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?

 
RichSoansPhotos
Cream of the Crop
5,981 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
     
Oct 20, 2011 10:39 |  #16
bannedPermanent ban

Looking_Searching wrote in post #13273808 (external link)
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.)


OK, fair enough, if the T&C allowed, that is probably why they gave you the label...

Yup, its your cash........




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Looking_Searching
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
153 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Iowa
     
Oct 20, 2011 11:16 as a reply to  @ RichSoansPhotos's post |  #17
bannedPermanent ban

Interesting. It seems there are folks on both sides of the fence.

I still haven't sent it in, as I can't make up my mind either way.

If I sell it -AS IS,- I probably stand to make around 300 dollars with the 18-55 lens included. (I forgot to mention that there are a few tiny specks in the viewfinder. Those are my fault. Couple that with the dead pixels, and I'm forced to lower the price.)

Though that figure probably sounds really bad, I paid so little for this camera through the Amazon promotion that I would *still* come out even.

On the other hand, I could make 180 bucks and not have to worry about a fellow photographer getting what might be defective camera.


Decisions... :confused:


See the light.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Oct 20, 2011 11:21 |  #18

led hed wrote in post #13273050 (external link)
they won't go bankrupt because you came out on top. i wouldn't feel 'morally' anything.

With that line of reasoning, I don't imagine you would.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Oct 20, 2011 11:23 |  #19

Looking_Searching wrote in post #13273729 (external link)
I already asked and my promotion will still stand as valid.

There you go. Amazon is fully aware of the original promotion terms and your desire to return the camera, and have said you can keep the "cash". There is no moral issue here.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jumpdrive
Member
51 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2008
     
Oct 20, 2011 12:13 |  #20

kfreels wrote in post #13279057 (external link)
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.......

Your words: Man I hate hijacked threads but I just can't let a myth like this persist. The current economic situation has nothing to do with entitlements and everything to do with the abuse of the financial markets by the largest banks in the country. They caused this mess and now rather than getting back into the lending game they are using their reserves bidding up oil futures and recreating the same mess in oil that they caused in housing.

Mr Righteousness? I guess I struck a nerve with you. :lol:

If you recall from my post I said I don't care what he does, I'm not the morality police.
The OP asked if it was immoral.


"Back into the lending game?"
For one to give an opinion in one direction against business because of their perceived negative financial practices and then come back saying keep the money because Amazon can afford it, reeks of hypocrisy. It is very caring of you to consider that Amazon would take even less of a loss by him purchasing something else. :rolleyes:
Why state business is sticking it to the citizen when you support sticking it to the business?

Return the card/cash and the camera. That was the deal offered and by keeping a part of it is dishonest. Trying to justify it in your mind by purchasing something else and "getting a good deal" is still immoral and dishonest.

I really don't care what the guy does, but people who like to slam business for similar perceived dishonest practices and then turn around and support sticking it to them aren't exactly what I would call unbiased.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Daedalus34r
Senior Member
477 posts
Joined May 2010
     
Oct 20, 2011 16:04 |  #21

Looking_Searching wrote in post #13273773 (external link)
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! :(

Not knowing this is your fault. You spend money on cameras without fully understanding the features and functionality it provides?


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
theextremist04
Goldmember
Avatar
1,224 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Kansas City
     
Oct 20, 2011 16:22 |  #22

Daedalus34r wrote in post #13280827 (external link)
Not knowing this is your fault. You spend money on cameras without fully understanding the features and functionality it provides?

Some things like that you can't know until you go out and use the camera a bit.


-Michael
Gear - Flickr (external link) - Website (external link) - Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Oct 20, 2011 17:19 |  #23

Jumpdrive wrote in post #13279689 (external link)
Your words: Man I hate hijacked threads but I just can't let a myth like this persist. The current economic situation has nothing to do with entitlements and everything to do with the abuse of the financial markets by the largest banks in the country. They caused this mess and now rather than getting back into the lending game they are using their reserves bidding up oil futures and recreating the same mess in oil that they caused in housing.

Mr Righteousness? I guess I struck a nerve with you. :lol:

If you recall from my post I said I don't care what he does, I'm not the morality police.
The OP asked if it was immoral.


"Back into the lending game?"
For one to give an opinion in one direction against business because of their perceived negative financial practices and then come back saying keep the money because Amazon can afford it, reeks of hypocrisy. It is very caring of you to consider that Amazon would take even less of a loss by him purchasing something else. :rolleyes:
Why state business is sticking it to the citizen when you support sticking it to the business?

Return the card/cash and the camera. That was the deal offered and by keeping a part of it is dishonest. Trying to justify it in your mind by purchasing something else and "getting a good deal" is still immoral and dishonest.

I really don't care what the guy does, but people who like to slam business for similar perceived dishonest practices and then turn around and support sticking it to them aren't exactly what I would call unbiased.

