Slightly off topic, but can any pro's out there tell me how much film they shoot in an average month?

-- Andrew Buckley (da_buckley@yahoo.com), August 10, 2001

Answers

How many angels fit on the head of a pin?

-- ricardo (ricardospanks1@yahoo.com), August 10, 2001.

Why don't you go shoot some, Andrew, rather than waste time talking about it?

-- Alec (alecj@bellsouth.net), August 10, 2001.

And why don't you learn some manners Alec?

-- Ned Tuft (ntuft@hotmail.com), August 10, 2001.

Okay guys Thanks for all that The reason for asking the question was because my EOS 1nHS has died on me. It is 15 months old and 3 months out of warranty. Canon have quoted £288 (c$420) for repair. I am not a pro and in the time that i have had this body, have put around 250 rolls of film thru it. The reason for asking was to discover whether the camera was indeed fit for purpose under the SOG act. Does it make more sense now?

-- Andrew Buckley (da_buckley@yahoo.com), August 10, 2001.

Sorry to hear about your camera. What's the SOG Act?

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), August 10, 2001.

I am not a professional photographer, but I have a Nikon F100 and the average lifetime of the F100 shutter is considered to be about 150000 frames. Maybe this helps.

-- Marc Leest (mmm@n2photography.com), August 10, 2001.

I don't shoot 35mm, and I am not a reporter, but I know several guys who work for agencies and use Canon EOS. I can assure you that they shoot more that 100 rolls per week and their cameras last for some time (years) before they break down. EOS 1 has a reputation for being a reliable Pro Camera and I believe it is completely absurd to say that it is logical for it to fail to work after shooting 250 rolls of film. Your cam must have had some production default and has broken down so quickly. I would advise you though to fix it, sell it and buy a second hand Nikon F so that you can spend the rest of your life shooting nice pictures and not visiting the camera repair shop...

-- George Papantoniou (papanton@hol.gr), August 10, 2001.

Doing a search on the Internet, I found the Norwegian Sale of Goods Act at the following website: http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/norway.sog.act.1988/doc.html

Is this what you are referring to, or is it a UK law? Which exact section of the act did you find "fitness for purpose".

In the US all commercial products carry an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. A product that broke down after 15 months would not likely violate this implied warranty. In the US, the fitness for a particular purpose implied warranty does not usually relate the reliability of a product, unless the majority of samples of the product broke very soon after initial use. Do you know whether your problem is symptomatic of similar problems others have had with camera (do you have any quantitative evidence about its reliability)?

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), August 10, 2001.

SOG Act=Sale of Goods Act 1972(?) UK Consumer law says that goods sold must be fit for the purpose for which they are to be used. I question whether the body is/was? My argument is that 9000 (250*36) shutter releases does not constitute heavy use, moreover if i were a pro the likelihood is that the problem would have shown itself within the first 2-3 months of my owning it.

-- Andrew Buckley (da_buckley@yahoo.com), August 10, 2001.

I think the section relating to fit for purpose is 14.2

Andrew

-- Andrew Buckley (da_buckley@yahoo.com), August 10, 2001.

Andrew,

I am not an expert in UK law, but if it is anything like US law, the warranty for fitness for a particular purpose does not apply to reliability, except in extreme cases. This law is designed to protect consumers against massively fraudulent products, not products that are somewhat unreliable. In the US, you would have to prove that almost all samples had a similar problem, and that the problem was caused by a massive design defect in the product for it to be covered by this implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), August 10, 2001.

I'll need to look into that! The crux of the problem for me is in the timing. Clearly if i had been shooting the volume of film for which the camera is designed then the problem would have occurred much sooner. I have no choice currently but to pay the bill once the body is returned to me, but i want some recourse...Any ideas?

Andrew

-- Andrew Buckley (da_buckley@yahoo.com), August 10, 2001.

I would have to have more information on the problem and whether it was likely caused by a manufacturing defect, user abuse, or just bad luck. If you suspect that others have had the same problem, I would send a letter to the Canon Distributor (Importer) asking for relief.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), August 10, 2001.

The main board has had to be replaced, so Canon inform me.

The problem was this.

The body and lens stopped communicating. On depressing the shutter in lens AF mode the lens would not focus. Furthermore the eyepiece would darken as if the mirror had lifted but the shutter would not open. A further depression of the release would return the camera to status quo. The 'bc' indicator would illuminate which initially suggested that the camera was short on battery power. I should say that the camera would operate in lens MF mode. This had happened to me before usually in cold/damp conditions but not outside the cameras operating envelope. Usually 10 minutes in the camera bag was enough to 'warm-up' the camera and it would be okay. I had seen posts on the Canon FAQ at this site before, but Canon had always appeared reluctant to admit anything was wrong. I wouldn't class myself as a conspiracy theorist but i wonder that now the camera is out of production if they are prepared to admit that there is a design fault?

Andrew

-- Andrew Buckley (da_buckley@yahoo.com), August 10, 2001.

This is an increasingly common subject. As cameras become more electronically sophisticated, there seem to be many more problems with condensation. I have heard that many manufacturers (and retailers who offer extended warranties) will not honor the warranty on digcams if they think that the damage has been caused by condensation on the electronic circuits. I would not advise anyone to leave their camera (or their computer) in the trunk of their car overnight or anyplace where it gets cold and humid. If there is condensation on top of your car in the morning, then there is a potential for problems with anything left inside your car overnight.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), August 10, 2001.

I never have this problem with my Leica M4, because there is no electronic anything to stop communicating. I probably sound like an old fogey. My partner Sybil has a Canon and it takes wonderful photographs, but I can never figure out all the settings on it. Give me a manual camera any day.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edb@unblinkingeye.com), August 10, 2001.

I have been really careful about this. If it rains then the camera more often than not goes in the bag. Also it is never left in a car overnight, for one thing insurers always exclude that from their cover. So i am at a loss.

-- Andrew Buckley (da_buckley@yahoo.com), August 10, 2001.

Ed, as a LF photographer I have had problems my brain comunicating with my hands, but the lens comunicating with the camera? Nahh!

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm@worldnet.att.net), August 10, 2001.

Just to muddy the electronic waters further, don't forget about ESD (electrostatic discharge). Solid state circuits, especially microprocessors and those designed to operate at low voltages (like in cameras) are subject to damage from static far less intense than the usual "doorknob shock". The body usually provides decent protection, though if you walked across a carpet and "zapped" a body in the right place, you'd almost certainly fry something. More worrisome is if the lensmount has contacts for autofocus or other communication. Zapping those contacts with the lens off provides a direct path into the circuitry. Bottom line is just to be aware of ESD and take special care in dry weather. Never touch electrical contacts when handling equipment. ESD damage is famous for showing up some time after the event. An IC will be damaged, but still function for weeks or months as it gradually deteriorates. Then, usually at the worst possible time, it fails. Worst case is when a manufacturer has an ESD problem in the factory, as the return rate then skyrockets. Note that products that comply with the European CE directive are specifically tested for resistance to static damage, so the CE mark is a good thing to look for.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), August 10, 2001.

Even more off topic but...

In the US all commercial products carry an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Have you read the license agreement that comes with most software products? Read any Windows (TM) license, for example.

-- Bong Munoz (bong@techie.com), August 10, 2001.

1. The "fitness for particular purpose implied warranty" is only applicable for the purposes that the seller (or manufacturer) specifically says the product is suitable for. Therefore, if the seller expressly denies that the product is suitable for any particular purpose (or does not make claims as to what the purpose is) then the warranty may not apply.

2. The above notwithstanding, sellers often make disclaimers that cannot hold up in court. For example, when you park your car in a garage, the back of your parking ticket will usually state that the garage is not responsible for theft or damage to your car. These disclaimers are not necessarily enforceable if the garage did not exercise reasonable care to protect your car, for example, by making sure that the garage employees were not convicted thieves (assuming you could prove that the convicted thief stole something from your car).

Here is an example of a violation of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1263204476 Notice the reference to 6x6 and 6x7 enlargements in the description.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), August 10, 2001.

Check your rights at www.adviceguide.org.uk or www.nacab.org.uk

-- bob agg (bo_bag@hotmail.com), August 18, 2001.