Up to a certain point it does have its entertainment value, but then ...
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Perhaps. Improper error handling should not happen in a perfect world. However, I hope you will concede that Canon can only test and recreate error conditions it has control over. That's the case for any software development process. We have no idea what Kenko is doing in their reverse engineering efforts that causes a camera to lock up, and that's really my point - neither does Canon.
I'm sure Canon has protocol analyzers, and it's a fairly simple protocol, as I understand it. I doubt Kenko is doing much more than passing the data unmolested to the lenses and returning the responses, multiplying the focal length on the way back through. They don't even modify the lens ID information, I don't think.
My bet is that the Kenko extenders don't support some added command that the body is sending, but because the camera doesn't know it is there, the camera expects to be talking to a lens that does support that command, and fails on some assert when the "lens" says "I don't know how to do that". If that's the case, then the camera just needs to fall back to doing what it would do for an older lens that doesn't support that command rather than failing when the TC fails to pass the unknown command on to the lens.
That said, I'm half tempted to borrow an SPI to USB adapter and see exactly what's going on. Or maybe even buy one for $30:
That, a sacrificial full-electrics extension tube, and about fifteen minutes will tell you everything you need to know about what's happening. Well, that, and a Canon TC to compare the results.
As a programmer, I would have included a fail safe timer in the camera OS.... So many seconds have gone by without a refresh, force a reset.....
Canon is not responsible for Kenko's problems, but their camera should not lock up under an error condition, it should at least display an error code.....
Bad code is bad code. If your code doesn't do proper error handling, your code is s**t, period. It doesn't matter what triggered that code to crash. It's still a security hole waiting to happen. And as I said, bad code in one part almost invariably means that you have bad code throughout. These sorts of problems lead me to the inevitable conclusion that their entire firmware is probably held together by shoestrings and bailing wire. That's not very reassuring, speaking as someone with $15k invested in Canon gear.
The part that's more infuriating is realizing that a one-line bug fix would probably make these things work, if we could just get the bug report past the CSRs to the engineering team.
If the camera refused to recognize the lens, we could blame either Kenko or Canon, but because it crashes the whole camera, Canon is entirely at fault.
Nope, Canon does not say Kenko tcs work with their cameras, why should they be responsible if they don't? If you try to superglue a Nikon lens on your ef mount and it doesn't work, would you complain to Canon?
I would expect it to not work, but if it caused the camera to lock up, yes, I would complain.A third party makes a item that doesn't work with Canon, and you expect Canon to fix it??
Yes. This is what we computer programmers refer to as "code smell". In my nearly three decades of computer programming experience, I've found two rules to be almost invariably true:
- A bug like this is typically caused by a division by zero error, failure to do proper bounds checking, or other extremely sloppy programming—the sort of mistake that should almost never occur in shipping code and, once discovered, should never make it into a second revision of that production code.
- If there's sloppily written code in one part of a piece of software, there's usually sloppily written code throughout the software in question. After all, if the QA department didn't catch such an easily reproduced bug, they probably didn't catch lots of even more serious bugs.
Quality products simply do not crash reproducibly, period. In most software engineering organizations, a crasher-level bug that is easily reproduced would be considered a block-ship-level bug, whether the company guarantees compatibility with that other product or not. And proper engineering organizations—even the ones that don't guarantee compatibility with other companies products—do typically test a heck of a lot of them, and also usually let third-party vendors test their gear with their code long before it ships, so that if they break something, they can fix it before customers notice. That's just common sense based on software engineering best practices. Any company that doesn't do those things is grossly inept, to be absolutely blunt.
Why do almost all respectable software engineering organizations do these things when they don't have to, you might ask? Because above all other things, in the users' minds, attention to detail matters. Users don't care whether it's the manufacturer's fault or the peripheral's fault. They just expect their $1,600 camera to work without crashing, without breaking compatibility with other hardware in a firmware update, etc. When that extremely basic expectation isn't met, it's the fault of everyone the customer can point his or her finger at, including the camera maker. And when that camera maker tries to deflect blame, it just makes them look like they don't care about their customers at all, and makes those customers choose other companies' products the next time.
I guess I'll keep adding to this thread since I am the only person that has it...
Some more wide open shots:
Stickers! by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Sticker Hand by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
I don't know what he considers "running" - but i do alot of trail running and i don't carry anything but my camelbak and maybe some energy bars with me
I have seen some 17-55mm for about $600-700 but they look alittle rough . So I am not to sure if its worth getting a new one and taking real good care of it with a filter or just wait till a nice one comes around.
Im really glad I asked these questions before I spent over a $1000 bucks! I think the 17-55 f 2.8 lens might win! Thank you again everyone!!