D300 Problems - What went wrong?

[Eric Stevens]

There was I taking photographs for the current [SI] (On the road) with
my camera mounted on the top of a monopod which I was holding upside
down so my 70-200 lens could take photographs just above ground level.
The camera too was upside down. I was triggering the camera through a
remote cable while holding the bottom of the monopod at about hip
level. The camera was resting on my foot with the lens steadied
against the lamp standard against which I too was leaning.

The camera is a D300 with a near-new SanDisk 32GB Extreme CompactFlash
60 MB/s memory card through which about one thousand photographs had
already passed. There were about 12 shots on it when I started my
expedition.

There was I happily snapping away and every now and then I would lift
up the camera and examine the rear view screen to see how badly I had
been doing. Suddenly I found that pressing the view button produced no
effect. The screen remained black. It remained black when I pressed
the menu button also. Turning things on and off made no difference.
Neither did pressing the shutter button. Suddenly 'click - crunch',
the camera took a photo and everything worked again.

This happened two or three more times and then I experienced a total
lockup which did not eventually come right. The section of the control
window on top which normally displays the number of exposures left
showed 'r9' which means that the buffer has room for 9 more exposures
with the current setup. While I was looking the camera went
'click-crunch' again and the 'r9' changed to 'r8'. But still the
camera wouldn't work. At this point I removed the battery for a minute
and then reinserted it, but no change.

As it happened I was only about a 100 yards from the very
knowledgeable Camera & Camera who had sold me the camera in the first
place so I took it into them. They scratched their collective head and
eventually decided there was a fault. At this point I decided to take
the camera home and carry out some research to try and get to the
bottom of the problem.

I removed the 70-2-- lens and fitted my normal 16-85. The remote cable
was removed and the camera was packed in its bag. When I got home I
had lunch, then removed the camera from its case and found sweetness
and light had returned. There was no sign of any problem and the
camera seems to be working correctly.

My question is, can anyone throw any light on what went wrong? I'm
inclined to suspect the memory card but I have no real basis for this.
What worries me is the possibility of it happening again.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[me]

How is the camera set to function if no card is installed? Try
changing that if you think the card may an issue. If had somewhat
similar issues of not taking photos as the mount on my 70-200 f.8 VR
has aged and doesn't make sufficient contact at the electrical
contact. Have you tried cleaning those on the camera and lens?

[otter]

On Aug 10, 3:21 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> My question is, can anyone throw any light on what went wrong? I'm
> inclined to suspect the memory card but I have no real basis for this.
> What worries me is the possibility of it happening again.

I don't know the answer, but it seems that key factors were attaching
a heavy lens to the camera, and then holding it in an unusual position
(upside down on your foot). Maybe the position caused stress which
affected the electrical contacts in the lens mount, or maybe even the
mirror or shutter. Or maybe this episode is unrelated to anything you
were doing.

[PeterN]

You are not alone. I have had the same issue at random, as have others:

<http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Xm9A>
It seems Nikon is aware of the issue, but has no fix.


--

PeterN

[Eric Stevens]

That's a possibility. I'll try cleaning them as they haven't been much
used. The trouble is if the problem doesn't come back I won't know
whether or not I really fixed it and it was some other cause that went
away.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

Yep.

The monopod was attached to the lens. It was the camera resting on my
fooot. That could have overloaded the lens/camera connection.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[me]

Not a bad trouble to have! ;-)

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:01:17 -0400, PeterN
<peter.ne...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> My question is, can anyone throw any light on what went wrong? I'm
>> inclined to suspect the memory card but I have no real basis for this.
>> What worries me is the possibility of it happening again.
>>
>
>
>You are not alone. I have had the same issue at random, as have others:
>
><http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Xm9A>
>It seems Nikon is aware of the issue, but has no fix.
>

My problem is slightly different. While it was misbehaving it wouldn't
even take photographs. The camera seemed totally unresponsive to the
operation of any control except the on/off switch.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

Meantime I nibble my nails.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Rob]

On 10/08/2012 6:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> There was I taking photographs for the current [SI] (On the road) with
> my camera mounted on the top of a monopod which I was holding upside
> down so my 70-200 lens could take photographs just above ground level.
> The camera too was upside down. I was triggering the camera through a
> remote cable while holding the bottom of the monopod at about hip
> level. The camera was resting on my foot with the lens steadied
> against the lamp standard against which I too was leaning.
>

SNIP

>
> My question is, can anyone throw any light on what went wrong? I'm
> inclined to suspect the memory card but I have no real basis for this.
> What worries me is the possibility of it happening again.
>

I have experienced this type of problem with a D90- so its sort of the
same range of camera.

My D90 is a one lens, happy snapper trip camera, at about 9 months old,
1800 activations. Without notice virtually the same thing happened. The
camera did not have a country of origin warranty to refer it back to
Nikon so I had to trouble shoot the problem.

I read through all the threads from just about all the sites and no one
had an answer. Only hypothetical reasons which only a committee offer.
Yes I tried silently all the hypotheticals and none worked. You may
want to refer to the D90 problems in forums although none worked for me.

I was changing batteries, cards, no result even reset the default
settings, one thing that I did not change, was the lens. within all this
testing. (the camera came with the 18-105 lens and had never been off
the camera.)

The whole thing was repeatable within 5 frames and showed an error.

As a last resort was to try another lens, so with another lens, the
camera kept working. So I replaced the original lens back on the
camera. It is now about 4 years old and has not had a glitch since. I
didn't clean any contacts but removing the lens may have.

The only reason that I can put it down to is dirty contacts either on
the lens or the body. ( the body did not show a lens error and I'm
unsure what the error message was now but something like yours which was
sort of unrelated to what was happening.

So my best bet with your camera maybe the lens/body contacts.

[me]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 05:20:12 -0400, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:

>How is the camera set to function if no card is installed? Try
>changing that if you think the card may an issue. If had somewhat
>similar issues of not taking photos as the mount on my 70-200 f.8 VR
>has aged and doesn't make sufficient contact at the electrical
>contact. Have you tried cleaning those on the camera and lens?

Some further into in my case. Has happened with all my bodies
(D70/D200 & D300) and got progressively worse as the lens and bodies
got more wear. Appeared to get worse with the use of a TC. No issue
with any other lens including a 200-400 f/4 VR. I've been meaning to
send in the 70-200 to have the lens mount plate replaced as the
200-400 has mostly relegated it to my bag. One other symptom in my
case was either changing or loss of proper control of the aperture as
indicated by the f-stop setting changing while the r-buffer number was
displayed. Inputting upward force on the objective of the lens seemed
to help some which to me indicated bad contact.

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:02:52 +1200, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
wrote:

Maybe the key point in your original post is that the camera was upside down,
which might exaggerate any problems with the adjustment of the mirror. A
binding mirror could certainly be the cause of a blank. (Just one more reason
to look forward to professional-quality mirrorless cameras.) Have you run any
follow-up tests with the camera in that position?

Did you also say that the exposure counter actually counted more pictures than
you took, even if you include the blanks? If so, that sounds more like an
electrical problem.

Bob

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 06:58:38 -0400, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:

And that you may have been letting the camera body assume too much of the
weight of the lens.

Bob

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:42:54 +1200, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
wrote:
: On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:01:17 -0400, PeterN

That's a common symptom while the camera drains its buffer into the card. But
I sense that in your case the delay was too long for that to be the issue.
Unless maybe the card wasn't making good contact (which I guess was one of
your original suspicions).

Bob

[me]

I pretty much have now carried the 200-400 f/4 the same way on the
D300 with a TC-14 behind it for several years and have no issues with
it. Put the 70-200 on it with or without the TC and the problems
persist. As I said I believe the issue is with the mounting hardware
of the 70-200.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:30:53 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:02:52 +1200, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
>wrote:
>: On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:40:12 -0400, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:
>:
>: >On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:38:29 +1200, Eric Stevens
>: ><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>: >
>: >
>: >>That's a possibility. I'll try cleaning them as they haven't been much
>: >>used. The trouble is if the problem doesn't come back I won't know
>: >>whether or not I really fixed it and it was some other cause that went
>: >>away.
>: >
>: >
>: >Not a bad trouble to have! ;-)
>:
>: Meantime I nibble my nails.
>
>Maybe the key point in your original post is that the camera was upside down,
>which might exaggerate any problems with the adjustment of the mirror. A
>binding mirror could certainly be the cause of a blank. (Just one more reason
>to look forward to professional-quality mirrorless cameras.) Have you run any
>follow-up tests with the camera in that position?

All I've done is reach a decision that in future I'm going to avoid
the sustained use of the camera upside down.

>
>Did you also say that the exposure counter actually counted more pictures than
>you took, even if you include the blanks? If so, that sounds more like an
>electrical problem.

No I didn't say that. What it did it did do is tell me the number of
shots the buffer could hold with the then current configuration. That
should require half pressure on the shutter button but I wasn't
touching it at the time.

Weather permitting I'm going to try it again tomorrow with a different
lens. Whether I do it with the camera upside down is another matter.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 06:58:38 -0400, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:

Aha! I will now focus my attention on the lense rather than the fact
that the camera was upside down (although that could still be a
factor).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> There was I happily snapping away and every now and then I would lift
> up the camera and examine the rear view screen to see how badly I had
> been doing. Suddenly I found that pressing the view button produced no
> effect. The screen remained black. It remained black when I pressed
> the menu button also. Turning things on and off made no difference.
> Neither did pressing the shutter button. Suddenly 'click - crunch',
> the camera took a photo and everything worked again.

Contact trouble between lens and camera? If the contacts are
at the bottom of the mount --- which is the top then --- and a
slight give in the bayonet lets them get apart a bit ... a 70-200
isn't the lightest lens.

-Wolfgang

[Rob]

So your recommendation? buy a lighter lens?

[jdd]

Le 12/08/2012 14:24, Rob a écrit :

> So your recommendation? buy a lighter lens?

looks like you turned on the option used to take himself on the photo
(retardateur in french). I also did so at least once

jdd

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:10:43 +0200, jdd <j...@dodin.org> wrote:
: Le 12/08/2012 14:24, Rob a �crit :
:

: > So your recommendation? buy a lighter lens?
:
: looks like you turned on the option used to take himself on the photo
: (retardateur in french). I also did so at least once

En anglais, c'est "self-timer".

Bob

[Bruce]

No need for that. If the lens is heavier than the camera body you
should support the lens with your left hand.

Now that people routinely AF and AE fewer people hold a (D)SLR and
lens combination as they should. Even with a small prime lens, the
left hand should support the lens as well as the camera body. With a
longer, heavier lens, you might as well support the lens and consider
the camera body almost as an accessory clipped to the rear of the
lens.

In the days of manual focus and manually controlled aperture, your
left hand needed to be there anyway to control the aperture and
focusing rings, and also the zoom ring in the case of a zoom or
varifocal lens. But with auto modes plus control wheels on the camera
body, you can do all that with the fingers of your right hand, so I
have noticed a strong tendency for amateur DSLR users to hold the
camera with right and left hands at opposite ends, just like they
would hold a compact p&s.

Having said all that, I doubt very much that the lens mount on the
Nikon D300 body has any possibility of flexing even with a heavy lens.
The D300 shares the professional build quality of all the Nikon
prosumer DSLRs. The lens mount is very firmly attached to the rigid
die-cast magnesium/aluminium alloy chassis of the camera body, so
there is almost no chance that the lens to body mount could deflect to
an extent sufficient enough to cause the electronic contacts to come
apart.

[Eric Stevens]

I had much the same thought. However it was the lens that was attached
to the monopod and hence it was the camera hanging from the lens, not
vice versa.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:18:24 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:10:43 +0200, jdd <j...@dodin.org> wrote:

>: Le 12/08/2012 14:24, Rob a écrit :
>:
>: > So your recommendation? buy a lighter lens?
>:
>: looks like you turned on the option used to take himself on the photo
>: (retardateur in french). I also did so at least once
>
>En anglais, c'est "self-timer".
>

It wasn't that although as I explained in another post it did act as
though the release button had been half-pressed.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Me]

On 10/08/2012 8:21 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:

In the early days of the D300, there were quite a few reports of "Dead
Battery Syndrome" in DPReview forum. Several posters reported great
success using a contact cleaning/conditioning formula marketed as
"Deoxit" on the battery and terminals.
Your problem doesn't sound at all like "Dead Battery Syndrome". I was
also very skeptical of claims made about some snake-oil.
However, our of sheer frustration dealing with intermittent poor
contacts in other electronic equipment repairs, I bought some of this
stuff (kit of Deoxit "red" and "gold"). It's expensive. It has worked
extremely well for me. I can't provide any objective "proof" that it
works (ie better than anything else), just that it /seems/ to be much
more effective than anything else I've tried for dealing with things
like dodgy chip connectors, miniature ribbon cable connectors, noisy
contacts in assorted audio devices etc.
I have a D300, but haven't had anything like the problem you describe.
if I did, the first thing I would try would be some deoxit on the lens
and body electronic contacts.
Sorry - this probably reads a bit like a shill post from a snake-oil
salesman, and "toolkit in a can" type claims are common and dubious. I'm
not connected to the people who make deoxit in any way.

[Eric Stevens]

I accept your claim re Deoxit. It is not commonly known that gold will
form a thin oxide film at relative humidities above 80%. This is why
80% RH is one of the environmental specificatons for computerised
equipment.

As for the cause of the fault: I've established that and spelled it
out in a separate article.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Me]

Yes - I don't think the D300 has gold plated lens contacts on the body
mount though - they look silver coloured to me, but it's evening and I'm
looking under artificial light.
That said - I haven't had a problem with the camera at all in 5 years.
It has survived being tossed from a 1.8m high shelf, landing on a wooden
floor, and bouncing off the far wall, with only loss of some paint on
the "qual" button which must have hit something else on the way, during
rather an interesting earthquake. The lens that was mounted on it was
smashed beyond repair, but I used the camera over the next few days to
take photos of our house, which was substantially destroyed, the photos
have come in handy for insurance purposes.
It also survived 5 years with about 6 weeks a year on our yacht, a rogue
wave dumping on it about 3 years ago with the only immediate option
being to run the fresh water tap over the body, pat it with a towel, and
leave it to dry.
It has that "well used" look, but still functions "as new". I figure
that it owes me nothing now, and was a good purchase.

>
> As for the cause of the fault: I've established that and spelled it
> out in a separate article.
>

I didn't read that post - sorted I hope?

[otter]

Yeah, I missed that as well. Can you give a link? Just curious what
you diagnosed the problem to be.

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:21:42 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>There was I taking photographs for the current [SI] (On the road) with
>my camera mounted on the top of a monopod which I was holding upside
>down so my 70-200 lens could take photographs just above ground level.
>The camera too was upside down. I was triggering the camera through a
>remote cable while holding the bottom of the monopod at about hip
>level. The camera was resting on my foot with the lens steadied
>against the lamp standard against which I too was leaning.
>

>The camera is a D300 with a near-new SanDisk 32GB Extreme CompactFlash
>60 MB/s memory card through which about one thousand photographs had

>already passed. There were about 12 shots on it when I started my
>expedition.

>
>There was I happily snapping away and every now and then I would lift
>up the camera and examine the rear view screen to see how badly I had
>been doing. Suddenly I found that pressing the view button produced no
>effect. The screen remained black. It remained black when I pressed
>the menu button also. Turning things on and off made no difference.
>Neither did pressing the shutter button. Suddenly 'click - crunch',
>the camera took a photo and everything worked again.
>

>This happened two or three more times and then I experienced a total
>lockup which did not eventually come right. The section of the control
>window on top which normally displays the number of exposures left
>showed 'r9' which means that the buffer has room for 9 more exposures
>with the current setup. While I was looking the camera went
>'click-crunch' again and the 'r9' changed to 'r8'. But still the
>camera wouldn't work. At this point I removed the battery for a minute
>and then reinserted it, but no change.
>
>As it happened I was only about a 100 yards from the very
>knowledgeable Camera & Camera who had sold me the camera in the first
>place so I took it into them. They scratched their collective head and
>eventually decided there was a fault. At this point I decided to take
>the camera home and carry out some research to try and get to the
>bottom of the problem.
>
>I removed the 70-2-- lens and fitted my normal 16-85. The remote cable
>was removed and the camera was packed in its bag. When I got home I
>had lunch, then removed the camera from its case and found sweetness
>and light had returned. There was no sign of any problem and the
>camera seems to be working correctly.
>

>My question is, can anyone throw any light on what went wrong? I'm
>inclined to suspect the memory card but I have no real basis for this.
>What worries me is the possibility of it happening again.

Well, I've found the answer and its (only) slightly embarrassing.

All of the foregoing happened to me on Friday and I decided to return
to the site taking with me the much lighter
AF-S Nikon 16~85 F3.5-5.6GED. Lo and behold, no sooner had I started
than it all started happening all over again.

The problem could clearly no longer be blamed on the 70-200 lens. I
went all over the camera wiggling everything that might possibly be
loose. Nothing happened until I came to the remote cable release which
had not been properly plugged in. Wiggling this caused the shutter to
fire, as did unplugging the cable. Plugging the cable back in created
a machine gun burst of exposures. This caused me to look at the
release cable itself. (In fact I nearly went the 100 yards down the
road to enable me to buy a new one).

For those who don't know the Nikon MC-30 remote cable release, you may
find an image at http://tinyurl.com/9tezyzg or
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/filemanager/images/product_images/23189/remote_listhover_thumb.jpg

The MC-30 is actuated by the thumb-button on the top, which I find
very convenient for single-handed release. If you want a long 'time'
exposure once you have pushed it you can lock the thumb-button down
with the slider on the side. What I eventually found is that (you've
guessed it) I had inadvertently locked the thumb-button down by moving
the slider. In effect, what I had done was leave my finger on the
shutter release.

So there you are. The next time you have mysterious problems with your
camera, have a very good look at how _everything_ is set. You never
know, your camera might be doing exactly what you have told it to.

I would like to thank all those who have racked their brains trying to
help me out of the consequences of my own carelessness.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[PeterN]

Glad it turned out to be a flat forehead problem.

--
Peter

[otter]

> find an image athttp://tinyurl.com/9tezyzgorhttp://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/filemanager/images/product_images/23...

>
> The MC-30 is actuated by the thumb-button on the top, which I find
> very convenient for single-handed release. If you want a long 'time'
> exposure once you have pushed it you can lock the thumb-button down
> with the slider on the side. What I eventually found is that (you've
> guessed it) I had inadvertently locked the thumb-button down by moving
> the slider. In effect, what I had done was leave my finger on the
> shutter release.
>
> So there you are. The next time you have mysterious problems with your
> camera, have a very good look at how _everything_ is set. You never
> know, your camera  might be doing exactly what you have told it to.
>
> I would like to thank all those who have racked their brains trying to
> help me out of the consequences of my own carelessness.
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens

Now that you mention it, I think I did the same thing once with the
lock on my canon remote. Glad you figured it out.

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:49:34 -0700 (PDT), otter
<bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Now that you mention it, I think I did the same thing once with the
>lock on my canon remote. Glad you figured it out.

I'm only sorry that it took so long.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rob <mesa...@google.com> wrote:

>>On 11/08/2012 7:23 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> There was I happily snapping away and every now and then I would lift
>>>> up the camera and examine the rear view screen to see how badly I had
>>>> been doing. Suddenly I found that pressing the view button produced no
>>>> effect. The screen remained black. It remained black when I pressed
>>>> the menu button also. Turning things on and off made no difference.
>>>> Neither did pressing the shutter button. Suddenly 'click - crunch',
>>>> the camera took a photo and everything worked again.

>>> Contact trouble between lens and camera? If the contacts are
>>> at the bottom of the mount --- which is the top then --- and a
>>> slight give in the bayonet lets them get apart a bit ... a 70-200
>>> isn't the lightest lens.

>>So your recommendation? buy a lighter lens?

> No need for that. If the lens is heavier than the camera body you
> should support the lens with your left hand.

Even if you don't, any flex will press the contacts on the
lower half of the bayonet together. But he used the camera
upside down.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

> So your recommendation? buy a lighter lens?

Clean the contacts.
Do not bend the lens upwards (normal orientation) if that may
be a problem.

I had the trouble with a physically long lens and the 20D when
the lens rested on something and I tilted the camera downwards.
ERR 99. Repeatable. So I didn't do that any more and, presto,
no more ERR 99.

-Wolfgang

[otter]

On Aug 16, 11:22 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com>
wrote:

> Rob <mesam...@google.com> wrote:
> > On 11/08/2012 7:23 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread/bb15419d96896b78/7ef8b145d1278621#7ef8b145d1278621

[me]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:53:27 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Having said all that, I doubt very much that the lens mount on the
>Nikon D300 body has any possibility of flexing even with a heavy lens.
>The D300 shares the professional build quality of all the Nikon
>prosumer DSLRs. The lens mount is very firmly attached to the rigid
>die-cast magnesium/aluminium alloy chassis of the camera body, so
>there is almost no chance that the lens to body mount could deflect to
>an extent sufficient enough to cause the electronic contacts to come
>apart.

Well I have direct explicit experience which tends to refute this POV.
I've had the 1st generation 70-200mm f/2.8 VR since 2004 when I bought
my D70. Moved on to a D200 and then D300. I have experienced contact
issues between the lens and body which have gotten worse with time on
all three bodies with the exact same lens. Explain that away.

[Eric Stevens]

You seem to be supporting Bruce's point. It's the lens that's the
problem, not the flexing of the camera body.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Rob]

With this problem the error messages do not relate to pins, but buffer
full or card full etc.

[me]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:00:32 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>You seem to be supporting Bruce's point. It's the lens that's the
>problem, not the flexing of the camera body.

I guess I explained it incorrectly. With each new body the problem
went away. Over time coming back. That would seem to me to possibly
indicate there was something going on with the bodies as well. I will
agree that major issue is most likely the mounting plate on the lens.

I should also mentions I've walked/hiked hundreds of miles over the
year with the lens hanging down along my side with the original camera
strap over one shoulder bandolier style. So the lens was hanging off
the body.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Rob <mesa...@google.com> wrote:

>> I had the trouble with a physically long lens and the 20D when
>> the lens rested on something and I tilted the camera downwards.
>> ERR 99. Repeatable. So I didn't do that any more and, presto,
>> no more ERR 99.

> With this problem the error messages do not relate to pins, but buffer
> full or card full etc.

Or a failed connection to the lens ...
Buffer was empty and card had lots of space.

Did you read the "Repeatable"? And the sentence after that?

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

otter <bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread/bb15419d96896b78/7ef8b145d1278621#7ef8b145d1278621

You don't have a proper newsreader, and that's all you want to say?

-Wolfgang