SX280 - battery life shooting video

[factoryguy]

UPDATED May 5:

I apologize to the forum for mixing two different problems.  They are unrelated.

Problem #1:  User error.  I thought I was using a class 6 SD card but I was wrong. The yellow "!" indicates a pathologically slow card.  Upgrading to a class 10 resolved this problem.

Problem #2: UNRESOLVED.  Red battery indicator comes on prematurely.  On a fresh charge, it'll turn red after recording for a couple of minutes.  On a partially drained battery, it turns red immediately upon entering movie mode or pressing the record button.  Turn the camera off and then right back on in "still" mode and it shows full charge and works fine ... until trying to shoot video.  I have not precisely measured recording times but it'll record for at least 20 (maybe 30?) minutes while flashing red.

[filipb]

... so this would imply that the flashing battery indicator is indeed not for all cameras out there - mine indeed has 1.0.0.0...

[videophan]

---

@mcasale16 wrote:

Videophan is the Camera Utilities accurate when it comes to firmware? The firmware on mine (sent back  to Canon for a fix and in transit being returned to me as I type) is Firmware: 1-14.0.1.0. I plan on checking the new firmware data when I receive the camera back. 

---

Camera Window (is that what you're talking about?) reported my firmware as 1.0.1.0 (now updated to 1.0.2.0).

For what it's worth. I updated the firmware to 1.0.2.0 per instructions with a fully charged battery after a spare battery was removed that was reporting what you saw on the Camera Window screenshots in my previous post. I put that battery back in the camera, swtiched to video mode and battery is reporting as full. However, as soon as I zoom, low battery indicator begins flashing (not in auto mode, but in movie mode)...not exactly what was expected if the firmware fixed the issue. I will experiment some more....

[pawl]

---

@UnionStation wrote:
I think you might've misunderstood me, pawl. Professional reviewers often buy devices off the shelf to guarantee they are getting exactly what customers get. Companies frequently give known reviewers prototype units with firmware/software/hardware that never makes its way to consumers. There' no guarantee the firmware Gordon gets will be the same anyone else will see. That's no conspiracy theory - that's fact.

My statement that it may take Gordon some time to revisit the camera was based on that earlier posting, part of which you reposted: Gordon said: "I'm very curious too, but again it could be a couple of weeks before I can re-evaluate this." He's already reviewed this camera and likely has plenty of other work to do before giving a repaired camera a second chance.

---

I admit I had no idea that such a thing was common, UnionStation. I can understand why it would benefit a company in_the_short_term to provide [in this case] a camera that is non-stock and somehow better than what the public will purchase, but doesn't that invite trouble with consumers down the line? Seems like a bad idea, or at least not very farsighted. But, like I said, I'm not in this business, so my knowledge is **bleep** close to zip. And you'd be quick to point out that Canon is not too bright in their CR department.

I take issue, however, when you use the term "rigged" and suggest that Laing is somehow a willing knowing party (assuming the man is as knowledgable of this scheming as you). By deduction, you're suggesting Laing is a dupe? Is Canon buttering his bread?

And besides, Gordon Laing does have a vested interest in this, since (as you said) his interest in (read, reputation as a reviewer relies on) fair and thorough reporting. I'm sure he understands it would be remiss of him to drop the ball on this one. I'd not suggest otherwise, not knowing the man personally.

[videophan]

---

@pawl wrote:

---

@UnionStation wrote:
I think you might've misunderstood me, pawl. Professional reviewers often buy devices off the shelf to guarantee they are getting exactly what customers get. Companies frequently give known reviewers prototype units with firmware/software/hardware that never makes its way to consumers. There' no guarantee the firmware Gordon gets will be the same anyone else will see. That's no conspiracy theory - that's fact.

My statement that it may take Gordon some time to revisit the camera was based on that earlier posting, part of which you reposted: Gordon said: "I'm very curious too, but again it could be a couple of weeks before I can re-evaluate this." He's already reviewed this camera and likely has plenty of other work to do before giving a repaired camera a second chance.

