How Much Film?

[andrew_buckley1]

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

[ricardo_spanks]

How many angels fit on the head of a pin?

[alec1]

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

about it?

[ned_tuft]

And why don't you learn some manners Alec?

[andrew_buckley1]

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?

[wilhelm]

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

[marc_leest5]

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.

[george_papantoniou]

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...

[michael_feldman1]

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

 

<p>

 

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".

 

<p>

 

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)?

[andrew_buckley1]

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_buckley1]

I think the section relating to fit for purpose is 14.2

 

<p>

 

Andrew

[michael_feldman1]

Andrew,

 

<p>

 

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.

[andrew_buckley1]

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?

 

<p>

 

Andrew

[michael_feldman1]

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.

[andrew_buckley1]

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

 

<p>

 

The problem was this.

 

<p>

 

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?

 

<p>

 

Andrew

[michael_feldman1]

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.

[ed b.]

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.

[andrew_buckley1]

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.

[jorge_gasteazoro]

Ed, as a LF photographer I have had problems my brain comunicating

with my hands, but the lens comunicating with the camera? Nahh!

[conrad_hoffman]

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.

[bong]

Even more off topic but...

<p>

<i>In the US all commercial products carry an implied warranty of

fitness for a particular purpose.</i>

<p>

Have you read the license agreement that comes with most software

products? Read any Windows license, for example.

[michael_feldman1]

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.

 

<p>

 

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).

 

<p>

 

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.

[bob_agg]

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