5d mark ii?

stoiqa

stoiqa

Well-known member
I was looking to get 5d as my second camera and try it out...seems that camera has humidity issues.

I`m a little skeptical as of today.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31851&st=0


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml

Didn't like this part:

"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"
 
stoiqa said:
I was looking to get 5d as my second camera and try it out...seems that camera has humidity issues.

I`m a little skeptical as of today.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31851&st=0


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml

Didn't like this part:

"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"
Click to expand...

They are full of sh*t!

Unless you have been storing them in a fish tank and a salt water one at that they need to back up their products and replace them absolutely free of charge with RUSH AIR MAIL!

F@#K!

No wonder the global economy is falling apart!

No one gives a flying F@#K! about what kind of work they do!


Keep us posted!

We can dump Canon pretty quick!
 
Sorry, but I'm with canon on this one. 20+ 5DII's had no problems but both of this guys 5DII's failed from salt corrosion. Obviously the whole story isn't being told and these two cameras have salt corrosion where there shouldn't be. 20 other 5DII owners had no problems even though they were in the same shooting conditions. What's the likely hood that both of this guy's 5DII's failed whereas 20 others didn't. Either they were exposed to a severe wet salt environment without this owner knowing or something else happened. The physical evidence is what it is. The cameras have told their story, and it's a story I'm sure the Canon techs have heard before. The camera is telling them "I've been severely abused" and the owner is saying "I swear, I treated these cameras like they were my own babies, please fix them for free." It sounds like Canon has extended considerable good will to someone that took their cameras in a very wet ocean/salt environment in the Antarctic no less.

They're going to fix them for free. The warranty is only for a year anyway. I don't know if anyone realizes this, but these cameras are highly sophisticated computerized equipment. They don't like salt or water. There's no way I'd expose my 5DII to rubber boat travel on the ocean in the Antarctic. LOL. I've got other cheaper cameras for that.

Man, I can't imagine being in tech repair. The stories they must hear.
 
f64manray said:
Sorry, but I'm with canon on this one. 20+ 5DII's had no problems but both of this guys 5DII's failed from salt corrosion. Obviously the whole story isn't being told and these two cameras have salt corrosion where there shouldn't be. 20 other 5DII owners had no problems even though they were in the same shooting conditions. What's the likely hood that both of this guy's 5DII's failed whereas 20 others didn't. Either they were exposed to a severe wet salt environment without this owner knowing or something else happened. The physical evidence is what it is. The cameras have told their story, and it's a story I'm sure the Canon techs have heard before. The camera is telling them "I've been severely abused" and the owner is saying "I swear, I treated these cameras like they were my own babies, please fix them for free." It sounds like Canon has extended considerable good will to someone that took their cameras in a very wet ocean/salt environment in the Antarctic no less.

They're going to fix them for free. The warranty is only for a year anyway. I don't know if anyone realizes this, but these cameras are highly sophisticated computerized equipment. They don't like salt or water. There's no way I'd expose my 5DII to rubber boat travel on the ocean in the Antarctic. LOL. I've got other cheaper cameras for that.

Man, I can't imagine being in tech repair. The stories they must hear.
Click to expand...

6 of the 26 on the trip or 23%
 
who cares what caused it? unless it was done on purpose they should obviously replace them under the warranty.

/matt
 
The funny thing is, if they choose to have the camera fixed, the "one year warranty" will no longer be valid for any other reasons.

If you have a "one year warranty", why should expire after not even one month of using the camera?...should be called "one time guarantee warranty" or something like that.

IMHO by them offering to fix the camera in the first place, they acknowledge that it wasn't a voluntary damage action to the camera...then, why void warranty after that?
 
stoiqa said:
The funny thing is, if they choose to have the camera fixed, the "one year warranty" will no longer be valid for any other reasons.

If you have a "one year warranty", why should expire after not even one month of using the camera?...should be called "one time guarantee warranty" or something like that.

IMHO by them offering to fix the camera in the first place, they acknowledge that it wasn't a voluntary damage action to the camera...then, why void warranty after that?
Click to expand...

Sometimes manufacturers do extend "Good Will" even if they aren't legally required to. I think they are voiding the warranty after this one time free fix because of owner neglect because there could be likely further problems with these cameras because of salt corrosion. 20+ other 5DII's didn't suffer this problem. I doubt there is any difference in the quality and construction between these two that failed because of salt corrosion and the 20 others that didn't. It may not be voluntary damage, but I don't really see how the voluntariness of the damage is even relevant. He played russian rulett in a very dangerous environment that his gear was not optimised for and through his actions, inadvertantly doused his cameras with salt water. I don't see how the facts state otherwise or the other 20 would also have failed. They are after all, identical in every respect. The only variable that varied is treatment.
 
mattsand said:
who cares what caused it? unless it was done on purpose they should obviously replace them under the warranty.

/matt
Click to expand...

What does "on purpose" have to do with being stupid. Manufacturers need to be replacing gear even if damaged by the actions of well intentioned stupid people?
 
Why not? They're in the business of providing quality products for professional use and it's not that an individual camera or a few parts cost that much for them. I like to partner up with helpful and reliable companies when i do business. If my cheap mp3 player breaks that's another story.
 
f64manray said:
these cameras are highly sophisticated computerized equipment. They don't like salt or water. There's no way I'd expose my 5DII to rubber boat travel on the ocean in the Antarctic. LOL. I've got other cheaper cameras for that.
Click to expand...

If you want to shoot pictures of rubber boats in the Antarctic, that's unavoidable.

What good is a camera if you can't move them close to the action?

Anyway, every company is pretty much scared to sh#t in these difficult, and unpredictable times. They are starting to cut back on less profitable operations and resources, like "good faith".
 
not two...six of them failed((to be accurate)

"I didn't know that Antarctica has salty seawater rain and that this special salt water rain only affects 5D mk II cameras. This is absurd. The camera (along with an original 5D) was in a camera bag during the zodiac trip and the bag was covered by a nylon cover. The failure occurred on land on a day with some light rain. The camera was new and had only been used indoors in Canada and in Ushuaia on a clear dry day and it failed on the second day of shooting on the trip after spending the two days crossing the Drake passage in the cabin with me.

Neither camera got rained on directly. While it is possible that the Kata bag somehow contributed to a humid environment, it would still indicate that our two copies of the 5D mk II are extremely susceptible to moisture and/or humidity. The temperature difference between the inside and the outside of the Kata bag could not have been that different. Remember it failed 1.5 hours into a 2 hour landing, so the argument that it was caused by condensation on return to a warm ship doesn't fly."
 
f64manray said:
Sometimes manufacturers do extend "Good Will" even if they aren't legally required to. I think they are voiding the warranty after this one time free fix because of owner neglect because there could be likely further problems with these cameras because of salt corrosion. 20+ other 5DII's didn't suffer this problem. I doubt there is any difference in the quality and construction between these two that failed because of salt corrosion and the 20 others that didn't. It may not be voluntary damage, but I don't really see how the voluntariness of the damage is even relevant. He played russian rulett in a very dangerous environment that his gear was not optimised for and through his actions, inadvertantly doused his cameras with salt water. I don't see how the facts state otherwise or the other 20 would also have failed. They are after all, identical in every respect. The only variable that varied is treatment.
Click to expand...

WOW!

You are so sure of your self!

Sweetness!

I'm not saying your sound like a right wing religious fundamentalist corporate apologist shill but come on.

It was 6 out of 20 that failed.

Didn't you bother to read the whole post?

Don't you think manufacturers should stand behind their products? :huh:
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
WOW!

You are so sure of your self!

Sweetness!

I'm not saying your sound like a right wing religious fundamentalist corporate apologist shill but come on.

It was 6 out of 20 that failed.

Didn't you bother to read the whole post?

Don't you think manufacturers should stand behind their products? :huh:
Click to expand...

Well, it sounds like they did step up by offering to fix these cameras for free, but they also suspect the cameras were subject to conditions that went beyond the warranty terms. So, in essence Canon seems to be saying they suspect abuse but are offering to help out anyway. The user has stated the Kata bags seem to be the one variable that was different from the other cameras on the expedition. Possibly the bags sealed the cameras into a moist environment for a prolonged period of time. That combined with the salt air ocean environment could have sealed the deal for the dead electronics.


It was 6 out of 20 that failed.

Didn't you bother to read the whole post?

I've read this saga through different threads in different forums. It was my impression if memory serves that 2 failed permanently and 4 others failed but recovered from conditions like bringing them from the cold to warm environment with out placing them in a bag first to prevent condensation.


I'm not saying your sound like a right wing religious fundamentalist corporate apologist shill but come on.

Flattery will get you everywhere. Just to be clear, I'm far from right wing and even further from religious fundamentalism. I'm just trying to see it from Canon's point of view. I'm sure they know what it takes through their rigorous testing procedures to cause this kind of corrosion.

Someone mentioned that 23% of the 5DIIs failed. By the same logic we could say that the one Sony DSLR that was on the expedition that didn't fail amounts to Sony having a 100% non failure rate.

100% of the Sony DSLRs didn't fail (1 camera)
23% of the 5DIIs failed (6 cameras out of 26)

What does this tell us? Nothing. Very little anyway. 20 5DII's functioned just fine in a cold wet ocean air environment. I'll take those odds as a consumer. I'm impressed.
 
stoiqa said:
not two...six of them failed((to be accurate)

"I didn't know that Antarctica has salty seawater rain and that this special salt water rain only affects 5D mk II cameras. This is absurd. ."
Click to expand...

The salt air combined with the rain. Salt air combined with moisture is a wicked bad thing for electronics. Worse than just moisture by itself, but I'm sure you realize this by now.

And it just affected your 2 cameras in a catastrophic way. 20 functioned fine and the others recovered if I remember correctly from these various forums on the subject. But hey, Didn't I read that this trip cost 15 grand. Surely if you're in that income bracket I'd just buy the 2 new bodies at 50% of the new price. I think if they fix these, there could be problems with salt corrosion further down the line. I'd rather just start anew.

it would still indicate that our two copies of the 5D mk II are extremely susceptible to moisture and/or humidity.

I don't see how your 2 5DII's could be anymore prone to humidity/salt problems than the other 20. Just trying to look at this logically. They are all virtually the same camera.
 
Last edited:
f64manray said:
Well, it sounds like they did step up by offering to fix these cameras for free, but they also suspect the cameras were subject to conditions that went beyond the warranty terms. So, in essence Canon seems to be saying they suspect abuse but are offering to help out anyway. The user has stated the Kata bags seem to be the one variable that was different from the other cameras on the expedition. Possibly the bags sealed the cameras into a moist environment for a prolonged period of time. That combined with the salt air ocean environment could have sealed the deal for the dead electronics.


It was 6 out of 20 that failed.

Didn't you bother to read the whole post?

I've read this saga through different threads in different forums. It was my impression if memory serves that 2 failed permanently and 4 others failed but recovered from conditions like bringing them from the cold to warm environment with out placing them in a bag first to prevent condensation.


I'm not saying your sound like a right wing religious fundamentalist corporate apologist shill but come on.

Flattery will get you everywhere. Just to be clear, I'm far from right wing and even further from religious fundamentalism. I'm just trying to see it from Canon's point of view. I'm sure they know what it takes through their rigorous testing procedures to cause this kind of corrosion.

Someone mentioned that 23% of the 5DIIs failed. By the same logic we could say that the one Sony DSLR that was on the expedition that didn't fail amounts to Sony having a 100% non failure rate.

100% of the Sony DSLRs didn't fail (1 camera)
23% of the 5DIIs failed (6 cameras out of 26)

What does this tell us? Nothing. Very little anyway. 20 5DII's functioned just fine in a cold wet ocean air environment. I'll take those odds as a consumer. I'm impressed.
Click to expand...

Devoide of logic


23% failure rate = unacceptable


quit being an apologist for shoddy work
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
Devoide of logic


23% failure rate = unacceptable


quit being an apologist for shoddy work
Click to expand...



Amazing, the 5DII produces the incredible images as well as the fantastic video that spurs Red forum users to debate it's performance compared to Red One, and were going to call it shoddy because 2 out of 26 failed in a cold wet/salt air environment in the Antarctic. I guess I just see the glass as 3/4 full, and you see it as 1/4 empty. I'm just glad I have such an amazing tool. I have no illusions that I will trek through the Amazon in a rain drenched jungle or stand on Mount Everest with the 5DII, have it crap out on me and then call it shoddy. I guess if I ever spend that kind of money on those kinds of expeditions, I'll make sure I bring 5 back up bodies.
 
we're not calling it shoddy, we're saying canon should replace or repair them. accidents happen and part of reliability is good and fast service when they do.

/matt
 
I think cannon is offering a fair deal. Going to Antartica is like going to another planet, people (most people) don't live there for a reason. The 5D Mark II was never known or even advertised for being the ultimate weather sealed camera. And I'm pretty sure the manual would say operating conditions are 0 C and above, which they were probably not shooting in anyways.

Motorola won't replace cell phones broken due to Florida humidity, I think what Canon is offering is more than fair.

If they wanted ultimate weather sealing, they should have gotten a camera that was meant for ultimate weather sealing, like the Olympus E3, or something of that sort.

And even if the user did not know it was salty rain, why would that be Canon's fault either. It's just one of those situations. I'm not blaming the user for trying, but I don't think it's Canon's responsibility to fix the camera.

This is taken from the canon website:
Operating Environment Working Temperature Range
32-104°F/0-40°C
Working Humidity Range
85% or less
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top