Interesting notes, and yes, it is possible that temperature had something to do with the 50Ds failing. However, everyone's 5D's, 40D's, 1DIII's, 1DsIII's, D3's and D300's didn't have any problems, just the 50D's. And most of the problems occurred on Days 1 and 2, when temperatures ranged from 32 down to 15 F (0 to -10 C, so not exactly trying conditions for cameras). Two of the photogs had used the 50D prior to the trip, both with 'questions' (much as I had lots of 'questions' about my 1DIII bodies for ages while I tried to figure out why they worked well most of the time, but not ALL of the time), and two had bought the cameras new as backups for the trip.
I guess in an ideal world we'd all get to test our camera gear out the ying and yang each time we buy something new, but I know myself that I'm far too busy to do this in reality. For the most part, the 50D owners knew what they are doing with cameras and this was not user error in most cases, but camera error.
The 32F/0C numbers mean nothing really. They are more for Canon's protection on warranty issues and problems with frost or things freezing than anything.
I too have used my canon cameras (5D, 40D, XT) at temperatures below -20F for hours on end with no issues.
J.
The point is if you use the camera out of the operating range there is not guarantee of correct performance. It will likely work for a while outside these ranges. But if it dies because something froze you get to pay for it. I have used my cameras outside of the specified operating range, but with the understanding I was in a no warranty condition.
I'm an engineer and totally understand the spec issues. I also understand how specs are written to minimize warranty claims.
There really is nothing there that will suffer from the cold (except if it contributes to a condensing environment). Hot is more likely the problem anyhow - certainly for the electronics.
Canon, like most camera mfgs, has had a lot of warranty claims from water damage due primarily to condensation. That is the reason that they push the specs on this at this level. The other issue, but it really isn't an issue at cold, is that most of the IC's are 0-70C parts. That said though, most IC's operate better at cold and it is at hot where the problems start to occur. Besides that, most extended temp IC's are not special designs but are simply the standard parts screened to an extended temp (most commonly) of -40 to +85C.
That said, I haven't heard of anyone really having problems at cold, even for cold soaked equipment at far lower temps than the specs, Additionally, per the OP, the cameras where operated at the spec range (or slightly lower) which almost undoubtedly is not an issue due to the guard banding of specs by Canon. That said, AF issues are really not going to be due to temp but (presuming they are malfunctioning or at least not focusing well) rather to the design and implementation.
I don't see why people are having such a hard time believing that the cameras are at fault. Were you guys not here during the MKIII fiasco? That's right folks! Even Canon is capable of producing faulty cameras. bwahahahaha
Semi pro's with the money to go shoot polar bears in the arctic using 50D's? Where are the 1D's I ask?
I've got a 50D and have used it extensively and am very happy with it. I'm not saying people aren't having problems, but that doesn't all add up in my book.
Although I have a very good sample of the 50D I'm not surprised that there are quality-control issues that would lead to a wide range of user experiences. It seems to be the norm these days with Canon to have reasonably significant quality-control issues with new products. Both the EF 50 mm F1 .2 and the one D MKIII spring to mind.
As an aside, operating the cameras at the colder end of their temperature range should give cleaner images with less noise, as sensor temperature affects how much noise the sensor produces.
JohnJ80 wrote:
I'm an engineer and totally understand the spec issues. I also understand how specs are written to minimize warranty claims.
There really is nothing there that will suffer from the cold (except if it contributes to a condensing environment). Hot is more likely the problem anyhow - certainly for the electronics.
John,
I can see the electronic components faring OK, but what about the mechanical components? Each time we shoot we flip up the mirror up and down against a rubber stops. Then we pull open a shutter that is made from fabric in cheaper cameras. The whole time we various springs, levers, and motors with shims, bearings, and lubricants made of dissimilar materials rubbing against each other with some pretty tight tolerances. Additionally, there are chemical bonds like the mirrors in a Canon camera that are held to their mounting with glue.
Now that I think about it perhaps a change in the submirror alignment as a result of cold could be the reason for focusing issues. That would explain why the OPs MK3 worked better, another MK3 worked worse, and the 50Ds have problem in the cold. At least it makes as much sense as the MK3 having focusing issue on hot days, per Rob G. and Canon.
I think the reason for the trouble with the 50Ds could be simpler. Let's start with some of the autofocus issues. We are talking about photographing white bears in an environment with a lot of snow. Not exactly a recipe for a lot of contrast. This is likely to be a challenging situation. Then we have people using a new and unfamiliar camera and with the high pixel density of the 50D they might be unhappy with their shots simply because of the high magnification at which they are likely viewing their files and because the LCD is better than can recognize more of their mistakes right after they shoot them. It has been common here for people to a first be unhappy with their 50D files and then after they learn a new workflow and examine printed images to become much happier with it. This situation doesn't seem much different. I think if they had taken time to get used to the camera and processing files from it, these issues may not have emerged.
john660 wrote:
though it was also interesting to note just how much heavier Nikon gear is than Canon gear! The D3 with a 70-200 on it is almost the same weight as the 1D III with a 500 on it!!
You must be joking Or have you never seen the gear you talk about here
Steve, you have a good point there. There was definitely some unfamiliarity with the look of the files, so that's definitely a possible issue with the owners of the 50D's on the trip. Though from many of the files I viewed, the AF wasn't even close....
As for semi-pros not owning 1D's, keep in mind that I said semi-pros, not rich amateurs! The vast majority of big lenses and fancy cameras I see in the field are rich amateurs, not guys trying desperately to make a go of it as a business (and it's exactly those guys trying to make a go of it that try to get away with buying a 50D instead of a 1DIII, especially after the 1DIII fiasco). The trip itself was budget all the way, planned and independently organized by me, so we paid about half of what a normal Churchill trip would cost and about a third of what a Photographer's Tour Package would cost.
And finally, Lars, I had a D3 and 70-200 in one hand, my 1DIII and 500 in the other. I then passed them around for everyone to hold. Consensus? Nikon is heavy!! So no, not joking, and yes, I have seen the gear I talk about
Anyways, I think everyone is getting away from the point of this thread, and that's that I was suprised how much the 50D's on board got outperformed by the 3.5 year old 5D's on board. Particularly in the AF area. Same challenging conditions, same temperatures, same white bears on white snow. The 5D kicked the 50D's arse!
Well it is what it is, I don't doubt the OP's truthfullness. That said I , and as well as I can tell, countless other professional photographers have had excellent results, albeit not in the artic. Seems incredible to me that all of these 50D's had the same problem, got to be a bad batch or the temperature, because I shoot it along side our IDsMk3's, D3's, D700's and it's a fine camera.
Nov 25, 2008 at 02:52 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
john660 wrote:
And finally, Lars, I had a D3 and 70-200 in one hand, my 1DIII and 500 in the other. I then passed them around for everyone to hold. Consensus? Nikon is heavy!! So no, not joking, and yes, I have seen the gear I talk about
Yes sure
The bodies have about the same weight. And the Nikon lens is 1470 gr (even 100 g less than the Canon 70-200)
And the Canon 500 lens weight 3870 g.
I had a 50D on order to replace my 40D, but problems with protypes started leaking out, not big things, just the kind of things to suggest that it might be better to wait. I cancelled out and ordered a 5D Mark II which is coming next week. I haven't detected rumblings of any problems, so hopefully its going to be a good one.
Still, if I were going into the very cold weather, Nikon has a really good reputation for rugged cameras, and I might rent one as a alternate. My 40d starts to struggle when it gets down near Zero F.
Nov 25, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
john660 wrote:
Then that must be one heavy battery in there, cause I saw and felt it with my own eyes and hands!
When you are this wrong about the weight and still stick to your story It say a lot about the rest of your reveiw also. I wouldn't thrust anything in it
Or have you never seen the gear you talk about here 