 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006Dear Sony...specks of dirt INSIDE my Sony Alpha lens!
I just noticed them - this is a supposedly new lens! I can see them through the objective, they are stuck on the next element... (18-200) This is the SECOND Sony lens, the first one was defective and the focus motor jammed... so I won't return it... who knows what will be screwed up next time! I'm sure they don't affect the pictures, since they aren't on the focus plane and are too small to affect light, but... maybe Sony should apply their dust-shaker to the lens as well... or the craniums of their management... No more Sony products! ( I just discovered there is no firewire cable in the box with my new Sony DV camcorder... it is a $125 option!!! A 4-wire 6 foot cable!!! The dam camera was only $400 !!!!!!! ) bye bye Sony... you're not only thieves, you are incompetent... I guess I'll look at the Canons coming next year... February I think... BTW Did you know Sony buys TV technology from Samsung? BobFlint@canarmnoway.com skrev: > I just noticed them - this is a supposedly new lens! I can see them through the > objective, they are stuck on the next element... (18-200) > This is the SECOND Sony lens, the first one was defective and the focus motor > jammed... so I won't return it... who knows what will be screwed up next time! For a lot of reasons there are manufactor errors in every consumer product along the line. I've had cellphones that was a dud from the day I got it to even lenses that didn't rotate. For the number of posts i've read about the quality of the lenses I've not seen anything like this. The lenses that didn't work where one non-usm canon lense that my sister got on her rebel years ago and a minolta lense I got which looked like had a fall in the store. I would assume there is a great deal of possibility that the sony lense in question had suffer a fall somewhere on the way to you thus jamming the lense elements. > I'm sure they don't affect the pictures, since they aren't on the focus plane > and are too small to affect light, but... maybe Sony should apply their > dust-shaker to the lens as well... or the craniums of their management... You know you could spend that energy on returning it again. Third times a charm. You're just an unlucky customer, just like I felt when I spent three months sending my cellphone back and forth from the service shop just because I waited 8 days and not 7 before returning it since it never worked flawlessly. And 8 days mean it has to go to service three times before I get a replacement. > No more Sony products! Should I stop buying every product from a manufacturer that somewhere on the way annoyed me I wouldn't be buying anything anymore. I once had a sony recever that costed a fortune but had the reciving strength of a cheap radio. But it lived up in other areas, the sound quality was suberb when I got a bigger antenna. Much better than my old radio. Just as a comparison. How many times have windows failed you? And still, you probably use windows anyway, along with other microsoft products like office. Or your car? I've got friends whos german cars keep failing on them, and they still buy german cars. (I'm europeian by the way) > ( I just discovered there is no firewire cable in the box with my new Sony DV > camcorder... it is a $125 option!!! A 4-wire 6 foot cable!!! The dam camera was > only $400 !!!!!!! ) Where on earth do you shop? http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=393123 lowest is $12.88. 1m variat but pricegrabber didn't have others. > bye bye Sony... you're not only thieves, you are incompetent... That was quite a mature statement. > I guess I'll look at the Canons coming next year... February I think... What if you get a faulty camera or lense from canon? It's just as likely to happend? > BTW Did you know Sony buys TV technology from Samsung? Did you know that Sony and Samsung has a joint venture on LCD production? And Sony put quality issues first and foremost. Oh, in contrast to your sidenote I actually include references: http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2006/gb20061128_546338.htm?chan =tc&chan=technology_technology+index+page_digital+entertainment Still a big world there out to find new things to hate. I have had bad batchs of diet coke. Maybe I'll start to hate coca cola company cause they might accidently slip a bad batch through. And sometimes the bread I buys have slightly overbaked parts. Maybe I should start to hate the city bakerys. Or I could be sensible and realize that the world isn't perfect, sometimes a problem occurs. And if you're unlucky it happends to you again. But that's why they have replacement policys. No wonder why the hippies talked about peace out. People have too much hate, and not to mention too much brand pride. I own Minolta equipment and should reccomend Sony to everybody, but still I've reccomended olympus, nikon and canon as well as sony to my friends. Just because not everyone have the same needs or focus like I do. >BobFlint@canarmnoway.com skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >product along the line. I've had cellphones that was a dud from the day >I got it to even lenses that didn't rotate. cell phones cost $25.... not $500.... >For the number of posts i've >read about the quality of the lenses I've not seen anything like this. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >possibility that the sony lense in question had suffer a fall somewhere >on the way to you thus jamming the lense elements. What about the other lens with dirt inside?? >> I'm sure they don't affect the pictures, since they aren't on the focus plane >> and are too small to affect light, but... maybe Sony should apply their >> dust-shaker to the lens as well... or the craniums of their management... > >You know you could spend that energy on returning it again. Third times >a charm. stupid cliche... > You're just an unlucky customer, just like I felt when I spent >three months sending my cellphone back and forth from the service shop [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Should I stop buying every product from a manufacturer that somewhere on >the way annoyed me I wouldn't be buying anything anymore. The more crap companies I put on my list, the better the quality of my purchases become. > I once had a >sony recever that costed a fortune but had the reciving strength of a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >you probably use windows anyway, along with other microsoft products >like office. There are no alternatives, except Linux, and I don't have time to learn it... whereas all cameras are functionally the same... > Or your car? I've got friends whos german cars keep failing >on them, and they still buy german cars. (I'm europeian by the way) I guess they're just stupid... I don't buy cars from the country I live in, I buy cars that are reliable. >> ( I just discovered there is no firewire cable in the box with my new Sony DV >> camcorder... it is a $125 option!!! A 4-wire 6 foot cable!!! The dam camera was >> only $400 !!!!!!! ) > >Where on earth do you shop? Sony... where the camera came from... http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/servlet/ProductDetailDisplay?storeId=10001&lang Id=-1&catalogId=10001&productId=1002328&navigationPath=n32080n32081 see the I-link cable... $119 before 15% tax... >http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=393123 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >That was quite a mature statement. Thank you, it was a true statement as well. >> I guess I'll look at the Canons coming next year... February I think... > >What if you get a faulty camera or lense from canon? It's just as likely >to happend? Don't think so, I never heard of Canon supplying 2 bad lens's in a row to one customer. Have you? Well? >> BTW Did you know Sony buys TV technology from Samsung? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >perfect, sometimes a problem occurs. And if you're unlucky it happends >to you again. But that's why they have replacement policys. unlucky? another stupid cliche.... maybe you could write a book of fables... I don't believe in luck... it has so basis in science. >No wonder why the hippies talked about peace out. People have too much >hate, I don't hate Sony, I just dis-respect them. I don't even hate you! :) > and not to mention too much brand pride. I own Minolta equipment >and should reccomend Sony to everybody, but still I've reccomended >olympus, nikon and canon as well as sony to my friends. Just because not >everyone have the same needs or focus like I do. I don't have brand pride... I own Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Sony, Samsung, Maymiya Sekor and other cameras... I have cameras going back to the 40s, but I would never trust a company that supplied TWO DEFECTIVE $500 LENSES and then asked for $120 for (as you point out) a $20 cable! Anyway, it's Xmas time which is supposed to be a time for peace, so peace to you, and don't take my jumping up and down so seriously! Bob >I just noticed them - this is a supposedly new lens! I can see them through the >objective, they are stuck on the next element... (18-200) > >This is the SECOND Sony lens, the first one was defective and the focus motor >jammed... so I won't return it... who knows what will be screwed up next time! Don't get me started on Sony's (lack of) quality control & (poor) construction. I've been burned by them on VCRs & laptops, & sure as hell wouldn't anything as expensive as a DSLR from them. Pretty much any of the other big name brands (except Sigma) would be a safer bet. >( I just discovered there is no firewire cable in the box with my new Sony DV >camcorder... it is a $125 option!!! A 4-wire 6 foot cable!!! The dam camera was >only $400 !!!!!!! ) Jesus. A generic Firewire cable will cost you all of about $5-10 from a retailer. If you were local to me, I'd happily give you one of my spares. >>I just noticed them - this is a supposedly new lens! I can see them through the >>objective, they are stuck on the next element... (18-200) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hell wouldn't anything as expensive as a DSLR from them. Pretty much > any of the other big name brands (except Sigma) would be a safer bet. That's funny, because Sigma actually made many of the more reliable and very expensive DSLRs for the other brands in the early days, and are the only company in Japan hand-building DSLRs. Now they only build their own (but don't tell any 4/3rds system owners where a lot of their camera comes from, as well as their lens). Their own DSLR is extremely reliable and consistent, free from back focus or front focus errors, because it's not mass produced. It also tends to come with built-in sensor dust because of the way it's assembled, but that is quite easily removed. Sadly it's also seriously overpriced as a result. David > That's funny, because Sigma actually made many of the more reliable and > very expensive DSLRs for the other brands in the early days, and are the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not mass produced. It also tends to come with built-in sensor dust > because of the way it's assembled, but that is quite easily removed. Haha. Right. What a fine example of all this the new one is, recalled before it's even released. Hand built reliably consistent design errors. >> That's funny, because Sigma actually made many of the more reliable >> and very expensive DSLRs for the other brands in the early days, and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Haha. Right. What a fine example of all this the new one is, recalled > before it's even released. Hand built reliably consistent design errors. I don't think the aspects causing the recall are hand built, unless you can hand build chips. The delay is no longer than Nikon's decision not to launch the D200. That was recalled for three months, they even sent the entire European press including me to Morocco to test it and then withdrew it at the last minute. They found a problem and halted the launch. Or Pentax. In October I was invited for a three-day cruise on the QE2 for the K10D launch. I went, and we were not permitted to use any K10Ds. Why? They hadn't been able to fix the problems with sensor noise or moire, and would not allow the cameras to be used. They delayed the launch a further month while fixing unexpected problems. However, neither of these companies ever set a launch date - I just know because I was invited to the press launches. Sigma did, and quite honourably and openly issued a statement deferring the launch. And you worse of Sigma for that? They are one of the most traditional, honourable, innovative and valuable companies in the whole gang of Japanese manufacturers and all they get for it is snide invective from ignorant punters. David >I don't think the aspects causing the recall are hand built, unless you >can hand build chips. The delay is no longer than Nikon's decision not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >because I was invited to the press launches. Sigma did, and quite >honourably and openly issued a statement deferring the launch. I really wish Leica had done the same with the M8. :-( Seriously, though, kudos to Sigma, Nikon and Pentax for delaying product launches until problems were solved. I have yet to see a lens that's totally dust speck free Every single Nikon lens I have (12) has at least a speck of dust . every single Pentax lens(6) I have has the odd speck of dust. Do I lose sleep over it.. ...No. Do I shoot through loads of sky light light filters -- No I have shot through glass with a rub mark or the odd light scratch.. The images are more than acceptable If you have dust in your lens or the odd scratch please let me know I will take them off your hands for a small fee. that way you can sleep :) What you should be worried about is dust on the sensor > I just noticed them - this is a supposedly new lens! I can see them > through the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > BTW Did you know Sony buys TV technology from Samsung? >I have yet to see a lens that's totally dust speck free >Every single Nikon lens I have (12) has at least a speck of dust . every [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >What you should be worried about is dust on the sensor Like I said, I don't worry about seeing the dust on the picture - I won't... but it's just the principal of the thing... and these aren't just dust specs... they are BIG! But what else could they have botched? So send it back to the company. I had an old sony ttl 2.8mp camera that had specs of dust inside the lens. Fuji was kind enough to clean the whole camera for nada. Harry > >I have yet to see a lens that's totally dust speck free > >Every single Nikon lens I have (12) has at least a speck of dust . every [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > it's just the principal of the thing... and these aren't just dust specs... they > are BIG! But what else could they have botched? > ( I just discovered there is no firewire cable in the box with my new Sony > DV camcorder... it is a $125 option!!! A 4-wire 6 foot cable!!! The dam > camera was only $400 !!!!!!! ) There never (or very rarely) is a firewire cable in the box, especially not on the budget $400 camcorders, and normally the manufacturers own cable cost's a small fortune. But of course any old 6-4pin wire is a few $/£ from the local computer store.  SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. >> ( I just discovered there is no firewire cable in the box with my new Sony >> DV camcorder... it is a $125 option!!! A 4-wire 6 foot cable!!! The dam [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >cable cost's a small fortune. But of course any old 6-4pin wire is a few >$/£ from the local computer store. My older Canon DV had a firewire cable included... it doesn't fit the Sony... > >> ( I just discovered there is no firewire cable in the box with my new Sony > >> DV camcorder... it is a $125 option!!! A 4-wire 6 foot cable!!! The dam [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > My older Canon DV had a firewire cable included... it doesn't fit the Sony... Presume the Canon had a non standard connector then? Which is when they then usually include a cable. The Sony should use the firewire spec for a 4 port connection. SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. > I just noticed them - this is a supposedly new lens! I can see them through the > objective, they are stuck on the next element... (18-200) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > BTW Did you know Sony buys TV technology from Samsung? Do you know why you might find dust inside? Because some of the factories the Third World countries literally have no air conditioning so they operate in a windows open situation with the attendent dust and bugs coming right into the production floors. Where was the lens made, Thailand or China? >> I just noticed them - this is a supposedly new lens! I can see them through the >> objective, they are stuck on the next element... (18-200) [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >production floors. >Where was the lens made, Thailand or China? Silly me, I thought it was a rebagged Minolta lens. You seem to be implying the Sony 18-200mm is manufactured in an Third World sweatshop that does not have air-conditioning and demonstrates a complete lack of quality control? Do you know this for a fact? Or are you, once again, just making it up. TR > >> I just noticed them - this is a supposedly new lens! I can see them through the > >> objective, they are stuck on the next element... (18-200) [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > TR Just speculating. There was a scandal last year when a medical supply firm was using some kind of sealable bags and the tape on it had bugs in it. It had been made overseas in one of those countries. This isn't the first time. There has always been speculation about QC issues when Japan sends things elsewhere for production. >> >Do you know why you might find dust inside? Because some of the >> >factories the Third World countries literally have no air conditioning [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Just speculating. Another way of saying you were just making up up. >There was a scandal last year when a medical supply >firm was using >some kind of sealable bags and the tape on it had bugs in it. What was the name of the company? Or are you just making this up, too? >There has >always been speculation about QC issues when Japan sends things >elsewhere for production. Speculation does not make it true. TR > Do you know why you might find dust inside? Because some of the > factories the Third World countries literally have no air conditioning > so they operate in a windows open > situation with the attendent dust and bugs coming right into the > production floors. > Where was the lens made, Thailand or China? 18-200mm - Japan, in a very modern and bug-free environment by Tamron. David >RichA wrote:. >> Where was the lens made, Thailand or China? > >18-200mm - Japan, in a very modern and bug-free environment by Tamron. That's interesting, David. Does Sony officially admit that the lens is made by Tamron? I ask because Nikon has a policy of denying that third party manufacturers make any Nikkors, when in fact they do make quite a few. Tony > >RichA wrote:. > >> Where was the lens made, Thailand or China? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Tony URL for definitive reference please. Or are you just being your usual self? Bob Tony Polson wrote: >>RichA wrote:. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > because Nikon has a policy of denying that third party manufacturers > make any Nikkors, when in fact they do make quite a few. It's widely known and I don't think they would deny it, but both Tamron and Sony staff can't be drawn on it. With the 11-18mm, I saw the prototype at photokina 2004, and asked the Tamron people whether they would be making it for Konica Minolta. I got embarrassment and flustered nonp-replies and lot of conferring in Japanese before they said 'you had better ask Konica Minolta if they will be having a similar lens, we can not tell you'. Konica Minolta eventually acknoweldged the Tamron origins of various lenses and gave full details of the changes made to them for KM use, which are carried through into Sony models. They include different zoom sleeve mechanisms with a changed resistance, different focus direction in some lenses, absence of zoom lock, different lens coatings (which give the KM/Sony lenses a slightly different contrast and colour transmission), different internal chip, and some changes in inner baffles to control flare. David > I just noticed them - this is a supposedly new lens! I can see them through the > objective, they are stuck on the next element... (18-200) It's not uncommon with many lenses arriving new that there are the odd specs of dust inside. In particular, zooms that change actual length (non-internal zoom lenses) will "breath" as they are zoomed and stuff will get sucked in. > This is the SECOND Sony lens, the first one was defective and the focus motor > jammed... so I won't return it... who knows what will be screwed up next time! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No more Sony products! That's always your right. > bye bye Sony... you're not only thieves, you are incompetent... Both allegations are patently untrue. Like all companies they have their share of mis-fires. My lament over Sony is their ongoing and failed attempts to lock in people to their standards (the lost "Beta" lesson). Sony have been cited for having lost their way in product development. They are no longer great innovators (Walkman) but coasting on their (slowly dwindling) market inertia. > BTW Did you know Sony buys TV technology from Samsung? So what? X-licencing is a benefit to the consumer as less R&D | NRE is spent on developing similar features or benefits. Many comanies licence technology from Sony &| use their components. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I just noticed them - this is a supposedly new lens! I can see them through the >> objective, they are stuck on the next element... (18-200) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >That's always your right. Yes and I hope Sony reads the groups! >> bye bye Sony... you're not only thieves, you are incompetent... > >Both allegations are patently untrue. Are you sure? I told the salesman when I bought the video camera that I was going to use it to transfer all of my DV tapes to computer. He said "It's perfect!" So I get home and there is no firewire cable? And he want's $145 extra with tax for one? And it turns out they are only worth about $20 ?? That's called profiteering, and is illegal, and if I had the time and resources I'd have Sony in court... > Like all companies they have >their share of mis-fires. My lament over Sony is their ongoing and >failed attempts to lock in people to their standards (the lost "Beta" >lesson). Perhaps you don't know that Beta tapes (large format) were the standard of the TV industry in the 80s? My girlfriend at the time was an actress and we borrowed one of the tape machines from canal 10 to view her broadcast tapes, it was a huge Beta machine, it took up the whole coffee table! The small home Betas were just an offshoot of this technology. I don't blame Sony for that. You should blame the companies that brought out the inferior VHS format. >Sony have been cited for having lost their way in product development. >They are no longer great innovators (Walkman) but coasting on their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >spent on developing similar features or benefits. Many comanies licence >technology from Sony &| use their components. I just thought I'd point out that Sony - who prides themselves on "super duper TV sets" lag far behind the pack... perhaps they don't even know it... >Cheers, >Alan anyway - merry Xmas to you! > Yes and I hope Sony reads the groups! Don't hold your breath. >>>bye bye Sony... you're not only thieves, you are incompetent... >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's called profiteering, and is illegal, and if I had the time and resources > I'd have Sony in court... Original "name brand" accessories are usually more expensive and no judge will hear your case. >>Like all companies they have >>their share of mis-fires. My lament over Sony is their ongoing and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Betas were just an offshoot of this technology. I don't blame Sony for that. > You should blame the companies that brought out the inferior VHS format. VHS was brought to us by ... drum roll .... S O N Y !!! They licenced it to JVC and then others as Sony were not happy with it and went on to make the consumer v. of Beta. Beta is still widely used in ENG, documentaries and others... >>Sony have been cited for having lost their way in product development. >>They are no longer great innovators (Walkman) but coasting on their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I just thought I'd point out that Sony - who prides themselves on "super duper > TV sets" lag far behind the pack... perhaps they don't even know it... Oh they know it. They've been strugling with the South Korean invasion for the past 10 years... Sony have totally lost their innovation capability. > anyway - merry Xmas to you! And to you. I hope you find peace, health and happiness in the new year. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.