# Canon, STOP shipping defective products!!!



## llcanon (Apr 24, 2012)

*I can't help starting this new thread, because I want us loyal early adopters and all customers to be treated fairly by Canon*.

First, I'v shooting Canon for 15 years. I have two 5D3’s. Neither of them showed any “noticeable” effect. Both of them are still within 30-day return period. I AM packing them up today and sending them back for full refund. 

Canon’s response to this light leak issue is unacceptable. For a $3,500 camera for which many of us have waited and saved, Canon should *STOP shipping the defective products immediately*. Whether it affects real world shooting or not, it is a product with defect. If Canon wants to earn trust from its loyal and prospective customers, be bold and offer to swap out the defective units unconditionally free of charge.

I know many of us do not want to lose the camera for some short period of time and that's why we have been defending Canon including myself. BUT, *forgiving the bad business practice can only encourage abuse of the customers*. 

Remember iPhone 4? Apple ultimately paid the price by issuing $15 to all its owners. Some lawyer is probably happily laughing right now when they saw Canon's response. 

I am writing to Canon today. This is not the solution. And this is not over yet.


----------



## april (Apr 24, 2012)

llcanon said:


> *I can't help starting this new thread, because I want us loyal early adopters and all customers to be treated fairly by Canon*.
> 
> First, I'v shooting Canon for 15 years. I have two 5D3’s. Neither of them showed any “noticeable” effect. Both of them are still within 30-day return period. I AM packing them up today and sending them back for full refund.
> 
> ...



 good on you mate!! +1 totally agree


----------



## javier (Apr 24, 2012)

I send my 5D3 for refund the day before canon accepted the leak problem.

I agree with you if canon do not take their customers serious we will make then take us serious.

return your camera and force them to fix the design.


----------



## iso79 (Apr 24, 2012)

While you guys are whining. I'm enjoying shooting with my 5D Mark III.


----------



## LanceF (Apr 24, 2012)

Loving my 5DMiii shooting everyday.

"STOP shipping the defective products immediately. Whether it affects real world shooting or not"

I bet 99% of the electronics you own have defects and you don't know about them. Weather it's a resistor not resisting the exact amount of current or 1 pixel on your tv that is only putting out 99% of the light it should.

You really should be bitching at every company and not just Canon. Fridge, Microwave, the shingles on your roof wearing prematurely, the list goes on.


----------



## wookiee2cu (Apr 24, 2012)

I have yet to see an image where this supposed issue affected it, have you?


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 24, 2012)

Sorry but this makes no sense. You don't have any noticeable problem and if you learned to shoot in manual, you would never have a problem, so you're returning? If all producers of consumer good had your approach you'd never get any consumer goods at all. Bear in mind also that the mkII also had issues like this. If producers never shipped for fear of there being faults nothing would ever get shipped.


----------



## javier (Apr 24, 2012)

wookiee2cu said:


> I have yet to see an image where this supposed issue affected it, have you?



I return my 5d Mark III, BEFORE the light leak problem because I notice the images came dark and the meter was 2/3 to 1 stop off, If I want to take a picture with a good exposure balance I had to take the image +2/3 to +1 every time.


----------



## macrodust (Apr 24, 2012)

llcanon said:


> *I can't help starting this new thread, because I want us loyal early adopters and all customers to be treated fairly by Canon*.
> 
> First, I'v shooting Canon for 15 years. I have two 5D3’s. Neither of them showed any “noticeable” effect. Both of them are still within 30-day return period. I AM packing them up today and sending them back for full refund.
> 
> ...



I do understand why people may feel a bit unhappy about receiving a non-perfect product. I'm a 5DIII owner myself, and while I would of course prefer if the camera didn't have this issue, I don't think that Canon is handling this poorly. They are offering a fix (I called and verified this with canon china) and not just an "inspection", so for those of you who think this is a big problem, just send in your cameras! 

No company would do a recall because of a phenomena of this kind. This time the community happened to stumble over this before Canon did, but there are and will be bigger problems than this with any newly launched products. Most of the time the manufacturer rectifies this in subsequent production batches without the public ever knowing. If a design or manufacturing problem causes product failure or the product to perform out of spec, a recall would be the right thing to do, but this is not the case with the light leakage.

Am I annoyed? I tiny bit perhaps, but as this will not affect me I've decided not to send in my camera. To demand a recall of all shipped units is neither realistic nor called for.

In this case, I'm sure the canon management team were even discussing to issue a statement saying that the product performs according to specifications and no further actions will be taken. Luckily for Canon they didn't choose this route, as it would have been a PR disaster and, good for us, they will fix it if you want. As they should.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 24, 2012)

Does this mean that we'll be seeing 5DIII's in the Canon refurb store soon? :


----------



## rpt (Apr 24, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Does this mean that we'll be seeing 5DIII's in the Canon refurb store soon? :



Hmmmm...

Nah! Just disinfected, cleaned and put in a new box...


----------



## llcanon (Apr 24, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Sorry but this makes no sense. You don't have any noticeable problem and if you learned to shoot in manual, you would never have a problem, so you're returning? If all producers of consumer good had your approach you'd never get any consumer goods at all. Bear in mind also that the mkII also had issues like this. If producers never shipped for fear of there being faults nothing would ever get shipped.



If this is not an issue at all, why would Canon even bother "fixing" it. Just say "we will continue shipping the product, and if you think you have a problem, send your camera in and we'll take a look". By identifying certain units being "defective", it will hurt the resale value of those units for sure. 

I have no control of the products I received before the problem was discovered. But Canon can control how it delivers its product. To treat its customers fairly, it should start shipping the "fixed" product instead of continuing the shipment of the "defective" ones to clear its inventory.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 24, 2012)

Can we just delete these useless threads please? :

This has been discussed to death, there is no need for a new thread about it. 

Go take pictures. If you can with a terrible defective camera like that (sarcasm) :


----------



## jrista (Apr 24, 2012)

llcanon said:


> Canon’s response to this light leak issue is unacceptable. For a $3,500 camera for which many of us have waited and saved, Canon should *STOP shipping the defective products immediately*. Whether it affects real world shooting or not, it is a product with defect. If Canon wants to earn trust from its loyal and prospective customers, be bold and offer to swap out the defective units unconditionally free of charge.



What is wrong about issuing a service warning for an issue that only exhibits at exactly the LOWEST metering sensitivity level, and only has a 1/3rd stop effect on metering, and *only* IF you turn on the LCD backlight...which you can certainly do to check settings, then TURN IT OFF AGAIN before actually taking the friggin shot!! It will affect a miniscule minor fraction of 5D III users who have bought one of the cameras with the specified serial numbers, and anyone who buys a camera with a 3 or greater in the 6th digit of the serial number will NOT experience the problem because it has been fixed. This is NOT a recall-worthy issue. It is a minor service call issue that can be fixed IF YOU CHOOSE TO!!

Seriously, you guys are grabbing at straws for, apparently, SOMETHING to hate on. Grow up. Get a friggin life. And USE YOUR DAMN CAMERA FOR _SOMETHING USEFUL! _STOP BITCHING!


----------



## preppyak (Apr 24, 2012)

llcanon said:


> First, I'v shooting Canon for 15 years. I have two 5D3’s. Neither of them showed any “noticeable” effect. Both of them are still within 30-day return period. I AM packing them up today and sending them back for full refund.


So, you had no issue with your cameras and were shooting just fine


> Canon’s response to this light leak issue is unacceptable. For a $3,500 camera for which many of us have waited and saved, Canon should *STOP shipping the defective products immediately*.


They did stop shipping them. http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-recall/

Major US Retailers stopped getting stock while Canon decided how to handle the issue. When they determined (like you, btw) that it was a non-issue for real world conditions, they issued their solution and continued shipping cameras.



> be bold and offer to swap out the defective units unconditionally free of charge.


They did a variation of this as well, offering to fix it if you send it in to their facility free of charge. Which is honestly more than they had to do since they confirmed it has no real world effect. 

Basically, Canon did everything you just asked for an issue you agreed was nothing. Why are you mad again?


----------



## Autocall (Apr 24, 2012)

llcanon said:


> I have two 5D3’s.


 ;D
drumroll & cymbals..


----------



## llcanon (Apr 24, 2012)

jrista said:


> It will affect a miniscule minor fraction of 5D III users who have bought one of the cameras with the specified serial numbers, and anyone who buys a camera with a 3 or greater in the 6th digit of the serial number will NOT experience the problem because it has been fixed. This is NOT a recall-worthy issue. It is a minor service call issue that can be fixed IF YOU CHOOSE TO!!



Well, I sincerely hope the one you will be receiving has a series number with a "3 or greater". I expect you and many others will receive a "1" or "2". The only thing I asked Canon to do is from now on, only ship the fixed units.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 24, 2012)

Ahh.. the righteousness indignation of the average user these days.

"How dare someone provide me with something that's not perfect. I mean, I know it'll never happen, but if it did my exposures might be a tiny tiny bit different".

Yep - well worth all of the fuss I'd say.

P.S If it's not clear, I've preordered mine and will lose not one second of sleep due to this complete non-issue.


----------



## jrista (Apr 24, 2012)

llcanon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It will affect a miniscule minor fraction of 5D III users who have bought one of the cameras with the specified serial numbers, and anyone who buys a camera with a 3 or greater in the 6th digit of the serial number will NOT experience the problem because it has been fixed. This is NOT a recall-worthy issue. It is a minor service call issue that can be fixed IF YOU CHOOSE TO!!
> ...



Canon has already made the determination that the issue is not worthy of a recall. They won't waste millions of dollars of manufactured goods, so you should expect that every last one of the "1" and "2" serial series will indeed be shipped. Canon has done their due diligence and announced the issue. You, as a consumer, can choose whether to buy a camera with either of those serial numbers, or wait and buy one that has a fix. Or you can buy one of the ones with the issue and send it in to be fixed.


----------



## Astro (Apr 24, 2012)

yawn.....


----------



## sach100 (Apr 24, 2012)

jrista said:


> Seriously, you guys are grabbing at straws for, apparently, SOMETHING to hate on. Grow up. Get a friggin life. And USE YOUR DAMN CAMERA FOR _SOMETHING USEFUL! _STOP BITCHING!



in the last several days that i've been reading your posts, this is the first time i see an un-jrista response from you.
a round of JD to cool off may be?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

llcanon said:


> First, I'v shooting Canon for 15 years. I have two 5D3’s. Neither of them showed any “noticeable” effect. Both of them are still within 30-day return period. I AM packing them up today and sending them back for full refund.



Just love the logic there - 'couldn't find anthing wrong with the camera but I am going to send it back because I dont like how they treated people with a possible problem'


----------



## llcanon (Apr 24, 2012)

Alright, my friends, I knew I would be stoned by our loyal Canon shooters. ;D

It's time to put a stop to this discussion. All of sudden, one consumer has become the target under attack by other consumers. 

I will return mine and order a new one in a couple of months when Canon starts to ship the fixed ones.

You may keep yours and enjoy shooting.

If you haven't received yours, I bet you will do two things:

1. Check the series number
2. Press LCD light and check the reading.

Who discovered this issue in the first place anyway? I wonder if he/she still has his/her 5D3. 

Good day, everyone!


----------



## Zlatko (Apr 24, 2012)

This makes no sense at all. The camera is not "defective" in any way. The alleged "defect" doesn't affect anyone except those who photograph their lens caps. 

Have you found any instance in which it affects a photograph? Have you, really? 

Canon is being generous to even offer to inspect cameras. This is a huge tempest in a teapot, and nothing that affects any real photographer or photograph. 

I am *not* sending the 5D3 back. I am not sending it anywhere, not even to be inspected. I've been using it and finding it to be the best, most capable camera I've ever used. 

