rwbaron
Forum Pro
Replied to wrong post.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Returning 'bad copies' of lenses
- Thread starter ContinuousShooting
- Start date
Vince Lagrange
Leading Member
Glad to make you laugh. It's always good to laugh and not take life, or yourself, too seriously. As for me working for Nikon, nope, just a happy Nikon shooter.Following your posts are always good for a laugh. You should work in the political arena as a spin doctor but then again maybe you do or maybe you work for Nikon as you come off as the ultimate delusional fanboy.Thanks for being honest and upfront with your experience. You have just proven what I have been saying for a long time. These armchair experts and testers forget that there are many variables in the equation. It's going to be funny when these geniuses buy a D4(x) and find the very same lenses they cherry-picked today might be slightly out due to a body with different tolerances, but still in factory specs.
rwbaron
Forum Pro
Please qualify what "within factory specs" means. What's the allowable tolerance of asymetrical flat field sharpness for any given lens? Do you have access to these specifications or are you just blowing smoke?
Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
rwbaron
Forum Pro
Enjoy living in your delusional WorldGlad to make you laugh. It's always good to laugh and not take life, or yourself, too seriously. As for me working for Nikon, nope, just a happy Nikon shooter.Following your posts are always good for a laugh. You should work in the political arena as a spin doctor but then again maybe you do or maybe you work for Nikon as you come off as the ultimate delusional fanboy.Thanks for being honest and upfront with your experience. You have just proven what I have been saying for a long time. These armchair experts and testers forget that there are many variables in the equation. It's going to be funny when these geniuses buy a D4(x) and find the very same lenses they cherry-picked today might be slightly out due to a body with different tolerances, but still in factory specs.
Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
Robert M. McFarlane
Leading Member
Quite some time ago I purchased a 28-70 f/2.8 (beast) and found that huge amounts of USM had to be applied in PP to obtain a result that was just starting to look reasonable. The files were very very soft, and with a heavy application of USM, the image degraded further with artifacts etc.
I returned the lens, and took the opportunity to order another. I decided to buy a grey one and that lens had to be ordered directly from Japan...there weren't any available at the time in North America. The new lens was excellent in every way with excellent resolution etc. and I still regularly shoot with it. The first 28-70 was clearly defective in a very major way.
--
http://www.pbase.com/robert_m_mcfarlane
I returned the lens, and took the opportunity to order another. I decided to buy a grey one and that lens had to be ordered directly from Japan...there weren't any available at the time in North America. The new lens was excellent in every way with excellent resolution etc. and I still regularly shoot with it. The first 28-70 was clearly defective in a very major way.
--
http://www.pbase.com/robert_m_mcfarlane
Waimak Stud
Senior Member
How does that prove anything? someone who obviously doesn't know about his lens said 'I thought I had a problem a few times , but it turns out I may not have had a problem.' And that proves something? That doesn't prove diddly. And why didn't you thank me when I was being upfront and honest with my experience? That's right, because my experience clearly proved you wrong. As does other people's experiences (for which they have not earned your thanks either.) So the people who agree with you are 'upfront and honest' and the people who can prove you wrong are 'armchair testers' in your eyes, am I right?
And might I add that this 'armchair tester' has only ever had a problem with one of his lenses, and that problem was substantiated by the manufacturer (why do you think they would do that if there clearly was no problem?) You, on the other hand, have apparently analysed the test images of over 500 apparent cases of faulty lenses, so what does that make you? An armchair-tester-tester? It sounds to me like you are just an ARMCHAIR tester.
--
http://dailybento.webs.com/
I really do have to start trying to be a bit nicer to people on here.
Ilkka Nissilä
Senior Member
You do know that it's illegal to sell used products as new. I doubt very much that this is what happens.
Ho72
Senior Member
Maybe this has already been posted, but here it is anyway:
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2010-07-blog.html#_20100721BadLenses
em_dee_aitch
Senior Member
That hinges on the definition of "new." Also, illegal in what jurisdiction, by what piece of law, etc? There are huge gray areas here... Say you buy something as a gift that is not ever given, or you buy something and decide not to use it at all, should the retailer ethically be able to count it as new if there is evidence you really did not use it? And to that extent, can they tell the difference between that which was not actually used and that which was but just handled extremely carefully? ... I suggest to you that is why there is so much flowery legalese in retailer return policy about how you must "return the items in factory fresh condition" to avoid a restock fee, etc... The language is there to make it seem more official on paper than it really is.
--
David Hill
http://www.bayareaweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
em_dee_aitch
Senior Member
Some do, some don't...
... I agree with half of your point: If you are trying to identify a defect in lens, you must isolate it to the lens by trying it across two or more camera bodies; you can't adequately check a lens with just one camera body. As you suggest, simple fine tune offsets between a lens and a given body can result in different outcomes. However, your remark seems to be yet another attempt to deny all defects, which is where I disagree with you: It is entirely possible to have a lens misalignment that does manifest itself the same way across multiple camera bodies.It's going to be funny when these geniuses buy a D4(x) and find the very same lenses they cherry-picked today might be slightly out due to a body with different tolerances, but still in factory specs.
--
David Hill
http://www.bayareaweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
Leonard Shepherd
Forum Pro
It started during a long period of convalescence when I could not leave home and to avoid absolute boredom I started looking at this type of web claim.
What surprised me was it took well over 100 examples before a confirmed problem - a 17-55 with a probable element centering issue - promptly exchanged by an Australian retailer and no doubt sent back to Nikon
I had expected a higher failure rate - and was well on the road to recovery before I came across a second proven example - in the low 300's. Since then I have sporadically checked and nothing has changed - almost all complaints are not confirmed because the complainant does not know how to test properly.
If equipment failures were as common as some imply there would be dozens of proven examples on the web. This is clearly not the case.
Part of the problem is probably that many are "armchair testers" not using a very good tripod, very accurate alignment, meticulous distance measurements and a test target that both measures resolution and which the camera AF can focus on with maximum focus accuracy.
Having occasionally worked in a camera shop the situation is generally no different - a complainants equipment almost almost works a it should in the shop assistants hands.
The situation is probably like playing golf. There are occasional defective golf balls and golf clubs but almost always when the ball does not go straight into the hole it is because the golfer did not hit the ball well enough
--
Leonard Shepherd
Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Maybe it was an obvious joke, but reading your previous lines it certainly did not look like.
However, my response was not only to your comment, but in general the way I see this question:
"The solution is not to buy from shops with return policy, unless they can warrant that what I buy is brand new and have not been out of the shop before it arrived there and was put out for sale."
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Thank you for clarifying that, your explanation makes it more like a normal try-before-you-buy leasing. In fact, I was suspecting something sounded crazy about the deal of being able to return cars "no questions asked". I suppose this happens when people just read the ads and are a bit misinformed because they don’t read the fine print. It is now clear that the deal is not really as he thought it was, but a normal business deal, a kind of leasing contract. After the return of the cars he will be paying for the use, damages and have some limitation during the two months he is using the car. Abusers will pay more than normal, since damages will be paid for, but as it seems, even the normal, careful used must pay. It may sound like a good deal, but maybe after checking out all the details it is not so good at all and perhaps if you buy the same car and don't want that deal you may get it cheaper.
Good idea.
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)
Vince Lagrange
Leading Member
Decentered clubs have been plaguing the PGA for the last decade. Why would you possibly think it be any different for the "pro" photographer. Obviously both know how to properly use their equipment and surely wouldn't blame anything else but themselves for that missed shot.The situation is probably like playing golf. There are occasional defective golf balls and golf clubs but almost always when the ball does not go straight into the hole it is because the golfer did not hit the ball well enough
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Am I really?
No, I don't assume anything; I just asked a few question about how it is done. The dealer will definitely want to sell the car, even after you returned it, which is why I asked those questions. Obviously you had no answers to give, so you change tune to a more arrogant one. As of emotional comments, well your post is full of emotional words and attributes, but don’t let that disturb you.
You're just ridiculous. You have been told that you were wrong, even concerning the car deals and have no answers...
It seems that you have been misinformed here and the one who pays seems to be you , the person returning that car. Never mind, let’s get back to the discussions about lenses and cameras.
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Golfers and photographers may be similar...Decentered clubs have been plaguing the PGA for the last decade. Why would you possibly think it be any different for the "pro" photographer. Obviously both know how to properly use their equipment and surely wouldn't blame anything else but themselves for that missed shot.The situation is probably like playing golf. There are occasional defective golf balls and golf clubs but almost always when the ball does not go straight into the hole it is because the golfer did not hit the ball well enough
Some blame themselves for missed shots, some blame the gear. Some may learn how to hit the ball right; some will just keep trying and in the meantime blaming their golf clubs or balls. Don't forget that we are all human and self criticism is more difficult and rare than a blaming attitude.
BTW, I saw a one hour TV program about how pro golf clubs are made. I am not a golfer and did not know before that there was so much science in it...
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)
Vince Lagrange
Leading Member
You got it! That's the whole point. We are all human and as I said earlier there are a multitude of reasons why people think their equipment is bad when it really isn't. The law of averages with all this "defective" Nikon stuff doesn't add up. I'm more apt to believe it being pilot error instead of faulty equipment.
It's amazing what goes into making a club. Probably more science and engineering than making a pro zoom.BTW, I saw a one hour TV program about how pro golf clubs are made. I am not a golfer and did not know before that there was so much science in it...
As expected. No answer.So do you believe Bjorn Rorslett belongs to this select group of people? Please give me a simple answer: Yes or No.Sorry, but I've heard too many excuses of how things mysteriously got damaged by themselves. We all heard of the 24-70/2.8 falling apart by itself, water or liquid behind the LCD screen of the D3, and a host of other ridiculous issues we read on the net. All of which seem to happen to a select group of people.
Similar threads
- Featured
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum