The adventure begins: out-of-warranty R-D1 failure...

If there is someone still responsible for R-D1, that's where I would start. He's the person whose job is on the line and has direct access to resources. If he can't or won't do anything, then you'll know what to do. Which is basically get a broom and start sweeping because you are in deep dodo. You could also kick it upsatirs. If enough people do, you might actually find that someone will get tasked with solving the problem. But to expect that the CEO will personally address all of our problems is a big stretch.

/Ira
 
Ira: I understand your POV, but this is what Plasmat posted.

Plasmat said:
I won't go into the details, but in my case a serious problem I had with an R-D1 was resolved in my favor immediately, after FedExing a letter (in Japanese) to the President of Epson.
Click to expand...
 
Well, do you want it to be fixed for everyone in general or on an exception, case-by-case basis? I'm working on the everyone fix right now.

Regards,
Ira
 
Topdog1 said:
Yes, $1800 or so dollars is alot to spend for a camera, but that's probably less than you spend for a good PC to process your photos. And what is that PC's life expectancy? If you get 4 years out of it, you are doing real well. Probably more like 3. And when you are done with it, do you repair it? Do you upgrade it? Or do you just retire it? Your expectations are set for the mechanical rangefinder era. You need to reset them for the digital era.
Click to expand...
Well, there's obsolescence and there's "obsolescence": I'm tapping this reply out on a six-year-old PowerBook G3 (Pismo, in case anyone's keeping score); the photographic heavy-lifting at home gets done on a slightly-newer Power Mac G4 tower (albeit with RAM maxed out to 1.5GB and a pair of fast internal HDs); the lone digital camera here (and likely to remain so for a while) is a 2.1mp Olympus p/s number from around 2001/2 which works just fine.

Besides choosing my products carefully, my general attitude toward technology in general is "it's obsolete when I say it is." If it still works within spec and does what I need it to with reasonable efficiency, there's no need to replace it.

And, generally speaking, most digital gadgets, from cell phones to PDAs to pocket digicams (and products that handle all the above), and more, are designed to take a certain degree of abuse before giving out, at which point, unfortunately, they end up getting tossed (so much for "going green"). What makes the RD-1 situation particularly galling is that the product in question outstrips the price of the typical p/s product Epson makes (or made) by the proverbial order of magnitude, yet their respose to service issues is inversely proportional to its price.

The idea of "geting used to" limited life-cycles is interesting: we used to be tolerant of this idea even regarding big-ticket items like cars, but that's changed radically. I don't see why this change in attitude shouldn't take place with items like computers (not exactly a "little ticket item, at least as far as I'm concerned), and, yes, digicams big and small.

What complicates this idea, of course, is corporate instabilty in the industry. We've already had several photo-industry flame-outs over the last three years, and the game of musical chairs is hardly over. Film-based cameras might be fixable by others (albeit with some effort), but digital shooters will often be SOL. Buyers of "cheap" dSLRs might get a rude surprise if and when something on the electronic end of their wundersnaps goes south post-warranty and find out that the proposed "solution" is to ashcan the thing and buy the new latest thing...from another company, of course, since the outfit that made/marketed their old camera became a causalty of a merger/buyout/dissolution. (Bonus points if the owner invested in an extra lens or two.) It's telling that the most successful company in the digital-camera biz across the board (Canon) relies least on that end of their business for revenue. Photography, from pro to duffer, might be a "prestige market" thing for companies like this, but in terms of dollars it's largely irrelevant.

So much for Epson. Over to you, Leica...


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Topdog1 said:
Welcome to the world of digital product life cycles. If you think you're having problems now, just wait a few years when Epson won't even be able to spell "R-D1". When they break you will throw them away. You'll have no choice. But that is basically what you sign up for when you buy any digital product these days.
None of this is meant to excuswe Epson for the terrible service they have provided for the R-D1. But they should have known better. It's just not a product that's up their alley.
/Ira
Click to expand...
I could not agree more, they not only consider their products disposable, but our incomes as well. And I won't even start on whether or not such wasteful policy is "green".
My only digital camera now is a cheap £100 compact, and it will stay that way.
John R
 
I would be willing to help coordinate and also with translation.

My web design skills are almost zero but I would help with the writing and content if someone wants to design a site.
 
Barrett,
It is Moore's Law that dictates the obsolecense of every digital product. Silicon-based products "improve" 2x every 12-18 months. Thus, a digital product you bought yesterday is 1024x better than the one you bought 10 years ago. (It really is - think of what you were running on your desktop 10 years ago - you couldn't even load one of these fancy digital photo processing prgorams on it, yet alone run it.) But your new car, largely a mechanical device, isn't even 2x better than the one you were driving ten years ago. In fact, it may be worse.

We can't even imagine what the digital camera 10 years hence will look and perform like. Now that is obsolecense with a capital "O".

regards,
Ira
 
I would gladly participate in any coordinated and sensible effort to convey our dismay with R-D1 support to Epson's top execs. Please let me know how I can help.
 
