So Canon would have reduced the gold amount used for lenses contacts (while it is already very low).
Gold plating prevents lens/camera contacts corrosion over time.
The bad news are - if it is true - that people who
1. don't have a problem now may meet a lens communication problem later.
2. may not have an error but the cam/lens communication may be slower (slower AF)
If this point happens to be correct, it shows the irresponsibility of Canon.
Sounds like a bunch of crap to me....less gold and more tin equals corrupt data stream ? I don't think so. Either there is electrical contact or not...perhaps a loose lens mount on body or lense. This story just doesn't seem plausible to me.
This is nonsense. Electrical contact can be achieved with any number of metals, among other conductive materials. Actually, gold is not the best metal for conductivity, copper is significantly better in this respect. The one massive advantage gold offers is that it does not oxydise over time, thus it is used in electrical contacts to prevent them failing after a few years of "off" and "on".
Furthermore the idea that "slowing down the data stream will compensate for a defective contact" is also technically nonsensical.
Somebody (the Canon rep?) is making this up 'cause he thinks we are all stupid ignoramuses here.
rockitman wrote:
Sounds like a bunch of crap to me....less gold and more tin equals corrupt data stream ? I don't think so. Either there is electrical contact or not...perhaps a loose lens mount on body or lense. This story just doesn't seem plausible to me.
not so. most modern electronics today work on high/low not on/off concept. turning off a product requires a path resistance at x ohms or higher not a complete open. same the other way around to go on. if you exceed these values errors occur. corrosion or poor manufacturing technique play havoc with these things especially on close tolerance circuits. insufficient grounding of shielded areas also.
sorry people these things no longer are simple battery to lamp series circuits. the level of sophistication in these things to both operate communicate and use power efficiently is rather daunting and sometimes what sounds like BS may not always be so due to the level of understanding needed to understand how they actually do work
I agree, SJMS, that bad manufacturing can play havoc. But (1) gold is only a factor for long term corrosion, and thus not a requirement for a good electrical contact, and (2) slowing down the data stream is not going to make good a bad electrical contact. Hence my comment above.
philber wrote:
Actually, gold is not the best metal for conductivity, copper is significantly better in this respect. The one massive advantage gold offers is that it does not oxydise over time, thus it is used in electrical contacts to prevent them failing after a few years of "off" and "on".
Unfortunately this is likely to be possible. Gold does not have the best conductivity but it is chosen (while expensive) for its resistance to corrosion. Corrosion between contacts is much less conductive and creates wrong or no signal between cam and lens. This is particularly true for such cam/lens system that is opened outside where the climate conditions may accelerate the corrosion. philber wrote:
The idea that "slowing down the data stream will compensate for a defective contact" is also technically nonsensical.
Communications between the cam and the lens require a protocol. It is likely that - over time - the contacts being less and less conductive the protocol makes the camera "asks" again the lens its status when the incoming flow of data shows errors (like CRC errors), making the whole communication slower.
I believe there is also the possibility that only older lenses are affected. Canon may have changed the electronics in newer lenses to accommodate the new levels of the 50D (and others).
Whatever the reasons, IMO it is disappointing that so many 50D users report err99's... It seems "issues" with newly released Canon products has become the standard these days
i have worked in commercial aviation for the past 21 years. most of it in avionics. todays modern a/c are a series of multiple fault redundant computers with muliple redundant pathways where signal strength and quality need to be maintained in order to get the proper information to operate as it is designed. many times i have come across degraded signal paths. not opens just degraded enough to make my day an absolute nightmare
yes slowing down a data stream can make it clearer for coherent communication especially if you increase its strength at the same time as long as its within the min/max spec for the specific function
the term bad electrical contact is relative. less then optimum is the term. a hard fault is totally inoperative product. a soft fault causes intermittent failure and is harder to trace. welcome to the world of solid state low voltage low current electronics.
Those of you who send it back for an exchange, please do us a favor and note down the serial number and post it here. So, if the store sells the same returned one to another member here, we can waste no time in returning it.
philber wrote:
This is nonsense. Electrical contact can be achieved with any number of metals, among other conductive materials. Actually, gold is not the best metal for conductivity, copper is significantly better in this respect. The one massive advantage gold offers is that it does not oxydise over time, thus it is used in electrical contacts to prevent them failing after a few years of "off" and "on".
Furthermore the idea that "slowing down the data stream will compensate for a defective contact" is also technically nonsensical.
Somebody (the Canon rep?) is making this up 'cause he thinks we are all stupid ignoramuses here.
This is another CCC (Case of Canon Conspiracy)...Show more →
I would have to agree with you on that one for sure!
saaketham wrote:
Those of you who send it back for an exchange, please do us a favor and note down the serial number and post it here. So, if the store sells the same returned one to another member here, we can waste no time in returning it.
sorry, dont think that will ever work. Imagin how many users have problems that DONT post on forums. The forum people are only a slight handful.
Ohms law would be a good place to start, read up on that and you will begin to understand;
I=VR
Gold and copper have different resistivity as does gold and tin or any other metal. If the program code is written to identify information as resistance values in a minuscule range then the difference in resistivity in the contacts could by all means show errors or cause faulty focus info ect.
Copper Resistivity = 1.7E-6 ohm-cm
Gold= 2.44 e-8 ohm-m
Huge difference if all of your calculations are read on ohms and resistance.
I have no Idea how how the canon programs are written but the theoretics of the problem described make sense from an engineering point of view.
Etadam wrote:
Unfortunately this is likely to be possible. Gold does not have the best conductivity but it is chosen (while expensive) for its resistance to corrosion. Corrosion between contacts is much less conductive and creates wrong or no signal between cam and lens. This is particularly true for such cam/lens system that is opened outside where the climate conditions may accelerate the corrosion.
Communications between the cam and the lens require a protocol. It is likely that - over time - the contacts being less and less conductive the protocol makes the camera "asks" again the lens its status when the incoming flow of data shows errors (like CRC errors), making the whole communication slower.
I believe there is also the possibility that only older lenses are affected. Canon may have changed the electronics in newer lenses to accommodate the new levels of the 50D (and others)....Show more →
The claim made here, and attibuted to a Canon rep, is that the 50D contacts do not incorporate enough gold, and thus are defective. 50D being a brand new camera, the phenomena which you describe are not an answer for the claimed issue, because, as you rightly point out, they may apply over time, but not instantly. Also the fact that the contacts "do not incorporate enough gold" or whatever, does not in any way make them defective or less conductive. Plain copper would work just fine in the short term. Hence my conclusion that the explanation is nonsense.
BenV wrote:
sorry, dont think that will ever work. Imagin how many users have problems that DONT post on forums. The forum people are only a slight handful.
Daan B wrote:
Whatever the reasons, IMO it is disappointing that so many 50D users report err99's... It seems "issues" with newly released Canon products has become the standard these days
I guess you can tell us what the percentage is of users reporting this problem?
In case you have not noticed, this has happened with every Canon DSLR made. Nikon and other DSLR's get error messages as well, in case you don't know.
Perhaps all the fearmongers and rumor-posters should read up a bit on error messages. Any reason why we should believe this rumor in the first place?
I have to go out now and see how many err99's I can get on my 50D.
Some further reading for those who need to be more informed on err99:
Beni wrote:
Quite believe it. Wonder if the same is with the 5D mkII. Not only will they have put a 3 year old AF system in, they slow it down with poor QC.
At least now we know why it's rated 3.9 fps instead of 4
