I do wish they published how many of these various lenses and cameras they had in inventory so we could compare the pool that the failures came out of. Two failures out of two hundred is much better than two failures out of two.
I do wish they published how many of these various lenses and cameras they had in inventory so we could compare the pool that the failures came out of. Two failures out of two hundred is much better than two failures out of two.
Did you read the part of the article that discusses sample size and how it affects the results? They are pretty up-front about that.
I do wish they published how many of these various lenses and cameras they had in inventory so we could compare the pool that the failures came out of. Two failures out of two hundred is much better than two failures out of two.
They do. Look at the sample size column in the table. The key to it is in the text.
I like how they have tracked the failure rate in rental weeks per failure. The fact that the average is something like 300 rental weeks between failures (almost four years of hard use, plus more shipping than all my gear will see in a lifetime) is a very positive thing.
The fact that some of the more complicated lenses have much shorter times between failures is interesting, and really no surprise of course. A very interesting data set, and a very candid article to go with it.
ETA: I really like Roger's style, he tells it like it is.
LOL... Well, I'll take a poke at the Nikon folk...
Avg. Repair time for Canon: 6 Days & $305
Avg. Repair time for Nikon: 26 Days & $376
It's not just that, either. This is the part that, coupled with your excerpt, torques me off....
"All Nikon repairs were $539 or $602 from April 1 onwards; they were $310 before April (although there were only two during that period). "
That and the fact that they're not supplying parts to other repair centers pisses me off. So basically, you're stuck paying more for worse service.
One thing he doesn't note is that the increase in turn around time could very likely be attributed to Nikon suddenly taking on more repairs than before, since it doesn't supply the parts anymore, and thus this wait could reasonably be expected to go down as the volume is adjusted for. Having said that, a business that has a strangle on the market of repairs has no reason to give a damn. :\
ETA: Tamron's service really kinda amazed me. That's amazing that they can do that, especially since their lenses cost less generally, so it's not like they're heavily padding their prices to make up for the cost of the service.
ETA: Tamron's service really kinda amazed me. That's amazing that they can do that, especially since their lenses cost less generally, so it's not like they're heavily padding their prices to make up for the cost of the service.
Yep. Another good example of the little guy trying harder. I think that all the third-party manufacturers are trying pretty hard to be considered top-tier. Canon & Nikon should both take a lesson.
Tamron hosed me pretty badly once......that's all it takes. I don't like third-party lenses in the first place, so having them give me a hard time and quoting me more to repair a lens than I paid for it clinched it.
I fell with my camera and lens in my hand......the equipment did not hit the ground......my hand did. Didn't hurt the camera at all, but junked the lens.