The fact that Epson is selling refurbished RD-1s means that clearly they have the technological resources to repair the camera. Someone out there is fixing up broken RD-1s for Epson to sell, so why can't they make good on the warranty and competently repair the ones already sold. They know how to get them repaired to make some money for themselves, but they don't seem to care about follow up service. It seems to me that this is not a case of not knowing how to do it, but of priorities, and they are getting by with it.
 
The problem sounds like it's the shutter and/or wind mechanism, which is cosina, so maybe a clever tech who does repairs for one of the two CV dealers (cameraquest, photovillage-for the US anyway) could also fix the epson.

As to complaining to Japanese companies, I've always heard that letters in english carry more clout, since the english speaking world is the bulk of the market. (for now, watch china!) Epson is already on the techno-dweeb bad list for making printers with anti-refill circuitry built into the printer ink tanks. Yep, while they could have been providing documentation and training for the RD-1, they were instead investing time, money and manpower to develop a way to prevent ink bottles from being refilled.
 
1) I think the "refurbs" were/are merely repackaged returns. No attempt to fix at all, not even upgraded firmware. Nobody did a thing to them. Maybe even new old stock or internal demos from the company.

2) I don't think the "ink tank" branch of the company has any awareness of the "camera" branch. Epson is a vast company with many branches, the R-D1 was merely presented and forgotten about since sales were a drop in the bucket.
 
Topdog1 said:
Well, do you want it to be fixed for everyone in general or on an exception, case-by-case basis? I'm working on the everyone fix right now.

Regards,
Ira
Click to expand...
Ira: I appreciate your efforts on another thread. However, you seem to have not understood my first post about why going to the top is, IMO, more efficient and productive.
 
Plasmat, you might be right, but the word "refurbished" itself suggests something different to me. The Epson website also makes me believe that these are not just overstocks and demos. They have another category in the Clearance center for Closeout Products for any overstocks. In addition, this is how the site describes refurbished products

"Refurbished Products: All sales are final. These are products that have been returned to Epson. They have been inspected and tested to ensure they perform properly. Some may have minor blemishes due to handling. They are available only while quantities last. Refurbished products may or may not contain a media pack or the same software package as new models. In order to provide these savings and to move final quantities, we cannot accept returns unless the product arrived damaged or defective in which case your remedy is replacement with the same model or equivalent. See Terms of Sale and Conditions."

The language is pretty ambiguous, clearly stating that these cameras have been inspected, but no word about whether or not they have actually been "refurbished!" Either way, I join you in sincerely hoping that these quality control issues get cleared up so that we can buy the RD1 with confidence. The minute that happens I will purchase one.
 
I bought two refurbs in the last month. Both had flaws, both were untested, I'm sure. If they were true refurbs, don't you think the firmware would have been upgraded, and the rangefinders adjusted?

I am 100% positive nobody did a thing to these "refurbs" or even inspected them except to see if maybe they turned on and off.
 
Personally I think that the re-furbs are demo models that went unsold and are now being returned by dealers. Mine arrived with 279 previous exposures made (I'm guessing, as my first image seemed to be number 280).

Apparently the only "re-furb-ing" done was to clean the camera, put it into a box, add in the charger and battery, manual and software disks if they were missing. Just guessing of course.

I am also in on signing a letter to the President of Epson in English OR Japanese, I don't care which. Heck, both.

I am NOT willing to go the "you suck, Epson" route.

I always found you get more flies with honey than vinegar -- as my dear ol' Dad used to say.
 
clearing inventory, has nothing to do with what they know

dgray said:
The fact that Epson is selling refurbished RD-1s means that clearly they have the technological resources to repair the camera. Someone out there is fixing up broken RD-1s for Epson to sell, so why can't they make good on the warranty and competently repair the ones already sold. They know how to get them repaired to make some money for themselves, but they don't seem to care about follow up service. It seems to me that this is not a case of not knowing how to do it, but of priorities, and they are getting by with it.
Click to expand...
 
Joe Mondello said:
Personally I think that the re-furbs are demo models that went unsold and are now being returned by dealers. Mine arrived with 279 previous exposures made (I'm guessing, as my first image seemed to be number 280).

Apparently the only "re-furb-ing" done was to clean the camera, put it into a box, add in the charger and battery, manual and software disks if they were missing. Just guessing of course.

I am also in on signing a letter to the President of Epson in English OR Japanese, I don't care which. Heck, both.

I am NOT willing to go the "you suck, Epson" route.

I always found you get more flies with honey than vinegar -- as my dear ol' Dad used to say.
Click to expand...

I also think these may have been re-boxed demos. Mine came with only 150 exposures which seems low if it had been returned by an individual owner.
 
Happy to support this but agree with Plasmat, it has to be done the right way. Japanese corporate culture is still very traditionally Japanese and you have to go about things the right way. It does count in our favour because shame and losing face is still a big part of things over there. Being polite and firm and talking to the right people is the way to go about it in my opinion...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom