Canon Class Action Denied

jsmith wrote:
>
> Canon Class Action Denied
> Judge Blocks Suit On Behalf of Shutterbugs
> By Joseph S. Enoch
> ConsumerAffairs.Com
>
> In a heartbreaking loss for the many consumers affected by faulty
> Canon cameras, a United States District Court judge in New York has
> decided not to allow a class action lawsuit against Canon.

<cut rest of message, for brevity>

Hello,

Well, what does Bret "Annika1980" Douglas have to say about >this<
revoltin' development, eh? Canon seems to think it's okay to screw its
P&S customers, while at the same time, it continues pandering to the
DSLR crowd.

Double standard! <G>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

jsmith wrote:
> Canon Class Action Denied
> Judge Blocks Suit On Behalf of Shutterbugs
> By Joseph S. Enoch
> ConsumerAffairs.Com
>
>
> Canon cameras also have a known defect with their Charge-Coupled
> Device (CCD). The CCD is to digital cameras what film is to 35mm. It
> captures the light and converts it to a form that can be understood by
> a computer and finally, the user. Canon's CCD can sometimes yield
> blurred images or distorted colors.
>
> In April of 2005, ConsumerAffairs.Com reported that Canon's Asian
> website admitted there was a problem associated with the Sony-made CCD
> found in Canon's cameras. Canon still has not made this news public to
> U.S. consumers.

Apart from this, you mean?

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...1&modelid=8774

BIG QUOTE:

This Service Notice will update Canon U.S.A., Inc.'s previous CCD Image Sensor Advisory, dated October 6, 2005.

It has come to our attention that the vendor-supplied CCD image sensor used in certain Canon digital cameras and digital video camcorders may cause the following malfunction: When the product is used in recording or playback mode, the LCD screen and/or electronic viewfinder may exhibit either a distorted image or no image at all. While reports of this malfunction have been rare in the United States, we have determined that it may occur if the product is exposed to hot and humid environments.

Notice of Additional Affected Products:
As a result of our continuing investigation of this malfunction, we have determined that the 11 models listed below, in addition to the 16 models listed in our Service Notice concerning this malfunction, dated October 6, 2005, may be affected.

Affected products:

- Camcorders: ZR60, ZR65 MC, ZR70 MC, ZR80, ZR85, ZR90, ELURA 40 MC, ELURA 50
- Digital Cameras A60, A70, A75, A300, A310, S230, SD100, SD110, A40(*), A80(*), A85(*), A95(*), S1 IS(*), S60(*), S200(*), S330(*), S400(*), S410(*), S500(*)

*Models added as of Oct.31, 2006

Malfunction:
It has been confirmed that the connecting parts of the internal wiring of the CCD used in affected products may become disconnected, especially if the affected products are stored or used in high-temperature and high-humidity environments. If this occurs, the signal is not output from the CCD normally in Shooting Mode, which may cause a distorted image or the absence of an image. This malfunction can be confirmed on the LCD monitor screen during shooting. The same malfunction also appears on the
recorded image.

Canon's Response:
Effective immediately, and regardless of warranty status, Canon will repair, free of charge, the products listed above exhibiting the above-mentioned malfunction if Canon determines that the malfunction is caused by the CCD image sensor. Canon will also cover the cost of shipping and handling in connection with this repair.

U.S. residents are kindly directed to contact the Canon Customer Support Center for further assistance at 1-800-828-4040. Support hours are Monday thru Friday - 8:00 AM to 12:00 midnight; and Saturday 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM (all times EST). Alternatively, if electronic support is preferred, please send your email to carecenter@cits.canon.com

This information is for residents of the United States of America and Puerto Rico only. If you do not reside in the USA or Puerto Rico, please contact the Canon Customer Support Center in your region.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused by this issue, and appreciate your understanding in this matter. Thank you for your support and patronage of Canon products.

I'm a bit confused about this - did the judgment not happen back in
September? Has anything new happened since then?

