Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: canon 5d mk11 in Antarctica  (Read 118540 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7426


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2009, 04:53:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would interpret 'improved sealing' as sealing. I'm fully aware that you are not expected to be able to put the 5DII under the shower and have it survive, but I guess I would expect it to survive some rain or snow. All of my cameras have been soaking wet and none has failed me, yet...

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Josh-H
I dont beleive so - From memory it has 'improved sealing' from the original 5D - its not fully sealed.

I think Chuck Westfall had a tech tips about this late last year - Again, from memory he said it was better sealed than the original, but no where near the sealing on the 1D series.
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370


« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2009, 05:12:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: erick.boileau
now I don't know if I shall upgrade my 5D or go directly to Nikon D3X

Just to give you an idea how well the Nikon tends to be weather sealed. I have been living on board of a ship in 2002 & 2003 (sailing from the Netherlands - Caribean - the Netherlands) I had my D1X with me. Besides the sensor being completely scattered with salt speckles the camera never quit on me.

Most other electronic devices went bust during that period. Sea environment is killing, corrosion by salted moist air is about the most aggressive I have seen.

I never used the 1D series of Canon but I assume they have the same good weather sealing. My D300 has been soaking wet on several occasions as well without problems. Maybe that is where the difference is concerning weather sealing? I don't know. Just guessing but when the manufacturer says weather sealed IMO it should be able to withstand being used under these circumstances (yeah, dropping it in salt water or otherwise completely submerging it is something else).

However; using it for a long period of time in a sea environment and still having it work is a big bonus and surprise IMO. For this I would only rely on the likes of the Dx series (no experience with the 1D series) and still keep my fingers crossed.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 05:18:41 AM by Dustbak » Logged
rockrose
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2009, 06:12:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I am pretty sure Canon tested the MKII for (a.o.t.) moist conditions, like any new camera. And I am pretty sure it passed this test, otherwise Canon sux in bringing this on the market anyway.
The only solution to stop the speculating and keep the mkII buyers (like myself) reassured, is for Canon to investigate this issue. Maybe there was a bad batch, maybe there is a design flaw (I don't care as long as it is fixed), maybe it was bad luck (wasn't there someone called Murphy on that boat?), and even maybe it is a bad camera   .  MR and his website do mean something in cameraland, and in this period of time Canon would be wise to give a satisfactory explanation.

I don't have any malfunction with my mkII, although I didn't use it in rain or heavy fog yet. But I did take it several times from the cold outside (below zero) straight into my warm house, without any problem at all (and not in a plastic bag, as Canon suggests). If this issue can be resolved, people can enjoy a terrific camera.

(PS: Hallo Ray)
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 06:14:21 AM by rockrose » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4036



« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2009, 06:39:27 AM »
ReplyReply

The 5DII is an economy product. The failures won't do Canon any good, but they could be expected.

Edmund
Logged
Jerry Kurata
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2009, 07:59:12 AM »
ReplyReply

From the announce materials the 5dMK2 is supposed to be water resistant to a rate of 10 mm rain in 3 minutes, which is a rate of approximately 8 in/hr.  Check out the announcement specifications on DPReview, http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/.

FWIW, I have had my 5D outside in the rain for quite a while.  The camera got quite wet and I did not have any issues.  With that said I try to cover all of my cameras (5DMK2 and 1 series) when it rains.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 08:03:39 AM by Jerry Kurata » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8006



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2009, 08:32:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jerry Kurata
From the announce materials the 5dMK2 is supposed to be water resistant to a rate of 10 mm rain in 3 minutes, which is a rate of approximately 8 in/hr.  Check out the announcement specifications on DPReview, http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/.

That's about the heaviest rain you could get, typhoon class and even then I don't remember the Japanese weather forecast ever reporting more than 150mm per hour and - having experienced that - it is about twice more intense than a normal bathroom shower... As an example, Belgium is said to be a rainy place, yet the yearly precipitations are average about 760mm of rain, which would correspond to less than 4 hours at the rate mentioned above...

My guess is that the 5DII is said to be able to withstand for 3 minutes a rain of 10mm per hour...

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
mrenters
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2009, 08:33:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
My theory is two-fold:

  • Corrosion was caused by salty seawater
  • Humidity exacerbated by the rain cover (!)

Salty water is pure murder for metals, much more so than plain old rain water. I used to work at a salt plant, and we'd have corrosion resistant piping costing an order of a magnitude more than normal piping - and salt would still eat through it given enough time. Therefore I'm not surprised to hear about camera failures on ships, boats and beaches, especially if there is water spraying about.

On the second point: I don't know how Kata covers are built, but the pictures I've seen suggest they are only partly sealed bags. It could very well be that the bag collects moisture, and/or that moisture condensates on the surface of the bag or camera, seeping into the sealing.

These both combined might explain the failure of the cameras.


I didn't know that Antarctica has salty seawater rain and that this special salt water rain only affects 5D mk II cameras.    This is absurd.  The camera (along with an original 5D) was in a camera bag during the zodiac trip and the bag was covered by a nylon cover.  The failure occurred on land on a day with some light rain.  The camera was new and had only been used indoors in Canada and in Ushuaia on a clear dry day and it failed on the second day of shooting on the trip after spending the two days crossing the Drake passage in the cabin with me.

Neither camera got rained on directly. While it is possible that the Kata bag somehow contributed to a humid environment, it would still indicate that our two copies of the 5D mk II are extremely susceptible to moisture and/or humidity. The temperature difference between the inside and the outside of the Kata bag could not have been that different. Remember it failed 1.5 hours into a 2 hour landing, so the argument that it was caused by condensation on return to a warm ship doesn't fly.

Martin

Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370


« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2009, 08:49:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Feppe didn't mean there was salt rain but in an oceanic environment there is salt in the air. This causes metals (and basically everything else) to corrode much much faster than under 'normal' circumstances. I know this from first hand experience. After sailing from A to B (from Gibraltar to Madeira for instance) everything on the ship was covered under a thin layer of salt.

Again, the bodies should be able to withstand the experience you are depicting so it remains weird.

(He Rockie, jij ook hier ?   )
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 08:51:28 AM by Dustbak » Logged
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 595



« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2009, 08:59:57 AM »
ReplyReply

In my view Canon could easily avoid a crapstorm on the internet and create a lot of product-line good will if the had repaired the failed camera bodies and continued the warranty.  The cost of this debate among dedicated photographers is far higher than the reapir and warranty costs.  Some manager in warranty repair has made a very short sighted decision that could impact the whole brand.
Logged

Jerry Kurata
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2009, 09:37:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Colorado David
In my view Canon could easily avoid a crapstorm on the internet and create a lot of product-line good will if the had repaired the failed camera bodies and continued the warranty.  The cost of this debate among dedicated photographers is far higher than the reapir and warranty costs.  Some manager in warranty repair has made a very short sighted decision that could impact the whole brand.

Even if they repair it the question of reliability remains.  I am sure this trip was not cheap and having you new wonderkin camera dies and drop back to a backup camera on a once in a lifetime trip would upset me even if they repaired the camera.  

It there is an issue Canon needs to recall the cameras and fix it.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2009, 10:35:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mrenters
I didn't know that Antarctica has salty seawater rain and that this special salt water rain only affects 5D mk II cameras.    This is absurd.  The camera (along with an original 5D) was in a camera bag during the zodiac trip and the bag was covered by a nylon cover.  The failure occurred on land on a day with some light rain.  The camera was new and had only been used indoors in Canada and in Ushuaia on a clear dry day and it failed on the second day of shooting on the trip after spending the two days crossing the Drake passage in the cabin with me.

Neither camera got rained on directly. While it is possible that the Kata bag somehow contributed to a humid environment, it would still indicate that our two copies of the 5D mk II are extremely susceptible to moisture and/or humidity. The temperature difference between the inside and the outside of the Kata bag could not have been that different. Remember it failed 1.5 hours into a 2 hour landing, so the argument that it was caused by condensation on return to a warm ship doesn't fly.

Martin

I didn't imply seawater rain, but salty condensate. Also, condensation can occur even when you keep the camera outside.

Just because Canons had a higher failure rate than other cameras doesn't take into account different handling, different storing, different usage and environment. The sample size is way too small to draw any kind of conclusions. But I agree it sounds like the 5D MkII might not have the best weather sealing out there - and Canon never claimed that to be the case.

And I don't appreciate your tone - let's try to be civil.
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2009, 11:12:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I can't find the thread, but I remember reading here about one of these Anartica trips a couple of years ago, wasn't there a high number of failure rates on earlier Canon bodies?
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2009, 11:14:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
I can't find the thread, but I remember reading here about one of these Anartica trips a couple of years ago, wasn't there a high number of failure rates on earlier Canon bodies?
The article is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/aa-07-worked.shtml

There must be something wrong with Canons & Antartica  
Logged

Francois
Paul Kay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2009, 12:02:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I specialise in underwater photography in temperate conditions. I use Canon 1D series and 5D cameras and I have used them on boats (even liveaboards) and in very damp conditions with no problem. But perhaps I am very aware of the potential problems of damp salty conditions and electronics, although, other than ensure that everything stays as dry as possible there is little else that I can do. But my point - well corrosion is rarely caused by fresh water. In my experience it is almost invariably caused by electrolysis due to salt water, especially if there is power running through the affected components, and this can take place very quickly indeed (I have seen a lot of flooded cameras and some have shown corrosion before being removed from the housing at the end of an aborted dive - minutes !). So if there is corrosion present it indicates that salt water had got onto the damaged components - and it doesn't take much. 1.5 hours after being on a zodiac could well be plenty of time if salt water had somehow got into the shutter release on the trip to land.
Logged
Rickard Hansson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2009, 12:08:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Farmer
This is very odd.  Corrosion?  In the time frame of what, a few hours?  To be honest, it sounds like they accept that there was no user negligence and that it is a manufacturing failure - otherwise, once it's fixed, why wouldn't you continue warranty?  What else might cause the problem?

If it happened here, in Australia, I'd be pressing for warranty repair and full warranty to continue as normal.  What if you have some other fault with the unit, completely unrelated?  How can they deny warranty on that?

You can't cancel a warranty unless you can show user neglect, and if that's the case, why would you offer to repair it for free?  The offer smacks of "we know it's a warranty failure, but we don't want to admit it, so we'll try to make it sound like it's your fault but we won't flat out say that because then you might take legal action and we'd lose so we'll try to sweet talk it with an 'offer' to make you think we're being nice".

If it's not a warranty failure, deny the claim.  *IF* a good customer then presses you, then you might consider offering some sort of compromise as a business decision, but doing this sort of thing up front is just poor.


The problem is not the "few hours" that it took until the cameras died, the problem is that it took a a few more days before they arrived at Canon and during that time periond the corrosion is built up. So, Canon claims the problem being corrosion, while the real problem probably was the actual water getting into the camera.

Anyway, it sure seems like canon has failed in some way to implement the "better weather sealing" into the 5D mkII.


For all that were on the trip and had cameras or other gear that mailfunctioned, I hope it will be solved in a smooth and good way in the end.
Logged
mrenters
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2009, 08:31:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jerry Kurata
Martin,

Did you have grips on either of the cameras?

Jerry

No grips on either camera.

Martin

Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2009, 10:07:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I've never had corrosion on a camera, but I have had corrosion on guns, and always (I believe) because they were kept inside "waterproof" cases for too long. I think if I were using a camera under these conditions I'd be damned sure to protect it from any water, as much as possible, and then to dry it off when I got back to shelter, and leave it *out* so any other water could evaporate. I've had visible rust on rifle bolts after a couple of days of being just barely damp inside a waterproof rifle case. (The wet rifles were wiped and put away, but apparently not dried enough.) I wonder if a warm, but not hot, hair drier would be effective with cameras?

JC


Logged
harlemshooter
Guest
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2009, 10:41:31 PM »
ReplyReply

i'd like to get some additional input from the 20 5d2 users also on the trip who had no issues...what did they do differently?
Logged
mrenters
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2009, 10:42:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Camp
I've never had corrosion on a camera, but I have had corrosion on guns, and always (I believe) because they were kept inside "waterproof" cases for too long. I think if I were using a camera under these conditions I'd be damned sure to protect it from any water, as much as possible, and then to dry it off when I got back to shelter, and leave it *out* so any other water could evaporate. I've had visible rust on rifle bolts after a couple of days of being just barely damp inside a waterproof rifle case. (The wet rifles were wiped and put away, but apparently not dried enough.) I wonder if a warm, but not hot, hair drier would be effective with cameras?

JC

I used a hair dryer on the cameras when we got back to the ship.

In our case it appeared that the issue was related to the shutter release button.  Canon told me there was corrosion visible, so I wonder if any steps were taken during manufacture to prevent corrosion such as gold plating.

Martin

Logged
mrenters
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2009, 10:45:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: harlemshooter
i'd like to get some additional input from the 20 5d2 users also on the trip who had no issues...what did they do differently?

I don't know.  Maybe they were just lucky or maybe the problem is related to a particular batch.  I'm trying to get a list of serial numbers along with whether they failed or not from people on the trip.

Martin

Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad