However people need to keep in mind that some of these including the 1dx issue involve issues when operating the equipment out of spec. Canon states that the 1dx working temp is 0-104 and this flaw occurs at temps less than that.

So before anyone claims a sham, check the specs first.

Yeah you can drive your car on the sidewalk but its not designed for that so you cant claim its a fault when your suspension breaks driving over a bike rack.


----------



## Schruminator (Apr 4, 2014)

I think it is worth posting if for no other reason than they are charging for the repairs. If it was a "Oh, you sent it in for X, but we also tidied up Y for no charge", I could appreciate that.

Charging for design flaws is another issue though.


----------



## nschearer (Apr 4, 2014)

I understand the reservations about posting sensitive material and that's a burden that we as readers don't have. With that said, it's clear this is information than any Canon customers or potential customers would love to be aware of.


----------



## canon1dxman (Apr 4, 2014)

ImageDayphoto said:


> I would certainly like to see this information having just had to replace my 24-105mm L zoom due to an auto focus fault which, based on other internet forums appears widespread


Interesting. I have had one almost since introduction date and never had that problem. Never heard of it either. Must investigate.


----------



## abouho (Apr 4, 2014)

Learning about the 1Dx in the cold issue taught me to stay away from super cold weather. I would love to hear about any other unknown drawbacks of Canon products. Please do share.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 4, 2014)

I am a Canon fan, obviously since I have heavily invested in their gear ...

... but I definitely want to know if some of my equipment has known design flaws that should be fixed on warranty. I have had to send in two bodies for repair, and I had to return two other bodies for replacement because they did not function properly from new. The two repairs were for issues that were present when I purchased the cameras, and they were fixed on warranty, but I could have easily missed the warranty period.

Post everything you know!


----------



## Lightmaster (Apr 4, 2014)

now what could be the reason TO NOT POST this information?

why do you have to ask? of course people want to know.

and if you don´t want to post it, the original source should make it available over other anonymous channels.

i bet all camera manufacturer do the same, i know that the company i work for does (not camera biz).

every bit of information about such tactics and getting cought hiding it.... will make the situation better for us customers i think.


----------



## Derrick (Apr 4, 2014)

It is our right to be informed of flaws in products purchased by us, the consumer, which keep Canon generating millions in whatever currency you care to name.


----------



## caruser (Apr 4, 2014)

Publish.


privatebydesign said:


> The fundamental difference between GM and Toyota, and Canon, is that faulty cars kill people, a clicking 24-70 is annoying.


You are right, but the connection is not so far fetched, either, since the motivation for such dishonesty will be very similar.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 4, 2014)

YES! I want to know! End of story, we all do..


----------



## alien829 (Apr 4, 2014)

dont know if this had been said, but got a couple of friends have issues with the 24-70 II, the rubber grip on the zoom becomes very loose after a couple of months use, and canon is charging them about $200 for it, not included in warranty


----------



## blackcat (Apr 4, 2014)

This is unethical for company like Canon to behaive in this way towards its customers. Please publish the documents and hold Canon to account!


----------



## Lightmaster (Apr 4, 2014)

maybe that´s how canon manages to make a profit..... selling flawed gear to fanboys and making millions with repair. 

nikon tried it with the D600.. but as alwasy.. nikon is not clever enough. ;D


----------



## caruser (Apr 4, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> maybe that´s how canon manages to make a profit..... selling flawed gear to fanboys and making millions for repair.


that's capitalism, perhaps one day we as a humanity will have enough of all the lies and manipulations and greed and find something better


----------



## R1-7D (Apr 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> R1-7D said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, absolutely post the rest of the internal documents! I am particularly interested in the new Canon 24–70 II lens clicking problem.
> ...



Absolutely, that's a big difference. However, the perspective is all these companies are doing this now and it's completely unacceptable, just in the case of cars it's potentially life threatening. No company, whether they manufacture tea kettles or automobiles, should get away with this.

As someone pointed out, people save their hard earned money for Canon's premium equipment. Why should people also have to pay for a design flaw when Canon is aware of it and still released the product?


----------



## jettad (Apr 4, 2014)

Have to agree with everyone else, please release them.


----------



## noisejammer (Apr 4, 2014)

Can a case be made for publishing? Probably, yes.
Can a case be made for not publishing? Probably, yes. 

Information like this has the potential to harm the image of a large company and if there's any doubt regarding the legitimacy of these bulletins, I would urge caution. Can you withstand a libel suit in (say) an English court? (For those who do not know, English law allows a foreign entity to sue another foreign entity in an English court if _anyone_ from Britain was able to read the information. Worse, there is a presumption of guilt and the defendant has to demonstrate the veracity of their claim.)

Having already defamed Canon by implying unethical behavior, I urge that you consult your legal council before you publish. He/She will probably tell you to sit on your thumbs.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> But it is equally important to keep perspective and not let rumour and incorrect conclusions unduly damage the core business, after all I am sure every company has such a list of papers...
> But Canon should not be charging for faulty or failing design or manufacturing issues.



I applaud Private's effort to keep this in perspective. Without knowing what the information is that CR has, it's hard to say "No." But honestly, only CR Guy knows what the information is and can decide if it is important enough to release.

Let's be realistic – if Canon has identified a tiny design flaw that impacts .0005% of one lens and then only when shooting a full moon on a cloudy night in April in odd numbered years and you post that online, then every internet forum will be lit up with people who are ABSOLUTELY SURE their lens has this problem and they'll be demanding that Canon immediately replace their five-year-old lens with a new model and provide free overnight shipping as well.

On the other hand, if there is a serious design flaw that impacts a sizable number of users and Canon is charging for repairs when they shouldn't, that's another case.

I'm just saying a certain amount of judgment should be exercised.


----------



## Lightmaster (Apr 4, 2014)

noisejammer said:


> Can a case be made for publishing? Probably, yes.
> Can a case be made for not publishing? Probably, yes.
> 
> Information like this has the potential to harm the image of a large company and if there's any doubt regarding the legitimacy of these bulletins, I would urge caution. Can you withstand a libel suit in (say) an English court? (For those who do not know, English law allows a foreign entity to sue another foreign entity in an English court if _anyone_ from Britain was able to read the information. Worse, there is a presumption of guilt and the defendant has to demonstrate the veracity of their claim.)
> ...




when the infos are correct then have the balls to publish them.

companys can push their customers around because people behave so cowardly.

and if you don´t dare to publish them.... then there are other ways to get information out to the people.


----------



## tmwilkes (Apr 4, 2014)

Of course you should release the information. It is absolutely unfair to the customer for Canon to charge for repairs for a known design flaw. It is a very deceitful business practice and raises question in my mind of how much I can trust Canon. We have a bunch of Canon equipment and have spent a bunch of money on repairs over the years, how much of that money should we have not paid because of a design flaw? They are unwilling to issue a product recall because they will lose money, instead they would rather charge the consumer to fix their mistake so they are making even more money off of us.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 4, 2014)

How about emailing the list to the forum members? I have several bodies and lenses that are huge investments. So far, only one had to go to the "ER".
Now that you are in possession of the information and told us, it's your responsibility to do the right thing.


----------



## R1-7D (Apr 4, 2014)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > But it is equally important to keep perspective and not let rumour and incorrect conclusions unduly damage the core business, after all I am sure every company has such a list of papers...
> ...



As indicated by the CR post, it seems as if the person who is sending Canon Rumors these documents is trying to show that this is a slightly bigger problem than your make-believe example above. 

I personally have been treated terribly by Canon over a decentered 24-70 II despite being a CPS member. Their shoddy service forced me to sell the lens at a massive loss and purchase another copy, of which I went through four different ones before I found one that is adequate; and even now it's developed the clicking sound. 

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy after the way I was treated through emails and on the phone by them.


----------



## Ken B (Apr 4, 2014)

I am heavily invested in Canon products as I am sure many others here are. I want to know exactly which of my Canon products could have issues so I am able to keep them functioning for my required shoots. 

I do believe that Canon is looking at a Class action law suit if they have been deceitful and charged for repairs that they knew would be required. I would love to see them exposed and step up to the plate and make it right. However in today’s age I am afraid there lawyers would try to put a gag order on this site and kill it. You can plead freedom of speech. It can go around and around. 

I would try to find another outlet to share the documents with, the news media or something like that. It’s a tough call. Do you consider this site to be a News site? Negative press can create allot of head ache if it’s not factual. Defamation law suits will kill this site too.

Unfortunately many companies get away with this, I had a Ford F-150 that had all the window regulators fail (4 of them) and Ford didn't pay a dime, I did. It was a known problem on all 2004-2007 F-150s. I got stuck replacing them all plus a third one on the driver’s window at a cost of $1K out of my pocket.

2004 Honda Accord radios had a small 10 cent resistor that would fry in their radio, it killed the LCD screen and you couldn't see the display. This was a known problem and Honda sort of stepped up and extended the warranty on this item. However if you owned a vehicle beyond the 100K mileage or time you got stuck fixing it. The repair was $200 for a replacement circuit card, or $1400 for an entire head unit replacement. I got stuck with a $200 bill because I researched the problem when it happened. My car was at 114K when it fried.

I hate being the little guy and getting burned by the big guy, my only recourse is to shop a different brand. I dropped Canon for Nikon once before I can do it again.


----------



## rambarra (Apr 4, 2014)

yes you should publish internal Canon documents not meant to be realeased in public and obtained maybe illegally so that Canon lawyers can sue your ass off, claim damages and shut down website in minutes....
LOL


----------



## ScaneLife (Apr 4, 2014)

Simply - Yes!


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 4, 2014)

Yes, or at least send them to Wikileaks


----------



## t.linn (Apr 4, 2014)

Yes, release them for all the reasons previously posted—and for this:

Saying you've got information on faulty Canon gear and NOT releasing that information to your readership is about the worst thing you can do.


----------



## filo64 (Apr 4, 2014)

I personally think that pulling this into the light will strengthen Canon's dedication to quality and customer service, which will pay off for Canon in the long run. In the short run, it will obviously put a dent into the brand and probably somebody's bonus, but frankly - I couldn't care less.


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 4, 2014)

Raw Image said:


> I think the info should be posted, there's people who save and spend their money thinking they will be getting a great quality item. Canon should fix the problem on their dime, not ours



yes!! You should post this stuff ASAP!! For us... the customers!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2014)

For everybody clamouring for this to be released, and on balance I still think it should, be prepared for your affected equipment, whether real or not, to take a hit in value.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 4, 2014)

Think I'll bookmark this.

Might be useful next time I hear some litany about disservice from Nikon or Sony and how much more attentive Canon is to customers.


----------



## hardworkinjohn (Apr 4, 2014)

Go ahead and post it all and maybe a Class Action Lawsuit would get their attention and our refunds. I also had suspicions about a 580 EXII flash issue that was widely reported and repaired at my expense.


----------



## Balb0wa (Apr 4, 2014)

release them please.

on the canon forum, there is a huge thread about the powershot sx280hs, recording video and zooming makes the camera shut down after 2 mins flashing a battery sign, canon just ignore the issue, major design fault!!

ok its not dlsr stuff, but a big problem.

http://forums.usa.canon.com/t5/PowerShot/SX280-battery-life-shooting-video/td-p/22489


----------



## arbitrage (Apr 4, 2014)

Yes please post these documents. I would be particularly interested in more info on the 1DX mirror box especially if it pertains to the original recall. There has been so much misinformation put out there about the 1DX and the recall and it is hard to know what is true or not. I'd like to know if Canon realizes the 1DX loves to cover itself in oils and other crap and if they see that as a problem or if it has any relation to the original recall.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Think I'll bookmark this.
> 
> Might be useful next time I hear some litany about disservice from Nikon or Sony and how much more attentive Canon is to customers.



Oh yes because Nikon (D600) and Sony (just about everything from flaming TV's to laptops) don't have similar lists!


----------



## gary samples (Apr 4, 2014)

It's dishonest to know of a design flaw, and then charge for repairs.
I may ask can you trust a web forum that has info on flaws and doesn't post it. 
just saying !!


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Think I'll bookmark this.
> ...



Yes? No? Maybe?

I'm not claiming that Canon is worse, I'm only disputing the belief that Canon is better.


----------



## GuyF (Apr 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> For everybody clamouring for this to be released, and on balance I still think it should, be prepared for your affected equipment, whether real or not, to take a hit in value.



Excellent point. Do I want my two big whites (and one small one) to potentially drop in value? On the other hand, big lenses cost big bucks and I'd want any "known" problems fixed for free. That would help the gear retain its current value.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 4, 2014)

While I would love to see the list of documents, I would love to see CR continue to be a viable site going forward. I have not seen the documents but there may very well be disclaimers on them that prohibit their release outside of Canon and as a result Craig (CR Guy), could face the wrath of lawyers from the big red machine.


----------



## iron-t (Apr 4, 2014)

I would love to see any of this internal information regarding Canon equipment I own, if for no other reason than to keep Canon honest about service charges. It's unfortunate that this information has to be "leaked" in order to become public, but I understand why. Just as there are many corporations, executives etc. with less-than-stellar scruples, there are also many consumers who are similarly "honesty challenged."


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 4, 2014)

It is interesting that Canon policy is to fix certain issues out of warranty (5D3 light leak, 5d mirror fix, 200 F2 IS issue with 5D3) while keeping other issues a secret...


----------



## Joe M (Apr 4, 2014)

Please let us know what is affected with which items so that those of us that still have any warranty left can have fixes done. What Canon and manufacturers of other items don't understand is that even if we don't see an issue with our product, it doesn't mean it isn't defective or might display the issue at some point in time. Not to many things burn me more than a manufacturer being aware of an issue that could bite a consumer today or tomorrow or next week. Hiding the fact in the hopes that warranties will run their course so that fixes will be done at our expense and inconvenience is unacceptable but the trend today by so many manufacturers of various products. So many products today are made of hundreds and even thousands of parts that have to work together properly. Errors will unfortunately be made. The manufacturer that fesses up quickly and rectifies problems garners loyalty to their product like no other. Those that knowingly and conveniently ignore issues at our expense face the ire of the masses as well as obscurity. That said, unfortunately companies eyeball their bottom line and find it's more cost effective to ignore the problem as long as possible and fix things if and when forced to. As well, as consumers, we're often faced with most manufacturers signing this same tune. Do I dump brand A to go to brand B when brand A takes me for a ride when brand B has been treating their customers in the same manner? Case in point...auto manufacturers. So we can't switch brands and the alternative left to us is to hope for whistle blowers to let us know what's going on and hope someone has teeth to force manufacturers to do what they ought to have done in the first place. 

Whew. That all said, please let us know what you know about the Canon products. And, please be careful you don't get yourself in trouble for publishing these if you do so.


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 4, 2014)

This is crazy!you know we want to see that information so stop teasing us and reveal all!


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 4, 2014)

But why would canon recall the 1dx for the lubricant issue and not these other issues?is your information accurate?you have to post this information or why even bother telling us in the 1st place to get more people to visit the site?just post everything at once none of this edward snowden nonsense!!
reveal all now!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 4, 2014)

It is naive to think that big corporations make big money by being totally honest ... I don't think these documents should be released, its a dangerous game and I don't think CR has the money or the power to fight a big corporation like Canon ... but be my guest and prove me wrong.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 4, 2014)

Yet another pasionate debate without the facts.... sigh!


----------



## adiwsusanto (Apr 4, 2014)

I believe it's manufacturer responsibility to disclose design flaw, reach out for a recall/ free service once the problem is identified.


----------



## ivan787 (Apr 4, 2014)

Please post them in 1 week im buying a canon new camera an several lenses, it will be valuable if my next 70D have issues or any other lense that will buy


----------



## apmadoc (Apr 4, 2014)

Please post the rest of the docs!!


----------



## tron (Apr 4, 2014)

Please do post everything you have. You will be of service to many members of this forum.

Thanks in advance


----------



## James Munney (Apr 4, 2014)

When bottom lines are affected, corporations act somewhat predictably. From that standpoint, I understand Canon's reluctance to release the information. From the consumer's point of view, it's just damn wrong to gouge the buyers by making them pay for corporate mistakes. It sure as hell didn't do GM any good witholding information, but in that ignition switch fiasco, people were dying. I believe we have a right to know the rest of the information. Forewarned is forearmed!


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 4, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ... I don't think these documents should be released, its a dangerous game and I don't think CR has the money or the power to fight a big corporation like Canon ... but be my guest and prove me wrong.


I'm with you - it is a risky endeavour to release NDA'd or internal documents.


----------



## RGF (Apr 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Yet another pasionate debate without the facts.... sigh!



All too true.

Reminds me of the saying, better to keep quiet and people think that you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.


Lots of opinions. Few facts. Few people have professional experience in an area related to this. 

It would be nice if there was some sort of definite test for the flaw - an occasional OOF image in cold (or even warm) weather could be due to any one of a number of factors. 

If the docs can help us determine if our equipment suffers from a flaw, then probably yes. This is docs only will make Canon too bad, personally I don't see the point. Canon makes great equipment and yes, some not so great equipment. Healthy discuss is a good thing; finger wagging to be-little Canon is childish.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 4, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> It is interesting that Canon policy is to fix certain issues out of warranty (5D3 light leak, 5d mirror fix, 200 F2 IS issue with 5D3) while keeping other issues a secret...



it's only because someone noticed it and posted it all over the web. if that didn't happen, canon never would have addressed it (not that i care, seeing as i never take long exposures of the back of lens cap).


----------



## Ken B (Apr 4, 2014)

Just my 2 cents now that I have had time to think about this.

If the design flaw is discovered after production when an item is returned it should be repaired free. Only to the original owner. 

Also any effected items that come in for work should have the new design incorperated if it's sent in for a repair other than the what the flaw is. 

Now I liken this thread to a typical TROLL style thread.. toss out a highly volital subject and watch everyone get wound up...meh......


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 4, 2014)

Firstly BEFORE publishing ascertain your legal position. If legally your OK and you believe the information is in the public interest then publish. 

You have not used illegal means to obtain the information and as long as you protect your source then I dont think your doing anything morally wrong.


----------



## thephototruth (Apr 4, 2014)

Absolutely. Don't let Canon Bribe you into not telling us. I find no other reason of not showing the public is the loss pf a few sponsorships. As the media it is your responsibility to show us the truth. If Canon willingly knows that there cameras are defective then we deserve to know.


----------



## K13X5C (Apr 4, 2014)

I would love to have access to that info, if only for a few hours, which is probably about how long it will stay up, if that. If your intent was truly to share the pertinent information for the benefit of Canon users and not for other purposes I applaud you, but I think you may have made a major tactical error posting the question and not the documents. That is assuming that the documents are as potentially damaging as you say.

Every minute that you have spent, and continue to spend, dilly-dallying around deciding to post the info or not is time Canon has to prepare their response. 

Also, consider that simply releasing the documents is not the only method available to you for getting the information out. They are other ways to insert the info into otherwise innocuous posts.


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 4, 2014)

Whatever the information is, it can't be worse than the Nikon oil issue 

Seriously though. Best way around it is if it appears somewhere else first. A bit like how CR often mentions stuff from Keith at Northlight.

Unless you are tied to Canon is some way I see no issue with this. Anyhoo, PDF up for an hour and it gets every where. Send it to the guys at Photography on the Net if you want exposure.

If the 70-200 MkII is in there I WILL want to know about it as I've had 2 AF barrels die on me within warranty. On two separate lenses.


----------



## nebugeater (Apr 4, 2014)

Be carefull what you call desing flaws. Maybe they are more along the line of improvment opertunities. ANY product that is made can be improved upon. Not seeing the documents it is hard to say how the issues are referanced but it would be easy to have a list of opertunities be looked at as flaws from the outside. The site will do what it needs to do with this info but if it released without a 100% uderstanding of what it means the site will loose. The companies I have worked for all have had internal documents on issues and opertunities to work on to make improvments and if they were out for public consumption it would not be good PR. It is part of the process for inovation and improvement.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 4, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > ... I don't think these documents should be released, its a dangerous game and I don't think CR has the money or the power to fight a big corporation like Canon ... but be my guest and prove me wrong.
> ...



Technically there should be a legal issue only for the person that sends/steals them. If you have no agreement with Canon, you're not a Canon employee, etc.. There should be no obligation for you to keep them secret. Unless Canon publicly disclaims their genuineness and sues you for diffamation.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 4, 2014)

I say it again, check your LEGAL position and one other point make sure your source is reliable and not a disgruntled employee.


----------



## Stickman (Apr 4, 2014)

I'm sorry, but if it is dishonest of Canon not to advise people of the faults, it is even more dishonest of this site not to release the info.

I understand this site is here as a business, and to make money, but to play the game of "Should I tell you what I know" sounds like you are waiting for a payoff not to release the info. Whether it is money, equipment, or a sudden better relationship with the company, it looks like you want a hand out. 

Regarding the legalities, if you had released the information and clearly stated you had been sent it and were passing it along WITHOUT verifying it as fact or not, and listed it as possible rumor, it would have been fine. 

To say I'm disappointed in this site is an understatement, and I would guess the person who sent the info is as well. Canonrumors just lost a lot of credibility.


----------



## nebugeater (Apr 4, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



Just because you are technically in the right doesn't mean that it will not take a lot of time and resourses to defend your postion.


----------



## vakfotograaf (Apr 4, 2014)

Please publish the info. We have a right to know if Canon wants to regarded as a decent and respectfull brand.


----------



## Legalese78 (Apr 4, 2014)

I would greatly appreciate the release of these documents. I've long suspected that the autofocus on my 1.2 85mm and 50mm were subpar (especially after having owned the 1.4), and would love to know if they are, in fact, even remotely defective.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 4, 2014)

Strange that we suddenly have quite a few first time posters asking the documents to be published or claiming that they've had problems with their gear. :-\ :-X


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Yet another pasionate debate without the facts.... sigh!



That's debatable. ;D


----------



## Lightmaster (Apr 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Yet another pasionate debate without the facts.... sigh!



well logic dictates that when CR guy does not release the infos whe can only debate without facts. 

so no need to state the obvious.
that´s why we ask for the information....

the genie is out of the bottle anyway.... and it seems CR guy is willing to share the info (see the "spring post"). that´s a good move!


----------



## TrabimanUK (Apr 4, 2014)

It's worth raising the issues, as regardless of it being Canon hiding stuff or not, the public should have greater awareness of what they are getting themselves into. Not quite in the league of Snowden, but should hopefully lead to I more open support from Canon.


----------



## aimage (Apr 4, 2014)

Having owned a solid amount of Canon kit over the last 20 years, I've had my share of dud's, the latest of which two Canon service centres (NZ and Oz) said nothing was wrong but with a constant soft zone (last was a 70-200 f2.8IS) one has to wonder what was actually going on. In the end a US service centre found a bunch of issues which could only have happened in the factory, (well outside of the warranty of course). I paid over $350 to have the factory issues fixed so this latest CR post makes me wonder exactly what Canons stance is re production issues.

I think Canon's customers have a right to know about post release product issues with what are essentially expensive business tools. Many people rely on this kit in business and I'd like to know in advance if there is something amiss with any potental future purchases. Personally I dont think Canon design/build quality is what it used to be or perhaps there planned product obsolescence program's aren't going to plan?

Please publish these documents so we all don't end up blindly paying for future production failures.


----------



## rebop (Apr 4, 2014)

I definitely vote for full disclosure. I have had issues and I JUST bought a 1D X feeling confident those issues were solved. A big expenditure if that is not true.

~Bob


----------



## shutterlag (Apr 4, 2014)

This right here is what I'd expect from Nikon support, and kills the last remaining strength Canon had for me as an enthusiast.

I've been on the fence ever since the X-T1 and the big Fuji lens rebates came out. Those discounts expire tomorrow. This issue made the decision much easier. 

The only regret I'll have is leaving behind the Sigma 35mm, and that's not even a Canon lens! Maybe I'll give that lens a shot with an adapter on the T1.


----------



## RGF (Apr 4, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Strange that we suddenly have quite a few first time posters asking the documents to be published or claiming that they've had problems with their gear. :-\ :-X



Yup - issues like this enflames the masses.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 4, 2014)

Yes please post them.


----------



## LookingThroughMyLens81 (Apr 5, 2014)

I'd post them and as an owner of several Canon L-series lenses and professional-grade DSLRs, I want them posted.


----------



## brett b (Apr 5, 2014)

If you didn't sign an NDA, I think you are ok publishing the information. 
I'm sure we'd all love to see it. But CYA first!!


----------



## cellomaster27 (Apr 5, 2014)

kinda sounds like the person suing McDonalds for giving him one napkin. One issue, which isn't a killer, out of billions served? : Canon is known quite well for their QC, at least in their higher end models. I am doubting this issue. Internal information? Curious to see how this pans out.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Apr 5, 2014)

True or not, canon is provably already preparing legal documents.

How many lenses are sold a year? How many are defective? Unhappy people are always more vocal than happy people. 

I would not recommend posting them without a second source verifying and even then it's probably not advisable.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 5, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>We’re not sure whether or not we’ll post the rest of the internal documents we have in our possession. If you think there’s value in us doing so, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20341.0">please sound off in our forum</a>.</p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
> [/html]



This is a little like the "friend" that has info about your wife's infidelity and is happy to tell you he has the info, but not sure he wants to actually tell you.

Get serious CR Guy, either you have the info, or you don't, you decide with advice from your legal counsel to share the info, or don't.

There's no question anyone that's ever owned a piece of Canon gear wouldn't want this info.

Basically it's called "piss or get off the pot", the whole basis of your starting a thread on this is demeaning, to you.


----------



## Roo (Apr 5, 2014)

Pfff talk about a storm in a tea cup. Every company issues service advisories for small issues that come up and similarly they make small changes to the parts used in products over time. If CR guy has posted the most serious issues first then I don't see the need to post the rest. 1DX has an issue when operating outside of specs, a noisy focus ring - annoying but really does that affect the shot? If that's all it is then its a waste of time posting the rest just to incite the rabid masses. 

If you have something more serious then post otherwise stick to canonrumors and don't become canonleaks.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 5, 2014)

Unfortunately, some people can see things differently than others. Its not clear cut as to the definition of a design flaw. If a product does not work forever, is it because of a design flaw? 

If a product works for a period of time beyond the warranty, is it a design flaw? We'd all like our items to work forever, but it does not happen.

Where we worked, a person who was not qualified and did not understand the technical issues started up a web site and was notifying newspapers of a big problem, and showed a stolen video of a test of the product bursting into flames. We were, in fact, trying to test the design limits and see what it took to do just that. We then modified the product so it could pass that test. The person had left the company by then and did not have the complete picture, much less a understanding of what he saw. The newspaper reporters asked what the issue was, and we brought them in and showed them everything, the failures and the fix. Of course, the person involved then accused them of being bought off. Some people are that way, so its best to investigate rather than spreading information that might be incomplete, or even biased.

Since CR is not a investigative agency, it might be best to turn it over to a newspaper or Attorney General, or both. Since Canon USA is in New York, that state might be a place to start. Same with Canada, start in Ontario. Let them investigate or at least ask for a explanation first.


I'd be one who was very cautious about releasing stolen documents that can't be confirmed. I'd suggest to the leaker that he submit them to someone else, maybe he has and the others found them to be unreliable?


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 5, 2014)

Release the info. All of it. Canon should not be charging for design flaws that fall under warranty.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 5, 2014)

On the other hand, don't we have the right to know? At this point, the credibility of the company is on the line.

sek



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Unfortunately, some people can see things differently than others. Its not clear cut as to the definition of a design flaw. If a product does not work forever, is it because of a design flaw?
> 
> If a product works for a period of time beyond the warranty, is it a design flaw? We'd all like our items to work forever, but it does not happen.
> 
> ...


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 5, 2014)

Hi folks.
I have slightly reworded a famous quote.
All it takes for dishonest manufacturers to flourish is for good customers to remain silent! 
I concur with a lot of what has been said, CR guy needs to know he / his website will survive any fall out from the action of making his public. 
It is somewhat drumming up business if you don't intend to publish! 
Any company worth it's salt will have ongoing development, but this is usually around saving an ounce here or a penny there, when ongoing development results in a strengthened or redesigned item to prevent failure rates above the accepted percentage, whatever that may be for that particular item, then charging customers to replace that item after it fails is dishonest at best. 
The main thing to keep in mind is that almost every item has an acceptable failure rate and your item may be one of those, just because you find ten people complaining of a failure with an item doesn't make it a design fault, how many of that item are in the wild? 10, 100, 1000, 10000? 
What is an acceptable failure rate in a mass produced item? It may be as high as ten percent thought 1 percent or less is generally considered acceptable (unless I'm holding the broken one ;D). I would want to know failure rates before jumping on the bandwagon. 

Cheers Graham.


----------



## Codzilla (Apr 5, 2014)

Of course you should post it. Why on earth would you consider otherwise?


----------



## pmc400 (Apr 5, 2014)

Where's the Class Action form for me to sign?


----------



## sanj (Apr 5, 2014)

Any reason why you would not tell us? I am a member of this forum under the impression that you tell us all you know.


----------



## sanj (Apr 5, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>We’re not sure whether or not we’ll post the rest of the internal documents we have in our possession. If you think there’s value in us doing so, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20341.0">please sound off in our forum</a>.</p>
> ...



Well said. If CR does not publish this info I will feel totally let down. Besides why is the site taking itself so seriously? If it publishes known information, what is the issue? I sometimes wonder if CR is even looked at by Canon.


----------



## sanj (Apr 5, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Strange that we suddenly have quite a few first time posters asking the documents to be published or claiming that they've had problems with their gear. :-\ :-X



I do not find an issue with that.


----------



## Marhal (Apr 5, 2014)

Release it all.


----------



## Grumbaki (Apr 5, 2014)

Man up and Snowden the sh*t out of the documents.


----------



## RGF (Apr 5, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Unfortunately, some people can see things differently than others. Its not clear cut as to the definition of a design flaw. If a product does not work forever, is it because of a design flaw?



Is it a design flaw if a product only reliably works to 0F, not -20F. It may occasionally work below 0F, but the company does not guarantee that.


----------



## Stickman (Apr 5, 2014)

sanj said:


> Any reason why you would not tell us? I am a member of this forum under the impression that you tell us all you know.




Probably because there is money involved.


----------



## Pelican (Apr 5, 2014)

Please share it!
Or send it to me in private if you afraid Canon's response.


----------



## intuition (Apr 5, 2014)

Not really sure I can see the unethical in 
"my out of warranty autofocus failed" -> replace part and charge"
vs
"my out of warranty autofocus fails in cold weather" -> replace part, acknowledge goodwill action and charge nothing

If they charge for repairs in both cases, then I can understand the calls for unethical, but making sure the customer really is affected before doing goodwill repairs is not a very strange policy.



Publishing a bulk of documents would lead to a number of claims for warranty/goodwill repairs of equipment that is working perfectly. A lot of people will claim they have observed the issues to get a free repair "just in case". 

There must be a better way to use this knowledge than to publish.


----------



## mikenott (Apr 5, 2014)

I think you should make them available to Forum members only. They may contain useful information that explains why certain things happen and disabuse/confirm conspiracy theories.


----------



## Mountaineer (Apr 5, 2014)

Hi,

Please post all information available, I think this is very valuable to all of us struggling with design flaws etc.
Recently this winter I shot some spots competitions and felt that too many of my pics shot with the 1DX were soft. Now I have the impression that my camera might be affected and I have better arguments to talk to my Canon reps. 

Also I struggle to get my 24-70 II repaired. It is terribly unsharp to the right third when focussed to infinity, just ridiculous. Sent it in twice to CPS with sample pics and all I got back was a lens with the message it would be within specs from Canon. But the quality of the pics is awful, the old 24-70 which I still own is better than the new one! 2000 Euros wasted?! Anyone else with this problem, btw?

So again, please share all the information.
Many thanks!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 5, 2014)

sanj said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Strange that we suddenly have quite a few first time posters asking the documents to be published or claiming that they've had problems with their gear. :-\ :-X
> ...


I find it highly suspicious.


----------



## Roo (Apr 5, 2014)




----------



## Stu_bert (Apr 5, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Yesterday we posted an internal service advisory for the Canon EOS-1D X and EOS-1D C. These are advisories that are only known to a select few within Canon and not told to the consumers.
> 
> We have a lot of more of these documents that cover various Canon lenses and camera bodies, there’s even more on the EOS-1D X mirrorbox.
> 
> ...



With the last sentence it sounds like you are blatantly bating people to generate more site traffic and have no intention to post anything. It is also worth noting that since the post, you have not followed up. If you were seeking the possible pro's and con's, then I would have expected you to contribute. You haven't, which again leads me back to the 1st point.

I understand the response from many people who are worried about their investment having a flaw or known issue. Part of me would be similar, especially if I knew the equipment may fail at a decisive moment, even more so when it costs thousands of pounds. The problem, as stated, is that many people would indeed try to pre-empt such a problem and unless the internal documents highlight the % impact, then you cause a storm of requests to Canon for a very small issue.

Frankly, whereas you intentions may have been honourable, this thread comes across as manipulation. 

I concur with the conclusion of one of the other posters. Provide the info anonymously to your local authority. Providing it to media I think would just result in further exploitation to increase publicity.

Speak about class action is indeed what would make any website owner be incredibly reticent to publish such information.

Finally, I think what would be helpful is indeed to start a new section about actual faults / repairs by model in this site. People can post their problems, see if others concur it as a fault or corroborate based on their own equipment. That would be a useful outcome IMHO. A thread per equipment with sticky post with stats of fault issues (unsharp glass, back/front focus etc) allows people to see problems, but of course would only be useful if those people who **dont** have the problems also post likewise.


----------



## tron (Apr 5, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...


Maybe it is, may be it is not.
I am not a first time poster and at the same time asked for more material. The reason is I have a 24-70 2.8 ii which did not belong to any of the problem' categories were referred in this forum (clicking, bubbles, front element coming in contact with the filter and coating issue). So I though I was lucky.

But i stumbled upon 3 Errors 01 (Communication between lens and camera). Since the lens was new and the camera didn't have issues with any other lens it was a 24-70 2.8 II lens problem. It didn't happen again but I will always be afraid that it might happen so in important shootings I will have to carry a backup lens of similar characteristics. Now I learn that my lens will possibly have issues with a problematic spring (if seems it is made before aug 2013). 

So yes I do want to know about Canon issues.


----------



## LookingThroughMyLens81 (Apr 5, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Strange that we suddenly have quite a few first time posters asking the documents to be published or claiming that they've had problems with their gear. :-\ :-X



I've had several "lens communication" lock-ups with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM over the past year since updating my 5D3 firmware and it just happens randomly, so I'm sure there's some sort of issue there. My older Canon cameras are rock-solid though.


----------



## Wdc623 (Apr 5, 2014)

Without question they should be released


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 5, 2014)

LookingThroughMyLens81 said:


> I've had several "lens communication" lock-ups with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM over the past year since updating my 5D3 firmware and it just happens randomly, so I'm sure there's some sort of issue there. My older Canon cameras are rock-solid though.



That was an early anomaly with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM, mine worked perfectly on my 1V's, but occasionally locked up on my 1D, it stopped doing it after a while though and has worked perfectly on the 1Ds MkIII's their entire time with me.


----------



## WillT (Apr 5, 2014)

My guess is the 100-400mm is on there. I have sent mine back several times and it is still crap.

Let us see the list or post it anonymously on pastebin


----------



## aceplato (Apr 5, 2014)

Hmmm? CR Guy http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1 , this site is fun, I like it and when I started here I loved my Canon equipment like it was a baby, that has changed but this site hasn't. You are "Deep-Throat" now find your Woodward and Bernstein. You don’t want the ugly that will ensue!

I do want to know but not at the expense of this site and I deserve to know as I have been part of the “out of warranty and paid for the repairs” group but I worked it to the point of only paying about 1/3 of the total price for all that was performed on my camera. And that is why I now view the products I own as just tools and associate no emotional value to them anymore. It has changed how I shoot and at first not for the better but I am still evolving and hope to find a way to get the emotion back into my craft. 

Perhaps it was my own naiveté before and I am now recovering from my ill-directed emotions for a “thing” but the passion used to show in my work, now I am just a technician. Canon is just another Big Company trying to improve their bottom line and the cyclical nature of technology has Canon in the position of producing some of the best imagery equipment now (again). And a Big Company will often make decisions solely on a bottom line but the idea they are making enough money on these repairs to make the future Karma-Swing acceptable is not true, the money spent on these repairs is but a blip on the spread sheet, it is nothing! When enough noise is made and warrants the bad press then they will accept guilt and action will be taken.

Sorry for the lengthy post but I did take the time and read nearly every other post before creating mine to avoid redundancy!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 5, 2014)

tron said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...


Tron, I am well aware that you are not first time poster, I did learn a little math in school ;D ... but seriously, I always find it suspicious when many first time posters show up only to complain, *without providing any* *specifics about the problems they've faced with their Canon gear* *and how Canon handled it* ... which to me is highly suspicious. The 2 threads that have started so far on this topic directly or indirectly state that Canon has design flaws and they charge the customers to fix those issues ... this suggests that Canon is desperate for measly amounts, which I find very hard to believe. Seriously, how many lenses go back to Canon for repairs? how much do they charge the customer for it? ... OK forget that, lets take a count on how many CR members sent back their lenses and/or cameras for repairs that were design flaws and got charged for it? I have NEVER had any Canon lens or Camera go for repair (except for when I dropped a lens). If anyone has got proof, let them come out with it and provide specifics. There are so many long time members here and I'd like to know how many of them have complaints about Canon charging them for fixing design flaws. 
Yes, I too would like to know if there are any issues but it must be backed with proof ... but so far I do not see these first time posters coming up with any specifics and/or proof ... all we've got so far are mere speculations and claims from them.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 5, 2014)

Does anyone have a feeling that these first time posters are a bit, skeptical?


----------



## aceplato (Apr 5, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



So yes I am relatively new, low posts, I may be a program in the system attempting to sway the conversation!

To quote, "If you think there’s value in us doing so, please sound off in our forum." and I applaud anyone who can get new posters to come out of the woodwork and join in on a conversation!

My story in a nutshell: 5D Mk III err 20, 1 and 20 and misbehaves (lens communication error) with several lenses at 1.4 years old and with less than 50k actuations. In for non-warranty repair and the verdict is it needs a new shutter assembly and mirror box. While in there they also replace the focusing sensor and charged me 1/3 original quote. I am CSP, I do not change my lenses between every shot at the beach or while in a dust storm in a desert.

No proof but very curious and disappointing as to how a new-ish camera can die so quickly.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 6, 2014)

aceplato said:


> So yes I am relatively new, low posts, I may be a program in the system attempting to sway the conversation!
> 
> To quote, "If you think there’s value in us doing so, please sound off in our forum." and I applaud anyone who can get new posters to come out of the woodwork and join in on a conversation!
> 
> ...


Sorry to hear about your 5D MK III, that sucks to have a relatively new and expensive camera die like that ... we need more people like you who can come up with what happened to their gear, that will provide the required info for CR to check if it tallies with the info they've got.


----------



## Beckscum (Apr 6, 2014)

I hate my Canon 70-200 F4L IS, it's focus slip issue is clearly a design fault/quality control problem, but Canon HK, Japan denied the issue and try to charge me US$200 out of warranty. I did not drop the lens at all, only 18 months old with normal usage.

Canon 70-200 f4 IS - slipping autofocus problem

I have posted my compliant earlier 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20050.msg380205#msg380205, looking for more technical data to deal with Canon, please release these information to customer, act in the best interests of consumer.


----------



## stoneysnapper (Apr 6, 2014)

As a 1Dx owner who has had 4 bodies from a Canon all displaying the same dirty sensor fault I'd be very keen to read anything that might expose any issues Canon are keeping to themselves. My first 1Dx went back to Japan to have the issue looked st and I've not heard of any feedback although Canon UK said they would let me know. There's been loads of threads on the 1Dx lubricant/dirty sensor issue. 

Also I've noticed my knew 70-200 F2.8 IS ii seems to be sticking on focus now and again. Basically it locks in something then won't shift after it. Trigger just won't respond, invariably it's a switch off and on job. I'm not certain if this is a lens issue or a body issue. Seems to only happen with that lens so I'm guessing lens.

Please publish any info.


----------



## Expat (Apr 6, 2014)

The "noisy" lens post is highly suspicious. The image of the alleged spring causing the problem doesn't look like typical Canon work and there is no visual reference of where such a spring would go. Secondly the idea that such a protruding metal part would cause noise yet no physical penalty in lens operation is preposterous. I contacted Canon.
Canon's reply: 
"Thank you for contacting Canon product support concerning your EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens, and noisy focusing ring question. 

I have had no calls or emails in regard to your question. You may click HERE to view the lens' dedicated page. Once on the page, on the top right, you can click on the PRODUCT ADVISORY SECTION. I just did, and verified that this lens has no posted advisories. 

Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with your questions. Thank you for choosing Canon.

Sincerely,

James
Technical Support Representative"
I say trolls be GONE!


----------



## tron (Apr 6, 2014)

Expat said:


> The "noisy" lens post is highly suspicious. The image of the alleged spring causing the problem doesn't look like typical Canon work and there is no visual reference of where such a spring would go. Secondly the idea that such a protruding metal part would cause noise yet no physical penalty in lens operation is preposterous. I contacted Canon.
> Canon's reply:
> "Thank you for contacting Canon product support concerning your EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens, and noisy focusing ring question.
> 
> ...


So there is no clicking during zooming too?
There is no coating damage in at least 2 CR members?
There is no contact with some filters (at least some noname/cheap ones) as Roger Cicala posted in LensRentals?
There are no bubbles as at least 1 member reported?

Finally I have never seen 3 Communication errors with my latest firmware 5D3 which by the way it was the first time and the only lens where this has happened during the first week of usage?


----------



## Expat (Apr 6, 2014)

I am deeply sympathetic to anyone who has bad experiences with their camera gear. I believe manufacturers should immediately own up to such problems and compensate users. Manufacturers who behave in a manner suggested here are guilty of fraud among other things and that can cost in the hundreds of millions to resolve. Over one little spring? The essence of the complaints in this stream of posts is based upon hearsay. So where is the evidence? Where is even a schematic that will show how the alleged bad spring will cause or have caused the issues mentioned? How is the fact of cheap filters grinding a lens front element any verification of a bad spring component? The 24-70/2.8 II is internal focusing and when it zooms the front element doesn't move with respects to the filter attached. Besides, Cicala never said the front element damage via cheap filter issue was the result of an internal lens design defect. Please at least connect dots on a plane that really does exist.


----------



## tron (Apr 6, 2014)

Expat said:


> How is the fact of cheap filters grinding a lens front element any verification of a bad spring component? The 24-70/2.8 II is internal focusing and when it zooms the front element doesn't move with respects to the filter attached. Besides, Cicala never said the front element damage via cheap filter issue was the result of an internal lens design defect. Please at least connect dots on a plane that really does exist.


Who said that the two issues are connected and one is the cause for the other?


----------



## Expat (Apr 6, 2014)

*"So there is no clicking during zooming too?
There is no coating damage in at least 2 CR members?
There is no contact with some filters (at least some noname/cheap ones) as Roger Cicala posted in LensRentals?
There are no bubbles as at least 1 member reported?"*
Ah. So I get your game now Tron. You did write the above in reply to my post which specifically addressed the alleged bad spring issue. Why would you write that in reply if you did not mean it to indicate that you were connecting the alleged bad spring issue to the issues quoted above? Your game is blown Tron. You have no internal Canon memos. Perhaps the fraudulent behavior is not with Canon.


----------



## avp (Apr 6, 2014)

Ive been reading with interest the complaints regarding manufactures and (bad build quality). In the UK we 
have a consumer law its the 6 year rule fit for purpose and its very powerful here. If the manufacture does
not repair or replace the unit. Then a trip to the county court showing evidence like on cr. You will most likely get judgment to your favour not good for manufactures. They will not want to go any where near the counts and the cost to the complainant / user is very low. Food for thoughts for UK users.


----------



## sulla (Apr 6, 2014)

Canonleaks!

Of course we want this information published. We customers don't want to be made fools of!


----------



## tron (Apr 6, 2014)

Expat said:


> *"So there is no clicking during zooming too?
> There is no coating damage in at least 2 CR members?
> There is no contact with some filters (at least some noname/cheap ones) as Roger Cicala posted in LensRentals?
> There are no bubbles as at least 1 member reported?"*
> Ah. So I get your game now Tron. You did write the above in reply to my post which specifically addressed the alleged bad spring issue. Why would you write that in reply if you did not mean it to indicate that you were connecting the alleged bad spring issue to the issues quoted above? Your game is blown Tron. You have no internal Canon memos. Perhaps the fraudulent behavior is not with Canon.


Very funny. either you have ... let's say problem with logic reasoning or you are Canon employee.
And this is said by someone who has 2 5D3 cameras and many L lenses so I am a Canon fan.

The previous posts referred to other problems that members had encountered. Since these problems are not fictitious I say that this problem may be real too. I do not care if there is a document internal or not. I care that this may be potential problem for me since my 24-70 2.8 ii lens falls in the category before Aug 2013. It is so simple. 

SO NO I DO NOT WANT TO BE SUCH AN ISSUE. THE LESS ISSUES THE BETTER!

And if you bother to read the previous posts you will see that I ask for disclosure. I do not have anything. I asked for information. Can you see the difference? :


----------



## John (Apr 6, 2014)

i sent in my 1dx about a year ago. it had focusing problems that canon found difficult to diagnose. in fact, they send it back to me initially since the repair center couldn't duplicate the problem. the camera would focus ok for a few dozen shots, then fail to lock focus. i sent it back in again. canon eventually discovered that i had a faulty mirror box assembly and replaced it. canon did not charge me for the repair. they said that the faulty mirror box assembly was still under warranty. this occurred last march (2013)

i also sent them a 70-200 fairly recently for cleaning. it was fine when i sent the lens in, but the lens would not focus properly when they returned it to me. weird. i sent it back and they replaced something on the lens for free. fortunately, they took responsibility for doing something while it was in their control to damage the lens.

i did not enjoy either of these experiences with canon repair.

in closing, i will say that i love my 1dx. it is an amazing camera. i have not experienced any problems with it since they replaced the mirror assembly and i often take a few thousand pictures per week.


----------



## Expat (Apr 7, 2014)

Tron don't get desparate. Your attempts to hit below the belt missed horribly. "Canon employee"? LOL!! I would love to have a discussion with you about the dialectical methodology of historical materialism since you must be an authority on logic, a component in something I took my undergrad degree in. I am concerned about consumer protection and consumer rights. The topic of this string is* "We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras"*. Where is it? Where did it come from? With respects to the so-called bad spring there is even a diagram on this site that purports to show the offending part along side the correcting part. What is the source of that diagram? I was concerned because I just bought one. According to the best information I can access it seems my lens was manufactured after March yet before August 2013. I plan on taking a year off next year to travel and do not want to have issues. I can return my lens to the vendor tomorrow and stand at the counter until they bring me a serial number I like if need be. So I want to get to the bottom of this. Canon is being accused of fraudulent behavior. Worse, there the inference of a cover-up. In my line of day work, this is serious. Anyone wanting authentic full disclosure from Canon should know that this forum is patently *NOT* the venue to ask for it. There are only two reasons to get on a forum with such posts as these; either one is truly trying to help fellow photographers or one is a troll. (Oh, I almost forgot the third reason; some people just need to moan and groan .) I have taken the time to write to Canon and received a response which I have posted here and archived. People with issues' whether grinding focusing noises or something else, write to Canon and get a written response. Can anyone spell c-l-a-s-s-a-c-t-i-o-n?


----------



## tron (Apr 7, 2014)

Expat said:


> Tron don't get desparate. Your attempts to hit below the belt missed horribly. "Canon employee"? LOL!! I would love to have a discussion with you about the dialectical methodology of historical materialism since you must be an authority on logic, a component in something I took my undergrad degree in. I am concerned about consumer protection and consumer rights. The topic of this string is* "We Have More Internal Canon Service Information on Lenses & Cameras"*. Where is it? Where did it come from? With respects to the so-called bad spring there is even a diagram on this site that purports to show the offending part along side the correcting part. What is the source of that diagram? I was concerned because I just bought one. According to the best information I can access it seems my lens was manufactured after March yet before August 2013. I plan on taking a year off next year to travel and do not want to have issues. I can return my lens to the vendor tomorrow and stand at the counter until they bring me a serial number I like if need be. So I want to get to the bottom of this. Canon is being accused of fraudulent behavior. Worse, there the inference of a cover-up. In my line of day work, this is serious. Anyone wanting authentic full disclosure from Canon should know that this forum is patently *NOT* the venue to ask for it. There are only two reasons to get on a forum with such posts as these; either one is truly trying to help fellow photographers or one is a troll. (Oh, I almost forgot the third reason; some people just need to moan and groan .) I have taken the time to write to Canon and received a response which I have posted here and archived. People with issues' whether grinding focusing noises or something else, write to Canon and get a written response. Can anyone spell c-l-a-s-s-a-c-t-i-o-n?


Ignoring the bla blas in the beginning I finally read something I agree with you. You ask for proof. I would love to see proof for the authenticity of these documents or proof for the opposite. 

I also see that no matter how many we asked for this disclosure authentic or not the Canon Rumors administrator didn't give anything. So maybe too much trouble for nothing and this thread was just created 3 days late (4th April instead of 1st, or the admins were given these documents April 1st and created this thread 3 days later who knows). 

P.S I still do not feel good with the Err01 that I saw on my lens 3 times. The only thing that calms me somehow is that this is not repeated. And certainly I do not want it to produce various sounds when I focus manually...


----------



## scottburgess (Apr 7, 2014)

I support the idea of posting the service advisories so folks have ready access to the information. It would be, in my view, one of the most useful things CanonRumors could do. Hopefully the folks at Canon see this the same way? I know that I would be checking it on any body or lens I sent in for work, and requesting a pre-emptive fix on anything likely to break catastrophically even if the part replacement costs me a few dollars.

I suggest the posts be put in a separate forum so folks looking to find out whether an issue they're having was reported can quickly search that forum. Perhaps something like "Canon Advisories" under "Canon Rumors General." 

If it were me, I'd disable conversation on such a forum--folks who want to bitch about a defect can do so under the regular conversation areas. I remember a problem with the switches on the old micromotor 100mm macro: the plastic was weak, and eventually each switch broke (M/AF switch and focus limiter switch). The replacements have been fine for about 20 years, so I guess they fixed the problem. Any complex product is likely to have some defect in a run every now and again. Get over it, folks.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 7, 2014)

Yes, of course! And the 50mm 1.4 has got to be on the list right?


----------



## njwhitworth (Apr 7, 2014)

I definitely think you should publish all the information on the 1DX mirrorbox problem. I sold my 1D Mark IV in order to upgrade to a 1DX but after receiving and returning 2 brand new units (both with serial numbers later than the published affected range) which exhibited oil splattered all over the sensor, I lost faith and have returned to shooting with a 1D Mark IV. If Canon is disingenuously withholding information about this problem I feel I have a right as a consumer and as a loyal Canon customer to see that information.


----------



## fred75 (Apr 7, 2014)

I think it would be bad to publish all the information, the cure would be worse than the desease.
- in this age, these advisories would inflate to irrational defiance.
- it is normal practice that Canon collects repeat repairs. These are consumer goods (except for the expensive "big whites" and the 1DX), getting free service for all repeated problems does not fit with the prices that we pay.
- Pushing transparency should concentrate on big problems (1DIII AF, 1DX oil, D600 dust, ...) in my opinion.
- I don't think the camera industry needs this kind of bashing right now...

The potential impacts I see :

-> For the consumer :
+ in case of problem, strong elements against Canon service if they deny the issue
+ possible free repair / exchange in that case
- stress and frustration for consumers without problem, a lot of testing, and false alerts
- possible higher prices of other repairs, longer delays, etc if Canon has a problem with service costs or the number of false alerts
- more difficult used market

-> for CanonRumors :
? you change the nature of your site (canonrumors -> canonleaks), I would expect this kind of leak site to do a lot of filtration/journalism to concentrate on really important issues, where Canon does really mishandle the client. If you just publish everything, it is in my opinion more an attack at the company than legitimate consumer defense.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2014)

fred75 said:


> I think it would be bad to publish all the information, the cure would be worse than the desease.
> - in this age, these advisories would inflate to irrational defiance.
> - it is normal practice that Canon collects repeat repairs. These are consumer goods (except for the expensive "big whites" and the 1DX), getting free service for all repeated problems does not fit with the prices that we pay.
> - Pushing transparency should concentrate on big problems (1DIII AF, 1DX oil, D600 dust, ...) in my opinion.
> ...



Some good points, though I'd argue the oil as being any kind of "issue" let alone a major one. I have 1Ds MkIII's, they too had an oil on sensor recall, which I didn't bother with. I am sorry, but if people are using $6,000+ cameras and don't know how to clean them, or are unsettled by a touch of dust, they need to learn their craft a bit better. Dirt on the sensor is a natural thing and all photographers should be fully capable of mitigating it through hardware (cleaning) and software (mapping, batch processing, spot removal). When I moved to the 1Ds MkIII's the biggest time saver was the self cleaning sensor, people forget how bad the dust and oil "issue" was pre self cleaning sensors.


----------



## Awolf (Apr 7, 2014)

As some about to send my 7d in for what appears to be a common issue with the camera with not recognizing the batteries and putting a constant drain on the batteries (both the main and a the clock battery), so they are dead in a couple days, i have resigned myself to paying for this repair. This report does have me thinking that buying a second body and more lens from Canon is a mistake.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2014)

The thing about this 'internal information' is that what is not stated is the prevalence of a given problem. For example, the 'noisy focus ring' issue - we've seen and heard lots of complaints about the clicking while zooming, but that 'reveal' was the first time I've heard of any issue with the focus ring. It's not cost effective to issue a public recall for a very tiny number of affected units where no personal danger is at stake. 

Which would you rather - Canon keep issues like these internal, and charge the prices that they currently do, or Canon publicize every single issue, no matter how rare, and raise the price of everything they sell 10% or more?


----------



## redpoint (Apr 7, 2014)

The reputation of a company [from my perspective] is based on the quality of their product and their ethics. Canon is a huge and financially healthy corporation. I recently switched from Nikon to Canon and own a 1DX and a 24-70 f/2.8 mkII - with taxes, this equipment cost me over $10K. I expect top notch performance/reliability from this equipment and appreciate CR for posting this information. The fact that such an expensive, "robust" camera would have autofocus issues in cold weather is ridiculous and should be addressed head-on by Canon. I'd be be pretty pissed if Canon charged me to repair an issue that's a design flaw.

Thanks CR - keep up the good work and keep the advisories coming!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2014)

So didn't you read the specs of the camera before you bought it? 

It is here in plain sight at the bottom: Operating Environment- http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_1d_x#Specifications

I don't understand how you can moan about a company who's equipment has not let you down and operates within its listed specs. But then again I am not prone to hysterical outbursts. That many people do use the cameras well outside the listed operating environment without issue is testament to how good your product actually is, but it isn't as much fun pointing that out is it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> So didn't you read the specs of the camera before you bought it?
> 
> It is here in plain sight at the bottom: Operating Environment- http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_1d_x#Specifications
> 
> I don't understand how you can moan about a company who's equipment has not let you down and operates within its listed specs. But then again I am not prone to hysterical outbursts. That many people do use the cameras well outside the listed operating environment without issue is testament to how good your product actually is, but it isn't as much fun pointing that out is it?



+1

I've stood out in sub-freezing temps for hours shooting eagles, and my 1D X is from an early batch (pre-ordered from B&H on the first day that was possible) that would presumably be among the affected cameras. Mine performed flawlessly.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 7, 2014)

More first time posters, cribbing and crying about nothing .... all we've got so far is "show me the advisories or we deserve to know because we spent so and so amount of dollars, blah blah blah posts" without providing any design flaws that are widely complained about ... I smell a dead rat and a stinking fish.


----------



## catfish252 (Apr 7, 2014)

I believe that if there are design flaws that were known before the unit was released to manufacturing and they chose to hide it, then they need to feel the wrath. The Nikon D600 sensor problem is a perfect example, I believe Nikon knew that that camera had a problem and released it anyway. It wasn't until the lawyers filed a Class Action and the Chinese Government made them take it from the shelves that Nikon said they would clean or repair or replace the cameras. Nikon would have never done any of the after warranty repairs if the crap hadn't hit the fan. Sometimes you have to smack a big corporation around when they fail to remember who is paying their bills. Hopefully the folks who made the decisions to send out the faulty units will be fired, as they should be and it will cause the rest of management to return a level of respect/fear for the customer... and maybe not.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 7, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> More first time posters, cribbing and crying about nothing .... all we've got so far is "show me the advisories or we deserve to know because we spent so and so amount of dollars, blah blah blah posts" without providing any design flaws that are widely complained about ... I smell a dead rat and a stinking fish.



Agreed. I love my canon gear and Canon service has served me well over the years.


----------



## Sam Jones (Apr 7, 2014)

I would be very interested to see the reports as I have had numerous problems with my 24-105mm L lens, in fact it was at the Canon repair centre last week! I am considering buying a 24-70 F2.8 L Mk II in its place, however having just read a post about this lens having problems with a clicking noise maybe I should stick with what I've got. If the report was made public and if either of these lenses are mentioned, it would help me decide whether to buy the 24-70mm - £1800 is a huge spend for me so I don't want to make the wrong choice.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 7, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> More first time posters, cribbing and crying about nothing .... all we've got so far is "show me the advisories or we deserve to know because we spent so and so amount of dollars, blah blah blah posts" without providing any design flaws that are widely complained about ... I smell a dead rat and a stinking fish.



+96. ° ͜ʖ °


----------



## mnclayshooter (Apr 7, 2014)

Even if this info doesn't get posted, I had some thoughts over the weekend about it. 

I would LOVE to see some kind of matrix developed showing the number of CR "members" that have had issues with specific pieces of equipment. It might start to shed some light on issues that we're all paying for service on that might just reflect a design flaw. 

I know it would be pretty unscientific without some kind of reciepts/proof of repairs, but it might still be interesting, if nothing else, it might become a good "buying guide" for people like me who don't know all of the "don't buy this lens, buy that one instead" kind of stuff.


----------



## PhotoCounter (Apr 8, 2014)

WE covered a 1DX dispute in our Australalian trade website between a pro photographer and Canon which ended up in court, with Canon claiming their was no intrinsic problem with the model. Very ugly. Here's the initial story: http://procounter.com.au/2013/07/18/canon-warranty-dispute-leads-to-claims-of-fraud/
and the photographer's assessment of Canon's behaviour in court: 
http://procounter.com.au/2013/07/25/no-real-winners-in-1dx-dispute/
Publish and be damned! They get away with this stuff because we just don't want to believe they would treat customers like that, and our knowledge is patchy.


----------



## Roo (Apr 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> So didn't you read the specs of the camera before you bought it?
> 
> It is here in plain sight at the bottom: Operating Environment- http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_1d_x#Specifications
> 
> I don't understand how you can moan about a company who's equipment has not let you down and operates within its listed specs. *But then again I am not prone to hysterical outbursts*. That many people do use the cameras well outside the listed operating environment without issue is testament to how good your product actually is, but it isn't as much fun pointing that out is it?



+1 We're seeing too much of that in this thread. 



Rienzphotoz said:


> More first time posters, cribbing and crying about nothing .... all we've got so far is "show me the advisories or we deserve to know because we spent so and so amount of dollars, blah blah blah posts" without providing any design flaws that are widely complained about ... I smell a dead rat and a stinking fish.



1 or 2 complaints doesn't amount to a design flaw...even 30 or 40 wouldn't be given the high number of copies produced for the products mentioned. I've looked at the Canon websites and they are good with their service advisories for specific issues with products, even down to providing the affected serial numbers. This whole thing is just a beat up.


----------



## redpoint (Apr 8, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> So didn't you read the specs of the camera before you bought it?
> 
> It is here in plain sight at the bottom: Operating Environment- http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_1d_x#Specifications
> 
> I don't understand how you can moan about a company who's equipment has not let you down and operates within its listed specs. But then again I am not prone to hysterical outbursts. That many people do use the cameras well outside the listed operating environment without issue is testament to how good your product actually is, but it isn't as much fun pointing that out is it?



Whoa - you're pretty sensitive if you think my post was a "hysterical outburst". Unbelievable. That time of the month? 

I'm not moaning about anything. Just giving my opinion - that OK with you!?. Maybe it's an issue, maybe it's an isolated case ... I have no idea and I'm not about to spend the night researching this further. If it is an issue, I expect Canon to deal with it - that's all I'm saying - full stop. That's reasonable isn't it? I'm new to Canon [8 months or so] and have no experience with servicing.

If Canon has redesigned a part then it's faulty - right? Can't argue with that logic. Design specs are between 0 and 40 degsC for the 1DX - I would hope it can handle 0 degs C. I shoot mountain landscapes at high altitudes all the time - no issues, but if there were, I'd expect Canon to fix a "known" issue. 

Sorry guys, I don't spend all day reading forums or following the number of instances of this particular "issue" - this is the first I've heard of it. Nor have I read this thread in it's entirety. Thought I'd give my 2 cents, but I think I'll find another forum. Thanks for the welcome.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 8, 2014)

redpoint said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > So didn't you read the specs of the camera before you bought it?
> ...



Well you misread the spec its from 0 to 40C not between 0 and -40C. In Farenheit its 32 to 104.

I have never seen any Canon literature that states the 1dx operating environment is less than 0C.


----------



## redpoint (Apr 8, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> redpoint said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Yeah - just fixed that. 0C isn't very cold, I should hope it could handle that.


----------



## gundul (Apr 8, 2014)

Etienne said:


> I am a Canon fan, obviously since I have heavily invested in their gear ...
> 
> ... but I definitely want to know if some of my equipment has known design flaws that should be fixed on warranty. I have had to send in two bodies for repair, and I had to return two other bodies for replacement because they did not function properly from new. The two repairs were for issues that were present when I purchased the cameras, and they were fixed on warranty, but I could have easily missed the warranty period.
> 
> Post everything you know!



+10

Please.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Apr 8, 2014)

Well, I'm a relatively new poster, but decided it was time to speak up based purely on the experiences I've had with Canon's customer service, since, at it's core, that's what this thread is for. 

Without fail, every time I've sent something to them for repair, items which should be well-within warranty (both based on time elapsed from purchase date, and for the issues experienced), I've been submitted an estimate, usually in the $250-350 range on the initial pass review by them. Only after contesting their appraisal, do I ever get anything worked on without any charge. To me, that's them saying that their product is without flaw and that I must have done something to prevent their gem of a device from working. I wonder how many people just pay the fee and don't contest it. I've had to go through literally hours of calls between customer service and their factory service reps to get to the point where they finally will say that they'll fix it free of charge. 

I'll be the first to admit if I've dropped a lens, camera body, or poured water into a printer - I'd expect to pay for that type of repair as it's not a defect of workmanship/materials. I've never done any of those and then sent it in for repair hoping it would be covered by warranty. Makes me wonder if that's what's happening so often that Canon is turning their backs on honest customers with honest warranty claims. The very fact that there's possibly some known defects in their equipment and that we're potentially paying for it, to be honest, pisses me off a bit. So I'm not actually very sorry if you find it hard to hear us "newbies" moaning about customer service or warranty repair policy especially with the literally hundreds, if not thousands of dollars some of us have had to spend to get items repaired, I guess not everyone has the same experiences you do.


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 9, 2014)

Hi mnclayshooter.
Wow the first time I read it I read hundreds of thousands of dollars...  I thought someone's got a lot of kit, no wonder they are pissed at paying for repairs! :
Then I re read it. ;D

Cheers Graham.



mnclayshooter said:


> especially with the literally hundreds, if not thousands of dollars some of....


----------



## scottburgess (Apr 9, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi mnclayshooter.
> Wow the first time I read it I read hundreds of thousands of dollars...  I thought someone's got a lot of kit, no wonder they are pissed at paying for repairs! :
> Then I re read it. ;D
> 
> Cheers Graham.



It's easier than you think to get to $100k in Canon EOS gear. If he had ordered one of the old 1200mm f/5.6L lenses, they used to cost $75k alone. B&H reported they have one and will sell it for $120k!

Astrophotography, here we come...

Oh, and should I mention my birthday is coming up?


----------



## tolusina (Apr 9, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...The person that sent them to us didn’t have an issue with Canon keeping this stuff internal. …..


Yes, but what about the corporation that these documents might have been stolen from?
Litigation may already be in progress, do you desire involvement?
- - -


R1-7D said:


> .......
> Both GM and Toyota have got caught with their pants down because of internal documents and ignoring problems. Why should Canon get away too just because it's a camera maker?


Because GM and Toyota manufacture ton and more vehicles that effortlessly hurtle fragile humans down roads at un-natural speeds, flaws can cause death. Is a 1Dx mirror box flaw going to cause anyone physical injury or death?
- - -


caruser said:


> .........and if you don´t dare to publish them.... then there are other ways to get information out to the people.


https://canonrumors.wikileaks.com
- - -


rambarra said:


> yes you should publish internal Canon documents not meant to be realeased in public and obtained maybe illegally so that Canon lawyers can sue your ass off, claim damages and shut down website in minutes....
> LOL


This ^^..........
- - -


Albi86 said:


> .....
> Technically there should be a legal issue only for the person that sends/steals them. …...


When did receiving stolen goods become moral, legal or ethical?
- - -


redpoint said:


> ......If Canon has redesigned a part then it's faulty - right? Can't argue with that logic. ….


Very incomplete logic, no argument required.
Sure, faulty components deserve re-design. 
But what about re-designs for purposes of improvement? That applies to just about every product ever manufactured. While new models are improvements on their predecessors, that doesn't automatically infer that the predecessors were faulty.
I'm trying hard to think of a product, any product, that has been in production for any significant period of time without design changes to implement improvements.
By your logic as stated, Ford Model Ts were faulty because they did not have hydraulic disc brakes with ABS, nor EcoBoost engine technology.
- - -


All that said, sure, I'd love to know if Canon is aware of issues common to my Canon gear.
I doubt it's appropriate for CR to publish though.




.


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 9, 2014)

Hi Scott.
I don't doubt that there are business' that have a hundred thousand invested in gear especially the cinema gear and like you say speciality lenses, but multiple hundreds takes a bit more imagination! ;D I'm guessing B&H still has the 1200 for a reason, possibly the price, possibly the weight, and possibly because all the government agencies already have one! 8)  8)
If you do get it for your birthday, please take a picture of the sea of tranquility to confirm man has been there! 8)

Cheers Graham.




scottburgess said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi mnclayshooter.
> ...


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 9, 2014)

There are 12 pages in this thread and to save me a little time, did anyone actually find out (and post) exactly what the issues are? I scanned through each but could not find anything.

If they didn't, then I would suggest CR just delete the thread entirely, or post what the issues are. Easy decision to make. But don't keep this thread alive if you aren't going to post what the issues are.


----------



## Invertalon (Apr 9, 2014)

The info for SURE should be posted. Companies should not hide design flaws and have the customer pay for their mistakes in engineering and design. If we get this information public, Canon and other companies may be more open to doing the right thing and doing these types of fixes free of charge.


----------



## MT Shooter (Apr 9, 2014)

ABSOLUTELY post that information. I feel it is your duty. No one wants to see Canon in a Nikon D600 fiasco.


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 9, 2014)

Hi folks.
If you are jumping in shouting yes yes publish before reading all the posts, you should go back and read them there are some well thought out arguments against publishing and how that could harm all of us. I do not support Canon if they really are charging for design flaw repairs, but there is a lot of component replacement in industry that is not based around design flaws but cost reduction or ideas from the suggestion box. Ever put anything in one of those where you work? I have and it was not about longer lunches or shorter days! :

Cheers Graham.


----------



## hugebob (Apr 9, 2014)

This practice is pretty unconscionable. Customers shouldn't have to pay to repair design flaws. Sure, go ahead and post the information. The more people that know about it the better.


----------



## scottburgess (Apr 9, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> If you do get it for your birthday, please take a picture of the sea of tranquility to confirm man has been there! 8)



"Will do." (Kids in the Hall - Videos)


----------



## Sella174 (Apr 10, 2014)

On a tangent ... I don't own a 1DX and probably never will, so I never looked at the specifications. This thread actually made me do just that by pointing out that the operating temperature of this "professional-grade" camera is (only) zero to forty degrees Celsius with less that 85% humidity. In my (not so) humble opinion, that's pretty pathetic for the "top-of-the-range", "professional-grade" camera from a company with the (perceived) reputation of Canon!

On topic ... I sold my *EF 40mm f/2.8 STM* lens because it backfocused. This was apparently within specifications and I was told to upgrade my cameras to AFMA-enabled models to solve the problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> On a tangent ... I don't own a 1DX and probably never will, so I never looked at the specifications. This thread actually made me do just that by pointing out that the operating temperature of this "professional-grade" camera is (only) zero to forty degrees Celsius with less that 85% humidity. In my (not so) humble opinion, that's pretty pathetic for the "top-of-the-range", "professional-grade" camera from a company with the (perceived) reputation of Canon!
> 
> On topic ... I sold my *EF 40mm f/2.8 STM* lens because it backfocused. This was apparently within specifications and I was told to upgrade my cameras to AFMA-enabled models to solve the problem.



The Canon Rebel T5/1200D has the same environmental specs. So does the Nikon D4. The PowerShot D30 works in up to 90% humidity. It's waterproof to 82 ft, but 91% humidity is a problem? 

When Canon tests/fixes a focus adjustment problem, they calibrate lenses against a 'standard' body, and bodies against a 'standard' lens. If your 40/2.8 was in spec, perhaps your body is out of spec. Usually, they ask you to send in the body in such a case. Did they?


----------



## Sella174 (Apr 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Canon Rebel T5/1200D has the same environmental specs. So does the Nikon D4.



The 1200D is NOT advertised as a "professional" camera, whereas the 1DX is. [sarcasm]No comment on the Nikon.[/sarcasm]



neuroanatomist said:


> The PowerShot D30 works in up to 90% humidity. It's waterproof to 82 ft, but 91% humidity is a problem?



Well, apparently liquid water thus only has a humidity of 90%. 



neuroanatomist said:


> When Canon tests/fixes a focus adjustment problem, they calibrate lenses against a 'standard' body, and bodies against a 'standard' lens. If your 40/2.8 was in spec, perhaps your body is out of spec. Usually, they ask you to send in the body in such a case. Did they?



My cameras focus just fine with my +15 year old lenses. Here in South Africa, Canon outsources their "repairs" to another company. This company quoted me in excess of R3000 (postage was extra) just to check things out ... the 40mm sells new for R2500, even with our rotten exchange rate! The reason for this high price was because my cameras are not supported anymore and hence the suggestion to upgrade.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> My cameras focus just fine with my +15 year old lenses. Here in South Africa, Canon outsources their "repairs" to another company. This company quoted me in excess of R3000 (postage was extra) just to check things out ... the 40mm sells new for R2500, even with our rotten exchange rate! The reason for this high price was because my cameras are not supported anymore and hence the suggestion to upgrade.



How many of those >15 year old lenses are f/2.8 or faster? Slight misfocusing is usually masked by the deeper DoF of slower lenses.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> On topic ... I sold my *EF 40mm f/2.8 STM* lens because it backfocused. This was apparently within specifications and I was told to upgrade my cameras to AFMA-enabled models to solve the problem.



Sounds like you've been unlucky; most people seem to report very little MA needed on the 40 pancakes. The AFMA enabled models have completely changed my attitude and needs in lenses. Before, the quality of the manual focus mechanism on a lens was very important to me. Now with AFMA and BBF I basically don't use manual focus anymore, and so I'm using cheaper versions of lenses than I once would have done. Even when zone focusing I use AF. The only exception would be when focusing for a specific distance that is covered by the lens's distance scale. 

I've had non AFMA cameras such as the 5D that have been fine until the body has suffered a good heavy knock or drop. Then the critical focus on a fast lens is out. 

The irony of it is that these DSLR bodies are highly resilient to physical abuse, but an impact can shift the position of the AF module enough to cause problems.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> The irony of it is that these DSLR bodies are highly resilient to physical abuse, but an impact can shift the position of the AF module enough to cause problems.



+1

I once dropped my 5DII from waist level to the pavement. Not even a cosmetic scuff on the camera, and it functioned fine afterwords _except_ that all of my AFMA values shifted by ~10 units.


----------



## Sella174 (Apr 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> How many of those >15 year old lenses are *f/2.8 or faster*?



Let's see, shall we? There is/was the 50mm f/*2.5*, the 24mm f/*2.8*, the 28-70mm f/*2.8*, the 50mm f/*1.4*, the 50mm f/*1.8*, the 35mm f/*2*, the 100mm f/*2.8* and the (borrowed) 16-35mm f/*2.8* ... so, a quick count of EIGHT.



neuroanatomist said:


> Slight misfocusing is usually masked by the deeper DoF of slower lenses.



That should be CONSIDERABLE misfocusing ... subject at 5 metres and the lens focuses at +6 metres.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > How many of those >15 year old lenses are *f/2.8 or faster*?
> ...



Them it seems likely you got a defective 40/2.8.


----------



## Sella174 (Apr 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Them it seems likely you got a defective 40/2.8.



I wouldn't actually say defective, but rather that it was poor quality control in the calibration dept. The problem with the latter was that it could easily be fixed/adjusted, but not admitted and then blamed on my "old" cameras ... thus leaving me with the bill for "wasting" the repair shop's time.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 10, 2014)

I have had the same experience.

A tip- be sure to include a copy of the receipt. That will often eliminate a lot of hassle. 

sek



mnclayshooter said:


> Well, I'm a relatively new poster, but decided it was time to speak up based purely on the experiences I've had with Canon's customer service, since, at it's core, that's what this thread is for.
> 
> Without fail, every time I've sent something to them for repair, items which should be well-within warranty (both based on time elapsed from purchase date, and for the issues experienced), I've been submitted an estimate, usually in the $250-350 range on the initial pass review by them. Only after contesting their appraisal, do I ever get anything worked on without any charge. To me, that's them saying that their product is without flaw and that I must have done something to prevent their gem of a device from working. I wonder how many people just pay the fee and don't contest it. I've had to go through literally hours of calls between customer service and their factory service reps to get to the point where they finally will say that they'll fix it free of charge.
> 
> I'll be the first to admit if I've dropped a lens, camera body, or poured water into a printer - I'd expect to pay for that type of repair as it's not a defect of workmanship/materials. I've never done any of those and then sent it in for repair hoping it would be covered by warranty. Makes me wonder if that's what's happening so often that Canon is turning their backs on honest customers with honest warranty claims. The very fact that there's possibly some known defects in their equipment and that we're potentially paying for it, to be honest, pisses me off a bit. So I'm not actually very sorry if you find it hard to hear us "newbies" moaning about customer service or warranty repair policy especially with the literally hundreds, if not thousands of dollars some of us have had to spend to get items repaired, I guess not everyone has the same experiences you do.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 10, 2014)

Speaking as a a once-reporter...

One method that newspapers handle these sorts of situations is to use the documents as off-record assets, confirming details and running a story based on the facts within that are re-established through independent reporting. This is done with great frequency. 

You can't un-know something you've seen, and you may well be able to independently corroborate this information in a clean manner. For instance, you might run a poll on CR that asks for people to give information about problems that they've had with lenses and cameras. Where you see your own data corroborating with the service memo information, you have independent information with which to follow up. 

As others have mentioned, you certainly want to get advice from a lawyer who has experience dealing with fair use, trade secrets, and other relevant issues. 

As a publisher, you also, of course, face a long-term issue of your relationship with the corporation that comprises the bulk of your publication's subject matter. To that issue, I'd just note that publications - web or otherwise - have tended to wither away when audiences sense that they've become captured by the interests of the corporation. My personal experience is that the reaction of a company that hates your decision to divulge something they don't wish to be divulged is very much predicated on the manner and tone with which you do it. On the other hand, when I've had business dealings with Japanese companies, I've found myself really a fish out of water, with little of my previous experience having much use. 

If you would like references to law firms that have good experience about this, please contact me directly. -tig


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> On a tangent ... I don't own a 1DX and probably never will, so I never looked at the specifications. This thread actually made me do just that by pointing out that the operating temperature of this "professional-grade" camera is (only) zero to forty degrees Celsius with less that 85% humidity. In my (not so) humble opinion, that's pretty pathetic for the "top-of-the-range", "professional-grade" camera from a company with the (perceived) reputation of Canon!
> 
> On topic ... I sold my *EF 40mm f/2.8 STM* lens because it backfocused. This was apparently within specifications and I was told to upgrade my cameras to AFMA-enabled models to solve the problem.


I live in Florida and it's a rare shoot where the humidity is less than 95%, especially at dawn. You get used to it, sort of. Anyways, from the 450D to the 1D X, 18-55 IS to 300 2.8 II IS, I've never had an issue. I've shot with Canon gear in 105F temperatures with 85-90% humidity as well and have never had a single issue. I have never noticed the specs before this week and don't care about them because they are the "Working Temperature/Humidity Range" as in the safe range. Canon doesn't specify the minimum or maximum range (as you would see in mil-spec equipment) so I think this is less about what their gear can or can't do and more about warranty issues. If you see where the equipment is used and survives (check out the photo of the frozen camera in this post on CPN) it's obvious that the cameras can take a lot of abuse outside of the "working range".

On the 40mm issues, that's a really lousy response from Canon. While it is "a" solution, it's very unreasonable, and I think that's really poor customer service. The response should have been, "Send in your camera and lens and we'll calibrate them together."


----------



## RGF (Apr 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The irony of it is that these DSLR bodies are highly resilient to physical abuse, but an impact can shift the position of the AF module enough to cause problems.
> ...



HI Neuro

Any idea of the physical dimension of the shift?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2014)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



It doesn't take much. The shift was a bit more that one full depth of focus *the sensor-side equivalent to depth of field); one AFMA unit is 1/8 the depth of focus. With an f/2.8 lens on a FF body, the depth of focus is ~160 µm (0.16 mm, 6/1000 in.)


----------



## PVS (Apr 11, 2014)

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/2014/04/we-have-more-internal-canon-service-information-on-lenses-cameras/"></glusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/we-have-more-internal-canon-service-information-on-lenses-cameras/">Tweet</a></div>
> Yesterday we posted an <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/eos-1d-x-eos-1d-c-cold-weather-autofocus-issues/" target="_blank">internal service advisory for the Canon EOS-1D X and EOS-1D C</a>. These are advisories that are only known to a select few within Canon and not told to the consumers.</p>
> <p>We have a lot of more of these documents that cover various Canon lenses and camera bodies, there’s even more on the EOS-1D X mirrorbox.</p>
> <p>The person that sent them to us didn’t have an issue with Canon keeping this stuff internal. However, they were upset that a lot of the issues are known to Canon and they’re still charging customers for the repairs out of warranty. There are a couple of lenses with design flaws and Canon is charging $250-$450 for these repairs out of warranty and not fully disclosing the design flaw to the customer.</p>
> ...




Must be the radiation levels in Japan. Now, that's a serious issue that the public needs to know more about.


----------



## weixing (Apr 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Hi,
0.16mm?? How "long" is that?? Can't find that in the ruler... ha ha ha  
If you think about it, it's quite amazing that the design and manufacturing technology behind the DSLR... how do you secure the AF sensor and imaging senor in place to such precision even after all the vibration the camera had to go through...

Have a nice day.


----------



## rainer (Apr 11, 2014)

Dear CR Team,

I think these kind of things should be made public. Canon is reputable and everyone knows things can go wrong - however in recent years the attitude from Canon has changed. Instead of admit the issue, find a solution and offer a free fix for design / technical issues, the company now tries to neglect issues and puts the blame on the consumer for not handling things correctly.

When you look in a lot of well known German sites and forums, the hottest topic is actually about the focus issue of the center focus point with certain lenses not working correctly at the EOS 70D. It has been documented well, but Canon denies any systematic fault. So when you have documents for this problem or other relevant EOS 70D information I feel strongly you should make this knowledge public.

That's my opinion & thank you very much!


----------



## Tiosabas (Apr 11, 2014)

Maybe its been mentioned already but another disgracfull design flaw that Canon dont admit to is the focus motor/focus color slippage problem on the 70-200 F4 IS. Canon seem to be happy to rip off their customers who are buying into their system and with that comes a certain amount of loyalty to the products. This doesnt seem to hold any water with Canon.  Its crazy to think that a customer should pay big bucks to repair a design issue.


----------



## Beckscum (Apr 12, 2014)

Tiosabas said:


> Maybe its been mentioned already but another disgracfull design flaw that Canon dont admit to is the focus motor/focus color slippage problem on the 70-200 F4 IS. Canon seem to be happy to rip off their customers who are buying into their system and with that comes a certain amount of loyalty to the products. This doesnt seem to hold any water with Canon.  Its crazy to think that a customer should pay big bucks to repair a design issue.



I own a 18 months old Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS lens and it has a motor malfunction recently. Canon HK requested me to pay for the repairing motor slippage. I have been negotiating with them for over a month and even made a complaint to Canon Japan. A large discount (for the repair fee) was obtained and I finally agreed to pay it because the issue has lasted too long.

However, I was pissed off because I visited a few camera stores yesterday and found that they returned full batches of UA lens back to Canon in 2012 because most of the lens came with motor mal-function. This was clearly a QC issue and Canon must know it very well. *They keeps denying that this is a QC/Design flaw issue.*

*Canon has been selling a product with QC/design flaw to customers and demanding customer to pay for the repair is extremely dishonorable.*

*Canon should initiate a global replacement for affected batches!*


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 12, 2014)

Hi Beckscum.
Could you please clarify UA from your post please, I am not familiar with this abbreviation.

Cheers Graham.



Beckscum said:


> that they returned full batches of UA lens back to Canon in 2012


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 12, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Beckscum.
> Could you please clarify UA from your post please, I am not familiar with this abbreviation.
> 
> Cheers Graham.
> ...



I think he's referring to the date code - the use of which Canon seem to be phasing out. In this case it would be lenses manufactured in Utsunomiya during 2006.


----------



## tron (Apr 12, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Beckscum.
> ...


 UA = Utsunomiya 2012 not 2006.
There is a reference in

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 12, 2014)

tron said:


> UA = Utsunomiya 2012 not 2006.



Ooops, yes you are quite right. U is 2006. My mistake


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 12, 2014)

Hi folks.
Thanks for that, I checked an abreviation page and came out confused, but that explains it all! 

Cheers Graham.



Sporgon said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > UA = Utsunomiya 2012 not 2006.
> ...


----------



## beingaliveisnotliving (Apr 17, 2014)

Yes, the documents should be released. This could easily be a form of *CORRUPTION* by the manufacturer against its loyal customer's. The documents should be released to the general public, so each country can procede with legal santions for possible criminal acts. If these documents are true, then, Canon are performing a conjob on its customers.


----------



## Beckscum (Apr 18, 2014)

According to the other customers who dealt with Canon HK for sub-standard products, Canon always mislead you to accept repairing option before they disclose the discount rate, ie the customer is not on a level playing field, such a nasty technique to handle compliant.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 18, 2014)

It's been 2 weeks since certain claims were made about Canon screwing the customers ... yet to see any proof.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 18, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> It's been 2 weeks since certain claims were made about Canon screwing the customers ... yet to see any proof.



I'll second that.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 24, 2014)

Methodical said:


> Ken B said:
> 
> 
> > ...I had a Ford F-150 that had all the window regulators fail (4 of them) and Ford didn't pay a dime, I did. It was a known problem on all 2004-2007 F-150s. I got stuck replacing them all plus a third one on the driver’s window at a cost of $1K out of my pocket....
> ...



Little chance serious canon customers will defect. The other side of the fence is worse. Your warranty info is always available up front before you make a purchase. After that you are always on your own with any company and any product. Little chance for a class action. Now if its still under warranty and it fails then you have a case. However all of the wining ive seen here is about after warranty service. 

And the warranty covers product materials and workmanship for 1 year usually. The key words here are materials and workmanship. Any design flaw is considered workmanship and covered under the warranty period.

As far as the ford goes...they are designed to leak right off the dealers lot. If you fix them all, the engine explodes.


----------