Ian

Digital Photography Now
The online magazine and community for anyone interested in taking digital
pictures!
http://dpnow.com
DPNow forum and users photo gallery: http://forum.dpnow.com
Win an Olympus E-330 Live View DSLR during December:
http://dpnow.com/3241.html


"jsmith" <jsmith@q365.ca> wrote in message
news:uu39o29j1v5pslep34700s9mp16241n0pi@4ax.com...
> Canon Class Action Denied
> Judge Blocks Suit On Behalf of Shutterbugs
> By Joseph S. Enoch
> ConsumerAffairs.Com
>
> In a heartbreaking loss for the many consumers affected by faulty
> Canon cameras, a United States District Court judge in New York has
> decided not to allow a class action lawsuit against Canon.
>
> "He (the judge) considered only the defendant's version," Richard
> Doherty, the lawyer who filed the case, said.
>
> Doherty was seeking to file a class action case against Canon because
> many of their cameras have a number of known defects.
>
> Probably the most commonly known defect is the E18 error. Every camera
> with a zoom lens feature has what is called a bellows claw. This part
> is essentially the gear that physically extends and retracts the lens.
>
> Doherty said a piece that holds the lens, the barrier plate, is not
> large enough and can sometimes cause the bellows claw to malfunction,
> resulting in a stuck lens and a message on the LCD screen that says:
> "E18."
>
> ConsumerAffairs.Com has received over 60 complaints about Canon
> cameras failing. It is almost the same story every time.
>
> "I bought a Canon Powershot digital camera to take family pictures and
> upload to my computer," wrote Lupe of Salinas, Calif. "I have had it
> for just over a year. It took great pictures and then one day I got
> 'e18' on the display screen. It will not turn on or do anything else.
> I emailed cannon and they want $155 to repair. This camera cost almost
> $300."
>
> Canon cameras also have a known defect with their Charge-Coupled
> Device (CCD). The CCD is to digital cameras what film is to 35mm. It
> captures the light and converts it to a form that can be understood by
> a computer and finally, the user. Canon's CCD can sometimes yield
> blurred images or distorted colors.
>
> In April of 2005, ConsumerAffairs.Com reported that Canon's Asian
> website admitted there was a problem associated with the Sony-made CCD
> found in Canon's cameras. Canon still has not made this news public to
> U.S. consumers.
>
> One other known issue is that the LCD screen found on the back of the
> camera is prone to breaking. Canon increased the size of the screen,
> but did not increase its support -- meaning it takes less pressure to
> crack.
>
> To make matters worse, the case that comes with many cameras is often
> the cause of the LCD cracking. The case does not indicate which way
> the camera should be placed. There is a snap-on button on one side. If
> the user chooses wrong and places the camera LCD in the case facing
> the button, that button with the right amount of pressure can crack
> the screen.
>
> Finally, Canon cameras also have issues with memory cards that store
> the photos.
>
> When a digital camera takes a photo, it sends the image to a flash
> memory card for storage. If the photo does not arrive in the memory
> within a set time period, the photo is lost.
>
> Some flash memory cards require more time than others. However, Canon
> has set their cameras to send the photo in 100 milliseconds, or one
> tenth of a second. Some memory cards require more time than this and
> thus, the camera will not work with those cards. Doherty said Canon
> has offered fixes for some of their cameras to fix this problem, but
> not others.
>
> "I don't see any reason why it needs to be set that fast," Doherty
> said.
>
> Documentation proves that Canon is well aware of the defects in their
> cameras, but is doing nothing for the consumers who purchased these
> cameras, Doherty, of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, a Chicago law
> firm, said.
>
> "Canon has refused to stand behind the cameras, and offers consumers
> who paid approximately $400 for what they thought was a high-quality
> digital camera the option of a repair costing at least $150 or the
> opportunity to purchase a refurbished, used camera for $175," Doherty
> told ConsumerAffairs.Com in November 2005 when he originally filed for
> class status.
>
> Although Doherty has appealed the judge's decision, he said he does
> not know how long it will take before the appeal is considered.
>
> What To Do
>
> Canon-lovers, what are your options? Well, be sure to hang onto your
> purchase receipt. Keep a copy of your warranty. Keep copies of any
> repair records. And keep your fingers crossed. It's always possible
> you'll be one of the lucky ones who cameras don't experience any of
> these problems.
>
> If your camera does fail, notify Canon in writing, citing this article
> and the numerous complaints on our site. File a complaint with
> ConsumerAffairs.Com. Complaints filed with our site are made available
> to class-action attorneys, including Doherty.
>
> If you are willing to spend a little time and a few dollars, head for
> your local Small Claims Court and file against Canon. Check our
> state-by-state listings to learn more.
>
> Are there more reliable cameras out there? Maybe, but it's important
> to note that the internal workings of most digital cameras are pretty
> much the same, and are often manufactured by the same supplier. It's
> the optics and the "packaging" that differentiate one brand from
> another.
>
> Digital cameras are arguably more convenient than film cameras and,
> while they are generally more expensive to buy, they may be cheaper to
> use over the long run, depending on what process you use to print your
> photos. But more reliable they're not, at least not yet.
>
> For those can't-miss moments, it's still a good idea to keep a small
> film camera in pocket or purse. Nothing beats a back-up.
>

John Turco wrote:
> jsmith wrote:
>> Canon Class Action Denied
>> Judge Blocks Suit On Behalf of Shutterbugs
>> By Joseph S. Enoch
>> ConsumerAffairs.Com
>>
>> In a heartbreaking loss for the many consumers affected by faulty
>> Canon cameras, a United States District Court judge in New York has
>> decided not to allow a class action lawsuit against Canon.
>
> <cut rest of message, for brevity>
>
> Hello,
>
> Well, what does Bret "Annika1980" Douglas have to say about >this<
> revoltin' development, eh? Canon seems to think it's okay to screw its
> P&S customers, while at the same time, it continues pandering to the
> DSLR crowd.
>

Or did they just screw a bunch of money-grubbing
attorneys?

Phil

Little Juice Coupe wrote:
> Bad. Too many jackasses like you willing to bend over and take the corporate
> cock until the head pokes out your mouth.

You will learn to spread wide when the massive Canon corporate cock
aproaches.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:33:53 +0000, Phil Wheeler wrote:

> John Turco wrote:
>> jsmith wrote:
>>> Canon Class Action Denied
>>> Judge Blocks Suit On Behalf of Shutterbugs
>>> By Joseph S. Enoch
>>> ConsumerAffairs.Com
>>>
>>> In a heartbreaking loss for the many consumers affected by faulty
>>> Canon cameras, a United States District Court judge in New York has
>>> decided not to allow a class action lawsuit against Canon.
>>
>> <cut rest of message, for brevity>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Well, what does Bret "Annika1980" Douglas have to say about >this<
>> revoltin' development, eh? Canon seems to think it's okay to screw its
>> P&S customers, while at the same time, it continues pandering to the
>> DSLR crowd.
>>
>
> Or did they just screw a bunch of money-grubbing
> attorneys?

In any case, Canon didn't "screw" anybody. If anybody was
"screwing" anybody it was the judge.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On 18 Dec 2006 16:30:10 GMT, "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:33:53 +0000, Phil Wheeler wrote:
>
>> John Turco wrote:
>>> jsmith wrote:
>>>> Canon Class Action Denied
>>>> Judge Blocks Suit On Behalf of Shutterbugs
>>>> By Joseph S. Enoch
>>>> ConsumerAffairs.Com
>>>>
>>>> In a heartbreaking loss for the many consumers affected by faulty
>>>> Canon cameras, a United States District Court judge in New York has
>>>> decided not to allow a class action lawsuit against Canon.
>>>
>>> <cut rest of message, for brevity>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Well, what does Bret "Annika1980" Douglas have to say about >this<
>>> revoltin' development, eh? Canon seems to think it's okay to screw its
>>> P&S customers, while at the same time, it continues pandering to the
>>> DSLR crowd.
>>>
>>
>> Or did they just screw a bunch of money-grubbing
>> attorneys?
>
>In any case, Canon didn't "screw" anybody. If anybody was
>"screwing" anybody it was the judge.

