Canon

[Benjamin]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"]It&rsquo;s interesting that no one so far has raised a Canon warranty thread. In my opinion Canon&rsquo;s one year warranty is way inferior to Nikon&rsquo;s two year warranty on most of their DSLRs and five-year warranty on all their lenses. Sigma offers four year warranty on their optics and Tamron has six years.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"]I guess this is really just an one way argument since it would be ridiculous to think that Canon&rsquo;s doing better by offering one year warranty comparing to its rivals' multiple year warranties. Just a few years ago Canon may be the best in DSLR and lenses market but now it no longer holds &ndash; <span style="color: #ff0000;"]NIKON IS BACK! Sigma is also doing well with their 150/2.8 EX Macro (I used to own one), 50/1.4 EX and the very new 24-70/2.8 EX HSM. <span style="color: #0000ff;"]So Mr. Canon, would you kindly offer us a better warranty now? Not asking you to surpass your rivals but at least match up. That makes sense?
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"]Ben

[samoksner]

I never understood that either, after spending $6000 on a camera, lens and flash system, i should expect no service in 13 months? It's kinda sad because as far as service goes, Canon does well, i've been satisfies when i sent them things to be cleaned, adjusted, serviced.... Sigma's 4 year warranty, although I haven't needed it, makes me feel secure in my purchase, in 4 years, i probably won't mind if the lens craps out, by then i'll probly be lusting over some crazy new lens anyway

[Keith B]

That reminds me of that scene from Tommy Boy.


Kind of true though. Hyundais were viewed as cheap piles of junk until they slapped a 100,000 mile warranty on them.

[Benjamin]

I never understood that either, after spending $6000 on a camera, lens and flash system, i should expect no service in 13 months?

Same here, I have spent exactly $10grand on Canon and the only thing left with Warranty is my one month old 50D! That's pathetic! If i were using Nikon then all my stuff will still be within warranty especially my precious lenses!

makes me feel secure in my purchase

Although Canon hasn't failed on me but still, it's completly true. I feel even more secured when buying a Sigma knowing that at least in 5 years (here in Canada we somehow get 5 year warranty) if I don't drop my lens or somethingI don't need to empty my wallet when it malfunctions. In comparison I'm frankly less confident with Canon. Because one year warranty not only means i'm out of service in 12 months, but also makes me wonder how confident is Canon to their own products. By offering 5 year warranty Nikon/Sigma will by common sense make sure that their product doesn't fail in this period of time at least...

[Keith B]

I don't think it has anything to do with lack of confidence in product. The reality of it is, most cases of manufacturing flaws will be exploited in less than a year. There are exceptions of course. My fisheye is 6 months old and I've used for less than 100 shots. The one case I think this becomes a real issue is where it is an accidents that results in damage and Canon might fix anyway.


If anything it may be too confident. Warrantees are marketing ploys really, which is why I'm surprised they haven't extended the period of warrantee. I still believe outside of a year Canon will still evaluate issues, especially if you play the "Nikon Warrantee" card. I've heard of them replacing shutters in cameras that were past the one year and in the vicinity of shutter life actuation.

[Benjamin]

Make sense. But I would stillbelieve thatthey replace a shutter which passes the one year warranty is an exception. I'm told to pay for fine tuning my 24-70/2.8L even though the slight focusing problem was there since day one and I just found it on my 50D because I have live view to evaluate. The Canon representative insisted on a payment even after agreeing with me that this very much could be a problem that has been around for long. (Which is basically saying: "Ohh, too bad. Why don't you figure out the problem earlier?!") The lens is about one and half years old.


Also, there is another concern regarding transferrability of warranty. Nikon's 5 year warranty is completely transferrable as long as you keep the documents. While Canon's warranty is not transferrable at all according to what I'm told by the dealers.


I guess since I don't get to much warranty anyways if buy new from dealers then why not just better off buy grey market or even used lenses and save significant. After getting to know a number of photography people I now know where I can get good grey market stuff for well less than retail price and no tax. It's hard to justify how much the 1 year warranty is worth, while if I use Nikon I'll buy retail just because their 5 year warranty.


PS: my 16-35/2.8L II is grey market lens, got it absolutely brand new (not refurbished) for $300 less than retail price + tax. To my experience 1 year of warranty is not worth my extra $300, while 5 years will nicely deserve the retail cost. From now on I think if Canon's 1 year warranty remains, I'll say goodbye to dealers and get stuff new from my friends for a lot less. Rather, if my cheerless experience builds up I'll probably take action to switch system as Nikon's totally back in the game now.

[HiFiGuy1]

In comparison I'm frankly less confident with Canon. Because one year warranty not only means i'm out of service in 12 months, but also makes me wonder how confident is Canon to their own products. By offering 5 year warranty Nikon/Sigma will by common sense make sure that their product doesn't fail in this period of time at least...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

You've hit the nail on the head, intentionally or not. The point is not really that Canon is or is not confident in their products. It isthe public's perception of Canon's relative confidence that matters. The old canon "Perception is reality" really is applicable here.


