Inquiry to Canon re flash exposure inconsistency

Doug Kerr said:

I plan to send it in but not until after the holidays

Click to expand...

Doug Kerr said:

I plan to send it in but not until after the holidays - we will be
taking a trip and want the little puppy with us - it's the backup
for our Fuji S602.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Doug Kerr said:

Well, here's the transcript:

=================
Kerr said:

I have a Canon EOS Digital Rebel, s/n 046000* . I had come to
suspect that, with both the onboard flash and a Canon 500EX, I was
getting substantially different exposure results for consecutive
flash shots of the same scene.

To investigate this, I took several sets of test shots with the
camera mounted on a tripod and aimed at a fixed scene (a bookcase
full of books). Tests were done in both P and M modes.

In each case, I would take perhaps 10 shots, with an interval of
about 10 seconds between each. Typically, for such a series,
perhaps 6 of the 10 images had quite comparable appearance, and
showed very similar histograms. But the other 4 images (not
necessarily from consecutive shots) appeared substantially lighter.
Examination of the histograms suggested that the difference of
image lightness was about equivalent to as much as a full stop of
exposure difference.

I did such tests both with the onboard flash and the 550-EX. The
overall result was essentially the same for either.

Should I return my camera to an authorized service facility to have
this misbehavior corrected? If so, would you please advise the
proper shipping address and the procedure I should follow.

I am located in Dallas, Texas.

Best regards,

Douglas Kerr
-----------------------
Canon said:

Dear Douglas Kerr,

Thank you for your response. [Response? -dak]

Please remember that metering is linked to the active AF point. If you
focus (meter) on a very light area of the subject, the camera will
expose for that area. As a result, darker areas of the same subject
may
appear underexposed. Using the camera's AE Lock (or FE Lock, for flash
images) function should improve your results. Alternatively, you can
meter on a more moderately toned area of the image.

I hope that this helps. If you need further assistance, please
respond
at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Anthony, Product Support Representative

Customer Service...the most important product we support.
-----------------------
Kerr said:

Hi, Anthony,

I'm sorry, but your response seems to deal with a totally different
problem.

The problem that I am describing is not that I consider the flash
exposure "underexposed". The problem is that, for the exact same
scene and camera aiming (the camera being on a tripod), the flash
exposure result randomly changes from shot to shot by a substantial
degree.

It is hard for me to imagine anything I am doing (or not doing)
that would bring this about. I conclude therefore that it must
reflect some erratic behavior of the camera's innards.

My question is should I return the camera to a service facility to
have this corrected, and if so, how should I do that. (Please see
my original inquiry.)

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug Kerr
-----------------------
Dear Doug Kerr,

Thank you for your response.

If you wish to have the camera examined by a factory service
technician,
please forward your digital camera (remove the CF card and battery)
properly packaged and insured, with a letter describing the
difficulties. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number,
and proof of warranty (if applicable). Send to the Canon Factory
Service
Center at the following address:

Canon Factory Service Center
100 Jamesburg Rd
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
Tel.# (732)521-7007

or

Canon Factory Service Center
15955 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel.# (949) 753-4200

Your equipment will be examined and you will be advised of the
findings.
The length of time for the repair will be dependent upon the nature of
the repair and availability of parts if needed. If the repair entails
something that is not covered in warranty you will be sent a written
estimate to the address that you have provided. We apologize for any
inconvenience.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Anthony, Product Support Representative

Customer Service...the most important product we support.
================

Aaaaaaargh!

That's all, folks!

I plan to send it in but not until after the holidays - we will be
taking a trip and want the little puppy with us - it's the backup
for our Fuji S602.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Doug Kerr said:

Aaaaaaargh!

That's all, folks!

Click to expand...

Doug Kerr said:

Please remember that metering is linked to the active AF point.

Click to expand...

Doug Kerr said:

focus (meter) on a very light area of the subject, the camera will
expose for that area. As a result, darker areas of the same subject
may
appear underexposed.

Click to expand...

Doug Kerr said:

images) function should improve your results.

Click to expand...

Doug Kerr said:

meter on a more moderately toned area of the image.

Click to expand...

Doug Kerr said:

I hope that this helps. If you need further assistance, please
respond
at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Anthony, Product Support Representative

Customer Service...the most important product we support.
-----------------------
Kerr said:

Hi, Anthony,

I'm sorry, but your response seems to deal with a totally different
problem.

The problem that I am describing is not that I consider the flash
exposure "underexposed". The problem is that, for the exact same
scene and camera aiming (the camera being on a tripod), the flash
exposure result randomly changes from shot to shot by a substantial
degree.

It is hard for me to imagine anything I am doing (or not doing)
that would bring this about. I conclude therefore that it must
reflect some erratic behavior of the camera's innards.

My question is should I return the camera to a service facility to
have this corrected, and if so, how should I do that. (Please see
my original inquiry.)

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug Kerr
-----------------------
Dear Doug Kerr,

Thank you for your response.

If you wish to have the camera examined by a factory service
technician,
please forward your digital camera (remove the CF card and battery)
properly packaged and insured, with a letter describing the
difficulties. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number,
and proof of warranty (if applicable). Send to the Canon Factory
Service
Center at the following address:

Canon Factory Service Center
100 Jamesburg Rd
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
Tel.# (732)521-7007

or

Canon Factory Service Center
15955 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel.# (949) 753-4200

Your equipment will be examined and you will be advised of the
findings.
The length of time for the repair will be dependent upon the nature of
the repair and availability of parts if needed. If the repair entails
something that is not covered in warranty you will be sent a written
estimate to the address that you have provided. We apologize for any
inconvenience.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Anthony, Product Support Representative

Customer Service...the most important product we support.
================

Aaaaaaargh!

That's all, folks!

I plan to send it in but not until after the holidays - we will be
taking a trip and want the little puppy with us - it's the backup
for our Fuji S602.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

David N. said:

David N. said:

I plan to send it in but not until after the holidays - we will be
taking a trip and want the little puppy with us - it's the backup
for our Fuji S602.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/dnewell228/

Click to expand...

Sandman said:

Doug Kerr,

Ah yes, I see you too have a new penpal, my old friend Anthony!
Anthony is a master of prose! He will misinterpret your first
e-mail and recommend service on the second. If you decide to send
him one more e-mail message, he will recommend that you purchase a
10D. Anthony and I became "good friends" during the AI Servo
discussions of last week. That Anthony, he's the Man!

Click to expand...

Sandman said:

Cheers,

jim

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

Click to expand...

Sandman said:

Doug Kerr,

Ah yes, I see you too have a new penpal, my old friend Anthony!
Anthony is a master of prose! He will misinterpret your first
e-mail and recommend service on the second. If you decide to send
him one more e-mail message, he will recommend that you purchase a
10D. Anthony and I became "good friends" during the AI Servo
discussions of last week. That Anthony, he's the Man!

Click to expand...

Doug Kerr said:

You may have seen my reports of flash exposure inconsistency with
both onboard and external flash (550EX) on my Digital Rebel.

I have just dispatched to Canon Technical Support the following
inquiry in that regard:

===========

I have a Canon EOS Digital Rebel, s/n 046000* . I had come to
suspect that, with both the onboard flash and a Canon 500EX, I was
getting substantially different exposure results for consecutive
flash shots of the same scene.

To investigate this, I took several sets of test shots with the
camera mounted on a tripod and aimed at a fixed scene (a bookcase
full of books). Tests were done in both P and M modes.

In each case, I would take perhaps 10 shots, with an interval of
about 10 seconds between each. Typically, for such a series,
perhaps 6 of the 10 images had quite comparable appearance, and
showed very similar histograms. But the other 4 images (not
necessarily from consecutive shots) appeared substantially lighter.
Examination of the histograms suggested that the difference of
image lightness was about equivalent to as much as a full stop of
exposure difference.

I did such tests both with the onboard flash and the 550-EX. The
overall result was essentially the same for either.

Should I return my camera to an authorized service facility to have
this misbehavior corrected? If so, would you please advise the
proper shipping address and the procedure I should follow.

I am located in Dallas, Texas.

Best regards,

Douglas Kerr

===========

I will keep you advised of further developments.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Donald Cooper said:

Funny! What's even funnier is that when I asked about a Canon
printer a few months ago I also corresponded with "Anthony". So the
question: is Anthony a real person or is that the secret code name
for everyone at Canon?

Have a happy holiday if we don't catch up till then!

DSC

Sandman said:

Doug Kerr,

Ah yes, I see you too have a new penpal, my old friend Anthony!
Anthony is a master of prose! He will misinterpret your first
e-mail and recommend service on the second. If you decide to send
him one more e-mail message, he will recommend that you purchase a
10D. Anthony and I became "good friends" during the AI Servo
discussions of last week. That Anthony, he's the Man!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Photo Enthusiast said:

I find it really frustrating that every issue that is brought up to
Canon's attention they fall back on their "send it in for
examination" BS. If this were a case in one camera, sure that is a
reasonable option, since its a concern of many...I can almost
guarantee you that once they have examined your camera their
response will be "your camera is functioning to factory
specifications"

Click to expand...

Photo Enthusiast said:

I think that it is about time that Canon tells us the truth...yes
there is a problem...and yes we are working on the firmware update.

Honesty should always be the best policy...but no company follows
that rule.

Doug Kerr said:

Well, here's the transcript:

=================
Kerr said:

I have a Canon EOS Digital Rebel, s/n 046000* . I had come to
suspect that, with both the onboard flash and a Canon 500EX, I was
getting substantially different exposure results for consecutive
flash shots of the same scene.

To investigate this, I took several sets of test shots with the
camera mounted on a tripod and aimed at a fixed scene (a bookcase
full of books). Tests were done in both P and M modes.

In each case, I would take perhaps 10 shots, with an interval of
about 10 seconds between each. Typically, for such a series,
perhaps 6 of the 10 images had quite comparable appearance, and
showed very similar histograms. But the other 4 images (not
necessarily from consecutive shots) appeared substantially lighter.
Examination of the histograms suggested that the difference of
image lightness was about equivalent to as much as a full stop of
exposure difference.

I did such tests both with the onboard flash and the 550-EX. The
overall result was essentially the same for either.

Should I return my camera to an authorized service facility to have
this misbehavior corrected? If so, would you please advise the
proper shipping address and the procedure I should follow.

I am located in Dallas, Texas.

Best regards,

Douglas Kerr
-----------------------
Canon said:

Dear Douglas Kerr,

Thank you for your response. [Response? -dak]

Please remember that metering is linked to the active AF point. If you
focus (meter) on a very light area of the subject, the camera will
expose for that area. As a result, darker areas of the same subject
may
appear underexposed. Using the camera's AE Lock (or FE Lock, for flash
images) function should improve your results. Alternatively, you can
meter on a more moderately toned area of the image.

I hope that this helps. If you need further assistance, please
respond
at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Anthony, Product Support Representative

Customer Service...the most important product we support.
-----------------------
Kerr said:

Hi, Anthony,

I'm sorry, but your response seems to deal with a totally different
problem.

The problem that I am describing is not that I consider the flash
exposure "underexposed". The problem is that, for the exact same
scene and camera aiming (the camera being on a tripod), the flash
exposure result randomly changes from shot to shot by a substantial
degree.

It is hard for me to imagine anything I am doing (or not doing)
that would bring this about. I conclude therefore that it must
reflect some erratic behavior of the camera's innards.

My question is should I return the camera to a service facility to
have this corrected, and if so, how should I do that. (Please see
my original inquiry.)

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug Kerr
-----------------------
Dear Doug Kerr,

Thank you for your response.

If you wish to have the camera examined by a factory service
technician,
please forward your digital camera (remove the CF card and battery)
properly packaged and insured, with a letter describing the
difficulties. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number,
and proof of warranty (if applicable). Send to the Canon Factory
Service
Center at the following address:

Canon Factory Service Center
100 Jamesburg Rd
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
Tel.# (732)521-7007

or

Canon Factory Service Center
15955 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel.# (949) 753-4200

Your equipment will be examined and you will be advised of the
findings.
The length of time for the repair will be dependent upon the nature of
the repair and availability of parts if needed. If the repair entails
something that is not covered in warranty you will be sent a written
estimate to the address that you have provided. We apologize for any
inconvenience.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Anthony, Product Support Representative

Customer Service...the most important product we support.
================

Aaaaaaargh!

That's all, folks!

I plan to send it in but not until after the holidays - we will be
taking a trip and want the little puppy with us - it's the backup
for our Fuji S602.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Kai Hui said:

I have exactly the same problem. Please keep us updated on this.

Click to expand...

DigitalDisbeliever said:

I really wish I would have waited and done more searching but the
site and search have been so slow lately its been next to
impossible to look for anything. At any rate I just received my
550EX the other day and the first thing I noticed was the
inconsistency between the same shots. I thought it was something I
had done and now I wish it were that simple. I hope this can be
resolved without too much headache. Speaking of headaches I dont
even want to think about this anymore. Keep us posted. Happy
holidays and enjoy your trip.

Insane and frustrated in Ohio
DigitalDisbeliever

Click to expand...

Daniella said:

Sandman said:

Doug Kerr,

Ah yes, I see you too have a new penpal, my old friend Anthony!
Anthony is a master of prose! He will misinterpret your first
e-mail and recommend service on the second. If you decide to send
him one more e-mail message, he will recommend that you purchase a
10D. Anthony and I became "good friends" during the AI Servo
discussions of last week. That Anthony, he's the Man!

Click to expand...

well, you know what they say....with friends like this...

Daniella68313 said:

Cheers,

jim

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

Click to expand...

--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918

Click to expand...