Canon - Nikon Observations

nospam wrote:
In article , Sheila
wrote:

If we wanted a refurbished lens, we would have bought one. Refurbished
stuff goes for less money than new.

your lens is no longer new. you would get back a repaired lens which
is basically refurbished.

It was new and we never were able to get it to work properly, shouldn't
they replace it with a new lens. We didn't buy a used lens. I don't
have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old parts
that have already failed in virtually a new lens, that we paid new not
refurbished prices for.


Also I would expect a refurbished
anything to breakdown sooner that a new one.

why? refurbished is often more reliable because someone checked it out
and made sure it was working properly, whereas with new products they
check every 100th off the line or whatever.

Possible, but why not replace new with new?


Also if he wanted a
different lens than the model he bought, he would have gotten that one,
He bought what is rated as a very good lens and we do not want that
switched out for a lessor rated lens even if it does have the same
'features'.

what if they send you a *better* lens than what you sent in? still
opposed?

In that range, there is no better lens that I know of so I don't see how
they could send a better lens.


and i rather doubt they'll send back a different lens anyway.

Well, we'll see what they say tomorrow.

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

J. Clarke wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Sheila
wrote:

If we wanted a refurbished lens, we would have bought one.
Refurbished stuff goes for less money than new.
your lens is no longer new. you would get back a repaired lens
which
is basically refurbished.

Also I would expect a refurbished
anything to breakdown sooner that a new one.
why? refurbished is often more reliable because someone checked it
out and made sure it was working properly, whereas with new products
they check every 100th off the line or whatever.

In any case, photographic lenses are not in general short-lived
disposable items. A good quality lens, if well cared for, can outlive
its original purchaser.


I agree, so if they have sent me a refurbished lens, the lens has most
likely been damaged by the prior owner. We want this lens to last and
not break down. It was not an inexpensibe lens.


--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

J. Clarke wrote:
Sheila wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Sheila wrote:
measekite wrote:
Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital
Rebel
Xsi. For me it just feels and handles better and there are more
buttons for quicker access to everyday controls.

The jury is still out about the Canon 50D. Most of the reviews
claim that it is better than the D90 but after a quickie look the
D90 seems more comfortable.

The big difference between Canon and Nikon is in lenses. Not
that
you are going to get much better results with one over the other
and
not that either has super large gaping holes in their lens line
that
will persist over a reasonable period of time but the difference
is
in $$$$. It seems that the majority of Nikon lenses are more
costly
than Canon. I do not know what you are getting for the
additional
money.
Maybe there is a difference in their service too. My husband got
a
50D and a really good lens for Christmas, however we have never
gotten it to focus clearly, so he called Canon. They said to send
them some photos, so he did. Canon said the it was a lens problem
and to send the lens in. I was pretty impressed. Yesterday he
got
a
letter saying his lens would be shipped within 7 days, then went
on
to say that they may give him a new lens, or a refurbished lens,
or
fix his lens with refurbished parts or send him a different model.

So he buys a new lens and may get a refurbished lens, or even a
different lens. This is really disappointing and he will be
calling
Canon tomorrow.
What difference does it make if the lens is working properly, has
no
cosmetic defects, and has a full warranty?

If we wanted a refurbished lens, we would have bought one.
Refurbished stuff goes for less money than new. Also I would expect
a refurbished anything to breakdown sooner that a new one. Also if
he wanted a different lens than the model he bought, he would have
gotten that one, He bought what is rated as a very good lens and we
do not want that switched out for a lessor rated lens even if it
does
have the same 'features'.

Uh, once it has been back to Canon and they have worked on it is a
"refurbished" lens even if it is the same one that he bought.


I understand that. If we had bought this camera from a different
dealer, they would have just have taken the lens back and sent a
replacement. My last purchase of a D300 and lens was sent with a faulty
lens, and it was replaced by the dealer, no questions asked. I would
have certainly have expected the same thing from the manufacturer.




--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

In article , Sheila
wrote:

I don't
have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old parts
that have already failed in virtually a new lens, that we paid new not
refurbished prices for.

how do you know they haven't replaced the parts that failed?

Also I would expect a refurbished
anything to breakdown sooner that a new one.

why? refurbished is often more reliable because someone checked it out
and made sure it was working properly, whereas with new products they
check every 100th off the line or whatever.

Possible, but why not replace new with new?

and if it breaks 6 months later, you think you'll get a new lens then
too?

Also if he wanted a
different lens than the model he bought, he would have gotten that one,
He bought what is rated as a very good lens and we do not want that
switched out for a lessor rated lens even if it does have the same
'features'.

what if they send you a *better* lens than what you sent in? still
opposed?

In that range, there is no better lens that I know of so I don't see how
they could send a better lens.

what lens was it?

In article , Sheila
wrote:

In any case, photographic lenses are not in general short-lived
disposable items. A good quality lens, if well cared for, can outlive
its original purchaser.

I agree, so if they have sent me a refurbished lens, the lens has most
likely been damaged by the prior owner. We want this lens to last and
not break down. It was not an inexpensibe lens.

if it was refurbished, the damage would have been *fixed*.

plus, a refurbished product may not have been damaged at all. if
someone buys something and returns it because they didn't like it, it
can no longer be sold as new, even if it's in perfect shape.

nospam wrote:
In article , Sheila
wrote:

In any case, photographic lenses are not in general short-lived
disposable items. A good quality lens, if well cared for, can outlive
its original purchaser.
I agree, so if they have sent me a refurbished lens, the lens has most
likely been damaged by the prior owner. We want this lens to last and
not break down. It was not an inexpensibe lens.

if it was refurbished, the damage would have been *fixed*.

plus, a refurbished product may not have been damaged at all. if
someone buys something and returns it because they didn't like it, it
can no longer be sold as new, even if it's in perfect shape.

I think that many places sell things that have been returned as new.

Why does the fact that I don't want a refurbished lens bother you?

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

nospam wrote:
In article , Sheila
wrote:

I don't
have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old parts
that have already failed in virtually a new lens, that we paid new not
refurbished prices for.

how do you know they haven't replaced the parts that failed?

I would expect them to replace that parts that failed, rather never
worked in the first place with this lens.


Also I would expect a refurbished
anything to breakdown sooner that a new one.
why? refurbished is often more reliable because someone checked it out
and made sure it was working properly, whereas with new products they
check every 100th off the line or whatever.
Possible, but why not replace new with new?

and if it breaks 6 months later, you think you'll get a new lens then
too?

It didn't break, it never worked in the first place.

I would think if it starts malfunctioning within the warranty period
with abuse that they would fix or replace it. Yes, why does this
bother you anyway.



Also if he wanted a
different lens than the model he bought, he would have gotten that one,
He bought what is rated as a very good lens and we do not want that
switched out for a lessor rated lens even if it does have the same
'features'.
what if they send you a *better* lens than what you sent in? still
opposed?
In that range, there is no better lens that I know of so I don't see how
they could send a better lens.

what lens was it?


--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

In article , Sheila
wrote:

plus, a refurbished product may not have been damaged at all. if
someone buys something and returns it because they didn't like it, it
can no longer be sold as new, even if it's in perfect shape.

I think that many places sell things that have been returned as new.

it's illegal to sell returned merchandise as new, but they can resell
it as a discounted return. of course, some stores will reshrhinkwrap
returned merchandise and sell it as new, but a reputable store will
not.

Why does the fact that I don't want a refurbished lens bother you?

you seem to have this misconception that refurbished somehow means
defective or inferior. refurbished can actually be *better* than new
because it was individually checked out and adjusted to be within spec.


just because something is new doesn't mean it's going to work, as
you've found out.

In article , Sheila
wrote:

I don't
have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old parts
that have already failed in virtually a new lens, that we paid new not
refurbished prices for.

how do you know they haven't replaced the parts that failed?

I would expect them to replace that parts that failed, rather never
worked in the first place with this lens.

and how is that different from a new lens that has all working parts?

you bought a lens, it didn't work, they replace the broken parts with
new parts, so you now have an individually adjusted lens with all new
parts.

I would think if it starts malfunctioning within the warranty period
with abuse that they would fix or replace it. Yes, why does this
bother you anyway.

and that's exactly what they're doing. they're fixing it or replacing
it. so what exactly is the big deal?

nospam wrote:
In article , Sheila
wrote:

plus, a refurbished product may not have been damaged at all. if
someone buys something and returns it because they didn't like it, it
can no longer be sold as new, even if it's in perfect shape.
I think that many places sell things that have been returned as new.

it's illegal to sell returned merchandise as new, but they can resell
it as a discounted return. of course, some stores will reshrhinkwrap
returned merchandise and sell it as new, but a reputable store will
not.

Why does the fact that I don't want a refurbished lens bother you?

you seem to have this misconception that refurbished somehow means
defective or inferior. refurbished can actually be *better* than new
because it was individually checked out and adjusted to be within spec.


just because something is new doesn't mean it's going to work, as
you've found out.


Why does the fact that I don't want a refurbished lens bother you?


--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com