Canon Repair Saga

My purpose is not to bash the Canon repair shop in Virginia, although I'm not particularly happy with their repair skills, nor their communications skills. The purpose is to convey a few things I've learned over the past months.

It all started within a few months of getting my new t2i. My percentage of in focus shots was terrible, and I figured that I really needed to pay more attention. Since it persisted, I thought maybe it was because the 18-135mm lens was not the highest quality made by Canon. So, I invested in an 'L' lens, but had the same problem with the autofocus. That's when I had the thought that it might not be my skills that caused the problem. I borrowed a LensAlign Pro unit from a neighbor and began testing my lenses/camera. I discovered that ALL the lenses were front focusing on Autofocus, but focused perfectly using Liveview.

So, a couple of months ago I sent the camera in for repair. I kept checking the progress of the repair using the Canon website. After they had been working on the camera for a bit more than a week, the website said it was complete and had been shipped back via 'FedEx 2 day'. I waited,... and waited, and finally called to find out what was up after another week had passed. I was told that it was complete, but had just not been shipped (no reason given). Several days later I recieved the camera/lens and the repair order stated that the autofocus mechanism was defective and had been fixed.

I proceded to check the autofocus, and found that with all lenses the camera was focusing twice as far forward than it had been,... and it was now forward focusing even on Liveview. A call was placed to Virginia again and I was told to send them the camera and lens again. According to UPS they signed for it at 8:34 AM on July 22. When I failed to recieve notification from Canon that they had recieved it, I called and was told to be patient because it took 3 to 5 days to log items in. Hmmm, OK. When I called on July 29, they still had no record of my camera/lens, so I talked to a supervisor. She said it was apparently lost and that she would confirm that with the Shipping/Rec Dept on Monday morning and arrange for a replacement camera to be sent by FedEx Overnight on Monday. She said she would call Monday morning to confirm.

When I called mid-day Monday, she was 'not in', so I talked to another supervisor. He said it was definitely lost and the replacement would be shipped on August 2. On August 3 I called to get the tracking number, but that supervisor was 'not in' and the replacement had not shipped. So, I talked to a third supervisor who said there was a delay in getting the t2i, so they would send me a t3i on August 8. On August 9 I called and supervisor #3 was 'not in' so I talked to supervisor #2 again. He said the replacement had been recieved and would ship that evening via FedEx Overnight. On August 10 I called to get the tracking number and was told it hadn't shipped, but would go out that evening.

It finally happened. Today FedEx delivered my replacement camera. I have only been without a camera for about two months.

Lessons to be learned:

Only assume that you are stupid and don't know how to focus a camera for a reasonable length of time, then look for other reasons.

Don't listen to people who say, "Stop pixel peeping and just go out an shoot pictures." Pixel peeping can tell you if your camera is focusing correctly.

When Canon repairs something,... check it when it gets back to you. When they say it is adjusted,... it may not be.

Don't cut Canon's Customer Service too much slack. When they make a promise to do something don't assume they did it. Call and check.

Don't rely on Customer Service to call you when they say they will. Only once in two months did a Canon rep call me. I had to do the calling.

Get the name and extention number of any supervisor with whom you talk. They may not be in, but it gives you a place to start.

Spend up to the very limit of your budget for a camera. The less expensive ones don't seem to be made to very exacting tolerances.

I still say pixel peeping is silly.

What did the "commoners" with SLRs do back in film days, those who didn't print larger than 8x10". Did they take a giant magnifying glass and look for eyebrow details? Looking at the negatives in such a manner?

If it's way off, then it will be obviously way off and everything will be a blur. But if the image is acceptably sharp, then the subject/content/compos​ition should be what matters.

But that's just my humble (and worthless) opinion.

It's just that by 'pixel peeping' you can tell more quickly that the focus is somewhere other than where it was intended. And,... in the 'old' days we DID use a magnifying glass to sometimes make sure we had gotten the manual focus 'right on' if it was something critical which could be reshot.

Jon C wrote in post #12919151
It's just that by 'pixel peeping' you can tell more quickly that the focus is somewhere other than where it was intended. And,... in the 'old' days we DID use a magnifying glass to sometimes make sure we had gotten the manual focus 'right on' if it was something critical which could be reshot.

The problem is that a lot of people, especially beginners, really don't know what they're doing yet start testing their gear and find that it's "off" when in fact it isn't.

Sorry to hear about your problems. My Canon repair service here in Australia wasn't a great experience - not as bad as yours, but a faulty USM unit taking a few weeks to replace was a bit frustrating, especially when they gave me absolutely no updates or ETA even when I rang them. Especially annoying because it apparently arrived repaired one day after I left for a holiday to Europe.

Every now and again, someone will get on the forum and complain about Adorama. Adorama has someone who reads these forums regularly and if there is a problem or complaint will post how to solve that problem or leave a contact number.

I've seen a number of complaints about Canon service but I've never seen a representative from Canon actually post something, never mind leave a contact number. Canon could learn a lesson from Adorama.

Dan

jwcdds wrote in post #12918952
I still say pixel peeping is silly.

What did the "commoners" with SLRs do back in film days, those who didn't print larger than 8x10". Did they take a giant magnifying glass and look for eyebrow details? Looking at the negatives in such a manner?

No. They focused manually, with a viewfinder that was capable of showing you whether or not the shot was in focus.

Was it possible that the viewfinder and the film were at different optical distances from the lens? Sure. And in that case, you'd get fuzzy shots regardless. But I expect that was far less common than miscalibrated autofocus systems are.


The simpler the system, the more reliable it's likely to be. Film SLRs were a lot simpler, and thus more reliable, than modern DSLRs. Certainly modern DSLRs aren't piles of junk or anything of that sort, but with a film SLR, if the viewfinder and film are at equal optical distances from the lens, then you'll get sharp, in focus shots for the life of the camera regardless of what lens you put on it (as long as the lens in question isn't so horribly fuzzy that it's impossible to get a sharp shot with it).

kcbrown wrote in post #12920083
No. They focused manually, with a viewfinder that was capable of showing you whether or not the shot was in focus.

Was it possible that the viewfinder and the film were at different optical distances from the lens? Sure. And in that case, you'd get fuzzy shots regardless. But I expect that was far less common than miscalibrated autofocus systems are.


The simpler the system, the more reliable it's likely to be. Film SLRs were a lot simpler, and thus more reliable, than modern DSLRs. Certainly modern DSLRs aren't piles of junk or anything of that sort, but with a film SLR, if the viewfinder and film are at equal optical distances from the lens, then you'll get sharp, in focus shots for the life of the camera regardless of what lens you put on it (as long as the lens in question isn't so horribly fuzzy that it's impossible to get a sharp shot with it).

So you're saying that you used to take a very powerful magnifying glass to view your 35-mm negatives at the level of magnification that would equal that of pixel peeping an APS-C-sized image digitally at 100% pixel-peeping? That's an awfully big magnifying glass.

jwcdds wrote in post #12920397
So you're saying that you used to take a very powerful magnifying glass to view your 35-mm negatives at the level of magnification that would equal that of pixel peeping an APS-C-sized image digitally at 100% pixel-peeping? That's an awfully big magnifying glass.

Microscopes are cheap these days.


Chances are, all you'd see is grain anyway.


More seriously though, if I were having focus problems, you betcha I would magnify the negative enough to see how far off the focusing is.

The only reason people pixel peep at 100% is that it's insanely easy to do (even easier than just magnifying the image somewhat -- most image manipulation programs have an easy way to go straight to 100% magnification). And for checking focus, it's a perfectly valid way to examine the image.

Often there is criticism of "pixel peeping" (and focus charts, and the "battery test", etc), and often it is justified. A person who sets out to find problems very likely will.
However, in this, and many other cases, it is the detection of a real problem in actual day-to-day use that prompts a person to undertake these tests and examinations in an attempt to characterise and diagnose a fault.

Julian,... no, we didn't always do it. But, on critical jobs I've used magnifiying glasses to make sure the enlarger was focused as crisply as possible. And, if there was any question of whether it was a slightly out of focus negative, you better believe I had the glass out to see if the film was as crisp as possible.
With digital we have an easy way to verify whether it is a mechanical (electronic) problem, or whether it was US that screwed up. When you have tools,... use them. No one is advocating that photographers abandon the basics of composition, lighting, tonal quality, color balance, etc. But, there is nothing wrong with making sure that we have the best equipment we can afford with which to practice our craft.

jwcdds wrote in post #12920397
So you're saying that you used to take a very powerful magnifying glass to view your 35-mm negatives at the level of magnification that would equal that of pixel peeping an APS-C-sized image digitally at 100% pixel-peeping? That's an awfully big magnifying glass.

I used to do it with 35mm transparencies.

Ever hear of using a loupe and a light table?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #12920708
I used to do it with 35mm transparencies.

Ever hear of using a loupe and a light table?

Oh I know people used to do that. I just didn't think that the loupe had such magnification to = that of 100% pixel-peeping that people are doing today. That's one big-ol' loupe!

Jon C wrote in post #12920636
Julian,... no, we didn't always do it. But, on critical jobs I've used magnifiying glasses to make sure the enlarger was focused as crisply as possible. And, if there was any question of whether it was a slightly out of focus negative, you better believe I had the glass out to see if the film was as crisp as possible.
With digital we have an easy way to verify whether it is a mechanical (electronic) problem, or whether it was US that screwed up. When you have tools,... use them. No one is advocating that photographers abandon the basics of composition, lighting, tonal quality, color balance, etc. But, there is nothing wrong with making sure that we have the best equipment we can afford with which to practice our craft.

Quick question.

Before you sent in your T2i the first time... you said you tested all your lenses w/ the LensAlign Pro, right? Did you do the testing outdoors? Or were you indoors when using the device?

If indoors, under what kind of lighting? (CFL? Incandescent? Natural by a window?)

jwcdds wrote in post #12920854
Oh I know people used to do that. I just didn't think that the loupe had such magnification to = that of 100% pixel-peeping that people are doing today. That's one big-ol' loupe!

The Canon-brand loupe I have is 8X and requires significant movement across a slide to hit all four corners.

It was the same then as it is now. Open the box of slides, preview by simply holding one up against the light, get all excited, get them on a light table, examine them very closely, throw most of them away...

jwcdds wrote in post #12920854
Oh I know people used to do that. I just didn't think that the loupe had such magnification to = that of 100% pixel-peeping that people are doing today. That's one big-ol' loupe!

Let's see. Loupes were typically up to 10x power. I'm struggling a bit to put that in digital terms though. Let's take a 7D as an example. Pixel pitch is 4.3 µm. A typical WXGA monitor has a dot pitch of around 200 µm. That would make 100% viewing about a 50x magnification, so if those figures are right, and my logic and calculations are too, you have a point.

If I got it wrong, maybe somebody could do something similar but correctly for me!