orangefirefish wrote:
it might be that the cameras fail but aren't reported in a prevalent format such as the LL article.
Ha! Given the amount of whining, bitching and moaning that goes on in these forums I highly doubt that if the failures were that rampant people would simply keep quiet.
There is a good chance that these 3 new cameras would have failed anywhere and it 's not a weather sealing issue at all. Dont know if that's better though
If you're shooting a non-weatherproof electronic camera in the rain you're asking for trouble. I let maybe five little driblets fall onto mine before it goes into the bag or under an umbrella.
jerrykur wrote:
But the 1dsMk2s failed in 2007 in the same numbers as the 5DMK2s in 2009. This is not a 1 series vs 5 Series. It is a Canon issue.
Maybe it's an Antarctica issue.
I've not shot in anything like those conditions (rain, cold, salt water spray, switching frequently from cold to warm) amd it's unlikely I'll ever do, so I can't tell how my cameras would hold up. As a Canon user I'd still choose 1D bodies, there's more weather sealing so the chances of making it should be better. I'm not afraid of abusing my cameras in rain, snow, dust and mud, and they still work so far, that's all I have to go on.
Yes, it is a Canon issue, because 2 trips showed Canon serial failures and no Nikon equivalent. But it cannot be ascribed to circumstances that happen "frequently", because otherwise similar failure rates would show up, and they do not, else Canon would be long out of business.
So it could be another factor, a combination of factors, or a type of use.
But the facts remain that, against this rare set of circumstances/conditions/usage, Nikon offer better protection than Canon. All Antacticans should take note.
When I had my 5D professionly cleaned the technician told me that all DSLR cameras are poorly made with cheap components that keep him in business fixing them. That is the reson he has stayed with film.
One of them says: Both cameras were sent to Canon for repair and I received a call today saying there was corrosion at or near the shutter release and offering me the following options:
1) Have them fixed as best they could (free of charge) but without further warranty in case of internal failure
2) Trade them for new cameras at 50% off the retail price
ovredal73 wrote:
My 5d2 has been out in the cold Norwegian winter every day since I got it and no failure in sight. Also it was dunked in snow completely as I fell on it, smashed it against ice with the weight of my falling body on top of it and not a scratch in sight. When I stood back up it looked like a snowball.
I am impressed by mine.
Thats good to hear - i've been thinking to get a 5D2 before too long. It'll be replacing a regularly "snowballed" 350D, so the build quality is an important issue to me.
I've not shot in anything like those conditions (rain, cold, salt water spray, switching frequently from cold to warm) amd it's unlikely I'll ever do, so I can't tell how my cameras would hold up. As a Canon user I'd still choose 1D bodies, there's more weather sealing so the chances of making it should be better. I'm not afraid of abusing my cameras in rain, snow, dust and mud, and they still work so far, that's all I have to go on.
I think it is a user expectation issue... Personally, I have used 1 series cameras in -40C Russia/Canada to +50 Deserts(India/Africa) with no problems. You need to plan for the conditions and be smart about the camera and lens combinations that you are using.
Once, I fell into some frigid water with a 1Ds2 and a 70-200 on , after some frantic one handed swimming (the other was holding the camera out of the water) I got out, changed and continued shooting. I can't count the number of times that I have been drenched, however, in those conditions I carry a super absorbent synthetic shammy to dry the Camera ASAP. BTW the camera was dunked, and continued to work with no ill effects. Upon return to Canada, it was serviced and there was no indication of moisture in the camera or lens.
In humid/desert environments, a filter is a must as it will keep the moisture/sand out of the lens. Don't change lenses until the camera is temperature acclimatized. When going from cold to warm, I take the memory cards out and I leave camera in its back pack and let it warm slowly, same going the other way.
From what I have read of this trip so far, the conditions seemed quite tame with moderate temps and some rain. I would not expect a 5D to perform like a 1 series, and I would have had a fast access waterproof bag of some sort if that is what I was shooting with. Obviously other people thought this way as they had high quality rain covers with them, it appears initially that the covers worked but the humidity damaged the camera in the end. I wonder about how the cameras were handled overall. perhaps we can have some more input so that we can all understand the limitations of this camera.
Remove Antarctica from the discussion .. temperatures reported during this ill fated trip hovered around zero Celsius, or barely freezing.
So moisture seems to be the culprit .. which seems confirmed by an early repair report. So the question is just how much moisture were these bodies exposed to?
Living in Newfoundland I learned one thing the hard way .. even a slight exposure to salt water is often fatal to cameras, and I have the repair bills to prove it
I wouldn't be surprised if the problem is the salt spray in combination with moisture and condensation, which others have mentioned already. Fresh water and electronics is much less of a problem.
Maybe it's the MR Antarctic curse, this from their 2007 excursion:
About 85% of the trip's members were shooting with Canon gear, mostly 1Ds MKII. There were a couple of 1D MKII and 5D's, with several people having Rebel XT and XTi bodies as backups.
There were quite a few camera failures, most of them occasioned by our shooting in rain on the first day ashore in The Falklands. The rain was not heavy – more a persistent drizzle than a heavy rain, but it took its toll. In all, 90 minutes of wet shooting produced six 1Ds MKII cameras which stopped working for one reason or another. Three of them recovered after a night of drying out. Three remained hors de combat for the rest of the trip.
Three Canon 5D's died that day, with one subsequent recovery. Two Rebel XTi's lost their rear LCD's, though otherwise continued to work (which is a real hassle, because though one can keep shooting, there's no way to change any settings, or at least to know what the changes are)..
So three 5D's died during the 2007 trip, I wonder what the failure rate was? I'm guessing about the same as their 2009 trip.
My guess is that it needs to be more than that, FretNoMore, else Canon cameras would fail in all marine locations, and there are lots of those around the world. Keep in mind that IDIIs and 5Ds failed before on a similar cruise, which indicates that it is more a "Canon" issue than a "5D2" issue. My guess is that it is a combination of salt spray and moisture and temperature levels/changes and condensation, or something of that sort. A real problem, but a very infrequent one.
My guess is it was user error (lens changing in adverse conditions) combined with conditions that were beyond the cameras design limits. I am surprised that there were 1Ds2 failures on the 2007 trip though, I guess all the more reason for a backup
The numbers don't really tell us much here. While it's disappointing (as a Canon owner) to hear so many Canon cameras failed on this trip, what we aren't told is the amount (or severity) of use the various brands got. Perhaps the Canon shooters were real enthusiasts, out shooting in all kinds of conditions, while the stodgy old Nikon owners spent most of their time hunkered down in their cabins, pixel-peeping on their laptops?
I don't think digital cameras are poorly made relative to film cameras. Digital bodies have more electronics and film bodies are mostly mechanical. That makes DSLRs a lot more vulnerable to failure. If you want something that is not likely to fail, buy a mechanical film camera that will operate even when the battery dies.
So it may well be that Canon DSLR guts are not as well protected from the elements as Nikon's.
Jarvone wrote:
When I had my 5D professionly cleaned the technician told me that all DSLR cameras are poorly made with cheap components that keep him in business fixing them. That is the reson he has stayed with film.
molson wrote:
The numbers don't really tell us much here. While it's disappointing (as a Canon owner) to hear so many Canon cameras failed on this trip, what we aren't told is the amount (or severity) of use the various brands got. Perhaps the Canon shooters were real enthusiasts, out shooting in all kinds of conditions, while the stodgy old Nikon owners spent most of their time hunkered down in their cabins, pixel-peeping on their laptops?
We're also never told how many Nikons there were, as opposed to knowing exactly how many failed with the 5D II. But you also raise a good point. They did say one of the Nikon lenses CAME APART, yikes!
But yea, way too many variables and unknowns to say that one brand is better than another.
RalphJ wrote:
The largest group of failures [in our group of 77 photographers and instructors] were among the Canon 5D MKIIs. Of the 26 samples of this camera onboard, one quarter (six) failed at one time or another, and while three recovered, the other three never did.
Why so pessimist? can you say that after recovery 23 worked (same as Nikon) plus 10 other Canon bodys so Canon did not bad after all
If you want more details of this trip, go to the LL discussion forum and you can get the details from people that were on the trip. Nikon and Canon photographers were shooting side by side, gear exposed to the same conditions. Bottom line here is that the Canon 5DMKII is not weather sealed to the same degree as the Nikon cameras. We knew this with the 5D and were expecting Canon to step up with better weather sealing. Obviously, Canon dropped the ball here and released the 5DII with basically the same weather sealing as the 5D. Personally, I was more surprised when in 2007 the Canon 1-series cameras were also failing, which in my mind should be sealed for those kind of conditions.
, after some frantic one handed swimming (the other was holding the camera out of the water) I got out, changed and continued shooting. I can't count the number of times that I have been drenched, however, in those conditions I carry a super absorbent synthetic shammy to dry the Camera ASAP. BTW the camera was dunked, and continued to work with no ill effects. Upon return to Canada, it was serviced and there was no indication of moisture in the camera or lens.