Every electronic product on the market likely has some comparable nonsensical "defect". Every machine in your home and garage probably has some comparable nonsensical "defect". 

This notion of perfection is reaching a new level of craziness. Canon, STOP selling cameras to people who find nonsensical "defects"! The rest of us will use the cameras very well, as they were intended.



llcanon said:


> I AM packing them up today and sending them back for full refund.


----------



## bp (Apr 24, 2012)

oh the drama


----------



## Harv (Apr 24, 2012)

I suppose the OP never took delivery of a new automobile until the manufacturer was able to certify that it had been tested for every conceivable set of circumstances that might slightly cause the automobile to perform less than perfectly and would never, ever need to be returned to the dealer for service or adjustment.

I suppose that the OP also performs perfectly in every way possible in his or her job or profession, each and every minute of each and every day of each and every year.

Listening to the rants about something that would never have an impact in any way 99.9999999% of the time blows my mind. And to read that an individual has 2 of these bodies that have been working great, is going to return them, makes me shake my head.

People..... instead of sitting at the keyboard typing this nonsense, GO OUT AND TAKE SOME PICTURES.


----------



## rpt (Apr 24, 2012)

sach100 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, you guys are grabbing at straws for, apparently, SOMETHING to hate on. Grow up. Get a friggin life. And USE YOUR DAMN CAMERA FOR _SOMETHING USEFUL! _STOP BITCHING!
> ...



Yes! At least one other person on this thread believes in my recipe!


But seriously, I have a few of questions for all those who are upset/mad at Canon for the light leak issue.
Any of you been in product development or manufacturing of something that is a complex piece of hardware or software - or worse - a combination of the two including firmware? Have you been in positions that include bug triage? How many bugs did you have "Open" when the product released?

I suspect none of you will have had this experience and hence you think it is the end of the world and that Canon has [email protected]^%d you... They have not. I have been in PD since 84. It is hard to pull off a product like the 5D3 especially if you have to do the most important pieces in-house as your hands are tied. May be 5D4 will be a better camera. May be they will get a fabulous sensor either in house or from a third party. But remember! This is 1012! the world is about to end! The sky is falling. Click, shoot, print, share, enjoy before it all ends!


----------



## Halfrack (Apr 24, 2012)

Does the 'light issue' appear when using mirror lock up? I can't recall and don't have my own to test


----------



## sach100 (Apr 24, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> Have you found any instance in which it affects a photograph? Have you, really?



Actually, if you shoot in fairly low light AND either in Av/Tv mode then you can see the camera 'correcting' the exposure when the top LCD is switched on. There could be *very few* occasions when this could be a potential problem. 
Am i worried about this issue? - Hell No! 
Am i unhappy about it? - i would have to say yes. Not because this problem could affect my photos (now that i know of the *issue* i should remind myself to review the photos in those *very few* occasions or alternatively shoot in M mode) but because i don't want anyone opening up my brand new camera that is < 1 month old. If only this *issue* wasn't there at all to start with.


----------



## AprilForever (Apr 24, 2012)

Seriously, what has this light leak thingie ever actually done to any one?


----------



## simonxu11 (Apr 24, 2012)

llcanon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It will affect a miniscule minor fraction of 5D III users who have bought one of the cameras with the specified serial numbers, and anyone who buys a camera with a 3 or greater in the 6th digit of the serial number will NOT experience the problem because it has been fixed. This is NOT a recall-worthy issue. It is a minor service call issue that can be fixed IF YOU CHOOSE TO!!
> ...



At least on Chinese market, Canon decided to put a white mark inside the cf door for the unaffected cameras to tell the customers who get the cameras with "1" or "2".


----------



## michi (Apr 24, 2012)

The only problem I see for those who own he affected cameras is that one day, when they are going to sell them on EBay or Craigslist, they may have a harder time selling them or getting the same amount of money for them. Chances are, someone is going to ask you, is this one of the first ones or has it been fixed? For that and only that reason would I have my 5DIII fixed or return it for a newer one. I'm not saying it's justified, I'm just saying that is what may happen.


----------



## aznpoet (Apr 24, 2012)

Canon says: Regarding Canon 5D Mark III “Light Leak” ...

Under ALMOST all shooting conditions (including dark environments) this phenomenon will not affect your captured images. In extremely dark environments, if the LCD panel illuminates, the displayed exposure value MAY change. However, based on the results of extensive testing this change in exposure value will NOT NOTICEABLY affect the captured image. .... almost, may, noticeably ... no absolutes here. 

Canon is basically saying no big deal.

I'm not sure how to respond to that ...


----------



## MRLinVA (Apr 24, 2012)

Or it will be like the 1st Gen iPod, that Apple recalled and replaced. Try finding one on Ebay now - they are collector's items!


----------



## BobSanderson (Apr 24, 2012)

The blood is boiling fast on this thread I better retreat.


----------



## Renato (Apr 24, 2012)

For me it more important that Canon STARTS shipping the new "fixed" version. I have been waiting long enough for their silence and lack of action!!!


----------



## rpt (Apr 24, 2012)

Astro said:


> yawn.....


So right!

or mathematically stated:

(yawn) * 2 ^ 14.3

What the hell, I always suspected binary decimals existed - like area 51.725934772173333333333333...


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 24, 2012)

For me it's a non issue. A camera meter is never 100% accurate which is why I often carry an incident meter (I sometimes shoot 120 roll with a Fuji or a Mamiya 6 x 7 rangefinder without a built in meter. Incident meters are usually far more accurate. 

I'm not going to send mine in specifically. I might, however just mention on a routine service that it hasn't yet had the fix. After all if they are going to open it up anyway....


----------



## rpt (Apr 24, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> For me it's a non issue. A camera meter is never 100% accurate which is why I often carry an incident meter (I sometimes shoot 120 roll with a Fuji or a Mamiya 6 x 7 rangefinder without a built in meter. Incident meters are usually far more accurate.
> 
> I'm not going to send mine in specifically. I might, however just mention on a routine service that it hasn't yet had the fix. After all if they are going to open it up anyway....



120! I like the sound of that. These days when I say 120 most folks think I am talking about the time and they wonder about the acuracy of my watch...


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 24, 2012)

rpt said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > For me it's a non issue. A camera meter is never 100% accurate which is why I often carry an incident meter (I sometimes shoot 120 roll with a Fuji or a Mamiya 6 x 7 rangefinder without a built in meter. Incident meters are usually far more accurate.
> ...



I have the Pentax 645N (as well as the digital version) Mamiya Super Press 23 and the Fuji GX 67. The Pentax is particularly good and the meter on it is great. With Reala 100 you get some stunning colour. Velvia 50 is more famous, but Reala has more range and lovely colours.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

sach100 said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Have you found any instance in which it affects a photograph? Have you, really?
> ...



Do like I do - look through the viewfinder to see the lcd settings, or shoot tethered using the EOS utility. I just dont turn that little light on.


----------



## rpt (Apr 24, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > itsnotmeyouknow said:
> ...



Drool.....

What can I say, I went from MF (Russian MF - but I hope it counts; it worked great for 28 years till somebody smashed it...) to AE1 to 300D and now 5D3 - and I hope to get to MF sometime...


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 24, 2012)

At least our batteries don't overheat lol

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/24/nikon-en-el15-rechargeable-li-ion-battery-recall.aspx/


----------



## markd61 (Apr 24, 2012)

I'm sorry you are unhappy.

But seriously, do you expect your role as an early adopter to be risk free? The demands of production today are such that if product got shipped only when perfect we would still be using adding machines and paintbrushes.

I do not buy the first iteration of any product. Especially when the price premium is "defective" compared to the previous generation.


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 24, 2012)

llcanon said:


> *I can't help starting this new thread, because I want us loyal early adopters and all customers to be treated fairly by Canon*.
> 
> First, I'v shooting Canon for 15 years. I have two 5D3’s. Neither of them showed any “noticeable” effect. Both of them are still within 30-day return period. I AM packing them up today and sending them back for full refund.
> 
> ...



Wooo, hark at you and ya big pink purse.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> llcanon said:
> 
> 
> > *I can't help starting this new thread, because I want us loyal early adopters and all customers to be treated fairly by Canon*.
> ...



Yep he has got Elizabeth Hurley pulling his strings : : :


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 24, 2012)

What's funny is that I think the "light leak issue" was found by people shooting with their lens cap on looking for noise! If there is no noticeable issue when shooting in a dim church for a wedding (realistic shooting environment) then I wouldn't take mine back (if I had one). But I understand why people are a little upset.


----------



## rpt (Apr 24, 2012)

nitsujwalker said:


> What's funny is that I think the "light leak issue" was found by people shooting with their lens cap on looking for noise! If there is no noticeable issue when shooting in a dim church for a wedding (realistic shooting environment) then I wouldn't take mine back (if I had one). But I understand why people are a little upset.



Not important. Nothing a peg or nine of Scotch wont fix


----------



## Robert Welch (Apr 24, 2012)

Personally, I don't see the issue effecting my photos nor do I expect it will, so what do I care if it exists. I can see that some people will be worried it might effect the resale value of their camera if they have one with the designated serial number. I haven't even checked to see if I do, yet, though I did verify the effect is there with my body so I'm sure I do, but when testing I realized the effect wouldn't be noticeable in any photos so I just shrug my shoulders and shake my head at anyone who is upset about it. Frankly, I'm glad there isn't a problem with it that would effect my photos. The one problem I did have has already been addressed with the firmware update (was having the time sync issues with my files). As for this non-issue effecting my cameras' resale value, we'll I fully intend on wearing this camera out, so resale value will be effected far more by the fact that by the time I'm done with it, it will probably just be a paper weight anyway. I WILL BE LOVING THIS CAMERA TO DEATH!


----------



## Michael7 (Apr 24, 2012)

I wholeheartedly agree with this thread.

I only buy new gear. These lenses/bodies have been defective:

300 F4 L IS (severe front focus that took three trips to fix)
17-40L (would not focus past 30mm. Took two trips to resolve)
70-300 IS (portrait orientation issue, recalled by Canon)
7D (severe focus issues, took two trips to repair. Right LCD zoom button stuck after two days also)
70-200 F4 L (front focus issues, one trip to repair)
17-55 IS (IS died within one year)
50 1.4 (AF died within one year, and died again within one year)

Almost every Canon lens I buy requires micro focus adjust. I just don't trust them. I have so much invested in their gear, that I don't want to leave. But I really wish they'd join the rest of the industry and offer four year warranties if they're not going to perform quality control tests before shipping units.

I still can't believe they're selling $10,000 lenses with a one year warranty. That's inexcusable.


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 24, 2012)

I am returning my new Ferrari 458. It has an advertised top speed of 320 km/h, and mine only goes to 319! I can't believe they ship out these defective products!!

/sarcasm


----------



## Michael7 (Apr 24, 2012)

That was a pretty weak analogy, lol.


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 24, 2012)

Michael7 said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with this thread.
> 
> I only buy new gear. These lenses/bodies have been defective:
> 
> ...



I own or have owned 4 of the listed items and never had an issue (maybe it's hit or miss quality control) and don't need MA for any of the lenses 50 1.4, 70-200f4 or 17-40. But I can say that i've had problems with a Nikon d7000, 35mm 1.8... Both several trips to a very UNHELPFUL Nikon before supposedly fixing them... Yes I sold my Nikon stuff and came to Canon. Canon is NOT the only company who releases "problematic" cameras and lenses (if you want to call them that). If you believe a longer warranty is in need for a 10,000 lens, I cannot argue with that! But my point is just that Canon is one of 1000s of companies that do have little issues. Canon is ranked much higher than Nikon in customer service satisfaction and I understand why... Dealing with Nikon was worse than pulling teeth. 

That said, I'm sorry about your issues with those lenses and 7d... I'd be pissed too.

EDIT: 

http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/Nikon

http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/Canon

of course these types of scores could be biased... but I have found it to be accurate IN MY EXPERIENCE


----------



## Michael7 (Apr 24, 2012)

I'm not really upset anymore. I just don't buy as much stuff as I used to, and try to maximize what I have. And You can bet that when my setup is working perfectly, I do not mess with it. I no longer upgrade camera bodies if mine is working properly. This is more important to me than new features for the most part.

I tried the 5D III, and owned the 5D II. Nice cameras, but the 7D really does what I need it to, with my only major complaint being the sensor. They packed too many pixels onto it. It'd be an awesome 16MP camera.


----------



## iaind (Apr 24, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> I am returning my new Ferrari 458. It has an advertised top speed of 320 km/h, and mine only goes to 319! I can't believe they ship out these defective products!!
> 
> /sarcasm



  Just take it back to Maranello for a speedo recalibration


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 24, 2012)

YOU ARE RIGHT !!!!

In fact, all manufacturers should stop shipping defective products immediately. The fact that means than no product will ever be sold again anywhere is of no concern to me.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 24, 2012)

rpt said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...




My 645D dropped thanks to a sunsniper shoulder strap disconnecting. Sent it away to be looked at thanks to a few buttons not working afterwards - wouldn't have bothered if it hadn't of been the drive button and the cable release socket. Just got the estimate: £1600/$2557 inc tax. Ouch! Have asked for clarification as the description of work suggests only replacing buttons, and for that price I would expect them to be solid gold!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 25, 2012)

But if even as you say you haven't found the issue to be an issue then why the upset and the returns?
If you don't find it to be noticeable or to effect anything real world.... why such a big deal?


----------



## PhotoCat (Apr 25, 2012)

has anyone tried the same tests on a D800 BP ?

Canon has always got away with defects... Remember that 20D & 30D 
weren't even able to autofocus sharply with a 50/1.8 at f2.8 at a distance more
than 15 feets... despite the focus confirm beep!


----------



## Cardad (Apr 25, 2012)

When I started reading this forum I thought several posters offered useful advice. After visiting regularly for 3-4 months, I gave it up a couple of weeks ago. I decided to check back tonight. I quickly remembered why I left. See you folks.....I'd rather be out to taking pictures.


----------



## jrista (Apr 25, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> My 645D dropped thanks to a sunsniper shoulder strap disconnecting. Sent it away to be looked at thanks to a few buttons not working afterwards - wouldn't have bothered if it hadn't of been the drive button and the cable release socket. Just got the estimate: £1600/$2557 inc tax. Ouch! Have asked for clarification as the description of work suggests only replacing buttons, and for that price I would expect them to be solid gold!



Well, given that gold is sitting pretty at $1650 a try ounce (31.1 grams), and those buttons in grand total weight are probably considerably less than that, they are apparently *worth MORE than solid gold!*  Thats a total ripoff. I'd ditch the 645D and get a D800 if thats the repair cost.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 25, 2012)

jrista said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > My 645D dropped thanks to a sunsniper shoulder strap disconnecting. Sent it away to be looked at thanks to a few buttons not working afterwards - wouldn't have bothered if it hadn't of been the drive button and the cable release socket. Just got the estimate: £1600/$2557 inc tax. Ouch! Have asked for clarification as the description of work suggests only replacing buttons, and for that price I would expect them to be solid gold!
> ...



No chance of me ditching the 645D. Invested too much in Pentax lenses from 33mm - 400mm for that and the results are better than anything the D800 can do. Have asked them to clarify what exactly it is they are doing, and I'll have to bite the bullet if they won't budge. I think they plan to replace the bottom where the paint has worn off the magnesium body. I never plan to sell the camera so this doesn't bother me. The camera just looks well used as it has been rubbing against my back pack on long walks. I just need the drive button and/or be able to use a cable release so I can do long exposures


----------



## rpt (Apr 25, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> My 645D dropped thanks to a sunsniper shoulder strap disconnecting. Sent it away to be looked at thanks to a few buttons not working afterwards - wouldn't have bothered if it hadn't of been the drive button and the cable release socket. Just got the estimate: £1600/$2557 inc tax. Ouch! Have asked for clarification as the description of work suggests only replacing buttons, and for that price I would expect them to be solid gold!



Wow! Hope it turns out well.


----------



## Wideopen (Apr 25, 2012)

jrista said:


> llcanon said:
> 
> 
> > Canon’s response to this light leak issue is unacceptable. For a $3,500 camera for which many of us have waited and saved, Canon should *STOP shipping the defective products immediately*. Whether it affects real world shooting or not, it is a product with defect. If Canon wants to earn trust from its loyal and prospective customers, be bold and offer to swap out the defective units unconditionally free of charge.
> ...



+1 im waiting on my 2nd 5d mark iii to come in but thanx to recalls and factorys not releasing them until the problems are corrected i guess ill just have to use my 1st 5d mark iii and take pics of lens caps while i wait. :


----------



## edawg (Apr 25, 2012)

I ran an extensive test just now. I have concluded that this is a major issue as you can see:

First shot, LCD light OFF. Exposure time 5sec @ f4, 800 ISO:






Second shot, LCD light ON. The camera incorrectly metered the scene, underexposing dramatically with a metered value of only 4sec @ f4, 800 ISO:


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 25, 2012)

edawg said:


> I ran an extensive test just now. I have concluded that this is a major issue as you can see:
> 
> First shot, LCD light OFF. Exposure time 5sec @ f4, 800 ISO:
> 
> ...



man, you better return that camera before the return period expires!


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 25, 2012)

wookiee2cu said:


> I have yet to see an image where this supposed issue affected it, have you?



Exactly


----------



## sach100 (Apr 25, 2012)

I shot an email to Canon, India and below is the response i got. I think it's fair. 

*********
As far as we know, this phenomenon does not affect the 5D Mark III in real world shooting conditions. This is a theoretical issue that was present in the 5D Mark II as well, it is just that no photographer shoots under such artich as shooting with a lens cap on, or shooting in total darkness with a long exposure. And with exposures longer than a minute, the 2 seconds of LCD illumination would not effect the exposure to any degree. 

We feel that this has been highlighted with strong intent to undermine what is a strong product. 

However, to calm the fears of persons who have purchased the 5D Mark III we are offering this service free of charge, and all models shipped after this problem was noticed do not have this problem.

**********


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 25, 2012)

I had a small problem with Win 7 this morning - do you think I should return it to Microsoft?


----------



## sach100 (Apr 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I had a small problem with Win 7 this morning - do you think I should return it to Microsoft?



Don't, Microsoft forgot that Win 7 exists they are busy with Win 8. Apparently, Win 8 has bugs too - it won't boot.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 25, 2012)

edawg said:


> I ran an extensive test just now. I have concluded that this is a major issue as you can see:
> 
> First shot, LCD light OFF. Exposure time 5sec @ f4, 800 ISO:
> 
> ...



I nearly pissed my self laughing! I can gurantee that a lot of people will lean in to the screen and REALLY look ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 25, 2012)

edawg said:


> I ran an extensive test just now. I have concluded that this is a major issue as you can see:
> 
> First shot, LCD light OFF. Exposure time 5sec @ f4, 800 ISO:
> 
> Second shot, LCD light ON. The camera incorrectly metered the scene, underexposing dramatically with a metered value of only 4sec @ f4, 800 ISO:



Hahahaha!!! So funny!


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 25, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> edawg said:
> 
> 
> > I ran an extensive test just now. I have concluded that this is a major issue as you can see:
> ...




AMAZING! Thanks for the laugh. I am glad the real photographers on here know their isn't a problem


----------



## tron (Apr 25, 2012)

These nice black images can actually be useful. You can print one (YES print), then cut a small rectangle and use it to cover... the LCD


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 25, 2012)

tron said:


> These nice black images can actually be useful. You can print one (YES print), then cut a small rectangle and use it to cover... the LCD



Not only that, but the defective, underexposed one will actually be more useful than the correct one. You know, because it is...blacker.


----------



## rpt (Apr 25, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > These nice black images can actually be useful. You can print one (YES print), then cut a small rectangle and use it to cover... the LCD
> ...



That may be - but I am sending my camera back. The extremely extensive testing and analysis I did after shooting the inside of my lens cap leads me to believe there is a very serious flaw with the camera. The resultant black image came out square and my lens cap is round!

Terrible! How did this slip development, QA and the field testers!


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 25, 2012)

Yeah, I might do the same. Heck, I even might pickup a D800. I heard that when you shoot the back of your lens cap on the Nikon, you can actually see the writing back there. IT IS THAT GOOD !!!!


----------



## rpt (Apr 25, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> Yeah, I might do the same. Heck, I even might pickup a D800. I heard that when you shoot the back of your lens cap on the Nikon, you can actually see the writing back there. IT IS THAT GOOD !!!!



Hmmm... but may be you need to push it 14.3 stops first...


----------



## macrodust (Apr 25, 2012)

edawg said:


> I ran an extensive test just now. I have concluded that this is a major issue as you can see:
> 
> First shot, LCD light OFF. Exposure time 5sec @ f4, 800 ISO:
> 
> ...



I love the true black on the first, correctly exposed photo! I can't wait until May 10th so I can get my camera fixed!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I can gurantee that a lot of people will lean in to the screen and REALLY look



*wipes off nose prints*


----------



## justsomedude (Apr 25, 2012)

wookiee2cu said:


> I have yet to see an image where this supposed issue affected it, have you?



Plenty of videos on YouTube showing the problem when shooting at night, and auto-metering with the LCD backlight on...







Maybe you don't do a lot of night shooting - but the problem is certainly very real. Canon wouldn't offer a fix if it wasn't.


----------



## tron (Apr 25, 2012)

I understand that this issue affects only a few people and the rest laugh at it since it does not affect them at all and enjoy the photos of a good camera. However, many EOS 5DmkIII owners will not laugh when in the future they will try to sell their cameras and the buyers will check the serial number!!!


----------



## distant.star (Apr 25, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> Seriously, what has this light leak thingie ever actually done to any one?



This light has apparently leaked into many bedrooms and stolen many hours of sleep.

This lack of normal rest has caused reduced productivity in many workplaces. This has caused stock markets to tumble across nations. Friends in high places have told me NASA is working on a scheme to reduce the output of the sun to accommodate this travesty Canon has unleashed upon the earth.

Anyone want to buy a good hand-held light meter?

Apologies to the creators of "Hair" and the 5th Dimension:

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius! Aquarius!

Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 25, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Ahh.. the righteousness indignation of the average user these days.
> 
> "How dare someone provide me with something that's not perfect. I mean, I know it'll never happen, but if it did my exposures might be a tiny tiny bit different".
> 
> ...



Good for you.

The rest of us want cameras that didn’t have to be opened up and repaired to meet specs.


----------



## MrSandman (Apr 25, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> wookiee2cu said:
> 
> 
> > I have yet to see an image where this supposed issue affected it, have you?
> ...



This video makes it crystal clear that the “it’s-only-with-the-lens-cap-on” crowd is full of sh**.

....And yet, they keep repeating the same line, as if saying it more and more will make it true.


----------



## markd61 (Apr 25, 2012)

I am more concerned about the terrible CA I am seeing in both those images.


----------



## mrmarks (Apr 25, 2012)

More of a case of defective usage than defective product. As the saying goes "Much ado about nothing"


----------



## macrodust (Apr 25, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> Good for you.
> 
> The rest of us want cameras that didn’t have to be opened up and repaired to meet specs.



Also those with the light leakage issue are within spec, as I understand it.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 25, 2012)

mrmarks said:


> More of a case of defective usage than defective product. As the saying goes "Much ado about nothing"



exactly... of course on the affected samples it COULD be replicated if you tried, but in normal shooting situations, if your shooting through the VF odds are you set exposure through your VF with the dials... If you have it on tripod and using liveview, odds are you aren't using the top LCD because you can see the effect on screen. Also odds are you would be externally metering to nail exposure or if your using the cameras meter, you adjust it until it looks right. I could be in the minority, but I rarely use the top LCD except to verify the camera is "on" and not sleeping when shooting and the camera is in an idle state. Also use it to do the WB, ISO, etc... but exposure I do through VF... If your shooting workflow is such that it could be an issue, send it in to be fixed or return it if it bugs you that much. Otherwise it's not anything to get our panties in a twist.


----------



## h4ldol (Apr 25, 2012)

llcanon said:


> First, I'v shooting Canon for 15 years. I have two 5D3’s. Neither of them showed any “noticeable” effect. Both of them are still within 30-day return period. I AM packing them up today and sending them back for full refund.
> 
> Canon’s response to this light leak issue is unacceptable. For a $3,500 camera for which many of us have waited and saved, Canon should *STOP shipping the defective products immediately*.
> 
> Remember iPhone 4? Apple ultimately paid the price by issuing $15 to all its owners.



Feeling a bit entitled because you own a couple 5D3s and some other Canon gear? You just said that the issue had no "noticeable effect" and then you said that the response is "unacceptable" and that the product is "defective", despite having no "noticeable effect". Unlike the iPhone issue, which did affect a large number of people -- you had to hold the phone in a certain way for goodness sake -- the 5D3 "issue" does not. You said it yourself. 

It's because of s_____ consumers like you, who feel so entitled because of their small purchasing power and return expensive items for essentially a misplaced anger over a (mis)perceived matter of principle, that the cost of these products is elevated and spread out to all consumers.


----------



## Robert Welch (Apr 25, 2012)

At least Canon does offer to do something if it is a problem for those few photographers who insist on shooting in very dark situations with the LCD light lit and find it affects their photos.

I know a lot of Nikon D700 users who just have to bite the bullet on annual $300+ hotshoe repairs because Nikon insists it's not a defect and refuses to fix what is obviously a design flaw in that camera unless the owner pays the repair fees. Not to bash Nikon here, they generally have an excellent product as does Canon, but the point is just that a company can handle a situation in different ways, and I think in comparing these Canon has done a better job of addressing the problem with the 5DmkIII, even if you want to find fault in the problem existing to begin with. Canon has had their fiasco too, mainly with the 1DmkIII autofocus, but they did at least try to fix that, even if it was with mixed success. Nikon won't even admit there is a problem with the D700 hotshoe.


----------



## edawg (Apr 25, 2012)

Why would anyone take a pic with the top lcd ON anyways? What are you even looking at?? The only time Ive ever even used it was for star trails in which case it was only to set *manual* exposure. This is about the only situation where I'd imagine it could possibly be an issue, near total darkness. In which case you'd be kidding yourself to think you're gonna shoot it in one of the auto modes - especially with the LCD _ON_ (wtf.)


----------



## llcanon (Apr 25, 2012)

Some people are missing points here.

The fact is the light *WILL leak* through the LCD panel. Period. 

Putting the lens cap or body cap on is just the easiest way to *detect* this leak. Apparently Canon USA is much smarter than Canon UK or Canon Japan by not listing the two "cap on" scenarios as examples for "extremely dark environments". 

Whether it affects your captured image or not depends on the ratio of the light leaking through the LCD panel to the light through the lens and viewfinder.

Under "almost all shooting conditions", the light leaking through the LCD panel should be much smaller compared to the other two light sources (lens and VF), thus might not have "noticeable" effect (quite a subjective term anyway). Under some dark shooting conditions, as demonstrated in the screen capture above, the light leak could be significant enough to affect the exposure. But I don’t understand why you would press the shutter button when the LCD light is on. Just wait a couple of seconds and you should be fine.

Again, it is a real issue. It's your personal choice how to look at it and act. It's like everything in life, not just a camera. Using sarcastic language or laughing at other people who think differently is really not necessary. Be an educated grown-up please.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2012)

llcanon said:


> Some people are missing points here.
> 
> The fact is the light *WILL leak* through the LCD panel. Period.
> 
> Whether it affects your captured image or not depends on the ratio of the light leaking through the LCD panel to the light through the lens and viewfinder.



Just to be clear, the light leaking through the top LCD panel *will not directly affect the image*. It's irrelevant how much light leaks in or what the ratio is - there is no direct effect, since the leaked light does not ever reach the imaging sensor. 

The light leak affects the metering sensor only - that means the image is only indirectly affected, based on an incorrect meter reading.


----------



## llcanon (Apr 25, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> llcanon said:
> 
> 
> > Some people are missing points here.
> ...



Thanks for the clarification. The imaging sensor should only receive the light through the lens, hopefully.


----------



## sawsedge (Apr 25, 2012)

As a veteran of years of software quality assurance, I would not likely have thought to test this. I guess the folks at Canon didn't either. And it is hard to detect, apparently. If I'm shooting at night, I generally have the camera on a tripod. That means I'm not touching the camera, and I don't use the LCD light during the exposure. 

In QA work, we frequently rate a "bug" in two ways... the severity of the issue, and the likelihood that a user will spot the mistake. The light that gets through during the day is far far less than what comes in via the lens. While it is is a mistake, the severity is quite low. Low enough that Canon won't recall the bodies affected. 

We know about it thanks to the internet. But, how many of you would ever have found this issue without the 'net?


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 25, 2012)

If I'm doing a long exposure then my camera will be on a tripod. If the shot needs an exposure of 1 min or more then metering won't be being used in Amy case. Plus what's wrong with using the playback screen instead of the LCD screen? There are many ways around this "fault".


----------



## Hesham (Apr 25, 2012)

MrSandman said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > wookiee2cu said:
> ...



Actually, no need for any videos to proof that there is a serious issue. The fact that Canon reacted by holding all stock, issuing the first statement, then the second where they list affected bodies, then offering a FIX,.. I am tired already,.... still all this is not enough for some who still invade those threads with their stupid statement, which they think is funny; "I don't take photos with the cap on" they just drive me nuts!!!


----------



## rafaelsynths (Apr 25, 2012)

I still think canon should drop the price of the 5D mark iii.


----------



## fstop (Apr 25, 2012)

Mine is being sent back without a doubt. I spent $4300 with the lens and I don't want a camera that has a problem. I'm not happy with how Canon is handling it either. I love the camera but I am not going to be stuck with a camera that has a known problem. In addition if I kept it I would have trouble selling it because it does have a problem and its resale value will be diminished because no one wants a defective camera. I'll miss my new camera, but I would rather keep shooting with my old camera then have a defective new camera.


----------



## h4ldol (Apr 25, 2012)

llcanon said:


> Again, it is a real issue. It's your personal choice how to look at it and act. It's like everything in life, not just a camera. Using sarcastic language or laughing at other people who think differently is really not necessary. Be an educated grown-up please.



Geez, aren't you the one who stated that you tested the 'issue' on your two 5D3s and found *'Neither of them showed any “noticeable” effect.'*? How is that a "real issue" exactly? And deriding your self righteous return of two 5D3s for an issue that has not had any "noticeable effect" is exactly appropriate, because you contribute to a problem that everyone suffers from as a result. And it a laughable behavior since you apparently did this out of some sort of misguided loyal consumer indignation.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 25, 2012)

Hesham said:


> Actually, no need for any videos to proof that there is a serious issue. The fact that Canon reacted by holding all stock, issuing the first statement, then the second where they list affected bodies, then offering a FIX,.. I am tired already,.... still all this is not enough for some who still invade those threads with their stupid statement, which they think is funny; "I don't take photos with the cap on" they just drive me nuts!!!



That is almost as funny as those that keep repeating that this is a serious issue. Best practice would suggest keeping the LCD off when shooting at night - most use liveview for setting up and focussing via a tripod in which case the settings are on the back screen and therefore there would not be an issue.


----------



## Positron (Apr 25, 2012)

I really don't want to get involved with this thread, but after reading through the entire thing there's something I simply fail to understand and I wish someone would enlighten me. The camera only uses metering data to select exposure parameters when it's not in manual mode. If it's not in manual mode you're relying on it to determine the exposure (_it's metering_). If you're relying on it to determine the exposure, why are you checking the top screen at all?

Let's say you do check the top screen and it's metering 4s at f/4 (as per the excellent post a page or so ago), and you think "well that's not right, in this darkness the exposure definitely needs 5s if it's at f/4, so I'm going to dial in +1/3 exposure compensation", then why aren't you shooting in manual in the first place?

I'm not trying to be cynical at all here, I'm seriously confused. Please enlighten me.


----------



## bkorcel (Apr 25, 2012)

Just to put this all into perspective, I have one with a serial "1" and have not experienced ANY issues with the camera at all, even with firmware 1.0.7. I upgraded the firmware anyway maybe to prevent something from happening during a critical shoot. 

I have not specifically checked for the light leak issue but I have shot in both bright sun, shade, combinations. I've taken low light shots, shots of star clusters, and shots by candle light. The reality is that I dont see the issue, or any of the reported issues, on my 5DIII.

So for those having issues, you should return your camera if you are not happy. For those thinking about buying one, you should just do it and buy from a reputable dealer with a good return policy so you can evaluate it yourself. I dont see the camera as "defective", not yet anyway and while all of this bickering is going on, I will be out there taking better pictures than those with a lesser model.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 25, 2012)

Viggo said:


> edawg said:
> 
> 
> > I ran an extensive test just now. I have concluded that this is a major issue as you can see:
> ...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 25, 2012)

sach100 said:


> I shot an email to Canon, India and below is the response i got. I think it's fair.
> 
> *********
> As far as we know, this phenomenon does not affect the 5D Mark III in real world shooting conditions. This is a theoretical issue that was present in the 5D Mark II as well, it is just that no photographer shoots under such artich as shooting with a lens cap on, or shooting in total darkness with a long exposure. And with exposures longer than a minute, the 2 seconds of LCD illumination would not effect the exposure to any degree.
> ...



I shoot with the lens cap on all the time!...LOL

This is really such a small issue. 2 years from now if your selling your mkiii the 'lightleak' non-issue will be totally forgotten and replaced with 2 years worth of thousands of photographers creating stunning images. Light leak?...don't remember that at all. what will lower the value is shutter actuations, has it been serviced, general wear and tear, how did those scratches get there, is there noticable dust on the sensor at f16-20+, , did you leave it in the car on a 100 degree sunny day....light leak, reallly, who cares....well, other than those who specialize in "shooting with a lens cap on, or shooting in total darkness with a long exposure. And with exposures longer than a minute, the 2 seconds of LCD illumination would not effect the exposure to any degree. "


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 26, 2012)

I think we need to have a complainer forum. These threads are getting ridiculous. too many people who have never used a camera causing a big stink for everyone else.


----------



## ramon123 (Apr 26, 2012)

Apparently Canon have stopped manufacturing the defective products for a while now. They told me on the phone that units in the store now would be the new fixed model.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 26, 2012)

ramon123 said:


> Apparently Canon have stopped manufacturing the defective products for a while now. They told me on the phone that units in the store now would be the new fixed model.



I wonder if the phone was a defective iPhone 8)


----------



## tron (Apr 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> ramon123 said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently Canon have stopped manufacturing the defective products for a while now. They told me on the phone that units in the store now would be the new fixed model.
> ...


 ;D


----------



## ramon123 (Apr 26, 2012)

I got a reply from Canon Austria stating that they are ONLY shipping out the newly fixed batches.


----------

