Nikon Digital SLR guidance

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Neil Jones, Jul 26, 2011.

  1. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/29/2011 1:21 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article<>, Paul Furman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> If I want closer focus I use extension tubes.
    >>>>
    >>>> that also degrades things, since the lens was probably not designed for
    >>>> an extension (some lenses might be though).
    >>>
    >>> It should have little noticeable effect on the resolution. ...

    >>
    >> Extension tubes might work to overcome the described problem with
    >> softness at closest focus at 200mm because the lens wouldn't be in the
    >> closest focus arrangement. You would lose AF-S though except maybe with
    >> a third party extension tube. BTW I have used my 70-200 VR with a 500D
    >> closeup lens ($150) for chasing butterflies and such, it's nice to have
    >> the VR, zoom and AF-S for that task. It's still not a 200mm f/4 Micro
    >> but works OK. The closeup lens does degrade things some.

    >
    > the 500d is an excellent multi-element closeup lens. there is very
    > little degradation with it.
    >
    > also, some zooms don't work with extension tubes at all. they won't be
    > able to focus at *any* distance because the closest focus point is
    > inside the lens


    If you overdo anything it can have a harmful result. Water is good for
    you. Too much, not properly dealt with, can kill you.

    BTW
    If you are snipping, snip with integrity so we know who said what.



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 29, 2011
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. On Jul 29, 1:21 am, Apteryx <> wrote:
    > On 28/07/2011 5:36 p.m., Neil Jones wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 7/26/2011 11:43 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > >> On Jul 26, 2:35 pm, Neil Jones<>  wrote:

    >
    > >>> I am a very very amateurish photographer.  Before the digital cameras, I
    > >>> invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera.  In the
    > >>> digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
    > >>> have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
    > >>> However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
    > >>> bank either.  The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
    > >>> the other lenses are about average.  It is sad to see the lenses
    > >>> accumulating dust. :)  Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
    > >>> and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?

    >
    > >> The short rule is, any Nikon lens that will mount on the
    > >> 6006 will mount and work usefully (but not necessarilly
    > >> with all the frills) on any Nikon DSLR body.  However,
    > >> there are some bodies that will not AF with older AF lenses
    > >> (the D40 and friends AF with AF-S lenses only), and some
    > >> bodies that will not meter with non-chipped lenses (which
    > >> is not that big a deal in most cases, I used one for a few
    > >> years myself).

    >
    > >> Depending on what kind of photography you do, and personal
    > >> preference, the lack of AF is somewhere between fatal and
    > >> irrelevant :).  Up to you!

    >
    > >> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
    > >> reports.  Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
    > >> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
    > >> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
    > >> 70-200 anyway).

    >
    > >> I found the 80-200 length VERY useful on an APS-C (DX in
    > >> Nikon terms) body (Fuji S2, and then Nikon D200).  (You
    > >> understand that the field of view depends on the sensor
    > >> size, right?  So 200mm on a DX body gives the same field of
    > >> view as 300mm on an FX body?)  You'll probably find
    > >> yourself having to replace your widest lens to be happy,
    > >> and maybe your walkaround lens as well.

    >
    > >>  From what you say about price, I'm assuming the FX bodies,
    > >> D700 and D3s and D3x, are out of the question. It does
    > >> sound like a D90, maybe used or refurb, might be a good fit
    > >> for you.

    >
    > >> Good luck!

    >
    > > Thank you!  The advice is very practical for me.

    >
    > > I think a used D90 would be good camera to own for the moment.

    >
    > You mentioned that the 80-200mm AF was your best lens, but did not say
    > what other lenses you had and might want to still use. Note that if you
    > have manual focus AI lenses, the D90 will not meter with them. To meter
    > with those MF AI lenses without going to the expense of a full frame
    > camera, you need either a D7000, D300s, D300, or D200.


    I did mention that in my big post. But really, metering is nearly
    irrelevant in the digital age -- guess, shoot a test shot, adjust,
    and you're better off than your meter would have managed. There
    are a very few cases where the light is changing so fast you
    really have to depend on AF; but very few.

    And, if you have time, you will mostly do better than AE if
    the light is at all difficult.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 29, 2011
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Neil Jones

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:00:23 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    : On 29/07/2011 6:35 a.m., Bruce wrote:
    : > David Dyer-Bennet<> wrote:
    : >>
    : >> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
    : >> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
    : >> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
    : >> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
    : >> 70-200 anyway).
    : >
    : >
    : > I agree with all of the above. Plus, if the 80-200mm f/2.8 is the
    : > last AF-S version, it focuses just as fast as the later 70-200mm.
    : >
    : > Nikon Europe apparently has hundreds of these 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S
    : > lenses in stock but for some reason won't release them to dealers.
    : > We have a list price, we know they have them, but we cannot order
    : > them. No-one knows (or will tell us) why not. Very disappointing,
    : > because they are excellent lenses, and particularly good value for
    : > money.
    : >
    : There are issues with premature AF-s motor failure on these lenses,
    : an expensive exercise to fix under warranty. Perhaps it was better
    : economics to not sell them, and sell the more reliable 70-200.

    As you describe the situation, they seem doomed to let the lenses go to waste.
    Might not the best economics be to set aside enough lenses to replace those
    likely to fail and sell the rest?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 29, 2011
    #23
  4. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/29/2011 2:19 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:00:23 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    > : On 29/07/2011 6:35 a.m., Bruce wrote:
    > :> David Dyer-Bennet<> wrote:
    > :>>
    > :>> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
    > :>> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
    > :>> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
    > :>> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
    > :>> 70-200 anyway).
    > :>
    > :>
    > :> I agree with all of the above. Plus, if the 80-200mm f/2.8 is the
    > :> last AF-S version, it focuses just as fast as the later 70-200mm.
    > :>
    > :> Nikon Europe apparently has hundreds of these 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S
    > :> lenses in stock but for some reason won't release them to dealers.
    > :> We have a list price, we know they have them, but we cannot order
    > :> them. No-one knows (or will tell us) why not. Very disappointing,
    > :> because they are excellent lenses, and particularly good value for
    > :> money.
    > :>
    > : There are issues with premature AF-s motor failure on these lenses,
    > : an expensive exercise to fix under warranty. Perhaps it was better
    > : economics to not sell them, and sell the more reliable 70-200.
    >
    > As you describe the situation, they seem doomed to let the lenses go to waste.
    > Might not the best economics be to set aside enough lenses to replace those
    > likely to fail and sell the rest?
    >


    From a short term economic situation you are right. However, in the
    long term it could hurt their reputation, even if the lenses were sold
    as seconds.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 30, 2011
    #24
  5. Neil Jones

    Me Guest

    On 30/07/2011 12:58 a.m., Neil Harrington wrote:
    > nospam wrote:
    >> In article<>, Neil
    >> Harrington<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In chronological order of their appearance (and more or less
    >>> ascending order of desirability and probable price), the D70, D70s,
    >>> D50 (a later but lower priced version of the D70s),

    >>
    >> d50 and d70s came out at the same time.

    >
    > I stand corrected. I was almost sure I had my D70s before the D50 appeared,
    > but according to a Nikon timeline I just looked at you're right.
    >
    >> they were similar but the d50
    >> was not just a subset of the d70s. it did a few things the d70s
    >> didn't, although it's been too long to remember what those were.

    >
    > Me too. :)
    >

    You'll be struggling...
    I think it might have added russian language to the display, perhaps
    more dummy modes, but all other differences were typical "defeatures" of
    lower ranked models, no DOF preview, no on-demand gridlines, no
    speedlight commander mode, etc etc. But if this doesn't matter to the
    user, then it doesn't matter... The D70/s lacked some pretty important
    features too IMO, with no MLU or shutter delay mode top of the list for me.
    But the D50 had a better matched AA filter (D70/s suffered from
    aliasing/moire), and if not a slightly improved version of the same Sony
    derived CCD sensor, then better in-camera processing of raw and jpeg
    files, giving less noise/better high ISO performance. Still not as good
    (sensor performance) as what Canon offered at the time.
     
