Topic: canon 5d mk11 in Antarctica (Read 148794 times)

dseelig · « **on:** February 05, 2009, 11:47:37 pm »

That is really about it I am thinking of selling my 1ds mk111 and going with 2 5d mk11's I have one 5d mk11 . I saw a post in another forum the 5d mk11 did not do so well in anartica what happened with it?
Thanks David

pegelli · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2009, 01:26:08 am »

It's closer than you think, see here

mrenters · « **Reply #2 on:** February 06, 2009, 01:26:14 pm »

As you've probably heard there were a number of 5D mk II cameras that failed on the Antarctic trip (6 of the 26 on the trip or 23%). My wife and I accounted for 2 of those. Both failed within minutes of each other during a shore outing with light rain. Both were protected by Kata rain covers and both exhibited the same problem - the shutter release button appeared to be shorted out. When the camera was turned on it would immediately take a picture (or multiple if the camera was in continuous shooting mode). At least some of the other failures on the trip were similar.

When we got back to the ship we dried them out and they eventually (mostly) revived. My wife's acted up again as soon as it was even slightly humid and stopped working altogether in Buenos Aires at +35C, humid but sunny weather.

For a camera that is advertised as having "improved weather resistance" I can't say I'm impressed, and I'm even less so knowing that no other cameras had problems even though many of them were completely unprotected.

Both cameras were sent to Canon for repair and I received a call today saying there was corrosion at or near the shutter release and offering me the following options:

1) Have them fixed as best they could (free of charge) but without further warranty in case of internal failure
2) Trade them for new cameras at 50% off the retail price

I'm not convinced that this camera doesn't have serious problems with moisture compared to similar cameras from other manufacturers and I'm also not convinced I can trust the camera to work in anything other than warm dry air.

I like the camera otherwise and the images it produces are great, but if you can't rely on it, I don't know how useful it is. Make sure you carry a backup if there is any chance there could be moisture. I don't know if I'd buy it again given our experience.

Martin

Dustbak · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2009, 02:03:08 pm »

Quite a horror story.

What strikes me as really curious are the options proposed to you.

Repair free of charge but losing your warranty further down the road? Get a new one for 50% off?

It appears your vendor (or Canon) acknowledges this is a malfunction that falls under warranty. It should be repaired with continued warranty or it should be replaced.

Or is this malfunction not covered by warranty?

button · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2009, 03:07:49 pm »

Quote from: mrenters

1) Have them fixed as best they could (free of charge) but without further warranty in case of internal failure
2) Trade them for new cameras at 50% off the retail price

Please let us know what comes of your dealings with Canon. Can you provide a reason for these options?

John

mrenters · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2009, 03:34:22 pm »

Quote from: button

Please let us know what comes of your dealings with Canon. Can you provide a reason for these options?

John

They said that water damage is not normally covered under warranty at all. As I understand it, if they fix it and the problem reoccurs, it will be difficult for them to determine whether it was caused by a new episode of water damage or the initial case and that their service people don't want to have to deal with that, hence the end of the warranty.

I don't know how or why they came up with the 50% discount on a new camera.

I'm a little torn about these options as I don't particularly think either one of them is ideal. I don't want to (nor do I feel I should) pay $3000CDN for two new bodies if there is a design defect and the new bodies fail the next time they don't like the humidity or color of the sky.

Getting them fixed but being without a warranty on a camera that I have little confidence in isn't great either and I'm again faced with the situation of what will happen if the camera decides the conditions outside are more than feels like handling that day.

I am careful with all my gear and the use it got in Antarctica was by no means anything that could be even remotely considered abuse of the equipment.

Martin

Rickard Hansson · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2009, 03:51:36 pm »

Quote from: mrenters

They said that water damage is not normally covered under warranty at all. As I understand it, if they fix it and the problem reoccurs, it will be difficult for them to determine whether it was caused by a new episode of water damage or the initial case and that their service people don't want to have to deal with that, hence the end of the warranty.

I don't know how or why they came up with the 50% discount on a new camera.

I'm a little torn about these options as I don't particularly think either one of them is ideal. I don't want to (nor do I feel I should) pay $3000CDN for two new bodies if there is a design defect and the new bodies fail the next time they don't like the humidity or color of the sky.

Getting them fixed but being without a warranty on a camera that I have little confidence in isn't great either and I'm again faced with the situation of what will happen if the camera decides the conditions outside are more than feels like handling that day.

I am careful with all my gear and the use it got in Antarctica was by no means anything that could be even remotely considered abuse of the equipment.

Martin

No insurance that might cover the expenses?

mrenters · « **Reply #7 on:** February 06, 2009, 04:12:29 pm »

Quote from: Rickard Hansson

No insurance that might cover the expenses?

No.

Martin

Wayne Fox · « **Reply #8 on:** February 06, 2009, 11:08:28 pm »

I was about to put my 1DsMk3 up for sale and buy another 5dMk2 until I read the Antarctica report and this thread.

This is concerning, as is Canon's response so far.

I'm curious why this problem has surfaced with the 5DMk2, as it didn't appear to be much concern with 5D owners (at least I don't believe I've seen anything about it). I assume previous Antarctica expeditions sported a fair number of 5D shooters? I'd be curious if anyone from the previous trips has any insight on this. I am assuming they changed something ... and not for the better.

Perhaps this is a case of Canon not following the adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - some bright engineer decided he could make a better shutter release button, or more likely save a buck or two with a change.

I've forwarded Michael's article and a link to this thread to a contact I have at Canon USA, and I'll be chatting with him about it at PMA. Who knows if it will do any good, but this sounds like a design flaw to me.

Farmer · « **Reply #9 on:** February 07, 2009, 12:23:27 am »

This is very odd. Corrosion? In the time frame of what, a few hours? To be honest, it sounds like they accept that there was no user negligence and that it is a manufacturing failure - otherwise, once it's fixed, why wouldn't you continue warranty? What else might cause the problem?

If it happened here, in Australia, I'd be pressing for warranty repair and full warranty to continue as normal. What if you have some other fault with the unit, completely unrelated? How can they deny warranty on that?

You can't cancel a warranty unless you can show user neglect, and if that's the case, why would you offer to repair it for free? The offer smacks of "we know it's a warranty failure, but we don't want to admit it, so we'll try to make it sound like it's your fault but we won't flat out say that because then you might take legal action and we'd lose so we'll try to sweet talk it with an 'offer' to make you think we're being nice".

If it's not a warranty failure, deny the claim. *IF* a good customer then presses you, then you might consider offering some sort of compromise as a business decision, but doing this sort of thing up front is just poor.

bokehcambodia · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2009, 01:26:04 am »

Hello Martin,

sad to hear about your bad experiences with the 5DMKII. What a PITA it must be to worry on location with 2 bodies malfunctioning. I posted another topic a few days ago about the 5D and its mirror fall-out flaws.
The mirror fell out so far 3-times and the CANON service report also stated corrosion problems inside the body of the 5D.
As it was not used in rain, mainly indoor shoots, it only comes down to the general humidity. Thats for the 5D.
But I am surprised CANON quotes corrosion on a mint body the first time its sees the light
I just speak for myself but I see the whole 5D-Series as not as reliable as any 20D-50D.

Michael

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #11 on:** February 07, 2009, 01:35:29 am »

I'm very sympathetic with your problem. The problem is that cameras are specified for very benign working conditions, so if you use a camera outside the specified conditions the camera makers go free. This is a nasty thing. Fortunately most cameras work under a wide variety of conditions.

Now, the only cameras that went broke on the Antartic were Canons as far as I understand which is not exactly good for Canon's reputation. Perhaps you should try to act together with fellow Canon users who also had problems.

Hasselblad had a similar problem, with the front lens group falling out on some 50-110HC (?) zoom lenses. At that time Hasselblad essentially claimed that the camera should not be transported or held with the lens pointing down. (Pointing the lens toward the sky keeps of course the front lens from falling out, but limits the usefulness of the camera significantly.) I got the impression that Hasselblad was reluctant to acknowledge the problem.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr

Quote from: mrenters

They said that water damage is not normally covered under warranty at all. As I understand it, if they fix it and the problem reoccurs, it will be difficult for them to determine whether it was caused by a new episode of water damage or the initial case and that their service people don't want to have to deal with that, hence the end of the warranty.

I don't know how or why they came up with the 50% discount on a new camera.

I'm a little torn about these options as I don't particularly think either one of them is ideal. I don't want to (nor do I feel I should) pay $3000CDN for two new bodies if there is a design defect and the new bodies fail the next time they don't like the humidity or color of the sky.

Getting them fixed but being without a warranty on a camera that I have little confidence in isn't great either and I'm again faced with the situation of what will happen if the camera decides the conditions outside are more than feels like handling that day.

I am careful with all my gear and the use it got in Antarctica was by no means anything that could be even remotely considered abuse of the equipment.

Martin

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #12 on:** February 07, 2009, 01:42:07 am »

Hi,

a corrosion problem may be due to improper choice of materials. In that case it must be a construction problem.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr

Quote from: Farmer

This is very odd. Corrosion? In the time frame of what, a few hours? To be honest, it sounds like they accept that there was no user negligence and that it is a manufacturing failure - otherwise, once it's fixed, why wouldn't you continue warranty? What else might cause the problem?

If it happened here, in Australia, I'd be pressing for warranty repair and full warranty to continue as normal. What if you have some other fault with the unit, completely unrelated? How can they deny warranty on that?

You can't cancel a warranty unless you can show user neglect, and if that's the case, why would you offer to repair it for free? The offer smacks of "we know it's a warranty failure, but we don't want to admit it, so we'll try to make it sound like it's your fault but we won't flat out say that because then you might take legal action and we'd lose so we'll try to sweet talk it with an 'offer' to make you think we're being nice".

If it's not a warranty failure, deny the claim. *IF* a good customer then presses you, then you might consider offering some sort of compromise as a business decision, but doing this sort of thing up front is just poor.

Farmer · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2009, 01:44:44 am »

Hmm, the 5D Mk II is specified to operate in 0-40C, which is for the most part the conditions they had down there - didn't I see someone say it was on -2C at worst? And 85% or less humidity (shouldn't have been a problem).

I agree, Erik, that they can look for all sorts of reasons to walk away from warranty and the specifications are there for a reason, but it sounds like a very poor response from them.

Farmer · « **Reply #14 on:** February 07, 2009, 01:45:37 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr

Hi,

a corrosion problem may be due to improper choice of materials. In that case it must be a construction problem.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr

Yes, I totally agree. My point was that environmental exposure wouldn't seem to be a valid cause of corrsion in this case. As you say, it would be a construction issue and therefore subject ot warranty protection.

Jerry Kurata · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2009, 02:03:19 am »

Martin,

Did you have grips on either of the cameras?

Jerry

feppe · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2009, 04:00:48 am »

My theory is two-fold:

Corrosion was caused by salty seawater
Humidity exacerbated by the rain cover (!)

Salty water is pure murder for metals, much more so than plain old rain water. I used to work at a salt plant, and we'd have corrosion resistant piping costing an order of a magnitude more than normal piping - and salt would still eat through it given enough time. Therefore I'm not surprised to hear about camera failures on ships, boats and beaches, especially if there is water spraying about.

On the second point: I don't know how Kata covers are built, but the pictures I've seen suggest they are only partly sealed bags. It could very well be that the bag collects moisture, and/or that moisture condensates on the surface of the bag or camera, seeping into the sealing.

These both combined might explain the failure of the cameras.

erick.boileau · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2009, 04:21:05 am »

now I don't know if I shall upgrade my 5D or go directly to Nikon D3X

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2009, 05:14:30 am »

Hi,

The 5DII is supposedly sealed, so I'd suggest that no water should be able to enter electronics on top of the camera. It also seems that only the 5DIIs were subject to this problems, so I would suggest that it's a problem with 5DIIs. I would suggest that Canon needs to fix that and call back the cameras having these problems or their customers may go elsewhere for shopping.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: feppe

My theory is two-fold:

Corrosion was caused by salty seawater
Humidity exacerbated by the rain cover (!)

Salty water is pure murder for metals, much more so than plain old rain water. I used to work at a salt plant, and we'd have corrosion resistant piping costing an order of a magnitude more than normal piping - and salt would still eat through it given enough time. Therefore I'm not surprised to hear about camera failures on ships, boats and beaches, especially if there is water spraying about.

On the second point: I don't know how Kata covers are built, but the pictures I've seen suggest they are only partly sealed bags. It could very well be that the bag collects moisture, and/or that moisture condensates on the surface of the bag or camera, seeping into the sealing.

These both combined might explain the failure of the cameras.

Josh-H · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2009, 05:29:42 am »

Quote

The 5DII is supposedly sealed,

I dont beleive so - From memory it has 'improved sealing' from the original 5D - its not fully sealed.

I think Chuck Westfall had a tech tips about this late last year - Again, from memory he said it was better sealed than the original, but no where near the sealing on the 1D series.

Author Topic: canon 5d mk11 in Antarctica (Read 148794 times)