Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sony Hardware

Digital Camera Failures 316

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the on-their-best-behavior dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In the past week, four major camera makers have quietly published service advisories admitting their digital cameras are dying. In each case, the flaw appears to involve Sony CCD sensors using epoxy packaging that eventually lets in moisture. Sony's own cameras are among those affected, and the company also has dozens of affected camcorder models. Sony is believed to be picking up the tab for the repairs for the other camera makers as well, regardless of warranty status. (If true, a laudable approach.) Given the large numbers of cameras that are potentially involved, this can't be good news for Sony, who apparently already is expecting losses, and who has also recently announced major layoffs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Digital Camera Failures More

Digital Camera Failures

Comments Filter:

  • Dammit!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) * <semi_famous@yah o o . c om> on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:12AM (#13762055) Homepage Journal
    It may be a "laudable approach" for Sony to pick up the tabs for the camera makers, but what about the consumers? I have one of the Canon models mentioned. I'd like to get it fixed/certified NOW so I don't unexpectedly find it exhibiting these defective behaviors when I'm trying to tape something important like my son's first steps or his first Christmas.

    The Canon announcement is only for Asia and it only offers to fix the camera if and when it starts showing symptoms of the problems. As far as I'm concerned, that's bogus. They should offer a general recall and repair/replacement of all models affected so people don't lose the once-in-a-lifetime events they bought these cameras to capture.

    - Greg

    • Re:Dammit!! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Max Threshold ( 540114 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:35AM (#13762187)
      That's why Real Photographers(tm) carry two cameras. (Or three... or four...)

      • Re:Dammit!! (Score:5, Funny)

        by cei ( 107343 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @01:44AM (#13762534) Homepage Journal
        Indeed. One body for 35mm chrome (Velvia 50 or EPP), one for 35mm black & white (Tri-X), maybe another for infrared, Hasselblad backs loaded with 120 chrome and B&W (and Polaroid back with Type 665P/N), digital SLR at the minimum. Add to that the Holga, maybe a pinhole or two depending on format, lighting conditions, and the durability of the model. Then maybe I can leave the house for a shoot.

    • Re:Dammit!! (Score:5, Informative)

      by LoverOfJoy ( 820058 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:55AM (#13762296) Homepage
      If you go to the US site there is information about a return there, too. Here's what I found about my Cannon A75.

      It has recently come to our attention that the vendor-supplied CCD image sensor used in this Canon digital camera may cause the following malfunction: When the product is used in recording or playback mode, the LCD screen and/or electronic viewfinder may exhibit either a distorted image or no image at all. While reports of this malfunction have been rare in the United States, we have determined that it may occur if the product is exposed to hot and humid environments.

      Effective immediately, and regardless of warranty status, Canon will repair, free of charge, products exhibiting the above-mentioned malfunction if the malfunction is caused by the CCD image sensor. Canon will also cover the cost of shipping and handling in connection with this repair.

      U.S. residents are kindly directed to contact the Canon Customer Support Center for further assistance at 1-800-828-4040. Support hours are Monday thru Friday - 8:00 AM to 12:00 midnight; and Saturday 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM (all times EST). Alternatively, if electronic support is preferred, please send your email to carecenter@cits.canon.com

      This information is for residents of the United States of America and Puerto Rico only. If you do not reside in the USA or Puerto Rico, please contact the Canon Customer Support Center in your region.

      We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused by this issue, and appreciate your understanding in this matter. Thank you for your support and patronage of Canon products

      found here: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=Pg ComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=221&mo delid=9828act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fc ategoryid=221&modelid=9828 [canon.com]

    • Use film or buy a real camera. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BrianH ( 13460 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @01:21AM (#13762442)
      A $250 digital camera, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a $50 35mm film camera (technically the $50 film camera has a higher resolution, but that's another discussion). These low end digitals replace the snapshot cameras of yore, but shouldn't be confused with actual professional quality cameras. If you know that you're going to be shooting a "once in a lifetime" event like a wedding, first birthday, or something along those lines, you should either be shooting it in higher quality (and more reliable) film, or invest in a higher end digital.

      If you lose that once in a lifetime shot because you trusted it to a cheap snapshot camera, that's as much your fault as the vendors.

      • Re:Use film or buy a real camera. (Score:4, Informative)

        by cei ( 107343 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @01:47AM (#13762545) Homepage Journal
        On the other hand, one of the articles lists the Fuji FinePix S2, which is a $1500 dSLR. Not exactly a cheap snapshot camera. (Not sure I buy the S2 being on that list, because the CCD is supposed to be a radically different design than the others listed, but the news article does include it...)
      • the first generation (i.e. the actual film) may have higher resolution, but 2nd generation (aka the print) will not. That's one reason why [film] slides were as popular as they were. Converting from a 1st generation image to 2nd is quite costly (certainly not perfect).
        • The solution to that nowadays is digitization of your slides or print negatives. A decent quality film scanned through a quality scanner can yield 9-11 megapixels of effective resolution. When printed using the same equipment used for digital photography printing, there is zero effective difference between them.
      • Because you need the *pro-quality* transistors! You aren't gonna use any ol' bought-them-off-a-guy-with-an-overcoat-transistors in your camera, now are you? No, you need 'em gold-plated!

        Look, there are legitimate statements that can be made regarding advantages of high end digital cameras over low end, but I am exceedingly dubious that reliability (of a device that is almost entirely solid-state digital electronics) is at severe risk.
        • Plastic lens mounts vs metal lens mounts. Plastic gears vs metal gears. Glass lenses vs plastic lenses. The differences between "consumer" quality gear and "professional" quality gear is quite large. The biggest difference, though, is in the quality of the engineering. Consumer quality electronics tend to be low margin goods, so the emphasis in the engineering phase is for the product to be easy and cheap to manufacture in large quantities...allowing the low margins to be offset by higher volumes. With prof
      • How elitist of you.

        Would you say the same thing today about $600 computers as being toys and unfit for serious use?

        There are places, even in a professional's repertoire, where a point&shoot make sense; where expensive cameras are too bulky, complicated, and intimidating to use. Things like a Yashica T4/T5 or a Olympus Stylus, for example.

        Digital cameras in the $250 range can fill a similar role, with additional benefits and additional drawbacks. They don't take pictures as fast as film cameras, but they

    • Re:Dammit!! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "...They should offer a general recall and repair/replacement of all models affected so people don't lose the once-in-a- lifetime events they bought these cameras to capture."

      Is it that big a deal to you? Then why don't you buy a second camera?

      Is that too expensive? Gee, do you suppose that not offering perfection made the single digital camera affordable in the first place?

      Face it: you are not willing to pay for what you want. You bought a camera with a warranty that is being honored. You bought no guarant

    • Re:Dammit!! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Technician ( 215283 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @01:45AM (#13762538)
      I'd like to get it fixed/certified NOW so I don't unexpectedly find it exhibiting these defective behaviors when I'm trying to tape something important like my son's first steps or his first Christmas.

      I have the same problem. I can and I am taking steps to prevent a failure.

      When I was stationed in the tropics, rusty tools was an issue. Contact corrosion was an issue on test equipment. While I was there I keept most of my tools, envelopes, postage stamps, and test equipment in ammo boxes with large packages of silica gel and a humidity indicator. I would nuke the silica gel when the humidity started to creep up. Now that I know the camera can be affected, it is now stored in an ammo box. Corrosion creep should not be an issue when it's stored at 20% or less humidity.
    • There was a recall in Australia in last month's Choice magazine, so presumably there are other Australian notices as well.

      Chances are there is a recall notice for your juridstiction - its just that the link posted was from the canon-asia.com site.
    • Then you'll just have to remember it in a colorful store. And as cool as it sounds at the time, my experience is that nobody ever looks at that stuff.
    • I had a DSC-P1. Turns out that camera line bad a problem with the charger that would eventually kill the battery. Sony replaced the battery, charger and on-board hardware to rectify the problem, no questions asked. The camera was out of warrenty. Well done Sony!

