Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HP 935 5.1mp digital camera. Error message: "SD card is lo..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 11:20:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

I have an HP 935, 5.1MP. If no one can answer this question, I will
have to throw this camera in the trash can. HP wants $35 just to say
Hello to me. This is like throwing money down the toilet. The only
thing that they want to talk to me about is selling me a used
(refurbished) camera for just a few bucks less than what I paid for this
one. And yes, they are telling me to throw away this camera. Some
customer service!

The camera will no longer take pictures anymore. It's _neve_r been
dropped, and has been used approx 4 times during a two year period. The
camera now tells me that the SD memory card is locked (which it isn't).
A brand new memory card produces the same results.

Does anyone know how to "unlock" the memory cards? I need a fix for
this camera. I am not talking about the switch on the side of the memory
card. This is a software error, or the sensing switch for the card is
not functioning.

Thanks
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 6:09:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

onederer wrote:
> I have an HP 935, 5.1MP. If no one can answer this question, I will
> have to throw this camera in the trash can. HP wants $35 just to say
> Hello to me. This is like throwing money down the toilet. The only
> thing that they want to talk to me about is selling me a used
> (refurbished) camera for just a few bucks less than what I paid for this
> one. And yes, they are telling me to throw away this camera. Some
> customer service!
>
> The camera will no longer take pictures anymore. It's _neve_r been
> dropped, and has been used approx 4 times during a two year period. The
> camera now tells me that the SD memory card is locked (which it isn't).
> A brand new memory card produces the same results.
>
> Does anyone know how to "unlock" the memory cards? I need a fix for
> this camera. I am not talking about the switch on the side of the memory
> card. This is a software error, or the sensing switch for the card is
> not functioning.

Almost certainly it's the switch in the camera. The SD card switch is
purely mechanical, on both ends. Could be that the switch in the camera
has oxidation on the contacts, the contacts could be bent, or their
could be a speck of dirt in it (assuming that it must be closed for
writing, which I am not sure of, and the SD organization doesn't publish
the specification, you have to be a member to get it).

For point and shoot cameras, they are not going to open the camera and
attempt a repair; if it's out of warranty they are going to trash it.

Camera makers love SD because it's small and cheap, but Compact Flash is
much better.

You could try blasting some air in there, as someone else suggested, but
this is a long shot. OTOH, you don't have much to lose!
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 6:25:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
[]
> Camera makers love SD because it's small and cheap, but Compact Flash
> is much better.
>
> You could try blasting some air in there, as someone else suggested,
> but this is a long shot. OTOH, you don't have much to lose!

What makes you say that CF is much better? SD can be made without the
troublesome switch, e.g.:

http://www.kingmaxdigi.com/news/news_product/news_p2004...

and the contact arrangement strikes me as much better than CF. The OP
could try this brand of card in his camera. (We've used them without
problems).

David
Related resources
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 12:23:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

> and the contact arrangement strikes me as much better than CF. The OP
> could try this brand of card in his camera. (We've used them without
> problems).

It isn't the card that's the problem here, it's the switch on the SD
card socket. I don't think that there is any camera maker that does not
implement the WP functionality.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 4:18:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:23:22 GMT, Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> It isn't the card that's the problem here, it's the switch on the SD
> card socket. I don't think that there is any camera maker that does not
> implement the WP functionality.

The OP could try using an MMC card instead, which should bypass
any switch on the SD socket. It wouldn't be as fast as an SD card,
but it might not be any slower if used in an HP 935.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 6:03:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:ei0ua111b5sohr0osr8i5q26otppk0pm2k@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:23:22 GMT, Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
>> It isn't the card that's the problem here, it's the switch on the SD
>> card socket. I don't think that there is any camera maker that does not
>> implement the WP functionality.
>
> The OP could try using an MMC card instead, which should bypass
> any switch on the SD socket. It wouldn't be as fast as an SD card,
> but it might not be any slower if used in an HP 935.
>

Interesting, how close is the compatibility between SD and MMC?
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 12:01:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:23:22 GMT, Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
>
>>It isn't the card that's the problem here, it's the switch on the SD
>>card socket. I don't think that there is any camera maker that does not
>>implement the WP functionality.
>
>
> The OP could try using an MMC card instead, which should bypass
> any switch on the SD socket. It wouldn't be as fast as an SD card,
> but it might not be any slower if used in an HP 935.

Good idea. I wonder how smart the camera's firmware is. If the switch on
the socket is stuck in "WP" mode for SD, is the firmware smart enough to
ignore this when an a MMC card is inserted, because MMC doesn't support
WP? I wouldn't count on this.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 1:20:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:03:57 -0400, Rudy Benner wrote:

> Interesting, how close is the compatibility between SD and MMC?

The only difference I'm aware of is that of speed, and I believe
that that is due to SD cards having a wider data path. I know that
in PDAs, MMC cards work, but are much slower moving files and
loading programs. Some ancient device that was designed to work
with MMC cards *might* not be compatible with SD cards, but any
device designed to accept SD cards should work with MMC also, but
with limitations. One example would be in cameras claiming to allow
unlimited length videos to be made. If the card isn't fast enough,
usually that video length is very limited, such as to a length of 20
seconds. I've been told that some cameras don't stop recording, but
simply drop images when the card can't keep up. In such a camera,
MMC cards would be guaranteed to produce horrendous videos. Still
images wouldn't suffer, other than shot to shot delays might be
longer than if SD cards are used.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 1:29:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:01:47 GMT, Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> Good idea. I wonder how smart the camera's firmware is. If the switch on
> the socket is stuck in "WP" mode for SD, is the firmware smart enough to
> ignore this when an a MMC card is inserted, because MMC doesn't support
> WP? I wouldn't count on this.

It would depend on how the software was written and what the
actual hardware problem is, but I'm not sure about switches on the
socket. It's not as if the SD card has a protuberance that pushes a
switch in the card socket. The switches are on the SD cards
themselves. They're fairly small, so many people that use SD cards
may never have noticed them.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 1:38:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:01:47 GMT, Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
>
>>Good idea. I wonder how smart the camera's firmware is. If the switch on
>>the socket is stuck in "WP" mode for SD, is the firmware smart enough to
>>ignore this when an a MMC card is inserted, because MMC doesn't support
>>WP? I wouldn't count on this.
>
>
> It would depend on how the software was written and what the
> actual hardware problem is, but I'm not sure about switches on the
> socket. It's not as if the SD card has a protuberance that pushes a
> switch in the card socket. The switches are on the SD cards
> themselves. They're fairly small, so many people that use SD cards
> may never have noticed them.

The switch on the SD card doesn't do anything electrically, it's just
mechanical. The switch is on the socket; it looks at the position of the
mechanical switch on the card. It's similar to how the write protect on
cassette tapes work (though these are breakaway tabs that cannot be
undone, except with a piece of tape).
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 3:46:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:38:45 GMT, Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>>> Good idea. I wonder how smart the camera's firmware is. If the switch on
>>> the socket is stuck in "WP" mode for SD, is the firmware smart enough to
>>> ignore this when an a MMC card is inserted, because MMC doesn't support
>>> WP? I wouldn't count on this.
>>
>> It would depend on how the software was written and what the
>> actual hardware problem is, but I'm not sure about switches on the
>> socket. It's not as if the SD card has a protuberance that pushes a
>> switch in the card socket. The switches are on the SD cards
>> themselves. They're fairly small, so many people that use SD cards
>> may never have noticed them.
>
> The switch on the SD card doesn't do anything electrically, it's just
> mechanical. The switch is on the socket; it looks at the position of the
> mechanical switch on the card. It's similar to how the write protect on
> cassette tapes work (though these are breakaway tabs that cannot be
> undone, except with a piece of tape).

Well, I was right about there not being a switch-activating
protuberance on the card, and you appear to be right that the real
switch is in the socket. Looking at an SD socket in a PDA it
appears that when either an MMC or SD card is inserted, a mechanical
part in the socket tries to move into an opening in the card, which
would either be uncovered by moving the switch on an SD card into
its 'write-protect' position, or which doesn't exist at all in MMC
cards. So the good news is that the switch in the socket can't be
stuck in the 'WP-enabled' position, as that would prevent the card
from being inserted, and if it was stuck in any position, it would
be in the 'WP-disabled' position. But that simply indicates that
what's broken isn't the mechanical plunger part of the switch in the
socket. Even if some crud found its way into the socket and jammed
the switch, preventing the plunger from moving, that would only
(falsely) indicate a 'WP-disabled' condition. It might be that
another part of the switch failed, or the failure is somewhere else
in the camera, and if that's the case, even MMC cards might appear
to be Write-Protected. But if an MMC card could be found, it would
still be worth trying, but I now agree with your conclusion that
success shouldn't be counted on.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 9:16:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

> But that simply indicates that
> what's broken isn't the mechanical plunger part of the switch in the
> socket. Even if some crud found its way into the socket and jammed
> the switch, preventing the plunger from moving, that would only
> (falsely) indicate a 'WP-disabled' condition.

Not necessarily. It depends on whether the switch in the socket is
normally closed with no WP, or normally open with no WP.

Usually these set-ups will have an input to the microcontrolled pulled
high with a resistor, and the switch closing will connect the signal to
ground (active low). There could be a piece of solder, or other fragment
of metal stuck between the contacts of the switch, etc. It's a hokey
arrangement. They should have used optical sensing, but this is more
expensive than a mechanical switch.

One more reason to stick with Compact Flash.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 9:16:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:16:47 GMT, Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>> But that simply indicates that
>> what's broken isn't the mechanical plunger part of the switch in the
>> socket. Even if some crud found its way into the socket and jammed
>> the switch, preventing the plunger from moving, that would only
>> (falsely) indicate a 'WP-disabled' condition.
>
> Not necessarily. It depends on whether the switch in the socket is
> normally closed with no WP, or normally open with no WP.

No, I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether
the switch is normally closed or open. Either way, the mechanical
plunger part isn't causing the problem, which was the point. If a
normally closed switch indicates 'WP-disabled" but a piece of dirt
prevents the switch's contacts from touching, the card would appear
to be write-protected. Similarly, if a normally open switch
indicates 'WP-disabled' but something broke inside that switch that
prevented the switch from opening, it would also indicate a
write-protected card. In fact, it doesn't have to be a problem with
the switch at all. A bad solder joint, or some conductive crud on
the PCB could cause the problem too.

I see that your next point matches what I just got through saying,
so I guess we're pretty much in agreement.


> One more reason to stick with Compact Flash.

Because CF sockets don't have switches? They can have other
problems, and I've seen a couple of people that claim to have had
serious problems due to accidentally bending pins. Some people
prefer CF cards because they're physically large. Others dislike
them for the same reason. Card types don't matter very much to me,
although I'd go out of my way to avoid using MMC and MS cards. More
important to me is that the camera be able to use standard AA (or
AAA) cells. Other people prefer Li-ion rechargeables. Even better
are devices (and I know a few) that let you use either type.
June 17, 2005 12:43:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.point+shoot (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> ASAAR wrote:
>
>> But that simply indicates that
>> what's broken isn't the mechanical plunger part of the switch in the
>> socket. Even if some crud found its way into the socket and jammed
>> the switch, preventing the plunger from moving, that would only
>> (falsely) indicate a 'WP-disabled' condition.
>
>
> Not necessarily. It depends on whether the switch in the socket is
> normally closed with no WP, or normally open with no WP.
>
> Usually these set-ups will have an input to the microcontrolled pulled
> high with a resistor, and the switch closing will connect the signal to
> ground (active low). There could be a piece of solder, or other fragment
> of metal stuck between the contacts of the switch, etc. It's a hokey
> arrangement. They should have used optical sensing, but this is more
> expensive than a mechanical switch.
>
> One more reason to stick with Compact Flash.
>
>
Looking at pictures of the cards, SD and MMC it looks as if the MMC has
no detail where the SD has the wp switch, so the camera needs its switch
depressed to enable write. Looking inside my usb card reader, this seems
to have a simple contact arrangement, leading to the thought that
contact closed = write enable. So you have either as suggested elsewhere
a camera circuit board fault, dirty contacts, or a card and switch that
are too close to the limit of operating tolerance. Have you tried adding
a couple of layers of tape to the side of the card to press the switch a
bit harder? If that works you could build up a card with glue just for
this camera and forget about the write protect feature
!