Canon Not Repairing The M5!

John from PA wrote in post #18641399
From https://www.usa.canon.​com …plore/eos-m-series/eos-m5. Why would Canon not support this camera? Not supporting one model, once the word got out (and it's out), would impact the entire product line.

.
But Canon does support this model. . They support it by offering a replacement to those who experience problems.

Just because they offer replacement, and not repair, doesn't mean that the model is unsupported. . In fact, in my opinion replacement is preferable to repair.


.

It looks like a new camera was sent not a refurb.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18642003
.
But Canon does support this model. . They support it by offering a replacement to those who experience problems.

Just because they offer replacement, and not repair, doesn't mean that the model is unsupported. . In fact, in my opinion replacement is preferable to repair.

.

So I chose an incomplete choice of wording. Perhaps I should have said Canon does not support repair of this product.

So just what is everyone's thoughts that this may be a way to control the independent repair marketplace? Canon could rigorously control repair part access preventing independents from repairing the camera after warranty. The parts that Canon would have would only be used internally to repair warranty returns which are then supplied to owners as a refurb. Just a thought.

John from PA wrote in post #18642170
So I chose an incomplete choice of wording. Perhaps I should have said Canon does not support repair of this product.

So just what is everyone's thoughts that this may be a way to control the independent repair marketplace? Canon could rigorously control repair part access preventing independents from repairing the camera after warranty. The parts that Canon would have would only be used internally to repair warranty returns which are then supplied to owners as a refurb. Just a thought.

I imagine they fix and sell them as refurb, it's just faster & a better customer experience if they send you a replacement.

If that's the case, then your question regarding independent/3rd party repair depends on whether Canon chooses not to sell parts.

John from PA wrote in post #18642170
So I chose an incomplete choice of wording. Perhaps I should have said Canon does not support repair of this product.

There's really no reason to use the word "support" .... you can just say that Canon doesn't repair this model; they replace it instead.

When you word it a certain way, you risk giving people the impression that Canon leaves owners high & dry, with no means of getting their problem taken care of. . This is a wrong impression, because Canon does indeed take care of its M5 owners who experience problems by offering them a new (or refurbished) camera in lieu of repairing their old camera. . Some of us, myself included, think this is a fantastic way of handling warranty and/or repair needs.

John from PA wrote in post #18642170
So just what is everyone's thoughts that this may be a way to control the independent repair marketplace? Canon could rigorously control repair part access preventing independents from repairing the camera after warranty. The parts that Canon would have would only be used internally to repair warranty returns which are then supplied to owners as a refurb. Just a thought.

I think this is a great business move for Canon. . I think that if they can practically eliminate the 3rd party repair market, then they can make profits that would otherwise go to other businesses that are competing against them.

Perhaps in the future we'll se a lot more Canon cameras that can't be disassembled, and this will result in greater earnings and profits for Canon. . Apple has done something very similar, and their stock prices have been oh so healthy for many years. . If I were a Canon stockholder, I would definitely want to see them do a lot more of this kind of thing. . It isn't a good thing for the simple photographer such as myself, but corporations are not in business to help people, they are in business to maximize their profits, and therefore this is a good move for them.


.

John from PA wrote in post #18642170
So just what is everyone's thoughts that this may be a way to control the independent repair marketplace? Canon could rigorously control repair part access preventing independents from repairing the camera after warranty. The parts that Canon would have would only be used internally to repair warranty returns which are then supplied to owners as a refurb. Just a thought.

EOS parts in New Zealand are already exclusive to Canon only, as they point blank refuse to sell anything to third parties here. Wonder what the situation is in other countries apart from the US?
Not sure if the reasons for this are that they want to limit anyone else from repairs, or that they just can't be bothered with setting up a supply chain to sell to the public or repairers. I would imagine that N.Z. being a very small country would not have a sizable demand for parts anyway.

I think it is unlikely that Canon considers repair and support a profit center. Yes, I am sure they are interested in making some money from the venture, but it is in the company's best long term interest to keep their customers happy with solid support at a reasonable cost. Indeed it seems Canon leads the industry with quick repairs at a price point that does not piss off customers.

Im sticking to my original guess that the "broken" cameras are more valuable as resource for improvement than as a means to generate revenue. Consider the cost involved in creating accurate training materials, actually doing the training world wide, managing parts inventory at hundreds of locations, and the costs of having those parts collecting dust on the shelf. Keeping in mind that these cameras do not share parts with as many other models as a single DSLR might. Those costs, with a relatively small user base, may be too heavy to be worthwhile.

Finally, this anecdotal evidence represents one of many possible repairs that might need to be made. Are they going to provide a new camera for a busted flash lens? A broken battery door? Highly unlikely. I suspect there isn't much training involved in making those repairs, neither costs involved in inventory management.

Some people, like myself, would like their original machine back. For example, I still own my first 35mm. It brings back a lot of memories of things I did, places I visited just by opening the bag.

Frodge wrote in post #18642876
Some people, like myself, would like their original machine back. For example, I still own my first 35mm. It brings back a lot of memories of things I did, places I visited just by opening the bag.

Cool. But don't buy an M5. I understand the emotional attachment. I think it's fair for a camera manufacturer not to consider emotional attachment though, particularly for a digital camera .

Choderboy wrote in post #18643526
Cool. But don't buy an M5. I understand the emotional attachment. I think it's fair for a camera manufacturer not to consider emotional attachment though, particularly for a digital camera .

This conversation reminded me of my own approach to these things. Keeping old no longer used possessions because of the emotional attachment is a bit overrated. People form attachments to all sorts of possessions like houses, cars, motorcycles, comfy chairs and ratty old flannel shirts. In time they tend to get rid of all those things because they are large and take up too much room, or are too expensive to keep, or retain too much value to hold on to and not use. Old cameras are easier because they're small and most don't tend to have a lot of residual value. So they languish in a draw for 25 years, unused and ignored until you finally leave this mortal coil and your kids dump them, along with most of the crap you've accumulated, into the trash without a second thought. As I age I'm trying to make my life simpler by getting rid of the unimportant things I no longer use or need, which in turn will make it easier for my son when the time comes. I doubt the M5 will ever be considered a classic. But, each to their own.

mwsilver wrote in post #18643909
This conversation reminded me of my own approach to these things. Keeping old no longer used possessions because of the emotional attachment is a bit overrated. People form attachments to all sorts of possessions like houses, cars, motorcycles, comfy chairs and ratty old flannel shirts. In time they tend to get rid of all those things because they are large and take up too much room, or are too expensive to keep, or retain too much value to hold on to and not use. Old cameras are easier because they're small and most don't tend to have a lot of residual value. So they languish in a draw for 25 years, unused and ignored until you finally leave this mortal coil and your kids dump them, along with most of the crap you've accumulated, into the trash without a second thought. As I age I'm trying to make my life simpler by getting rid of the unimportant things I no longer use or need, which in turn will make it easier for my son when the time comes. I doubt the M5 will ever be considered a classic. But, each to their own.

I never said that it had value or would become a classic. All that I stated what that it may have some value to yourself. If it doesn’t, that’s fine too. I think there is something pretty problematic with Canons repair division if they can’t fix rather than replace a camera in most cases. Of course there are situations where the camera would need to be replaced, and I totally understand that. But for example, if they can’t replace a hot shoe rather than replace the entire camera, something pretty silly is going on there.

Frodge wrote in post #18644433
I never said that it had value or would become a classic. All that I stated what that it may have some value to yourself. If it doesn’t, that’s fine too. I think there is something pretty problematic with Canons repair division if they can’t fix rather than replace a camera in most cases. Of course there are situations where the camera would need to be replaced, and I totally understand that. But for example, if they can’t replace a hot shoe rather than replace the entire camera, something pretty silly is going on there.

I agree.