Got my 20D back from factory service today

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Dimitri Cohen, Sep 30, 2005.

  1. Had it serviced for the known flash underexposure issue. Camera's ok now,
    but something else bothers me now: after I took a few test shots I noticed
    that the file number index has had moved up from ~450 to ~9600. Does that
    mean the folks at the service center actually took approximately 9000+ shots
    with my camera while trying to calibrate it? If that's actually true, then
    (assuming the shutter life on the 20D is 100,000 cycles, and that's being
    optimistic since 350D allegedly only has 50,000) the life of the shutter has
    been shortened by one tenth, and that's just in the 3 days that the camera
    was being serviced at the center... I don't like that one bit... :(
    Has anyone, who had the similar experience of sending their 20D (or maybe
    any other Canon dSLR) to be serviced by Canon, noticed the fact the file
    counter index had jumped by almost 10 thousand?

    P.S. I'm going to call them tomorrow and actualy ask them (the Canon service
    center) that question myself.
    Dimitri Cohen, Sep 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. It means they replaced your "digic" with another one and it ain't new!
    They're allowed to, under warranty laws... Replace or repair, says the
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dimitri Cohen

    DD (Rox) Guest

    Sue the bastards.
    DD (Rox), Sep 30, 2005
  4. Try to take a CF card from a camera that has the index number set to ie.
    4000 and set it in a camera have a much loer index number. Then format the
    card and try to take a picture. The new picture will get the high index
    number +1...
    Jørn Dahl-Stamnes, Sep 30, 2005
  5. Dimitri Cohen

    Eugene Guest

    No, all is fine. They just tested it with a CF card that had been used
    in another camera.

    The same thing happened to me when I first bought my 20D. I noticed that
    the shot index seemed to be incredibly high. It was a display camera,
    and I was stressing for a while that perhaps it was actually a return.
    Then I found something on the web that mentioned that the file index can
    increase if the CF card has been previously used in a camera with a
    higher index. This made sense, because the CF cards I was using in the
    20D had previously been used in my old G3.
    Eugene, Sep 30, 2005
  6. Dimitri Cohen

    Eugene Guest

    Incidentally under what conditions was the flash underexposing? I posted
    a message a few weeks ago about my new 20D underexposing when I bounce
    the flash, but I'd since decided that I was just going to have to live
    with it. Was yours underexposing all the time or just when you bounce or
    diffuse the flash?
    Eugene, Sep 30, 2005
  7. Dimitri Cohen

    Ed Ruf Guest

    There may be the actual number of shutter cycles stored in the full exif
    somewhere. I thought I remember reading about this somewhere once.
    Ed Ruf, Sep 30, 2005
  8. Dimitri Cohen

    Alan Guest

    As others have said, this is normal if a CF card previouly used in another
    camera was used in yours, as the camera always jumps to the last number on
    the card +1.
    Try it between any two Canon cameras and you'll see.

    Alan, Sep 30, 2005
  9. Thanks, Eugene! That actually makes perfect sense (assuming that the Service
    Center most likely is using the same CF card on most cameras that come in
    for repair).
    Dimitri Cohen, Sep 30, 2005
  10. Mine was badly underexposing in plain flash set up (flash, being the main
    source of light, pointed directly at the subject) both, internal or external
    (the 420 in my case, which I'd borrowed from a friend).
    Dimitri Cohen, Sep 30, 2005
  11. Dimitri Cohen

    Eugene Guest

    Ah, OK, sounds like a different problem then. Mine works fine when
    pointed directly at the subject, just seems to get confused when I
    bounce or diffuse.
    Eugene, Oct 1, 2005
  12. Dimitri Cohen

    JPS Guest

    In message <433d63cb$0$19269$>,
    If they had any consideration for the user, they could easily adopt a
    workflow that didn't do this. In fact, nothing changes at all if they
    remove your card and use USB and a computer to take test images.
    JPS, Oct 1, 2005
  13. Dimitri Cohen

    Eugene Guest

    Could they not just format the cards before using them?
    Eugene, Oct 1, 2005
  14. Dimitri Cohen

    JPS Guest

    In message <dhm132$1vqg$>,
    That should work, too, but it is probably easier to forget.

    JPS, Oct 1, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.