Canon Camera defective camera, no recourse Canonusa.com Nationwide

Dear A:

I sell digital cameras for a living and my experience tells me you are leaving out some very important information and misleading with other information.

Therefore, your conclusions about Canon and their products are totally unjustified and wrong.

First of all, the date on this complaint is today (5/6/2007). You give the impression that you just purchased this camera very recently... this is supported by your statement you bought it from a local store with a 15 day return policy.

In fact, the A520 came to market over two years ago. The selling price of the camera two years ago with rechargable batteries and charger with a memory card would have run about $300. If a retailer still had this camera in stock today (the current model is the A550), it would be a clearance model and would cost considerably less than the $300 you quoted.

My conclusion is that you are complaining about a camera that is 1 1/2 to 2 years old. This is well out of the warranty which explains why Canon is quoting you $100 to diagnose the problem and more to fix it. If it had been a recent camera, Canon would be diagnosing and fixing it under warranty. assuming you haven't dropped it or gone swimming with it.

This is also Canon's bottom line, cheapest camera. Even so, it is better than a lot of cameras out there.

Regardless, the bottom line of digital cameras are basically disposable once they are broken because it costs more to repair them than to buy a new one. For example, I can sell you a new A550 for $199.99 plus tax. You can use the batteries, charger and memory that you already have.

I'm sorry you didn't get the service you expected out of your camera, but these things are like people. they live a lot longer with exercise. Using a camera four times in two years is not a lot of exercise.

I hope you get more service out of your next one. and just so you know. if I were to buy a small point and shoot camera for myself. it would be a Canon Elph. an SD1000 or an SD750.

Peace,

Dear A:

I sell digital cameras for a living and my experience tells me you are leaving out some very important information and misleading with other information.

Therefore, your conclusions about Canon and their products are totally unjustified and wrong.

First of all, the date on this complaint is today (5/6/2007). You give the impression that you just purchased this camera very recently... this is supported by your statement you bought it from a local store with a 15 day return policy.

In fact, the A520 came to market over two years ago. The selling price of the camera two years ago with rechargable batteries and charger with a memory card would have run about $300. If a retailer still had this camera in stock today (the current model is the A550), it would be a clearance model and would cost considerably less than the $300 you quoted.

My conclusion is that you are complaining about a camera that is 1 1/2 to 2 years old. This is well out of the warranty which explains why Canon is quoting you $100 to diagnose the problem and more to fix it. If it had been a recent camera, Canon would be diagnosing and fixing it under warranty. assuming you haven't dropped it or gone swimming with it.

This is also Canon's bottom line, cheapest camera. Even so, it is better than a lot of cameras out there.

Regardless, the bottom line of digital cameras are basically disposable once they are broken because it costs more to repair them than to buy a new one. For example, I can sell you a new A550 for $199.99 plus tax. You can use the batteries, charger and memory that you already have.

I'm sorry you didn't get the service you expected out of your camera, but these things are like people. they live a lot longer with exercise. Using a camera four times in two years is not a lot of exercise.

I hope you get more service out of your next one. and just so you know. if I were to buy a small point and shoot camera for myself. it would be a Canon Elph. an SD1000 or an SD750.

Peace,

I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me. Did you explain that the camera was under warranty? Unless it was abused, which you indicate that it was not, the defect will be covered under the warranty.

I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me. Did you explain that the camera was under warranty? Unless it was abused, which you indicate that it was not, the defect will be covered under the warranty.

I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me. Did you explain that the camera was under warranty? Unless it was abused, which you indicate that it was not, the defect will be covered under the warranty.