[WorksAsIntended]

First of all, in my first statement I was not talking about what the law forces, but what should be done in a company that considers themselves having a good service (other from the case presented by the op).

I can only speak about how it is handled in Germany and not in other countries. There is a German service partner deciding for Ricoh how to proceed. As this is my forced adress, I do not care if it is them or Ricoh making false decissions.

Well, first to sdm (which yes, was before Ricoh):
The error in production was known to the company within the span of warranty ("Gewährleistung", not "Garantie", I miss knowledge about legal terms in english, sorry). This indicates clearly that the product was flawed when delivered. If there is a serial error in the products which may or may not destroy the product within the span of warranty the company is forced to let customers know and replace or repair the product. If the company does not inform customers they need to correct it after the warranty. In this case Pentax/Hoya was lucky enough nobody was furious enough to force them to admit its a serial error. So in terms of law they are allowed to not repair it under warranty if the warranty span is over. Talking about best practise however it is really bad for a customer to refuse free repair and does not help its reputation. Even Nikon, which are not keen admiting errors, replaces serial errors on the cameras, I think it was the D750 where they had the bad shutter?

Decentering, the only case from Ricoh times, of course if often seen in lenses. The refuse to repair it when first send in may be not to uncommon either but still leaves a bad taste.
I wrote here earlier that I do not consider Pentax products being of bad quality, quite the opposite in fact, but the way defects are dealed with, from my limited experience, was rather bad.

About the battery grip: it was another case of course where in terms of law it was ok, sure. But to me as a customer, when a company calls it weather proofed, I expect it to be weather proofed even when there is no certification on that which can be used in a legal matter. The rainy day where it was damaged was a day I used non weather proofed lenses that had no issues what so ever, it was a light rain, nothing else. The thumb selection wheel after the rain however was broken and even made the camera one unusable as long as the grip was turned on.

Again, it might be ok from a legal standpoint, but still it is far from good customer service.

Sony, afaik, does not call their cameras water resistent (and they surely are not).

I had other occasions where I was pleased with the customer service too, my first FA77 (which I later destroyed by accident) got repaired for a fair price.
Back when I bought the k10d in Germany there was a one time free cleaning and lens calibration with it, which I made use of and was happy about.
I also had a broken bottom plate on my k10d within the first couple of weeks (not to uncommen on the very first k10d production cycle as I came to know later, but usually already detected during assambly and not shipped to customers) which got replaced rather quickly.

My opinion is just that, based on over a decade of reading this Forum daily, and (for a time, though not since RIAC went fully internet) having persoanal contact with Ricoh Imaging employees. I have intervened on behalf of members who could not get satisfaction from C.R.I.S. and Precision and obtained replacement lenses when I knew people. Your dealer has a Rep, and can do the same.

There are plenty of cases where Ricoh accepted responsibity for manufacturing defects (150-450 seals; K-1 Mode Dial). What happens (rarely) at Ricoh is:

1. Supply of spare parts is exhausted and it is presumed they are reluctant to make more until there are more repairs in the que. (Likely the case for the Canada thread)
2. Refuse to acknowledge a design fault (SDM motors on DA* zooms and aperture block failure on K-50 series, both out of warranty period)*
3. Failure to fully equip and/or train Precision (as much a Precision problem a a Ricoh problem) sometimes requiring Japan repair of high-end / low volume lenses (150-450 seals binding).

I don’t believe they have made a second batch of DA560’s; they are still selling stock from the initial run.

I realize the distinction is irrelevant to an end-user. IMO it is more likely this is a one-off and a result of poor communication between your dealer and Precision (or Ricoh). To allege a company intentionally fails to honor a warranty (as the other member did) is reckless and disparaging without basis in fact. As an attorney you should know better.


* I do hold them at fault for the SDM motors. That issue carried over from Asahi to Pentax to Hoya, and was quietly resolved by Ricoh.

Thanks for that explanation. However, I do disagree as to one point: "To allege a company intentionally fails to honor a warranty (as the other member did) is reckless and disparaging without basis in fact. "; as an attorney, I know that people are presumed to have intended the ordinary and probable consequences of their actions. And, since I have three such experiences with Ricoh, now, I see what we lawyers call "a pattern or practice", which takes it out of "intentional" and into the realm of "willful". At this point, it's not a mere allegation, it's a legal presumption. I'd love it if they were to sue me for product disparagement over the statements I've made here. "Please don't throw me into that briar patch, Bre'r Fox!"

Status update: here it is, March 9th, and no communication from Ricoh or their agents at all, no lens, much less a repaired lens. I would have expected something after two full months, like, "We're still working on it.", but there's been no indication that they're doing anything at all.

[termy]

This is really quite bad.

Agree that, if it needs more time to resolve, at least give an update or something.

No sound no anything, is just bad.

Sigh. Hope none of the DFA lenses i have ever have this "falling apart" problem.

[brewmaster15]

....I don’t believe they have made a second batch of DA560’s; they are still selling stock from the initial run...

That may be very true. Among pentax users its probably more of a "specialty" lens. It would be interesting to know how many members of the forum have this lens.. I suspect not many but could be wrong about that.

Sadly for whatever reasons that ultimately are at the root of this warranty issue, The handling of it by the the responsible parties is very poor and short sighted,IMO. Brand loyalty only goes so far, even among the most dedicated users....and negative publicity can hurt a business far longer than the immediate present issue.

I have to say that after reading Allens' experience with the DFA 150-450 that I have worried that mine will fall apart. I find I baby mine now.

When the SDM issues were front and center I avoided anything SDM until the issue was resolved.I still will not buy a used SDM lens in case of failure and have only just started considering new ones relatively recently.

This thread has definitely put me off on buying a DA560.. Its a lot of money for a product that may have a production /design flaw and may have warranty support issues. Its probably irrational of me to form an opinion based on isolated events but by reading this thread the general consensus is one that seems to indicate people see this as a possible flaw in production or in warranty repairs , possibly in at least two lines of large lenses.Even if they are isolated occasions. Its enough to put off potential customers like myself, at least for the time being.. which is a shame as I had my sights on the DA560.

This is the true cost to businesses that do not fullfil their customers expectations in product quality and in dealing with issues.

Al

[GUB]

Could you clarify whether Ricoh considered that there was anything wrong with the first lens you had a dispute with them over?

[WorksAsIntended]

Two lenses that fall apart for no reason is a lot of bad luck...

Could you clarify whether Ricoh considered that there was anything wrong with the first lens you had a dispute with them over?

They never said anything about it one way or the other - another case of zero communication. They just kept the thing. After a couple of months, I used the "credit billing error" feature of the Fair Credit Billing Act (U.S.) to get the bank to back out the original charge. No reimbursement for the couple hundred bucks+ it cost me in shipping & insurance.

So, yesterday, the camera store called me and told me Precision had gotten the lens back to 'em, so I went out there and picked it up. That was March 17. I'll check it out this afternoon and see if it works (without falling apart).

[aslyfox]

hoping for the best

hoping for the best

Thanks, I appreciate that. I still haven't actually tested it yet, but I did unpack it and put the UV filter* and quick-release plate back on it. Funny thing, though - the ring thingie that has the foot doogit on it didn't have anything to do with the problem, but they sent me a second one back inside the case along with the lens. That part is integral to the lens, so there's no point in sending it to me, as it's basically unusable on its own.

Of course, there was no explanation - the manager of the store that was acting as intermediary told me they hadn't gotten any information at all, asking me whether I've ever done business with Precision ("Yes.", I said, with a knowing smile), and then then he said something like, well, then you understand. The only thing I can figure is that they replaced that foot-ring thing for some unknown mystical reason, and sent me the old one back along with the lens. Bizarre; funny that they didn't bother to send back the other parts that needed replacement, i.e., parts that would constitute evidence in court. I wonder if they think they can make up some other excuse for why the work was done, falsify the records, and think they can come in and say, "We don't know what he's talking about, we just replaced the foot-ring as requested." I've seen people do stuff like that and, in my experience, it only compounds their problems. Maybe it works in a New Jersey court.

Anyway, when I pick the lens up, it stays in one piece. That's a good thing.

* Yes, I'm one of those people who routinely use UV filters on the objective lens. I do it because I like it that way, and I'm not interested in arguing about it. I would be happy, however, to explain why I think a 9mm or .38spc. is superior to a .45ACP.

[aslyfox]

. . . Anyway, when I pick the lens up, it stays in one piece. That's a good thing.

it's a start for sure

Two lenses that fall apart for no reason is a lot of bad luck...

It just occurred to me that my original statement was ambiguous. The first 560mm I got didn't fall apart, it just couldn't focus on anything.

[SSGGeezer]

I would be happy, however, to explain why I think a 9mm or .38spc. is superior to a .45ACP.

Heresy Sir! All proper handgun calibers must start with .4! (Not really but My Kimber will always be my favorite!)

I think I figured out why they put an unnecessary and unusable second foot attachment ring in the case with the lens. In my description of the problem, I'd stated that I'd tried to pick the lens up by its foot, when the lens fell apart. I suspect they're going to argue that my complaint was about the foot, not the overtightened internal screws. They're going to say they fixed it by replacing the foot and cover up the stuff about the parts damaged during original assembly of the lens. My guess is that there's no documentation about exactly what they did do to repair the lens other than replacing the foot; which leads to even more questions: did they charge me for replacing that part unnecessarily, and how is it that it costs more than six hundred bucks to replace that one part? If that's all they claim to have done, and the thing is obviously in good shape (they sent it back to me, after all, with no evidence or documentation to suggest that there was anything wrong with it), why did they do anything to the lens at all?