Voiding warranty - what other surprises are there besides Global Media batteries?

[Benjamin Zimbric]

I have contacted you directly. Thank you for letting me know how to go about this on this forum. I had not heard from RED regarding this matter. I really do appreciate the help.

 

[Brent Carter]

No problem, Benjamin.

BC

 

[Les C.]

Our policies on third party stuff have been the same since day one. You use third party solutions that damage your RED gear, it voids the warranty. And when we have identified a systemic problem with a certain third party part, we have advised users here. I am a little shocked to see so much surprise on this subject given status quo for 5 years?

RED quality control cannot control the integrity of every part a third party makes. I know, obvious. So, if there is a one-off part from a third party manufactured wrong or poorly and it damages your RED gear, we let you know. Through various diagnostic reports from our IQC team, we can pretty much pinpoint a smoking gun that caused damaged.

Benjamin, if you want more answers from RED, directly talk to RED, not indirectly to REDUSER. Call/email nick - dot - grow - at - red - dot - com - he manages product support including repair/RMA teams. Lee S, won't dignify that claim with a reply.

We don't discuss specifics of customer cases publicly. That is between RED and our customer.
BC


BC

Brent - I think it would come as a complete surprise to most/all GMP battery users that it damages RED gear, or that you have "advised users here" of that problem.

This is a product that's been used since the RED One, and seems to be very widely used, even by Martin, the moderator here (and he would probably be one of the first to have noticed any posting by RED on this forum, warning of GMP problems).

There seems to be a disparity between what you are saying, and what (at least) I perceive to be what's happening (I have no knowledge of RED internals, just what I read here, and I read a lot).

Please feel free to ask questions. I only wanted to tell my story so that others could avoid the issues and expense I have encountered. Am I upset? Yes. I would much rather take a nice trip somewhere with my wife than supply RED with my money. Is that business? Yes. I didn't come here for the fun and the cookies. Came here to make money. RED did too. I just want some answers for my money. That's all. Or I want my money back.

Benjamin - please do pursue this with RED, and let us know how this has been resolved.

We are a community of users here - and what affects one of us, affects all of us.

Hopefully you, and I, and RED - all have the same goals as far as making sure the RED experience is the best that it can be.

 

[Brent Carter]

Les, I don't see where anyone from RED made the blanket statement that GMP batteries unilaterally damage RED cameras. What we are stating is that if a third-party product damages your RED gear, it voids the warranty. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

BC

 

[Matt Ryan]

I think a point Brent is trying to make that sure most of the GMP batteries may be perfectly fine, but if one slips through qc or isn't up to specs and causes an issue, it's not RED's fault. Every manufacturer has a bad batch of items it produces amongst a mix of thousands, sometimes it just happens. If it's a non RED brand and that product damages your camera, then it is out of warranty. If it is an official RED product it is covered under warranty.... Simple idea...

I understand why you'd be upset if you had to pay for your camera on something you assumed you didn't cause, but truthfully RED cant be held responsible for every 3rd party accessory out there and their qc issues. So use at your own risk...

I agree there should be a master list of approved products but I'd rather the engineers put their time into improving and producing new RED products and not worrying about 3rd party accessories.

 

[Les C.]

Les, I don't see where anyone from RED made the blanket statement that GMP batteries unilaterally damage RED cameras. What we are stating is that if a third-party product damages your RED gear, it voids the warranty. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

BC

I'm referring to the post I saw in the last week where RED warned a customer (not in the forum, but during a phone or email conversation) that using GMP could invalidate their warranty - and to Benjamin's situation.

Benjamin certainly seems to feel that RED invalidated his warranty for using GMP.

It's hard to draw conclusions from just a few posts, which is why I opened this thread.

I'm sure you can understand how I'd have concerns, after reading his posts.

And I'm sure a number of GMP users have similar concerns.

Hopefully, as "Cool Hand Luke" might say, this is all due to 'a failure to communicate' and will be resolved shortly.

 

[Brent Carter]

Les, I cannot comment on direct communications between RED and one of its customers. Pretty much what Matt says above summarizes it well. If you want to discuss further, give me a call on Monday. I would be happy to clear up any misconceptions.

BC

 

[Benjamin Zimbric]

My issue was not related to GMP batteries to clear that up. It is related to the more general issue of 3rd party accessories. I'm going to leave it there for the weekend and talk to RED thoroughly on Monday.

 

[paulherrin]

Les, I don't see where anyone from RED made the blanket statement that GMP batteries unilaterally damage RED cameras. What we are stating is that if a third-party product damages your RED gear, it voids the warranty. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

BC

Brent - thanks for clearing that up. Can't argue with that.


Now, I was under the impression that the cameras had certain failsafes for power. Apparently, they may be more vulnerable than the common perception? Excuse my ignorance or miseducation on that, but I had not even considered that issue (haven't had to, perhaps - I've only used RED power). If there are some certain things to test or look out for that anyone can advise, that would probably help a lot of people keep their cameras healthy.

I did hear (not from RED) certain warnings about plugging the wrong mics into the front jacks, and knew there was potential for problems there. I admittedly need to check the manual on this topic, but now that phantom power is about to be officially enabled, it would be nice to hear a little bit more about this, as I don't pretend to know very much about professional audio and I'd like to make good decisions.

I also have at least heard that there is potential for problems with 3rd party mounts, though I can't say I understand what the issues are. As I am interested in some certain mounts, it would be nice to at least be informed about the SOP's for approvals - I understand that it's not as simple as slapping an accessory on a camera to see if it 'works', but sometimes it seems like both the customers and manufacturers remain in the dark on those things, to the point where it's unclear whether there is any active testing going on at all or if something has just been shelved, dismissed, or whether a product has even been submitted.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but the issue of lens mounts and voided warranties brings up a subject that - for me - has not been resolved and I think that is where the legitimate concern is coming from. Feel free to correct my history if it is inaccurate. Birger mount. Lots of people got totally surprised with a dropped warranty one day. People that hadn't sent their cameras in because they didn't experience any problems, much less problems from the mount installation. I'm not looking to rehash the specifics on that - if that voided warranty for a very different or specific reason and doesn't apply to this discussion... then okay. Even then, the idea is still worrisome that you could potentially lose your warranty just for using something. I apologize if I'm missing something, but that whole scenario just doesn't click.

What you've said makes a lot of sense - IF you decide to venture with an unapproved accessory you accept the risks that go along with that and IF something does happen to go wrong as a result of your decision the warranty does not cover the damage. What doesn't make sense is that you use a 3rd party accessory and nothing goes wrong, but you've still lost your warranty just on the principle of the matter. So the real concern is just about whether the warranty is lost because you used something unapproved or because something unapproved clearly screwed up your camera.

 

[Zeb B]

Good Evening Brent,
I appreciate your patience with this thread through its Mr Toad ride of constructive criticism and bullshit vitriol. I have a direct question - a question from someone who is a happy customer and has no issues past or present.

Does RED publish an approved 3rd party product list?
If not - why not?

I own and fly airplanes. In that field you have an FAA procedure to get all equipment approved for a specific aircraft. Without this approval for every after market nut and bolt my airplane certification is void and I am a test pilot breaking the law. So when I am shopping for, let's say, a new GPS or radio I can review a list of approved products for my airplane. Simple really.

Without a list from RED I have no way of knowing when I am a test pilot risking my very expensive 2 year Epic-M warranty or when I'm in compliance. I am not comfortable with this approach.

Is it that all non-RED products potentially void the warranty or are there approved 3rd party products that have been tested and approved to a point that if these products cause an issue then the warranty is still intact?

Thank you for your efforts and direct reply

 

[Zeb B]

. . . What doesn't make sense is that you use a 3rd party accessory and nothing goes wrong, but you've still lost your warranty just on the principle of the matter. So the real concern is just about whether the warranty is lost because you used something unapproved or because something unapproved clearly screwed up your camera.

The reason that doesn't make sense is because in CA that is not allowed under current consumer law. I'm sure that RED never meant to suggest that by just using a non-RED product it would void the entire warranty.

 

[paulherrin]

The reason that doesn't make sense is because in CA that is not allowed under current consumer law. I'm sure that RED never meant to suggest that by just using a non-RED product it would void the entire warranty.

i was under the impression that everyone who installed a birger mount lost their warranty (as well as upgrade eligibility) - even if there were no problems and they didn't 'need' their warranty. my understanding was that it had nothing to do with whether the thing determinedly did damage.

i've personally been really impressed with red's approach and their treatment of customers. i love red. that's why i get confused by some of these things, it doesn't seem to match up... i'm really sorry that i don't 'get it' - i'm still learning. i just need some help understanding what's going on here and how it should affect my accessory decisions in the future.

my best guess, and what seems like common sense, is that just using a third party product is not grounds to void your warranty. even if that is the case, i'm still a little bit confused about what happens if something does go wrong. and let's face it, there's no reason to be worried about your warranty unless something does indeed go wrong. so is your warranty voided just because you used something, or does it have to certainly be determined that something unapproved was at fault? let's say a board goes out... bound to happen as i understand it. would someone lose warranty just because they had plugged up a 3rd party battery (or whatever, fill in the blank) or must it be emphatically proven beyond a doubt that it is the culprit. i mean, what if the thing just went out? i'm just getting a lot of mixed signals... again - sorry if this is due to my lack of understanding.

so what's the policy... innocent until proven guilty, or suspension of habeas corpus?

 

[Scott Crawley]

If you use a third party device and it causes no problems, and you don't send it in for a related repair then how would Red know and why would they care? It only becomes an issue when there is a problem and Red is saying that in that case they will not foot the bill. Use these things at your own risk. That is the point. That is what the warranty says.

What is difficult about that? I'm not suggesting that you need to be or should be secretive. It's simply a practical matter in the real world. If you keep things in those terms it's not so confusing.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

Jarred himself has said that there are 3 trouble areas which RED encounters with the greatest frequency: lens mounts, power, and audio.

Why not offer some additional communication to the customer regarding these trouble areas?

Several years back, RED openly stated a helpful policy regarding third-party lens mounts: don't do it at all -

That was helpful. I'm sure it warned a few folks away from experimenting with untested mounts.

As a result of their mount policy, I have waited six years, including suffering through all that silly Birger drama from its inception, when I was on its wait-list, for RED to release a Canon mount.

RED released one. I bought it.

RED sells batteries. I own 15 RED batts and 3 chargers.

RED sells no audio devices - since there is no RED solution to audio, some guidance and more clear communication issuing from them would help their customer base. There is no way to implement audio on RED without using a third-party device.

Ergo, some guidance in this regard might prove helpful.

That is my suggestion. RED is free to take it or leave it. RED is great at listening to it's customer's suggestions - best of breed in this regard.

The rest of the noise, Scott, about people taking responsibility for their cameras and how we define professional, yadda yadda - it's not really germane to the point I'm trying to make, which is really quite simple and straightforward.

 

[Scott Crawley]

RED sells no audio devices - since there is no RED solution to audio, some guidance and more clear communication issuing from them would help their customer base. There is no way to implement audio on RED without using a third-party device.

Ergo, some guidance in this regard might prove helpful.

That is my suggestion. RED is free to take it or leave it. RED is great at listening to it's customer's suggestions - best of breed in this regard.

The rest of the noise, Scott, about people taking responsibility for their cameras and how we define professional, yadda yadda - it's not really germane to the point I'm trying to make, which is really quite simple and straightforward.

I can't say I appreciate your tone; noise comment and all, but I take your point. As I mentioned before I agree that some assistance from Red would of course be welcome. More specifics than are currently being offered seem warranted. However Red can not be expected to provide professional audio training to everyone who might connect those kinds of devices to their cameras. To be safe in this area, the user really must accept the burden of responsibility. In most professional situations that entails hiring an actual pro sound person, and ultimately taking responsibility for what that person sends to the camera. So we are responsible for what we plug in, regardless of the who what when and why. Professionalism goes way beyond desire or the ability to make a buck. Taking responsibility is part and parcel. That was the point I was making. It is entirely relevant.

Here is an example that you may find relevant. Red sells an audio cable. That is a great help to us as it will reduce cabling errors. As a result they can't threaten to void warranties based on the use of third party products that are the same. On the other hand, if you use a similar cable that is wired differently and as a consequence you send a hot signal to your camera that fries it's pre-amp, your warranty may be void... legally, if I understand the situation.

 

[Les C.]

My issue was not related to GMP batteries to clear that up. It is related to the more general issue of 3rd party accessories. I'm going to leave it there for the weekend and talk to RED thoroughly on Monday.

Well, I guess Luke was right, ha ha, what we have is a "failure to communicate"!

My understanding was that you returned your camera with a problem, RED said they were going to fix it at no cost as it wasn't your fault. Then you mentioned you'd used GMP batteries, and by mentioning that, they voided your warranty.

Was I completely off-base? If so, I guess I need to get better reading glasses!

What you've said makes a lot of sense - IF you decide to venture with an unapproved accessory you accept the risks that go along with that and IF something does happen to go wrong as a result of your decision the warranty does not cover the damage. What doesn't make sense is that you use a 3rd party accessory and nothing goes wrong, but you've still lost your warranty just on the principle of the matter. So the real concern is just about whether the warranty is lost because you used something unapproved or because something unapproved clearly screwed up your camera.

What you are saying hits right to the center of my concern. That the warranty will be voided not due to a problem caused by a 3rd party device, but simply by using one.

BTW - as RED batteries have a 3 month warranty, what happens if you are using a 4 month old out of warranty RED battery and it causes some damage? That's not really a valid concern of mine, but ... just saying.

---
To RED's defense on worrying about batteries (if indeed that is a concern of theirs), I will mention that a quick google of "lithium voltage spikes" seems to indicate that a battery with certain impurities could have a voltage spike upon the first discharge. http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/revac.1999.18.5/revac.1999.18.5.261/revac.1999.18.5.261.xml - which might indicate that the choice of battery could indeed be very important.

A spike might not cause a problem at first, but over time ....

 

[Benjamin Zimbric]

To clarify Les, I did not use GMP batteries at all. It was a third party battery plate and cable. But the sequence of events is basically correct. I got an email saying that the fault was not mine, the camera was repaired and shipping the next morning. I heard nothing for 2 days. I then received an invoice 2 days later for the cost of repair because I had used third party power accessories. RED knew I used the third party power accessories because they told me to send in the accessories to help "diagnose the problem". I was never told what was wrong with the plate or cable. I don't want to have misconception out in the community.

 

[Les C.]

To clarify Les, I did not use GMP batteries at all. It was a third party battery plate and cable. But the sequence of events is basically correct. I got an email saying that the fault was not mine, the camera was repaired and shipping the next morning. I heard nothing for 2 days. I then received an invoice 2 days later for the cost of repair because I had used third party power accessories. RED knew I used the third party power accessories because they told me to send in the accessories to help "diagnose the problem". I was never told what was wrong with the plate or cable. I don't want to have misconception out in the community.

Damn!
I'm now writing on the blackboard 100 times, "I will not quote from memory. I will not quote from memory."

BTW - which 3rd party accessories?

 

[Martin Weiss]

Les,

you might want to edit your first post in this thread.

 

[Bill Sepaniak]

The reason that doesn't make sense is because in CA that is not allowed under current consumer law. I'm sure that RED never meant to suggest that by just using a non-RED product it would void the entire warranty.

I don't mean to throw fuel on the fire, and I do agree that it would be helpful for RED to have some sort of list of approved or "certified" third party accessories, even if it means that "after-market" manufacturers have to pay a testing/certification fee to RED to get "the good-housekeeping stamp of approval" and they charge us a little more for their products. I am OK with that.

However, RED is totally within its rights to be as restrictive as it wants with respect to use of ANY after-market accessories on its cameras. The reason is very simple. In all likelihood, RED One, Epic and Scarlet cameras would NOT be viewed by either a California Court or a Federal Court as "consumer products." Now, would RED deny a sensor or monitor warranty claim, simply because I used a Wooden Camera handle on my camera? I seriously doubt it. But, in theory ... could they .... probably. But, from a business standpoint, it certainly wouldn't be in their best interests to do so. As Jarred said, it is a common sense thing. You use an after-market battery or cable, and someting gets fried .... well .... you are SOL!

Under California Law, basic consumer protection is found in the Song-Beverly Consumer Protection Act (California Civil Code Section 1790-1795.8). Section 1791 of the Code defines the goods or articles that are subject to the law as follows:

"1791. As used in this chapter: (a) "Consumer goods" means any new product or part thereof that is used, bought, or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, ..."
​

On the Federal level, basic consumer protection is found in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, (15 USC Section 2301, et seq). As with California law, the Federal protections of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act apply only to "consumer products."

The definition of a "consumer product" for the purposes of Federal law is pretty much the same as it is for California law. 15 USC Section 2301(1) states:

"(1) The term “consumer product” means any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes..."
​

Federal law does contain prohibitions that restrict a manufacturer of a "consumer product" from conditioning a warranty on the use of only specific after-market parts or accessories (for instance, that would relate to the use of after-market
ink-jet cartridges in your personal or home printer ... but not, for instance, in me using after-market inks or ink-jet cartridges in my Canon ipf8300 44" fine art ink-jet printer.) 15 USC 2302 states:

“No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name” .
​

The bottom line is: I really don't think any Court would conclude that a RED Camera is a "consumer product," ... unless you could convince the Court that you really bought that $35,000.00 Epic to shoot footage of your kids .... Because of
that, the normal "consumer" protections that are afforded to "consumer products" under California and Federal law, would provide little or no benefit or comfort to you in a warranty dispute with RED. And, oh, BTW, I don't play a lawyer on TV, but I do in real life.


____________________________________
Scarlet X # 1859 “Bettie Page”
“… preparing to ‘whip’ the competition …”

Zeiss Lenses:

CY 21/2.8
ZF 28/2.0
CY 35-70/3.4
CY 50/1.4
ZF100/2.0

Nikon Lenses:
G 14-24/2.8
G 24-70/2.8
D 80-200/2.8

Tokina Lenses:

11-16/2.8