Because of a bent pin in an EVF cable my CPU board shorted out. It seems that a new board is $4700 plus $200 for labor. I am somewhat surprised by this price for the board.
anyone else experienced this replacement cost?
Peter
Thread: CPU Cost
|
|
12-09-2009, 11:05 PM
Because of a bent pin in an EVF cable my CPU board shorted out. It seems that a new board is $4700 plus $200 for labor. I am somewhat surprised by this price for the board.
anyone else experienced this replacement cost?
Peter
12-09-2009, 11:27 PM
Ouch.... too bad nobody repairs things anymore. Rip out the old board and replace it with a new board. I am going through a similar issue with a 17" Panasonic monitor. The motherboard was replaced 18 months ago for $2K. Now it's dead again and I have to throw another $2K at it. I feel your pain.
12-09-2009, 11:32 PM
I paid ~1,600 US to repair the EVF... Not such a good deal either....Originally Posted by Peter Lyons Collister, ASC
12-10-2009, 07:29 AM
I dunno... other then the sensor itself, the CPU board is probably the single most significant item inside the body of an R1.
For a $17,500 camera, that repair cost doesn't seem unreasonable... especially if that includes the labor.
Ditto for the EVF.
Imagine what the costs would be on a $200K Sony F23.
-sc
12-10-2009, 09:08 AM
I have generally found Sony to repair equipment for free, in some cases a couple of years after the guarantee ran out. ( A CCD block on a 3 year old M7 about 20 yeras ago) I know of a DigiBeta 700 over 13 years old that's never needed a repair, 'just cry once'.
12-10-2009, 09:50 AM
The advantages of buying a $183,000 no questions asked warantee up front I guess.
I'd imagine there's a difference regarding repairs for free for failures as opposed to being damaged.
-sc
12-10-2009, 10:55 AM
Hi,
The only repair I ever paid was around £60 for a power switch on a CCU, that included the call out charge, we were up & within 2 hours of calling Sony. I have never managed to short anything attaching Sony accessories either. However I have never beta tested for Sony either.
Stephen
12-10-2009, 01:53 PM
12-10-2009, 05:14 PM
I thought the main idea of using expensive LEMO reliability.
12-11-2009, 12:03 AM
Hi,
People living in Europe, have much higher consumer protection, the selller & not the manufacture is ultimately responsible. The UK Sales of goods Act is fairly strict, probably the reason Sony paid for the CCD block even after 3 year, one would normally expect it to last for at least 6 years.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994...40035_en_1.htm
Provisions relating to the United Kingdom
1
Implied term about quality .(1)
In section 14 of the [1979 c. 54.] Sale of Goods Act 1979 (implied terms about quality or fitness) for subsection (2) there is substituted— .
“(2)
Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality. .
(2A)
For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances. .
(2B)
For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods— .
(a)
fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied, .
(b)
appearance and finish, .
(c)
freedom from minor defects, .
(d)
safety, and .
(e)
durability. .
(2C)
The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory— .
(a)
which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made, .
(b)
where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or .
(c)
in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.” .
(2)
In section 15 of that Act (sale by sample) in subsection (2)(c) for “rendering them unmerchantable” there is substituted “making their quality unsatisfactory”. .
2
Acceptance of goods and opportunity to examine them .(1)
In section 35 of the [1979 c. 54.] Sale of Goods Act 1979 (acceptance) for the words from “when he intimates” to “(2)” there is substituted— “subject to subsection (2) below— .
(a)
when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or .
(b)
when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller. .
(2)
Where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he has not previously examined them, he is not deemed to have accepted them under subsection (1) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose— .
(a)
of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract, and .
(b)
in the case of a contract for sale by sample, of comparing the bulk with the sample. .
(3)
Where the buyer deals as consumer or (in Scotland) the contract of sale is a consumer contract, the buyer cannot lose his right to rely on subsection (2) above by agreement, waiver or otherwise. .
(4)
The buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them. .
(5)
The questions that are material in determining for the purposes of subsection (4) above whether a reasonable time has elapsed include whether the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) above. .
(6)
The buyer is not by virtue of this section deemed to have accepted the goods merely because— .
(a)
he asks for, or agrees to, their repair by or under an arrangement with the seller, or .
(b)
the goods are delivered to another under a sub-sale or other disposition. .
(7)
Where the contract is for the sale of goods making one or more commercial units, a buyer accepting any goods included in a unit is deemed to have accepted all the goods making the unit; and in this subsection “commercial unit” means a unit division of which would materially impair the value of the goods or the character of the unit. .
(8)”. .
(2)
In section 34 of that Act (buyer to have opportunity to examine goods)— .
(a)
the words from the beginning to “(2)” are repealed; and .
(b)
at the end of that section there is inserted “and, in the case of a contract for sale by sample, of comparing the bulk with the sample.” .
3
Right of partial rejection .(1)
After section 35 of the [1979 c. 54.] Sale of Goods Act 1979 there is inserted the following section— .
“35A
Right of partial rejection .(1)
If the buyer— .
(a)
has the right to reject the goods by reason of a breach on the part of the seller that affects some or all of them, but .
(b)
accepts some of the goods, including, where there are any goods unaffected by the breach, all such goods, .
he does not by accepting them lose his right to reject the rest.
(2)
In the case of a buyer having the right to reject an instalment of goods, subsection (1) above applies as if references to the goods were references to the goods comprised in the instalment. .
(3)
For the purposes of subsection (1) above, goods are affected by a breach if by reason of the breach they are not in conformity with the contract. .
(4)
This section applies unless a contrary intention appears in, or is to be implied from, the contract.” .
(2)
At the beginning of section 11(4) of that Act (effect of accepting goods) there is inserted “Subject to section 35A below”. .
(3)
Section 30(4) of that Act (rejection of goods not within contract description) is repealed.
Stephen
Edit A credit card company or Hire Purchase company is also jointly responsible with the seller for goods costing between £100 -£30,000
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
