"Exceeded the life of camera"...in < 9 months

[Brian Hamfeldt]

I understand that this probably doesn't apply to many... as I shoot a tad bit more than most shooters.

I put over 400,000 shots through MarkII-N before it was 6 months old, and by the time I sent it in to Canon for pre-emptive shutter replacement, I had ~470,000 clicks on the shutter at 9 months (summer is slow for me)

But what I found out was that I was going to be billed for:
- shutter replacement @ $300
- mirror box replacement @ $300
- charge unit replacement @ $100
- Labor @ $300

Over $1000 to get my camera back - when NOTHING was wrong with it when I sent it in. I asked for a cleaning and to get my shutter replaced. I expected to pay $300 for the shutter - as I have several times (4) in the past for previous 1D bodies. I had heard of mirror box replacements at $300, but never experienced one as none of mine have 'needed' it - and my other two 1D bodies have well over 1/2 million pix through them (each). The charge unit (that fires the shutter?) and labor were new to me- even with 4 other shutter replacements, I've never been billed for labor - and this camera is still under warranty.

Upon getting the right person to talk to: Sal, in NJ; he let me know that Canon has a 'new' policy based on shutter count that dictates they replace all those parts in order to warranty the workmanship (which I know was previously 6 months) He told me that technically, I've exceeded the life of the camera already.

Overall, I don't mind spending the money to get a 'back to new' camera that I can use for another season - but I was surprised that every three months (200,000 clicks), I'd have to pay $1000 to get my camera back up to snuff as well as be without it for 3 weeks.

Yes, three weeks is what I was without my camera - even as a CPS member. I sent it via 2nd day air to NJ on 8/10, they emailed me that they rec'd it on 8/16 and then MAILED me the update for the $1000 bill that I rec'd on 8/25. I only rec'd my camera back yesterday: 8/31. Luckily, somehow, once I provided a bill of sale showing the camera is still within a 1 year warranty, Sal pushed the whole order through as 'under warranty'.

Again, this is not a high priority for most, but it may be of a concern that if you do go over - or approach the rated life of the shutter to make sure to get it in before you breach the 'rated life'. But again, I (or my other shooters) can't afford (time mostly) to be sending my bodies in every 3 months and be without for 3 weeks - even though we have several of them. Personally, I think Canon should revamp their 'estimates' of shutter durability based on my experiences: 'Tested to over 450,000 shutter actuations' - so I can continue to utilize the camera (my tool) in my extreme workflow.


Currently, I have a call into Canon as to find out their 'new policy' concerning all of this. When I hear word back, I'll let everybody know.

Brian

 

[Anita Saunders]

Hi Brian. I sympathise, this is bad news for you and many other prolific digital shooters. It doesn't seem fair to change the policy on replacement parts if the user hasn't specifically requested them. At least it went through under warranty

I am wondering if the shutter life is shorter on a digital camera than a film camera. How does the shutter 'lifespan' compare to your film days?

 

[Brian Hamfeldt]

Ger,

Unfortunately, I never taxed any film cameras the way do digital. In the film days, I was a PJ and then hobbiest shooter and generally shot what I wanted/needed. But since the advent of the 1D, I've embarked on a career as youth sporting event photographer and my needs demand that I punish my cameras to get more product to sell. The one thing I've learned is that the more I take, the more I sell - or simply - I can't sell what I don't have. Of course, the key is to move all those frames into the hands of customers as soon as possible, and I have the means to do that - whereas the workflow of film would not have allowed the speed that today's digital does.

But ironically, having gotten a call back from Canon, their only 'policy' for replacing parts dates back to the film days. Generally, if/when a film camera hit a couple hundred thousand shutters, it would take some time, a few years. With that, there would be concern for other moving parts to be replaced, as they would not be oiled as new.

However, there is no current policy in place for replacing parts based on shutter count - even high counts like mine over a very short period. Even my 4yr old 1D bodies will be serviced to the degree that they need to - not blindly replacing all recommended parts. My experience at CPS should not have happened and shouldn't happen in the future.

On that note, the time to repair was also brought up, and coupled with other reports of long repair times, there is supposed to be some 'changes' implemented by upper management to get the service of CPS cameras back in line with originally promoted 3 day turnaround - not 3 weeks.

While the time for return sounds like an improvement, I still cannot complain about the level of service that they (CPS) consistantly provide on my bodies. My N came back with the shutter replaced, mirror box replaced, charge unit replaced, hot shoe replaced, focus screen replaced, firmware upgraded and sensor cleaned (assumedly...still need to test).

Brian.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Brian,

What do you think prompted the call back from Canon and when was it?

Asher

 

[Brian Hamfeldt]

Asher,

I had left a message on Thursday, and heard back yesterday (Friday PM).

The message was left with somebody in marketing - a direct number that CPS-NJ had given me. My message was courteous yet to the point - and I guess that I had some valid concerns that needed to be heard and carried on up.

Brian.

 

[Tony Field]

IMO, although you might be a very prolific shooter, Canon should realize that the very nature of digital systems and the frame rate that the modern digital camera allows, Canon MUST very seriously redesign their equipment to meet the high shooting rate of photographers. I am of the opinion that the cameras are "under designed" to meet the needs and expectation of the modern photographer.

In the good old days, the hard working pro who shot many many images would automatically send their camera in for CLA every couple or three years. The "same" pro today is probably a shooter like you who does not think that 400,000 image is much for a many months or even a few years shooting. It is the responsibility of the camera producers to make a camera that meets user expectation.

When I worked as a part time photographer from 1970-1985, I shot about 5000 rolls of 35mm and 2000 of 120 and a bunch of 4x5 without a single failure on my Mamyia, Linhoff and Leica and Canon systems. Since starting digital in August 2002, I have over 300,000 images (fortunately, over many different bodies) and do not consider myself to shoot excessively. In that time, I have had two "pro body" cameras returned for broken shutters!

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

IMO, although you might be a very prolific shooter, Canon should realize that the very nature of digital systems and the frame rate that the modern digital camera allows, Canon MUST very seriously redesign their equipment to meet the high shooting rate of photographers. I am of the opinion that the cameras are "under designed" to meet the needs and expectation of the modern photographer.

While I agree that many digital shooters, including myself, tend to shoot/bracket/whitebalance/whatever more than the average film shooter, 400,000 shots in less than 6 months is more than prolific. It's more like some 180 12-hour workdays with 185 shots per hour, non-stop 7 days a week, no time for post-processing. I'd call that ... a lot! ;-)

If Brian has made 50 cents per shot, it can hardly be just the cost of the repairs that's bugging him. One can also wonder whether a need for redesign (and increased cost for all) is the most logical conclusion to draw from such an exceptional case. A $ 2,000 annual equipment running cost after initial investment and regular replacement, seems a good return on investment in this particular case.

Just my opinion, and my admiration for Brian's stamina,

Bart

 

[Don Lashier]

185 shots per hour

I suspect heavy use of motor drive. Maybe Brian what needs is a video camera

- DL

 

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

Lol

I suspect heavy use of motor drive. Maybe Brian what needs is a video camera

- DL

Yeah..
Although 3 frames per minute on a dynamic action event does not necessarily strike me as a need for video...
Still impressive, though, when it comes to total figures...

 

[Tom Wilk]

I could be off a bit here, but it seems to me that normal use, and even a lot of normal use in a 9 month period falls within the language of the factory warranty. I admit that I haven't studied the warranty extremely closely for exceptions, but at a glance, it doesn't include language that voids its effectiveness due to heavy use.

 

[Brian Hamfeldt]

Tony,
I agree - cameras are getting faster, buffers are getting larger, CF cards are getting bigger... Camera manufacturers obviously know that shooters are shooting more. Whether its because we can or we need to, if the gear allows it, then why shouldn't we utilize it.
Digital cameras are increasing in capability in line with Moore's law - that (roughly) states that the capability of silicon doubles every 18 months. Yet, the durability and expectations are not keeping up with that. Granted, the shutter is are carbon fiber and then there is the whole marketing experience to kill off older models in favor of everybody getting newer models - as is the case of this museum item.

Bart,
Agreedly, money is not the issue. I use my gear to the edge of abuse. My cameras are tools of my trade. Just as if I were digging ditches, my shovel would be my tool. I would not limit the use of my shovel for fear of it breaking, but I would be concerned if after every 200 shovels of dirt, I was recommended by the manufacturer to have the handle replaced. The Canon MarkII shovel is a great workhorse and I'll use it to its fullest and don't mind maintenance or getting several more if need be, to me the possible issue at hand was time of repair and unwarranted 'policy' proceedures. But alas, all issues have turned out to be moot.

Don,
Ironically, the time that I occasionally utilize the motor drive in during the summer for shooting baseball sequences. And yet over the summer, I hit less than 25,000 shutters per month. During my normal 'season' over fall/winter/spring, is where I can do 25,000 shutters in a weekend, but its rare to use the burst rate. Instead, its a matter of getting ~100 unique shots in two minutes (with 1-2 minute break between) for 6-14 hours per day.

Tom,
Luckily for me - not that I've ever read any warranty in my life, Canon did take care of me with the warranty service. Although I think is was a little bit because I was persistant and questioning 'policy' - because the default status of my 'repair' was that of "Non-Warranty" and I could have simply "Accept"ed that on CPS's website. But upon further inquisition to the 'required' repairs and talking to the right person, it got handled very nicely. Then, upon talking to another Canon 'higher-up', it was confirmed that the work done should be readily covered by warranty without issue.

All,
I can certainly see both sides of the issue. On one hand, there is CPS repair who has numbers to account for on their books - time and parts for repairs - they want to bill for them. Then there is the marketing side that wants to stand by their claims of warranty, durability, service and commitment to customers. It seems that we as pro shooters are (will be) getting the respect of Canon for utilizing their equipment to its fullest (and then some).

Brian.

 

[Randy Brister]

Brian,

So glad to see you getting those kind of numbers from your MKii bodies. It means that all of mine are still in their teenage years. They are workhorses, aren't they? BTW, Canon stopped servicing my EOS1n bodies after they had reached 140,000 frames. They wouldn't do any repairs on them whatsoever.

Randy

 

[Alan T. Price]

Fortunately it will never affect me. I can't even imagine taking half a million photos. However, I have read somewhere that Canon considers 200,000 images to be the normal life of the shutter and if you double that you have exceeded the life of the camera.

They could easily put a 200,000 exposure limit on the warranty or, if it was like a car, a 20,000 exposure limit. Car warranties expire long before the car normally does and yet they never say how far the car will go. The present arrangement is not unreasonable for most of us, who would consider 10,000 images a week every week to be just over the top.

Even so, I can understand Brian's frustration at not getting his camera back for several weeks.