Canon Warranty Repair Issues and Problems: 1D X & 24-70 II

#21
Roger Cicala of lensrentals has dealt with Canon repair a lot, as well as with other repair, for problems that lensrentals staff haven't yet learned to fix in house. He has a VERY SIMPLE SUGGESTION. If you go to the trouble of testing your lens with FoCal or with a home-brew test (even the "brick wall"), you need to send the test photos and the test methods that you used along with the lens, and a list of the defects that you found (eg. "lower left corner consistently soft, see photos #1,3,4..."). Load up your images and text on a $5 thumb drive labelled with your lens SN and your name, and ship it in the box with the lens.

For more details, see his lensrentals blog. But really, this is common sense, service personnel appreciate being shown the specifics of the user's issue with the product, and are likely to look harder when diagnosing the lens's problem - human nature. A lot of people return products with complaints of "it doesn't look sharp" but there may be unrealistic expectations or the product is defective under some conditions but not others, and it is hard to ID some problems in a quick inspection.
 
Upvote 0
#22
Northstar said:
Lightmaster said:
R1-7D said:
Lesson learned: If you buy Canon, or any product for that matter, check it thoroughly and use it as much as you can immediately after purchase. If there’s something wrong, return it. Getting satisfaction from repairs is a futile effort.
Click to expand...

i have to disagree... completely.

canons repair service is the best service i ever had the pleasure to work with here in europe.

when your local service is that bad i agree that writing a letter to canon directly is maybe the best way to deal with it.
Click to expand...

I also think you should use/test your new gear immediately and extensively. If it's not up to par, return it to the retailer you bought it from for a refund or exchange.
Click to expand...

yeah well.... i disagree to the part that the canon service is of no help...

the other advice is a no brainer.
 
Upvote 0
#23
I've only dealt with Canon repair once, and I am in the US, so not sure how pertinent my experience is.
I have a 60D, and the lens removal button broke off after only a few months of ownership. I looked up how to get it repaired, and they were very helpful. I received my repaired camera only 5 business days after they had gotten it from me. I'm not sure if the US center has the gold, platinum service contracts, but if they do, I am not a member, so I was very happy with my turn-around time.

I've since purchased a 6D, so now have a spare body. That was the most troubling part of the repair process for me, not having a camera while mine was being fixed.

Not sure how helpful my experience is, but did want to be one of the happy customers that did take time to tell others!
 
Upvote 0
#24
Maui5150 said:
R1-7D said:
I’m starting this thread to tell of my recent Canon Canada (Mississauga Service Center) experience with not only two of their top-of-the-line products, but with their customer service as well. I apologize for the length, but I'm trying to provide context to the story.

EF 24-70 f/2.8 II Story
Click to expand...

How did the images look? Did you do a lot of shooting or just rely on "FoCal"

I have used the FoCal software, am an owner and yup... I have used my 24-70 II for over a year, wanted to make sure with FoCal and gave me the same crap. Remeasured based upon the guidance, re-did it and then came up with NO-ADJUSTMENT.

FoCal can be great. It also can be a piece of crap. I find this true on the WIDE side versus the Tele. My 24-70 II is fine, though everytime I test it with FoCal I get different results... That tells me the software is crap.... May be solid for a lot of things, does not mean it does not have trouble at distances or with certain lenses.
Click to expand...

Like I said to Mackguyver earlier in the thread, I didn't notice anything too out of the ordinary with the images themselves. I never did a brick wall test, however.

What I did notice was that the focusing on the left side of the frame was quite slow compared to the right; sometimes it still preferred to focus on the right even with contrasty subjects to the left of the frame. So I did feel something was amiss, and generally a decentered element can explain a phenomenon like that.

When I got my current copy of the lens, to me, at least, there felt like there was a noticeable difference in focusing speedy and accuracy. FoCal also, for this lens, gave me consistently good results on both my cameras, where as the first lens gave me consistently bad results on both cameras, as well as a friend's camera.
 
Upvote 0
#25
Thanks for the response Stu_bert. It seems as if Canon operates differently in different areas. Unfortunately, my experience with Canon in Canada has been less than stellar. I'm glad elsewhere that people are getting good service though. Canon does, for the most part, make exceptional products.

I certainly wish we, in Canada, could talk to our technicians. It would solve so many headaches. Just being able to explain that it was the latch for the focusing screen bracket that was causing me grief and specifically telling him/her how to replicate the issue would make a world of difference. Information is always lost in translation when there are intermediaries.

I appreciate you taking the time to read the thread. I not here to bash Canon and their products (for the most part I'm quite satisfied with their stuff). I do feel it's important to let others know of bad experiences, however, and in this case it's what I'm doing. I personally feel the issues with both the lens and camera were handled poorly.



Stu_bert said:
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Canon does not let customers talk with their technicians, so that is no surprise. The tech should have got your note though, something is wrong.
Click to expand...

They do in the UK - I always get to talk to the technicians. I've even had a long discussion in their reception where there was definitely an incompatibility between the 600 MK II I had purchased (from Canada) and the 1DX - it never focused correctly at infinity but CPS could not find a problem. v2.0.3 of the firmware fixed it.

I agree with the advice to write to them formally, and I would be interested to hear if / how they reply.

For me, sharing experiences like this, especially using Focal to check lenses, is what makes Canon Rumors useful. I'm sorry for your problems, R1-7D, thank you for posting.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
#26
Lightmaster said:
R1-7D said:
Getting satisfaction from repairs is a futile effort.
Click to expand...

i have to disagree... completely.

canons repair service is the best service i ever had the pleasure to work with here in europe.

when your local service is that bad i agree that writing a letter to canon directly is maybe the best way to deal with it.
Click to expand...


Lightmaster,

Thanks for the response. I'm glad to hear Canon gives excellent service elsewhere. I do believe they make good products, and it's nice to know they do back them up if necessary.

From my experience here in Canada, however, I can't say that either times I've needed a Canon Service Center to help me out I've been satisfied with what they've done.

Maybe my advice doesn't apply to you in your neck of the woods. If so, that's really great news and customers should have many more avenues available to them if they need help.
 
Upvote 0
#27
NancyP said:
Roger Cicala of lensrentals has dealt with Canon repair a lot, as well as with other repair, for problems that lensrentals staff haven't yet learned to fix in house. He has a VERY SIMPLE SUGGESTION. If you go to the trouble of testing your lens with FoCal or with a home-brew test (even the "brick wall"), you need to send the test photos and the test methods that you used along with the lens, and a list of the defects that you found (eg. "lower left corner consistently soft, see photos #1,3,4..."). Load up your images and text on a $5 thumb drive labelled with your lens SN and your name, and ship it in the box with the lens.

For more details, see his lensrentals blog. But really, this is common sense, service personnel appreciate being shown the specifics of the user's issue with the product, and are likely to look harder when diagnosing the lens's problem - human nature. A lot of people return products with complaints of "it doesn't look sharp" but there may be unrealistic expectations or the product is defective under some conditions but not others, and it is hard to ID some problems in a quick inspection.
Click to expand...


Hi Nancy,

Thank you for your time and response.

As per my original post, I did include a very detailed letter as well as a FoCal chart showing exactly what I was talking about with regards to the lens. I was very clear with what the lens was doing in my note, and the chart couldn't have been more plain.

As far as providing them with any further information goes, well I think it would have been a waste of time on my part had I done so. Both the technician and the telephone agent either ignored my note and chart entirely, or believed they knew better. When I spoke to the phone agent she indicated that my testing couldn't possibly be as thorough as their technician's and that sending the lens back would probably not result in anything being changed. How is that for service -- being told I'm wrong and essentially wasting there time after I just spent two grand on one their lenses?

The fact that my 1D X was sent back with an issue I specified (the focusing screen bracket latch), in both my letter and to a phone agent, uncorrected as well as with a finger print directly on the mirror says to me that their quality control standards are subpar, and that they aren't even listening to the customers in the first place.


I personally feel that none of the issues I have experienced in this thread are stemming from "unrealistic expectations." My 1D X had a severe particle problem with the pentaprism, which Canon acknowledged by swapping out the whole prism unit. From there the problem has persisted, as well as the latch for the focusing screen bracket not operating properly. Neither of those issues were made up in my mind. If it's unreasonable to expect a new product to operate as it should without problems right after purchase, so sue me because I don't accept that, especially when it costs close to $7000.

With the lens, I again don't feel like what I was after from Canon was "unrealistic." I observed a problem, tested it thoroughly with three different cameras, observed an issue with focusing and sent it in. I received it back in worse operating condition than it was in before. The only unrealistic thing about the situation was how Canon handled it.
 
Upvote 0
#28
NancyP said:
Roger Cicala of lensrentals has dealt with Canon repair a lot, as well as with other repair, for problems that lensrentals staff haven't yet learned to fix in house. He has a VERY SIMPLE SUGGESTION. If you go to the trouble of testing your lens with FoCal or with a home-brew test (even the "brick wall"), you need to send the test photos and the test methods that you used along with the lens, and a list of the defects that you found (eg. "lower left corner consistently soft, see photos #1,3,4..."). Load up your images and text on a $5 thumb drive labelled with your lens SN and your name, and ship it in the box with the lens.

For more details, see his lensrentals blog. But really, this is common sense, service personnel appreciate being shown the specifics of the user's issue with the product, and are likely to look harder when diagnosing the lens's problem - human nature. A lot of people return products with complaints of "it doesn't look sharp" but there may be unrealistic expectations or the product is defective under some conditions but not others, and it is hard to ID some problems in a quick inspection.
Click to expand...

Nancy,

I have done that, only I burnt the images to CD, my experience is they don't even look at them, they sent the disc back unopened.

I believe they put the lens on a reference body or rig and draw their own conclusions from the results from those results and that alone.

As for the OP, I did write a rather blunt reply early on in the thread but it got taken down, naughty me! The crux of it though was that these things are tools, they are not hermetically sealed pieces of jewelry. They get dust in them, they get scratches and they end up needing servicing, that is the nature of tools. They are not collectables and they are not precious, they demand to be used as the makers intended, regularly and without compromise, if you do that then you will not only get the best out of them, but you will get dust in them and scratches on them.
 
Upvote 0
#29
privatebydesign said:
As for the OP, I did write a rather blunt reply early on in the thread but it got taken down, naughty me! The crux of it though was that these things are tools, they are not hermetically sealed pieces of jewelry. They get dust in them, they get scratches and they end up needing servicing, that is the nature of tools. They are not collectables and they are not precious, they demand to be used as the makers intended, regularly and without compromise, if you do that then you will not only get the best out of them, but you will get dust in them and scratches on them.
Click to expand...
So I suppose this isn't your idea of being a camera "owner"?
shuchat0.jpg

;) ;) ;)
Source: An Amazing Leica Collection
 
Upvote 0
#30
privatebydesign said:
NancyP said:
Roger Cicala of lensrentals has dealt with Canon repair a lot, as well as with other repair, for problems that lensrentals staff haven't yet learned to fix in house. He has a VERY SIMPLE SUGGESTION. If you go to the trouble of testing your lens with FoCal or with a home-brew test (even the "brick wall"), you need to send the test photos and the test methods that you used along with the lens, and a list of the defects that you found (eg. "lower left corner consistently soft, see photos #1,3,4..."). Load up your images and text on a $5 thumb drive labelled with your lens SN and your name, and ship it in the box with the lens.

For more details, see his lensrentals blog. But really, this is common sense, service personnel appreciate being shown the specifics of the user's issue with the product, and are likely to look harder when diagnosing the lens's problem - human nature. A lot of people return products with complaints of "it doesn't look sharp" but there may be unrealistic expectations or the product is defective under some conditions but not others, and it is hard to ID some problems in a quick inspection.
Click to expand...

Nancy,

I have done that, only I burnt the images to CD, my experience is they don't even look at them, they sent the disc back unopened.

I believe they put the lens on a reference body or rig and draw their own conclusions from the results from those results and that alone.

As for the OP, I did write a rather blunt reply early on in the thread but it got taken down, naughty me! The crux of it though was that these things are tools, they are not hermetically sealed pieces of jewelry. They get dust in them, they get scratches and they end up needing servicing, that is the nature of tools. They are not collectables and they are not precious, they demand to be used as the makers intended, regularly and without compromise, if you do that then you will not only get the best out of them, but you will get dust in them and scratches on them.
Click to expand...

Privatebydesign,

Thank you for your responses, although I never did see the first post that was removed.

I always enjoy your "blunt[ness]" on the forum and your posts are very educational.

I fully appreciate and understand what you are saying, and I also agree with you to some extent. Debris in viewfinders is an inevitable issue, and one I fully expect to experience with the ownership of any camera; debris to the point of clouding up a viewfinder after two weeks of ownership is not an appropriate issue to experience for any customer of a new camera product, though. There's still crud in there, I'm dealing with it...and I most likely wouldn't have continued to go on about the issue in the first place had I not received the camera back with another issue which was more mechanical in nature and would/does affect the overall operation of the camera. The finger print was also the cherry on top or the icing on the cake.


Again, I don't feel like I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic about this.


And the thing is, you are absolutely right: cameras are meant to be used, and especially if they are part of the elite 1D line; they are built like tanks and are intended for the worst conditions one can realistically take a camera into. I fully intend on using mine for whatever situations I might encounter. I still, however, expect a certain level of quality control with regards to components and workmanship. Is that unreasonable?
 
Upvote 0
#31
No it isn't, that is a perfect example of a camera collector, a person I have great respect for.

I well understand the collecting mentality, and I have been a strong supporter of a slightly different variant of people here who want the best simply because they want the best.

But lets not lose sight of the fact that the 1DX and 24-70 f2.8 MkII are the current production top of the line tools, they are made to do a job, they are not limited edition pink alligator covered Leica's. They are not advertised as hermetically sealed and for people to not only expect them to be, but to be very verbose and critical of them because they are not not only illustrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the product, but a distinct lack of appreciation for what the tool is actually designed and capable of doing.

If R1-7D had put his 1DX and 24-70 in that glass cabinet, one, it wouldn't have got any dust in it, and two, he wouldn't have noticed if it had.
 
Upvote 0
#32
privatebydesign said:
No it isn't, that is a perfect example of a camera collector, a person I have great respect for.

I well understand the collecting mentality, and I have been a strong supporter of a slightly different variant of people here who want the best simply because they want the best.

But lets not lose sight of the fact that the 1DX and 24-70 f2.8 MkII are the current production top of the line tools, they are made to do a job, they are not limited edition pink alligator covered Leica's. They are not advertised as hermetically sealed and for people to not only expect them to be, but to be very verbose and critical of them because they are not not only illustrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the product, but a distinct lack of appreciation for what the tool is actually designed and capable of doing.

If R1-7D had put his 1DX and 24-70 in that glass cabinet, one, it wouldn't have got any dust in it, and two, he wouldn't have noticed if it had.
Click to expand...

As per my post on the last page, I do not exhibit a "fundamental lack of understanding of the product" or a lack of "appreciation for what the tool is used for."

The amount of debris in my viewfinder would have raised eye-brows on just about anyone who just spent $7000 on a camera. People also buy expensive high performance machines such as cars and motorcycles, and while the paint doesn't necessarily affect the overall performance of the machine, it sure is unsettling to see it start peeling right after purchase for no reason. You may claim that vehicle paint is warrantied in such situations where camera viewfinders are not, to which I'll respond that even Canon thought there was an issue with my prism, otherwise they would not have replaced it. Also, there is no perfect analogy; if you can't see the parallels I'm drawing then the point has simply been missed...

In my case, I did not even get chance to misuse the camera that would cause a massive accumulation of debris in the prism. It happened all on its own within a very short period of time. I have enough of an understanding of how expensive products should be to realize that experiencing what I have is not right or normal under the circumstances.

I also have enough understanding of customer service to know that when I do send something in for repair it should not come back with something else not operating properly.
 
Upvote 0
#33
privatebydesign said:
No it isn't, that is a perfect example of a camera collector, a person I have great respect for.

I well understand the collecting mentality, and I have been a strong supporter of a slightly different variant of people here who want the best simply because they want the best.
Click to expand...
Private, I was just being funny - but yes, the Leica collectors have their place, as do collectors of all types.

R1-7D, I meant this as a side joke, not about you, and I hope that was clear. Also, I haven't been able to find my FoCal report yet, but I need to look in one other place. I remember it being sharp at f/2.8 and then dropping off considerably at f/5.6 which didn't make any sense to me.
 
Upvote 0
#34
mackguyver said:
privatebydesign said:
No it isn't, that is a perfect example of a camera collector, a person I have great respect for.

I well understand the collecting mentality, and I have been a strong supporter of a slightly different variant of people here who want the best simply because they want the best.
Click to expand...
Private, I was just being funny - but yes, the Leica collectors have their place, as do collectors of all types.

R1-7D, I meant this as a side joke, not about you, and I hope that was clear. Also, I haven't been able to find my FoCal report yet, but I need to look in one other place. I remember it being sharp at f/2.8 and then dropping off considerably at f/5.6 which didn't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...

Mackguyver,

No offence taken. My response is soley to Private, who I'm not sure really appreciates my situation, which is different than what he's talking about.
 
Upvote 0
#35
Hi Folks.
If I may attempt to add my interpretation, I think where this is going is that the quality of the OP's 1DX with respect to dust in the viewfinder falls short of the quality experienced in previous cameras from the same supplier namely Canon used in the same manner by the same user, the original poster.
I would be peeved to have a pro camera body multiple times the cost of a previous body fill up with crud internally if I had not experienced the same issue from the cheaper camera used the same way!
I have to say that I would be extremely concerned at where this material was coming from, if it is not getting it in when lenses are changed (accepting the similar use would have allowed the same amount of crud in to a previous body) is some part of the internal mechanism eating itself?
Was the previous body better internally sealed at a lower price point?
I fully sympathise with the OP regarding this situation, especially having it returned with a fingerprint and a mechanical issue that was not present before!

Cheers, Graham.
 
Upvote 0
#36
Valvebounce said:
Hi Folks.
If I may attempt to add my interpretation, I think where this is going is that the quality of the OP's 1DX with respect to dust in the viewfinder falls short of the quality experienced in previous cameras from the same supplier namely Canon used in the same manner by the same user, the original poster.
I would be peeved to have a pro camera body multiple times the cost of a previous body fill up with crud internally if I had not experienced the same issue from the cheaper camera used the same way!
I have to say that I would be extremely concerned at where this material was coming from, if it is not getting it in when lenses are changed (accepting the similar use would have allowed the same amount of crud in to a previous body) is some part of the internal mechanism eating itself?
Was the previous body better internally sealed at a lower price point?
I fully sympathise with the OP regarding this situation, especially having it returned with a fingerprint and a mechanical issue that was not present before!

Cheers, Graham.
Click to expand...

Hi Graham,

Thank you for your response and taking the time to go through this thread. I also appreciate the support.

You pretty much covered the gist of it, and yes, absolutely, the thought that something could be wearing inside of the camera has definitely crossed my mind. I don't know if what I'm seeing is actually dirt/dust or whether it's maybe filings from some components wearing unnecessarily. It's a big concern.


I'll be sitting down either tonight or tomorrow to write a letter to Canon detailing my experiences.
 
Upvote 0
#38
zim said:
R1-7D, reading through this reminded me of a previous thread

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17619.0

maybe worth a read if you haven't already

regards
Click to expand...

Zim,

Thank you for the link. I had not seen that thread. I'm somewhat at a loss over this... It's beginning to look more and more like a design flaw issue Canon is aware of but wants to do nothing about. I'm sure it's not got the traction the Nikon D600 had simply because it's a less common camera, costing three times as much.


Does anyone remember the leaks of Canon documents outlining known defects in their products they weren't going to do anything about from earlier this year? I'm beginning to wish Canon Rumors posted more of those leaks... I have a sneaky suspicion the debris in the viewfinder issue I am, and a lot of others, are experiencing would be in one of those documents.
 
Upvote 0
#39

I'm taking a loss on a r62 with crap autofocus.

Message received from warranty tech:

"shoot portraits at 5.6 or narrower apertures" to achieve sharp eye focus.

wat?


I've sent so many products back to canon for lack of fixes, its not even funny. I used to keep a stack of boxes under my desk at my old job, because i was sending back bodies 2 times at least. Almost missed a flight to singapore because i was waiting for the 7d to be returned! The focus went south after that trip and they never fixed it, had to sell.

But this r62 focusing on the FAR eye and general backfocus...the worst. Good luck out there.
 
Upvote 0
#40
ashmadux said:
I'm taking a loss on a r62 with crap autofocus.

Message received from warranty tech:

"shoot portraits at 5.6 or narrower apertures" to achieve sharp eye focus.

wat?


I've sent so many products back to canon for lack of fixes, its not even funny. I used to keep a stack of boxes under my desk at my old job, because i was sending back bodies 2 times at least. Almost missed a flight to singapore because i was waiting for the 7d to be returned! The focus went south after that trip and they never fixed it, had to sell.

But this r62 focusing on the FAR eye and general backfocus...the worst. Good luck out there.
Click to expand...
That's a bummer. I noticed your webpage doesn't load
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
!DX mk lll, where to go from there ?
Replies
9
Views
350
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
jabird56
Canon Repair Expired List_01 DEC 2024
Replies
1
Views
287
kaihp
K
L
R7 strange lockup issue when reviewing images
Replies
4
Views
537
Bob66
B
K
100-500 issues with R3
Replies
7
Views
708
MSH411
MSH411
jabird56
Canon Repair Response Period List of Target Products_01 DEC 2024
Replies
5
Views
367
MSH411
MSH411
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu