[Pentaxor]

If they have the figures backing up that there is no SDM issue, why does Peter not get this reply as well?

There are a number of reasons I can think of why Peter hasn't heard a peep from anyone, but none of them is a good one.

I got the feeling that they might had ran out of excuses and got tired of receiving the same complaints over and over again thus dismissing their argument that the lenses dont have a problem is false.

the problem with customer service agents is that they don't hold the authority or have the jurisdiction to have a real say on the matter. what they do is usually log the reports and tell a fairytale that would pacify a disgruntled customer. they say something which is in the script.

although I just hope that those reports are forwarded to the head office asap and Pentax would act on it. I dunno but it seems Pentax have a difficulty in admitting some bugs, probably due to the fact that they might scare some of the customers away. however, withholding such valuable information to the public regarding defects would only increase the risk of unsatisfied customers and losing them in the process. I guess Pentax is playing which of the two is the lesser evil. the worst case scenario for Pentax is that someone would file a lawsuit on them regarding fraud or scam for not disclosing such a problem. Pentax is threading waters here by ignoring a 1000 dollar problem that could blow up to a much more expensive case settlement.

[Ash]

PP, Class A & Peter - I made similar responses back to the rep, as diplomatically as possible, and all I could get in return was:

I know you guys on the forums treat our "company line" with suspicion, but it is the truth. I can understand how someone who has had a problem with the lens may not find any comfort in that, but I think from the data we have that our stance on this issue is accurate.

I don't think there is any way to quantify people who quit Pentax, because their DA* lens did not work, but I would hope that if someone was upset with their lens that they would either send it in to us or return it. If they did either of those things, they would show up in our numbers.

Ohhhh... [bangs head against wall]

[Jodokast96]

Why would I pay to have an out of warranty lens fixed if the cost and bad vibes were enough to make me switch? Are they really too blind to see that people aren't buying these lenses out of fear of getting a bad one, and not wanting the hassle of Pentax repair having more time with the lens than the purchaser? Or having it fail out of warranty and being stuck? But hey, what's the big deal, right? Who wouldn't want to spend $800+ on a lens, just to fork out another $300 just over a year later to get it to work. WAKE UP PENTAX!! APPEARANCE IS EVERYTHING HERE!! Your SDM appears, to devoted users and skeptics alike, to be shit!

[Pentaxor]

PP, Class A & Peter - I made similar responses back to the rep, as diplomatically as possible, and all I could get in return was:

I know you guys on the forums treat our "company line" with suspicion, but it is the truth. I can understand how someone who has had a problem with the lens may not find any comfort in that, but I think from the data we have that our stance on this issue is accurate.

I don't think there is any way to quantify people who quit Pentax, because their DA* lens did not work, but I would hope that if someone was upset with their lens that they would either send it in to us or return it. If they did either of those things, they would show up in our numbers.

Ohhhh... [bangs head against wall]

this is one heck of an idiotic response. Ash, I believe you should have replied that you paid for an $800 dollar lens not expecting to pay for an extra $300 bucks + shipping for repairing an out of warranty lens. this ain't no toy which is only worth 50 bucks. honestly, a $50 toy would last longer than the $800 dollar precision lens instrument. this is some sort of a way of trying to milk the customer for more cash, hence the perception or accusation of form of scam. this kind of continuous return and repair system would enable Pentax to have a consistent income flow which I believe does violate the laws of business ethics and thus put the customer at clear disadvantage of obliging to an out of contract spendings caused by repairs, replacements, shippings and not to mention the time lost. the idea is the customer should invoke the buyers' protection code in a product which he believed and has confidence of quality assurance, especially precision instruments. the limited warranty itself does not safeguard the buyers but rather used as a tool to have a false sense of security, not knowing that the lens would fail after a certain amount of time and usage, which is very uncharacteristic for such professional instruments which had passed QC and has certified QA. these are not disposable items or anything that would fail eventually. otherwise, Pentax should have atleast notified or publicly disclosed to state that these are indeed disposable or have the potential to fail at a certain time. the failure to do so, in itself made Pentax look like they are having a shady business of selling rejects for a premium price. premium price should be for a premium quality equipment, which in this case certainly doesn't really look like it but more as a fraud. I hope Pentax considers this and should be alarmed or concerned.

the lack of data gathered is also a failure by Pentax to address the issue concerning quality assurance and quality control. there was no public announcement but it is clear that the growing concerns and complaints display the same issue on the lens over and over again, and by no means a fluke or an isolated incident. this trend in itself should be a cause for an alarm since there must be something wrong with one particular part of the lens. it only takes a minimum of 15% of the total number inorder to determine that there really is a problem and to what the statistics showed, it had reached that plateau.

I hope that Pentax should inspect all their lens manufacturing plants. if Pentax would simply ignore this, there is no way that they will know or verify the defects of their products. speaking of which, I dunno how often Pentax have their plants undergo inspection. but if I were a member of the inspecting team, I would go there twice a year and I would had surely put a question mark or red mark on them basing on the complaints alone. Pentax is lucky that I'm not.

---

Last edited by Pentaxor; 01-22-2010 at 01:18 AM.

[Raptorman]

I'll pay for shipping if you don't want it

[PentaxPoke]

I know you guys on the forums treat our "company line" with suspicion, but it is the truth. I can understand how someone who has had a problem with the lens may not find any comfort in that, but I think from the data we have that our stance on this issue is accurate.

Ah yes, it was only a matter of time before we heard the "people who are on forums are overzealous nutcases" inference. In my opinion, many people who frequent technology forums such as this are much more knowledgeable and experienced than the average user of a product. That is one reason I find them so helpful. No matter how much I think I know, I seem to always learn something here. You have a full range of people from pros to nubs, old to young, with lots of different types of experience. I'll wager that there are a few posters here that I could name that are more aware of the history of Pentax than the average Pentax employee.

Companies might learn quite a bit about potential problems before they become widespread, if they learn from the people who are most experienced and most enthusiastic about their products. In the internet age, those people are often found on forums.

[Pentaxor]

I'll pay for shipping if you don't want it

but first you have to pay the $800 non-working lens + paypal fees, which IMO you would pass on.

I know you guys on the forums treat our "company line" with suspicion, but it is the truth. I can understand how someone who has had a problem with the lens may not find any comfort in that, but I think from the data we have that our stance on this issue is accurate.

I don't think there is any way to quantify people who quit Pentax, because their DA* lens did not work, but I would hope that if someone was upset with their lens that they would either send it in to us or return it. If they did either of those things, they would show up in our numbers.

They're f***ing trashing us? We do a hell of a lot more than they do to promote their products when they work. We have a right to trash them when their products fail in significant numbers.

Ned Bunnell and John Carlson, if you're reading this, take your hands off your peckers, pull your pants up and do your jobs. Provide us with some answers and come up with some solutions.

What does SDM stand for anyway, Self Destruct Mechanism? They stopped making Mission Impossible movies, there's no chance of a product placement there.

[simico]

Why would I pay to have an out of warranty lens fixed if the cost and bad vibes were enough to make me switch? Are they really too blind to see that people aren't buying these lenses out of fear of getting a bad one, and not wanting the hassle of Pentax repair having more time with the lens than the purchaser? Or having it fail out of warranty and being stuck? But hey, what's the big deal, right? Who wouldn't want to spend $800+ on a lens, just to fork out another $300 just over a year later to get it to work. WAKE UP PENTAX!! APPEARANCE IS EVERYTHING HERE!! Your SDM appears, to devoted users and skeptics alike, to be shit!

Maybe all those people not buying DA* and people with their DA* failing after warranty period should start to write mails to Pentax:

"Dear Pentax,

I'm afraid to purchase you XXX DA* lens due to all the issues I've read and your ridiculously short 1 year warranty on a premium lens, so I just gave my YYY amount of money to Sigma/Tamron to purchase their fine ZZZ lens with 3/6 years warranty.

Keep up the good work on decreasing your income by frightening away your potential customers!

Best regards,
...."

or

"Dear Pentax,

My XXX DA* lens has just failed after the 1 year warranty period which is, by the way, ridiculously short for a premium lens. Since I'm not willing to pay YYY amount of money for getting it fixed and risk another failure within short time again, I'll spend that money to purchase ZZZ lens from Sigma/Tamron.

Keep up the good work on decreasing your income by frightening away your customers!

Best regards,
...."

Then Pentax couldn't say "we do not hear and know about people quiting Pentax and that unfixed failures after warranty period don't show up in their numbers.

[paulelescoces]

Gary... loved this...

Ned Bunnell and John Carlson, if you're reading this, take your hands off your peckers, pull your pants up and do your jobs. Provide us with some answers and come up with some solutions.

I dont believe Pentax is either willing or able to admit any issue... I think the liability would scare them off...
however... if they are reading... an extended warranty will provide an easy out for them... they get confidence back in the products, as products are covered under warranty there will be no question that their data will be correct (i.e. all defects will be sent to them... I am sure they will have data missing with some not willing to stump up the repair fee).... This will be at a cost to them but I am sure this cost will provide extra drive internally to solve any issues that they may be having.

[Rondec]

The question that I have is "Are things any better after the repair?" Is this a problem that is fixable, or do these lenses just need complete redesign from the ground up with different motors and different mounts? No one knows. I had a 16-50 fail and has been working fine now for the 4 months since I got it back. I feel better about it than I would getting a new lens, since I hope that Pentax has figured out what went wrong and has fixed it.

There is no way that they are going to admit a problem and issue a recall, but the fear of SDM failure is destroying their chances of selling a lot more of these optically great lenses.

[jeffrey r]

The question that I have is "Are things any better after the repair?" Is this a problem that is fixable, or do these lenses just need complete redesign from the ground up with different motors and different mounts? No one knows. I had a 16-50 fail and has been working fine now for the 4 months since I got it back. I feel better about it than I would getting a new lens, since I hope that Pentax has figured out what went wrong and has fixed it.

There is no way that they are going to admit a problem and issue a recall, but the fear of SDM failure is destroying their chances of selling a lot more of these optically great lenses.

There have been some reports like yours of at least temporary success with replacement lenses, and some reports of repeated SDM failures from replacement lenses. So I think the jury is out as to whether Pentax has truly changed the mechanics of the SDM system.

And Pentax better understand that for all of the benefits they reap from the internet forums (look at the love and hype for the DA limiteds, and FA limiteds, even the good old FA and F primes), they can also get called out by the internet forums when there is a real issue, and this SDM issue is a real issue. Extend our warranties, plain and simple, retool the SDM system, and be done with this nonsense.

[reeftool]

PP, Class A & Peter - I made similar responses back to the rep, as diplomatically as possible, and all I could get in return was:

I know you guys on the forums treat our "company line" with suspicion, but it is the truth. I can understand how someone who has had a problem with the lens may not find any comfort in that, but I think from the data we have that our stance on this issue is accurate.

I don't think there is any way to quantify people who quit Pentax, because their DA* lens did not work, but I would hope that if someone was upset with their lens that they would either send it in to us or return it. If they did either of those things, they would show up in our numbers.

Ohhhh... [bangs head against wall]

There is probably no way to quantify people who won't buy DA* lenses either because they have read of all the problems. I'm not quitting Pentax but I'm not going to purchase an SDM lens.

[Pentaxor]

There have been some reports like yours of at least temporary success with replacement lenses, and some reports of repeated SDM failures from replacement lenses. So I think the jury is out as to whether Pentax has truly changed the mechanics of the SDM system.

And Pentax better understand that for all of the benefits they reap from the internet forums (look at the love and hype for the DA limiteds, and FA limiteds, even the good old FA and F primes), they can also get called out by the internet forums when there is a real issue, and this SDM issue is a real issue. Extend our warranties, plain and simple, retool the SDM system, and be done with this nonsense.

I dunno if they are doing the math on this or just simply playing dumb about a real problem. if they are basing their findings on product statistics, then why dont they look or compare the statistics of other lenses as well? it should be pretty obvious that one particular product is being singled out here, and not the entire Pentax lens lineup. maybe they dont have a statistical analyst to figure out or compare which among their products have a bigger number of complaints. certainly they would find such complaints in the DA, DA LTDS, FA, FA LTDs absent or at a negligible rate and the DA* zooms have a high rate. that alone explains that there is a problem.

[Ash]

There are also enough economically blessed Pentax users out there in the world without the foreknowledge we have here about DA* issues for there to be a steady influx of DA* sales and smooth out any perceived lower sale rates of the lenses. Pentax could even justify the lower sale numbers by the significantly lower number of high-end users buying into Pentax. And there are *lots* of ways to analyse data, present it and formulate a conclusion about the issue.

So IMO, the statistics used to justify Pentax's stance on the SDM issue is about as useful as basing the prevalence of the common cold with the number of doctor visits for cold symptoms.