Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Sony’s Poor Awful Customer Service

    Posted by Jonathan on June 5th, 2006 (All posts by )

    I have updated my earlier post to include latest developments, which are not satisfying.

    I suppose that some number of 2.5-week repair cycles from now I will have a camera that functions as it should. However, that’s small consolation for my missing a number of occasions of the type that in part I bought the camera to record, that are now slipping by. Of course I will use film instead, but film cameras can’t do video, and the renewed prospect of hours of drudgery to scan a few rolls of film is discouraging.

    BTW, googling “Sony customer service” yields many pungent links, including one to a complaint that says Sony’s customer support “sucks so much it will sap your will to live.” That seems about right.

     

    9 Responses to “Sony’s Poor Awful Customer Service”

    1. Dan from Madison Says:

      Jonathan,
      I am interested to know how much you spent on the thing. I assume you are eating the freight each time plus the time spent boxing the piece of sh1t up plus pain and aggravation. Where I am going is if you spent a couple of hundred dollars maybe its time to just sh1tcan the thing and buy something else. Just a thought.

    2. Jonathan Says:

      Thanks, Dan. That’s a tough one. I spent about $400 including accessories. Alternatives? 1) Keep using it with spots, 2) send it back and hope it gets fixed, or 3) wash my hands of it and buy another camera. Simplest would be to keep using it as is, but the spots would bother me on sky photos. Buying another camera would mean spending more money, and by the time I finished researching and shopping I might have my current camera back anyway. I’m inclined to roll the dice and send it back again, since this time it goes to Sony’s in-house repair shop rather than a contractor. (Sony pays shipping, btw.) I’ll pack and send it when I get a chance.

      One thing’s certain: I don’t intend to buy any more Sony products unless Sony’s service improves.

    3. Dan from Madison Says:

      Hrm. That is too steep to just forget about it and toss it. I would set my level at $250. Using it with fuzz or dust on it is unacceptable. And I enjoy your photoblog a lot and don’t want that either. Good luck! Looks like you are going to need it.

    4. Jonathan Says:

      Thanks! I’ve already paid most of the cost, monetary and otherwise, so I may as well send the thing back until they get it right.

      Strange way to run a business.

    5. econ Says:

      Sunk costs.

      I say, go one more round at most, then toss it. Your time is more valuable.

      Consider it a freeway accident with Sony and you have a $500 deductible.

      If you want a big zoom (12x) with stabilization, get the Pana FZ5. If you want a pocketable cam with good high ISO get the Fuji F11.

    6. John Says:

      My reommendation is to bite the bullet and buy a digital SLR from Nikon or Cannon (Cannons have fancier electronics and software, Nikons are more reliable). You can use SLR lenses that you might already have for a 35mm camera, which gives a lot more flexibility. My wife (the family photographer) has a Rebel from Cannon (also purchased from B&H), and she’s been pleased with it. (She owned a Rebel and a more sophisticated EOS film camera before that). But if you own a Nikon film SLR, you might not want to re-invest in Cannon lenses.

    7. Jonathan Says:

      Thanks, John. I had been holding off on digital cameras because the small ones are limited and the DSLRs are big and noisy. I bought the Sony mainly because I realized that I wanted video capability, which or course DSLRs do not have. In my brief use of it I found it to be great not only for video but also as a take-anywhere camera, particularly for bike rides, which is where I make a large proportion of my photos. I also found that the ability to get photos quickly onto my computer without laborious scanning was liberating. So while I will end up with a DSLR at some point, in the meantime a small camera is highly useful to me despite its limitations.

    8. John Says:

      The XT is pretty small for a digital SLR, and it’s quiet. But it does not do video.

      We also have a Sony Mavica, with which we’ve had some problems. But it’s hard to discount Sony’s Zeiss optics. None of the other non-film camera companies come close.

    9. Porridge Says:

      Was googling for outlets to share my terrible Sony customer service experience and found your site – I’ve been chronicling my experience for 230 days here, if you’re interested. -G.