Hi all,

"what the clowns did is shoot into the lens cap to look for dead pixels"

Well, not exactly.

In the video output from "Live View", there were 'bad pixels' in any condition, just more noticeable in dark areas. If you were to set the camera to a low ISO, fix the shutter speed and iris, and have a black background, it would show as colorful pixels, but white or any other color would also be polluted, too.

Of course, what color would black be other than black? Red, like the nose of a clown? :-)

The firmware sort of fixed the video, but don't confuse video's 'bad pixels' with problematic pixels in stills. These are two very distinctly different things, and caused by more than even two reasons.

My best,

Mike

NSXType-R said:
That sounds like an awesome precedence for the pixel peepers.

For the camera makers, that's terrible.

Yes, maybe they will need to classify their cameras as well (e.g. Profissional grade no bad pixels, semi professional up to 2 etc). Lets see where this leads to...

golf007sd said:
As for the merchant's actions, they did the right thing by sending the unit to the manufacture for repair...they fulfilled their obligation to the customer. They should not have been held liable in refunding the product if there was sufficient time had past from date of purchase to date of the service work. Canon should have made the refund/exchange.

No, here the vendor is your contact as a customer not the producer. The vendor will have to deal with Canon.

golf007sd said:
.

Back in the very beginning of the D7000 days, their was a huge cry by many individual when they saw "hot pixels" on their LCD display when shooting in very low light conditions. Thanks for the heads up on this story....cheers :D

.
.
.
what the clowns did is shoot into the lens cap to look for dead pixels

Not sure how a court ruling in German will effect merchants return policy in the USA retail market. Canon, from what they preach, has a good customer service policy, to bad they did not address the issue better. As for the merchant's actions, they did the right thing by sending the unit to the manufacture for repair...they fulfilled their obligation to the customer. They should not have been held liable in refunding the product if there was sufficient time had past from date of purchase to date of the service work. Canon should have made the refund/exchange.

Back in the very beginning of the D7000 days, their was a huge cry by many individual when they saw "hot pixels" on their LCD display when shooting in very low light conditions. Assuming they had a defective display, mass amounts of owner began returning their D7000 to their local/on-line retailers. Mind you at that time, their was massive back order log's on the D7000 due to demand. Well it was not long after that Nikon send out an updated firmware that fixed the problem.

Given the two pixel stories one could argue that is why we bought Nikon gear instead of Canon. And please dear friends, do not think that this my way of saying "Nikon is better than Canon" gear I see so many foolish child photographers try to argue.

Thanks for the heads up on this story....cheers :D

That sounds like an awesome precedence for the pixel peepers.

For the camera makers, that's terrible.

Just found an interesting article on the web: a German local court ruled, that a customer can return his DSLR if it shows bad pixels.

Someone bought a Canon 5D Mark II in January 2009. After some time it showed a red dot in both photos and videos. He brought the camera to a service center and the managed to make the red dot disappear on photos but not in video mode.

The customer did not accept that and sent it back to service. Canon service sent it back saying that it was working with in the manufacturer's specifications and no repair required.

Customer did not want to accept a - in his opinion - defect camera and wanted to return it or get a rebate which was declined by the vendor. So the whole thing went to court.

In March 2011 the court ruled that the vendor had to take back the camera. The court stressed that there is a big difference between monitors (where there are "pixel classes") where you have to accept some bad pixels depending on the class. In digital cameras this does not need to be accepted especially if it can be corrected in photo mode but not in video mode.

Just thought this might be interesting for some...