Manufacturing date in Serial #

Is there a way to tell when manufacturing of BMCC took place via date in the serial number like most products? This way we can be sure that ones we are getting from distributers, ebay, forums etc have had the flange issue fixed.
Also, what date did BM start manufacturing cameras with the flange issue corrected?
Cheers

+1

Anyone from BM care to respond?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

The fact that they haven't responded probably indicates that they consider serial number interpretation data proprietary and will never talk numbers publicly.

Ugh, your probably right mhood. that's the answer for everything it seems like with BM , except nearly EVERY company that manufactures anything will divulge that info. Unfortunate.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Really? Such as who? Apple? Dell? Sony? I'm not aware that these companies publish a decrypter to their serial numbers?

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: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4319&start=140#p38575

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.

Really? Such as who? Apple? Dell? Sony? I'm not aware that these companies publish a decrypter to their serial numbers?

Apple serials are not that complicated: it's something like XX (manufacturing location) X (year) XX (week) XXX (unique code) XXX (model). If you do a search, you can find sites that to this for you and you're then able to see when and where you're Mac was made. (See: http://www.chipmunk.nl/klantenservice/applemodel.html)

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.

But I have read that the flange "fix" is being done to all EF BMCs going forward. It's not unreasonable to want to know if the flange "fix" has been done to a particular camera, is it? I don't understand why it would be proprietary and important to keep that information from a customer, do you?

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.

The fix ? 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.

JB.

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.

The fix ? 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.

JB.

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.

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.

The fix ? 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.

JB.

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.

Hi, just a quick question I didn't want to make a new thread for: where would I find my serial number on the actual camera body itself? I know where to find it on the original packaging.

Inside the SSD door I believe...

Thanks! Would anyone with a camera be able to provide confirmation that its written near the ssd door?

I think I've found my stolen camera being sold online and would like confirmation of where to find the serial number on the camera body before confronting the seller

[Kristian Lam]

Yes, it is behind the SSD door.

Thanks! Would anyone with a camera be able to provide confirmation that its written near the ssd door?

I think I've found my stolen camera being sold online and would like confirmation of where to find the serial number on the camera body before confronting the seller

The problem that is it's a Sticker and easy to peel off, Maybe the next camera can have it etched on the door.

Thanks! Would anyone with a camera be able to provide confirmation that its written near the ssd door?

I think I've found my stolen camera being sold online and would like confirmation of where to find the serial number on the camera body before confronting the seller

If you alert the seller, you won't get your camera. If you have reason to believe it is your camera, call the police and arrange a sting!

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Kristian Lam]

Have you shot anything with it yet and have the original DNG file?

Get the seller to send you a DNG file as well. The metadata will contain a unique ID that will match your DNG file.

Have you shot anything with it yet and have the original DNG file?

Get the seller to send you a DNG file as well. The metadata will contain a unique ID that will match your DNG file.

Hi Kris that's a great thing to know !!

jb

Have you shot anything with it yet and have the original DNG file?

Get the seller to send you a DNG file as well. The metadata will contain a unique ID that will match your DNG file.

Hi Kris that's a great thing to know !!

jb

Well I agree, but harder to convict or prosecute without a serial number, I'm no CSI agent but I have had camera gear stolen, and 99% of the time you will never get it back, or know who stole it unless you can provide a serial number, and a receipt.

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!

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.

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

Maybe they are a fence.

What pawn shop isn't?

What pawn shop isn't?

All are. Yet not all know they are...

What pawn shop isn't?

All are. Yet not all know they are...

They work especially hard at not knowing.

They work especially hard at not knowing.