Please let us know what happens..... I'm curious....
My bet is on that Sigma lens being the culprit.... Sigma has a 3 decade history of causing funky problems on brand-new Canon bodies after working flawlessly on previous ones.
Why change now?
I got burned with the 500 7.2, 80-200 2.8, 400 5.6 before I eBayed all my Sigma lenses and started buying Canon. Really, it was a shame because I really liked the lenses and optically they were very good. The price was good... but as they say... buy it right or buy it twice.....
I will certainly report on my findings when the replacement camera arrives.
Your quote, "buy it right or buy it twice", made me smile. In my case each of my Sigma purchases has been to take the place of a Canon lens I liked less. The Sigma 50mm f1.4 replaced my Canon 50mm f/1.2, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 replaced my Canon 85mm f/1.2, the Sigma 120-300mm OS replaced my Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS, and my Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 replaced my Canon 500mm f/4. In each case I found the value/quality/features of the Sigma to better match my needs. I have an equal number of Canon lenses which I prefer for other applications.
If it turns out that this is a Sigma firmware issue, and that is still a big if in my mind, then I would only consider switching back to Canon if Sigma failed to rechip my lenses. I care more about quality and value then I do about brand. Sigma is making some pretty interesting glass these days and I wish Canon would push the envelope on this front a little more aggressively. The Canon 200-400mm f/4 IS with TC should be very interesting if it ever ships and it might cause me to sell one or both of my Sigma zooms if IQ is where I am hoping it will be.
Sigma is making some pretty interesting glass these days and I wish Canon would push the envelope on this front a little more aggressively.
I agree 1000% that Sigma glass has always been good (IMHO as good as Canon on their higher end offerings) and as you say very interesting and cutting edge of late. Their build quality is also decent, although (again, IMHO) not up to par with Canon L. Either way: This is not the problem.
The problem is Sigma's (and all other 3rd parties) reverse engineering of the interface. Yes, they will update firmware on lenses to restore compatibility. They will do this at no cost for a while and for a fee for an even longer while.... Then... when you least expect it, they will stop supporting particular lenses, then Canon will release another incompatible body, then you own a tack-sharp yet completely worthless paperweight. This is what happened to me with all the Sigma lenses I mentioned above. I bought them all circa the Canon EOS 630/650 (early 1990s) and had them flashed several times over the years as I upgraded bodies (A2, A2E, EOS3).... By the time I went digital (Canon 20D, 2005), Sigma had stopped updating those particular lenses even for a fee. I was lucky in the sense that there were still enough film shooters around that I was able to sell them, albeit for a huge loss.
I view lenses as long-term durable items.... I only buy new lenses to gain capability that does not currently exist in my kit. I very seldom upgrade glass for a newer version of the same thing. I would still be using those lenses today if not for this compatibility issue. The Canon 400 5.6 I purchased in 2005 is still in near daily use today and it works as well (better, actually) with a 1DX as it does with my venerable 20D it was purchased with. It even works with the EOS 650 that predates it -- no flashing ever required.
I vowed never to get screwed like that again. I do have some 3rd party lenses I consider disposable (Pro Optic 8 and 14, for example), but I would not drop any serious money on anything but a camera-brand lens.
Do the research.... every single Sigma AF lens has eventually suffered this fate. If it hasn't yet, its only because its too young....
Its really a shame that Canon and Sigma can't work something out to prevent this. Sigma offers many good lenses that Canon does not (50-500, 120-300, 200-500 2.8, etc) and vice versa... their relationship is not 100% adversarial.... I'm sure they could work something out if they wanted to.
"All that" said -- I sincerely hope you get your issue fixed, whatever it turns out to be, and that it doesn't impact your photography and pocketbook too much.
My wife's SL1 would not record sound during video recording, tried everything, and yes, tried playback within the camera and on the computer. It's on it' s way back to Amazon, with a new one overnighted and sitting at my doorstep as we speak. Hopefully this one is ok.
Otherwise, great little camera that I'm sure will get a lot of use, especially with a fast prime like the 40mm STM or 35mm f/2.
pKai wrote:
I agree 1000% that Sigma glass has always been good (IMHO as good as Canon on their higher end offerings) and as you say very interesting and cutting edge of late. Their build quality is also decent, although (again, IMHO) not up to par with Canon L. Either way: This is not the problem.
The problem is Sigma's (and all other 3rd parties) reverse engineering of the interface. Yes, they will update firmware on lenses to restore compatibility. They will do this at no cost for a while and for a fee for an even longer while.... Then... when you least expect it, they will stop supporting particular lenses, then Canon will release another incompatible body, then you own a tack-sharp yet completely worthless paperweight. This is what happened to me with all the Sigma lenses I mentioned above. I bought them all circa the Canon EOS 630/650 (early 1990s) and had them flashed several times over the years as I upgraded bodies (A2, A2E, EOS3).... By the time I went digital (Canon 20D, 2005), Sigma had stopped updating those particular lenses even for a fee. I was lucky in the sense that there were still enough film shooters around that I was able to sell them, albeit for a huge loss.
I view lenses as long-term durable items.... I only buy new lenses to gain capability that does not currently exist in my kit. I very seldom upgrade glass for a newer version of the same thing. I would still be using those lenses today if not for this compatibility issue. The Canon 400 5.6 I purchased in 2005 is still in near daily use today and it works as well (better, actually) with a 1DX as it does with my venerable 20D it was purchased with. It even works with the EOS 650 that predates it -- no flashing ever required.
I vowed never to get screwed like that again. I do have some 3rd party lenses I consider disposable (Pro Optic 8 and 14, for example), but I would not drop any serious money on anything but a camera-brand lens.
Do the research.... every single Sigma AF lens has eventually suffered this fate. If it hasn't yet, its only because its too young....
Its really a shame that Canon and Sigma can't work something out to prevent this. Sigma offers many good lenses that Canon does not (50-500, 120-300, 200-500 2.8, etc) and vice versa... their relationship is not 100% adversarial.... I'm sure they could work something out if they wanted to.
"All that" said -- I sincerely hope you get your issue fixed, whatever it turns out to be, and that it doesn't impact your photography and pocketbook too much. ...Show more →
I had a fleet of 5 Sigma lenses that went the way of paperweights due to them discontinuing ROM support. I gave most of them away to friends/strangers with older cameras. I had a 6th one--50 2.8--I was able to sell on Ebay since ROM was current.
gocolts wrote:
My wife's SL1 would not record sound during video recording, tried everything, and yes, tried playback within the camera and on the computer. It's on it' s way back to Amazon, with a new one overnighted and sitting at my doorstep as we speak. Hopefully this one is ok.
Otherwise, great little camera that I'm sure will get a lot of use, especially with a fast prime like the 40mm STM or 35mm f/2.
To update this, the new SL1 I recieved today records and plays back video/audio fine, so it must have been a defective SL1. Just an FYI for anyone else who might have the same issue.
I received my replacement SL1 today. After testing on a few Canon lenses I held my breath and tried it on the Sigma 300-800mm again. No problems whatsoever.
So for those playing along this was a Canon failure not Sigma.
The problem appears to be a mechanical failure of the mirror assembly.
So far I have only come across one other report of a similar failure. Therefore the jury is still out on whether this is a design issue or a manufacturing issue.
Provided I don't experience any other problems with the camera I am finding the SL1 to be just what I was looking for in a light weight, crop body.
Also pleased with Adorama for a quick replacement turn around and friendly service.
It happens, electronics no matter how well they are built and QC'd fail from time to time.. Most of the time it happens very quickly into the products life.. Even great products generally have a infant failure rate of 2% give or take.
What separates good from bad manufacturers are the ones who take care of the issue and replace the product..
Mine stopped auto focusing after taking 14 shots without a problem using aperture preferred.
I then opted to try out the touch controls without a problem, put the camera away to do other things and recharged the battery. Next day I couldn't get the camera to AF and even tried it with other Canon lenses to no avail also cleaned the lens contacts and pulled the battery again.
Can't return the camera now as B&H is on holiday until Thursday but will do so then however I will hold off re-ordering this camera for now. Pops
I feel your pain for having been left high and dry by Sigma lens compatibility in the past. I am sure I would be equally upset.
Not sure I can agree with your prediction about the future, however. From my perspective it becomes LESS likely that a Sigma lens will be rendered incompatible by a new Canon body with each passing year. Canon, after all, has to maintain compatibility with all of the EF lenses they have ever made (a large number including some very old designs now). I think a mandate to maintain compatibility with their own product offerings will severely limit the degree to which they can further modify the interface or communication protocol. I think it is also safe to assume that Sigma has now gained a very complete understanding of the interface (perhaps not as true in the early days).
I do share your opinion that all would be better served if Canon (and Nikon) would be open with their lens interfaces specifications.
