Will the 20d lockup at Photokina?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by greensteak, Sep 28, 2004.

  1. greensteak

    greensteak Guest

    I can see it now: someone shooting with the 20d at the Photokina Canon
    booth...., suddely they say "wait a minute", pop the battery out and
    back in............then they say "allright" and keep shooting. There's
    gonna be a lot of "What the hell was that" going around the floor.

    In order for Canon to avoid such a major embarassment, they must
    already know what the exact problem is and have a fixed or newer
    model, or they're playing the odds that there's a low probability for
    that to happen.

    I'd go out and buy this camera today...........based on reports it's a
    great camera barring lockup.......but nobody seems to know yet
    whethere it might be a batch of bad circuitry, a firmware fix, or
    what. Furthermore, what happens to returns? Are they repackaged as
    "open box" or whatever, or do they get "fixed", repackaged and sold as
    new?

    GS
     
    greensteak, Sep 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. greensteak

    Ryadia Guest

    greensteak wrote:

    > I can see it now: someone shooting with the 20d at the Photokina Canon
    > booth...., suddely they say "wait a minute", pop the battery out and
    > back in............then they say "allright" and keep shooting. There's
    > gonna be a lot of "What the hell was that" going around the floor.
    >
    > In order for Canon to avoid such a major embarassment, they must
    > already know what the exact problem is and have a fixed or newer
    > model, or they're playing the odds that there's a low probability for
    > that to happen.
    >
    > I'd go out and buy this camera today...........based on reports it's a
    > great camera barring lockup.......but nobody seems to know yet
    > whethere it might be a batch of bad circuitry, a firmware fix, or
    > what. Furthermore, what happens to returns? Are they repackaged as
    > "open box" or whatever, or do they get "fixed", repackaged and sold as
    > new?
    >
    > GS


    The problem is not as widespread as at first thought and it may be an
    'old' problem re-surfacing. If you have stored your lens for any length
    of time and not cleaned the electro contacts, you could get this problem.

    On the subject of returns...
    14 day, no questions asked replacements at the dealers. This sounds like
    Canon are sending all the 'faulty' cameras back to Japan for analysis,
    not rotating them into new stock which incidently is illegal anyway.

    Often when the humidity goes from 90% to 30% or visa versa, electrical
    contacts which don't pass much current will develop a tarnish or film on
    them. It has been known in many circles for some time that the fix is to
    use an eraser and clean the contacts on both the camera and the lens.
    Problem gone!

    Ryadia
     
    Ryadia, Sep 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. greensteak

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Ryadia wrote:

    >
    > On the subject of returns...
    > 14 day, no questions asked replacements at the dealers.


    From what source?

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Sep 28, 2004
    #3
  4. Does anybody know how widespread this problem is and if it is indeed caused
    by changing lenses with the camera on?

    I posted the following in an earlier thread:

    One possibility is that the lens generates an interrupt to the processor
    when mounted or dismounted. If a non-maskable interrupt is employed, then
    stack overflow could result. If you are really interested you can research
    terms like switch bounce, stack overflow, and non-maskable interrupt service
    routines.
     
    Charles Schuler, Sep 28, 2004
    #4
  5. greensteak

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Charles Schuler wrote:
    > Does anybody know how widespread this problem is and if it is indeed caused
    > by changing lenses with the camera on?
    >
    > I posted the following in an earlier thread:
    >
    > One possibility is that the lens generates an interrupt to the processor
    > when mounted or dismounted. If a non-maskable interrupt is employed, then
    > stack overflow could result. If you are really interested you can research
    > terms like switch bounce, stack overflow, and non-maskable interrupt service
    > routines.
    >


    There is no particular pattern. My 20D has not done it yet. Others
    report having it happen once and never again. Some say they have a way
    to make it lock up consistently -- but it does not work that way with
    ohter cameras.

    Many theories from many folks -- but only Canon's will matter in the end.

    Here is the place to look:

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1019&page=1

    Look under all bridges for trolls :)

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Sep 28, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <>, Charles Schuler
    <> wrote:

    > Does anybody know how widespread this problem is and if it is indeed caused
    > by changing lenses with the camera on?
    >
    > I posted the following in an earlier thread:
    >
    > One possibility is that the lens generates an interrupt to the processor
    > when mounted or dismounted. If a non-maskable interrupt is employed, then
    > stack overflow could result. If you are really interested you can research
    > terms like switch bounce, stack overflow, and non-maskable interrupt service
    > routines.


    What is with you people on this subject? What kind of imbecile would
    design a piece of equipment like that? And what thought process would
    make one even suspect such a thing?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 29, 2004
    #6
  7. greensteak

    Skip M Guest

    "Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > Does anybody know how widespread this problem is and if it is indeed

    caused
    > by changing lenses with the camera on?
    >
    > I posted the following in an earlier thread:
    >
    > One possibility is that the lens generates an interrupt to the processor
    > when mounted or dismounted. If a non-maskable interrupt is employed, then
    > stack overflow could result. If you are really interested you can

    research
    > terms like switch bounce, stack overflow, and non-maskable interrupt

    service
    > routines.
    >
    >

    I've had it happen twice, without changing lenses, CF cards, flashes, or any
    of the other alleged culprits. One guy noticed that, after 2 lockups and a
    third complete stoppage (removing the battery didn't even help, he replaced
    the 3v backup battery to get restarted) he turned off the "Auto Off" feature
    and has shot over 1200 images without a lockup. I turned mine off, and shot
    about 100 this evening without a lockup. Could this be the problem?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Sep 29, 2004
    #7
  8. "Charles Schuler" <> writes:

    > Does anybody know how widespread this problem is and if it is indeed caused
    > by changing lenses with the camera on?
    >
    > I posted the following in an earlier thread:
    >
    > One possibility is that the lens generates an interrupt to the processor
    > when mounted or dismounted. If a non-maskable interrupt is employed, then
    > stack overflow could result. If you are really interested you can research
    > terms like switch bounce, stack overflow, and non-maskable interrupt service
    > routines.


    What, they forgot to tell the developers that lenses were supposed to
    be hot-swappable? If so...idiots!
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 29, 2004
    #8
  9. greensteak

    Skip M Guest

    "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:-b.net...
    > "Charles Schuler" <> writes:
    >
    > > Does anybody know how widespread this problem is and if it is indeed

    caused
    > > by changing lenses with the camera on?
    > >
    > > I posted the following in an earlier thread:
    > >
    > > One possibility is that the lens generates an interrupt to the processor
    > > when mounted or dismounted. If a non-maskable interrupt is employed,

    then
    > > stack overflow could result. If you are really interested you can

    research
    > > terms like switch bounce, stack overflow, and non-maskable interrupt

    service
    > > routines.

    >
    > What, they forgot to tell the developers that lenses were supposed to
    > be hot-swappable? If so...idiots!
    > --
    > David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    > RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    > Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/>

    <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    > Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>


    See my post above. I don't think that changing lenses has anything to do
    with the lockup. I've changed lenses to a far-thee-well on my 20D without a
    problem, had it lock up twice without changing a thing...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Sep 29, 2004
    #9
  10. In article <shy6d.36812$aW5.32441@fed1read07>,
    says...
    > See my post above. I don't think that changing lenses has anything to do
    > with the lockup. I've changed lenses to a far-thee-well on my 20D without a
    > problem, had it lock up twice without changing a thing...


    Goblins. There are goblins in your camera. I suggest you give some
    anti-jive help immediately.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Sep 29, 2004
    #10
  11. >In article <>, Charles Schuler
    >> One possibility is that the lens generates an interrupt to the processor
    >> when mounted or dismounted.


    Randall Ainsworth <> writes:
    >What is with you people on this subject? What kind of imbecile would
    >design a piece of equipment like that?


    People make mistakes, even experienced designers. Your comment is about
    as useful as saying that (for example) Intel would never design a
    Pentium processor with a defective divide lookup table, or at least that
    the error would be caught before release. But, in fact, there are
    stupid errors in devices rather frequently.

    >And what thought process would
    >make one even suspect such a thing?


    People are trying to come up with possible explanations of what might be
    wrong. Even if the explanations are themselves wrong, at least they're
    trying. As far as I can tell, you haven't offered any explanation
    yourself, you've merely ridiculed other people's explanation without any
    evidence that they're wrong. That's even less helpful. What would lead
    you to do this?

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Sep 29, 2004
    #11
  12. greensteak

    Skip M Guest

    "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <shy6d.36812$aW5.32441@fed1read07>,
    > says...
    > > See my post above. I don't think that changing lenses has anything to

    do
    > > with the lockup. I've changed lenses to a far-thee-well on my 20D

    without a
    > > problem, had it lock up twice without changing a thing...

    >
    > Goblins. There are goblins in your camera. I suggest you give some
    > anti-jive help immediately.
    > --
    > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/


    Will taking it to a Cajun restaurant do the trick?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Sep 29, 2004
    #12
  13. "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:280920041917302467%...
    > In article <>, Charles Schuler
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Does anybody know how widespread this problem is and if it is indeed
    >> caused
    >> by changing lenses with the camera on?
    >>
    >> I posted the following in an earlier thread:
    >>
    >> One possibility is that the lens generates an interrupt to the processor
    >> when mounted or dismounted. If a non-maskable interrupt is employed,
    >> then
    >> stack overflow could result. If you are really interested you can
    >> research
    >> terms like switch bounce, stack overflow, and non-maskable interrupt
    >> service
    >> routines.

    >
    > What is with you people on this subject? What kind of imbecile would
    > design a piece of equipment like that? And what thought process would
    > make one even suspect such a thing?


    You are piece of work! Microsoft has brain-drained the entire planet and
    still writes software that is buggy and can be compromised by viruses and by
    unseen events. NASA has had software problems after spending millions on
    various projects.

    Why don't you offer an explanation? Then we can sit back and shoot holes in
    it and question YOUR thought process.
     
    Charles Schuler, Sep 29, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <cjen21$s28$>, Dave Martindale
    <> wrote:

    > People make mistakes, even experienced designers. Your comment is about
    > as useful as saying that (for example) Intel would never design a
    > Pentium processor with a defective divide lookup table, or at least that
    > the error would be caught before release. But, in fact, there are
    > stupid errors in devices rather frequently.


    It's a pretty bizarre thought process.

    > People are trying to come up with possible explanations of what might be
    > wrong. Even if the explanations are themselves wrong, at least they're
    > trying. As far as I can tell, you haven't offered any explanation
    > yourself, you've merely ridiculed other people's explanation without any
    > evidence that they're wrong. That's even less helpful. What would lead
    > you to do this?


    My guess is that it's not something that's wrong with all of them. Who
    knows? Nobody has yet found a common denominator. It's the price you
    pay for getting serial #0000000001.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 30, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <>, Charles Schuler
    <> wrote:

    > You are piece of work! Microsoft has brain-drained the entire planet and
    > still writes software that is buggy and can be compromised by viruses and by
    > unseen events. NASA has had software problems after spending millions on
    > various projects.
    >
    > Why don't you offer an explanation? Then we can sit back and shoot holes in
    > it and question YOUR thought process.


    Guess what? I don't use Windows (except at work).

    I don't know what's causing the problem but it sounds like it's not
    something that's wrong with the overall design. So far nobody has been
    able to find a common denominator. But I'm willing to bet money it's
    not from leaving the camera turned on when you change lenses.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 30, 2004
    #15
  16. In article <R6C6d.37391$aW5.2150@fed1read07>,
    says...
    > > Goblins. There are goblins in your camera. I suggest you give some
    > > anti-jive help immediately.
    > > --
    > > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

    >
    > Will taking it to a Cajun restaurant do the trick?


    If the dishwasher practices Voodoo, yes.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Sep 30, 2004
    #16
  17. Ryadia <> wrote in message news:<>...

    >
    > The problem is not as widespread as at first thought and it may be an
    > 'old' problem re-surfacing. If you have stored your lens for any length
    > of time and not cleaned the electro contacts, you could get this problem.
    >


    It's not as simple as that. It looks to me like it's a batch/tolerance
    issue.

    Here's my experience: After fighting the urge to NOT buy the first
    released version for a week or so I finally gave in.

    Having heard about the problems, Before buying the camera I took all
    my lenses down to the shop, tried them out on the body there. must
    have played around for half an hour swapping on/off about 5 different
    Canon and 1 Tamron lens on/off, taking photos trying to provoke the
    issue without being able to do so.

    They told me I couldn't have the floor model, that they'd have to
    order one.

    It arrived 2 days later. It was running the same firmware as the shop
    model. I mounted the 70-200 F2.8L IS, Within the first few shots I got
    an an Error 01. No problem I thought, err01 can just be dirty
    contacts, I turned the camera off, removed the lens, cleaned the
    contacts, mounted it again an within seconds got the same problem, and
    it happened persistently every 10 shots or so. Ok I thought, perhaps
    it's just that lens. I mounted the 24-70 2.8L, took a few hundred
    shots, no problem, I dismounted the lens, mounted the 18-55 that comes
    with the digital rebel.

    The camera locked up at the instant I finished turning the lens to
    mount it. All LCDs went blank and the only thing that would get it
    back was removing/reinserting the battery.

    The key thing is that the diffence between the two 20d bodies was
    night and day, one performed flawlessly using exactly the same lenses
    and CF card and firmware version (And the lenses work just fine on
    both and EOS3 and a digital Rebel). The other one had problems and
    locked up almost immediately.

    I'm guessing the new firmware may help, but it'll be because it's
    working around some known tolerance issue, or problems with a
    particular batch of cameras.

    It's not at all unusual in the electronics industry to have a problem
    in early production, find a software hack around the problem and fix
    an underlying hardware issue properly in a later hardware rev.

    Canon told me the new firmware would fix the error 01 with the 70-200
    f2.8L IS, and solve the lockup.

    However, given my suspicion that there are good and bad units, and now
    preferring to let somone else prove the proposed upgrade works, I sent
    the camera back.

    But other than locking up, it's a great camera, I'm going to wait a
    few months for them to settle down and for consensus opinion on the
    Internet to be that the problem's been sucessfully fixed.

    In answer to your question, since it seems possible to find a "good"
    20d and a "bad" 20d, I think you can bet that the ones on the
    Photokina stand will be very carefully screened so they don't have
    whatever issue causes the problem.
     
    Matthew Thompson, Oct 2, 2004
    #17
  18. greensteak

    Skip M Guest

    "Matthew Thompson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ryadia <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    >
    > >
    > > The problem is not as widespread as at first thought and it may be an
    > > 'old' problem re-surfacing. If you have stored your lens for any length
    > > of time and not cleaned the electro contacts, you could get this

    problem.
    > >

    >
    > It's not as simple as that. It looks to me like it's a batch/tolerance
    > issue.
    >
    > Here's my experience: After fighting the urge to NOT buy the first
    > released version for a week or so I finally gave in.
    >
    > Having heard about the problems, Before buying the camera I took all
    > my lenses down to the shop, tried them out on the body there. must
    > have played around for half an hour swapping on/off about 5 different
    > Canon and 1 Tamron lens on/off, taking photos trying to provoke the
    > issue without being able to do so.
    >
    > They told me I couldn't have the floor model, that they'd have to
    > order one.
    >
    > It arrived 2 days later. It was running the same firmware as the shop
    > model. I mounted the 70-200 F2.8L IS, Within the first few shots I got
    > an an Error 01. No problem I thought, err01 can just be dirty
    > contacts, I turned the camera off, removed the lens, cleaned the
    > contacts, mounted it again an within seconds got the same problem, and
    > it happened persistently every 10 shots or so. Ok I thought, perhaps
    > it's just that lens. I mounted the 24-70 2.8L, took a few hundred
    > shots, no problem, I dismounted the lens, mounted the 18-55 that comes
    > with the digital rebel.
    >
    > The camera locked up at the instant I finished turning the lens to
    > mount it. All LCDs went blank and the only thing that would get it
    > back was removing/reinserting the battery.
    >
    > The key thing is that the diffence between the two 20d bodies was
    > night and day, one performed flawlessly using exactly the same lenses
    > and CF card and firmware version (And the lenses work just fine on
    > both and EOS3 and a digital Rebel). The other one had problems and
    > locked up almost immediately.
    >
    > I'm guessing the new firmware may help, but it'll be because it's
    > working around some known tolerance issue, or problems with a
    > particular batch of cameras.
    >
    > It's not at all unusual in the electronics industry to have a problem
    > in early production, find a software hack around the problem and fix
    > an underlying hardware issue properly in a later hardware rev.
    >
    > Canon told me the new firmware would fix the error 01 with the 70-200
    > f2.8L IS, and solve the lockup.
    >
    > However, given my suspicion that there are good and bad units, and now
    > preferring to let somone else prove the proposed upgrade works, I sent
    > the camera back.
    >
    > But other than locking up, it's a great camera, I'm going to wait a
    > few months for them to settle down and for consensus opinion on the
    > Internet to be that the problem's been sucessfully fixed.
    >
    > In answer to your question, since it seems possible to find a "good"
    > 20d and a "bad" 20d, I think you can bet that the ones on the
    > Photokina stand will be very carefully screened so they don't have
    > whatever issue causes the problem.


    The problem you had was different from the "lockup" that's been reported,
    and that I've experienced. The LCDs don't go blank, they stay on, all looks
    normal, it's just that nothing happens. The off switch doesn't even work.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Oct 2, 2004
    #18
  19. >
    > The problem you had was different from the "lockup" that's been reported,
    > and that I've experienced. The LCDs don't go blank, they stay on, all looks
    > normal, it's just that nothing happens. The off switch doesn't even work.


    I've seen it repored by some people that when it locks up completely
    the top LCD goes blank, for others it doesn't. With my full lockup
    (not the err 01), the LCDs went blank, the off switch wouldn't work
    and the only thing that would reset it was removing the battery,
    exactly the pattern reported by others.

    It happened at the time I changed the lens, while I can't say 100%
    that's what caused it, i'd say there's a reasonable chance there's
    something funky with the camera<->lens communications in some 20D's.
     
    Matthew Thompson, Oct 3, 2004
    #19
  20. greensteak

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that Randall Ainsworth <> stated
    that:

    >In article <cjen21$s28$>, Dave Martindale
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> People make mistakes, even experienced designers. Your comment is about
    >> as useful as saying that (for example) Intel would never design a
    >> Pentium processor with a defective divide lookup table, or at least that
    >> the error would be caught before release. But, in fact, there are
    >> stupid errors in devices rather frequently.

    >
    >It's a pretty bizarre thought process.


    Really? Done much digital electronic design work yourself? - I have, &
    I've seen sillier problems than that.

    >> People are trying to come up with possible explanations of what might be
    >> wrong. Even if the explanations are themselves wrong, at least they're
    >> trying. As far as I can tell, you haven't offered any explanation
    >> yourself, you've merely ridiculed other people's explanation without any
    >> evidence that they're wrong. That's even less helpful. What would lead
    >> you to do this?

    >
    >My guess is that it's not something that's wrong with all of them. Who
    >knows? Nobody has yet found a common denominator.


    How the hell would you know? My bet is that several people at Canon have
    a fair idea what the problem is, & are just trying to come up with a
    reliable fix for it.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Oct 4, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. friend

    Re: What's expected at Photokina?

    friend, Aug 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    359
    friend
    Aug 15, 2003
  2. Jerry

    Canon 20D lockup problems

    Jerry, Sep 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    58
    Views:
    997
    Ronin
    Sep 30, 2004
  3. Charles Schuler

    20D lockup

    Charles Schuler, Mar 11, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    605
    Dave Martindale
    Mar 13, 2005
  4. Lester Wareham

    20D Lockup

    Lester Wareham, May 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    338
  5. badchess
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    348
    ASAAR
    Dec 12, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page