CPU Cost

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

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

 

[Chris Bell]

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.

 

[Panos Bournias]

money spent

money spent

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

I paid ~1,600 US to repair the EVF... Not such a good deal either....

 

[Steven Caesare]

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

 

[Stephen Williams]

Imagine what the costs would be on a $200K Sony F23.

-sc

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'.

 

[Steven Caesare]

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'.

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

 

[Stephen Williams]

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

 

[Curran Giddens]

I have never beta tested for Sony either.

Stephen

:nads:

 

[JanneJansson]

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

I thought the main idea of using expensive LEMO reliability.

 

[Stephen Williams]

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/Ukpga_19940035_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

 

[Karl Gustav H.]

That takes me back to undergrad law.

I haven't seen the Red contract but at a guess it is written to ensure the entire transaction takes place (to the greatest extent possible) in the USA and is therefore governed by US law. I also wonder if a court would treat the purchase of a £10000+ professional camera setup as falling under the stricter business to consumer regime. Then again there is an inequality of bargaining power between the parties.

I am not a lawyer and thi should not be constituted as legal advice.

 

[Stephen Williams]

That takes me back to undergrad law.

I haven't seen the Red contract but at a guess it is written to ensure the entire transaction takes place (to the greatest extent possible) in the USA and is therefore governed by US law. I also wonder if a court would treat the purchase of a £10000+ professional camera setup as falling under the stricter business to consumer regime. Then again there is an inequality of bargaining power between the parties.

I am not a lawyer and thi should not be constituted as legal advice.

Hi,

No it does not apply to RED as you bought online in the USA, if you buy from Sony in Europe it most certanly does. Any cameras or accessories bought from RED Pinewood would be covered. By paying on a Personal Credit card in the uk any goods costing £100 - £30,000 charged to the credit card is also the responsiblilty of the credit card company. I understand that paying a deposit over £100 on a personal credit car 'stuffs' the credit card co as well. Paying on a 'Personal' credit card is key!

One of the reasons EVERYTHING bought in Europe is more expensive. I understand California law does not require any guarante at all.

Stephen

 

[David Birdy]

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.

Hey Chris,

I have heard the capacitors in the Panasonic go bad. If you see any "caps" that look like they "ballooned" out, try to replace them!

 

[Steven Caesare]

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

I know you have some reputation in the industry, but what's with the passive-aggresive here?

You think a somebody damaging hardware, and using connectors that are standard on lots of pro gear at that, equates to beta testing?

If so, then I guess my laptop with it's RJ-45 port (of which there are probably billions in use) that has a bent pin from a bad cable insertion attempt must indicate it's a beta product.

If you don't really think that, it's disingenuous at least, and snide at most, to mention it.

Give it up.

-sc

 

[Stephen Williams]

I know you have some reputation in the industry, but what's with the passive-aggresive here?

Give it up.

-sc

Hi Steven,

I just trying to put some balance amongst the Sony haters. I don't currently own any video cameras so don't have a horse in the race, just an independent DOP who chooses the best tool for the job.

To add a link to my previous post, presumably this only applies to items bought in the UK using a UK Credit Card / loan agreement
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft303.pdf

If you live in the UK & want to pay high repair costs please ignore my post.

Best regards,

Stephen

Did the bad pin damage your laptop? Probably not, if it did who paid for the repairs? just curious but I think you were being snide here.
How much was your RJ 45 cable compared to a EVF cable? 10% I would guess.

 

[Steven Caesare]

Hi Steven,

I just trying to put some balance amongst the Sony haters. I don't currently own any video cameras so don't have a horse in the race, just an independent DOP who chooses the best tool for the job.

To add a link to my previous post, presumably this only applies to items bought in the UK using a UK Credit Card / loan agreement
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft303.pdf

If you live in the UK & want to pay high repair costs please ignore my post.

Best regards,

Stephen

Did the bad pin damage your laptop? Probably not, if it did who paid for the repairs? just curious but I think you were being snide here.

I'm asking you if you REALLY think that somebody physically damaging some equipment REALLY equates to that equipment being beta quality?

The UK law issues you later brought up aren't germane.

As for the laptop: yes, the ethernet port is no longer usable, and as it is integrated in to the machine, it would require a repair cost. I don't catagorize the laptop as being beta-quality because a bad cable insertion physically damaged it.

-sc

PS- Your taking a veiled jab at RED doesn't exactly give you the impartial persona I suspect you desire.

 

[Curran Giddens]

Give it up.

He is just trying to hide the fact that he is just a big ol' Red fanboy at heart.

Just look at how many posts he has here! - And I might add that most of them are pretty informative (even if they are often a bit disingenuous).

 

[Stephen Williams]

I'm asking you if you REALLY think that somebody physically damaging some equipment REALLY equates to that equipment being beta quality?

The UK law issues you later brought up aren't germane.

As for the laptop: yes, the ethernet port is no longer usable, and as it is integrated in to the machine, it would require a repair cost. I don't catagorize the laptop as being beta-quality because a bad cable insertion physically damaged it.

-sc

PS- Your taking a veiled jab at RED doesn't exactly give you the impartial persona I suspect you desire.

Hi Steven,

I never said "that somebody physically damaging some equipment REALLY equates to that equipment being beta quality?" I wrote "I have never beta tested for Sony either." I don't see any connection between the two statements.

The Uk Law applies to goods sold in the UK, RED has started selling accessories in the UK so it might be of interest to some people here.

So your laptop still is usable, have you inquired if the manufacture will fix it free of charge? Germany has pretty strict consumer laws as well. BTW it's very long time since I last used an ethernet port on my laptop.

If you don't like my posts I would appreciate it if you could add me to your ignore list, then your time wont be wasted reading my posts.

Best,

Stephen

Edit can I see some links to your work, nice to have some perspective on who I am talking to.

Back to your original question "Imagine what the costs would be on a $200K Sony F23." If the damage was caused by attaching a Sony viewfinder then in all probability nothing.

Personally I have always been bothered by "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone with a bad attitude."

 

[Jannard]

Hi Steven,


Personally I have always been bothered by "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone with a bad attitude."

Is that because you always walk very close to the line?

Jim

 

[Roberto B]

Is that because you always walk very close to the line?

Jim

looooool this is a quote of a lifetime.. ehehehehe