In looking through many of your images of the 1DxII dirty sensors, many of the particles look smaller and sharper than normal sensor dust. Especially in the upper left quadrant.
If anyone has access to a microscope, it might be possible to transfer these particles with a brush from the sensor to a slide for analysis. We might assume that mechanical wear is producing the particles but are they metallic, plastic, carbon or paint?? If Canon doesn't already know the source of the particles, they might be interested to know what is producing the stuff on their sensors if it is something other than normal airborne dust.
horobosu wrote:
Do you really think taking a loaner 1DXII and holding the shutter button till the battery runs out is “normal shooting conditions”?
Then why did you not rack up 3600 actuations on your 5DIV instead of a few hundred for comparison?
Shooting 3000+ photos in a given situation is not uncommon. What is uncommon is the amount of crap being thrown on the sensor after ONLY 3600 shots.
Here's a quote from Arthur Morris on July 26th, which I find pretty interesting.
I currently own two 5D IV bodies and a 1DX II. I have completely soured on the 1DX II, in part because of problems that I and others have had with oil spatter on the sensor, in part because it is so heavy, and possibly in part due to the fact that my deteriorating hand-eye coordination, strength, and endurance do not allow me to take advantage of the 1DX II’s faster frame rate.
He initially posted about his 1DX Mark II sensor problems back in March or April. The fact that several more months have passed and he's still not happy is quite damning.
I too am considering selling my 1DX Mark II. There's a massive problem with this camera. Even over at CanonRumors in the 'Anything Shot with a 1DX Mark II' thread people are talking about just how fast the sensors accumulate debris. It's amazing how even over there people are making excuses for it, which I just don't get. Canon is not your friend and you owe them nothing; in fact, they owe YOU, their customers, the decency of making right a defect.
My favourite are people saying that it's a non-issue if you have to look at the image at 100-200% to see the problem. So, I guess if you have spider-cracks developing in the paint of your brand new car right after purchase, and you can only see them if you're up close, that it's not really a problem then, right?
The fact is this kind of stuff should not be happening. This is a $6,000 US camera ($8000 CAD), and the only one Canon considers "truly professional" (Canon Canada will not discount any other body because they are considered 'pro-amateur') When something like this happened to Nikon with their D600 they were eventually guilted into doing something about it. No other Canon camera currently has this problem. It's outrageous, and I hope more people do complain. Whether you see this issue appearing in your work regularly or not, it's still a manufacturing problem people should not be forced to work around or ignore.
Chimping wrote:
Whether you see this issue appearing in your work regularly or not, it's still a manufacturing problem people should not be forced to work around or ignore.
Start a petition then, if there's not one already underway.
Paul Mo wrote:
Start a petition then, if there's not one already underway.
I've asked people to contribute in this thread.
I am not opposed to creating a separate poll thread here and on other Canon forums, however.
My overall hope is that more people would simply post a photo shot somewhere between f/16-32, and that it can help use determine if everyone suffers from this issue, or whether it's just a few unlucky souls.
If these type of apertures and post processing are what you do on a regular basis I would seriously start to think about alternatives. Either other Canon bodies or perhaps the Sony A9 or A99ii with no moving mirrors.
Given the usual apertures that most 1DX2 shooters are at I don't think Canon see's enough of the issue to warrant a design change or recall of bodies. They have already moved on to the 1DX3. We'll be lucky to see anymore FW updates.
ggreene wrote:
If these type of apertures and post processing are what you do on a regular basis I would seriously start to think about alternatives. Either other Canon bodies or perhaps the Sony A9 or A99ii with no moving mirrors.
Given the usual apertures that most 1DX2 shooters are at I don't think Canon see's enough of the issue to warrant a design change or recall of bodies. They have already moved on to the 1DX3. We'll be lucky to see anymore FW updates.
Well, that's the underlying philosophy I think Canon is taking with this -- not enough people are shooting these cameras in all purpose-type situations to notice and complain.
As far as the post-processing goes... My own personal work is not that extreme. Again, what's been posted here is for emphasis of the problem. With the amount of debris that these sensors accumulate, even f/8 can become detrimental to the final image. Photos taken at air shows can also be ruined, especially if shooting prop planes where you need to have small apertures in order to slow the shutter speed down. Using an ND is not always a practical solution as it will ruin autofocus consistency.
If I truly am in the minority of being unhappy with this model of camera, then perhaps you're right -- it's not for me. I do think, however, more people would at least be displeased to learn if their own cameras had/has the same issue, even if they don't always see it in their work. Why be content with a flaw if it shouldn't be there in the first place?
The unedited screenshot i posted on the previous page proves that even at f8 this dust issue can be a problem. These apertures are quite common since Canon made sure you can use all focus points e.g. with the use of a converter.
Chimping wrote:
Well, that's the underlying philosophy I think Canon is taking with this -- not enough people are shooting these cameras in all purpose-type situations to notice and complain.
Afraid so. I do not think very many people buy a 1D series body with the intent to use it in a general purpose manner. You're much better off with a 5D4 for a jack of all trades type build. Given the specialization taking place in the camera market, flagships are no longer the best at everything.
Also, we aren't talking about a shy group here. There were plenty of pissed off 1D3 users in regards to it's AF issues but that was more easily seen and typically more critical to the work these bodies do. Even then, Canon took it's sweet time responding.
ggreene wrote:
Afraid so. I do not think very many people buy a 1D series body with the intent to use it in a general purpose manner. You're much better off with a 5D4 for a jack of all trades type build. Given the specialization taking place in the camera market, flagships are no longer the best at everything.
Also, we aren't talking about a shy group here. There were plenty of pissed off 1D3 users in regards to it's AF issues but that was more easily seen and typically more critical to the work these bodies do. Even then, Canon took it's sweet time responding. ...Show more →
Well, technically the flagships are still best at everything, with the exception of out-right resolution, and not everyone needs a massive amounts of megapixels. Handling, customizability, autofocus, metering, and low light shooting are still where the 1D series excels over the other models.
I think with the 1D3 the issue was just so glaring that no one could ignore; it was an 'in-your-face' kind of problem where the autofocus was just plain crap. With the problem we're discussing in this thread it's easy to miss or to ignore. If Canon took their sweet time with the 1D3 on something that was so glaring, chances are we're just plain out of luck with the 1DX2.
Again, to each their own -- if it doesn't bother you then no sweat. I still do have a problem with knowing there's an issue and having to shoot around it. I'm going to keep at my rep. Who knows...maybe something will come of it?
PrivateByDesign over at CanonRumors posted a link on the D600 oil problems in the 'Anything Shot by a 1DX Mark II" thread. To me the issues posted there look no worse than what we are experiencing with our current cameras. https://garypoulton.com/tag/nikon-d600-sensor-problems/
Ruffo wrote:
In looking through many of your images of the 1DxII dirty sensors, many of the particles look smaller and sharper than normal sensor dust. Especially in the upper left quadrant.
If anyone has access to a microscope, it might be possible to transfer these particles with a brush from the sensor to a slide for analysis. We might assume that mechanical wear is producing the particles but are they metallic, plastic, carbon or paint?? If Canon doesn't already know the source of the particles, they might be interested to know what is producing the stuff on their sensors if it is something other than normal airborne dust....Show more →
At this point I would also want to know what exactly these spots are. Are these just dust particles or something else? If it was particles from mechanical wear, I would think that bodes with over 100,000 shots would show that wear on some the parts inside the camera. If with only 3,600 shots this much dust accumulates from a mechanical wear I would think that bodies with over 500,000 would need some of the parts replaced
While shooting at/or over 10fps, especially for prolonged time, there is a lot that happens inside the camera that could attribute to the dust moving from inside the body on to a sensor. Constantly flipping mirror and shutter opening and closing must create some draft.
Can anyone confirm that shooting in a single frame mode also produces this much dust/oil accumulation on a sensor?
If anyone feels like experimenting, how about setting up a cleaned camera, with a lens mounted and an intervalometer set to take 1 frame every minute or so for 3,000 shots? Let's see what happens.
Does anyone know someone that shoots time lapses, with any camera, that could confirm that new dust particles would show up and some particles would move around the sensor as the number of shots increased?
Myself, I've noticed that some dust particles moved within days of shooting but I cannot confirm if it was from the "draft" created by the flipping mirror or the "automatic sensor cleaning".
Take a look at this old (2009) video, where Canon mentions (at 46s) that "dust can be generated inside the camera itself": ?t=40s
Same video shows dust falling down (lower part of the sensor = upper part of the image). My question is, what happens when the "dust reservoir" becomes full?
Only one file is showing if it's the two RAW files WarrenL uploaded.
The sensor looks like it was cleaned on this unit, with some of the dust pushed to the right side of the frame. There is, towards the top-centre-left, a vertical darkish line that could be a sensor scratch; if it's not a scratch then it could be the 'line-issue' we've been dealing with. I think it looks more like a scratch in this instance, though.
The other thing I've noticed is that there appears to be a lot of dust particles on the back of WarrenL's lens; that's what those large darkish spots are all over the image and is generally what dust on the back of a lens element looks like.
The other file was @ f4. And although it showed some of the spots i didn't bother editing that file. I found the OOF spots strange as you'd expect everything in focus at such a narrow aperture. Thanks for clarifying.
therealthings wrote:
The other file was @ f4. And although it showed some of the spots i didn't bother editing that file. I found the OOF spots strange as you'd expect everything in focus at such a narrow aperture. Thanks for clarifying.
No problem. Glad I could clarify that. In case anyone is wondering, that's what it would look like if you had something underneath the rear element glass too. My EF 100mm f/2.8L had a piece of dust that somehow managed to get under the glass, and at narrow apertures I'd get the same dark splotch on the image. I sold the lens and bought another; it was cheaper going that route than having the lens repaired.
I wanted to add my info. I just sent in our 4 Canon 1DxII to CPS for a clean and check. I noticed 3 out of 4 cameras have very heavy dusting as viewed as a image across the top of a horizontal image. It is heavier top left as can be seen from f8-10 on up. Close subjects that needed to stop down f16 or more look terrible and consider just replacing the sky. There maybe some oil mixed in and I did mention it in the service request.
Cameras have shake when turning on and off, and receive a good bulb blast occasionally and the manual clean mode for 3 cycles. Instead of me trying a static charged horse tail brush and peck pads with solution, I decided just to send them to CPS for a clean and check. Will check them when they come back.
Yes these cameras see a lot of burst at 14 frames per second and we were also in Africa for a month. Shot count is around 85,000 average for the 4.
PV Hiker wrote:
I wanted to add my info. I just sent in our 4 Canon 1DxII to CPS for a clean and check. I noticed 3 out of 4 cameras have very heavy dusting as viewed as a image across the top of a horizontal image. It is heavier top left as can be seen from f8-10 on up. Close subjects that needed to stop down f16 or more look terrible and consider just replacing the sky. There maybe some oil mixed in and I did mention it in the service request.
Cameras have shake when turning on and off, and receive a good bulb blast occasionally and the manual clean mode for 3 cycles. Instead of me trying a static charged horse tail brush and peck pads with solution, I decided just to send them to CPS for a clean and check. Will check them when they come back.
Yes these cameras see a lot of burst at 14 frames per second and we were also in Africa for a month. Shot count is around 85,000 average for the 4....Show more →
Please let us know how they return from CPS. Sharing files that meet the earlier mentioned criteria helps us a lot.
They are replacing my camera with a brand new one next week because they are not able clean the sensor.
