Honest Question Here.

S.Horton wrote in post #13391038
Do not try to convince me that I believe your assumptions about me and that you want to live in my world.

???

Damn, I'm having a hard time parsing that one!

this thread is hilarious. Its simple.
Some people love to have their gear look perfect, some people arent concerned with it and think strictly about the results.

Personally, my body is near perfect, as are most of my lenses, but my tripod sees some abuse, and one of my lenses does too as I shoot alot of abandonements and lay it on rotten floors often as Im climbing through broken buildings

team haymaker wrote in post #13394343
this thread is hilarious. Its simple.
Some people love to have their gear look perfect, some people arent concerned with it and think strictly about the results.

Personally, my body is near perfect, as are most of my lenses, but my tripod sees some abuse, and one of my lenses does too as I shoot alot of abandonements and lay it on rotten floors often as Im climbing through broken buildings

I think of it as a matter of principle - you spend £2500 on a camera and lens, then anther £900 per lens for 3 lenses and so on, surely you'd want to try to look after it?
(And that's NOT a comment against you and the crawling in abandonments)

Even ignoring the money involved, just looking after something seems the correct thing to do - I don't mean not using, just being careful with it..

At any rate - this is all a bit silly. I've been 'attacked' (called an idiot, for one) here because I said that I think dings relate to further internal damages.. well, it's my opinion, people going off to buy second hand don't have to take it on board and base their decisions on it.

I won't buy second hand dented.. they can if they want.. but I won't.

Fluffbutt wrote in post #13395033
At any rate - this is all a bit silly. I've been 'attacked' (called an idiot, for one) here because I said that I think dings relate to further internal damages.. well, it's my opinion, people going off to buy second hand don't have to take it on board and base their decisions on it.

You sure about that.

Fluffbutt wrote in post #13387875
Buyer beware - if it looks even slightly bad, it IS.

Fluffbutt wrote in post #13389335
For every 1 or 2 great (internally) cameras that are a bit dinged outside, there would be 100's that are as bad inside as they are out.

Don't see anything where you imply that you think that is the case. You post as if it is the truth. Which is totally inane. Your statements are like saying "If I car has a dent, it has a bad transmission."

Invertalon wrote in post #13364808
...

I never understood why so many super-tele's look like crap. I understand for some they are just tools, but if I had a $5,000 lens around my neck I would baby that thing.

Super tele lenses by their very nature tend to be used in places a little less accommodating than the studio or even the street, and it's not always possible to take the big protecting case along with you.

Also, under the conditions where they're often used, the very inertia of a large heavy lens makes it more vulnerable to losing the odd bit of paint, or at least having the outside finish scratched a bit. And the kind of lenses I'm talking about don't usually get "slung around the neck" of the average photographer!

Any competent photographer will guard his glass surfaces with great care, but accidents to the outer cosmetic finish do happen, and they happen more easily with larger lenses. Notwithstanding that, the 500mm lens I dragged around our back-country many years ago stayed in relatively good shape, but it was anodised, not white painted!

Fluffbutt wrote in post #13395033
I think of it as a matter of principle - you spend £2500 on a camera and lens, then anther £900 per lens for 3 lenses and so on, surely you'd want to try to look after it?
(And that's NOT a comment against you and the crawling in abandonments)

Even ignoring the money involved, just looking after something seems the correct thing to do - I don't mean not using, just being careful with it..

At any rate - this is all a bit silly. I've been 'attacked' (called an idiot, for one) here because I said that I think dings relate to further internal damages.. well, it's my opinion, people going off to buy second hand don't have to take it on board and base their decisions on it.

I won't buy second hand dented.. they can if they want.. but I won't.

yeah i get it, I personally wouldnt buy a dented lens either. I have purchased a scratched one. And Ive sold a scratched one.
I am very cautious with my gear mainly because I dont want to spend the extra money to buy it all over again, but thats not the original discussion.
scratched gear doesnt mean the IQ is bad, just as a flawless exterior doesnt mean the IQ is good

Luke J. Photography wrote in post #13395201
You sure about that.
Don't see anything where you imply that you think that is the case. You post as if it is the truth. Which is totally inane. Your statements are like saying "If I car has a dent, it has a bad transmission."

RUBBISH, and you know it...

What I'm saying is this:

"If the car has a bad dent in the front fender corner, it MIGHT has a steering mis-alignment, or maybe bent brake discs, or broken shockies."
"If the car has a bad dent in the side door, it MIGHT has a door pillar pushed out of line with the body (that's not a cheap job to fix, I know)."

See the common factor - a dent or whatever MIGHT, COULD indicate more problems - problems that for cameras are expensive to check for and fix.

Nowhere have I said any definite things like "it has a bad..".

What I have said is that damage to the outside COULD indicate damage to the inside, and it is expensive to get cameras tested... safer to walk by that sale.

The only definite thing I have stated is my own personal guideline which is that I DO leave dented and bent camera goods alone.

And YES - anyone reading my opinion here has every right to ignore it and go buy a dented camera if they want to.

Just because I won't doesn't mean they aren't allowed to!

But you seem to be insisting that I'm totally wrong and trying to demand that buyers don't consider dinged cameras (I wonder why.. are you trying to sell one somewhere??).

I'll say it again for the hard of reading:

I don't consider a dented camera to be a viable purchase - there could be internal damage or alignment faults that will cost a lot to test for and repair.
I don't give a rat's-arse if you follow my opinion or don't follow it, I even wish you all the best if you DO decide to purchase a dented camera..

(( I know there's a bit of repeated text in there, but this guy seem to be pulling out all stops to mis-direct and twist what I'm writing..))

S.Horton wrote in post #13391038
Do not try to convince me that I believe your assumptions about me and that you want to live in my world.

number six wrote in post #13391078
???

Damn, I'm having a hard time parsing that one!

Very French, actually.

Try reading it backwards.

You do not live in my world.

You do not know me.

I do not believe you.

Add: Don't care.

Why are some people neat freaks?

Why do some people freak out when things are not in order?

Why do some people like to be so damn clean?

Why ask why? Have you tried bud dry?

Why, oh dear, have you some Grey Poupon?

Luke J. Photography wrote in post #13358802
What is with a lot of people on this site who refuse to buy gear unless it looks perfect and pretty? I see far to many people on this site who just wont buy something cause it may have some paint loss on it or maybe some scratches that in no way affects the functionality of the item. I mean they are cameras used for capturing images. It's not like they are display pieces. I don't see the reasoning in this....

That is all.

Unless you are able to do tests on the lens or camera you'll never know for sure whats going on internally. When spending hundreds or thousands on gear its a RISK that some people will not take, or refuse to take.

I dont see the issue, some people like new and shiny things whats wrong with that? Its their money and gear let them do as they please