[UncleVanya]

That's a major reason why I've gone out and bought a Canon 5ds-r & a bunch of EOS-EF lenses.

Good luck, the one person I know will who owns a Canon has the same lens repaired three times because the zoom got stuck.

I think horror stories abound and our easy ability to share them magnifies how they are seen.

[stevebrot]

Good luck, the one person I know will who owns a Canon has the same lens repaired three times because the zoom got stuck.

Like my friend who had 3 shutters replaced on her 7D...all under warranty.


Steve

[bdery]

Several places and yes, they can get parts. That does not mean that they can perform every repair or that they will sell you parts.

In Canada, no shop apart from the official repair store (Sun Camera, similar to Precision regarding the mode of operation) can get parts.

[UncleVanya]

Like my friend who had 3 shutters replaced on her 7D...all under warranty.


Steve

Yes, except in this case these repairs were outside the warranty. The user bragged about how good the lens was and how it was worth repairing. I didn’t have the heart to tell him it was a consumer grade lens.

... I struggle to see how such a low failure rate would be reason to forever give up on buying (new) Pentax lenses.
...

As I observed earlier, the failure rate doesn't affect my thinking one way or the other - it's the failure to honor the warranty after the product failure occurs within the warranted period. And, by the way, the DA 560 was my second lens to have fallen apart. In both cases, the warranty repair request was met with a demand for hefty fees. An implicit "F.U." (which I believe is the abbreviation for Fork Union Military Academy in Virginia).

[MarkJerling]

In both cases, the warranty repair request was met with a demand for hefty fees.

I'd suggest you contact your local legislators in order to have better consumer protection. We have something called the "Consumer Guarantee Act" which is very useful in situations like that.

I'd suggest you contact your local legislators in order to have better consumer protection. We have something called the "Consumer Guarantee Act" which is very useful in situations like that.

Thanks for that; as it happens I've done a lot of litigation under my state's consumer protection act on behalf of others. I'm still working on development of evidence (still waiting to see what the local dealer's angle is and whether Precision will ever send the DA 560 lens back to him.)

I'm guessing Ricoh thinks they're immune from local consumer protection statutes because they're located somewhere else. They probably don't know about modern "long arm" statutes. Another thing they probably didn't count on is a potential award of $1,500.00 statutory minimum damages and attorneys' fees.

---

Last edited by dlhawes; 12-17-2020 at 05:43 AM.

[UncleVanya]

Thanks for that; as it happens I've done a lot of litigation under my state's consumer protection act on behalf of others. I'm still working on development of evidence (still waiting to see what the local dealer's angle is and whether Precision will ever send the DA 560 lens back to him.)

I'm guessing Ricoh thinks they're immune from local consumer protection statutes because they're located somewhere else. They probably don't know about modern "long arm" statutes. Another thing they probably didn't count on is a potential award of $1,500.00 statutory minimum damages and attorneys' fees.

I would guess that they think the cost of litigating this type of situation outweighs the benefits for the majority of situations. It’s a calculated risk.

[MarkJerling]

Thanks for that; as it happens I've done a lot of litigation under my state's consumer protection act on behalf of others. I'm still working on development of evidence (still waiting to see what the local dealer's angle is and whether Precision will ever send the DA 560 lens back to him.)

I'm guessing Ricoh thinks they're immune from local consumer protection statutes because they're located somewhere else. They probably don't know about modern "long arm" statutes. Another thing they probably didn't count on is a potential award of $1,500.00 statutory minimum damages and attorneys' fees.

Sounds complicated. The mere mention of the Consumer Guarantee Act is usually enough to cause retailers here to find a solution pretty quickly. Good luck!

[VoiceOfReason]

---------- Post added 2020-12-15 at 12:46 PM ----------



Did they back out the charges?

Yes. completely dismissed them and sent it back under warranty repair.