Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

20D Autofocus issue

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 5, 2005 10:16:35 PM

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

Recently I've had the autofocus on my 20D lock up on ocaision. The last
time I was taking photos in Raw+Large Jpeg, selected one for deletion from
the card, then went to continue shooting but the autofocus wouldn't work.
Powering the camera off then on solved the problem. I am using Firmware
v1.1.0, fully charged battery, and yes the lens was set on AF not MF. Anyone
else have this issue? Is there a fix on the way?

Kelly

More about : 20d autofocus issue

April 6, 2005 6:31:05 AM

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

Hi Kelly,

Yes I've had the very same problem a couple of times shooting simultaneous
Raw + Large Jpeg (can't comment on other modes as that's all I shoot). First
time a simple on/off as you describe sorted it out. However, second time it
happened I had to power off; disconnect the lens; reconnect & then switch on
before the lens would autofocus again. Weird. The rest of the time the lens
20D combo has shot some 4000+ shots without a hitch. In both situations I'd
also been deleting photos just prior to the 'error' (though I hadn't
connected the 2 till you mentioned it)...

Regards

DM

"Kelly" <kbbmjb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n%E4e.13$L64.2@okepread07...
> Recently I've had the autofocus on my 20D lock up on ocaision. The last
> time I was taking photos in Raw+Large Jpeg, selected one for deletion from
> the card, then went to continue shooting but the autofocus wouldn't work.
> Powering the camera off then on solved the problem. I am using Firmware
> v1.1.0, fully charged battery, and yes the lens was set on AF not MF.
> Anyone else have this issue? Is there a fix on the way?
>
> Kelly
>
April 6, 2005 8:28:08 PM

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

Thanks DM, good to know I'm not just nuts :)  Guess I'll limit deleting
photos to the times in between photo opportunities. Hopefully Canon will put
out a patch for this in an update.

Kelly


"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JRH4e.4825$G8.2840@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi Kelly,
>
> Yes I've had the very same problem a couple of times shooting simultaneous
> Raw + Large Jpeg (can't comment on other modes as that's all I shoot).
> First time a simple on/off as you describe sorted it out. However, second
> time it happened I had to power off; disconnect the lens; reconnect & then
> switch on before the lens would autofocus again. Weird. The rest of the
> time the lens 20D combo has shot some 4000+ shots without a hitch. In both
> situations I'd also been deleting photos just prior to the 'error' (though
> I hadn't connected the 2 till you mentioned it)...
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
> "Kelly" <kbbmjb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n%E4e.13$L64.2@okepread07...
>> Recently I've had the autofocus on my 20D lock up on ocaision. The last
>> time I was taking photos in Raw+Large Jpeg, selected one for deletion
>> from the card, then went to continue shooting but the autofocus wouldn't
>> work. Powering the camera off then on solved the problem. I am using
>> Firmware v1.1.0, fully charged battery, and yes the lens was set on AF
>> not MF. Anyone else have this issue? Is there a fix on the way?
>>
>> Kelly
>>
>
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 8:52:56 PM

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

"Kelly" <kbbmjb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LvY4e.336$L64.333@okepread07...
> Thanks DM, good to know I'm not just nuts :)  Guess I'll limit deleting
> photos to the times in between photo opportunities. Hopefully Canon will
> put out a patch for this in an update.

Indeed. It appears that there are several lock-up issues with 20Ds; even
those using the latest firmware and without the battery grip. When mine
locks up, I have to remove and reinsert the battery. Canon needs to look
into this.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:31:41 AM

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

Charles Schuler wrote:
> "Kelly" <kbbmjb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LvY4e.336$L64.333@okepread07...
>
>> Thanks DM, good to know I'm not just nuts :)  Guess I'll limit deleting
>>photos to the times in between photo opportunities. Hopefully Canon will
>>put out a patch for this in an update.
>
>
> Indeed. It appears that there are several lock-up issues with 20Ds; even
> those using the latest firmware and without the battery grip. When mine
> locks up, I have to remove and reinsert the battery. Canon needs to look
> into this.
>
>

I have heard that it can lock up with lens requiring a lot of AF motor
power. Any one else see this?

I've experienced one lock-up with the 20D so far, but it was with a 50
f/1.4, and I don't really remember the other details. Turning the camera
on & off fixed it.

--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:31:42 AM

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

> I have heard that it can lock up with lens requiring a lot of AF motor
> power. Any one else see this?

I have had dozens of lock-ups with a 20D and a 100-400 IS lens. Other
posters, in other forums, have speculated that the 20D lockup problems are
due to high current drain situations. I'd guess that there is some validity
to this speculation. Looking at the 20D lockup history (as posted on
several forums) reveals that the battery grip often caused problems due to
its ill-fitting characteristics (hence, faulty contact integrity and more
than expected electrical resistance). It's Ohm's law ... when high current
flows through a significant resistance, there has to be a significant
voltage drop. The voltage drop, in this case, means that the camera system
voltage has dropped below reliable limits.

What is emerging here indicates a droop in system voltage caused by
compromised electrical contacts and high current drain lenses. When the
system voltage dips low enough, the microprocessor has its brains scrambled.
Canon should be more honest about this issue. The 20D, in my opinion, has a
serious engineering flaw (hardware or software or both). I have contacted
Canon about this and they want everything shipped back. Reading the forums
reveals that some have complied and then found the same issues after their
cameras/lenses were shipped back. It's an endemic problem, Canon!

