Stupidity of a few here is beyond my comprehension.
And it goes beyond stupidity when those people claim facts...post reviews and don't even bother to test it WITHOUT THE FU###N cap off,yet claim to be a "pro".
Can we delete and lock all of these threads? It's obviously fueled by a few ignorant trolls who have nothing to do at home and just want drama
So the question is, if you have the cap on, then shine a really bright light (think 2 Mil candles or so )... does it have less banding if you push it 5 stops?
I've tested it extensively the last two days. And it really is an issue that CAN affect photo's. Not in most cases, but especially in very low light without any close light sources. E.g. doing astrophotography or shooting a landscape or a city from a dark spot. When you turn on the lcd-lighting, the exposure is changed. This resulted in underexposed photo's.
Yero wrote:
I've tested it extensively the last two days. And it really is an issue that CAN affect photo's. Not in most cases, but especially in very low light without any close light sources. E.g. doing astrophotography or shooting a landscape or a city from a dark spot. When you turn on the lcd-lighting, the exposure is changed. This resulted in underexposed photo's.
If I have the lens cape on and the camera is directed to a dark area, the metering system shows me 25 sec.
But if I just directed the camera to a light area the metering system shows me 5 sec.
This means for me there is some light comming through the lens cap itself.
--> But in both cases it does'nt matter whether I press the light on button or not.
Andreas
Sorry did you block off the eyepiece first as that is the usual source of exposure error? It's even in the manual.
Yero wrote:
I've tested it extensively the last two days. And it really is an issue that CAN affect photo's. Not in most cases, but especially in very low light without any close light sources. E.g. doing astrophotography or shooting a landscape or a city from a dark spot. When you turn on the lcd-lighting, the exposure is changed. This resulted in underexposed photo's.
As I've said before, the meter is not designed to work in low light levels and will not give the correct exposure. If it happens to be unstable at low light levels that is not out of spec performance. And, if you're doing astrophotography, you certainly don't want correct metering. Don't forget that, in simple terms, the exposure meter is trying to create a photograph that is, on average, 18% grey. That's certainly not what you want for astrophotography.
The bottom line is that in light below 1EV (about 10 times full moonlight) the meter readings are not reliable and so should be ignored.
Yero wrote:
I've tested it extensively the last two days. And it really is an issue that CAN affect photo's. Not in most cases, but especially in very low light without any close light sources. E.g. doing astrophotography or shooting a landscape or a city from a dark spot. When you turn on the lcd-lighting, the exposure is changed. This resulted in underexposed photo's.
I've had a look at those images and the brightest lighting seems to be ISO400, f/2.8 & 15sec. If my calculations are correct that's an EV of -3. That's 4 full stops below the minimum light level at which the meter is designed/specified to work. Using those images as evidence you are claiming the camera is faulty because it doesn't perform substantially better than advertised.
Yero wrote:
I've tested it extensively the last two days. And it really is an issue that CAN affect photo's. Not in most cases, but especially in very low light without any close light sources. E.g. doing astrophotography or shooting a landscape or a city from a dark spot. When you turn on the lcd-lighting, the exposure is changed. This resulted in underexposed photo's.
Yero, some people here are "rude" or make fun from others but not impartial nor serious about this. They seem not to care about customers who invested $3,500 in a body-only.
---
Just to make things clear:
I don't like reporting issues, I don't like finding issues. I don't like to find such expensive camera has an issue that may affect my pictures, and will probably need a hardware fix (not via firmware update)
But I do and want manufacturers giving answers and solutions when an issue is found. So that's why LOT of people (me included) is reporting this issue, to get answers and solutions. As simple as that.
Even if some photographers say there is no issue, the tests show there IS an issue, and Canon IS already aware on that (thanks in big part to all the reports spread over the internet... In the past you could wait months for official word and solution)
Here's another example, check at 1:00 :
It's unbelievable that many people only joke about this and other member's posts, trying even to find so strange arguments to "explain" a wrong behavior due a design problem. Fortunately this doesn't happen in other photo & video forums. I don't know why it happens here.
That reminds me when we reported a bug in firmware 2.0.4 of 5D Mark II, and lot of people spent so much time arguing it was "normal" even when we showed the abnormal behavior in a video and confirming it didn't happen in previous firmware versions. Then after a month Canon released an update to fix it...
Spreading bug/issue reports do help all of us to get better and more efficient cameras.
There is a light leak through the top LCD panel (unofficially admitted by Canon). Period. You don't like it? Me neither! But the fact is there is an issue.
Most people will shoot at night "manually", so it won't affect the exposure, but if you (due to whatever reason or need) shoot at Av, Tv or P you won't be able to check exposure while shooting, nor light the LCD panel with a flashlight.
It is a big issue? Not for most.
Does it happen with other cameras? It doesn't matter if it does. It shouldn't. It is no valid argument to hide a problem. Just for the records, the 5D Mark II doesn't have this issue.
Rest assured that Canon WILL give answers. And that's in part because LOT of people report and complain.
