Imagemaster wrote:
Yes, you are lucky you did not have to ship it, because Canon Canada will only pay for one-way shipping, unlike Canon USA that pays for shipping both ways.
Did they give you any paperwork? As someone said, when you resell, that will be the first question asked by potential buyers.
Yes Canon did give me paperwork. They also placed a small black strip on the frame of the battery compartment as noted in the advisory. In addtion, the work is now documented with the serial number of my 1Dx.
I would imagine that phtographers who shoot primarily AI Servo, continuos at 12 fps would notice focus problems and/or see cloudiness in the viewfinder. I wouldn't ignore this advisory until problems surface. You could be without your 1Dx for a few days.
dehowie wrote:
Firstly(imagemaster)your Af module is not a motor car engine it wont "seize" up.
It does not rely upon oil for cooling to prevent seizing and damage.
Pretty poor analogy at best.
Not really. A car engine needs lubrication to minimise friction, which generates both heat as well as wear.
In the case of our 1Dx cameras, the wear is more relevant in the symptoms of the additional/unwanted friction and is attributed to insufficient lubricant applied to the respective mechanisms.
At the end of the day, if something is more prone to wear because of it, then it makes perfectly good sense to ensure that it is properly lubricated to minimise that wear and reduce the risk (if any) of the problem actually appearing.
Would I be a likely victim of this problem? Probably not but I'm not a prophet either so prevention is definitely better than the cure. It's stupid to even take the risk given the minimal downtime and zero cost involved in getting it seen to now.
I don't see why you're even bothering to argue the point, aside from your fears of spatter on the optical components. If that happens, it becomes Canon's problem to resolve and that's that. I'd like to think that by taking it to Canon directly, they've been properly trained on how to perform these procedures and how to check and ensure there is no risk of the feared spatter anyway.
What is it that's so difficult to understand about this?
I just got back from Boulder CO. My 1DX was waiting for me. It has paperwork describing that they performed the product recall fix, but there are no marks in the battery compartment.
It is interesting that a body with 1.21 has the correction applied. Based on the 1.24 firmware file date of April 23 (posted May 30), Canon may have fixed the problem prior to that. Of course it may be possible that the retailers sent new bodies back to Canon for service already.
I wondered the same thing. It did not look like the camera had been repacked. I also received my other body back from Canon the same day. It has the black dot. Canon also cleaned the camera. I no longer have any black dots in the viewfinder.
jcolwell wrote:
I just got back from Boulder CO. My 1DX was waiting for me. It has paperwork describing that they performed the product recall fix, but there are no marks in the battery compartment.
Well, mark it yourself...you know how to do it, right ?
Artstar wrote:
Not really. A car engine needs lubrication to minimise friction, which generates both heat as well as wear.
In the case of our 1Dx cameras, the wear is more relevant in the symptoms of the additional/unwanted friction and is attributed to insufficient lubricant applied to the respective mechanisms.
At the end of the day, if something is more prone to wear because of it, then it makes perfectly good sense to ensure that it is properly lubricated to minimise that wear and reduce the risk (if any) of the problem actually appearing.
Would I be a likely victim of this problem? Probably not but I'm not a prophet either so prevention is definitely better than the cure. It's stupid to even take the risk given the minimal downtime and zero cost involved in getting it seen to now.
I don't see why you're even bothering to argue the point, aside from your fears of spatter on the optical components. If that happens, it becomes Canon's problem to resolve and that's that. I'd like to think that by taking it to Canon directly, they've been properly trained on how to perform these procedures and how to check and ensure there is no risk of the feared spatter anyway.
What is it that's so difficult to understand about this?...Show more →
jcolwell wrote:
I just got back from Boulder CO. My 1DX was waiting for me. It has paperwork describing that they performed the product recall fix, but there are no marks in the battery compartment.
PetKal wrote:
Well, mark it yourself...you know how to do it, right ?
So, Canon sends me the UPS shipping label. Get it packaged including the form and take it to the UPS franchise store near by. I ask to have it insured but the store says it cannot add insurance to an existing shipping label from another customer's account (ie Canon). Does Canon assume shipping responsibility for this type of return for service?
schlotz wrote:
So, Canon sends me the UPS shipping label. Get it packaged including the form and take it to the UPS franchise store near by. I ask to have it insured but the store says it cannot add insurance to an existing shipping label from another customer's account (ie Canon). Does Canon assume shipping responsibility for this type of return for service?
Matt
Good question. It's the same with CPS Canada. The shipping label has "N/A" entered in the "Declared Value" field. If it gets broken in transit, then I expect CPS Canada will fix it for the CPS fixed rate (which is probably why I sent it in, anyway). If it gets lost in transit, then I hope Canon Canada will step up. They've been very good to me, with one notable exception.
This might be a new record; done in 10 minutes while I waited.
I didn't have time to come in with it before today. Visual Service in Denmark said on the phone that I could drop it off in the morning and get it back in the afternoon, but once I got there, they just said "hang on, they will look at it right away".
10 minutes later I got my EOS-1D X back. The paperworks just says "mirror lubricated".
And I'm not even a CPS-member. Great service in my book.
jcolwell wrote:
Good question. It's the same with CPS Canada. The shipping label has "N/A" entered in the "Declared Value" field. If it gets broken in transit, then I expect CPS Canada will fix it for the CPS fixed rate (which is probably why I sent it in, anyway). If it gets lost in transit, then I hope Canon Canada will step up. They've been very good to me, with one notable exception.
Follow up. Talked to Canon Support in Newport News VA this morning. Per them, Canon is self insured and no additional insurance is required, just make sure you have recorded the tracking number and get a receipt from the UPS store where it was dropped off.
As an additional note, the labels themselves are "generally insured for $1000" according to a CSR rep I emailed. Makes sense since that's probably enough to cause anybody along the chain of custody to take care of the package if they're on the hook (their job) for lost or stolen packages.
Given that they manufacture the products, it's much cheaper to self insure, rather than paying on every single package. They'll save enough to cover the cost of an occasional damaged shipment. Smart business practice.
Deborah Kolt wrote:
If you are looking for a camera that actually had problems, mine was definitely showing symptoms. Consecutive frames would be in focus, out of focus, then back in focus. When I was lucky I was getting two or three in focus before it drifted again. This was occurring with multiple lenses, different settings and drive modes.
I also had issues seeing through the viewfinder, to the point that I would check to see if my diopter setting had changed. Spots had just begun appearing on the sensor.
I have had the 1dx for a year and according to Canon, when serviced it had almost 102,000 clicks on it. I'm a working pro who shoots mostly sports. ...Show more →
Deborah, any update on how your camera performs post-fix?
Anyone notice a performance improvement?
I just brought mine in to get it done. It has about 120K actuations. I didn't really think there might be a problem with it, other than it tended to front focus with many of my lenses, therefore having them look specifically at that. But when I first took possession of it last August, I was really impressed with it from the first number of football games I shot. I was getting amazing focus consistency on long action sequences. As the season progressed, and I also did a firmware update, I noticed more random mis-focused images in sequences, but chalked it up to being much more familiar/critical of the camera and less wowed with it compared to when it was new. Or the camera losing a touch of performance due to the firmware software adjustment. But now I wonder if maybe something was slightly amiss? Shooting youth ice hockey in dim arenas also tended to fairly frequently mis-focus during mini-burts, to the point where I'd always shoot 2-3 frames to ensure I'd get something sharp... But on the whole never really felt there was something significantly wrong with the camera. Didn't notice any black specks or blurry viewfinder. You know, it was more like a vague issue you'd explain to a CSR at Canon as their eyes glazed over... meanwhile, they're probably thinking 'great, some photo forum measurbator.'
Got my 1DX back from the lube and clean. Camera came back spotless.
However, two things were unusual (compared to previous Canon services):
1. Canon sent me NO tracking info whatsoever, despite several emails and phone calls.
2. Upon return, got a paper stating that the work was an "out of warranty" courtesy repair. Camera was purchased 3 months ago, had < 1,000 actuations, and was registered on the Canon site.
