 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2006CANON Officially sucks
I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will NOT fix it under warranty and it is 3 weeks old. how's this for their suggestion - return it to the point of purchase for a refund or warranty repair BTW they noticed my EOS SLR in my bag as well and said that being a film camera, it would be covered anywhere in the world ..... just digital camera aren't covered. well bend me over and drive me home pathetic >I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an >authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >pathetic Aint it a bitch? I'm in Canada and we were warned not to buy in the USA, the warrenties won't apply. >>I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an >>authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I'm in Canada and we were warned not to buy in the USA, the warrenties won't >apply. Why don't you do a little research and you must not own a Canon DSLR since all Canon USA products include a Canada/USA warranty, because Canon Canada is a subsidiary of Canon USA.. Take a look at your warranty card if you have one. Or http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=21 13&fcategoryid=226&modelid=10464  Signature"One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana. One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana. Banana, banana, banana I will buy you a sweet banana. Shield, spear and knobkerrie, soldiers in war and peace, In war she fights with bravery, I will buy you a sweet banana. "Sweet Banana" Battle hymm of the Rhodesian African Rifles >>>I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an >>>authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Or >http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=21 13&fcategoryid=226&modelid=10464 I haven't looked into Canon, I was looking into Nikon and Minolta at the time... Usually they want you to service it in the country you bought it - lots of times the regs are different as well, and electrical parts accepted in one country aren't in the other. I've seen equipment for the USA market, marked 'not legal for sale in Canada'. Speaking of warranties - my Nikon just went bust 2 months after it expired... good timing by Nikon... >>>>I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an >>>>authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >Speaking of warranties - my Nikon just went bust 2 months after it expired... >good timing by Nikon... The thread was about Canon... Signature"One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana. One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana. Banana, banana, banana I will buy you a sweet banana. Shield, spear and knobkerrie, soldiers in war and peace, In war she fights with bravery, I will buy you a sweet banana. "Sweet Banana" Battle hymm of the Rhodesian African Rifles > BTW they noticed my EOS SLR in my bag as well and said that being a film > camera, it would be covered anywhere in the world ..... just digital camera > aren't covered. > > well bend me over and drive me home A clue is a terrible thing to waste. > I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an > authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > camera, it would be covered anywhere in the world ..... just digital camera > aren't covered. yeah well I just looked at my warrantee for my 350D, its only for Australia and NZ, so it would not be covered overseas either. you would think they would have an international warrantee, I know the Minolta A1 I bought a while ago is covered in Australia in spite the fact I bought it from New Jersey USA > > I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an > > authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Minolta A1 I bought a while ago is covered in Australia in spite the > fact I bought it from New Jersey USA Whiners. 2 Old ladies. I apologize I know older ladies that do less complaining. > Whiners. 2 Old ladies. I apologize I know older ladies that do less > complaining. are you a complete a fuckwit or just look that way? > I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an > authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > pathetic This policy is so widely known that if you were unaware of it you are the one at fault. Why would you pay the extra for a US warranty when you don't live in the US, anyway? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an >> authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > one at fault. Why would you pay the extra for a US warranty when you don't > live in the US, anyway? Are you sure you're not anal painsworth? Try rereading his post, fool, then correct this BS > >> I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an > >> authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Are you sure you're not anal painsworth? Do you see my name attached to any of the above? Get a clue. >>>> I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an >>>> authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Do you see my name attached to any of the above? Get a clue. The real question is...did you see your name attached to any of the above? As to the clue? I think I gave one away. Did you get it? ') > I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an > authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > pathetic That does suck. With Nikon it's a little different here. They will honour the international warranty, PROVIDED you can produce customs clearance documents and your local VAT tax invoice from customs. SignatureNow with uploadable photo critique section in the forum http://www.nikongear.com/ >> I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an >> authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > international warranty, PROVIDED you can produce customs clearance > documents and your local VAT tax invoice from customs. It does suck, with so much travel around the world these days you would think that an international company would give an international warranty so that no matter where you bought the item the warranty would be valid in any country that it broke down. In article <44a4ff68$0$12249$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- 01.iinet.net.au>, no@email.com says... > > That does suck. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that no matter where you bought the item the warranty would be valid in any > country that it broke down. In my opinion this sort of policy is put in place largely to protect the local distributors who have a vested interest in promoting any particular brand in their region. To protect themselves against the flood of grey imports they have to put in place some sort of policy because the manufacturers will not credit them with returns of goods that they didn't bring in themselves. If you take in a faulty product that is still under warranty and they replace or repair it, often the costs for that aren't covered by the manufacturer. Personally I think it is partly the manufacturers who are to blame as they have not kept their own policies in line with changes in consumer trends over the years. SignatureNow with uploadable photo critique section in the forum http://www.nikongear.com/ > In article <44a4ff68$0$12249$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- > 01.iinet.net.au>, no@email.com says... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > they have not kept their own policies in line with changes in consumer > trends over the years. Still, the so called "grey imports" are manufactured by the same compamy and will surely be covered by warranty somewhere, I don't see why that should be limited. In article <44a51ed0$0$12210$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- 01.iinet.net.au>, no@email.com says... > > In my opinion this sort of policy is put in place largely to protect the > > local distributors who have a vested interest in promoting any [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > will surely be covered by warranty somewhere, I don't see why that should be > limited. That's exactly what I am saying. The manufacturers don't have the systems necessary to identify whether a camera should qualify for warranty coverage or not. They are entirely dependent on the local distributor to tell them when and where a camera was purchased. Assume you purchase a camera from a shop in Hong Kong and you lose your receipt. You then travel to Australia and try to have the camera serviced under warranty there - how does the local person know when you bought it? SignatureNow with uploadable photo critique section in the forum http://www.nikongear.com/ From the serial number. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : Assume you purchase a camera from a shop in Hong Kong and you lose your : receipt. You then travel to Australia and try to have the camera : serviced under warranty there - how does the local person know when you : bought it? > From the serial number. That gives you a manufacturing date, not a first purchase date, the two can be vastly different. Fine if it goes wrong in the first 6-9 months, can often cause problems in the closing 3-6 months. SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. In article <44a51ed0$0$12210$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D <no@email.com> writes >Still, the so called "grey imports" are manufactured by the same >compamy and will surely be covered by warranty somewhere, I don't see >why that should be limited. Not if they were purchased warranty free. Some retailers purchase from the manufactures at a reduced price under an agreement whereby the retailer meets the cost if returned to them, they will not pay for anyone else to perform the repair, and neither the manufacture. SignatureIan G8ILZ >>Still, the so called "grey imports" are manufactured by the same compamy >>and will surely be covered by warranty somewhere, I don't see why that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > meets the cost if returned to them, they will not pay for anyone else to > perform the repair, and neither the manufacture. In most of the Western World, what you have just described is illegal under virtually all of the Consumer Protection Acts in place. Any manufacturer offering such two-tier consumer (end user) schemes can face jail time in the Country affected. Please provide your representative sources. Bob >>>Still, the so called "grey imports" are manufactured by the same compamy >>>and will surely be covered by warranty somewhere, I don't see why that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Country affected. >Please provide your representative sources. I know that a friend's business was purchasing equipment from the well known manufacturer at reduced price under the obligation that they would fund the warranty support from their 'profits'. Remember, it is the retailer who sells to a member of the public who is legally liable for warranty support, not the manufacture. Many manufacturers fund the support either directly or through their retailers claiming against them, others charge the retailer less so that the retailer can have a greater differential between purchase and normal selling price in order to fund the repairs. Where do you get the idea that this is illegal. SignatureIan G8ILZ >>> In article >>> <44a51ed0$0$12210$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > differential between purchase and normal selling price in order to fund > the repairs. Where do you get the idea that this is illegal. I don't "get the idea" I KNOW it is illegal. The scheme you have described is precisely why it has been so found. In your scenario, the retailer is the primary retail interface so the performance of the product you have purchased in good faith depends entirely on the "good graces" of the local retailer. Too many cases exist where the "good graces" break down and the consumer is left with a non-working product and no recourse for its repair. Not Acceptable. The law I have described puts the onus of support, sale and service on the manufacturer of the product regardless as to whether or not the manufacturer has corporate representation in the country where the product was being used and the end user resided. In other words the manufacturer is responsible for making the end user whole regardless as to where they each are located. I'm still interested in the details surrounding your example. Bob >>>> In article >>>> <44a51ed0$0$12210$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > In other words the manufacturer is responsible for making the end user > whole regardless as to where they each are located. If the manufacturer has no assets in the country in which the law is in force then the law is simply shouting defiance at the sky. Fine, it's illegal. Whatcha gonna _do_ about it? > I'm still interested in the details surrounding your example. > Bob Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > If the manufacturer has no assets in the country in which the law is in > force then the law is simply shouting defiance at the sky. Fine, it's > illegal. Whatcha gonna _do_ about it? well I don't know the laws in where you live but in Australia it is consumer law, you buy anything new in a shop here the store is liable for the repair/replacement of the item should it be faulty >> If the manufacturer has no assets in the country in which the law is in >> force then the law is simply shouting defiance at the sky. Fine, it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > consumer law, you buy anything new in a shop here the store is liable > for the repair/replacement of the item should it be faulty Yes, the reseller, not the manufacturer. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>> If the manufacturer has no assets in the country in which the law is in >>> force then the law is simply shouting defiance at the sky. Fine, it's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes, the reseller, not the manufacturer. Actually the shop/seller is responsible to get it back to the manufacturer for repair, it means you do not have to deal with the manufacturer, they do, thats all. If there is a problem dealing with the shop you have recourse to deal directly with the manufacturer/supplier. >>>> If the manufacturer has no assets in the country in which the law is in >>>> force then the law is simply shouting defiance at the sky. Fine, it's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > do, thats all. If there is a problem dealing with the shop you have > recourse to deal directly with the manufacturer/supplier. So make up your mind, first you say that the shop is liable and then you say the manufacturer. Which is it? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>> If the manufacturer has no assets in the country in which the law is >>>>> in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > say > the manufacturer. Which is it? Both, read what I said. >>>>>> If the manufacturer has no assets in the country in which the law is >>>>>> in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Both, read what I said. I read what you wrote. If what you wrote is something other than what you meant then you need to work on that. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>> If the manufacturer has no assets in the country in which the law is >>>>>>> in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I read what you wrote. If what you wrote is something other than what you > meant then you need to work on that. The shop is liable for liaising with the manufacturer/supplier (you dont have to but sometimes skanky shops give you no choice), the manufacturer is responsible to fix the f.cking thing if it is faulty, how hard is that to understand? > I don't "get the idea" I KNOW it is illegal. The scheme you have > described is precisely why it has been so found. In your scenario, the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'm still interested in the details surrounding your example. > Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here in the states, reputable online photo retailers like B&H offer the same camera to the consumer with the choice of a manufacturer's USA warranty, or what I assume to be an "in house" warranty, underwritten by the retailer. The gray market item is usually a fair bit cheaper. Costco, the warehouse retail chain often sells items on which no manufacturer's warranty applies since they are not an authorized retailer for the item, having purchased outside of the normal chain of distribution. You'll see signs on these items in the stores, and on items listed for sale at Costco.com. It would seem that in these cases, the manufacturer clearly disclaims any warranty responsibility, and is getting away with it. Are you stating that Canon USA, as a wholly owned subsidiary of the parent company in Japan is required to offer warranty support for cameras sold in the USA, but not delivered to dealers in the USA by the parent company? Is Sennheiser required to fix the headphones purchased at Costco even though they weren't delivered to Costco by Sennheiser? It may make sense that "there ought to be a law," but there doesn't appear to be one. DS DFS (ok@nospam.com) wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems: > Here in the states, reputable online photo retailers like B&H offer the same > camera to the consumer with the choice of a manufacturer's USA warranty, or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > required to offer warranty support for cameras sold in the USA, but not > delivered to dealers in the USA by the parent company? In almost every state in the US, there are laws that say that if the product is intended for sale in the US, then whatever warranty the manufacturer offers for purchases from an "authorized" dealer applies to *all* new purchases of that product. In other words, if the camera is a US version, then it has a US warranty if it is purchased new from a US retailer, regardless of any manufacturer statements to the contrary. SignatureJeff Rife | | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/UserFriendly/SPAMOurCustomers.gif -------------Cut----------- >>>In most of the Western World, what you have just described is illegal >>>under [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> differential between purchase and normal selling price in order to fund >> the repairs. Where do you get the idea that this is illegal. >I don't "get the idea" I KNOW it is illegal. The scheme you have described >is precisely why it has been so found. In your scenario, the retailer is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >regardless as to where they each are located. >I'm still interested in the details surrounding your example. How exactly do you think your local national law gives you recourse against a manufacturer in another country? It can not, which is why consumer protection places the responsibility of warranty on the retailer. See: <http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/Fact Sheets/page24700.html> for a statement of UK law. With my friends concern some brands were returned to the manufacturer or their agents, some the manufacturer gave them the parts, and some they had to purchase parts from the manufacturer. SignatureIan G8ILZ Robert Brace (rlbrace@shaw.ca) wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems: > I don't "get the idea" I KNOW it is illegal. The scheme you have described > is precisely why it has been so found. In your scenario, the retailer is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > consumer is left with a non-working product and no recourse for its repair. > Not Acceptable. The only time where this would be OK is if the product is sold as both a "retail" version and a version specifically intended to be incorporated into another product (often called an "OEM" version). In that case, the service of the entire device is left up to the seller, including the times when just a part breaks down. For the type of cameras we are talking about, though, I don't think this can *ever* happen. For cameras that might be used in a home security system (as an example), then you could see it occur. SignatureJeff Rife | | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Zits/AttentiveIgnorer.jpg >> In article >> <44a51ed0$0$12210$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the Country affected. > Please provide your representative sources. It's not a "two tier end user scheme". In the one case the device is sold as an end item, in the other it is sold as a part of an assembly that is warrented by the company producing the assembly. You wouldn't expect a bolt manufacturer to provide you with an end-user warranty on the bolts in your car would you, even if you could buy a box of them in a store with a warranty direct to you? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>> In article >>> <44a51ed0$0$12210$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > your car would you, even if you could buy a box of them in a store with a > warranty direct to you? Of course he has described a two-tier end user scheme in dealing with a functional part (not components of the completed item). One source gets you a warranty and the other doesn't. What would you call it? As to your example of bolts vs. the vehicle, look up some of the case law to realize how often component manufacturers are enjoined in such suits. Simple "suitability for purpose" should make that point clearly for you. To answer your other post as well: "What would you do about it?" It would depend upon the level of damage I had to incur to make my case. At first look, I would sat the camera example would be a natural Small Claims Court action wherein I would recover not only the cost of getting the item repaired but the cost of the action as well (usually about $25.00 to $50.00 depending upon jurisdiction). Bob >>>> In article >>>> <44a51ed0$0$12210$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > you > a warranty and the other doesn't. Might be what he described but it's not the way that the manufacturers do business. What does happen is that a component will be sold to an OEM who then in violation of his contract with the manufacturer turns around and sells directly to an end-user. > What would you call it? > As to your example of bolts vs. the vehicle, look up some of the case law > to realize how often component manufacturers are enjoined in such suits. Suits? I'm sorry, but you are confusing product liability with warranty service. > Simple "suitability for purpose" should make that point clearly for you. In the case of a bolt, the manufacturer of the car decided "suitability for purpose"--that's what they pay engineers for. > To answer your other post as well: "What would you do about it?" It > would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > repaired but the cost of the action as well (usually about $25.00 to > $50.00 depending upon jurisdiction). And what, exactly, is a small claims court going to do to a manufacturer which has no assets within its jurisdiction? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an > authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > pathetic If this camera is only 3 weeks old, contact who you bought it from (email works) and get the camera replaced, yes you may have to pay shipping. If you slipped the camera under customs, you cheated and c'est la guere. You bought it overseas and you should of asked about warranties. Just deal with it, get a new camera back and take pictures. Tom >> I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an >> authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Tom Just because he may not have paid duty (which he may not have had to anyway) does not mean that the manufacturer does not have a duty to make sure that the item is fit for use and if faulty needs to be made good. Even if he did ask about warranties it is quite possible that he could have been misled or told an untruth. Cerrtainly in some places in the world the "International Warranties" are not actually valid away from that country but you would have no way of knowing. Pentax and Sigma have a similar problem here in Australia, neither company actually have even an office here but only have an imported that only deals with items that they have sold so if you happen to be overseas and you need an item then you need to know this, many consumers would have no idea of this. :-( Morally Canon are failing anyway, huge sales right around the world but they back their product poorly. > I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an > authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > camera, it would be covered anywhere in the world ..... just digital camera > aren't covered. You will have to mail it back. Yes, it is a pain, but you should check those things out before your purchase (granted, I might have done the same thing in your shoes). SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an > authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > pathetic Buying Canon without a warranty is taking a BIG chance. No other company has produced as many cameras with as many faults. The cameras work great, when they work. The idea of chaining people to buying from local economies that are uneconomical is disgusting and having this kind of warranty restriction is garbage and born out of legal fear by Canon. > I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an > authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > pathetic Guys, I know it is upsetting but there are legitimate reasons for this 'bad behavior'. First of all, the distribution for Canon USA is a different company than for Canon Australia (or wherever). Different legal entities all handling a common brand. Second, the body in one country may really be different that the body in a different country, because, for example, the electronics have some feature for which Canon is not licenses to sell the technology because the patent is owned by someone Canon is not willing to pay licensing fees to. So, a company like Canon Australia might not want to deal with trying to get the parts suitable for a U.S. model camera, and it would be absurd for them to stock the parts. I know that most parts are in common, but if they had to spend the time to find that the ONE part that was different is the problem part, then how would they deal with that? --wilt >> I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an >> authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > --wilt What utter twaddle. > I am in Australia - travelled to the USA and purchased a NEW 30D from an > authorised reseller. I get home - the camera developed a fault - Canon will [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > pathetic Yup, it sucks, but it's a fact of life. Furthermore, this is not only Canon. I bought a Citizen watch in Aruba. It's not covered in Canada. Same for Panasonic. It seems many brands, if not most do this. Moral of this story, buy in your own country. Take care, Marcel |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.