Canon's 5:30 p.m. lights-out program

[robmilton]

<p>

<p>Hello, all.<br>

 

<p>I was out shooting for fun with a friend of mine (who is a full-time professional) and he made a comment about Canon's deteriorating QC (quality control) over the last few years. I made mental note of it, but didn't think too deeply about it until I read this article:<br>

 

<p><a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/26/canon.babies/index.html">http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/26/canon.babies/index.html</a><br>

 

<p>In light of this article, I'm really just curious what your thoughts are, O Photo.net Gurus. Do you have concerns about the quality of Canon's products in the long-term? Do you see a downward trend? Are you dissatisfied Canon's business decisions (whether it be things like in the above article or something else)?<br>

 

<p>I received a 35mm film Canon in college as a gift, and when I decided to "go digitial" I stuck with Canon simply because I couldn't afford to invest in a lot of new glass. So, I've never really considered the issue of brand loyalty, but recently it seems like I've been hearing and reading about issues that concern me as a Canon user. Am I just getting caught up in the alarmism?<br>

 

<p>Your thoughts?</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

[phule]

<p>[[and he made a comment about Canon's deteriorating QC (quality control) over the last few years]]</p>

<p>So, your friend works for Canon and has access to their QC process?</p>

[zml]

<p>Canon's QC? In my experience as good (or bad, take your pick) as that of any other mass manufacturer: duds happen, but if you pay any attention to the stuff being written on the 'net (including this forum and this post) I have a nice bridge for you: great location and cheap to boot! And being well acquainted with employment slavery, I can only applaud the Canon's decision of 5:30 PM lights out.:-)))</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>Am I just getting caught up in the alarmism?</em></p>

<p>Yes you are, of course. Ignore CNN. They only report on what is cool and sells. That is a PEOPLE magazine style of a "report." Canon hasn't changed its QC as far as I can tell (going back to only 1990 for me).</p>

<p>The Sky is not falling Rob M. I would also say the same thing about Nikon (all good) but not Minolta (who?).</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Deleted my comments, but don't see a way to delete the entire message. Sorry.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>A few people complain on the the 'net and the entire world knows about it a few hours later. I've owned dozens of EOS bodies, over 30 lenses and 6 Speedlites since 1990. In 1995 my EOS 1N needed a LCD replacement. A few years later the Command dial was replaced on my EOS 5. I had a burnt out AF motor replaced in a 75-300 IS in 1999. In 2004 my 70-200 L was calibrated. Since 2004 I have bought 5 DSLRs and 6 lenses. None--not one--have any problems yet. In my experience is IQ is improving.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I would bet most dud lenses are really dud users. I don't mean that to sound rude or offensive. Its just like everything else that you want to do well, its not always as easy as it seems. Everyone seems to think a good camera or lens makes them a good photographer and that is so not true. And when people get bad photos using good equipment its easy to blame the gear.</p>

<p>Now, I am sure there are bad copies but not as many as people on the web would lead you to believe. I have owned many Canon and other various brand of lenses and I have yet to come across a "bad copy". </p>

<p> </p>

[ed_v.]

<p>The article isn't about the performance of Canon, Inc. as a company nor their products. It's about the low birth rate in Japan and how the 12-hr workday may be a major contributor to that problem. The article also infers that Canon is just one of 1,300 companies that have been asked to let their workers go home early. Could be that many other electronics--and camera--manufacturers are doing the same.</p>

[robmilton]

<p>

<p>No, Rob B., that was simply his subjective opinion. But since he earns a living with his Canon gear and I'm just an amateur, I considered his opinion more experience-informed than my own.<br>

 

<p>Michael and Ken, thanks for your perspective. Like I said, I haven't given much thought to whether or not I'm one of those Canon "loyalists" until now, but I didn't want to be ignorant to a dowward trend if there was a broad consensus about this. Thanks again.<br>

 

<p>"Minolta (who?)" Nice. :)</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

[robmilton]

<p>

<p>"I would bet most dud lenses are really dud users." I'd have to agree, Tommy, and I include myself. As I've learned the strengths and weakness of various of my lenses (aperture "sweet spots", contrast issues, etc.) I can see a marked improvement in my images.<br>

 

<p>(By the way, Tommy, I never properly thanked you for talking me into buying the 28mm f/1.8 over something else several months back. I've loved it!)</p>

</p>

</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Rob your very welcome. I am glad you like the 28 1.8. I love it too. </p>

<p>Also, I should say that I include myself as well. I am guilty of posting the is this lens soft question and in time I realized its my mistake not then lens. </p>

[phule]

<p>[[but I didn't want to be ignorant to a dowward trend if there was a broad consensus about this.]]<br>

You can rest assured that when Canon QC falls to levels deemed unacceptable, you will be notified: Ralph Nader will write a book called: "Unsafe at any Shutter Speed."</p>

<p> </p>

[mbkissel]

<p>:-) :-) :-)</p>

[michael j hoffman]

<p>I've been a Canon customer since the inception of the EOS system back in 1987. In that time, I've tried other manufacturers offerings, including Leica and Olympus. No other line of cameras fits my shooting style, or seems as natural in use for me as does EOS equipment, both film and digital. Pair my Canon experience with a long-live, outstanding vendor-to-customer relationship with B&H Photo in New York, and the equipment end of my photographic pursuits has been close to Nirvana.</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p>Same as Michael, though I've only been shooting EOS since 1989 (I do use some Nikon lenses on my EOS bodies, and I use several brands in different formats, including film). I would definitely abandon Canon if I felt their QC was definitively lacking or slipping, but nothing I've personally seen or experienced has persuaded me to do so.</p>

<p>It cracks me up to hear the alarmism over things like the "black dot" thing, fixed with firmware before most buyers of the 5DII even took delivery of their cameras. True, sometimes things get sorted out <em>after</em> the product comes to market, but if that's a concern one can wait until firmware updates are proven or one can buy a different brand. But IIRC, it took Nikon three full years to bring out a sub-$3,000 FF camera after Canon did, and millions of great photos were made with the Canon 5D during those three years. Early adoption has both its benefits and its disadvantages, and each buyer has the freedom to go with a company that has been consistently innovative (when will Nikon release a sub-$3K 20-plus-mp camera w/1080p video?) or to be more cautious.</p>

[bueh]

<p>I don't get it why anyone thinks that letting workers go home early leads to a deterioration in quality control. The better Japanese camera companies all have excellent QC as it is ingrained in their production system. No human process will be 100% perfect all the time, but Japanese cameras and lenses (excluding SigMa) have only few quality issues.</p>

<p>All in all, the happier the workers, the better their work I guess.</p>

[david_wu6]

<p>I read the article twice and couldn't find the link to the concern.</p>

[gertle]

<p>The only way I can imaging Canon's 5:30 Lights Out program affecting QC is that, once the babies start arriving, the workers may be too tired the next day after waking up for the 2:00am feeding.</p>

[gertle]

<p>sorry, double post.</p>

[rjacksonphoto]

<p>Am I reading the same article? I guess I, too, am missing the connection between sending employees home early-- ostensibly to procreate-- and quality control.</p>

[rjacksonphoto]

<p>Am I reading the same article? I guess I, too, am missing the connection between sending employees home early-- ostensibly to procreate-- and quality control.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Consumer products just aren't built to the same standards anymore, not even Leica. But in this disposable camera digital age, why would it need be...it only has to last a year or two.</p>

[burger]

<p>I don't know how one gets from more time at home -and what follows-, to poor QC? Here in South Korea more companies -like LG, Samsung etc- are also tending to shorter working hours because of workers getting burnt out. (I'm busy doing some research for my PhD on the Korean culture and counseling). Thus I would think if workers work less hours their quality of work would improve. Thought I just share my thoughts:)</p>

[burger]

<p>I don't know how one gets from more time at home -and what follows-, to poor QC? Here in South Korea more companies -like LG, Samsung etc- are also tending to shorter working hours because of workers getting burnt out. (I'm busy doing some research for my PhD on the Korean culture and counseling). Thus I would think if workers work less hours their quality of work would improve. Thought I just share my thoughts:)</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>A friend who "made a comment" and an article that talks about a company easing off 12 hour workdays, just a couple days per week for societal reasons, somehow makes you think there is a link between the 2? The connection is not just tenuous, it's non-existent. </p>

<p>This is a great example of how fast misinformation can spread on the web. Think of how many folks will read this thread and be left with the impression "I read that Canon has increasing quality problems........" </p>