Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Flimsy EOS cameras? ( was Re: **Another NEW EOS??**)
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:37:31 GMT

In <1993Jan8.180816.22995@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:

>>               [...] I have too big an investment in "L" lenses to
>> abandon Canon at this point, but their "consumer-grade" cameras
>> won't do it for me and they are too dishonest a company to live up
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> to their warranty.  The only reason I won't buy a "1" is that I
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  

>Care to explain that in a bit more detail???

Attached is the posting describing Irving Wolfe's problems with Canon
warranty service.  It does look like he's had some bad luck with Canon,
but there were followups that indicated his situation to be an isolated
case.  Anyway, here's why he's unhappy:

>Newsgroups: rec.photo
>From: irving@Happy-Man.com (Irving_Wolfe)
>Subject: Re: advice wanted on the Pentax PZ1 vs the Canon EOS 10s
>Message-ID: <1992Jul24.144356.27441@Happy-Man.com>
>Bcc: irving
>Reply-To: Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com
>Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
>References: <1992Jul21.073517@wrl.dec.com>
>Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:43:56 GMT
>Lines: 34

In <1992Jul21.073517@wrl.dec.com> farkas@wrl.dec.com (Keith Farkas) writes:

>I have
>narrowed the field down to either the Pentax PZ1 or the Canon EOS
>10s

I have two Canon EOS-10s bodies and have been seriously
disappointed in their apparent flimsiness.  The lens mount is a
metal "ring" seated into the plastic body by friction-fit only, it
would appear, and even moderate accidental side-pressure on a long
lens is enough to disturb the fit and cause the lens mount to no
longer be parallel to the film plane.

This happened to me with each body.  In one case, the movement was
very small and I was able to fix it by brute force in the opposite
direction.  In the other case, I sent the body in for repair and
Canon refused to honor the warranty (which was still in effect) on
the theory that the camera had been abused.  I don't believe that a
properly designed, robust camera would have suffered any ill effect
from this level of "abuse" which was really only normal use.

Thus, not only is the EOS-10s designed too lightly to be a sensible
choice, in my opinion, but also it suffers from an aggressively
anti-consumer attitude on Canon's part; they charged me roughly
$100 for repair of that body, which had only cost 3.5 times that
much new.

So buy the Pentax!  I used to have a Pentax ES-II and it was a
wonderful camera.
-- 
 Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com      Happy Man Corp. 206/463-9399 x101
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@Happy-Man.com

Of course, if he *really* wants out of the EOS line, maybe he could
post what "L" glass he has.  Maybe someone would like to help him
unload some of it.

Around here, "L" glass does *not* stay put.  Used EF 20-35/2.8L's
usually go within one or two days (if not the same day), and used
80-200/2.8L's go within three or five days.  Most of these lenses are
in on consignment and appear every few months (I hang around the
camera district too much! :-).  I *almost* went for a used 80-200/2.8L,
but decided I was in greater need of the 20-35/2.8L.  Alas, I haven't
laid eyes on a used one *once*.  (Some days I wonder if I should have
gone for the 80-200/2.8L, but oh well...)

Sure, he'd lose a bit on them.  But Nikon glass is cheaper in the
high-end so I don't think he'd have financial problems reeqipping if he
went that route.

Note, however, that I've heard tales of warranty woes on N8008s's and
Nikon F4's!  If you think it's bad news to get no service on a $350
body, what do you think about getting no service on a $550 or $1000
body???

ACS

P.S.: Mr. Wolfe, what lens caused the damage?
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|"The Nikon lens owners are more gratingly smug, while the     |
| - | --|__ | Canon lens owners are more verbally abusive." - Tony Arnerich|
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|