chez wrote:
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....Show more →
I would not be so quick to point a finger at the 5DMK2 as having inferior weather sealing. If you go by performance, in this scenario the 5DMK2's weather sealing is just as effective as the 1DsMK2's.
But, you do not hear or either camera having issues in other conditions or even in similar trips.
jerrykur wrote:
I would not be so quick to point a finger at the 5DMK2 as having inferior weather sealing. If you go by performance, in this scenario the 5DMK2's weather sealing is just as effective as the 1DsMK2's.
But, you do not hear or either camera having issues in other conditions or even in similar trips.
Whatever the case may be, the Canon bodies did not stand up to the environmental conditions as well as the Nikon bodies.
Half glass full --> The 5DMII stood up just as well as the 1DsMKII.
Half glass empty --> Both the 5DMII and the 1DSMKII failed where the Nikon counterparts kept on chugging.
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?
Now Molson, you don't really believe Nikon shooters paid big bucks for that trip just to sit in their cabins and look at computer images? That might be the most ridiculous thing I've heard. On the LL site the participants discussed the trip and the Nikon shooter actually were shooting side-by-side with Canon users. I'm certain that if the Nikon's failed at the same rate, this board would be praising the quality of Canon's equipment. You guys are still #1, so, let #2 have at least something. Besides, I don't think any Canon shooters are going to switch to Nikon because of that trip. Canon users should put pressure on Canon to improve what is viewed as a deficiency.
I've not been to the Antarctic (yet! ) but my experience suggests that Canon does have some problems with water/weather proofing - more so than other makes I've used in the past. Most recent example was the endless electrical problems I've had with my 5D after using it (partially covered) in a very light drizzle (on the South Island of NZ - not the Antarctic but getting close!). This is, of course, just a personal & anecdotal experience but I wasn't surprised by the stats in the OP.
I just drug my 5D2 through Patagonia for 5 weeks. Rain, snow, cold, dust storms, blaring sun, intense heat. Humidity in the north eastern end, and incredibly arid conditions to the western interior of Argentina.
I didn't have a single problem. It wasn't Antarctica, but it was 5 weeks of tough love through some extremely unforgiving conditions on a camera, and it's my 2 cents.
Not a 1 series, but a freakin solid camera that stood up to everything I threw at it.
Oh, and it happened to take some good pictures as well. Good enough that it's going to come with me to Colombia for 3 weeks this July.
Lots of wet for sure, and so close to the sea you would have had salty ambient conditions as well. Not a great combination for cameras.
I live in Newfoundland, surrounded by salt water and have learned to put my gear away in these situations. And so will you guys.
You don't think corrosion occurs quickly? .. look at your barbecue grill after you leave it out in the rain overnight. Triple that when next to salt water. Neil Young is right about rust never sleeping.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
[Lots of wet for sure, and so close to the sea you would have had salty ambient conditions as well. Not a great combination for cameras.
Absolutely true. Unfortunately, those are often the conditions that prevail when the best photos are to be had!
sculpin wrote:
Canon CEO: Hope you are reading this Forum. Statistically valid or not, this experience will influence my purchasing decisions. I want to stick with Canon since I have a lot of Canon gear, but if I'm going to step up to a high end DSLR (5DII) I want confidence that I'm buying a piece of quality equipment.
read the manual...it has the operating temps they are there for a reason so if you use them in extreme cold,why should canon or nikon be held responsible?
digitalbug30d wrote: read the manual...it has the operating temps they are there for a reason so if you use them in extreme cold,why should canon or nikon be held responsible?
Read the original description of the conditions they were under. It was raining. Extreme cold had nothing to do with the failures. Temperature wise, they were using the cameras within spec.
n0b0 wrote:
So six out of 26 (or 23%) 5DII owners are idiots, no biggie.
Well it's my experience that 5 of every 10 people on earth are idiots.... so relatively speaking, the 5D2 owner pool is not doing so bad given that it's a 50/50 shot.
Besides, I don't think any Canon shooters are going to switch to Nikon because of that trip. Canon users should put pressure on Canon to improve what is viewed as a deficiency. 