Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Digital Camera Failures

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:07 PM
from the on-their-best-behavior dept.
Sony Hardware
An anonymous reader writes "In the past week, four major camera makers have quietly published service advisories admitting their digital cameras are dying. In each case, the flaw appears to involve Sony CCD sensors using epoxy packaging that eventually lets in moisture. Sony's own cameras are among those affected, and the company also has dozens of affected camcorder models. Sony is believed to be picking up the tab for the repairs for the other camera makers as well, regardless of warranty status. (If true, a laudable approach.) Given the large numbers of cameras that are potentially involved, this can't be good news for Sony, who apparently already is expecting losses, and who has also recently announced major layoffs."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Digital Camera Failures 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Dammit!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gbulmash (688770) * <semi_famousNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday October 10 2005, @11:12PM (#13762055) Homepage Journal
    It may be a "laudable approach" for Sony to pick up the tabs for the camera makers, but what about the consumers? I have one of the Canon models mentioned. I'd like to get it fixed/certified NOW so I don't unexpectedly find it exhibiting these defective behaviors when I'm trying to tape something important like my son's first steps or his first Christmas.

    The Canon announcement is only for Asia and it only offers to fix the camera if and when it starts showing symptoms of the problems. As far as I'm concerned, that's bogus. They should offer a general recall and repair/replacement of all models affected so people don't lose the once-in-a-lifetime events they bought these cameras to capture.

    - Greg

    • Re:Dammit!! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Max Threshold (540114) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:35PM (#13762187)
      That's why Real Photographers(tm) carry two cameras. (Or three... or four...)

      • Re:Dammit!! (Score:5, Funny)

        by cei (107343) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @12:44AM (#13762534) Homepage Journal
        Indeed. One body for 35mm chrome (Velvia 50 or EPP), one for 35mm black & white (Tri-X), maybe another for infrared, Hasselblad backs loaded with 120 chrome and B&W (and Polaroid back with Type 665P/N), digital SLR at the minimum. Add to that the Holga, maybe a pinhole or two depending on format, lighting conditions, and the durability of the model. Then maybe I can leave the house for a shoot.

    • Re:Dammit!! (Score:5, Informative)

      by LoverOfJoy (820058) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:55PM (#13762296) Homepage
      If you go to the US site there is information about a return there, too. Here's what I found about my Cannon A75.

      It has recently come to our attention that the vendor-supplied CCD image sensor used in this Canon digital camera may cause the following malfunction: When the product is used in recording or playback mode, the LCD screen and/or electronic viewfinder may exhibit either a distorted image or no image at all. While reports of this malfunction have been rare in the United States, we have determined that it may occur if the product is exposed to hot and humid environments.

      Effective immediately, and regardless of warranty status, Canon will repair, free of charge, products exhibiting the above-mentioned malfunction if the malfunction is caused by the CCD image sensor. Canon will also cover the cost of shipping and handling in connection with this repair.

      U.S. residents are kindly directed to contact the Canon Customer Support Center for further assistance at 1-800-828-4040. Support hours are Monday thru Friday - 8:00 AM to 12:00 midnight; and Saturday 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM (all times EST). Alternatively, if electronic support is preferred, please send your email to carecenter@cits.canon.com

      This information is for residents of the United States of America and Puerto Rico only. If you do not reside in the USA or Puerto Rico, please contact the Canon Customer Support Center in your region.

      We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused by this issue, and appreciate your understanding in this matter. Thank you for your support and patronage of Canon products

      found here: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=Pg ComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=221&mo delid=9828act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fc ategoryid=221&modelid=9828 [canon.com]

    • Use film or buy a real camera. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BrianH (13460) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @12:21AM (#13762442)
      A $250 digital camera, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a $50 35mm film camera (technically the $50 film camera has a higher resolution, but that's another discussion). These low end digitals replace the snapshot cameras of yore, but shouldn't be confused with actual professional quality cameras. If you know that you're going to be shooting a "once in a lifetime" event like a wedding, first birthday, or something along those lines, you should either be shooting it in higher quality (and more reliable) film, or invest in a higher end digital.

      If you lose that once in a lifetime shot because you trusted it to a cheap snapshot camera, that's as much your fault as the vendors.

