However, if they're going to keep it that long, they should simply
replace your camera. Why not ask for a replacement and see how they
respond. Just say that the repair period on a brand-new camera is
not acceptable. See if they'll replace it.
At the outset, let's acknowledge that we as consumers are enjoying cutting edge electronics at prices that would have been unimaginably low even a decade go, and it's not unreasonable that, as a trade-off, we may have to go to the bother and (relatively minor) expense of returning faulty goods a bit more often than we were entitled to expect in "the good old days".
That's because, in order to achieve that low ultimate retail price point for competition's sake, manufacturers have been slashing quality assurance expenditure to the bone. Most significantly, they have been dismantling time-worn QA regimens and turning the consumer community, at large, into a brigade of de facto and, of course unpaid, quality inspectors.
Now that's all very well, provided that manufacturers -- and their agents -- are prepared to step up to the plate and replace faulty items
promptly and with good grace . And we all know that it costs them less to provide an instant replacement, in most cases, than to fool around with an ad hoc repair. Fix the fall-out, by all means, but do it in bulk and recoup what they can via the "factory refurbished" market.
It's when mfrs want it both ways, i.e. both diminished quality inspection and diminished responsibility for the duds, that it tends to stick in one's throat.
It's definitely not acceptable to expect the consumer to suffer extended loss of use of a product that's failed after only a few days or even weeks of service. The consumer needs to be polite but firm in pressing for a replacement.
All in all, escalating failure rates in gear of this sort are telling us that it's well past time for a sweeping introduction of properly drafted Lemon Laws, which should also contain stiff provisions demanding replacement rather than repair within realistic periods of use prior to even the first failure.
--
Mike
Melbourne
