There were of course other camera failures and had the numbers been even then the report may be fair. As it is, taking anything less than cameras built for extreme conditions into the antarctic is about as foolish as it gets.
From the site "As for the failed Canon 5D MKIIs, I hope that expedition members will report back to me with what Canon service has to say about what happened to them."
Does that mean that luminous landscape got to test these cameras courtesy of these suckers and are not going to pay for the repairs? Perhaps they deserve it.
Anyone who thinks their camera should perform under these conditions without risk of failure either has top of the range gear designed for those conditions or is not thinking straight. Seriously.
Chances are had there been the same amount of nikons and sony's they would be reporting the same stats.
RobertLynn wrote:
If each camera has a 25% chance of failure (this is coming from the number of failures in the batch), that's a 50% chance of failure with at least 1 camera. Odds I'm not willing to mess with.
I think you should avoid messing with any odds, seeing as you don't know how to calculate them. For God's sake never enter a casino. You will do consistently worse than a monkey ;-) Here's a little hint on what's wrong with your method: what odds of failure do you calculate if you take 5 cameras? That's right, 125%. What does 125% mean, if 100% means total certainty? It means you don't know how to calculate odds.
The real odds of one or more failures if you take two bodies are 1 - (.75 x .75) = 43.75%
I'm sure these folks had some real problems with their 5D2... hopefully a common cause can be discovered and fixed.
Inasmuch as the conditions were beyond Canon's stated environmental envelope, Canon won't see anything that requires fixing.
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.
The 5D2 is designed, assembled, and quality-controlled as a consumer-grade camera. Professionals may use it, but it's designed, assembled, and quality-controlled as a consumer-grade camera.
Price is only somewhat relevant. Professional-grade equipment will cost more, but higher cost is not indicative of professional-grade equipment.
Marcus Watts wrote:
Taking a 5d2 into the antarctic is really stupid.
There were of course other camera failures and had the numbers been even then the report may be fair. As it is, taking anything less than cameras built for extreme conditions into the antarctic is about as foolish as it gets.
From the site "As for the failed Canon 5D MKIIs, I hope that expedition members will report back to me with what Canon service has to say about what happened to them."
Does that mean that luminous landscape got to test these cameras courtesy of these suckers and are not going to pay for the repairs? Perhaps they deserve it.
Anyone who thinks their camera should perform under these conditions without risk of failure either has top of the range gear designed for those conditions or is not thinking straight. Seriously.
Chances are had there been the same amount of nikons and sony's they would be reporting the same stats. ...Show more →
Did you read the article
Temperatures where not that cold and some guy even had his cam covered by a rain cover...
Now compare to the volume sold and the volume sold to FM users and the number of them reporting failures.
Yes the numbers are high, but statistically they are still anomalys until proven statistically significant.
Again, if either were anywhere near the average it would mean that either 75% or at best 25% of ALL 5D2s produced to date were duds and we are not seeing that.
Ruy
Ruy, just make a call to CPS NL to here the kind of feedback they are receiving from the field regarding 5D2 built quality issues. Higher than the usual amount of complaints...
Andre Goli wrote:
I would never go under rain without a rain cover for my camera. Cost 50$, warm up your hand and let it dry, easier to use the buttons then, cause your right under the raincoat as well...
Are these guys a band of morrons ou simply innocent.. electronics and water are not good together anyway....
I would never take a chance to arm a camera just to test it...
Well if you would have read the artricle, two of the failed 5D2 were being used with a Kata rain cover. Also, it seems like the Nikon morrons did quite well with the much better weather sealed D700.
brainiac wrote:
I think you should avoid messing with any odds, seeing as you don't know how to calculate them. For God's sake never enter a casino. You will do consistently worse than a monkey ;-) Here's a little hint on what's wrong with your method: what odds of failure do you calculate if you take 5 cameras? That's right, 125%. What does 125% mean, if 100% means total certainty? It means you don't know how to calculate odds.
The real odds of one or more failures if you take two bodies are 1 - (.75 x .75) = 43.75%
I wouldn't call into question my calculation methods, when they were in jest. As for the Casinos, I'm not retarded and have little interest in flushing my money into the toilet.
Also, I'm mainly Irish...that means if something bad was happening then it's the "luck-o-the-Irish". If something good happens it's the "luck-o-the-Irish". This means I can spin the odds in my favor, any way I want. Simply put, if I take 5 cameras with me, and there's a 25 percent chance of failure...because of who I am, I guarantee (125% in fact) that I'll experience failure :P Again, these figures are just in jest.
Andre Goli wrote:
I would never go under rain without a rain cover for my camera. Cost 50$, warm up your hand and let it dry cause under the raincoat as well...
Are these guys a band of morrons ou simply innocent.. electronic and water are not good together anyway....
I would never take a chance to arm a camera just to test it...
The one user with two 5DMK2s that failed had them in Kata raincoats. In a light rain they failed in less than 90 minutes.
Marcus Watts wrote:
Taking a 5d2 into the antarctic is really stupid.
There were of course other camera failures and had the numbers been even then the report may be fair. As it is, taking anything less than cameras built for extreme conditions into the antarctic is about as foolish as it gets.
The temps were -3c to 3C, right at freezing. Not extreme at all. The rain was a light, more drizzle.
This was a photo tour that the LL arranges and participants paid for.
This is of concern for sure. But there are "little" details that have been apparently dismissed.
Many were using the grip which opens an already environmentally-challenged consumer camera to even more moisture invasion, no matter what the temperature.
M.R. mentions in passing that one of the failures, the only one he can attest to (his own) was a previously used tester from Canon that may have already been damaged by moisture before he got it. He didn't say how many of the other 5DIIs were loaner test cameras, but no one treats a free tester like they would their own. And related, how many D700s were on board (he only says "lots" were among the 30% Nikon crowd) and how many were testers and how many were personal property of the user?
There were 2 D3x's, 2 A900's and 26 5DII's. How many of each were previously used test cameras? Would the results be different if there were 26 A900's and 2 5DII's?
I wouldn't expect the 5DII to hold up well to moisture and would treat it with kid gloves. But this test has way too many unanswered questions to be a benchmark study IMO.
"As you've probably heard there were a number of 5D mk II cameras that failed on the Antarctic trip (6 of the 26 on the trip or 23%). My wife and I accounted for 2 of those. Both failed within minutes of each other during a shore outing with light rain. Both were protected by Kata rain covers and both exhibited the same problem - the shutter release button appeared to be shorted out. When the camera was turned on it would immediately take a picture (or multiple if the camera was in continuous shooting mode). At least some of the other failures on the trip were similar.
When we got back to the ship we dried them out and they eventually (mostly) revived. My wife's acted up again as soon as it was even slightly humid and stopped working altogether in Buenos Aires at +35C, humid but sunny weather.
For a camera that is advertised as having "improved weather resistance" I can't say I'm impressed, and I'm even less so knowing that no other cameras had problems even though many of them were completely unprotected.
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
I'm not convinced that this camera doesn't have serious problems with moisture compared to similar cameras from other manufacturers and I'm also not convinced I can trust the camera to work in anything other than warm dry air.
I like the camera otherwise and the images it produces are great, but if you can't rely on it, I don't know how useful it is. Make sure you carry a backup if there is any chance there could be moisture. I don't know if I'd buy it again given our experience."
RobertLynn wrote:
I wouldn't call into question my calculation methods, when they were in jest. As for the Casinos, I'm not retarded and have little interest in flushing my money into the toilet.
Also, I'm mainly Irish...that means if something bad was happening then it's the "luck-o-the-Irish". If something good happens it's the "luck-o-the-Irish". This means I can spin the odds in my favor, any way I want. Simply put, if I take 5 cameras with me, and there's a 25 percent chance of failure...because of who I am, I guarantee (125% in fact) that I'll experience failure :P Again, these figures are just in jest....Show more →
;-) Don't be so pessimistic - you might have "the luck o' the fat priest"!
It always seems that if something is going to fail, it fails on me. I cannot tell you how many tools worked just fine when someone else used them, but as soon as I get that reciprocating saw, or table saw going, it fails. Same with drills or whatever. I'm actually surprised my most recent drill has made it over a year...then again I was off half of the year! haha.