---

I admit I had no idea that such a thing was common, UnionStation. I can understand why it would benefit a company in_the_short_term to provide [in this case] a camera that is non-stock and somehow better than what the public will purchase, but doesn't that invite trouble with consumers down the line? Seems like a bad idea, or at least not very farsighted. But, like I said, I'm not in this business, so my knowledge is **bleep** close to zip. And you'd be quick to point out that Canon is not too bright in their CR department.

I take issue, however, when you use the term "rigged" and suggest that Laing is somehow a willing knowing party (assuming the man is as knowledgable of this scheming as you). By deduction, you're suggesting Laing is a dupe? Is Canon buttering his bread?

And besides, Gordon Laing does have a vested interest in this, since (as you said) his interest in (read, reputation as a reviewer relies on) fair and thorough reporting. I'm sure he understands it would be remiss of him to drop the ball on this one. I'd not suggest otherwise, not knowing the man personally.

---

Gordon did state  that the camera he reviewed was one that he purchased, not one that was provided by Canon. He has also stated that he is suspicious that the fix only involves a firmware update in that he recorded the camera serial number before it was sent in to make sure he got the same serial number camera returned.  He also stated in his updated review that "Canon contacted me following my test and claims it has fixed the battery issue with a firmware update which should already be applied to all new samples." The vendors must have had quite an inventory of bad cameras since people who have purchased a sx280 since the review and posted here got another bad sx280.

Personally, I have a prepaid return to return to the vendor and also a prepaid label to return to Canon in Irvine, CA. If no one posts anything positive concerning repair/replacement of their defective camera in the next 3-4 days, it will be returned to the vendor and Canon can find other valued customers to extend their award winning service.

[pawl]

Well I, for one, appreciate all comments! UnionStation and Videophan, I've disagreed with you both off and on, but doff my cap with respect to your (our) persistence!

[UnionStation]

Absolutely agreed, pawl - and right back at you. I think all of us here are on the same side - and that's not to say any of us are against Canon. I'll bet the vast majority of us bought this camera with little hesitation because of Canon's good name. I've been the happy owner of many awesome Canon products - but this camera and the way the company has handled its problems leaves me a less of a Canon fan than I've been in the past. It's up to Canon to win back our trust.

[completelocks]

I'll bet the vast majority of us bought this camera with little hesitation because of Canon's good name. I've been the happy owner of many awesome Canon products - but this camera and the way the company has handled its problems leaves me a less of a Canon fan than I've been in the past."

Totally agree

[UnionStation]

Pawl - please reread my note. I never suggested Gordon was in cahoots with Canon or being duped or anything of the sort. I said there's no way for him to know whether the camera he gets back is "rigged" to, say, just turn off all the warnings - something that could fry the camera after 2 months of daily use. Who knows? It
Could be an sx280 body with some modified hardware. How could he tell? Consumer Reports buys off the shelf for a reason. Often you'll see reviewers of new products clearly state they're test models provided by the company - or a pre-production model. There's a reason reviewers specifically state that. And, without getting into too much detail, I do know something about this topic. I don't know Gordon, but he seems like a totally fair and professional guy. I would not suggest otherwise

[bkoldys]

Ok long suffering sx280 owners got a sx700hs from a friend in Japan. In hand Charging up the battery to full and then we will test the video performance. Even though the number sequence is not sequential, I am guessing the sx700 hs as the successor to the 280hs. Perhaps they changed the number sequence to distance themselves from that 280 disaster. will let you know how she goes shortly.

[UnionStation]

My sincere apologies, bkoldys, you are correct. The SX700 appears to be exactly what you said - a successor to the SX280. Perhaps more accurately, and attempt to fix a broken camera without admitting any fault, apologizing to customers, or replacing the sx280s that loyal customers kept in hopes of a magical firmware update. Perusing the specs, it seems that the SX700 is an even bigger version of the already chunky SX280, with a slightly higher powered battery. We all look forward to your report, but I will have a hard time ever again giving my hard-earned money to Canon after this debacle.