Originally posted by BarryE Fair points made from my earlier post. However, I'd be interested to know what the current failure rate is now after 1.10 - is it as easy to force a failure ? If it's improved then this is not ideal, but my conjecture was that the 'fix' would likely to be iterative. Obviously ignoring help from anyone to solve this problem might be considered arrogant/poor pr/... or whatever - this surely counts against Ricoh. There's clearly grounds for improvement from the company.
Anyone know how Canon or Nikon have handled similar problems ? Or maybe, if they've occurred, from the smaller/specialist manufatureres - I suspect the main players have behaved rather similarly ...
Very seldom happens that an entire run goes back to be replaced.
Often it's about a certain range of serial numbers, and in case of big manufacturers, the number of units are rather big. In case of Pentax, the batches they produce are small.
Quite more often is the case that each case of malfunction is solved on an individual basis because there is no ground for a wide scale action. Why?
It is common sense: mind you,
not a single manufacturer wants to make a bad product. It is contrary to common sense. They all want to minimise cost, minimise problems and harms. And because of that, problems that may occur are in most cases such problems that are not symptomatic to all cameras in the product line, but only to some, and in some particular cases of use.
This K-3 problems is exactly one of such problems that is rare, and happens in certain circumstances only, and not in all cameras. As such, it is solved on an individual basis, as the pattern for the appearance of the problem is hard to establish without user's cooperation. So when Ricoh Imaging is stating they are onto it, it means that they will do their best to establish the pattern and minimise the risk for future batches of cameras. Say, if the problem is a combination of certain hardware and software interaction, they will do their best to issue a software patch based on current knowledge of the successful treatment of the issue, to minimise problems for some cameras out there. Still, some cameras may exhibit some issues despite the patch, because of other variables in the chain.
The K-3 is a well-designed camera, and is undoubtedly well-tested before manufacture. The rate of occurrence of this issue shows
it is not a design flaw, but rather a conditional occurrence, that will most likely not happen to you in everyday use of camera. But if it happens, it will be solved, and your warranty covers it.
Now when Ricoh Imaging has more feedback from its users, and the pattern of the issue is established more clearly, it is very likely the issue will be solved once and for all in future batches. But the issue must be clearly defined, or they run into another problem; solving one problem, but incurring a whole new problem. For example, one would say,
just redesign the mirror mechanism; that'' fix it. Or change all internal thermal sensors. Etc. But that is
wrong decision. A forced solution may fix the mirror-flop, but it may implant an all new set of variables and new unforeseen problems.