It's not my intention to bash the 20D or Canon ... damned good camera and a
good company. I think they will eventually fix the problem.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:31:43 AM

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

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2b2dnSE97NNDLsjfRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>
>> I have heard that it can lock up with lens requiring a lot of AF motor
>> power. Any one else see this?
>
> I have had dozens of lock-ups with a 20D and a 100-400 IS lens. Other
> posters, in other forums, have speculated that the 20D lockup problems are
> due to high current drain situations. I'd guess that there is some
> validity to this speculation. Looking at the 20D lockup history (as
> posted on several forums) reveals that the battery grip often caused
> problems due to its ill-fitting characteristics (hence, faulty contact
> integrity and more than expected electrical resistance). It's Ohm's law
> ... when high current flows through a significant resistance, there has to
> be a significant voltage drop. The voltage drop, in this case, means that
> the camera system voltage has dropped below reliable limits.
I've shot a lot with the 100-400IS with nary a lock up, even before the
firmware upgrades. I'm sure there are more out there than just me with this
experience, so this may be why Canon hasn't fixed it. There's no
consistency to the problem. (I don't mean to cast doubt on the fact that
you've had the problem.)
>
> What is emerging here indicates a droop in system voltage caused by
> compromised electrical contacts and high current drain lenses. When the
> system voltage dips low enough, the microprocessor has its brains
> scrambled. Canon should be more honest about this issue. The 20D, in my
> opinion, has a serious engineering flaw (hardware or software or both). I
> have contacted Canon about this and they want everything shipped back.
> Reading the forums reveals that some have complied and then found the same
> issues after their cameras/lenses were shipped back. It's an endemic
> problem, Canon!
That's a problem I have with Canon, if I complain of a glitch, they want the
whole shebang shipped back to them for review. Over the next 6 weeks, I
have 5 weddings and 6 potrait shoots, I can't be without my gear, but they
don't offer backups. If my car goes in for an extended time for repair
under warrantee, they offer me a loaner, why can't a camera company?
>
> It's not my intention to bash the 20D or Canon ... damned good camera and
> a good company. I think they will eventually fix the problem.
>
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
April 8, 2005 4:22:20 AM

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

This would certainly tie in with both my lock ups (as on both occasions I
was using a 70-200 F2.8L IS USM with the IS set to mode 2).
However, the lock up did not occur mid shot but after deleting photos on
returning to shoot the camera would simply not focus. If it was just the
high drain one would surely expect to get that occurring mid shot as the IS
is actually trying to do it's stuff.

Personally, IMO it feels more like 'a computer glitch' (hell you can even
get mobile phone's crashing these days as they become more computer like in
functionality)

Regards

DM

"UrbanVoyeur" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4255A6BD.9070002@nospam.net...
> Charles Schuler wrote:
>> "Kelly" <kbbmjb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:LvY4e.336$L64.333@okepread07...
>>
>>> Thanks DM, good to know I'm not just nuts :)  Guess I'll limit deleting
>>> photos to the times in between photo opportunities. Hopefully Canon will
>>> put out a patch for this in an update.
>>
>>
>> Indeed. It appears that there are several lock-up issues with 20Ds; even
>> those using the latest firmware and without the battery grip. When mine
>> locks up, I have to remove and reinsert the battery. Canon needs to look
>> into this.
>
> I have heard that it can lock up with lens requiring a lot of AF motor
> power. Any one else see this?
>
> I've experienced one lock-up with the 20D so far, but it was with a 50
> f/1.4, and I don't really remember the other details. Turning the camera
> on & off fixed it.
>
> --
>
> J
>
> www.urbanvoyeur.com
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 7:43:18 PM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in news:cIj5e.60$lz2.48@fed1read07:

> I've shot a lot with the 100-400IS with nary a lock up, even before the
> firmware upgrades. I'm sure there are more out there than just me with
> this experience, so this may be why Canon hasn't fixed it. There's no
> consistency to the problem. (I don't mean to cast doubt on the fact that
> you've had the problem.)
>

(Support info.)

I haven't experienced any lockups with my 20D and I have the battery grip
attached.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 7:43:19 PM

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

nick c wrote:
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in
> news:cIj5e.60$lz2.48@fed1read07:
>
>> I've shot a lot with the 100-400IS with nary a lock up, even before
>> the firmware upgrades. I'm sure there are more out there than just
>> me with this experience, so this may be why Canon hasn't fixed it.
>> There's no consistency to the problem. (I don't mean to cast doubt
>> on the fact that you've had the problem.)
>>
>
> (Support info.)
>
> I haven't experienced any lockups with my 20D and I have the battery
> grip attached.


If by "lockup" you-all mean to say the trigger is disarmed, the LCD
display is as if the camera had been turned off, then yes, I had a
lockup day before yesterday.

20D camera with grip, one Canon 511 in place.

Conditions were:
Battery had been in use for a few hundred shots since previous charging
Camera was at frame 175 or so of the current (raw + small) session
Battery indicator was in the near-empty but not blinking stage
Just finished a set of in-camera flash exposures
Erased one image
.... lockup

I removed and reinserted the battery and got another exposure, 2-3
times, then _nada_

Inserted a battery that had been fully charged a week earlier, and
everything came right, finished the session


My conjecture is that the I've-got-enough-power-to-function circuitry in
the camera is responsive to some other factors than enough-to-function,
alone, or that the battery indicator should be adjusted to blink earlier
and stop function after a set number of frames at blinking stage.

If when the camera "locked up" I looked at the display after turning the
camera off and on, or remove-replacing the battery, and it showed low
battery blinking, I'd not be miffed.

That it shows low battery without blinking means to me it should
function normally until it blinks. If it were blinking, I'd know any
further activity without battery charging or substitution would be
risky. That it still shows low-battery no-blink and will take a picture
or two and then another or two, means to me the blink threshold is set
wrong.

Should be simple enough to correct in firmware.


--
Frank ess
April 9, 2005 2:13:17 PM

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:Cp6dnfrd3sCIZcvfRVn-1A@giganews.com...
>
> Conditions were:
> Battery had been in use for a few hundred shots since previous charging
> Camera was at frame 175 or so of the current (raw + small) session
> Battery indicator was in the near-empty but not blinking stage
> Just finished a set of in-camera flash exposures
> Erased one image
> ... lockup
>
> I removed and reinserted the battery and got another exposure, 2-3 times,
> then _nada_
>
>
> Should be simple enough to correct in firmware.
>
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
Iv'e had this exact same event. I eventually followed a Canon Techo's advise
and took to the batteries and the grip's electrical contacts and then the
camera's battery housing contacts very agressively with electronic's
cleaning fluid and a chamois. That was in December last year and the
circumstances were high humidity after a few days of low humidity (tropics
weather). I haven't had the event since then.

It seems that a lot of people complained about the grips being the problem
but this was secondary to the real culprit... Tarnish on the electrical
contacts. I'm speculating that the grips are made in an air conditioned
factory then sometime before the customer gets it, exposed to an environment
which causes the contacts to tarnish.

I've shot quite a few thousand frames with several lenses since the clean.
Sometimes the batterys are nearly exausted but that particular problem has
never returned.

Douglas
April 9, 2005 7:53:13 PM

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

I was also using a 70-200 F2.8L IS USM when my lock-up occured. My menus
and LCD display worked as normal, the lens simply refuses to even attempt to
autofocus. I do not use the battery grip and have checked all electrical
contacts to make sure they are clean. I suspect a firmware glitch related to
deleting images or perhaps it may somehow tied to IS lenses (doubtful but I
don't know the engineering), with the glitch seeming to be the most likely
culprit.

Kelly


"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:09k5e.6192$G8.214@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> This would certainly tie in with both my lock ups (as on both occasions I
> was using a 70-200 F2.8L IS USM with the IS set to mode 2).
> However, the lock up did not occur mid shot but after deleting photos on
> returning to shoot the camera would simply not focus. If it was just the
> high drain one would surely expect to get that occurring mid shot as the
> IS is actually trying to do it's stuff.
>
> Personally, IMO it feels more like 'a computer glitch' (hell you can even
> get mobile phone's crashing these days as they become more computer like
> in functionality)
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
> "UrbanVoyeur" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:4255A6BD.9070002@nospam.net...
>> Charles Schuler wrote:
>>> "Kelly" <kbbmjb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:LvY4e.336$L64.333@okepread07...
>>>
>>>> Thanks DM, good to know I'm not just nuts :)  Guess I'll limit deleting
>>>> photos to the times in between photo opportunities. Hopefully Canon
>>>> will put out a patch for this in an update.
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed. It appears that there are several lock-up issues with 20Ds;
>>> even those using the latest firmware and without the battery grip. When
>>> mine locks up, I have to remove and reinsert the battery. Canon needs
>>> to look into this.
>>
>> I have heard that it can lock up with lens requiring a lot of AF motor
>> power. Any one else see this?
>>
>> I've experienced one lock-up with the 20D so far, but it was with a 50
>> f/1.4, and I don't really remember the other details. Turning the camera
>> on & off fixed it.
>>
>> --
>>
>> J
>>
>> www.urbanvoyeur.com
>
>
April 9, 2005 7:54:53 PM

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

Are you refering to camera lock-ups (does nothing) or autofocus lock-ups
(menus work but the lens does not respond)?
Kelly

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2b2dnSE97NNDLsjfRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>
>> I have heard that it can lock up with lens requiring a lot of AF motor
>> power. Any one else see this?
>
> I have had dozens of lock-ups with a 20D and a 100-400 IS lens. Other
> posters, in other forums, have speculated that the 20D lockup problems are
> due to high current drain situations. I'd guess that there is some
> validity to this speculation. Looking at the 20D lockup history (as
> posted on several forums) reveals that the battery grip often caused
> problems due to its ill-fitting characteristics (hence, faulty contact
> integrity and more than expected electrical resistance). It's Ohm's law
> ... when high current flows through a significant resistance, there has to
> be a significant voltage drop. The voltage drop, in this case, means that
> the camera system voltage has dropped below reliable limits.
>
> What is emerging here indicates a droop in system voltage caused by
> compromised electrical contacts and high current drain lenses. When the
> system voltage dips low enough, the microprocessor has its brains
> scrambled. Canon should be more honest about this issue. The 20D, in my
> opinion, has a serious engineering flaw (hardware or software or both). I
> have contacted Canon about this and they want everything shipped back.
> Reading the forums reveals that some have complied and then found the same
> issues after their cameras/lenses were shipped back. It's an endemic
> problem, Canon!
>
> It's not my intention to bash the 20D or Canon ... damned good camera and
> a good company. I think they will eventually fix the problem.
>
April 10, 2005 1:36:35 AM

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

"Kelly" <kbbmjb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%gX5e.861$uY4.9@okepread04...
> I was also using a 70-200 F2.8L IS USM when my lock-up occured. My menus
> and LCD display worked as normal, the lens simply refuses to even attempt
> to autofocus. I do not use the battery grip and have checked all
> electrical contacts to make sure they are clean. I suspect a firmware
> glitch related to deleting images or perhaps it may somehow tied to IS
> lenses (doubtful but I don't know the engineering), with the glitch
> seeming to be the most likely culprit.
>
> Kelly
>
----------------------------------
How does this sound Kelly?

The pressure of contacts between lens and camera are very weak. In the case
of Canon DSLRs it has to be because of the plastic lenses Canon have made
for them. If a lens has been used on a different camera in the past which
has higher contact pressure, the lens contacts may have 'set' to the other
camera. If you have stored the lens without 'silca gel' the contacts are
almost certainly tarnished.

OK. So when you delete shots do you hold the camera in such a way that the
(very) heavy 70~200 lens hangs vertically from the camera?

If the contacts are just slightly tarnished or have taken a 'set' from an
earlier camera, is it not conceivable that when you lift the camera to
shooting mode after having the lens hang down, the contacts might not be
complete and the lens needs to be removed and replaced before it starts
working again?

My EOS 1 and later my 10D used to do this with a 70~200 lens when I first
got them. I cleaned the contacts with a chamois and some electronics cleaner
I got from Tandy and never had a repeat of the same problem.

It seems to me that the pressure applied to a Canon DSLR camera's contacts
has to be limited to avoid damage to many lenses with plastic mounting rings
and this is where the problem originates. If Canon only ever made metal
mount lenses, they could increase the pressure and avoid this particular
problem.

Douglas
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 1:36:36 AM

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

In article <DVX5e.5587$5F3.5366@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Douglas
<decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:

> How does this sound Kelly?

Like BS.

> The pressure of contacts between lens and camera are very weak. In the case
> of Canon DSLRs it has to be because of the plastic lenses Canon have made
> for them. If a lens has been used on a different camera in the past which
> has higher contact pressure, the lens contacts may have 'set' to the other
> camera. If you have stored the lens without 'silca gel' the contacts are
> almost certainly tarnished.

Hey Preddy! My non-L lenses may have non-metal barrels, but the
mount...the area that contacts the face of the camera - is metal.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:05:14 AM

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

"Douglas" <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D VX5e.5587$5F3.5366@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> ----------------------------------
> How does this sound Kelly?
>
> The pressure of contacts between lens and camera are very weak. In the
> case of Canon DSLRs it has to be because of the plastic lenses Canon have
> made for them. If a lens has been used on a different camera in the past
> which has higher contact pressure, the lens contacts may have 'set' to the
> other camera. If you have stored the lens without 'silca gel' the contacts
> are almost certainly tarnished.
>
> OK. So when you delete shots do you hold the camera in such a way that the
> (very) heavy 70~200 lens hangs vertically from the camera?
>
> If the contacts are just slightly tarnished or have taken a 'set' from an
> earlier camera, is it not conceivable that when you lift the camera to
> shooting mode after having the lens hang down, the contacts might not be
> complete and the lens needs to be removed and replaced before it starts
> working again?
>
> My EOS 1 and later my 10D used to do this with a 70~200 lens when I first
> got them. I cleaned the contacts with a chamois and some electronics
> cleaner I got from Tandy and never had a repeat of the same problem.
>
> It seems to me that the pressure applied to a Canon DSLR camera's contacts
> has to be limited to avoid damage to many lenses with plastic mounting
> rings and this is where the problem originates. If Canon only ever made
> metal mount lenses, they could increase the pressure and avoid this
> particular problem.

What the hell are you talking about, "many lenses with plastic mounting
rings???" Canon makes three lenses with plastic mounts, non of them heavy
enough to do what you say. And if you actually owned an EOS 1, you'd know
that the pressure on that camera's mount is pretty good. The loose
tolerance is in the plastic lens mount, not the metal camera mount, so the
70-200, with its metal mount, wouldn't be affected in such a way. Nor would
the 100-400, the other lens mentioned in this context.
>
> Douglas
>
>
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
April 10, 2005 11:17:21 AM

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

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:090420051740270666%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <DVX5e.5587$5F3.5366@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Douglas
> <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How does this sound Kelly?
>
> Like BS.
>
>
> Hey Preddy! My non-L lenses may have non-metal barrels, but the
> mount...the area that contacts the face of the camera - is metal.
----------
Another dyslexic Moron who claims to know much and demonstrates zilch in the
knowledge department. Your lenses are plastic Randall. Real Photographers
only use real metal lenses. Sigma make 'em, you know?
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:17:22 AM

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

In article <5q46e.6142$5F3.719@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Douglas
<decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Hey Preddy! My non-L lenses may have non-metal barrels, but the
> > mount...the area that contacts the face of the camera - is metal.
> ----------
> Another dyslexic Moron who claims to know much and demonstrates zilch in the
> knowledge department. Your lenses are plastic Randall. Real Photographers
> only use real metal lenses. Sigma make 'em, you know?

Read it again, bright boy. I said the barrels may not be metal, but the
area that contacts the camera is.

And the day I spend a dime on a Sigma product is the day that monkeys
fly out my butt.
April 10, 2005 3:26:06 PM

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

> for them. If a lens has been used on a different camera in the past which
> has higher contact pressure, the lens contacts may have 'set' to the other
> camera. If you have stored the lens without 'silca gel' the contacts are
> almost certainly tarnished.

I bought the lens new at Christmas along with upgrading to the 20D. The
contacts are clean and the lens has never been used on another camera.

> OK. So when you delete shots do you hold the camera in such a way that the
> (very) heavy 70~200 lens hangs vertically from the camera?

I hold the camera by the lens when using heavy lenses, both during shooting
and deleting images, etc., to do otherwise has the potential to slowly
damage the camera mount. I suppose it's always possible I got
distracted/sloppy on any given ocaision, the next time the problem recurs I
will try to determine if this is a potential cause. I would think with new
equipment from the same manufacturer (i.e. both lens and camera from Canon)
that this would not cause a problem, at least not until after a fair amount
of usage.

> complete and the lens needs to be removed and replaced before it starts
> working again?

A power recycle (off then on) has thus far solved the problem for me,
others have told me that removing and replaceing the battery was sometimes
necessary to resolve the issue when it has happened to them.
I will likely contact Canon to see if they are aware of this problem and
may already know the cause. Hopefully a solution is forthcoming in the near
future.

Kelly
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 10:11:56 PM

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

"Kelly" <kbbmjb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yiX5e.862$uY4.349@okepread04...
> Are you refering to camera lock-ups (does nothing) or autofocus lock-ups
> (menus work but the lens does not respond)?
> Kelly

In my case, the shutter is locked out. The camera seems to be working and
acquiring focus but I cannot take a picture. Removing and reinserting the
battery has fixed it every time. Changing lenses will not fix it and ERR 99
shows up in the display.
April 12, 2005 2:45:42 AM

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

Doug,

>If a lens has been used on a different camera in the past which has higher
>contact pressure, the lens contacts may have 'set' to the other camera. If
>you have stored the lens without 'silca gel' the contacts are almost
>certainly tarnished

How it sounds (whilst an interesting theory) is unrelated. My lenses came
new with my 10D and have only ever been used on either the 10 or 20D (they
have never "taken a 'set' from another camera").

