Canon Switzerland / Service experience (1 Viewer)

In late March, I dropped my 10x32 IS - I placed it on the table, but was not careful enough, so due to its "round" body it rolled over and fell on the floor.

When inspecting it, everything looked to my surprise fine, alignment still perfect, IS worked as always; the only visible damage that I could find was the cracked protective glass at the front of the right objective tube (see pic). I had expected more damage. So at first I was positively impressed by the robustness of the Canon.

I sent the bino in for repair on April 5, 2019. In Switzerland, Canon seems to have outsourced service to a company called Sertronics AG, which I had not heard of before.

They replied via email within a week and informed me that the "right optics block" was damaged and needed to be replaced, estimated cost around CHF 400.-

I thought I had no choice but to give the ok for the repair.

The bino was returned to me on May 10, 2019, about 5 weeks after sending it off. Everything seems ok again.

Repair cost is CHF 399.90, of which material cost CHF 147.16 and labor cost CHF 252.74. Work is described as "replacement of optics block". I don't know whether the front glass is part of a module that needs to be replaced as one unit, or whether separate internal damage, on top of the one I could see from outside, had occurred.

So Canon service in Switzerland seems to work; not extremely swift, but the repair period seems acceptable.

Question: what do forum members think about the cost of the repair? This is my first repair of an IS binocular, and I have no reference point.

Thanks. Canip

Hi Canip,
Thanks for the report.

My experience of Swiss products and workmanship is that they are of very high quality.

Wild and others spring to mind. Many times they were world leaders.
The large Wild stereoscope viewer was the only such accurate machine in the world.
The Wild Falconer lenses are high quality.
Military binoculars also.
Swiss penknives.
Watch makers of course.
The Marie Antoinette watch is priced about $100m. The others by the same maker, incredible.

The 10x32 IS seems to have a particularly complex optical front construction, which I think also contains the stabiliser.
The cost is high, but justifiable.

One could claim on your house contents insurance for accidental damage, but premiums may then rise.

I had a brand new Canon 10x30 IS Mk II, which I tested.
I left it on the kitchen table flap, which is inclined by 3.2 degrees from memory.
I was very surprised to come back later and see it resting against the chair top, just inches from a full drop.
I was really surprised how little friction there is even though it has ribs at the bottom.
So I nearly wrote off a one day old binocular.

I don't understand how the 10x32 IS rolled, as there are two barrels.

Regards,
B.

P.S.
I looked up the CHF £ exchange rate.
£300 is I think quite reasonable if the work is carried out to a high standard.

Thank you, Binastro.

If it's only the 'cracked protective glass at the front of the right objective tube', why they did change the 'optic-block'? I'm using the 10x42 since 2008, and were shure that a scratch or other defect of the protective glass will lead to a change only of the damaged protective-glass-piece.

Pinac, I know of your 'bino-mania' since the Jülich-forum, and your knowledge about your famous binos - but you don't ask the customer service what the 'right optic-block' has to do with the cracked protection-glass, if everything else seems ok (perfect) by inspecting the 10x32?

I'm interested in the relationship between optic-block and protection glass, because my 10x42 had some similiar moments, including a drive on the car-roof and splashing into the mud…

canonic greetings
Manfred

Maybe I should have mentioned that I did have a brief exchange with Sertronics, during which they maintained that there was damage to the „optics block“ and they had to replace it; otherwise they would return the bino to me unrepaired.
I just don‘t know whether in reality there would have been a third option: replacing only the front glass, or whether in fact further damage in the right tube had occurred.
If there was no further internal damage, would a replacement of just the front glass have been a viable option, or is that not even possible? Maybe I could have talked to Canon instead of Sertronics to find out.

Canip

Afaik, Canon, at least in the US has a minimum fee of about $500 for a service.
It is probable that a substantial minimum repair fee is Canon policy, perhaps reflecting their days as a volume provider of inexpensive cameras.
When the IS on my 10x42 went out after a decade of faithful service, that is what was charged for the repair.
While the repair was effective, the unit now fogs when transitioning from a warm interior to a cold outdoors. Given that a new unit was only about twice as much, it probably would have been more sensible to just replace.