# Got 5D III today from Adorama, shutter messed up



## unclemat (Mar 23, 2012)

Just got my 5D III from Adorama today. I was not impressed with the packaging. Air bags were used with none at the bottom of the box.

Rightly so, looks like the camera is fubared. Something wrong with the shutter. See this picture:


----------



## prayharder (Mar 23, 2012)

Yep, something wrong with that...

I hope mine doesn't end up like that!

I have seen that with an external flash (PC port) and too fast of a shutter speed. Of course it would be dark on the bottom if that was your case.


----------



## unclemat (Mar 23, 2012)

No flash in this picture.


----------



## prayharder (Mar 23, 2012)

Like the mirror not getting out of the way??? Very odd, not quite sure how that works (or doesn't work.)


----------



## unclemat (Mar 23, 2012)

Couple more of a white surface.


----------



## prayharder (Mar 23, 2012)

unclemat said:


> Couple more of a white surface.



What is the EXIF info for these?


----------



## unclemat (Mar 23, 2012)

When you click on the picture it will take you to smugmug where you can see EXIF info.

The size of the band varies somewhat, not sure if there is relationship to aperture or ISO. When I take a burst of pictures in High speed mode, all of them end up with the same exact size of the band. Which is weird for a mechanical (seemingly) failure.


----------



## prayharder (Mar 23, 2012)

It asks me for a password at smugmug...


----------



## unclemat (Mar 23, 2012)

Ooops sorry. Should not anymore.


----------



## prayharder (Mar 23, 2012)

It seems to look like they are related to the shutter speed to me, but it just doesn't make sense what could be causing it. 

The smallest band is 1/25 then 1/200 then 1/320.

It would be intersting to see what a picture shot at 1" would look like.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 23, 2012)

Try some ultra-fast shots too, like 1/8000s.

And yeah, i'd be getting warranty support on the phone...


----------



## AUGS (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm thinking something in the mirror movement is being delayed, hence the band (what I think is the mirror edge being in shot) gets narrower with longer exposures. Have you tried a shot with mirror lockup? Mirror lockup should have it completely out of the way when the exposure is taken.

I'd definitely contact warranty support.


----------



## WilliamG (Mar 23, 2012)

AUGS said:


> I'm thinking something in the mirror movement is being delayed, hence the band (what I think is the mirror edge being in shot) gets narrower with longer exposures. Have you tried a shot with mirror lockup? Mirror lockup should have it completely out of the way when the exposure is taken.
> 
> I'd definitely contact warranty support.



I wouldn't. I'd just send it back and get a replacement/take business elsewhere.


----------



## prayharder (Mar 23, 2012)

WilliamG said:


> I wouldn't. I'd just send it back and get a replacement/take business elsewhere.



+1


----------



## Brusiephoto (Mar 23, 2012)

If it was a mirror not retracting fully, then wouldn't it be on the bottom (as the image is inverted relative to the sensor)...?
You wouldn't, per chance, be taking these under flourescent light? If so - retest under daylight...
Just thinking out loud...
Let us know what you find...


----------



## Pyrenees (Mar 23, 2012)

It looks like the O.P. used a flash in those images. The 'band' looks like the 'shadow' caused by a focal-plane shutter's curtain, when the shutter speed exceeds the maximum flash sync-speed.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 23, 2012)

Could be a sticky shutter? This is distressing to see. But in any mass-produced item, a few bad ones will slip through.


----------



## Pyrenees (Mar 23, 2012)

prayharder said:


> Nope, you can download the JPEGs shows that the flash didn't fire.



But I believe that if you are using a flash in manual-mode (not i-TTL etc), the EXIF will not indicate whether said flash fired or not. It happened to me in this scenario.

EDIT: Sorry, I missed O.P.'s confirmation that no flash was used, so please ignore my comment.


----------



## peederj (Mar 23, 2012)

Go into sensor cleaning mode and look what's up.


----------



## AUGS (Mar 23, 2012)

Brusiephoto said:


> If it was a mirror not retracting fully, then wouldn't it be on the bottom (as the image is inverted relative to the sensor)...?


True. Good call.


----------



## ThuiQuaDayNe (Mar 23, 2012)

even if you can fix it, don't. It might work after the fix but it might come back later when you can no longer xchange/return it. There is no guarantee that other parts are working 100% as well if the package was damaged somehow.



perhaps it would be wise to inform the seller through phone or comment section to pack extra foam.

GL


----------



## PhotoGib (Mar 23, 2012)

prayharder said:


> WilliamG said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't. I'd just send it back and get a replacement/take business elsewhere.
> ...


+2


----------



## scottkinfw (Mar 23, 2012)

I agree.

Why hassle with it and be without your camera for any longer than needed.



PhotoGib said:


> prayharder said:
> 
> 
> > WilliamG said:
> ...


----------



## SF DTM (Mar 23, 2012)

How's the camera doing? any luck remedying the problem?


----------



## prayharder (Mar 23, 2012)

scottkinfw said:


> I agree.
> 
> Why hassle with it and be without your camera for any longer than needed.



I totally agree it should go back, but I am a very technical person, for sheer interest, I would love to be able t figure out what was causing this problem.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 23, 2012)

If this was a film camera, he could open up the back and watch it when it takes a picture. Hrm. Maybe take the lens off and sync a flash and watch it?


----------



## Brusiephoto (Mar 23, 2012)

I would STILL be curious to know the lightsource... low cycle refreshing lights, such as Flourescents, actually go black for the instant between cycles... possibly, just possibly, this could be what your really fast shutter under those new cool high ISO's is revealing...
I have not looked @ EXIF data to see details of shutter/ISO, so forgive me if this is WAY off base...

If it is under such lighting, try at a slower shutter or sunlight...
just thinking aloud late at night...


----------



## Brusiephoto (Mar 23, 2012)

Ok....i looked at the EXIF... All posted cases are @ f/4. It is a zoom, no? do you have a lens hood on? Try the same range of shutter speeds (I see 1/25 so that rules out light source) but at another constant aperture... significantly smaller - say f/8.


----------



## prayharder (Mar 23, 2012)

prayharder said:


> prayharder said:
> 
> 
> > Brusiephoto said:
> ...



Well, I looked back and it seems that my post about the mirror didn't make it to the site, not sure what happened, but I was totally sayings duh to myself. Not anyone else, there is no space for that here...


----------



## Brusiephoto (Mar 23, 2012)

@PrayHarder - No worries... your intent was understood. And an easy thing to forget...Us old timers who remember what it was like to use a 4x5 FILM camera never forget!  Or anyone who has tried to get a reluctant piece of dust off a sensor.


----------



## unclemat (Mar 23, 2012)

Hey, guys. The problem is not a lens, it was occuring with both my 24-105/4L and 50/1.4.

Yes, it "was". It disappeared. Not sure what did it. I went in cleaning mode to take a look at the sensor. Also played with live view, and took some shots with live view (no banding occured then).

I went to all pictures I took with the camera. The band was there on the very first picture I took to it, just I did not notice it right away due to the subject. At picture #57 problem went away.

Of course I have no confidence in the camera. Who knows if the problem reappears later on. It's going back. Now the problem is given standalone bodies are in short supply, who knows when I'll get replacement. 

Link to a couple of more pictures. The first one is the very first picture I took with the camera:


----------



## unclemat (Mar 23, 2012)

One more with 50/1.4:


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 23, 2012)

definately looks like shutter unless your sensor is loose and slipped down a bit 
I'd take it back and get a new one


----------



## woofmeow (Mar 23, 2012)

AUGS said:


> Brusiephoto said:
> 
> 
> > If it was a mirror not retracting fully, then wouldn't it be on the bottom (as the image is inverted relative to the sensor)...?
> ...


But the mirror getting in the way of an image is a part of the whole image hitting the sensor too, no?


----------



## unclemat (Mar 23, 2012)

Good news is Adorama issued return shipping label without any hassle and with apologies.

Even better news is that my Wednesday's Crutchfield shipped this morning to my surprise. I was going to cancel it, but haven't managed to. 

Woot!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 27, 2012)

unclemat said:


> Good news is Adorama issued return shipping label without any hassle and with apologies.
> 
> Even better news is that my Wednesday's Crutchfield shipped this morning to my surprise. I was going to cancel it, but haven't managed to.
> 
> Woot!


 
Adorama is usually very good to deal with. I doubt if the damage was the fault of packing, the camera is packed well enough in its original box to take rought handling, so its likely a camera assembly issue. 

My camera arrived from Adorama last night in a larger than normal box with air bags completely surrounding the camera box in two directions, so there was a double layer on the top and bottom. Its strange about the lack of a standard for packing them. with many thousand to ship, they probably had extra help, but they should always pack them the same way.

The camera also arrived one day early, thats a first for UPS ... Early Delivery.


----------



## unclemat (Mar 27, 2012)

Adorama are ok guys, had been shopping with them for the past 13 years. However I miss the days of peanuts for packaging. B&H seems to have gone back to peanuts, at least for some of the shipments.

My only problem with Adorama recently was that they mysteriously lost a return. It took several calls and escalation to straighten it out. Hopefully they won't miss my 5D III...


----------



## Helen Oster (Apr 5, 2012)

unclemat said:


> Adorama are ok guys, had been shopping with them for the past 13 years. However I miss the days of peanuts for packaging. B&H seems to have gone back to peanuts, at least for some of the shipments.


We stopped using peanuts several years ago, because:

Peanuts are:
• Very expensive in the long run
• They take up a lot of valuable warehouse space to store them 
• They are very messy and blow all over the warehouse in the summer
• Not all peanuts dissolve in water that is an additive that costs an additional fee for those type of peanuts
• Most people dispose of them in landfills not water 
• You need to fill huge hoppers that hang from the ceiling above packers
• Peanuts have been proven to serve as inadequate protection to what is available nowadays. Items packed in the center of the box surrounded by peanuts can actually shift to the bottom during transit and could take damage to the item. 

Pillows:
• The machine is compact and the pillows are on a roll. So everything fits neatly on a packers desk
• Each roll is in a box stacked neatly on a pallet which fits into a pallet rack location
• They are proven better shock absorbers 
• Pillows are cheaper than peanuts 

The OP's problem sounds like a sporadic issue with the packing team, because we were trying to get these all out the day they came in to us and using temporary staff. We actually pack above and beyond the industry standard. 
Most packaging companies that come in and see our operation are taken back by the amount of pillows we use in one carton. They actually drool to try and get the business because it is not the norm. The industry standard is to put the item in the box to one corner and then fill the void with dunnage whether it be peanuts, pillows, foam, or paper. We actually blanket the bottom and the sides of the box and then place the item in the middle and then fold over the pillows and add more to fill the box where needed. 
The only thing we don’t add any pillows to are items that ship in the vendor box, and soft goods (t-shirts, backpacks, hats, etc).

That being said, I'd always invite anyone with a packaging issue to take pictures of the item in situ immediately, and if the outer packaging is damaged to take pictures of that, too before doing anything else.
If we need to make a claim, for example, the more info we have, the better.

I'm always only an email away for any queries or questions regarding any part of Adorama service or products.
If I don't immediately have an answer myself, I should be able to find someone who does!

Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador
[email protected]


----------