  • HA! (Score:4, Funny)

    by VaticDart ( 889055 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:13AM (#13762059)
    My 10D's might CMOS sensor will dance on the scattered bones of your useless moisture-letting-in-CCDs!

  • For all the Sony-bashing I've done, I have to salute Sony for stepping up to this one, no matter their motivation, though it looks mostly to be customer service and satisfaction. There are probably many of these defectives far out of warranty. Good for Sony!

    • at least around here there is universal warranty on product defects that were in the product when you bought it...

      (that were in the product at the time of buying... in other words, for design failures, using crap material - if the camera dies from this faster than would be expected of a camera to die then it's a defect and they're responsible for it - of course there's a quite bit of gray area with this)

    • Re:kudos to Sony (Score:5, Informative)

      by TekPolitik ( 147802 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:50AM (#13762270) Journal
      For all the Sony-bashing I've done, I have to salute Sony for stepping up to this one, no matter their motivation, though it looks mostly to be customer service and satisfaction.

      Not so. These defects are such as to make the products unmerchantable, which gives the buyer (in this case the manufacturers) a bunch of rights that would cost Sony a lot more if they were exercised. Doing the repairs free will cost Sony a lot less than paying the value of replacement products or repairs by a third party, which is what they would be up for (plus costs) if they were sued.

      There is nothing remotely attributable to honourable conduct here (and if you have dealt with Sony recently you would be aware of how thoroughly dishonourable that behemoth has become). It is self preservation, pure and simple, that has led them down this path.

      • Re:kudos to Sony (Score:3, Informative)

        by glesga_kiss ( 596639 )

        I have to salute Sony for stepping up to this one

        Not so. These defects are such as to make the products unmerchantable*, which gives the buyer (in this case the manufacturers) a bunch of rights that would cost Sony a lot more if they were exercised.

        Which was my exact first thought. Here under UK law, they would still have to fix them for you even if the camera was up to 5 or 6 years old. It's all about how long you would "reasonably" expect something to last. The whole "manufacturers one year warranty"

  • sony and lack of QC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jstroebe ( 921953 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:16AM (#13762075)
    Maybe I'm the only one, but I've vowed to stop buying Sony products after the last two things I've bought from them have been total pieces of S#!t. I had a Vaio laptop that lasted a year, and a camcorder that didn't last much longer. The name Sony use to be one I related to quality but anymore I steer clear.
    • I totally agree on the decline in Sony's quality and standards.

      These days I consider the reliability and quality of their products to be worse than many of the noname OEM Chinese manufacturers.

      Time was when buying Sony meant a guarantee of quality and performance. These days it's just the same as taping a "kick me" sign to your backside.

  • Education Hit (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kinky Bass Junk ( 880011 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:23AM (#13762109)
    My school was badly hit by this - our Film and Video department was largely made of Sony digital cameras, and they all died over time. We have since switched to Panasonic, and they have never had to be replaced.
  • I was pleasently surprised to see that while the DCF-F717 is affected, the DCS-F828 is NOT ... which I own. While the advisory states "October 2002 through March 2004" I've owned this camera for almost 2 years now ... so it doesn't sound like this is affecting any recent vintage digicams (?)
    • I own a F828 as well. The camera is the F717's sucessor and uses a different, 8MPx 4 color CCD (regular CCDs pick up the RGB, the one on the F828 picks up RGB and Emerald - then a tweaked image processor takes the emerald signal to give better shading of greens and blues). The camera CCD's "Super HAD" design uses bigger lens on the chip's surface for higher sensitivity, which probably means they use a different sealing process.

      So, the F828's CCD is most likely built on a completely different assembly line

  • Nintendo Fanboy Inside Us All (Score:4, Funny)

    by bleaknik ( 780571 ) <jamal@h@khan.gmail@com> on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:38AM (#13762208) Homepage Journal
    Ok. So... Sony posts losses for one quarter, and they lay off a bunch of people... It's now my responsibility as a Nintendo Fanboy to jump up and down and praise this as the death of my archnemesis right?

    Ehh. Who am I kidding. Apathy is too much damned work.

  • Good timing! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eSchmitty ( 670312 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:40AM (#13762218)

    My Canon Powershot A70 just started to exhibit this problem 3 days ago!

    I have found out that Canon USA and Canon Canada will both fix the camera, regardless of the warranty status.

    This is the 2nd time that I've had to send my camera back for service. The first time was soon after I bought the camera because of a different CCD problem. Despite all of these problems, I still really like the camera and think it was a good purchase. I probably wouldn't think this if they didn't fix this problem for free.

  • It has to be said... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ y a hoo.com> on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:42AM (#13762231) Homepage Journal
    In the past week, four major camera makers have quietly published service advisories admitting their digital cameras are dying.


    Has Netcraft confirmed this?

  • Thank you Amazon (Score:3, Informative)

    by ehiris ( 214677 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:47AM (#13762260) Homepage
    When I just recently bought my camera from Amazon, I read reviews on a few of the Canon cameras which were explicitly mentioning that some of the models were very sensitive to high temperature and after failures you couldn't get them fixed because the warranty specifies that it won't cover any damage due to Arizona-like temperatures and high temperature fluctuations. I followed the reviewer's advise and finally decided on the SD400 which doesn't have that problem. It's a good thing that they are now admitting to be at fault. They probably noticed the sales on those models taking a big dip and this is the only way to eliminate the cameras which are stuck in inventory.

  • Consumer Reports: Repair History of 186,900 users (Score:4, Informative)

    by NXIL ( 860839 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:49AM (#13762265)
    CR says that Sony, Panasonic, Canon, and Olympus have the *fewest* problems. Pentax (sounds like a tampon brand), Konica/Minolta, and Toshiba are the least reliable, with Vivitar being the absolute least reliable. In absolute numbers, about 2.5% of Sony digicams needed repairs, about 10% of Vivitar cameras did. From the survery: "Based on 186,900 reader responses to our 2005 Annual Questionnaire about digital cameras bought new between 2002 and 2005. Data have been standardized to eliminate differences linked to age and usage. Differences of less than 4 points aren't meaningful." For autos, CR's surveys have been dead on, at least for me....every car I have had has aged and been as reliable as they predicted it would be, even down to individual systems (cooling, electrical, etc....) But, yes, for all you statisticians out there, I know that is completely anecdotal, as "n" is very small in my case....I keep my cars a long time....
    • I subscribe to exactly three online services. One is my NNTP provider, another is my mail provider (nice to not be tied to one ISP), and the last is Consumer Reports. We can buy a huge variety of goods today, but the one thing that's hard to obtain amidst the deluge of marketing is greliable, trustworthy information about products, and Consumer Reports does a pretty good job of (a) providing product class overviews and recommending what to look for, and (b) providing objective evaluations of large numbers

    • Pentax!=tampon (Score:4, Informative)

      by panurge ( 573432 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @04:03AM (#13762992)
      I'd question the judgement of anyone who doesn't know that Pentax is a major optical manufacturer, with more experience than even Canon in making small short focal length lenses of the kind required for digital cameras. They do, however, have a short history of making digital cameras and I suspect that this is part of the reliability issue. I can only say that I have one of their small, ruggedised water resistant cameras for marine use and it hasn't broken yet - but that's just anecdotal.

      However, the real point I'd like to make is this. By their nature, consumer satisfaction reports tend to be way out of date. This is because the records relate to models that have been around for a while, which in a rapidly moving industry means they may not relate to what is on the shelves at all. A case in point from another industry was Volvo, which at one time enjoyed a totally unwarranted reputation for reliability based on the longevity and reliability of one of its post-war models which shared very few parts with later models. (I know this is true because the girlfriend of a friend had one of the reliable Volvos, and side by side you could easily see it was built to a totally different standard from the later ones. It was wrecked by collision with a truck at 132000 miles, at which point the seats were just getting slightly tatty.)

      Nowadays it is indeed possible to predict how long a car will last because so much effort has been put into reliability engineering, and it is relatively easy to see what is under the hood and make an evaluation. But for things like digital cameras this is virtually impossible because the technology is changing fast.It's possible to evaluate things like the robustness of doors, the protection of the lens, scratch resistance of LCD covers etc., but you know nothing about the internal mechanisms or the reliability of the electronics. I suspect that it is not even necessarily true that you get what you pay for because in electronics cost is so volume sensitive.

      My conclusion? Don't worry. Choose on the basis of your preferred mix of features, compatibility, optical quality and weight, and be sure you get a reasonable warranty. But my own preference would always be to buy from a manufacturer who really understands small cameras and short focus lenses. That means Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Leitz (acquired Minox), Pentax and Minolta. Fuji's camera superiority is in medium format. Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba are electronics manufacturers and dependent on the optical people for lenses and expertise in areas like ergonomics.

  • Just my Luck.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ShaolinTiger ( 798138 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @12:50AM (#13762269) Homepage
    I'm in Malaysia and I own a Canon Powershot A70...

    And I had the CCD problem, it started about 6 months ago...first the backgrounds went slightly pink on bright shots, then it went a little fuzzy, then it went totally mangled and I couldn't see anything at all.

    So I paid to get it fixed, it wasn't cheap...now they are saying they will pick the tab?

    I wonder if I can get a refund...

  • I wish Canon would admit the e18 error (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cshay ( 79326 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @01:01AM (#13762340)
    Instead of product recalls, they went right on shipping cameras with serious flaws in their retractible lenses. The result? A class action lawsuit: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/canon_c lass.html [consumeraffairs.com]
  • Wonder if you can do a photoshop plug-in to do that. And glad I bought a Nikon, after many years of holding off.

    Sometimes ya win.

  • SORNY? (Score:4, Funny)

    by blankoboy ( 719577 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @01:11AM (#13762391)
    Were these SONY or SORNY products? Perhaps people should be buying Magnetbox digital cameras and TV's. /obscure, simpons.

    • Carnivale (Score:3, Funny)

      by caitsith01 ( 606117 )
      I'm not going to lie to you, those are all superior machines.

      But people should buy the Carnivale - unlike Sony's products it has a durable outer casing to prevent fallapart. Also featuring two pronged wall plug and pre-molded hand-grip well.
  • I noticed my DV cam is on the list, DCR-HC15E, the question is, what sort of deterioration should I be looking for? Maybe it's just me but I could swear that the quality of the video I get out of the unit these days appears less than what I originally was getting when I first bought it and that was /before/ I read about this story. Perhaps there's a way to accellerate the process of failure (if the weakness is there).

    Incidently, living in a hot humid environment here too (North Eastern Australia)

  • My camera doesn't seem to have a problem (Score:3, Funny)

    by El Cabri ( 13930 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @01:15AM (#13762406) Journal
    Of course its sensor comes in the form of Fuji Velvia 100, Agfa RSX II 100 and Fuji NPZ 800 film that I load in it according to the circumstances.

  • Ruined picture (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @01:35AM (#13762497) Journal
    A friend of mine took a picture of his ass, and the entire middle was all messed up due to bad pixels, as if somebody put TNT up his ass. We complained to Sony, but all they did was post it online to scare off further complainers. It worked pretty damned well.
  • A cannon A 60, and I had some of the same problems described in the article. IE when I took a picture all I saw was black(some gray lines). However, I seemed to have "fixed" the problem by giving my camera a good, hard smack on the side. That was about a month ago, and while I don't use my camer everyday, it seems to be working fine, just took it to Prague and got some amazing shots from the castle.

  • Other symptoms also related to this defect? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pjkundert ( 597719 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:06AM (#13762608) Homepage
    We have a Canon digital ELPH SD100; excellent camera, and very sturdy (survived several rough week-long back-country expeditions with no problems).

    However, lately the camera has developed strange circles in some of its images, especially in certain lighting conditions, or certain atmospheric conditions that we have not been able to really pin down. Most of the time, the images are clear.

    The circles or rings seem similar to what you might get with dust somewhere in the lens system near the focal plane; the each circle covers perhaps up to 1/10th of the image area, but many of them are smaller, and some dimmer than others. The next time we use the camera, they don't appear at all!

    Could thse perhaps be explained by condensation on the inside of the CCD's window, which only appears in certain temperature or atmospheric pressure situations?

  • Full list of affected cameras (Score:5, Informative)

    by achurch ( 201270 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:12AM (#13762631) Homepage
    . . . just for the hell of it: (includes Japanese models as well)

    Digital still cameras

    • Canon:
      • Digital IXUS V3, Digital IXUS II, Digital IXUS II2
      • IXY DIGITAL 320, IXY DIGITAL 30, IXY DIGITAL 30a
      • PowerShot A60, PowerShot A70, PowerShot A75, PowerShot A300, PowerShot A310

    • Fujifilm:
      • FinePix A303 (serial 3100****, 3101****, 3JA4****, 3JA5****)
      • FinePix F410 (serial 3100****-3105****, 32A1****, 32A6****, 32A7****, 32A9****)
      • FinePix F700 (serial 3312****, 3313****, 33A0****, 3402****, 34A1****)
      • FinePix S2Pro (serial 310110**-310115**, 320000**-320008**, 330000**-340001**)

    • Konica Minolta:
      • DiMAGE 7i, DiMAGE 7Hi, DiMAGE A1, DiMAGE F300, DiMAGE S414, DiMAGE Xi, DiMAGE Xt, DiMAGE X20
      • Digital Genba Kantoku DG-2, DG-3Z, DG-4W

    • Sony:
      • DSC-F717
      • DSC-P2, DSC-P7, DSC-P8, DSC-P10, DSC-P12, DSC-P31, DSC-P32, DSC-P51, DSC-P52, DSC-P71, DSC-P72, DSC-P92
      • DSC-U10, DSC-U20, DSC-U30, DSC-U60
      • DSC-V1
      • MVC-CD250, MVC-CD400, MVC-CD500
      • MVC-FD100, MVC-FD200

    Digital video cameras

    • Canon:
      • Elura 40 MC, Elura 50
      • FV40, FV50, FV300, FV400
      • IXY DV3, IXY DV5
      • MV5i, MV5i MC, MV6i MC, MV600i, MV630i, MV650i, MV700i, MV730i, MV750i
      • ZR60, ZR65 MC, ZR70MC, ZR80, ZR85, ZR90

    • Sony:
      • CCD-MC100
      • CCD-TRV106K, CCD-TRV107E, CCD-TRV116, CCD-TRV118, CCD-TRV128, CCD-TRV218E, CCD-TRV228, CCD-TRV228E, CCD-TRV318, CCD-TRV328, CCD-TRV418, CCD-TRV418E, CCD-TRV428, CCD-TRV428E
      • DCR-DVD91E, DCR-DVD100, DCR-DVD100E, DCR-DVD101, DCR-DVD101E, DCR-DVD200, DCR-DVD200E, DCR-DVD300
      • DCR-HC14E, DCR-HC15, DCR-HC15E, DCR-HC16E, DCR-HC18E, DCR-HC20, DCR-HC20E, DCR-HC30, DCR-HC30E
      • DCR-IP5, DCR-IP5E, DCR-IP7E, DCR-IP45, DCR-IP45E, DCR-IP55, DCR-IP55E
      • DCR-PC101, DCR-PC101E, DCR-PC101K, DCR-PC103E, DCR-PC105, DCR-PC105E, DCR-PC105K, DCR-PC106E, DCR-PC107E, DCR-PC108, DCR-PC108E, DCR-PC115, DCR-PC115E, DCR-PC120, DCR-PC120E
      • DCR-TRV14E, DCR-TRV16, DCR-TRV16E, DCR-TRV18, DCR-TRV18E, DCR-TRV18K, DCR-TRV19, DCR-TRV19E, DCR-TRV22, DCR-TRV22E, DCR-TRV22K, DCR-TRV24E, DCR-TRV25, DCR-TRV25E, DCR-TRV27, DCR-TRV27E, DCR-TRV27PK, DCR-TRV33, DCR-TRV33E, DCR-TRV33K, DCR-TRV33PK, DCR-TRV38, DCR-TRV38E, DCR-TRV39, DCR-TRV40, DCR-TRV40E, DCR-TRV50, DCR-TRV50E, DCR-TRV147E, DCR-TRV240E, DCR-TRV250, DCR-TRV250E, DCR-TRV255E, DCR-TRV260, DCR-TRV265, DCR-TRV265E, DCR-TRV340, DCR-TRV340E, DCR-TRV361, DCR-TRV460, DCR-TRV460E, DCR-TRV461E, DCR-TRV740, DCR-TRV740E, DCR-TRV840, DCR-TRV940, DCR-TRV940E, DCR-TRV950, DCR-TRV950E
      • DCR-VX2000, DCR-VX200E, DCR-VX2100, DCR-VX2100E

    Professional camcorders

    • Sony:
      • DSR-250, DSR-250P
      • DSR-PD150, DSR-PD150P, DSR-PD170, DSR-PD170P, DSR-PDX10, DSR-PDX10P

    Other products

    • Sony:
      • Clie PEG-NZ90
    • Worth noting that the Canon IXUS II is the SD100 in the US, and the IXUS IIs (not the II2, as typoed above) is the SD110. I imagine the IXUS v3 is the SD200 or one of the other later SDs.

  • Sweet! And just as I thought my camera was useless (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pfhor ( 40220 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:40AM (#13762717) Homepage
    My powershot A60 just started doing this, and here I thought it was because of the years of travel with it. Now I just have to fine my local canon rep and get it fixed. Of course, I shoot with a rebel XT now, but atleast I can have my point and shoot working again also.

    Here is a demonstration [paintedover.com]

  • Happened to me (with pictures!) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mardoen ( 557915 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:45AM (#13762736) Homepage
    I have a PowerShot A70, and after gradually introducing noise to images it finally "died" a couple of weeks ago. This actually looks rather amazing -- I've documented this in a short Flickr set at http://flickr.com/photos/dekstop/sets/1026874/ [flickr.com] and I'll post some more information at http://dekstop.de/weblog/ [dekstop.de] as soon as I find some time... I even have some video clips made with the camera.

    To quote from the Flickr page: "my only digital camera has finally degraded into a first-class piece of alien surveillance equipment. instant live show, one-button entertainment, subjective electronics."
  • For instance, I have an Elura 60 camcorder. Is that definitely not affected?

    Friends of mine have Canon cameras, A75 and A310 I think. We are not in Asia; should we be worried anyway?
  • are doomed to repeat it. This sounds very much like what 15 years ago we called ROM-rot, as it afflicted certain Casio brand musical keyboard synthesisers. I guess it's just part of the general trend of dumbing down manufacture. Penny pinch with plastic. By the time the suck^H^H^H^H our clients find out, we'll have some cheaper ceramic chips. Designed by computers, built by robots, not fixable by humans...

  • Sony believer (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Murgalon ( 779238 )
    A lot of people here seem to dislike Sony products. I bought the DSC-F505V digital camera in 2000 and have taken over 3000 pictures. It still works perfectly.

    It's been exposed to very cold conditions (Colorado Springs) and very hot and humid conditions (South Africa).

    The only minor flaw I found is that the battery clip broke off after the 3rd year of use. I carry two batteries and changing batteries all the time must have worn out the clip. I'm still able to close the battery cover so the clip was n

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close