Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 19 Oct 2011 (Wednesday) 04:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is This Immoral?

 
Looking_Searching
Member
Avatar
153 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Iowa
     
Oct 19, 2011 04:22 |  #1
bannedPermanent ban

Recently, I purcahsed a Rebel T3 through an Amazon promotion. Upon doing so, I was elligible for a $400 cash card, as I had also purchased a Pixma9000 at the time of the order. Upon receiving this card and using the camera for a month, I started noticing a few dead pixels in my ISO 1600 images. (One red pixel in particular is quite noticeable against a black background.)

Beyond this, I also started to notice that when shooting in bursts, the camera would periodically corrupt an image if I had decided to hit the playback button before the camera was done processing. (My XS never had this issue, even while shooting with the same card. Granted, it does shoot a little bit slower by default.)

Lastly, I have noticed that in a few of my bursts, focus can tend to shift slightly from one place to the next, despite not having increased or decreased my distance from the subject. (I also manually select my own focus points, so it isn't a re-composing issue.)
A recent series I took of a well-lit grasshopper shows this quite clearly. I may post samples here if any of you find that necessary.

----

Anyway, upon noticing these things, I contacted Amazon customer service to see if there was any way of getting my money back. (I highly doubted it at this point, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway.) Much to my surprise, they are letting me do so.

My question interally though is this: Is it morally bankrupt? I mean, first off, I'm essentially getting free cash out of the deal, as I was able to sell the printer for $215 dollars. (I paid $433 initially, but subtract $215 from that, and then throw on another $400 from the card, and I'm left with $182 in my pocket.)

Also, what if it's just my SD card and lens that are causing the issues? If that is true, than that would mean the only thing REALLY wrong with this camera is a few dead pixels, which, as annoying as they are, probably don't warrant an extra $182 in my wallet. :lol:

Your thougths? (I was going to get rid of this thing anyway, as I can't stand the tiny viewfinder and the slow continuous shooting rate, but I'm not so sure if returning it is proper.)


See the light.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
RichSoansPhotos
Cream of the Crop
5,981 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
     
Oct 19, 2011 04:58 |  #2
bannedPermanent ban

I recently sent my camera for a sensor clean since I completely messed up a recent attempt at self cleaning the sensor. I swear it had what appeared a dead pixel and LR3 adjusted the image so it would get rid of it straight away after selecting the image that I wanted to post process. Anyway, it seems to be not there anymore.

Though I am not saying that after a month's of usage that you have a dirty sensor, dust does eventually get to the sensor, auto clean or not, so it is probably that, though I am not discounting that it could be a dead pixel

I think that if you want your money back or another camera, I think one or two dead pixels you won't get it coming to you as Canon and the retailers know that every camera always have one or two dead pixels




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snyderman
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,084 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Wadsworth, Ohio
     
Oct 19, 2011 07:21 |  #3

If you feel bad about coming out ahead, exchange the camera body for an upgrade!

dave


Canon 5D2 > 35L-85L-135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Oct 19, 2011 08:38 |  #4

400dabuser wrote in post #13272379 (external link)
I recently sent my camera for a sensor clean since I completely messed up a recent attempt at self cleaning the sensor. I swear it had what appeared a dead pixel and LR3 adjusted the image so it would get rid of it straight away after selecting the image that I wanted to post process. Anyway, it seems to be not there anymore.

Yes, Lightroom removes hot and stuck pixels upon importing them into its program. So if you use LR, there's no need to wring your hands over hot pixels.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gazfy
Member
Avatar
101 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Germany
     
Oct 19, 2011 08:53 as a reply to  @ HappySnapper90's post |  #5

Personally I would just consider myself fortunate for actually coming out with cash in my pocket from it all! :cool:


Gary.
My website (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
led ­ hed
Goldmember
Avatar
1,929 posts
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Apsley, On. CAN.
     
Oct 19, 2011 08:58 |  #6

they won't go bankrupt because you came out on top. i wouldn't feel 'morally' anything.


Rob - "a photographer is a painter, in a hurry!"
Canon 7D ~ Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MKII ~ Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ~ Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II ~ Canon 430EX ~ Canon EF 2.0X III Telephoto Extender ~ Canon SX230 HS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pitrow
Member
209 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Newberg, OR
     
Oct 19, 2011 10:08 |  #7

I would say it's only unethical if your original intent was to deceive/profit from it only. Since you genuinely wanted the camera, and it turned out not to be what you wanted, I would not feel bad at all about returning it and keeping the extra incentive they gave you.

BTW, I find it very refreshing that people still think about morality and ethics... a lot of people today are in the "screw them at any cost if it helps me out" crowd.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,183 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
     
Oct 19, 2011 10:29 |  #8

With net profit in the "B" illions, I think Amazon can afford it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Daedalus34r
Senior Member
477 posts
Joined May 2010
     
Oct 19, 2011 10:38 |  #9

Make sure to ask about the $400 promotion, if you are not exchanging cameras, you might not be elligible for that promotion, and your credit card could be changed and adjustment value had you not purchased camera+printer together.


BODY :: EOS 7D, EOS 50D
GLASS :: 17-55 f/2.8 , 50 f/1.4 , 70-200 f/4L IS, 150 f/2.8 EX Macro , 10-20 f/4-5.6 EX , 30 f/1.4 EX
EXTRAS :: 430EX II , Kata R-103 Bag , Tenba Messenger Bag :: WISH LIST :: 100 f/2
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro Review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Looking_Searching
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
153 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Iowa
     
Oct 19, 2011 11:35 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

Daedalus34r wrote in post #13273483 (external link)
Make sure to ask about the $400 promotion, if you are not exchanging cameras, you might not be elligible for that promotion, and your credit card could be changed and adjustment value had you not purchased camera+printer together.

I already asked and my promotion will still stand as valid.


See the light.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Looking_Searching
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
153 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Iowa
     
Oct 19, 2011 11:45 |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

pitrow wrote in post #13273355 (external link)
I would say it's only unethical if your original intent was to deceive/profit from it only. Since you genuinely wanted the camera, and it turned out not to be what you wanted, I would not feel bad at all about returning it and keeping the extra incentive they gave you.

BTW, I find it very refreshing that people still think about morality and ethics... a lot of people today are in the "screw them at any cost if it helps me out" crowd.

Yes. I DID want to keep this camera...

However, I had no idea that it would be so limiting. Not only does it have a small viewfinder and a tiny RAW buffer, but it also LACKS mirror-lock up and in-body cleaning, both of which the XS had. Heck, it even lacks a dedicated ISO button! :(

(Full Disclosure: I believe I already knew about the small viewfinder going into the deal, but to my surprise it still bothers me.)


See the light.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Looking_Searching
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
153 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Iowa
     
Oct 19, 2011 11:53 |  #12
bannedPermanent ban

400dabuser wrote in post #13272379 (external link)
I recently sent my camera for a sensor clean since I completely messed up a recent attempt at self cleaning the sensor. I swear it had what appeared a dead pixel and LR3 adjusted the image so it would get rid of it straight away after selecting the image that I wanted to post process. Anyway, it seems to be not there anymore.

Though I am not saying that after a month's of usage that you have a dirty sensor, dust does eventually get to the sensor, auto clean or not, so it is probably that, though I am not discounting that it could be a dead pixel

I think that if you want your money back or another camera, I think one or two dead pixels you won't get it coming to you as Canon and the retailers know that every camera always have one or two dead pixels

Amazon has already given me a pre-paid shipping label, so there is no way that I will be denied at this point.

(Full Disclosure: I am quite loathe to buy a new SD card and locate another camera to see if the other two problems are legit or not. I'll be perfectly honest: I'd rather take the cash and spend it on a better Canon body.)


See the light.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Oct 19, 2011 20:47 as a reply to  @ Looking_Searching's post |  #13

I'm with Snyderman. Return it and put some of your own cash in and get a better camera. Then you still paid for a camera....you just got a really good deal.


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jumpdrive
Member
51 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2008
     
Oct 20, 2011 08:12 |  #14

kfreels wrote in post #13276414 (external link)
I'm with Snyderman. Return it and put some of your own cash in and get a better camera. Then you still paid for a camera....you just got a really good deal.

Unbelieveable! In another thread you preach about perfectly legal corporate financial practices and their impact on the common citizen, but here it's okay to do the imoral thing and hose a company because they can afford it.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Does it matter who can afford to end up short?

I don't care what he does, I'm not the morality police. Don't be a hypocrite and cry about the business world hosing the little guy when you condone keeping unearned money for a transaction he did not follow through with. Because Amazon or the card company can afford the loss doesn't make it right.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Oct 20, 2011 10:14 |  #15

Jumpdrive wrote in post #13278470 (external link)
Unbelieveable! In another thread you preach about perfectly legal corporate financial practices and their impact on the common citizen, but here it's okay to do the imoral thing and hose a company because they can afford it.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Does it matter who can afford to end up short?

I don't care what he does, I'm not the morality police. Don't be a hypocrite and cry about the business world hosing the little guy when you condone keeping unearned money for a transaction he did not follow through with. Because Amazon or the card company can afford the loss doesn't make it right.

Sorry. I must be missing something. He got a good deal. He didn't set up the conditions or the rules for it. He bought a malfunctioning product. He hasn't been given any other options to deal with it. He either wins big. Or he keeps the defective product. There wasn't a "proper" alternative given.

With that being the case there are three options.
1.) Keep the defective product.
2.) Return it and come out ahead at the expense of Amazon and keep the cash. (Often Amazon does not do exchanges)
3.) Return it and use the money along with some more money of his to buy another product at Amazon which would at least reduce the loss to Amazon.

I suggested number 3.
Now you tell me, Mr Righteousness, which of these would you do? Or is there another option that I missed?

I must have really struck a nerve with you for you to be able to recall some post I made on another thread and come on here and start calling me names. I can't even recall which post you are referring to. But if you really want to get into it - just because something is "perfectly legal" that doesn't make it right either. Lots of things have been and are legal that aren't "right" and there are many things that should be legal that aren't. If you want to start a different thread in general discussion about morality I'll be glad to debate you on it. But as far as this thread goes I'd love to hear your opinion of what the "right" course of action is for the OP.

EDIT: One more thing.I've been called a lot of things, but hypocrite is not one of them. In a second reading of your post I noticed you said, "but here it's okay to do the imoral thing and hose a company because they can afford it." I never once said that it was OK because Amazon could afford it. Nor did I second such a post. I seconded a post where Snyderman suggested that he get another camera body - presumably from Amazon. I added to that as well. I am beginning to wonder if maybe you confused my post with another. If so, then apology accepted.......


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,622 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is This Immoral?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is oliverkell
1123 guests, 234 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.