to repeat this you need to dig deep in the CF settings, I noticed that the camera goes back to ISO 100 when it is set to movie, so you have to go to this setting first to make sure the camera does not change exposure setting. That said, Carsten, I dont think you are on a very good postition to comment on tolerances of a camera you never used

Unless someone is not telling the truth in this thread, I don't see what other conclusions are possible? Some have the problem, others don't, under the same circumstances. I am not making up facts here, just observing what is said. Besides, it was a theory, as mentioned, not an accusation.

*Unless* there is a common difference between those who have problems and those who don't, like for example, all people with problems using Silent Mode and all people who don't not using it... That is why I asked Samuli if he had tried without Silent Mode on.

Carsten,

I still don't get your tolerance thing (regarding this issue - I'm well aware of Canon issues with bad tolerances on many other issues, however if we keep in topic I do not understand what you mean by tolerances). I repeat myself: How it could be tolerances since this can be repeated with Canon lens as well, by taping the electric pins, nothing else changing?



I did test before firmware upgrade, and included the silent mode also into my systematical repeatable test. Tested with Canon EF85mm f/1.2 L USM mkII, 1/8000s, f/1.2.
- live view, silent mode 1, lens connections not taped = no vignetting
- live view, silent mode 2, lens connections not taped = no vignetting
- live view, silent mode disabled, lens connections not taped = no vignetting
- viewfinder "mode", lens connections taped = no vignetting
- live view, silent mode 1, lens connections taped = vignetting
- live view, silent mode 2, lens connections taped = vignetting
- live view, silent mode disabled, lens connections taped = no vignetting
- viewfinder "mode", lens connections taped = no vignetting

Based on this condition "- using silent mode 1 or 2" has to be added to the list when this occurs.

Here is whole list of conditions which all need to be true in order to "find" this problem:
- using non-chipped adapters or Canon lenses with taped connections
- using live view
- using shutter speed < 1/2500s
- using silent mode 1 or 2
===> not a fairly common problem, specially now when it's not problem if disabling silent mode, which is beneficial with long lenses on darker conditions.

I'll test again after firmware update.
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com

With tolerances I don't mean lens-related, chipped, taped or whatever. I just mean that there are people in this thread who claim that they get no vignetting, no matter which chipped or non-chipped lens they use. If it turns out that they are all switching Silent Mode off, then maybe there is no tolerance issue.

carstenw wrote:
With tolerances I don't mean lens-related, chipped, taped or whatever. I just mean that there are people in this thread who claim that they get no vignetting, no matter which chipped or non-chipped lens they use. If it turns out that they are all switching Silent Mode off, then maybe there is no tolerance issue.
OK, strange usage of word "tolerance" since it means:
"the allowable deviation from a standard ; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece"

Maybe you just try to say that people are not capable of seeing this? You have to remember that this happen only in very rare conditions (see my previous post with list of 4 conditions), so in practice this is only problem is somebody is taking shallow depth of field shot in bright daylight with alternative lens without chipped adapter, typical this kind of shooting is environmental portraits, for which I think majority of users would choose to shoot using viewfinder. Most people are too lazy to do any real testing, but still they have to come to say to forums that they have not seen this and that problem happening (because they have purchased world best camera and it cannot have any faults...)


I can only speak for myself. This far I have been able to test 4 different 5DmkII and they have had this vignetting problem, when all the conditions I listed in my previous post were true. Before today's test I didn't know that using the silent mode has any effect but it seems that all 3 friend of mine had set their camera to silent shooting mode in live view or then it's default.

Personally for me this is not any problem, it happens in very rare situations and then I have just switched the live view off. Now I know that I can alternatively also disable the silent shooting --> even better. It ain't perfect but it's the best camera at the moment for my needs, 1Ds mkIII comes close but due to live view operation and display resolution I prefer 5DmkII.

PS. Nobody of the 3 "not-mine" 5DmkII owners didn't believe this vignetting and they could not produce or see it by themselves. I was able to do repeatable systematic test with few shots which prove that also this happens with their cameras. Far too often when cameras/lenses/whatever are tested tests are not systematic, for example if not shooting blue sky this "vignetting" may not even be noticed if not using tripod and actually using same framing to shoot the comparison shots.

Wow, I don't understand why I cannot seem to explain to you what I mean. Here it is in bullet-point form:

- some people see vignetting with the 5D2 and non-chipped fast lenses.
- some people do not see vignetting with the 5D2 and non-chipped fast lenses.

There are two possibilities:

- the people who don't see it don't have the same settings in the camera; "Silent Mode" is an obvious possibility
- the cameras do not all act the same, i.e. the tolerances are tight enough for Canon lenses with the contacts working, but not for non-chipped lenses.

I use the same definition as you. I haven't said that the 5D2 isn't a good camera. I don't desire one myself, but that is just my opinion.

carstenw wrote:
Wow, I don't understand why I cannot seem to explain to you what I mean. Here it is in bullet-point form:

- some people
- some people

- the people

- the cameras do not all act the same

strange conclusion!

jealous

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Most people are too lazy to do any real testing, but still they have to come to say to forums that they have not seen this and that problem happening (because they have purchased world best camera and it cannot have any faults...)


Sorry if you are targeting this at me, among others, Samuli. I did indeed report that I could not replicate the problem, though I did try. As I purchased Zeiss ZE lenses, taping the pins did not occur to me (sort of counter-intuitive, isn't it?). Now we know, thanks to you, that my report was indeed accurate, since I missed one necessary component to achieve the problem. When I have nothing to report, I report just that. Not: Oh, I have spent so many hours doing xxx tests.
Does that make me a guy who is not willing to find any problem with my "perfect camera"? If so, why did I do any testing? Does it make me lazy? That is a matter of opinion. Does it make me less well versed than you in alt lenses? Definitely. ZE lenses are, in that sense, not really "true alt" (full manual), but more like "part-alt" if you see what I mean.
In any case, I unreservedly congratulate you on your findings, your spending the time on behalf of the community, your depth of experience and knowledge, and your dogged and thorough testing. Do I congratulate you on passing harsh judgement on everybody else? Let's say that that too is a matter of opinion...

Andi Dietrich wrote:
srge cnlsn!

jas??

?

philber wrote:
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Most people are too lazy to do any real testing, but still they have to come to say to forums that they have not seen this and that problem happening (because they have purchased world best camera and it cannot have any faults...)


Sorry if you are targeting this at me, among others, Samuli. I did indeed report that I could not replicate the problem, though I did try. As I purchased Zeiss ZE lenses, taping the pins did not occur to me (sort of counter-intuitive, isn't it?). Now we know, thanks to you, that my report was indeed accurate, since I missed one necessary component to achieve the problem. When I have nothing to report, I report just that. Not: Oh, I have spent so many hours doing xxx tests.
Does that make me a guy who is not willing to find any problem with my "perfect camera"? If so, why did I do any testing? Does it make me lazy? That is a matter of opinion. Does it make me less well versed than you in alt lenses? Definitely. ZE lenses are, in that sense, not really "true alt" (full manual), but more like "part-alt" if you see what I mean.



Sorry Philber, didn't mean to offend you or any single person and this comment was not based on this thread but few thousand other threads over last 10 years. And I don't understand how you could took this to yourself, you did test it but at that time we yet didn't know that the electronic connection between Camera and lens is a problem.

Try to put this same thread in Canon forum or dpreview and you will get 25 answers that this doesn't happen with my camera from guys who has not tested or doesn't even have 5DmkII.

philber wrote:
In any case, I unreservedly congratulate you on your findings, your spending the time on behalf of the community, your depth of experience and knowledge, and your dogged and thorough testing. Do I congratulate you on passing harsh judgement on everybody else? Let's say that that too is a matter of opinion...
I don't think I deserve any thanks. Also I more or less felt to be responsible to help "alt lens community" figure out this problem since I requested people to report this to find out is this problem camera specific. As it initially appeared made me really worried since I shoot almost all the time with the live view.

PS. Systematic testing doesn't take any longer than random try to test, so I have not spend many minutes for testing of this issue. For example proper lens testing is far more time consuming if executed properly, thank those people who give us free lens evaluations in this forum.

--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com

In most recent Chuck Westfall monthly Tech Tips there is interesting information about silent mode 2:
Chuck Westfall - Tech Tips:
EOS 5D Mark II and 50D: For quietest operation, activate the Live View mode and select Silent Shooting Mode 2. This mode is similar to the Silent single shooting mode described above, but it is quieter because the reflex mirror has already been raised when Live View is activated. The first shutter curtain is electronically simulated in this mode, so the only noise you hear when shooting is the sound of the second shutter curtain closing the shutter to end the exposure. Once again, the camera remains silent until the shutter button is released by the photographer, at which point the shutter is quietly reset and Live View resumes.


Link: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0906/tech-tips.html
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com

Hello! I found interesting phenomenon from my yesterday IR (Infrared, I don't have camera converted, I use Hoya R72 and really loooong shutter speeds) photos which is very similar to "live view vignetting". This happened only in few photos, and I could not figure out any common factor on those having phenomenon and the ones which turned OK. Always when it happened shutter speed was between 15 and 120 seconds, and ISO was between ISO 400 and ISO 3200, but I took hundred of photos within these limits and they were successful (well at least technically, aesthetically may not...). I did shoot without liveview, just plain old mirror lock-up and wired remote. Also used the custom function which makes camera take the dark frame after exposure, it really helped with the noise.

Photo 1: ISO 800, 60 seconds - there is strong red noise in similar pattern as darkening happens in "live view vignetting" and in addition color temperature of 20% from right edge is more towards green than the rest of the photo


Photo 2: ISO 800, 60 seconds - there is really weird darkening on left edge, reminds me times when scratches in scans had to be corrected in photoshop...


Link to directory with two 100% crops:
Link

Could not never believe shooting in midday at direct sunlight, but with IR it was quite fun and got some nice results as well.
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com

Hmm it does say in the manual that long exposures can produce colour casts, and I have witnessed that in a few of my own shots...but nothing like this!

I thought the first one may have been the sensor heating up, but the second one looks nothing like that.

Not owning either the 5D II or 50D, I have had to rely on what people have reported here. Let me give you my two (euro)cents on what might be the cause of the problem.

First of all, check this page from Canon: http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2027

It tells that 5D II and 50D perform peripheral illumination correction in the camera, for Canon lenses, on real time, for JPEG images (which probably means not for RAW images - has anyone tested this?). The camera relies on a database provided by Canon, which records the peripheral illumination characteristics for each lens at each aperture. The user can decide which lens data to download to the camera, with the camera being able to hold data for 40 lenses at any time and the default having 26 of the most popular ones. This might also explain why some people see a problem and some don't - there is a difference on which lenses have been loaded into the camera and whether those match the alternate lens adapter chips or not.

The second piece of evidence tells that the silent shooting mode in live view has been achieved by electronically resetting the sensor (was mentioned in this thread as a quote from Canon).

The third piece of evidence is that the problem occurs only with fast shutter speeds. Earlier in the thread there was a mention that wide apertures will cause the problem, but now I am more inclined to think it was actually the fast shutter speed only, as it is usually associated with wide apertures. Could anyone test this?

The fourth piece of evidence says that the problem occurs only with unchipped lenses or when the electronic communication between the camera and the lens is disrupted.

Now, if we combine the evidence, here's my theory: the electronic sensor clearing takes a finite amount of time and starts from the side where the shutter opens first. With the camera first communicating with a chipped lens, the timing has been adjusted to be just exactly correct when using the fastest available shutter speed (1/8000s).

However, if the communication with the lens does not happen, the electronic sensor clearing is still going on when the shutter is open at the edge of the sensor. Thus, causing the effect that we see. Or, then maybe the camera gets some important data from the lens that affects the planned timing. After all, the best that the camera can do is to trip the shutter so that the electronic clearing is completed right on schedule, just before the shutter opens up to illuminate each position of the sensor.

Canon would have never discovered this as they would have tested the delay with the fastest EF lens and shutter time and purposefully set the delay so that this combination would just barely work. The "feature" would not have been an intentional one to disable alternate lenses. This might also be the reason why Canon advices not to use silent mode with TS-E lenses (being manual focus, maybe the lens communication happens faster).

Or, the other theory is that the effect applies to all lenses but for chipped lenses the peripheral illumination control is performed. If the lens is not in the database in camera, the silent live view mode shutter vignetting is corrected in any case. Or, as the chipped lenses and adapters may mimick some Canon lenses, the camera might apply the correction, which fully corrects the live view vignetting but not completely the lens vignetting (as was seen in one of the image examples in this thread, with a trace amount of vignetting remaining in the corner of the image).

However, either purposefully or by a bug in firmware, this correction is not applied to non-chipped lenses. If this theory is true, there should be a difference even for Canon lenses between RAW and JPEG images for the live view vignetting control. If the earlier timing theory is correct, there should be no difference between RAW and JPEG images. Anyone care to test?

The reason for the vignetting is the same as described above but Canon have purposefully set the delay in shutter tripping to be shorter than the minimum, as very fast shutter speeds are very seldom used with live view, and when they are, the ISO setting is usually low (plenty of light available), so the noise is not increased perceptibly with the vignetting correction.

In any case, it simply seems to be a complicated combination of unforeseen circumstances that bring the problem out. As there is already a good workaround to handle even the seldomly occurring case, and as it does not affect Canon's own lenses, I would be inclined not to expect a correction by Canon.

As Samuli has said, typical other uses of non-chipped lenses like telescopes with adapters really seldom use speeds that are faster than 1/2000s. In fact, the only situation I can think of in astrophotography is photographing the Sun (with a proper Sun filter in front of the scope, may I remind!). However, in that case the vignetting is not a problem as the Sun is in the middle of the frame and outside there is only black sky (severely underexposed blue sky, that is) where any amount of vignetting simply disappears. And when the Sun fits only partially, then you need such focal lengths that the telescope aperture requires longer exposure times in any case.

I am not yet completely comfortable with my theories as I think that more evidence is required. If someone tests whether there is a difference between the RAW and JPEG, we might understand the situation better. Also, note that you should not use DPP for processing the RAWs, as it perfoms the same type of corrections as the camera does. Or, you could try whether a RAW taken by a non-chipped lens would actually be corrected by DPP. For the other test, use another RAW converter and disable any vignetting or lens-related corrections.

philber wrote:
The wording used by Zeiss, indicating how their lens works with the EOS camera also suggests that they feel safe, which would not be the case with reverse engineering.

Actually, I would think that it would be the wording of their earlier press release that would confirm the licensing. When the ZF line of lenses was started, Zeiss was asked whether they would release those lenses for Canon cameras. Then they replied to the effect that they don't want to provide anything to the customers that would not work reliably, implying that they had failed to get a license from Canon.

The fact that they are now providing the lenses seems to say that they have been successful to get a license. However, the unforeseen delays to get the lens to market may not be technical at all but rather one of licensing. Canon first wants to get their 24f1.4L II and TS-E 24f3.5 and TS-E 17f4L established on the market, to make sure that Zeiss does not benefit from the missing high quality lenses that has plagued the Canon wide angles. So Canon may have delayed the license negotiations purposefully.

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Hello! I found interesting phenomenon from my yesterday IR (Infrared, I don't have camera converted, I use Hoya R72 and really loooong shutter speeds) photos which is very similar to "live view vignetting".

This could be simply the "hot spot" phenomenon that is known in IR for certain Canon lenses, even high quality ones (in visible light, that is). The fact that it is not perfectly centered probably is caused by the lens elements not being perfectly centered, either.

To me the live view vignetting seems to be edgewise, only on one edge and rather clearly-defined, while the vignetting here looks more similar to common lens vignetting, but only in IR.

astrolucida wrote:
However, if the communication with the lens does not happen
...
Canon would have never discovered this as they would have tested the delay with the fastest EF lens
...
by a bug in firmware, this correction is not applied to non-chipped lenses

I think you're on the right track, but I still suspect issue is something much more simple. I'm not privy to the EF protocol, but I expect it has a feedback mechanism wherein a lens says "I'm ready" (wrt aperture) before the shutters are released.

With stop-down lenses on previous bodies, no delay has been necessary, so the body has fired as soon as it's been ready.

However, when no or an improper delay is combined electronic first curtain, it appears that the trailing curtain grows out of sync during the exposure. It may be overtaking the electronic curtain, nearly catching it by the end of its travel. Since EF lenses work fine, my guess is that a small delay, comparable to that imparted by EF lens communication overhead, is all that's needed to keep the curtains in sync.

What's surprising to me is that so few people (not least Canon) appear to care enough to get a fixed firmware out!

olyacme wrote:
astrolucida wrote:
However, if the communication with the lens does not happen
...
Canon would have never discovered this as they would have tested the delay with the fastest EF lens
...
by a bug in firmware, this correction is not applied to non-chipped lenses

I think you're on the right track, but I still suspect issue is something much more simple. I'm not privy to the EF protocol, but I expect it has a feedback mechanism wherein a lens says "I'm ready" (wrt aperture) before the shutters are released.

With stop-down lenses on previous bodies, no delay has been necessary, so the body has fired as soon as it's been ready.

However, when no or an improper delay is combined electronic first curtain, it appears that the trailing curtain grows out of sync during the exposure. It may be overtaking the electronic curtain, nearly catching it by the end of its travel. Since EF lenses work fine, my guess is that a small delay, comparable to that imparted by EF lens communication overhead, is all that's needed to keep the curtains in sync.

What's surprising to me is that so few people (not least Canon) appear to care enough to get a fixed firmware out!

Did you try disabling "Silent Shoot" in liveview? Please refer to page 120 of manual for more information. Solved my liveview problem.

Hope this helps.

Sorry for the repeated information, I just noticed that it has been mentioned before.

astrolucida wrote:
This could be simply the "hot spot" phenomenon that is known in IR for certain Canon lenses, even high quality ones (in visible light, that is). The fact that it is not perfectly centered probably is caused by the lens elements not being perfectly centered, either.

No this is not hot spot, hot spot typically shows as aperture shaped lighter area in middle of photo. I tested all my lenses and the lens which was used this photos doesn't produce hotspot.

If centering causes this then all my lenses are having centering problem exactly same direction so that top right corner in landscape photos gets shaded...

So no it's not centering neither hotspot.

astrolucida wrote:
To me the live view vignetting seems to be edgewise, only on one edge and rather clearly-defined, while the vignetting here looks more similar to common lens vignetting, but only in IR.

Vignetting wasn't the "interesting phenomenon", but the strange darkening/color errors on top right corner and then some strange image errors on left edge are interesting since corner problem appears pretty similarly as high speed live view vignetting.

When live view vignetting happens it's on one egde, but mainly concentrated to that same corner every time.