Let's hope additional test don't confirm the LCD light leak also affects shooting in other conditions than dim light (I don't think it will, but still not 100% confirmed)
The most concerning matter is that this issue is not fixable via firmware update, it's a design problem. So Canon will have few options, one is to ignore it (not likely at this point, but if they do, we'll keep showing and pushing more), another is to offer free repair for current cameras, and maybe some other options I prefer not to mention.
Take care, and try to get issue reports more seriously when concerned users or potential buyers are asking about it. Any of us could be one of them at any time and would appreciate real answers and solutions.
First let me say I have no intention to be rude and so I hope this post is not taken that way. It's just that everything I've seen claiming the camera is at fault seems to me to just be plain wrong. I'll be the first person to acknowledge there is a problem if someone gives me evidence to support that claim but I am yet to see any.
As I have tried to explain above. So far I have not seen anyone show an example of the meter misbehaving anywhere even close to it's specified working range. If you use the meter at low light levels, such as the images and footage that you and others have posted, then the fact that it doesn't work is user error not camera error because the meter is not supposed to work at those light levels.
I'm not being a Canon apologist here but just stating the documented, freely available fact that Canon do not consider the meter to be useable below 1 EV.
Is there a light leak? Well that depends upon what you mean by a light leak as no camera is 100% light tight. The issue is whether there is a light leak large enough to stop the camera from working as designed and advertised. I have yet to see evidence that there is such a leak.
As I said above, the images I've seen so far appear to be taken around at least 4 stops below the meter's minimum workable light level. Let's assume that the light from the LCD that leaks onto the meter at this EV is enough to shift the recommended exposure by 1 stop. That's irrelevant since the meter doesn't work at that light level anyway so it shouldn't be used. Now, if we raise the light level to 1 EV, where the meter should be useable, that extra light from the LCD lamp is no longer equal to the TTL light but is one sixteenth of the TTL light which is less than 0.09 of a stop. And, as the light levels increase this figure reduces rapidly.
Now before anyone gets outraged about this inaccuracy in metering remember that the camera is only capable of exposing in third stop increments (and many pros set it to half-stop because they consider the third-stop unnecessarily fine). This means that the exposure that you or the camera sets is not accurate to 0.09 of a stop anyway but is shifted to the closest third stop at best.
Even these figures are worst case scenario as they apply to metering at the lowest end of the meter's sensitivity, where you should probably still be using manual exposure, and it's based on the leak adding 1 stop at -3EV, which seems unlikely. We can't assume that just because the meter jumps by one stop that it's actually seeing twice as much light because we can't assume that the meter is stable at such low light levels.
I think you and others are worrying about nothing and I think your energies would be better employed going out and taking some great shots with the wonderful camera that you have.
I think the point is that the camera shows different behaviour in low-light with light metering than other (Canon) camera's. That itself is weird and looks like a fault. I agree that the problem is not that big for a lot of people (I myself always shoot manual in low light), but does that make it right?
By the way... Interesting point about the disability to measure light correctly below 1 EV. Will look further into that. Do you know if that's an official statement?
Yero wrote:
By the way... Interesting point about the disability to measure light correctly below 1 EV. Will look further into that. Do you know if that's an official statement?
Check page 374 of the manual; "Metering range: EV 1-20 (..."
Yero wrote:
I think the point is that the camera shows different behaviour in low-light with light metering than other (Canon) camera's. That itself is weird and looks like a fault. I agree that the problem is not that big for a lot of people (I myself always shoot manual in low light), but does that make it right?
By the way... Interesting point about the disability to measure light correctly below 1 EV. Will look further into that. Do you know if that's an official statement?
Apparently some people have reported this behaviour, to differing degrees, with other, older models, but I haven't confirmed that. My point is just that the behaviour of the auto exposure system below 1 EV is undefined so its behaviour at -3 EV can't be wrong no matter what it does. As long as it behaves itself between 1 and 20 Ev then it's doing what Canon says it will.
I think this is a bunch of crap. mine does it with the lens cap on, my 7D doesn't. So, on goes a lens, iso 800 AV
mode, hit shutter button, shine flashlight through lcd, no metering change. People always find something to bitch about.
I find it quite amusing how people will spend a lot of money on an expensive camera -- then, rather than going out and taking photos, they immediately start looking for imperfections.
The "glass half full" crowd is out taking photos and enjoying their new cameras. Meanwhile, the "glass half empty" crowd is busy fastening lens caps to the front of their lenses, and shining flashlights on the equipment in weird ritualistic fashion. Many people seem content with this strange deprecating ritual of putting the camera through torture tests -- trying to create problems that don't exist in the real world.
As mentioned earlier, Canon was aware and investigating this issue (unofficially confirmed at that point).
Today an official Product Advisory has been published at Canon USA website.
Very quick from Canon, that's good.
Hopefully Canon will also announce their decision very soon.
Thanks to everyone who understood this matter and helped to spread it in one way or another. We all get benefits from bug/issue reports, since we're the end users and customers.
NO. The advisory has to do with REAL problems with the camera - such as the 200 & 800 IS problem, or the lockup problem, or constant CF card writing problem.
Seriously, this is the dumbest complaint I have ever seen.
