Talk:E18 error

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Photography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Is this page really relevant to wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.68.160 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was set to be moved to Wikibooks, but as it was not meant to be a manual or text book, as the goal is to follow the current event, specifically an apparent class action suit against the manufacturer. Nonetheless, I left in the {{move to Wikibooks}}[with a link to it from the article on the camera] but commented it out as the article was a work in progress. I have made a number of modifications. Trimmed out a bunch to slim it down and put in references and external links. As well found an article on a camera model that included alread something about this suit. Although I was not totally sure how to link them, I took the heading from that page and linked it here. Comments, advice for restructuring or any additions are appreciated. One thought I have had is perhaps this should be moved to a page with a more descriptive title including "class action"? Dwxyzq 21:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that and went "what on earth?" I was about to write an article on the E18 error myself! I've moved it to the lowercase title ("E18 error"). I've also tried to make it more neutral and encyclopedic in tone without losing information, restructured it, etc. I'll also note its existence on the dpreview forums and see if anyone's got anything to add. I just rewrote Canon Digital IXUS, let's try something contentious ;-) - David Gerard 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry. While I was trying to copy the links, I accidentally deleted them. reverted them.

I moved this from the article because it desperately needs citations before being encyclopedic - at the moment it reads like a forum post. Which is fine on a forum, but needs more backing here:

These errors are most likely firmware issues, someone at canon desperatly needs to code updated firmwares for all the new canon's. Rumour has it that all is done while at canon repairs is the disassembling of the lens mechanics and realligning the system to point zero (fully retracted). Only then can the firmware reoperate the mechanism.

I'd love a cite on that suggested fix rumour :-) That's pretty much what the "how to fix your E18 error yourself" pages suggest: disassemble, realign, reassemble and pray - David Gerard 16:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I reccomend this, but I got this error after accidentally extending the zoom in my pocket, and I fixed it by pulling the lens out to its fully extended position. -Ravedave 02:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That's one of the things e18error.com lists ;-) - David Gerard 11:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took this out because E18 is a standard Canon error message on all their digitals with zoom. Anything blocks the lens and sticks it in place, the camera shuts down to avoid damaging the lens. (It just damages your wallet instead!) - David Gerard 11:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite all digitals, I don't believe this error affects Canon DSLRs with attached separate zoom lenses. Clarifying that this is limited to Canon compact digicams, not DSLRs, would make this article more accurate (I think.) --99.13.228.79 (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The error is not common..."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=canon+e18&btnG=Search

There's a lot of anecdotes, because Canon sells a lot of cameras. So far there's no evidence it's actually at all likely to happen to any given camera. I have seen speculation that Canon is a lot more cautious about lens errors than other brands, so that a Canon will E18 and shut down whereas another brand may ignore the blockage and risk damage. But I have seen no actual evidence.

In my anecdotal experience, I've had a pile of Ixuses and my girlfriend's Ixus 400 gave an E18 once when the zoom lens got knocked. She clicked it back into place herself and the camera's been fine since - David Gerard 12:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a solution and discussion found at [1]. As can be clearly seen from the comments and posts the solution presented there actually solves the problem. Please inform here if you see any reason why I shouldn't add it. 84.229.123.38 09:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't because Wikipedia is not a instruction manual. --ViperSnake151 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The e18error.com site seems to say that there are no more plans of a Class Action suit? If this is true, we need to update the wiki entry. Rajeshja (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's appropriate or not but this whole story seems to be about Canon's purportedly rather callous attitude toward the problem as it is about the problem itself. One of the "databases" compiled by a Canon customer had a link to what he called simply "an AMAZING story written by a Canon customer about his E18 experience" which of course sounded silly but I clicked on the link anyway. For the next 20 minutes I was, not kidding, howling out loud in laughter at this guy's factual account of his journey from bottome of customer service to department heads to the top man of Canon in Japan trying to get a refund and how he was patronized at every step yet rose above their level in intelligence and persistence. If I find it, can I link it from the article? It really IS that good, and not offensive toward Canon IMO. Batvette (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E18 error. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308130032/http://spellmirelaw.com/ to http://spellmirelaw.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on E18 error. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070407203447/http://www.fixya.com/support/t102982-e_18_problem to http://www.fixya.com/support/t102982-e_18_problem
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726112232/http://forums.cnet.com/7723-7593_102-246543.html to http://forums.cnet.com/7723-7593_102-246543.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]