OK. So my problem with the financial markets which caused the economic situation we are in means that I was in support of sticking it to all big businesses? That's one heck of a leap.
So a fact check here is in order:

1.) I never said a darned thing about keeping money because Amazon can afford it. I would never suggest such a thing. My suggestion had nothing to do with the size of amazon or the amount of money they make. I have no idea where you got this. I never once said anywhere that business was sticking it to people or that people should stick it to business. In fact I am very much against this whole mentality that there is a divide between business and people. Businesses ARE people. This US vs THEM crap is just the BS that the right and left in this country are using to keep people angry so they''ll go vote. Seems to be working on you.

2.) My statement in the other post was not "preaching". It was a simple correction of an inaccurate statement made (by you?) - that a sense of entitlement caused the economic problems we have. It is well documented that what precipitated the economic crisis was very loose lending practices and the securitization of high risk loans that were present to be lower risk than what they were. The details are worthy of a book but it makes no sense to get into it here. But it irks me when people shift blame from one place to the next for political gain. And no - it wasn't all completely legal. There are people like Paul Allen who went to jail over it. Blaming the economy on a sense of entitlement is just silly - unless you mean to say that Goldman-Sachs felt entitled to my retirement money.

3.) I never said business was sticking it to the citizen. Stop putting words in my mouth. That is a gross over-generalization of my criticism of a specific group of companies, what they did to their investors, and that are very well documented to be doing exactly what I said. Now I want to hear you contest it. Tell me that Sachs, Stearns, et al did not stick it to their investors? I happen to love big businesses. I work for one. Amazon in particular is so awesome that I rave about them every chance I get.

4.) From what I understand, returning everything isn't an option he has. It's too late for that. He already sold the printer. Maybe I'm missing something but it appears to me that he's too far down the path to have any options other than what I pointed out above. The option I suggested happened to be the lesser of the 3 evils.

5.) About hypocrisy - You have presumed it with me after putting words in my mouth. I criticized a specific group of businesses for things that were either illegal, or highly unethical because they broke the spirit of the law by going around it. Then I suggested someone else do the best they could with an awkward situation which was too late to reverse. Meanwhile you are lying about who caused the economic problems we have and putting words in my mouth. I'm also quite certain you haven't decided to sign over your social security or medicare to the US government on principal so if I were you I would stop trolling the forums for potential hypocrisy. If you want a hypocrite I suspect you can find one in your bathroom mirror.


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 19:01 as a reply to  @ kfreels's post |  #24

:lol: Whatever you say Mr. Buffett.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Looking_Searching
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
153 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Iowa
     
Oct 20, 2011 22:15 |  #25
bannedPermanent ban

Daedalus34r wrote in post #13280827 (external link)
Not knowing this is your fault. You spend money on cameras without fully understanding the features and functionality it provides?

Dpreview and other websites mistakenly said that the T3 has mirror lock up built into its 2 second timer mode. They were all 100% wrong. It absolutely doesn't.

As for the buffer rate, I guess I wasn't careful enough to look into that. Granted, it isn't on the box, and in most reviews you really have to hunt for the information. (The same goes for RAW shooting speed. The box only gives you a JPEG estimate.)

Oh, and the lack of a cleaning mode was also a big surprise. Many reviewers failed to mention that as well.


See the light.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Looking_Searching
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
153 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Iowa
     
Oct 20, 2011 22:23 |  #26
bannedPermanent ban

Jumpdrive wrote in post #13279689 (external link)
Your words: Man I hate hijacked threads but I just can't let a myth like this persist. The current economic situation has nothing to do with entitlements and everything to do with the abuse of the financial markets by the largest banks in the country. They caused this mess and now rather than getting back into the lending game they are using their reserves bidding up oil futures and recreating the same mess in oil that they caused in housing.

Mr Righteousness? I guess I struck a nerve with you. :lol:

If you recall from my post I said I don't care what he does, I'm not the morality police.
The OP asked if it was immoral.


"Back into the lending game?"
For one to give an opinion in one direction against business because of their perceived negative financial practices and then come back saying keep the money because Amazon can afford it, reeks of hypocrisy. It is very caring of you to consider that Amazon would take even less of a loss by him purchasing something else. :rolleyes:
Why state business is sticking it to the citizen when you support sticking it to the business?

Return the card/cash and the camera. That was the deal offered and by keeping a part of it is dishonest. Trying to justify it in your mind by purchasing something else and "getting a good deal" is still immoral and dishonest.

I really don't care what the guy does, but people who like to slam business for similar perceived dishonest practices and then turn around and support sticking it to them aren't exactly what I would call unbiased.

Thanks for your opinion.

Hell, I'm going to get on Amazon right now and literally tell them that I will be getting extra cash as a result of this return.

I'll be sure to post the conversation after I'm done.


See the light.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Looking_Searching
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
153 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Iowa
     
Oct 20, 2011 23:07 |  #27
bannedPermanent ban

Well, I just got done talking with an Amazon represenative named Vimal. I blatantly told him that I would be making profit off of this return and it looks like he doesn't particularly mind. Here's our enitre conversation:
---------------
You are now connected to Vimal from Amazon.com.

Vimal:Hello, my name is Vimal. I'll be happy to look into your question.
Can you confirm the order number, please?

Me:Hello sir. I recently inquired about a return of a Canon Rebel T3. The order number is (x).

I was given permission to return it, however, I have chosen not to do so because I have discovered that it may in fact be unfair to Amazon.com if I do this.

Vimal:Let me check this for you, Shane.
What makes you to think like this, Shane?

Me:I purchased a Rebel T3 along with a 55-250 zoom lens and a Pixma Pro9000 printer on June 29. I qualified for the $400 AMEX cash card and have already received it.

Vimal:OK, Shane.
Do you want to return the camera or not? (A bit of time had passed without a reply from me, as I was busy typing my response seen below.)

Me:So, if I return the Rebel T3, that means I presumably get $549.00 back. Thus, I will have spent $82.48 for a Canon 55-250mm zoom lens and a PIXMA Pro 9000 printer. (Obviously, this included the aforementioned $400 Amex card already taken off of my expenses.) Considering the fact that I have already sold the printer for $230 dollars online, that means I am currently gaining a profit of 147 dollars and 52 cents.

Vimal:That sounds great, Shane. So, you don't need to return the camera. Am I right?

Me:Well, actually, I WOULD return the camera, but I was wanting to bring this to your attention so that I wouldn't in any way be questioned by Amazon further down the road.

Vimal:I really appreciate your honesty. You're welcome to return the camera to us.

Me:Okay sir. Thank you for listening. Now, I admit that I have lost the return shipping label originally sent to me. (I accidentally closed out of this Live Chat Window before copying the link.)

Would it be possible to send another?

Vimal:You can call me Vimal, Shane. Yes, I'd send the return label to you now.

Me:wait..
Before you do...I only wish to return the Rebel T3.
everything else is fine.

Vimal:Here is the link to print the return label,
(link)

Me:Sir, this RMA includes the 55-250 lens.
and the Filter as well.

Vimal:Can you confirm the order number, please?
Me:sure.

The order number is (x).

Vimal:I've created an authorized return label that may only be used for the return of this shipment. Follow the link below to print your mailing label:

(link)

Me:Ah, so I must return the 55-250 lens as well? I can not just return the Rebel T3 with the 18-55 IS Lens?

Vimal:You can return only the Rebel T3.
No issues, Shane !
Disregard the other two items.

Me:Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

Vimal:You're welcome.
Thank you for your patience and honesty.
Is there anything else I can do for you today?

Me:No. Thank you!

Vimal:Thank you again for chatting with Amazon.com. We hope to see you again soon.
---------------

Wow. To be honest, the guy seemed a little new. He didn't appear to be following my math all that closely, which I guess isn't my fault, but still...

He's letting me walk away with a significant amount of cash here. Unbelievable.


See the light.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Looking_Searching
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
153 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Iowa
     
Oct 20, 2011 23:31 |  #28
bannedPermanent ban

Oh, and let me follow up by saying that my original calculations were wrong. I'm not getting back quite as much as I thought, but it's still pretty ridiculous.

Initially, I had spent $1031.48 for a Rebel T3 kit, a Pixma 9000 printer, and a 55-250 zoom lens.
Subtract 1031.48 by 400 dollars, which is the value of the AMEX cash card.

This equals $631.48

Now subtract $549.00. (This is the amount I will get refunded by returning the Rebel T3.)
This leaves me with a total expense of $82.48.

Now, ADD $230 dollars from selling the printer, and I'm left with a net GAIN of $147.52.
(And yes, I still have the 55-250 IS.)

*shakes head* Wow.


See the light.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Daedalus34r
Senior Member
477 posts
Joined May 2010
     
Oct 21, 2011 10:02 |  #29

Looking_Searching wrote in post #13282463 (external link)
Dpreview and other websites mistakenly said that the T3 has mirror lock up built into its 2 second timer mode. They were all 100% wrong. It absolutely doesn't.

As for the buffer rate, I guess I wasn't careful enough to look into that. Granted, it isn't on the box, and in most reviews you really have to hunt for the information. (The same goes for RAW shooting speed. The box only gives you a JPEG estimate.)

Oh, and the lack of a cleaning mode was also a big surprise. Many reviewers failed to mention that as well.

So this is a unique situation where reliable reviewers were off. How about the official canon spec sheet, does that also fail to mention the shortcomings you didn't anticipate for?


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 21, 2011 10:56 |  #30
bannedPermanent ban

Daedalus34r wrote in post #13284283 (external link)
So this is a unique situation where reliable reviewers were off. How about the official canon spec sheet, does that also fail to mention the shortcomings you didn't anticipate for?

The spec sheet reveals most of my surprises. However, Mirror-Lock Up isn't mentioned, even on Canon's official site.

I'm still absolutely torn about this. I know most people would just take this money and run, but I sincerely want to do the right thing. If that means I get less money as a result, I'm OKAY with that.


See the light.

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

5,614 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 Lundy1993
1217 guests, 244 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.