1D/s Mk III are leaking... :-(

[yakim_peled1]

<p dir="ltr">What is going on here? Two hardware fixes and now <a href="http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/EOS_oil_spots.do">this</a>? This is really getting ridiculous. </p>

<p dir="ltr"></p>

<p dir="ltr"><br>

 

<p dir="ltr">And someone please correct me (English is not my mother's tongue) but if I understand correctly then this problem can only be fixed in future cameras.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Oy Vey.... :-(</p>

</p>

<p dir="ltr"></p>

<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/EOS_oil_spots.do"></a></p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

[zml]

<p>If you want to know the facts, you can read the Canon's tech bulletin/service notice, but something tells me that you are more interested in rumor mongering than in facts...</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p dir="ltr">Of course I did, and I wrote what I understood above. I only hope that I misunderstood it. Wasn't I clear enough?</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

[richard_oleson]

<p>to me it looks kind of in the "stuff happens" category, and it sounds like they're offering a reasonable response to correct it....</p>

[zml]

<p>FWIW: if you use 1Ds3 or 1D3 you know that the issue is nothing new, but because the tech bulletin just came the "Internet community" got suddenly very interested in the gory details :-))) From my own experience, cleaning the mess is really hard so let's hope that there is a permanent solution to that issue even though I don't mind sending my bodies to Canon for cleaning: they do a really good job, much better than anything I can do myself :-)))</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p dir="ltr">I remember that my Elan (EOS 100) used to do that but that was almost 20 years ago. Since then I heard nothing like this so I thought it was gone for good. </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

[catchlight]

<p>As a long time Canon shooter, I've been surprised and disappointed by the problems many 1DMkIII's have exhibited, one after another.</p>

<p>I've been waiting to upgrade my 1DMkII, but won't do so until Canon brings out a new 1 Series DSLR for action shooters which re-establishes the company's traditional high standard of sensor design, AF performance, and quality control.</p>

<p>To get me to part with $4500 or so, the new model will also have to match or surpass the Nikon D3's high-ISO performance. I'll wait 6 months before buying one to ensure that there are no serious performance or quality issues.</p>

<p>Here's hoping Canon gets the next 1 Series DSLR right, as they seem to have with the 5DMkII.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>traditional high standard of sensor design</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is nothing wrong with the sensor on either 1D3 or 1Ds3. To the contrary.<br>

As an aside, how many frames per day do you shoot..? A lot of users of the 1D series cameras crank out a few thousand shots per day every day. There bound the be issues with such volume, both pilot error and equipment-related...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>match or surpass the Nikon D3's high-ISO performance</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean the entire 1 stop, or less, of the difference..? :-)))</p>

[catchlight]

<p>Michael, it might not matter to a lot of photographers, but that one f-stop would make a huge difference to me when shooting dance, theatre, and concerts under low light by enabling me to use a shutter speed that's twice as fast. For example, my chances of freezing dancers in motion on a dimly-lit stage are far better at 1/250 than 1/125.</p>

<p>My two friends who shoot with D3's in the same environments come away with amazingly noise-free images, even at 3200 ISO. With both my 1DMkII and my 5D, I use even 1600 ISO reluctantly because of the noise levels in the shadows.</p>

<p>The other advantage the D3 currently has is a highly-customizable Auto-ISO feature, which means when the action is happening too quickly to adjust settings constantly in a dark theatre, the camera sets itself to the lowest ISO for the shutter speed you have chosen. For example, when a follow-spot comes on, the D3 will instantly adjust from 3200 ISO to 200 ISO, and go back up when the spot goes off.</p>

<p>For me, a typical dance recital or musical theatre production generates between 400 and 600 shots. The sharper and more noise-free they are, the less time I spend post-processing, and the more keepers and sales I get.</p>

<p>I still love Canon gear, but after being the industry leader for a couple of decades, the company has some crucial catching up to do.</p>

[bob_flood2]

<p>Brent Reid is right on! I too am a 1DMkII user and would not buy the MkIII with all the problems. I am awaiting a MkIV with all the corrections and ISO improvements mentioned. And he is correct that Canon has some serious catching up to do. Not sure I can wait the 6 mos to make sure the problems are solved. Anybody have an idea when they might come out with the next version? Fall ? Spring ?</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>"more interested in rumor mongering than in facts..." </p>

<p>These are not rumors, just facts and concerns. If anyone keeps counting? there were 3 or more "hardware fixes".</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Brent, any noise "advantage" in the Nikons can be easily ironed out by very simple PP measures, and the Mk III files are - even RG admits - better files from an overall IQ point of view.</p>

<p>Simply converting in Capture One 4 rather than ACR/Lightroom would give you that stop back and then some - even the free Raw Therapee produces markedly cleaner files than ACR.</p>

<p>Hell, I can get clean, detailed images out of my 40D at 3200 ISO and up by processing them properly...</p>

<p>But I suppose you'd rather continue to troll this board whining about how terrible your life became since the introduction of the D3 than to actually deal with what is really a pretty piddling issue.</p>

<p>And this latest "problem"? Big bloody deal - I had the exact same thing happen to me when I got a shutter replaced in a 30D body.</p>

<p>What's the surprise about the fact that sometimes, replacement moving-part hardware components inside a camera will spread a little bit of lubricant around inside?</p>

<p>It has always happened and always will, so the likelihood that odd Mk III bodies would see this was always pretty high.</p>

<p>More pointless internet hysteria over complete non-issue.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Brent Reid is right on! I too am a 1DMkII user and would not buy the MkIII with all the problems.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>"All" the problems? </p>

<p>Let's see: <em>some</em> AF issues, and...</p>

<p><em>Well that's it, isn't it?</em> Lubricant in the camera body is a <em>DSLR</em> problem, not a Mk III problem.</p>

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>You mean the entire 1 stop, or less, of the difference..? :-)))</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I shot both cameras (1DIII, D3) in parallel for a whole day, at a low-light event. Several thousand shots with each.</p>

<p>There's no noticeable difference in the noise in the RAW files at 1600. At 3200 they were both outside my comfort zone.</p>

<p>If there is a big advantage to files from the D3 it's in jpg's only, and smart on-board image manipulation algorithms.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>These are not rumors, just facts and concerns. If anyone keeps counting? there were 3 or more "hardware fixes".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, but most of this stuff is as unimportant to the people who actually use these cameras as it is important to the "internet community." You know, it is like Elvis sightings...</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>There's no noticeable difference in the noise in the RAW files at 1600. At 3200 they were both outside my comfort zone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, of course there isn't but that's not what the collective mind of the Internet believes in. Nikon (and Sony) way overprocess JPEG files in-camera which makes these files look "better" as long as you don't touch them with photoshop: then the whole thing falls apart in an instant. </p>

<p>As an aside, since the issue of in-camera overprocessing is not unique to Nikon there must be something other in it ("worse is better", perhaps...) Say, Sigma and Leica cameras, two reigning world champions in lousy in-camera JPEGs IMO, are somehow capable of delivering OK RAW files...</p>

[paul_b.1]

Wow , Yakim, you are attracted by the dark side of the force..., how dare you to question Canon ways. It's fun for me to read here (the Canon EOS forum) from time to time , comments like Michael's , wich remember me about the "Emperor's clothes " story.

 

 

But don't worry, this phenomenom appear only in new cameras and in time, the oil will dry up, and quit splashing all over.

[yakim_peled1]

<p dir="ltr">Attracted? Yes, but I have not made any move yet. I really want a no issue 1D Mk III but I guess it's not going to happen. It seems to me that running both systems is the best solution for me. All I need is to sell my 70-200/2.8 IS to free up some cash and I'm there. In the mean time, my trusty 40D and other 5 lenses keep me happy. </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Here is a perfect example of what the moderators are talking about. The discussion started with the disappointment of a reader with his Mk3. It leaks? Leaks what? From the batteries? Or has it gat an oil tank in there? Seems like a battery problem not a camera problem.<br>

Anyway, the discussion then morphs into a Canon criticising/defending match, then a comparison of the high ISO capability of Canon and Nikon, and descends into useless argument and completely off topic with any contributor who is critical of canon being slammed as a Nikon nazi. Infantile.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Thank you Stephen. (BTW it is mirror lubricant that splashes but that is not the point.) This rediculous parochialism between brands is getting more than silly. There are differences between the two brands but none that will significantly improve a good photographer's ability to produce and sell great pictures. </p>

<p>Just like golf there are thousands of folks out there trying to buy a game. And despite my best efforts to buy the best clubs Tiger Woods could still beat me with a rental set. I suspect that Damon Winter could kick my butt in a photo contest (he won the Pulitzer last year) and I don't know what camera he used. It doesn't say on his site and it doesn't appear on the award citation. Anne Leiboviz has used a D3. OH MY GOD! Must be that it has a bigger geveltnavortner than Canons do. </p>

<p>All photos should be posted with the brand of camera, lens, card, film, flash, tripod and strap. Without this information we might falsely conclude that the photographer relied on skill, talent, imagination and a dusting of luck. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I noticed this thread after having heard a few scattered claims (not brand-specific) about oil spots on sensors. But I learned much more.</p>

<p>Thank you, one and all, fellow photographers. You have affirmed my suspicions that Nikonistas are not alone in odd and occasionally disturbing obsessions and off-topic meanderings. And you've given me my first real laugh of the day.</p>

<p>I shall now slink back to the rival camp with confirmation that the "enemy" is as crazy as we are.</p>