Andersens Tears wrote:
Since I last posted the good Mr Uhmeyer has contacted me and we have been negotiating a return or refund. He has offered me a 40% rebate on the cost of the camera alone. His first offer was 25% I asked for 50% and he offered me 40% as his final offer.
I guess some of you will disagree with my decision, but it will cost me at least £18 to send the camera back in an insured parcel, and well, I'd rather keep A camera and have some money back than send a camera back and have to do the waiting game for my money .....
Ah well at least there's a rebate rather than playing the waiting game. Shoot some tests with the camera, the scratch might not show up at all on the footage.
..... oh bloody hell.... I thought this was sorted.... was cheking the lens again under a bright light to see if ot really was that serious... it does have the apperence of cut glass.... and then.... i spotted a 2nd albeit fainter scratch closer to the centre of the lens..... i ws straight on the phone to mr uhmeyer... only wish i could have spoken German with him... anyway... I advised him that I am sending the camera back for a full refund....... now I' gonna have to keep my fingers crossed........
oh.... f**k my tits.... really wanted to use this cam for a project this summer.....
http://www.super8camera-shop.com WHAT RIDICULOUS PRIZES!!!
incredible makes me wonder maybe I can start a business like that.LOL!
I have lots of cameras via ebay, nizo's canons eumig nautica..you name m. all for WAAAY less then what this guy is asking. my lorrd how can anyone even consider buying form this site. ebay rules.
i bought a lot of cameras via ebay and all arrived via mail, though 2 were broken and well since they werent expensive (around 40 euros) i used them for spare parts. resold some to friends and kept 3 cameras myself. nautica, nizo and a canon. all in all i spent less then what this guy asks for a ONE camera alone!! aah well...
And you are the inventor of eBay-buying? What is your contribution to the original topic or question. If you have none then why bother this thread with your gloating.
And since you are not the inventor of superduper8 format either. You might try a different user-id.
The scratch on the lens may be more of a resale issue than use issue, meaning the camera may still work fine but won't ever resale equivalently when compared to a camera that has no scratch on the lens.
Scratches generally are most noticeable in the wide angle position when shooting into back-lit situations. (something brighter exists behind what you are shooting.)
If it were me, I would immediately inform the person (as you did), take a picture of the scratches and either snail mail or email them to the seller, AND I would shoot a cartridge through the camera, testing out wide angle back lit situations to see if the scratch is affecting the image.
Sometimes, a small lens scratch or two can create really cool looking glints while zooming the lens.
I'd also try out all the knobs and dials, gently turning them and listening for the sound of sand crackling underneath the knob's and dials.
Finally, if the camera, in your determination, works as well as a camera without the scratch, then a small rebate is in order because the camera sold as something it was not.
40% seems awfully high to me. 20%, maybe 25% is the highest one should expect if the camera performs normally and the scratch does not affect picture quality.
Finally, is it possible that the scratch is actually some other component of the lens deeper within the lens? The fact that the scratch is "round" makes me wonder. One of my cameras has looks like it has a scratch but it's actually some other component of the lens deeper within the lens.
If you turn the focus ring, what happens to the scratch?
Alex wrote:40% seems awfully high to me. 20%, maybe 25% is the highest one should expect if the camera performs normally and the scratch does not affect picture quality.
You must have disposable money floating around, what makes me seriously considering starting my own company. Seriously, the thing is like this: stuiff is charged a premium for being mint.
If you buy a car, you'd say one with an accident is the same then the mint one? I don't think so, fact is that mint always fetches a premium, and trashed always lowers the value down, sometimes to zero.
If I buy something mint and discover it isn't, it goes back - that's not what I paid for, If I want used I buy used, and save my $$$.
actually, the description was "near mint", not mint.
lol, most Canon 814XLS's and 1014XLS's look near mint just because of the way they were made.
Subtract 25% and that's a significant amount. And I said if the scratch does not affect the image quality.
How much is £250 in Euro's, and in the U.S.? Keep in mind the U.S. dollar has taken a tumble so that inflates the price to America from what it would have been two years ago by something like 20-25%.
The total including the shipping costs, and PayPal fees that the seller charged me, which I've now found out, he should not have, was actually £243. The camera itself was 300 Euros which came to £204 about $400 - he only offered me 50 Euros about $65 in rebate on the cost of the camera alone. So that's 40% of just the camera and not the total cost to me.
He described the camera as 'near mint' which is 97-99% of the original condition. If that 3% is wear to the body, then fine. However a scratch on the lens is a problem. Whether it affects the image or not. It was not advised in the description, and I fully believe this was an oversight.
Also, all I got was the camera - no instructions or accessories etc....
I have returned the camera requesting a full refund.
Andersens Tears wrote:
He described the camera as 'near mint' which is 97-99% of the original condition. If that 3% is wear to the body, then fine. However a scratch on the lens is a problem. Whether it affects the image or not. It was not advised in the description, and I fully believe this was an oversight.
"near mint" should definately be a camera that is 100% functional - including a perfect lens - leaving the *near* to cosmetics.
the customer service he has revealed here is in my opinion more than adequate to stay away from that seller - always and the prices seem way to high too. bad sevices n hi prices = no-no.
Andersens Tears wrote:Hi Alex,
The camera itself was 300 Euros which came to £204 about $400 - he only offered me 50 Euros about $65 in rebate on the cost of the camera alone. So that's 40% of just the camera and not the total cost to me.
Sounds like he offered you a 16% refund.
So the $400.00 American value, minus 25%, would have saved you $100.00 American, making the new cost $300.00 American.
$300 dollars for a Canon 814XLS is not a terrible price when purchased from a business trying to make a living. Just depends how bad that scratch was.
$400-$500 for a mint Canon 814XLS would not be a terrible price from a business that is selling Super-8 equipment, $300.00 would be appropriate for an 814XLS camera that may not be cosmetically perfect but still yields good pictures.
Cameras are all about the lens. Selling a camera without revealing that it has a scratched lens is unacceptable under any condition and no sophistry about "near mint", "sorta mint" or "almost mint" will justify leaving the scratch out of the product description. Whether left out on purpose or by oversight, the existence of the scratch justifies a full refund, especially if the camera description used the term "mint" in any form, because it implies a level of quality that would never encompass a scratched lens, even if that scratch does not affect the final image. If he knew about the scratch, then he deserves no degree of compensation. If he did not know about the scratch, then this loss will be an object lesson in why he needs to inspect his products better before selling them. If the seller is honorable, he will give you a full refund, including shipping.
Well, I believe the seller is honourable. I sent the camera back to him on Saturday from UK to Germany I even got a polite note drafted out in German so that there is no confusion - Although he as already relisted the camera at 250 Euros (50 Euros less than before) He still describes it as 'Near Mint' but with the added footnote "Minor scratch in the corner of the lens that will not affect image quality"
I agree - using the word MINT in any form leads you on to thinking that you are getting something almost as good as new.
When I get my refund I will be posting this on this forum so that people know how he handled it.
I want to be fair and give him the benefit of the doubt with all users of this forum.
