Canon 1ds3 alignment problems

[luong]

In my own testing, I took six shots on tripod.  For each of them, I aligned the middle horizontal line of my Ec-D grid screen with a different horizontal line. I used the ruler tool of PS to determine the tilt. Here are the results, all CCW: 0.3, 0.34, 0.34, 0.36, 0.45, 0.49. Average = 0.38, Std Dev = 6.7

A 0.75 degree tilt is quite large, one that I would certainly see on screen and want to correct. Should my camera have exhibited such a large mis-alignment, I would have sent it immediately to CPS. As it is, I will still do so, but with less urgency.

I just don't understand how some can say that 1 or 2 degrees is within normal operating error. That's a big deviation if you have any horizontal lines in the image. Using a "cheap" bubble level, I can certainly get consistently within less than 0.5 degrees.

[dottore]

No offense, but from reading a large number of posts on various problems with various cameras and lenses I notice that in general photographers are very insecure in the areaas of engineering and technology.  Perhaps one can't produce a nice sunset picture and know how cameras are made and work at the same time.

A fraction of a degree viewfinder/sensor misalignment is absolutely unacceptable. It is unacceptable in a fake wood box made in China bought at a home decorating store.  1 degree slope is a 0.2 inch or about 5 mm gap on the length of a letter size page (11 inches).  It would cost less than a couple bucks per piece to assemble cameras with less than 0.05 degree misalignment guaranteed.

How can anyone look at a sloping horizon and need to ask someone else whether this is OK?  How can anyone look at a fuzzy picture and persuade oneself it's OK because the gadget is sooooo great otherwise?

Why did they start making cameras like this?  
To save money.  They switched to a technology where there is no fedback or quality control - this is an "improvement" - assembly is supposed to get it it right without any check or adjustment the first time.  And it works -- how well we all can see.  Practically all japanese cameras are now made this way.  From a $ 600 Rebel to $10,000 Mk XXLIV.   How much money do they save? A layman would be surprised to know that even for a $30,000 car the manufacturers do care to save $1.50 per radio control knob.  I would estimate the savings per camera (as opposed to an assembly with actual adjustment of the alignment) as a couple bucks at most. Probably much less. Does it count to them ? They are absolutely sure it does.

It is unacceptable, just as a lousy focusing accuracy is unacceptable, but it is present in practically all japanese cameras.  But there is nowhere to run. Switching to Nicon won't help. Maybe Leica.

[Jonathan Wienke]

It is unacceptable, just as a lousy focusing accuracy is unacceptable, but it is present in practically all japanese cameras.  But there is nowhere to run. Switching to Nicon won't help. Maybe Leica.

One of the complaints about the M8 (besides several people reporting going through multiple bodies that failed completely before giving up and getting a refund) is having to send lenses in for focus calibration because of discrepancies between the rangefinder focus indication and the actual focus distance...

[Mark D Segal]

They switched to a technology where there is no fedback or quality control - this is an "improvement" - assembly is supposed to get it it right without any check or adjustment the first time. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Dottore,

I would much appreciate if you could inform us how you know this is the way they manufacture an 8,000 dollar professional camera.

[MatthewCromer]

Hi Dottore,

I would much appreciate if you could inform us how you know this is the way they manufacture an 8,000 dollar professional camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know for a fact this is incorrect.

In fact they do a full QA analysis of each professional camera and 'L' lens before it leaves the factory.  The problem is that there have been some training issues with the new QA team. . .

[Mark D Segal]

Matthew,

That ranges between humorous and insulting depending on one's point of view; but more to the point, let me ask you the same question: how do you know for fact that they do a full QA analysis on each camera and L lens? I wonder whether it isn't a sampling procedure, otherwise what seriously explains how mis-aligned viewfinder prisms would escape detection at the factory? It's not as if Canon is new to the manufacturing of these kind of csmeras.

[Rob C]

Matthew,

That ranges between humorous and insulting depending on one's point of view; but more to the point, let me ask you the same question: how do you know for fact that they do a full QA analysis on each camera and L lens? I wonder whether it isn't a sampling procedure, otherwise what seriously explains how mis-aligned viewfinder prisms would escape detection at the factory? It's not as if Canon is new to the manufacturing of these kind of csmeras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167544\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark, at the end of the day, it doesn´t really matter WHICH department within the maunufacturer´s production line is at fault; what does matter is that there seems to be no worthwhile final inspection.

I worked for some years on the factory floor of R-R aero engines production;  final inspection was very strong, very RESPECTED. Perhaps that´s the difference in world production ethics: the accountants now get the respect.

Rob C

[carl dw]

Matthew,

That ranges between humorous and insulting depending on one's point of view; but more to the point, let me ask you the same question: how do you know for fact that they do a full QA analysis on each camera and L lens? I wonder whether it isn't a sampling procedure, otherwise what seriously explains how mis-aligned viewfinder prisms would escape detection at the factory? It's not as if Canon is new to the manufacturing of these kind of csmeras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167544\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the problem is profit... it shows itself in corner-cutting manufacturing technique.

Canon's profit is far more important than photography and the thoughts of you or I. Gone are the good old days of Leica, Zeiss, Hasselblad etc making super quality optics and cameras sometimes at a financial loss to show they are the best - and taking pride in the fact.

While professional photographers would like to believe that expensive 'Pro-end' cameras are meant for them .... the reality is that most are sold to amateurs (with more money than sense in many cases).

Canon, Nikon etc now tread a fine line between what is 'good enough' for the consuming masses and their share price.

Why did they say 'user error' was at the route of the 1D MkIII focus problem for three months? ..... to keep the cameras selling in an aggressive marketplace; you can fix them afterwards but you need to sell 'em first! (Does anyone really believe a company with millions of dollars to throw at a problem didn't identify the issue pretty quickly?)

Don't blame the monkeys, blame the accountants!

[D White]

A contact I have at Canon Canada service indicates that there is a service bulletin on this issue.

[Mark D Segal]

A contact I have at Canon Canada service indicates that there is a service bulletin on this issue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good to know - here in Toronto Canon's facility is only a 45 minute congested, hair-raising drive West on our crippled infrastructure called "the 401". Anhow its within reach. But did they point to a place on their website where this service bulletin is posted? And did they say anything about how long they keep the camera to check it and fix if necessary? Of course they have two standards of service there depending on whether or not one is CPS.

[MatthewCromer]

how do you know for fact that they do a full QA analysis on each camera and L lens?

Just a joke Mark!  I figure they aren't doing a full QA test  including inspecting images, because a 1.5 degree offset is glaringly obvious at first glance when looking at thumbnails of horizons or architectural shots.

I do think a full QA test of all pro cameras and lenses would be a good idea though, especially one with a signed "checklist" of inspection items and a MTF test chart in the box.

I hear that CZ does the MTF sheet with their pro lenses. . .

But the monkey picture was just some light-hearted humor.  Certainly it is not just Canon who is failing to do adequate QA of their products. . .

[Mark D Segal]

Fair enough Matthew. All this bantering though does raise a humour-neutral question about kind of QA they really do implement. I doubt they'd ever reveal it. I spoke to Canon Canada this morning, following upon guydon's post. They told me they are unaware of any service bulletin on this matter, but as the camera is under warranty they would inspect it for me with a one to two day turnaround. If they find it needs adjustment, they would want to keep it from two to three WEEKS depending on service volume at the time. If you are not CPS, that's Canon service for you. To keep in mind for those occasional "forks in the road" when one makes fundamental decisions about maintaining or switching systems. Of course it also depends on whether Nikon or the others are any better.

[dottore]

Hi Dottore,

I would much appreciate if you could inform us how you know this is the way they manufacture an 8,000 dollar professional camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

By reading e.g. patents in the area you learn that there are "pasive" and "active" methods, where active methods are those where actual alignment is made.  Pasive methods use various smart tricks with holes, rods, markers, etc. to assembly the widget, but no check is made.  

The text below is about sensor tilt, not angular misalignment.  But it is quite clear that "pasive methods" are very attractive to the manufacturer.

"For high cost/low volume cameras, the CCD is "actively aligned" to the lens. This means that each individual camera is adjusted to eliminate this tilt. Currently, this is a very expensive and time-consuming process which is impractical when manufacturing low cost/high volume cameras. Consequently, most lower cost digital cameras do not actively align the CCD. Instead, they typically mount the CCD to a very flat plate (with screws) and then mount the plate to the lens assembly. By controlling the flatness of the plate and CCD package, and the perpendicularity of the lens mount to the optical centerline, the resulting tilt can often be controlled to an acceptable degree. However, not only does the CCD plate adds cost and assembly time, but it still results in greater variation of lens/CCD tilt than can be tolerated in certain applications. "


So it is, I believie, with angular alignment.  it "can often be controlled to an acceptable degree".  Enough said.

There definitely is a qulity control after the camera is assembled.  A controller can see with naked eyes that the alignment is say, 2 degrees off, but he passes such a piece, until it is , say 5 degrees off.  After the camera is assembled adjusting would cost as much as a repair, and most people will never send it for repair.

[dottore]

I know for a fact this is incorrect.

In fact they do a full QA analysis of each professional camera and 'L' lens before it leaves the factory.  The problem is that there have been some training issues with the new QA team. . .


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You probably should mean QC which is a part of the QA bureaucratic system.  Of course they do a QC of every camera and lens. And that QC sees the same thing we all see unless they employ blind people.  The problem is that companies can, and do, save money by simplifying the manufacturing, and then just asking "misalignment? what misaligment?"

Question is, is the camera build so that significantly better alignment by the service is even possible?

[Mark D Segal]

By reading e.g. patents in the area you learn that there are "pasive" and "active" methods, where active methods are those where actual alignment is made.  Pasive methods use various smart tricks with holes, rods, markers, etc. to assembly the widget, but no check is made. 

The text below is about sensor tilt, not angular misalignment.  But it is quite clear that "pasive methods" are very attractive to the manufacturer.

"For high cost/low volume cameras, the CCD is "actively aligned" to the lens. This means that each individual camera is adjusted to eliminate this tilt. Currently, this is a very expensive and time-consuming process which is impractical when manufacturing low cost/high volume cameras. Consequently, most lower cost digital cameras do not actively align the CCD. Instead, they typically mount the CCD to a very flat plate (with screws) and then mount the plate to the lens assembly. By controlling the flatness of the plate and CCD package, and the perpendicularity of the lens mount to the optical centerline, the resulting tilt can often be controlled to an acceptable degree. However, not only does the CCD plate adds cost and assembly time, but it still results in greater variation of lens/CCD tilt than can be tolerated in certain applications. "
So it is, I believie, with angular alignment.  it "can often be controlled to an acceptable degree".  Enough said.

There definitely is a qulity control after the camera is assembled.  A controller can see with naked eyes that the alignment is say, 2 degrees off, but he passes such a piece, until it is , say 5 degrees off.  After the camera is assembled adjusting would cost as much as a repair, and most people will never send it for repair.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168505\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

All of this is thoroughly unconvincing. It has no necessary bearing on or relevance to the issue of the kind of the quality control and quality assurance that Canon exercises in respect of the model 1DsMkIII. You made an unequivocal statement further back that there are no such processes for this model and I asked you to tell me how you know this. What you've said above is a pile of textbook information and inference that doesn't address the specific question.

And as for Matthew's point about whether such problems are correctable, the Canon rep who spoke to me over the phone last week told me that if they were to find a mismatch between the viewfinder image and the recorded image in my camera they can fix it. The only issue is the unacceptable amount of time over which they would keep the camera. Another poster in this thread seems to have had a satisfactory repair experience for the same issue from Canon in Australia, hence I would be inclined to believe what the Canon rep told me.

The remaining credibility issue in my mind is that the Canon employee I spoke with told me there is no service bulletin for this problem, whereas phiotoguydon further above said a Canon employee told him there is one. So there is contradictory "evidence" about whether the company has officially recognized the problem as generic enough for a service bulletin, or whether they have not. In either case, all these cameras are still under warranty and that is at least as good protection as a service bulletin, if one can leave their camera with Canon for weeks.

It is this aspect on which I would call Canon to account. While manufacturing errors and oversights are a fact of life we wish could be minimized (and at a cost they most likely can be), once it happens I think it behoves a company like Canon to ensure faster service for those people who paid over 8000 dollars and would face loss of use for several weeks. This is the aspect that "adds insult to injury" and is truly unacceptable.

[seanw]

My Mark III serial # 606xxx has this problem. It's very obvious - just line up anything with a straight edge using Live view and then look at what you see through the viewfinder. Or line something up through the viewfinder and then review the shot. There's no way to miss it and it doesn't require any complex testing to see it.

Anyone who has paid $8000 and actually owns this camera and has this problem would not suggest it was not a big deal. Nor would they try to suggest some kind of workaround. I did not measure the degree of tilt, but I don't care if it's off by .1 or 10 degrees, whatever it is, the fact is it is very obvious to the naked eye and therefore not acceptable.

I'll be contacting Canon to have it fixed. I understand mistakes happen so I won't get upset or hold it against them unless (or until)  I experience problems with Canon's customer service. Have never had to use them before so hopefully it will be painless.

[Mark D Segal]

Every time there is another person highlighting this issue I haul out my camera and make another test shot. This morning's were OK. I think it is hard to test  unless the problem is VERY obvious or one can set-up near lab conditions. Lenses have some distortions, the target needs to be absolutely rectangular or square, one's ability to do the line-ups and observe them needs to be spot-on etc. So testing for this problem can be a bit hit or miss. In those circumstances such people probably don't suffer from it. So my two points here: (1) based on my experience so far, the defect itself seems to be non-systematic - some cameras having it, others not, and (2) finding it can be tricky unless it is quite obvious and repeatedly so.

[djgarcia]

Mark, mine was visually very obvious if you have a line that should have been vertical or horizontal, probably 2-3 degrees off. If I had to measure it I couldn't care less. But the misalignment I had I wouldn't tolerate in a point-and-shoot.

It is inexcuasable, but having said that, if Canon is going to screw up the 1Ds3 then this is the way to do it because it's fixable and once fixed all is well. If it had been a design flaw, that would really have sucked.

[seanw]

An update since this morning - I contacted Canon and they had never heard of this problem before... hmmmm... But when I asked how long to have it fixed was told it had been taking about 2 days to check the problem and then 7-10 to get it fixed. Sounded to me like they had been getting them in despite the attempt to sound surprised at hearing of the issue.

I'm guessing they just hate to admit an issue that they hope might be overlooked. That would save them money and negative press so I can't blame them. But I would think most people that use a Mark III are not your typical point and shoot casual user who might not see the issue.


Mark - I would not worry about yours. It's very obvious and doesn't require any testing other than looking through the viewfinder and comparing the shot on the LCD. If your camera had the same issue it would be apparent. So rest easy you got a good one!

[Mark D Segal]

Sean, thanks - yes you're right - at this point I'm quite relaxed about it, but looking more generally at the situation as a whole, I can't help thinking Canon would do themselves a real PR favour by training their staff not to play dumb and just tell the truth. In the long run it pays, because then people could trust them. Each time they pull a stunt like this they erode the confidence of the very kind of customers that are important to them, while high-res full-frame is becoming an increasingly competitive market. From all the reports on numerous forums, unless it is the same handful of people reporting the same thing all over the place, this issue is more than just several cameras, but perhaps not an epidemic. Whatever, in these circumstances they should also extend themselves to assure those who need adjustments faster turnaround.