However, the fact that Sigma/Nikon/et al stand behind their products longer does not make them more or less reliable than Canon products.


I own a systems integration company. Some of my manufacturers offer lifetime warranties on their products. That gives some customers peace of mind. Ironically, most of those products with a lifetime warrantyare not at the high-performance end of the market, and frankly aren't built as well as some of the stuff that has 5 or 10 year warranty terms. The only real exception to this that I can think of is Bryston, which is very highly-regarded, and they offer a 20 year transferrable warranty on their amplifier products.


Ultimately, I chose Canon because I think they have the best system of bodies and lenses, not because of the length of their warranty. I didn't frankly know the warranty was one year before I read this thread, and now that I know I stillcould not care less. It would not have made one bit of difference in my decision process. I don't know any sentient person who would choose a brand of D-SLR camera body primarily on the warranty period that is attached to it. Not that is irrelevant, far from it, but it is certainly not the most important of the criteria, in my opinion.


Not that I wouldn't welcome any manufacturer's increase in the warranty coverage. I would encourage Canon to do it to appear more competitive in the marketplace, at least regarding this one issue. I did notice, as a side note, that Canon is offering to repair the affected EOS 1D Mark III bodies for no charge, and there didn't seem to be any stipulations attached. So when it matters, if it makes anyone feel better, it seems that Canon has put their money where their mouth is, at least in this instance.

[Colin]

I own a systems integration company. Some of my manufacturers offer lifetime warranties on their products. That gives some customers peace of mind. Ironically, most of those products with a lifetime warrantyare not at the high-performance end of the market, and frankly aren't built as well as some of the stuff that has 5 or 10 year warranty terms. The only real exception to this that I can think of is Bryston, which is very highly-regarded, and they offer a 20 year transferrable warranty on their amplifier products.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Hello fellow systems integration dude!


I was thinking of exactly the same example.


Bryston makes some great, high quality amplifiers, and they often honor the warranty, so I've heard,beyond the original 20 year warranty period. However, in all cases, the fact is that a warranty is an insurance policy built into the price of the product. You PAY for that 20 year warranty, because chances are, the amplifier will need service. Electrolytic capacitors dry out. People accidentally short speaker cables, you name it.


When I actually used outboard power amplifiers, I had for a period a Bryston 4B-SST, which was actually a very nice amplifier. it was also $3k. Don't get me wrong, it was a nice amplifier. HOWEVER, in terms of performance and actual build quality, there were many amplifiers which were as good for less money. Aragon's 8008, for $2k, was arguably an equal. Aragon's 8008bb, which has remained, to this day, one of my favorite separate power amplifiers, was significantly superior for $2,500. Now, there's a subjective component to the audio performance, particularly if we're not doing tediously scientific double blind, gain-matched comparisons, but factually, that 8008bb, for less money, was technically superior in pretty muchevery way. But, the warranty was only a few years long. It still works, quite well.


A warrantydoes have value. It implies reliability. It insures us against additional repair costs for aduration. But, no matter what, you pay for it.

[Benjamin]

Ultimately, I chose Canon because I think they have the best system of bodies and lenses, not because of the length of their warranty. I didn't frankly know the warranty was one year before I read this thread, and now that I know I stillcould not care less. It would not have made one bit of difference in my decision process. I don't know any sentient person who would choose a brand of D-SLR camera body primarily on the warranty period that is attached to it.

For exactly the same reason I entered Canon as I knew that it was the best system on the market a few years back from now. I chose Canon knowing that they only have 1 year warranty - so by no means I'msaying thatmy decision is heavily driven by warranty. Now I'm facing an $100 repair bill,but if I found the bug earlier then it would have been fixed for free.In this case youmay notcare less about the warranty because Canon probablyhasn't failed on you. But the fact is that longer warranty will indeed protect users against repair costs, sometime it save a considerable amount of money - this is probably something nobody denies.


By now I realize it's probably not the case that Canon's not confident in their products. But anyway, hopefully Canon will come up with better warranty in a short term. PS: IMO Canon's losing its competitiveness against Nikon in almost every way at this moment; people now do have another identically good or even better option to choose from even if they purely value performance.

[anglefire]

Interestingly, following the problems with the MkIII, Canon UK at least gave a 2 year warranty on the camera. Just required registration.


However, if a bug was found in the camera after its warranty had expired, I would expect it to be fixed FOC - on the grounds that it is a latent defect.


I went to Cheltenham on Friday for the Gold cup - and most of the pro togs still were using Canon's - a few Nikons were there, but it was by and large a Canon Fest!


I actually felt under-camera'd- I only took my MkIII, 70-200F4L and 400mmF5.6L lenses - most ofthe pro's had at least 2 bodies, sometimes 3, with anythingfrom 70-200F2.8 to 500mm or 600mm fitted.