steve_smith21

<p><!--StartFragment--><br /> David, you list Amazon's GENERAL policy overview and if you can read you will notice that it does not mention cameras at all. You entirely avoided their specific camera return policy because it obviously didn't occur to you to look for such a thing. As you can see, Joseph had to post it for you. "These items must be in new condition with original packaging and accessories." Note that it says "new condition" and not "new and unopened." Please don't post again unless you have an informed comment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You say in your first post<br /> given the fact that they want to avoid every clown who would buy equipment just so they could use it for a week and return it.<br /> What in your actual behaviour (as against your original intent) distinguishes you from this? The possibility that other companies might have different returns policies from Amazon is not relevent to whether they treated you unfairly, or sprung surprises on you.</p>

<!--EndFragment--></blockquote>

<!--EndFragment-->

<p>You failed to make a distinction between a different return policy and a clearly stated return policy. The distinction is that other companies clearly state their return policy. I shouldn't have had to explain this.<br /> <br /> Everyone one else seems to have understood given the context of my original comment that a clown is someone who knowingly buys expensive equipment so they can "rent" it for a week or longer before returning it for a full refund. I'm guessing a restocking fee is simply a way of recouping some money before you resell an item for a discount - sounds reasonable. I forgot how gigantic B&H really is and obviously they can afford the returns and I'm sure they're not losing any money. Other than that one Fuji camera, which I returned after one day of use, I have never returned any expensive electronic equipment in my life although once I had to exchange a TV that had a crack in its case.<br /> <br /> Gerry, sorry if I didn't document the entire affair for your approval but I get your point. Maybe I should have tried to fight the power but then again I'm sure it would've taken more than a couple letters and if time is money….<br /> <br /> The original purpose of my post was to discover if B&H had any similar hidden return policy. I'm not asking anyone to solve my problems. As for my Amazon comments, I thought I was informing people but obviously some people resent this kind of information for whatever reason. But at least Samy's camera salesmen appreciate my post.</p>

<!--EndFragment-->

<blockquote><!--EndFragment--></blockquote>

<p><!--StartFragment--></p>

<p >As I said earlier, a deduction for returned cameras is understandable - just state your policy clearly in advance. That is not an unreasonable request. I bought that Fuji in good faith with every intention of keeping that camera. Just because it didn't work out doesn't mean I deserve to pay. If I had bought it from B&H, I would have received a full refund. </p>

<p >On top of the fact that my cost of living is considerably higher than someone who lives in the country, it is not fair to have a gray area double standard and penalize me with the extra deduction because I live in a big city. Why do you think I buy online (no tax, free shipping, maybe cheaper prices too). I'm trying to save money like the next guy. Not everyone who lives in LA is wealthy.</p>

<p >But the point I was trying to make is that Amazon's policy simply states that they will accept a return in 30 days provided the camera is in new condition. That gives the impression of a foolproof guarantee, love it or return it, even if you didn't or couldn't conduct proper research. No different from the kind of full refund return policy at a large electronics chain store. The fact is that Amazon will accept your return hassle free (but if I remember correctly they will keep half of the cost). </p>

<p >Amazon, like many other online retailers, requires that you log into your account and file for an Return Merchandise Authorization (RMA). This is when they told me about the camera return deduction, this is when they offered me the option of selling the camera on their used marketplace. I can't remember if there's no going back to a return once you have chosen the option to sell. I don't know if they have a special stipulation about Fuji cameras. </p>

<p >I called Amazon about their camera return policy today and I felt like their answer was a little unsure but I was told the "restocking fee", as they called it, would not be any higher than 20% for a camera. Of course it's possible there are other deductions on top of the so called restocking fee because, quite frankly, I don't recall my Fuji camera as having a mere 20% deduction in total. By the way, don't worry, from my experience I've learned that Amazon thankfully does not "restock" opened cameras for new resale. </p>

<p >I should add that all other online retailers that I've encountered state clearly in their return policies that they will deduct a restocking fee. At the very least I feel I am informing consumers about Amazon's true camera return policy and their hidden larger than usual deduction or "restocking fee."</p>

<p >If B&H does in fact offer a full refund, then all honest consumers should give them all the credit in the world given how much that policy can be abused. And since that policy can be abused, I'm genuinely surprised that any non-chain store would not have problems with people trying to return high end merchandise from online purchases. I guess they do large business or enough business with honest customers. The few B&H stories that I read were on places like Bizrate and the stories seemed to center around returns. I think I do recall reading about a helpful customer service manager who would try and solve your problem. The vast majority of comments I've read about B&H are positive but I'm focusing on their return policy which you may or may not have any experience with. And I have every right to question as you have the right to defend. </p>

<p >Until the Fuji, I had never bought a point and shoot in my life. I had only used SLR's and usually higher end Nikons. I've never had to second guess an SLR purchase. Obviously buying at least a prosumer level Nikon/Canon is different from wading through the unknown terrain of point and shoots. Like with other diehard SLR users, I only recently started to consider point and shoots due to all the features they offer these days. A soon to occur special event usually pushes me into considering a point and shoot. Other than for special circumstances, I don't like point and shoots and I realize point and shoot fans are a different breed with different interests. Apparently they're not at all interested in shooting a band onstage even though the better point and shoots seem tailor made for live music events. Especially given the stereo mic, 12x zoom, HD zoom capabilities of the DMC-ZS3. </p>

<p >As long as you CAN return a camera for a presumed full refund, I see no reason why a camera is any different from any other expensive item that you later decided to return for whatever reason. Lastly, if I could find a store that would rent out point and shoots, that would be handy indeed. </p>

<!--EndFragment-->

<p><!--StartFragment-->

<p >I would like to try the new Panasonic DMC-ZS3 but the reviews seem to be the usual "you've just got to try it for yourself" opinion. Naturally I want the option to return and there really are only two online sellers to consider either Amazon or B&H. I think Amazon is one of the most reliable online sellers for anything. I've never ordered from B&H although I've heard stories about returns. </p>

<p >Can anyone tell me what EXACTLY (unsaid fine print) are B&H or Amazon's camera return policy? I'm only talking about their camera return policy, not their camera lens return policy, not the return policy of the merchants who sell through Amazon. I know Amazon's official return policy says this:</p>

<p > Camera & Photo items purchased from Amazon.com are easily returned to Amazon.com within 30 days of receipt of shipment via our online <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/css/returns/homepage.html">Returns Center</a>. These items must be in new condition with original packaging and accessories. </p>

<p >But after I bought a Fuji FinePix F200EXR about three months ago - and realized that the highly touted camera is utterly worthless for lowlight subjects that actually move (you know like people or things that require at least a 1/60 shutter speed) - I returned the camera. </p>

<p >However, as I was made to understand at the time, there are stipulations that they don't tell you in advance. Like you can return the unwanted (not defective) camera but they will only refund something like 50% of the original cost. Fair given the fact that they want to avoid every clown who would buy equipment just so they could use it for a week and return it. The other option they offer is to re-sell the camera yourself through Amazon's used marketplace - which is what I ended up doing. </p>

<p > My Fuji was essentially a brand new camera but I gave what I thought was the necessary 15% discount and then Amazon charges you a marketplace fee (about 8%), and although Amazon does provide about $5-6 for US Post shipping, it does not include insurance. In my case, the buyer unfortunately had to live in Florida while I live in LA. If I had insured the Fuji for its entire $375 worth, the shipping would have been $16. I settled for the standard UPS $100 insurance for a $12 shipping cost. My total loss was about $85 and the buyer didn't even bother to write me a positive seller review. Keep in mind I also gave the buyer the spare battery that cost me about $15. So actually I lost $100. </p>

<p >Does anyone know anything different about Amazon's camera return policy? Did I misunderstand something?</p>

<p >Thanks.</p>

<p >P.S. If you have to sell barely used, like-new cameras, try craigslist first. </p>

<!--EndFragment--></p>

http://www.digitaldarrell.com/Review%20-%20ZeissLenses4NikonFMount.asp

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/zeiss/planar_t_1450_zf

I've always wondered about the Zeiss 50mm/1.4 on a Nikon D200 and it always bugged

me that no one seemed to actually own one of these Zeiss lenses so we could see a real

comparison. So anyway thanks for posting the above links.

The Digital Darrell link tells me what I could have already guessed. That a camera pro

shooting ideal subject matter under ideal situations with perfect exposure, etc. is going to

take great looking shots. And that the Zeiss is a contrasty lens, a little more contrasty

than the equivalent Nikon lens - kind of a stylistic difference in my opinion and one that's

probably easily adjusted in Photoshop.

The second link is more helpful because it displays photos shot by three photographers

who I would characterize as being more like most of the photographers on this site. Note

that the photographs display on a revolving basis so you'll have to click the link twice to

see all the photos. Anyway, the photos look more typical here - nothing extraordinary, I

can see the contrasty Zeiss quality in some of the photos while in others I can't.

Looking at both these links I am reminded that good Photoshop skills, good digital

darkroom skills are as important as the quality of the lenses themselves. Clearly Digital

Darrel had access to top quality photo adjusting while the others did not.

If you have money to burn (and apparently many of us don't) or if you're starting from

scratch and you want brand new equipment and you're willing to pay for the best, then get

the Zeiss. If you want to save money or if you already own an old metal manual Nikkor

50mm/1.4 lens then it's probably not necessary or even worth buying the Zeiss - unless,

oddly enough, you want a new toy. All the descriptions that Digital Darrel gave for the

tactile feel of the Zeiss, the focus and aperture rings, accurately describe my old metal

manual Nikkor 50mm/1.4.

Thanks for all the replies. Of course the biggest complaint is that you can never try out

the good monitors in person with the exception of the Apple monitors. I've used the old

clear plastic framed Apple LCD's many times over and I've used the new Apple 20" LCD for

a bit. So at least I can say I'm familiar with the Apple's quality and that I don't have to fear

the unknown. But the Dell Ultrasharp monitors are half the cost of the Apple and we know

they share the same LG Philips panel.

If one is going to seriously consider the Apple Cinema 20" LCD ($799 at Amazon) then you

might want to consider paying extra for a LaCie 319 19" monitor ($836 at Amazon). Or

you could even consider the NEC MultiSync LCD1990SXI-BK 19" LCD monitor (about $700)

which is nearly identical to the LaCie 319.

I think I actually prefer standard monitor dimensions to the wide angle dimensions of the

20" Apple or Dell because I prefer having the extra height rather than extra width. Plus I

like the vertical screen feature of the LaCie and NEC for tall photo viewing. The LaCie

features the S-IPS panel while the NEC has something called a color matrix panel. I don't

know if the NEC features 10 bit LUTs like the LaCie but I'm guessing LaCie and NEC share a

parent company so who knows. As usual, the hard part is trying to find anyone who has

actually used these monitors.

Yeah, the new 800:1 ratio sounded like it might be problematic. And the fact that the

Dells lack a contrast control makes me wonder if I can comfortably use such a monitor for

surfing the web. As far as reducing eye strain, lowering brightness isn't as effective as

lowering contrast.

Thanks for the post. I always hear that you should own color calibrator if you're going to

use an LCD monitor. And that's not a problem for me since I own a Colorvision Spyder.

However, what does bother me is the reviewer from the PC World article only said that with

tweaking the 2007WFP will give you "good" image quality. Not exactly the kind of

endorsement that makes me want to rush out and buy a Dell.

I know about the old www.anandtech.com review which compared the Dell 2005WFP 20" to the Apple

Cinema 20" LCD but:

1. I'm talking about the new Dell 2007 model which has an 800:1 contrast ratio compared to the

2005's 600:1 or the Apple's 400:1 contrast ratios.

2. I barely hear any actual ownership commentary from photographers since it seems like no one

actually owns a Dell 2005 or 2007 20" Ultrasharp LCD.

3. I want to hear opinions from people who actually own the 20" Apple LCD's as I've heard that they

possess more accurate color than the larger Apple displays which everyone seems to complain about.

4. How do either of these LCD's (especially the 2007WFP) compare to old trustworthy CRT monitors?

Thanks