Focus issue solved, faulty camera now replaced

Chris Hurd · December 8th, 2006, 09:24 AM

No it is not at all helpful for those who are about to buy this cam, because there is nothing conclusive about Alex's situation until he can get a definitive answer from Canon service. His camera is either operating properly or it is not. The only conclusive way that this can be determined is to obtain a verdict from Canon service. Efforts by other owners to duplicate his issue will have too much variation despite their best intentions. The whole point of this forum is to be helpful to those who are about to buy or already own the camera. Nothing helpful can be derived from this until Alex submits his camera to the Canon service department and reports their conclusions here. That's the only way that we'll know for sure if there's actually a problem. Thanks in advance,

Pete Bauer · December 8th, 2006, 09:32 AM

Chris is correct -- not because he owns DVinfo -- but because we are obviously well past the point of realizing that what Alex really needs to know is if his camera is, or is not, functioning within Canon's spec. Only Canon is going to be able to establish that. We'll be eager for that answer, but until then it is all just idle chatter. If it is faulty, well, bad luck and they'll get it fixed or replaced. If it is in-spec, then that's information that might guide Alex and others in their choice of cameras. But until Canon looks at the camera, it is all just off-the-cuff opining, or worse.

EDIT: Ah, Chris beat me to the punch. Although he said it better, we're saying the same thing...must be something to it!

Chris Hurd · December 8th, 2006, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Bauer

But until Canon looks at the camera, it is all just off-the-cuff opining, or worse.

And it doesn't become helpful until Alex tells us what Canon has to say about his camera.

Michael Mann · December 8th, 2006, 11:32 AM

Chris, I see your point, but I still disagree:
Of course I hope we get a verdict by Canon to see whether this behaviour is normal or not. But I find the fact alone that (maybe only) Alex's A1 shows the described behaviour a RELEVANT information. (My MH10 does the same, maybe that's why.)
No offense, Michael Mann

Luc Meisel · December 8th, 2006, 11:39 AM

This is absolutely an issue that should be on the boards because
I want to know about it,

I want to ask about it if I go to buy one.
He should be able to ask others if they have the same issues.

My Hv-10 which i assume may have the same parts in the IAF
does keep focus sometimes when zooming, it would be hard to believe that the more expensive model couldnt do this.

Thats not to say that the Hv-10 doesnt lose focus or hunt, cause it does.
It loves to hunt and if you zoom too close it doesnt focus at all on a close object.

I am going to a dealer today to test and ask about this.
Thanks for the post.

Chris Hurd · December 8th, 2006, 11:54 AM

Alex said himself that this might be a case of unrealistic expectations about how the IAF operates... so again, it's not a even a "real" issue until he knows one way or the other if his camera is faulty. Like I said... we won't know that to be a fact until he sends it to factory service and gets an answer.

Until then, it's not a fact. I'm not operating this board in order to start rumors. This site is intended for factual information only. We don't have any facts yet. The only fact available to us is that Alex is not sure what is happening with his camera.

Vlad Manning · December 8th, 2006, 07:12 PM

Doesn't sound like anyone is trying to start any rumors to me, just the original poster noting odd focus behavior -and Dave Lammey noting his HV10 displays the same when the IAF quickly hunts. And that fact brought up of the Canons overlap of AF zoom function is also worth knowing.

It's your forum Chris, but I've found the more a tech forums posts get restricted or censured, the less useful it becomes. Let people speak freely.

Chris Hurd · December 8th, 2006, 07:25 PM

You might be in the wrong place then, Vlad, because this site is without a doubt one of the most heavily restricted tech forums on the web. It's also one of the most popular tech forums for digital video precisely *because* of those restrictions. And I'm not stopping anyone from speaking freely... the internet is huge and I encourage everyone to exercise their right to freedom of speech and start their own web site / message board / blog / whatever, and run it exactly the way they want to. Meanwhile, I'll continue to run mine as I see fit, and that particular way has always been to filter out as much noise as necessary in order to keep the signal level as high as possible. That's how we define usefulness around here. Thanks in advance for understanding,

Luc Meisel · December 8th, 2006, 11:00 PM

I think that so called facts almost always start as an hypothesis.

The hypothesis is to figure out if this persons IAF is faulty.

The fact can also be understood, if compared to others cameras
Though subjective it is still a fast and valid method to procure information.

The example would be that I went out and tested 2 A1's at different stores.

Neither of them displayed what we're speaking of, I then bought one and will test that unit.

Obviously my testing is a simple visual procedure but valid still.

So it is very useful if he determines that it helped him gather the information to move to the next step which would be to send it in.

The first step is NOT to immediately send in the camera, why let go of your new camera, until your sure.

I think that Vlad is posting in the RIGHT place, anywhere that he posts is the right place if its where it is helpful to others, is that not what this board is for.

So, I found it very helpful, thanks, love your post.

and I will post new info on my new cam and see if it does this.

Holly Rognan · December 8th, 2006, 11:50 PM

I agree with Chris. He has restricted my speech, and refined it to a more pleasing demeanor in the past, and I respect it. My negativity may have been warranted by bad experiences, but it didn't help anything, it was meaningless whining banter.

I appreciate the usefulness and relevance that this forum offers.

I haven't found anything so succinct and pertinent to my questions, and I find it very mature and objective. If I have a question, I usually find it very quickly.

That is not to say that subjectivity is not desired here, it is very much a core function. But once things debated to personal bias and conflict arises, Chris quickly becomes a mediator and stomps out the posibble fires.

I hear your pain Alex. I have had significant problems in the past with Canon's customer service and faulty lens elements not properly focusing. If you feel that something is wrong, send it in with a tape highlighting the problem and be firm in your decision to have them thoroughly fix it. It is too bad that you possibly got a bad unit after spending a good chunk of change. I can only hope that Canon treats you well and makes things right with you.

Chris Hurd · December 9th, 2006, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc Meisel

The hypothesis is to figure out if this persons IAF is faulty.

The only way that can be accomplished with any degree of certainty is for Alex to send his camera in to the factory service center. And that's what I've been urging him to do (and to please report back to us as well), so that we will all know for sure whether there is or is not something wrong with his camera.

Quote:

The first step is NOT to immediately send in the camera, why let go of your new camera, until your sure.

You don't seem to understand. The only way that he *can* know for sure is to send it in to the authorized factory service center. That's the entire goal, to figure out if there's something wrong with the camera! The *only* resource available that can provide him with a definitive answer is the Canon factory service center.

Chris Hurd · December 9th, 2006, 02:25 AM

And with that, I'm closing this thread for now until Alex is ready to report back.

Alex Leith · December 18th, 2006, 10:47 AM

Thanks to all those who offered their suggestions and tested their cameras for me.

On Friday Canon confirmed the camera was faulty and shipped out a new one, which I will get tomorrow. Hooray! Just in time for Christmas. :-D

Josh Chesarek · December 18th, 2006, 11:04 AM

I am glad you are getting a new camera. Might I suggest updating your webpage for people who are only checking there for info? :)

Chris Hurd · December 18th, 2006, 11:19 AM

Many thanks for the update, Alex -- I've changed the title of this thread to suit.

Much appreciated,

December 8th, 2006, 09:24 AM	#16
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	No it is not at all helpful for those who are about to buy this cam, because there is nothing conclusive about Alex's situation until he can get a definitive answer from Canon service. His camera is either operating properly or it is not. The only conclusive way that this can be determined is to obtain a verdict from Canon service. Efforts by other owners to duplicate his issue will have too much variation despite their best intentions. The whole point of this forum is to be helpful to those who are about to buy or already own the camera. Nothing helpful can be derived from this until Alex submits his camera to the Canon service department and reports their conclusions here. That's the only way that we'll know for sure if there's actually a problem. Thanks in advance, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 8th, 2006, 09:32 AM	#17
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Chris is correct -- not because he owns DVinfo -- but because we are obviously well past the point of realizing that what Alex really needs to know is if his camera is, or is not, functioning within Canon's spec. Only Canon is going to be able to establish that. We'll be eager for that answer, but until then it is all just idle chatter. If it is faulty, well, bad luck and they'll get it fixed or replaced. If it is in-spec, then that's information that might guide Alex and others in their choice of cameras. But until Canon looks at the camera, it is all just off-the-cuff opining, or worse. EDIT: Ah, Chris beat me to the punch. Although he said it better, we're saying the same thing...must be something to it! __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

December 8th, 2006, 11:54 AM	#21
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Alex said himself that this might be a case of unrealistic expectations about how the IAF operates... so again, it's not a even a "real" issue until he knows one way or the other if his camera is faulty. Like I said... we won't know that to be a fact until he sends it to factory service and gets an answer. Until then, it's not a fact. I'm not operating this board in order to start rumors. This site is intended for factual information only. We don't have any facts yet. The only fact available to us is that Alex is not sure what is happening with his camera. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 8th, 2006, 07:25 PM	#23
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	You might be in the wrong place then, Vlad, because this site is without a doubt one of the most heavily restricted tech forums on the web. It's also one of the most popular tech forums for digital video precisely because of those restrictions. And I'm not stopping anyone from speaking freely... the internet is huge and I encourage everyone to exercise their right to freedom of speech and start their own web site / message board / blog / whatever, and run it exactly the way they want to. Meanwhile, I'll continue to run mine as I see fit, and that particular way has always been to filter out as much noise as necessary in order to keep the signal level as high as possible. That's how we define usefulness around here. Thanks in advance for understanding, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 9th, 2006, 02:25 AM	#27
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	And with that, I'm closing this thread for now until Alex is ready to report back. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 8th, 2006, 11:32 AM	#19
Michael Mann Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Kelkheim, Germany Posts: 375	Chris, I see your point, but I still disagree: Of course I hope we get a verdict by Canon to see whether this behaviour is normal or not. But I find the fact alone that (maybe only) Alex's A1 shows the described behaviour a RELEVANT information. (My MH10 does the same, maybe that's why.) No offense, Michael Mann

December 8th, 2006, 11:39 AM	#20
Luc Meisel Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 33	This is absolutely an issue that should be on the boards because I want to know about it, I want to ask about it if I go to buy one. He should be able to ask others if they have the same issues. My Hv-10 which i assume may have the same parts in the IAF does keep focus sometimes when zooming, it would be hard to believe that the more expensive model couldnt do this. Thats not to say that the Hv-10 doesnt lose focus or hunt, cause it does. It loves to hunt and if you zoom too close it doesnt focus at all on a close object. I am going to a dealer today to test and ask about this. Thanks for the post.

December 8th, 2006, 07:12 PM	#22
Vlad Manning New Boot Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: US Posts: 19	Doesn't sound like anyone is trying to start any rumors to me, just the original poster noting odd focus behavior -and Dave Lammey noting his HV10 displays the same when the IAF quickly hunts. And that fact brought up of the Canons overlap of AF zoom function is also worth knowing. It's your forum Chris, but I've found the more a tech forums posts get restricted or censured, the less useful it becomes. Let people speak freely.

December 8th, 2006, 11:00 PM	#24
Luc Meisel Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 33	I think that so called facts almost always start as an hypothesis. The hypothesis is to figure out if this persons IAF is faulty. The fact can also be understood, if compared to others cameras Though subjective it is still a fast and valid method to procure information. The example would be that I went out and tested 2 A1's at different stores. Neither of them displayed what we're speaking of, I then bought one and will test that unit. Obviously my testing is a simple visual procedure but valid still. So it is very useful if he determines that it helped him gather the information to move to the next step which would be to send it in. The first step is NOT to immediately send in the camera, why let go of your new camera, until your sure. I think that Vlad is posting in the RIGHT place, anywhere that he posts is the right place if its where it is helpful to others, is that not what this board is for. So, I found it very helpful, thanks, love your post. and I will post new info on my new cam and see if it does this.

December 8th, 2006, 11:50 PM	#25
Holly Rognan Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Coalville America Posts: 244	I agree with Chris. He has restricted my speech, and refined it to a more pleasing demeanor in the past, and I respect it. My negativity may have been warranted by bad experiences, but it didn't help anything, it was meaningless whining banter. I appreciate the usefulness and relevance that this forum offers. I haven't found anything so succinct and pertinent to my questions, and I find it very mature and objective. If I have a question, I usually find it very quickly. That is not to say that subjectivity is not desired here, it is very much a core function. But once things debated to personal bias and conflict arises, Chris quickly becomes a mediator and stomps out the posibble fires. I hear your pain Alex. I have had significant problems in the past with Canon's customer service and faulty lens elements not properly focusing. If you feel that something is wrong, send it in with a tape highlighting the problem and be firm in your decision to have them thoroughly fix it. It is too bad that you possibly got a bad unit after spending a good chunk of change. I can only hope that Canon treats you well and makes things right with you.

December 18th, 2006, 10:47 AM	#28
Alex Leith Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Northampton, England Posts: 500	Closure Thanks to all those who offered their suggestions and tested their cameras for me. On Friday Canon confirmed the camera was faulty and shipped out a new one, which I will get tomorrow. Hooray! Just in time for Christmas. :-D __________________ Alex

December 18th, 2006, 11:04 AM	#29
Josh Chesarek Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Winter Park, FL Posts: 978	I am glad you are getting a new camera. Might I suggest updating your webpage for people who are only checking there for info? :) __________________ Simple Thought Productions - Life @ 30,000 Words per second

December 18th, 2006, 11:19 AM	#30
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Many thanks for the update, Alex -- I've changed the title of this thread to suit. Much appreciated, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!