«

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2011-08-03 10:32:56 -0700, Bruce <> said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding lens compatibility for the D70 & D50 (they are the same);
>>
>>
>> Last week I sold a used D70s. It certainly did not offer autofocus
>> with non-AF-S lenses. So you are telling me that this was a fault and
>> not a feature?
>>
>> Oops. <g>
>
>...and which non-AF-S lens was that?


Two lenses, an AF Nikkor 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and an AF Nikkor 70-300mm
f/4-5.6G. The 28-70mm was the kit lens for the F601 (N6006). It is a
delightful lens, a cut above most kit junk, and is a sharp performer
on DX DSLRs. I sold him the camera and both lenses.

After seeing your response I called the buyer. He is happy with his
purchase and was aware that the camera body's built in focusing motor
and screwdriver drive didn't work.

When Nikon were making the D70s I was changing from Pentax to Canon
DSLRs, but ignorance is no excuse, so I need to learn more about what
I sell. There's not much memory left in my ageing brain after I have
learned about the imminent new products from Nikon and Sony ... this
will be the best month for new equipment for quite a long time.

Thanks.

In article <>, Bruce
<> wrote:

> >> Last week I sold a used D70s. It certainly did not offer autofocus
> >> with non-AF-S lenses. So you are telling me that this was a fault and
> >> not a feature?
> >>
> >> Oops. <g>
> >
> >...and which non-AF-S lens was that?
>
> Two lenses, an AF Nikkor 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and an AF Nikkor 70-300mm
> f/4-5.6G. The 28-70mm was the kit lens for the F601 (N6006). It is a
> delightful lens, a cut above most kit junk, and is a sharp performer
> on DX DSLRs. I sold him the camera and both lenses.
>
> After seeing your response I called the buyer. He is happy with his
> purchase and was aware that the camera body's built in focusing motor
> and screwdriver drive didn't work.

you sold him a broken camera without knowing it was broken?

it had better have been *really* cheap, assuming the story is even true.

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
>your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
>The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
>damaged D70 without a disclosure.


No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.

The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.

He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
way unhappy.

Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing.

On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
>
>
> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
>
> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
>
> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
> way unhappy.
>
> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing.
>

Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.

--
Peter

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
>>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
>>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
>>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
>>
>>
>> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
>> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
>> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
>> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
>> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
>> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
>>
>> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
>> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
>> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
>> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
>>
>> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
>> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
>> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
>> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
>> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
>> way unhappy.
>>
>> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
>> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
>> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
>> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing.
>>
>
>Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.

You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
dissatisfied.

If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
wrong deserves my loyalty, though.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, Paul Furman
<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> > I don't think it was much smaller or lighter than the D70/s, being built on
> > an essentially similar body.
>
> The D50 is noticably smaller, dpreview scales those comparison photos to
> fill the slot on the web page, I wish they didn't.
>
> from your link below:
> Dimensions
> 133 x 102 x 76 mm 140 x 111 x 78 mm
> (5.2 x 4.0 x 3.0 in) (5.5 x 4.4 x 3.1 in)

that's a difference of 7mm x 9mm x 2mm. the difference is negligible.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
>
> You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
> manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
> he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
> dissatisfied.

so he claims.

> If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
> Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
> that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
> mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
> wrong deserves my loyalty, though.

a store that sells used products without checking them out for defects
is *not* the type of store i'd want to shop in.

the used camera stores in which i shop will test everything and tell
you what works and what doesn't. they are rated on a scale from
like-new all the way down to as-is or parts/repair, and priced
accordingly.

it's unlikely that any camera store is going to price a bunch of lenses
and throw in a camera that supposedly has no defect for free, as he
claims:

In article <>, Bruce
<> wrote:
> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
> and got the camera body free.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:25:55 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> >Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
>>
>> You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
>> manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
>> he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
>> dissatisfied.
>
>so he claims.

This is usenet. We can't verify anything anyone says when they relate
something anecdotal. So, we piece together an impression of someone
from his or her posts and decide if that person deserves to be
believed or not.

I don't recall reading anything posted by Bruce that would make me
disbelieve anything he writes. You may have a different impression.

You make some anecdotal claims about your observations. They sound
exaggerated to me and claims that you want accepted as "evidence" when
they are not. That's my impression.

I'll believe Bruce before I believe you.

>> If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
>> Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
>> that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
>> mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
>> wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
>
>a store that sells used products without checking them out for defects
>is *not* the type of store i'd want to shop in.

There's no store or person extant that doesn't occasionally slip up.
I would rate them on how they behave and what they do when have
slipped up.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding lens compatibility for the D70& D50 (they are the same);
>>
>> Last week I sold a used D70s. It certainly did not offer autofocus
>> with non-AF-S lenses. So you are telling me that this was a fault and
>> not a feature?
>>
>> Oops.<g>
>
>You can see the screw drive pretty easily in the mount... rather than
>look up the specs <g>. It should stick up like a little flat head screw
>driver head and can be pressed down easily with your finger.


I know. But because I didn't expect to see a screwdriver drive, I
didn't look. I have learned.

On 8/4/2011 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
>>>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
>>>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
>>>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
>>> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
>>> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
>>> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
>>> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
>>> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
>>>
>>> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
>>> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
>>> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
>>> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
>>>
>>> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
>>> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
>>> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
>>> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
>>> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
>>> way unhappy.
>>>
>>> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
>>> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
>>> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
>>> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
>
> You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
> manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
> he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
> dissatisfied.
>
> If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
> Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
> that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
> mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
> wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
>
>

It's not that clear to me that Bruce made the disclosure. His posting
came after he learned here about the fault.

I agree with you though, that if it really happened I would definitely
be a loyal customer. When I purchased my 60-400 from local place the
price well below the street price. I asked him if it was gray market. He
told me it was used. That lens was in mint condition and still had the
warranty slips. I give first priority to him on all my photo purchases.

--
Peter