Unlike Nikon USA, Canon USA has a much more owner-friendly (if not official) policy towards "grey market" Canon gear. If it was purchased new and is still within the warranty's time period Canon USA will usually handle a warranty repair as long as you can document the purchase with a dated store receipt. For used, or for an item whose warranty time period has expired, Canon USA usually handles service charging parts + labor.

Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video

Online camera stores ...
 

Thank you all. I contacted Canon and verified the warranty question as suggested. They were very responsive. I would normally buy from a mainline camera site, but this a unique situation and just wanted to be sure I had some coverage. Thank you.

If the camera was purchased in the USA and (understandably) comes with a USA warranty, what makes you uneasy? Does 42nd St have a bad reputation in some way?

PS. I am glad to notice that your situation is satisfactorily resolved.

I think his concern was the possibility the camera was purchased in the USA but originally came with a "grey market" warranty.

And some US warranties are only valid for the original owner and are not transferable.

Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video

HI, appreciate the comment. To your question, 42nd St. wouldn't be my first choice. If you read some of the earlier comments on this threat, as well as google them, you'll see why. I've had very good experiences with a couple of other on-line sites that I would normally prefer. Given the circumstances with this particular purchase, and Canon's better warranty coverage, it was worth it this time. Thank you.

This is pretty appalling news about B&H.

http://america.aljazeera.com/multime...ium=SocialFlow

Read the article carefully. There's a lot in there about "alleged" but little hard facts, and a couple of interviews with disgruntled employees, one of whom claims to have suffered an injury that would be covered by worker's comp -- no explanation why he didn't apply for it.

There may be problems at B&H -- I don't know. I do know that Al Jazeera is very biased in its coverage of things Jewish and Israeli. When Al Jazeera America first started, I read it avidly, as it had a decidedly non-main-stream approach to important news events. However, I began to notice its anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli bias. For example, there were a couple of terrorists who killed five worshippers in a Jerusalem synagogue and then were shot dead by police. Al Jazeera's headline was, "Two Palestinians Killed by Israeli Police." That was when I stopped reading them.

I'd take that article with a huge grain of salt.

apparently some of the workers are undocumented which would probably be why he couldn't apply for workers' comp

Apparently it's been alleged that some of the workers are undocumented but our personnel department is scrupulous about making sure we see documentation for every person we hire. Could we be fooled by well-made forgeries? Sure, but we see and document (no pun) documentation for every hire.

Considering it's Al Jazeera and considering who owns B&H, I would take that story with an extremely large grain of salt.

B&H's labor concerns are their business. I've never had a bad experience with them.

Why?

Are you suggesting that Al Jazeera and their reporter manufactured the claim of a gender bias lawsuit?

I am sure that B&H - along with every other business ever accused of a labor law violation - wishes that your statement were true, but the DoL, OSHA, and FLRA, et al say otherwise.

Edited. See post #193

Because of Al Jazeera's anti-Jewish/anti-Israel bias.

No. The cited article isn't about a gender bias lawsuit, but about B&H supposedly compromising worker safety.

No one has said anything about a conspiracy.

Do you have a cite for that?

I haven't really paid enough attention to Al Jazeera America to assess whether or not they have an "anti-Jewish/anti-Israel bias" but the author of the article in question made no claims of her own which need or need not be "taken with a grain of salt". She simply reported what B&H employees were telling her. As I said, I doubt that she manufactured those accounts.

Yup, I mistakenly conflated an earlier lawsuit against B&H with this most recent article.

The poster I responded to suggested that the reporter's accounting of what B&H employees were telling her were suspect and not to be trusted not because of any facts yet in evidence to the contrary but merely by virtue of the fact that she works for Al Jazeera America.

If this reporter and Al Jazeera America manufactured these claims then that would in fact be a conspiracy.

As the federal agencies listed do in fact have regulatory jurisdiction over the workplace it seems self-evident to me that B&H's "labor concerns" - or anyone's for that matter - are in fact not just "their own" but are in fact of concern for society at large.

YMMV.

I make no claim to know whether or not these latest accusations by these warehouse workers have any merit. They very well may not. But I do know that this is the third [or fourth?] significant labor-related issue B&H has had in the last few years and see no need to dismiss out of hand these latest claims simply because the first major news outlet to report on the matter wasn't the New York Times or WaPo.

Actually, as a 30-year customer of B&H [made my first purchase at the age of 14] I would hope that these claims either aren't true or are at the very least being greatly exaggerated. But given B&H's past troubles in this area I am willing to consider the possibility that the claims being made by the warehouse workers might have some merit.

I'm sure she didn't. However, the question is whether they are representative in any way, and whether the accounts themselves are truthful.

And, as I said, Al Jazeera America is anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli. I gave one very specific example in this thread.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the reporting of the claims was manufactured. However, as I noted, I don't know whether the claimants themselves were truthful, and I also don't know to what extent the reporter engaged in selective reporting. There is no question in my mind that Al Jazeera America does not report honestly about Jewish and Israeli subjects -- in this regard, it is the anti-semitic version of Fox News.

Of course the agencies have regulatory jurisdiction. Are you aware of any facts that indicate that any of them are investigating B&H, or that B&H is not in compliance with applicable regulations?

All either of us in this thread has said was take the allegations with a grain of salt because they originate with a news source that (1) is not a major news outlet, at least in the US, and (2) has a demonstrated bias against Jews and Israel. Given that B&H is an overtly Jewish company and has enjoyed an international reputation for ethical and honest business practices, I'm not inclined to credit a fundamentally anti-semitic organization with accurate or factual reporting about B&H any more than I am inclined to credit Fox News with accurate or factual reporting about progressive issues.

My history as a B&H customer goes back as far. As far as I know, "B&H's past troubles" consist of a couple of law suits that either settled or were dismissed. In the US, anyone can sue anyone anytime for anything. I'm defending a client right now that has been sued for unlawful employment practices. I am convinced that the lawsuit is, entirely, without merit. The fact that lawsuits have been brought means nothing, unless they are successful.

As I said, because Al Jazeera America is a demonstrably biased source, I take this particular report with a grain of salt, meaning, without more, I don't credit it.

They do. There isn't even a question of it.