    Me, Jul 31, 2011
    #25
  6. Neil Jones

    Bruce Guest

    "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    >All that is true. But the D50 reportedly had some improvements over the
    >D70/D70s in other areas, though I think they were minor. AF was touched up a
    >little I think, and some other things.



    They weren't so minor.

    The D50 had an in-body AF drive motor so could focus all AF Nikkors;
    with the D70(s) you needed to focus non-AF-S Nikkors manually. The
    D50 offered uncompressed raw (NEF) files, wider flash coverage, USB
    2.0, a better viewfinder and was smaller and lighter than the D70(s).

    Against that, the D50 also lost some useful features compared with the
    D70(s). It also launched the optically very poor 18-55mm kit lens
    whereas the D70(s) came with the 18-70mm, some examples of which were
    quite good, although there was a lot of sample variation. The early
    18-55mm lenses are best avoided.

    A comparison is given here:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/
     
    Bruce, Aug 3, 2011
    #26
  7. Neil Jones

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > >All that is true. But the D50 reportedly had some improvements over the
    > >D70/D70s in other areas, though I think they were minor. AF was touched up a
    > >little I think, and some other things.

    >
    > They weren't so minor.


    yes they were

    > The D50 had an in-body AF drive motor so could focus all AF Nikkors;
    > with the D70(s) you needed to focus non-AF-S Nikkors manually.


    absolutely false. where the hell did you get that idea?
     
    nospam, Aug 3, 2011
    #27
  8. "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:030820110708477033%...
    > In article <>, Bruce
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> >All that is true. But the D50 reportedly had some improvements over
    >> >the
    >> >D70/D70s in other areas, though I think they were minor. AF was
    >> >touched up a
    >> >little I think, and some other things.

    >>
    >> They weren't so minor.

    >
    > yes they were
    >
    >> The D50 had an in-body AF drive motor so could focus all AF Nikkors;
    >> with the D70(s) you needed to focus non-AF-S Nikkors manually.

    >
    > absolutely false. where the hell did you get that idea?


    Bruce has his Nikons confused.

    Can't check on DP Review right now as it seems to either not working or
    extremely slow.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 3, 2011
    #28
  9. Neil Jones

    Bruce Guest

    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>
     
    Bruce, Aug 3, 2011
    #29
  10. Neil Jones

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> 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?


    i don't know what you sold or if any part of it was defective, but a
    nikon d70s will focus with all nikon autofocus lenses. period.
     
    nospam, Aug 3, 2011
    #30
  11. Neil Jones

    Bruce Guest

    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. :-(
     
    Bruce, Aug 3, 2011
    #31
  12. Neil Jones

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Aug 3, 2011
    #32
  13. Neil Jones

    Bruce Guest

    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. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Aug 3, 2011
    #33
  14. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    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
     
    PeterN, Aug 3, 2011
    #34
  15. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    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
     
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2011
    #35
  16. Neil Jones

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Paul Furman
    <> 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.
     
    nospam, Aug 5, 2011
    #36
  17. Neil Jones

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Aug 5, 2011
    #37
  18. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    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
     
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2011
    #38
  19. Neil Jones

    Bruce Guest

    Paul Furman <> 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. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Aug 5, 2011
    #39
  20. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    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
     
    PeterN, Aug 5, 2011
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andy Munnis

    Guidance on a buying a new digital camera

    Andy Munnis, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    805
    Michael Geary
    Oct 6, 2003
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    756
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  3. Newsgroups
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    427
    ASAAR
    Jun 1, 2005
  4. alex

    Film SLR Flash unit on a Digital SLR - Possible?

    alex, Jun 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,022
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    421
Loading...

Share This Page