Getting a camera repaired ... a tale of logistical nonsense

My 9 month old Canon EOS300D gave up the ghost a few weeks ago. Having
done all the basic checks I dragged myself up to the Canon offices at
Elstree to hand it in for a warranty repair.

No problems there - "oh it should take about 9-10 days sir to get it
fixed". I walk away happy.

A few days later a letter arrives "to ensure a speedy repair we have
sent your camera to Colchester to be repaired."

<roll forward a month>

I ring Canon today to find out what's going on. "Oh we can't tell you
about that Sir. You need to speak to Colchester. We'll put you through."

"Oh we can't find you on the list. Oh hang on there you are. We couldn't
fix your camera so we sent it back to Elstree two days after we received
it. There was a software problem that we are not able to deal with. Oh
we don't know when it will be fixed."

<rings Elstree again>

"Oh I can't find it on our system. Let me check the warehouse. Oh yes it
has been fixed. It's waiting to go back to Colchester."

Me - "Why when it was handed in at Elstree? Can't you send it to me?"

"Oh no we can't do that. It has to go back to Colchester."

Me - "So they can send it all the way back to yourselves for you to send
out to me?"

"Oh no Sir. They will send it out to you but I don't when it will leave
here to go to Colchester and I certainly can't say when they will send
it to you."

Me - "What a bloody stupid way to organise things".

"It's just the way it is sir".

Sheesh - no wonder we have a booming road haulage business in this
country. I am not impressed.

 

I foolishly said that I would like them to return it to me when I first
handed it in. The trip to their place at Elstree is not the easiest in
the world via public transport so I opted for the easy option. I had no
inkling that my camera would be whizzing round the home counties in
order to be repaired.

 

You are indeed correct.

I love the camera. I would love to know what actually went wrong with it
as it's only 9 months old. It's my first Canon camera and I'm not very
impressed thus far so far as reliability / customer service is
concerned.

 

Bear scribbled on the back of a napkin:

If I were you I'd sell the Minolta, sharpish...

You *do* know that I've got three Minolta MF bodies and a couple of
lenses cluttering up my place, don't you?

Just out of interest, which model do you have?

 

Bear scribbled on the back of a napkin:

Well, if it's a fairly hefty all-mechanical camera with a switch on the
bottom plate that you always forget to turn off, it'll be one of the
SR-T series. Most common one would be the SR-T 101, but they also had
100, 100X, 201, 202, 303 and 303b. The latter are pretty rare but are
supposedly the best fully mechanical bodies. My 303b seems to be OK...

These were followed by the XD/XE/XG series cameras. All of them are
smaller than the SR-Ts and have electronic shutters. They all have a
number after the type (-1, -5, -7 for the UK models mostly) that tells
you which features they left off . The most sought after of these is
the XD-7 (XD-11 in the US and Japan) which AFAIR was the first Minolta
SLR that offered fully manual, aperture priority and fully auto modes.
Actually that's also the body that Leica based the R3/R4/R5 on, but
with a different lens fitting and their own electronics.

The last models before Minolta switched over to AF were the X-300/X-500
and X-700 which are also the first of the 'plastic' Minoltas in the
sense that the bodies weren't made of all-metal construction any more.

 

Bear scribbled on the back of a napkin:

That should help you identify the camera:

http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Cameras.html

I haven't broken any of mine yet, although I think the XD-7 may have
dodgy lightseals as the back door has a bit too much play for its own
good. Nevertheless, I like them - they're good cameras and with a bit
of patience you can pick up some rather good lenses for them.

That said, I've recently gone off Minolta a bit after making the
mistake of buying a somewhat beaten up Contax RTS. With its Zeiss lens,
the pictures you get out of that are *sharp*. Like
cutting-yourself-while-looking-at-them sharp. Pity that Zeiss lenses
are so brutally expensive...

 

Bear scribbled on the back of a napkin:

That'll *probably* rule out the XD-5 - my XD-7 has the mode switch on
the side of the exposure time wheel...

 

The only reason I want a Canon digital, is the bag with four Canon
lenses in it, in the sideboard.

--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/KH500A8/TS250C
|_\_____/_| ..74309../..18302.../..3184./.19406
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 YTC#4 PM#5
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 two#11 WG*
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4
'^' RBR Landmarks: 12 Pts: 220 Miles: 914

 

Learn to snip, you fucking newbie.

 

27 hours ago.

Get a decent newsreader.

--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/KH500A8/TS250C
|_\_____/_| ..74309../..18302.../..3184./.19406
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 YTC#4 PM#5
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 two#11 WG*
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4
'^' RBR Landmarks: 12 Pts: 220 Miles: 914

 

AOL. Though I also have a Canon Digital Ixus thing and it's been
faultless.