It's my impression that class action suits are for the legal firms,
not the class.
In most cases, the class members get less than $50 each, while the
legal firm gets tens of million$.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

That is because most judges used to lawyers and want to make sure their
brethren keep getting the big bucks for doing nothing.

ljc


"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:698eo2pmljuns9dboefj5jf78gp6dli33h@4ax.com...
> On 18 Dec 2006 16:30:10 GMT, "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:33:53 +0000, Phil Wheeler wrote:
>>
>>> John Turco wrote:
>>>> jsmith wrote:
>>>>> Canon Class Action Denied
>>>>> Judge Blocks Suit On Behalf of Shutterbugs
>>>>> By Joseph S. Enoch
>>>>> ConsumerAffairs.Com
>>>>>
>>>>> In a heartbreaking loss for the many consumers affected by faulty
>>>>> Canon cameras, a United States District Court judge in New York has
>>>>> decided not to allow a class action lawsuit against Canon.
>>>>
>>>> <cut rest of message, for brevity>
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Well, what does Bret "Annika1980" Douglas have to say about >this<
>>>> revoltin' development, eh? Canon seems to think it's okay to screw its
>>>> P&S customers, while at the same time, it continues pandering to the
>>>> DSLR crowd.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or did they just screw a bunch of money-grubbing
>>> attorneys?
>>
>>In any case, Canon didn't "screw" anybody. If anybody was
>>"screwing" anybody it was the judge.
>
> It's my impression that class action suits are for the legal firms,
> not the class.
> In most cases, the class members get less than $50 each, while the
> legal firm gets tens of million$.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

bmoag wrote:
>
> Canon is not the only manufacturer with quality problems and large numbers
> of cameras that fail shortly out of warranty. Canon is also not the only
> manufacturer to have exorbitant minimum repair charges for out of warranty
> cameras. If one searches the web it is not difficult to document these
> issues.
> Marketers, and Canon is one of the most aggressive marketers, have generated
> ever shorter product cycles and have combined this with aggressive pricing
> of low end cameras. It is no surprise that quality control both for parts
> and manufacturing is so poor. Manufacturing has been shifted to whereever
> the cost of labor and production is the lowest, currently China. Besides
> poor construction quality the impact on the environment of unregulated
> production is enormous. No westerner can travel anywhere in China and not be
> appalled by what they see.
> Unfortunately the class action product suit in the United States has become
> little more than legal black/greenmail: shake the tree and see what falls
> out. Consumers benefit little or not at all.


Hello, bmoag:

Are you making excuses for Canon? If the company >is<, as you say, "one
of the most aggressive marketers" - and if it >has<, as you claim,
"generated ever shorter product cycles and have combined this with
aggressive pricing of low end cameras" - then, why should it not reap
the risks of such actions, as well as the rewards?

Further, Japan should be criticized as sharply as any other country,
for exploiting China and its cheap labor. It's not simply an "East vs
West" matter, nor a racial or ideological issue, alone.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

Phil Wheeler wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote:
> > jsmith wrote:
> >> Canon Class Action Denied
> >> Judge Blocks Suit On Behalf of Shutterbugs
> >> By Joseph S. Enoch
> >> ConsumerAffairs.Com
> >>
> >> In a heartbreaking loss for the many consumers affected by faulty
> >> Canon cameras, a United States District Court judge in New York has
> >> decided not to allow a class action lawsuit against Canon.
> >
> > <cut rest of message, for brevity>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Well, what does Bret "Annika1980" Douglas have to say about >this<
> > revoltin' development, eh? Canon seems to think it's okay to screw its
> > P&S customers, while at the same time, it continues pandering to the
> > DSLR crowd.
> >
>
> Or did they just screw a bunch of money-grubbing
> attorneys?
>
> Phil


Hello, Phil:

Today's prevalence of greedy lawyers, hardly absolves Canon of any
guilt, whatsoever.

On a related note, Sony's recent quality-control problems are well
documented, and have justifiably earned that outfit its fair share
of public indignation.

Is Canon above the law, somehow, merely because it makes better
digital cameras than Sony does? :-P


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>