It's best if you avoid using common keywords when searching for Blackmagic Pro 2.8. Words like: crack, serial, keygen, free, full, version, hacked, torrent, cracked, mp4, etc. Simplifying your search will return more results from the database. Use these letter links to locate any crak with serial number to unlock software using keygens and cracks! BlackMagic.Pro.2.8.crack-tsrh can be used for.
Sorry, we don't plan on releasing this information. We'd like to avoid a ton of people sending back cameras that are perfectly fine. I'm not an engineer and I don't fully understand the issue to be completely honest, but I'm told that most cameras shipped out before the 'fix' should be fine and it has to do with mechanical tolerances that vary from camera to camera. John Brawley has posted intelligently on the subject in the Flange distance issue thread, starting here: Bottom line, if you're experiencing issues with multiple lenses, please contact your local support office and they'll help you address the issue.
If you're not experiencing issues with your camera, please don't worry about sending it back. John Waldorff wrote:Other manufacturers have the same policy. Makes sense here, as the flange issue is easy to test and once you are sure there is not this issue you will not have any troubles later on. Actually most manufactures provide that info pretty freely in all of my experiences with the big boys like Apple, as state above, Canon and Sony. The reason I have been provide this information in the past was due to 'recalls' or service work that needed to be done. They have provided me the 'decrypter' and they stated that any macbook, lens or PS3 manufactured between 'these' dates should be sent in for servicing. That way they don't have every single customer sending in their unit.
To Christine's response. 'we don't plan on releasing that information' that is a little disconcerting, although at this point with BM, I just roll my eyes and shake my head. Its very public knowledge that BM messed up the flange distance. And as consumers, I don't want to buy a BMCC from a store or private sale just to send it back to BM and wait AGAIN for them to fix the issue. Informing us of the manufacturing dates will alleviate that from us.We will know which 'version' we will be receiving immediately. No guessing, no testing. I should NOT have to pay $3000 and 'test' my camera to see if its faulty.
Plain and simple, this is a fault, a recall, a manufacturing defect.call it what you want. It only makes sense for BM to provide the starting manufacture date of the corrected cameras for those who don't have their cameras yet. And to say there is a variation from camera to camera in regards to mechanical differences.how is that possible? I have owned many cameras in my lifetime and never heard of mechanical differences from camera to camera.
If cameras are not coming off the production line identical to the one before it and after it, BM has more issues on its plate to deal with. And as mhood stated above and BM has publicly said, all BMCC's from here on out will have the flange issue corrected. That basically is telling us that 'YES, all the cameras have the flange distance issue.' So to say not all cameras are having that issue is a lie, what you should be saying is not all the customers have noticed it and contacted BM about it.
I think you're misunderstanding te fault. BMD made the lens mount to a published spec. As we've discovered, some canon EF lenses aren't built to this standard and require a camera that has a 'shortened mount'. This means there's so much variation lens to lens in the manufacture that deliberately shortening the FFD in the body means you don't have to manufacture the lens to the same strict tolerance.
There is a natural slight variation in manufacturing of the mounts as well. Each BMCC has its FFD checked and within a tolerance range, it's passed.
So with the first FFD depth, if a body was at the extreme of a tolerance and you used a lens that more easily showed that tolerance up like the wide and fast tokina, then some lenses with certain combinations of bodies, wouldn't hit infinity. All BMD changed was to shorten the spec like everyone else does. If you do your research, you'll find most canon EF lenses aren't accurate on canon cameras. Even SLR Magic lenses on some Olympis bodies won't hit infinity but do on Panasonic GH bodies which have.clearly.
a different spec that they use. John Brawley wrote:I think you're misunderstanding te fault. BMD made the lens mount to a published spec. As we've discovered, some canon EF lenses aren't built to this standard and require a camera that has a 'shortened mount'.
This means there's so much variation lens to lens in the manufacture that deliberately shortening the FFD in the body means you don't have to manufacture the lens to the same strict tolerance. There is a natural slight variation in manufacturing of the mounts as well. Each BMCC has its FFD checked and within a tolerance range, it's passed.
So with the first FFD depth, if a body was at the extreme of a tolerance and you used a lens that more easily showed that tolerance up like the wide and fast tokina, then some lenses with certain combinations of bodies, wouldn't hit infinity. All BMD changed was to shorten the spec like everyone else does. If you do your research, you'll find most canon EF lenses aren't accurate on canon cameras. Even SLR Magic lenses on some Olympis bodies won't hit infinity but do on Panasonic GH bodies which have.clearly. a different spec that they use. Thanks for your input John, Your posts are always appreciate. Regardless if I am misunderstanding the fault, BMD is still correcting ALL BMCC's from here on out.
So do you see my point? All I am requesting is the information at my disposal to make sure I am getting a BMCC that will for for me and the lenses I already own to avoid another month long delay for recalibration. And what better and sure fire way to know this than to know the manufacturing date stamp in the serial number. I know you don't know the break down of the serial numbers John. So I will leave it at that. John Brawley wrote:I think you're misunderstanding te fault.
BMD made the lens mount to a published spec. As we've discovered, some canon EF lenses aren't built to this standard and require a camera that has a 'shortened mount'. This means there's so much variation lens to lens in the manufacture that deliberately shortening the FFD in the body means you don't have to manufacture the lens to the same strict tolerance. There is a natural slight variation in manufacturing of the mounts as well. Each BMCC has its FFD checked and within a tolerance range, it's passed. So with the first FFD depth, if a body was at the extreme of a tolerance and you used a lens that more easily showed that tolerance up like the wide and fast tokina, then some lenses with certain combinations of bodies, wouldn't hit infinity.
All BMD changed was to shorten the spec like everyone else does. If you do your research, you'll find most canon EF lenses aren't accurate on canon cameras. Even SLR Magic lenses on some Olympis bodies won't hit infinity but do on Panasonic GH bodies which have.clearly.
a different spec that they use. Thanks for your input John, Your posts are always appreciate. Regardless if I am misunderstanding the fault, BMD is still correcting ALL BMCC's from here on out. So do you see my point?
All I am requesting is the information at my disposal to make sure I am getting a BMCC that will for for me and the lenses I already own to avoid another month long delay for recalibration. And what better and sure fire way to know this than to know the manufacturing date stamp in the serial number.
I know you don't know the break down of the serial numbers John. So I will leave it at that. THe issue is that not all Cameras suffer from it.
It is a tolerance issue, all cameras vary slightly in manufacture and there is an allowable range in which they can vary. All this fix does is tighten the tolerances as it appears the official spec has too broad a tolerance for some lenses, but because its a tolerance issue a fair number of cameras will be fine. Using a simple all serial numbers before point X need to be sent back method will result in cameras that are already within the tightened range being sent back needlessly to clog up the system. Yes what you are asking may well guarantee you wont receive a duff one, but by releasing such data even if it saves you some time (which it could also needlessly cost you) it will cause needless delays for many others. Edit: There are pros and cons to doing it and not doing it but neither of us and quite possibly not BM know for sure what is the best method of dealing with this. Declanefoley wrote:Thanks for the help!
Fortunately the sticker inside the SSD door had not been removed so recovering the camera was straightforward enough. It was being sold online by a second hand camera store after being pawned there. And that's v. Reassuring to know regarding the DNG metadata if it were ever to fall into the hands of a more competent thief! WOW congratulations declanefoley, I'm very happy for you, I have had 3 cameras stolen in 16 years and only one returned, Sad part is it was worth more in my rental insurance, then it was worth getting returned.
But hey It's always a good day when you beat the crooks and get your camera and gear back. Declanefoley wrote:Thanks for the help! Fortunately the sticker inside the SSD door had not been removed so recovering the camera was straightforward enough. It was being sold online by a second hand camera store after being pawned there.
And that's v. Reassuring to know regarding the DNG metadata if it were ever to fall into the hands of a more competent thief! Glad you retrieved your camera. Did you let the second hand store know they were selling stolen goods?
What did they say? I'll bet it happens all the time.
Maybe they are a fence. Life is too complicated. Rick Lang Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD.