R-D1 servicing - let's coordinate! #2 Practical discussion

[RichC]

My other thread (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32237) is full of posts agreeing with my idea*:
let's use this new thread only for discussion of what we want to say in this letter.

[* Mass mailing carefully written letters on the same date to Epson listing our concerns on service together with suggested practical solutions - see my posts in the other thread for more info.]

I'm happy enough to collate people's suggestions and create the standard letter in Japanese, for those who want to use it (I'll need a volunteer to create a PDF in Japanese, though). Someone's kindly registered the domain rd1owners.com for us, for when we're ready to put up a web page (no rush to create the web page - let's give it a few weeks, when we have a consensus on our aims and have them honed to perfection).

This should be a group effort, so I'd like as much help and input as possible: the more people contribute, the more likely that we achieve a result.

Let other forums know about this; post what we're doing on your blog/website. The more R-D1 owners that get involved, the better.


__________________________________________


OUR TASK IN THIS THREAD

1. We need to decide what our goals are.

2. We need to filter out anectdotal evidence. For example, reading through this forum, it seems that cameras sent in with minor faults are replaced more often than repaired; and that faults are often not fixed, or new ones introduced, e.g.see http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=430670#post430670:

I sent mine back to Epson UK because of Rear focussing, it went off to Paris and came back yesterday, now it was FRONT Focussing by a MILE.

Another example: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26917

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to investigate this for me, e.g. by creating a poll in this forum examining the outcome from when people have returned cameras to Epson for repair (as opposed to returning them and expecting a replacement).


__________________________________________


I'll kick off with my suggestions and thoughts, as a starting point for discussion:

This is from another thread (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...2#post429902):

The very friendly people at the electronics place that I was referred to by Epson tech support called their Epson rep and apparently I'm supposed to bring it to the electronics place, I guess because they handle invoicing and stuff, and they'll ship it to Epson, and for a flat rate of $511 (shipping included) it gets fixed.

So, we now know that the R-D1 can be repaired (or replaced?) at a fixed fee, albeit gaining this knowledge seemed akin to getting blood from a stone. Is this enough? If not, what more do we want?

To get the ball rolling, here are my thoughts:

• It's good to know that Epson will take in out-of-warranty cameras for repair.

• But what are the capabilities of Epson's in-house repair facility? So far, it seems inadequate: faulty cameras are often replaced, or are returned with faults - sometimes new ones (see quote above).

• We want our cameras repaired competently - and replaced only as a last resort.

• Parts should be retained for several years - not destroyed as "obsolete" at some point.

• We want reassurance that our cameras can be repaired a reasonable time into the future (e.g. 5 years).

• If there is an in-house repair facility, it needs to be made known to Epson repair centres worldwide. Currently, the majority of Epson facilities seem to be unaware of the camera and the procedures for servicing it.

• Also, if a camera is to be repaired in-house, Epson should ensure local collection of cameras.

• If Epson are unwilling/unable to undertake general camera maintenance/repair in-house, they could allow one or more third-party specialists (I'm fine with these needing approval by Epson) access to necessary technical documents and parts, so they're able to carry out straightforward repairs and maintenance (e.g. rangefinder realignment) according to Epson specs.


__________________________________________


So, let's kick a few ideas around here - I'll summarise the results in a couple of weeks.

Lastly, let's try and keep this thread dedicated to the task in hand - please, no off-topic posts in this thread, to prevent it becoming unnavigable.

 

[Joe Mondello]

Great start Rich. Thanks for tackling all of this.

For those of us who own R-D1s under warranty, I think there needs to be some assurances from Epson that there is some facility somewhere which knows this camera exists and understands the issues generally requiring repair or adjustment.

Personally I'd find it reassuring to be able to send my R-D1 to DAG (as an example) for RF adjustment under warranty so that I am responsible only for shipping the unit in.

They really need to review QC on this product. Why are so many shipped with poor RF adjustment? Why do shutters fail prematurely? Why are there issues with the exquisite needle dials?

Perhaps Epson needs to consider extending the warranty on the R-D1 for these three issues (and perhaps others of which I am unaware) in the manner that Apple sometimes extends warrantees on specific products for specific issues.

HTH.

 

[Joe Mondello]

Another thought . . .

Can we -- or should we -- base our approach to Epson on the idea that we R-D1 owners love this camera?

That is to say we start off thanking them for a daring and well executed product before getting into the meat of our issues regarding feeling orphaned by the company -- especially as we feel we should be considered among their premium customers.

 

[jmarcus]

I'm willing to host the rd1owners.com site, and possibly put up a wiki, for an FAQ etc.

James

 

[RichC]

Can we -- or should we -- base our approach to Epson on the idea that we R-D1 owners love this camera?

Absolutely, as someone said in my other thread, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

It would be a shame for this camera to suffer a preventable early death through want of basic servicing or lack of simple spares. An ignoble fate for such a camera - a triumph of design; in a lot of ways more ergonomic than the M8, especially considering that it's essentially an adaptation of a film camera.

I suggest the letter has three strands:

• Congratulate Epson on their vision for producing such a camera, and that we think it's a superb photographer's tool

• Point out the problems and fears we have regarding service and long-term ownership. This should be entirely factual, not anecdotal

• Suggest solutions that are realistic and would be acceptable to Epson (which may mean lowering our sights from our ideal goals).

If this is done well, everyone wins: our cameras have a future, and Epson gains goodwill - which means the camera stops tarnishing Epson's reputation

 

[iml]

I suggest the letter has three strands:

• Congratulate Epson on their vision for producing such a camera, and that we think it's a superb photographer's tool

• Point out the problems and fears we have regarding service and long-term ownership. This should be entirely factual, not anecdotal

• Suggest solutions that are realistic and would be acceptable to Epson (which may mean lowering our sights from our ideal goals).

Strongly agree with all that. I think we should be realistic enough to realise that it's vanishingly unlikely that Epson will make much investment in a maintenance programme of their own for the camera, but it ought to be possible to get them to appoint and train a few authorised service reps in the various continents.

Ian

 

[Ben Z]

Epson makes printers and scanners with short product lifecycles. In-warranty repairs are usually handled as exchanges. Out-of-warranty repairs are usually deemed uneconomical because the customer can usually get a new one with better features for little more than what a new one costs. That's the way things are all over today especially with anything electronic. And though I've seen some typical internet "fact statements" (i.e. hot air) I have not seen or been able to find a legal statute (at least in the USA) that specifies a manufacturer has to maintain parts or service for an item once it has been discontinued. It seems that's a discretionary matter with the manufacturer, unless someone can please link to a legal statute to the contrary.

I think it's probably a million-to-one shot Epson will give a hoot for a handful of letters and spend a red cent on participating in upgrading the RD-1 servicing. What is more likely is that IF they have not already dumped them in the trash, that they could be persuaded to SELL the remaining parts stock along with any specific diagnostic or service equipment and manuals etc. to an interested third party. That is assuming their legal department can be satisfied that they would be fully indemnified against any legal action arising from the repairs that third party does.

The trick I think will be finding a repair facility with both the expertise in digital electronics/firmware and mechanical cameras, who has the money and feels it would be a profitable venture to buy into, and that would depend too on how much Epson would ask.

I think that if such a repair facility could be located and convinced to make a serious offer to Epson, that's probably the best chance for success. It's probably doubtful there are that many spare parts to go around to supply more than one shop, although it may be that many parts are interchangeable with other cameras. We already know the shutter and many mechanical parts come straight from Cosina's bins, and the sensor comes from the Nikon D100. In a couple years those D100s will probably be worth $100 or less and perfectly usable chips could be harvested from them.

 

[Adam-T]

The biggest issue is the quality of the repairs being done, one guy got his S back with the top plate scratched and mine spent 2 weeks in Paris to come back with the RF badly rear focussing (Fixed it myself) .....

Each country should have a designated Repair outfit who are certified to do RD1 repairs such as Robert White in the UK, DAG in the USA etc - even Canon and Nikon who have their own repair centres in the UK have certified a couple of repair companies to undertake warranty work as well (they always DID do out of warranty stuff) - Lehmanns and Fixation but as far as I know, they don`t do rangefinders.

Who do CV use?, maybe whoever they are would take on RD1 repair also ? lets face it, these things are basically the R3A mechanically .

 

[Ben Z]

The RD-1 is a hybrid and although most of the issues seem to be with the mechanical componentry, as long as you're going to the trouble of getting the repair problems set straight, IMO it would be wise to make sure its electronics are repairable too. So whoever does it needs to be brought up to speed on the whole sensor/firmware interface thing.

I don't think you can use Canon or Nikon, or even Leica as a model because the RD-1 is a one-of-a-kind orphaned camera. If you try to set up repair facilities all over the place, not only you'll need to train a bunch of people but you'll need some kind of parts distribution too. An ideal would be three centers, one each in Europe/UK, N. America, and Japan. But given the small number of RD1 and RD1s bodies all together (has anyone seen a serial # above 5000?), I think a more practical as well as realistic and attainable solution would be to start with one, either in Europe or N. America, that can fix anything on the camera and has the full stock of remaining Epson parts. Asking for or attempting too much just because it's most convenient might very well doom the entire idea due to economics. One service shop guaranteed all the RD-1 repair business would have a much better chance of realizing a profit after buying the parts and equipment.

 

[Joe Mondello]

Absolutely, as someone said in my other thread, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

Haha! That was me too!

I think this is on the right track.

BTW, how do you propose to distill factual from anecdotal evidence?😕

 

[RichC]

how do you propose to distill factual from anecdotal evidence?

We'll just have to do our best. One approach could be polls in this forum. As an example, polls on:

• If faulty camera returned to Epson, was it repaired or replaced (excluding replacement by dealer or replacement requested by owner)? If replaced, do you think this was necessary, considering the nature of the fault?

• If camera returned to Epson for repair, and returned to owner. Was the fault repaired? Were new faults introduced?*

[* There are a number of posts in this forum (e.g/ by AdamT and Didier) relating how their cameras were returned still faulty.

Joe - I don't suppose you'd be so kind as to volunteer you to think up a few suitable polls!? :angel:

Let's do the best we can to make this happen - it may be that Epson ignores us, but at least we can say we tried... Anyway, I'm off to bed as it's 1 am this side of the pond!

 

[Ben Z]

My last Rd-1s had the serial number 1010xx

They must have started the serial numbers at 100,001 for the RD-1s. I meant has anyone heard of an RD-1 serial number higher than 004999?

Get an established camera repair facility interested in approaching Epson for the parts and service equipment and there might be a happy ending to this. Trying to convince a huge coporation like Epson to get behind a product they have already discontinued and abandoned will be a waste of time and good effort.

 

[jlw]

I doubt that we'll get very far in ANY attempt to tell Epson HOW to serve our needs. Their point of view would be that we don't understand their business well enough to tell them how to run it. And in all honesty, that's probably true!

All we really need to get across to them is that we really like this camera, it's important to our work as photographers, and we want to be able to keep using it into the future. We don't really care HOW they do that as long as they address it SOMEhow.

It might help to mention that interest in the R-D 1 has been growing of late (thanks in part to the problems Leica has had with the M8, and as demonstrated by the demand for the refurb units at the Epson Store) and that if it supports it well, Epson will gain status as the innovative company that introduced a classic, first-of-its-kind product.

 

[chrisso]

I think keeping the camera going is the big issue, not the length of warranty.
I haven't had a problem with mine so far by the way.
Secondly, I say again, a single repair shop in the world (say DAG), is a step in the right direction, but the danger and cost of shipping strikes fear in my heart.

For me the issue is support and longevity.
It turns my stomach to think of 10,000 people chucking a fairly new camera into landfill in five years time, purely because a minor fault can't be fixed.
I hope we can persuade Epson otherwise.

 

[Joe Mondello]

Joe - I don't suppose you'd be so kind as to volunteer you to think up a few suitable polls!? :angel:

Good morning! (8:30 AM in the States)

Hmmm . . . suitable polls eh? I'll take a stab at it. Gonna take a little thought of course to do well.

Of the top of my head I'm thinking that the poll function of the Forum won't work as folks will have multiple cameras with different issues for each, so perhaps it needs to be it's own thread.

I think that the answers to questions should be tied to an actual camera s/n (even if it is just 0046xx)

Since I have owned my R-D1 for less than a week, I am not familiar with all the issues that folks have had, but I would guess that we'd want to correlate the issues to their resolution ie did Epson repair it? Was it satisfactory? How long did it take? was turnaround time satisfactory?

Perhaps a scale of from 1-5 to indicate degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction rather than yes/no answers?

So sure, I'll definitely take a stab at drafting the poll but I need owners here to suggest questions above these obvious ones:

• Camera s/n (leave last 2 digits off for the web)
• When was it purchased?
• Purchased new or used? Re-furbished?
• What country do you live in?
• Did your camera need repair or adjustment when you first received it?

• ISSUES
- RF alignment
- Focusing (back, front, infinity)
- Shutter
- Needle guages
- Tight lens mount
- Dead/hot pixels
- Wind lever
- LCD display
- Software

I need everyone's help to flesh this out!

• RESOLUTION
- Who repaired
- Satisfaction with repair
- help with more questions!

• OWNER CONCERNS
- feeling orphaned
- concern about scarcity of parts
- concerns about lack of qualified repair personnel
- HELP!

Plus THIS IS NOT THE POLL! Don't answer here! A seperate thread will be started later in the week once we iron out the poll.

OK . . . so please add things we need to add to this poll!

 

[Ben Z]

All we really need to get across to them is that we really like this camera, it's important to our work as photographers, and we want to be able to keep using it into the future. We don't really care HOW they do that as long as they address it SOMEhow.

Coming from 25 years in R&D and manufacturing, this is the wrong approach. Asking or expecting Epson to lift a finger toward a low-volume discontinued item is a waste of time and effort, as is making the basically wrong assumption that they care about anything other than their bottom-line. Their book is closed on the RD-1. Come to them with an offer to buy their stock parts and service equipment and they are at least apt to listen.

 

[RichC]

expecting Epson to lift a finger toward a low-volume discontinued item is a waste of time and effort

We can but try.

Of course, we do have to be realistic. I'm not expecting Epson to help us out of pure altruism: they need to be persuaded that helping us is in their best interests.

What I'm hoping is that Epson will realise that looking after R-D1 users a little better will improve their image. At the moment, the R-D1 problems are not doing Epson any good - but, if they help us, the poor PR associated with this prestige project of theirs may be turned around to some extent.

Ideally I'd like Epson to set up service centres staffed with trained technicians on all continents - but this is not going to happen.

At the end of the day, if all we manage to do is persuade Epson to stockpile parts for as long as possible, and allow one outside business (e.g. DAG in the USA) access to these parts and to service literature, that'd be enough for me - it may mean us Europeans having to send our cameras halfway around the world (with all that that entails), but at least our cameras will have a brighter future.

If anyone knows a very rich RFF member, do persuade them to buy out the rights to the R-D1! 😉 😎

 

[Joe Mondello]

If anyone knows a very rich RFF member, do persuade them to buy out the rights to the R-D1! 😉 😎

But Dude, YOU'RE Rich!! 😀 😉

 

[Ben Z]

At the end of the day, if all we manage to do is persuade Epson to stockpile parts for as long as possible, and allow one outside business (e.g. DAG in the USA) access to these parts and to service literature, that'd be enough for me
If anyone knows a very rich RFF member, do persuade them to buy out the rights to the R-D1! 😉 😎

Has anyone asked Don G (DAG) if he's interested in becoming the world-wide service man for the RD-1? I've only spoken with him a few times but he strikes me as a sharp guy, quite capable of learning to repair the electronics of the RD-1. If someone here knows him well enough to enquire, maybe he's interested or could be persuaded to be. If we can come to Epson and say "here's a guy with a proven track record and a international reputation servicing Leicas, who stands ready to take over the repair of the RD-1. You planned eventually to toss out all the spare parts and specific test bench equipment, so by selling them, for you its found money. Plus, every RD1 out there in working condition on the street with "EPSON" on it is free advertising."

That's the kind of scenario that might push the right buttons at Epson. Allowing them to wash their hands of it and recover some more money on what was a failed project is a win for them, and having the parts in the hands of a repair facility would be safer and allow more expedited service.

I doubt very seriously Epson is concerned with the PR on this. People who buy digital products with the expectation of long-term use and support do not fit their target demographic.

 

[rvaubel]

Absolutely, as someone said in my other thread, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".


I suggest the letter has three strands:

• Congratulate Epson on their vision for producing such a camera, and that we think it's a superb photographer's tool

• Point out the problems and fears we have regarding service and long-term ownership. This should be entirely factual, not anecdotal

• Suggest solutions that are realistic and would be acceptable to Epson (which may mean lowering our sights from our ideal goals).

If this is done well, everyone wins: our cameras have a future, and Epson gains goodwill - which means the camera stops tarnishing Epson's reputation

This approach is the only one that will work. If we, in any way, approach this in an advisarial manner, they will drop it like a hot potato. Basically, I just want my camera fixed when it breaks and I'm willing to pay for it.

Rex