Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: E-3 problems.

Subject: [OM] Re: E-3 problems.
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:57:45 -0500
You are correct, of course.  I hadn't noticed the term "preview".  Your 
hypothesis of previewing the image from the buffer and not retrieving it 
from the card also answers the question.  I couldn't do this because I 
couldn't possibly go 50 shots without pulling one or more images from 
the card for review but that's my own work flow.

This scenario spurred another thought which needs to be answered by an 
E-3 owner.  Jim said there was no XD card in the camera.  Is it possible 
for the E-3 to be set to write to the XD card only and then for the user 
to miss any warnings that might occur when the camera can't write to the 
intended device even though a CF card is installed.

In any case, we don't know all the details.  We don't even know if the 
problem is repeatable in testing... because it hasn't been tested.

Chuck Norcutt

Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> I also have a hard time believing that that camera can't see what it was 
>> displaying only minutes ago.  The scenario doesn't seem to make much 
>> sense.  The directory would have to be damaged some time between viewing 
>> the last image on the camera and removing the card.
>>   
> - The sketchy report indicates that more than one different card was 
> involved, so the chances of hardware failure there are extremely low.
> 
> - Use of the "preview" feature is mentioned. What isn't mentioned is 
> whether this is literal or a mis-statement. "Preview" is the display of 
> the image immediately after it is taken and need not necessarily 
> indicate that the image is on the card. It may be, probably is, from the 
> buffer. "Review" is going back to a previous image. Review must read the 
> image from the card, thus indicating that it was successfully written. 
> It is thus, from a diagnostic point of view, much different than preview.
> 
> - If review was indeed tried before ejecting the card and could not 
> retrieve images after putting it back in, something has indeed happened 
> in between.
> 
> - The logical way to troubleshoot is NOT to go ahead and do another 
> client shoot.
> 
> 1. Take a few test images, review them in camera.
> 2. Remove and replace the card in the camera and try review again. Write 
> down at least one file name.
> 3. Remove card and put it in the card reader.
> 4. Use the system file viewer, Windoze Explorer or Mac Finder, to view 
> the contents of the card as file names.
> 5. Use whatever software was being used to view/copy files. Before doing 
> the copy:
>    a. Check the settings for output directory against expectations of 
> where the files should appear.
>    b. Check settings to see if source files are to be erased from the 
> card once copied.
> 6. Do a system wide search for one of the file names.
> 
> - That should isolate where the files are "going missing", leading to a 
> similar process to isolate hardware, software or user error at the step 
> where they disappear. Several good suggestions have already been made, 
> but logical testing is the only way to isolate the problem for sure.
> ------------------------------
> I have, as M. Vick wishes were true of other fights, no dog in this 
> fight. I have, however done a bit of remote troubleshooting of computer 
> issues and specifically of them as related to software I wrote.
> 
> My general rule, learned from hard experience, when something that works 
> everywhere else, but not in one particular location and/or with one 
> particular person, is that it is caused by an unstated action or 
> assumption. Usually something that is happening/being done, but not 
> reported.
> 
> Over several programs and many years and incidents, I never found a 
> problem with a unique user that was in my software. I don't think I 
> recall any hardware failure either. Mostly operator error, occasional 
> LAN admin errors and one bug in a major LAN OS that they eventually 
> admitted to, but never fixed. I had to recode around that one.
> 
> People NEVER tell you the whole, blow-by-blow story unless you force 
> them to walk through it one detail step at a time. Typical is walking 
> through the process on the phone, hearing keystrokes when I've not said 
> the next thing to do, asking what they are doing and hearing "Oh, just 
> such and so. I always do that, so I didn't want to bother you with it." 
> or some such nonsense. And that will turn out to be where the problem 
> is. It's quite remarkable how we can make a change in some detail of a 
> process without noticing it, then go on doing it the new way.
> 
> Unstated assumptions are the killer. As I recently noted and old timers 
> will remember, there was the case here of the "bad" lens where the 
> owner/complainer never thought to mention it had a 'protective" filter 
> always mounted and it took months before anybody thought to ask.
> ----------------------
> 
> Moose
> 
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
> 
> 
> 

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz