 |
 | 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 / Digital Photo / June 2007The ethics of returning cameras to the dealer.
We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy them as new from the dealer. How about the dealer when the customer returns a camera he does not like? Over on Dpreview one writer sent back a Sony camera he did not like. He also wrote that he had performed Eddy Current tests at his lab to see if the case was metal, or not. Asked if he has informed the dealer of the test, no reply so far. Maybe the NDT is safe, but would anyone really buy a new camera that has been subjected to unknown tests? > We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy > them as new from the dealer. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Maybe the NDT is safe, but would anyone really buy a new camera > that has been subjected to unknown tests? The camera should be sold at a discount either as used, open box, or refurbished. I assume the merchant charged a restocking fee to offset the cost of this return. >> We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy >> them as new from the dealer. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > refurbished. I assume the merchant charged a restocking fee to offset > the cost of this return. Yes, should, But if you want to be reasonably sure that you actually get a new camera, buy at a place that does not accept returned camera's or only in a sealed box. If you want to have the freedom to return the camera, you should accept that you can receive a camera that has been returned. ben >>> We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy >>> them as new from the dealer. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > ben How about the people who "cherry pick" lenses? I've seen postings from people who've said that they've purchased four (and returned three) "samples" of a particular lens before they got a "good one". Should you take the first one and deal with warranty service to "make it good"??? > How about the people who "cherry pick" lenses? I've seen postings from > people who've said that they've purchased four (and returned three) > "samples" of a particular lens before they got a "good one". Should you > take the first one and deal with warranty service to "make it good"??? That's tough. Something like a lens, which definitely does vary in hard to detect ways, SHOULD be possible to evaluate before "final" purchase - in an ideal world. But that creates a real nightmare for the retailer. He's at the least (assuming the distributor won't take them back) going sell three lenses below cost. If I were still in retail cameras, I'd really have to deny the return or charge a nasty restocking fee. So I guess I'd recommend what I actually do these days - luck of the draw when you buy a lens, and if it's truly off-spec send it back for repair. (or try to). > That's tough. Something like a lens, which definitely does vary in > hard to detect ways, SHOULD be possible to evaluate before "final" > purchase - in an ideal world. [...] In Denmark, all mail-order purchases can be returned within 14 days for a full refund. It's stated in the law, with exemptions for food and such. Internet-bases stores count as mail-order. The rationale behind it is just what you suggest: The customer has a right to evaluate a product before purchase. > But that creates a real nightmare for the retailer. On the other hand, one could argue that it's not a fair bargain if one of the parties feels cheated or dissapointed when he learns about what he really got out of it. I have no real solution for the current case, where it's hard to evaluate the products and thus to differentiate the prices, based on quality.  SignatureToke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/ > In Denmark, all mail-order purchases can be returned within 14 days for > a full refund. It's stated in the law, with exemptions for food and > such. Internet-bases stores count as mail-order. > > The rationale behind it is just what you suggest: The customer has a > right to evaluate a product before purchase. Same here in Germany. Of course, this leads to people "buying" a camera or video camera just before an event, using it at the event then "deciding" that it wasn"t what they really wanted and returning it, no questions asked and postage paid. In effect, a no-fee rental. You can't tell me that retailers are not adjusting their prices to cover their costs involved here. So now the small amount of people who had been ripped off via mail order are protected at the expense of literally everyone. Dave SignatureThere's a fine line between stupid and clever. [] > Same here in Germany. Of course, this leads to people "buying" a > camera or video camera just before an event, using it at the event > then "deciding" that it wasn"t what they really wanted and returning > it, no questions asked and postage paid. In effect, a no-fee rental. [] > Dave I see that as morally wrong. It does then lead me to the question, though: how much testing is reasonable? David > Same here in Germany. Of course, this leads to people "buying" a > camera or video camera just before an event, using it at the event > then "deciding" that it wasn"t what they really wanted and > returning it, no questions asked and postage paid. In effect, a > no-fee rental. I'm sure that happens, but have no idea about how much. > You can't tell me that retailers are not adjusting > their prices to cover their costs involved here. Of course they are. But somehow they still manage to generally have significant lower prices than the over-the-counter stores. There's advantages and disadvantages to both ways of selling (and buying). > So now the small amount of people who had been ripped off via mail > order are protected at the expense of literally everyone. Historically, there has been a lot of reluctance among the danes to buy things on the net. By introducing rules such as the 14 day return policy, more people feel safe and therefore uses the shops. It's a lot easier to know about general rules than to have to dig through every new netshop's written policy on returns, warrenties and such. Although this makes it harder to run a shop, there is more customers overall. At least that's one theory. I guess this comes down to ones view on politics and I won't claim that the danish way in inherently better for the market overall. But I do claim that it is a mistake to see things as narrow as you present it. Now, how do we turn this back to photography? SignatureToke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/ > How about the people who "cherry pick" lenses? I've seen postings > from people who've said that they've purchased four (and returned > three) "samples" of a particular lens before they got a "good one". > Should you take the first one and deal with warranty service to "make > it good"??? That's normal when you're buying Canon's L glass. If I'm going to be spending $1,200+ for a lens I sure as hell am going to pick the best of the litter. Of course, the new Mk III with "AF Micro-adjustment" is supposed to eliminate this to a point. Rita >>>> We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy >>>> them as new from the dealer. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > "samples" of a particular lens before they got a "good one". Should you > take the first one and deal with warranty service to "make it good"??? You can bet that most pro photogs who have any clout with a wholesaler will have cherry-picked the crop of new cameras and/or lenses before they even get to retail. I had a relative (uncle) who worked at a university, and his department were in the market for good camera, this was back in the sixties, so they contacted the wholesaler of Rollei equipment and had *twenty* f/2.8 Planar-equipped rolleiflexes shipped to the uni, from which they selected one, and sent the other 19 back. This appears to be fairly common practice with departments of large organizations. What price the private individual who gets the pick of the rejects after the big boys have had their selection? Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>> We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy >>>> them as new from the dealer. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >"samples" of a particular lens before they got a "good one". Should you >take the first one and deal with warranty service to "make it good"??? If the buyer has ther capacity to actually test the lens to determine if it's within specs, that's fine, IMO. If, however, the buyer is merely trying to determine which one he likes best, that's wrong; again, IMO. Returns are supposed to be for defects, not merely, "I don't like it". "I don't like it" returns raise prices; that's obvious. That said, retailers and mfgrs will give good customers special lenience. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Hillary Clinton gave a high school commencement speech at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C. on Wednesday. She loves speaking at school graduations. Normally when she tells people how they should live, they are not required to sit still for it. > returns raise prices; Having a flexible return policy attracts more customers. > that's obvious. Only when viewed very narrowly. SignatureToke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/ >> returns raise prices; > >Having a flexible return policy attracts more customers. Yes it does. >> that's obvious. > >Only when viewed very narrowly. Can you demonstrate how this doesn't raise prices? In most states that I'm aware of, returned items can't be sold as new, meaning less money to the retailer. This means prices must be raised to make up the difference. The profit margins are slim; more customers will make up some of the loss, but not all. My experience shows that the difference between the sale prices of new items is much lower than the profit margins on the new items will make up for. The number of extra customers must be large in order to make up for this, but those new customers will also include those who will return because "I don't like it." Net result: same losses, raised prices. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! United Nations chief nuclear weapons inspector Mohamed ElBaradei tried to cool tensions between the U.S. and Iran Thursday. He said it would be an act of sheer madness to attack Iran over its refusal to freeze their nuclear program. So it's a go. > In most states that I'm aware of, returned items can't be sold as > new, meaning less money to the retailer. This means prices must be > raised to make up the difference. > The profit margins are slim; more customers will make up some of > the loss, but not all. [...] I seems we agree on the basic idea of trading losses due to returns for more customers. The question is whether the increased amount of customers is enough to enable the store to get discounts large enough themselves, due to the larger orders up in the chain of providers. As such, I do not claim that it will always be the case. But I am opposed to the sweeping statement that it will never be so. It will vary from case to case. SignatureToke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/ >> In most states that I'm aware of, returned items can't be sold as >> new, meaning less money to the retailer. This means prices must be [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >opposed to the sweeping statement that it will never be so. It will >vary from case to case. I agree with that; on an individual basis, it will vary one way or the other. But it sure seems to me that simply getting more customers means those extra customers will include the same percentage of "I don't like it" returners (so to speak). Eating the losses of returns in such cases can't make up for losses; it's like selling individual bales of hay at a loss, and expecting to make up for it by selling more bales. At some point, the losses must be made up; simply increasing customers doesn't do it. If the average loss per customer remains the same, adding customers only increases losses. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Donald Trump agreed Friday to executive produce a new show for Fox called Lady or a Tramp, in which wild party girls compete to become refined society ladies. He said he may or may not host it. They're waiting to see if Bill Clinton's available. > But it sure seems to me that simply getting more customers means > those extra customers will include the same percentage of "I don't > like it" returners (so to speak). Sounds fair. > Eating the losses of returns in such cases can't make up for > losses; it's like selling individual bales of hay at a loss, and > expecting to make up for it by selling more bales. You're missing my point. Let me emphasise: "The question is whether the increased amount of customers is enough to enable the store *to*get*discounts*large*enough*themselves, due to the larger orders up in the chain of providers." Higher volume means more efficient logistics, less chance of getting stranded with a large percentage of unsellable cameras, more discount where the store purchases the cameras. There's a number of advantages to scale that goes beyond just selling more items: Earnings on _each_ sold camera increases. SignatureToke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/ >> But it sure seems to me that simply getting more customers means >> those extra customers will include the same percentage of "I don't [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >to scale that goes beyond just selling more items: Earnings on _each_ >sold camera increases. Higher volume also engenders the expectation of lower prices from customers. Competition with other big box stores will still keep margins down. You can not make up loses on each individual sales by simply selling more. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Bill Clinton agreed Monday to help Hillary campaign in Iowa. He's had a lot of success there before. This time his task is to warn Iowans about the dangers of the John Edwards health care plan and not about the presence of a pool table in their community. > Higher volume also engenders the expectation of lower prices from > customers. Meaning exactly what? That there's no idea in trying to get more customers, because the income will be the same anyway? Of course it doesn't, but your argument demonstrates that all this is not so black and white as you try to make it, which is my point: A blanket claim that accepting returns means higher prices is false. > You can not make up loses on each individual sales by simply > selling more. That is still from the premise that higher volume never give higher margins on each individual sale. I understand your logic, so you need not state it a fourth time, but I still do not believe your premises. SignatureToke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/ I think you're taking Bill's comments as absolutes; this is never(?) the way to a correct understanding. I spent about 15 years running a retail camera store, so: > Meaning exactly what? That there's no idea in trying to get more > customers, because the income will be the same anyway? No, but a TREND if for customers to expect a lower price at larger retailers; this certainly affects but does not define the profit margin. > Of course it doesn't, but your argument demonstrates that all this > is not so black and white as you try to make it, which is my point: > A blanket claim that accepting returns means higher prices is false. However, it can be definitively stated that accepting returns without restriction WILL always increase costs. It's not unreasonable to expect one return to eat the profit from three additional similar sales. It IS unreasonable to expect a generous return policy to quadruple sales. Therefore, in most cases his argument is true. > That is still from the premise that higher volume never give higher > margins on each individual sale. I understand your logic, so you need > not state it a fourth time, but I still do not believe your premises. I think you misinterpreted the premise. As an observation, when my stores were open we'd do almost anything to avoid a return, even to the extent of steering people away from purchases where we though there was a high probability of return. Also note that large electronics chains are now using blacklists of customers who frequently return products, and not allowing them that privilege any more. It's THAT expensive. > I think you're taking Bill's comments as absolutes; this is > never(?) the way to a correct understanding. Then Bill should stop making his statements as absolutes. If you look back, you will see that it was the reason I reacted at all: "returns raise prices; that's obvious". Toke: >> Meaning exactly what? That there's no idea in trying to get more >> customers, because the income will be the same anyway? > > No, but a TREND if for customers to expect a lower price at larger > retailers; this certainly affects but does not define the profit > margin. No objections here. > However, it can be definitively stated that accepting returns > without restriction WILL always increase costs. Yeah, sure. Of course it will. > It's not unreasonable to expect one return to eat the profit from > three additional similar sales. Let's accept that statement. > It IS unreasonable to expect a generous return policy to quadruple > sales. Let's also accept that statement. There's still way too many unknowns, such as: - How big a percentage of customers uses the return policy? - How much discount will the stores get because of increased sales? - How much will the store on the other things I outlines in my previous reply to Bill? > Therefore, in most cases his argument is true. You have presented insufficient data for that conclusion, but - funnily enough - you have backed me up: It is not a truth, it is just a "most cases"-thing. > As an observation, when my stores were open we'd do almost > anything to avoid a return, even to the extent of steering people > away from purchases where we though there was a high probability > of return. I wonder if this is a cultural thing... In Denmark, over the counter stores need not accept returns (ignoring warranty here), but a fair amount of them do provide it anyway and tend to use it fairly aggresive in advertising and at the actual sales. And yes, that also includes camera stores. > Also note that large electronics chains are now using blacklists > of customers who frequently return products, and not allowing them > that privilege any more. Sounds like a good idea. > It's THAT expensive. The only thing it takes to start using blacklists is that the cost of maintaining the blacklists will be lower than the cost of ignoring them. It does not follow that the overall use of flexible return strategies is taking a huge toll on margins. SignatureToke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/ > I wonder if this is a cultural thing... In Denmark, over the counter > stores need not accept returns (ignoring warranty here), but a fair > amount of them do provide it anyway and tend to use it fairly aggresive > in advertising and at the actual sales. And yes, that also includes > camera stores. Heh. Most Americans ASSUME they have a right to returns under almost any circumstances, but this is not supported by law; it's just the custom. (Some big-ticket items do have a mandated 72-hr '"cooling off" period, and this excludes warranty issues. For instance, there's a mandated merchantability warranty that essentially says the product must generally be what you claim it is.) I never had a posted return policy; I just accommodated customers (or didn't) as seemed appropriate. This continued until a customer purchased an expensive sound movie camera outfit, used it for six months, then tried to return it for a refund. We refused; he shipped the system back to us blind, then told his credit card company we had accepted his merchandise but failed to refund his money. The system was a complete loss, and killed our profits for the WEEK. That was the end of a generous and flexible return policy; we went to a posted one that was very limited and strict. These days things are changing in the States, and return policies are generally hidden as well as possible rather than advertised. People continue to assume unlimited returns, but get them less and less frequently. >> I wonder if this is a cultural thing... In Denmark, over the counter >> stores need not accept returns (ignoring warranty here), but a fair [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >mandated merchantability warranty that essentially says the product >must generally be what you claim it is.) That's not a "for instance": it's entirely different. And only certain categories of sales over $25 have a cooling off period, and not at stores. Usually, sales in your home, dormitory, place of work, or temporary place ("tent sale", for example) qualify. But buy a $5,000 HDTV at Best Buy, and no such cooling off period applies. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Bill and Hillary Clinton shot a commercial in a diner spoofing the last scene of The Sopranos. It's not the first time they acted like mobsters. They spent so much time in front of grand juries, the Sons of Italy granted them honorary membership. > >Heh. Most Americans ASSUME they have a right to returns under almost > >any circumstances, but this is not supported by law; it's just the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But buy a $5,000 HDTV at Best Buy, and no such cooling off period > applies. I was mentioning the merchantability warranty as an example of the "excludes warranty issues" class; I realize it's different. And thanks for clarifying the circumstances of the "cooling off" mandate; I wasn't sure of the terms there. >> Higher volume also engenders the expectation of lower prices from >> customers. > >Meaning exactly what? That there's no idea in trying to get more >customers, because the income will be the same anyway? Evidently, you missed the idea that larger volume will mean the customers will want lower prices. They aren't as stupid as some think, and expect someplace like, for example, B&H to have lower prices than the local, non-chain, brick 'n'mortar store, precisely because B&H can leverage prices. So, when a store expaqnds to draw more customers, they need to do somethng to keep the customers coming into the store; that somethng is usually lower prices. That means the lower costs of inventory are not translated automaticaly into profits, becauser the selling price is reduced to draw the new customers into the store. Thus, for example, Home Depot will sell nails at a lower price than the local good ol' boy hardware store. >Of course it doesn't, but your argument demonstrates that all this >is not so black and white as you try to make it, which is my point: >A blanket claim that accepting returns means higher prices is false. I don't see how having a liberal return policy can *not* raise prices. The store loses money on "I d on't like it" returns; the factory won't accept them under warranty, because they aren't defective, so the store must eat the loss due to selling returns for a lower price. Since profit margins are slim, that loss must be made up somewhere, and I haven't seen a box outside the front door asking for donations. >> You can not make up loses on each individual sales by simply >> selling more. > >That is still from the premise that higher volume never give higher >margins on each individual sale. I understand your logic, so you need >not state it a fourth time, but I still do not believe your premises. Ok, that's fair. But I don't see anything to show how else those losses can be made up. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Bill Clinton agreed Monday to help Hillary campaign in Iowa. He's had a lot of success there before. This time his task is to warn Iowans about the dangers of the John Edwards health care plan and not about the presence of a pool table in their community. >>>>> We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy >>>>> them as new from the dealer. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>>> not like. He also wrote that he had performed Eddy Current tests at >>>>> his lab to see if the case was metal, or not. <snip> I should expect the dealer, if he knew about the eddy current test, would refuse the camera. Eddy currents are induced by an alternating magnetic field, and currents are induced in all conductors, not only the metal shell of the camera. The potential to damage semi-conductors in the camera circuitry is real, and junctions could be degraded enough to cause the camera to eventually fail. A dangerous test in my estimation. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>> We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy >>>>>> them as new from the dealer. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>>>> his lab to see if the case was metal, or not. > <snip> > I should expect the dealer, if he knew about the eddy current test, > would refuse the camera. > Eddy currents are induced by an alternating magnetic field, and currents > are induced in all conductors, not only the metal shell of the camera. > The potential to damage semi-conductors in the camera circuitry is real, > and junctions could be degraded enough to cause the camera to eventually > fail. A dangerous test in my estimation. Really? In that case you're putting your digital camera at risk if you place it near your TV, which I'm actually forced to do when using the TV output display facility since the cable supplied by the manufacturer is so short. Why weren't we warned about this hazard? SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > > Eddy currents are induced by an alternating magnetic field, and currents > > are induced in all conductors, not only the metal shell of the camera. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > TV output display facility since the cable supplied by the > manufacturer is so short. Why weren't we warned about this hazard? I would expect electromagentic fields induced by random exposure to consumer products would be MUCH lower than those from a deliberate test. And remember that, despite their digital nature, damage to semiconductors can be cumulative. Sort of like: Manufacturing defects X operating temperature X overvoltages experienced = likelihood of failure. >>>>>>> We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy >>>>>>> them as new from the dealer. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >TV output display facility since the cable supplied by the >manufacturer is so short. Four feet is not short. >>>>>>>> We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy >>>>>>>> them as new from the dealer. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>TV output display facility since the cable supplied by the >>manufacturer is so short. > Four feet is not short. Perhaps not, but it is a hell of lot longer than my camera's TV cable. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >>>>>>>>> We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy >>>>>>>>> them as new from the dealer. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Perhaps not, but it is a hell of lot longer than my camera's TV cable. Get another cable, the one that came with my Sony W100 is four feet, have had them as long as six feet with other digital camers. >> Eddy currents are induced by an alternating magnetic field, and currents >> are induced in all conductors, not only the metal shell of the camera. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >TV output display facility since the cable supplied by the >manufacturer is so short. Why weren't we warned about this hazard? Hard drives are damaged by magnets, right? Inside your hard drives, there are very powerful, rare earth magnets, very close to the spinning platters. It's not just magnets (or electronic fields) that damage electronics; it's how they are applied. Your TV won't damage your camera under normal use, because the TV won't produce strong enough fields (under normal use) to do so. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! United Nations chief nuclear weapons inspector Mohamed ElBaradei tried to cool tensions between the U.S. and Iran Thursday. He said it would be an act of sheer madness to attack Iran over its refusal to freeze their nuclear program. So it's a go. >>>>>>> We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy >>>>>>> them as new from the dealer. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > TV output display facility since the cable supplied by the > manufacturer is so short. Why weren't we warned about this hazard? Thank you for your sarcastic reply, I hope you feel better after that. Unfortunately, all you accomplished was to reveal your complete and total ignorance of the difference between stray radiation from a TV versus a very much stronger field from an eddy-current test. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > How about the people who "cherry pick" lenses? I've seen postings from people who've said that they've purchased four (and > returned three) "samples" of a particular lens before they got a "good one". Should you take the first one and deal with warranty > service to "make it good"??? I do test all new purchases - lenses do vary, and some are inherently sub-par regardless of samples by my standards. I do not generally buy more than one sample, but if it shows poor opposite corner/edge agreement under the identical conditions (poor alignment), I return it for exchange until I get one that is well aligned. If poor alignment is not an issue, but poor performance is (at reasonable stops for the lens type), I usually give up and return it for refund. Using poor or defective lenses is not acceptable to me (see here to see what a nut I am about this: www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html ;-). SignatureDavid Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com http://www.donferrario.com/ruether > The camera should be sold at a discount either as used, open box, or > refurbished. I assume the merchant charged a restocking fee to offset > the cost of this return. More than "should"; there are fairly stringent federal laws forbidding the sale of used merchandise as new. (Not that they aren't ignored at times). Back when I was in retail, we were small enough that we had very few returns (less likely to return something you've actually been able to handle and have demonstrated), and avoided restocking fees for customer relations. We just ate the loss. .. > Over on Dpreview one writer sent back a Sony camera he did > not like. He also wrote that he had performed Eddy Current tests at > his lab to see if the case was metal, or not. And why would anyone really care if the case was metal or not? SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit >.. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And why would anyone really care if the case was metal or not? It was RichA. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Hillary Clinton gave a high school commencement speech at Constitution Hall in Washington D.C. on Wednesday. She loves speaking at school graduations. Normally when she tells people how they should live, they are not required to sit still for it. >> And why would anyone really care if the case was metal or not? > > It was RichA. <g> I'm glad I wasn't eating when I saw that. > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:28:05 -0400, "Joseph Meehan" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It was RichA. I wouldn't need an eddy current test to determine if a case is metal or plastic. Plastic smells. > We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy > them as new from the dealer. > > How about the dealer when the customer returns a camera he > does not like? Depends. Did the dealer or the camera manufacturer include the words "satisfaction guarenteed" in any of the advertising? I have returned things that were defective and had them replaced under warranty. Signature"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis > Depends. Did the dealer or the camera manufacturer include the words > "satisfaction guarenteed" in any of the advertising? I rather suspect (given the current dry cleaner/lost pants lawsuit) that the words "satisfaction guaranteed" will shortly disappear from the earth. I'D certainly never make such an open-ended promise. > I have returned things that were defective and had them replaced under > warranty. Different scenario. In most, but not all cases, the distributor will take back a certain number of "bad on initial use" items from the retailer. A store that abuses this may have the privilege revoked. >> Depends. Did the dealer or the camera manufacturer include the words >> "satisfaction guarenteed" in any of the advertising? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the earth. I'D certainly never make such an open-ended promise. > If the court does anything OTHER than awarding the plaintiff the cost of the pants, and charging HIM for the cost of the defendant's legal fees, then the idea of justice in the courts had gone over to the dark side. The suit is frivolous, and downright punitive. The plaintiff should be held in contempt of court for such a ridiculous suit. >> I have returned things that were defective and had them replaced under >> warranty. > > Different scenario. In most, but not all cases, the distributor will > take back a certain number of "bad on initial use" items from the > retailer. A store that abuses this may have the privilege revoked. >> I rather suspect (given the current dry cleaner/lost pants lawsuit) >> that the words "satisfaction guaranteed" will shortly disappear from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fees, then the idea of justice in the courts had gone over to the > dark side. What ever gave you the idea that courts and justice have anything to do with each other? jue >> If the court does anything OTHER than awarding the plaintiff the cost >> of the pants, and charging HIM for the cost of the defendant's legal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What ever gave you the idea that courts and justice have anything to > do with each other? Some people are just naive. Winning in court hinges around having the better liar, or should I say lawyer. Truth and justice are always left outside on the marble steps of the courthouse. Rita > We all expect our cameras to be in pristine condition when we buy > them as new from the dealer. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Maybe the NDT is safe, but would anyone really buy a new camera > that has been subjected to unknown tests? It sounds like such testing is harmless, if a camera were subject to it and failed, it shouldn't be on the market anyway because if you put it down next to any device with an electrical transformer, the same thing could happen. There was nothing wrong with what he did. A buyer is entitled to know the specifics about a camera, each buyer has specifics they want. If they are the ones who have to do the finding, no problem either. All stores simply divide the costs of this kind of thing across their general retail costs, it probably doesn't add up to much and people get better service because of it. But, if the store decides to sell it as new, that is a problem, even though the camera may be pristine. Personally? If someone wants to "test for failure" a camera, maybe the next buyer is better off anyway? Consider it the test the factory never did. >Personally? If someone wants to "test for failure" a camera, maybe >the next buyer is better off anyway? Consider it the test the factory >never did. Your new car is ready, Sir. It should be fine, one of the prospective buyers redlined it for two hours with no problems. >>Personally? If someone wants to "test for failure" a camera, maybe >>the next buyer is better off anyway? Consider it the test the factory >>never did. > Your new car is ready, Sir. It should be fine, one of the prospective > buyers redlined it for two hours with no problems. Sounds like you don't understand how metal detectors work. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >>>Personally? If someone wants to "test for failure" a camera, maybe >>>the next buyer is better off anyway? Consider it the test the factory [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Sounds like you don't understand how metal detectors work. Enough to know not to buy a camera that has been subjected to unknown tests, by unknown people using unknown equipment. >>>Personally? If someone wants to "test for failure" a camera, maybe >>>the next buyer is better off anyway? Consider it the test the factory [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Sounds like you don't understand how metal detectors work. Whether a particular camera body is made of plastic or metal is easily determined with a very small amount of investigation. No eddy current testing is necessary. Eddy current testing is done with varying frequency and amplitude (power); who knows what power was used? SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! United Nations chief nuclear weapons inspector Mohamed ElBaradei tried to cool tensions between the U.S. and Iran Thursday. He said it would be an act of sheer madness to attack Iran over its refusal to freeze their nuclear program. So it's a go. >>>>Personally? If someone wants to "test for failure" a camera, maybe >>>>the next buyer is better off anyway? Consider it the test the factory [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Eddy current testing is done with varying frequency and amplitude >(power); who knows what power was used? Hope it wasn't the type used for checking out pipelines or boilers. >>>>>Personally? If someone wants to "test for failure" a camera, maybe >>>>>the next buyer is better off anyway? Consider it the test the factory [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Hope it wasn't the type used for checking out pipelines or boilers. Or D9 or Freightliner frame welds. :-) But, yes, that was my point. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Bill Clinton agreed Monday to help Hillary campaign in Iowa. He's had a lot of success there before. This time his task is to warn Iowans about the dangers of the John Edwards health care plan and not about the presence of a pool table in their community. >>>>>>Personally? If someone wants to "test for failure" a camera, maybe >>>>>>the next buyer is better off anyway? Consider it the test the factory [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Or D9 or Freightliner frame welds. :-) > But, yes, that was my point. Not usually being "evil" in nature, but returning an apparently unharmed electronic appliance for a refund that has been subjected to eddy current testing makes me kind of half wish that the tester was stupid enough to try it even though they have a pacemaker. Then he could have been "dead certain" (O.-) |
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
|
©2010 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.