Some moral, morale and general guidance solicited

[yallcome]

I just sold my G3 on eBay. It was in great shape, all went well. The fellow who bought it used it a week and now wants to return it to me for a refund since he has determined it has a "DP - dead pixel." I haven't asked what he really means by that, as different folks call them different things, but am wondering. Is it unrealistic of him to expect a year-old camera to have all pixels firing properly? Or should I just say, "Hey, so you're happy, I'll give you your money back."
On the one hand I don't want to cause hard feelings and am tempted to just cave in and swap back. On the other, it is a used camera, albeit in exceptional condition.

What say ye?

[slejhamer]

Hard to say. Dead pixels are pretty common, even in brand new cameras. And there is usually not just one.

First thing would be to ask him for an image showing the dead pixels, just to make sure there really is a flaw and he is not simply experiencing "buyer's remorse," and compare them to your own images.

Also how did you advertise the camera - did you say it was in "perfect working condition" or something like that? Did you have an "as is" clause? Even though I believe everything I have sold on ebay (or elsewhere) is exactly as described, I still will put the "sold as is with no warranty" clause on my ebay postings.

But if I sold something and for some reason it wasn't as described, and if the difference was something that I should have been aware of, then I would probably make good on the refund.

[sdommin]

First, check all of your recent images before you sold the camera to see if you can find the dead pixel (ask him for the coordinates or at least a specific position on the exposure).

It's reasonable to expect that a camera is free of defects unless you stated otherwise in your eBay post. It's also reasonable to expect things on eBay to be "as is", so we're in a gray area here.

My advice, ask him to send you the camera back, but do not refund his money until you actually receive it. There is a "high scam" potential in this entire situation. The camera might have other damage that he caused.

When you get the camera back, check it for the dead pixel and see if Canon will fix it, or resell the camera "as is".

[Deckyon]

I have sold a few things on eBay, and one of the things I state in the listing is "I ship a working product. If you (the buyer) want to make sure it works, pay to have it insured. If you (the buyer) do not want to pay for insurance during shipping, any damage must be handled between you (the buyer) and the shipping company. I have photos before shipping and the sealed box. These can be provided if there is a question." All my eBay items get a condition description and an "Provided AS IS, No Warrenty

Dead pixels are, unfortunatly, common. My first G3 had 5 of them. I took it back to the store, and because I purchased the extended warrenty, they gave me a new one. Without the warrenty, I would have had to send the camera to Canon and hope I would get something back.

You may need to ask this person if the pixels are the CCD or the LCD. Some people do not know the difference. Check your images for a missing pixel (should be easy to spot.) At least then you can say it worked when it left.

I would not do a "refund" without looking at the camera first. If they send it to you, maybe offer to pay the shipping to get it back to them. Don't know. Good luck.

[Andy_T]

Dead pixels are quite common with digital cameras. I don't know if you would get a new camera changed if it had a single dead pixel, although as a buyer of a new camera I would certainly try that.

With a used camera, however, I would assume it to be something to be expected ... if you know something about cameras :shock:
If the buyer is a newbie, he might not know much about cameras and feel that his world will cave in because of the dead pixel.

I don't think that a single dead pixel greatly diminishes the usability of the camera and I as a buyer would *not* act like he did. But that might just be me.

Other than that ... verify that it is also in your images. Look for dark or light pictures (first for 'hot' pixels, second for 'dead') and see if you find any and how disturbing they are. Maybe you can work out some kind of refund with the buyer ... depending on how much he paid you for the camera in relation to the new price.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: stupid side question ... did he already write you a feedback for the deal?
If not, you might want to be cautious not to tarnish your eBay record by upsetting him (what is legally right is one thing, what he can do if he is pissed off, is another).

[dbump]

Is it unrealistic of him to expect a year-old camera to have all pixels firing properly?

I'd say that's unrealistic for even a brand-new camera, right out of the box. One of the first things I did with my G2 when I bought it was take a series of pictures in a dark room with the lens covered, at various exposure times. At longer exposures, I could see a lot of non-black pixels, and analyzing the image with a program detected even more that weren't visible. I wasn't dismayed by this--it's expected. I just wanted a baseline for comparison later in the camera's life.

In addition to the excellent recommendations above, I'd also ask for the exif data. It's still a jugdment call, but If you can only see the pixel in exposures longer than X (say, 1/4 second?), is that really a problem?

It seems to me that if the buyer is interested in long exposure photography, he should have asked for a set of sample images with the lens covered before bidding. Checking for it after the fact makes it sound like remorse/scam.

[slejhamer]

My advice, ask him to send you the camera back, but do not refund his money until you actually receive it. There is a "high scam" potential in this entire situation. The camera might have other damage that he caused.


Good advice!

[12345Michael54321]

The fellow who bought it used it a week
I often specify that the recipient has 72 hours from the time the camera is delivered, to ascertain whether there's anything wrong with it.

Not that I'm suggesting that anyone would buy a camera, use it for a week on vacation or something, decide that with the vacation over he no longer needs the camera, then tell me that he wants a refund because he's discovered a very minor imperfection in the item. (But this is a common situation in regard to some people buying digital cameras at stores with liberal return policies, and is one reason why many such stores apply restocking fees on certain types of items.)

I just figure if there's a real problem, it shouldn't take longer than a few days to discover it. And limiting the return period to 72 hours, as opposed to a week, or two, or four, makes it less likely that any problem which pops up is the result of use and/or abuse on the part of the new owner.

In this case, the imperfection is so minor that I'm honestly not sure what would be the right response. One could argue that a dead pixel is a fault, and a refund is reasonable on a faulty camera. On the other hand, if the manufacturer has a policy that up to 2 or 3 dead pixels aren't grounds for warranty repair/replacement, it might not be unreasonable for you to adopt a similar policy.

Heck, I'm a nice guy, and would probably give the guy his refund. But I'd probably post a thread whining about it, and suggesting that I went above and beyond.

Mind you, if you stated that the camera was in "perfect" condition, I'd say you're ethically obligated to refund the guy's money. "Perfect" is one of those words that can so easily come back to bite a seller in the buttocks.

[rsnadel]

Would Canon take back a camera with one dead pixel? Or would they say that there is some tolerance level below which a camera is considered to be within nominal limits? I don't know the answer...just asking.

[sdommin]

Would Canon take back a camera with one dead pixel? Or would they say that there is some tolerance level below which a camera is considered to be within nominal limits? I don't know the answer...just asking.

Assuming that the camera is within its warranty, the answer is "yes". I sent back my original G3 shortly after I got it. They replaced the sensor (at least that's what the work order says), and the dead pixel was gone.

Note - this was a dead pixel on the CCD. Canon states that stuck or dead pixels on the LCD are normal.

[Cuddy]

I believe I am the fellow you are referring to regarding the sale of your G3 camera. First of all you stated that I used the camera a week and then complained about a dead pixel. As I stated in my e-mail to you I picked up the camera on friday 09/03 from the post office and had just enough time to unpack it and take it with on our Labor Day holiday. I was very careful with the camera and only took about 15 pictures with it. As soon as I got home on Monday 09/06 (three days later) I downloaded the pictures and viewed them in slide show form and noticed a white spot showing up center left on all of the images that were darker in nature. This is easy to see if you have a LCD screen as I do. After this I viewed the pics in Photoshop and zoomed in on the DP area and found besides the the white pixel, 20 or so darkened or black pixels adjacent to it. I then took of the filter and examined the lens and carefully blew of any large dust particles and took 4 more pics of a dark room with the filter off. I downloaded the pics and noticed the exact same problem. Maybe its dust on the ccd?? I don't know, but the lens looks perfect. You stated on your auction that this camera was in excellent shape not saying anything about a pixel problem this bad. You also stated all original accessories were included except the cheesy Canon strap but then emailed me after I had won the auction and said you could not find the original lens ring and lens cap. I think you were a little misleading in you description for this auction. I am not tring to harsh with you here but this did not exactly impress me as to your reliability. All I was tring to do was back up my ailing G2 but I think a spot of 20 or so bad pixels is way too much besides not having the lens ring and cap as I like the smaller profile of the camera without the adaptor. I'm not trying to stir up anything here just telling my side of the story. I would be glad to e-mail you the pictures. yallcome.

[yallcome]

Well, before Mr Cuddy came out to bring his side to this, I had already considered the advice here and offered to refund the money.

Lest anyone be misled, when I discovered that the lens cap and ring were missing before shipment, I offered him a chance to back out of the deal. I never used the cap and ring, having always used the LensMate.

He was the one who opted at that point to have me ship the camera, with an agreement that when it turned up, I'd ship the ring and cap.

Anyway, it's all over, you know us and more about our business than most people do.

All will be well. My intent was never to throw dirt on the then anonymous buyer or accuse him of anything, but merely to get an idea on how to proceed. I'm not so sure about the motives behind his post, since we had already agreed on what was going to happen with the refund and return before.

I guess my advice to folks in this situation would be to keep a cool head. Everyone is understandably a bit skittish when it comes to big wads of money floating around. It probably would behoove us to maintain a modicum of decency, a generous spirit with regard to the tone of feedback, and a tight lip when it comes to accusations, particularly when reversing a deal and the goods are in the mail and one has neither the goods nor the cash in hand.

[Ballen Photo]

My intent was never to throw dirt on Mr Cuddy or accuse him of anything, but merely to get an idea on how to proceed. I'm not so sure about the motives behind his post, since we had already agreed on what was going to happen with the refund and return.

To Me, It never did look like you were trying to throw dirt, and from the sounds of your posts, that thought would never have crossed my mind(Small as it may be :shock: )

In the case of Cuddy, I'm sure He was only doing some research to find what to expect out of this deal too. I would think that a Google search for "G" series cameras would bring the searcher right here. Now THAT'S a surprise. :shock:
It sounds like you both were looking to do the right thing, and it sounds like you have.
-Bruce

[Cuddy]

Mr. Yallcome is correct that he informed me about the lens cap and ring and I excepted the terms before the sale. I did not mean this to be character assasination. Mr Yallcome has been easy to deal with and I would do business with again.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Although the original intent of this thread is in no way of issue.. the resulting E-bay correspondance does not have any place on this forum.

Thus the thread is locked.

I am glad you gentlemen have worked this out. :)