No F Stop? Explain This Picture

I don't really know what happened here, but I think the lens wasn't completely mounted on the camera. I know I was outside of the house and I asked my daughter for the camera, which was inside. I also asked her to put my 24-70 L on it. She did, and she's done it 100 times before. When I went to take this sample picture, I got a reading of 6400 for a shutter speed; ISO was correctly set at 100 on my 1D Mk II. There was no information in the viewfinder for f stop. I turned the camera off and on again, but the readings were the same. I could not get an f stop and I could not change the shutter speed. I shot the picture anyway. Then I turned off the camera and removed the lens and reinstalled it. It was fine after that.

My assumption is that the lens wasn't fully seated and causing a contact issue. I could be wrong, though. Anyone know?

Picture as taken, no edits at all. When the EXIF info is looked at, it reflects a shutter and ISO and no f stop info.

I have seen that happen before both in Canon and Nikon land. If the camera doesn't have the right contacts it can wig out a bit. If I don't see an f stop listed or can't autofocus I immediately check my lens because I don't want it falling off of the body and onto the ground.

You must really love your daughter. I barely let people touch my gripped 30D/Tokina 11-16 combination. A 1D/24-70 combo would be a from-my-cold-dead-hands kinda dealio

LowriderS10 wrote in post #10402683
You must really love your daughter. I barely let people touch my gripped 30D/Tokina 11-16 combination. A 1D/24-70 combo would be a from-my-cold-dead-hands kinda dealio

You sound really paranoid, haha.

lake_tuna wrote in post #10403324
You sound really paranoid, haha.

Possibly. On the other hand, I've had to save up quite a bit for my gear and I treat them accordingly. Every piece of gear I own is 100% mint, nothing's ever had a scratch on it, nothing's ever been dropped, etc...I doubt anyone knows how much my photo stuff means to me, so they wouldn't take care of it like I do

My girlfriend's SD1200 looks more beat up after 3 months than my 3-year-old 30D which has been through floods, murder scenes, the Grand Canyon, etc, etc, with me...

See in my mind the Cameras a Tool, my gripped 5d II has scratches, my 28-70 has the red stripe fading out in a few spots, the hood looks like its been to Iraq... Im going to use my camera, and use it well, so im on the other side of that fence from you lowrider... also if you wanna see something crazy check this out:

http://www.karlgrobl.c​om …mentReviews/Dro​pTests.htm

And Racer, Yeah that hasnt happened to me with my Canon, but have had that happen on a D90 I was using for another job a while ago, It means the contacts weren't seated properly and since every things all electronic control, the camera didnt see the information... try cleaning the contacts on the lens if it happens again, otherwise likely just a fluke.

BEyslerPhotography wrote in post #10403511
See in my mind the Cameras a Tool, my gripped 5d II has scratches, my 28-70 has the red stripe fading out in a few spots, the hood looks like its been to Iraq... Im going to use my camera, and use it well, so im on the other side of that fence from you lowrider... also if you wanna see something crazy check this out:

To each his own. I'm not hating on those who beat up their stuff (trust me, working at newspapers I've seen some pretty scary stuff), but I take good care of my stuff and it works out for me.

So far I've sold ALL of my equipment that I bought used and even some that I bought new (20D, 10D, nifty fifty, Sigma 10-20, etc) for MORE money than I paid for it after using them for at least a year or two...why? Because I take incredible care of my stuff and it simply doesn't depreciate due to wear and tear. I'm sure if I added a few nicks and scratches and bumps here and there, I wouldn't have been able to make my money back.

I'm too broke to beat up my equipment By the way, you start you blog by saying that cameras will be dropped no matter how careful you are. Not true...I haven't dropped a camera since high school (12 years ago)...and I sure as hell wasn't careful back then. Now I'm careful and all of my equipment is in 100% as-new condition.

Cheers!

LowriderS10 wrote in post #10403484
Possibly. On the other hand, I've had to save up quite a bit for my gear and I treat them accordingly. Every piece of gear I own is 100% mint, nothing's ever had a scratch on it, nothing's ever been dropped, etc...I doubt anyone knows how much my photo stuff means to me, so they wouldn't take care of it like I do

My girlfriend's SD1200 looks more beat up after 3 months than my 3-year-old 30D which has been through floods, murder scenes, the Grand Canyon, etc, etc, with me...

Well, you better not look too closely at this then - hahaha
My 1DmkII with 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 are in that lot somewhere

philwillmedia wrote in post #10403612
Well, you better not look too closely at this then - hahaha

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

Why not? I couldn't care less how others beat up their equipment Besides, you could do worse things than put your camera on grass

I find it very strange that some people seem to think it's cool to have cosmetically damaged equipment, especially when they appear to dwell upon that aspect, whilst at the same time pretending that it's not significant to them - which of course makes it even more obvious that it is!

What's all that about then?

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #10404877
I find it very strange that some people seem to think it's cool to have cosmetically damaged equipment, especially when they appear to dwell upon that aspect, whilst at the same time pretending that it's not significant to them - which of course makes it even more obvious that it is!

What's all that about then?

haha so true...to some photographers I've met it's like "street cred" to be walking around with beat-up equipment...even if that beating up is the result of carelessness and deliberate actions rather than actual battle scars.

But hey...if they wanna treat their 3,000 dollar body like a hammer, all the power to them...keeps Canon in business, I guess.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #10402683
You must really love your daughter. I barely let people touch my gripped 30D/Tokina 11-16 combination. A 1D/24-70 combo would be a from-my-cold-dead-hands kinda dealio

Yeah, I'm I'm pretty sure I love my daughter.

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #10404877
I find it very strange that some people seem to think it's cool to have cosmetically damaged equipment, especially when they appear to dwell upon that aspect, whilst at the same time pretending that it's not significant to them - which of course makes it even more obvious that it is!

What's all that about then?

LowriderS10 wrote in post #10404961
haha so true...to some photographers I've met it's like "street cred" to be walking around with beat-up equipment...even if that beating up is the result of carelessness and deliberate actions rather than actual battle scars.

But hey...if they wanna treat their 3,000 dollar body like a hammer, all the power to them...keeps Canon in business, I guess.

I think it is more about just using the camera as the tool it was bought as.
Professional photographers have far more to be worried about than protecting their cameras etc from incidental scratches. Something trivial like earning a living from the photos which meansthat making sure they get the shot that will sell or keep their editor happy is far more important.

neilwood32 wrote in post #10405629
I think it is more about just using the camera as the tool it was bought as.
Professional photographers have far more to be worried about than protecting their cameras etc from incidental scratches. Something trivial like earning a living from the photos which meansthat making sure they get the shot that will sell or keep their editor happy is far more important.

Ummm...okay. You do realize I shot for newspapers for a few years, right? I covered a massive flood while up to my waist in water, I've covered countless murders, plane crashes and all sorts of fatalities in some of the worst conditions Canada has to offer. And yet every body and lens I own is in 10/10 condition. Besides, most newspaper photogs shoot with the paper's equipment, not their own...which is part of the reason they don't give a crap about it and beat it up.

Then you get people who want to look all hardcore by beating their equipment up to look like the above-mentioned pros.

And then there are people who simply suck at taking care of equipment. Kind of like car owners who go 50k without changing their oil and have a car peppered with little dings and scratches.

Besides, 99.9999999% of the damage I see on cameras is simply from not being careful enough. If you read Beysler's link, his equipment didn't get damaged while getting a Pulitzer-winning shot of a hostile insurgent...he simply dropped a couple of bodies. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "using the camera as a tool it was bought as."

maybe 1/125 at f.16 at iso100. Using the Sunny-16 rule.