I pose this question with all sincerity. While at work today I pondered how is it that Canon has the right to stop servicing its equipment after x amount of years or however they decide when its time to. Please don't flame me, I sincerely want to know, I am not mad, disgruntled or anything like that, it just crossed my mind and I would like to know what gives them the right. And as an aspiring full time photographer I am totally open to "decisions made in the best interest of the business" so to speak.
And as to the subject title, I can take a old Chevy to a Chevy dealership and get it serviced, I think.
For starters, I think a lot of it has to do with the idea of disposable goods, especially with less expensive items nowadays. It's a lot easier for a repair center to refuse services for a $500 or even $5k lens instead of recommending that someone throw out their entire automobile when something goes wrong. That wouldn't be good business.
In addition, I don't think that the volume of repairs generally seen by photo service centers is large enough to warrant the production of old parts. Compare this to cars, which generally last just as long and require more preventative maintenance (therefore ensuring that garages have consistent business).
I'm sure there are other reasons which other members are more adept at explaining. At least this is a start.
Servicing your old Chevy is one thing, you don't necessarily need any out of the ordinary parts to do that. But I am sure that there are a lot of parts on that old Chevy that they would not be able to replace with genuine Chevy parts if they were to break. You would most likely still be able to get parts for the Chevy from an after market supplier... unfortunately, there aren't many after market suppliers for camera parts (lens elements, electircal parts, etc).
It's gotta be just business. If Chevy wouldn't work on a 15-year old car, than
the word would quickly get out and Chevys would drop in value (both used and new)
very fast, since you'd always have to factor in a certain probability that a
car that's otherwise fine could become undriveable and practically worthless
because some silly part isn't available.
[If the market is big enough, someone will make a part for the right price, though.
Witness my friend who restores old Packards. He can always get the parts he needs.]
Now, most of us look at a Canon lens and don't factor in the probability of it becoming
useless X years out. I guess we figure that 20 years from now we'll consider the
lens to be worn out if it dies. But if we were paying $20,000 for the lens, I'm quite
certain we'd be factoring that in, and then Canon would find it worth their time and
money to keep parts around and hold our hands and reassure us that they'll service
our lens for as long as we need.
Now, the people who have 200/1.8L lenses probably do feel a bit cheated that such
a great optic is hard to service now, but if it were worth enough, somebody would
make the parts from scratch and sell them to you.
The car companies (and Canon) are under no law or obligation to service your car
(lens) past its warranty period. In fact, the spectre of possible bankruptcy has led
to decreasing prices on Chryslers for just that reason.
On the other hand, Canon weighs the + and - of perpetual service and knows that
at some point, it doesn't pay to service anymore. And most buyers don't seem to
care; they just purchase Canon again or move to Nikon if they are upset.
Thanks for the replys. Like a said, I knew from a business standpoint they have a reason, however, it still kinda stinks from a consumers viewpoint.
I have a couple of 1d classics and if I needed a third body and could only afford older models I would not hesitate to throw caution to the wind. Likewise if I had the chedder for a 200 1.8 or a 300 2.8 non IS etc etc.
Thanks again for giving me a few more ways to look at it.
canon typically will service lenses as long as they have parts. once they stop production of a lens, they lose the ability to make new parts, so eventually they run out of stock. also it depends on what breaks; often new lenses share common parts with old lenses so depending on the problem sometimes they can fix, sometimes they can't...
It's not as bad as it sounds, it's only Canon who stop servicing, other agents take over, these, for the consumer, are faster, more efficient and cheaper.
With the exception of CPS, and the exception of specialist repairs not yet authorised out, 3rd party repair facilities are better. Canon does not offer its services as such, it's a warranty/support service and paid for service, but the general public are not encouraged.
I know this is a "how long is a piece of string" type question, but as a relative newcomer to Canon I was wondering how long I should reasonably expect my new kit to be supported?
This thread lacks substance without the original poster stating what lens Canon is not servicing. It may be a 20 year old lens or a 5 year old one. This would make a heck of difference.
In the case of a camera I own, an EOS 1, it was not a matter of not servicing the camera, it was availability of parts. As technology changes, so do the parts; it's hopefully called progress. While I was upset Canon didn't have the part needed to repair a 10 year old or so camera (this was about 2000), I understand that Canon uses newer (and hopefully better) technology as it updates it's products. I still had 10 years of hard use from the camera. Canon will service their products as long as parts are available.
From a Manufacturing side, Canon (Like Most Manufacturers) has streamlined the ways things are made in the past 20 years, sometimes making it impossible to remanufacture certain parts at a reasonable price with out a great deal of R&D and retooling. Generally it has nothing to do with service, when companies stop servicing something it is generally due to they ability to make those parts again or sometimes even receive materials from their vendors. Canon buys allot of raw materials from vendors that either stop producing them or go out of business. Sometimes not being able to precure the raw materials at the exact tolerance as the old ones plays a factor in replacement parts as well as newer models being released when there was no reason to update that product.
I believe (maybe someone can double check me on this) that consumer goods in this Country (USA) have to be factory serviced with parts (or replacement) for 7 years after they've been discontinued. I read this many years ago in a trade magazine but like I said, maybe someone can re-check this info.
Ray Simpson wrote:
In the case of a camera I own, an EOS 1, it was not a matter of not servicing the camera, it was availability of parts. As technology changes, so do the parts; it's hopefully called progress. While I was upset Canon didn't have the part needed to repair a 10 year old or so camera (this was about 2000), I understand that Canon uses newer (and hopefully better) technology as it updates it's products. I still had 10 years of hard use from the camera. Canon will service their products as long as parts are available.
On that note, Canon isn't going to stock up on numerous parts for old bodies/lenses because the majority of photographers jump onto new technology and don't stick with older bodies most of the time. They would be losing money by keeping a stock of old parts handy, just to make the minority of film shooters happy.
Yes servicing is not the problem - parts supply is. It would be nice if companies would issue a stated guarantee (or as a minimum their policy) of the length of time for which parts would be available. (subject to being in business). Certainly gas appliance manufacturers in the UK used to do this (I think it was for 10 years after production ceased as a minimum - but I could easily be incorrect)
Parts availability is definitely the issue, but at least with film cameras, you can find alot of options in repair beyond the manufacturers service centers. I have a couple of 40 year old 35mm cameras that have been mechanically repaired and I have 35+ year old shutters that can still be serviced. Sometimes at this age, the parts come from donor cameras and shutters, just like the parts for your 1939 Chevy came from the junkyard. I have no idea how this will work as the digital age progresses. Will shops graft the shutter from one camera and the sensor from another into a working body? Probably not. We've unfortunately moved towards a much more disposable economy.
And cars are headed this way too. In the past there was a degree of interchangeability between car models. But as cars increase in their electronic complexity and specialization, the interchangeability of parts has surely declined.
I had to replace the power unit of a 4 year old mac some time a go. They had the spare parts but wanted to charge 900$ to fix it
Frankly I do not like to see that Canon does not keep spare parts any longer than 7 years, however somehow it sounds also like a clear and somehow honest policy to begin with compared to other companies. Times have changed and today you are more of a consumer and less of a client. Not good!
davekone wrote:
This thread lacks substance without the original poster stating what lens Canon is not servicing. It may be a 20 year old lens or a 5 year old one. This would make a heck of difference.
Agreed.
I wonder if the OP had a Model T and tried to take into a Ford shop for parts or a repair. IMO, that's unrealistic to expect any company to offer that kind of service/repair. I don't believe Canon is unreasonable about this, especially given that lenses and camera bodies are probably a relatively small part of that company's bottom line.
I also am not sure I'm following the "what gives them the right" argument. Really? Getting to vote or bear arms are rights. We're talking about a business decision. Plain and simple.
)
