Canon Australia halting sales of the Canon EOS R5C
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Add to that these days you also often have to preorder anything within a few hours or days it becomes available or otherwise it's sold out and you have to wait even longer.
Upvote
0
Could be a regulatory issue specific to Australia. Don’t they have some weird tax rules when it comes to the stills/video intersection?
Upvote
0
Recall notice (from DPR):
For those customers eagerly awaiting their EOS R5 C we expect this may delay shipping of your product.
Sounds like a definite hardware issue. And they are replacing (not fixing and returning) the units - which sounds great, but may be problematic given the ongoing shortages?
Customers who recently purchased the EOS R5 C digital cinema camera
It has been discovered that the following minor defect may occur in some EOS R5 C digital cinema cameras. We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience and concern this may cause to customers using this product. We will continue to ensure thorough quality control so that customers can use this product with peace of mind.Issue
Due to a manufacturing defect in the autofocus, the camera may repeatedly go in and out of focus in movie mode.Products
Selected units of the EOS R5 C digital cinema camera.Our action
We are aware that a very small number of units have been delivered to customers prior to this issue being identified. For those who received their unit on or before 21 March 2022, please contact the retailer you purchased the product from to organise the return and replacement of your camera. We appreciate your understanding.For those customers eagerly awaiting their EOS R5 C we expect this may delay shipping of your product.
Contact information
13 13 83 or email [email protected]Sounds like a definite hardware issue. And they are replacing (not fixing and returning) the units - which sounds great, but may be problematic given the ongoing shortages?
Upvote
0
Finely got a clear answer on the AF problem from Canon JP. It seems around 100 cameras have been delivered with a missing or error on the AF data code. I'm not a camera engineer or anything so I don't really understand the details around this problem but people like me will have to send back their camera to Canon to get a software update.
Upvote
0
I don't think Nikon ever officially admitted the 'oil spot' issue on the D600, did they?
Upvote
0
Maybe they got stung over their fake overheat timer saga on the R5, their denial that there was an actual overheating issue in certain video modes, and the inflated marketing claims that it shoots 8K video. Perhaps the backlash on the R5 made them realise it wasn't doing their reputation any good, they didn't wan't a repeat of all that on the R5C (two in a row would be the start of a bad patter!), and figured honesty would hurt their sales less.
Upvote
0
"Issue - Due to a manufacturing defect in the autofocus, the camera may repeatedly go in and out of focus in movie mode."
I though Canon's marketing strategy was to position itself as the premium, super-reliable choice for photography professionals, and that's how they justified their overpriced mid and top tier photography gear.
What ever happened to quality control? How does a high-tier premium-priced camera body like this ever go to distribution with such an issue? A video camera that goes in and out of focus is basically useless and non-functional. Did no-one in Canons QC department test this?
All the usual YouTubers have posted their glowing reviews, possibly ignoring any faults, because if they report anything negative, Canon will strike them off their list of people who get loan gear to review before everyone else. Don't expect a totally objective assessment here.
This raises the question, are Canon cutting comers with QC checking to increase profit margins?
This is a $7,299 camera in Australia, and it would be really bad PR for Canon if they did not address the issue instantly for Australian buyers, as AU consumer laws specify that products sold have to be fit for purpose, hence the quick recall.
I though Canon's marketing strategy was to position itself as the premium, super-reliable choice for photography professionals, and that's how they justified their overpriced mid and top tier photography gear.
What ever happened to quality control? How does a high-tier premium-priced camera body like this ever go to distribution with such an issue? A video camera that goes in and out of focus is basically useless and non-functional. Did no-one in Canons QC department test this?
All the usual YouTubers have posted their glowing reviews, possibly ignoring any faults, because if they report anything negative, Canon will strike them off their list of people who get loan gear to review before everyone else. Don't expect a totally objective assessment here.
This raises the question, are Canon cutting comers with QC checking to increase profit margins?
This is a $7,299 camera in Australia, and it would be really bad PR for Canon if they did not address the issue instantly for Australian buyers, as AU consumer laws specify that products sold have to be fit for purpose, hence the quick recall.
Upvote
0
More info on Australian consumer protection guarantee here - https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer-guarantees
I've highlighted the applicable sections in red, basically they're saying that if the product has quality issues, meaning it isn't 'fit-for-purpose', which is another way of saying it doesn't do what it's meant to do, then the retailer, or the manufacturer, in this case Canon, is required to remedy the situation for the buyer.
Since 1 January 2011, the following consumer guarantees on products and services apply.
Products must be of acceptable quality, that is:
Products must:
You can claim a remedy from the retailer if the products do not meet any one or more of the consumer guarantees, with the exception of availability of spare parts and repair facilities.
The remedies you can seek from the retailer who sold you the product include a repair, replacement, or refund and in some cases compensation for damages and loss.
The retailer can’t refuse to help you by sending you to the manufacturer or importer.
You can claim a remedy directly from the manufacturer or importer if the goods do not meet one or more of the following consumer guarantees:
"The highest penalty the Federal Court has ordered for breaches of Australian Consumer Law is $10 million (in ACCC actions against Coles and Ford)."
(https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/consumer-law-penalties-set-to-increase)
"The difficulty the courts have faced in determining an appropriate penalty for a large corporation was recently explored in the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Apple Pty Ltd (No 4) [2018] FCA 953, in which Corrs acted for the ACCC.
In this case, a pecuniary penalty of $9 million was imposed on Apple Inc for making false or misleading representations as to consumer guarantees and the rights and remedies available to consumers under the ACL, in breach of section 29(1)(m) of the ACL. The penalty was ordered by consent, following a settlement reached between the ACCC and Apple."
(https://www.corrs.com.au/insights/a...stralian-consumer-law-substantially-increases)
For corporations, will be the greater of:
It took me ten minutes to look this up online. It looks like Canon Australia would not be happy paying out 10% of their annual turnover for the last 12 months in fines if they tried to gaslight consumers and pretend their wasn't an issue. They have ample financial incentive to recall a faulty product as soon as possible under Australian consumer protection laws.
I've highlighted the applicable sections in red, basically they're saying that if the product has quality issues, meaning it isn't 'fit-for-purpose', which is another way of saying it doesn't do what it's meant to do, then the retailer, or the manufacturer, in this case Canon, is required to remedy the situation for the buyer.
Consumer guarantees on products and services
Since 1 January 2011, the following consumer guarantees on products and services apply.
Products must be of acceptable quality, that is:
- safe, lasting, with no faults
- look acceptable
- do all the things someone would normally expect them to do.
Products must:
- match descriptions made by the salesperson, on packaging and labels, and in promotions or advertising
- match any demonstration model or sample you asked for
- be fit for the purpose the business told you it would be fit for and for any purpose that you made known to the business before purchasing
- come with full title and ownership
- not carry any hidden debts or extra charges
- come with undisturbed possession, so no one has a right to take the goods away or prevent you from using them
- meet any extra promises made about performance, condition and quality, such as life time guarantees and money back offers
- have spare parts and repair facilities available for a reasonable time after purchase unless you were told otherwise.
Who to claim a remedy from - Products
You can claim a remedy from the retailer if the products do not meet any one or more of the consumer guarantees, with the exception of availability of spare parts and repair facilities.
The remedies you can seek from the retailer who sold you the product include a repair, replacement, or refund and in some cases compensation for damages and loss.
The retailer can’t refuse to help you by sending you to the manufacturer or importer.
You can claim a remedy directly from the manufacturer or importer if the goods do not meet one or more of the following consumer guarantees:
- acceptable quality
- matching description
- any extra promises made about such things like performance, condition and quality
- repairs and spare parts - the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that spare parts and repair facilities (a place that can fix the consumer’s goods) are available for a reasonable time after purchase unless you were told otherwise. How long is ‘reasonable’ will depend on the type of product.
"The highest penalty the Federal Court has ordered for breaches of Australian Consumer Law is $10 million (in ACCC actions against Coles and Ford)."
(https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/consumer-law-penalties-set-to-increase)
"The difficulty the courts have faced in determining an appropriate penalty for a large corporation was recently explored in the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Apple Pty Ltd (No 4) [2018] FCA 953, in which Corrs acted for the ACCC.
In this case, a pecuniary penalty of $9 million was imposed on Apple Inc for making false or misleading representations as to consumer guarantees and the rights and remedies available to consumers under the ACL, in breach of section 29(1)(m) of the ACL. The penalty was ordered by consent, following a settlement reached between the ACCC and Apple."
(https://www.corrs.com.au/insights/a...stralian-consumer-law-substantially-increases)
Australian Consumer Law
The maximum penalties per breach of the ACL including unconscionable conduct, making false or misleading representations, and supplying consumer goods or certain services that do not comply with safety standards or which are banned:For corporations, will be the greater of:
- $10 000 000
- three times the value of the benefit received, or
- 10% of annual turnover in preceding 12 months, if court cannot determine benefit obtained from the offence.
- $500 000
It took me ten minutes to look this up online. It looks like Canon Australia would not be happy paying out 10% of their annual turnover for the last 12 months in fines if they tried to gaslight consumers and pretend their wasn't an issue. They have ample financial incentive to recall a faulty product as soon as possible under Australian consumer protection laws.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
