[Mooncatt]

Right for repair also want access to the parts that these companies make deals with to be as hard as possible to obtain. Also you make it sound like independent repair wouldn't go through the proper channels (almost implying there's already currently a choice to?).

To an extent, there already is the option for independents to go through the proper channel. To do so means spending extra time and money to get certified to get that access, which will mean no more cheaper independent options for those services they are currently able to provide. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Astro-Baby]

The point of right to repair is surely this.......

Some time ago I bought a Nikon digital. It was quite expensive as a point and shoot but with full manual override. Kind of like an old school rangefinder. Quite expensive which I didnt mind paying based on past experience of Nikon quality (what a mug eh ? Should have known better that like VW they trade on their past glory not on reality ). Anyway three years later the camera goes on the fritz. Out of warranty and Nikon say ‘sorry mate we wont repair those’ so the thick end of £600 is scrap for landfill and I have to buy a brand new camera. There was no reason for me to upgrade as I was perfectly happy with the camera up until it broke down. So much for all the 6 Sigma guff about built in reliability. Now thats annoying but the whole point is the camera is landfill after barely 3 years. I cant believe that mine was unique as many people were moaning about the same camera. Lets say that Nikon made a few thousand of them, thats a few ton of landfill that could have been repaired but instead its now buried, slowly decomposing into toxic chemicals that are going go be around for s few hundred, if not thousand years.
We cant simply keep on like this, for a start the resources of the planet will expire and one day soon you will be buying the latest techno today and having to resort to basket weaving and a neolthic society the next and even if that werent true you will end up living in a toxic waste dump looking fondly at your grandkids who have three eyes and six arms while coughing up gloop from contaminated land, food and water supplies.

Harking back to the Nikon, by comparison my Nikon F with a bit of routine work is still going after almost 60 years, now thats sustainability for you. And all built without 6 Sigma and ‘quality engineering’ crap thats much talked about but translates into bunging out product with no consideration of the long term consequences.

It HAS to be regulated. Nobody objects now to cars having seatbelts, lead free fuel, not drinking and driving. We all accept that a government has to step in when harm is being done....at least I cant recall anyone screaming that corporates shouldnt be regulated against and that peoples choices were being infinged when Thalidomide was banned. Nobody suggests that electric companies should be given free rein to dispose of nuclear fuels anyway they choose and no one suggests water companies should be free to put any old water into the drinking water supply.....these are all basic regulations. We all need them.
Of course corporates will fight it tooth and nail, look at the tobacco industry and the car business screaming when unleaded became law. It was going to cost billions blah blah blah. Trust me so long at theres two cents in it no one will close up shop.
Consumers will take some time to educate, just like they did with seat belts, non smoking etc but its only at most a generation and a few hard shocks from recessions yet to come will soon curb spending on the latest and greatest.
Its not communist, its not even socialist its about taking care of the environment which we all need go live.

[Serkevan]

To be fair to Six Sigma, electronics are far more complicated (particularly these days) than a mechanical device.

The problem is that *Nikon* might apply Six-Sigma well but, if some of the component suppliers don't (and good luck with that, ahem green solenoids ahem), then you're gonna have a weak link there.

I could go on a massive rant about 6-S (my previous job insisted on it because it's the trend, despite not being a manufacturing factory and half of the precepts not even really being applicable) but that's a bit too off-topic.

Keeping it to right to repair *on cameras*, I understand that some repairs are a tough job or need a lot of work... But that's also because of how things are built. I'd take an easy-to-repair construction even if it was a touch larger or less electronically advanced. The Fairphone is made up of a bunch modules, all of them user replaceable and they just kinda slot into each other. If their specs were a bit less bad and software-induced obsolescence weren't such an issue with phones I'd pony up the 600€ knowing I'd have almost a decade of phone with a repair here and there.

Can't do that with a camera, unfortunately, unless it's the GXR.

It's not about emissions testing, it's about the configuration of emissions control functions, i.e., aftermarket parts that can't be installed without committing a federal felony (pretty much anything affecting carburation or exhaust). See 40 CFR § 85.1701 et seq.

The EPA doesn't conduct emissions testing, that's state and local authorities that do that. I'm in northern Wisconsin and that Chevy example would be valid here, because that don't have emissions testing. If I were to register it in the Milwaukee area, it would need tested.

As for the automotive market in general, owners aren't typically going to the car manufacturer for the parts. They go to the local parts store and buy parts from aftermarket suppliers or even the OEM suppliers, bypassing the car maker. That currently isn't much of a option for cameras and other devices.

[BigMackCam]

The point of right to repair is surely this.......

Some time ago I bought a Nikon digital. It was quite expensive as a point and shoot but with full manual override. Kind of like an old school rangefinder. Quite expensive which I didnt mind paying based on past experience of Nikon quality (what a mug eh ? Should have known better that like VW they trade on their past glory not on reality ). Anyway three years later the camera goes on the fritz. Out of warranty and Nikon say ‘sorry mate we wont repair those’ so the thick end of £600 is scrap for landfill and I have to buy a brand new camera. There was no reason for me to upgrade as I was perfectly happy with the camera up until it broke down. So much for all the 6 Sigma guff about built in reliability. Now thats annoying but the whole point is the camera is landfill after barely 3 years. I cant believe that mine was unique as many people were moaning about the same camera. Lets say that Nikon made a few thousand of them, thats a few ton of landfill that could have been repaired but instead its now buried, slowly decomposing into toxic chemicals that are going go be around for s few hundred, if not thousand years.
We cant simply keep on like this, for a start the resources of the planet will expire and one day soon you will be buying the latest techno today and having to resort to basket weaving and a neolthic society the next and even if that werent true you will end up living in a toxic waste dump looking fondly at your grandkids who have three eyes and six arms while coughing up gloop from contaminated land, food and water supplies.

Harking back to the Nikon, by comparison my Nikon F with a bit of routine work is still going after almost 60 years, now thats sustainability for you. And all built without 6 Sigma and ‘quality engineering’ crap thats much talked about but translates into bunging out product with no consideration of the long term consequences.

It HAS to be regulated. Nobody objects now to cars having seatbelts, lead free fuel, not drinking and driving. We all accept that a government has to step in when harm is being done....at least I cant recall anyone screaming that corporates shouldnt be regulated against and that peoples choices were being infinged when Thalidomide was banned. Nobody suggests that electric companies should be given free rein to dispose of nuclear fuels anyway they choose and no one suggests water companies should be free to put any old water into the drinking water supply.....these are all basic regulations. We all need them.
Of course corporates will fight it tooth and nail, look at the tobacco industry and the car business screaming when unleaded became law. It was going to cost billions blah blah blah. Trust me so long at theres two cents in it no one will close up shop.
Consumers will take some time to educate, just like they did with seat belts, non smoking etc but its only at most a generation and a few hard shocks from recessions yet to come will soon curb spending on the latest and greatest.
Its not communist, its not even socialist its about taking care of the environment which we all need go live.

Well said, Mel. Excellent post.

In all this, however, I believe there's a balance to be found. It's unreasonable, I think - not to mention impractical - to force companies into designing products so that they're easily repairable by consumers. Imagine the size of a K-1III designed so that all parts are easily accessible... it would be huge Nevertheless, workshop procedures and diagnostic tools exist for even the most complex, miniaturised, tightly-packed products that enable authorised service centres to repair most faults, and manufacturers make modules and components available to them for those repairs.

There's no reason why independent repair shops shouldn't have access to the same documentation (paid for, of course), diagnostic tools (again, paid for) and components, at prices that are profitable for the manufacturer. Ideally, individual owners should have access to these too. Manufacturers and authorised service centres could apply seals to joins or access points in equipment casings that, when broken, void warranty. That way, there can be no claim against the manufacturer from the owner if he or she damages their product further through unauthorised servicing...

[Mooncatt]

The point of right to repair is surely this.......

Some time ago I bought a Nikon digital. It was quite expensive as a point and shoot but with full manual override. Kind of like an old school rangefinder. Quite expensive which I didnt mind paying based on past experience of Nikon quality (what a mug eh ? Should have known better that like VW they trade on their past glory not on reality ). Anyway three years later the camera goes on the fritz. Out of warranty and Nikon say ‘sorry mate we wont repair those’ so the thick end of £600 is scrap for landfill and I have to buy a brand new camera.

If they aren't willing to repair a camera themselves, then chances are they won't have the parts to sell for anyone else to repair it either, rendering right to repair moot. Even if they did sell replacement parts to comply with right to repair, that brings up the next issue others already pointed out about how long must they produce and warehouse parts? Technically they could do so only for the warranty period, when people would primarily go to authorized service shops anyway, and be in compliance. Again, right to repair would be moot, at least in most respects. If they are required to make parts available long after the warranty is gone, then that is a lot of wasted time, warehousing space, materials, and money. You talk about the landfill waste of your camera, but what of the landfill waste of countless parts built but never sold?

[Mooncatt]

I could go on a massive rant about 6-S (my previous job insisted on it because it's the trend, despite not being a manufacturing factory and half of the precepts not even really being applicable) but that's a bit too off-topic.

Did you by any chance have a pointy haired boss, and a co-worker named Dilbert? Lol

[BigMackCam]

If they aren't willing to repair a camera themselves, then chances are they won't have the parts to sell for anyone else to repair it either, rendering right to repair moot. Even if they did sell replacement parts to comply with right to repair, that brings up the next issue others already pointed out about how long must they produce and warehouse parts? Technically they could do so only for the warranty period, when people would primarily go to authorized service shops anyway, and be in compliance. Again, right to repair would be moot, at least in most respects. If they are required to make parts available long after the warranty is gone, then that is a lot of wasted time, warehousing space, materials, and money.

They already manufacture (or have someone else manufacture) these parts, and they wouldn't (certainly shouldn't, IMHO) have to produce or warehouse them any longer than they currently do, which already seems to be longer than the warranty period given that some folks get their cameras and lenses repaired by the authorised service centres long after warranty expiration. The only differences would be (a) the customers buying some of those parts... independent service shops and individuals, in addition to the authorised service centres that currently buy them, and (b) increase in demand for such parts, given that more cameras would likely be repaired if it was more cost-effective.

You talk about the landfill waste of your camera, but what of the landfill waste of countless parts built but never sold?

I see no reason why the number of those parts built but never sold would increase significantly - especially if they were manufactured in batches as required. This batch production clearly happens already, as Precision and other service centres often have to wait months for parts availability from Ricoh in Japan...

[UncleVanya]

They already manufacture (or have someone else manufacture) these parts, and they wouldn't (certainly shouldn't, IMHO) have to produce or warehouse them any longer than they currently do, which already seems to be longer than the warranty period given that some folks get their cameras and lenses repaired by the authorised service centres long after warranty expiration. The only differences would be (a) the customers buying some of those parts... independent service shops and individuals, in addition to the authorised service centres that currently buy them, and (b) increase in demand for such parts, given that more cameras would likely be repaired if it was more cost-effective.



I see no reason why the number of those parts built but never sold would increase significantly - especially if they were manufactured in batches as required. This batch production clearly happens already, as Precision and other service centres often have to wait months for parts availability from Ricoh in Japan...

The reality is parts coverage is spotty. We have seen currently sold lenses like DA* 50-135 rejected for repair because certain parts were not available. That shouldn’t happen with a shipping lens. But putting that aside, the point of a right to repair goes far beyond the lack of parts access as stated early on in the thread. Actively stifling competition and forcing people to pay insanely inflated prices is part of the drive to change BACK to how things used to be. We don’t always have to take our cars to a dealer - let alone the manufacturer - for repairs. We have marketplace choices that make it rational to seek out alternate repair options. This is how the camera business was run for decades. Modern business practice has been to either outsource repairs (Pentax, Nikon, etc. ) or drive them to be profit centers (Apple) and the long term value of products has suffered from it. Too few consumers either understand this up front or plan with this in mind and we end up where we are with a throw away culture and little alternative.

[stemked]

It's a pain. I have a 100mm DAW f2.8 macro that has a broken lip. I sent it to precision and they quoted a price beyond the price for a new lens, so I had to buy a new lens. My local guy could easily have fixed it and he loved Pentax equipment (recently he passed away). I don't like the monopoly generated by this rule especially since I feel Precision way over-charges (my local guy used to charge a third to a half what they charge.

[RobA_Oz]

It's a pain. I have a 100mm DAW f2.8 macro that has a broken lip. I sent it to precision and they quoted a price beyond the price for a new lens, so I had to buy a new lens. My local guy could easily have fixed it and he loved Pentax equipment (recently he passed away). I don't like the monopoly generated by this rule especially since I feel Precision way over-charges (my local guy used to charge a third to a half what they charge.

That’s a bit of a sad story. I had a failed aperture mechanism on my (otherwise very good condition, secondhand) DFA100/2.8WR recently, and it cost me all of around $300AUD including a new aperture sub-assembly, freight both ways and an optical realignment by the Australian service agents. The total cost of that lens plus the repair finished up around the price of a new lens, so I guess I haven’t lost much overall, as I’d have had to pay the freight anyway, with a new lens warranty, and I had a fair amount of use of it before it failed.

It sounds like the US isn’t getting as good a deal out of your service agent as we are, and that’s not good, considering there are probably many more Pentax products in the US than here in Oz.

[bhbrake]

It's a pain. I have a 100mm DAW f2.8 macro that has a broken lip. I sent it to precision and they quoted a price beyond the price for a new lens, so I had to buy a new lens. My local guy could easily have fixed it and he loved Pentax equipment (recently he passed away). I don't like the monopoly generated by this rule especially since I feel Precision way over-charges (my local guy used to charge a third to a half what they charge.

This was my experience- anything I quoted through precision with shipping and such ended up being replacement cost. My local shop is
Canikonn, Fuji, Sony. They tried to get in pentax's network but ricoh would not talk to them, and this was when their headquarters was still here in Englewood, CO.

[photogem]

Just a few things which should be possible for DIY repair and ... not too expensive:

- Battery hook K30/50/500/K-S1 (can't remember the K-S2/K70 if as much fragile)

- Back-up battery !!!! There is even no mention in the manual that if the camera is "resides" without its Li-Ion (or AA's in earlier versions) for a longer time this tiny back-up battery will drain because it is a Lithium type.
With the *istD and *istDS we had a CR2016 and thus, those models never suffered the problems which for example the K200D and others had.

The K30/50/500 (K100D and if I remember correct K-m, K-x and K-r as well) had it at least on the backside of the mainboard but exchanging it requires more skill than repairing the solenoid. If designed for being serviced, even there it wouldn't need to be soldered, there are other solutions.

The repair of the solenoid is pretty easy if one dares, possibly one might need help from a person doing the fine soldering.

Lenses:
I would love it if the bloody SDM motor could be repaired or ... at least available for DIY.
It is not that difficult but again, more skill needed than repair of the solenoid.


Otherwise I fully agree, specialist work belongs to specialists.

BUT: I have seen ridicilous arguments from some of them and that upsets me.

- One was the invention of a dummy-chip-resistor which needs to be replaced together with the solenoid :
- Another from a European official repair place stating "that the problem of a stuck solenoid arises because often old lenses are used and their aperture-lever needs more force to be moved than those of modern lenses. This extra resistance can lead to a stuck solenoid."
An argument based on absolute total sheer nonsense!
And they knew they talked nonsense because they modify the green solenoid by edging the plunger, a method a bit better than the silly filing/sanding method and yet it fails sometimes again. How often I don't know but I know of some cases because I was approached for help.


I hate it when customers are exploited, particular when the repairshop knows that the customer has very little knowledge and misuses that.


A typical case I experienced myself was with a local car garage:
I was then driving a (now) vintage Volvo (940), a car I liked very much. Because there was no local Volvo-garage, I had my winter/summer-tyres stored at the local VW garage.
So one November I phoned them to ask for an appointment to swap summer- for winter-tyres. Couple hours later I got a call with the message, that my tyres are run down, too low profile: 4mm, it would be dangerous to drive with them. I need new tyres.
Well, I knew I just had bought them one season before, so this cannot be. So I mailed them that I would like them swapped anyway.
Next moring I received the answer with the meassage: "Our Mr. Zimmer mailed you twice telling you that your tyres are run down completly and one of your tyres is punctured as well with a nail, you really must not use them."*

Well, I never got any such message!

So 10 min. later I was there and demanded my tyres. A guy brought them out:
8mm profile, excellent condition, no puncture. I asked the guy what all this was about and he just stammered a senseless apology.

*I kept that mail, it was the most impudent try of this kind I ever came across

I know many similar stories.

Things like that brought me very early on to learn more about technical things, to understand them. So I built up my computer as well from selected parts and do the service completly by myself. I tougth my children to do the same and they took it on very well, did it even better than myself.
A lot can be learned and is worth doing so. Learning never ends and that is good so!

A repair is a service. One has to understand the meaning of this word!

And yes, the person receiving a service needs to ackknowledge and respect this as well. Many are not able to do so, are often just spoiled brats
and demand.

An ancient saying:
Human nature often is like that:
- for the first gift he bows
- for the second he kisses your hand
- for the third he fawns
- then a faint nod with his head
- becomes your best friend and demands more
- insults you
- brings you to court

[normhead]

There's no reason why independent repair shops shouldn't have access to the same documentation (paid for, of course), diagnostic tools (again, paid for) and components

The reason being, the corporations who makes the product will have their reputation affected by the quality of repair, and have no control over who gets the parts will end their ability to enforce standards in the repair of their product.

[MarkJerling]

The reason being, the corporations who makes the product will have their reputation affected by the quality of repair, and have no control over who gets the parts will end their ability to enforce standards in the repair of their product.

I'm sure my repairs reputation has always exceeded that of Landrover.