# Light leak on 5D3 IS a big issue, and should embarrass Canon



## MrSandman (Apr 18, 2012)

I had been mulling over the choice between the D800 and the 5D3, and went with the 5D3 for a number of reasons - one of which being the fact that I like the Canon ‘design’ altogether more than Nikon’s. And then this light leak issue creeps up (which I confirmed just now on my 5D3). I’ve been hearing people saying things liked “it doesn’t matter in real-world shooting”, or “it’s easy to avoid it by just not lighting the LCD in dark environments. 1. This just isn’t true - if light is leaking in and altering the metering, you get (slightly) altered photos. This has been confirmed by many. And 2. whether most of us shoot in really dark environments or not simply doesn’t matter. We shouldn’t have to take precautionary measures when shooting photos to work around a design flaw. We as customers should not be the solution to a product’s design problem. And no matter how easy the solution is, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a design flaw.

I remember watching The Tonight Show many years ago and during one of Jay Leno’s monologues, he said, “In other news, the FDA came out with new rules regarding fecal matter in poultry. Now folks.......this is the _new_ rule? Shouldn’t this have been the _old_ rule? Shouldn’t this have been _rule #1??_”

(....Of course, he went on to say “I sure hope this doesn’t mean Colonel Sanders is now down to only ten secret herbs and spices in his fried chicken”....but that’s beside the point.)

Similarly, a camera properly blocking out light should be rule #1. A camera is supposed to block out light....just in case we decide to shoot in extremely low light environments (which many already do). And for a fairly-dim LCD backlight to alter the metering in a dark environment is just plain scandalous. That kind of thing suggests that Canon pushed this camera out before testing it thoroughly (or maybe they knew about it and decided to ship it out anyway and hope for the best).

Either way, I’m returning mine, and will consider buying it again after Canon has satisfactorily addressed the matter. Shipping a brand-new camera back to Canon to have it modified or repaired is completely unacceptable, and utterly out of the question.


----------



## altenae (Apr 18, 2012)

Thanks for letting us know. 
Feel better now ?


----------



## wcksmith (Apr 18, 2012)

While you are certainly entitled to your reaction, and feel the need to send your 5DIII back to the factory, they'll get mine back when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. It is a fabulous camera, that I truly have enjoyed. It's much better on several fronts than my 5DII (which isn't perfect either but is a great camera). Every camera has nuances that we must deal with. If I have to worry about light leak from the LCD in dark environments, then I don't have much to worry about. I simply check the histogram as I do for virtually every shot I take. If the exposure isn't right, I compensate. There's usually a lot more reasons to have to compensate than light leak from an LCD impacting the metering by some small percentage. 

For those that think this is a big deal, good on 'ya! I choose not to sweat the really small stuff...


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 18, 2012)

Thanks for confirming it IS a big issue. I'm sure everyone who thought it wasn't are now corrected 

Personally if I was buying one i wouldn't even bother getting it fixed...


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 18, 2012)

If this is such a huge issue, why do BOTH my 5D2's have the EXACT SAME light leak problem as my new 5D3? There was never a recall on the 5d2's, and never a mention of the light leak... The problem is users who take photos with their lens hoods on...


----------



## rushmore77 (Apr 18, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> The problem is users who take photos with their lens hoods on...



Really ?

https://vimeo.com/40135673


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 18, 2012)

rushmore77 said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is users who take photos with their lens hoods on...
> ...


 
Wow, light will enter thru the viewfinder if you take your eye away from it!

This has been known and happens in every SLR and DSLR for at least the past several years. Canon includes a eyepiece cover and tells you to use it, and Nikon has a lever that closes a shutter to block light from entering. Every DSLR does this.

Talk about a newby photographer posting his amazing discovery on vimeo, and then those who think its a new discovery and are shocked.


----------



## dunkers (Apr 18, 2012)

I nearly exited out of the thread the moment I saw the d800 mentioned.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 18, 2012)

rushmore77 said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is users who take photos with their lens hoods on...
> ...



That's not even remotely the same issue. That's light going in a *completely uncovered* VF. Everyone should know about that one by now since it has been an issue approximately since the advent of in-body AE. That's why your camera came with a little plastic cover that slides onto the VF for those situations.


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 18, 2012)

Don’t start with that Canon vs. Nikon stuff! I already said that I’ll buy the camera again when Canon fixes the issue. I truly think Canon is the better way to go, period. I still think that way and I have no intention of buying the D800.

But can’t you just admit that Canon really screwed the pooch on this one? I mean, light leaking THROUGH the LCD display and getting to the meter? And worse, the backlight for the LCD causing the same outcome?

Saying that light leaking through the camera body isn’t a problem is like saying that a small amount of water leaking into a battleship isn’t a problem either. You can take measures to cope with them, but the bottom line is that these things are not supposed to leak. Leakage through the viewfinder, yeah, I can understand that. But through the LCD panel? That’s not acceptable.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 18, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> I had been mulling over the choice between the D800 and the 5D3, and went with the 5D3 for a number of reasons - one of which being the fact that I like the Canon ‘design’ altogether more than Nikon’s. And then this light leak issue creeps up (which I confirmed just now on my 5D3). I’ve been hearing people saying things liked “it doesn’t matter in real-world shooting”, or “it’s easy to avoid it by just not lighting the LCD in dark environments. 1. This just isn’t true - if light is leaking in and altering the metering, you get (slightly) altered photos. This has been confirmed by many. And 2. whether most of us shoot in really dark environments or not simply doesn’t matter. We shouldn’t have to take precautionary measures when shooting photos to work around a design flaw. We as customers should not be the solution to a product’s design problem. And no matter how easy the solution is, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a design flaw.
> 
> I remember watching The Tonight Show many years ago and during one of Jay Leno’s monologues, he said, “In other news, the FDA came out with new rules regarding fecal matter in poultry. Now folks.......this is the _new_ rule? Shouldn’t this have been the _old_ rule? Shouldn’t this have been _rule #1??_”
> 
> ...



What many has it been confirmed by? So far I have seen one person say that he found a difference with the lens cap off and it ONLY occured at EV1, the absolute bottom limit of the metering performance range, where it underexposed by 1/3 of a stop. So basically it only altered real world exposure in THE single worst case scenario and then only by 1/3 stop. Most people would be using liveview or experimenting with exposure in such conditions anyway I'd bet.

I mean maybe there is something more to it since Canon is taking it seriously, but it seems more like it is just a PR move to show that they respond quickly and without question (maybe letting demand build up again too to help sustain $3500?  ;D) than something truly needed. But maybe there is something more that we don't know about.


----------



## Invertalon (Apr 18, 2012)

So Mr. Sandman,

I am assuming this light leak "issue" ruined many of your photos right? That you are so upset and plan to return the camera? Or are you just flipping out over everybody else making a mountain out of a mole hill?

Calm down man...

To be completely honest, the metering has been more accurate on this then any other Canon I have used in the past. Not a big deal. And guess what? Not just the 5D3 does this either, others have confirmed it has happened with past bodies as well. It's just that the 5D3 is under such a tight eye, that people are trying to find anything and everything to complain about. Go shoot some pictures for goodness sake.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 18, 2012)

rushmore77 said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is users who take photos with their lens hoods on...
> ...



Strictly speaking they have always said you should put eye piece cover on or lock exposure for such scenarios though. It looks a bit more touchy than my 5D2 but with very strong lighting in the bathroom and aiming at a dark brown cabinet I was able to induce the same 2/3 stop change on my 5D2 as I moved my eye away as well. It took a bit harsher conditions than he had since I didn't see much, 0 to 1/3 under his conditions, so it may be touchier but still they do warn on all SLRs to not do this, granted it's less a hassle the less touchy it is but it still doesn't seem like any sort of a real or new issue. I mean since the first days of modern metering this effect has been known, thus that funny little thingy on the canon neck strap or the VF curtain on 1 series or nikon bodies.

If you want to complain maybe complain that canon sticks with the annoying little neck strap thing on all non 1 series bodies.

But this is nothing new.
They would have to recall every SLR/DSLR made in the last, well, who knows how many years.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 18, 2012)

Exactly. I can't believe people are still complaining that light actually enters the camera through glass elements. THE SHOCK !!! 

But on a serious note, perhaps some people simply need to refresh their education on basic concepts such as SLR and TTL metering.


----------



## t.linn (Apr 18, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> photos with their lens hoods on...



I assume you mean lens _caps_, Preston. And while I disagree with the OP's contention that this is a *big* issue, I have to say that I find the dismissive "doesn't affect images with the lens cap off" attitude worse—if for no other reason than it is objectively wrong. If the problem doesn't affect you, then great. If you're willing to work around it, then great. But you can't argue that this isn't a design flaw that can affect images taken with this camera. This much has been proven. Even if we want to dismiss every posted example as somehow flawed, the fact that Canon has acknowledged it as an issue should tell us that much. That it has affected other Canon bodies doesn't change this (although it may explain inconsistent meter readings in certain situations with these older camera bodies). And, no, this issue doesn't mean the 5D3 isn't a great body.

Having said all that, I wonder if the big take away from this situation for many people is understanding that covering the viewfinder when your eye is not up against it _does actually matter_.


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 18, 2012)

I realize I’m stirring up a hornet’s nest by saying this, but here goes:

Why don’t we hear about this with the D800, D4, or D700? How is it that Nikon managed to make their upper LCD displays not leak light into their cameras? Do they have access to better light blocking materials than Canon? Of course not.

(Again, I’m not saying I think Nikon makes better cameras - they don’t - but this is clearly an aspect where Canon dropped the ball. I’m glad to see they intend to fix this defect. But as a consumer dropping $3500 on a camera body, I want to buy one that comes from the factory without the defect!).


----------



## t.linn (Apr 18, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> Why don’t we hear about this with the D800, D4, or D700? How is it that Nikon managed to make their upper LCD displays not leak light into their cameras? Do they have access to better light blocking materials than Canon? Of course not.



I think you would get more reasoned responses if you weren't overstating your case so much. This is a design flaw but it's not a major one or it would have been caught prior to release. You seem to think that it is possible to release a flawlessly designed camera but history shows that the 5D3 is just the latest to need a tweak here or there. And it's not just Canon, although Canon users are going to be more aware of the issues popping up on Canon cameras. 

I can understand and appreciate your desire to acquire your 5D3 as soon as possible but, if you are concerned about the possibility of having to send your expensive new camera to Canon to get it updated, a better strategy would be to wait for a few months after its release. This was true of the 5D2 and it will be true of the 5D4 too.


----------



## Alker (Apr 18, 2012)

> Why don’t we hear about this with the D800, D4, or D700?



Why don't we hear about this with the Canon 40D and 5D mark II ???
My 40D / 5D MK II show the same issue.

Maybe because we didn't test the old DSLR's with the lenscap attached


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 18, 2012)

I'll be honest. I was surprised to hear people even cared about this. It's such a non issue in nearly every situation. 

People expect such perfection these days and if they don't get it "out go the toys from the pram". Sorry but that's how I see it. Every piece of serious equipment has flaws. It's impossible to catch it all. 

Get over it.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 18, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> But as a consumer dropping $3500 on a camera body, I want to buy one that comes from the factory without the defect!).



Why do people seem to more easily tolerate a defect on a 50K car than a 3K camera? 
Besides, there are almost no completely bug free products on the market. Some are minor and some are critical, but almost all products exhibit a flaw or another. Even the D800 - some are reporting lockup problems.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 18, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> I realize I’m stirring up a hornet’s nest by saying this, but here goes:
> 
> Why don’t we hear about this with the D800, D4, or D700? How is it that Nikon managed to make their upper LCD displays not leak light into their cameras? Do they have access to better light blocking materials than Canon? Of course not.
> 
> (Again, I’m not saying I think Nikon makes better cameras - they don’t - but this is clearly an aspect where Canon dropped the ball. I’m glad to see they intend to fix this defect. But as a consumer dropping $3500 on a camera body, I want to buy one that comes from the factory without the defect!).



Clearly Canon didn't drop the ball. It's a tiny issue. Nikon have their own issues, for example http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1100467


----------



## sailingsilkeborg (Apr 18, 2012)

I don't see anything harsh or out of line about the OP's view on this. This isn't about being a "good guy" or demonstrating that you can grin and bear the small stuff. And it's not about expecting a perfect product, either. It's about the expectation that for your money, which here, is plenty, you'll receive what we call a "merchantable" product. 

The light leak seems to admittedly be a flaw, correctable or not. With all bigger money DSLR's, the manufacturer of the product needs to know that flaws that are incompatible with the basic object of the product aren't going to be considered small stuff. Likewise, loyalists and people that pride themselves in "not sweating the small stuff" can be mum if they choose to, but they shouldn't be squelching polite commentary about such issues. Trust me, manufacturers need to know that customer satisfaction and loyalty do not go so far as to make flaws or errors off limits to discussion. At the end of the day, if you expect less, you'll get less.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 18, 2012)

sailingsilkeborg said:


> I don't see anything harsh or out of line about the OP's view on this. This isn't about being a "good guy" or demonstrating that you can grin and bear the small stuff. And it's not about expecting a perfect product, either. It's about the expectation that for your money, which here, is plenty, you'll receive what we call a "merchantable" product.
> 
> The light leak seems to admittedly be a flaw, correctable or not. With all bigger money DSLR's, the manufacturer of the product needs to know that flaws that are incompatible with the basic object of the product aren't going to be considered small stuff. Likewise, loyalists and people that pride themselves in "not sweating the small stuff" can be mum if they choose to, but they shouldn't be squelching polite commentary about such issues. Trust me, manufacturers need to know that customer satisfaction and loyalty do not go so far as to make flaws or errors off limits to discussion. At the end of the day, if you expect less, you'll get less.



Everyone is entitled to their opinion on both sides. 

However to me, this is what I object to:

"Either way, I’m returning mine, and will consider buying it again after Canon has satisfactorily addressed the matter. Shipping a brand-new camera back to Canon to have it modified or repaired is completely unacceptable, and utterly out of the question."

I just think its totally fair to offer a fix and unnecessary to object to it.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 18, 2012)

While I will say it IS an issue, it's an old issue... maybe it happens with nikons camera, maybe it doesn't. It happened with the 5d2 and other cameras no huge outcry occurred. It could be with the price increase, with the large anticipation for this camera, with the demand for this camera, everyone expected it to do everything but cook omelets for them. In real world situations, it could become an issue, but then again i'm afraid you have a better chance of being hit by lightning that it affecting you in a shoot. Not trying to be dismissive, i'm just not worried. Frankly, having the 9 pt AF in the 5d2 was a far greater "defect" than this LCD leak in the 5d3.


----------



## Astro (Apr 18, 2012)

rushmore77 said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is users who take photos with their lens hoods on...
> ...



sice when do you shot with a DSLR... 3 days? ;D


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 18, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> MrSandman said:
> 
> 
> > I realize I’m stirring up a hornet’s nest by saying this, but here goes:
> ...



The D4 glitch you cited by the URL is an isolated issue experienced by one individual. That is hardly comparable to a design flaw that affects every unit of said model. You need to understand the difference between a glitch/failure and a design flaw. Not adequately sealing a meter from ambient light is a design flaw.


----------



## altenae (Apr 18, 2012)

Mrsandman,

It's really easy. 
Don't like it don't buy it.


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 18, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> sailingsilkeborg said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see anything harsh or out of line about the OP's view on this. This isn't about being a "good guy" or demonstrating that you can grin and bear the small stuff. And it's not about expecting a perfect product, either. It's about the expectation that for your money, which here, is plenty, you'll receive what we call a "merchantable" product.
> ...



Maybe it's just me, but I'm of the opinion that when something gets shipped to you as a defective product right from the get-go, it should be replaced, not repaired. You are contending that I should be content to send my brand-new camera back to Canon to let them open it up and work on it. Again, for a brand-new camera. No way.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 18, 2012)

rushmore77 said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is users who take photos with their lens hoods on...
> ...



Hey rushmore77,
She has 20/20 vision - Do you think she will see light if I remove the EYE MASK/blind?


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 18, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > sailingsilkeborg said:
> ...



Yeah, they should be reliable like $35,000 cars that...oh wait, those get recalls too.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 18, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> What many has it been confirmed by? So far I have seen one person say that he found a difference with the lens cap off and it ONLY occured at EV1, the absolute bottom limit of the metering performance range, where it underexposed by 1/3 of a stop.



That sounds like me you're referring to, and you're making the situation sound significantly worse than what I discovered.

Set the camera in manual mode to EV 1 (1" @ f/1.4 @ ISO 100), and find a dark corner of a dark room to point to until the meter bug is centered. Turning the LCD backlight on and off will not budge the meter at all. This is the bottom of the specified range of the 5DIII meter.

Set it to EV 0 and the backlight still won't change the exposure.

At EV -1, the backlight moves to the right by 1/3 stop when you turn it on...but you can't say that it's causing underexposure at that point because it's operating outside of its design parameters and may well already be off by some unknown and unspecified amount in either direction.

At EV -2, the backlight still only makes the meter move 1/3 stop to the right.

At EV -3, the backlight makes the meter bounce between 1/3 and 2/3 stops.

At EV -4, the backlight makes the meter move solidly on 2/3 stops to the right...and you're five stops below the bottom of the meter's range (30" @ f/1.4 @ ISO 100) and basically in the dark. There's no way the meter's readings are reliable, with or without the backlight on. Any photographic meter -- not just the one built in to the camera.

If you're actually photographing in conditions even as dark as EV 1...well, either you're doing long-exposure tripod work, maybe of the nighttime skyline, and you know full well that your meter is already useless...or you're being silly showing off your new toy outside at night away from the lights, and probably shooting at ISO 25,600 or something ludicrous and you know the results, though surprisingly not bad, will be totally useless for anything serious. And at EV -2 when the "problem" actually starts to appear, and only at a third of a stop? We're talking moonlit landscape photography, where no sane person even thinks to have a look at the meter. Hell, you're probably thinking of shooting in bulb mode with a stopwatch in those conditions....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## jfretless (Apr 18, 2012)

The Mayans were right! ...the end of world is coming!

in other words... meh.




MrSandman said:


> I had been mulling over the choice between the D800 and the 5D3, and went with the 5D3 for a number of reasons - one of which being the fact that I like the Canon ‘design’ altogether more than Nikon’s. And then this light leak issue creeps up (which I confirmed just now on my 5D3). I’ve been hearing people saying things liked “it doesn’t matter in real-world shooting”, or “it’s easy to avoid it by just not lighting the LCD in dark environments. 1. This just isn’t true - if light is leaking in and altering the metering, you get (slightly) altered photos. This has been confirmed by many. And 2. whether most of us shoot in really dark environments or not simply doesn’t matter. We shouldn’t have to take precautionary measures when shooting photos to work around a design flaw. We as customers should not be the solution to a product’s design problem. And no matter how easy the solution is, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a design flaw.
> 
> I remember watching The Tonight Show many years ago and during one of Jay Leno’s monologues, he said, “In other news, the FDA came out with new rules regarding fecal matter in poultry. Now folks.......this is the _new_ rule? Shouldn’t this have been the _old_ rule? Shouldn’t this have been _rule #1??_”
> 
> ...


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 18, 2012)

It's the very fact that it's not a $35,000 car that makes the camera more of a disposable/replaceable item. However, for a camera it is expensive, and as such should be able to perform basic tasks like isolating the meter from ambient light.


----------



## zim (Apr 18, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > What many has it been confirmed by? So far I have seen one person say that he found a difference with the lens cap off and it ONLY occured at EV1, the absolute bottom limit of the metering performance range, where it underexposed by 1/3 of a stop.
> ...




Don't suppose anyone has a D800 they could try this with, just for a laugh hehehe


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 18, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > What many has it been confirmed by? So far I have seen one person say that he found a difference with the lens cap off and it ONLY occured at EV1, the absolute bottom limit of the metering performance range, where it underexposed by 1/3 of a stop.
> ...



I think it was someone else since they mentioned EV1 not EV -1:

"Since the operating range of the 5D3's light meter is Ev 1 to 20 according the manual, I decided to try testing for the light leak phenomenon at a light level equivalent to Ev 1--the minimum light light level at which the 5D3's light meter can be relied upon to provide an accurate reading. Although I'm not an expert on Ev levels, after consulting a chart on Wikipedia, I determined that at f/5.6 and ISO 100, Ev 1 would correspond to a shutter speed of 15 seconds. (If I'm wrong about this, I'm sure someone will tell me.) So I set my 5D3 to ISO 100, and my lens to f/5.6, took off the lens cap, covered the viewfinder eyepiece, and found a dark environment where the 5D3's meter gave me a shutter speed of 15 seconds. Then I pressed the LCD illumination button to see what, if anything, would happen.

Having previously convinced myself that the leak leak phenomenon was only likely to manifest itself at Ev levels far below Ev 1, I fully expected to see no change in the shutter speed. But to my surprise, I did see a change, although only a slight one--from 15 seconds to 13 seconds. Shining a flash light directly into the top LCD resulted in a similar change.

I then repeated the test by moving to a very slightly brighter area where the meter gave me a reading of 5 seconds--corresponding to something just over Ev 2. When I pressed the LCD illumination button this time, I saw no change, nor did I see any change with the flashlight.

So, what conclusions do I draw from this. Well, contrary to my earlier assumption, it does appear that this phenomenon could affect metering within the 5D3's published metering range--but only at the very bottom of the range--around Ev 1--and only very slightly--the difference between 15 seconds and 13 seconds. If you're trying to meter at lower light levels, say around Ev -4 where most of the testing I've seen posted has been occurring, the effect on the meter reading will likely be more significant, but of course, any metering you might try to do at Ev -4, or any other level below Ev 1, is already inherently unreliable."

In either case though it doesn't seem like a problem to me and certainly nothing to be embarrassed about, come on.


----------



## Raddy (Apr 18, 2012)

I really would like to know how many people would have noticed this flaw on their own, not reading about it on the web. So the Internet ruined it all! ;D

People started to end up in all this tech talk, examining this and that but kinda forgot what (in this case) the 5D3 is actually made for. Lemme guess... Taking pictures?!
Oh and then I always hear: "Hey, its 3500 bucks. I expect it to be perfect." But wait, actually they were looking for 35+MP and some other features still missing. But still people were buying like crazy and some of them seem to be ******* in finding some issue which would justify complaining about the price afterwards.

No offense, but this is getting worse with every new model released.
But I'm always glad to see people still being happy with their purchase and I do got the feeling those are the guys who actually really use and value this camera.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 18, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Talk about a newby photographer posting his amazing discovery on vimeo, and then those who think its a new discovery and are shocked.



Exactly.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 18, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> If you want to complain maybe complain that canon sticks with the annoying little neck strap thing on all non 1 series bodies.
> 
> But this is nothing new.
> They would have to recall every SLR/DSLR made in the last, well, who knows how many years.



That's exactly correct.


----------



## zim (Apr 18, 2012)

Raddy said:


> I really would like to know how many people would have noticed this flaw on their own, not reading about it on the web. So the Internet ruined it all! ;D



Hey I like the interweb you get a good laugh, oh yeh and there's always porn 8)


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 18, 2012)

Alker said:


> > Why don’t we hear about this with the D800, D4, or D700?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Same here. My 40D and BOTH my 5D2's do the EXACT SAME THING. Oh wait. Maybe I should take photos with my lens cap off... crap.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 18, 2012)

Raddy said:


> I really would like to know how many people would have noticed this flaw on their own, not reading about it on the web. So the Internet ruined it all! ;D



This is EXACTLY why canon said something about it publicly. The same problem was NOT considered a problem in earlier models. IE, 40D, 5D2. The only reason canon has said something is because you guys are all picking up your pitch forks.


----------



## nikkito (Apr 18, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> rushmore77 said:
> 
> 
> > prestonpalmer said:
> ...




Haha well Said!


----------



## nikkito (Apr 18, 2012)

What the hell is going on with some people here? Thye buy a camera and instead of going out to take pictures they just stay at home, investigate their camera hoping to find something bad, strange, whatever to post its later on YouTube and become famous.

I wonder how many of this camera nerds know how to take pictures.

It's so annoying...


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 18, 2012)

nikkito said:


> What the hell is going on with some people here? Thye buy a camera and instead of going out to take pictures they just stay at home, investigate their camera hoping to find something bad, strange, whatever to post its later on YouTube and become famous.
> 
> I wonder how many of this camera nerds know how to take pictures.
> 
> It's so annoying...



You can't cure stupid.


----------



## Otter (Apr 19, 2012)

Honestly, I don't know why everyone is making such a big deal about this on both ends of the spectrum?

I think people do have the right to complain if they aren't happy with a product. I don't think it is bad that they want their piece of $3500 electronics to be problem free. I think the quality control is much tighter on a camera as opposed to an automobile. And if there is an issue, it's fine if people complain about it or have issues with it, even if it is almost a non issue.

On the other hand...The ones with issues really have to relax. Canon should be embarrassed, shame on Canon, I'm switching to Nikon!!! If you aren't happy with your camera or the light leak, here's a solution. RETURN IT! Nothing wrong with that. Canon WILL fix the issue. Don't act like Canon has insulted you and your family personally by releasing a camera with a mild defect that is fixable. Just return it and wait, then you have no reason to be upset if this is a deal breaker for you. You can go into a Bestbuy and buy a TV and there's a good chance that some of those TV's they have in stock will have issues. It happens.

So those are just my 2 cents on the topic of the light leak and everyone over reacting on both sides. It'll get fixed, you'll all be happy in the end and then we can bitch about something else instead. In the mean time just chill a bit and go and shoot some photos!


----------



## hnjdk (Apr 19, 2012)

The biggest non-problem of them all - the light leak!

I'm sure Canon are going to fix it, if it's a REAL problem. By a real problem i mean, if it's affecting anything within the specified range of 1EV-20EV. It doesn't look like that's the case.

And if Canon are going to "repair" you camera, i'm sure they will extend your warrenty. Don't overreact - you were so happy about your camera until you saw a video on Vimeo/Youtube by a guy who bought a camera he couldn't afford. You've got yours in two separate boxes, and was worried about that too. The guy with the video knows nothing about how cameras with AE have always worked - now, and 1-5-10 years ago - he just expect that he can use/abuse the camera without reading the manual and put the viewfinder-cover on when he use the camera on a tripod with light shining directly into the viewfinder. It's an advanced piece of electronics, and most problems comes from people who just don't read the manuals or specifications before other have to take care for them.

My order for a 5D3 still stands, and i'm not worried at all. I'm sure that it will be a lot better for low-light(leak)than my 60D. I just have to sell som EF-S lenses to by EF's instead.

Sorry for my english, not my main language.


----------



## peederj (Apr 19, 2012)

Count me amongst those unperturbed by the light leak. I shoot RAW and often use -1/3EV compensation; if the light leak pre-dials me the -1/3 that's a feature not a bug. :-*

But what I think Canon has reason to recall over is nothing in the stills department but of course the video implementation. How can we be sure Canon has intentionally crippled the 5D3 video resolution to protect the overpriced Cinema line? Consider the computational complexity of anti-aliased downscaling of an image from 22MP to 2MP versus that of H.264 encoding. The 5D2 could H.264 encode just fine with a single Digic 4. The Digic 5+, Canon proudly trumpets, is SEVENTEEEN (17) TIMES as powerful as the Digic 4!!!!1!

Now see if you can manage a straight face and tell me that the Digic 5 can't properly downscale a video image in real time...something PC's could do 15 years ago without breaking a sweat...but can H.264 encode just like the Digic 4 did. 3x3 pixel binning is like a cruel joke on top of the even crueler joke of line skipping the 5d2 kludge performed. Only malice would lead one there.

If they simply updated the firmware to allow downscaling...and no, no laws of physics or thermal breakdown would be violated...why would anyone need anything more than a decrippled 5D3 for video? It was this question they pondered, and, LAMELY, decided to cripple. Thank Gawd for Blackmagic Design and their showing up Canon for what they are....crippleware is a market inefficiency that will be RESOUNDINGLY corrected, and the decaying carcass of the dinosaur forgotten after a few weeks of shooting with proper equipment.

The light leak? I am not sending my 5D3 in for repairs until they tell me they are fixing the crippled video. And yes, I shoot at least as much stills as video. And yes, if youzeguys shot as much video as stills, you'd be right there with me.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 19, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> Similarly, a camera properly blocking out light should be rule #1. A camera is supposed to block out light....just in case we decide to shoot in extremely low light environments (which many already do). And for a fairly-dim LCD backlight to alter the metering in a dark environment is just plain scandalous. That kind of thing suggests that Canon pushed this camera out before testing it thoroughly (or maybe they knew about it and decided to ship it out anyway and hope for the best).



I don't want Canon to come up with a camera that blocks out light... how would I take pictures! ???


----------



## degies (Apr 19, 2012)

Just found this

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/canon-said-to-be-halting-5d-mk-iii-shipments-as-it-seeks-to-resolve-light-leak-issue/

Looks like they might stop orders. Maybe they pull it and issue the mark iv with more pixels. 

Funny how people throw money at them and the blunder this so badly. Suppose if apple could do it with the first iPhone4 anybody can

And I am still a Canon fan


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 19, 2012)

degies said:


> Just found this
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/canon-said-to-be-halting-5d-mk-iii-shipments-as-it-seeks-to-resolve-light-leak-issue/
> 
> ...



"Said to be"

Funny how people read a random website that speculates something and take it to be the truth, when the actual websites dealing with these have nothing to say about it.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 19, 2012)

... ... ... I thought this had been put to bed here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5648.150

MrSandman, you have already made comment on this and been subject to relatively accurate testing proving this not to be a design flaw. If it was to be classified as a design flaw, then it would have to affect metering within the designed range of 2-20EV; it doesn't.

Seriously, this whole thing is out of hand and becoming ridiculous and immature. Canon has no obligation to fix this, just as they have no obligation to produce a camera that works outside of the design specifications it claims to adhere to.

Give it in, move on and buy a D800 if you want one so much. I know I'd rather have better ISO performance and compatibility with my considerable Canon lens investment than move to the other side, but this may not be an issue for you.

I honestly hope Canon replies with no reparation for this non-existent issue just to shut you all up.


----------



## Astro (Apr 19, 2012)

bottom line... if it´s an issue and can be fixed they should fix it and not ignore it.

as much as i dislike the fuzz about this issue, im unsure about if canon would have adressed this issue without the uprising on the internet.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 19, 2012)

Astro said:


> bottom line... if it´s an issue and can be fixed they should fix it and not ignore it.
> 
> as much as i dislike the fuzz about this issue, im unsure about if canon would have adressed this issue without the uprising on the internet.


That is just it though: bottom line, this is not an issue. We should not be calling something that has no detriment on the way the camera is meant to behave an "issue." It is only an issue or flaw if effects the intended use of the device, which this described phenomenon does not.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 19, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> It's the very fact that it's not a $35,000 car that makes the camera more of a disposable/replaceable item. However, for a camera it is expensive, and as such should be able to perform basic tasks like isolating the meter from ambient light.



And the reason I have a different view is that people are seeing these things as so "disposable". That's not good for the world. This camera came from somewhere. 

So it had a problem, which someone said they would fix. What's the difference between a camera which is fixed and a camera which was working as it should day one? Nothing. The only difference is in your mind - and especially since it's such a very very minor point.

I guess I hate the waste culture that has come about in the last 50 years especially. I've been to the slums of Kenya and I suppose my view of the world is different to many. I don't stop myself getting things I need or want, but I certainly wouldn't waste something for what I see as no good reason.

YMMV of course. I doubt we'd ever agree on this point.


----------



## AG (Apr 19, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> degies said:
> 
> 
> > Just found this
> ...



Thats the power of the internet. 

The main reason we heard nothing about this on previous models is 3+ years ago the internet was not as sensationalist as it has become nowadays.

And before anyone decides to jump on the "no your wrong" bandwagon remember when the iPhone 4 had all its antenna "issues". You know the ones that they proved were an issue for phones since the beginning of GSM phones. 

How soon did that little "issue" get out of hand thanks to blogs and such reporting rumour as fact?

Im sure that some people have light leak issues, just like some people had antenna issues.
But it only becomes a mainstream issue once people who are relying on page views to fund their incomes via their "news" sites, get ahold of it and blow it way out of proportion.

Oh and most guys i know that are serious about taking night/astro type time-lapse photos etc, put gaff over the top LCD and viewfinder once the camera is aimed up. They leave nothing to chance AND they do all the calculations for metering with .....well, calculators.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 19, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> MrSandman said:
> 
> 
> > It's the very fact that it's not a $35,000 car that makes the camera more of a disposable/replaceable item. However, for a camera it is expensive, and as such should be able to perform basic tasks like isolating the meter from ambient light.
> ...


Indeed, Phil. I agree and would also like to point out the consequences of a possible recall of the 5D Mark III. If they were to be recalled, a whole heap of plastic waste and transport-related emissions and chemical releases would eventuate as a result. The camera will continue to be a good camera for many years to come, without any immediate upgrade and without sending your camera back to the manufacturer or authorised repairer for repair of a non-existent fault. 

There is no reason to feel ripped-off in this situation, as you are getting everything you paid for - a camera that works within the range and specifications the manufacturer designed it to. It is a great camera. Perhaps we should be using them to point out the waste of the world Phil was referring to with some photo-journalism, rather than being the wasters ourselves.


----------



## SandyP (Apr 19, 2012)

Nearly 4 full pages, and not 1 photo that has anything to do with this leak... come on now.  Haha.


----------



## 2020digging (Apr 19, 2012)

I suppose you could look at it from the POV that Canon is *wasting* resources by not being diligent in their R&D. Putting out a high priced, highly anticipated product that has a fundamental hardware flaw is unforgivable given how long they had to test this product. The other noticeable point that comes out of these discussions is that consumers are being played for suckers when they defend and accept poor workmanship. Brand loyalty is one thing but declaring that having bought a flawed camera at a premium price is OK is pure folly. Buying flawed products is a *waste* of everyone's time and resources and Canon should be held accountable. If indeed it is a hardware fault then Canon should recall, recycle and apologize to their loyal fans which include people who make a living with these tools.


----------



## Astro (Apr 19, 2012)

2020digging said:


> If indeed it is a hardware fault then Canon should recall, recycle and apologize to their loyal fans which include people who make a living with these tools.



nikon as done it a few times (for example D5000).... im sure canon will do it if needed.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 19, 2012)

2020digging said:


> I suppose you could look at it from the POV that Canon is *wasting* resources by not being diligent in their R&D. Putting out a high priced, highly anticipated product that has a fundamental hardware flaw is unforgivable given how long they had to test this product. The other noticeable point that comes out of these discussions is that consumers are being played for suckers when they defend and accept poor workmanship. Brand loyalty is one thing but declaring that having bought a flawed camera at a premium price is OK is pure folly. Buying flawed products is a *waste* of everyone's time and resources and Canon should be held accountable. If indeed it is a hardware fault then Canon should recall, recycle and apologize to their loyal fans which include people who make a living with these tools.


You are missing the point... It isn't a flaw or a fault. The product behaves as it was intended to by the designers. Try it for yourself, if you don't believe me. If you don't have the camera or have not used someone else's under reasonable shooting conditions (ie. without a lens cap on), then reserve your comments until you have first hand experience.

I, like others on these forums, have actually tested it. As claimed by esi32 in the original thread, the LCD only throws the meter of at aroun -4 or -5EV, well below the accurate operational limits claimed by the manufacturer (like, 24 times less light lower). This isn't about brand loyalty (I mainly shoot with vintage non-canon film cameras, including Nikon); this is about whether there is an issue or not. There is no issue. Simple.


----------



## Astro (Apr 19, 2012)

i wonder if this whole bamboo is made up by nikon trolls.
if you read a website it´s nikon user who seem to be upset the most.. i wonder why they care at all?

i mean... i don´t visit nikon forums so i can´t say for sure if canon user troll their forums too.
but i know nikon user troll canon forums. 

has anyone seen a link where this is tested under real life conditions?
i mean night shots... not lens cap shots?


anyways this issue is not as serious as this:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Service-And-Support/Service-Advisories/gezwvxil/D5000-Service-Advisory.html

did nikon had to swallow so much bulls*t back then as canon has today?

or is it because the issue is minor but the price for the 5D MK3 is high?


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 19, 2012)

2020digging said:


> I suppose you could look at it from the POV that Canon is *wasting* resources by not being diligent in their R&D. Putting out a high priced, highly anticipated product that has a fundamental hardware flaw is unforgivable given how long they had to test this product. The other noticeable point that comes out of these discussions is that consumers are being played for suckers when they defend and accept poor workmanship. Brand loyalty is one thing but declaring that having bought a flawed camera at a premium price is OK is pure folly. Buying flawed products is a *waste* of everyone's time and resources and Canon should be held accountable. If indeed it is a hardware fault then Canon should recall, recycle and apologize to their loyal fans which include people who make a living with these tools.


Can't agree at all and I'll explain why. I'm very close to IT and work heavily with QA in the past. No products are free of bugs. None of them. However, you put a reasonable amount of QA in to make sure you get to a certain level of quality - say 99.9% or whatever is right.

Nothing in this world is perfect and no matter how much we want it to be we are, after all, human. Nikon will have issues. So will Sony. So will Panasonic. So will Apple. So will McDonalds. So will Ford. And so on.

It's the perfectionism which is causing the waste - not poor workmanship. There is a media or internet led assault along the lines of "how dare they" and "it's completely unacceptable". IMO it's quite childish. However, it's how people are these days. They want to be wrapped up in cotton wool and blame whoever they can.

I want to point out that if a problem is real and serious I'd be totally on the other side. However, this one just isn't. It's a very small issue affecting a very small percentage of users a very small amount and totally understandable that it hasn't been picked up. I've even heard this was on the 5d2 (although I've never checked 'cos it's totally irrelevant).

To those who are calling it "unacceptable" - explain how it will affect you personally and by how much. Justify your position. I've certainly justified mine


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 19, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> MrSandman said:
> 
> 
> > It's the very fact that it's not a $35,000 car that makes the camera more of a disposable/replaceable item. However, for a camera it is expensive, and as such should be able to perform basic tasks like isolating the meter from ambient light.
> ...



I disagree with you on this point.

First, if for no other reason, a repair will almost certainly create cosmetic damage to the camera. _I'm not saying that cosmetic damage is a big issue, especially considering that it'll pick up blemishes on it as we use it._ But would you pay $3500 for a brand-new camera with cosmetic damage when you can buy one without cosmetic damage? Part of the joy of buying a new product is enjoying it in its brand-new, mint, pristine state.

On a more serious note, a repair creates opportunities for other problems to develop. Products can be mishandled by a careless technician, installed incorrectly, and so on. Why on Earth would you even subject your $3500 device to that scenario when you have the opportunity (and the right) to return it and buy a product that is manufactured without the defect?



> I guess I hate the waste culture that has come about in the last 50 years especially. I've been to the slums of Kenya and I suppose my view of the world is different to many. I don't stop myself getting things I need or want, but I certainly wouldn't waste something for what I see as no good reason.
> 
> YMMV of course. I doubt we'd ever agree on this point.



The waste culture here is Canon's. This is a problem they should have fixed long before releasing this camera to the public. An ounce of prevention is worse a pound of cure. A stitch in time saves nine. They probably knew of this problem but let it go, and they got burned for it. I'm glad they're addressing it, however.


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 19, 2012)

2020digging said:


> I suppose you could look at it from the POV that Canon is *wasting* resources by not being diligent in their R&D. Putting out a high priced, highly anticipated product that has a fundamental hardware flaw is unforgivable given how long they had to test this product. The other noticeable point that comes out of these discussions is that consumers are being played for suckers when they defend and accept poor workmanship. Brand loyalty is one thing but declaring that having bought a flawed camera at a premium price is OK is pure folly. Buying flawed products is a *waste* of everyone's time and resources and Canon should be held accountable. If indeed it is a hardware fault then Canon should recall, recycle and apologize to their loyal fans which include people who make a living with these tools.



Very well said, sir (or ma'am).

And let me add that this 'hardware' issue isn't something complex like a shutter or a computer chip. It's a defect in the simplest part of the camera -- the camera 'box'! An object whose main purpose is to block out ambient light.


----------



## Christian_Stella (Apr 19, 2012)

Anybody who returns a camera just to re-purchase it later, rather than get a repair, is not allowed to complain about Canon's raise in price. 

I've worked with a company that has a no questions asked return policy and it has bred a culture of over-spending now and returning later. The manufacturers are required to take back all returns at their expense, and then they must put in the time to determine if in fact the item is defective or simply returned arbitrarily. Then they must spend the money to refurbish the item before selling it again at a deep discount. In most cases, many parts are simply disposed of because there is no cost effective way to test and or clean them. All of this is worked into the camera's original price. While it's nothing new, I think the internet has made it very easy to return a high-ticket item for no reason without the embarrassment of doing it in person. I guarantee you that some people are even purchasing cameras to use for a big shoot as a B camera with every intention of returning it afterward, the same way people would return big screen TVs after the super bowl.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 19, 2012)

> First, if for no other reason, a repair will almost certainly create cosmetic damage to the camera. _I'm not saying that cosmetic damage is a big issue, especially considering that it'll pick up blemishes on it as we use it._ But would you pay $3500 for a brand-new camera with cosmetic damage when you can buy one without cosmetic damage? Part of the joy of buying a new product is enjoying it in its brand-new, mint, pristine state.
> 
> On a more serious note, a repair creates opportunities for other problems to develop. Products can be mishandled by a careless technician, installed incorrectly, and so on. Why on Earth would you even subject your $3500 device to that scenario when you have the opportunity (and the right) to return it and buy a product that is manufactured without the defect?



What damage from what repair!? There is nothing to repair, so there won't be one. The camera works as designed. Give it a break.


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 19, 2012)

> You are missing the point... It isn't a flaw or a fault. The product behaves as it was intended to by the designers. Try it for yourself, if you don't believe me. If you don't have the camera or have not used someone else's under reasonable shooting conditions (ie. without a lens cap on), then reserve your comments until you have first hand experience.
> 
> I, like others on these forums, have actually tested it. As claimed by esi32 in the original thread, the LCD only throws the meter of at aroun -4 or -5EV, well below the accurate operational limits claimed by the manufacturer (like, 24 times less light lower).



First, some people have found that it throws off the metering by 1/3 stop at EVs of 1 or even 2.

Second, I suspect that under stronger ambient light, such as bright sunlight at high-noon in the middle of summer, the meter will be affected at EVs of higher than 2.


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 19, 2012)

i tested mine all day yesterday on my shoot, dark conditions, strong sunlight conditions, even some conditions that we fabricated when we had down time, the only time i could make the exposure move was when the lens cap was on, otherwise nothing. this is an absolute non issue for me, or maybe i just got a good camera, but we tried everything and anything to try to make the camera do what some people are saying it does. ill just keep on shooting! going on job 4 with the 5dmk3 next week!


----------



## ippikiokami (Apr 19, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> > You are missing the point... It isn't a flaw or a fault. The product behaves as it was intended to by the designers. Try it for yourself, if you don't believe me. If you don't have the camera or have not used someone else's under reasonable shooting conditions (ie. without a lens cap on), then reserve your comments until you have first hand experience.
> >
> > I, like others on these forums, have actually tested it. As claimed by esi32 in the original thread, the LCD only throws the meter of at aroun -4 or -5EV, well below the accurate operational limits claimed by the manufacturer (like, 24 times less light lower).
> 
> ...



Wow you sure have a lot of time on your hands to troll about a problem that seems like you never encountered yourself when shooting.

I was shooting a venue (concert) when I HAD to use 25600 ISO to get what I needed and had no problems with the exposure meter. I used the lcd light quite a few times as it was the first real day on the field of the cam and I wasn't totally used to the settings yet. After being amazed by the pictures I got from the concert that night. I walked around the neighborhood that barely had distant city light glow to light it just to mess around. Again used the lcd light a few times (I specifically remember this because I hardly ever used it in the past except on the first day or so of getting a camera). Again issue never came up or never came up enough that I noticed it.

So is it an issue? Well yeah it's a bug but to go fire and brimstone about it? Are you kidding me???? Canon has already acknowledged it and will find a fix for it. If the box was as bad as you seemingly make it , there would be a lot more issues than this EXTREMELY fringe one.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 19, 2012)

MrSandman, do you have links to back up these claims or any first-hand experience using a Mark III? I have not seen any confirmed cases at the levels of light you mention. 

There have been two potentially different top LCD plastics used with slightly different rigidity, all of which seem to have similar, consistent metering shifts at extremely low light levels (we are talking borderline pitch black). If one or two people have had shifts occur at levels within the meters designed range, then it is most likely imagined or a rare fault, not endemic within the whole owner-base.


----------



## rich in tx (Apr 19, 2012)

wow. not good, canon.


----------



## chimpmitten (Apr 19, 2012)

Are there any comparison images that show this issue when actually taking pictures?

I found a comparison shot of the inside of a lens cap and both pictures were a very similar looking black rectangle.

From the sounds of it in this thread and some other places, this really seems like a non issue. If it was a problem I would imagine that it would be able to be reproduced in real world situations, like when shooting without a lens cap.

The complaints make it sound like if you remove a lens you would see a light shining down from the LCD. I have a feeling that this is not the case.

I would think that if this was an actual issue someone could take a picture of a blank wall or a test pattern, turn on the lcd light and take the same pictures with a noticeable difference between the two images. Where are these images?


----------



## daniel-barton (Apr 19, 2012)

Suggested solution to light leak issue:

1) Point your $3000 camera body at something aesthetically pleasing.
2) Check composition and set exposure.
3) Press shutter release.
4) Double-check for proper exposure using your ultra-handy chimp screen.
5) Adjust exposure if necessary.

The only adjustment ever really required here is that if you're shooting something unrepeatable (sports, p-j, weddings), you might want to get your exposure nailed *before* the moment and perhaps shoot in raw in case you miss the exposure a little bit.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Take photographs.


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

This guy's 5D3 night shots look pretty good to me and he never even mentions light leak, so apparently it's not too much of an issue...

http://www.extremeinstability.com/2012-3-30-2.htm

From thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5396.0


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 19, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > MrSandman said:
> ...



As noted, nothing is perfect. That you seem to misunderstand, but as I said earlier it's all part of the blame culture we have now. 

As an aside, complete guesses on your part:
Visual damage with a repair
Further problems from a repair
They knew about the problem

To be honest we're at completely opposite ends of a very very long room, so there's no point in discussing it further. As far as I'm concerned you can carry on believing that the world should be perfect. Me? I'll go out and take some photos.


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> Either way, I’m returning mine, and will consider buying it again after Canon has satisfactorily addressed the matter.



I can understand your frustrations, but below is a link where a guy tested extensively in exactly the conditions that should provoke the problem, yet he never mentions the problem. He took real pictures when he tested...so what do you think of his pictures? Personally, I'd be more inclined to use something like that as a benchmark of how problematic the issue is as opposed to a bunch of internet chatter. Just sayin'...

http://www.extremeinstability.com/2012-3-30-2.htm


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 19, 2012)

> You are missing the point... It isn't a flaw or a fault. The product behaves as it was intended to by the designers. Try it for yourself, if you don't believe me. If you don't have the camera or have not used someone else's under reasonable shooting conditions (ie. without a lens cap on), then reserve your comments until you have first hand experience.



And just out of curiosity, Canon intended for the LCD panel to leak light into the meter?


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 19, 2012)

Christian_Stella said:


> Anybody who returns a camera just to re-purchase it later, rather than get a repair, is not allowed to complain about Canon's raise in price.



But I don’t intend to re-purchase it later. I intend to purchase a different camera: i.e. the EOS 5D Mark III that doesn’t let ambient light hit the meter. That’s a different camera than the one I purchased a couple days ago.


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 19, 2012)

> As noted, nothing is perfect. That you seem to misunderstand, but as I said earlier it's all part of the blame culture we have now.
> 
> As an aside, complete guesses on your part:
> Visual damage with a repair
> ...



Light leaking through the camera body is not an imperfection. It’s a defect in every sense of the word. I’ll bet a million bucks Canon intended for that LCD panel to block out all ambient light, and that this light leak problem is something inadvertent and unforeseen.


----------



## ramon123 (Apr 19, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > sailingsilkeborg said:
> ...



Nicely said.


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Apr 19, 2012)

From my quick personal tests, I'm not too worried about this except for one thing....

if Canon makes a change to the design but doesn't replace/fix the earlier models, then those of us with the early design may find our cameras with a lower resale value. In short, this could cost *me* money, and I don't like that.

I could just see Canon offering % or fixed $ off coupon in the Canon store. I had that happen before due to a printer design issue, and it was very displeasing since the discounted price was still higher that what I could get on the open market.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 19, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> > As noted, nothing is perfect. That you seem to misunderstand, but as I said earlier it's all part of the blame culture we have now.
> >
> > As an aside, complete guesses on your part:
> > Visual damage with a repair
> ...



*No manufacturer ever intends for issues to exist. Yet they do. Everywhere!!*

Accept that


----------



## nesarajah (Apr 19, 2012)

I just want to add 3 things: 
1. I love 5dmk3 and the light leak issue is not really an issue 
2. There are either a lot of trolls or liars who pretend to own canon gear 
3. I am in full agreement about the images popping due to lack of dynamic range. It's not what I would call a feature but I'm sure canon engineers thought about it .


----------



## Christian_Stella (Apr 19, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> Christian_Stella said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody who returns a camera just to re-purchase it later, rather than get a repair, is not allowed to complain about Canon's raise in price.
> ...



Your re-purchased "different" 5d3 will have simply gone through the same repair job that they'll offer on your current model. Somewhere there's a huge stockpile of the cameras getting prepared for modifications. Depending on how long it takes them to revamp their production line, I'm afraid you may never know if your 5d3 was ever touched by a technician's hands. I think you are best skipping this generation or at least asking for a tour of the factory in Japan before purchasing a new model. This way you will know for certain that Japanese hands enacted the fix in the middle of the assembly line, rather than at the end. 

I will patiently wait for Canon's repair information before I get back to work doing my true passion... Taking photos deep in the belly of caves with a motorcycle's headlight strapped downward, into the camera's top LCD screen.


----------



## skitron (Apr 19, 2012)

Christian_Stella said:


> I will patiently wait for Canon's repair information before I get back to work doing my true passion... Taking photos deep in the belly of caves with a motorcycle's headlight strapped downward, into the camera's top LCD screen.



Yes...5D3 seems to work just fine in the pitch black if you aim the headlights at something other than the LCD:

http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/2012/v-i36758.jpg


----------



## markIVantony (Apr 19, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> Either way, I’m returning mine, and will consider buying it again after Canon has satisfactorily addressed the matter. Shipping a brand-new camera back to Canon to have it modified or repaired is completely unacceptable, and utterly out of the question.



Why not just wait to see if there will actually be a recall? It's possible that the fix may come through a firmware update. For example, the camera knows the light level from the exposure meter. The camera also knows when the LCD light is turned on or is active. If the light meter reading is really low, and the LCD light is turned on, and the camera registers a (known) light level increase, the firmware can reduce the exposure proportional to the measured level it increased by at the moment the LCD backlight was turned on. Just an example, but the point is that there may be some clever ways to handle this in firmware that I'm sure Canon is investigating.


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 19, 2012)

Christian_Stella said:


> MrSandman said:
> 
> 
> > Christian_Stella said:
> ...



Incorrect, sir. I will wait long enough to be nearly certain that the existing stock of defective cameras is gone. And if by some chance I get one that looks like it has been opened up and repaired, I’ll return that one too. I realize that may sound unreasonable to you, but in my line of work, I know that repaired devices (especially more complex devices) are more prone to problems than ones made correctly the first time around.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 20, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> > You are missing the point... It isn't a flaw or a fault. The product behaves as it was intended to by the designers. Try it for yourself, if you don't believe me. If you don't have the camera or have not used someone else's under reasonable shooting conditions (ie. without a lens cap on), then reserve your comments until you have first hand experience.
> 
> 
> 
> And just out of curiosity, Canon intended for the LCD panel to leak light into the meter?


I really hope you are joking and not just dense...

I doubt they intended for the LCD to leak, but the consequences of the leak do not warrant you screaming from the rooftops that the camera is a dud. The device meter operates as intended, thus it has not been jeopardised by the LCD leak - therefore, the camera as a whole (at least in relation to this particular issue), is not faulty.


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 20, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> MrSandman said:
> 
> 
> > > You are missing the point... It isn't a flaw or a fault. The product behaves as it was intended to by the designers. Try it for yourself, if you don't believe me. If you don't have the camera or have not used someone else's under reasonable shooting conditions (ie. without a lens cap on), then reserve your comments until you have first hand experience.
> ...



I was trying to be sarcastic, yes.

I’m not screaming off the rooftops saying the camera is a dud. I think it’s a great camera - which is why I chose it over the D800, in fact. But I also think it has a problem that needs to be fixed.

You’re really looking at this issue the wrong way. What’s significant here is not that the defect only produces a problem in ‘extreme’, rarely-encountered environments. What’s significant here is that the defect is a very minor, easily-corrected one. Making the LCD panel more light-proof. It’s a defect that should never have existed in the first place - it’s that easy to do if one pays a little attention. THAT is why it behooves Canon to fix it. We’re not talking about a shutter mechanism blasting away at 14 frames/sec that hesitates once or twice after 30 continuous actuations, or a buffer that sometimes fills up quicker than expected. We’re talking about blocking out light a little better - a very simple task.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 20, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> What’s significant here is not that the defect only produces a problem in ‘extreme’, rarely-encountered environments.


What defect? The camera behaves as it was DESIGNED to behave. If you are shooting beyond the specified limits of the meter, then you are doing so at your own risk in any case, light leak or not. This will NOT affect your shots, if you know what you are doing in those situations and use a meter or your own calculations in the rare situations you are in those conditions. (To reuse someone else's example from the original thread, "This would only be an issue if you are shooting a black cat in a coal pit, with no moon." In which case, you should be using either an exceptionally sensitive light-meter or careful calculations and a strobe set to M.)


----------



## Hesham (Apr 20, 2012)

*STOP MAKING EXCUSES, THIS IS CANON PR's JOB*



swrightgfx said:


> MrSandman said:
> 
> 
> > What’s significant here is not that the defect only produces a problem in ‘extreme’, rarely-encountered environments.
> ...



When a device operates outside its operational limits, it should warn the user and not operate under those circumstances. That's what we get when exposure requires more than 30 seconds, the number flashes indicating that you are trying to operate outside device limits. That's engineering 001 (not even 101)


----------



## skitron (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: STOP MAKING EXCUSES, THIS IS CANON PR's JOB*



Hesham said:


> swrightgfx said:
> 
> 
> > MrSandman said:
> ...



Do you really want the camera to blurt out "WARNING! You are shooting with the lens cap on!"???


----------



## Hesham (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: STOP MAKING EXCUSES, THIS IS CANON PR's JOB*



skitron said:


> Hesham said:
> 
> 
> > swrightgfx said:
> ...



I bet you don't own a 5DM3. Ok, at least check the videos where night scenes exposure changes (without lens cap on). I can't believe how people defend a brand blindly. CANON THEMSELVES ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEM!! IS THIS NOT ENOUGH PROOF?? I understand that this could happen to any company\product, it is a fact which we all will forget three months from now!

somewhere in this forum, Calumet Photo informed a customer that shipping will probably continue by Mid. May, once Canon fixed the problem.

I am so ti


----------



## skitron (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: STOP MAKING EXCUSES, THIS IS CANON PR's JOB*



Hesham said:


> I bet you don't own a 5DM3. Ok, at least check the videos where night scenes exposure changes (without lens cap on). I can't believe how people defend a brand blindly. CANON THEMSELVES ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEM!! IS THIS NOT ENOUGH PROOF?? I understand that this could happen to any company\product, it is a fact which we all will forget three months from now!
> 
> somewhere in this forum, Calumet Photo informed a customer that shipping will probably continue by Mid. May, once Canon fixed the problem.
> 
> I am so ti



I own a 5D2, a model which has the same issue that was interestingly enough, not discovered until the advent of the 5D3 and testing with the lens cap on.

Look, I'm not defending anyone and totally agree Canon should fix it if for no other reason, to eliminate threads like this one. But my point is to put the thing in perspective. Bottom line is if it can shoot shots like this:

http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/2012/v-i36758.jpg

Then in a practical sense, just how much of a "problem" exisits?


----------



## Hesham (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: STOP MAKING EXCUSES, THIS IS CANON PR's JOB*



skitron said:


> Hesham said:
> 
> 
> > I bet you don't own a 5DM3. Ok, at least check the videos where night scenes exposure changes (without lens cap on). I can't believe how people defend a brand blindly. CANON THEMSELVES ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEM!! IS THIS NOT ENOUGH PROOF?? I understand that this could happen to any company\product, it is a fact which we all will forget three months from now!
> ...



I am currently using the 5DM3 (used it with the 8-15 fisheye today, loads of fun), it's the best cam I ever used. I might not be affected by the leak issue but the fact is it is defective instrument, period. Yes it takes wonderful pictures 99% of the time, but still it is defective. Since 20D, I have been using canon gear and upgrading every other model. I keep my cameras in good condition to maintain reasonable re-sale value. The 5DM3 in its current state will not hold its value compared with newer "fixed" versions after one or two years from now. I am waiting for canon's verdict while making sure I don't miss my return window. I hope we hear something today or Monday....


----------



## skitron (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: STOP MAKING EXCUSES, THIS IS CANON PR's JOB*



Hesham said:


> The 5DM3 in its current state will not hold its value compared with newer "fixed" versions after one or two years from now. I am waiting for canon's verdict while making sure I don't miss my return window. I hope we hear something today or Monday....



I don't think you'll need to worry about diminished value. My guess is they fix the ones in the wild via the warranty channel and of course also fix it on the production line. I'm guessing the unreleased stock probably gets fixed by the same team that does the warranty jobs. LOL, my 5D2 is still in warranty, I should ask them about it, not that I'd actually send it in. Sandman expressed he's uncomfortable with a reworked copy, and that's fair enough, depending on how invasive the fix is I'd probably feel the same way.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 20, 2012)

There is no defect


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 20, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> There is no defect



Ok, well, you go on thinking that. That’s fine. There are plenty of people (myself included) who think there is. And more importantly, the people who actually make the camera think there is a defect - a defect that is, at very least, worth looking into and possibly correcting.

So no matter how much you insist that there’s no problem, there are people whose opinions deserve more weight than yours saying that there is.


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: STOP MAKING EXCUSES, THIS IS CANON PR's JOB*



> Sandman expressed he's uncomfortable with a reworked copy, and that's fair enough, depending on how invasive the fix is I'd probably feel the same way.



Well, a repair that requires them to open up the camera is pretty invasive in my book.


----------



## chimpmitten (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: STOP MAKING EXCUSES, THIS IS CANON PR's JOB*



Hesham said:


> Ok, at least check the videos where night scenes exposure changes (without lens cap on). I can't believe how people defend a brand blindly. CANON THEMSELVES ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEM!! IS THIS NOT ENOUGH PROOF?? I understand that this could happen to any company\product, it is a fact which we all will forget three months from now!



Hesham,

Can you point to some of the videos of the lens cap off that demonstrate the issue? I did a quick look and the videos I saw of the lens cap off did not have the issue. They only ones I saw demonstrating the issue were when the lens cap was on or no lens at all with the body cap.

If this is all that it is, when in the complete absence of light a few stray light waves manage to get in an effect the metering of a completely black scene so that it is a slightly different shade of completely black, then I am not worried in the least. I doubt that Canon would even make any fix to the camera at all.

If someone could demonstrate how this effects things while actually taking a picture of something, then that would be great, but I haven't seen that yet, and I've been trying to look for it.

Here, I'll even give an example that should demonstrate the issue. Maybe MrSandman can do this and post results. Stand outside in bright sunlight with a telephoto lens and take a picture through a window into a darkened room. Then go into the darkened room and take another picture. When outside the direct sunlight should cause the light leak issue and screw up the metering. Post both pictures so we can see the difference.

chimpmitten


----------



## Hesham (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: STOP MAKING EXCUSES, THIS IS CANON PR's JOB*



chimpmitten said:


> Hesham said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, at least check the videos where night scenes exposure changes (without lens cap on). I can't believe how people defend a brand blindly. CANON THEMSELVES ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEM!! IS THIS NOT ENOUGH PROOF?? I understand that this could happen to any company\product, it is a fact which we all will forget three months from now!
> ...



Here is one of the videos (BTW, it is referenced in the beginning of this thread!)
Canon 5D Mark III - Light Leak via Viewfinder

I did similar tests with similar results. Hope I didn't, but can't undo it;-)


----------



## chimpmitten (Apr 20, 2012)

*Re: STOP MAKING EXCUSES, THIS IS CANON PR's JOB*



Hesham said:


> Here is one of the videos (BTW, it is referenced in the beginning of this thread!)
> Canon 5D Mark III - Light Leak via Viewfinder
> 
> I did similar tests with similar results. Hope I didn't, but can't undo it;-)



As was said, in the beginning of this thread, that is not even remotely the same issue as we are discussing.

The fact that this guy is shocked that light will go through the view finder is in itself mind boggling for someone purporting to be a camera expert. 

Since you did a similar test, I can only assume that you have a 5d iii (since that is what we are discussing). Could you try the test that I suggested in my previous post?


----------



## AAPhotog (Apr 20, 2012)

What steps must I take to find out if my camera has the light leak issue?


----------



## chimpmitten (Apr 20, 2012)

AAPhotog said:


> What steps must I take to find out if my camera has the light leak issue?



Whether there is a light leak "issue" is up for debate. You can replicate it by putting on your lens cap and putting the camera in an auto mode, then hold the shutter button down half way. The camera should try to properly expose the absence of light. 

While holding the shutter button half way, if you press the top LCD back light button the exposure settings should change to compensate for a minuscule amount of light reaching the sensor used for exposure metering. 

I have yet to see or hear of an example where this occurs without the lens cap on, so the effect appears to have little or no impact on real world use. I'd be more than happy (well not happy since I'd like to get a 5d iii), to be proven wrong about that.


----------



## AAPhotog (Apr 20, 2012)

So I put it on the AV mode with lens cap on. Exposure is zerod out. then I turned on the backlight for the top LCD screen. Nothing changed. Did I do everything correct>? If so, mine must not have the issue

settings
shutter speed: 30"
f/ 1.8
iso: 100


----------



## chimpmitten (Apr 20, 2012)

Make sure you have the shutter button down half way so that it is constantly calculating the exposure when you do the back light. You can also do a search for "5d mark iii light leak videos" that will show how it is done.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 20, 2012)

chimpmitten said:


> Make sure you have the shutter button down half way so that it is constantly calculating the exposure when you do the back light. You can also do a search for "5d mark iii light leak videos" that will show how it is done.



In a real world situation, it's kinda hard to get an accurate meter reading with the lens cap on... this whole thing is so ridiculous...


----------



## AAPhotog (Apr 20, 2012)

chimpmitten said:


> Make sure you have the shutter button down half way so that it is constantly calculating the exposure when you do the back light. You can also do a search for "5d mark iii light leak videos" that will show how it is done.



I did that as well...
I guess Im clear of this issue


----------



## chimpmitten (Apr 20, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> In a real world situation, it's kinda hard to get an accurate meter reading with the lens cap on... this whole thing is so ridiculous...



Says you, but you haven't seen my 30 x 30 Giclée Watercolor print of the inside of a Canon 1200/5.6L USM lens cap. It is beautiful. 

Shot wide open for a razor thin DOF.


----------



## AAPhotog (Apr 20, 2012)

OK I had to cover the viewfinder lol. It did change exposure. Oh well...


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 21, 2012)

chimpmitten said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > In a real world situation, it's kinda hard to get an accurate meter reading with the lens cap on... this whole thing is so ridiculous...
> ...



Fair enough. Any other application in which you aren't photographing the lens cap, it's a minor issue. I will say its quite amazing the 1200 focused that close, talk about macro photography!


----------



## Hesham (Apr 21, 2012)

*PLEASE NO BODY SHOULD MENTION THE LENS CAP ON.. CHECK THIS*



chimpmitten said:


> Hesham said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, at least check the videos where night scenes exposure changes (without lens cap on). I can't believe how people defend a brand blindly. CANON THEMSELVES ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEM!! IS THIS NOT ENOUGH PROOF?? I understand that this could happen to any company\product, it is a fact which we all will forget three months from now!
> ...



How about this? Clearly NO LENS CAP!
D81 0512


----------



## chimpmitten (Apr 21, 2012)

*Re: PLEASE NO BODY SHOULD MENTION THE LENS CAP ON.. CHECK THIS*



Hesham said:


> How about this? Clearly NO LENS CAP!
> D81 0512



Yes, thank you very much. That is the sort of thing I had unsuccessfully looked for. 

If that is the extent of the problem then I can easily live with this. When taking long exposures like that I would generally use a 2 second delay to make sure that I am not shaking the camera. There would be no need to leave the back light on during the exposure. 

Actually, I would probably be shooting manually, so changes to the auto exposure wouldn't matter anyway, but it is good to know the limitations and bugs of the camera.

Thanks again.

chimpmitten


----------



## zim (Apr 21, 2012)

I’m posting this because I genuinely don’t understand what’s going on in that video.
The photo’s taken with the top plate light one look better exposed to me?
Also shouldn’t the viewfinder be covered there must be a light source shining into it? although maybe that shouldn’t matter as it’s a constant I suppose.


----------



## stevenrrmanir (Apr 22, 2012)

The light leak issue is NOT of concern to the Cannon fanboys! They will blindly purchase anything Canon throws at them! It looks like Canon is too cheap to properly seal their $3500 bodies!


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 22, 2012)

The light leak issue is of no concern to people who actually photograph things other than charts and the back of the lens cap.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 22, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> The light leak issue is NOT of concern to the Cannon fanboys! They will blindly purchase anything Canon throws at them! It looks like Canon is too cheap to properly seal their $3500 bodies!



I think you may have found the wrong forum... nikon roumors is over here > http://nikonrumors.com/


----------



## Bosman (Apr 23, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> stevenrrmanir said:
> 
> 
> > The light leak issue is NOT of concern to the Cannon fanboys! They will blindly purchase anything Canon throws at them! It looks like Canon is too cheap to properly seal their $3500 bodies!
> ...


+1


----------



## mh1973 (Apr 26, 2012)

At this week, Canon has provided workaround for reparation. However, they roughly announced serial number of flawed product at the same time. Obviously, Canon has no consideration of first users. Also, it indirectly hit and hurt first users again. it caused that first user will lose good price of 5D3 at 2nd hand market in the future once they would like to sell. Becuase all buyers know serial number is a flaw ones... Even if it has been repaired... buyer also are concern about disassembled body. Canon should handle this affair more carefully. Because most of first users are loyal and believe Canon's product. Unquestionably, Canon will lose goodwill if no good repairation for first users.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 26, 2012)

mh1973 said:


> At this week, Canon has provided workaround for reparation. However, they roughly announced serial number of flawed product at the same time. Obviously, Canon has no consideration of first users. Also, it indirectly hit and hurt first users again. it caused that first user will lose good price of 5D3 at 2nd hand market in the future once they would like to sell. Becuase all buyers know serial number is a flaw ones... Even if it has been repaired... buyer also are concern about disassembled body. Canon should handle this affair more carefully. Because most of first users are loyal and believe Canon's product. Unquestionably, Canon will lose goodwill if no good repairation for first users.



Yep the whiners publically whined long and loud about a glitch that shouldn't affect them and it has hit them in the pocket, hit millions of happy users in the pocket and tarnished the reputation of a fine camera

I hope they are pleased with themselves and will be able to sleep soundly knowing they have achieved a 'result' by 'forcing' Canon to rectify a minor problem that would never have impacted them


----------



## ramon123 (Apr 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> mh1973 said:
> 
> 
> > At this week, Canon has provided workaround for reparation. However, they roughly announced serial number of flawed product at the same time. Obviously, Canon has no consideration of first users. Also, it indirectly hit and hurt first users again. it caused that first user will lose good price of 5D3 at 2nd hand market in the future once they would like to sell. Becuase all buyers know serial number is a flaw ones... Even if it has been repaired... buyer also are concern about disassembled body. Canon should handle this affair more carefully. Because most of first users are loyal and believe Canon's product. Unquestionably, Canon will lose goodwill if no good repairation for first users.
> ...



"hit millions of happy users" 

you don't really think that there are that many people with 5D Mark III's do you?


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 26, 2012)

"Darn, I guess ill just have throw this brand new Canon EOS mark III that I've just spent 3500$ into the garbage dumpster because no good photos will ever come out of it because of a tiny leak that may not affect the actual real world performance based on some stuff that was in a video on youtube showing a dude poking around with his MK3 just to pull out a flaw that really shouldn't have been there but oh well, Right into the garbage pale."

           WHATTT!?!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 26, 2012)

ramon123 said:


> "hit millions of happy users"
> 
> you don't really think that there are that many people with 5D Mark III's do you?



In colloquial English millions means lots and lots. No one knows how may 5DIIIs will be sold, but you can bet it will be at least as many as 5DIIs


----------



## skitron (Apr 27, 2012)

mh1973 said:


> At this week, Canon has provided workaround for reparation. However, they roughly announced serial number of flawed product at the same time. Obviously, Canon has no consideration of first users. Also, it indirectly hit and hurt first users again. it caused that first user will lose good price of 5D3 at 2nd hand market in the future once they would like to sell. Becuase all buyers know serial number is a flaw ones... Even if it has been repaired... buyer also are concern about disassembled body. Canon should handle this affair more carefully. Because most of first users are loyal and believe Canon's product. Unquestionably, Canon will lose goodwill if no good repairation for first users.



Man, I hope you never buy a new car the first year it comes out...


----------



## dturano (Apr 27, 2012)

Not looking to side track this intense thread, but have two quick questions: Where do you live? And what night does the trash go out? 



RLPhoto said:


> "Darn, I guess ill just have throw this brand new Canon EOS mark III that I've just spent 3500$ into the garbage dumpster because no good photos will ever come out of it because of a tiny leak that may not affect the actual real world performance based on some stuff that was in a video on youtube showing a dude poking around with his MK3 just to pull out a flaw that really shouldn't have been there but oh well, Right into the garbage pale."
> 
> WHATTT!?!


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 27, 2012)

dturano said:


> Not looking to side track this intense thread, but have two quick questions: Where do you live? And what night does the trash go out?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ramon123 (Apr 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> ramon123 said:
> 
> 
> > "hit millions of happy users"
> ...



Um, "millions" can mean literal or figurative. I think in context you should of rather said "a lot" or "thousands" which is more specific and leaves less room for misunderstanding. 

Where did you learn English? ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

ramon123 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > ramon123 said:
> ...



England


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> ramon123 said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


Ha ha. Brilliant. I cannot speak for where from ramon123 hails, but I do find myself misunderstood by those not of the same British language learning as myself, who often take my words too seriously, ignoring the sarcasm or exaggerated nature and taking everything literally!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > ramon123 said:
> ...



I come from a generation that learnt English where words often had different conotations. England english is so full of sayings, double meanings and plays on words which do not work through Google translation 

You are right in that it is sometimes what we dont say that imparts the meaning. In English english you have to read the paragraph not the individual words to understand us.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 27, 2012)

ramon123 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > ramon123 said:
> ...



I bet he learned it in the real world of how people actually speak and use words I bet.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 27, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > ramon123 said:
> ...



Well I'm in the US and I got what he meant without issue. In my part of the country it's a given to not take everything so ridiculously literally. I do remember this one kid from out of state who moved in and he would constantly stop people like every few sentences to correct well, come on, you don't literally mean that now, arrr, ridiculous, could never get the concept that not everything is 100% literal to the bone!


----------



## Hesham (Apr 27, 2012)

"tarnished the reputation of a fine camera"

reputation of a CAMERA???? what's with you people??


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 27, 2012)

Hesham said:


> "tarnished the reputation of a fine camera"
> 
> reputation of a CAMERA???? what's with you people??


I do believe this was in reference to second-hand value, potentially reduced over a big fuss about a problem that is not symptomatic within the specifications of the device and has been evident on other models unnoticed for years.


----------



## ramon123 (Apr 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> ramon123 said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



I got a Masters in English at Oxford  now shooo


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 27, 2012)

ramon123 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > ramon123 said:
> ...


Oh really? Which college?

I love how this thread has taken on a better topic.

EDIT: Text found its way into quote.


----------



## zim (Apr 27, 2012)

If I’ve told you once I’ve told you a million times don’t exaggerate!


----------



## MazV-L (Apr 27, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> swrightgfx said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


It's Asperger's Syndrome.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

swrightgfx said:


> Hesham said:
> 
> 
> > "tarnished the reputation of a fine camera"
> ...



Absolutely right - the 5D3 will now be tarnished as 'faulty', when in fact it is within specifications just that in an obscure situation the metering is slightly out (that could easily corrected in pp)


----------



## skitron (Apr 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> swrightgfx said:
> 
> 
> > Hesham said:
> ...



I'll offer $2500 to anyone for their 'faulty' 5D3. 

Any sellers?

I didn't think so.

So much for the devaluation argument...


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

skitron said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > swrightgfx said:
> ...



That is because they sent them back to Canon .....


----------



## skitron (Apr 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



The offer still stands when they get them back, since they will be forever devalued and all.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

skitron said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > skitron said:
> ...



Get a 1Ds3 at that price and you will have a fine catch


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Thats an odd looking 1Ds3 in that photo!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Get a 1Ds3 at that price and you will have a fine catch
> ...



Carefull - the semantics police will be after you


----------



## skitron (Apr 27, 2012)

I think it's a red herring.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 28, 2012)

MazV-L said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > swrightgfx said:
> ...



You might think so from what I wrote but I'd have to say definitely no. Not one other thing about him even remotely hinted at that in any way whatsoever. (And I myself exaggerated a bit when I said constantly, although he would do it often enough.)


----------

