# Canon lack of innovation



## thepancakeman (Feb 18, 2014)

I keep reading on hear about Canon's lack of innovation. Apparently not everyone agrees, as they landed at #3 in this article on "The world's most innovative companies": 

http://money.msn.com/inside-the-ticker/the-worlds-5-most-innovative-companies


----------



## LarryC (Feb 18, 2014)

That list is of the top patent filing companies. That's certainly one measure of innovation, but quantity impresses less than quality and "Innovation" should be a measure of a company's ability to translate inventions into products, not how much money they spend on patents.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 18, 2014)

I think Canon balances innovation with trying to run a company that makes a profit. What good is innovation if you are just driving your company into the ground or running in circles with no clear direction.

So much of the internet debate can really be reduced to one thing: Canon's sensor's dynamic range vs the Sony sensors that are in so many cameras now. Take away the sensor debate. What "innovations" are really happening in Nikon land?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> Take away the sensor debate. What "innovations" are really happening in Nikon land?



The first waterproof (really waterproof, as in to 15 m depth) interchangeable lens digital camera struck me as pretty innovative. They threw in 2 m shockproof and -10 °C freezeproof as bonuses... 

Oops - sort of implied, but still... edited.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Take away the sensor debate. What "innovations" are really happening in Nikon land?
> ...



25 years ago I got to use a Niknos-5.... it was awesome! A camera so good for the intended purpose that nobody else even bothered trying.... It wasn't freezeproof though... not much need for that in a dive camera...


----------



## Richard8971 (Feb 18, 2014)

I think the thing to try and keep in mind is that Canon manufacturing understandably (among several other Japanese companies) ground to a halt after the Tōhoku earthquake (and subsequent tsunami) in 2011. Several cameras I'm sure were either put on hold or halted altogether.

In a world where rebels got replaced every year and the XXD line got replaced approx every 18 months, the T3i ran for over a year and the 60D ran for almost 3 years. The T3 ran for 3 years before getting replaced. The replacement for the 5D2 was released on "time" in the prosumer FF segment. The 1Ds3 ran for 5 years before it was replaced by the 1DX and that camera was released 5 months after it's announcement. 

I think what people are wondering is will the 7D be replaced by the 7D2 or will the 70D take the APS-C crown? Personally I won't believe anything about the 7D2 until I see it announced by Canon and I can actually buy one. Nikon's "flagship" APS-C body is the D7100 and it is in line features wise with the 70D. Nikon does not have a "7D" equivalent and they may feel they don't need one. Canon may follow that thinking.

The 7D is hugely popular and with the V2.0 firmware update it may be Canon's "answer" to a replacement body. I don't think the megapixel race is all that important vs image quality. I would prefer that Canon make a APS-C 14-16MP sensor that is largely noise free vs a higher MP crop sensor. I don't think (based on high ISO noise comparisons) Canon's crop sensors today are hugely better at handling noise than the 7D's, so nothing has really changed there really, just a bunch of 18MP camera bodies that vary a bit from each other. Hopefully Canon will come up with something that will inspire confidence in their DSLR's again.

D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If you received a $2000 bonus every time you successfully filed a patent for your company (e.g. Canon), would that be sufficient motivation to encourage you to create as many patents as possible?



For many people, it certainly would. Lots of corporations have 'pay for performance' policies in place. In pharma, if a medicine makes it to certain milestones (e.g. proof of concept - a positive signal in a Phase IIb trial, it actually makes patients better), members of the team who made major contributions to the development of that medicine are generally rewarded (with cash, stock, or both). 

If Canon is rewarding its employees with cash bonuses for filing patents or having them granted (and where is your documentation to confirm that they are doing that?), so what? Explain to us why that's a bad thing? You have a problem with people being rewarded for innovation? It's not like Canon is stacking up blank sheets of paper (or pictures of lenses they think are cameras), mailing them to the US PTO, and being granted patents. The inventions must be demonstrably novel, non-obvious, and useful…and Canon comes up with thousands of such inventions each year.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 18, 2014)

It should be no surprise to anyone that they pay employees who secure patents. I would be very surprised to find a large high tech company that didn´t and I would also be surprised if they only paid 2k$.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 18, 2014)

Eldar said:


> It should be no surprise to anyone that they pay employees who secure patents. I would be very surprised to find a large high tech company that didn´t and I would also be surprised if they only paid 2k$.



I wish my company gave out money for patents. Alas, it doesn't...


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> If Canon is rewarding its employees with cash bonuses for filing patents or having them granted ..., so what? Explain to us why that's a bad thing? You have a problem with people being rewarded for innovation?



If a company rewards employees with cash bonuses for filing patents or having them granted, then all the employee has to do to receive said bonus is to have said patent granted, irrespective of whether or not the invention is of any actual use for the company. This then leads to a waste of time, money and resources on projects that will never show any return on investment for the company.

However, if the company rewards employees with stock options or pays royalties for the use of the patent, then the employees will be motivated to invest their time and energy into projects that has practical and revenue generating value to the company.

So, although I am all for rewarding employees for bringing value to the company, I feel it is very important _how_ they are rewarded.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon is rewarding its employees with cash bonuses for filing patents or having them granted ..., so what? Explain to us why that's a bad thing? You have a problem with people being rewarded for innovation?
> ...


All larger tech companies have a patent organization, so it is not up to the individual employee alone. It is a very formal process to bring an idea to a successful patent. 
In a company like Canon, they build a patent portfolio to use as a muscle against other companies. For this to work, you need a Lot of patents. It is like a terror balance.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 18, 2014)

Eldar said:


> ... they build a patent portfolio *to use as a muscle against other companies*. For this to work, you need a Lot of patents. It is *like a terror balance*.



And eventually all this aggressiveness spills over onto their customer base ...


----------



## Eldar (Feb 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > ... they build a patent portfolio *to use as a muscle against other companies*. For this to work, you need a Lot of patents. It is *like a terror balance*.
> ...


Apple, Samsung, IBM, Canon, Sony, Ericsson, Nikon ... you name them, they are all in the same race.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 18, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Apple, Samsung, IBM, Canon, Sony, Ericsson, Nikon ... you name them, they are all in the same race.



True. But does any of them treat you like a real person ... cares for you as a person ... shows compassion and understanding towards you as a person ... ??? Or do they see you as simply part of the many who buys their product because their marketing succeeded ... ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2014)

For anyone keeping score, over the past 10 years (2004-2013) Canon has had *24,656* patents issued by the US PTO.



Sella174 said:


> But does any of them treat you like a real person ... cares for you as a person ... shows compassion and understanding towards you as a person ...



LOL. Show me a major corporation that actually does any of that with regard to their customers. Solvent companies only, please - companies bankrupted by actually putting the customer first need not be listed.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > If you received a $2000 bonus every time you successfully filed a patent for your company (e.g. Canon), would that be sufficient motivation to encourage you to create as many patents as possible?
> ...



The company that I work for does this as well. We get a small bonus for a "worthy" submission, then another bonus if our patent attorneys and labs folks officially file the patent, then should a patent be granted, you get a 3rd $1-5k USD bonus. I think it's a great incentive personally.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Apple, Samsung, IBM, Canon, Sony, Ericsson, Nikon ... you name them, they are all in the same race.
> ...


Of course not. They´re only in it for the money ...


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Show me a major corporation that actually does any of that with regard to their customers. Solvent companies only, please - bankrupt companies need not be listed.



*CNH Industrial* ... I can still buy brand new official factory-made parts for my 50-year old FIAT tractor. Why? Because no farmer will buy a tractor that the manufacturer stops supporting once a new model is released.

But it doesn't stop there. The fun continues! CASE amalgamated with New Holland, which was itself the amalgamation of the tractor divisions of Ford and FIAT, to form CNH; and CNH is still supporting all of these ancient tractors that a major part of the company never even manufactured!

Kaizen ... Gumpf! We've been doing it for years and years.

This should also explain why, to us inhabitants of the rural nowhere, why the business practices of a company like [...] seems so ... so foreign ... especially in that the release of a new product automatically ends the support of the replaced product.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Apple, Samsung, IBM, Canon, Sony, Ericsson, Nikon ... you name them, they are all in the same race.
> ...



All I want them to do is provide appealing products I (might) want to buy, along with attendant good service if needed; and while at the moment I get the impression that the Sony A7R is capable under the right conditions of creating images that are, technically, a bit superior to what any current Canon body is capable of, I think Canon overall meets those criteria very well, probably better than any other camera company. I don't care what their motives are if they meet those criteria (nor do I if they don't). 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "shows compassion and understanding towards you as a person" but if Canon started to send out social workers and therapists to make sure it understood me as a person, I would probably buy some more locks for the front door. Are we supposed to show compassion and understanding to Canon & Co. in return? (Fuji, given the extent to which it appears responsive to customer input by constantly issuing firmware updates, may come the closest to "caring" but unless the XE-1 & lens I bought were defective I have no desire to give them any of my money whether they care about me or not.)

And I rather doubt that any company succeeded for long based simply on marketing.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 18, 2014)

sdsr said:


> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "shows compassion and understanding towards you as a person" ...



Not everyone can afford the latest cameras from Canon, so they must make do with what they own, whilst still supporting the company through purchases of lenses, flashes, etc. However, in return, Canon gives these, erm, customers on a budget very little in return. Once a product is discontinued, Canon never releases any firmware for it ever again. What you have now is all you'll ever get. Now, please understand that I do not expect Canon to release firmware right now that enables my ancient 30D's to have LiveView functionality; but a firmware update that adds AutoISO would be nice.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Feb 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Show me a major corporation that actually does any of that with regard to their customers. Solvent companies only, please - bankrupt companies need not be listed.
> ...



Again, small world + small view. This has zero bearing or parallel to a company like Canon. By your line of reasoning, Canon should still be finding ways to improve your experience on their film cameras.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 18, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Again, small world + small view.



Derision.



JohnDizzo15 said:


> This has zero bearing or parallel to a company like Canon.



Apples and oranges, right?



 JohnDizzo15 said:


> By your line of reasoning, Canon should still be finding ways to improve your experience on their film cameras.



And why not?

Anyway, so you've latched onto me, have you? Well, that means that I'm saying things that someone doesn't want said. Good.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 18, 2014)

Always interesting to see a thread unravel. I think someone needs to bring up the _Wealth of Nations _or the _Communist Manifesto_ to continue the conversation .

Positive Capitalist spin: competition leads to innovation, innovation leads to sales/profit
Positive Marxist spin: to use a quote attributed to Josef Stalin, "Quantity has a quality all its own"

I'm just having good fun here and trying to balance both views 

My opinion is that Canon's patents are a good thing and while many of them may be solely filed for protectionist reasons, some (Dual-pixel AF, 1DX/5DIII AF, etc.) are truly innovative and important to us as photographers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> *CNH Industrial* ... I can still buy brand new official factory-made parts for my 50-year old FIAT tractor. Why? Because no farmer will buy a tractor that the manufacturer stops supporting once a new model is released.



What makes you think they are supporting old products because of 'compassion and understanding'? Do they give the way those factory made parts for old tractors for free to customers who need them but can't afford them? Sell them to you at a loss? Come to your house and install them for free with a basket of cookies, just to say hello to their customers? :

Or could it be that they found a niche market and are exploiting it...for profit?

Your analogy of Canon not releasing firmware updates for discontinued products is not an apt one (nor is it a true one, as my T1i had a firmware update issued after it was discontinued once it's successor was released). Well, I suppose it is an apt analogy if your favorite tractor company is, in fact, giving away those old parts for free like Canon does with their firmware updates.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Feb 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, small world + small view.
> ...



Doesn't matter to me whether you say whatever it is you say. What does matter to me is that you know that some of those things are absurd. Your analogy, absurd. 

And I haven't latched onto you. We merely find interest in similar threads and again, I like to point out when people say absurd things.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> What makes you think they are supporting old products because of 'compassion and understanding'?



You've never farmed for a living, whether for profit or just simply to stay alive, have you?



neuroanatomist said:


> Or could it be that they found *a niche market* and are exploiting it...for profit?



I guess you could call farmers a niche market, just like you can call photographers a niche market.



neuroanatomist said:


> Well, I suppose it is an apt analogy if your favorite tractor company is, in fact, giving away those old parts for free like Canon does with their firmware updates.



The point is that a company like CNH sells, for example, tractors with the undertaking that they will continue to support their products decades into the future. This creates confidence in the company. This also, paradoxically, makes it quite acceptable for them to charge a bit extra for their products.

In comparison, my *EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L USM* lens is no longer supported by Canon (it doesn't appear on the CPS list of qualifying lenses anymore and the local Canon repair agent won't touch it), and yet this _was_ a staple lens in most professionals' gear list. BTW, my copy was made in March 2002 (UQ0311), so it's just about twelve years old. Pretty shabby commitment to professional grade equipment, in my opinion.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 18, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Doesn't matter to me whether you say whatever it is you say. What does matter to me is that you know that some of those things are absurd. Your analogy, absurd.
> 
> ... I like to point out *when people say absurd things*.



_All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident._ - Arthur Scopenhauer (1788-1860).

But you're lagging behind. Almost everybody else is at stage two.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > I keep reading on hear about Canon's lack of innovation. Apparently not everyone agrees, as they landed at #3 in this article on "The world's most innovative companies":
> ...


You DO understand why companies do this, right? It is not so they list higher on some arbitrary magazine or web sites "innovation" ranking.

At one time I worked for Rockwell Semiconductor when Lucent came knocking on the door and said, "Hey guys, we are Lucent... you know the old Bell Telephone Laboratories" "well we have a boat load of patents and we're pretty sure you are in violation of quite a few of them so why don't you consider taking out a blanket license, as in, you hand us a bag of money each year and we agree not to bother looking" "otherwise we are about to start."

Sadly, THAT is what patents are for in the modern age and that is why companies encourage people to file.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you think they are supporting old products because of 'compassion and understanding'?
> ...



Interesting… So the people building these "factory made parts" for 50-year-old tractors are also farmers themselves? I does that business model work?



Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Or could it be that they found *a niche market* and are exploiting it...for profit?
> ...



Not farmers...farmers who need factory made parts for 50-year-old tractors. It's nice that you can get them, and too bad you can't get parts for your 12-year-old camera lens, but neither 50-year-old tractors nor 12-year-old lenses are what I would consider mainstream in today's market.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


If you are looking for parts for a 50 year old tractor, take the broken part and go visit a machinist.... good luck with lens components....


----------



## BLFPhoto (Feb 18, 2014)

Around here "innovation" seems to be equated with giving every Tom, Dick and Harriet what they want when they want it. The plebeian derision heaped upon our dear Canon when perceived to be "not keeping up with the Nikonses" is laughable at best.


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 19, 2014)

Hi Folks.
From time to time I sub my engineering skills to a refrigeration engineering company, being in a rural community some of their main customers are farmers. It has been my experience that a farmer will continue to polish a turd as long as you let them, once you actually explain that the new equipment they need will be more efficient, therefore cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain more reliable, etc they will buy new gear, and thank you for it later! 
50 year old tractors are for people playing at farming, and tractor collectors to rebuild!  : ;D

Cheers Graham.




Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... 12-year-old lenses are [not] what I would consider mainstream in today's market.



Let's play it a bit further ... my *EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM* lens was manufactured in August 1993 (UH0801), which makes it over twenty years old. Is this lens on the CPS list of qualifying lenses? Yes. Does Canon still support this lens? Yes.

So where's the rationale? Where's the commitment towards professionals who bought professional grade gear?

*Scenario:* I'm a professional photographer, with CPS membership. I suddenly hit a bad patch, financially, due to the global economic slump. As a result, I don't "upgrade" my lenses to the very latest. Canon takes one of my professional grade lenses off the list of qualifying lenses and _poof!_ I no longer qualify for CPS membership.

Is this the way to build and maintain customer satisfaction, especially amongst professionals? Why even join CPS, if it's just for owners of "current" gear?

But, hey, I understand that Canon cannot financially offer that kind of a commitment and must always be selling, selling, selling new gear ... for how else will they pay for those 7 patents filed each and every day for the last ten years.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> ... once you actually explain that the new equipment they need will be more efficient, therefore cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain more reliable, etc they will buy new gear, and thank you for it later!



Partially true. Over here where I kick the sods, a new, small tractor cost about ZAR200000 (two-hundred-thousand ZAR's). That's a big chunk out of your profits. So, you possibly buy one ... with the understanding that it's going to have to work _at least_ twenty years. And you usually relegate the older tractors to other jobs, where the boost in "economy" of the new tractor is negligible.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ... 12-year-old lenses are [not] what I would consider mainstream in today's market.
> ...



The rationale is that the 400/5.6 is still "current" despite the age of its design, where is your aging 28-70/2.8 has been updated...not once, but twice.

As for your scenario, we've already established that Canon is a for-profit company, and their concern is making profit and returning value to shareholders, not treating customers with compassion, unless that is absolutely required for them to make a profit (hint: it's not). Canon is not a charity, it is in their best interest for you to buy more gear from them. As for CPS in Europe (which, as I understand it, CPS-SA is an affiliate), membership is free. Why should Canon offer free benefits such as accelerated repair turn around and loaner equipment, to photographers who are not keeping current on their gear? Where is the profit in that? (As a side note, you do get what you pay for – in the US, CPS is not free at the gold and platinum levels, but the benefits are more substantial, including repair discounts and free shipping, as well as equipment evaluation loans).

*Scenario:* I'm a farmer, and a frequent customer of your favorite tractor supply company, CNH Industrial. I suddenly hit a bad patch, financially, due to the global economic slump. As a result, I don't have the money to purchase parts to repair my four broken 50-year-old tractors that I need to plow my fields. Does a 'compassionate and understanding' company like CNH Industries give me the parts I need, for free? Will they do that for all of the farmers who are similarly hit with tough economic times? CHNI is incorporated in the UK, and like Canon they function under a legal requirement to maximize shareholder value. Generally speaking, providing substantial goods and/or services for free, out of a sense of "compassion", is not a good way to make a profit.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> *Scenario:* I'm a farmer, and a frequent customer of your favorite tractor supply company, CNH Industrial. I suddenly hit a bad patch, financially, due to the global economic slump. As a result, I don't have the money to purchase parts to repair my four broken 50-year-old tractors that I need to plow my fields. Does a 'compassionate and understanding' company like CNH Industries give me the parts I need, for free? Will they do that for all of the farmers who are similarly hit with tough economic times? CHNI is incorporated in the UK, and like Canon they function under a legal requirement to maximize shareholder value. Generally speaking, providing substantial goods and/or services for free, out of a sense of "compassion", is not a good way to make a profit.



I never said I wanted free parts ... that is _your_ angle. What I am saying, is that I expect a company like Canon to support their _*professional grade*_ products well after it has been discontinued. Otherwise, the products are basically disposable. But let me explain it in terms of the scenario that you've mangled ...

*Scenario:* I'm a farmer, and a frequent customer of your *my* favo*u*rite tractor supply company, CNH Industrial. I suddenly hit a bad patch, financially, due to the global economic slump. As a result, I don't have the money to purchase parts to repair my four broken 50-year-old *new* tractors that I need to plow my fields. Does a "compassionate and understanding" company like CNH Industrial give *provide* me *with* the parts I need, for free *at a cost,* to repair my four broken 50-year-old tractors? ... CNH is incorporated in the UK, and like Canon they function under a legal requirement to maximize shareholder value. Generally speaking, providing substantial goods and/or services for free *to support your products twenty or thirty-five years into the future*, out of a sense of "compassion", *builds customer confidence and* is not a good way to make a profit.

But, essentially, the European way of thinking and doing business is substantially different from the American way of thinking and doing business. Now, throw into the mix the African way of thinking and doing business ...


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The rationale is that the 400/5.6 is still "current" despite the age of its design, where is your aging 28-70/2.8 has been updated...not once, but twice.
> 
> As for your scenario, we've already established that Canon is a for-profit company, and their concern is making profit and returning value to shareholders, not treating customers with compassion, unless that is absolutely required for them to make a profit (hint: it's not).



Actually, many companies have found that good customer service is a great way to make a profit. Is it "required"? Nope, but if you have crappy customer service, you better have a product that no one else can touch or you'll lose your customers.

And I guess I tend to agree, that a professional lens should probably always be a professional lens, regardless of whether there is a newer betterer version. Like Agent Coleson said in Agents of SHIELD, "Many people confuse new and improved." 

Of course, I'm not sure how this relates to being innovative and filing patents. ???


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> Of course, I'm not sure how this relates to being innovative and filing patents. ???





Sella174 said:


> But, hey, I understand that Canon cannot financially offer that kind of a commitment and must always be selling, selling, selling new gear ... *for how else will they pay for those 7 patents filed each and every day for the last ten years.*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> But, essentially, the European way of thinking and doing business is substantially different from the American way of thinking and doing business. Now, throw into the mix the African way of thinking and doing business ...


The Japanese way of thinking and doing business is probably the most relevant factor when discussing Canon…




Sella174 said:


> But, hey, I understand that Canon cannot financially offer that kind of a commitment and must always be selling, selling, selling new gear ... *for how else will they pay for those 7 patents filed each and every day for the last ten years.*


Oh, please. : The cost to file those patents (including the P&B for legal staff) is completely insignificant relative to the revenue and market cap of a company the size of Canon. The cost of actually conducting the research to generate the data needed to file those patents is significant, and that cost represents Canon's committment to innovation.




thepancakeman said:


> Actually, many companies have found that good customer service is a great way to make a profit. Is it "required"? Nope, but if you have crappy customer service, you better have a product that no one else can touch or you'll lose your customers.


I don't disagree with that. In fact, Canon has excellent customer service relative to their market. For example, have a look at Lensrentals' data on repair turnaround time for 2012-2013. Would you really want to wait an average of over three weeks to get your broken lens or camera back from Nikon? 







But there's overall customer service, then there's specific aspects of customer service that are important or critical to some people, but probably not to the majority. In the same way as some people think that an extra 2 stops of DR is the most critical aspect of camera performance, others seem to define continuing to provide service for old (outdated) gear as the most critical aspect of customer service. However, the reality is that Canon is an electronics company, not a durable goods company (despite the fact that many of their products fit the definition of durable goods). Electronics companies are fast moving and keep pace with the times. If my old RCA tube television breaks, do you think RCA will provide factory OEM parts for it? I doubt it. But I'd be better off with a new LCD TV anyway, which consumes much less energy and is much less detrimental to the environment.

In fact, the environmental impact may be relevant here - Sella174 has the old Canon 28-70/2.8L which Canon no longer services. That lens has lead in the glass elements, and I suspect that under current environmental regulations in Japan, Canon cannot legally fabricate replacement elements for that lens which match the original optical formula.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> In fact, the environmental impact may be relevant here - Sella174 has the old Canon 28-70/2.8L which Canon no longer services. That lens has *lead* in the glass elements, and I suspect that under current environmental regulations in Japan, Canon cannot legally fabricate replacement elements for that lens which match the original optical formula.



Gosh! Erm, in this case, does Canon offer a recycling service, like HP does with cartridges?



neuroanatomist said:


> ... Canon cannot legally fabricate replacement elements for that lens which match the original optical formula.



True, but how about supporting the mechanics, at least? I mean, we'd all understand if Canon came clean and said, "Look, boys, the optical elements in your lenses contain lead. So, if you damage the elements, then you're up chocolate creek without a popsicle stick. But if the USM motor goes, by all means send it in for repairs."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> True, but how about supporting the mechanics, at least? I mean, we'd all understand if Canon came clean and said, "Look, boys, the optical elements in your lenses contain lead. So, if you damage the elements, then you're up chocolate creek without a popsicle stick. But if the USM motor goes, by all means send it in for repairs."



Sure, that makes sense.

_Customer: "I dropped my 28-70L, can you fix it?"

Canon: "We might be able to fix it, we might not, we're just not sure. You see, we only partly support that old lens, so we have a few parts laying around for it, but others we don't have and can't get. It's a total crapshoot."

Customer: "But if I send it in, you'll tell me if you can fix it?"

Canon: "Sure, we'd be happy to evaluate the lens, knowing full well there's a chance we cannot fix the lens at all. We're a compassionate and understanding company, we love to do things like absorbing those labor costs to help out our wonderful customers. Oh wait, sorry - new policy in place, we can't do freebies anymore. So, we're going to charge you a 1,500ZAR evaluation fee to provide a service estimate. In the event that you choose to complete the repair, that fee will be applied to the final cost. If you choose not to have the lens repaired, or if we cannot repair the lens because it turns out we no longer have the necessary parts available, we keep the fee and send you back the broken lens. Oh, you have to prepay the shipping, too."_

Now, are you a happy customer?


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...
> 
> Now, are you a happy customer?



Here's a _*free*_ tip: Don't ever become a public relations person.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



But I really like how you totally ignore ...



Sella174 said:


> Gosh! Erm, in this case, does Canon offer a recycling service, like HP does with cartridges?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Don't worry, no danger of that… 8)


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Gosh! Erm, in this case, does Canon offer a recycling service, like HP does with cartridges?



OK, so in some countries apparently ... and in the USA the customer actually has to pay Canon $6 to have lens recycled. I have to pay them because they put lead in the product they sold to me ... and now they don't even want to accept responsibility for their own act by recycle the product _*for free*_! Boy, talk about mercenary!


----------



## Diko (Feb 19, 2014)

So from what I've just understood Neuro is no longer a neuro academic, but a farmer who refuses to be a PR. On the other hand Stella refuses to admit that the next 1Dx could be with a Foveon sensor even though Canon has filed such a patent. And worst of it all my precious 24-70 f2.8L is no longer supported. Did I missed something aside from the refrigirator engineer and the Rockwell guy? 
Ah yes - I hate tablets and I am in phase one according to Schoppenhauer


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 20, 2014)

Diko said:


> Did I missed something ... ?



The blue bunnies.


----------

