O.M....BHphotovideo sent me used lens...

IchiroCameraGuy said:

relate2 said:

It works quite well around the world with you only get to return the camera if it is faulty. It is just the Americans who get this ridiculous return policy.

Click to expand...

It's not only Americans but having liberal return policy sells a lot of big dollar products - think what countries have the biggest numbers in sales by far

this is at least the 5th jab at American this or that I have seen on dpreview in the past week, very strange

Click to expand...

Not sure he was trying to jab.

I don't know about all the rest of the world but I know, from reading these forums, that our liberal return policies are not enjoyed in most countries.

I would love to see restocking fees on any item that doesn't have a defect.

Defective items go back to the manufacturer (no restocking fee) and returns for any other reason are resold at a discount (restocking fee).

aman74 said:

If that answer was vague to you then I'm not sure about your reading comprehension.

It would be nice to hear about their specific policy regarding items with shutter clicks counted though. One poster brought up their being a law about that, but I haven't found it yet.

However, what do you propose for lenses? What do you propose for other non-camera items? How would you propose the retailer can tell if it was used for a week or returned unopened when we're talking about items with non-sealed boxes? Your clothes argument falls apart.

Where do you think you're going to find a retailer that doesn't do this is as well?

Click to expand...

Actually, you're the one with the reading comprehension problem. People with low reading comprehension draw conclusions on inconclusive statements. It's the way people like you get fooled by politicians who beat around the bush.

Henry did not state anything about the sweater having been worn. A sweater that is bought, wrapped, and is never worn is still new. I hope that isn't too much for your feeble mind to comprehend.

As well as the idea that a sweater bought, worn, and then returned is no longer new.

Read slowly so you can comprehend this time.

Photohobbyfun said:

aman74 said:

If that answer was vague to you then I'm not sure about your reading comprehension.

It would be nice to hear about their specific policy regarding items with shutter clicks counted though. One poster brought up their being a law about that, but I haven't found it yet.

However, what do you propose for lenses? What do you propose for other non-camera items? How would you propose the retailer can tell if it was used for a week or returned unopened when we're talking about items with non-sealed boxes? Your clothes argument falls apart.

Where do you think you're going to find a retailer that doesn't do this is as well?

Click to expand...

Henry did not state anything about the sweater having been worn.

Click to expand...

Lol!

Oh god. Why do you think he brought up the example right after talking about defective items being the only things sent back to the manufacturer?

Let's take a vote here...Who thinks Henry meant that non-defective items that are returned are resold?

linetest said:

Wow. Seems most want pristine merchandise, no exceptions. But then there are a TON of threads of folks that bought multiple cameras/lens/accessories, etc, and then returned most of them.

Want do you want the retailer to do. Take a 20-25% loss cause you wanted to play with it? There may be some hypocrisy on this forum.

And to be honest, I want it new and unopened. But then again I feel fine about this as I return almost nothing I buy.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are some who want pristine merchandise and also abuse the return policy but there's no way for us to know how big of a problem that is.

The solution, I think, is to charge a restocking fee. Then let the retailer sell it as an "open-box" item so the retailer doesn't take a hit.

Photohobbyfun said:

Henry did not state anything about the sweater having been worn. A sweater that is bought, wrapped, and is never worn is still new. I hope that isn't too much for your feeble mind to comprehend.

As well as the idea that a sweater bought, worn, and then returned is no longer new.

Read slowly so you can comprehend this time.

Click to expand...

You can tell that the sweater has not been worn, how?

You can tell the camera has not been used, how? Especially when most cameras can have the shot count zeroed.

Unless you are in a country where the laws protect you from second hand being sold as new, you will never know how many people have used your "brand new" camera/lens.

Photohobbyfun said:

Actually, you're the one with the reading comprehension problem. People with low reading comprehension draw conclusions on inconclusive statements. It's the way people like you get fooled by politicians who beat around the bush.

Henry did not state anything about the sweater having been worn. A sweater that is bought, wrapped, and is never worn is still new. I hope that isn't too much for your feeble mind to comprehend.

As well as the idea that a sweater bought, worn, and then returned is no longer new.

Read slowly so you can comprehend this time.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to cause even more trouble but your post brings up an even more complicated question.

Is a pair of pants that has been tried on by two or three different people, in a store's fitting room, new?

Kinda scary isn't it? We could all be buying pants that have been worn by two or three other people.

Maybe that's why everything is always on sale at Penny's.

aman74 said:

Photohobbyfun said:

aman74 said:

If that answer was vague to you then I'm not sure about your reading comprehension.

It would be nice to hear about their specific policy regarding items with shutter clicks counted though. One poster brought up their being a law about that, but I haven't found it yet.

However, what do you propose for lenses? What do you propose for other non-camera items? How would you propose the retailer can tell if it was used for a week or returned unopened when we're talking about items with non-sealed boxes? Your clothes argument falls apart.

Where do you think you're going to find a retailer that doesn't do this is as well?

Click to expand...

Henry did not state anything about the sweater having been worn.

Click to expand...

Lol!

Oh god. Why do you think he brought up the example right after talking about defective items being the only things sent back to the manufacturer?

Let's take a vote here...Who thinks Henry meant that non-defective items that are returned are resold?

Click to expand...

You must be very young or just plain naive. Henry works for BH Photo. His job is to protect the company. I'm not arguing that his comments "imply" that items are repackaged and sold as new. Instead of drawing conclusions though, I'm looking for a straight answer.

All this beating around the bush instead of giving a straight answer is what politicians are great at doing. They have a field day with people like you.

Photohobbyfun said:

Actually, you're the one with the reading comprehension problem. People with low reading comprehension draw conclusions on inconclusive statements. It's the way people like you get fooled by politicians who beat around the bush.

Click to expand...

This sort of highly personalised insult does nothing but make YOU look bad.

Nell27 said:

Photohobbyfun said:

Actually, you're the one with the reading comprehension problem. People with low reading comprehension draw conclusions on inconclusive statements. It's the way people like you get fooled by politicians who beat around the bush.

Henry did not state anything about the sweater having been worn. A sweater that is bought, wrapped, and is never worn is still new. I hope that isn't too much for your feeble mind to comprehend.

As well as the idea that a sweater bought, worn, and then returned is no longer new.

Read slowly so you can comprehend this time.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to cause even more trouble but your post brings up an even more complicated question.

Is a pair of pants that has been tried on by two or three different people, in a store's fitting room, new?

Kinda scary isn't it? We could all be buying pants that have been worn by two or three other people.

Maybe that's why everything is always on sale at Penny's.

Click to expand...

Everyone knows that cloths are tried on in stores. That's common knowledge so people expect it and people accept it as a trade off for being able to try the clothes on in store. Electronics is a different story though but perhaps this is a trade off people should be willing to accept, at least with stores with liberal return policies.

Maybe stores should offer customers an option for non-defective items. If you want a liberal return policy you accept a 15% restocking fee and the possibility of receiving a "re-packaged" item. If you agree to not return the item except for a defect, you're guaranteed a "new" item.

I don't think retailers want us to know they repackage returned items and hence, Henry's beat-around-the-bush answer. I think the vast majority of people do not return items and want their merchandise to be "new".

relate2 said:

Nell27 said:

Henry did not state anything about the sweater having been worn. A sweater that is bought, wrapped, and is never worn is still new. I hope that isn't too much for your feeble mind to comprehend.

As well as the idea that a sweater bought, worn, and then returned is no longer new.

Read slowly so you can comprehend this time.

Click to expand...

You can tell that the sweater has not been worn, how?

You can tell the camera has not been used, how? Especially when most cameras can have the shot count zeroed.

Unless you are in a country where the laws protect you from second hand being sold as new, you will never know how many people have used your "brand new" camera/lens.

Click to expand...

You can tell if you find scratches, or scuff marks, or other types of signs like those. Obviously, if the camera was cared for it'll look and operate as new. As another used suggested, if a lens is dropped and there is internal damage, you just won't know and that can be an issue with receiving a "re-packaged" item. Despite so many people slamming the OP, I think this thread has helped many people understand what happens to returns.

aman74 said:

You have a strange view of things. What does being mad have to do with running on an internet forum to post something that may not even be true have to do with anything? Are you a toddler? I see you even posted this in Canon lens talk as well for some reason...

Click to expand...

why not? I don't see any problem sharing my experience with other people especially if it was a bad one. And you are very mean to say "Are you a toddler?"
I didn't mean to say mean things to you but you are insulting me already.

And I don't see why posting in canon forum is wrong either.

kerpan said:

Photohobbyfun said:

Actually, you're the one with the reading comprehension problem. People with low reading comprehension draw conclusions on inconclusive statements. It's the way people like you get fooled by politicians who beat around the bush.

Click to expand...

This sort of highly personalised insult does nothing but make YOU look bad.

Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the post when he threw out an insult for no reason? Throw a low blow and I'll whip out my knife, that's just the way I play. If its frowned upon, I really don't mind.

Nell27 said:

Is a pair of pants that has been tried on by two or three different people, in a store's fitting room, new?

Kinda scary isn't it? We could all be buying pants that have been worn by two or three other people.

Click to expand...

That is why I am quite happy to buy a camera in Australia that is a demo at a lower price, which means it has only been handled in store.

Not taken home or on a 10 mile hike through a dusty desert or onto a wet windswept salty beach.

Photohobbyfun said:

The solution, I think, is to charge a restocking fee. Then let the retailer sell it as an "open-box" item so the retailer doesn't take a hit.

Click to expand...

You're right and I'm sure most merchants would agree with you but there is one big problem.

Any retailer who does this risks loosing a lot of business.

Even Best Buy had to go to a liberal return policy in order to compete.

Most people would rather deal with a retailer that has a no questions asked return policy. Some people think we have Wal-Mart to thank for this.

Just the same, it works a lot like a pyramid scheme and sooner or later someone could get hurt.

Photohobbyfun said:

aman74 said:

Photohobbyfun said:

aman74 said:

If that answer was vague to you then I'm not sure about your reading comprehension.

It would be nice to hear about their specific policy regarding items with shutter clicks counted though. One poster brought up their being a law about that, but I haven't found it yet.

However, what do you propose for lenses? What do you propose for other non-camera items? How would you propose the retailer can tell if it was used for a week or returned unopened when we're talking about items with non-sealed boxes? Your clothes argument falls apart.

Where do you think you're going to find a retailer that doesn't do this is as well?

Click to expand...

Henry did not state anything about the sweater having been worn.

Click to expand...

Lol!

Oh god. Why do you think he brought up the example right after talking about defective items being the only things sent back to the manufacturer?

Let's take a vote here...Who thinks Henry meant that non-defective items that are returned are resold?

Click to expand...

You must be very young or just plain naive. Henry works for BH Photo. His job is to protect the company. I'm not arguing that his comments "imply" that items are repackaged and sold as new. Instead of drawing conclusions though, I'm looking for a straight answer.

All this beating around the bush instead of giving a straight answer is what politicians are great at doing. They have a field day with people like you.

Click to expand...

Please explain to me what I'm being naive about exactly?

Yes, you argued exactly that. All the while avoiding the questions posed to you. Kind of ironic that you talk about people beating around the bush. I heard your tired politician analogy the first time. I heard your several other personal insults as well.

Anyhow, I've seen your posts around the forums enough to know it's not worth continuing this discourse with you. I don't suffer fools.

So, is it common practice for people to buy a lens, do some type of quick "testing" to see if it's a good sample, and then return the lens if they feel it's a below par sample???

joonsae said:

joonsae said:

You have a strange view of things. What does being mad have to do with running on an internet forum to post something that may not even be true have to do with anything? Are you a toddler? I see you even posted this in Canon lens talk as well for some reason...

Click to expand...

why not? I don't see any problem sharing my experience with other people especially if it was a bad one. And you are very mean to say "Are you a toddler?"
I didn't mean to say mean things to you but you are insulting me already.

And I don't see why posting in canon forum is wrong either.

Click to expand...

It was a lens for the Sony NEX so why post it in the Canon forum.

Re-read your opening post and you'll see why people here attacked you, as your tone was a bit off.

I also see that B&H responded by looking up your order and stating that the lens was shipped in new condition as it was received by Sony USA:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1042&message=40367599
--
Dez

http://dezsantana.com

joonsae said:

joonsae said:

You have a strange view of things. What does being mad have to do with running on an internet forum to post something that may not even be true have to do with anything? Are you a toddler? I see you even posted this in Canon lens talk as well for some reason...

Click to expand...

why not? I don't see any problem sharing my experience with other people especially if it was a bad one. And you are very mean to say "Are you a toddler?"
I didn't mean to say mean things to you but you are insulting me already.

And I don't see why posting in canon forum is wrong either.

Click to expand...

You don't see anything wrong with slandering a company before finding out if there's a reasonable explanation first? You justified this by saying that you were mad and they were closed at the time, yet I'm the mean one?

Here's what's wrong with posting on the Canon forum:

From you:

"Thanks guys... My lens was actually sony lens but last night i was just so mad I had to post it on Canon forum.."

So, the fact that the lens has nothing to do with Canon doesn't tell you why it's wrong to post this "information" in the Canon thread? That's pretty confusing.

texviddy said:

So, is it common practice for people to buy a lens, do some type of quick "testing" to see if it's a good sample, and then return the lens if they feel it's a below par sample???

Click to expand...

Just the people on these forums that return perfectly good lenses and cameras would give you the shivers.

Some people even brag about buying something to take on vacation and then returning it when they get home.

Lots of the forum members buy two or three cameras or lenses, use them, keep one and then send back the rest.

I know of at least one guy on the forums that buys almost every new compact camera that comes out. He uses them, gives his little reviews, here at dpreview, and then sends them back for a refund.

Funny thing is, he's too stupid to realize he's doing something wrong.

aman74 said:

Photohobbyfun said:

aman74 said:

Photohobbyfun said:

aman74 said:

If that answer was vague to you then I'm not sure about your reading comprehension.

It would be nice to hear about their specific policy regarding items with shutter clicks counted though. One poster brought up their being a law about that, but I haven't found it yet.

However, what do you propose for lenses? What do you propose for other non-camera items? How would you propose the retailer can tell if it was used for a week or returned unopened when we're talking about items with non-sealed boxes? Your clothes argument falls apart.

Where do you think you're going to find a retailer that doesn't do this is as well?

Click to expand...

Henry did not state anything about the sweater having been worn.

Click to expand...

Lol!

Oh god. Why do you think he brought up the example right after talking about defective items being the only things sent back to the manufacturer?

Let's take a vote here...Who thinks Henry meant that non-defective items that are returned are resold?

Click to expand...

You must be very young or just plain naive. Henry works for BH Photo. His job is to protect the company. I'm not arguing that his comments "imply" that items are repackaged and sold as new. Instead of drawing conclusions though, I'm looking for a straight answer.

All this beating around the bush instead of giving a straight answer is what politicians are great at doing. They have a field day with people like you.

Click to expand...

Please explain to me what I'm being naive about exactly?

Click to expand...

Drawing conclusions on a vague answer makes you naive. It's what politicians expect you to do.

aman74 said:

Yes, you argued exactly that.

Click to expand...

No I didn't, I said in reply to you about the Henry's sweater comment, "No he didn't. That answer is very vague. I'd like to hear a straight answer."

Somehow you found that offensive?

aman74 said:

All the while avoiding the questions posed to you. Kind of ironic that you talk about people beating around the bush. I heard your tired politician analogy the first time. I heard your several other personal insults as well.

Click to expand...

I answered your question in my original reply to you, no point in explaining it again. Not sure what you're looking for.

And don't cry about being insulted on a forum. I was never personal in my original reply but you decided to throw the first blow for who knows what reason. You pick a fight with me for no reason, get beat up, and then you cry about it.

aman74 said:

Anyhow, I've seen your posts around the forums enough to know it's not worth continuing this discourse with you. I don't suffer fools.

Click to expand...

Too bad you'll be suffering yourself for a long time.

Photohobbyfun said:

Photohobbyfun said:

Photohobbyfun said:

All this beating around the bush instead of giving a straight answer is what politicians are great at doing. They have a field day with people like you.

Click to expand...

Please explain to me what I'm being naive about exactly?

Click to expand...

Drawing conclusions on a vague answer makes you naive. It's what politicians expect you to do.

Click to expand...

You need a dictionary.

You drew this conclusion, I gues politicians love you as well. You really like that politician reference huh? Get some new material.

"I don't think retailers want us to know they repackage returned items and hence, Henry's beat-around-the-bush answer. I think the vast majority of people do not return items and want their merchandise to be "new"."

Photohobbyfun said:

Photohobbyfun said:

Yes, you argued exactly that.

Click to expand...

No I didn't, I said in reply to you about the Henry's sweater comment, "No he didn't. That answer is very vague. I'd like to hear a straight answer."

Somehow you found that offensive?

Click to expand...

Not offended at all. Again, I think you need a dictionary. Yes, I like that line.

Photohobbyfun said:

Photohobbyfun said:

All the while avoiding the questions posed to you. Kind of ironic that you talk about people beating around the bush. I heard your tired politician analogy the first time. I heard your several other personal insults as well.

Click to expand...

I answered your question in my original reply to you, no point in explaining it again. Not sure what you're looking for.

And don't cry about being insulted on a forum. I was never personal in my original reply but you decided to throw the first blow for who knows what reason. You pick a fight with me for no reason, get beat up, and then you cry about it.

Click to expand...

Please don't ever tell me what do, thanks. I threw the first blow? Or do you mean to say you drew a conclusion based on a statement?

Photohobbyfun said:

Photohobbyfun said:

Anyhow, I've seen your posts around the forums enough to know it's not worth continuing this discourse with you. I don't suffer fools.

Click to expand...

Too bad you'll be suffering yourself for a long time.

Click to expand...

Haha! You're so funny. Where did you hear that one?

Welcome to my ignore list. I truly hope you gain some enlightenment some day.