RX100 - water damage ... WHAT ???

[Matus]

I have a situation with the RX100 I bought for my friends as a wedding present in August this year:

The camera forked fine wen I bought it. Then it was used to take a few photos of the ceremony and afterwards my friends took it for a vacation about a week after the wedding. The camera stopped working before they even reached the seaside in Croatia - apparently the LCD would not turn on (the camera seemed to keep working)

So they send me the camera back and I have sent it to where it was bought (online). After about 4 weeks (that is today) I got a letter where it was stated that the camera has corrosion inside. Based on this it was concluded that it was result of a water damage (which is not covered by the warranty, of course) and that I can have either the camera repaired for 380 € (list of repairs necessary was LONG) or I may pay just 48 € and have it shipped back.

It was also mentioned that I (if requested) will be provided pictures that show the corrosion.

So - what I am to do? The camera was actually used for about 3 weeks before it bailed out. It never got in contact with water - not even a light rain. But how can I prove that?

I am thinking of asking to have the camera shipped back to me (with all the photos they can get) and send it directly to SONY. I am right now short of any other ideas.

And I am pissed, of course. The camera was 650 €

..

[sevo]

Well, let them provide pictures. If the water detection tags in the camera show a submersion, there is little doubt that the camera has been wet. If you can exclude the happy couple having spilled any drinks into it, you can only try to go after the seller - some shops will cheerfully pass on untested returns as new, and just about all of them will sell them as "refurbished" without any refurbishment past a replacement shrink wrap.

[Matus]

I have called my friend before posting here and asked explicitly whether the camera could have had any contact with water - so that is ruled out.

But I also consider it improbable that the camera was sent back by previous owner, as I bought it rather shortly after it entered the market, but of course I can not disprove it.

I will definitely ask for those photos.

[Matus]

So - here is what I got back from the official SONY repair service.

Now tell me please - how should it be possible to get this kind of damage on the interior of the camera during less than 4 weeks of occasional use of the camera! To me it does not even look like a water damage - more like the camera was duck in a bucket of acid!

So - here are the photos - see for yourself. I asked for larger files - hope I will get them.

Any advice on how to try to persuade SONY that fault is not on my side?

[sevo]

Sea water could account for that - I've seen similar damage on a Nikon inside a bag that got wet while sailing, after a single day. But rain water or moisture can't cause anything like that, at least not within a few days.

If the damage was there before they even reached the seaside, and nobody played any pranks puking or peeing into the camera bag during the celebration, you've been screwed by the seller...

[bigeye]

X2 - I'm cleaning a lot of sea water damaged items right now... Might have been in someone's pocket to only have a corner immersed?

[GaryLH]

I wonder if someone put the camera in their pants/shorts pocket after it got wet from sea water? Such as wading into the surf w/ shorts on or putting pants on right after swimming then putting the camera in the pocket right afterwards enough to cause this type of damage?

Gary

[kzphoto]

Definitely looks like salt-water corrosion. Your problem now will be convincing the original seller that you didn't cause the damage. It's been out nearly 4 weeks and most shops will not return a damaged item like this, since they have no way of verifying whether or not the damage was present when the item was sold. It's really unfortunate and I understand the position you're in, as I have gone through the same thing with a used iPhone. Show them the photos and see what they say. There really isn't much recourse in a situation like yours.

[Matus]

The camera never had a contact with a sea water. It simply stopped working.

[Bill58]

Note to self: don't loan out your expensive cameras!

[Matus]

Originally Posted by Bill58

Note to self: don't loan out your expensive cameras!

It was not a loan - that would hurt much less - it was a wedding gift

[Matus]

Originally Posted by kzphoto

Definitely looks like salt-water corrosion. Your problem now will be convincing the original seller that you didn't cause the damage. It's been out nearly 4 weeks and most shops will not return a damaged item like this, since they have no way of verifying whether or not the damage was present when the item was sold. It's really unfortunate and I understand the position you're in, as I have gone through the same thing with a used iPhone. Show them the photos and see what they say. There really isn't much recourse in a situation like yours.

I will try approach SONY directly and see whether they will be more forthcoming. But you are right - my case is slim.

[digitalintrigue]

Do you know anyone in the semiconductor manufacturing business? If that stuff can be removed the camera just might work again.

That residue is typical of circuit boards that have not been washed properly during the manufacturing process. There are chemicals (flux remover) that might work, although those may not be available in the EU.Most manufacturers use an aqueous wash now, although in previous years they used chemical washes which did a better job but were deemed more environmentally damaging.

Most circuit board assembly houses have secondary rework assembly lines that clean up just this sort of thing.

[Matus]

I actually work in semiconductor business, but on the beginning of the chain. I do not have access to chemicals like that and the answer from repair service there is need to replace several parts, so cleaning would probably not suffice.

Important question - based on the picture posted above - do you think it would be possible to get amount of sea water in/on your camera that would cause such damage AND not notice it?

I personally have no clue - to me it looks like there was a LOT of water involved and if that would have happened after purchase my friend would have told me it that was the case.

[digitalintrigue]

It may be true that components need to be replaced but if the camera is otherwise a total loss then there is no thing to lose trying to clean it. I have seen electronic circuits that have had this sort of water exposure, that worked for a while after the exposure, until the residue eventually shorted the circuit. After cleaning they worked again.

I can't imagine that camera passing basic inspection on the assembly line so I don't think there is any question that there was water damage at some point in its life; whether it was noticed or not by the operator at the time.

[Matus]

Point taken. I also do not think that the camera left the factory in this state.

But my options are the following:

1) Pay 380 Euro and have the camera repaired

2) Pay 50 Euro have have the camera sent back (no, this 'check' was not for free)

3) Leave the camera at the service so they can use it for parts - that cosct me nothing (what a deal )

... none of the above really sounds like a win-situation

This camera cost right now 525 Euro new and the price seems to keep dropping.

[FrozenInTime]

It could be salt from sweat.
I carried a GR1 around in a shirt pocket for a few days hillwalking.
The GR1 ended up with a white crust in the seams.
These days I carry my GRD in a small coated nylon bag when on the bike or hillwalking.

[bigeye]

Matus: Just wet from sea water is enough. Drops would do it.

It could be some other corrosive fluid, perhaps?

- Charlie

[Matus]

On top of everything - my friend already has the grip made by Richard Franiec (which I ordered for him as he is a big guy with big hands), but as he got it after the camera was damaged he decided to put it on once the problem will be resolved. Seems like he may not get that chance ...

[hairydale]

Assuming you paid by credit card, do you get any purchase insurance? We get 90 days theft and accident cover on some cards in the UK, if you've something similar just say you dropped the camera in water and claim.

[ath]

The camera was probably built with a "no clean" process, i.e. a solder with less agressive fluxer is used and the fluxer simply stays on the board.
I've seen a similar damage on a brand new electronic module after shipping from Germany to the far east by ship. The customer returned it and we concluded that it was damaged by condensing water during shipping.

[Matus]

The camera was not payed by credit card and I am even not sure whether mine offers that kind of cover.

Everything is possible - now it is matter of proving what actually happened to the camera.

In principle - if something goes wrong with a new product within first 6 months after purchase, then it is the seller/producer to prove that the problem with the product happened after the purchase - so far the EU law. That is the ball I can still play (and do right now).

I will keep you posted.

[kbg32]

Someone is not being honest.

[photomoof]

Originally Posted by kbg32

Someone is not being honest.

It is not easy to admit that you ruined a wedding present.

[digitalintrigue]

Originally Posted by Matus

In principle - if something goes wrong with a new product within first 6 months after purchase, then it is the seller/producer to prove that the problem with the product happened after the purchase - so far the EU law. That is the ball I can still play (and do right now).

IMHO, they've already shown this.

It's possible that after cleaning the camera will work again, as I said above, I've seen pretty horrid looking circuits that were completely inoperable be fully resurrected and work perfectly afterwards. However I bet reassembly of the camera would not be trivial.