Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 15 Apr 2012 (Sunday) 02:52
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Service Advisory - Light Leak Phenomenon

 
DavidWatts
Goldmember
1,347 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Likes: 825
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Chicago Area
     
Nov 03, 2012 00:06 |  #226

Go Down, Moses wrote in post #15198437 (external link)
I just got my 5d Mark III (from BH PHOTO) yesterday. I assume I should be "safe?"

Should be. Canon fixed the lot of them that were in inventory many months ago and made running changes in production at the same time. There shouldn't be any out there that aren't already fixed, save a few older ones still in mom and pop camera stores that might not have responded to the service announcements. If the middle number in the serial number sequence is a 3 or higher, then you're good to go.


My Smugmug site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Dj ­ R
Goldmember
Avatar
2,988 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 133
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Philaburbia
     
Nov 03, 2012 09:37 |  #227

it would be fun to see how many folks here who had effected bodies, actually returned them for "repair". I have not sent mine in.


BAG Reviews, master list!
Tons of Sony gear
Some Canon gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
90c4
Goldmember
1,271 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2007
     
Nov 04, 2012 07:30 |  #228

I sent mine in for the recall, but only because I had a ton of dust in the viewfinder that I wanted cleaned out, lost my dial insert in the mode selector and wanted that replaced, and wanted a sensor cleaning which was all done free of charge. I wouldn't bother sending it in just for the recall, but when you want a free cleaning and calibration, send it in.


www.facebook.com/stage​shooter (external link)http://www.facebook.co​m/stageshooter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Howiethek
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Oct 2012
     
Nov 09, 2012 09:30 |  #229

I haven't read the entire thread but I did shoot with lens cap on to try and determine at what ISO, I would see unacceptable (for me) noise. Does this minimal light leaking in, affect conduct of performing an ISO noise assessment?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
55,601 posts
Likes: 2480
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Nov 09, 2012 09:51 |  #230

Howiethek wrote in post #15226141 (external link)
I haven't read the entire thread but I did shoot with lens cap on to try and determine at what ISO, I would see unacceptable (for me) noise. Does this minimal light leaking in, affect conduct of performing an ISO noise assessment?

It has nothing to do with noise. It is a metering issue. THe image will not meter properly.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Nov 09, 2012 11:25 |  #231

Howiethek wrote in post #15226141 (external link)
I haven't read the entire thread but I did shoot with lens cap on to try and determine at what ISO, I would see unacceptable (for me) noise. Does this minimal light leaking in, affect conduct of performing an ISO noise assessment?

I'm not sure how that test would help you judge noise in the real world. Noise is affected very much by underexposure, shoot an image correctly exposed at 6400 ISO and you will see less noise in the shadows than if you shoot using 1600 ISO but two stops underexposed. In that instance 1600 could give you unacceptable noise whilst 6400 is still acceptable.

Shooting with the lens cap on is using so little light (essentially what can get in through the viewfinder) that you are almost certainly producing a severely underexposed result which will create noise that you wouldn't normally see in a normal, correctly exposed, image at that ISO.

If you want to test to see at what ISO unacceptable noise becomes an issue, shoot real images, exposed correctly, and judge from those. Inventing tests that bear no relationship to real world use will give results that ALSO bear no relationship to real world use. That is why there was such a fuss by those who tested their cameras with the lens cap on, and discovered the light leak "issue". In real world use, the issue doesn't exist (unless you shoot with the lens cap on all the time).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
55,601 posts
Likes: 2480
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Nov 09, 2012 12:58 |  #232

sandpiper wrote in post #15226579 (external link)
I'm not sure how that test would help you judge noise in the real world. Noise is affected very much by underexposure, shoot an image correctly exposed at 6400 ISO and you will see less noise in the shadows than if you shoot using 1600 ISO but two stops underexposed. In that instance 1600 could give you unacceptable noise whilst 6400 is still acceptable..

It's not a good real world test but noise has nothing to do with under exposing. Noise is ever present and taking a dark frame to judge how much noise is present is a valid test. The issue with underexposing in real life is not the fact that it was under exposed in the first place. A ISO 1600 image perfectly exposed and a ISO 1600 image which was under exposed will have the same noise. However when you boost the shadows to be properly exposed the noise will get boosted as well becoming much more visible. So, a ISO1600 image properly exposed and a ISO 160 image that has been pushed to ISO6400 (two stops) will show significantly more noise.

sandpiper wrote in post #15226579 (external link)
That is why there was such a fuss by those who tested their cameras with the lens cap on, and discovered the light leak "issue". In real world use, the issue doesn't exist (unless you shoot with the lens cap on all the time).

That's not quite true. The issue is there all the time. Shooting with the lens cap and viewfinder cap on removes all variables except for the light leaking in. That's why the test is done that way. However, every shot you take will have the effect buried within. The amount of the effect will be dependent on the settings used and how much the difference will affect the image. You are right that in real world use that the effect will be minimal, but it is still there. Canon did the right thing by fixing the defect.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GMCPhotographics
Goldmember
Avatar
2,425 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 720
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Wiltshire, UK
     
Nov 28, 2012 06:47 |  #233

I'm sure this Non-Issue was stirred up by Nikon trolls.


Regards, Gareth Cooper GMCPhotographics
"If youre happy and honest and fulfilled in what you do, then youÒ’re having a successful life" (Ben Elton)
Gear List GMCPhotographics (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RSMarco
Goldmember
Avatar
1,006 posts
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Cheshire, UK
     
Nov 28, 2012 07:00 |  #234

^ Agree ^


_______________
Camera Gear: Canon 5D MKIII | 24-105 f/4 L IS USM | 16-35 f/2.8 L II USM | 70-200 f2.8 L II IS USM | Canon Speedlite 580EX II
_______________
Computer / Software: Apple iMac 27" | Adobe CS5.1 | Adobe Lightroom 4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Higgs ­ Boson
Goldmember
1,958 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Texas Hill Country
     
Nov 29, 2012 20:42 |  #235

gjl711 wrote in post #15226940 (external link)
It's not a good real world test but noise has nothing to do with under exposing. Noise is ever present and taking a dark frame to judge how much noise is present is a valid test. The issue with underexposing in real life is not the fact that it was under exposed in the first place. A ISO 1600 image perfectly exposed and a ISO 1600 image which was under exposed will have the same noise. However when you boost the shadows to be properly exposed the noise will get boosted as well becoming much more visible. So, a ISO1600 image properly exposed and a ISO 160 image that has been pushed to ISO6400 (two stops) will show significantly more noise.


That's not quite true. The issue is there all the time. Shooting with the lens cap and viewfinder cap on removes all variables except for the light leaking in. That's why the test is done that way. However, every shot you take will have the effect buried within. The amount of the effect will be dependent on the settings used and how much the difference will affect the image. You are right that in real world use that the effect will be minimal, but it is still there. Canon did the right thing by fixing the defect.

even if the issue is built in the effect is still smaller than the normal metering variance from camera to camera.....I've had several bodies that expose differently and I've seen others post about their experience as well.

I thought this was ridiculous when it was wildfire and I still haven't "fixed" my camera.


A9 | 25 | 55 | 85 | 90 | 135

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peter ­ Ho
Senior Member
Avatar
252 posts
Joined Mar 2007
     
Dec 08, 2012 10:03 as a reply to  @ Higgs Boson's post |  #236

I have my 5DM3 for 9 months. When I first read about this issue I brought back to my dealer and told him about this issue and then even went back to Canon about this. But then having used it for all these months in my professional work ....table tops and event shootings in broad daylight and even in almost total darkness stage shows except a single spot light.... I have experience no problem despite all the hue and cry on this phenonomen as we shoot using the viewfinder. I have shot at ISO 12k and my shots do not have the whatever problem as declared.

So go ahead and shoot and not worry about the little issue. I love the 5DM3 and was pondering on buying the 1DX but then minus a little speed... I am settling on the Mark3 while when speed is required... I fall back on my 1DM3.

Shoot more and enjoy the greatness around us.


Canon 1D MkIII, 5D MkIII D30 :EF8-15F4/L Fisheye USM, EF17-40 f4L USM, EF28-105F4-5.6 USM, EF75-300 F4.5, EF70-200 f2.8L IS USM, EF100-400 F5.6L IS, EF100 f2.8macro, EF2xII, 550EX, 580EX, 420EX
http://www.cwdesign.co​m.my (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Judder ­ Man
Senior Member
Avatar
759 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 182
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Cumbria + Wigan
     
Jan 25, 2014 08:25 |  #237

Mine is a grey import so never bothered sending mine in for inspection, its got the effected serial no but never experienced any problem. For night time shots with very long exposures I do cover up the viewfinder though.


Canon 5D mk3, 50mm 1.4, 17-40L, 70-200L, 100-400L, Canon 100L macro, Canon 2 x G1X, Speedliite 430 EX all supported by Gitzo and Benro.
Web sites: www.georgehopkinsphoto​graphy.com (external link)

An Image in Time is a Stepping Stone to Eternity

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Whitlam
Senior Member
493 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Western Australia
     
Jan 26, 2014 20:42 |  #238

Same here never bothered to send it in - mine is one of the early ones with the effected serial #, in 23,000 shots never had an issue.


1D4 + 1Ds2 + 5D3 + 7D: 100-400L, 300 f/2.8 ISL, 70-200 f/2.8 II ISL, 24-105L, 16-35L, [COLOR=Red][COLOR=Blac​k]180L macro, 135L, 100 L macro, 85L, 8-15 fish eye

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dj ­ R
Goldmember
Avatar
2,988 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 133
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Philaburbia
     
Jul 08, 2014 08:35 |  #239

Whitlam wrote in post #16639646 (external link)
Same here never bothered to send it in - mine is one of the early ones with the effected serial #, in 23,000 shots never had an issue.

may as well send it in, now, and get a free sensor cleaning ;)


BAG Reviews, master list!
Tons of Sony gear
Some Canon gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KCY
Unlocked the hidden 117 point AF
Avatar
7,170 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2009
Location: I wish I knew...
     
Jul 16, 2014 12:37 |  #240

Dj R wrote in post #17018554 (external link)
may as well send it in, now, and get a free sensor cleaning ;)

haha thats a good idea, free clean after 2 years now :D


KC - The Circle of PoTN - Member of the UCPC
My Gear|My Smugmug (external link)|Pong

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

124,165 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Service Advisory - Light Leak Phenomenon
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is saik
1418 guests, 347 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.