      • Re:Use film or buy a real camera. (Score:4, Informative)

        by cei (107343) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @12:47AM (#13762545) Homepage Journal
        On the other hand, one of the articles lists the Fuji FinePix S2, which is a $1500 dSLR. Not exactly a cheap snapshot camera. (Not sure I buy the S2 being on that list, because the CCD is supposed to be a radically different design than the others listed, but the news article does include it...)
        • Plastic lens mounts vs metal lens mounts. Plastic gears vs metal gears. Glass lenses vs plastic lenses. The differences between "consumer" quality gear and "professional" quality gear is quite large. The biggest difference, though, is in the quality of the engineering. Consumer quality electronics tend to be low margin goods, so the emphasis in the engineering phase is for the product to be easy and cheap to manufacture in large quantities...allowing the low margins to be offset by higher volumes. With prof

    • Re:Dammit!! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "...They should offer a general recall and repair/replacement of all models affected so people don't lose the once-in-a- lifetime events they bought these cameras to capture."

      Is it that big a deal to you? Then why don't you buy a second camera?

      Is that too expensive? Gee, do you suppose that not offering perfection made the single digital camera affordable in the first place?

      Face it: you are not willing to pay for what you want. You bought a camera with a warranty that is being honored. You bought no guarant

    • Re:Dammit!! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Technician (215283) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @12:45AM (#13762538)
      I'd like to get it fixed/certified NOW so I don't unexpectedly find it exhibiting these defective behaviors when I'm trying to tape something important like my son's first steps or his first Christmas.

      I have the same problem. I can and I am taking steps to prevent a failure.

      When I was stationed in the tropics, rusty tools was an issue. Contact corrosion was an issue on test equipment. While I was there I keept most of my tools, envelopes, postage stamps, and test equipment in ammo boxes with large packages of silica gel and a humidity indicator. I would nuke the silica gel when the humidity started to creep up. Now that I know the camera can be affected, it is now stored in an ammo box. Corrosion creep should not be an issue when it's stored at 20% or less humidity.

      • Re:Dammit!! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Milkyman (246513) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:19PM (#13762090)
        its not the LCD its the CCD, the sensor that picks up the light through the lens, i have one of the effected camcorders and it just shows and records blackness.
            • Back then cameras didn't have auto-white balance; you had to shoot a picture of a white card and press the "white balance" button... Or mess with knobs while looking at the output signal. I bet whoever shot that video didn't do that.

              The problem was exaggerated by the fact that most cameras had black & white viewfinders, so you didn't know you had a problem until you watched the final tape. Whoops!

              Also, most cameras back then used pickup tubes, NOT CCDs; they had all kinds of odd artifacts whose absence

  • HA! (Score:4, Funny)

    by VaticDart (889055) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:13PM (#13762059)
    My 10D's might CMOS sensor will dance on the scattered bones of your useless moisture-letting-in-CCDs!

  • sony and lack of QC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jstroebe (921953) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:16PM (#13762075)
    Maybe I'm the only one, but I've vowed to stop buying Sony products after the last two things I've bought from them have been total pieces of S#!t. I had a Vaio laptop that lasted a year, and a camcorder that didn't last much longer. The name Sony use to be one I related to quality but anymore I steer clear.

  • Education Hit (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kinky Bass Junk (880011) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:23PM (#13762109)
    My school was badly hit by this - our Film and Video department was largely made of Sony digital cameras, and they all died over time. We have since switched to Panasonic, and they have never had to be replaced.
  • Ok. So... Sony posts losses for one quarter, and they lay off a bunch of people... It's now my responsibility as a Nintendo Fanboy to jump up and down and praise this as the death of my archnemesis right?

    Ehh. Who am I kidding. Apathy is too much damned work.

  • Good timing! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eSchmitty (670312) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:40PM (#13762218)

    My Canon Powershot A70 just started to exhibit this problem 3 days ago!

    I have found out that Canon USA and Canon Canada will both fix the camera, regardless of the warranty status.

    This is the 2nd time that I've had to send my camera back for service. The first time was soon after I bought the camera because of a different CCD problem. Despite all of these problems, I still really like the camera and think it was a good purchase. I probably wouldn't think this if they didn't fix this problem for free.

  • It has to be said... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jd (1658) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [kapimi]> on Monday October 10 2005, @11:42PM (#13762231) Homepage Journal
    In the past week, four major camera makers have quietly published service advisories admitting their digital cameras are dying.


    Has Netcraft confirmed this?

  • Thank you Amazon (Score:3, Informative)

    by ehiris (214677) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:47PM (#13762260) Homepage
    When I just recently bought my camera from Amazon, I read reviews on a few of the Canon cameras which were explicitly mentioning that some of the models were very sensitive to high temperature and after failures you couldn't get them fixed because the warranty specifies that it won't cover any damage due to Arizona-like temperatures and high temperature fluctuations. I followed the reviewer's advise and finally decided on the SD400 which doesn't have that problem. It's a good thing that they are now admitting to be at fault. They probably noticed the sales on those models taking a big dip and this is the only way to eliminate the cameras which are stuck in inventory.

  • Consumer Reports: Repair History of 186,900 users (Score:4, Informative)

    by NXIL (860839) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:49PM (#13762265)
    CR says that Sony, Panasonic, Canon, and Olympus have the *fewest* problems. Pentax (sounds like a tampon brand), Konica/Minolta, and Toshiba are the least reliable, with Vivitar being the absolute least reliable. In absolute numbers, about 2.5% of Sony digicams needed repairs, about 10% of Vivitar cameras did. From the survery: "Based on 186,900 reader responses to our 2005 Annual Questionnaire about digital cameras bought new between 2002 and 2005. Data have been standardized to eliminate differences linked to age and usage. Differences of less than 4 points aren't meaningful." For autos, CR's surveys have been dead on, at least for me....every car I have had has aged and been as reliable as they predicted it would be, even down to individual systems (cooling, electrical, etc....) But, yes, for all you statisticians out there, I know that is completely anecdotal, as "n" is very small in my case....I keep my cars a long time....

    • Pentax!=tampon (Score:4, Informative)

      by panurge (573432) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @03:03AM (#13762992)
      I'd question the judgement of anyone who doesn't know that Pentax is a major optical manufacturer, with more experience than even Canon in making small short focal length lenses of the kind required for digital cameras. They do, however, have a short history of making digital cameras and I suspect that this is part of the reliability issue. I can only say that I have one of their small, ruggedised water resistant cameras for marine use and it hasn't broken yet - but that's just anecdotal.

      However, the real point I'd like to make is this. By their nature, consumer satisfaction reports tend to be way out of date. This is because the records relate to models that have been around for a while, which in a rapidly moving industry means they may not relate to what is on the shelves at all. A case in point from another industry was Volvo, which at one time enjoyed a totally unwarranted reputation for reliability based on the longevity and reliability of one of its post-war models which shared very few parts with later models. (I know this is true because the girlfriend of a friend had one of the reliable Volvos, and side by side you could easily see it was built to a totally different standard from the later ones. It was wrecked by collision with a truck at 132000 miles, at which point the seats were just getting slightly tatty.)

      Nowadays it is indeed possible to predict how long a car will last because so much effort has been put into reliability engineering, and it is relatively easy to see what is under the hood and make an evaluation. But for things like digital cameras this is virtually impossible because the technology is changing fast.It's possible to evaluate things like the robustness of doors, the protection of the lens, scratch resistance of LCD covers etc., but you know nothing about the internal mechanisms or the reliability of the electronics. I suspect that it is not even necessarily true that you get what you pay for because in electronics cost is so volume sensitive.

      My conclusion? Don't worry. Choose on the basis of your preferred mix of features, compatibility, optical quality and weight, and be sure you get a reasonable warranty. But my own preference would always be to buy from a manufacturer who really understands small cameras and short focus lenses. That means Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Leitz (acquired Minox), Pentax and Minolta. Fuji's camera superiority is in medium format. Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba are electronics manufacturers and dependent on the optical people for lenses and expertise in areas like ergonomics.

  • Just my Luck.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ShaolinTiger (798138) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:50PM (#13762269) Homepage
    I'm in Malaysia and I own a Canon Powershot A70...

    And I had the CCD problem, it started about 6 months ago...first the backgrounds went slightly pink on bright shots, then it went a little fuzzy, then it went totally mangled and I couldn't see anything at all.

    So I paid to get it fixed, it wasn't cheap...now they are saying they will pick the tab?

    I wonder if I can get a refund...

  • I wish Canon would admit the e18 error (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cshay (79326) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @12:01AM (#13762340)
    Instead of product recalls, they went right on shipping cameras with serious flaws in their retractible lenses. The result? A class action lawsuit: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/canon_c lass.html [consumeraffairs.com]

  • SORNY? (Score:4, Funny)

    by blankoboy (719577) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @12:11AM (#13762391)
    Were these SONY or SORNY products? Perhaps people should be buying Magnetbox digital cameras and TV's. /obscure, simpons.

  • My camera doesn't seem to have a problem (Score:3, Funny)

    by El Cabri (13930) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @12:15AM (#13762406) Journal
    Of course its sensor comes in the form of Fuji Velvia 100, Agfa RSX II 100 and Fuji NPZ 800 film that I load in it according to the circumstances.

  • Ruined picture (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @12:35AM (#13762497) Homepage Journal
    A friend of mine took a picture of his ass, and the entire middle was all messed up due to bad pixels, as if somebody put TNT up his ass. We complained to Sony, but all they did was post it online to scare off further complainers. It worked pretty damned well.

  • Other symptoms also related to this defect? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pjkundert (597719) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @01:06AM (#13762608) Homepage
    We have a Canon digital ELPH SD100; excellent camera, and very sturdy (survived several rough week-long back-country expeditions with no problems).

    However, lately the camera has developed strange circles in some of its images, especially in certain lighting conditions, or certain atmospheric conditions that we have not been able to really pin down. Most of the time, the images are clear.

    The circles or rings seem similar to what you might get with dust somewhere in the lens system near the focal plane; the each circle covers perhaps up to 1/10th of the image area, but many of them are smaller, and some dimmer than others. The next time we use the camera, they don't appear at all!

    Could thse perhaps be explained by condensation on the inside of the CCD's window, which only appears in certain temperature or atmospheric pressure situations?

  • Full list of affected cameras (Score:5, Informative)

    by achurch (201270) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @01:12AM (#13762631) Homepage
    . . . just for the hell of it: (includes Japanese models as well)

    Digital still cameras

    • Canon:
      • Digital IXUS V3, Digital IXUS II, Digital IXUS II2
      • IXY DIGITAL 320, IXY DIGITAL 30, IXY DIGITAL 30a
      • PowerShot A60, PowerShot A70, PowerShot A75, PowerShot A300, PowerShot A310

    • Fujifilm:
      • FinePix A303 (serial 3100****, 3101****, 3JA4****, 3JA5****)
      • FinePix F410 (serial 3100****-3105****, 32A1****, 32A6****, 32A7****, 32A9****)
      • FinePix F700 (serial 3312****, 3313****, 33A0****, 3402****, 34A1****)
      • FinePix S2Pro (serial 310110**-310115**, 320000**-320008**, 330000**-340001**)

    • Konica Minolta:
      • DiMAGE 7i, DiMAGE 7Hi, DiMAGE A1, DiMAGE F300, DiMAGE S414, DiMAGE Xi, DiMAGE Xt, DiMAGE X20
      • Digital Genba Kantoku DG-2, DG-3Z, DG-4W

    • Sony:
      • DSC-F717
      • DSC-P2, DSC-P7, DSC-P8, DSC-P10, DSC-P12, DSC-P31, DSC-P32, DSC-P51, DSC-P52, DSC-P71, DSC-P72, DSC-P92
      • DSC-U10, DSC-U20, DSC-U30, DSC-U60
      • DSC-V1
      • MVC-CD250, MVC-CD400, MVC-CD500
      • MVC-FD100, MVC-FD200

    Digital video cameras

    • Canon:
      • Elura 40 MC, Elura 50
      • FV40, FV50, FV300, FV400
      • IXY DV3, IXY DV5
      • MV5i, MV5i MC, MV6i MC, MV600i, MV630i, MV650i, MV700i, MV730i, MV750i
      • ZR60, ZR65 MC, ZR70MC, ZR80, ZR85, ZR90

    • Sony:
      • CCD-MC100
      • CCD-TRV106K, CCD-TRV107E, CCD-TRV116, CCD-TRV118, CCD-TRV128, CCD-TRV218E, CCD-TRV228, CCD-TRV228E, CCD-TRV318, CCD-TRV328, CCD-TRV418, CCD-TRV418E, CCD-TRV428, CCD-TRV428E
      • DCR-DVD91E, DCR-DVD100, DCR-DVD100E, DCR-DVD101, DCR-DVD101E, DCR-DVD200, DCR-DVD200E, DCR-DVD300
      • DCR-HC14E, DCR-HC15, DCR-HC15E, DCR-HC16E, DCR-HC18E, DCR-HC20, DCR-HC20E, DCR-HC30, DCR-HC30E
      • DCR-IP5, DCR-IP5E, DCR-IP7E, DCR-IP45, DCR-IP45E, DCR-IP55, DCR-IP55E
      • DCR-PC101, DCR-PC101E, DCR-PC101K, DCR-PC103E, DCR-PC105, DCR-PC105E, DCR-PC105K, DCR-PC106E, DCR-PC107E, DCR-PC108, DCR-PC108E, DCR-PC115, DCR-PC115E, DCR-PC120, DCR-PC120E
      • DCR-TRV14E, DCR-TRV16, DCR-TRV16E, DCR-TRV18, DCR-TRV18E, DCR-TRV18K, DCR-TRV19, DCR-TRV19E, DCR-TRV22, DCR-TRV22E, DCR-TRV22K, DCR-TRV24E, DCR-TRV25, DCR-TRV25E, DCR-TRV27, DCR-TRV27E, DCR-TRV27PK, DCR-TRV33, DCR-TRV33E, DCR-TRV33K, DCR-TRV33PK, DCR-TRV38, DCR-TRV38E, DCR-TRV39, DCR-TRV40, DCR-TRV40E, DCR-TRV50, DCR-TRV50E, DCR-TRV147E, DCR-TRV240E, DCR-TRV250, DCR-TRV250E, DCR-TRV255E, DCR-TRV260, DCR-TRV265, DCR-TRV265E, DCR-TRV340, DCR-TRV340E, DCR-TRV361, DCR-TRV460, DCR-TRV460E, DCR-TRV461E, DCR-TRV740, DCR-TRV740E, DCR-TRV840, DCR-TRV940, DCR-TRV940E, DCR-TRV950, DCR-TRV950E
      • DCR-VX2000, DCR-VX200E, DCR-VX2100, DCR-VX2100E

    Professional camcorders

    • Sony:
      • DSR-250, DSR-250P
      • DSR-PD150, DSR-PD150P, DSR-PD170, DSR-PD170P, DSR-PDX10, DSR-PDX10P

    Other products

    • Sony:
      • Clie PEG-NZ90

  • Sweet! And just as I thought my camera was useless (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pfhor (40220) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @01:40AM (#13762717) Homepage
    My powershot A60 just started doing this, and here I thought it was because of the years of travel with it. Now I just have to fine my local canon rep and get it fixed. Of course, I shoot with a rebel XT now, but atleast I can have my point and shoot working again also.

    Here is a demonstration [paintedover.com]

  • Happened to me (with pictures!) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mardoen (557915) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @01:45AM (#13762736) Homepage
    I have a PowerShot A70, and after gradually introducing noise to images it finally "died" a couple of weeks ago. This actually looks rather amazing -- I've documented this in a short Flickr set at http://flickr.com/photos/dekstop/sets/1026874/ [flickr.com] and I'll post some more information at http://dekstop.de/weblog/ [dekstop.de] as soon as I find some time... I even have some video clips made with the camera.

    To quote from the Flickr page: "my only digital camera has finally degraded into a first-class piece of alien surveillance equipment. instant live show, one-button entertainment, subjective electronics."

    • Re:They're complex. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:13PM (#13762060)
      At least they're usually not used for mission-critical applications.

      Try telling that to a bride on her wedding day. It's obvious you've never taken pictures for hire.

      • Re:They're complex. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Mateito (746185) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @01:30AM (#13762696) Homepage
        Try telling that to a bride on her wedding day. It's obvious you've never taken pictures for hire.

        How many wedding photographers turn up with a single camera body? You can't stop a wedding to wait for the photographer. The Pros I know take three - a digital SLR, a standard SLR loaded with colour film and a standard SLR with black and white print film.

      • Re:They're complex. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2005, @01:34AM (#13762706)

        Any professional photographer will bring a backup camera to a shoot. A wedding, s/he should probably have multiple backup cameras.

        I was shooting a wedding a few weeks ago and the lens mount on my D2X just broke while I was shooting the bride getting ready. No warning or anything. Lens falls to the floor (lens didn't break, thank goodness, but the plastic hood just shattered- very dramatic). Bride goes "Oh shit!", convinced her wedding pictures were ruined. I just reached into my bag and pulled out my spare, swapped the CF card, and kept shooting. If that camera had failed for whatever reason, I've got a Hasselblad and film in the van.

    • Re:They're complex. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bigman2003 (671309) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:30PM (#13762149) Homepage
      About half of the photographers I know (a good number) use digital exclusively. Now that Digital SLRs are good AND cheap, the others are all planning to move that way. And it isn't just the people I know, here's an outside link. [smh.com.au]

      While photography isn't usually a life or death industry, it is 'mission critical' to tons of photographers, magazines, ad agencies, etc. etc. So I would say that your statement is incorrect.

      I know I haven't touched a film camera in years, and neither have any of the other photographers at my place of work. In fact, we just made a big deal out of putting our last remaining film camera in a little glass case for posterity.

      • Re:They're complex. (Score:5, Informative)

        by JeffSh (71237) <jeffslashdot@NosPaM.m0m0.org> on Tuesday October 11 2005, @12:00AM (#13762333)
        what you say is correct, but none of the canon models affected are in their professional line of cameras, i.e. the 20D or the 350D.

        the ones affected are the powershot line, which are intended for the lower end, high quality consumer use cameras.
        • We don't use film because we have taken film development, negative handling, and scanning completely out of the process.

          When we need something on a very quick turn-around, and then find that the shot we really want is on film...we're screwed.

          Take film out of the equation, and we can ALWAYS manage a quick turn-around.

    • Re:They're complex. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11 2005, @12:21AM (#13762437)
      At least they're usually not used for mission-critical applications.

      Digital cameras are used for pr0n!!!!! You don't get more misson-critical than that!

    • Re:kudos to Sony (Score:5, Informative)

      by TekPolitik (147802) on Monday October 10 2005, @11:50PM (#13762270) Journal
      For all the Sony-bashing I've done, I have to salute Sony for stepping up to this one, no matter their motivation, though it looks mostly to be customer service and satisfaction.

      Not so. These defects are such as to make the products unmerchantable, which gives the buyer (in this case the manufacturers) a bunch of rights that would cost Sony a lot more if they were exercised. Doing the repairs free will cost Sony a lot less than paying the value of replacement products or repairs by a third party, which is what they would be up for (plus costs) if they were sued.

      There is nothing remotely attributable to honourable conduct here (and if you have dealt with Sony recently you would be aware of how thoroughly dishonourable that behemoth has become). It is self preservation, pure and simple, that has led them down this path.

      • I have to salute Sony for stepping up to this one

        Not so. These defects are such as to make the products unmerchantable*, which gives the buyer (in this case the manufacturers) a bunch of rights that would cost Sony a lot more if they were exercised.

        Which was my exact first thought. Here under UK law, they would still have to fix them for you even if the camera was up to 5 or 6 years old. It's all about how long you would "reasonably" expect something to last. The whole "manufacturers one year warranty"

          • Re:kudos to Sony (Score:5, Informative)

            by glesga_kiss (596639) on Tuesday October 11 2005, @10:10AM (#13765021)

            From UK Trading Standards [tradingstandards.gov.uk]

            If the manufacturer of the goods provides a free guarantee with the goods, this creates a contractual obligation by the guarantor. If the manufacturer fails to honour the guarantee, you could sue the manufacturer for the promises he makes. A guarantee is extra to your rights under the Sale of Goods Act. In some circumstances, you may have a claim under the guarantee, but find that a claim under the Sale of Goods Act would be difficult to prove, or vice versa. You may also in some circumstances have a claim against both, and therefore have a choice of who to claim against. If you are unsure seek advice from your local Trading Standards Service.

            A trader or manufacturer is under no obligation to provide a guarantee, and if they do, they can specify any time span, for example six months, twelve months or three years. They can also specify what is to be covered by the guarantee, and exclude certain parts, or wear and tear. They cannot, however, take away any rights you would have under the Sale of Goods Act

            The above is UK law, and there are several other laws covering this area. See here [tradingstandards.gov.uk]. Trading Standards are a good bunch of people, I've had some great advice from them over the years, very helpful. They will take up the case for you and contact the shop/manufacturer on behalf of you (no charge). This is really useful as they have way more clout than any consumer would have. However, saying terms like "Sale of Goods Act" or "Fit for Purpose" will normally make the sales droid stop trying to fob you off.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.