Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

20D a flawed camera?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 10:12:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I've run into two people who had lock up problems,
one person who had a weird problem where downloading
long exposure images took as long as the images took
to aquire and now I'm hearing the camera has focusing
problems. Did they release this 10D re-do too soon?
-Rich

More about : 20d flawed camera

December 28, 2004 12:07:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Two doesn't seem statistically significant to make an assumption like that
considering the tens of thousands that have been sold in the last couple of
months. I've had mine for over a month and never experienced a problem. It's
fast, accurate, and a joy to use.

So... keep on trolling.....


"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:k491t0di80729063j24sj0qe5emg2mnulq@4ax.com...
> I've run into two people who had lock up problems,
> one person who had a weird problem where downloading
> long exposure images took as long as the images took
> to aquire and now I'm hearing the camera has focusing
> problems. Did they release this 10D re-do too soon?
> -Rich
December 28, 2004 6:03:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Larry" <me@myhome.xyz> wrote in message
news:8d3Ad.13509$jn.9186@lakeread06...
> Two doesn't seem statistically significant to make an assumption like that
> considering the tens of thousands that have been sold in the last couple
of
> months. I've had mine for over a month and never experienced a problem.
It's
> fast, accurate, and a joy to use.
>
> So... keep on trolling.....
>
>
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:k491t0di80729063j24sj0qe5emg2mnulq@4ax.com...
> > I've run into two people who had lock up problems,
> > one person who had a weird problem where downloading
> > long exposure images took as long as the images took
> > to aquire and now I'm hearing the camera has focusing
> > problems. Did they release this 10D re-do too soon?
> > -Rich
>
>

Basher/Troll alert. My 20D has not had one issue, so keep on trollin'

How much is Nikon paying you? $0.00001 per message? Oh wait, let me guess,
you're not actually getting paid for this??
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 4:49:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
No real name and misusing none programs, inc's domain name ... are
you, perchance, a troll? Trustworthy you are not, this much
seems clear.

> I've run into two people who had lock up problems,

2 out of how many?
Did the firmware upgrade solve the problem?
Was the battery not completely drained?

> one person who had a weird problem where downloading
> long exposure images took as long as the images took
> to aquire

I never even heard of such a bug.
Details, even fabricated ones?

A $15 card reader works and will not drain the battery.

> and now I'm hearing the camera has focusing problems.

If you hear instead of imagining, where is the URL?

> Did they release this 10D re-do too soon?

This is not a 10D re-do. Pray learn a bit more about the products
you smear.

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 6:13:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:49:20 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>No real name and misusing none programs, inc's domain name ... are
>you, perchance, a troll? Trustworthy you are not, this much
>seems clear.
>
>> I've run into two people who had lock up problems,
>
>2 out of how many?
>Did the firmware upgrade solve the problem?
>Was the battery not completely drained?
>
>> one person who had a weird problem where downloading
>> long exposure images took as long as the images took
>> to aquire
>
>I never even heard of such a bug.
>Details, even fabricated ones?

All of what I've told you is accurate. Of course, a handful of such
occurances doesn't mean the camera is flawed,
but with electronic components being as reliable as they are,
things like this can often be traced to design flaws.
So, instead of acting like a little girl who was told she was
ugly, just because you own the camera, why not just indicate
that your camera (even though as the other poster said, the
experience of two people does not = a substantive sample)
works well? I really do not understand the irrational emotionalism
of owners of Canon and Nikon products.
-Rich
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 11:43:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <gupAd.16130$3v5.11180@fe2.texas.rr.com>, Musty
<musty@nospam.net> wrote:

> This is what I mean by operator error. I had a friend at work who owned a
> B-grade sports coupe and took it motocross racing on weekends. He complained
> about his car having reliability problems with steering and suspension!!
> Now, the 20D is not a B-grade camera (I own one, so ofcourse I dont feel
> that way), but it is not a full pro body. It can be used for professional
> purposes, but in a 500/day shooting situation, a 20D should not be the main
> body. I would be surprised if any sub $2000 DSLR body would not exhibit some
> type of problem over a period of time where it was taking 500 shots per day.
> Some of the issues might even be battery! Some real wackos out there, I tell
> ya.

I have yet to see a 20D, but I've had a 10D since shortly after they
came out. It's a great camera but I certainly wouldn't expect it to do
500 shots per day.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 3:59:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <k491t0di80729063j24sj0qe5emg2mnulq@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>I've run into two people who had lock up problems,

Well, I guess I wasn't one of them. My 10D locked up a few times; my
20D has never locked up (about 2200 shots).

>one person who had a weird problem where downloading
>long exposure images took as long as the images took
>to aquire

That's because the 20D has an option to take a black frame after
exposures a second or longer in length, to subtract the noise.

>and now I'm hearing the camera has focusing
>problems.

My 10D backfocuses. My 20D does not backfocus or frontfocus in any
noticeable way.

>Did they release this 10D re-do too soon?

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
December 29, 2004 5:11:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:t004t0loq8ifhae001ej1mr4q2ieapfogi@4ax.com...
> In message <k491t0di80729063j24sj0qe5emg2mnulq@4ax.com>,
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> >I've run into two people who had lock up problems,
>
> Well, I guess I wasn't one of them. My 10D locked up a few times; my
> 20D has never locked up (about 2200 shots).
>
> >one person who had a weird problem where downloading
> >long exposure images took as long as the images took
> >to aquire
>
> That's because the 20D has an option to take a black frame after
> exposures a second or longer in length, to subtract the noise.
>

You know, its amazing how many people think this is a problem. Solution is
simple, go to Cfn and turn off noise reduction. Like anything else (whether
it be computer SW, cars, stereo equipment, cell phones etc etc) most of the
problems people encounter are operator error. In some of those cases people
abuse their equipment and expect it to work. I would just ignore these
screwballs (hehe). I have been using Canon equipment for years (so have many
of my friends) - never had a single problem. This would explain why Canon is
the most successful DSLR/SLR maker.

> >and now I'm hearing the camera has focusing
> >problems.
>
> My 10D backfocuses. My 20D does not backfocus or frontfocus in any
> noticeable way.
>
> >Did they release this 10D re-do too soon?
>
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 5:38:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> Also, the oddball thing where the camera takes minutes to aquire the
> image once the exposure was done I've seen first hand.

That would be someone not realizing that dark-frame-subtraction noise
reduction was enabled.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 5:38:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:38:17 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, the oddball thing where the camera takes minutes to aquire the
>> image once the exposure was done I've seen first hand.
>
>That would be someone not realizing that dark-frame-subtraction noise
>reduction was enabled.

So if you take a five minute exposure, the addition of the dark frame
adds five minutes to full image aquisition and process???
-Rich
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 8:53:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:49:20 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>>> I've run into two people who had lock up problems,

>>2 out of how many?
>>Did the firmware upgrade solve the problem?
>>Was the battery not completely drained?

>>> one person who had a weird problem where downloading
>>> long exposure images took as long as the images took
>>> to aquire

>>I never even heard of such a bug.
>>Details, even fabricated ones?

> All of what I've told you is accurate.

Accuracy does not make truth.
For all we know you have run into 2 people with lock
up problems and 20.000 20D owners without these problems.

Care to answer the questions?

> Of course, a handful of such
> occurances doesn't mean the camera is flawed,
> but with electronic components being as reliable as they are,
> things like this can often be traced to design flaws.

I imagined there was a computer inside. I must have been mistaken,
it's all hardwired and there's no firmware which might have simply
normal bugs, so it must be a design flaw.

> So, instead of acting like a little girl who was told she was
> ugly, just because you own the camera,

Are the grapes that sour, fox?

> why not just indicate
> that your camera (even though as the other poster said, the
> experience of two people does not = a substantive sample)
> works well?

So 2 nebulous bug reports make a design flaw, yet many 'no
problems here' reports are not a substantive sample.
How do you rule out that a few bad cameras slip through QA?

> I really do not understand the irrational emotionalism
> of owners of Canon and Nikon products.

Has your lordship, the paragon of ice-cold rationality, ever held
the 20D, much less used it in earnest? And yet your lordship
judges it and breaks his staff over it?

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 9:03:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I bought 2 of the mongrel things. Serial numbers not in the same group so it
> couldn't have been an isolated incident.

If you assume 1% flawed cameras, your chance to get 2 bad
ones is 1:10.000. People have been known to win the lottery
with much worse chances.

> I seems as if the Canon grip has an issue too.
> Can't use the batteries past
> 30% discharge or the camera kills itself.

How do you measure 30% discharge?
Display? Amperage counter? Images taken? Volt meter?
Voltage under load? Time to load the battery afterwards?

Anyway, I cannot duplicate your grip problems.

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 9:42:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:38:17 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
>>
>>That would be someone not realizing that dark-frame-subtraction noise
>>reduction was enabled.
>
>
> So if you take a five minute exposure, the addition of the dark frame
> adds five minutes to full image aquisition and process???

Yes, and it so states in the manual.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 9:56:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> writes:

> In article <gupAd.16130$3v5.11180@fe2.texas.rr.com>, Musty
> <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > This is what I mean by operator error. I had a friend at work who owned a
> > B-grade sports coupe and took it motocross racing on weekends. He
> > complained about his car having reliability problems with steering and
> > suspension!! Now, the 20D is not a B-grade camera (I own one, so ofcourse
> > I dont feel that way), but it is not a full pro body. It can be used for
> > professional purposes, but in a 500/day shooting situation, a 20D should
> > not be the main body. I would be surprised if any sub $2000 DSLR body would
> > not exhibit some type of problem over a period of time where it was taking
> > 500 shots per day. Some of the issues might even be battery! Some real
> > wackos out there, I tell ya.
>
> I have yet to see a 20D, but I've had a 10D since shortly after they came
> out. It's a great camera but I certainly wouldn't expect it to do 500 shots
> per day.

Why? I had several days this summer, and 2 days in the spring, where I shot
600-700 pictures with my Olympus C-2100UZ. Granted I did go through at least
one battery change. For snap happy amateurs, I don't see 500 shots/day as
being unreasonable. I am looking at DSLRs right now, and I would expect any of
them to be able to handle 500 shots/day.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 9:56:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <m3u0q5gvxj.fsf@glinda.the-meissners.org>, Michael Meissner
<mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote:

> Why? I had several days this summer, and 2 days in the spring, where I shot
> 600-700 pictures with my Olympus C-2100UZ. Granted I did go through at least
> one battery change. For snap happy amateurs, I don't see 500 shots/day as
> being unreasonable. I am looking at DSLRs right now, and I would expect any of
> them to be able to handle 500 shots/day.

I'd say you need to be more discriminating before pressing the button.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 11:18:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 06:42:45 GMT, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:38:17 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
>>>
>>>That would be someone not realizing that dark-frame-subtraction noise
>>>reduction was enabled.
>>
>>
>> So if you take a five minute exposure, the addition of the dark frame
>> adds five minutes to full image aquisition and process???
>
>Yes, and it so states in the manual.

That's pretty pathetic. I wonder if they'll figure out a way to fix
that?
-Rich
December 29, 2004 4:57:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Let me guess, you bought a D70 and now you wish you had a 20D ?
You whish you had ISO 100 ? Or a BG ? Or no almost no noise at ISO 800 ?

My 20D has no problem, same for my friend. Your gonna tell me that both of
us are lucky , right ?
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 6:04:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gupAd.16130$3v5.11180@fe2.texas.rr.com...

> This is what I mean by operator error. I had a friend at work who owned a
> B-grade sports coupe and took it motocross racing on weekends. He
complained
> about his car having reliability problems with steering and suspension!!
> Now, the 20D is not a B-grade camera (I own one, so ofcourse I dont feel
> that way), but it is not a full pro body. It can be used for professional
> purposes, but in a 500/day shooting situation, a 20D should not be the
main
> body. I would be surprised if any sub $2000 DSLR body would not exhibit
some
> type of problem over a period of time where it was taking 500 shots per
day.
> Some of the issues might even be battery! Some real wackos out there, I
tell
> ya.
>
FYI the problems I have with 20D (other than focus issues) didn't exist in
the 10D and none of them exist in the 1D. I've seen my rivals shoot 600 and
700 shots a day with Nikon coolpix consumer cameras. I used to do it on film
with Canon 3000s. No... Your assesment of the likelyhood of reliability for
6 weeks work a year is off the mark. Randall will love this... My SD9 Sigma
shot this assignment last year and was the backup for the 20D this year.
Guess which camera did the last 2 weeks work and never faltered? Come on
Randall... Take a wild guess!!

Doug
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 6:04:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <33ertaF3v0c1gU1@individual.net>, Ryadia
<ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> FYI the problems I have with 20D (other than focus issues) didn't exist in
> the 10D and none of them exist in the 1D. I've seen my rivals shoot 600 and
> 700 shots a day with Nikon coolpix consumer cameras. I used to do it on film
> with Canon 3000s. No... Your assesment of the likelyhood of reliability for
> 6 weeks work a year is off the mark. Randall will love this... My SD9 Sigma
> shot this assignment last year and was the backup for the 20D this year.
> Guess which camera did the last 2 weeks work and never faltered? Come on
> Randall... Take a wild guess!!

Mmmm boy. Gotta love them Sigmas. Best overpriced 3.42MP camera out
there, especially if you like Homer Simpson skin tones.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 6:06:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:1kb5t0th6k795o8lghl7ns2dd1m14q3d39@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 06:42:45 GMT, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:38:17 -0000, Jeremy Nixon
>>> <jeremy@exit109.com>
>>>>
>>>>That would be someone not realizing that dark-frame-subtraction
>>>>noise
>>>>reduction was enabled.
>>>
>>>
>>> So if you take a five minute exposure, the addition of the dark
>>> frame adds five minutes to full image aquisition and process???
>>
>>Yes, and it so states in the manual.
>
> That's pretty pathetic. I wonder if they'll figure out a way to fix
> that?

You mean the manual, or the laws of physics? ;-)

Dark frame subtraction is making use of the rather predictable amount
of noise that is generated during exposure. Longer exposure means more
noise, and is dependent on temperature. It also allows to reduce the
visiblity of hot/dead/stuck pixels as well.

Bart
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 8:44:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

That is what I was wondering because then a say 30 second exposure would be
a 60 second one. 30 Seconds for the image and another 30 seconds for the
frame that the camera uses to remove the long exposure noise.

John


"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:10t464pnomdtc7f@corp.supernews.com...
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, the oddball thing where the camera takes minutes to aquire the
>> image once the exposure was done I've seen first hand.
>
> That would be someone not realizing that dark-frame-subtraction noise
> reduction was enabled.
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 8:46:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

That isn't pathetic that is just how it works. It needs two images with the
same exposure one for the image and one to use to remove the noise. If it
was to do a 1/500 of a second frame to remove the noise to speed up the
process it wouldn't have any noise to remove. This is why this function is
turned off by default. It should only be used by those that truly understand
what it is doing and why so that they don't bitch and complain like morons.

John


"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:1kb5t0th6k795o8lghl7ns2dd1m14q3d39@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 06:42:45 GMT, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:38:17 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
>>>>
>>>>That would be someone not realizing that dark-frame-subtraction noise
>>>>reduction was enabled.
>>>
>>>
>>> So if you take a five minute exposure, the addition of the dark frame
>>> adds five minutes to full image aquisition and process???
>>
>>Yes, and it so states in the manual.
>
> That's pretty pathetic. I wonder if they'll figure out a way to fix
> that?
> -Rich
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 9:12:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Doe wrote:

> That isn't pathetic that is just how it works. It needs two images with the
> same exposure one for the image and one to use to remove the noise. If it
> was to do a 1/500 of a second frame to remove the noise to speed up the
> process it wouldn't have any noise to remove. This is why this function is
> turned off by default. It should only be used by those that truly understand
> what it is doing and why so that they don't bitch and complain like morons.
>
Who is bitching and complaining like a moron?

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 9:12:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <8sCAd.656800$D%.285859@attbi_s51>,
John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>John Doe wrote:
>
>> That isn't pathetic that is just how it works. It needs two images with the
>> same exposure one for the image and one to use to remove the noise. If it
>> was to do a 1/500 of a second frame to remove the noise to speed up the
>> process it wouldn't have any noise to remove. This is why this function is
>> turned off by default. It should only be used by those that truly understand
>> what it is doing and why so that they don't bitch and complain like morons.
>>
>Who is bitching and complaining like a moron?

The moron who bitched that the process was pathetic, perhaps?
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 10:10:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>>> So if you take a five minute exposure, the addition of the dark frame
>>> adds five minutes to full image aquisition and process???
>>
>> Yes, and it so states in the manual.
>
> That's pretty pathetic. I wonder if they'll figure out a way to fix
> that?

It's not something to "fix". That's how the process works. It has to
take the same length of time as the initial exposure.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 10:37:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:06:35 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:1kb5t0th6k795o8lghl7ns2dd1m14q3d39@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 06:42:45 GMT, John McWilliams
>> <jpmcw@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:38:17 -0000, Jeremy Nixon
>>>> <jeremy@exit109.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>That would be someone not realizing that dark-frame-subtraction
>>>>>noise
>>>>>reduction was enabled.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So if you take a five minute exposure, the addition of the dark
>>>> frame adds five minutes to full image aquisition and process???
>>>
>>>Yes, and it so states in the manual.
>>
>> That's pretty pathetic. I wonder if they'll figure out a way to fix
>> that?
>
>You mean the manual, or the laws of physics? ;-)
>
>Dark frame subtraction is making use of the rather predictable amount
>of noise that is generated during exposure. Longer exposure means more
>noise, and is dependent on temperature. It also allows to reduce the
>visiblity of hot/dead/stuck pixels as well.
>
>Bart

Probably the manual. I'm pretty familiar with dark frames, owing to
doing astrophotography, but to have it as a "default" is probably a
mistake. But, I'd have to how it's presented in the manual to find
out if the user whom I saw having the problem was just being sloppy
in not reading it.
-Rich
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 12:29:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:nrp9a2-ffm.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
>
> So 2 nebulous bug reports make a design flaw, yet many 'no
> problems here' reports are not a substantive sample.
> How do you rule out that a few bad cameras slip through QA?
>
> > I really do not understand the irrational emotionalism
> > of owners of Canon and Nikon products.
>
> Has your lordship, the paragon of ice-cold rationality, ever held
> the 20D, much less used it in earnest? And yet your lordship
> judges it and breaks his staff over it?
>
> -Wolfgang

Not sure where you've been during all the ruckus Wolfgang but it couldn't
have been lurking on where a lot of early owners reported all the problems
it had. There were also a fair few who upgraded their firmware and killed
the cameras with version 1.04 which Canon rushed out a few weeks after the
camera was released. When I took mine in to have the thing reset, I just
happened to notice the rows and rows of what looked like 20Ds in the
workshop.

This is the camera the OP found 2 reports of malfunction over. It is quite a
trick to actually come across 2 people with 20D cameras this early in their
life. For both to have reported problems like I have, some 10,000 miles away
is a rare coincidence indeed.

As for your query as to how I arrived at 30% battery capacity... The charger
Canon provide has little winking lights to indicate battery life in thirds
as it is charged. 2 winks and it's 1/3rd! Each time the camera malfunctioned
with the grip, the batteries were at 30% charge. Since then I have done away
with the grip and used just the single battery without any lockups. Does
this give you a clue as to what might be the problem?

Cheers,
Doug
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 12:29:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33fig1F408vakU1@individual.net...
SNIP
> Not sure where you've been during all the ruckus Wolfgang but
> it couldn't have been lurking on where a lot of early owners
> reported
> all the problems it had.

All the problems? AFAIK there was a lock-up issue which was fixed by a
firmware update.
Other issues were related to unspecified brand lenses and dirty lens
contacts, possibly a few failing CF cards, and don't forget
inexperienced user error.

The battery grip is something I distrusted from the beginning, and has
been found to cause at least some if not most of the reported issues.
Lose the grip and problems are usually solved (which is of course not
a real solution, it should work as sold).

SNIP
> When I took mine in to have the thing reset, I just happened to
> notice the rows and rows of what looked like 20Ds in the workshop.

Yes, it is a very popular camera, so even a small percentage of issues
will amount to a significant quantity. Of course the cameras may have
been there for other reasons than you assume (e.g. firmware upgrade,
sensor cleaning, checking for often (unjustly) claimed focus
inaccuracy).

Bart
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 12:29:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message

>> So 2 nebulous bug reports make a design flaw, yet many 'no
>> problems here' reports are not a substantive sample.
>> How do you rule out that a few bad cameras slip through QA?

>> > I really do not understand the irrational emotionalism
>> > of owners of Canon and Nikon products.

>> Has your lordship, the paragon of ice-cold rationality, ever held
>> the 20D, much less used it in earnest? And yet your lordship
>> judges it and breaks his staff over it?

>> -Wolfgang

> Not sure where you've been during all the ruckus Wolfgang but it couldn't
> have been lurking on where a lot of early owners reported all the problems
> it had.

Probably not yet looking for a DSLR, but I think I did quite
extensive research, especially on the 20D --- after all, a DSLR
is rather expensive --- and saw nothing which said the camera was
a bad product. I have not yet had any reasons to revise my
opinion. The camera is not perfect, obviously, but so far I
only hit minor things.

> There were also a fair few who upgraded their firmware and killed
> the cameras with version 1.04 which Canon rushed out a few weeks after the
> camera was released.

Actually, the firmware in 1.0.4 was not flawed. It's exactly
the same firmware as in 1.0.5. (Which is why I don't believe it
was rushed.)

The firmware loading program of 1.0.4 was not working correctly in
some cases, causing a lot of problems --- which Canon acknowledged
and apologized for.

As to "upgrades a few weeks after the camera was released":
you are using Outlook Express as a news reader, aren't you? I
can point you to bugs unfixed for years and critical upgrades
mere days after releasing the software. Are you measuring by a
different yard stick there?

> When I took mine in to have the thing reset, I just
> happened to notice the rows and rows of what looked like 20Ds in the
> workshop.

Try going to your workshop and ask how many they sold and how
many ever came back with problems, including a broken 1.0.4
upgrade.

> This is the camera the OP found 2 reports of malfunction over. It is quite a
> trick to actually come across 2 people with 20D cameras this early in their
> life.

Why? Do you believe only a handful of units were ever sold?
I was under the impression it was a very well selling camera.

> For both to have reported problems like I have, some 10,000 miles away
> is a rare coincidence indeed.

Only if distance is a variable in the error reported.
Otherwise the locality is not relevant.

> As for your query as to how I arrived at 30% battery capacity... The charger
> Canon provide has little winking lights to indicate battery life in thirds
> as it is charged. 2 winks and it's 1/3rd!

Uh --- are you talking about the Canon Battery Charger CB-5L,
which at least came with my 20D?

If so, you are mistaken on two counts:
- 1 blip is 0-50% (not 0-30%),
- 2 blips is 50+%,
- 3 blips is ~75+%,
- continous is full.

And since this is a Lithium-Ion accumulator, it'll charge
rather quickly to ca. 70% and trickle-charge to full.

Just for kicks I inserted a BP-511A, fully charged 2 days ago,
into the CB-5L:
1 blip, 1 blip, 1 blip, 2 blips, 3 blips, continous.

This has been my observation every time: it'll always start at
1 blip ... but the time spent in 1 and 2 blip mode depends on
how low the battery was run.

Thus I believe your method may badly underestimate the battery
charge left --- you'd probably have to measure the time to load
the battery fully or at least to 3 blips for a usable estimate.

Anyway, the battery works well in my grip.

> Each time the camera malfunctioned
> with the grip, the batteries were at 30% charge. Since then I have done away
> with the grip and used just the single battery without any lockups. Does
> this give you a clue as to what might be the problem?

Assuming the battery grip is not completely broken by design
(mine works), and that your 30% may be wrong (I'll treat it as
'it works in the beginning, but later it stops') it must be an
error either peculiar to your grip or to some grips. To my mind
the following ideas come:
- a hairline crack +
- lower battery voltage. The Li-Ion-graphite discharge
curve shows only a drop in the last 20%, so the battery'd
probably be nearly empty at that time.
- Heat. Intensive use of the camera (especially in
outside heat and/or lots of internal flash) will heat
up the camera and will spill over into parts of the
grip as well, causing a crack to disrupt contact enough.
- cold solder joint --- maybe a QA problem or shock or
vibration induced (e.g. during transport to your dealer).
Maybe heat or vibration will cause it to fail temporarily,
maybe it 'just' increases internal resistance too much for
a not very full or nearly spent battery.
- corroded or marginal contacts, either at the battery-grip
or at the grip-camera interface, causing too much resistance
for some battery voltages. May also become worse with heat.
Have you tried the other battery bay in the grip?
- marginal contact grip-battery due to size and form being tolerances.
- marginal contact grip-battery due to dirt (though I
don't think that'd be the case with your grip)
- marginal contact grip-battery due to marginal fastening
to camera body (not screwed fast tightly enough)

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 2:02:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <1kb5t0th6k795o8lghl7ns2dd1m14q3d39@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 06:42:45 GMT, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:38:17 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
>>>>
>>>>That would be someone not realizing that dark-frame-subtraction noise
>>>>reduction was enabled.
>>>
>>>
>>> So if you take a five minute exposure, the addition of the dark frame
>>> adds five minutes to full image aquisition and process???
>>
>>Yes, and it so states in the manual.
>
>That's pretty pathetic. I wonder if they'll figure out a way to fix
>that?

That's not pathetic; that's the definition of dark frame subtraction.
You can turn it off if you want, but if you want it on, there is no
other way to get the proper dark frame to subtract than to take an
exposure of equal length with the shutter closed.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 2:07:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <33gl9aF3tiqcuU1@individual.net>,
"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I won't disagree about your assumption. The SD9 is not my favourite camera
>but it has something going for it the 10D and 20D don't have... Rock solid
>reliability.

How many SDx cameras have sold, compared to 10Ds an 20Ds? You're going
to hear a lot more complaints about the ones that have sold better, all
other things being equal.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 5:41:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:j9j6t0tn162v4mm0frmnrrq4j00pbkb7nj@4ax.com...
SNIP
> I'm pretty familiar with dark frames, owing to doing
> astrophotography, but to have it as a "default" is probably a
> mistake.

It's off by default, so the user must have switched Custom Function 02
(1 second or longer, long exposure noise reduction) to on.

Bart
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 10:45:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:D pvaa2-j5p.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
>
> Assuming the battery grip is not completely broken by design
> (mine works), and that your 30% may be wrong (I'll treat it as
> 'it works in the beginning, but later it stops') it must be an
> error either peculiar to your grip or to some grips. To my mind
> the following ideas come:
>sniped<
> -

On your assessment of the battery measurement, my batteries were at 50% when
the camera failed. I grant their must be something wrong in the grip's
circuitry because without it, I can get the whole battery life without
problems.

I agree also that many of the problems I had may have been environmental. I
used the internal flash after I discharged the external flash batteries and
didn't have fresh ones in my pocket. I was so pleased with the results I
just kept using it. After the failure I looked up the manual and discovered
these cameras are unsuitable for use in some parts of Australia (where I am)
due to the 40C maximum operating environment. It often gets over that here
and on one of the days it gave trouble, it did.

I also think that when this camera is working, it has no equal in the same
class. My issue with many of the disciples of EOS is the way in which you
all defend the indefensible. It is just not good enough to sell a product
for the cost of this camera with faults in it. It is even worse to sell a
product like this camera into a country where daytime temperatures often
exceed the operating environment of the camera... And Canon are not alone
here. The 1D II has a 5C higher operating environment. The 1D I bought when
one of the 20Ds died has given no trouble. It also cost 3 times as much!

So in response to the OP's questions... Yes, I believer the 20D is a flawed
camera. It might be good in Europe but it certainly is not a desert dwellers
camera.

Doug
December 30, 2004 10:45:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33gmi3F403ssgU1@individual.net...
>
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:D pvaa2-j5p.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
> >
> > Assuming the battery grip is not completely broken by design
> > (mine works), and that your 30% may be wrong (I'll treat it as
> > 'it works in the beginning, but later it stops') it must be an
> > error either peculiar to your grip or to some grips. To my mind
> > the following ideas come:
> >sniped<
> > -
>
> On your assessment of the battery measurement, my batteries were at 50%
when
> the camera failed. I grant their must be something wrong in the grip's
> circuitry because without it, I can get the whole battery life without
> problems.
>
> I agree also that many of the problems I had may have been environmental.
I
> used the internal flash after I discharged the external flash batteries
and
> didn't have fresh ones in my pocket. I was so pleased with the results I
> just kept using it. After the failure I looked up the manual and
discovered
> these cameras are unsuitable for use in some parts of Australia (where I
am)
> due to the 40C maximum operating environment. It often gets over that here
> and on one of the days it gave trouble, it did.
>
> I also think that when this camera is working, it has no equal in the same
> class. My issue with many of the disciples of EOS is the way in which you
> all defend the indefensible. It is just not good enough to sell a product
> for the cost of this camera with faults in it. It is even worse to sell a
> product like this camera into a country where daytime temperatures often
> exceed the operating environment of the camera... And Canon are not alone
> here. The 1D II has a 5C higher operating environment. The 1D I bought
when
> one of the 20Ds died has given no trouble. It also cost 3 times as much!
>
> So in response to the OP's questions... Yes, I believer the 20D is a
flawed
> camera. It might be good in Europe but it certainly is not a desert
dwellers
> camera.
>
> Doug
>

The Australian market is so tiny, its not worth for Canon to worry about the
oddball case of someone in Alice Springs shootin' 500 shots a day of the sun

I am not bashing Oz (just kidding somewhat) - I lived there most of my life
(been livin' in the US for the past 5 years), but what you speak of is a
tiny fraction of users. Not only is it hot where you are shooting, but its
probably very humid. Pretty tough for any electronic device to be used
heavily in that type of env. BTW, as you know much of the "habitted" parts
of Oz have nice mild weather (Melbourne eg). If you hate the 20D so much,
get something else, but dont get all flustered about it. Let the rest of the
users enjoy their (working) cameras. They probably send the lemons to Oz
anyway.

>
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 11:10:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:37:15 -0500, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>Probably the manual. I'm pretty familiar with dark frames, owing to
>doing astrophotography, but to have it as a "default" is probably a
>mistake.

Dark frame is turned off by default on the 20D.

Ron

Ron Lacey
Murillo Ontario
ron@ronsfotos.com
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 12:35:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:utd6t09ds9hbtomtdilh95335m48mgjc6c@4ax.com...
> In message <33gl9aF3tiqcuU1@individual.net>,
>
> How many SDx cameras have sold, compared to 10Ds an 20Ds? You're going
> to hear a lot more complaints about the ones that have sold better, all
> other things being equal.
> --
I have bought one, SD9 I bought 2, 20Ds and I bought one, 10D previously.
For me that makes 3 problem cameras from the same maker compared to none
from Sigma.
Hey... I know, I just got a fluke in the Sigma and was downright unlucky
with the Canon's, right?

If Canon would just tell me they are on the case I might feel better but all
they say is bring the camera in and we'll take two weeks to look at it.

Good one John.

Doug
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:49:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On your assessment of the battery measurement, my batteries were at 50% when
> the camera failed. I grant their must be something wrong in the grip's
> circuitry because without it, I can get the whole battery life without
> problems.

Circuity or contacts. I'd bet 3:1 on contact troubles over
circuitry troubles --- there's not that much circuitry inside!

> It is just not good enough to sell a product
> for the cost of this camera with faults in it.

There is no product without faults, be the product software,
cameras, cars or butter knifes. All that matters is if, how much
and how often these faults impede you and/or others.

> The 1D II has a 5C higher operating environment. The 1D I bought when
> one of the 20Ds died has given no trouble. It also cost 3 times as much!

Well, there _may_ be a relationship between tolerance and price.

> So in response to the OP's questions... Yes, I believer the 20D is a flawed
> camera. It might be good in Europe but it certainly is not a desert dwellers
> camera.

That is IMHO a (clearly stated) limitation, not a flaw.

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 8:27:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <fkd6t0pbkhrjegjl1midgqhsvl5eo688ab@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>In message <1kb5t0th6k795o8lghl7ns2dd1m14q3d39@4ax.com>,
>That's not pathetic; that's the definition of dark frame subtraction.
>You can turn it off if you want, but if you want it on, there is no
>other way to get the proper dark frame to subtract than to take an
>exposure of equal length with the shutter closed.

Is that the only way it could be implemented? That's a lot of down
time when shooting a series of 5-minute exposures. Could Canon have
designed this feature like custom white balance, where one reference
dark frame (of 5 minutes) is taken and then subtracted from all of the
subsequent 5-minute exposures?

John

--
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 9:28:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Pane <spam@pane.net> wrote:

> Could Canon have designed this feature like custom white balance, where
> one reference dark frame (of 5 minutes) is taken and then subtracted
> from all of the subsequent 5-minute exposures?

No, not and have it work properly.

Variables that affect noise are exposure time, ISO, and sensor temperature.
Because of the latter, the dark frame has to be done at the same time as
the exposure, especially with long exposures, where the sensor will get
hotter as you do more exposures in a row. That will change the noise
pattern.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 12:14:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> stated that:

>I bought 2 of the mongrel things. Serial numbers not in the same group so it
>couldn't have been an isolated incident. Both locked up when I changed
>lenses (yes, genuine Canon lenses) and one died completely. I traded the
>dead one (full refund) for a 1D II. The other one I flashed the firmware to
>1.05 and fixed the lens change problem only to find more problems when I
>used a grip. It too eventually died without warning in the middel of a santa
>shoot.

So Doug, how much do you want for your 'dud' 20D? I asked you the same
question in the other thread where you were claiming it was a lemon, &
that you were goiong to sell it on Ebay, but I haven't yet seen a reply
from you.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 12:23:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> stated that:

>So in response to the OP's questions... Yes, I believer the 20D is a flawed
>camera. It might be good in Europe but it certainly is not a desert dwellers
>camera.

If you really think yours is a dud, how much money do you want for it?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 9:54:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:alkda2-5ee.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
..
>
> > So in response to the OP's questions... Yes, I believer the 20D is a
flawed
> > camera. It might be good in Europe but it certainly is not a desert
dwellers
> > camera.
>
> That is IMHO a (clearly stated) limitation, not a flaw.
>
> -Wolfgang

When you walk into a camera store in Australia and the temperature is 43C...
Supposedly the camera can't be demonstrated due to the temperature exceeding
the camera's operating environment. Silly as it sounds this is a real
scenario in Summer and in a lot of Australia. So how can you claim it a
limitation when the camera is unusable in the country it is sold in?

If Canon were in the least ethical, they would either not sell a product
unsuitable for a countries environment or make it work in that environment
in the first place. Even Volvo send their pre production cars to Australia
for testing before they go into production... Why not a camera?

Doug
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:06:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <cr1dqo$618$1@wolfberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu>,
John Pane <spam@pane.net> wrote:

>In article <fkd6t0pbkhrjegjl1midgqhsvl5eo688ab@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>>In message <1kb5t0th6k795o8lghl7ns2dd1m14q3d39@4ax.com>,
>>That's not pathetic; that's the definition of dark frame subtraction.
>>You can turn it off if you want, but if you want it on, there is no
>>other way to get the proper dark frame to subtract than to take an
>>exposure of equal length with the shutter closed.
>
>Is that the only way it could be implemented? That's a lot of down
>time when shooting a series of 5-minute exposures. Could Canon have
>designed this feature like custom white balance, where one reference
>dark frame (of 5 minutes) is taken and then subtracted from all of the
>subsequent 5-minute exposures?

You always have the option to do that yourself. You can also break your
shots down into multiple, smaller segments, and generate a blackframe of
the length of each segment, and subtract it from each, and blend the
results together. for even lower noise. If there are moving trails,
though, you'll get a dropout between exposures.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 7:09:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

What's more important...done right or done fast? You get one or the other
seldom do you ever get right and fast.

John


"John Pane" <spam@pane.net> wrote in message
news:cr1dqo$618$1@wolfberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu...
> In article <fkd6t0pbkhrjegjl1midgqhsvl5eo688ab@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm>
> wrote:
>>In message <1kb5t0th6k795o8lghl7ns2dd1m14q3d39@4ax.com>,
>>That's not pathetic; that's the definition of dark frame subtraction.
>>You can turn it off if you want, but if you want it on, there is no
>>other way to get the proper dark frame to subtract than to take an
>>exposure of equal length with the shutter closed.
>
> Is that the only way it could be implemented? That's a lot of down
> time when shooting a series of 5-minute exposures. Could Canon have
> designed this feature like custom white balance, where one reference
> dark frame (of 5 minutes) is taken and then subtracted from all of the
> subsequent 5-minute exposures?
>
> John
>
> --
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:49:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message

>> > So in response to the OP's questions... Yes, I believer the 20D is a flawed
>> > camera. It might be good in Europe but it certainly is not a desert dwellers
>> > camera.

>> That is IMHO a (clearly stated) limitation, not a flaw.

> When you walk into a camera store in Australia and the temperature is 43C...
[...]
> So how can you claim it a
> limitation when the camera is unusable in the country it is sold in?

Not all the world is Australia. I usually see that tunnel vision
just from USAnians, though. But there are other countries ---
lots of them --- where the 20D is sold, too, which do very seldom
'enjoy' 35°C. And I venture guess, the 20D is selling more there
than in Australia.

Additionally, you have heard of air-conditioned studios?
The camera would be very usable there, wouldn't it? So it's not
"unusable" after all. Oh, do the coastal regions of Australia
--- you know, where most of the population resides --- do they
get as hot as often as well?

How comes you don't castigate the shop for not telling you the
limitation they *must* have known about?

> If Canon were in the least ethical, they would either not sell a product
> unsuitable for a countries environment

So you'd really demand that Canon violate free trade agreements
and somehow force your local camera shops not to import and sell
the cameras the shops think their customers want?

> or make it work in that environment
> in the first place. Even Volvo send their pre production cars to Australia
> for testing before they go into production... Why not a camera?

Unlike air-conditioned studios, the number of air-conditioned
roads is severely limited, even in Australia ...

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 11:57:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:jpola2-p5n.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
> Unlike air-conditioned studios, the number of air-conditioned
> roads is severely limited, even in Australia ...
>
> -Wolfgang

All your arguments considered, Wolfgang, How would you feel if you shelled
out $7k AUD for a project and all the cameras died from environmental
fatigue 10 day into a 6 week shoot?

How would you feel also, if your plans to shoot a very rare Croc hunting
expedition in the far north suddenly needed an extra $5k AUD of cameras
because the "pro" 1D, II decided the heat was too much also?

Free Trade agreement or not, any manufacturer selling goods in Australia has
to abide by the Trade Practices Act. Part of it relates to suitability for
purpose. If the cameras (20D and 1D, II) are not suitable for Professional
use, the importer is in breach of the act. How too, will the
Photojournalists covering the disasters of the world in arid and tropical
regions react to their cameras shutting down from fatigue? Probably the same
way I have... Get rid of them and go back to more reliable gear.

Your arguments are flawed.
I agree the 20D is a nice camera and that Australia's heat is limited to
maybe 4 months of the year. Can I come and live at your place during those
months? They are the most productive for me.

Doug
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 11:57:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia posted:
>
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:jpola2-p5n.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
> > Unlike air-conditioned studios, the number of air-conditioned
> > roads is severely limited, even in Australia ...
> >
> > -Wolfgang
>
> All your arguments considered, Wolfgang, How would you feel if you shelled
> out $7k AUD for a project and all the cameras died from environmental
> fatigue 10 day into a 6 week shoot?
>
> How would you feel also, if your plans to shoot a very rare Croc hunting
> expedition in the far north suddenly needed an extra $5k AUD of cameras
> because the "pro" 1D, II decided the heat was too much also?
>
> Free Trade agreement or not, any manufacturer selling goods in Australia has
> to abide by the Trade Practices Act. Part of it relates to suitability for
> purpose. If the cameras (20D and 1D, II) are not suitable for Professional
> use, the importer is in breach of the act. How too, will the
> Photojournalists covering the disasters of the world in arid and tropical
> regions react to their cameras shutting down from fatigue? Probably the same
> way I have... Get rid of them and go back to more reliable gear.
>
> Your arguments are flawed.
> I agree the 20D is a nice camera and that Australia's heat is limited to
> maybe 4 months of the year. Can I come and live at your place during those
> months? They are the most productive for me.
>
> Doug

Many people have never heard of "tropical chocolate," either.
--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 4:47:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:jpola2-p5n.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
>> Unlike air-conditioned studios, the number of air-conditioned
>> roads is severely limited, even in Australia ...

> All your arguments considered, Wolfgang, How would you feel if you shelled
> out $7k AUD for a project and all the cameras died from environmental
> fatigue 10 day into a 6 week shoot?

Well, I'd be pretty, aeh, unhappy, about that. Now, if I bought
the camera in Australia, especially in a place where the same heat
is (sand or salt or water being another problem, but one _ought_
to know about them), I'd be really non-plussed with the shop for
not telling me.

Assuming, of course, that is a stated limitation of said camera.

However, if I took said camera to such a place (having bought it
in, say, Europe --- especially if I *didn't* ask my dealer "Will it
work well in central, hot, dry, dusty, desert Australia?" before)
and stumbled over limitations clearly stated in TFM, my fault
it is.

> How would you feel also, if your plans to shoot a very rare Croc hunting
> expedition in the far north suddenly needed an extra $5k AUD of cameras
> because the "pro" 1D, II decided the heat was too much also?

How'd you feel when you go visit McMurdo station and your camera
decided that it is waaay to cold there and you'd need another one?
_I_'d consider a conventional body as back-up ...

> Free Trade agreement or not, any manufacturer selling goods in Australia has
> to abide by the Trade Practices Act.

Ah, so all camera shops belong to Canon (manufacturing arm) in Australia?
I'd thought it was a more, ah, free country.

> Part of it relates to suitability for
> purpose. If the cameras (20D and 1D, II) are not suitable for Professional
> use, the importer is in breach of the act.

What is and what is not "Professional use" and if they are suitable
is something for the courts to decide. I still stand on my point:
They are perfectly suitable for studio work. If they are suitable
for professional studio work anywhere in the world is another
question, obviously.

> How too, will the
> Photojournalists covering the disasters of the world in arid and tropical
> regions react to their cameras shutting down from fatigue? Probably the same
> way I have... Get rid of them and go back to more reliable gear.

Photojournalists (daily newspapers) know their equipment ---
they have to --- and know their environments, at least if they
do their job. Thus they'll have suitable cameras, and know the
limitations and 'flaws' and flaws of their gear. They also have
colleagues to ask for advice.

Photojournalists (large print or magazines) probably still use
slides (and medium format cameras) for the neccessary resolution.

> Your arguments are flawed.

So are yours.

> I agree the 20D is a nice camera and that Australia's heat is limited to
> maybe 4 months of the year. Can I come and live at your place during those
> months? They are the most productive for me.

You may find the travel costs prohibitive, and of course, shooting
pictures in Australia is right out, then. Oh, your landlord does
not let you dwell for free (nor does mine), so some compensation
will be needed. (No, my employer will probably not be happy with
me being stuck in Australia, not with all these drop bears and
deadly everything around. And I don't, ah, _like_ that much heat.)

Apart from that ... well, bring plenty _warm_ clothes, a
storm-proof umbrella and/or tarpaulin and sou'wester, sand for
the pavement and warm shoes.

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 10:06:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 06:42:45 GMT, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >RichA wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:38:17 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
> >>>
> >>>That would be someone not realizing that dark-frame-subtraction noise
> >>>reduction was enabled.
> >>
> >>
> >> So if you take a five minute exposure, the addition of the dark frame
> >> adds five minutes to full image aquisition and process???
> >
> >Yes, and it so states in the manual.
>
> That's pretty pathetic. I wonder if they'll figure out a way to fix
> that?

you obviously have trouble with the dark frame concept.

> -Rich
!