July 22, 2014, 06:14:35 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - R1-7D

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 18
76
This is the kind of adjustment to internal parts and service advice all companies that care about their customers give out to their service departments as a continual ongoing practice.

Releasing it like this, with no context, or the numbers or percentage of affected units, as Canon know very well, will just cause hysteria amongst a vocal few, many of whom won't actually own the lens, panic amongst many that do but don't have the "issue", inundation of service centers who will not replace anything just because "it made a noise once", and a host of other entirely negative outcomes.

Doing this like this is not a positive thing to do by any measure or rational. You are in a unique position to cause or limit any backlash, releasing confidential documents like this needs to be done with the greatest care, a huge amount of back story and lots of context. I'd suggest getting the opinion of a very good and expensive internationally savvy corporation lawyer too.

I dearly hope this is not a page hits kind of deal.

I don't think it'll bring a spike in page hits and I understand your points.

My issue is the same as the person that sent me the documents, Canon charging for repairs on a defective design. I am trying to get proof that is actually happening and going over our repairs at Lens Rentals Canada and asking others if they have any data on the matter.

I have no problem with silent recalls and just putting "optical adjustment" on the receipt and charging someone $50 to cover shipping and any other incidental costs and being done with it. However, to charge someone $450 to repair something you know is faulty by design just doesn't seem right to me.

Quite right, CR!

77
My question is: now that they know the problem, do they also know if there is any long term effect or damage caused by the spring?

78
This is the kind of adjustment to internal parts and service advice all companies that care about their customers give out to their service departments as a continual ongoing practice.

Releasing it like this, with no context, or the numbers or percentage of affected units, as Canon know very well, will just cause hysteria amongst a vocal few, many of whom won't actually own the lens, panic amongst many that do but don't have the "issue", inundation of service centers who will not replace anything just because "it made a noise once", and a host of other entirely negative outcomes.

Doing this like this is not a positive thing to do by any measure or rational. You are in a unique position to cause or limit any backlash, releasing confidential documents like this needs to be done with the greatest care, a huge amount of back story and lots of context is needed to justify disclosure of this kind of information.

You have a rational point on this. However, as I stated in another thread, the lack of integrity Canon has shown its customers (me being one of them) makes me completely unsympathetic. Maybe if they were like Apple and went the extra step to help out and make sure the product becomes satisfactory, even with known issues that might not affect every unit, then I would support keeping this information confidential. However, Canon almost goes out of its way to insult its customers. I was personally told I was "hearing things"!

79
Yup! I now have the ammo I need to insist Canon look at this issue after they had previously dismissed me.

80
But it is equally important to keep perspective and not let rumour and incorrect conclusions unduly damage the core business, after all I am sure every company has such a list of papers...
But Canon should not be charging for faulty or failing design or manufacturing issues.

I applaud Private's effort to keep this in perspective. Without knowing what the information is that CR has, it's  hard to say "No." But honestly, only CR Guy knows what the information is and can decide if it is important enough to release.

Let's be realistic – if Canon has identified a tiny design flaw that impacts .0005% of one lens and then only when shooting a full moon on a cloudy night in April in odd numbered years and you post that online, then every internet forum will be lit up with people who are ABSOLUTELY SURE their lens has this problem and they'll be demanding that Canon immediately replace their five-year-old lens with a new model and provide free overnight shipping as well.

On the other hand, if there is a serious design flaw that impacts a sizable number of users and Canon is charging for repairs when they shouldn't, that's another case.

I'm just saying a certain amount of judgment should be exercised.

As indicated by the CR post, it seems as if the person who is sending Canon Rumors these documents is trying to show that this is a slightly bigger problem than your make-believe example above.

I personally have been treated terribly by Canon over a decentered 24-70 II despite being a CPS member. Their shoddy service forced me to sell the lens at a massive loss and purchase another copy, of which I went through four different ones before I found one that is adequate; and even now it's developed the clicking sound.

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy after the way I was treated through emails and on the phone by them.

81
Yes, absolutely post the rest of the internal documents! I am particularly interested in the new Canon 24–70 II lens clicking problem.

Both GM and Toyota have got caught with their pants down because of internal documents and ignoring problems. Why should Canon get away too just because it's a camera maker?

The fundamental difference between GM and Toyota, and Canon, is that faulty cars kill people, a clicking 24-70 is annoying.

Keep perspective.

Absolutely, that's a big difference. However, the perspective is all these companies are doing this now and it's completely unacceptable, just in the case of cars it's potentially life threatening. No company, whether they manufacture tea kettles or automobiles, should get away with this.

As someone pointed out, people save their hard earned money for Canon's premium equipment. Why should people also have to pay for a design flaw when Canon is aware of it and still released the product?

82
Yes, absolutely post the rest of the internal documents! I am particularly interested in the new Canon 24–70 II lens clicking problem.

Both GM and Toyota have got caught with their pants down because of internal documents and ignoring problems. Why should Canon get away too just because it's a camera maker?

83
Lenses / Re: 24-70 II slight clicking sound when zooming
« on: April 02, 2014, 10:31:52 PM »
I think for piece of mind I will get the extended and then if it gives trouble they just replace it.

Exactly! Good luck.  :)

84
Lenses / Re: 24-70 II slight clicking sound when zooming
« on: April 02, 2014, 02:21:07 PM »
You are not going to get any help from Canon on this issue. Trust me. Buy the extended warranty, and if the lens focuses well and is sharp, just keep it.


>:( I agree with others that it is quite annoying that Canon doesn't seem to acknowledge this issue.  One of the big problems with it, is that it doesn't do it every single time you use the lens.  When you spend close to $100 to send it in to Canon, there is a good chance that the lens won't do it, while in there possession.

What the Canon technician told me was that they tried it 3 or 4 times and it didn't present with the issue, so they cleaned it and shipped it back to me.  It was clicking within 4 images of me getting it back and using it...

They suggested it was the camera and told me to send that in too.  I commented that it did it with my XSi, my 7D and my 5D III and my son's 5D II.  Should I send all my cameras in, I asked?  Yes, he said... No thanks...  :(

The lens still does it periodically and yes, it still pisses me off!  I'm going to sell it and get a new one...

85
Great information!

86
Canon General / Re: Lioness Fights Crocodiles over a Dead Hippo
« on: March 24, 2014, 04:59:40 PM »
Don't think the lion is going to win that one. Too many crocs about!

87
Lenses / Re: Just bought a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II - A Few Questions
« on: March 23, 2014, 01:01:22 AM »
Can't believe this thread is still going. I am definitely loving the lens! It's super sharp. I still haven't had chance to AFMA it, but hopefully will soon!

I'm trying to decide on teleconverters - either the 1.4 or 2x. Might buy a version II of the 1.4 and a version III of the 2X.

88
Lenses / Re: Anyone buy the 24-70mm in the last month?
« on: March 23, 2014, 12:55:24 AM »
I went through five copies of the lens. I don't think much has changed with the clicking; chances are you will still get one that clicks unless you're extremely lucky. My suggestion is buy one, and get an extended warranty. That way you can just use it, and if there ever is a problem with it down the road you can just have it replaced or fixed.

89
Lenses / Re: 16-35 II vs what?
« on: March 23, 2014, 12:46:12 AM »
There is the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 lens which is kind of worse than the Canon 16-35mm in it's IQ, doesn't accept screw on filters. But's it's really cheap.

Actually the image quality from the Tokina has better IQ and less distortion. The only downside is that it doesn't take filters.

90
Lenses / Re: just hit the purchase button
« on: March 12, 2014, 03:47:52 PM »
I wish you luck with the crap QC issues on the 24-70. It's a great lens, but watch for clicking when zooming.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 18