I sent my Fuji back :-(

Started May 3, 2012 | Discussions
Robert Holloway
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,626Gear list
Like?
Re: Great insight!
In reply to absentaneous, May 4, 2012

I carefully wrapped everything up. Put it in the correct spaces in the box. it looked as new as it could after 16 days

For me to evaluate a totally different camera for IQ took about 10 shots and it was amazing. Usability involves shooting in several situations such as kids being out, a dog adoption day. Just impossible to do this over 2 days after receipt and in 50 shots.

If the shutter has a life expectancy of 150k actuations I used less than one half of one per cent. In that world 100 or 420 makes no difference

Still have not seen the raw output of my shots ;-(

Rob

absentaneous wrote:

BTW - I had about 420 shutter activations.

Rob

amazon also says: "These items must be in new condition with original packaging and accessories."

now the question: do you consider a camera with 420 shutter activations in new condition? and after how many activations did you realise this camera is not "perfect" for you?

 Robert Holloway's gear list:Robert Holloway's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RealXenuis
Senior MemberPosts: 1,152Gear list
Like?
Re: Returns policy
In reply to absentaneous, May 4, 2012

Sure. And even industrious people buy stuff too! And from Amazon!

If you buy something from a store that is used but they mislead you, that's the store's fault, not the consumer. You're just confused about that.

absentaneous wrote:

there's not just amazon selling cameras or other stuff out there and lazy and selfish people don't only buy at amazon so...

also my concepts are not personal nor relative but real because things I write about happens. maybe not in this particular case but they do. and if for you causing damage to someone simply because you were too lazy to check things out better before buying is not irresponsible then you have low moral standards.

I"m sorry if you got a bad camera etc. But your concept of what one must do to satisfy "responsibility" as a consumer is just that, YOUR concept.

What is a moral standard? Who decides then? Your argument isn't any clearer. Are you putting yourself dictator of the consumer world and handing down standards of morality? Surely not.

and for the third time I have no problem with anyone's policy neither with people's laziness, irresponsibility or low morals as long as noone is paying the price for it. in my case that wasn't the case and that's why I complained.

And for the third time you have, and can have, no idea what constitutes a "lazy", "irresponsible", or "moral" person. Who is paying the price? You? Go take it up with the story you bought it from. Get a lawyer. But don't dictate what others should do b/c you got burned. I sympathize with you if you did, but it's in no way, whatsoever, no matter how you want to justify it, my fault. Sorry man.

I also don't want you to have guilt or whatever but there is also no need to live in denial that such practice is not really something one would call high moral standards. you don't need to apologize for that especially not to me but at the same time don't fool yourself that everything is just ok unless you believe morality is useless.

I have no need to deny something that just isn't true. I mean, the concept of "morality" is not even something we'll all agree on, or could. No one here is saying that "everything is ok". But some here, many here, are saying that if it's Ok with Amazon that i buy and return something, then it's ok with us. You're the one not ok with it.

If your grip is with another store, then name that store. Let us know they use deceptive advertising practices. Perhaps someone on here can help you out? But don't blame us for returning our camera.

also, I can't really blame amazon's return policy because I am sure its intention was not to give a way to selfish and irresponsible people tp abuse it but to those in good faith who really needed it. of course it's not fair to blame amazon if someone is taking advantage of their good intentions. because as I mentioned before the return policy is indeed something that make sure customers get treated right but I am also sure this doesn't include customers testing out the camera for whole 30 days when they probably realised already they are not going to keep the camera.

And that's why Amazon has policies to handle "abusers". Everything is covered. Amazon is making bazillions. Yet you still won't jsut accept that.

so go on, be selfish and irresponsible just because amazon allows you to be. I think that tells a lot about what your morals is all about.

You're confusing the cause and effect here: Amazon CHOSE that policy to gain our business. To differentiate over other businesses. And by all indications, it's working out very well for everyone. No one forced Amazon to take up this return policy, and Amazon is not operating at a loss b/c of it. It's perfectly ok that you don't shop with them or use that policy, but it's dumb to think anyone is acting "immorally". What could you possibly know about my morals? Better yet, what are morals? And where do you find their standards?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chopsteeks
Senior MemberPosts: 1,212
Like?
Re: Great insight!
In reply to dzeanah, May 4, 2012

But if we go with Robert's explanation.....it is about math not morals....

Somewhere down the line someone has to pay for this....

I know it ain't Fuji...I know it ain't Amazon...

Now your price for Fuji X-PRO1 + 1 lens ---$2,300.

Yes it is about math not morals...

But like I said, people have abused this system.....

dzeanah wrote:

Jeff Seltzer wrote:

Thanks, Robert - totally supports what I've been saying, i.e., it's part of Amazon's (very successful) business model.

Now, how do you address these people here who consider it an ethical issue?? They argue that it's the consumer's responsibility to do research prior to purchase, and buying and returning as part of a "free trial" is somehow not moral (????)

I've stayed out of the argument, but I think I can explain this one simply:

  • User buys a camera he's not sure about. Uses it for 3 weeks and ~ 2,000 shutter actuations.

  • User sends this back to the vendor.

  • Value is now decreased by ~ 30%. I doubt the margin on this camera was this high to begin with though I may be mistaken.

  • The retailer may choose to sell it used and take a loss on the unit.

  • On the other hand, the retailer may sent it back to the manufacturer. In this case the manufacturer needs to receive it, pay folks to test it and inspect it, repackage the thing, and send it back out as a refurbished unit.

  • I wouldn't be shocked to learn that in either case the best case situation is for the vendor and/or retailer to break even on the sale. It's a low margin world, after all.

So, someone that habitually buys stuff he doesn't intend to keep (or isn't sure of) is costing some company money. This means that in order for these businesses to succeed they'll need to make money somewhere, which means increased margins for everyone. People like me are likely paying a few dollars more per X Pro 1 so others can use them for 3 weeks, say "but it's not entirely perfect for me," and send it back.

That seems to be a moral issue. Or at least, the user who routinely does this is causing negative externalities that the rest of us are having to pay for, and some are reacting to that.

If I'd not liked the X Pro 1 outfit I would have resold it, not returned it. I've got shoes I bought that were the wrong size that I didn't return to amazon.

If you're not sure you'll like it, buy from a vendor where you can actually handle the thing first. That's what display models are for. Not new merchandise.
--
Derek

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boinkphoto
Contributing MemberPosts: 907Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes, but I think the argument is 30 days...
In reply to RealXenuis, May 4, 2012

Not sure I'm buying you arguments, but this is hardly of the magnitude of say "ending world hunger", so differing on opinion is a tenable place to leave this.

Regardless, I was not saying the OP was in any way a horrible person, or bad, or immoral, or whatever. I just find myself uncomfortable with his tack.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jeff Seltzer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,680
Like?
Examples don't fit...
In reply to dzeanah, May 4, 2012

1. What if Lexus said, "Try our vehicle for 30 days, if you don't like it, return." And, let's say you did return it, would that be unethical??

2. Leaving a restaurant without paying is called stealing. But, what if the restaurant said, "It's our policy: try our food, and if you don't like, don't pay." Well, that's different, no? (By the way, having experienced in this business, it's not unusual at all for a restaurant to "comp" a meal if guests are unsatisfied)

3. What if Sketchers said, "If you don't like them, return them." You get the point.

It's Amazon's own policy!!!!!!!!

dzeanah wrote:

RealXenuis wrote:

How can one ever be sure they'll like something? So insane.

Some people don't live in areas they can try stuff before they buy. What they should just not buy stuff?

Do you know if you'll like the new Lexus? Why not buy it and return it with 4,000 miles on the odometer if you don't like it enough?

Maybe you like fine cuisine, maybe not. Why not sit down in a $300/plate restaurant and try and appetizer, but leave without paying if it's not your thing?

Maybe those new Sketchers shoes that the retired football player is hyping will be something you like. Run a few miles to see, then return it if it doesn't work out well.

Maybe you'd like to take up mountainbiking. Why not buy a $1,500 bike and run it offroad for a bit. If you don't like it, or wish you'd bought a different model, then just return it. Not problem, right?

For the most part, once you buy something, it's yours. That's why you're seeing this reaction here.

The rest is conjecture. You may well be right, or wrong. But the policy is there. If you have a problem with it, talk to Amazon. They apparently have safeguards already in place for abusers.

I'm not making a big deal of it. You're a rational actor. You'll do what's in your best interest if you're allowed to. More power to you.

Doesn't mean I think it's right though.

-- hide signature --

Derek

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boinkphoto
Contributing MemberPosts: 907Gear list
Like?
Re: What about multiple "pre-orders"???
In reply to RealXenuis, May 4, 2012

And there probably is nothing wrong with it. Again my sort of "intuitive" reaction was to feel it was hokey.

Thanks for the response.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jeff Seltzer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,680
Like?
Re: Great insight!
In reply to chopsteeks, May 4, 2012

So silly, so wrong. You think Fuji's price is high because a small number of people buy from Amazon then return? Geeez.

chopsteeks wrote:
But if we go with Robert's explanation.....it is about math not morals....

Somewhere down the line someone has to pay for this....

I know it ain't Fuji...I know it ain't Amazon...

Now your price for Fuji X-PRO1 + 1 lens ---$2,300.

Yes it is about math not morals...

But like I said, people have abused this system.....

dzeanah wrote:

Jeff Seltzer wrote:

Thanks, Robert - totally supports what I've been saying, i.e., it's part of Amazon's (very successful) business model.

Now, how do you address these people here who consider it an ethical issue?? They argue that it's the consumer's responsibility to do research prior to purchase, and buying and returning as part of a "free trial" is somehow not moral (????)

I've stayed out of the argument, but I think I can explain this one simply:

  • User buys a camera he's not sure about. Uses it for 3 weeks and ~ 2,000 shutter actuations.

  • User sends this back to the vendor.

  • Value is now decreased by ~ 30%. I doubt the margin on this camera was this high to begin with though I may be mistaken.

  • The retailer may choose to sell it used and take a loss on the unit.

  • On the other hand, the retailer may sent it back to the manufacturer. In this case the manufacturer needs to receive it, pay folks to test it and inspect it, repackage the thing, and send it back out as a refurbished unit.

  • I wouldn't be shocked to learn that in either case the best case situation is for the vendor and/or retailer to break even on the sale. It's a low margin world, after all.

So, someone that habitually buys stuff he doesn't intend to keep (or isn't sure of) is costing some company money. This means that in order for these businesses to succeed they'll need to make money somewhere, which means increased margins for everyone. People like me are likely paying a few dollars more per X Pro 1 so others can use them for 3 weeks, say "but it's not entirely perfect for me," and send it back.

That seems to be a moral issue. Or at least, the user who routinely does this is causing negative externalities that the rest of us are having to pay for, and some are reacting to that.

If I'd not liked the X Pro 1 outfit I would have resold it, not returned it. I've got shoes I bought that were the wrong size that I didn't return to amazon.

If you're not sure you'll like it, buy from a vendor where you can actually handle the thing first. That's what display models are for. Not new merchandise.
--
Derek

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boinkphoto
Contributing MemberPosts: 907Gear list
Like?
Re: Moral issue
In reply to fearofhummingbird, May 4, 2012

Well, then I drank a lot of cool aid and I'm not embarrassed to say it. I think a lot of the world's problems relate to lack of basic morality (and no, I don't mean "promiscuity", I mean following the basic rule of "don't do to others, what you don't want done to yourself").

That said, a lot of the world's problems are people who think they know the moral answers when they don't (which may include me)...

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chopsteeks
Senior MemberPosts: 1,212
Like?
Re: Great insight!
In reply to Jeff Seltzer, May 4, 2012

Tell me Jeff....who will absorb the loss as a result of this Amazon trial program ?

Do not discount me as silly without explaining this...

Jeff Seltzer wrote:

So silly, so wrong. You think Fuji's price is high because a small number of people buy from Amazon then return? Geeez.

chopsteeks wrote:
But if we go with Robert's explanation.....it is about math not morals....

Somewhere down the line someone has to pay for this....

I know it ain't Fuji...I know it ain't Amazon...

Now your price for Fuji X-PRO1 + 1 lens ---$2,300.

Yes it is about math not morals...

But like I said, people have abused this system.....

dzeanah wrote:

Jeff Seltzer wrote:

Thanks, Robert - totally supports what I've been saying, i.e., it's part of Amazon's (very successful) business model.

Now, how do you address these people here who consider it an ethical issue?? They argue that it's the consumer's responsibility to do research prior to purchase, and buying and returning as part of a "free trial" is somehow not moral (????)

I've stayed out of the argument, but I think I can explain this one simply:

  • User buys a camera he's not sure about. Uses it for 3 weeks and ~ 2,000 shutter actuations.

  • User sends this back to the vendor.

  • Value is now decreased by ~ 30%. I doubt the margin on this camera was this high to begin with though I may be mistaken.

  • The retailer may choose to sell it used and take a loss on the unit.

  • On the other hand, the retailer may sent it back to the manufacturer. In this case the manufacturer needs to receive it, pay folks to test it and inspect it, repackage the thing, and send it back out as a refurbished unit.

  • I wouldn't be shocked to learn that in either case the best case situation is for the vendor and/or retailer to break even on the sale. It's a low margin world, after all.

So, someone that habitually buys stuff he doesn't intend to keep (or isn't sure of) is costing some company money. This means that in order for these businesses to succeed they'll need to make money somewhere, which means increased margins for everyone. People like me are likely paying a few dollars more per X Pro 1 so others can use them for 3 weeks, say "but it's not entirely perfect for me," and send it back.

That seems to be a moral issue. Or at least, the user who routinely does this is causing negative externalities that the rest of us are having to pay for, and some are reacting to that.

If I'd not liked the X Pro 1 outfit I would have resold it, not returned it. I've got shoes I bought that were the wrong size that I didn't return to amazon.

If you're not sure you'll like it, buy from a vendor where you can actually handle the thing first. That's what display models are for. Not new merchandise.
--
Derek

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jwalker019
Senior MemberPosts: 2,588Gear list
Like?
Re: Ummmm, no.
In reply to Jeff Seltzer, May 4, 2012

Jeff Seltzer wrote:

That's NOT what several have said. In fact, several on this thread stated that they believe it's unethical to purchase a camera from Amazon.com, try it, decide it's not for them, then return it. Do you believe that's abuse? Do you believe that's not ethical? Amazon doesn't.

Since you ask . . . as it's Amazon's policy, following it does not constitute abuse; however, I believe it is unethical to purchase a camera (or any other item), try it, decide it's not for you, then return it. Just because something is allowed does not make it right or ethical.

By the way, I hear this all the time: "I didn't break any rules", "The store doesn't mind", etc. One can "follow the rules" all one's life and still live a corrupt, unethical, immoral life. Similarly, one can act outside the norms of society and be perfectly moral and scrupulously ethical.

-- hide signature --
 jwalker019's gear list:jwalker019's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Nikon D3 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zlatko
Regular MemberPosts: 275Gear list
Like?
Re: Returns policy
In reply to RealXenuis, May 4, 2012

RealXenuis, you keep putting the word "broke" in quotes as if I ever wrote that the camera was "broke". I wrote that Robert H's camera was broken, as he explained, so he was entitled to return it.

I described the chattering as a design defect and a bad design decision, one which Fuji corrected. You wrongly interpreted this as "misinformation". You seem intent on vigorously defending a defect that Fuji corrected. Why? Can't stand the thought that they might have made a mistake that led to some very justifiable returns?

I was curious to see what photography you do, as it might explain why you're so accepting of chattering cameras. But sadly, there is no web site or portfolio, etc.

 zlatko's gear list:zlatko's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Olympus E-M1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads