Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
This is why I don't trust Canon repair
Page <prev 2 of 14 next> last>>
May 16, 2022 17:29:58   #
Mr Bill 2011 Loc: southern Indiana
 
I'm not familiar with the 1DX and "pattern metering;" where is the pattern set to and what is it metering?

Reply
May 16, 2022 17:30:48   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
Mr Bill 2011 wrote:
I'm not familiar with the 1DX and "pattern metering;" where is the pattern set to and what is it metering?


It's evaluative metering versus spot metering.

Reply
May 16, 2022 18:03:11   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
The 1DX is a fairly old camera and it is by no stretch of the imagination a high resolution camera. It was not built as a fine art camera but as a durable workhorse that's built to stand up to the abuse that photojournalists subject them to. I understand your frustration with having a camera that doesn't seem to always work the way you expect it to, but I disagree 100% with your evaluation of Canon repair. I've sent several bodies and lenses to Canon repair over the years and they have always done excellent work and they've always done it quickly and for a reasonable cost.
Another thing, you said the two Canon reps looked at the photos on your camera and said they were perfect. I don't know what they meant by perfect but, since you were shooting in RAW, the images they were looking at were the JPG thumbnail that's imbedded in each RAW image file and a JPG thumbnail image is far from perfect.

Reply
 
 
May 16, 2022 18:16:48   #
Grahame Loc: Fiji
 
AzPicLady wrote:
Y'all might remember that I went through nearly a year of trying to get my 1 DX fixed. Never did. A few days ago Canon had a tent at the Phoenix Zoo and were showing off some new product. So I wondered by. I mentioned my difficulty with the 1Dx, which by chance I had been shooting that day. One of the fellows asked to look at it. He inquired if it had failed that day, and frankly I hadn't looked (as I've sort of learned to not bother). He looked back through my pictures and claimed they were all "perfect." Another fellow also looked and claimed them to all be "perfect."

These are two images they called "perfect." Notice they were both shot at exactly the same settings, but look at the difference. (These are undeveloped RAW converted to jpeg in LR.) I guess if that's what they call perfect, then my camera has no problems (which is what they claim!). There were about 6 more just like these that would have been some of the first they looked at.
Y'all might remember that I went through nearly a ... (show quote)


Most likely a faulty lens?

If the aperture blades are occasionally sticking there would be a difference in image brightness although camera settings are shown to be identical.

Reply
May 16, 2022 18:46:08   #
BebuLamar
 
Grahame wrote:
Most likely a faulty lens?

If the aperture blades are occasionally sticking there would be a difference in image brightness although camera settings are shown to be identical.


I think you're on to something here. Since the Exif said f/16 that's closing down quite a bit and if it doesn't close fully you would have overexposure. Besides the brighter image looks wrong rather than the darker image. I think the OP should try another lens and see if she gets the same problem.

Reply
May 16, 2022 19:07:45   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
There's not much anyone can add from looking at the LR-processed images. Please consider opening the RAW into DPP4 and output JPEGs from there. Adobe strips too much of the EOS-specific EXIF for these processed images to be helpful. Attached the resulting DPP4 JPEGs.

Reply
May 16, 2022 19:09:43   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
AzPicLady wrote:
It wasn't spot metering, and they were taken just a couple of seconds apart. The camera simply doesn't meter correctly about 1/3 of the time.


If the EXIF data are identical then the camera is metering the same both times. I suspect the sticky aperture explanation has some credibility.

And Canon techs need to have their eyes checked. I would send Canon a transcript (or a URL) of this thread.

Reply
 
 
May 16, 2022 19:29:58   #
steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA
 
AzPicLady wrote:
It's evaluative metering versus spot metering.

While pattern (evaluative) metering takes the entire image into consideration, it does place greater emphasis on the primary focal point being used.

I opened your images in PS and overlaid a grid. The giraffe changes position in respect to the center of the image.

In the bright image, virtually the entire body is in the lower left quadrant of the 16 'zones' that make up a 4x4 portion of the center, with the entire neck in the upper right. In the darker image, a good portion of the front of the body has moved into the lower right quadrant.

Any idea if you used the center focal point, or moved to another? Tiny differences can sometimes create much larger discrepancies. Again, just a guess. The sticky lens blades theory is worth considering, too.

Reply
May 16, 2022 20:55:49   #
Grahame Loc: Fiji
 
One thing you can try to assist in eliminating variables is to put your camera in manual, set exposure for a scene that has constant lighting and take a burst of say 20 shots.

Exposure commands should not vary and any significant variations in resulting image brightness will be down to aperture blade positioning accuracy.

Reply
May 16, 2022 22:02:10   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
Grahame wrote:
One thing you can try to assist in eliminating variables is to put your camera in manual, set exposure for a scene that has constant lighting and take a burst of say 20 shots.

Exposure commands should not vary and any significant variations in resulting image brightness will be down to aperture blade positioning accuracy.


Yep, remove all the variables - shoot a number of exposures (from a tripod) of a standard target with constant lighting, and then try the same with a different lens. As Paul suggested, process the raws in DPP4 and post the JPEGs with EXIF data.

Reply
May 17, 2022 05:56:28   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
They looked at both of those images and they said the camera was OK? They could have said that you made a mistake during the exposure but since they did not check the camera or promised to check the camera I do not know what to tell you.
You have sent the camera to them several times for repairs as I understand it but no good results came back after you spent your money. This is ugly!

Reply
 
 
May 17, 2022 06:14:50   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
AzPicLady wrote:
Y'all might remember that I went through nearly a year of trying to get my 1 DX fixed. Never did. A few days ago Canon had a tent at the Phoenix Zoo and were showing off some new product. So I wondered by. I mentioned my difficulty with the 1Dx, which by chance I had been shooting that day. One of the fellows asked to look at it. He inquired if it had failed that day, and frankly I hadn't looked (as I've sort of learned to not bother). He looked back through my pictures and claimed they were all "perfect." Another fellow also looked and claimed them to all be "perfect."

These are two images they called "perfect." Notice they were both shot at exactly the same settings, but look at the difference. (These are undeveloped RAW converted to jpeg in LR.) I guess if that's what they call perfect, then my camera has no problems (which is what they claim!). There were about 6 more just like these that would have been some of the first they looked at.
Y'all might remember that I went through nearly a ... (show quote)


Sorry for your troubles. I am sure Canon wants you to be happy. Same with Nikon and Sony.
I would suggest, if your still not happy, to contact Midwestcamerarepair.com and tell them of your troubles, maybe even email them the two images and ask if they might be able to help.

Reply
May 17, 2022 06:23:40   #
tcthome Loc: NJ
 
steve_stoneblossom wrote:
Are you able to determine exactly where the camera focused on each shot? Depending on how small the focal point is, could one have been on a darker spot than the other(no pun intended)? I see the sun glistening off the giraffe's back in the brighter image. Perhaps that is what the camera metered off in the darker shot.

Just a guess. You say it's not the only time it's happened, so I could be way off base.

I occasionally have similar results with my Nikon 750, but I always assume user error.
Are you able to determine i exactly /i where the... (show quote)


Same here. Nikon D810. I mostly shoot spot metering. So maybe the metering choice is the question. Usually it is bigger than it looks in the viewfinder.

Reply
May 17, 2022 06:58:05   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
Perfect is in the eye of the beholder, unfortunately.

Reply
May 17, 2022 06:58:48   #
foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC
 
AzPicLady wrote:
Not sure about the nomenclature, but basically it's set to an evaluative metering, not spot metering.


Does it do it on another metering setting too??

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 14 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.