April 19, 2014, 04:47:30 PM

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 - skitron

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34
1
(I assume you must have mentioned all your L glass, like you did in this post)  At that point, you've only guaranteed that they will refuse to do anything for you that they dont absolutely have to do

I've not been involved except to hear the story, As for any sort of threats or rudeness, the user didn't go down that road.

I shared my part here because to me that is the value of boards like this, to share experiences about what is good and what is not so good. I have a couple of bad experiences, others are pleased as punch, airing all of it here gives whoever wants to read a little more info to work with for themselves.

2
and fails to provide any explanation that is meaningful as to why they refuse to perform their obligation.

Except that they did provide an explanation, they inspected and determined that the camera had been damaged by the user.   I'm not saying that they are right or wrong in their assessment, but they did tell you why they are denying the warranty claim.

If they took anyone at their word that a product wasn't dropped or otherwise damaged by the owner, it wouldn't be just $100 as you stated, it would be millions because everyone who dropped their camera would send it back and claim "it just suddenly stopped working".

Telling the user they are a liar is not a *meaningful* explanation.

A *meaningful* explanation would be something like "the reason it zooms to the long end by itself and then you can't control it is because the ____ is broken (or malfunctioning). This typically happens because ____."

At a minimum, a *meaningful* explanation acknowledges the symptons, identifies a tangible cause, and postulates a reason why it would happen.

No?

When I hear "you dropped it" as the only explanation as to why a cosmetically mint camera that hasn't been dropped isn't going to be covered, the most likely explanation for that is that they probably didn't bother to even inspect it beyond maybe turning it on and seeing that its malfunctioning.

3
do you really suspect that Nikon is going to be that much better to deal with?   Maybe sigma or  tamron because they can't afford to alienate their customer base,  but I doubt they are giving away free service either. 

 having said all that, I  have heard of times where someone sends in something for service to Canon and they do the work for free even though it is it of warranty.   so they aren't all bad.


I have no idea whether Nikon is better, worse, the same, whatever.


According to Lensrentals' data, you can expect to wait nearly 5 times as long for Nikon to fix what's broken, whether you have to pay for it or not.  Oh, and if you do have to pay for it, you'll pay more.




Yup, there may be better choices than Nikon too. I'm certainly not married to that idea...

4
do you really suspect that Nikon is going to be that much better to deal with?   Maybe sigma or  tamron because they can't afford to alienate their customer base,  but I doubt they are giving away free service either. 

 having said all that, I  have heard of times where someone sends in something for service to Canon and they do the work for free even though it is it of warranty.   so they aren't all bad.

I have no idea whether Nikon is better, worse, the same, whatever. But for me anyway, continuing to do business with Canon USA is not going to happen due to two poor experiences - one my own and another a family member.

In my case an L lens only 3 months out of warranty (which they adamantly stated would not be covered) so for me, I can rule out that Canon USA covers expensive items just recently going out of warranty. Which is fair enough, I agreed to pay for repairs, the problem is repairs to fix the actual problem were not performed and Canon USA was not helpful to resolve the issue, yet still has my repair payment.

In mother in law's case, I can rule out that Canon USA covers items that are in warranty, and fails to provide any explanation that is meaningful as to why they refuse to perform their obligation.

So that's my experiences and why I won't do business with them anymore. Others may have direct first hand experiences that are better.

And again, the pragmatic lesson is just buy gray market or non-authorized reseller if you want to shoot Canon and don't waste money on warranties, either first party or third party. And as for me, I'll just rotate this gear out when the time is right and migrate to another vendor.

5
Gosh, if I changed companies every time a claim for any of my stuff was denied.......

In his defense... about 10 years ago I had a crappy 1.3 megapixel Olympus that I maybe paid $100 for.  Probably less... but still.  And at one point the camera's usb port konks out and I contact Olympus for warranty work.  I explain that I purchased it within a year and I registered it online.  They said that they need the original warranty otherwise they can't do anything for me.  That was the last Olympus product I ever bought and if they actually were good and made cutting edge gear right now, I wouldn't touch it. 

Having said that, now that things are purchased online, it makes it so much easier to keep the receipt.

Agree with what you said, but if I already have a system like Canon which I know how to use as a tool, and a claim for a point and shoot gets denied, I'm not going to change my whole system around because of that.  If he only had one other Canon, I can see that, but not a whole system. And like others said, it's not his camera, so he can't be sure it wasn't accidentally banged around and damaged.  It would have been nice of Canon to say how they found out the camera was damaged, but again, to switch systems because of someone else's point and shoot, nah...

Everyone has their own take on things and for me, I'm constantly rotating my gear in and out to minimize cost of ownership. Meaning I buy when price is right, use it a while, sell before an upgrade cycle and price-of-current plummet. Since the bodies are on a staggered introduction cycle it works out pretty good. It also makes it pretty easy to switch back and forth between systems. And since I'm not a fan-boy of either system, I don't really care which system I shoot with from an operator perspective.

And to be clear, I'm not bailing because of somebody else's point-n-shoot, I'm bailing because Canon USA has demonstrated for a second time they are not the kind of company I'm willing to do business with. The first was for a 3 months out of warranty repair on one of my L lenses that I paid for, sent back twice, and still have the original problem, and Canon USA says "too bad".

LOL, I suppose the pragmatic lesson here is if you want to use Canon gear, you should go ahead and buy grey market or from non-authorized resellers, and save the $ because it doesn't make sense to pay for a warranty they won't honor.

6
Canon USA told her she dropped the camera and it isn't covered. Problem is (1) it wasn't dropped or knocked around, (2) there is no physical evidence it has been dropped or knocked around - it's mint cosmetically, and (3) the symptoms of the camera are not consistent with Canon USA's claim that it was dropped.
Did Canon supply an explanation of how or did you ask how they concluded that the camera was dropped?

Seems like a denial of a claim, especially with an assertion of misuse, should come with an explanation of the process of conclusion.

No technical explanation whatsoever. Which is precisely why I 'm not going to do business with them anymore. For me to do business with a company they have to back up their claims with verifiable proof when they refuse to honor what was paid for. Canon USA didn't, so I'm not doing business with them any more and neither are two other people.

I'm sure Canon USA couldn't care less, and that's their choice, but it's a rather odd business model since honoring their warranty costs them maybe $100 in this case and by not honoring it, they miss out on a bare minimum of at least 2 full frames two APS-C, probably half a dozen L sales as the next upgrade cycles unfold.

7
Mother-in-law bought a SX150, which 3 months later now has what appears to be a logic chip malfunction. Upon booting up it does everything as expected and then zooms to the long end upon where the user can no longer control it. Live view is still working but that's it.

Canon USA told her she dropped the camera and it isn't covered. Problem is (1) it wasn't dropped or knocked around, (2) there is no physical evidence it has been dropped or knocked around - it's mint cosmetically, and (3) the symptoms of the camera are not consistent with Canon USA's claim that it was dropped.

In this case the husband and the son-in-law of the unfortunate SX150 owner are currently 5D3 owners with a smattering of low to mid-priced L glass (i.e. 24-105, 100L, 70-200 IS II, etc) and up to now had an appetite to add substantially to the respective L collections.

But this incident has left a very foul taste in our mouths. First Canon USA implicitly calls her a liar, then they don't honor their stated warranty, and now she's the proud owner of a mint-looking brick...

Got news for Canon, they can forget ever getting another dime out of me. As for mom in law, she already switched to Nikon. As for me, I'll switch too when it's time to move the 5D3 body. Already moving out non essential lenses in the collection. I simply will not do business with Canon USA or any other company that pulls this sort of BS.


8
Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 13, 2013, 12:15:12 PM »
The Sigma 50 1.4 is very good on the Canon 5D3 body. Something about the 5D3 focus system that just makes the Sigma work perfectly. I say this because the same Sigma lens on my old 7D had the usual focus shift inconsistency.

Naaa, you are just lucky...  ;D
Same luck here, it focuses perfectly on my 5D2, even with the MkII's lame AF system ;)

Ditto, mine works perfectly. Had to send it to Sigma, but it came back spot-on at any distance.

For the price it's very good. I do like the asthetic of the Canon 1.2 better, but then that difference is +$1100...

9
What are this lens owners' opinions concerning it's AF and build quality? I'm considering one of these.

10
Soooo....this may be a dumb question....but is the new 70D mirrorless? It has phase detection imbedded in the image sensor and has EVF....so it kinda sounds like there may not be any point in it having a mirror?

My understanding is the entire purpose of the mirror in DSLR is to get a light path to the phase detection sensors which are mounted in a different location than the image sensor (in addition to VF).

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List [CR3]
« on: July 01, 2013, 06:48:46 PM »
Any word on AFMA? It's a non-starter for me without it.

12
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
« on: June 30, 2013, 05:52:13 PM »
I thought the last was rather noisy. But, at iso 12800 it's remarkably good!

LOL, I knew that would come with the territory when I cranked it up, especially shooting in the shade, but no chance at all to stop the wings otherwise.

13
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
« on: June 29, 2013, 11:51:59 AM »
Here's a couple of hummingbird shots with this lens and 5D3:

What iso did you use? Speed, aperture?

The first is ISO 3200, f/5.6, 400mm, 1/250th, handheld.

The second is ISO 12800, f/5.6, 400mm, 1/1600th, handheld.

Both are cropped around 50% or so.

It was late in the day and in the shade, except there is some backlighting of the bird on the first shot. It would be nice to have been able to shoot them in full sun so as to get the shutter towards 1/8000th and hopefully get "stopped" wings that are clear.

I borrowed the lens and didn't AFMA it. It's a very nice lens at that price point, I'm sure the new one will be even better, but probably only 20% better for 150% more cash.

14
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
« on: June 28, 2013, 09:56:03 PM »
Here's a couple of hummingbird shots with this lens and 5D3:

15
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
« on: June 28, 2013, 09:52:16 PM »
This lens isn't what you want to shoot the Milky Way with, but if it's all you have with you, at least you can come home with something. I have to say, I'll never "love" this lens, but I sure do end up using it a lot. "Going on a trip, taking the 5D3 and...the 24-105...". (but I was really wishing I had my Rokinon 35 with me for this shot, wasn't expecting the opportunity to shoot stars so didn't pack it)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34