Regards

DM

"Douglas" <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D VX5e.5587$5F3.5366@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Kelly" <kbbmjb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%gX5e.861$uY4.9@okepread04...
>> I was also using a 70-200 F2.8L IS USM when my lock-up occured. My menus
>> and LCD display worked as normal, the lens simply refuses to even attempt
>> to autofocus. I do not use the battery grip and have checked all
>> electrical contacts to make sure they are clean. I suspect a firmware
>> glitch related to deleting images or perhaps it may somehow tied to IS
>> lenses (doubtful but I don't know the engineering), with the glitch
>> seeming to be the most likely culprit.
>>
>> Kelly
>>
> ----------------------------------
> How does this sound Kelly?
>
> The pressure of contacts between lens and camera are very weak. In the
> case of Canon DSLRs it has to be because of the plastic lenses Canon have
> made for them. If a lens has been used on a different camera in the past
> which has higher contact pressure, the lens contacts may have 'set' to the
> other camera. If you have stored the lens without 'silca gel' the contacts
> are almost certainly tarnished.
>
> OK. So when you delete shots do you hold the camera in such a way that the
> (very) heavy 70~200 lens hangs vertically from the camera?
>
> If the contacts are just slightly tarnished or have taken a 'set' from an
> earlier camera, is it not conceivable that when you lift the camera to
> shooting mode after having the lens hang down, the contacts might not be
> complete and the lens needs to be removed and replaced before it starts
> working again?
>
> My EOS 1 and later my 10D used to do this with a 70~200 lens when I first
> got them. I cleaned the contacts with a chamois and some electronics
> cleaner I got from Tandy and never had a repeat of the same problem.
>
> It seems to me that the pressure applied to a Canon DSLR camera's contacts
> has to be limited to avoid damage to many lenses with plastic mounting
> rings and this is where the problem originates. If Canon only ever made
> metal mount lenses, they could increase the pressure and avoid this
> particular problem.
>
> Douglas
>
>
April 12, 2005 9:08:55 AM

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

"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q6D6e.10020$G8.9525@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
> How it sounds (whilst an interesting theory) is unrelated. My lenses came
> new with my 10D and have only ever been used on either the 10 or 20D (they
> have never "taken a 'set' from another camera").
>
> Regards
>
> DM

-------------

So the outspoken one hiding behind an alias has got a problem. Quite apart
from taking pot shots at poster's you don't agree with, you now are
demonstrating the same dyslexia as Middleton did. I trust you didn't try the
alias on Canon's warranty card? God. I'd love to see you sign a cheque with
that one!

Tell me Dungeon - or should I call you Mr Master? Perhaps just DM?
How do you justify having bought a dodgy camera kit for the cost a small car
and doing nothing about it except expecting a bunch of losers in this group
to solve your problems and when you don't like their suggestions, flame 'em?

Surely if it was a toaster you'd bought, you'd scream bloody murder at the
discount king you hammered a cheap price from until they gave you a new one
in replacement. (Consumer laws, you know. Not to mention Canon's own 14 day,
no questions asked replacement guarantee on DSLRs) Why not take your bag of
woes into Canon's castle and make it theirs?

And pardon me for pointing out the obvious but... A 10D is a true EOS
camera. It has the same bind pressure as an EOS film camera on the lens
mount because the plastic mount 'S' series lenes didn't exist way back then.
The 20D? You figure that out as you ponder a new torture to vent on the
group. You never know, you might actually get the picture sooner or later.
Probably later, judging by your posts.

Douglas
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:08:56 AM

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

"Douglas" <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HJI6e.8342$5F3.4407@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:q6D6e.10020$G8.9525@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> How it sounds (whilst an interesting theory) is unrelated. My lenses came
>> new with my 10D and have only ever been used on either the 10 or 20D
>> (they have never "taken a 'set' from another camera").
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> DM
>
> -------------
>
> So the outspoken one hiding behind an alias has got a problem. Quite apart
> from taking pot shots at poster's you don't agree with, you now are
> demonstrating the same dyslexia as Middleton did. I trust you didn't try
> the alias on Canon's warranty card? God. I'd love to see you sign a cheque
> with that one!
>
> Tell me Dungeon - or should I call you Mr Master? Perhaps just DM?
> How do you justify having bought a dodgy camera kit for the cost a small
> car and doing nothing about it except expecting a bunch of losers in this
> group to solve your problems and when you don't like their suggestions,
> flame 'em?
>
> Surely if it was a toaster you'd bought, you'd scream bloody murder at the
> discount king you hammered a cheap price from until they gave you a new
> one in replacement. (Consumer laws, you know. Not to mention Canon's own
> 14 day, no questions asked replacement guarantee on DSLRs) Why not take
> your bag of woes into Canon's castle and make it theirs?
>
> And pardon me for pointing out the obvious but... A 10D is a true EOS
> camera. It has the same bind pressure as an EOS film camera on the lens
> mount because the plastic mount 'S' series lenes didn't exist way back
> then. The 20D? You figure that out as you ponder a new torture to vent on
> the group. You never know, you might actually get the picture sooner or
> later. Probably later, judging by your posts.
>
> Douglas
>
Doug, are you always such a jerk, or is it just that you can hide behind the
distance and anonymity of the 'net. Because if you are always such a jerk
in your day to day relationships, it surprises me than no one has taken a
poke at you.
Did you actually read what DM wrote? Whether the "pressure" required to
mount a lens on a 10D or 20D differ, or are the same, the lenses didn't take
a "set." (BTW, that's a condition of which I had never heard until you
mentioned it, and it's odd that no one has chimed it and concurred, don't
you think?)
Have you measured the torque required to mount a lens on any of the cameras
you mention? I haven't, but the feel of mounting a lens on my 20D isn't
noticeably different from my D30 or film A2, or from what I remember of the
10D we briefly had. And all four are significantly "looser" than my 1n.
And I never had a lens take a "set" and carry it over when changing from the
1n to the 20D, D30 or A2. The 10D was my wife's, so I didn't handle it
much.
And, again, only one of the EF-S lenses has a plastic mount. The other two
have metal mounts. Do try to keep up.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:37:40 PM

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

Skip M wrote:

> in your day to day relationships, it surprises me than no one has taken a
> poke at you.

Not worth the energy.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 12, 2005 7:37:26 PM

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

What a prick this guy is...

"Douglas" <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HJI6e.8342$5F3.4407@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:q6D6e.10020$G8.9525@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> How it sounds (whilst an interesting theory) is unrelated. My lenses came
>> new with my 10D and have only ever been used on either the 10 or 20D
>> (they have never "taken a 'set' from another camera").
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> DM
>
> -------------
>
> So the outspoken one hiding behind an alias has got a problem. Quite apart
> from taking pot shots at poster's you don't agree with, you now are
> demonstrating the same dyslexia as Middleton did. I trust you didn't try
> the alias on Canon's warranty card? God. I'd love to see you sign a cheque
> with that one!
>
> Tell me Dungeon - or should I call you Mr Master? Perhaps just DM?
> How do you justify having bought a dodgy camera kit for the cost a small
> car and doing nothing about it except expecting a bunch of losers in this
> group to solve your problems and when you don't like their suggestions,
> flame 'em?
>
> Surely if it was a toaster you'd bought, you'd scream bloody murder at the
> discount king you hammered a cheap price from until they gave you a new
> one in replacement. (Consumer laws, you know. Not to mention Canon's own
> 14 day, no questions asked replacement guarantee on DSLRs) Why not take
> your bag of woes into Canon's castle and make it theirs?
>
> And pardon me for pointing out the obvious but... A 10D is a true EOS
> camera. It has the same bind pressure as an EOS film camera on the lens
> mount because the plastic mount 'S' series lenes didn't exist way back
> then. The 20D? You figure that out as you ponder a new torture to vent on
> the group. You never know, you might actually get the picture sooner or
> later. Probably later, judging by your posts.
>
> Douglas
>
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:38:45 PM

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

"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WWR6e.10448$G8.5655@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> What a prick this guy is...
>

And more than a little thin skinned. If that exceedingly polite reply
constitutes a "flame" to him, he'd be positively homicidal if he really got
flamed!

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 6:36:36 PM

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

Skip M wrote:
> "DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:WWR6e.10448$G8.5655@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>>What a prick this guy is...
>>
>
>
> And more than a little thin skinned. If that exceedingly polite reply
> constitutes a "flame" to him, he'd be positively homicidal if he really got
> flamed!
>

The really sad part of this group is that a few idiots claiming to be
"Professional" photographers but having so much time to waste on
frivolous attempts at controlling the group, are all too willing to
shout down anyone who has a thought on a subject which differs from theirs.

I guess in any group there has to be a bunch of testosterone enhanced
jerks hell bent on achieving power. Why is it always those who squeal
the loudest when they don't like what they read?
It might be understandable if the post from 'Douglas' was aimed at
either of you but it wasn't. It was sent in an attempt to assist someone
with a few suggestions. It wasn't until you pair decided your ideas
(which are none too bright and mostly useless anyway) had more merit
that you got some of your own back. Don't like that?

You know what a kill file is. Just remember that if you use to plonk
everyone who disagrees with you or retaliates, pretty soon all the
messages you will read are from yourselves and Alan Browne.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 7:55:38 PM

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

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Graham Hunt" <million_pics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:425ca1d6$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:WWR6e.10448$G8.5655@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>>What a prick this guy is...
>>>
>>
>>
>> And more than a little thin skinned. If that exceedingly polite reply
>> constitutes a "flame" to him, he'd be positively homicidal if he really
>> got flamed!
>>
>
> The really sad part of this group is that a few idiots claiming to be
> "Professional" photographers but having so much time to waste on frivolous
> attempts at controlling the group, are all too willing to shout down
> anyone who has a thought on a subject which differs from theirs.
>
> I guess in any group there has to be a bunch of testosterone enhanced
> jerks hell bent on achieving power. Why is it always those who squeal the
> loudest when they don't like what they read?
> It might be understandable if the post from 'Douglas' was aimed at either
> of you but it wasn't. It was sent in an attempt to assist someone with a
> few suggestions. It wasn't until you pair decided your ideas (which are
> none too bright and mostly useless anyway) had more merit that you got
> some of your own back. Don't like that?

I made no suggestion for a solution, so its usefulness is moot. All I did
was take exception to Douglas' comment that Canon DSLR mounts were in some
way designed to accomodate the "many" plastic mount lenses that Canon makes.
Douglas' comments may have been construed by the OP that there is a design
flaw in the Canon DSLR mount, and that such problems as he has are endemic
to the type, which in turn may cause him to cease trying to get the problem
solved, or to switch to another brand that doesn't have those percieved
design flaws.
His reply to me was rude beyond justification.

>
> You know what a kill file is. Just remember that if you use to plonk
> everyone who disagrees with you or retaliates, pretty soon all the
> messages you will read are from yourselves and Alan Browne.
>
April 13, 2005 9:25:21 PM

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

Graham,

If you've followed the thread right from Kelly's original post you'll
realise that a number of us expressed opinions re. this issue politely. In
fact this was my first exchange with Douglas...

>Doug,
>
>>If a lens has been used on a different camera in the past which has higher
>>contact pressure, the lens contacts may have 'set' to the other camera. If
>>you have stored the lens without 'silca gel' the contacts are almost
>>certainly tarnished
>
>How it sounds (whilst an interesting theory) is unrelated. My lenses came
>new with my 10D and have only ever been used on either the 10 or 20D (they
>have never "taken a 'set' from another camera").
>
>Regards
>
>DM

Now, whilst I appreciate I didn't share his opinion, it was hardly
'attempting to control the group' nor 'pretending to be a professional
photographer' and was certainly more civil in tone than the abusive comments
that appeared in many of Doug's replies that eventually teed many of us off
(not as you imply his 'different' opinion).

Is it really helpful, without provocation, to refer to another poster as,
"Another dyslexic Moron who claims to know much and demonstrates zilch in
the knowledge department"?

And who was it that wrote:

>Skip Middleton... Another dyslexic moron. shooting off before putting brain
>into motion.
>Reading and comprehension... Never has been your strong points, have they
>Skip?

Which, considering the 'dyslexic' comment, was a rather elegant
juxtaposition containing a sentence starting without a capital letter
followed by confusion between the use of the singular and plural - not bad
all within 2 brief lines. Ah yes - I guess that would be Doug again.

And then again who was it that made the comment: "Real Photographers only
use real metal lenses"? Ah yes. That would be Douglas again wouldn't it?

Finally, as for your comment re. Alan Browne: you'd personally do better
emulating the content and tone of Alan's posts (which always seem mature,
civil and reasonable) than those of your mate.

Regards

DM

"Graham Hunt" <million_pics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:425ca1d6$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:WWR6e.10448$G8.5655@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>>What a prick this guy is...
>>>
>>
>>
>> And more than a little thin skinned. If that exceedingly polite reply
>> constitutes a "flame" to him, he'd be positively homicidal if he really
>> got flamed!
>>
>
> The really sad part of this group is that a few idiots claiming to be
> "Professional" photographers but having so much time to waste on frivolous
> attempts at controlling the group, are all too willing to shout down
> anyone who has a thought on a subject which differs from theirs.
>
> I guess in any group there has to be a bunch of testosterone enhanced
> jerks hell bent on achieving power. Why is it always those who squeal the
> loudest when they don't like what they read?
> It might be understandable if the post from 'Douglas' was aimed at either
> of you but it wasn't. It was sent in an attempt to assist someone with a
> few suggestions. It wasn't until you pair decided your ideas (which are
> none too bright and mostly useless anyway) had more merit that you got
> some of your own back. Don't like that?
>
> You know what a kill file is. Just remember that if you use to plonk
> everyone who disagrees with you or retaliates, pretty soon all the
> messages you will read are from yourselves and Alan Browne.
>
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:28:25 PM

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

Graham Hunt wrote:

> messages you will read are from yourselves and Alan Browne.

I sincerely hope you don't see this message due to my membership in your
killfile. And if you do see this message, then do please place me in
your killfile at your earliest convenience.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:46:13 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Todd H. wrote:
>>
>> Can't folks just be helpful constructive and polite?
>
>
> Yes, but they do overcome that tendancy as soon as somebody posts
> something contrary to their view. Most flare ups are due to:
>
> a) a poster writing something without sufficient clarity.
> b) a reader reading something without sufficient clarity.
>
> Then the excrement begins flying and the tendancy towards clarity
> diminishes further still.

It's probably somewhat less the presence or absence of clarity in posts;
it's the manor in which they are replied to. There are a few who cannot
help but throw in an innuendo as to the mental capacity or experience
(etc, ad nasuem) of the poster. A few come flying in with direct
insults. And on and on it goes.

Truly the only way to deal with those folks is to not repond to their
posts. A few are Trolls, but several are - uh, not well adjusted. (?)

My 29 cents, inflation-adjusted.

--
John McWilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:06:52 PM

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

jpmcw" <"jpmcw wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Todd H. wrote:
>>>
>>> Can't folks just be helpful constructive and polite?
>>
>>
>> Yes, but they do overcome that tendancy as soon as somebody posts
>> something contrary to their view. Most flare ups are due to:
>>
>> a) a poster writing something without sufficient clarity.
>> b) a reader reading something without sufficient clarity.
>>
>> Then the excrement begins flying and the tendancy towards clarity
>> diminishes further still.
>
> It's probably somewhat less the presence or absence of clarity in
> posts; it's the manor in which they are replied to. There are a few
> who cannot help but throw in an innuendo as to the mental capacity or
> experience (etc, ad nasuem) of the poster. A few come flying in with
> direct insults. And on and on it goes.
>

Ain't it grand?

> Truly the only way to deal with those folks is to not repond to their
> posts. A few are Trolls, but several are - uh, not well adjusted. (?)
>

There must be a payoff in it for everyone who posts to such a
lost-the-plot thread, or they would not be reading it, let alone
troubling to write something. I think it has something to do with a
conscious or unconscious realization that there is no confirmation of
existence without response from some other more-or-less sentient being.
Kind of a "If it doesn't happen on TV, it doesn't happen", once removed.
Any kind of attention is better than no attention at all. For an
auto-run example, check out the nearly-human presence called "No Name".
Pitiful, but definitive.

> My 29 cents, inflation-adjusted.

Since when? Seems to me it should be around fourteen or fifteen cents
....


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 7:31:36 PM

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

jpmcw wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:

>> a) a poster writing something without sufficient clarity.
>> b) a reader reading something without sufficient clarity.
>>
>> Then the excrement begins flying and the tendancy towards clarity
>> diminishes further still.
>
>
> It's probably somewhat less the presence or absence of clarity in posts;

Lack of clarity in a post invites a veriety of responses. Some even
read through the obfuscation and divine the real meaning...

> it's the manor in which they are replied to. There are a few who cannot
> help but throw in an innuendo as to the mental capacity or experience
> (etc, ad nasuem) of the poster. A few come flying in with direct
> insults. And on and on it goes.

Well I'm guilty of that on occasion myself... OTOH there are some who
have it down to a subtle fine art in almost all of their replies.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 15, 2005 9:05:19 AM

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

"Todd H." <photo@toddh.net> wrote in message
news:847jj6t0nq.fsf@ripco.com...
>
>
> Can't folks just be helpful constructive and polite?
>
> Just curious...
> --
> Todd H.
> http://www.toddh.net/

Oh Todd,
It always starts out with someone being helpful and polite.
The party starts when others who have a different slant to the problem or
just time on their hands fire off a few salvos like Middleton did with his
"What the hell are you talking about?" comment. (this time but his keyboard
spews out many others too)

When the helpful and polite poster doesn't like such aggression and cranks
up their own testosterone induced response, the party get into high gear.

And then comes along some supporter's of the "What the Hell are you talking
about" poster who probably all smoked the same joint at the last party and
it really starts rocking.

Try it Todd.
You'd be surprised at how many working professionals get the shits when
accused by someone of not having any photographic ability when they
themselves are just bordering on average photogs themselves. You might even
discover that about 4 or 5 posters to this particular group are so over
powering with their intent to be "the one" with the answer, they have driven
away mere mortals like you who only came for the pictures.

This group is fascinating in it's content which has sweet bugger all to do
with photography and everything to do with the whims geeks have with
electronic technology. If you seek to discover about photography... Try
DPreview.com At least there the content is valid.

Douglas
April 15, 2005 9:24:36 AM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Grh7e.46143$lz2.39563@fed1read07...
>
> --
>
> Douglas' comments may have been construed by the OP that there is a design
> flaw in the Canon DSLR mount, and that such problems as he has are endemic
> to the type, which in turn may cause him to cease trying to get the
> problem solved, or to switch to another brand that doesn't have those
> percieved design flaws.
> His reply to me was rude beyond justification.
>
Dyslexic Moron is what I called you Skip.
Dyslexic because you can't comprehend what you read and a moron for refusing
to put any value in what I said until *YOU* saw some of my photographs.

Nothing rude or beyond justification there Skip, in view of what you said
which prompted it.
The OP's (you do remember there was one?) post was about a 20D which had a
70~200 f2.8 lens losing contact and not working. I happen to have several
Canon SLRS and DSLRs and 2 of these lenses.

I've had that exact same problem with one of the lenses which used to be on
a DSLR but for you... This is unbelievable because you can't afford a
duplicate set of gear and never had the opportunity to see - side by side
what happens when a lens which has had a lot of use on a EOS 1 is used on a
20D without first getting Canon to fix the way the contacts have adjusted to
the film camera... Taken a 'set" to the mount.

Well you decided I didn't have a 20D or a 1 and it went on from there.
Before you start getting your rocks off on an issue, make sure you are not
the cause of the issue. And here you are shooting off again that *YOUR
OPINION* is fact when it's just pie in the sky. You're a Moron, Skip.

Douglas
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 10:10:09 AM

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

"Douglas" <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o eI7e.11833$5F3.1319@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Grh7e.46143$lz2.39563@fed1read07...
>>
>> --
>>
>> Douglas' comments may have been construed by the OP that there is a
>> design flaw in the Canon DSLR mount, and that such problems as he has are
>> endemic to the type, which in turn may cause him to cease trying to get
>> the problem solved, or to switch to another brand that doesn't have those
>> percieved design flaws.
>> His reply to me was rude beyond justification.
>>
> Dyslexic Moron is what I called you Skip.
> Dyslexic because you can't comprehend what you read and a moron for
> refusing to put any value in what I said until *YOU* saw some of my
> photographs.

You called me a moron before I called on you to show some results. You
called me a moron because I objected to your statement that Canon had "many"
plastic mount lenses in their line. If you had been less rude about your
reply, I may have apologized for misreading your statement about owning a 1
series camera.
>
> Nothing rude or beyond justification there Skip, in view of what you said
> which prompted it.
> The OP's (you do remember there was one?) post was about a 20D which had a
> 70~200 f2.8 lens losing contact and not working. I happen to have several
> Canon SLRS and DSLRs and 2 of these lenses.

Way beyond justification. I didn't resort to name calling, and if my
wording was a little harsh ("actually own a 1") if your response hadn't been
so over the top ("dyslexic moron") an apology for that, and an explanation,
might have been forthcoming. But you were clearly wrong about the plastic
lens mount issue, both on body count and design. The mounts are looser on
the lenses, probably to compensate for the possibility of wear. Instead of
admitting that you were wrong on the number of plastic mount lenses, you
continued the argument and insults.
>
> I've had that exact same problem with one of the lenses which used to be
> on a DSLR but for you... This is unbelievable because you can't afford a
> duplicate set of gear and never had the opportunity to see - side by side
> what happens when a lens which has had a lot of use on a EOS 1 is used on
> a 20D without first getting Canon to fix the way the contacts have
> adjusted to the film camera... Taken a 'set" to the mount.

What do you mean by "duplicate?" I certainly have more than one EF mount
camera, (A2, 1n, D30, 20D) and have done what you describe. I had been
shooting in the desert all day with my 1n, and, after about 3 hours of this,
switched to a D30. Not a problem. If you mean over the course of several
years, I used the 1n and A2 for 4 or 5 years before getting the D30. If you
leave your lenses mounted in the bag, I've never done that for an extended
period of time. Also, in the absence of either of us actually measuring the
torque required to mount a lens, the pressure required to put a lens on my
A2 or D30 seems to be the same as the 20D.
>
> Well you decided I didn't have a 20D or a 1 and it went on from there.
> Before you start getting your rocks off on an issue, make sure you are not
> the cause of the issue. And here you are shooting off again that *YOUR
> OPINION* is fact when it's just pie in the sky. You're a Moron, Skip.

I never questioned whether you had a 20D, just a 1. And you seem to have a
reading comprehension problem of your own, since I have clearly stated that
these are my opinions.

>
> Douglas
>
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
!