Update: Still waiting for resolution : (
Update: Still waiting for resolution : (
So I sent the camera back and it has been at the Service center since last Tuesday (eight days ago). I called the manager late last week and again this week only to hear back yesterday. He was a bit cagey but mentioned 'movement in the mirror box' possibly accounting for the discrepancy. They seemed confused and fixated on the fact that the y-axis in the photo above (post #43) are different for the two cameras. Try as I might I can't get them to understand the axis is dynamic and based on the highest resolution of the tested camera. I have yet to be offered any firm resolution on this. Was told I would have my answer Monday, then Tuesday, now today...still waiting...
If anyone out there in Dgrin-land has a way to contact a higher up at Canon I'm all ears
Thanks and stay tuned
So apparently, everything I'm seeing that I think might be wrong with the camera is 'normal' and 'within factory tolerances'. But, as a favor to me, they are going to replace the mirror box/AF module...
What a freaking nightmare this has been - and an expensive one at that
Word of warning to anyone who thinks a $3500 should be able to focus reliably - consider a Nikon instead :bash
And a CPS Gold membership??? At least I got to try out a few lenses. Not planning on renewing otherwise.
Well, they are taking the slow road. When you get the camera back you'll of course know if it's good or not. If not good, and you document for them, then it's back over to them. The limit of their patience mustn't be far off either.
Stick it out, I think the hardest bit is passed. The dialog is still healthy. You're right in trying to find a strategy to escalate if necessary.
So apparently, everything I'm seeing that I think might be wrong with the camera is 'normal' and 'within factory tolerances'. But, as a favor to me, they are going to replace the mirror box/AF module...
What a freaking nightmare this has been - and an expensive one at that
Word of warning to anyone who thinks a $3500 should be able to focus reliably - consider a Nikon instead :bash
And a CPS Gold membership??? At least I got to try out a few lenses. Not planning on renewing otherwise.
Entish?!?!? Took me a minute (well, actually it took me as long as it takes to read the Wikipedia entry). Good thing my kid is getting a bit older - planning to start The Hobbit next year with him...
I admit, that dig may have not been entirely fair. At this point I would be happy to just keep the loaner. This thing is awesome and I don't need any tests to prove that.
I admit, that dig may have not been entirely fair. At this point I would be happy to just keep the loaner. This thing is awesome and I don't need any tests to prove that.
It's entirely understandable. If I were you I would be a very squeeky wheel and try to wear them down to the point of exchanging your camera for the loaner you have. At some point they have to reach the threshold when spending one more man-hour on you or your camera will negate any profit they had from your original sale, and swapping it for the loaner will be more economical for them. They will be able to sell your camera as a refurb anyway, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over sticking it to them.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I admit, that dig may have not been entirely fair. At this point I would be happy to just keep the loaner. This thing is awesome and I don't need any tests to prove that.
Not yet. Camera was shipped out Friday so I'll get it Monday and see what's up. Really hoping the problem was in the mirror box. The geek in me can't help wondering if it's something more subtle like a board/chip issue. Only way forward is to pick it up and see how it works compared to the loaner.
The loaner was from the early 'light leak' batch and I'm not sure if that was fixed on it. Would hate to take ownership of it and have to send it in for that reason. But we'll see. I really do like the loaner....
It's easy to check. Put a lens cap on, shine a flashlight into the eyepiece, set aperture priority, do a half press on the shutter button, and note the shutter timing. Then cover the eyepiece with your hand and do the test again. If the shutter timing is notably longer with the eyepiece covered you have a light leak.
Not yet. Camera was shipped out Friday so I'll get it Monday and see what's up. Really hoping the problem was in the mirror box. The geek in me can't help wondering if it's something more subtle like a board/chip issue. Only way forward is to pick it up and see how it works compared to the loaner.
The loaner was from the early 'light leak' batch and I'm not sure if that was fixed on it. Would hate to take ownership of it and have to send it in for that reason. But we'll see. I really do like the loaner....
As I said before, I had CPS Irvine to fix the light leak on the first body I got (second one didn't have it).
I would probably have to fix it anyway in the future when it comes the inveitable time to upgrade (and if by that time it's out of warranty it can be costly), or lose in its resale value.
So why not do it now for free and actually enjoy a fully functional camera w/o any known defects/annoyances.
It's easy to check. Put a lens cap on, shine a flashlight into the eyepiece, set aperture priority, do a half press on the shutter button, and note the shutter timing. Then cover the eyepiece with your hand and do the test again. If the shutter timing is notably longer with the eyepiece covered you have a light leak.
I don't think that's the issue...? Light entering the eyepiece and affecting the meter is a common SLR/DSLR trait, that's why they supply you with an eyepiece cover right on the strap for long exposures.
Pretty sure the issue is light leaking in through the top LCD, and the fix is electrical tape.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I don't think that's the issue...? Light entering the eyepiece and affecting the meter is a common SLR/DSLR trait, that's why they supply you with an eyepiece cover right on the strap for long exposures.
Pretty sure the issue is light leaking in through the top LCD, and the fix is electrical tape.
So I got my camera back from service today and managed to take a few shots outside and then ran some tests inside.
For the inside tests, I ran the FoCal software to find the best microAF settings for all of my lenses (including the 3 loaners). Ran the AF consistency test and the camera was much improved from prior and seemed quite consistent. Note this is done in one shot mode and the camera had failed miserably here previously.
Prior to doing the inside tests, I had put the 135/2 on each camera (with both set to zero microAF adjustment) and went out shooting the kids in soft light (got home at 6pm). I jumped back and forth between cameras and, as a test, loaded them in LR with the keyword 'mine' and 'loaner' respectively. I then went to full screen and 1:1 previews and cycled through all shots by capture time. Rated 1-4 based on sharpness. All taken in AI servo mode.
Ended up taking more shots with mine than the loaner (80 vs 23). Results:
1 star (misfocus) - mine 44%; loaner 26%
2 stars (okay focus or tough to tell as eyes closed, etc) - mine 44%; loaner 35%
3 stars (great focus - spot on) - mine 11%; loaner 26%
4 stars (wow, that's sharp!) - mine 1%; loaner 13%
The n was too small to decide whether there was a real signal here.
Curiously, mine was consistently underexposing by at least 2/3 to a full stop compared to the loaner.
More testing in better light tomorrow. The saga continues...rolleyes
I think the crux is going to be now/again how much validity Canon is going to give to your evidence as relevant to their response. I've always felt that the FoCal evidence is weak, given the 5D3 is not currently supported. Both sets of evidence, FoCal and your shooting examples, are vulnerable to user error/variation and subjective assessment. Versus Canon's objective and definitive testing. This is not my personal argument, but how I see the situation as an observer.
What you do have, which I think is very solid indeed, is a defacto if not explicit recognition by Canon that there were defects in critical parts of your 5D3 copy, to the extent that they have adjusted and replaced some of those parts. That you still find the camera does not perform to fit-for-purpose standard, and particularly so in comparison with your totally positive experience of the loan 5D3 copy, is something which does NOT require "proving" by their hardware testing protocols. This is a matter of your product satisfaction, which is completely valid in its own right. And put together with the history of the case which includes Canon's acceptance of a problem at their end, is now likely to outweigh any further argument Canon might consider making.
If I were you, I would ship back the defective copy to Canon without delay, with your assessment from your FoCal and real world shooting evidence, from it and the loaner, and reiterate that the defective copy is not acceptable to you as the purchaser and warranty holder for the reasons you give, and with the evidence that Canon have not been able in the case of the defective copy to find and fix the source of its performance failures in their own terms, and compared, in your experience, with the loaner. I would also make clear to Canon that the remedy process that they have put you through has now been exhausted while their obligation to satisfy your reasoned, evidenced, and legally supported expectations as purchaser and warranty holder of their product has still not been met.
The way that they respond will need care as of treading on thin ice, because it would have legal implications. I think it is likely that they will exit at this stage from contention.
Have you been able to define the proper route for escalating this? I would start along that a short time (3 days?) after you know the camera has been received back by Canon, cc to the service centre manager, if you have not received any/an acceptable response by then. You will have then opened the "battle" for them on two fronts, and put them under scrutiny of higher management.
So I got my camera back from service today and managed to take a few shots outside and then ran some tests inside.
For the inside tests, I ran the FoCal software to find the best microAF settings for all of my lenses (including the 3 loaners). Ran the AF consistency test and the camera was much improved from prior and seemed quite consistent. Note this is done in one shot mode and the camera had failed miserably here previously.
Prior to doing the inside tests, I had put the 135/2 on each camera (with both set to zero microAF adjustment) and went out shooting the kids in soft light (got home at 6pm). I jumped back and forth between cameras and, as a test, loaded them in LR with the keyword 'mine' and 'loaner' respectively. I then went to full screen and 1:1 previews and cycled through all shots by capture time. Rated 1-4 based on sharpness. All taken in AI servo mode.
Ended up taking more shots with mine than the loaner (80 vs 23). Results:
1 star (misfocus) - mine 44%; loaner 26%
2 stars (okay focus or tough to tell as eyes closed, etc) - mine 44%; loaner 35%
3 stars (great focus - spot on) - mine 11%; loaner 26%
4 stars (wow, that's sharp!) - mine 1%; loaner 13%
The n was too small to decide whether there was a real signal here.
Curiously, mine was consistently underexposing by at least 2/3 to a full stop compared to the loaner.
More testing in better light tomorrow. The saga continues...rolleyes
Thanks NeiL
I agree about FoCal not being definitive. But the prior graph comparing two bodies with all else equal does support its ability to provide reliable objective measures. The 5d3 is listed as supported on their site. It is just not able to do the slick fully automated AF routine.
At this point, I love my loaner 5d3. It has proved itself more than capable over the past few weeks. I am very thankful that Canon sent it my way and really hate to part with it. Trying to blind myself to the camera and determine favorite shots further solidified that feeling.
I do want to give my camera a chance and will shoot some more tomorrow but may end up approaching Canon about swapping my camera for the loaner. If they think this camera is as good as it gets, it should be up to being a loaner for others.
On my last call, I was advised to ask for a customer relations supervisor if I needed to call again. We'll see how this evolves.
I'm really not someone who is looking for minute differences in cameras for some perverse reasons. I hope that is obvious. My camera has simply never shown me the level of satisfaction as the loaner. It would be great to have some respected reviewer take my camera and see what he would come up with...
Eyal, personally I have no doubt the original 5D3 is a dud. Re FoCal, any 3rd party app, especially one not yet fully supporting the 5D3, that could be seen to be preempting Canon's own hardware performance-diagnosis process, I think is not going to last the argument. At least not on its own. But as supporting your dissatisfaction with the original product you purchased, along with real shooting evidence, a comparison with the loaner copy, and Canon's own admission of problems with the original body, it has its place.
I very much doubt that escalating to a supervisor at the service centre is going to be seriously felt. I think it needs to be Canon USA head office. Independently of the service centre and concurrent with your dealings with it. Now.
I think the time for arguments and the normal process is over. It's now about asserting the facts of your right to satisfaction, the admission by Canon of defect and inability to correct, and the facts of your evidence, and your comparison with the loaner. Escalation on this basis will lift the situation to a different response requirement than has been made locally to date. That is where you want to be now, in my opinion.
I would avoid spinning out argument on your part as well. Clearly stating the facts as above and suggesting that the matter would end for you with exchange for the loaner, I suggest puts them in the position of having to choose to keep the argument going at the lower level, finding valid reasons for doing that, and involving themselves in potentially costlier involvement with this case - or agreeing with your position.
Thanks NeiL
I agree about FoCal not being definitive. But the prior graph comparing two bodies with all else equal does support its ability to provide reliable objective measures. The 5d3 is listed as supported on their site. It is just not able to do the slick fully automated AF routine.
At this point, I love my loaner 5d3. It has proved itself more than capable over the past few weeks. I am very thankful that Canon sent it my way and really hate to part with it. Trying to blind myself to the camera and determine favorite shots further solidified that feeling.
I do want to give my camera a chance and will shoot some more tomorrow but may end up approaching Canon about swapping my camera for the loaner. If they think this camera is as good as it gets, it should be up to being a loaner for others.
On my last call, I was advised to ask for a customer relations supervisor if I needed to call again. We'll see how this evolves.
I'm really not someone who is looking for minute differences in cameras for some perverse reasons. I hope that is obvious. My camera has simply never shown me the level of satisfaction as the loaner. It would be great to have some respected reviewer take my camera and see what he would come up with...
Bit more testing (this is getting tedious) this morning with my kids. Again with the 135/2.
Misfocus: 22% with mine; 10% with loaner
Mine is consistently 1/3 to 1/2 stop underexposed
Cameras have different auto white balance biases in the same lighting conditions as well. It's subtle but definitely there
Is there really supposed to be that much variation in a top-end camera body? I would think that exposure and auto-WB readings would not vary much, if at all, between similar bodies.
Does your camera have the latest (or same) firmware as the loaner? The latest firmware does have a fix for under exposed images, but I don't think it's for mode you are using, but who knows? In any case if you are comparing the cameras they should have the same firmware.
Bit more testing (this is getting tedious) this morning with my kids. Again with the 135/2.
Misfocus: 22% with mine; 10% with loaner
Mine is consistently 1/3 to 1/2 stop underexposed
Cameras have different auto white balance biases in the same lighting conditions as well. It's subtle but definitely there
Is there really supposed to be that much variation in a top-end camera body? I would think that exposure and auto-WB readings would not vary much, if at all, between similar bodies.
Good point Dan. Just checked and my camera did come back with 1.1.3. Loaner still has 1.1.2.
Curiously, I'm finding that the new firmware underexposes more and does have a different WB. Will update the loaner in a sec.
Got off the phone with manager at Canon's NJ center. Said that, to his knowledge, they have never swapped a camera (ie loaner for customers) before. Really loving the loaner though...
Planning to shoot with mine the rest of the day and leave the loaner at home. I know how that one works. Time to see how well I can make do with 'mine'.
A couple more things you might try. Doing hand held, separate shots with what ever changes in the scene can really affect WB and AF.
Have you tried setting both cameras on a table (or two tripods if you have them) and shoot an static image like a wall, tree, etc. simultaneously.
The to see how well AF works on actions shots do the same thing but have one of you kids run through the scene and press the shutter buttons at the same time. Put a marker in the scene (maybe a chair) for the kids to run by (and maybe have the kids holding trays and wearing roller skates just a joke). Then do regular focus (not AI) and burst shots on both cameras simultaneously as the kids run through the scene. Have all focus points turned on, it theory it should focus on the nearest thing in the scene, the kids in front of the chair.
Then pick single focus point have one of your kids stand in front of the chair and pick a point that is on the head. Then do another run though.
Then compare those runs.
Use a high shutter speed, because with the cameras stationary you IS won't be a factor. In fact make sure IS is off.
That should eliminate any variability introduced by the experimenter.
Good point Dan. Just checked and my camera did come back with 1.1.3. Loaner still has 1.1.2.
Curiously, I'm finding that the new firmware underexposes more and does have a different WB. Will update the loaner in a sec.
Got off the phone with manager at Canon's NJ center. Said that, to his knowledge, they have never swapped a camera (ie loaner for customers) before. Really loving the loaner though...
Planning to shoot with mine the rest of the day and leave the loaner at home. I know how that one works. Time to see how well I can make do with 'mine'.
One thing is for sure, I would not return the loaner until you are 100% satisfied with "your" camera. The loaner is the bargaining chip in this game. As long as you have it in your possession, you are in the driver's seat... assuming they don't have your credit card info.
Like I said before, at some point it will simply not be worth any further effort on their part, and they should just exchange the loaner for your camera at that time. Hang in there, you can outlast them.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Dan
I actually ran through extensive testing of 'one shot' focus last night using FoCal and the microAF routine. Once I got the 'sweet spot' for the lens, I ran their AF consistency module. Did one for 50 shots; others for 10. Mine was very consistent and far better than previous.
As for AI servo, I think that's the tougher test and, for good or bad, I use that mode 90% of the time. I'm going to switch from the 135/2 to the 70-200/2.8 IS II and see if the keeper rate goes up.
Jack
Have to say that I'm getting tired of doing all of this testing to 'prove' the camera is the equal of the loaner. Wish they would just do the trade and we can all be done with the saga.
I do want to tell everyone who has posted here how much I appreciate their comments and support. Really means a lot to me - quite a crew we've got here on Dgrin
Wow...
Just spent an hour on the phone with one manager then another. Somehow I ended up in Corporate Relations
Explained the situation to them in full and finished by expressing my sincere interest in keeping the loaner which has been rock-solid in exchange for the original camera. After the manager discussed this with the supervisor at NJ's service center, he called me back. In no uncertain terms, he said I would need to continue testing out the camera. Again harped on my use of 3rd party software (ignoring the images sent on CD). He insinuated that the supervisor there and the technicians know far better than I do what camera tolerances are.
I'm at my wits end. I know what is right here and I know that my camera body is incapable of achieving focus as reliably as the loaner. This is by far the most frustrating experience in customer support I have ever experienced and the most expensive item with which I have had problems to this degree.
Comments
Update: Still waiting for resolution : (
So I sent the camera back and it has been at the Service center since last Tuesday (eight days ago). I called the manager late last week and again this week only to hear back yesterday. He was a bit cagey but mentioned 'movement in the mirror box' possibly accounting for the discrepancy. They seemed confused and fixated on the fact that the y-axis in the photo above (post #43) are different for the two cameras. Try as I might I can't get them to understand the axis is dynamic and based on the highest resolution of the tested camera. I have yet to be offered any firm resolution on this. Was told I would have my answer Monday, then Tuesday, now today...still waiting...
If anyone out there in Dgrin-land has a way to contact a higher up at Canon I'm all ears
Thanks and stay tuned
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
What a freaking nightmare this has been - and an expensive one at that
Word of warning to anyone who thinks a $3500 should be able to focus reliably - consider a Nikon instead :bash
And a CPS Gold membership??? At least I got to try out a few lenses. Not planning on renewing otherwise.
I'll get off the :soapbox now
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Stick it out, I think the hardest bit is passed. The dialog is still healthy. You're right in trying to find a strategy to escalate if necessary.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Eyal, I think the word of warning is to send a NEW Camera back to where you purchased it next time, eh? Dust or whatever, right?
And I agree with Neil, and I think you're moving on here and Canon will soon either have you a finely tuned 5DIII or another NEW 5DIII.
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
In Entish :-)
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Just to bring things back to reality, a lot of new cameras have problems. Nikon autofocus is not immune.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Indeed, and I find this testimony especially discouraging:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1790252&post1790252
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
It's entirely understandable. If I were you I would be a very squeeky wheel and try to wear them down to the point of exchanging your camera for the loaner you have. At some point they have to reach the threshold when spending one more man-hour on you or your camera will negate any profit they had from your original sale, and swapping it for the loaner will be more economical for them. They will be able to sell your camera as a refurb anyway, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over sticking it to them.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Have you made that offer to them?
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
The loaner was from the early 'light leak' batch and I'm not sure if that was fixed on it. Would hate to take ownership of it and have to send it in for that reason. But we'll see. I really do like the loaner....
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Don't bother. Mine has the so-called leak, and it has not affected me at all.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114
Mine is back on Monday. Will see how it compares to the loaner which I've grown very fond of. Feel a bit like I'm 'cheating' on my camera :lol
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
I would probably have to fix it anyway in the future when it comes the inveitable time to upgrade (and if by that time it's out of warranty it can be costly), or lose in its resale value.
So why not do it now for free and actually enjoy a fully functional camera w/o any known defects/annoyances.
I don't think that's the issue...? Light entering the eyepiece and affecting the meter is a common SLR/DSLR trait, that's why they supply you with an eyepiece cover right on the strap for long exposures.
Pretty sure the issue is light leaking in through the top LCD, and the fix is electrical tape.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114
So I got my camera back from service today and managed to take a few shots outside and then ran some tests inside.
For the inside tests, I ran the FoCal software to find the best microAF settings for all of my lenses (including the 3 loaners). Ran the AF consistency test and the camera was much improved from prior and seemed quite consistent. Note this is done in one shot mode and the camera had failed miserably here previously.
Prior to doing the inside tests, I had put the 135/2 on each camera (with both set to zero microAF adjustment) and went out shooting the kids in soft light (got home at 6pm). I jumped back and forth between cameras and, as a test, loaded them in LR with the keyword 'mine' and 'loaner' respectively. I then went to full screen and 1:1 previews and cycled through all shots by capture time. Rated 1-4 based on sharpness. All taken in AI servo mode.
Ended up taking more shots with mine than the loaner (80 vs 23). Results:
1 star (misfocus) - mine 44%; loaner 26%
2 stars (okay focus or tough to tell as eyes closed, etc) - mine 44%; loaner 35%
3 stars (great focus - spot on) - mine 11%; loaner 26%
4 stars (wow, that's sharp!) - mine 1%; loaner 13%
The n was too small to decide whether there was a real signal here.
Curiously, mine was consistently underexposing by at least 2/3 to a full stop compared to the loaner.
More testing in better light tomorrow. The saga continues...
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
What you do have, which I think is very solid indeed, is a defacto if not explicit recognition by Canon that there were defects in critical parts of your 5D3 copy, to the extent that they have adjusted and replaced some of those parts. That you still find the camera does not perform to fit-for-purpose standard, and particularly so in comparison with your totally positive experience of the loan 5D3 copy, is something which does NOT require "proving" by their hardware testing protocols. This is a matter of your product satisfaction, which is completely valid in its own right. And put together with the history of the case which includes Canon's acceptance of a problem at their end, is now likely to outweigh any further argument Canon might consider making.
If I were you, I would ship back the defective copy to Canon without delay, with your assessment from your FoCal and real world shooting evidence, from it and the loaner, and reiterate that the defective copy is not acceptable to you as the purchaser and warranty holder for the reasons you give, and with the evidence that Canon have not been able in the case of the defective copy to find and fix the source of its performance failures in their own terms, and compared, in your experience, with the loaner. I would also make clear to Canon that the remedy process that they have put you through has now been exhausted while their obligation to satisfy your reasoned, evidenced, and legally supported expectations as purchaser and warranty holder of their product has still not been met.
The way that they respond will need care as of treading on thin ice, because it would have legal implications. I think it is likely that they will exit at this stage from contention.
Have you been able to define the proper route for escalating this? I would start along that a short time (3 days?) after you know the camera has been received back by Canon, cc to the service centre manager, if you have not received any/an acceptable response by then. You will have then opened the "battle" for them on two fronts, and put them under scrutiny of higher management.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I agree about FoCal not being definitive. But the prior graph comparing two bodies with all else equal does support its ability to provide reliable objective measures. The 5d3 is listed as supported on their site. It is just not able to do the slick fully automated AF routine.
At this point, I love my loaner 5d3. It has proved itself more than capable over the past few weeks. I am very thankful that Canon sent it my way and really hate to part with it. Trying to blind myself to the camera and determine favorite shots further solidified that feeling.
I do want to give my camera a chance and will shoot some more tomorrow but may end up approaching Canon about swapping my camera for the loaner. If they think this camera is as good as it gets, it should be up to being a loaner for others.
On my last call, I was advised to ask for a customer relations supervisor if I needed to call again. We'll see how this evolves.
I'm really not someone who is looking for minute differences in cameras for some perverse reasons. I hope that is obvious. My camera has simply never shown me the level of satisfaction as the loaner. It would be great to have some respected reviewer take my camera and see what he would come up with...
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
I very much doubt that escalating to a supervisor at the service centre is going to be seriously felt. I think it needs to be Canon USA head office. Independently of the service centre and concurrent with your dealings with it. Now.
I think the time for arguments and the normal process is over. It's now about asserting the facts of your right to satisfaction, the admission by Canon of defect and inability to correct, and the facts of your evidence, and your comparison with the loaner. Escalation on this basis will lift the situation to a different response requirement than has been made locally to date. That is where you want to be now, in my opinion.
I would avoid spinning out argument on your part as well. Clearly stating the facts as above and suggesting that the matter would end for you with exchange for the loaner, I suggest puts them in the position of having to choose to keep the argument going at the lower level, finding valid reasons for doing that, and involving themselves in potentially costlier involvement with this case - or agreeing with your position.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Misfocus: 22% with mine; 10% with loaner
Mine is consistently 1/3 to 1/2 stop underexposed
Cameras have different auto white balance biases in the same lighting conditions as well. It's subtle but definitely there
Is there really supposed to be that much variation in a top-end camera body? I would think that exposure and auto-WB readings would not vary much, if at all, between similar bodies.
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114
Curiously, I'm finding that the new firmware underexposes more and does have a different WB. Will update the loaner in a sec.
Got off the phone with manager at Canon's NJ center. Said that, to his knowledge, they have never swapped a camera (ie loaner for customers) before. Really loving the loaner though...
Planning to shoot with mine the rest of the day and leave the loaner at home. I know how that one works. Time to see how well I can make do with 'mine'.
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Have you tried setting both cameras on a table (or two tripods if you have them) and shoot an static image like a wall, tree, etc. simultaneously.
The to see how well AF works on actions shots do the same thing but have one of you kids run through the scene and press the shutter buttons at the same time. Put a marker in the scene (maybe a chair) for the kids to run by (and maybe have the kids holding trays and wearing roller skates
Then pick single focus point have one of your kids stand in front of the chair and pick a point that is on the head. Then do another run though.
Then compare those runs.
Use a high shutter speed, because with the cameras stationary you IS won't be a factor. In fact make sure IS is off.
That should eliminate any variability introduced by the experimenter.
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114
Like I said before, at some point it will simply not be worth any further effort on their part, and they should just exchange the loaner for your camera at that time. Hang in there, you can outlast them.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I actually ran through extensive testing of 'one shot' focus last night using FoCal and the microAF routine. Once I got the 'sweet spot' for the lens, I ran their AF consistency module. Did one for 50 shots; others for 10. Mine was very consistent and far better than previous.
As for AI servo, I think that's the tougher test and, for good or bad, I use that mode 90% of the time. I'm going to switch from the 135/2 to the 70-200/2.8 IS II and see if the keeper rate goes up.
Jack
Have to say that I'm getting tired of doing all of this testing to 'prove' the camera is the equal of the loaner. Wish they would just do the trade and we can all be done with the saga.
I do want to tell everyone who has posted here how much I appreciate their comments and support. Really means a lot to me - quite a crew we've got here on Dgrin
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
Just spent an hour on the phone with one manager then another. Somehow I ended up in Corporate Relations
Explained the situation to them in full and finished by expressing my sincere interest in keeping the loaner which has been rock-solid in exchange for the original camera. After the manager discussed this with the supervisor at NJ's service center, he called me back. In no uncertain terms, he said I would need to continue testing out the camera. Again harped on my use of 3rd party software (ignoring the images sent on CD). He insinuated that the supervisor there and the technicians know far better than I do what camera tolerances are.
I'm at my wits end. I know what is right here and I know that my camera body is incapable of achieving focus as reliably as the loaner. This is by far the most frustrating experience in customer support I have ever experienced and the most expensive item with which I have had problems to this degree.
Just really tired of this continuing saga :cry
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos