Why Is Canon Still Selling Camera They Claim Is Out Of Stock?

Sara has a wonderful husband who is getting her the digital camera and lens kit of her dreams for Christmas. He even ordered it six weeks ago, in order to make sure that it would definitely arrive in time for Christmas. It hasn’t showed up yet because Canon claims that it’s out of stock. Fine….so why does their Web site list the same exact item as “in stock”?

My husband decided in November to get me the DSLR camera I have been salivating over for years for Christmas. On November 11, we ordered the camera, the hope was that we would definitely have the camera for Christmas. After receiving the order confirmation, I heard nothing. On November 29, my husband emailed Canon asking where the order was, he was told at this time that the camera and lens kit I selected was Out of Stock, and they were unsure when they would be able to deliver the camera and lens.

This morning, having heard nothing more about when the camera might be in stock, I went to the Canon website to look at other options. To my surprise the camera and lens kit is still being sold as an “In Stock” item on the Canon website.

instock.jpg

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. MaxSmart32 says:

    It’s simple:

    Canon doesn’t sell the cameras direct, and so even if they aren’t in stock with Canon, they’re still available.

    Let me explain:

    I work for a wholesale distributor. People come to our website to buy products. We don’t have the time or resources to handle these small orders, so the orders are processed by a third party, who puts the orders out to “bid” with retailers that actually have the product in stock.

    We often don’t have items in stock ourselves, but retailers will still have them on the shelves. That’s why Canon may say it’s on backorder, but still have it listed as available. It’s confusing, and most of the time it works to make sure people can get product that they want.

    • c!tizen says:

      That’s a little ridiculous. When I’m on your website I want to know about your stock, not the stock of the people you sold the item to. If I wanted to buy it from them then I’d be on their website inquiring about their stock.

      • MaxSmart32 says:

        That may be what you want, but there is no way for us to be able to tell who has what in stock when we ship it out. That’s their business, not ours. We are the wholesale distributor, NOT a retailer. We sell to stores, NOT to the public. I don’t know the in’s and outs of it, but I’m taking an educated guess that Canon is the same way. They ship to retailers who sell the product. They’re the manufacturer/wholesaler, NOT in the business of selling directly to the public. It makes no sense for them to do so. It’s all done by third-parties.

        Would you rather us say to you “On backorder” when in fact there might be an online retailer that actually has the product?

        • jesirose says:

          Yes, and then LINK to the retailer who actually has it.

          • hawguy says:

            I agree – if Canon wants to put up an online store, they can show real-time inventory. If that’s too much trouble, then they should take down their store and link to retailers directly.

            These days, showing real time inventory is not difficult, they can require their retailers to provide an API to determine inventory, or at the very least a daily extract file. Retailers that can’t provide such an API or file shouldn’t be allowed to be resellers.

            • MaxSmart32 says:

              In a perfect world, yes, but not every company can handle that. Again, I’m not saying this is in any way what was happening with Canon in this instance, I’m only speaking from where I work.

              I do find your attitude that if a vendor can’t report back on a daily basis what’s in stock they shouldn’t be in business…welcome to the real world, where people still hand write orders and fax them in.

        • daemonaquila says:

          Yes. Then I’ll know to go hunt down the item elsewhere. If someone really did have it and it showed that it was on back order, then the company will lose business, which is great incentive to improve the web ordering system to reflect the real status. Anything else is fraud.

          • MaxSmart32 says:

            Whoa…now you’re tossing around fraud.

            The item may in fact be in stock, and by coming to Canon directly, the company can in fact provide you with a retailer that has the product in stock. As someone else pointed out, this is how online retailing works.

            Do you really think that Canon or any other manufacturer/wholesaler can keep tabs on every single store that carries their products and what is in stock? Go work in wholesale distribution for a week and you’ll see the folly of that immediately.

            Again, this is all conjecture on my part, I don’t know a think about how Canon operates their website, but it boils down to this: unless the product is on pre-order (meaning something that hasn’t been sold yet) there are units available. If a customer comes to Canon.com with the expectation of being able to buy a product, they want to be able to capture that sale, and direct them to a product that is available.

            Just because you might not like it, doesn’t mean that’s not how it works. Hardly fraud my friend.

          • MaxSmart32 says:

            Whoa…now you’re tossing around fraud.

            The item may in fact be in stock, and by coming to Canon directly, the company can in fact provide you with a retailer that has the product in stock. As someone else pointed out, this is how online retailing works.

            Do you really think that Canon or any other manufacturer/wholesaler can keep tabs on every single store that carries their products and what is in stock? Go work in wholesale distribution for a week and you’ll see the folly of that immediately.

            Again, this is all conjecture on my part, I don’t know a think about how Canon operates their website, but it boils down to this: unless the product is on pre-order (meaning something that hasn’t been sold yet) there are units available. If a customer comes to Canon.com with the expectation of being able to buy a product, they want to be able to capture that sale, and direct them to a place where product is available.

            Just because you might not like it, doesn’t mean that’s not how it works. Hardly fraud my friend.

            • dangermike says:

              If they’re representing that they have the item in stock, and the item is not in stock then that most certainly is fraud. This is why online retailers generally allow orders to be cancelled right up until they’re shipped. Not shipping an item for 6 weeks is prima facie proof that it is not in stock, and I would advise the OP or her husband to take aggressive action to protect their hard earned money.

              I had a similar problem with a shady online retailer I bought a cell phone from a few years ago. I actually previously ordered the same phone from a large name online retailer due to it being listed in stock, then cancelled the following day when the status changed to back-ordered. That’s when I found the shady retailer. Their site claimed it was in stock and said they wouldn’t charge until the item was prepared for shipping. The charge went through the day after I placed the order but three weeks later I still had no cell phone or tracking number. Emails went unanswered and the phone clerk was of absolutely no help. I tracked down the CEO’s email address, expressed my frustration with the situation, and insisted that they provide proof of shipping via a tracking number or cancel the order, and that if I did not have a response within 24 hours, that I would initiate a chargeback. The email went unanswered but the phone arrived two days later via UPS overnight (and yes, I did initiate a chargeback, true to my word, and then canceled it when the box arrived the next day).

        • c!tizen says:

          “That may be what you want, but there is no way for us to be able to tell who has what in stock when we ship it out. That’s their business, not ours”

          Now I’m confused. If it’s none of your business then why are you showing something in stock that you don’t have because someone else might have it? You’re right, other people’s stock is none of your companies business, unless it’s to replenish that stock. I think a very easy solution to this is to link real time inventory to the website and when something is out of stock, simply link the retailers that you sell that product to so that I can go to their site and see if it’s available. Otherwise list it as “In stock… somewhere, but not here”.

          • MaxSmart32 says:

            We show it in stock because we want to facilitate selling our products. if I know an item is out there, our third-party system can link up someone that wants that item to a store that has it in stock, and ta-da, you have a sale.

            Real-time inventory is impossible from the wholesale manufacturer. Our inventory is NOT for the consumer/end user. Our inventory is for our retailers. There is a BIG difference between the two. Just because WE don’t have something in stock doesn’t mean that there aren’t any available. It’s all about trying to help our retailers sell our products.

            • Alvis says:

              That’s retarded.

              “in-stock” means YOUR stock. Stock: “a supply of goods kept ON HAND for sale”.

              • MaxSmart32 says:

                Wrong.

                MY stock is what we ship for retailers. We NEVER have stock for end-users. When you’re looking at the manufacturers website directly, IN STOCK almost NEVER means the item is out there on shelves, and you can order it through the website that is then sent out to retailers that have it in stock.

                You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but it IS how it works. If all of the companies instantly took down items on their websites when they went on backorder for the WHOLESALE distributor, you’d never be able to find anything.

                ** I should have cautioned everyone that I’m working for a Toy Company right now, and inventory/backorder etc. is a big hot-button topic right now for me, and I may just be venting a little of my frustration **

                • psm321 says:

                  If you don’t sell the item to customers, then why do you even have it for sale on your website for them? You could just provide links to the retailers that do sell it. But your company wants to be the middleman and take a cut of the orders, but then not take the blame for the deficiencies of that system.

                  • MaxSmart32 says:

                    Again, not quite. People look to http://www.companyname.com to buy a product, and they don’t realize that we’re a wholesale distributor. So we provide them a method of purchasing that product, through a third-party, that then sends the order back out to a retailer that carries our product and has it in stock. It’s just another method of helping people connect to their order. We don’t see any profit from those orders placed our our website.

                    • Difdi says:

                      But you could easily be sued for doing that, since it’s your website, your name, claiming to be the one selling the product.

                      If a customer orders from your website, and pays you their money, then they have a business relationship with you. It simply wouldn’t matter that you’re a wholesaler, and you’re actually linking their order to a third-party retailer. If that third party fails to deliver the product, the customer would sue to recover the money from you, leaving you to recover from the third party in an entirely separate lawsuit you’d have to file. Doesn’t sound like a worthwhile risk to me.

                    • MaxSmart32 says:

                      Please read the entire thread.

                      My company does NOT take any money. My company does NOT do anything other than list a link to the third-party that processes the order. That company does NOT take any money until the product ships.

              • MaxSmart32 says:

                You’re right. and MY stock is for retailers, NOT for end users.

                For example, let’s say we know that we just shipped the last 500 units of a product out to stores, and we are OUT of stock. It’s on backorder for stores…and any end users that try to call us directly and buy it from us.

                It IS however, still available at those stores that bought the 500 units…hence it IS in stock at retailers. It’s at best slightly fuzzy, but it’s how it works and most of the time it works just fine and you don’t even realize what’s going on.

                • c!tizen says:

                  “You’re right. and MY stock is for retailers, NOT for end users.”

                  Then perhaps it should, I don’t know, say that somewhere on the site? Or, you know, maybe set up the site so that only retailers can see inventory and availability. If the site is open to the general public then there is a reasonable expectation that the information on the site applies to the general public unless it explicitly says otherwise.

                  If you really want to help your retailers sell your product then link to the retail page. It seems this just adds a lot of confusion where there doesn’t need to be any. That’s awesome that you undertand that “in stock” doesn’t really mean you have it in stock, but I don’t have your job, I don’t work in a warehouse environment. I wouldn’t expect you to know how to troubleshoot distance vector routing protocol looping issues or how to configure Cisco switches for VLANs so why do you expect me to know how your inventory system works?

                  • MaxSmart32 says:

                    I honestly give up.

                    Everyone keeps telling me how it SHOULD work, and I keep responding with how it DOES work.

                    Is it perfect, or even good? I don’t know, there usually aren’t that many problems. Just like you don’t expect me to understand what you do, I don’t expect you to either. Does that mean I’ll argue with you that you’re doing something wrong, or that how you go about doing it doesn’t make any sense? No. I accept your expertise, and say “Hm. Okay. That’s interesting. Doesn’t make much sense to me, but okay”.

                    If you’ve got a better system, then go out and sell your idea. There are thousands of wholesale manufacturers that are just DYING to see how you’ve solved this problem.

                    Let me know how that goes for you.

                    • c!tizen says:

                      “Everyone keeps telling me how it SHOULD work, and I keep responding with how it DOES work.”

                      This is how broken processes get fixed. Someone makes a process, it works for a time, but it needs to evolve with the way business is done. 30 years ago your business wouldn’t even be on the internet, but someone came up with the idea to implement a website to support the business. Today its common sense, but back then it just wasn’t the way business was done. Now if someone had responded to the guy with the idea for the site with “this is how business DOES work not how it SHOULD work” you would probably be working for different company today.

                      Is it perfect, or even good? I don’t know, there usually aren’t that many problems. Just like you don’t expect me to understand what you do, I don’t expect you to either. Does that mean I’ll argue with you that you’re doing something wrong, or that how you go about doing it doesn’t make any sense? No. I accept your expertise, and say “Hm. Okay. That’s interesting. Doesn’t make much sense to me, but okay”.

                      I agree, but if you were to say “that doesn’t make sense because of this, maybe this would be better” I wouldn’t respond by telling you “that it’s just the way it is.” If it’s an overly complex scenario then I’d agree and say “hey, that’s a little over my head and not really my field.” But we’re not mixing rocket fuel for a mission to Mars, we’re talking about real time inventory tracking and the ability to discern if the inventory on a site is actually the inventory for that site. The only reason I even press the issue is because you seem to be taking offense that people don’t get why its’ done the way it’s done, mainly because they see a simple solution to a problem that really doesn’t need to exist. I don’t about the ins and outs of how a warehouse operates, but I do know real time tracking and true site inventory are a common practice today. Amazon does it almost flawlessly. They show they have a product, and then they show all of the sellers, including it’s own warehouse, that have the item in stock.

                      “If you’ve got a better system, then go out and sell your idea. There are thousands of wholesale manufacturers that are just DYING to see how you’ve solved this problem.”

                      I don’t know if I can really “sell” the idea of real time inventory tracking, mainly because it’s common place today, (if you’d like a simple example of it just ship a package via UPS or FedEx and then track the shipment with the tracking number) but if you have a way to track your inventory then you have a way to update in real time. If your company hasn’t figured that out by now I’m not sure how they’re still successfully competing in a global marketplace. That’s not meant to be an insult, I’m being completely serious.

                      “Let me know how that goes for you.”

                      As I mentioned before, it works pretty well for FedEx and UPS. The same technology is used to verify that passengers have boarded a plane, or that your toll tag has passed through a toll booth, or to get even closer to home it’s based on the same technology that you use everyday when you send a text message or even an email. You’re taking like I’m dabbling in the arts of black magic here, its technology, it’s networks, it’s computers… it’s not wizardry.

            • The Marionette says:

              Too bad you couldn’t explain that to some of the customers that have Cricket wireless. A while back a phone came out called the Kyocera Zio and on their (kyocera’s) site it said the phone was released, and on cricket’s site it wasn’t in stock yet. People moaned and complained, but what they didn’t understand was even though the phone is technically in stock according to kyocera, it’s not in stock according to cricket, because they hadn’t received their shipment of phones. If that’s anything close to what you’re explaining then I think that clears the whole canon thing up for me.

            • JennQPublic says:

              If you know an item’s out there, list it as in stock. If you’re unsure, don’t list it as in stock. It’s that easy.

              We’re not talking about ‘real-time’ inventory updates here. We’re talking about five weeks. Big difference.

      • xxmichaelxx says:

        This is the way online commerce works. If it worked the way you seem to imagine it, half the online stores would be out of half of the things you need at all times. This way, there will occasionally be problems like the one here, but usually it ensures the customer will get something instead of nothing.

    • valued_customer says:

      That’s like your grocery store putting a sign in the window saying “Pepsi 1/2 Off” when they don’t stock Pepsi, and telling customers, “We can get it for you from Costco”.

      What’s so hard about changing “In Stock” to “Low availability” or “Call”? This is a blatant way to secure an order and lock in a customer before ensuring you can fulfill.

      Even if you’re in the stone age and can’t link inventories, orders should be processed in at most a day or two so CS can call customers and tell them “Hey we don’t have that now and can’t tell you when”. Sitting on that info for weeks is BAD service. I had this happen with Target last year, thank god it wasn’t a gift.

      • MaxSmart32 says:

        Your analogy about the grocery store is wrong.

        We’re Pepsi, not Wegmans.

        Pepsi might have to stop production of the drink because of a shortage of syrup….so that means for Pepsi it’s on backorder…yet it’s still on shelves in stores, right?

    • ShruggingGalt says:

      Umm, you’re way behind. Canon DOES sell direct now, along with Nikon.

      http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/subCategory_10051_10051_-1_12164

      I think you’re seeing the result of a company that normally sells wholesale, isn’t used to telling dealers specifics (You ordered 20, we’ll tell you when we ship how many you are getting!), and now has to deal with end consumers as customers.

  2. leprechaunshawn says:
  3. UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

    1. I’m being a jerk, but the Rebel is the camera of her dreams? With the 18-55IS no less? Don’t get me wrong, I shoot with the XS myself, but… that’s like dreaming about owning the Honda Fit (again, my car.) It’s nice and functional, but wouldn’t you dream about the 7D at least?

    2. Why buy it from Canon when you can get it from Amazon for $100 less? Or B&H?

    • blinky says:

      When you’re drivin’ a pinto, that yugo looks pretty good. (omg, do I sound like palin’ or what? Next I’ll be sayin’ “but I’d just charge a 5DMark2 to the RNC…”)

      • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

        Sure, and I’ll be honest, most things look pretty good compared to my econobox. Doesn’t mean I “dream” about getting an Accord.

        Also, charge everything to the RNC. They could use less money.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Maybe it was a better price. There’s no indication that the OP purchased it for $599. Plus, maybe “of dreams” really means “that I can afford” – if money were no object, I’m sure we would all have very different dreams.

      • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

        I’ve almost never seen Canon sell their gear for less than 3rd parties, so I’d be shocked.

        Also, saying “dream” instead of “what I can afford” is still inaccurate and frankly silly in my opinion. It defeats the purpose of having the concept of a “dream.”

    • kc2idf says:

      “I’m being a jerk”

      Yup.

      Some people have modest dreams.

      I’m an AV tech. Would I love to have a 32+ channel mixer? Yep. I dreamed, though, of having either a Peavey PV-8 or a Behringer Xenyx 1202, because the feature sets are appropriate to what I want to do with them.

      I can occasionally think of having a bad-ass amp and speakers, like, for instance, a pair or Peavey SP-4’s and a pair of 1500W amps to drive them, but I dream of owning a pair of Yorkville NX-55p’s and a Yorkville LS-801p, because it’s a better fit for 99% of what I need to do (and I can rent the PV-4’s when they are called for).

      These are the tools of our hobbies and trades. Sometimes all we want is a screwdriver, not a Leatherman. Would the Leatherman do? Sure, but the screwdriver is easier to use for its intended purpose.

      • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

        The point is that I think that a “dream” is supposed to be the Ferrari, the penthouse in the Upper West Side, the honeymoon in Tahiti, etc.

        It’s like when people say that things are “epic” when they’re really just kind of neat. It dilutes the meaning of the word.

        Why dream about having something good, when you can dream about the best and still have the good? I mean, I love my camera, I love my car, but I still would LOVE to own a Maserati and a bag full of L-series glass. That’s my dream.

        What I’ll actually get? More modest. That’s okay, though. I’ll just enjoy my dreams. :-)

        • kc2idf says:

          Fair enough. I like my car alright, but would love a Tesla Roadster, so I feel where you’re coming from.

          • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

            I got to drive one of the Teslas at my last job actually (journalist for a multinational TV news outlet). It is beyond your wildest dreams in everything but handling. The handling is a bit stiff, and I detected a hint of understeer. However, the acceleration? Unreal. There’s something unsettling about instant 100% torque.

            Good dream. J’aprove.

    • Snowblind says:

      What amuses me (no reflection on the OP) is that Canon call perhaps the most popular DSLR line “Rebel”

      *snigger*

      That said, I have a shiny new Sony (From the mind of minolta) A33 for X-mas. Got it early, wife expects me to shoot parties and Xmas morning.

    • Chmeeee says:

      Yeap, you’re being a jerk. An entry level camera is an awesome step up for your average point & shoot user who wants to step up to something about 1000% better. I love photography, and got a Nikon D50 to replace my crappy Olympus P&S camera a few years ago. Yeah, the pro-level cameras are a lot better, but then again pros are better than me. For what I use it for, I can’t see what spending a lot more would have accomplished. I can eventually upgrade equipment piece by piece if I want to anyways.

      • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

        Don’t get me wrong– the Rebel is a fantastic body, and the 18-55IS is actually a really versatile lens that will let people shoot nearly anything if they’re willing to work for it.

        I just think that we should all give ourselves license to dream about the best! That’s the point of a dream, no?

    • rndmnmbr says:

      Oh, I’ve dreamed about a 7D, and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS to match. I could afford my secondhand 20D, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, and 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. Because, if you haven’t noticed, pro equipment is ridiculously expensive, priced for companies to buy, not end users.

      Second, the camera matters less than the talent using it. I’ve taken some nice photos with my current kit – heck, I’ve taken some really nice photos with both a cheap point & shoot and a cellphone camera. You don’t need a 7D to produce professional quality photography.

      If the OP is feeling the limitations of a P&S, an upgrade to the lowest-end DSLR is a worthwhile investment. I’d wait on buying that nice fancy 7D until after I master the XS, and start making a little money with my photography.

      • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

        I think my point got lost.

        My point is that wanting the Rebel is GREAT. I think very little of the equipment stats and people who argue that this or that body will do this or that. Ansel Adams did his work with equipment that people today would call barbaric.

        I’m saying that a “dream” and “what I want and can afford” are different. I dislike the dilution of language. Yeah yeah, English is an organic language– I get that. I’m just as guilty as anyone else of saying that something pretty plain is “awesome.” But I just find it odd to call the Accord of cameras a dream. Yes, it’s affordable and fantastic quality-wise, but why not dream of the Lambo or the M5 or whatever your flavor is?

        Again, I love, love, love my Rebel. But if I had my dream I’d be shooting a 7D with all L-series glass. That’s what a dream should be about. In my opinion. But I like to dream big yet be content with what I can reach.

        • rndmnmbr says:

          Fair enough, why not dream big?

        • ccooney says:

          I’ve got a rebel Xt – great camera, but my dream involves a 5D and the 24-70L glass – getting L glass isn’t that expensive, just be careful and buy slowly. It’ll last a long time anyway.

          • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

            I want L-glass for macros. But macro lenses are evil expensive.

            I love shooting me some insects. Yeah, I’m weird.

    • Verucalise (Est.February2008) says:

      Sigh… I love me some B & H Photo… I get all my camera equipment from them!! Excellent service.

    • shufflemoomin says:

      Where did you see she wanted the 18-55mm lens? Read again and come back to us.

  4. TooManyHobbies says:

    Better yet, why not spring for the extra $200 or so and jump up a generations or two?

    If you’re already spending $599 for an XS, you can pick up the same kit with a T1i body at Costco any day for $799, they have piles of them. Other places do too.

    I may not upgrade from an XS to a T1i, but if I were buying new I wouldn’t go out and buy a 4 year old camera for only a $200 savings.

    • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

      I dunno, I’m of the opinion that the XS is more than enough body for 90% of prosumers. You don’t get much more lens with the T1i, either. Besides, with that $200, you can toss $100 (or less!) for a nifty 50, and save the other $100 for something else, like a good macro.

    • kalaratri says:

      Not everyone has an extra $200 to spend.

  5. nosense22 says:

    I purchased a new T2i from an internet retailer on nextag for ~$225 less than Canon. If the OP doesn’t trust that, use an authorized Canon dealer on the Internet and order from them. Canon doesn’t have the best prices and there really isn’t any reason to order from them. If you want to pay retail, there are many options.

  6. welby says:

    Well, then, Slim,
    if you don’t sell the Trek…

    then why do you have
    a phaser gun in the case?

  7. Kingsley says:

    Whoa. This IS the Canon direct store. They are also the factory source for affiliates program, not the other way around.

    from the site:

    “Backordered Items
    You are able to place orders for backordered items if you choose. If an item you have ordered goes on backorder, you will be notified via e-mail. You have two options once you have been notified that the item is on backorder – you may choose to wait for the item to return to stock, or you may cancel the backordered item(s). Your credit card will not be charged until the backordered item is shipped.

    How to cancel backorders:

    If you would like to cancel an item on backorder, simply call our Canon Customer Service Department at 1-800-385-2155 with your order number and ask for the item to be canceled. You cannot cancel a backordered item once the item has been shipped.

    I’ll note that The XS kit is 499 at many brick big box stores right now. That telephoto is just OK, and it’s really common on craigslist, if the OP has that in their town. I got all my better lenses from craigslist.

    • MaxSmart32 says:

      I’ll still bet you that “Canon Direct” is much like ordering from the Target website, it’s an entirely different beast than the company that actually produces/markets the cameras.

  8. DurkaDurkaDurka says:

    My question for this person is if you aren’t heavily invested in Canon with old accessories or legacy lenses, why are you wanting to buy from a the Toyota Equivalent of the digital camera domain? Sorry, but if you want a dSLR then consider Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, or a few others (only the first two if you want a broad aftermarket for used lenses and whatnot).

    Sorry but when your ‘tour-de-force’ even has a recall because you as a manufacturer put too much lubricant in the shutter mechanism which causes it to spatter on the image sensor AND you can’t guarantee it won’t continue happening after you perform the recall on said camera, then you no longer in my opinion are worth being considered as viable as a camera manufacturer.

    http://photography.about.com/b/2009/05/15/canon-recalls-1d-and-1ds-mark-iiis.htm

    Keep in mind if I am paying THOUSANDS for a camera I don’t expect it to become a brick because it lubes itself.

    • rndmnmbr says:

      Sorry, some of us consider Canon to be the creme-de-la-creme of 35mm. I’ll sooner take a Canon than a Nikon with lens compatibility in theory only, or a Minolta*cough*Sony with poor lens selection, or a Pentax or Olympus who abandoned 35mm format for 4/3rds format.

      • DurkaDurkaDurka says:

        Sorry, 35mm FILM maybe, but equivalent ‘full frame’ digital image sensors I think not. Unless of course you like oil spots on your sensor and a company telling you to ‘deal with it.’ I think I would take that 8000 dollars spent and buy a Nikon D3X, or Sony A850 or A900 (and then get a couple high quality lenses). Am I saying Canon can’t shoot great quality photos? No. I am saying that they have too many issues with their bodies, not the lenses. Keep in mind this isn’t an issue that occurs with a couple cameras, they have recalls on a HUGE NUMBER of their cameras. Just google “Canon Recall” and see what populates.

        Besides that, poor lens selection? Isn’t that some sort of contradiction given that the bodies are based off of minolta designs and so you have lenses going back to 1985 that are compatible (as long as they were AF)? If this isn’t enough lenses (and this person hasn’t reviewed anywhere near the total number of compatible lenses)

        http://www.kurtmunger.com/lens_reviews_id21.html

        Then I don’t know what is. I will have to say sounds like someone doesn’t know what they are talking about. By the way, unless you are doing ultra wide angle photography, fisheye photos, or interior shots, you have no reason to go with a full frame sensor. Oh and last but not least, Pentax didn’t use the Four Thirds Format.

        • petey says:

          I’v been shooting professionally since 1992, mostly sports. I started with Nikon, and switched to Canon pre-digital. I’ve had a few problems with both, and I suspect I’d have had problems with any system I used over that time span. If I were just starting now, I’d still stick with Nikon or Canon. The lenses make the difference for me, and I’ve had great success with Canon auto focus.

          • DurkaDurkaDurka says:

            The only reason I have been hesitant on Canon is because I sold cameras for over the past 6 years, everything from a point and shoot A33 by Canon to an A900 by Sony. 5 of those years were commissioned sales, and it helped to research your product, before you sold it, not only to minimize chance of return but also to make sure that they had a quality product years down the road. Does Canon make great cameras, of course, but the hit or miss on image sensor problems, software issues, hardware issues, and most recently their mistake with too much lubricant on the actuator mechanism of their Canon 1DS Mk III (and subsequent ‘we can’t guarantee it won’t keep happening’) is why I not only didn’t buy, but personally can’t recommend them.

            • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

              Now here’s some useful data.

              This is actually much more useful, if a bit anecdotal (I am of course guilty of the same). Given that experience, how much higher would you consider the failure rate, and how high would you consider it per capita?

              That is, of 100 Canon bodies sold, how many had problems? Of 100 Nikon bodies sold, how many had problems?

              It’s on thing to say that more Canons or Nikons come back. That’s not interesting in and of itself. It’s more interesting to say that out of 100 more Canons came back than Nikons or Sonys or whatnot. Per capita data is always more interesting!

              • DurkaDurkaDurka says:

                Within the return date, hardy any for your notable name brands. However out of the hundreds (i’ll just say thousands) I will say I had a few come in with similar problems wanting the cameras replaced. Because of policies in place at the Sears I worked at (at the time) we did straight replacement of cameras on the spot, and I had to replace a couple canons myself. The A series was the most prevalent, things that I would notice were the screen being completely black and photos would not display on the screen, purple screens, cameras not turning on at all with our own store batteries we knew that worked, blurred lagging pictures like the image sensor would pick up light but not resolve an image, and so on. By comparison, the most common thing I saw a Sony with was a couple old W series point and shoots like the W55 not want to extend its barrel lens, probably from being dropped. Nikons, hardly anything but at the same time we didn’t have as many models (Nikon L1-6, a couple slim models, Nikon D40, D50). Casios had a common problem of the batteries being DOA new in the box, particularly with one Exilim model. Konica Minolta Dimage had nothing, Kodaks were……well kodaks, sold a lot, had a lot come back especially models that were bundled with printers. Olympus and Fujifilm didnt see any that I can recall, but I also didn’t focus on selling them because nothing else used xD memory and the pictures on the point and shoots didn’t compare to Nikon, Canon or Sony. This is all recalling from memory, but 5 years of anecdotal evidence is enough for me to be wary of having sold certain brands.

    • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

      I guess all those pros I know who use Canon don’t know what they’re talking about either. Thank you random Internet soapbox guy!

      • DurkaDurkaDurka says:

        Yeah, im sure your neighbor Joe Bob with an 18-55 kit lens counts as a ‘pro.’ Canon’s L Series glass is nice in its own regards but no matter how awesome it is, it is useless if your FLAGSHIP CAMERA THE 1DS MK III is a complete dud because you have oil spots on your image sensor. Especially if Canon goes ‘meh we’ll clean it but won’t guarantee it won’t keep happening.’

        • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

          How about the photojournalists I knew when I was a professional broadcast journalist? Are they pro enough for you?

          How about the friend of mine who is a professional photog for a studio in Philadelphia?

          How about my uncle, who shadowed Ansel Adams in Yosemite?

          I guess they’re all just bumpkin prosumers.

          Yeah, the new Canon body may be a dud. That’s like saying that Toyota doesn’t know how to build cars because of a batch of bad pedals and some old people not knowing where the brake is.

          • DurkaDurkaDurka says:

            Except that Canon has been having these problems for YEARS, seriously GOOGLE CANON RECALL. I stated it once and apparently it wasn’t enough. recalls go back for the past 8 years on a series of different cameras from their point and shoots to their entry, midrange, prosumer, and professional dSLRS.

            Who cares if you ‘knew’ a bunch of photojournalists when you were a ‘professional broadcast journalist.’ Stating they were pros because they used Canon and because you were a journalist is like me stating I knew a bunch master auto mechanics because they used Mac Tools and because I drove a sports car. And what you fail to realize is they aren’t ‘pros’ because they had a quality tool (as blue point, snapon, and craftsman are all just as good and carry a nice warranty as well), its because they knew what they needed and how to use it.

            Same applies to cameras. Give me a Nikon D3X, Canon 1DS Mark III, or Leica, or anything else full frame in place of my Sony A850, I will shoot just as good a photo if you give me the same grade lens.

            • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

              I also Googled Nikon recall and got a bunch of hits. So what? You can find recalls from any company. I fail to see why that’s particularly shocking. You’d expect Canon to have a lot of recalls, given its size as a manufacturer.

              The real question is how many recalls per capita, and whether or not, over time, those recalls are increasing in frequency.

              And the guys I knew, including a good friend of mine, shot both Nikon and Canon (depending on the person), and were working for big newspapers and newsmags.

              I was a producer for one of the largest public broadcasters in the world. You can snicker all you want, since you seem to like being prickly for no reason. Yeah, I was sarcastic too, so sorry about that.

              • DurkaDurkaDurka says:

                You pulled up a bunch of hits for ONE camera (Nikon D5000). They both for all intents and purposes have the same market share (40% each give or take) yet Canon has significantly more recalls. So……..point?

                • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

                  You seriously are going to use Google search results as your methodology? Tons of problems there.

                  For one, we don’t have data on the number of units recalled, the year-on-year data, the month-on-month data, types of recalls, defect rate, or even the complaint rate.

                  It may be that Nikon issues fewer recalls because it deals with problems quietly directly. All I know is that my Canon equipment has been sterling for years. And I know the pro guys I know (again, make some silly remark if you want) who like Canon have never complained.

                  • DurkaDurkaDurka says:

                    So now it is a conspiracy. Camera manufacturer keeps everyone quiet while promising to work on their camera if it is a manufacturing issue all without someone saying something about a recall? I’m sure that can be filed under right there before “WTC attack by military” and after “magic bullet in JFK assassination.”

                    • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

                      When did I say it was a conspiracy?

                      Some companies prefer to avoid recalls and instead replace defective products quietly. There are multiple strategies toward recalling a product, all of which are legitimate, and many of which can be practiced simultaneously.

                      My point is that Googling isn’t going to give us an accurate failure rate or time series data with which to arrive at a usable conclusion. Without proper data, it’s difficult to say whether Canon or Nikon have higher failure rates. Even if Canon’s failure rate is actually higher, it may not even apply to all products, as some products may have been manufactured in a different plant.

                      Blanket statements about company failure rates often don’t provide us with interesting or even usable metrics by which to purchase because they don’t account for specific product line failure rates, time-specific failures, or even failure based on usage behaviors.

                      In short, I don’t buy that Googling “Canon recall” is in any way a scientific or statistically sound methodology for determining that Canon is, indeed, a poor product. Furthermore, you have sought to impugn both me and other commenters for no reason.

                      Reference on recall strategies, focusing on products that cause harm (some of this can be applied elsewhere, of course)
                      http://www.u.arizona.edu/~yubochen/ProductRecallJM.pdf

          • DurkaDurkaDurka says:

            Also, Ansel Adam used Kodak, Polaroid and Hasselblad for a majority of his photos and Zeiss lenses to boot. Also

            http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

            Please read the part where he quotes Ansel, and the part where Ken points out that having very expensive equipment doesn’t save you from shooting crappy photos (Im paraphrasing but in a nut shell that is what he says). You can kindly exit the argument and stfu now.

  9. mistersmith says:

    Yeah, like others have said, it’s not available because there’s no reason to buy it. There are much better newer models available for the same money.

    And never buy the lens bundles…the included lenses, like this one, are total crap. Slow to focus, and small maximum aperture.

    • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

      Actually, the 18-55IS is a decent lens, and I’ve taken plenty of really good shots with it. Hell, my favorite “carry everywhere” lenses are my 18-55 and 50mm “Nifty fifty.” I can take brilliant shots with both.

      People forget that many great photogs took soul stirring shots with equipment considered “crap” today.

      Ansel Adams took some of his best photos with stuff that nobody would think of touching today simply because it lacks the gigaflertz of today’s equipment.

  10. StevePierce says:

    Cancel your order and for a penny more with free shipping, go get it at Costco. They have it on-line and may have it in a store. http://www.costco.com

    Really want to splurge on your sweety, get the T2i. – Steve

  11. Toolhead says:
  12. sheriadoc says:

    Sears pulled that on me. My Sony Cybershot shat the bed a few years ago and I wanted to buy the same exact model (from the W series). Of course, the model had been released a few years earlier so there was a newer model out there. But I was able to find the old model online at Sears for only $150 and I ordered it for in-store pick-up. I got the email it was ready and I went to get it.

    However, when I got to the pick-up department they tried to give me a completely different camera from a different series. I told them that wasn’t the camera I ordered. After they searched in the computer for a while they told me to just go to electronics to sort it out.

    Well, in short, the camera I ordered was never really in stock. They offered the other camera to me but I wasn’t a fan of the T series and was not interested in it. So, in the end, they gave me the newest model W series camera which was selling for $300.

  13. Sparkstalker says:

    Adorama has the same deal:
    http://www.adorama.com/ICADRXSKB75.html

    But if I can make a recommendation, spend $50 more and go with this kit:
    http://www.adorama.com/ICADRXSKB5.html

    The IS on the 55-250 will more than make up for the loss of range.